Sunday

167 Red Flags of Parental Alienation


Miami-Dade County Support Group Meeting for Victims of the Family Court System

PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME IS PRODUCED BY A DYSFUNCTIONAL PARENT, BUT IT IS A DISORDER IN THE CHILD.

If the child can withstand the alienating parent’s lies and manipulations, then bad parenting is certainly taking place, but Parental Alienation Syndrome is not. It becomes Parental Alienation Syndrome when the child capitulates and begins to participate in the campaign against the targeted parent. This is where the real damage occurs to a child’s developing personality and young mind and heart.

Dr. Richard A. Gardner did pioneering work identifying Parental Alienation Syndrome in the mid-eighties. He characterized the disorder as a cluster of symptoms:

  • A campaign of denigration waged against the target parent.
  • Weak, absurd or frivolous rationalizations given for the deprecation.
  • The child’s lack of natural ambivalence for both parents.
  • The child displays “independent thinker” phenomenon.
  • The child reflexively supports the alienating parent throughout the parental conflict.
  • The child displays no guilt about cruelty to and exploitation of the target parent.
  • The child employs scenarios borrowed from the alienating parent.
  • The animosity includes the friends and family of the target parent.

Re-blogged from:
brainsyntax.com logo

by Vincent Schiele to my children & To those that may be concerned


 Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/03/3264705/judges-decision-in-sexual-predator.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

167 Red Flags or Examples of Parental Alienation

The Alienating parent will exhibit specific behaviors, signs and symptoms than those of the children and the target parent.  The following examples of Alienators behavior are called Red Flags.  The more of these a parent exhibits or enacts, the higher the probability of PAS occurring.  Below is a list of over 150 most often used tactics to alienate children from a parent.  A score of 10 or more is an indicator of PAS

  1. Impeding with visitation, despite orders
  2. Denigrating the other parent in front of anyone who will listen, including the children, as well as calling the TP or step-parent derogatory names in front of the child.
  3. Filing allegations of abuse while constantly dragging the ex into court for child support or alimony.  (Note: A truly abused individual wants to have nothing to do with the abuser, making face-to-face confrontation out of the question.)
  4. Stopping any contact with the children and the ex’s extended family or friends who disagree with them
  5. Believing that they are above the law, and that all orders/laws were made for everyone else but them.
  6. Impeding Communication with the children, including blocking access to school records and meetings and events.
  7. Grilling the children about their visit, asking the children to spy or collect evidence.
  8. Refusing visitation because the ex spouse has been unable to afford the child support or not made a payment.
  9. Statements of constant hatred and vengeance about the ex-spouse
  10. Refusal to disclose their home address
  11. Refusal to supply or keep the other parent in the loop on medical issues, educational issues, events pertaining to the child/ren and so on.
  12. Continually referring to the child as their own children and not the spouses.
  13. Continually not enforcing the visitation with the other parent by claiming the children do not want to go (Barring no true abuse is truly going on) and using the excuse that they are not going to force the children to go see their other parent if they do not want to.  (Appendix A, No. 3)
  14. Impeding any court orders, including Counseling orders.
  15. Moving the children away from a parent they once had a loving relationship with, and thus making visitation and a relationship next to impossible.
  16. During visitation times, constantly calling the house, to speak with the child/ren or leaving nasty disruptive messages.
  17. On days that TP is in a public place the parent shows up to either push, swear at or just intimidate them or the stepparent in front of the child.
  18. Making the child feel emotional responsible for the parent's happiness so that the child is as protective as an adult might be towards a young child.
  19. Lying or even involving the child in the divorce proceedings and custody or child support issues.
  20. Making the child feel uneasy about talking to their therapist or other official person.
  21. Having the child call his non-custodial parent by his/her first name; instead of Daddy or Mommy
  22. Preventing the children from contacting their father by pulling the phone out of the wall, changing their phone number, refusing to allow them to accept calls, refusing to allow them to make phone calls or lying and claiming the children are not home or are asleep.
  23. Discussing and involving the children in court, child support and other legal matters, which they should not be involved in.
  24. Insisting that the children call the new person in the AP's life "Mom or Dad"
  25. Escalating PASing behavior if the NCP commences a new relationship
  26. Insisting that the children NEVER call a stepparent “mum” or “dad”.
  27. Hanging up the telephone if discussions do not follow “their” agenda
  28. When the child is allowed to speak to the TP on the telephone the PASing parent will oversee the call, instructing the child on what to say and how to respond to the TP and force the end of the call if either child or TP fail to conduct the call as the PASing parent deems appropriate.
  29. Deliberately pulling the children away if they meet the target parent out i.e. at the shops.
  30. Avoiding children’s activities i.e. school events as the target parent may be there
  31. Previous evidence of anger management issues
  32. Poor family support network or a family network that supports the PASing behavior
  33. Refuse to communicate via fax, email or letter as to do so will provide evidence in the form of a paper trail of their activities.
  34. Will wait until the last minute to inform the target parent of changes to visitation.
  35. Will feel it is their right to provide the children for visitation late but insist the children MUST be returned to the exactly on time.
  36. Will not provide any information to the target parent about the children’s day-to-day activities but will insist on knowing exactly what the target parent will be doing with the children whilst they are with the TP.
  37. Will choose to pay others to provide childcare and not utilize the TP even if it would be more suitable for all parties.
  38. Will claim the child is too sick to visit the target parent.
  39. Will claim the TP is not capable of parenting the child “Properly”
  40. Cause the child to feel guilt about wanting to see their other parent
  41. Avoid, at all costs, using a neutral drop off / pick up location
  42. Refuse to allow the TP any contact with ‘Professionals’ who are in support of the PASing parent
  43. Not allowing the children to participate in activities, where they may come into contact with children associated with the TP.
  44. Will instruct the school that the TP is not to be trusted, inferring or clearly stating that the TP has lied to others about the PASing parent and children, including putting notes in school files about not allowing contact or pick up by Targeted Parent.
  45. If cornered about providing TP’s information for school records, Protective Services or any other official, the PASing parent will give false or misleading information.
  46. PASing parent has removed pages from a child’s classroom journal that fail to support PASing parent’s ideology and/or support the TP.
  47. Totally controlling the children’s social life
  48. Becoming overly involved with the children’s activities i.e. cub leader, parent support worker so that they are constantly with the children and keep the other parent from attending these activities.
  49. Lie to the children about the separation/divorce including by giving details that are ‘obviously’ untrue which deliberately impede the child’s ability to love the other parent i.e. dad spends all his money on his girlfriends so I can’t afford to let you go to camp.
  50. Involve the children in all the aspects of the separation, divorce and on going legalities whilst claiming the child has the ‘right’ to know what is happening
  51. Claiming the TP is victimizing, stalking, abusing, and harassing them to the point of actually involving the police.  Filing of false allegations of abuse,  making false and repeatedly harassing complaints to child protective agencies, police and others so as to constantly put the Targeted Parent under attack and investigation.
  52. Encouraging the child to support the PASing parent to lie to authorities on how they are treated when with the TP even though there is no evidence of poor treatment, but just  the reverse.
  53. Encourages the child to be defiant, to go on strike, to not comply with the reasonable rules when in the presence of TP.
  54. PASing parent deliberately organizes ‘activities’ for the children on the TP’s visitation time i.e. parties, outings and social gatherings.
  55. The PASing parent will use bribery and enticements to prevent a child from visiting with the TP, and make the child feel guilty for wanting to be with the TP rather than attend an event the PASing parent has organized to happen during TP visitation time.
  56. Not allowing the children to have photos of or objects provided by the TP in the house.   The PASing parent will destroy any gifts, photo’s etc should the child bring them home.
  57. When the child receives gifts from the TP and takes them home to show the PASing parent, the PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take them back to the TP’s house or keep them.
  58. PASing parent refuses gifts from the TP and his family, actually making the children return them saying they are no good or cheap or useless and so on.
  59. PASing parent will deliberately condemn the target parent’s gifts or purposely purchase them ahead the target parent so that the target parent’s gift is meaningless.
  60. The PASing parent changes the child’s surname to the ‘new dads’ name without asking or notifying the birth father.
  61. PASing parent will attend TP’s family functions without prior invite despite ‘knowing’ that their behavior will be viewed negatively.    The PASing parent will use this negativity to inform the children of the TP’s family’s hatred of them.
  62. Refuses to pick up the telephone when the child is calling from the TP’s residence.
  63. Insist that when the child is with the TP that they have the ‘right’ to excessive telephone contact with the child, yet allow the TP to have little to no telephone contact.
  64. Deliberately changed the telephone number and maintaining a ‘silent’ number without notifying the TP or providing the TP with the number.
  65. The PASing parent tells the child that ‘they hope they will be OK when with the TP, that they shouldn’t need to go to hospital, etc. thus creating an image of fear for the child when with the TP.
  66. Telling the child that “Something” may happen to the PASing parent whilst the child is with the TP.
  67. Demanding the TP pay for extra costs associated with child rearing i.e. Orthodontic work.
  68. Informing the child that they cannot have ‘braces’ or other essentials because the TP won’t pay for it.
  69. Refuse a child’s request to spend extra time with the TP, even when this time is for a one off special occasion.
  70. Refusing to send the child to school for events when the PASing parent becomes aware that the TP will be attending.
  71. Removing money placed in the child’s bank account by the TP and not allowed the child to spend it or has not spent it on the child.
  72. Tells the child in a deliberately malicious and vindictive manner that a behavior the child is / has done is similar to the TP.
  73. PASing parent will excessively emphasize the physical and facial features that are similar to the PASing parent and associated family and ignore or deny features associated with the TP.
  74. PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take a pet on visitation with TP even though TP is happy and willing to accommodate the pet.
  75. PASing parent has deliberately moved without providing TP details prior to the move.
  76. PASing parent has deliberately moved and refuses to provide TP with appropriate details.
  77. PASing parent allows a person contact with the child contrary to the TP’s wishes especially when the TP has reasonable grounds for their concern, i.e. domestic violence, previously proven abuse.
  78. The child undergoes or has undergone unnecessary surgical procedures without the prior knowledge or consent of the TP when there is evidence supporting the TP’s position.
  79. The PASing parent attempts to bribe, extort or threaten the TP into signing court documents that will exclude the TP from the child’s life or enhance the PASing parent’s position.
  80. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP to be dead, die or be killed, or severely injured.
  81. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP and other family members / friends associated with the TP to suffer some major mishap or injury.
  82. The PASing parent attempts or succeeds in changing the child’s religion.
  83. Told the child they can’t see the other parent because they are behind in their child support payments.
  84. Is unjustly rude and refuses to work co-operatively with the new partner of the other parent for the benefit of the child.
  85. Has refused of failed to provide mental health support for the child when there is reasonable evidence to support the child needs and would benefit from mental health intervention.
  86. Refusing to allow the child to participate in weekend sporting / developmental classes as the other parent would be present during the child’s attendance for part / half of the time.
  87. Parent has attempted to bribe officials, specialists and professionals to act / report in the favor of that parent even when there is evidence to the contrary.
  88. Parent has deliberately mislead, lied or concealed information or evidence to further his or her own case.
  89. Parent has physically assaulted the target parent in the presence of the child.
  90. Parent has forged, altered or tampered with official documentation to further his or her own case.
  91. The parent has submitted false and misleading statements to the police about the target parent and their family that that parent knew in advance to be false and misleading.
  92. Has displayed anger / verbal abuse concerning the target parent in front of the child or third party.
  93. attempted to or actually assisted the child to write letters / notes or to delivery same to the target parent 
  94. Encouraged the child to support them in their allegations against the target parent despite obvious evidence disputing claims made by both parent and child.
  95. Coaching, threatening or intimidating the child to remain silent about incidents the child has witnesses that do not support the custodial parent.
  96. Threatening or punishing the child for saying positive things about the target parent.
  97. Refused to provide the child for DNA testing when requested to do so.
  98. Deliberately cause alienation between siblings when one supports the custodial parent and the other the target parent.
  99. Told the child that the other parent does not love him or her that the other parent never wanted the child to be born.
  100. Told the child about intimate details pertaining to the marriage, which are inappropriate and done in a way to deliberately cause distress to the child.
  101. Has refused to share prescribed medication with the other parent during access.
  102. Alienator insists that the target parent’s extended family is not the children’s “real family” or that they are no good.
  103. Alienator tells the child(ren) that they have been replaced by the TPs new partner.
  104. Alienator tells the child(ren) that they have been replaced by children born to the TP and any new partner – whether or not children have been born.
  105. Alienator tells the child(ren) that they have been replaced by the TP’s new partner’s child(ren) and that they are therefore not wanted or loved by the TP.
  106. Alienator denigrates all statements, answers, discipline and activities of the TP with regard to their child(ren).
  107. Alienator frequently suggests to the child(ren) that the TP and/or new partner will do harm to the child(ren).
  108. Alienator demands that the TP be subjected to and accept blame for any injury incurred by the child however minor and natural in the course of life.
  109. Alienator forces the child to report minor injuries, bumps and bruises from play to a professional person as being the result of the TP and/or new partner.
  110. Alienator shaves off the child’s hair when the cut is provided by the TP stating that the cut is bad and the hair ruined.
  111. Alienator refuses the TP to comfort the child when injured in play.
  112. Alienator demands medical intervention for minor illnesses (ie. Demanding antibiotics for colds) and play injuries.
  113. ator undertakes “doctor shopping” until a practitioner sympathetic to their cause is found.
  114. Alienator does not comply with appropriate medical advice from practitioners who are not sympathetic to their cause.
  115. Alienator actively damages (cutting, tearing or staining) clothing provided for the child by the TP.
  116. Alienator refuses reasonably required medical treatment where the TP has sought review for a serious medical condition, which impairs the child or causes them to suffer.
  117. Alienator allows the child to undertake activities after separation from TP, which were previously refused and blames the TP for denying the child such activities.
  118. Alienator refuses to allow the child(ren) time alone with other adults or children.
  119. Alienator refuses to allow children to attend sleepovers with friends accusing friends parents of abuse.
  120. Alienator refuses to allow sleepovers stating that they ‘do not want the children to see how others live.”
  121. Alienator frequently tells the child(ren) that TP will harm them, has mental health problems etc. creating a fear of the TP.
  122. Alienator informs the child(ren) that the TP has a criminal record for harming children.
  123. Alienator will not allow the child(ren) to undergo any medical or psychological assessment without being present.
  124. Alienator informs the child(ren) that they were unwanted by the TP and that the TP insisted that pregnancy be terminated.
  125. Alienator insists that TP’s family never accepted she or the children and insisted that the pregnancy (ies) be terminated.
  126. Alienator blames TP for poor food quality, housing quality and/or availability of funds even where child support is paid and/or alienator contact is minimal.
  127. Alienator blames TP and new partner for stealing home, food, resources from the Alienator and child(ren).
  128. Alienator ignores the child(ren) when they discuss activities with the TP.
  129. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren) discuss activities with the TP.
  130. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren) express a desire to see/phone the TP.
  131. Alienator becomes angered when child(ren) engage in mother’s/father’s day activities at school which are focused on the TP.
  132. Alienator becomes angered when child expresses desire for contact with TP to school teachers/mates/colleagues.
  133. Alienator removes child from school and relocates child without cause if the child expressed a desire for contact with TP.
  134. Alienator informs child(ren) that TP is happier without them.
  135. Alienator informs child(ren) that TP does not love them anymore, is never going to see them again, does not want them any more.
  136. Alienator accuses the child(ren) of causing rifts/separation in the marriage. 
  137. Alienator informs child(ren) that TP is leaving THE CHILD(REN) rather than the marriage or the alienator.
  138. Alienator accuses the TP of infidelity in earshot of the child(ren).
  139. Alienator writes letters ‘on behalf’ of the child(ren) claiming that the child(ren) have had input.
  140. Alienator actively seeks to ensure that children believe that TP sends no letters, gifts or monies.
  141. Alienator removes and destroys any items sent to the child(ren) through an outside facility (ie. School, grandparent). This usually occurs on leaving the facility and appearing publicly to accept the items for the child.
  142. Alienator actively destroys and discards any gifts or letters that the child(ren) do see.
  143. Alienator insists that the child(ren) refer to TP using only a derogatory term (ie. The Bastard) 
  144. Alienator presents school teachers/principals with falsified documents/letters from practitioners or the AP.
  145. Alienator pawns the TP’s personal and private belongings citing financial hardship to the child(ren).
  146. Alienator pawns or returns to the retailer, gifts from TP citing financial hardship to the children.
  147. Alienator takes every opportunity to belittle the TP, in the presence of the child(ren), when seeking assistance from welfare agencies and providers.
  148. Refuses to provide TP with vital medical information thereby impeding the child(ren)s medical wellbeing.
  149. Refusing to notify TP of identified allergies.
  150. Refusing to notify TP of medical concerns or treatments for child(ren)
  151. Accuse TP of stealing items the child has lost.
  152. Attributing failure in school activities/studies to TP.
  153. Accusing TP of neglecting the child(ren).
  154. Denies essential medical care or treatment on the basis of financial hardship caused by TP.
  155. Consumes drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol and blaming TP for addictions.
  156. Purchases personal luxuries whilst denying children essentials and blaming TP for financial hardship.
  157. Refusing to allow child to bid TP goodbye after visitation with any affection shown in front of Alienator.
  158. Makes derogatory noises/comments when child or TP exhibit affection in presence of alienator.
  159. Accuses TP of displaying affection to child(ren) for ulterior motive.
  160. Accuses TP of PAS behaviours.
  161. Denigrates new partner or partner’s children to PAS children.
  162. )Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s new partner. 
  163. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s extended family.
  164. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s consequent children or children of new partner.
  165. Contacts TP’s extended family in presence of child(ren) to make false allegations of abuse/neglect/PAS.
  166. Refuses to allow child to give gifts/notes/paintings/letters to TP, new partner, children or extended family.
  167. AP is constantly rude, nasty, controlling and dictates when, where and what the TP can do with the kids during their time.  This attitude is also permeated to the children who are rude, nasty, controlling and dictate when, where and how they will spend their time with the TP.Source Link:  www.klothconsulting ... attachment

Dwyane Wade’s Custody Dispute a Classic Case of Parental Alienation - Fathers & Families

The difference between Parental Alienation and Kidnapping is with Parental Alienation, there is a negative brainwashing campaign against half of the cultural, genetic and heretic side of the child. Parental Alienation comes with life long consequences for the child, in every case.

Post by Parental Alienation Awareness Organization - PAAO.
Doc says, "Need criminal courts to prosecute alienators!"
The parental alienation epidemic is out of control. it is destroying families by the millions! We need tax payer funded criminal courts to recognize and prosecute this terrible crime against the civil rights of children and parents everywhere. This could possibly stop the outbreak of family destruction. #parentalalienation #kidnapping #childabuse http://thechildpriority.com
Posted by Super Dad's Whos Kids have angry moms on Saturday, December 28, 2013


Post by Stop Mental Child Abuse.

Related articles

Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Location: County of Miami Dade: Family Court Services, 175 Northwest 1st Avenue #1503, Miami, FL 33128, USA

4 comments:

  1. False DVI ReportsOctober 1, 2013 at 7:34 PM

    It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
    As a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
    Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
    The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
    I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.

    Thank you,
    Tom Lemons
    Founder, www.falsedvireports.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. End Parental AlienationNovember 14, 2013 at 3:23 PM

    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?

    What 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?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve GartinDecember 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

    PRO SE RIGHTS:
    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."

    Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Redress Inc.December 30, 2013 at 8:01 PM

    “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…” ~ 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

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Take Action Now!

Children's Rights Florida

Florida Family Law Reform

Family Law Community

Search This Blog

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

Abuse (7) Abuse of power (1) Abuse of process (5) Admission to practice law (3) Adversarial system (79) Advocacy group (3) African American (1) Alienator (1) Alimony (7) All Pro Dad (1) All rights reserved (1) Allegation (2) Alliance for Justice (2) American Civil Liberties Union (3) American Psychological Association (1) Americans (2) Anecdotal evidence (2) Anti-discrimination law (1) Arrest (1) Bar association (1) Best interests (41) Bill (law) (1) British Psychological Society (1) Broward County (1) Broward County Public Schools (2) Brown University (1) Catholic Church (1) Center for Public Integrity (2) Chief judge (25) Child Abuse (48) Child custody (76) Child development (6) Child neglect (2) Child protection (15) Child Protective Services (18) Child Support (61) Children (3) Children's Rights (83) Christine Lagarde (1) Christmas (3) Circuit court (3) Civil and political rights (14) Civil law (common law) (1) Civil liberties (9) Civil Rights (143) Civil rights movement (1) Class action (1) Communist Party of Cuba (1) Confidentiality (1) Constitutional law (1) Constitutional right (5) Contact (law) (10) Contempt of court (2) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1) Coparenting (27) Copyright (1) Copyright infringement (1) Corruption (1) Court Enabled PAS (90) Court order (2) Cuba (1) Cuban Missile Crisis (1) Cuban Revolution (1) Custodial Parent (1) Declaratory judgment (3) Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact (109) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2) Divorce (121) Divorce Corp (3) Divorce Court (1) Documentary (22) Domestic Violence (51) Dr. Stephen Baskerville (5) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1) DSM-5 (1) DSM-IV Codes (1) Due Process (44) Due Process Clause (1) Dwyane Wade (1) Easter (1) Equal-time rule (2) Ethics (1) Events (9) Exposé (group) (1) Facebook (19) Fair use (1) False accusation (4) False Accusations (56) Family (1) Family (biology) (2) Family Court (192) Family Law (107) Family Law Reform (115) Family Rights (86) Family therapy (10) Father (12) Father figure (2) Father's Day (1) Father's Rights (12) Fatherhood (105) Fatherlessness Epidemic (4) Fathers 4 Justice (3) Fathers' rights movement (44) Fidel Castro (1) Florida (209) Florida Attorney General (6) Florida Circuit Courts (18) florida lawyers (29) Florida Legislature (6) Florida Senate (10) Foster care (1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1) Fraud (1) Free Speech (1) Freedom of speech (1) Frivolous litigation (1) Fundamental rights (12) Gender equality (1) Government Accountability Project (2) Government interest (2) Grandparent (3) Havana (1) Healthy Children (14) Human Rights (117) Human rights commission (1) I Love My Daughter (55) I Love My Son (8) Injunction (1) Innocence Project (1) Investigative journalism (1) Jason Patric (2) JavaScript (1) Joint custody (8) Joint custody (United States) (16) Judge (4) Judge Judy (7) Judge Manno-Schurr (53) Judicial Accountability (100) Judicial Immunity (6) Judicial misconduct (8) Judicial Reform (3) Judicial Watch (2) Judiciary (3) Jury trial (1) Kids for cash scandal (1) Law (1) Lawsuit (8) Lawyer (8) Legal Abuse (147) Liar Joel Greenberg (15) Linda Gottlieb (1) Litigant in person (1) Little Havana (1) Marriage (6) Matt O'Connor (1) Men's rights movement (1) Mental disorder (1) Mental health (2) Meyer v. Nebraska (1) Miami (43) Miami-Dade County (8) Miami-Dade County Public Schools (1) Miscarriage of justice (40) Mother (4) Motion of no confidence (1) Movie (4) Music (8) Nancy Schaefer (1) National Fatherhood Initiative (1) Natural and legal rights (1) News (86) Nixa Maria Rose (15) Non-governmental organization (1) Noncustodial parent (4) Organizations (56) Palm Beach County (1) Parent (35) Parental Alienation (115) Parental alienation syndrome (15) Parental Rights (36) Parenting (12) Parenting plan (5) Parenting time (7) Parents' rights movement (38) Paternity (law) (1) Personal Story (22) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1) Pope (1) Posttraumatic stress disorder (27) President of Cuba (1) Pro Se (29) Pro se legal representation in the United States (3) Prosecutor (1) Protest (1) Psychological manipulation (1) Psychologist (1) Public accommodations (1) Public Awareness (105) Raúl Castro (1) Re-Post/Re-Blog (12) Research (1) Restraining order (4) Rick Scott (12) Second-class citizen (1) Self Representation-Pro Se (31) Sexism (1) Sexual abuse (2) Sexual assault (1) Shared Parenting (90) Single parent (6) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1) Social Issues (57) Social Media (1) Spanish (8) Stand Up For Zoraya (46) State school (1) Student (1) Supreme Court of Florida (7) Supreme Court of the United States (5) Testimony (23) Thanksgiving (1) The Florida Bar (9) The Good Men Project (1) Trauma (4) Troxel v. Granville (1) True Story (21) Turner v. Rogers (1) United States (24) United States Congress (1) United States Constitution (1) United States Department of Justice (4) Videos (50) Violence Against Women Act (1) Whistle-blower (3)