Though this article focuses on the departures from the Rule of Law in the Divorce case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki vs. David Rucki, this writer takes a broader perspective. That broader being one addressing the importance of enforcing adherence to the the Rule of Law and Due Process; both of which are not only statutory requirements but Constitutional and Natural Law Rights of every person. (Before we go farther, this writer asserts that he would write the same article if the roles of the parties were reversed.) This article is a follow up to the latest hearing relating to this matter from January 10, 2014 and a call to action for the upcoming January 27, 2014 hearing for Lawyer Michelle MacDonald.""
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
Let us begin with an intellectual and emotional appetizer intended to make you non-lawyer types hungry for the rest of the story.
Imagine finding yourself in this scenario, you and your spouse have been married nearly 20 years. You have built a successful business and have five children. To settle the Divorce, you agree to take the family home of 14 years and have custody of your 5 children while letting your spouse have parenting time, the business, and other properties.
Somewhere along the line your spouse sits you and the 5 children down at the table with a gun and says either “you are going to kill everyone” or “you are only going to kill yourself”.
More than a year after the divorce is settled, you find out about a hearing that you were not party to. With no evidentiary hearing or finding of fact, Sheriffs inform you must be out of the house and cannot tell the children why. You drop the children off at school and go home and pack only the one bag that the Sheriff’s deputy will let you pack. Everything else is lost to you. The children are to be taken care of by an undisclosed third party. And you leave your home of 14 years.
A year later, during a hearing to restore the divorce agreement and regain custody of the children, your lawyer is arrested during the hearing for reasons yet unknown and you are told to leave, as obviously the hearing will not continue. You take the files and other property left in the court room so they do not become “lost”. You later learn that after you left, the Judgeresumed the hearing with your lawyer in handcuffs, without glasses, shoes, files or a client….
Later you find that the children are back with your spouse, but two of them have run away and not been seen in months.
That should be enough to get your attention and peak your interest.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ~ Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
With that literary appetizer consumed, this writer hopes that the reader will find this writer’s perspective unique and thought provoking enough to be moved to action.
This writer sat in the Federal Court room in St. Paul, MN on January 10, 2014 and heard Judge Susan Richard Nelson ask Lawyer Michelle McDonald to produce Case Law Citations from the Federal 8th Circuit Court. As this writer listened, the following thought began to take root in this writers mind:
Can anyone wearing black robes arbitrarily deprive any US citizen of their Unalienable Natural Law Rights?
This writer sat in the Federal Court room in St. Paul, MN on January 10, 2014 and heard Judge Susan Richard Nelson ask Lawyer Michelle McDonald to produce Case Law Citations from the Federal 8th Circuit Court. As this writer listened, the following thought began to take root in this writers mind:
Can anyone wearing black robes arbitrarily deprive any US citizen of their Unalienable Natural Law Rights?
And with that thought, this writer set about answering this question using this thought process from one of his favorite recurring tweets:
You know those neat tricks & observations they use to catch the bad guys in major media and Hollywood shows? You need to start using them on your government. ~ @DMashak on Twitter (abbreviations & truncations removed)
You know those neat tricks & observations they use to catch the bad guys in major media and Hollywood shows? You need to start using them on your government. ~ @DMashak on Twitter (abbreviations & truncations removed)
And so we begin to use those neat tricks and observations to try to make sense of what has transpired and how Federal Judge Susan Richard Nelson should rule.
In the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, the facts of interest to this writer are these....
To continue reading for free, please click herehttp://t.co/GHVbMEQ35j
Those were my thoughts.
In Closing:
Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.
If what is written here rings true to you, perhaps you should contact your local elected officials and let them know. If you are afraid of repercussions, snail mail it anonymously and ask them to respond in the local paper or their own monthly/quarterly internet newsletter. Even if this article refers to something outside you geographic area, it still likely applies to your location. Remember all those taxpayer training junkets we taxpayers send the bureaucrats on? They all learn the same “livestock management” techniques to use on WE THE PEOPLE.
And that leaves WE THE PEOPLE with this conundrum: While our #Government works full time with compensation and funded with our money for the cause of #Tyranny; WE THE PEOPLE are forced to work part time without compensation for the cause of #liberty with what is left over of our time, money and energy.
Finally, this article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar
Keep Fighting the Good Fight!
In Liberty,
Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE
WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF
Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com
Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com
Term Limits #TermLimit
http://TermLimits.org
Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com
Critical Thinking Notice - This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author... unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.
Posted by Don Mashak at 6:32 PM
Labels: child, court, custody, dakota, David L. Knutson, divorce, Don Mashak, Family, judge, lawyer, Michelle MacDonald, minnesota,Natural Law, parental alienation, Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Susan Richard Nelson
Hey Bio-Mom,
ReplyDeleteI see you have found our little club here and you've decided to troll around for a bit. I first would like to say "welcome" on behalf of the men and women who suffer daily inside and outside these pages. We are glad you are here.
Feel free to take your time and peruse the stories of men and women who have lost everything. Take in the agony and the pain, read the horror stories of men who havn't seen their children in 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years. You will notice that all the stories share a familiar tone. The pain is real. The disbelief is palpable. The constant barrage of men ready to give up is unfortunately true. They may give up and stop fighting vindictive exes for their children and just move on, only to be later called a deadbeat loser from the same woman that deprived him of his children. They may give up and eat a bullet, jump from a bridge or tie a noose around their neck and say their final goodbye. You win, they lose. You are now an accessory to murder.
Stick around and look at the pictures of the children that are left behind. These are the other victims. The victims without a voice in all of this. Had they had a choice they would almost always choose to have a loving caring father by their side. You deprive them of that. Not only do you assist in the murdering of fathers, but you're also a child abuser. Congratulations.
Be sure to keep coming back to our little club here. Make jokes about how we are all domestic abusers who feel we have some ghastly privilege of fathering our children. Keep your kids close to you, be sure you cash that child support check and keep the children from Daddy if he misses a payment. It's only a fair punishment for him. Make him suffer. Make him hurt so bad he stays awake at night crying because he misses his kids so badly. Make him out to be the deadbeat you just know he is. Make his feel the depths of depression and despair by keeping his kids from him. Threaten to have him arrested and thrown in jail for inability to pay child support. You're cruising now bio-mom. You show them who is boss. Don't allow him to talk to his kids on the phone. Don't allow him to have one extra minute of "visitation". Marginalize him and make him feel what a scumbag he truly is. Don't tell him of your children's accomplishment or how they are doing in school. Keep any and all medical records from him. Keep him guessing who is with his children and where they are living. Keep doing what you are doing bio-mom. Now we all know who the boss is. It was never the judges or lawyers who caused all this. It was you. Now look down at your children and realize everything you have done to your ex has also been done to them. See, you are a child abuser after all.
Sleep tight,
Joe Makem
#StandUpForZoraya #ILoveAndNeedMyDaughter #EndParentalAlienation
DeleteThe Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to provide EVERY AMERICAN with the CONSTITUTIONAL right to self-representation, if they so choose. That privilege, like all other constitutional rights, should be enjoyed without fear of harassment, prejudice, or abuse. Furthermore, no law, regulation, or policy should exist to abridge or surreptitiously extinguish that right.
ReplyDeleteSelf-Represented Litigants have no less of a right to FAIR and MEANINGFUL due process under the federal and state constitutions as those individuals who choose to utilize an attorney for their legal affairs and issues. In fact, NOWHERE in any state or federal constitution does it specify that the hiring of a lawyer is a prerequisite to exercising one's due process rights. Democratic principles dictate that we have the right to freely choose between self-representation and hiring a lawyer to handle our legal matters without suffering humiliation, prejudice, or penalization. After all, it is the parties to the litigation that ultimately have to deal with the consequences of the case's outcome, and not the judge or the lawyers involved in the matter.
Contrary to the view of certain judges and lawyers, those who opt to litigate their own legal matters without an attorney are NOT second-class citizens deserving of contempt and injustice. Instead, they are BRAVE CITIZENS with an inalienable right to have their legal causes adjudicated objectively and justly -- with or without a lawyer. Self-representation can be a difficult, time-consuming, and often frightening experience, especially for those burdened by demanding work schedules, family responsibilities, and other obligations of day-to-day living. Accordingly, those who engage in the difficult task of self-litigation should be REVERED for their COURAGE and DEDICATION, not scorned or abused.
We also need to amass momentous opposition against those persons, agencies, and institutions who, in the interest of protecting huge profits, careers, and prestige, subject self-litigants to a hostile and often abusive litigation atmosphere calculated to suppress self-representation and force people to become completely and financially dependent on lawyers to gain "paid" access to a taxpayer-funded legal system.
WE SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR EQUAL JUSTICE
Activist sometimes exhibit impatience with theory - often for good reasons. They have seen nonviolence caught in an ideological net in which the purity of ideology eclipsed activity and the nonviolent effort was undermined by a deflection of energy. But nonviolent theory is absolutely necessary. It introduces to the world a new strategy for resisting evil without creating new evils and becoming evil ourselves. But more important, it articulates a new way of being that yields a vision of peace more powerful than all the armies of all the nations of the world. (Peace is the Way, 2000)
PRO SE RIGHTS:
DeleteSims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Brotherhood 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."
The NJ-AFCC Special Projects Committee reviewed many different Children's Bill Of Rights from organizations across the United States. The Children's Bill of Rights developed by the American Bar Association, Section of Family Law, came closest to elaborating all of the conflcit issues that can arise for children in divorce and family dissolution cases. The NJ-AFCC Special Projects Committee used that Bill of Rights as a model, and revised and extended it to better meet the needs of children in New Jersey, and around the world.
ReplyDeleteWe invite all professionals working with families in conflict, and those working to assist children in their efforts to cope with the parental conflict that often arises during divorce and family dissolution, to adopt this Bill of Rights for Children in Divorce and Dissolution Actions. We do ask that you give NJ-AFCC credit for developing this Bill of Rights, in any reprinting or distribution of the bill.
BILL OF RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN IN DIVORCE AND DISSOLUTION ACTIONS
1. The right to be treated as important and separate human beings with unique feelings, needs, ideas, and desires, not existing solely to gratify the needs of their parents.
2. The right to not participate in the painful games parents play to hurt each other, or be put in the middle of their battles.
3. The right not to be a go-between or a message courier for their parents.
4. The right to a continuing, relaxed, and secure relationship with both parents.
5. The right to express love and affection for, and receive love and affection from, both parents.
6. The right to know that expressions of love between children and parents will not cause fear, disapproval, or other negative consequences.
7. The right to know that their parents decision to divorce is not their fault.
8. The right to know that it is not their responsibility to keep their parents together.
9. The right to continuing care and guidance from both parents.
10. The right to age appropriate answers to questions about the changing family relationships, without placing blame on either parent.
11. The right to know and appreciate what is good in each parent.
12. The right to be protected from hearing degrading or bad comments about either parent.
13. The right to be able to experience regular, consistent, and flexible shared parenting time with both parents, and the right to know the reason for changes in the parenting schedule.
14. The right to have neither parent interfere with, or undermine, parenting time with the other parent.
15. The right to not be forced to choose one parent over the other.
16. The right to express their feelings, concerns, and ideas about the divorce.
17. The right to remain a child without being asked to take on parental responsibilities or to be an adult friend or companion to either parent.
18. The right to the most adequate level of economic support that can be provided from the best efforts of both parents.
19. The right to continue ongoing positive relationships with the people (friends, neighbors, grandparents and extended family) who were an important part of their lives before parental divorce.
----------------------------
This Bill of Rights was adopted from "The Children's Bill of Rights" developed by the American Bar Association, Section of Family Law, and was modified and expanded by the NJ-AFCC Special Projects Committee (Jeannette DeVaris, Sam Forlenza, Donald Franklin, Sandra Saul, Phil Sobel, Frank Weiss.)
Website Hosting provided by Lisa Tomasini, Ph.D.
Contact lisatomasini@gmail.com