Broken and Corrupt Family Court System

FAMILY COURT CPS  WATCHDOGS

Families are being abused by State CPS and Family Courts through out the United States of America!

Dads Advocating For Children's Equal Time With BOTH Parents

Several of our videos because of our promotion of activism and open disdain for our judiciary are blocked from play on mainstream sites. This video can only be seen on my hard drive and on dailymotion. Lets see how long it lasts on Facebook...
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Tuesday, October 20, 2015

25 MILLION American Children are being Abused! Parental Alienation it's harms the heart, mind and spirit of our childrenIt's time for a change!Equal Parenting Rights, It's the true Best Interest of our Children
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Sunday, October 4, 2015

(anti) Family court is a deadly business.
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Equal Parenting Bike Trek CRISPE and Fathers4Justice Swarm a P...
Equal Parenting Bike Trek CRISPE and Fathers4Justice Swarm a PA Courthouse
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Monday, August 31, 2015

F4J First Annual Fatherless Day
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Fatherless Day 2012
Fatherless Day 2012 MO
Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Saturday, June 16, 2012

Posted by Fathers-4-Justice USA on Tuesday, May 15, 2012

If you are facing Family Court Abuse and Children Protection Services Agency: CPS-DFYS / DCP&P / DCF / DHHS [whatever name CPS is called in your state]  is involved in your case please join us to help defeat their fraud, pain and suffering, emotional, physical, psychological and financial abuse -racket.

United we can! This is NOT Fathers Rights groups but FAMILIES fighting together the system. There are woman and men protecting our children's future that understand that Judges are destroying us all for money.

Men's Rights Internet Statement

– Living Document Born March 2013

General principles that we believe are a forming, coalescing consensus.

A working group formed in December of 2012 through a variety of men’s rights publications, forums, and YouTube channels. Over four dozen people from around the globe participated in making suggestions and giving general input. Despite the large number of people from diverse backgrounds, and the fact that almost none of the participants knew most of the others, its development was shockingly un-contentious, even on some of the more contentious points.

This is not a document anyone is expected to sign or pledge to. It is an effort to identify a general consensus.

NOTICE To F*ck This Court and Everything that it Stands For.

NOTICE To F*ck This Court and Everything that it Stands For.

Tamah Jada Clark’s fitting title for her April 20 filing with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is:

Clark, who identifies herself as a “Floridian-American,” claims that her civil rights were violated five years ago when she was arrested for plotting to break the father of her baby out of prison.

Fittingly, her memo is full of what is, to say the least, a dismissive attitude towards Judge Willis Hunt and other agents of the government.

“You think because you sit up there in that little black robe hiding behind the ignorance of the masses like a little b*tch, that ANYBODY gives a d*mn about you or what you have to say?” Clark says. “Well, just in case you haven’t noticed-I couldn’t give two f*cks about you or what you have to say. F*ck you, old man. You’re a joke. Your court’s a joke. You take it up the a*s; and you suck nuts. Lol.”

Read the rest of the filing below:

Super Dads Who Have Angry Moms

Filmmaker Al Greeze Exposes Unfair Family Courts

Filmmaker Al Greeze's new documentary, "Frustrated 2: Mama's Baby, Daddy's Maybe," exposes many of the injustices fathers face in family courts.

A Father's Nightmare ~ Hold Judges Gone Wild Accountable!!

Has a judge violated your constitutional rights?

Have you been discriminated against by being treated differently than other people in similar situations by reason of race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual preference or political opinion?

Have you lost certain rights without a meaningful hearing or even an opportunity to be heard?

Have you been deprived of any other constitutional protection? Have you been subject to Court action for the purpose of intimidating you from exercising an opinion, or practicing your faith?

Don't let them get away with it!

Although it is almost impossible to recover monetary damages from a judge (unless you can prove he or she acted ultra-vires beyond his or her legal jurisdiction) it is in fact possible to obtain relief in equity against a judge through civil rights actions. Equitable relief includes:

declaratory relief - (rulings by another judge in the form of opinions establishing the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of another judges actions.) injunctive relief - a command or order to do something or refrain from doing so.

A Child's Rights

Abusive Judges

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 discretion can 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 exercising undue 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
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.

Jury Selection
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.

Prosecutor selection
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.

Disbarment
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.

Lawyer protection
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.

Absolute immunity
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.

Affirmative defense
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.
— with Scott Adamsand Grandparents4Justice Worldwide at Stop Parental Alienation World Wide Day.

Tags: Family Justice & Child Protection Worldwide Reform Committee, Derechos de los hijos de padres separados,Children’s Rights, Children’s Rights, Stop Emotional Child Abuse, Daveyone Familylawman World4Justice Campaign, Parental Alienation & other Child abuse awareness/prevention and Boycottfamilylaw : Restore Children’s Rights Worldwide  

 — at http://www.Causes.com/ChildrensRights.

Spending time with our children is more important than spending money.

Child Support Laws Are In Need Of Reform

 Reblogged from The SoCraddock Method:An opinion piece by Brenda Manghane-Washington from the Chattanoogan.comExcerpt:I still believe there's a need of reform in child support laws. As they stand, there is no distinction between a parent who can't pay and a parent who refuses to pay child support. By incarcerating non-custodial parents who do not have the means to pay nothing is accomplished, the children still go without...

The Child Support Industry: Socialism With A Sexist Twist

by Clayton Craddock • October 5, 2015 • 0 Comments

Everything you need to know about “child support” is in this essay. The Child Support Industry: Socialism With A Sexist Twist September 30, 2002 | Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D. Child Support, an overvalued idea, has its roots in Roosevelt’s New…

The #SoCraddockMethod Monday Morning Quarterback

by Clayton Craddock • August 24, 2015 • 0 Comments

A Monday morning quarterback is someone who is criticizes and/or states how they would have done something better or differently after the event has passed. Well, I’m stepping into the role to help guide you from defeat BEFORE you get…

Bleeding Heart Liberal

by Clayton Craddock • August 17, 2015 • 0 Comments

  The more I see the inside of this place, the less of a bleeding heart I become. The more I get dragged into this place, the more determined I am to spend the rest of my life demanding “equality”…

Child Support Enforcement and Guidelines are Unrealistic

by Clayton Craddock • August 12, 2015 • 0 Comments

By Joe Jones (jjones@cfuf.org) – the founder of the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore and Joan Entmacher Joe Jones (jentmacher@nwlc.org) is the vice president for Family Economic Security at the National Women’s Law Center. Raising a child takes a lot…

It is too late

by Clayton Craddock • August 10, 2015 • 0 Comments

Men It seems as if we have this, “I will figure it all out” mentality embedded in us. We may hear things from older people or from those who may have gone through a similar life experience, but we think…

Skip Child Support. Go to Jail. Lose Job. Repeat.

by Clayton Craddock • August 3, 2015 • 0 Comments

An excerpt from HERE: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-to-jail-lose-job-repeat.html?smid=fb-share There is no national count of how many parents are incarcerated for failure to pay child support, and enforcement tactics vary from state to state, as do policies such as whether parents facing jail are given…

Bill would give parents going through divorce equal time with their kids

by Clayton Craddock • July 24, 2015 • 1 Comment

Parents going through a divorce could soon see equal time with their kids. If passed, the 50/50 parenting bill (Colorado Senate Bill 15-129), would recognize parental rights as fundamental rights, putting parents in divorce court on equal ground. “We’re looking…

Leading Women for Shared Parenting

by Clayton Craddock • July 23, 2015 • 0 Comments

A new group is emerging that may finally change the way Family Courts treat mothers and fathers. Currently, the default in most states is to award the lion’s share of the time with the children to mothers, and require the…

Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?

by Clayton Craddock • June 22, 2015 • 0 Comments

An excerpt: This weekend millions of Americans will happily celebrate the role that fathers play in their families. For some families, though — specifically those in which dad’s role was not freely assumed, but legally mandated — Father’s Day can…

How Can Twins Have Two Different Fathers?

by Clayton Craddock • May 8, 2015 • 1 Comment

An excerpt from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/nyregion/paternity-case-for-a-new-jersey-mother-of-twins-bears-unexpected-results-two-fathers.html

A mother of twins was applying for public assistance in Passaic County, N.J., when she made the seemingly uncontroversial claim that one man was responsible for her progeny.

The truth, it turns out, was not so simple.

In an unusual ruling in State Superior Court in Passaic County, Judge Sohail Mohammed found that egg and sperm had colluded to create a medical oddity, according to a report in The New Jersey Law Journal on Thursday. The man who the woman said was the father of her twins was deemed responsible for only one.

The other, the ruling revealed, was conceived during a previously undisclosed tryst that happened within a week of sexual intercourse with the man she claimed was the father.

It was a tangled web of love and biology that gave rise to what The Law Journal called a precedent-setting ruling, one of only a few of such cases across the country. The man originally described as the twins’ father, identified in court documents only as A.S., will now have to pay child support only for the toddler who a DNA test showed was reliably his own.

The case took root when the mother, identified only as T.M., told the Passaic County Board of Social Services in the course of applying for benefits that A.S., her romantic partner, had fathered her twins, The Law Journal reported. The board, in turn, filed an application to establish his paternity and force him to pay child support for the twins, born in January 2013.

But the woman’s claim slowly fell apart. She revealed in testimony that she had had sex with a second, unidentified man within a week of having sex with her romantic partner. A paternity test was ordered.

And when the results came back last November, a routine case became a curiosity destined for legal textbooks.

Judge Mohammed accepted the results after testimony from Karl-Hans Wurzinger, the laboratory director of the Identity Testing Division at Laboratory Corporation of America, The Law Journal reported. Dr. Wurzinger, who has published a study saying that one in 13,000 reported paternity cases involved twins with separate fathers, testified that this was one of those rare cases: The woman’s twins were fertilized by different fathers during the same menstrual cycle.

Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, called it a case of superfecundation, a rare phenomenon classically illustrated in medical textbooks with a black baby and a white baby who are twins.

A sperm can be viable for up to five days, Dr. Wu said. So if the mother in this case had sex with one of the men, ovulated, and then had sex with the other — all within the course of just under a week — one man’s sperm could have fertilized one egg, while the other’s fertilized another.

Read the rest here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/nyregion/paternity-case-for-a-new-jersey-mother-of-twins-bears-unexpected-results-two-fathers.html

Forgiving $38,750 in Child Support, for My Kids’ Sake

by Clayton Craddock • April 20, 2015 • 0 Comments

   Should everyone support his or her children? Yes. Is court-ordered “child support” supporting your children? NO one knows.  Can someone tell me the what law requires court-ordered child support to be spent on the child? I didn’t think so. …

Child Support is a Crime Against Humanity | Georgia Senator (former) Nancy Schaefer

by Clayton Craddock • April 2, 2015 • 0 Comments

“A number of qualitative studies have documented how mothers and grandmothers serve as gatekeepers for the father’s presence in the child’s life, and how institutional practices create barriers, particularly for young fathers (Allen & Doherty, 1995; Wattenberg, 1993). Many of…

The reality of child suppprt and deadbeat dads

by Clayton Craddock • February 25, 2015 • 0 Comments

A must read! Originally posted here: http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/01/injustice-by-default Injustice by Default How the effort to catch “deadbeat dads” ruins innocent men’s lives Matt Welch from the February 2004 issue Tony Pierce remembers vividly the exact moment in November 2000 when the…

The craving for a baby that drives women to the ultimate deception

by Clayton Craddock • January 28, 2015 • 0 Comments

Liz Jones makes her most shocking confession yet By Liz Jones for The Mail  – Originally posted HERE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2056875/Liz-Jones-baby-craving-drove-steal-husbands-sperm-ultimate-deception.html Anyone who meets me, or reads what I write, would think I don’t like children and never wanted to be a mother.…

JASON PATRIC CASE UNDERSCORES NEED FOR FAMILY COURT REFORM

by Clayton Craddock • November 7, 2014 • 0 Comments

An excerpt from this article by Rita Fuerst Adams, National Executive Director, National Parents Organization The momentous research favoring shared parenting coincides with statistics that demonstrate the negative impacts our broken system has on our children. An overwhelming amount of…

Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support

by Clayton Craddock • September 5, 2014 • 0 Comments

An excerpt from this article: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/02/arizona-statutory-rape-victim-forced-pay-child-support/14951737/ Nick Olivas became a father at 14, a fact he wouldn’t learn for eight years. While in high school, Olivas had sex with a 20-year-old woman. As he sees it now, she took advantage…

Noncustodial parent visitation rights bill signed into law

by Clayton Craddock • June 28, 2014 • 2 Comments

I read about this on this site: http://womenformen.org/2014/06/05/noncustodial-parent-visitation-rights-bill-signed-into-law/ OKLAHOMA CITY – Law-abiding noncustodial parents will no longer have to deal with having their visitation rights ignored or violated thanks to legislation signed into law Tuesday. Senate Bill 1612, by Sen.…

Halle Berry to pay $16,000 a month in child support to ex Gabriel Aubry

by Clayton Craddock • June 10, 2014 • 1 Comment

This is FUNNY!!! I woke up to this amazing and hilarious news. A judge has approved a settlement between Halle Berry and her ex-boyfriend over child support payments for their 6-year-old daughter. The agreement approved by Superior Court Judge Scott…

Child Support Is More Like Child Extort

by Clayton Craddock • May 1, 2014 • 0 Comments

I’m so glad I was proactive and made sure I stopped the bleeding before it got worse. I refused to pay child support. I think the whole idea is ridiculous and it needs to be totally overhauled and updated to reflect…