Constitutional Litigation
The vast majority of Thorne’s work over the past six years has been pro bono. Thorne has served as lead counsel, co-counsel, consulting counsel, expert witness, or amicus in cases in Texas, Ohio, New York, Illinois, California, Florida, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Tennessee.
During the past year, Thorne’s focus has shifted toward serving in an amicus role, as it has become apparent that alignment with either parent is counter-productive to illumination of the deeper issues in most cases. Consequently, Thorne now strongly prefers to serve as a “friend of the court”, an amicus curiae, or as a “friend of the child”, an amicus infans (to give a real voice the otherwise voiceless minor child).
A few examples of the types of cases in which Thorne participates are as follows.
Federal Courts: Ohio, The Galluzzo Case
On 26 January 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appointed Thorne as pro bono counsel for an indigent father in the appeal of a facial Constitutional challenge to the State of Ohio’s child custody statutory scheme, Case No. 04-3527, styled Michael A. Galluzzo v. Teresa Cook f/k/a Teresa Galluzzo.
After the Sixth Circuit decision against Mr. Galluzzo, the Sixth Circuit granted Thorne’s motion to withdraw as counsel of record and Mr. Galluzzo continued his appeal without counsel. Mr. Galluzzo’s pro se Application for Writ of Certiorari was filed on 30 September 2006 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 06-7267.
On 8 January 2007 the Supreme Court denied Mr. Galluzzo’s Application for Writ of Certiorari. Because Mr. Galluzzo’s case was dismissed by the federal district court on procedural grounds, the merits of his facial Constitutional challenge to the State of Ohio’s statutory child custody scheme were never addressed by the federal trial court, the federal appeals court, or the Supreme Court of the United States.
Supreme Court of the United States: The Roberts Case
On 19 May 2008 Thorne and co-counsel filed in the Supreme Court of the United States a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in case number 07-1052, styled David A. Roberts, Petitioner, v. Maine Department of Health and Human Services, et al, Respondents.
In an effort to put a stop to the repeated, systematic, and wrongful deprivation of Robert’s civil rights by Maine DHS, et al, acting under color of law, on 1 July 2004, Mr. Roberts filed his Complaint for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal District Court in Baltimore, Maryland. Over the next four years, without the Defendants ever filing a written answer to the Complaint, it was dismissed by the trial judge, appealed to the Fourth Circuit, who reversed the dismissal and sent the case back to the trial court, dismissed a second time by the trial judge, appealed a second time to the Fourth Circuit, who allowed the dismissal to stand, and now appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
On 6 October 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States denied Mr. Roberts’ pending Petition, and allowed the dismissal by the federal District judge on procedural grounds to stand. Consequently, the merits of Mr. Roberts’ § 1983 action will never be addressed by the federal trial court, the federal appeals court, or the Supreme Court of the United States. So ends a case that has spanned 20 years in state courts and over 4 years in federal courts.
Ohio State Courts: The Tock case
On 11 April 2007 Thorne was accepted as an expert witness on Constitutional law in an Ohio state family court and presented testimony in support of a facial Constitutional challenge to the State of Ohio’s child custody statutory scheme in Case No. 02DR3-1126, styled Frances Tock v. Christopher Tock, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Division, Columbus, Ohio. The challenge was based upon the Constitutional imperative for peer parenting found in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The Hon. Elisabeth Gill, trial judge, instructed the parties to file their closing arguments on custody issues in writing. After receiving the written closing arguments of the parties, Judge Gill ordered various transcripts and all of the briefs from the Galluzzo federal court case (described above) in which Thorne served as Mr. Galluzzo’s appellate counsel in the Sixth Circuit. Before Judge Gill issued her decision on the constitutionality of the State of Ohio’s child custody statutory scheme, the parties settled the custody issues with an agreement for a shared custody arrangement. The case concluded with a decree of divorce on 8 January 2008.
Illinois State Courts: The Roney Case
In September 2006 Thorne was admitted pro hac vice by an Illinois state family court as attorney of record for Mr. Christopher Roney and presented oral argument of a facial Constitutional challenge to the State of Illinois’s child custody statutory scheme, in Case No. 00-D-700, styled In Re: Marriage of Mary Kay Roney, Petitioner, and Christopher J. Roney, Respondent, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Champaign County, Illinois.
After the trial court decision against Mr. Roney, Thorne served as co-counsel in Mr. Roney’s appeal to the Illinois Court of Appeals, along with two distinguished Illinois local counsel from Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck, Mr. Don Schiller, Esq. and Ms. Sarane S. Siewerth, Esq. Schiller, Du Canto and Fleck is the largest law firm in the nation focusing exclusively on matrimonial law. With principal offices in Chicago, the firm is nationally recognized for its work in the areas of marriage, divorce, and custody, and as a leader in the field of matrimonial law. For more information about the firm, see their web site < http://www.sdflaw.com >.
After the Illinois Court of Appeals decision against Mr. Roney, Thorne withdrew as co-counsel and Mr. Roney filed a pro se appeal in the Supreme Court of Illinois, case number 104684. On 26 September 2007 the Supreme Court of Illinois denied Mr. Roney’s Petition for Leave to Appeal. Because Mr. Roney’s Constitutional challenge was ignored by the state trial court on procedural grounds, the merits of his facial Constitutional challenge to the State of Illinois’ child custody statutory scheme were never addressed by the state trial court, the state appeals court, or the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Federal Courts: New York, The Walker case
On 13 September 2005 Thorne presented the oral argument of Stephen J. Walker to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the appeal of a facial Constitutional challenge to the State of New York’s pendente lite child support statutory scheme, Case No. 05-0229, styled Stephen J. Walker, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of New York, et al, Defendants-Appellees.
After the Second Circuit decision against Mr. Walker, Thorne prepared and filed several post-judgment motions, and then assisted in the preparation and filing of Mr. Walker’s pro se Application for Writ of Certiorari on 5 September 2006 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 06-894.
On 5 March 2007 the Supreme Court denied Mr. Walker’s Application for Writ of Certiorari, bringing an end to a case that spanned 15 years in New York state courts and 5 years in federal courts. Because Mr. Walker’s case was dismissed by the federal district court on procedural grounds, the merits of his facial Constitutional challenge to the State of New York’s pendente lite child support statutory scheme were never addressed by the federal trial court, the federal appeals court, or the Supreme Court of the United States.