tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post8760924609835526268..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-90717899006512162722008-03-25T17:53:00.000-05:002008-03-25T17:53:00.000-05:00Also Karlson teaches law at IU, does that not make him "a legal scholar"?Soldier'sWomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648142250719045616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-20576184751258767822008-03-25T17:51:00.000-05:002008-03-25T17:51:00.000-05:00I have read the order, and the judge hastily did this order at the moment at the behest of the GAl. The GAL decided to go ahead and file her motion without providing a copy of the motion to his lawyer. As far as he can tell, Sue White decided to only file the motion with the Court in order to have it granted on the day that the story was to run, of the writing of this a copy of the motion has yet to be received by either McGaha or his lawyer so it is unknown what justification was given to have the order issued. This also means that since his attorney was unaware of the motion (he in fact first heard of it when McGaha called him on the 14th), he could not contest it.<BR/><BR/>The Judge issued the order on March 13th, 2008 and the GAL sent the order via fax to only the news station that was set to broadcast the story that day. It stated, “It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court that Fox 59 News is here by enjoined from broadcasting any portion of an interview involving Mark McGaha and his minor children until such time as the GAL and/or the Court has had an opportunity to review the portion of the interview that the news channel intends to broadcast to determine whether the best interests of the minor children would be adversely affected by said broadcast.”<BR/><BR/>The order itself was not given to Mark until he found out about it from Fox59, he told his lawyer and his lawyer finally got a copy from the GAL on the 20th.Soldier'sWomanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648142250719045616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-3624373395775731112008-03-23T10:47:00.000-05:002008-03-23T10:47:00.000-05:00Have you read the order? Did the judge make the necessary findings to make an ex parte order? What steps did the GAL take to notify father in advance that the petition was being filed? Did the judge and the lawyer violation the judicial canons and the rule of professional responsibility?<BR/><BR/>On another note "a legal scholar"?Mann Law, P.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10803791946039037861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-58476412036366482582008-03-23T10:42:00.000-05:002008-03-23T10:42:00.000-05:00On the surface, this sounds like a denial of First Amendment rights. Certainly the judge knew that when she ruled, so it makes you wonder if there isn't more to the story.<BR/><BR/>On the face of it, though, this is an awful ruling that tramps on the Constitutional rights of an individual.Jon Easterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02463536746233150209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-73266598986698483562008-03-23T08:49:00.000-05:002008-03-23T08:49:00.000-05:00Anyone who has ever been to law school knows the judge cannot do what she did. I don't know what she was thinking. But judges make mistakes all the time. The one I would blame in this matter is Payne. If he is afraid of criticism as a public servant, he needs to move to the private sector.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08899023066910200507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-43842408370985364082008-03-23T08:13:00.000-05:002008-03-23T08:13:00.000-05:00Uh oh! I just had a commentary on Judge Payne. I guess I should expect some repercussions!<BR/><BR/>www.ipopa.blogspot.comPOPAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00558836541249077077noreply@blogger.com