Families will be destroyed under the guise and by immunity bestowed upon Family Court Judges

PRESS RELEASE: Bill Scheidler, candidate for representative, district 26, position 1, states his platform | Corrupt Washington

This is the vicious cycle of corruption, which can be illustrated as follows.

Until VOTERS want an honest government where the rule of law prevails, taxpayers will be asked to pay for incompetence, corruption, over regulation, poor schools, substandard wages, dwindling jobs …; families will be destroyed under the guise and by ‘immunity bestowed upon child protective services, court ordered guardianship, probate and bankruptcy …; individuals will be abused by prosecutors, police and local government entities; and business will be regulated OUT OF BUSINESS.

Continue reading

Fathers for Equal Rights! #FatherlessDay

Continue reading

What Is A Divorce?

di·vorce – dəˈvôrs/  noun ~ the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body.
  1. verb ~ legally dissolve one’s marriage with (someone).

law-firm-ppt-4-6388

A divorce can be many things. It is a legal proceeding to end a marriage. Divorce laws differ from state to state regarding the requirements and reasons or grounds for a divorce. The mechanisms and procedures for obtaining a divorce differ from state to state as well. In every state there is a legal requirement that a divorce proceeding be filed to end the legal marriage between a couple.

Continue reading

Stress During Divorce

NEW STUDY ~ Children fare better when they spend time living with both of their parents.

This Divorce Arrangement Stresses Kids Out Most | TIME681ee-shared2bparenting2btrain2b-2b20155

Regarding the well-being of kids with divorced parents, the debate over what kind of custody arrangement is best rages on. But a new study, published Monday in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health,suggests that children fare better when they spend time living with both of their parents.

That goes against some current thinking that kids in shared-custody situations are exposed to more stress due to constantly moving around and the social upheaval that can come along with that. “Child experts and people in general assumed that these children should be more stressed,” says study author Malin Bergström, PhD, researcher at the Centre for Health Equity Studies in Stockholm, Sweden. “But this study opposes a major concern that this should not be good for children.”

The researchers wanted to see if kids who lived part time with both parents were more stressed than those who lived with just one parent. They looked at national data from almost 150,000 12- and 15-year-old students—each in either 6th grade or 9th grade—and studied their psychosomatic health problems, including sleep problems, difficulty concentrating, loss of appetite, headaches, stomachaches and feeling tense, sad or dizzy. They found that 69% of them lived in nuclear families, while 19% spent time living with both parents and about 13% lived with only one parent.

Kids in nuclear families reported the fewest psychosomatic problems, but the more interesting finding was that students who lived with both of their separated parents reported significantly fewer problems than kids who lived with only one parent.

“We think that having everyday contact with both parents seems to be more important, in terms of stress, than living in two different homes,” says Bergström. “It may be difficult to keep up on engaged parenting if you only see your child every second weekend.”

Having two parents also tends to double the number of resources a kid is exposed to, including social circles, family and material goods like money.

“Only having access to half of that may make children more vulnerable or stressed than having it from both parents, even though they don’t live together,” she says.

Continue reading

Lawsuit For False Domestic Violence Accusations?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

False allegations of abuse is a crime - 2016

A false accusation is where an unfounded or unsubstantiated allegation is made against a person. A false allegation can occur as the result of intentional lying on the part of the accuser; or unintentionally or resulting from deliberate or accidental suggestive questioning, or faulty interviewing techniques.

The accusations can be broken down in three categories:
-An allegation about alleged events that did not occur;
-An allegation that describes events that did occur, but were perpetrated by an individual who is not accused, and in which the accused person is innocent.
-An allegation that is  partly false but the person’s account of the facts implicated the accused person wrong.
-The biggest effect that a false accusation has is on a person’s character whereby the accusations made defame a person’s reputation. False accusations may be made by the police or any other person.False Police reports in Family Court - 2015

Can I sue for false Accusations? YES

You can sue for false accusations made by a person or the police. The effect of false accusations affects a person’s reputation because they are either falsely accused of a crime or falsely accused of act that did not take place.

Common types of false allegations involves sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic violence claims, or the commission of any crime. A person can sue under the tort of defamation which may either be in the form of slander, libel or defamation of character. Slander is untrue words spoken orally with the purpose of harming an individual reputation. It must be proven that the individual made the statements maliciously to harm the reputation of a person for their own personal reasons. While libel is where statements are printed that falsely depicts individual in a certain way that ruin their reputation. To prove libel it has to be shown that the printed allegations were not only insulting and offensive but it was it malice. Defamation of character concerns the act of making false statements about a person which blemishes or tarnishes his/her reputation. Defamation of character can either be libel or slander.

False accusation is considered to be defamatory per se category where of false statements are so innately harmful. Traditionally, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven. This shows the serious damaging effects that false accusations may have on an individual’s reputation. An example of this is where someone accuses you falsely of rape. It is common knowledge that being accused of rape tarnishes a person’s reputation. A person is awarded damages for false accusations when a defamation claim is brought against them.

Can I sue a person for False Accusations? YES

Where someone is falsely accusing you of acts that did not take place or actions which did transpired but you are falsely being accused you can sue them. First it is always best and cheaper to demand the person to cease and desist or to make a public apology. However, because of the nature of the allegations that were made you probably want vindication by the court to state that the person was malicious and vindictive or they did not have probable cause to allege that you did such an act.

Additionally, you may have suffered mental distress as a result of the false statements as such compensation is needed. Compensation is awarded in cases of false accusations to recompense the person for damage to reputation and any anxiety caused by it.

Falsely accusing someone for acts which may or may not be criminal can seriously damage a person’s reputation. Therefore, you can sue anyone who was responsible for making the false accusations. These persons can include police officers where they act without probable cause or anyone acts with malicious intent. The issue of false allegation in the criminal sphere is so serious that proof of loss  does not have to be shown by the victim before they can receive damages.

Written by Janique Williams

false-accusersvia Can I Sue For False Accusations? | Falsely Accused51933-policethepolice

Justice Department warns local courts about illegal enforcement of fees and fines. ~ ABA Journal

I would have not needed nine pages and $2.5 million in grants to write that letter.
Dear Colleagues:

We’ve at the US Department of Justice (yes “Justice” is in our name) observed that many of your, particularly judges municipal and local JP courts have been violating the US Constitution US Supreme Court precedent (which given your position, you should already know) by incarcerating and/or extorting the indigent for fine money to fill your jurisdictions coffers, and doing so without proper legal, constitutional hearing, or providing legal counsel to the accused.

AS OF NOW YOU ARE ON NOTICE THAT THAT WILL STOP IMMEDIATELY !!!!!

Outlined in items 1-7 are various precedents which we at the DOJ have become aware that you may be violating. Being a “judge” you can look up the case cites yourself. (Again something that you should already be aware of and know how to do.)

Continue reading

Judicial Accountability Coup d’Etat in America

HARVESTING JUSTICE starting with the Low Hanging Fruit Opt-in USA NFJA - 2016Low Hanging Fruit, i.e. Senate reconfirmation hearings on Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner  —  OPT-IN-USA

The prospect of Joseph P. Carson securing the support of our national grassroots legal/judicial reform community transforms his 25 year long quest for OSC and MSPB accountability into a potential judicial accountability coup d’etat in America.

We identified it as an international human rights issue. We learned that a potentially insurmountable obstacle to relief was America’s failure to ratify the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). With all these U.S. foreign policy considerations swirling in the air, it can be difficult to remember that Opt IN USA is a grassroots campaign to redress unchecked judicial misconduct in America.

Our goal is appropriate judicial accountability. There should be substantive and procedural mechanisms by which it is supplied on a case-by-case basis in America. And, of course, America is no stranger to appropriate judicial accountability. But many (too many) Americans are denied that measure of good government. Yet that injustice should not and, in fact, cannot be our Swan Song. We are not swans. We are Phoenixes!
  • Opt IN USA will continue coordinating meetings between its campaign participants and their U.S. Representatives.
  • Campaign coordinators will assist campaign participants in following up with whomever they met at those meetings.
  • Already Opt IN USA is teaming up with some of the world’s most accomplished human rights activists to address the relative isolation of Americans from the international human rights community and the corresponding threat for current and potential targets of The Third Degree.
  • Opt IN USA and its sister organization, NFOJA (National Forum On Judicial Accountability) will assist any and all willing Opt IN USA participants in organizing and mobilizing for local and/or state-focused judicial reform advocacy.
  • IN THE MEANTIME, we should try to get a wi
    n for judicial accountability under our belts, and the U.S. Senate reconfirmation hearings on Special Counsel Carolyn N. Lerner presents an opportunity for us to do just that!

Family Court Judges2 - 2016

Continue reading

Electing Judges

Do not re-elect bad family court judges - 2016

They’re not politicians, so they shouldn’t act like them.votefamily - Parental Rights Class Action - 2015

The trouble with electing judges
| The Economist
 |

Excerpt:

OF ALL the ways in which America is exceptional, its practice of electing judges is one of the least obvious and most striking. The spectacle of someone who has the power to hand out death sentences making stump speeches, seeking endorsements and raising funds has long seemed odd to outsiders. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose travels around the country coincided with the spread of judicial elections, predicted that “these innovations will, sooner or later, have disastrous results.” It is a view shared by many of the judges running for office around the country.

Judicial elections are becoming a lot like any other. Tennessee’s recent race was a good example. A few days before the poll Gary Wade, the chief justice on the state’s Supreme Court, sat in his office, a room enlivened by a bearskin rug on the floor, complete with paws and snarling mouth. Mr Wade had faced the voters five times before, but this election was the first time he had to do any actual campaigning. Tennessee’s race became unexpectedly political: the three judges up for retention were hit with adverts denouncing them as Obamacare-loving liberals, though their court has never ruled on the subject. The judges responded by raising over $1m to buy adverts of their own.

PrawfsBlawg: Law and Politics

Continue reading

WHAT OF GRANDPARENTS’ “RIGHTS”?

WHAT’S THE SOURCE OF GRANDPARENTS’ “RIGHTS”?

what-of-grandparent-rights-2016– thefitparentsrights

A fit parent’s “liberty” is defined as the right to establish a home and direct the upbringing of one’s children.  Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). Such is what makes it a “liberty interest”. This liberty interest is fundamental to the citizens of the United States of America.Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2268, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (U.S.Wash.,1997).

Therefore, this right is protected by the Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment to the  United States Constitution.

This means, if the state-as in a judge- wants to infringe or terminate this fundamental liberty interest, he or she had better apply the process due to a parent first. Otherwise, its action is explicitly forbidden. Id. at 721. If the state cannot show that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest, then the state cannot touch the fit parent’s right at all. Ibid. No other avenue is constitutionally available to accomplish state action, which will adversely affect a parent’s fundamental liberty interest.

grandparent-alienation-2016

If a parent appeals an adverse action by a state which has affected his or her fundamental liberty interest, the reviewing Court must apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to determine whether the state action was indeed achieved without the state showing that it had a narrowly tailored compelling interest to take the action it did. Id. Grandparent Family Bond Obstryction - Public Health Crisis -- 2016This is a compulsory standard. It’s not an option. Nowhere does it say that if the reviewing Court has sat down and collectively decided, for whatever arbitrary reasoning, that it should apply a lesser standard, that it can do so.

That being said, tell me. Where exactly do Grandparents’ “Rights”, come from? When a parent is brought before a Court and his or her fundamental liberty interest is at stake, there are only TWO competing interests here- the parent’s and the state’s. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 759-60 (U.S.N.Y., 1982). If the parent is fit, then the child’s interest, coincides with his or her fit parent’s. Id. at 745, 748, 760-761 (1982). The child’s interest does not stand alone. As such is the case, where exactly-constitutionally- does the Grandparent’s so called “interest” fit into the equation? I can tell you where-nowhere- because they don’t have any “rights”- not under these United States’ Constitution..

no-system-ever-devised-to-cause-so-much-harm-as-family-court-2016

The Justices who decided Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), deliberately failed to apply the Strict Scrutiny standard of review, to the threatened fundamental liberty interest of the mother in that case for this precise reason.

Grandparent Child Relationship Obstruction - 2016Instead, it applied a less stringent standard, having nothing to do with the 14th Amendment, so that it could leave room for the individual states, to concoct their own particular processes by which each could infringe or even, as in my case, terminate the liberty interests of fit parents, by averting the Due Process Clause. In other words, applying the wrong standard gave state legislatures the power to enact laws granting such “rights” to grandparents to intervene into divorce and custody disputes. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, this “standing” does not exist.

Because of the Troxel Court’s “instructions” as the state of Georgia refers to the case, Clark v. Wade, 273 Ga. 587,  603-604 (2001), this state claimed that it had the power to sever my custodial relationship with my child, remove her from my home, terminate my legal rights to her and “award” “custody”, to her paternal grandparents- all without finding me unfit. Isn’t that something? After serving my country and vowing to die if need be, to defend the United States Constitution, my own rights were snatched right from under me. It said that it had the parens patriae power to do what it thought was “best” for my child. It had and has, no such power. Neither does any other state.

Here’s why.

Number 1., Washington, 521 U.S. at 721 says the state can’t do anything with a child without first proving that it has a narrowly tailored compelling interest.

2. The state can’t achieve such interest without following the bifurcated steps established in Santosky, 455 U.S. at 745, 748, 760-761 .

3. Before we even get to any of all this, the state is explicitly prohibited from applying the best interest standard between a parent and a third party to begin with. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 303-304 (1993).

Nevertheless, there are parents across America whose constitutional rights to their children have been deprived by state action, under color of law. This has been a collective, nationwide violation, extending from the top of our judicial system, to the bottom. This is the state of America today.

But for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in 2000, I would not have been robbed of my right to continue to have the home that I had established for my child, or my right to continue to raise her, so long as I was fit. Grandparent Contact Denial - 2016

I know that such willful deprivation is actionable under federal civil and criminal law against state officials. I also know that one must request relief from the very defendants and perpetrators who have violated him or her- a futile effort that I learned the hard way.  My question is, what happens when the willful deprivation comes from the top?

***I am a paralegal. I am not a licensed attorney. Anything I’ve posted here or on this site, may not and should not be construed as legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please consult with a licensed attorney. If you are in Cobb County, Georgia, good luck.

Source: WHAT’S THE SOURCE OF GRANDPARENTS’ “RIGHTS”? – thefitparentsrights

Let there be justice in America, and let it begin with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Facebook shared a post of mine about Opt IN USA from exactly one year ago today. In realizing that the campaign has been consistently described since then, I thought about complaints I've received that not everyone understands and can relate to Opt IN USA. Of course I cannot imagine being unsure of whether I've been persecuted or psychologically tortured through misuse of administrative (as in quasi-judicial) or court (as in judicial) proceedings in America. It seems those of us unfortunate enough to have had such an experience would realize it happened or is happening. And Opt IN USA would speak to our embattled souls, even if aspects of the campaign left some of us confused. While anything can be simplified, not everything is simple. To thoroughly understand the problem of persistent U.S. legal system abuse is to perceive all of its complexities, which is helpful in devising solutions through which Opt IN USA constituents can be made whole. Opt IN USA is about much more than being on the losing end of legal proceedings. Instead, the campaign identifies and addresses distinct patterns of judicial (including quasi-judicial) conduct and case outcomes that evidence deliberate violations of rights. Moreover, Opt IN USA links the failure of America's current legal and political processes to redress this ominous problem to certain of their structural/logistical deficiencies. These deficiencies manifest as inadequate judicial oversight. In other words, Opt IN USA goes beyond scandal advocacy, i.e., the process of "exposing" specific U.S. legal system bad guys in hopes of evoking enough outrage to get them ousted and reparations extended for their misdeeds. Instead, the campaign focuses on exposing how U.S. government unduly insulates this class of culprits from accountability and the devastation heaped on countless Americans, including children, as a result. The goal of Opt IN USA and its sister organizations is to trigger genuine reform . . . not when the targeted bad guys are adequately proven to be bad or society is adequately protective of their victims, but when it is clear that everyone CONSCIOUSLY acquiescing to inadequate judicial oversight in America is complicit in the resulting harm. True, Opt IN USA gets a bit "high brow" at times. But that is to reach Ivory Towers in which our complaints are dismissed as mere rantings of the confused, uninformed, misguided, and disgruntled. Our message must resonate there, arguably more than anywhere. As direct action is undertaken on Main Street, Opt IN USA and its sister organizations help ensure such efforts are not undermined by credible propaganda flowing from any Ivory Tower. Surely not everyone discontent with America's legal system has a well-founded complaint. But it is only through a fair and impartial administration of justice that our legitimate grievances can be properly sorted from those that are unfounded. America owes all of its citizens a fair and impartial administration of justice. Learn more, join our efforts, and otherwise support Opt IN USA by visiting https://m.facebook.com/Opt.IN.USA/
Facebook shared a post of mine about Opt IN USA from exactly one year ago today. In realizing that the campaign has been consistently described since then, I thought about complaints I’ve received that not everyone understands and can relate to Opt IN USA.
Of course I cannot imagine being unsure of whether I’ve been persecuted or psychologically tortured through misuse of administrative (as in quasi-judicial) or court (as in judicial) proceedings in America. It seems those of us unfortunate enough to have had such an experience would realize it happened or is happening. And Opt IN USA would speak to our embattled souls, even if aspects of the campaign left some of us confused.
While anything can be simplified, not everything is simple.
To thoroughly understand the problem of persistent U.S. legal system abuse is to perceive all of its complexities, which is helpful in devising solutions through which Opt IN USA constituents can be made whole.
Opt IN USA is about much more than being on the losing end of legal proceedings. Instead, the campaign identifies and addresses distinct patterns of judicial (including quasi-judicial) conduct and case outcomes that evidence deliberate violations of rights. Moreover, Opt IN USA links the failure of America’s current legal and political processes to redress this ominous problem to certain of their structural/logistical deficiencies. These deficiencies manifest as inadequate judicial oversight.
In other words, Opt IN USA goes beyond scandal advocacy, i.e., the process of “exposing” specific U.S. legal system bad guys in hopes of evoking enough outrage to get them ousted and reparations extended for their misdeeds. Instead, the campaign focuses on exposing how U.S. government unduly insulates this class of culprits from accountability and the devastation heaped on countless Americans, including children, as a result.
The goal of Opt IN USA and its sister organizations is to trigger genuine reform . . . not when the targeted bad guys are adequately proven to be bad or society is adequately protective of their victims, but when it is clear that everyone CONSCIOUSLY acquiescing to inadequate judicial oversight in America is complicit in the resulting harm.
True, Opt IN USA gets a bit “high brow” at times. But that is to reach Ivory Towers in which our complaints are dismissed as mere rantings of the confused, uninformed, misguided, and disgruntled. Our message must resonate there, arguably more than anywhere. As direct action is undertaken on Main Street, Opt IN USA and its sister organizations help ensure such efforts are not undermined by credible propaganda flowing from any Ivory Tower.
Surely not everyone discontent with America’s legal system has a well-founded complaint. But it is only through a fair and impartial administration of justice that our legitimate grievances can be properly sorted from those that are unfounded. America owes all of its citizens a fair and impartial administration of justice.
Learn more, join our efforts, and otherwise support Opt IN USA by visiting https://m.facebook.com/Opt.IN.USA/

divorcecorp-judge-scalia-quote-on-judicial-system-perception-2016Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored ~  Opt-IN-USA

people-who-are-crazy-enough-to-think-they-can-change-the-world-are-the-ones-who-do

Let there be justice in America, and let it begin with the U.S. Department of Justice.7f420-injustice

At best, if the targeted conduct is graphic and filmed and public outcry is intense, we get “police accountability” . . . an oxymoron given the DOJ’s notorious…

https://www.facebook.com/POPULAR4people/
Calling on all Americans who do not want the ruling class through major media to keep unrest focused exclusively on blue collar cops while elite lawyers, powerful prosecutors, and judges operate with virtual impunity in this country. Please join us in PUMPING UP THE PROTEST! Kindly circulate this message and do whatever you lawfully can to affirm that no one in America should be above the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the country’s law enforcement and correction officials, private lawyers, prosecutors, and judges. Thank you!

Opt-IN-USA  · LINKEDIN.COM

Please join us in PUMPING UP THE PROTEST! Kindly circulate this message and do whatever you lawfully can to affirm that no one in America should be above the U.S. Constitution and certainly not the country’s law enforcement and correction officials, private lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.

Thank you!Low Hanging Fruit Opt-in USA NFJA - 2016

The prospect of Joseph P. Carson securing the support of our national grassroots legal/judicial reform community transforms his 25 year long quest for OSC and MSPB accountability into a potential judicial accountability coup d’etat in America.

family-civil-rights-movement-2015

We identified it as an international human rights issue. We learned that a potentially insurmountable obstacle to relief was America’s failure to ratify th……See More

This note is to encourage some very practical steps in mobilizing to address human rights violations through U.S. legal system abuse as part of Opt IN USA and its coalition partners. Please accept our apology if you receive this message via multiple communication channels. We want it to reach as many people as possible contending with U.S. legal system abuse and related judicial misconduct. Some d……  See More

Again, Opt IN USA attributes the ineffectiveness of America’s legal system in redressing entrenched legal system abuse to a synergy of:quiescent lawyers and judges, subdued by the prospect of retaliatory professional discipline;ineffective federal agencies such as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Office of Special Counsel;See More

6468912_orig3

“What the proverbial ‘Powers That Be’ seem to miss is that when their noses are all red from being snubbed at rank and file Americans, implementation of the U.S. Constitution has become an arbitrary and capricious process; no more Rule of Law.”Three Ring Circus - 3 Ring Circus - AFLA Blog - 2015

Continue reading