Marital Masters do pretty much the same stuff as judges, but in marital cases. At the meeting, the bill's sponsor spoke first. He recounted the four charges against Master Cross, but didn't mention the Master made no errors of law. Cross's lawyer, Attorney Cronheim, cleared this up as the second to give testimony.
As Cronheim got up, a man sat down as the next to testify. He stated that Master Cross issued a divorce order that was disfavorable to him. Other attorneys, ex-judges, and lawmakers testified - against the bill. Then, there was testimony from the parents of the man who received the disfavorable divorce ruling. They argued that the Master's termination of their grandparental rights was unfair.
Peppered throughout this testimony and coming from those opposed to the bill, was the argument that the legislature should not be a place where one may launch an appeal from a court ruling. It just makes sense that the NH Supreme Court should NOT be reviewable by the NH legislature. If Master Cross made no errors of law, then how could be guilty of maladministration or malpractice? And in fact some of Master Cross's orders brought into question had been appealed and affirmed.
I just got today's New Hampshire Bar Association e-Bulletin:
On Tuesday, March 1, [2011] the House Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to take the first steps toward the impeachment of Marital Master Philip Cross. In testimony last week, Judge Edwin Kelly urged lawmakers not to proceed with the impeachment. The allegations are based on disagreements with the master's decisions,and are vague or unsupportable, he said.
read the testimony from Edwin Kelly here.
