Dear Honorable Judge (all Juvenile Dependency Judges, future Judges and Presiding Judges),
I have some thoughts that you need to hear, I am expressing this by and through my United States Constitutional Right to FREE SPEECH.If anyone reading this has an opinion and would like to comment, that is also YOUR RIGHT, so exercise it!
Now, I wish I could say that you are simply ignorant. I wish I could say that you are being manipulated and coerced into doing what you do. Sadly, I cannot say either. The truth is, you are fully aware of the horse-and-pony show which performs daily in your “courtroom”. I have estimated that your 3 ring circus has almost 10,000 shows a year at each Courthouse in Riverside County. That would be a total 30,000 “hearings” annually in which families’ rights are being violated, perpetrated against, falsely accused, manipulated, coerced, improperly represented, denied their right to confront witnesses (the anonymous caller especially) and denied due process that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
They may call you “Judge” but excuse me “Your Honor” there is no honor as a Ringmaster of this federally funded menagerie. Your circus elephants and clowns are disillusioning patrons while your courtroom cohorts collaborate to steal their children. The big top show that is disguised as a legally binding and enforceable proceedings are actually killing families in a slow and painful process. Do you have any idea how devastating it feels when people, acting under the color of law, hold your children hostage while the huge railroad train called the judicial system runs you over? Then wondering every second of the day if your child is safe? It is torture for those parents who CARE about their kids and I know MOST of your spectators are caring, loving parents. I know because I have met them in the programs you shoved down my throat.
When the children come to your show, you give them candy, teddy bears and Christmas presents, promising them safety yet you put them in homes of strangers and sexual perpetrators. Let’s be honest here, pedophiles lurk where children are, like those sick men waiting for children to walk by on their way home from school. It is a fact that children are far less likely to get injured, raped, molested or neglected at home with their parents than they are in foster care. If you would take the time to research, investigate and deliberate on the actual statistics of the child welfare system, you would know exactly what I am talking about. But you don’t, humm…why? Because your circus clowns feed on the peanuts that thrown to them for “buying in” to the cash generator.
The Child Welfare System and all the “stakeholders” literally swindle children from their parents claiming that the children are not safe and that ripping them away from their homes is “in the child’s best interests”. What a charade! On paper and in the media, the Child Protection and Welfare collaborators boast that they are “Saving abused, neglected children by helping parents overcome their horrible faults but at least giving children a permanent and safe place to live.” However, the children must now also suffer from the trauma of being taken and isolated from their family and they end up with more scars than they would have being left in a home that they feel secure in.
You really need to get down off your IV funded wooden horse and stop this terrorism. Stop CPS from falsifying evidence, fabricating documents, committing perjury, and make them provide solid evidence of “reasonable efforts to allow the children to remain in the home”. If you had any moral or ethical bone in your body you would ensure parent’s rights to fair and unbiased proceedings, diligent and fair legal representation, ensure children’s rights to the same, allow parents to speak for themselves if they wish, ensure all counsel provide their clients with copies of minute orders and that everything you actually said on the record is actually in the record.
There are many things you can do to stop this child stealing whirlwind. Let’s begin with the information packet given to parents regarding the Juvenile Dependency process. This single piece of paper, folded in thirds to look like a leaflet, is the least informative slip I have ever seen. Surely, its real purpose is to limit the information parents receive. Other counties, like San Diego, who were investigated by the Grand Jury, at least provide a detailed timeline of the court process. The lame paper that Riverside County distributes would be more beneficial and informative if it simply said, “YOU’RE SCREWED!” or even, “Just bend over, let us stick it in your ass and, if you pretend to like it, we might return your kids sometime whenever we feel like it.” As a matter of fact, I think I will print that up and pass copies around the hallways and drop some off at the AA meetings.
The Pantomime Petitions and the Derailed Reports that you allow admitted into evidence are rarely properly served upon the parents and in my case, never served to the child who was over the age of 10. You could ask the children to verify whether or not they actually were involved in the case plan and maybe the Social Workers will do it for real. And why don’t you allow the parents to submit responses and declarations on their own behalf? Oh, and this is the waving flag-how come hair follicle test results HAVE to be paid for by CPS to be valid? What a crock of shit that is! Its even more outrageous that those clowns you call the Defense Panel Attorneys NEVER OBJECT to anything nor do they ever prepare a response or answer to the petition. Oh, and how the hell can any of your “Orders” be valid since you NEVER sign them? WTF?
And I don’t know if your clerk has a hearing problem or if she is directed and told to falsify the minute orders when you fail to make important and statutory rulings like “reasonable efforts” and other statements which ensure reimbursement from the various government funding accounts. Your boisterous speeches and assurances of protecting the children may pacify some parents but they are once again kicked while they are already down when CPS shoves a Minute Order in their face that says that your “Orders” are merely “recommendations” and that CPS has ultimate authority and discretion over all decisions.
And how about the gross neglect of the social workers to provide legitimate evidence? Do you actually read the Petitions and Reports? Do you look at the attachments? Most likely not. I highly doubt that someone in your position who has taken an OATH to uphold the law, seek justice for all and ensure people’s rights would be so completely ignorant of a piece of paper, which is as important as a hair follicle test, that has NO DONOR NAME, NO DONOR ID, NO SPECIMEN NUMBER, NO COLLECTION SITE, NO COLLECTION TIME, NO LAB NAME, NO ID, NO RECEIPT DATE, NO REPORT DATE, NO CERTIFYING SCIENTIST OR ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER LINKING IT TO ANYONE AT ALL.
Again, I wish I could say you are being fooled or ignorant but I can’t. Even if I could say that, either way you would be a lame ass Judge.
donnellyjustice
Published on Oct 6, 2012
Children Lost In System - Wistleblower Former Family Court Judge Speaks Out
Retired Judge Salcido
A Family Court Judge Admits She Made a mistake, speaks out about the million dollar industry of abused mothers, fathers and children in Family Court
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?
“Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…”
ReplyDelete~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.
Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS
PRO 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. A
herns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Intimidation of Pro-Se Litigants
DeleteThe attitude of court officers toward pro-se litigants ranges from condescending to openly hostile, and when pro se's oppose an experienced attorney, they are often dispatched before having the opportunity to properly present their case. In the following article, investigative reporter Sherman Skolnick describes a scenario he has witnessed.
Big Court Fix
Part 1: Introduction to what you need to know
SHERMAN H. SKOLNICK
Here is the start of what you need to know about the courts. This applies primarily to state and federal civil cases in bigger communities and cities. And please note, not EVERY court case is corrupt. Maybe one out of twenty, or one out of forty. But after you study this series, you might become more skilled in telling which is which.
In civil cases, judges usually designate a certain day at a certain time when they have "Motion Call." That means they put on the docket for that day a list of cases where motions (parts of cases) are to be heard.
So suppose you are a plaintiff, representing yourself against a defendant corporation or a politician or other important personality. You check the computer-generated Motion Call list taped to the wall outside the courtroom door.
You notice that you are among the first cases to be heard that morning. The judge is not yet on the bench. The defendant's attorney is at the desk, next to the bench, whispering to the deputy clerk.
The judge comes in, gets on the bench, and your case is among the first called. The clerk, or the judge himself, announces that your case will be heard "at the end of the call," which means you will have to wait in the courtroom for several hours, perhaps close to lunch-time.
Non-lawyers tend to call the other side, "the enemy." So your enemy's attorney goes out into the hallway with his cell phone. You follow him and ask, "You were whispering to the clerk before the Motion Call started. And when the judge got on the bench, my case was pushed to the end. What is going on?"
The enemy's "mouthpiece" does not respond. So you raise your voice and repeat the question. Suddenly, the deputy sheriff (state court) or deputy U.S. marshal (federal court) stationed in the courtroom comes out and comes up to you.
"If you don't stop threatening counsel, I am going to have to arrest you," he warns. Outraged at being falsely accused, you raise your voice to who in past years was called the court bailiff. He barks at you, "Get away from counsel, or I will arrest you."
You reluctantly walk away from the "counsel" and the "bailiff". You begin thinking to yourself, "Hey, what's going on here anyway?"
You go back into the courtroom and wait. Before the clerk calls your case, all the other motions have been heard and the court has been cleared out.
Suddenly, the bailiff goes to the courtroom door and locks it. If you are savvy, you look at the judge's face now. It is not more or less relaxed as you saw it during the Motion Call. After all, the judge often hobnobs socially with some of the same lawyers who were there during the Motion Call. He goes to golfing events with them from time to time. The judge sees many of the same attorneys at Bar Association luncheons and pep-talk meetings, where they pat themselves on the back for the great system of justice they are in. You think, "It is the wonderfully corrupt bench and the bar." And YOU are no part of it.
So now it is just you, your enemy's counsel, the judge, the clerk, and the bailiff. If you have been around the courts before, you know to notice that the judge's face is now a little red. Although judges practice to show no expression about which way they are going to rule, they are still human and it sometimes does show in their face when a particularly difficult or clout-heavy case is to be heard.
"CHILDREN OF DIVORCE DESERVE FULL ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS, WHENEVER POSSIBLE."
ReplyDeletePersonally, I can’t find anyone willing to reject that statement publicly. It’s a fundamental truth. We now have a wealth of evidence demonstrating children are better off, in most situations, when they have something near equal time with each parent. So why are shared-parenting bills are being rejected throughout the country?
Do legislators believe mothers are more important to children than fathers? For the most part, I don’t think so. Politicians are, however, under quite a bit of pressure from some very powerful anti-shared parenting special interests. Recently, we’ve seen these opponents contribute to shared-parenting bills failing to pass in South Dakota and Minnesota.
Some would argue disappointments like those are clear signs that shared parenting legislation will not happen anytime soon. The opposite is true. The near victories in these states and others is an enormous indication politicians are beginning to understand the vast majority of American citizens believe children of divorce deserve equal access to both parents, whenever possible.
In fact, South Dakota’s bill lost in a 21-13 Senate vote. That’s a swing of 5 senators. If merely 5 senators felt more pressure from South Dakotans than they did from special interests, South Dakota would have a shared parenting statute. We should commend the remaining politicians in South Dakota’s Senate for doing the right thing.
In Minnesota … well, Minnesota is a travesty. That bill passed, and on May 24, 2012 Governor Mark Dayton vetoed it. Governor Dayton claimed that both sides made “compelling arguments,” but because the “ramifications” of the legislation were “uncertain,” he decided to single-handedly overrule the will of his constituents and their representatives. Mr. Governor, unless you are ending slavery or beginning women’s suffrage, you will likely never have the benefit of “certainty” in your political career. Again, we should praise the Minnesotan politicians who voted for the bill.
Six people. Six people stopped two states from enacting shared parenting. Six people do not indicate shared parenting is a distant hope – they indicate profoundly that it is an imminent inevitability.
Mike Haskell is a divorced dad, shared parenting supporter and practicing family law attorney in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
ACFC is America's Shared Parenting Organization
"CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS"
The members of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children dedicate ourselves to the creation of a family law system and public awareness which promotes equal rights for ALL parties affected by issues of the modern family.
ACFC is challenging the current system of American family law and policy. Through a national system of local affiliates and in alliance with other pro-family and civil liberties groups, ACFC is shifting the public debate to the real causes of family dissolution.