Saturday, August 09, 2014
Family Courts are injuring "fit" parents by allowing false allegations of domestic violence strip a father's right to access his child. There are several well documented "Family Court CAUSED" Post Traumatic Stress Disorder cases logged with the Florida Department of Health. To make matters worse the children are hurting because of the lies. False allegations of domestic violence IS domestic violence. AND Parental Alienation is CHILD ABUSE!!! These lies are formulated by attorneys, recommendations to the clients to file FALSE POLICE REPORTS (Information Only Reports). Parents are unjustly denied access because of the PTSD injury the "Family Court CAUSED"; believing accusations without REAL evidence, not an "Information Only Police Report". Ironic? YES and ILLEGAL!! Furthermore it's DISCRIMINATION by a Family Court Judge who has "Absolute Judicial Discretion" in an EMPTY COURTROOM!!! So lets say you walk into family court to do the right thing, as a petitioner, asking for contact, responsibility, "to pay" child support; then the Judge hits you with her mallet and cripples dad. Then, dad enters limping back into Family Court, the Judge says "you cannot see your child because you're crippled". Then the Judge removes herself from the case when dad (petitioner) tells the Florida Bar AND the Judge about the ILLEGAL POLICE REPORT AND PERJURY BY MOM. The requirement and Standard for Preponderance of Evidence to separate a child from a parent IGNORED!!!08-29595
Evidence inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act:
18 U.S. Code § 3504 - Litigation concerningsources of evidence
(a) In any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States—
(1) upon a claim by a party aggrieved that evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act, the opponent of the claim shall affirm or deny the occurrence of the alleged unlawful act;
(2) disclosure of information for a determination if evidence is inadmissible because it is the primary product of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, or because it was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, shall not be required unless such information may be relevant to a pending claim of such inadmissibility; and
(3) no claim shall be considered that evidence of an event is inadmissible on the ground that such evidence was obtained by the exploitation of an unlawful act occurring prior to June 19, 1968, if such event occurred more than five years after such allegedly unlawful act.
(b) As used in this section “unlawful act” means any act the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in section 2510 (5) of this title) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any regulation or standard promulgated pursuant thereto.
A case for establishing complicated grief as a distinct mental disorder in DSM-V - SCIENCE DIRECT
Understand that having your kids taken from you is not something the courts should be doing lightly. We all know that, but how does one push the issue before a court headed by entrenched child trafficking corruption?
My opinion is that no one should be bothering with that. Instead, it seems clear to mine eyes that "child separation anxiety" and subsequent"grief" are together "distinct mental disorder" clearly qualifying individual sufferers as "disabled".
The right of access to LEGITIMATE court services is discussed in Tennssee v. Lane.
"Title II (of the ADA) is aimed at the enforcement of a variety of basic rights, including the right of access to the courts at issue in this case, that call for a standard of judicial review at least as searching, and in some cases more searching, than the standard that applies to sexbased classifications."
In my opinion, and what I am currently working on, is not something so intimidating (at its genesis) as a full lawsuit against court officials (which almost assuredly would be doomed under the current unlawful doctrines the federal courts maintain toward snuffing out such suits), but rather something so simple that everyone reading this -- with or without much legal knowledge -- can accomplish it simply.
If diagnosed with any type of child separationanxiety (be honest) by a psychologist (or psychiatrist I guess, but I'd go with the psychologist on this one), then arguably such an evaluation would demonstrate "qualification" as a disabled person under the ADA. Legitimately based on excessive removal of one's own children.
A request for disability accommodation asking for the correction of this disability-causing problem would surpass reasonable into necessary. "Court, you are disabling me by the severity of your removal of my children. Here's the medical evidence. Here's my request that you fix your proceedings/process to knock the shit off."