A self-censored chronicle of family court dramas, lived by parents who lost all or some visitation with or custody of a child or children based on perjury and/or other false courtroom evidence
NBA star Dwyane Wade's lawyers said in court Friday that his ex-wife is manipulative, mentally unstable and occasionally violent. Her lawyer accused Wade of being disengaged, uncommitted and too busy to be a full-time dad. Lawyers for Wade and his former wife, Siohvaughn, leveled the charges in closing arguments Friday after a bitter child custody trial that has dragged on for more than four months. Each parent is seeking sole custody of their two boys, ages 8 and 3. By Dawn Rhodes, Chicago Tribune reporter.
What Judge Goldfarb and Dr. Amabile did in the Wade case, is observe and describe the behavior of a mother bent on keeping two young children away from their father. That alienation clearly led to certain behaviors by the boys that certainly looks like PAS to me. It’s what Dr. Richard Gardner, Dr. Richard Warshak, Dr. Amy Baker and many others have described countless times. By Robert Franklin, Esq
Parental Alienation Syndrome is the systematic denigration by one parent with the intent of alienating the child against the target parent. In most cases, the purpose of the alienation is to gain cust...
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that allpleadings
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."
Nothing in this message or the group's archives should be considered legal advise. Please consult an attorney for that stuff because they claim to know these things and will happily charge you a lot of money for sharing their knowledge and experience.
