The gruesome and compelling statistics about how the growth of State power has displaced fatherhood and crippled the traditional family, and its effects on innocent and helpless children.
Brought to you by Stefan Molybeux, host of Freedomain Radio, the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web - http://www.freedomainradio.com
“The greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary.” — Chief Justice John Marshall
Should any Man or Woman be above the law?
For far too long, the judicial branch of government has operated above the very laws they seek to enforce on society. They sit in judgment of citizens with no check and balances.
This is clearly not constitutional.
This legal loop hole has long been used as a means of corrupting judges.
When there is no recourse for the people, and no means of redressing the grievances of the people; then there can be no justice.
No one should be beyond the laws that all of the citizens of any society must live by.
Over two twenty people testified of the complete corruption of our family courts in Miami and all across the state of Florida.
We need to expose the corruption, and demand protection for our children and families.
See "The Dysfunctional Family Court System Organizational Chart":
Only as ONE, we will defeat this great evil.
JUDICIAL IMMUNITY vs. DUE PROCESS
WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE BE SUBJECT TO SUIT?
The Pink Slip Project - A Solution To Overhaul The Dysfunctional Family Court System In Florida. ~~ New Judge Say NO! To PAS
We are all helping each other with causes, right?
The stories of court cases you will read are obviously "personal" to the authors so please be considerate. Remember this is about Family Court and those who administer it, such as Judges and Lawyers.
We believe this Cause helps all of us, especially our children - and the Future.
We need to take Absolute Judicial Discretion AND Immunity off the table in FAMILY COURT.
We need to hold the entire Judicial Community responsible for the actions and decisions made by Family Court Judges when PROOF of injury, loss of property, self and other family and so on.
- PROOF of Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- PROOF of Negligent infliction of emotional distress
- PROOF of Extreme emotional distress
- PROOF of Abuse of "your"Family Legal System
- PROOF of Legal abuse and intentional vexatious Family Law litigation
So let me remind you about a little town called Birmingham in 1956 a group of men from Miles College orchestrated a boycott. You see annually the black community spent approximately $3 MILLION dollars during the Easter Holiday in downtown Birmingham stores. After the first year stores in that area, like JC Penny's and Loews, began to allow blacks to access the water fountains and bathrooms, cafeterias, and so forth. Look it up because it's a great story. Can you imagine what those men could have dome if the internet existed in 1956??
Please post your stories, if you have them, of family court injustice.
THE INTIMIDATION BY FAMILY COURT JUDGES MUST STOP!
Please sign and recruit as many people as you can.
Children, Families and Society as a whole are being undermined by the effects Family Law Courts, Child Protection Services and other associated agencies have on their LIVES! This needs to be exposed NOW!
Judicial Accountability Committee (JAC) gets regular requests from individuals seeking assistance with injustices they are facing in the criminal justice system, family courts and in other spheres of public life. Because of the numbers of people seeking help, and the limitations of our resources, we must be highly selective of the cases we take.
If you wish to apply for our assistance, there are a few requirements you must meet, and some matters that we must make perfectly clear before reviewing your information and making a determination on whether we can do any work on your behalf. Our terms are direct and to the point. This is not to offend you or put you off, but to give you complete honesty from the beginning.
"The father's rights movement isn't an anti-mom or anti-woman movement; it's an anti-unfairness movement. It just so happens that moms have most of the power in the family court system in America." ~ Attorney Joseph E. Cordell
Good fathers are being systematically removed from their children in domestic relations courts around our country through discriminatory laws which support a multi-billion dollar government industry. It is a form of oppression where innocent children become the hard victims.
Our talents, health and productivity are being lost to a litigious system focused on the ever elusive child’s best interests. We have come a long way since the Dred Scott decision.
Let's Join Purple Keyboard Campaign 4 Family Justice Reform!
Let us make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protection
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeletePRO SE RIGHTS:
ReplyDeleteBrotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.
Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."
NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."
Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."
Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).
Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."
Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."
Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."
Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."