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.
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
Here are four of the most critical flaws of the current child-support system.
The system is outdated.
The child-support system was originally a bipartisan policy reform designed to serve divorced parents who were steadily employed. But the system was established nearly 40 years ago, and is based on outdated stereotypes that viewed Mom as a housewife and Dad as the sole breadwinner.
29 percent of families in the system live below the federal poverty line. Many fathers sincerely want to do right by their children, but simply don’t have the means to do so. That becomes a very slippery slope for a lot of dads.
When unpaid child-support payments accumulate, this often snowballs into another issue: parental alienation. Research has shown that men with outstanding child-support debts tend to be less involved in their children’s lives. Some even find themselves incarcerated over unpaid payments.
America‘s children suffer when speech is censored in family courts. Enough!It’s a trillion dollar industry getting more barbaric by the day, and we have to join together nationwide to save lives. Here’s the proof:
State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct 400 Andrews Street Rochester, New York 14604
Re: Family Judge Daniel King Dear Members of the Commission:
I am formally lodging a complaint against Lewis County Family Judge Daniel King. I was incarcerated for a maximum period of six months in the Lewis County Jail for back child support and nearly died as a result. I will do my best to explain this shocking but true story. Before being released this past June, I was severely mistreated by Judge King and prison guards as a “city slicker.” I was placed in solitary confinement for five days for defending other abused inmates. It was so cruel in there that I suffered tremendous psychological pain and trauma.
In August, I was rushed to the hospital where I was held for five days. They discovered a large tumor pressing into the back of my lungs and a growth on my Thyroid gland. It produced bleeding internally and externally from all openings of my body with the exception of my eyes and ears. It was traced to all the stress I suffered from my six month imprisonment by Judge King. One of my fellow inmates, Justin Hurley, was gay and abused for that reason. I did my best to protect him time and again. That is why he confided in me personal information about working on Judge King’s home and camp. He explained how he got special treatment as a result.
For example, Justin was given drug treatment instead of prison time and released while I was there. He had been convicted of multiple felonies with a long record of crimes back to 2007, this time for operating a meth lab in Lowville, New York. When I got out I also shared this information with Leon Koziol because I wanted him as my attorney for winning a criminal jury case many years ago that kept me out of jail. If he could have represented me in an impartial court, instead of the one operated by Judge King, none of this would have occurred. I also knew what happened to Leon by the same judge and all the harm it caused to his family, health and professional career.
So a group of us travelled to the Lowville courthouse during the last week of October, 2015 to get public records verifying the information I received while in prison. We also went to Judge King’s clerk to get information on my case because I had never come before him at any time before, during and after my six month incarceration. Two of the inmate files obtained next door at county criminal court backed up the information I was told. One of them was this Justin Hurley. Leon needed a statement from him for a federal case he filed against Judge King on November 13, 2015. But Justin committed suicide in the same jail this past Wednesday after being returned since the time we went out to see him at his apartment. Also I was returned to the hospital for three weeks before he went back in.
When we went around Lowville looking for Hurley, we learned that his mother had just died so he was going to get back to us after a grieving period about doing an affidavit for Leon. Before we could get it from him, Justin committed suicide in the same Lewis County jail where I spent six months protecting him. It occurred on the day before Thanksgiving, Wednesday, November 25, 2015. The other file was Robert Campany, who was convicted of Grand Larceny, Fourth Degree, involving firearms. He was given the same period I was, six months on a split sentence. He was brought before Judge King a number of times while I was there for back child support and released from jail without any time served for it. This is because locals get preferential treatment from what I was told.
Robert Campany bragged to me how Judge King would make positive remarks about his family members in court. We tried to get statements from him which he promised but he is employed out of state on contract jobs. I had a terrible time making sense of all this special treatment. Despite my own requests to come before Judge King like Campany did, I did not even get the courtesy of an answer. I read a case about another family judge named David Jung who was removed from office for this sort of thing. I am attaching a warrant for my arrest signed by Judge King which required me to be brought before him. It never happened to this day. I was taken straight to Lewis County jail after as many as six U.S. Marshals and police showed up at both my workplace and my home to arrest me on it.
I was told by a state police officer that my sentence of three months was increased to the maximum by Judge King. He was surprised by this, and inmates or CO’s in the jail were even more surprised based on what they were used to seeing. I am attaching a copy of his commitment order showing this. I could not understand how two guys with long criminal records and serious felony convictions could do the same or less time in jail when all I did was find myself unable to get a good enough job to pay a debt. I love my daughter and was deprived six months contact with her including time spent at the hospital. After coming out of my five day hospital stay in August, 2015, with recommendations for recovery and no stress or court appearances, I was summoned back to Lowville Family Court for the money I could not pay while in jail. I was threatened with another warrant if I failed to show up.
Shortly after that appearance, I nearly died from further complications when I became non-responsive to my brother while staying at his home. He tried to wake me up after two days of sleep thinking I was sick. If it wasn’t for my mother calling him and making sure I was alright, I would not be making this complaint today, and Leon would be without another important witness to King’s abuses of fathers in his court. I spent three weeks in the hospital this time. Blood was spilling out into my body from that tumor on my lung, my systems were shutting down, a tube had to be placed into my neck to my heart just to keep me alive, and I had to be placed on kidney dialysis.
My support hearing is set to occur three weeks from now, and I want to assure this commission that I will not be alive to survive another six months by Judge King. For me it’s a matter of life and death just so that Judge King could get money out of me that I cannot earn. According to the attached paper, I owed about $7,000 with a $5,000 purge amount. You will see how Judge King raised the term from three months to six months without explanation and no input from me under that warrant. I believe he is trying to make a name for himself by abusing his office as a judge. This is family court not criminal court but as you can see I was treated far worse than the criminals.
While in Lowville tracking down witnesses we could not obtain from confidential family court files, we stopped into a local tavern/restaurant. Judge King had been making an issue of (parents who use alcohol around their children). We asked the barmaid there if any important people come to that bar. The first person she answered was Judge King, and she even knew what he drank. She also informed us without prompting that Judge King brought his own children there. It is only the tip of an iceberg, and I am asking this commission to remove Judge Daniel King as it did to David Jung. I can be reached anytime unless I’m in the hospital, in jail or court at (315) 534-5960.
Dr. Leon Koziol with 60 Minutes host Morley Safir in Leon’s office when courageous stories were aired worldwide. Will a documentary crew return ? By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Within 24 hours of getting a gag order against this site from Family Judge Dan King, I filed a challenge while refusing to shut it down. See yesterday’s post. We’ll keep you “posted” if this form of government allows it.
Hopefully you’ve been following developments so you know how we’ve been exposing corruption and assisting victims of family court abuses. Yesterday we explained how our work saved another dad from suicide. Now for the mom side.
During the same weekend I got an incoming call from a mother threatening to do herself in as a result of the criminal type targeting she sustained for 15 years. Yeah that’s how long they’ll hound you for money. It’s too long a story here…
We like to think of America as the land of the free, place of opportunity and beacon of liberty, but those founding principles are quickly eroding. Your book may have a vital impact. Newcomer political candidates continue to garner a tremendous following because they are expressing the frustrations of our people.
Evidence both from psychological research and clinical intervention studies suggests that there are bidirectional influences between overt child behavior problems and parent-child relations. Very little research however, has considered the pattern of relations that exists between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the parent-child relationship within a longitudinal context. Using a longitudinal community sample from the United Kingdom which included 194 school aged children (46% male and 54% female) and both parents, this study examined the relationship between child ADHD symptoms and displays of rejection in the parent-child relationship.
These relationships were investigated separately for mothers and fathers using cross-lagged panel correlation and reciprocal effects analysis. Mothers and fathers reported on ADHD symptoms and children reported on their feelings of rejection in the mother-child and father-child relationships. Results suggested differences in the direction of effects linking mother- and father-child rejection and child ADHD symptoms; with ADHD symptoms affecting the mother-child relationship and the converse pattern of effects noted for fathers. Implications for future research focusing on the link between ADHD symptoms and parent-child relationships are discussed.
“The effect on parents and children seeking social support within this coalescing “family law” forum has not been as advertised by courts and professionals—a new healing—but instead a new affliction: an ‘imposed disability’ of de rigueur deprivation of fundamental rights in the name of ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ funded by converting college funds into a bloated ministry of the bar leaving families and their children with mere crumbs of their own success.”
The essence of nomocracy, the rule of law, is limitation of the discretion of officials, and providing a process by which errors or abuse of discretioncan be corrected. Some discretion is unavoidable, because law cannot anticipate every eventuality or how to decide which law may apply to a given situation. What guidance the law cannot provide is supposed to be provided by standard principles of justice and due process, reason, and the facts of each case. Ideally, officials should be mutually consistent and interchangeable, making similar decisions in similar cases, so that no one can gain an undue advantage by choosing the official or exercisingundue influence on the official or on the process he operates. We trust officials to exercise such discretion as they have with wisdom, justice, and competence, to avoid government that is arbitrary, insolent, discriminatory, prejudiced, intrusive and corrupt.
Within the public sector, discretion can be exercised by legislative, executive, or judicial officials. Within the private sector, discretion may be exercised by private officials, such as agents, trustees or corporate officers, who are in principle subject to the supervision of the courts. The focus here is on judicial discretion, and the abuse of it. It will not discuss every area of judicial discretion.
The first major check on the discretion of judges was the jury. A judge, holding office over the course of multiple cases, and selected by appointment or election, is susceptible to undue influence. A jury, chosen by sortation, or lot, for a single case, just before the case, is less likely to be corrupted, and having multiple jurors render verdicts collectively provides a check by each on the others. What they might lack in knowledge of the law is offset by their connection to the non-legal environment in which most people subject to the law must operate.
In courts that try to save time and money by not using juries, such as family courts in some states, complaints about abuse of judicial discretion have led to calls for juries to decide questions of custody, visitation, child support, and the distribution of marital property.
Judges who impose lenient sentences, to avoid prison overcrowding and the early release of violent offenders, often provoke demands for mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing guidelines that reduce their discretion to do things like impose reduced sentences on defendants thought to be remorseful or unlikely to commit another offense.
Most complaints of abuse of judicial discretion, and calls to limit it with more laws, concern questions of policy or equity. But there is another broad category, which concerns constitutional questions of due process and civil rights. This is too large a field to discuss adequately in a short article, so only a few of the more important kinds of judicial discretion that are often being abused will be presented.
Stare decisis is the doctrine according to which a judge in a current case treats decisions in past similar cases as authoritative precedents, and refuses to make the decision in a way that departs from such precedents, regarding all of them as correctly decided. There is a place for giving weight to precedents, especially in civil cases and matters of equity, and to clarify ambiguities in the black letter law, but it is an abuse of judicial discretion to treat precedents as though they are law, equal or superior to black letter law, especially when that black letter law is a written constitution. Only the edict, the finding and the order, are law in a judicial decision, and only for the parties involved. The opinion concerning how the decision was reached may be persuasive on its merits, and indicative of how the same court might decide a similar case, but it is dictum, or commentary, not law, and it is an abuse of judicial discretion to fail to exhaust textual analysis and legislative history before considering precedent, and making sure that the chain of precedents has not wandered away from the bounds of the black letter law.
Deference to legislature and administration
While it is appropriate to defer to the legislative and executive branches on questions peculiar to those branches and their constitutional duties, all too often judges abuse their discretion by so deferring in cases where officials of those branches have clearly exceeded their authority. This is sometimes signaled in a decision that declares the matter a “political question”. Sometimes it is, at least in part, but judges have a duty to act where constitutional bounds are clearly exceeded, and their failure to do so indicates a lack of true judicial independence of the other other branches and the pressures those branches can bring to bear. The result is the Administrative State, the result of failure to enforce the nondelegation doctrine. Part of the solution may be to select judges by sortition.
Habeas corpus and quo warranto
Any person has the right to petition for release of a prisoner if the official holding him does not prove sufficient authority to do so. A writ of habeas corpus is a subspecies of a writ of quo warranto, the right to have an official cease or refrain from some action unless he proves sufficient authority for it. Only the first is explicitly protected in the U.S. Constitution, but the latter is implied by the due process and nondelegation clauses and amendments. The principle involved is the presumption that an official lacks authority for an action unless he can prove he has it, so that a petition for either writ does not imply a right to both oyer (fair hearing) and terminer(decision on the merits) for the petitioner, but only terminer. The right of oyer belongs to the respondent for such a petition. If the response is inadequate, or the court does not have time for oyer, then its duty is to grant the writ. The problem is that judges, especially federal judges when the respondent is a federal official, are too often failing to act on habeas petitions, on various pretexts, thereby reversing the presumption in favor of the official and his actions.
Petitions for writs of quo warranto are systematically ignored or dismissed, sometimes on the grounds of lack of legislative authority, but no legislative authority is needed. There is no appeal from such inaction. Law provides petitioners only the option of trying again with another judge, thereby encouraging forum shopping. Complaints of judicial misconduct for such denial or inaction are also being systematically ignored. This should not really be called an abuse of judicial discretion because by law a judge has no discretion on terminer, but it has emerged as a practice that undermines all the other protections of the Constitution.
Both petit and grand juries are supposed to be selected at random from the community, a process called sortition, with some screening out of jurors who cannot be impartial or who have some hardships or critical duties. However, judges too often abuse their discretion to pack juries with persons who are partial in various ways. One way is to demand that jurors take an oath to “follow the law” as given by the judge. That enables the judge to misinstruct the jury as to what the law is.
Trial jury access
In the early Republic, the standard practice of due process was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, which enabled them to learn what the legal issues were along with the judge, that is, the presiding magistrate, and we can presume that this practice was part of what the Founders meant by “due process” in the Constitution. However, judges have abused their discretion by adopting the practice of requiring pleadings to be submitted to them by the litigants in writing, and not allowing copies to be provided the jury, nor allowing the attorneys to make legal arguments in the presence of the jury. This has given judges control over the trial in ways that largely subverts the protections that the jury is supposed to provide, because it does not allow jurors to hear argument, in a criminal trial, that the court does not have jurisdiction, or that the charge is not authorized by a statute, or the statute by the state or federal constitution, or that the statute is misapplied to the facts of the case, or that the rights of the accused were infringed by investigatory, prosecutorial, or judicial misconduct.
Grand jury access
The problem is often revealed by the old prosecutor’s joke that he could get the grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich”. Originally, in the early Republic, there were no public prosecutors. Criminal prosecutions were conducted by private attorneys, either paid by the victims, by subscription, or appointed by the judge to serve pro bono. When public prosecutors began to be appointed, they soon assumed an undue influence over grand juries, with the support of abuse of judicial discretion by the judges. This is aided by a lack of civic education of the public concerning the duties of grand jurors, or by packing grand juries with cronies of the judicial establishment.
In almost every state and in the federal courts it is within judicial discretion for the judge to grant access to the courts to any person to conduct a criminal prosecution, but except in Texas, such petitions are systematically ignored or dismissed. This is a special problem when the suspects are public officials, cronies of the prosecutor or judge. Barring private criminal prosecutions without just cause is an abuse of judicial discretion.
Private prosecution of public rights, Qui tam and ex relatione
There is a right for any person to seek declaratory or injunctive relief against any illegal action by government officials without having to have been personally injured, but since 1922 courts have been abusing their judicial discretion by denying standing to plaintiffs who cannot prove personal injury. There is a related right, qui tam, of any person to act in the place of the government, ex. rel., when the government will not do so, to protect the rights of persons and to enforce the law.
Contempt & coercive detention
There is no power delegated in the U.S. Constitution for a federal judge to prosecute anyone for contempt of court, except on federal territory, under Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 or Art. IV Sec. 3 Cl. 2, or to imprison someone indefinitely to coerce him into doing something. It was anticipated by the Founders that all federal courthouses would be sited in federal enclaves, but not all of them are, and the orders and contempt actions are often extended beyond the territorial limits of such enclaves, where federal courts have no such jurisdiction.
Although the original stated purpose of licensing and delicensing lawyers was to protect the public from dishonest or incompetent ones, licensing and the influence judges have over disbarment is too often abused to suppress lawyers who might challenge their abuses.
The other side of controlling lawyers with threats of contempt or disbarment is systematic protection of them from being sued, by abusing judicial discretion to punish persons who might have the temerity to do so, and their lawyers if they can get any to represent them. Violators of this “unwritten law” find all their motions thereafter being ignored or denied, regardless of merit.
It is appropriate for judges to have a limited immunity from being sued for their judicial decisions if they are merely the result of error or incompetence. The remedy for that is appeal to a higher court. The problem is that judges abuse their judicial discretion to protect themselves and other judges from civil and criminal liability for being unduly influenced, such as by bribery, intimidation or cronyism.
Pro se litigants
Instead of accommodating to the lack of legal knowledge of lay persons who either cannot afford a lawyer, or who don’t trust lawyers who are subject to the control of the courts, judges and court personnel systematically discriminate against litigants who appear pro se or in propria persona, often dismissing their petitions or motions out of hand, regardless of their merits. That is abuse of judicial discretion.
Judges have adopted the practice in criminal trials of requiring the defense to make a motion for affirmative defense, which could be a defense like self-defense that admits to the facts and argues the actions were justified, or which seeks to prove someone else committed the crime. The original rationale for this was to provide the prosecution due notice so they can prepare their response. It is normally granted, but in the 1994 Davidian trial it was denied, much to the surprise of defense attorneys, who planned to argue self-defense. To prevent the defense from submitting an offer of proof, which would be grounds for reversal on appeal, the judge agreed, if they would refrain from doing so, to include an instruction to the jury that they could consider self-defense, but he would not allow argument and evidence of self-defense during trial. Thinking their best chance lay in agreeing to that, the defense attorneys went along with this abuse of judicial discretion. However, other instructions misled the jury into convicting some of the defendants on sentencing enhancements, even though they acquitted all of them on the base offenses, and the judge sentenced them for the enhancements as though they had been found guilty of the base offenses.
Mens rea defense
In criminal cases, by original constitutional standards, the elements of proof of a criminal charge are mens rea, actus reus, concurrence, causation, and harm. The first, mens rea, is “criminal intent”, and judges are allowing criminal prosecutions to proceed without proof of it, especially when the statutes prohibit acts that are malum prohibitum instead of malum in se. In this judges are aided by abuse of discretion by legislators, but it is still abuse of discretion.
In general, it seems that judges are unwilling to explicitly specify whether mothers or fathers are the preferred parents, with the exception of the situation when children are under the age of six, in which case they believe that the mother is the preferred parent. Although they disagreed with the specification of either parent as better than the other, … the disagreement was stronger with regard to the father. Overall, on each of the five items, the means indicated a preference toward mothers over fathers, which are consistent with the theory of maternal preference.
When I heard about Megyn Kelly and this War on Women being waged by Donald Trump, like any conscientious American, I offered to enlist my services to defend our country against a pending invasion. Admittedly I had selfish reasons: two precious daughters, hot girlfriends, the best mom a guy could hope for, and countless womenI have protected over the years as a civil rights advocate. God forbid some guy named Trump would harm them in any way.
The problem was I could find nothing to show that this Donald guy harmed any woman, let alone someone I knew. Worse yet, I discovered that I was an unwitting member of the enemy camp, a likely conscript of the Trump juggernaut, a person of opposite gender and a full one-half of the human population. The invaders were everywhere, well beyond the skills of our finest military personnel. It was a war like no other, and I must confess it scared the Hillary out of me.
The first thing I logically did was consult our Constitution to check for veracity. It clearly stated that only Congress could declare this war. Alas there was no such declaration. But because that never stopped any president in recent memory, I knew this war could be occurring without our consent. And that required me to investigate further even if it meant wiping out the other half of humanity and our species altogether. Hey don’t blame me, I had nothing to do with this war.
I then learned that such a war could only be declared by a member of an obscure faction known as IML (Insecure Man-hating Liberals). The other wars included poverty, the environment and the War on Wars (2008 presidential elections). Sadly we lost all of them with the exception of a highly classified War on Fathers in our nation’s family courts. With all of Trump’s wealth and success rates in comparison, I knew we were in real trouble.
So I visited the SWDC (Strategic Woman Defense Command) headed by, you guessed it, Megyn Kelly. Someone named Caitlyn refused entry due to enemy suspicions, but I was able to learn the action plan from e-mails of our former Secretary of State. In a nutshell, it was to fake an attack like Tonkin Bay, alarm the public to expand our federal bureaucracy and raise taxes until the last factory left for China. My gosh, the Soviets were right! We could be conquered from within.
In the end I surmised that Orson Welles must have been a part of all the hysteria. His 1938 radio classic, War of the Worlds, caused widespread panic based on a Martian invasion. Learning from history and the likes of Queen Victoria or Catherine the Great, I concluded that this War on Women was actually a War on Men and an insult to all who served our country in the real wars. Over 58,000 are found on the Viet Nam Wall in Washington D.C. All but eight are men.
We ask all of our followers to submit copies of this editorial to your local newspaper for publication.
Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice
Children are human beings, not belongings. Children need the love, caring, nurturing, and guidance of both their mother and father throughout their lives. “Awarding” custody of a child to either the mother or father in divorce creates an atmosphere of contempt and competition, but more importantly it deprives the child of the benefit of the day to day nurturing of either their mother or father.
Research has shown in a dramatic fashion the long term devastating effects removal of a parent has on children. The following statistics from the American Psychological Association found along with other shared parenting research gathered together online at http://www.HelpStopPAS.com have been duplicated in a number of studies, including those from the U.S. Department of Education.
Psychologist Robert Bauserman, Ph.D., of Administration/Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in Baltimore, Maryland conducted a meta-analysis of 33 studies between 1982 to 1999 that examined 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children. The studies compared child adjustment in joint physical or joint legal custody with sole-custody settings and 251 intact families. Joint custody was defined as either physical custody – where a child spends equal or substantial amounts of time with both parents or shared legal custody – where a child lives with primarily one parent but both parents are involved in all aspects of the child’s life. This article will appear in the March issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavior and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. And these children were as well-adjusted as intact family children on the same measures, said Bauserman, “probably because joint custody provides the child with an opportunity to have ongoing contact with both parents.
These findings indicate that children do not actually need to be in a joint physical custody to show better adjustment but just need to spend substantial time with both parents, especially with their fathers, said Bauserman. Also, joint custody couples reported less conflict, possibly because both parents could participate in their children’s lives equally and not spend the time arguing over childcare decisions. Unfortunately a perception exists that joint custody is more harmful because it exposes children to ongoing parental conflict. In fact, the studies in this review found that sole-custody parents reported higher levels of conflict.
Harvard also conducted studies with the following results: Adolescents After Divorce, Buchanan, C., Maccoby, and Dornbusch, Harvard University Press,1996.
A study of 517 families with children ranging in age from 10.5 years to 18 years, across a four and a half year period. Measures were: assessed depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades. Children in shared parenting arrangements were found to have better adjustment on these measures than those in sole custody.
With these statistics it is easy to see that shared parenting is in the best interest of the child. Shared parenting legislation would also strengthen our family values and society as a whole. A study conducted by Richard Kuhn et al with The Children’s Rights Council showed a decline in divorce rates in states that allow joint physical custody.
The evidence reported in the paper indicates that widespread acceptance of joint physical custody will not increase the divorce rate, and may in fact reduce divorce. States whose family law policies – either by statute or through judicial practice – encourage joint custody have shown a much greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody. REMEMBER THE $50 BILLION DOLLARS.
The decline was attributed to a number of factors. States that favor sole custody in divorce may thus expect to see more divorce than states that encourage joint custody. On a practical level, joint physical custody makes it less likely that a parent can move to another city to eliminate interaction with the other parent. Because both parents provide for the child directly, child support payments may be somewhat lower with joint custody, reducing financial motives for divorce. Perhaps most significant, joint custody also removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children.
A vast amount of research has found that shared parenting will not only strengthen the institution of marriage in our country but also give our nation’s children the love and companionship they need from both their mother and father to mature into productive and respected members of our society. Shared parenting is no longer a concept that needs to be debated; it has been tested and proven to be the preferred custody arrangement in a divorce situation. In absence of mental illness or abuse children are entitled to the right of a close continued relationship with both parents without interference from either parent or the court.
With this information it would be abusive towards parents and children not to act in the children’s best interest. The best interest of the children is equal time with both parents; shared parenting.
With this in mind consider the findings from the United States Department of Education: “More than a quarter of American Children, 24 MILLION, do not live with their father. Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Both girls and boys are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.” — HHS Press Release, Friday, March 26, 1999.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent and serious matter.
Lawyers and Judges have fiduciary duties under their codes of conduct to “insure the Integrity of the judiciary and the legal system” (Canon 1 and RPC Preamble #1 )” and to report to the appropriate authority if a lawyer or judge engages in conduct that runs contrary to promoting “public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law” (RPC 8.3, Canon 3(b)(5) and Canon 1 and RPC Preamble #6 respectively) which may “injure our system of government under law” (Canon 1).
The problem: these self-regulating privileges devolved to a point where judges and lawyers have absolved themselves of these “fiduciary duties” and in fact have absolved themselves of their lawful duties. Said another way, the public’s confidence in the judiciary and in the rule of law has been severely injured by the moral and ethical inbreeding in self-regulation. Richard A. Posner, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, writes, “Moral inbreeding may be as dangerous as biological inbreeding”. Clearly the legal profession has been inbreeding for decades and this accounts for the ethical and moral mutations that now plague our justice system.
A national, nonpartisan,nonprofit citizens’ organization documenting how judges break the law and get away with it. Our Mission . . .To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by ensuring that the process of disciplining and removing judges is effective and meaningful.
DID YOU REPORT THE MISCONDUCT? ____________ IF SO, TO WHOM? ______________________________________
WAS THE PERSON REPRIMANDED? __________ IF SO, HOW? _________________________________________________
(Use additional sheet if necessary)
DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR STATE AND/OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED? YES □ NO □ DON’T KNOW □
I attest under penalty of perjury that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Mail to: The Attorney General of the United States, Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W,Washington, DC 20530-0001 – Fax no. 202-307-6777 Email: Askdoj@usdoj.gov
(Keep a copy for your records) NOT A LAWYER —-LEGAL STATEMENT —–NOT an Attorney, Lawyer, Juris Doctor, Barrister, Solicitor…you get the idea. NO legal advice on this entire blog and this site is for information only. Nothing here should be construed as legal advice. While we find the information here interesting, we may not be in agreement with everything. The SOLE opinion of posts are for education purposes ONLY. Please voice your opinion on your experiences, evidence, nightmare, and documentation! ADVISORY~~> This site is for information only. Nothing here should be construed as legal advice. While we find the information here interesting, we may not be in agreement with everything. Nothing should be taken as fact without verification.
A professional firm hired to evaluate this website issued a report this past week ranking it in the 18,000 range for activity worldwide. This was noted as a very high status considering our utter lack of financial support and the likelihood that there are that many websites in New York City alone. It may also be explained by unique niche we have filled regarding overdue reforms in family court.
CAUSES.COM/CHILDRENSRIGHTS — October 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM ~~
By Darby Jay @ Target Children Parents Relatives Society –
“I am a father…Not a deadbeat…Not a coward…Not a man that runs away from being a father, or a deserter of my own flesh and blood. Not a sperm donor or a court appointed ATM, but a Father in the purest form of the word. And while choosy “Moms choose Jif”; I sit, at 3:05 am holding the hot hands of a sick 7 year old princess. But that’s my job. Because…I am a Father. I would speak to my daughter while she was in utero. She would respond with little kicks and from the womb…we interacted, and hadn’t even seen each other yet. When you immediately accept that, even before your child takes its first breath, you are already a Father; you immediately begin to bond with your child. (I am a Father)
The Family Law Court System as a whole, and it’s Judges, destroy the lives of children and in turn entire families by violating a Father’s right to “Due Process” and “Equal Protection” under the law. But we’ve known that for decades. Anyone that thinks or believes that there is “Due Process” for Fathers in the Family Law Court System should be placed in a padded room and heavily sedated. Why is it ok for Fathers to miss their children? Why is it ok for a Father to be sick and wrapped in worry? Why is it permissible for “Non Custodial” parents to start legal proceedings at an immediate disadvantage? Why is there no legislation in place to safeguard Fathers that are being swept in amid the men that make us all look bad? We are judged before the first hearing? It physically hurts on days (that) I don’t have my daughter with me. “DEPRESSION HURTS!” as the commercial for anti-depressants says…right? (It hurts because…I am a Father.)
Ask yourself, what parent wouldn’t be stressed sleepless concerned about their child? Therefore forcing time away from a parent and child would reasonably cause a great deal of stress and worry.. .to truly say the least. But the Family Law Court (and) its Judges are far from reasonable. Now, just imagine that you’re sitting at your desk at work, and two armed Sheriffs approach the receptionist’s desk, then your intercom buzzes, and you are then summoned to the front desk The Sheriff asks you for your name. And then politely informs you that you have been served with child support papers. And that’s just the beginning. Keep in mind that you are the same father that went through the entire pregnancy, CPR classes, ultrasounds, the Birth…ya know Dad stuff. For the record, (a sidebar really); Any man that has stood side by side, each day and night for nine months with a hormonal, morning, noon and night vomiting, habitual mood swinger knows that Fathers don’t exactly have it easy during a nine month pregnancy either. Weather you are an amazing Father, or a deadbeat looser, Family Law Court will filter your life through Hell all the same. I am a Father.
With no criminal record, never been arrested, no history of violence, domestic or other; At what point did I ask to be Non-Custodial.? There is nothing “Non-Custodial” about me! I have never needed a Court’s Order to care for my Daughter. Since when have I not been a Father? I clinch my fist and grit my teeth while, the very system set in place to protect our families not only fatally fails, but spits in my face and violates my rights.” (I AM A FATHER!)
If you said President of these United States or CEO of the most iconic and “valuable” company in the world, Apple Computer, you would be very wrong. “Most powerful” or “most influential” might apply, but not “most important.”
The most important job in the world, by far, is birthing, educating, and responsibly raising children to grow into accountable, productive citizens of this planet. Parenting/mentoring is the most important job of all!
Most people pondering the question just posed would likely agree with the above answer. We are accustomed to the expression, “grass-roots movement,” a phrase prevalent in today’s news, particularly when applied to forms of social protest. Having spent seventy-four years plus as a member and active observer of the SHB, the Society of Human Beings, I conclude that the majority of mankind’s domestic and global ills can only be cured by administering a strong dose of self-help…at the grass-roots…
Award-Winning and Prize-Winning Author of Access Denied, The Wretched, The Roots of Evil, The Ghost of Clothes, Omonolidee, First Words and Unzipped: The Mind of a Madman, The Deeper Roots of Evil, along with numerous short stories, poems and articles.