Dr. Stephen Baskerville in Amsterdam at the 5th World Congress of Families
Dr. Baskerville presents a compelling argument for a paradigm shift globally to recognize the role of both fit parents in children's lives and a departure from the current trajectory toward the growing welfare state in western civilization.
By now the Committee on the Rights of the Child (“Committee”), which is charged with overseeing the implementation of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), has made so many exaggerated claims of authority that they can’t even shock us anymore. Well, until they do.
Last month the Committee issued its review of CRC implementation by the Holy See, the political entity of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church. While the extreme leftist agend of the Committee has never been much of a secret, it is on display at its most egregious in this “Concluding Observations” report.
The key issues of “concern” for the Committee were as one might expect: abortion, teen sexuality, homosexuality (and homosexual marriage), corporal punishment (spanking), and parental rights. According to Catholic Church doctrine, abortion is the murder of an unborn child; sex is intended only within the confines of marriage; homosexual activity or lifestyle is a sin; a moderate spanking is – or can be - a part of godly discipline; and parents have the ultimate God-given responsibility for their children.
But the Committee disagrees on all points. What’s more, they communicated the expectation that the Catholic Church must change its stance on all of these topics to comply with the Convention. In so doing, the Committee placed its own opinion above the Scriptures, traditions, and religious convictions of the Catholic Church.
On the issue of sexuality, the Committee calls on the Holy See “to support efforts at [the] international level for the decriminalization of homosexuality,” and to “recognize the diversity of family settings” (which is code for granting legitimacy to homosexual unions). It also demands that the Holy See use its influence to “overcome all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality,” while spreading “information on the harm [of] early marriage.” But the support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle is in direct conflict with Catholic theology, as is the promotion of sexual intimacy (homo- or hetero-) outside of marriage.
No problem, says the Committee. The Church should simply grant “the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” Both Canon Law and the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture are specifically mentioned in the report as among the “internal laws” that should be changed to comply with the Convention. (Paragraph 12: “[T]he Committee regrets that the same approach has not been followed in relation to its internal laws, including Canon Law.” Paragraph 40(d): “[E]nsure that an interpretation of Scripture as not condoning corporal punishment is reflected in Church teaching and other activities and incorporated into all theological education and training.”)
To their credit, “the Holy See still does not consider corporal punishment as being prohibited by the Convention,” likely because no provision of the Convention says otherwise, and because only 25 of the 192 states parties to the Convention have laws against modest spankings in the home as a form of discipline (most of which adopted these laws in response to the browbeating of the Committee). Yet the Committee not only dismisses the view of the Holy See, but also attempts to dictate to the Catholic Church how its Scriptures should be interpreted.
This adds frightful undertones to its admonition as “The Committee…reminds the Holy See that by ratifying the Convention, it has committed itself to implementing the Convention…through individuals and institutions placed under its authority,” and that they must “ensure the Convention’s precedence over internal laws and regulations.” In essence, the U.N. claims the Holy See has an obligation to urge priests and teachers to follow the tenets of this Committee rather than the doctrines of the Scriptures.
The Committee’s interpretation of the Convention has never even been sanctioned by the nations of the U.N., yet now it ranks higher in the Catholic Church than “the Word of God?” And just to give it teeth, the Committee urges the Holy See to “ratify the core human rights instruments to which it is not yet a party, namely the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure….” (i.e. a complaint mechanism).
Also to their credit, the Holy See holds “that civil authorities should intervene in the family setting only in cases where a proven abuse has been committed in order not to interfere with the duties and rights of parents.” Again the Committee takes issue, claiming “that prerogatives of the parents should in no way undermine children’s right to be protected from abuse and neglect.” But this is not an either…or, and we are not talking about prerogatives. We are talking about the right of parents to make decisions for their own children, absent abuse or neglect. Innocent parents and their children share a right to familial privacy and integrity – something the Committee apparently denies.
The United States Supreme Court once wrote that “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”Parham v. J.R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979). Yet that is the very notion being set forth by this over-reaching U.N. Committee.
Proponents of U.N. Human Rights treaties in the U.S. Senate would have us believe that these conventions do not bind American law or limit U.S. sovereignty. But the Committee responsible for overseeing implementation of this treaty holds a very different view.
In its defense of parental rights, the Holy See has expressed concern that Article 12 of the Convention, on the right of the child to express their views in all matters affecting them, and to have their views given due weight, “undermin[es] the rights and duties of parents,” a concern which we share. This vague “right” can easily be used by government actors to override the decisions of any parent anytime their child disagrees with said decision. But the Committee asserts “that ensuring this right is a legal obligation under the Convention, which leaves no leeway for the discretion of the States parties.” (emphasis added)
It only makes sense, if the Committee’s view supersedes the text of the Convention ratified by 192 nations, the opinion of the Holy See, and even the foundational scriptures of the Catholic Church, that it would “leave no leeway for the discretion” of the United States, either.
Which is one more powerful reason to reject this and any similar treaty.
Fortunately, the proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution will de-authorize the Senate and the President from ever ratifying any treaty that, like the CRC, would pose a threat to the right of innocent parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children in accordance with their own conscience and religious belief. This should be very welcome news for anyone who believes their religious tenets – regardless of which faith they hold – should not be held captive by an 18-member panel of “experts” on “child rights.”
If you have not already done so, please sign the petition now atparentalrights.org/petition to promote the adoption of the Parental Rights Amendment. You can also support our cause to protect religious liberty and parental rights with your donation at parentalrights.org/donate. Finally, you can take an active part in our efforts by signing the up at parentalrights.org/volunteer.
The more authority the U.N. seeks to grab from parents and pro-family institutions, the more important it is that we all stand together. Only then can we preserve our freedoms for the next generation.
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research
APOSTOLIC LETTER ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF FRANCIS ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATEIN CRIMINAL MATTERS
In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.
It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.
In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.
With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:
1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:
a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;
b) crimes referred to:
- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;
- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;
when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;
c) any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.
2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.
3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”:
a) members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it.
b) papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See.
c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities directly dependent on the Holy See and listed in the registry of canonical juridical persons kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;
d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority.
4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws.
5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.
6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.
This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.
Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
FRANCISCUS
SOURCE: HTTP://WWW.CASAROSADA.GOB.AR/INFORMACION/ACTIVIDAD-OFICIAL/26392-LA-PRESIDENTA-SE-REUNE-CON-EL-PAPA-FRANCISCO-EN-CIUDAD-DEL-VATICANO
© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.
Post by Judicial Watch, Inc.8 News NOW
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Judge accused of signing blank child-removal orders is NOT immune from suit, federal court rules
By Martha Neil~
Because pre-signing blank court orders for others to fill out after hours is an administrative rather than a judicial function requiring discretion, a Michigan judge who allegedly followed this practice is not immune from liability in a lawsuit filed by parents who briefly lost custody of their child, a federal judge has ruled. 201 MORE WORDS
Cordero: Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing:
Leonard Henderson at AFR News -
Subject: Re: On exposing unaccountable judges’ riskless wrongdoing and a plan of action to achieve legislated judicial reformDate: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 13:39:36 -0500From: Richard Cordero To: *ABSTRACT* of *Exposing Judges' Unaccountability and Consequent Riskless Wrongdoing*:
Pioneering the news and publishing field of judicial unaccountability reporting and a Plan of Action to Achieve Legislated Judicial Reform Based on Transparency, Accountability, Discipline by Citizen Boards, and Liability of Judges and Judiciaries to Their Victims by *Dr. Richa... more »
11% of Americans shown medicated antidepressants, new figures show
11% of Americans shown medicated antidepressants, new figures show
Delaware Family Court has been selected as one of only four court systems nationwide to be a part of a U.S. Department of Justice two-year pilot program to evaluate what works best in child custody and visitation cases.
Delaware Family Court in US pilot seeking custody alternatives
unhappygrammy at Grandparents blog-Dedicated to Austin and Isabella -
Delaware Family Court in US pilot seeking custody alternatives | The News Journal | delawareonline.com
Posted by Children's Rights on Saturday, September 19, 2015
A message from Dr. Stephen Baskerville:
Posted by The Fathers' Rights Movement on Thursday, August 22, 2013
Posted by The Fathers' Rights Movement on Wednesday, August 21, 2013
A very good Interview of Dr. Stephen Baskerville. Alarming Facts and studies to support just how deep the corruption goes.
Posted by The Fathers' Rights Movement on Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Today we celebrate and congratulate former ACFC president Dr. Stephen Baskerville on his marriage. Stephen's book '...
Posted by American Coalition for Fathers and Children - ACFC on Saturday, January 11, 2014
Stephen Baskerville is Associate Professor of Government at Patrick Henry College and Research Fellow at the Howard...
Posted by Feminist Hypocrisy on Friday, August 2, 2013
I came upon this book a few years ago and it literally made me so sad and upset it made me nauseous I never finished it....
Posted by The Fathers' Rights Movement on Monday, May 4, 2015
Feminist and homosexual interest groups are attacking the academic freedom of Dr. Baskerville. Sign now!
Posted by CitizenGO on Saturday, November 2, 2013
I will be speaking to the annual meeting of the Arkansas BarAssociation in Hot Springs, Arkansas, on Wednesday, June 9,...
Posted by Taken into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family on Sunday, June 6, 2010
If you are wondering what insane ideology has made legal kidnapping of your children a State policy, how families are...
Posted by Equal Justice Foundation, Inc. on Sunday, September 22, 2013
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, September 24, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Tuesday, September 22, 2015
This type Psychological Abuse or Family Legal Abuse can cause a parent(s) a traumatic “injury”. We’re talking about very...
Posted by Children's Rights on Thursday, September 24, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
World4Justice : Cyber Protest! 23 September - 1 January 2016 WORLDWIDE!https://www.facebook.com/events/479697948749681/
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
PETITION TO NEWS DIRECTORS AT @CNN, @MSNBC, @ABCNEWS, @CBSNEWS, @NBCNews #OpExposeCPS https://world4justice.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/petition-to-news-directors-at-cnn-msnbc-abcnews-cbsnews-nbcnews-2/
Posted by Children's Rights on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Wednesday, September 23, 2015
The joy and importance of children.Family and religion have historically been the two most important social...
Posted by Childrens Rights Florida on Sunday, September 27, 2015
“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
Dear Friends,
ReplyDeleteOne in six Americans know someone who has been falsely accused of domestic violence. The silver bullets in divorce, false allegations are sometimes used to obtain child custody. This despicable act removes fit and loving parents from the lives of their children.
Please take a moment, as soon as possible, and speak out for the millions of children who are missing a falsely accused parent. And do it for the parents who are grieving for their children, stolen with a lie.
Find your senators here:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Take note of their party affiliation and phone number.
If your senator is a Republican, call, and ask them to support Sen. Grassley's Substitute Amendment to VAWA.
If your senator is a Democrat, call, and ask them to demand changes to Sen. Leahy's VAWA (S. 1925), to curb false allegations of domestic violence.
Do it For the Children, Stolen with a Lie!
Thank you for taking a stand for affected families everywhere.
Florida Judge & Lawyer Complaints
ReplyDeleteHow to file complaints against Florida Family Law Judges and Family Law Lawyers?
Each State has its own procedures for filing complaints against Judges. All states require a written and signed complaint. Some states have a form for you to fill out. Other States request a letter. Grievances of misconduct usually concern issues of conflict of interest or impartiality. Adverse rulings or judgments are not considered legitimate grievances. You must support the complaint to the JQC about the Florida Family Law Judge with sufficient documentation.
Florida Family Law Judge Complaints
Write to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Committee.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org
Florida Family Law Judicial Complaint
Mailing Address
Judicial Qualifications Committee (JQC)
1110 Thomasville Road
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Telephone
850-488-1581
All states maintain an agency to process lawyer complaints. These disciplinary counsels can usually be found as a department of the state bar association or as a branch of the state Supreme Court. Complaints in Florida can be filed by filling out a form supplied by the disciplinary counsel or by writing a letter to The Florida Bar.
Florida Family Law Lawyer Complaints
The Florida Bar handles complaints about family law lawyers in Florida.
Mailing Address
The Florida Bar
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
Telephone
850-561-5600
FLORIDA TODAY - OPINION
DeleteWritten by Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D., Miami
While I applaud columnist Paul Flemming for a sound review of the issues in Saturday’s “Alimony bill will be great — for lawyers,” his bottom-line conclusion is dead wrong.
The proposed state alimony reform bill will reduce litigation, not increase litigation. A bit of history: For years, the divorce vultures (a.k.a., the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar) have conned the Florida Legislature into writing divorce legislation that maximizes litigation and thus maximizes their income. In part, they have accomplished this by maximizing judicial discretion, which in practice means endless conflict and, of course, endless paid litigation.
No matter what they may say, the divorce vultures are interested only in one thing — maximizing their income.
I can irrefutably demonstrate this point with Flemming’s own words: “Thomas Duggar, an attorney in Tallahassee and a member of the Florida Bar’s Family Law Section, said last week at a Tallahassee Bar Association meeting that the section has a $100,000 war chest to sway public opinion against the legislation.”
Do your readers honestly believe they are spending all this money so they will lose income? The divorce vultures get the message in terms of what alimony reform will cost them — and save the children, fathers and mothers of divorce. I regret Mr. Flemming did not do the same.
Full Disclosure: I am an alimony-paying divorced father of two young adult daughters and retired university divorce researcher with multiple research and scholarly publications on this topic.
"Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children, and however they may feel, they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey
ReplyDeleteHOW 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?
A Support and Advocacy blog for Protective Parents and innocent Children harmed by wrongdoing under the color of law, the Family Law and CPS Industries. We investigate where the media can't or won't go.
ReplyDeleteThe people "have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good." In Keeping with the Constitution, Blind Bulldog is committed to serving the common good in Shasta County.
The following, brilliant take is from a Blind Bulldog affiliate from Southern Cal:
"The untethered aggression of family courts is due to a vacuum of institutional client advocacy--unlike criminal courts, which have firmly-established constitutional rights, strict state and federal oversight of state court judges, and a dedicated “criminal defense bar” to thwart government aggression, or civil courts that have “plaintiffs'” and “defense” bars to balance one another’s private agendas, family court has no “litigant bar.” The divorce attorneys themselves favor aggression for the simple reason identified in the movie--follow the money. Attorneys have not filled that vacuum to defend their own clients, leaving them vulnerable to the natural tendency of government to intrude. Family court litigants are, sad to say, woefully unaware of what they’re up against, and the body count shows results that are entirely predictable--but we think preventable.
Family court was created by lawyers and judges--literally--rather than the citizens it should be protecting. We’ve located the history through testimony and other documentation showing something like a Jekyll Island series of “off the record” meetings between California judges, attorneys, and bureaucrats in the 90’s to “set up” family court to their liking, then seeking what became essentially a rubber stamp granting unheard of discretion from the California legislature. This system is now unfortunately the model or trend for many states--hence our nationwide membership and approach. Citizens had virtually no input and maintain no control.
Federal courts have observed unusually broad adaptations of “federalism,” “comity,” “standing,” and “abstention” legal doctrines to leave the vacuum unoccupied by otherwise ordinary protections of federal rights for individual citizens and legal consumers. Litigants themselves are outmatched in organization--they’re a revolving door commodity. No one wants to stick around long enough to enforce reform. Hence rampant abuse in a lop-sided system of foxes guarding the henhouse, and you and I are on the ever-expanding menu."
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. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."
Intimidation of Pro-Se Litigants
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law,natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin,color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.
ReplyDelete