Banned Near Boston by Stephen Baskerville
April 4, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Banned Near Boston by Stephen Baskerville
Nearly ninety years ago, when divorce liberalization was being advocated by feminists, G.K. Chesterton warned in The Superstition of Divorce that undermining the family would imperil civic freedom.
His warning was vindicated recently when Massachusetts family court judge Mary Manzi outlawed a book that criticizes government officials. Manzi herself is sharply criticized in the book but obviously did not recuse herself from the proceeding.
On March 24, Kevin Thompson received an order prohibiting distribution of his book, Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts. The court also impounded the records of Thompson’s custody case, reinforcing the secrecy in which family courts like to operate.
The standard justification for secret courts is the one Judge Manzi now extends to censorship: “privacy interests of the parties’ minor child.” Thompson’s son has already been forcibly separated from his father, and his life is now under the total control of state officials. What “privacy” does this child have left? Thompson understands that the true reason for the secrecy and censorship is not to protect privacy but to invade it with impunity: “The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade ‘family privacy’ by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets.”
Many people have trouble believing the harrowing tales of human rights abuses now taking place in American family courts and wonder why, if they are true, we do not hear more about it. Perhaps because in many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. In other words, censorship works.
Thompson’s case is not isolated. Under the pretext of “family privacy,” parents are gagged and arrested for criticizing the courts:
* Alice Tulanowksi of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was placed under a gag rule in 2000, though judges and the New Jersey Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts were left “free to discuss the intimate details of Alice’s case” in public.
* Stanley Rains of Victoria, Texas, in 2001 was gagged “from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions” about why he was cut off from his daughter for more than two years, according to court documents. The order covers private conversations and discussions with mental health professionals and his minister. Issued with no evidentiary hearing, the order followed an article Rains published in Fathering Magazine. He was also prohibited from criticizing a city council candidate who was a divorce lawyer. The order precluded Rains from photographing death threats written on his mother’s car.
* The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was arrested and jailed for talking to reporters about his divorce.
* A California judge shut down the web site of the Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Attorneys and Judges in 2001.
* In 2005, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott formally asked a federal court to punish Charles Edward Lincoln, for criticizing the state’s family courts. Abbott termed the criticism, which consisted in filing some court papers, “bloodless terrorism.”
Outright censorship is only the start, since judges usually prefer more subtle methods for stopping the mouths of their critics. Thompson is also being forced to pay the attorneys who advocated the book ban. This practice has the marvelous double effect of providing booty for the judge’s cronies and justifying incarceration of critics who cannot pay the instant “debt.” Following his criticism of the family courts in testimony to Congress, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and ordered to pay $6,000 in fees of attorneys he had not hired. He was soon after arrested for nonpayment.
Censorship of speech and press is only the tip of the iceberg and serves to cloak even more serious constitutional and human rights violations. Writing in the Rutgers Law Review, David Heleniak recently revealed the “due process fiasco” of family law. Calling family courts “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” Heleniak identifies six major denials of due process by which courts seize children and railroad innocent parents into jail: denial of trial by jury, denial of poor defendants to free counsel, denial of right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, lack of notice, and improper standard of proof. In family law, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to a handbook for local officials published by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Dean Roscoe Pound writes that “the powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile court and courts of domestic relations.”
In fact, even this only scratches the surface. One can run point-by-point down the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, and there is hardly a clause that is not routinely ignored or violated in family law, where practices include mass incarcerations without trial, summary expropriations, presumption of guilt, coerced confessions, ex post facto provisions, bills of attainder, and more. Family courts and their hangers-on are by far the greatest violators of constitutional rights in America today.
Journalists of both the left and right studiously ignore these violations, as do “human rights” groups, even when shown undeniable evidence. It will be interesting to see if they can ignore censorship that touches their own profession.
For his part, Thompson says he intends to ignore the censorship. “Everything that I am doing right now is for my son,” he declares. “I will not be shut up.”
April 4, 2006
Stephen Baskerville is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own.
Copyright © 2006 Stephen Baskerville
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
Gee, I was thinking about starting an Illinois chapter of the Amercian Coalition of Fathers and Children but now I am afraid the commisars will come and get me.
http://fathernotacheckbook.blogspot.com/
This guy is a Real, American Hero, like my great grandfather,grandfather,father all fought for the rights we enjoy today. I like many others are sick and tired of losing these rights in the middle of the night. Every night laws are being put in place to make criminals out of innocent people. Crime is on the rise, primarily, the crimes commited by these courts, lawyers, police, senators, congressmen, etc. etc. and all we can do is worry about the standard of living in Iraq, and those poor illegal immigrants. At least 1 guy in America has still got enough balls to tell them to go to hell. And in particular you Mary Manzi your a disgrace to this country!
May it be that perhaps otherwise honorable members of time honored Governmental Entrustments may find themselves lulled into Federal Crimes?
Present practices attributing to daily atrocities may one day be found more shameful than others of our historical past. We may even find that we have previously been fortunate to have experienced benefits bestowed to us by our founders. Might we thus seek tenacity, perseverance and integrity to assist continual pursuits for rightful conduct as may be deemed deserving and honorable toward our heritage and by which to lend similar respects to all our children, grandchildren and future generations.
Just maybe we may find that our founders may have clearly recognized a wonderful governmental organization with checks and balances for assisting civilized democratic processes; of which our constitution may be viewed as having previously served our country with graciousness. So too may we find, with renewed faith, it again capable of gracious service to the future if lent proper respects and entrustment by members committed to an honoring thereof. Likewise, if some – perhaps cloaked in political correctness or (lord help me) in guise for the best interests of future generations – should choose to ignore such well known virtues, tenants and/or keels of our founding; we may perhaps simply research other historical backdrops beyond/before our immediate heritage by which to speculate navigable/non-navigable waters.
May we resonate continual respect for brothers, sisters, parents, step-parents, children, grandchildren, communities, humanity and perhaps even our ultimate being; and further, help-us to continue endeavors for encouraging operable platforms and systems for sound justice, responsible governance and perhaps even encompassing of respect for loving parents.
As for ideologies suggesting otherwise, it would seem that such dictas might warrant, at a minimum, strict scrutiny or at least minimal litmus.
With Compassion and Sincerity,
— Just ADAD
[“The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade ‘family privacy’ by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets.â€]
Thanks for telling it like it is. I for one am “sick and tired†of the politically correct sounding BS that emanates from the mouths of so many father’s rights advocates.
This is one of the most “telling pieces†I’ve read on the “widespread corruption†in our family courts. Nicely done!
Unfortunately this is just one aspect of an “entire judicial system†that has completely lost its way. These criminals have turned our courts and prison system into a slave industry that makes “big oil†look like “small potatoesâ€. All this is achieved by the states receiving federal funds for carrying out their crimes against the American People.
“Corruption of morals is rapid enough in any country without a bounty from government.â€
Noah Webster
The above article does not paint a pretty of hopeful picture for men/fathers in the family court systems. Surely it does’nt seem like men in America are getting a fair shake. That American Dads are denied the basic and fundemental constitutional rights like “freedom of speach” and even “due process of law” or the “right to an attorney” sounds almost unbelievable, like something that could only happen in a communist country. This type of treatment is not the traditional of Amercian legal system and I would categorize it as “un-American”, having made these observations:
Maybe it’s time for American men to move in a different direction. Men in the U.S. should really consider moving to other states or countries. I’m not advocating abandoning children, as responsible parents American fathers should provide for there children given their financial resources and circumstances in and from whatever country or state they reside. Men in the United States do need to look at other options, simply put American men should not stay where they are not wanted and even mistreated.
Migrations have occured throughout history from state to state or country to country. Sometimes these migrations are due to economic or political reasons, sometimes famines and wars produce refugees. The next migration and exodus may be due to social, legal and family court reasons.
American men are talented, educated and skilled. Perhaps there are other geographic regions or foriegn countries that can benefit from what America men can offer. There are many climates in other places that may be more hospitable in these difficult times in other countries history. So American men be responsible, intelligent and innovative and consider the “global big picture”, it’s a big world out there.
Johnqpublic:
Hey, that sounds like a really good idea. Why don’t you go ahead and pick out all the “hotspots†for us. I heard there are several airlines with discount tickets to Middle East destinations. Let us know how it’s going for you. Take care now.
Kevin Merck
Johnqpublic sounds more like skankfromnow. Maybe that’s how NOW plans to reduce the male population to 10%. Since their forte is manipulation, and know that they can only lose the ultimate fight, this plan probably makes sense to them. In the new beginning, well you what Shakespeare said, their heads will be the second on the block.
Ron:
No doubt. It just shows how dedicated to their goal of “gendercide†they are. They are far more dangerous than the Nazi ever were. At least if you were a Jew fleeing Nazi persecution, if you made it to a country outside of Nazi controlled Europe, you would be okay. Not the case for a father trying to flee Feminist persecution, as I’m sure this “skankfromnow†is well aware.
It seems to me that these maniacs should realize that they are going to push men too far. When they have pushed men to the “breaking pointâ€, heaven have mercy on those in the path of the “proverbial pendulum†when it swings the other way.
I sure would have hated to have been a Nazi at the end of WWII. “GOD ONLY KNOWS†what those people suffered at the hands of the “righteous Russian troopsâ€.
I do believe all of the concepts you’ve presented for your post. They are very convincing and can definitely work. Nonetheless, the posts are very brief for starters. May just you please extend them a little from next time? Thanks for the post.