Kangaroo (Family) Court Corruption Commission

Judicial Conduct Commission Renamed Kangaroo Corruption Commission | Leon Koziol.Com

It’s been awhile since Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas depicted family courts in America as “Kangaroo” operations, see In re Gault, 387 US 1, 27-28. But Abe never came across New York’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. Now that’s a kangaroo commission if there ever was one. Its members are appointed by corrupt politicians such as Sheldon Silver (now in federal prison), Dean Skelos (convicted of federal crimes) and Andy Cuomo (currently under federal investigation). Governor Andrew Cuomo  prematurely dissolved his own corruption commission when testimony (i.e. me) began implicating the politicians who created it.

Another entity, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, was created by the same trio of politicians in 2011 as part of a “Clean-Up Albany Act.” By 2015, state legislators were decrying it as “J-Joke” for its impotence. The chair of that Commission was recently named Chief Justice of New York’s high court by the same Governor Andy Cuomo who created both commissions. That should have all people visiting or doing business here very concerned.

Yeah there are so many taxpayer financed commissions these days that the public cannot figure them all out. Hell they all sound good, but what are they accomplishing? The third one (featured here) has kicked legitimate complaints against judges to the curb faster than its kangaroo sister commission in California (reported to have rejected more than 90% filed). It’s a nationwide epidemic calling upon the citizenry to make a stand. A rally has been set for September 17, 2016 at Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.  Be there !

As a result, this Judicial Conduct Commission has been renamed the Kangaroo Corruption Commission (KCC) by victimized litigants to accurately  describe the entity’s true character. Okay it’s not official yet, but we commoners who pay taxes and put up with their circus show like to be graphic with what’s really going on. We’re not so easily duped into believing that a catchy title with elite law firm members verify a genuine commitment to public service. They’re the foxes watching the chicken coup. So we call it as we see it.

Today I received yet another letter from “Jean M. Savanyu” clerk of the Commission advising me once again that Lewis County Family Judge Daniel King (“Dan King” as he introduced himself to my family court opponent on the phone) is just a-okay. Now for our 6,000 followers, you all know this can’t be right. Dan King has committed so much misconduct that anyone coming into “his” court should bring along a recorder (since he caused one of my secret custody proceedings to be unrecorded so his misconduct could be concealed).

Appealing such clear misconduct is equally impotent. In my case, the “honorable” Nancy Smith of the Fourth Department denied recourse against King when he issued a support violation order impossible to comply with because it required support payments to an agency without legal authority to accept it.

Dan King was simply abusing judicial office in retaliation for my (accurate) public criticisms of his incompetence (see listing below). Nancy is the only judge above trial level ever to be slapped on the wrist by the KCC for giving a glowing reference to a person she never met for personal and political gain as a judge. Does anyone seriously think she could be impartial here?

Lawyers and Politicians Actually Want You and Your Children To Suffer

Why Lawyers & Politicians Actually Want You and Your Children To Suffer

You might have noticed that the theme of our most recent publicity messages center around “sharing the truth”.

And there’s a reason for this: we’ve been seeing a rather robust effort on the part of our opposition to blatantly lie to the Public in an attempt to thwart Family Law reform.

In reality, this is not new.  Because they’ve been doing this for the last forty years or so.

Never the less, you’re probably seeing a ridiculous talking point come up a lot lately.  I’ve seen it all over, and it’s probably best described by a Facebook post I saw in the Love and Iron newsfeed from NC Fathers.  Here is the opening post:

“In speaking w/ a NC Legislator yesterday, she exclaimed that in many cases the only reason a non-custodial parent would want shared parenting or joint custody is so that they could lower child support payments.”

I then followed up with a post to that thread describing my disgust with National Organization for Women (NOW) and other anti-equal parenting lobbying groups; because it’s become apparent that this is one of the universal talking points that’s being injected into the public commentary – I’m simply seeing it all over.  Basically, here’s  what they’re saying:

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.

Fathers for Equal Rights! #FatherlessDay

http://www.facebook.com/events/1301235423269917/

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).

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.

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

Judicial Accountability Coup d’Etat in America

HARVESTING JUSTICE starting with the Low 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!

WHAT OF GRANDPARENTS’ “RIGHTS”?

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

– 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.

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. This 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..

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.

Instead, 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.

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

Related articles

• CPS Institutional Abuse of Children in America
• Get Your Children Back From Child Protective Service and Family Court
• The Blog Post That Destroyed Free Speech in America
• The rights that children have to free and equal association with both fit parents…
• Family Court Stress Disorder (PTSD)…
• A Year Without My Daughter Zoraya. Here’s to you Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr.
• How to Re Establish Parental Rights Custody of a Child
• What is your stance on Constitutionally Protected Equal Parenting Rights?
• Fathers Encouraged to Join Protest at Super Bowl
• Child’s Best Interest vs. Parental Rights

Uniting Against Court Corruption

A billboard in St Boni, MN is the first of a series for exposing corruption in Minnesota courts. Many are unaware of the horrors inflicted daily in family court across the state.

Minnesota currently has no avenue for help when you have a judge out of control – not following statutes and laws set in place to protect citizens. A law in Minnesota was discovered (link: canon 4 codes of judicial conduct) that actually allows bribing of judges. Minnesota`s Constitution states in Article 6 Sect 9 that the Legislative Branch is to oversee the Judicial Branch. Minnesota gave this up in 1979 allowing the Judicial Branch to start up the Board of Judicial Standards. This Board is overseen by the judges. If you think on this – this is recipe for disaster. You have the fox watching the hen house. The Minnesota Constitution states clear oversight needed for the judicial branch – for very good reason.

Uniting Against Court Corruption | Carver County Corruption

We are seeing the disaster unfold from the lack of oversight as these numerous stories get out about judges siding with wealthy and abusive spouses, leaving the other destitute and children without one or the other parent. According to the courts these cases have everything to do with money – nothing to do with the well being of the children. Below are examples of a handful of these horror stories coming out of Carver and Dakota County (neighboring counties in the First District Court), along with a few from other counties. We have four new horror cases posting shortly. If you have questions, ideas or a story to expose – please contact Dale Nathan at 651-454-0506. We would like to point out that although the majority of these stories are of mothers losing all rights to their children and left destitute – this is not exclusive to mothers.

 

Out of Control Judges and Lawyers

A sample of Family Court Horror Cases

Child custody and visitation; the relationship continues

What is your stance on equal constitutional parental rights for all parents and any needed reforms to the family law system to ensure them?

Civil Rights

Who is going to have custody of children when the couple separate or divorce? This decision has to be made along with, how the children will be taken care of and the visitation, the how of each parent spending time with the children. Relationships cause connectedness and there are orders to abide by. There are two types of custody orders.

There is Legal custody. The parent who has the custody will be important decision maker about the child’s health care, doctor, dentist, orthodontist, psychiatric, mental health counseling, therapy,education, religious activities or institutions, welfare, school, childcare, sports, summer camp, vacation, or extracurricular activities, travel, and place of residence.