Lawyers would rather try heinous murder cases rather than one family law case.

Family law is not for the faint of heart, and institute teaches best principles and methods ~ Tulsa WorldAmerica legal system failure 2016

Family law is a tough practice.

Children’s futures are at stake. Homes and any monies involved are being divided. Cases turn ugly in a moment, and attorneys representing their clients must be prepared for these sometimes unexpected mood shifts.

Family Court vs Criminal Court - 2016.pngSome Tulsa attorneys admit they would rather try a number of heinous murder cases rather than one family law case.

Judges have been heard to say they dread the controversial and contested family law cases because no one clearly is the winner and everyone loses when all cards have been played.we-need-a-winner-2015

Even attorneys involved in a family law practice have difficult times because of the twists and turns a case might have. Shane Henry, who practices family law with the Fry and Elder Law Firm, said he consistently lost cases during his first three years in practice and knew he needed additional training.

The question was where to go.

Continue reading

Fathers for Equal Rights! #FatherlessDay

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

Rewrite of the Florida Family Law Rules almost complete.

Florida Bar News - Dec 2015Rewrite of the family law rules almost complete

By Gary Blankenship
Senior Editor

After years of discussion followed by four years of hard work, the Bar’s Family Law Rules Committee is putting the finishing touches on a complete rewrite of family law procedural rules.

The rewrite ends all references to the Civil Procedure Rules, by incorporating all of those passages into the family rules and tweaking some to meet the unique demands of family practices. The rewrite does not change references to the Rules of Judicial Administration that cover topics common to all practice areas.

Elizabeth BlackburnElizabeth Blackburn, immediate past chair of the Family Law Rules Committee, and one of several committee members who chaired the redrafting subcommittee, said the goal was to make the rules easier to use, both for practitioners and pro se litigants who are common in family law cases.

The effort, though, has sparked a discussion about whether the committee went too far in eliminating all references to civil rules and whether procedural rules should have as many common elements as possible or be more specialized.

Blackburn said one of the concerns leading to the rewrite is that family practitioners had to keep on hand three sets of procedural rules: family law rules for issues specific to family law cases; Civil Procedure Rules for when the family law rules say an issue will be governed by civil rules; and the Rules of Judicial Administration for items common to all practice areas, such an e-filing, court procedures, and protection of confidential information.45618-anti-family

“If the Civil Procedure Rules Committee makes a change and the Supreme Court ultimately approves the change, then family law rules are automatically bound by that change,” Blackburn said. “What has happened over time is sometimes those changes have not been suitable for family. What we have done in this proposed amendment package of rules is we are not making changes willy-nilly. In many instances the language of the existing civil rule is carried over in its entirety.”

What the subcommittee did, she said, is take all of the civil rules that were referred to in the family rules and put them in the family rules, ending all civil references.JUDGE You are FIRED - 2015-16

“It gives us the ability to not have to react when another rule body makes a change that impacts us,” Blackburn said. “In family law, some things are unique.”

As an example, she cited discovery issues, where family law had some of its own rules and others still referred to civil rules.

“We have unique discovery obligations,” Blackburn said. “We already had a rule over what has to be disclosed. We also have general discovery rules that govern our practice. We had to be careful and cautious about what, if any, changes we made.”

Another concern was self-represented parties, who make up a large portion of family law cases.

“Our practice more than any other is impacted by pro se litigants and it will continue to be impacted,” Blackburn said. “Perhaps the goal isn’t to make sure every pro se litigant knows what to do, but we do have to be mindful to make the process accessible. . . .fam221

“Now [except for the RJA matters] you don’t have to keep flipping back and forth between a family law rule and a civil rule. It’s all going to be in one place. We are hoping it makes it easier.”

The rewrite effort has earned the endorsement of the Family Law Section, which made suggestions for minor improvements and were accepted by the rules committee, when the tentative rewrite was published for comment in the August 1 Bar News. The revised rules will be published again for comment in the News before the rules are submitted to the Bar Board of Governors. Any comments the board makes will be submitted with the rules rewrite when it goes to the Supreme Court, and it will again be noticed for comment.

“It’s been a really collaborative effort,” said Family Law Section Chair Maria Gonzalez. “We’re pleased with all of the hard work that’s been put into this. I do believe it’s going to be a good and favorable product for all of the practitioners in the field. It gives more clarity. Any time it gives more clarity to specific rules, I think it can only assist practitioners.”f65db-florida2bjudges2b-2b2015

Two outside issues may draw extra attention to rewrite of the family law rules. One is an interest expressed by the Supreme Court in reducing the size of procedural rules, perhaps by as much as 50 percent. The Board of Governors Program Evaluation Committee is studying procedural rules and ways to simplify them and could have a report by the end of the year.

The second issue is an ongoing debate over how specialized specific procedural rules should be, as opposed to having more rules in common between the various rules sets.

Both issues were discussed at the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee meeting when it met September 18 at The Florida Bar’s Fall Meeting – immediately after the Family Law Rules Committee met and adopted its modifications to the new rules.

The RJA Committee discussed an ongoing review by the Board of Governors Program Evaluation Committee on the procedural rules and ways of simplifying them and rejected a motion to recommend that the Board of Governors appoints a special committee with “knowledgeable members” to explore that issue. The RJAC instead took no action beyond its discussion.

The committee had an extensive discussion about the revised family rules directly incorporating civil rules and ending the references to civil rules.

RJA Committee member Paul Regensdorf said what the new family rules do is “with the absolute best of intentions take about 15 to 20 basic rules of procedures, contexts that every lawyer uses, and copy them or tweak them. . .and now they’ve put them in a whole new rule.”

That rule, he said, will inevitably be interpreted by judges and differences will creep in between the family rules and similar rules in other practice areas, ultimately creating a more complex rule structure for lawyers who practice in several areas and for judges who handle different kinds of cases.

“The civil rules are a basic set of concept rules,” Regensdorf argued. “A deposition is a deposition is a deposition. In the motion rules, a motion is a motion is a motion. It doesn’t need to be written in a second place.”

In a computerized world, he added, it’s easy for practitioners to flip back and forth between electronic family, civil, and RJA rule sets.

The RJAC rejected a motion to develop a committee response to the new Family Law Rules and instead voted to instruct Chair Amy Borland to prepare a comment, based on a subcommittee’s review of the new rules and how they deviate from past practices, for when the rules are submitted to the Supreme Court.

Source: Rewrite of the family law rules almost complete

Continue reading