Procedurally Defeated: Law Without Laws
June 4, 2006
|
Posted by ANCPR
Procedurally Defeated: Law Without Laws
By Terri Lynn Tersak
Everyday brings a new ream of tragic stories of fathers being wrongfully torn from their children’s lives. This is usually attributed to the agenda of groups supporting radical ideologies. But I felt there had to be more to the story than just that since it is happening to mothers too, although not as often as to fathers. The answer is, follow the money.
Recently our organization had both the pleasure and misfortune of getting some national exposure on some of the surveys and interviews that we have been conducting. The surveys and interviews were dealing with various abuses of our legal system, most notably false allegations of domestic violence.
Through our in person surveys of plaintiffs in domestic violence cases we have discovered a significant level of premeditated false claims of domestic violence. Subsequently, current Family Court Judges have corroborated our survey findings. They acknowledge pervasive levels of false claims not only exist, but law firms, including Legal Services Corporation (LSC) grant recipients, are knowing participants that are scripting statements for their clients in these cases. They also expressed concern over the reluctance of their county’s District Attorney’s Office to prosecute these false claims.
Within hours of the article’s release victims of legal system abuses requesting assistance and to have their cases included in our research inundated our offices with contacts. In the following two weeks, we received the details of over four-thousand cases of blatant gender based discrimination against men and other civil rights violations against both men and women.
Since our debut was made in an article concerning issues with LSC, it should have been no surprise to find that everyone of these cases came from the defendant of a case handled by one of the recipient law firms of LSC funding. Among other requirements of the funding they receive, these firms are required to “self-police†their operations guarding against false claims of domestic violence and other offenses. This is whom the defendants are referred to if they must file complaints.
After an exhausting review of the cases, several common themes were noticed. However, there was one horrifying commonality among all of them. In each of these cases, the defendant had complained to the LSC grant recipient law firm that was representing the plaintiff in their case about corruption they were aware of or false allegations of domestic violence made by their client against them.
Within days of making, their complaints they faced an ex-parte claim filed on behalf of their minor children and have never seen or heard from their children again. In many of these cases it has been years since their last contact with their children.
Ultimately, the result of these new claims was the destruction of any custody rights and visitation they had with their children. Beyond the emotional devastation this has on them, it eliminates their future standing in the courts on any matters related to their children, other than to revisit custody.
From this point forward, any effort they make to resolve related matters can also quickly be claimed to be “custody†related issues and quickly dismissed. Including the false claims of domestic violence and the participation, any professional had in the creation of the false claim. This carries through all the way to the United States Supreme Court as seen in the case of Dr. Michael Newdow’s “Pledge of Allegiance†case. Dr. Newdow’s case was discharged not on the subject matter of his case, but on his lack of custody rights of his child.
These parents are now second-class citizens because of legal actions that were in direct violation of their right to equal protection under the law and offered not even the pretense of due process of law.
Therefore, it does appear that the elimination of a parent’s custody provides the participants of false claims of domestic violence with an impenetrable barrier against all efforts in the wronged defendants’ quest for our constitutionally guaranteed redress.
How and why do these abuses keep happening with great predictability?
The complaints the law firms hear from the defendants are not tracked, organized, or maintained in any manner. This process, which in of itself begs to question its ethical basis, creates a sort of ex-parte communication between the defendant and the plaintiff’s law firm absent of the presence of a Judge. In a few rare cases that alone was the reasoning for dismissing the defendants’ complaint.
We have personally called several of the LSC grant recipients asking to file a complaint of false claims of domestic violence. They made every effort to discourage us from sending a written complaint by telling us there is not anything they can do. This matches the testimony of all of the legal abuse victims that have contacted us to date.
Through all of this, we need to ask where the defendant’s attorney was and why they are not filing civil rights violations claims. Upon interviewing several dozen “Family Law†attorneys throughout the country, we came to the astounding revelation that they do not actually practice law. They are merely “processors†within a system of very constrictive procedural guidelines.
Our states’ family law statutes are not designed to dispense justice or operate in “the best interest of the child.†Rather to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from a vast array of federal grant sources.
Within many of the states’ judicial systems are committees that produce and manage guidelines, rules and procedures that govern the day-to-day operation of the state’s family courts and that of the attorneys practicing within them.
Since these guidelines, rules and procedures the parent’s own attorney work within have nothing to do with actual laws nor have any mechanisms for protecting someone’s civil rights, these parents never stood a chance against a false claim to begin with. Their defeat is due to the practice of law without laws.
The funding to LSC must to require them to establish a more rigorous system of oversight of its grant recipients. Along with the creation of a system for lodging complaints that is completely independent from their grant recipients that provides protection instead of additional punishment for filing a complaint.
Our experience handling the enormous level of complaints shows there is a lack of a sufficiently staffed operation within all of LSC’s grant recipients combined to deal with the level of abuses currently taking place.
Without these changes, today’s parents are “procedurally defeated†before any claim was ever filed against them. This, sadly, is by design.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Categories: News
|
Leave a reply
Congratulations, at some point the author must have started paying attention to what men have been saying for quite some time now and upon a little further “digging†has unearthed something most men, who have had any contact with the legal system, could have told you outright … you’re screwed.
They seem to have it all figured out but there is something conspicuously missing from their statements. What do we do about it? We have “followed the money†and it all leads to a “criminal family court system†that kidnaps children from the father in order to transfer wealth and property to the state.
I think people should ask themselves why it is that people claim to know the answer to the problem by simply identifying what the problem is. Knowing what the problem is and what the “mechanics†of the extortion racket are is not even half the battle.
With all of these people “exposing the truthâ€, why aren’t any of them calling for more action than writing letters? What is the plan of action? Why aren’t these people telling everyone to “boycott the courtsâ€? Just don’t show up and play the game. If you know what the outcome is already, then why play the game? Cooperation with this “domestic enemy†only justifies their existence.
By going to court and paying lawyers to represent us we are only making them stronger. By paying the so-called child support you are supporting a whole “network†of parasites that increasingly depend on the extortion money for their own livelihood. By cooperating with these criminals in “any way†you are guilty of helping perpetuate this human rights disaster.
The truth may be hard for some people to swallow, but it’s the truth nonetheless. If you pay the extortion, you are no better and just as guilty, as the criminals who run our courts.
Sadly, we read these stories after the fact. After you’ve been through the so-called legal process, not paying the extortion, is your only true means to fight back.
The time to become knowledgeable about the system, is before you’re processed. This is when you need to know that you aren’t paying a lawyer to represent you, you’re paying for you’re ex’s lawyer’s, BUTT MONKEY.
Family court judges don’t become judges for the prestige or pay. They become judges because they are so incompetent that, they are left with a choice to become a judge or peddle blow jobs down on the corner. They only have the power that lawyers and PC groups, allow them to have.
This is the type of literature that needs to be distributed in front of the courthouse. Because it will not change the outcome, the flow of money must stop before the process begins. For those who say that, they can’t do it on their own, there’s no difference between can’t and won’t. The outcome has been already decided. Your money just feeds the corruption.
______________________________________________________________
In this memo from the deputy director general in the state of ND you will find the last paragraph says it all. Child support has always been a way for states to get federal tax dollars, but here it is clearly spelled out. When do you think women/mothers will start to realize that it is not the husbands/fathers who are victimizing them but our own government. Please, please read the last paragraph.
___________________________________________
PO Box 7190, Bismarck, ND 58507-7190
(701) 328-3582 ND Toll Free 1-800-755-8530 Fax (701) 328-6575
E-mail sojfle@state.nd.us
Child Support Enforcement
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 15, 2006
To: Representative Bill Devlin
From: James C. Fleming, Deputy Director/General Counsel
CC: Senator Tom Fischer
Re: Analysis of proposed regulatory initiative
This memo is in response to your request for information on the potential fiscal effect of
two initiated measures currently being circulated for signatures. It is not intended to
replace the fiscal note process for these measures under N.D.C.C. § 16.1-01-17.
Two initiated measures regarding family law and child support have been approved for
circulation. If either measure passes, the measure becomes effective 30 days after the
November general election (before the next Legislative session could be held to ensure
compliance with federal mandates) and the measure could not be amended for seven
years except by a two-thirds vote in each house. N.D. Const. Art. II, § 8.
This analysis primarily focuses on a measure for which Mitchell Sanderson is
Sponsoring Committee chairman (“Joint Custody and Shared Parenting†initiative). The
second measure is widely attributed to Roland Reimers (“Family Law Reform†initiative),
and will be addressed in much less detail.
The Joint Custody initiative would presume that each parent has equal physical custody
of the child. This is an issue that may be of more relevance to Family Law attorneys
and children’s advocates, because it would greatly reduce the ability of a court to place
the child in a custodial setting that promotes the child’s best interests. The measure is
not limited to children of divorce; thus, a father with no ongoing relationship with the
mother would be entitled to have custody of the child 50% of the time even if he is a
stranger to the child. From a Department perspective, the child support program has
been dealing with shared custody situations for a few years, but an increase in the
number of such cases could greatly confuse eligibility for public assistance benefits like
TANF and Medicaid. These programs look at the actual living conditions of the child
-2-
rather than the court custody decree, and each parent may claim to be the “custodianâ€
for purposes of obtaining these benefits.
The Joint Custody initiative requires parents to develop a “joint parenting plan,†even if it
requires court facilitation. The domestic violence community may be quite concerned
with this provision. Some observers have already suggested that for parents who
already cannot stand to live together, compelled communication poses a increased
threat of domestic violence.
From a child support perspective, there are two major issues that jeopardize compliance
with federal mandates on the TANF and child support enforcement programs. Failure to
comply with these mandates could result in the loss of all federal funds for those
programs. The last time the Department prepared a fiscal note on the consequences of
failing to comply with these mandates was 2003, and the cost at the time (which may
have grown since then) was over $75 million dollars.
First, under the Joint Custody measure, child support would be calculated according to
the parenting plan negotiated by the parents. However, the federal government
requires that child support amounts be determined through the use of guidelines. 42
U.S.C. § 667; 45 C.F.R. § 302.56. There must be a rebuttable presumption that the
amount of support determined under the guidelines is correct, which may only be
rebutted by a court or administrative order finding that the guideline amount is incorrect
using criteria that consider the best interests of the child. Id.
Second, the federal government requires that the guidelines take into account the
income of the obligor. 45 C.F.R. § 302.56. By contrast, the Joint Custody measure
states that child support amounts, and allocation of the obligation between the two
parents, “will not be greater than the actual cost of providing for the basic needs of the
child(ren).†Federal law does not permit obligations to be based on the needs of the
child rather than the income of the obligor (or the obligor and obligee, in an income
shares model).
The Family Law Reform measure has similar flaws in the area of child support. In an
equal physical custody arrangement, the measure states that no child support will be
owed. This is not permitted by federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 667; 45 C.F.R. § 302.56. In the
event a “non-joint†custody arrangement is ordered, the measure requires that child
support not exceed “half of the cost of caring for a child’s basic needs . . . on an
average North Dakota family income.†Again, federal law does not permit obligations to
be based on the needs of the child rather than the income of the obligor. The Family
Law Reform measure prohibits consideration of bonuses, overtime, retirement, or other
financial windfalls in excess of a 40-hour work week. However, federal law requires that
the child support guidelines “[t]ake into consideration all earnings and income of the
noncustodial parent.†Finally, the measure requires jury trials in family law matters,
which is specifically prohibited by federal law in paternity cases. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(5).
In summary, there are many potential concerns with the initiatives. From a purely child
support perspective, it is highly likely that enactment of the measure would place North
-3-
Dakota out of compliance with federal mandates and lead to a loss of all federal funds
for TANF and child support enforcement.
I hope this information is helpful.
British Petroleum should go to hell for what they have done!
http://fishonforum.com
In addition, working in the hospitality industry, I frequently hear out-of-towners telling me HOW NICE people are here. They don’t get that in other cities. Anyone who thinks Wichita has nothing to offer has mythical fantasies about what other “big cities” have to offer.