Lawyers and Bureaucrats Get Child $upport Billions

Billions in Child Support Going to Lawyers and Bureaucrats | Leon Koziol.Com

Public Apathy and Lack of Accountability in Family Court are Damaging Our Children

While federal and state prosecutors focus on high profile politicians for public accountability, our third branch of government remains self regulated and largely overlooked. As a result, parents, children and extended families are being fleeced by lawyers and third party beneficiaries every day to unconscionable levels. It’s all part of a lucrative child control industry.

Consider the recent custody case reported by the New York Post involving Dr. Eric Braverman, a highly committed father and respected neuro-surgeon in Manhattan who spent more than $4.5 million in an unsuccessful attempt to retain a meaningful relationship with his children. A judge-appointed attorney for those same children went to horrendous lengths to pervert this man’s efforts with fees approximating a half million dollars.

Now come on folks, let’s not lose sight of sanity here! How can one lawyer acting on behalf of immature and unsuspecting children be worth so much on a single case? Was this lawyer truly committed to “client” interests or was he seeking to justify his gigantic personal pay-out for a dubious role in a sensitive matter?

More disturbing, while this lawyer was busy racking up billable hours in his agenda against the father, those fees were being exacted from the same children’s college funds. Once again, it all goes back to our earlier posts warning followers of Leon Koziol.com that no amount of fees is enough once you enter divorce and family court.We even offer a program to convince would-be victims to choose mediation, counseling and alternative resolutions.

Compounding this uncontrolled greed is the lawyer glut entering the market. There are more than 1.25 million licensed attorneys in the United States today with about  300,000 in California alone and at least that many seeking a law school education each year. These people have to work somewhere and the bureaucrats are making room for them in family court. This is where apprentices typically learn their trade and marginal lawyers can concoct litigation to last an entire career.

The public is generally unaware that our federal government rewards the states by the number and magnitude of support awards generated in their family courts. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude that such incentive grants make the decision makers inherently biased against fathers.  Support obligations are artificially hiked through such judge-created fictions as imputed income. Fathers comprise 82% of support debtors per our Census Bureau. 

To give an appearance of ethics, many states impose rules which prohibit lawyers from executing contingent fee arrangements in domestic relations cases. However, exceptions have been crafted which allow them for support collection purposes. This gets very interesting when you look deeper into the deceptions and the greed.

Think of it! A lawyer can now charge thousands of dollars in up front fees and billable hours during protracted litigation and then double dip on the back side by getting a third of the actual support intended for the children. The state typically gets all the interest generated off these awards in addition to a custodial fee and the federal incentive money.

In New York, the tax department is assigned support enforcement authority. In effect the state is intervening with all its machinery on the side of the so-called “custodial parent” while no similar powers are offered to the lower class parent to remedy child access deprivations. It prompted one state Supreme Court justice to question the state’s involvement in a private debt between self sufficient parents.

If you’re a debtor, you could be charged with your lawyer’s fees, the children’s lawyer, opposing fees, the contingency collection fee and court costs such as counseling, supervision and “parent education” as they call it. In countless cases, particularly those involving veterans and minorities, the debtor fathers will never be able to complete their servitude, landing them in debtor prisons. This will only add to our tax burdens and a dubious distinction as the most imprisoned population in the “free” world.

This kind of piling-on caused one police investigator to commit a murder-suicide, leaving three children without parents and city taxpayers with a $2 million liability. Nowhere in the civil rights case will you read about this father leaving support court living on $28 per week, see Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367. It begs the question: what would make a law man resort to such extremes after following the “proper” channels?

We’ve been doing our best to inform you of these alarming developments because the media is ignoring this crisis. But we cannot continue to do so without your financial support in a war against a trillion dollar industry. Public apathy has allowed this to happen along with the lawyer greed shockingly rationalized to be in our children’s best interests. It is a gold mine of unparalleled proportion that is causing so many of our social ills today.

And who pays for that?

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Please help us by sharing this post with friends, contacts and media:

Petition to Congress: Family Court Corruption and to Abolish Title IV-D Funding from States to have incentives to illegally courtnp children, CPS corruption, judicial corruption

Source: Billions in Child Support Going to Lawyers and Bureaucrats | Leon Koziol.Com

View this document on Scribd

Related articles

• Americans for Equal Rights for Fathers
• Divorced Co-Parenting Oxymoron
• Please stop the unfair punishment of good fathers.
• What it feels like to watch your kids grow up when you can’t pay child support
• Child support needs to catch up to reflect new roles for fathers, say experts
• How To Make Sure Your Ex Does Not Get Your Money When You Die
• New Report: Custody Court Dysfunction May Claim Your Children, Health and Livelihood
• “The Things That Have Happened To Me, I Can Never Forget.”
• Forced Parental Alienation
• Rick Scott is a complete retard even for an elected political Hero!

Outright abomination against rudimentary civil rights and principles of law.

“You have bullsh*t; we have research”: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Daddy Justice (Or, Why False Allegations Are a Serious Problem) | TALKING BACK to restraining orders

(Note: The word in the video’s title should be spelled “poohbah,” after a comic opera character whose name was probably formed from the interjections pooh + bah. Mr. Vonderheide’s spelling it “poobah” might have been an accident—or it might have been on purpose.)

The setting of the interview, which would more aptly be called an exchange of words, isn’t clear, but it seems to be a post-conference mix-and-mingle. Mr. Vonderheide takes issue with the NCADV’s feminine bias and the propagandist tenor of the fact sheets it publishes, which aren’t uncommonly cited by feminist advocates.

As the quotation in this post’s title suggests, the questions he poses to Ms. Smith aren’t favorably received. Those questions regard the NCADV’s disinclination to acknowledge maternal child abuse (Ms. Smith: “It’s not our focus of work”), as well as its denial that false accusations of domestic violence are a serious problem, false accusations that Mr. Vonderheide alleges are “promoted by [the NCADV’s] budget.”

Daddy Justice’s interview style (à la Michael Moore) is obtrusive—he’s plainly crashed the party—but while Mr. Vonderheide is necessarily assertive, the worst you could say of his questions is that they’re confrontational. They’re nevertheless called “abusive” and “aggressive,” and he’s prodded to leave.

The grudging answers his questions prompt before he’s rebuffed don’t provide much informational grist for the mill, but to his allegation that more than 80% of restraining orders are based on false accusations, Ms. Smith significantly counters that her facts say it’s only “2% of the time” (and she urges Mr. Vonderheide to “stop lying”). Later she revises her estimate of the number of false accusations from 2% to “2 to 5%,” dismissively, despite the fact that if, say, 2,000,000 restraining orders are petitioned a year (and the total may be much higher), the extra 3% translates to the invasion, disruption, and possible dismantling of 60,000 innocent defendants’ lives, besides those of their children and others peripheral to the mischief.

A mere 5% false allegation rate means the victimization of 100,000 (or many more) innocent people per year (again, not including ambient casualties). Anecdotal reports, of course—including from judges and attorneys—put the false allegation rate 6 to 18 times higher than 5% (30 to 90%). It just depends who you’re asking.

Even a ridiculously conservative false allegation rate like the posited 5% plainly recommends legislative reform, because there’s absolutely no accountability in the restraining order process. False accusers aren’t punished, and damages from false allegations aren’t remediable by lawsuit. Additional false claims can what’s more be lodged almost immediately by the same accusers using the same process. There’s no statutory ceiling on the number of orders a single complainant may apply for. (Some victims of procedural abuse report spending tens of thousands of dollars to fend off one petition only to throw up their hands—and in cases forfeit their custody entitlements—when a second comes down the pike a few months later. See here for an example.)

It should be appreciated, too, that any audit-derived estimate of the number of false allegations can only be based on allegations that are recorded as false (by “somebody”). No official false allegation rate accounts for the number of times false allegations succeed or the number of times cases based on them are simply “dismissed” without comment.

In other words, false allegations may well be rampant or “epidemic” (a word favored by anti-domestic-violence advocates), and there would be no record that says so.

The nyah-nyah from the title—“We have research; you have bullshit”—deserves reflection, also. (It doesn’t come from Ms. Smith, incidentally, but from an unidentified confederate who can’t resist a Parthian shot at Mr. Vonderheide before she and the “Grand Poobah” turn their backs to him).
The “research” that advocacy groups posit is survey-based, that is, it amounts to responses to questionnaires that are administered to sample groups and then extrapolated to the population as a whole. Even this survey data we must take on faith.

Appreciate that conducting “research” of this sort depends on means, which depend on money, which is only allocated to groups like the NCADV. Consider:

The NCADV’s reported income for 2011 was $643,797, down about $70,000 from the previous year. Ms. Smith’s salary was $74,586.

Among the programs toward which the NCADV’s 2011 budget was dedicated were “General Program – provides information to educate and inform the general public about domestic violence” ($240,991), “Public Policy – works in collaboration with other national organizations to affect societal response to domestic violence through public education and coalition building, monitors federal legislation, and contacts legislators regarding domestic violence issues” ($88,808), “Membership – publishes a newsletter and provides networking  opportunities for individuals and organizations interested in the work to empower battered women and their children” ($67,607), “Child custody – provides resources, referrals and support to advocates working with victims of domestic violence involved in family court cases with their abusers also provides resources to victims, attorney, and family members when family court issues are present” ($97,402).

In contrast to the social largesse enjoyed by groups like the NCADV, no money is allocated for the administration of surveys to determine, for example, incident rates of depression, drug or alcohol abuse, stress-related injuries, or suicide proximal to being falsely accused; no surveys appraise the resulting lost earnings and assets; and no surveys attempt to measure the hits taken by health insurance providers as a result. Prognosis of the long-term consequences to the welfare and life prospects of injured children is, moreover, impossible. Worse, it’s not even considered, which casts rather a long shadow on the purported “mission” of groups like the NCADV to protect kids.

Clearly, that motive is context-specific.

Daddy Justice makes up for the lack of information his “interview” questions elicit with quotations interposed between snippets of footage. Here are some of them:

• “Everyone knows restraining orders…are granted to virtually all who apply.” […] “In many cases, allegations of abuse are used for tactical advantage” (Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association).
• “Restraining orders are now considered part of the ‘gamesmanship of divorce’” (Illinois Bar Journal, 2005).
• “In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases” (American Journal of Public Health, May 2007).
• “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently” (Psychological Bulletin, 26, No. 5, pp. 651-680).
• “Leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates” (Law Professor Linda Kelly, 2003).
• “More women than men engage in controlling behavior in their current marriages” (Violence and Victims, 22, Issue 4, 2007).
• “Of all persons who suffer injuries from partner aggression, 38% are male” (Dr. John Archer, Psychological Bulletin).
• “There is no doubt that this law [Ohio’s domestic violence statute] has been abused” (Judge Nadine Allen of Hamilton County, Ohio).
• “Standards for proving abuse have been so relaxed that any man who stands accused is considered guilty” (Cheryl Hanna, William and Mary Law Review).
• “Women are nine times more likely to report domestic violence than male victims” (National Family Violence Survey).
• “85% of temporary restraining orders are filed against men” (Cathy Young, “Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis,” 2005).
• “Many judges view restraining orders as ‘a rubber-stamping exercise,’ and subsequently hearings are ‘usually a sham’” (Attorney Arnold Rutkin, Family Advocate, Winter 1996).
• “The mere allegation of domestic violence may shift the burden of proof to the defendant” (Massachusetts Law Weekly, 1995).

Notable is that cited remarks from legal experts that categorically define the restraining order process as prejudiced, if not an outright abomination against rudimentary civil rights and principles of law, may be a decade or decades old. Rhetorical stances like the NCADV’s aren’t fooling anybody in the know, and they haven’t for a long time. But they continue to dominate political debate. They’re heeded because they’re supposed to be. Not coincidentally, women’s advocates hold the keys to the treasury.

The value of Mr. Vonderheide’s video, finally, isn’t in the information it educes or even the information it asserts but the psychological study it offers of the women behind the dogma and the sway they exercise on public perception. His questions, only impeachable as indelicate, inspire predictable reactions: antagonism, levity, or disdain.

According to tried and true method (a method both practiced and preached), the “self-reliant” feminist women who are the targets of Mr. Vonderheide’s questions register alarm. These deniers of false allegations and undue hysteria…call the police.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com

*Daddy Justice’s videos can be found here.

Source: “You have bullsh*t; we have research”: The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence v. Daddy Justice (Or, Why False Allegations Are a Serious Problem) | TALKING BACK to restraining orders 

Related

“perjury and sociopaths”: On the Challenges of Contesting Restraining Orders Sought by the Mentally Aberrant, Deranged, or Ill

 

Big Money v. No Money: VAWA and the Men’s Rights Movement

 

How False Allegations of Domestic Violence Are Glossed over Even when They’re Brought to the Public’s Attention

Related articles

• Psychedelic drugs may reduce domestic violence
• Discussing Intimate Partner Violence
• Divorced Co-Parenting Oxymoron
• Hold Family Courts Accountable
• So few in the Media will Expose the Judicial Corruption of Judges
• The Role of Domestic Violence in Parental Alienation
• Research Can Help Family Court Psychologists and Judges Protect Children
• How Domestic Abuse Misinformation Hurts Both Women and Men
• A Circle of Moms Reports on False Allegations to CPS (and Says the Same Things That Father’s Groups Say about the Abuse of Restraining Orders and Domestic Violence Laws)
• Judicial Accountability Coup d’Etat in America

The Evidence Standard To Fight Corrupted Family Courts

Preponderance of Evidence Standard

Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents’ DUE PROCESS rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]).

Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard.

However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]).

Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.

Fight Corrupted Family Courts and CPS

via Preponderance of Evidence Standard | Fight Corrupted Family Courts and CPS