Today are primary elections in Arkansas and Kentucky!
Check Judgepedia later this week for results.


Virginia Phillips

From Judgepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Virginia Phillips
Current Court Information:
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Title:   Judge
Service:
Appointed by:   Bill Clinton
Active:   11/15/1999 - Current
Preceded by:   William Byrne, Jr.
Past post:   Federal Magistrate Judge
Past term:   1995 - 1999
Personal History
Born:   1957
Home State:   Orange, CA
Bachelors:   U. of California, Riverside, B.A., 1979
Law School:   U. of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D., 1982

Contents

Virginia A. Phillips is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California. She joined the court in 1999 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton.[1]

Early life and education

Born in Orange, California, Phillips graduated from the University of California-Riverside with her Bachelor's degree in 1979 and from the University of California-Berkley's Boalt Hall School of Law with her juris doctorate in 1982.[1]

Professional career

Phillips was a private practice attorney in California from 1982 to 1991 and later served as a Court Commissioner for the Riverside Superior Court from 1991 to 1995. [1]

Judicial career

Central District of California

Phillips served as a Federal Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of California from 1995 to 1999. [1]

On the recommendation of U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstien and Barbara Boxer, Phillips was nominated to the United States District Court for the Central District of California by President Bill Clinton on January 26, 1999 to a seat vacated by William Byrne, Jr. Phillips was confirmed by the Senate on November 10, 1999 on a majority vote and received her commission on November 15, 1999. [2]

Notable cases

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

  United States District Court for the Central District of California
     *Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, et al CV 04-08425-VAP(EX)
In September 2010, Judge Phillips ruled that the U.S. military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", which outlines the rules regarding homosexuals serving in the armed forces, violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the policy restricts soldiers' rights to substantive due process and free speech. However, the policy was not overturned as a result. Phillips asked the plaintiffs to submit an injunction to limit the law by September 16. The defendants will return with objections a week after. [3]
See opinion here: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy - an Alternative View

In December 2010 request was filed with the US Congress for investigation, and impeachment proceedings if appropriate, against Judge Virginia Phillips and Clerk Terry Nafisi, both of the US District Court, Central District of California, related in part to their conduct in Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425), where the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy was purportedly reviewed.

The request took no sides relative to the controversial policy itself.

Instead, the request provided evidence that the litigation in the matter was conducted out of compliance with the US law, and that Judge Virginia Phillips and Clerk Terry Nafisi colluded in alleged publication of false and deliberately misleading online PACER (the court's online public access system) docket in the case.

Some of the notable features of the unusual litigation are described below:

1) Two judges appeared in the case as presiding Judges - George Schiavelli and Virginia Phillips. Neither had a valid Assignment Order, and therefore, no judicial authority in the case.

2) No complaints and no summons were docketed in the case, as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3) The docket includes no evidence of service of summons and complaint, alternatively - of waiver of the service of summons and complaint. Regardless, the case was not dismissed by the court, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4) Judge Schiavelli purportedly entered a Judgment in the case in 2004, in favor of the USA and against the Log Cabin Republicans. His purported judgment was also listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the Court. Judge Schiavelli's purported 2004 Judgment was never overturned through an Appeal or any other court procedure.

5) Judge Virginia Phillips later appeared in the same case, and purportedly entered the opposing Judgment in the case in 2010, in favor of the Log Cabin Republicans. Her purported judgment was never listed as entered in the Judgment Index of the Court.

6) Clerk Terry Nafisi has refused to certify the PACER docket in the case.

7) Clerk Terry Nafisi has refused to permit access to the electronic certificates of authentication/attestation (NEFs - Notices of Electronic Filing)in the case, in apparent violation of the First Amendment right to access court records, to inspect and to copy.

Regardless of the fact that neither judgment was authenticated or certified, and therefore could not be deemed valid and effectual judgments, both parties have filed Notices of Appeals from the purported Judge Virgina Phillips 2010 Judgment, and the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, opened a docket for an appeal.

The records in the US District Court, the requests, filed with Clerk Terry Nafisi to certify the PACER docket, and analysis of the PACER docket in the case were detailed in a Motion to Intervene, which filed with the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The motion took no sides in the matter itself, but asked why the Appeals, taken from an uncertified judgment, would not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and/or mootness. [4] [5] [6]

The claims of invalidity of the litigation under Log Cabin Republicans v United States of America et al (2:04-cv-08425) was brought before the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, were docketed on January 6, 2011, and are pending.

The Motion claimed that any ruling by the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, on the matters raised in the Motion may have a profound effect on integrity of court records in the US Courts in California and beyond. [7]

See also

External links


Wikipedia has an article on

References

Personal tools