About jmdenison

Patent and Trademark Attorney practicing in Chicago, Illinois accepting clients nationwide. We also do trademarks, general intellectual property and business litigation. See our website at www.DenisonLaw.com. Now suspended for 3 years by the Illinois Atty Regn and Disciplinary Commission for blogging about corruption and telling truths that the ARDC wants to cover up. Still a patent agent, tho.

From NL: On Brent Kavanaugh–his stats: 100% dismissal of all complaints against him–the math of abuse of power

How Judge Kavanaugh
can be questioned at the Senate hearings
based on official court statistics,
rather than allegations and partisan opinions,
to determine how he has treated
you and the rest of We the People
as a judge and would do so as a justice

http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2 /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >OL2:768

 

By

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.
Ph.D., University of Cambridge, England
M.B.A., University of Michigan Business School
D.E.A., La Sorbonne, Paris
Judicial Discipline Reform
New York City
http://www.Judicial- Discipline-Reform.org
Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq @ verizon.net,
DrRCordero @ Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org ,

 

You may share and post this email
in its entirety, without any addition, deletion, or modification,
with credit to its author, Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.,
and the link to his website:
http://www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org.

 

You can forward this email to
the members of
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/
(You may cut this email at the bottom to fit the inline email form)

Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sen. Grassley, Sen. Feinstein, and Committee Members,

 

This email is intended to be of interest to you because it concerns the conduct of Judge Brett Kavanaugh based, not on allegations or opinions, but rather on the official statistics of the District of Columbia Circuit (DCC), required under 28 U.S.C. §604(h)(2) to be submitted to Congress and the public annually by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

 

You and your colleagues in Congress have without dispute accepted those statistics for decades; are presumed to be familiar with them; and have relied on them to oversee the performance of the federal courts. Hence, the information hereunder will enable you to question J. Kavanaugh at the hearings scheduled for the week of September 24, on a basis trusted by you, verifiable by others, and persuasive thanks to its objective demonstration by ‘ the math of abuse’ of power .

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has participated in the dismissal of 100% of the 478 complaints about him and his peers lodged with DCC

 

  1. The official statistics at stake here concern the handling by J. Kavanaugh and his peers of complaints about them in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period during which he has served on DCC. Those statistics and their analysis can be retrieved through the links in§F infra.

 

  1. The statistics show that 478 complaints about them were lodged. He tolerated the dismissal of the 478 of them regardless of their gravity and without any investigation, except in one case, which also ended up in complaint dismissal; as a current member of the DCC Judicial Council, he has participated in the 100% denial of petitions to review those dismissals.

 

  1. Such 100% record betrays his and his peers’ complicity in an unlawful agreement to protect each other from any adverse consequences of their complained-about conduct. Theirs is not the “good Behaviour” required by the Constitution, Article III, Section 1(*>jur:22fn12a), but rather behavior in dereliction of duty.

 

  1. Indeed, the essence of being a judge is being impartial and fair. That is how a judge conducts himself who is faithful to his oath of office(*>jur:53fn90), and thereby discharges his duty, to uphold the law.

 

  1. Judge Kavanaugh has shown that he is neither impartial between complainants and complained-about judges nor fair to the plight of complainants, other parties, and the rest of the public, whom he has recklessly left at the mercy of complained-about judges regardless of the gravity of their alleged misconduct. He has held himself and his peers unaccountable. As a result of such assurance of risklessness, he has emboldened himself and them to keep engaging in ever graver misconduct.

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh’s partiality and unfairness in covering up for himself and his peers in DCC provide probable cause to believe that he:

 

  1. covered up the sexual misconduct of Former 9thCircuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, for whom he clerked and with whom he interviewed prospective clerks for Supreme Court justices; and

 

  1. covers up for himself regarding the sexual assault accusations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

 

  1. That probable cause is undergirded by my study of judges and their judiciaries(e.g.,*>jur:21§§1-3 ), which is titled and downloadable thus:

 

Exposing Judges’ Unaccountability and
Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Pioneering the news and publishing field 
of judicial unaccountability reporting * 

 

* Volume 1: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >all prefixes:page number up to OL:393

 

 Volume 2: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2 /DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf >from OL2:394
(This email is at OL2:768.)

  1. Judge Kavanaugh’s conduct contradicts his statement “I’m a pro-law judge” and renders it perjurious

 

  1. J. Kavanaugh has acquiesced and enforced DCC’s institutionalized cover-up of his and his peers’ complained-about conduct. So, he has impeached his assertion under oath during his confirmation hearings that ‘he is not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge, but rather he is a pro-law judge’. If he were the latter, he would have denounced and refused to apply DCC’s unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of judges.

 

  1. On the contrary, he and his peers have arrogated to themselves the power to abrogate in effect, and risklessly show contempt for, the law governing complaints about judges: the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. §§351-364;jur:24fn18a).

 

  1. In defiance of the law, J. Kavanaugh has protected his and his peers’ interest in escaping any discipline resulting from their complained-about conduct, while depriving complainants of their fundamental due process right: to be heard. They abuse their power to elevate themselves as Judges Above the Law(*>OL:5fn6).

 

  1. Issues for the Senate Judiciary Committee to question J. Kavanaugh on

 

  1. The official statistics allow the Committee to challenge him onhisenforcement of the DCC unlawful policy of 100% exoneration of himself and his peers from complaints about them.

 

  1. The Committee can require that J. Kavanaugh disclose his copies of all complaints involving him. All complaints are self-interestedly kept secret, contrary to the tenet “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”(*>jur:44fn71). Such secrecy prevents ascertaining the nature, extent, and gravity of individual and collective misconduct, and detecting its patterns and trends.

 

  1. Also, the Committee can examine all the statements that J. Kavanaugh may have made concerning the Catholic Church’s decades-old policy of covering for abusive priests while leaving at their mercy ever more Church members and the rest of the public. Do his statements reveal the partiality and unfairness of a hypocritical double standard in favor of himself and his peers? Can he claim to be a pro-law judge when his conduct is guided by what is anathema to his duty as such: “The Law is NOT Equal For All”?

 

  1. Let the Committee question him on the official statistics(§F infra)showing that he and his peers do not even read the majority of briefs, never mind write the dispositive orders(cf. >OL2:546¶¶4-7). Their pretense at applying the law to briefs that they have not read causes injury in fact and renders them liable to a host of causes of action(OL2:729).

 

  1. Such abusive conduct prompts the emergence from aMeToo!public intolerant of any form of abuse of a national movement of current, former, and prospective parties to demand that the courts refund filing fees, pay damages, and require judges to dispose of each case by writing a decision and that it be reasoned and address the brief section “ Relief Requested ”.

 

  1. Requested action from you in your own andWe the People’s interest

 

  1. Questioning J. Kavanaugh and all judicial candidates based, not on allegations and opinions, but rather on their own statistics will draw to you significant media and public attention. It can establish the framework for a bipartisan approach on the objective basis of “the math of abuse”.

 

  1. Such questioning can attract the attention of a huge (OL2:719¶¶6-8) untapped voting bloc: The Dissatisfied With The Judicial And Legal System. They are waiting for a courageous politician to expose unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power. You can become their national Champion of Justice.

 

  1. Thus, I respectfully request that you:

 

  1. question J Kavanaugh using the official statistics of his and his peers, as discussed above;

 

  1. publish this email on your website; and otherwise share and post it widely;

 

  1. share it with the journalists that cover you and ask them to have their media outlets publish it.

 

  1. The publication of this email can set in motion a generalized media investigation into judges’ abuse similar to the one into sexual abuse sparked byThe New York Times’s publication of its Harvey Weinstein exposé. It will be traced back to your concern for integrity and accountability in the federal and state judiciaries. It can lay the foundation for your reelection campaign and even a presidential bid.

 

  1. My offer of a presentation

 

  1. The above shows the kind of strategic thinking(OL2:445§B, 475§D) that informs the presentation that I offer to make to you, your colleagues, and supporters on what you can gain by exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless abuse of power.

 

  1. So I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Meantime, I kindly request that you acknowledge receipt of this email.

 

 

  1. Links to official court statistics and their analysis

  1. Article on using official statistics and “the math of abuse ” to expose J. Kavanaugh, DCC Chief Judge Merrick Garland, & peers’ abuse of power: http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland_exoneration_policy.pdf

  1. Table of complaints against judges lodged in, and dismissed by, DCC in the 1oct06-30sep17 11-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_table_exonerations_by_JJ_Kavanaugh-Garland.pdf

  1. Collected official statistics on complaints about federal judges in the 1oct96-30sep17 21-year period:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_collected_statistics_complaints_v_judges.pdf

  1. Template to be filled out with the complaint statistics on any of the 13 federal circuits and two national courts:http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/retrieve/DrRCordero_template_table_complaints_v_judges.pdf

  1. Article on “the math of abuse”: neither judges nor clerks read the majority of briefs, disposing of them through unresearched, unreasoned, arbitrary and fiat-like dumping forms; http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/ OL2/DrRCordero-Honest_Jud_Advocates.pdf > OL2:760, 457§D

Visit the website Judicial Discipline Reform at,
and subscribe for free to its series of articles thus:

  http:// www.Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org > + New or Users >Add New

Put your money
where your outrage at judges’ abuse
and your passion for justice are.

 

Donate here

 

or

at the GoFundMe campaign at
https://www . gofundme .com/expose-unaccountable-judges-abuse

https://www .linkedin.com/in/dr-richard-cordero-esq-0508ba4b

Dare trigger history!(*>jur:7§5)…and you may enter it.

Contact Dr. Cordero by sending your email to this bloc of his email addresses: Dr.Richard.Cordero_Esq @ verizon.net , DrRCordero @ Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org , CorderoRic @ yahoo.com .

Advertisements

From SS/AAAPG.net–All hands on board. Linda Aters false arrest for failure to pay an attorney in an abusive gship $11k

while I still don’t know all the details, this woman is in jail for failure to pay $11k.  Her assistant says she had no money to pay $11k to some probate attorney because they took all her money.

Please write, call and fax the parties involved and here they are:

Linda Aters, false arrest/imprisonment Maricopa County, Arizona

Sheriff Penzone 602-876-1000
Community Outreach 602-876-1685
Professional Standards Bureau 844-887-4483

Chris De Rose is clerk of the Superior court
email him: coccustomerrelations@mail.maricopa.gov
clerk of court phone number

Matthew E. Delinko, SBN 030540
BAUMAN LOEWE WITT
& MAXWELL, PLLC
8765 East Bell Road, Suite 210
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Telephone: (480) 502-4664
4 Facsimile: (480) 502-4774
Emails:mdelinko@blwmlawfirm.com

and the judge’s name is Steven Holding in probate. Phoenix AZ
PROBATE
(This includes questions about Wills, Guardianship, and Affidavits of Real and Personal Property) To view information on the website you may click here, or you may call (602)37-CLERK, or (602)372-5375 for assistance.

Clerk’s office chris de rose:

case no. CASE NO.: CV2017-054872

court media relations: courtpio@mail.maricopa.gov
Bryan Bouchard
Public Information Officer

her attorney is
Brent M. Gunderson
Gunderson Law Group, P.C.
1839 S. Alma School Road, Suite 275
Mesa, AZ 85210
TelephonelFax: (480) 750-7337
E-mail: Brent@gundersonlawgroup.com
Attorney for Defendant Linda B. Arters

Also, Barb Stone is still in prison for protecting her mother and embarrassing the shizzola out of the lawyers and judges involved.  I will be getting more info on her case this week to write, fax and call.

We have to stick together on abusive probate guardianships and demand that they end.

Joanne

From RM: Great list of youtube videos to watch on the probate/guardianship horror show which is always playing at a theater near you

This is a series of videos explaining how Court guardianship Human Trafficking operates. (posted by Wazabooz with Jeff and Marit Oakley)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
CITIZENS SAFETY MAP USA Corruption Publishers Map
Institutionalized Senior Abuse www.predatoryprobate.com website
Isolated from those you love by an American Nazi Judiciary. The story ofShowstarks  
Here is another group of murderers and thieves running the probate courts in Ohio.
 
This is one of the most honest overviews of guardianship I have seen in a long time. Good job John Oliver… posted Jun 3, 2018….
and a new movie is even coming out. It’s time to clean up the court system.  Let’s do it!

From IAHC: Irish barristers come to the US to help on Innocence Projects

https://www.irishlegal.com/article/five-irish-barristers-travel-us-work-innocence-project-caseshttp://www.thejournal.ie/innocence-project-2-3219614-Feb2017/

ON 16 OCTOBER, 1995 Audrey Edmunds was minding a neighbour’s, 7-month-old daughter Natalie at her home in Wisconsin in the US.

Edmunds had left Natalie alone in a bedroom for half an hour, but when she came back the child appeared to be choking and was unresponsive.

Emergency services were called, however by then Natalie’s condition had deteriorated and she died soon after.

An autopsy revealed extensive brain damage, and a forensic pathologist determined the cause of death to be shaken baby syndrome.

Edmunds was later convicted of murder. A court ruled that she had killed Natalie by shaking her to death.

Shaken baby syndrome (also known as abusive head trauma) is a term used to describe a number of conditions which when taken together are thought to show that a baby has been violently shaken.

Diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome has been the determining factor in a large number of murder, manslaughter and child abuse cases in the US.

However, the science behind the condition has long been questioned by experts, and convictions are increasingly being challenged across the US with the help of the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project

After years of failed appeals and parole hearings Edmunds – who always maintained her innocence in Natalie’s death – had her case taken up in 2003 by the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project was first set up in 1992 and it aims to exonerate the wrongly convicted. This is done through DNA testing and reforms to the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.

Shaken baby syndrome cases have increasingly become an increasing part of Innocence Project cases as the science behind convictions becomes more and more questioned.

An extensive 2015 investigation by the Washington Post also cast a lot of doubt on shaken baby syndrome convictions in the US. 

With the help of the Innocence Project, Edmunds was able to challenge the expert opinion that had led to her conviction in 1996. She was eventually fully exonerated.

It was another shaken baby case that Irish junior barrister Mark Curran spent the majority of his time focussed on when he worked with the Wisconsin Innocence Project over the summer.

Curran was one of five Irish barristers to be awarded a scholarship from the Bar of Ireland last year to travel to different states in the US and work with Innocence Projects there.

Speaking this week at the launch of the Bar’s 2017 scholarships, Curran said he didn’t know what to expect when he went over.

“I didn’t really know what I was getting into when I arrived in Wisconsin and what the day to day life as an innocence attorney would be like,” said Curran.

He said that a senior colleague sent him a link to the David and Goliath Wikipedia page as an example of the quintessential innocence project case.

“That’s what it is to be an Innocence Project attorney,” said Curran.

“It’s small very dedicated, underfunded group of individuals who are seeking to exonerate inmates.”

These inmates would in many cases have exhausted the appeals process and be near the end of having any chance of proving their innocence.

Curran said that 99% of the time he spent working in Wisconsin was on a single case of a child who died from shaken baby syndrome.

His case involved a man who was convicted in 2006 for the reckless homicide of his 11-week-old son and had been sentenced to 40 years in prison without parole.

“A huge amount of cases are being taken by Innocence Projects right across the United States challenging shaken baby syndrome cases,” said Curran.

As the last five to 10 years in particular show the science behind shaken baby syndrome… just isn’t as solid as was previously thought.

Read: Dean Strang on Steven Avery: ‘I’m very hopeful that they will discover new evidence and get him back in court’

Read: Gang members, DNA evidence and Making a Murderer: The burden of proving innocence in the US

 

Five Irish barristers to travel to US to work on Innocence Project cases



Andrew Walsh BL, Paul McGarry SC, Chairman, Council of The Bar of Ireland, Maria Watson BL, Paddy Armstrong, Grainne Larkin BL, Patrick Crowe BL, Anne Purcell BL & Susan Lennox BL
Pictured (l-r): Andrew Walsh BL, Paul McGarry SC, Chairman, Council of The Bar of Ireland, Maria Watson BL, Paddy Armstrong, Grainne Larkin BL, Patrick Crowe BL, Anne Purcell BL & Susan Lennox BL

Up to five Irish barristers will travel to the US this year to help exonerate wrongfully-convicted individuals with support from The Bar of Ireland.

Paddy Armstrong of the Guildford Four, who was falsely convicted of carrying out bombings in 1975, spoke at the launch of The Bar of Ireland’s 2018 Innocence Scholarships in the Law Library.

Since 2010, The Bar of Ireland has sponsored junior members to travel to the US to work on Innocence Project cases.

Mr Armstrong, who spent 15 years in prison after being convicted of helping carry out the Guildford and Woolwich bombings in 1975, commended The Bar for for supporting access to justice.

He said: “It’s a sad state of affairs that in 2018 people the world over are still being robbed of their human rights and spending years in prison for crimes they did not commit.

“People working in the legal profession gain very valuable insights by both witnessing this injustice and in working to counter it first-hand. I commend The Bar of Ireland for supporting these scholarships on an annual basis, and in particular I thank the barristers who travel each year. I am very confident your efforts and commitment mean the world to the people at the centre of the innocent projects cases you represent.”

Also speaking at the launch were two barristers who were awarded Innocence Scholarships in 2017: Maria Watson BL, who travelled to Wisconsin, and Patrick Crowe BL, who travelled to Florida.

Paul McGarry SC, chairman of the Council of The Bar of Ireland, said: “Every year we are reminded of the importance of our Innocence Scholarships when participants return home and share their experiences with us. The experience they gain both professionally and personally working on cases of such importance is invaluable.

“As barristers, advocating for access to justice on behalf of our clients is central to our day to day work. Doing so on behalf of wrongfully convicted and imprisoned individuals heightens that mission even further.”

Humbolt County California corruption victim seeking low cost/fee housing near San Francisco

This is a very nice young man, age about 30, who has filed a federal court lawsuit regarding a false corrupt guardianship case.  Since he is a targeted individual (by police and authorities), it is best his location and information should be kept confidential.

Call or email me if you some room for this nice young man.  He has suffered quite a bit.  he is Christian.

From EB: Massive fraud found in Palm Beach gship cases of Betsy Savitt–fees to be disgorged

EXCLUSIVE: Betsy Savitt guardianship report alleges ‘wrongdoing by sitting judges’

   

Posted: 8:15 p.m. Wednesday, September 05, 2018


A confidential investigation into controversial professional guardian Elizabeth “Betsy” Savitt contains “allegations or suggestions of wrongdoing by sitting judges,” an administrative judge revealed on Wednesday.

The revelation surfaced during a first-of-its-kind hearing into whether Savitt should face sanctions for conflict of interest with judges involved in her guardianships, including her husband, former Circuit Judge Martin Colin.

The action against Savitt by the state Office of Public and Professional Guardians is based on the report by the Inspector General of the Clerk of Court in Palm Beach County. The new guardianship office is asking for sanctions against Savitt. Those sanctions could effectively bar her from practicing in this county and may include repayment of up to $190,000 in guardianship fees.

Savitt, as a professional guardian, was a so-called “member of the judicial community,” dining with judges and even going on vacation with one. The former chief judge felt it necessary to move all her cases out of the South County Courthouse, concerned with the appearance of coziness between Savitt and judges there.

Savitt’s attorney, Ellen Morris, tried in vain to exclude the investigative report, with its judicial allegations of wrongdoing, from Wednesday’s proceeding. Morris in a pleading said the report contains “statements and conclusions that are highly objectionable throughout.”

But Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy said she found nothing in the report that makes it confidential under state law — no Social Security numbers or medical information of incapacitated seniors or disabled adults. Palm Beach County Clerk Sharon Bock has refused to turn over the report despite a public records request filed by The Palm Beach Post on June 20.

Creasy said Morris’ concerns about the allegations against judges was also not a basis to bar the report as evidence against Savitt.

2012 investigation of Savitt

Anthony Palmieri, the clerk’s deputy inspector general, testified at the hearing that in May 2012 the clerk’s office alerted then-Chief Judge Peter Blanc about a conflict of interest involving Savitt and Colin. He didn’t know what Blanc did with the report but Blanc told The Post last week that he cautioned Colin to be careful not to preside over his wife’s cases.

Savitt testified she didn’t know until recently that her husband signed orders in her cases. She said if she had known, she would have alerted her attorney to “a mistake.”

However, she also repeatedly said she had no conflict of interest despite the fact that her husband sat as a guardianship judge who at times ruled on her cases and granted fees in other cases to attorneys who worked for her. Morris argued state guardianship statutes don’t specifically say that a guardian married to a guardianship judge has a conflict of interest.

“I don’t have a conflict of interest arising from my marriage,” Savitt said. “I didn’t appear in front of Judge Colin. He wasn’t presiding over any of my cases. He wasn’t the judge on any of my cases.”

The Post reported Sunday that Colin’s was an invisible hand in Savitt’s guardianship cases. He asked Delray Beach elder law attorney Sheri Hazeltine in the fall of 2009 to represent his wife as the tennis instructor aimed to enter the lucrative field. A professional guardian is appointed to oversee the affairs of seniors who are found incapacitated by the court. They can handle all financial, health care and residency decisions for the ward.

At least twice, Colin appointed Hazeltine, who took action that led to Savitt becoming a guardian.

Savitt, in testimony, denied Hazeltine’s account that Judge Colin pegged her to represent Savitt. Hazeltine at the time had numerous cases in front of Colin and told The Post that being a sole practitioner with a disabled child that “there was a natural measure of fear involved” in being asked to do something for her home-court judge.

Hazeltine said she quit as Savitt’s attorney when she learned that the guardian was taking fees prior to judicial approval.

Savitt also testified that there had never been any complaints from family members of her ward about a conflict of interest.

‘Never said a word’

However, James Vassallo said Savitt never disclosed that she was married to a guardianship judge and if he had known, he would have never allowed her to be guardian to his father, Albert Vassallo Sr.

“Never ever did she say a word to me about that,” Vassallo said. “I would never have hired her. I found out later. She told me that it didn’t matter what I said, she was married to a judge and that she could do whatever she wanted.”

Vassallo said Wednesday that he spent $20,000 fighting Savitt over his father’s trust and to keep her from funneling money to his sister, who had previously taken money from his dad and was the reason he sought the guardianship in the first place.

“And I’m still getting bills that my father owes, like from the hospital and stuff, that she never paid.”

Thomas Mayes, son of Savitt ward Helen O’Grady, said in The Post’s 2016 investigation, Guardianships: A Broken Trust that Savitt never disclosed her conflict with her husband.

The Mayes family learned that Savitt was married to a judge when Circuit Judge Rosemarie Scher, then presiding over their case, said she’d been out to dinner with the couple and described the judge’s wife as “part of the judicial community.”

“Savitt never told us beforehand, which I thought she should have,” said Mayes. “The lawyers never told us.”

Savitt testified she disclosed her marriage by identifying her husband as “Martin Colin” on her guardianship applications. However, Savitt didn’t identify him as a sitting judge, saying that the court or the clerk of court would automatically just know.

Palmieri testified that just putting Colin’s name under spouse in the guardianship applications did not go far enough.

One easily refutable statement by Savitt, under oath, at Wednesday’s hearing was that no other judge but Colin recused himself from her cases. In fact, Circuit Judge John Phillips recused himself routinely. Also, after The Post’s investigation, then-Chief Judge Jeffrey Colbath required south county judges to recuse themselves from Savitt’s cases. He also removed all of Savitt’s cases from the South County Courthouse out of concern of conflict of interest.

A large swath of time at Wednesday’s hearing was spent delving into when Savitt took money from the life savings of her wards prior to a judge’s approval.

Savitt admitted she wrote checks out of the wards’ accounts prior to judicial approval and deposited them into a personal checking account but insisted she was serving the wards’ best interest.

Palmieri testified that of the 2,000 guardianship cases he has investigated, only Savitt has taken retainers. The Post found Savitt took $20,000 in retainers in at least seven guardianship cases.

Savitt testified she took retainers at the advice of her counsel at the time.

Palm Beach County’s judicial circuit prohibited the practice after The Post reported on Savitt and Colin.

Morris argued at the hearing that Savitt eventually disclosed the retainers to the judges presiding over her cases and that they were all approved.

Vacationed with judge

Savitt also addressed her relationship with Circuit Judge David French, who oversaw the majority of her cases. Michael McKeon, senior attorney for the Department of Elder Affairs, asked Savitt whether she was “friendly” with French.

“I’m friendly to all the judges,” Savitt said.

Savitt said French is a friend and that she vacationed with him in the Bahamas in 2006 or 2008 before he was a guardianship judge. She couldn’t remember the last time she visited his home.

When asked whether she believes she has a conflict when it comes to French, Savitt said no. “Judge French takes an oath. He would recuse himself,” she said.

Despite an order from the chief judge to recuse himself from Savitt cases, French appointed the guardian to a pro bono case in January 2017 — her last guardianship appointment. The appointment allows Savitt to remain on the wheel for random appointments under new rules.

The latest case, involving senior Mavis Samms, includes accusations from the family that Savitt allowed the senior’s home to go into foreclosure.

“Savitt has made a mess of my mom’s finances,” according to an emergency motion filed by Samms’ daughter, Paula, in May 2017.

McKeon asking Savitt to be declared “unfit to serve as a guardian” due to the conflict of interest and acting in bad faith toward her wards.

Morris, representing Savitt, said the guardianship office brought the complaint in bad faith and that she would be seeking attorney fees.

The hearing will continue today. Judge Colin and Hazeltine are listed as witnesses.