Thursday, December 13, 2012

Kansas - Lawless America



Lawless America:

This is what ails us as Americans. Legislative branches continue to make or draft laws without placing proper checks and balances over their laws or the other 2 branches of government. Yet, the legislature keeps producing incomplete legislation. We cannot give these agencies or branches more power, less over site, or give them immunity all the way through the process. This is the cancer and the failure of our society to address this as a community, and making our legislators tow the line - FOR US. 

We have a system in place that places parents and our citizens in involuntary servitude. This is against the law in Kansas and the U.S. Constitution. 
The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime.
Kansas Bill of Rights6. Slavery prohibited. There shall be no slavery in this state; and no involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Parental Rights:
The solution begins by recognizing that the government has no role as a parent. Being a parent is not a government "right." Being a parent is a fundamental right, seen as one of our unalienable Rights that the government has no authority to interfere in or take away. We can use the criminal courts when there is a legitimate issue at hand, but even then, there is to be a very high standard to reach in order to "taking away parental rights." Return all parental rights to those who have been stripped of those fundamental rights. The Judges in family court, Juvenile and CINC systems have committed massive child abuse and fraud, the SRS, DECA and other agencies have committed them as well and we should put these people on trial for their high crimes.  The Judicial selection process is a very small piece of the solution, we have to have massive reforms to create checks and balances that cease this type of behavior or conduct of our public government officials and Judges!
If you want to strengthen families, allow more take home pay, cut down on ignorant jail sentences - then look no further than the Judicial system starting with Family courts! Restore the power to the people now!
This is but a sample of thousands of cases in our State let alone our entire country: 


Chris Brown - Wichita (Judge Kisner, Judge Walters, Judge Magana)

Marlene Jones - Wichita (Judge Brooks, Powell)

Julie & John Hatcher - Overland Park (Judge Kathleen Sloan)

Claudine Dombrowski - Topeka

Kathy Winter - Olathe

Joan Heffington - Derby



Monday, December 3, 2012


Opinion: State’s judge selection undemocratic

November 29, 2012
ADVERTISEMENT
In a democracy like ours, should lawmakers be selected democratically? Not according to the Journal-World (“Court, politics,” Nov. 23), which wants some of our state’s most important lawmakers selected in a deeply undemocratic process that makes the votes of some residents count far more than the votes of others.
The lawmakers in question are our state’s appellate court judges.
Judges are lawmakers? Yes. Judges have routinely made law throughout our country’s history and even earlier, going back to England. This judge-made law, called the “common law,” has generally worked well and continues today to govern thousands of cases including those involving contracts, property rights and bodily injuries.
Common law rules differ from state to state. States with more liberal judges tend to have more liberal common law, while states with more conservative judges tend to have more conservative common law. The political leanings of appellate judges, rather than trial judges, are especially important because appellate judges have much more power over the direction of the law.
In short, the appellate judges of Kansas, like those of other states, are tremendously important lawmakers. What is unusual about the lawmaking judges of Kansas is how they are selected. None of the other 49 states uses the system Kansas uses to pick its two appellate courts. And for good reason, because the Kansas system is a shockingly undemocratic way to select lawmakers.
At the center of the Kansas system is the Supreme Court Nominating Commission; most of the members of this commission are picked in elections open to only 10,000 people, the members of the state bar. The remaining 2.8 million people in Kansas have no vote in these elections.
This violates basic equality among citizens, the principle of one-person, one-vote. The current system elevates one small group and treats everyone else like second-class citizens.
Kansas lawyers tend to be fine people but they’re not superheroes. They don’t deserve more power than lawyers have in any of the other 49 states. In a democracy, a lawyer’s vote should not be worth more than any other resident’s vote.
So the problem is not that Kansas has a nominating commission but how that commission is selected. As Washburn law professor Jeffrey Jackson wrote, democratic legitimacy “would appear to favor a reduction in the influence of the state bar and its members over the nominating commission because they do not fit within the democratic process. Rather, the more desirable system from a legitimacy standpoint would have a greater number of the commission’s members selected through means more consistent with the concept of representative government.”
Bar groups in Kansas claim that this violation of our democratic principles is the only way to get competent judges. But the bar provides no evidence that judges selected in lawyer-favoring systems are better than judges selected in the more open and democratic appointment systems used by a dozen other states. Kansas should follow those states’ lead so that our state’s courts can have democratic legitimacy as well as professional competence.
— Stephen J. Ware is a professor in the Kansas University School of Law.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Post Election 2012 - keep it Real


Since the election Tuesday several things are happening. On Wednesday, the Stock Market was so thrilled with facing another four years of Obamanomics that it fell 313 points. If nothing is resolved by Jan. 1 and the Bush era tax cuts are allowed to stop, the economy is expected to suffer, so some investors are already selling while the Stock Market is relatively high and before it plunges further down. Boeing, revealed their plans to restructure their defense division.  Those plans include reducing management jobs by 30%, consolidating several of their business divisions to save money and to shut down their facilities in California. In Las Vegas, one business owner believed he was left with no choice but to lay off 22 of his 114 employees because of Obama’s victory.  He said that his costs of running a business and having to pay more in taxes and health insurance costs due to Obamacare left him no alternative. A Utah coal company owned by a vocal critic of President Barack Obama has laid off 102 miners. The layoffs at the West Ridge Mine are effective immediately, according to Utah American Energy Inc., a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corp. They were announced in a short statement made public Thursday; two days after Obama won re-election. The Fiscal Cliff is not January 1 as everyone claims, but it was November 6, 2012. We are already seeing the first few rocks tumbling down the face of the cliff and believe me, there is a lot more to come and when it does, we will find ourselves buried beneath it with little hope of getting out.

Who are the ones that are truly unwilling to compromise? It’s Obama and the Democrats. They have said it’s their way or no way. The legislation they passed, they did not allow debate and now we have “THEIR” legislation in place.  And like old times, the media is already taking the liberal side and laying the blame on Republicans for not compromising. January 1, 2013 is being referred to as the Fiscal Cliff.  If nothing is done, the tax breaks enjoyed by all of us will end and we will see a significant decrease in our take-home pay.  Additionally, there will be forced massive spending cuts in the federal government, some of which will not be beneficial such as in the Defense Department. There is one thing that hasn’t changed at all and that is the unwillingness of the Democrats to compromise and then blaming Republicans for the same.

             It’s easier and cheaper to take over the GOP. Starting a viable third party or just take over an existing political party? I have been hearing the same rhetoric for more than 30 years. The establishment stock is down when it comes to the Republican establishment, and it’s ripe for a takeover. Most Conservatives despise the Republican Establishment (as I do), but they haven’t offered a viable alternative except in principle. Viability is important for people who do not have an ideological dog in the fight which is where a majority of Americans are. People support winners. If you can’t or will not grasp this point, then you better find a different line of work.

             I firmly believe that many (maybe most) third-party people don’t want a real change in the political landscape because they know they couldn’t make it work. We split or water down the platforms even more which confuse the already blind electorate and they don’t have the skills, knowledge, or the work ethic to make the fundamental changes that are needed to turn things around and the clock is working against them. Some are content to watch it all burn and then believe that a new political Phoenix will rise from the ashes and a desperate world will call on them to show the way to salvation. It’s not going to happen. If it burns, it’s taking us with it. Sorry folks, but that’s not the way it works. It doesn’t work in politics like it doesn’t work in medicine, fixing cars, building a house, learning a new language, designing a sky scraper, or learning to play a musical instrument. It’s hard work. Talk does not build a building. The majority of people do not devote that amount of time to politics, but it shows us that change is not magical. It doesn’t drop from the sky after wishing, bitching, and hoping. It takes a lot of hard work and determination. Are you up to the task?

There are plenty of things to take away from this election and a clear understanding of just the pure numbers:
In 2008 McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden - 132,653,958 voters turnout rate of 61.6%
In 2012 Romney/Ryan vs. Obama/Biden - 118,782,374 voters
We were (Down - 13,871,584) voters. 10 million less Obama voters. We lost the popular vote by a difference of 2,899,844, less than the 3 million that stayed home and didn't vote.

              The Democrats removed God from their platform and supported pro-Abortion while the Republican platform reflected a pro-Life position yet 50% of the Catholics voted for BHO. In comparison 78% of White Evangelical Christians voted for Romney. What does this tell us? The Obama team ran on no vision for the future other than more of the same. High unemployment, 47 million people on food stamps, Middle East is in shambles, cover ups, and the Federal government trying to impose its will on states and the Republican Party could not win at the National level – WHY?

                Ready???? Women are the biggest voting block in the United States. The media wants to paint Sarah Palin as a “polarizing individual” – to whom? The statistics at the National level are more than clear. Unless the Republican Party can “PHYSICALLY” get away from White male leaders only and make sure the ticket cross’s gender and ethnic lines, the war on women, the isolation tag on minorities is going to stick. Sarah Palin brought out the women in 2008 and the conservative base voters with her strong conservative values. When we continue to allow the media and the establishment to keep bringing Moderate (all be it bright and experienced) individuals to the front of the pack, the party will continue to fade at the NATIONAL level where building a platform that cross’s ethnic and gender gaps is imperative because these individuals have simply been unable to articulate their message into these groups. The Republican Party/Tea Party continues to gain and have success at the State level and lower where the ethnic and gender gaps are being crossed at a rapid pace but when it comes to the National level it is a miserable failure. Even the State levels can garner way more support if the leaderships were changed.  

                There is simply no argument to the fact that they have to be experienced for the job knowing what we have at the current President and the Vice President, these two are the joke of the World, making us the laughing stock of the World. I would also even consider going back to the last 3 Democratic Presidents (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) and extending that argument. Romney needed to have either a women or a minority on the ticket that was staunchly conservative to rally the base and the other voting blocs – he failed miserably. We could not even get voters out after the last four years of the start of Armageddon. You may not want to accept this but this is the world we live in.

                America's voters – 73% White, 13% Black, 10% Latino, 3% Asian. Women make up 55% of the voting electorate and when they vote 56%-41% Democrat or 67%-31% Democrat that are un married to the Democrat Party we lose every time. Even with Blacks voting 93% Democrat and Latino voting 75% Democrat. The numbers are the numbers – either we change the menu or you get served the same meal!

Sunday, September 23, 2012

September 22, 2012 "The Problem"


The Problem our Legal System


September 22, 2012
Legislators and friends,

The Solution: State Legislation

            It is inherent in the nature of the state that sovereignty must be, Absolute and Perpetual. No Governing body or power can be absolute, unless it is by the people. Every Congressman or woman knows that the states are sovereign and it is their sovereign duty to protect our fundamental rights from all enemies to the Constitution and Republic foreign, domestic and that includes the Judicial Branch and the Federal government.
            We have plenty of people that have combined forces that have drafted state legislation ideas that will fix many of these problems. This is a conservative process, conservative approach and lastly it’s exactly what our founders put in place to protect our Sovereignty and our civil rights as a society.  The State has to be sovereign in its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens!
            The Constitution is but a piece of paper to these people. It has to be a living breathing document that brings life into our hearts and minds. This is an intense peril to our Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the voters are demanding changes – real changes are needed and the Legislature needs to act on it appropriately! Problems in the family court and Juvenile system will persist until judges and other court officials are held accountable for following the law.

1.         All court proceedings need to be video recorded, and all parties shall have the right to do their own recording of all proceedings.
[Judges and attorneys get away with lies, concealing the voice deflection of their comments, and falsifying court transcripts; this will be a tool to make them more accountable while protecting the fundamental rights of the parties.]
           
2.         Each elected official and every government employee in the state, including all federal elected officials and federal employees operating in the state, shall be required to sign a Contract with the Citizens of the State and the United States that requires them to be honest at all times and defend the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
[This Contract makes all elected officials accountable to the people; they are essentially accountable to no one at this time.  Violation of the Contract will be presented to a Special Grand Jury.]
           
3.         Judges must address all points raised by all parties in every court decision with a clear explanation with citation to determining facts, statutes, and case law.
[One of the dishonest/corrupt techniques used by judges is to ignore the issues, facts, and law.  By forcing judges to address the issues, facts, statutes, and case law on each issue in their orders, judges will either treat the parties fairly or expose themselves for all to see.  When judges violate this provision, an aggrieved party will now have the ability to take the matter to a Special Grand Jury.]
           
4.         Appellate judges must address all points of error in every appellate decision with a clear explanation with citation to determining facts, statutes, and case law.
[Appellate judges are even more dishonest than lower court judges when it comes to ignoring the issues, facts, statutes, and case law.  By forcing judges to address the issues, facts, statutes, and case law, judges will either treat the parties fairly or expose themselves for all to see.  When judges violate this provision, an aggrieved party will now have the ability to take the matter to a Special Grand Jury.]

            5.         Judges must insist that people tell the truth in court with extreme consequences for those who don't.
[There are rules that will make the legal process infinitely different, fair and less expensive.  Judges must honor and enforce the rules.  It is one of the only ways to get witnesses and attorneys to be more honest.]
           
6.         Perjury is a cause of action that will be allowed in a civil suit with an automatic jury trial.
[Currently, people can lie repeatedly in court, and those damaged by the perjury have no recourse, and judges do nothing.  Citizens need the ability to seek damages against witnesses in court who commit perjury. DS’s state the “bar” is entirely too high and that is why they never charge this offense.]

            7.         Attorneys must go by the letter of every law and every professional rule.  Judges must subject attorneys to onerous consequences for violations.
[There are rules that will make the legal process infinitely better and less expensive.  Judges must honor and enforce the rules.  It is one of the only ways to get attorneys and judges to be honest.]

            8.         Attorneys who violate their Code of Professional Conduct shall be referred to a Special Grand Jury.
[Attorneys are a big part of the problem with the legal system.  If they followed their Code of Professional Conduct, the legal system would be much different, and the expense of litigation would be dramatically reduced.  Accountability by an independent Special Grand Jury should have amazing impact.]

            9.         "Motion practice" must be minimized.  Judges must hold conferences and allow attorneys and pro se parties to communicate important issues directly to judges. 
[In federal courts especially, judges avoid all contact with the attorneys and parties.  They force the parties to file motions, responses, and replies to motion after motion.  This runs up massive legal fees and provides infinite opportunities for misconduct and mistreatment of the parties.]

            10.        Judges may not dismiss a case or enter summary judgments when a jury trial has been requested.
[Judges corrupt the judicial process by depriving parties of a jury trial.  Juries must make the decisions in legal matters -- not judges.]

            11.        All family court, juvenile and CINC trials shall be by jury.
[Family court abuse and corruption is one of the most widely-criticized.  Judges and their friends involved in the family court process create a situation ripe for injustice and corruption.  We must remove the judges from this life-altering process for so many people.  Let a jury of local citizens with their own families make these serious decisions.]

            12.        All court cases involving the government or a government employee must be trials by jury, and summary judgments will not be allowed in such cases to avoid the prejudice of a government employee judge having bias for another government employee.
[Bias must be protected against at all costs.  It is only human nature for us to "protect our own."  This must no longer be allowed.]

            13.        Judges may not ignore or change the rules of civil procedure. 
[Judges may favor one attorney or party over another by selectively ignoring the rules or independently making their own after-the-fact rules.  There are rules, and everyone must adhere to them.  Judges must not be given the power to deprive a party or attorney of the protections and requirements of published rules.]

            14.        All orders must be signed by the judges involved.
[In many cases, the judges do not sign the orders.  There is no way to know if the judges actually participated in the decision.  Every order must be signed by the judges involved to prove that they participated in the decision and to make the orders valid. They must list out their ruling per Rule 165 as to the legal foundation for the finding]
           
15.        All court decisions shall be published. 
[Courts do not publish many of their orders.  This keeps others from seeing their wrongdoing and mistakes.  By publishing every decision, judges will have to do a better job, and they will be exposed to criticism by other judges and attorneys who identify their mistakes.]

            16.        The votes of each judge involved in a decision shall be made part of the public record.
[When multiple judges are involved, the parties and the public deserve to know how each voted.]

            17.        Judges must adhere to sentencing guidelines.
[There must be rules, and the place for a judge in the process is to go by the rules.  We must minimize interpretation and freedom for judges to do whatever they want, because that is what has made our judicial system so unfair and corrupt.]

            18.        Campaign contributions are not allowed for funding judicial campaigns.
[Campaign contributions create the perfect opportunity for corrupting the judicial system.  Elections for judges should be done with no contributions of any type allowed.]

            19.        There shall be no requirement of a legal degree and legal experience for judicial positions in cities, counties, and states.
[Lawyers are a big part of the problem with the legal system.  Lawyers as judges come to the position with a built-in prejudice for their friend attorneys and may have a bias against attorneys they faced.  If the participants in a case go by the rules and the law, any intelligent person can serve as judge.  It is unfair to limit judge positions to attorneys.]

            20.        Parties may represent themselves in all legal proceedings in the State.  Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and other legal entities may also be represented by an officer of the corporation in legal proceedings, and representation by an attorney shall not be required.
[Statutes say that parties may represent themselves, but all of the attorneys involved in the law-making and judicial processes have twisted the intent of the law to force legal entities to spend zillions of dollars on attorneys.  Pro se parties (those individuals who represent themselves) are generally discriminated against by judges, and this must not be allowed.  Allowing legal entities to represent themselves will save billions of dollars in legal fees and will dramatically reduce the costs of operating the judicial system.]

            21.        A spouse may represent his or her spouse in legal proceedings if there is a properly executed power of attorney granting such right.
[Once again, judges ignore the law and refuse to allow an individual to be represented in court by someone pursuant to a power of attorney.  This must be stopped.  When a power of attorney grants a person to handle legal matters, it must apply to anyone in any legal matter, especially litigation.]

            22.        All pro se parties shall be given the ability to make electronic filings, if they choose. 
[In most courts, only attorneys are allowed to file electronically.  This also enables them to file just before midnight on a due date.  Pro se parties are forced to print everything, and they have to file by the time the clerk's office closes (usually 5 pm or earlier).  This inflates the cost for pro se parties, increases the costs of judicial personnel, and gives an unfair advantage to the attorneys.  Pro se parties should take online training on how to use the electronic filing system, and they should have the option to save money and time by filing electronically.]

            23.        Pro se parties now represent approximately one-third of all parties in lawsuits. Each county in the State will establish an office with at least one staff attorney to assist pro se parties at no charge. Anybody can help or assist another party even a non lawyer.
[Pro se parties usually cannot afford attorneys.  Some courts provide assistance, but most don't.  One-third of the citizens involved in the legal process must be helped.]

24.        Each county shall have grand juries, and citizens will be able to directly present charges of government misconduct and corruption to a Special Grand Jury. 
[Article of Amendment V of the Bill of Rights gives grand juries the power to deal with judicial and government wrongdoing through the power of Presentment.  Not all states have county grand juries, but they are needed in every state in every county.  Where grand juries do exist, government officials may block a citizen's access to the grand jury, and this will be fixed through this clause.] 

A complaint for criminal conduct of a judge may be brought directly to the Special Grand Jury upon all the following prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been specifically declined on the merits by a county Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute of limitations has not run.  Investigative grand juries may compel evidence and subpoena witnesses; may compel production of documents filed under seal; may inspect records, documents, correspondence, and books of any department, agency, board, bureau, commission, institution, or authority of the state or any of its political subdivisions; and may require the production of records, documents, correspondence, and books of any person, firm, or corporation which relate directly or indirectly to the subject of the investigation being conducted by the investigative grand jury. Each Special Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than one year, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. Notwithstanding the one year, a special prosecutor may be retained to prosecute current cases in which they are involved through all appeals and any complaints for judicial misconduct. 
[This provides terms for the implementation of this clause.]

            25.        Special Grand Juries shall be responsible to ensure that government officials are honest above all else.   The Special Grand Jury shall require active investigation of politicians for corrupt behavior.
[This is essential if we are to minimize corruption.  The power must be in the hands of the citizens.]

            26.        All judicial misconduct complaints will be handled by a Special Grand Jury.   The judicial system will cease “policing” itself.  All judicial complaints will be made public. 
[Expecting judges to discipline their friends (fellow judges) is not at all right.  Complaints are also kept confidential.  A Grand Jury composed of citizens from the county will ensure fair consideration of the issues.  Making the complaints public will allow others to see the complaints that have been made, and it should serve as a deterrent to those who might commit misconduct.]

            27.        All attorney misconduct complaints will be handled by a Special Grand Jury. The association of attorneys (Bar Association) will cease being the sole means of “policing” attorneys. All attorney complaints will be made public. 
[Just as with judges as discussed immediately above, expecting the association of attorneys to discipline their members isn't the independent way that complaints should be handled.  Citizens probably are not aware that the Bar Association is nothing but an association; it isn't a government entity.  Attorneys do massive damage to people, and the way to minimize this is to make attorneys accountable to a jury of citizens from the county.] 

            28.        Judges may be removed from office for cause.  Cause shall include deliberate violation of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, using erroneous law, ignoring valid precedents, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of the State or the United States and the Bill of Rights as well as dishonesty.
[The reports of proven judicial corruption nationwide are staggering; the scary part is all the corruption that the judges are able to hide.  The only way to keep judges honest is to have a Grand Jury and the power to remove judges for cause.]

            29.        Complaints about foreclosure fraud may be presented to a Special Grand Jury.
[Foreclosure fraud is a form of government-assisted corruption.  Those in danger of losing their biggest asset need help and fast.  We the people need to protect them.]

            30.        Parties may present claims of attorney misconduct, judicial misconduct, clerk's office misconduct, and law enforcement misconduct to a Special Grand Jury.
[Attorneys, judges, judicial staff, clerks of court, and law enforcement all commit misconduct, and a Special Grand Jury provides the independent tribunal that the citizens need.]

            31.        Complaints about Child Protective Services (CPS) and other state agencies may be presented to a Special Grand Jury.
[Government corruption may take place in any agency.  CPS is an area where abuse is often alleged.]
            32.        It shall be a child's right to be raised by his parent(s), free from government intrusion; have an attorney of his choice; be heard in court personally; be allowed to report abuse and know that the system will protect them; be protected from mental and physical abuse by guardians as well as the judicial system; and receive justice.
[Currently, the way children and their families are treated by the judicial system is a crime in and of itself.  We the people must protect families and the children.  These rights must be mandated because the existing system is hopelessly broken.]

            33.        No child may be taken from family without evidence and a hearing.
[Children are being removed from their homes at the whim of people.  This life-altering decision must first be made in court and decided by a jury.  We cannot allow families to be torn apart by people who should have no authority to take such serious action.]

            34.        All children deserve to live a childhood free from abuse, exploitation, and government interference during custody litigation.
[Custody litigation is devastating to many.  The children must be protected not damaged by the system.]

            35.        The statute of limitations shall be eliminated in cases of sexual assault against children.  The statute of limitations shall be eliminated in cases of perjury and fraud upon the courts.
[Laws must not be used to deprive citizens of recourse for wrongdoing.]

            36.        Judges must recuse themselves in specific circumstances, including if they are party to a lawsuit with a litigant.  Bias can be demonstrated by actions in a lawsuit. All complaints of judicial bias will be resolved by a Special Grand Jury if a party chooses to pursue the matter after a judge refuses to recuse himself/herself.
[One of the areas of great abuse by judges is their refusal to recuse themselves.  Once again, if judges went by the rules, the system would be fair...but they don't.  Judges rarely recuse themselves when outsiders would feel the judge has bias that should require them to recuse themselves.  Judges must be encouraged to abide by the rules and the intent of the recusal process, and if they fail to recuse themself three times when a Special Grand Jury says they should have, they should be removed from office.]

            37.        No immunities shall be extended to any judge in this State except as is specifically set forth in this Law.  The theory of judicial immunity is to protect judges from frivolous and harassing actions.  However, deliberate violation of law, fraud, conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Florida or the United States and the Bill of Rights and dishonesty are violations by judges that are not frivolous or harassing. A Special Grand Jury's responsibility shall include determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the judge complained of.  Special Grand Juries shall also have the power to independently pursue charges against any government officials through the power of Presentment.
[Judges have manufactured claims of immunity for themselves using a case from the 1800's that is archaic and not really even applicable.  Judges must not be allowed to corruptly, maliciously break laws, ignore laws and the facts, andf abuse parties.  They must be held accountable for their wrongs just as each of us is held accountable.  If judges don't like this risk, then they should get real jobs like we all do.]

            38.        Should the Special Grand Jury find probable cause of criminal conduct on the part of any judge against whom a complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such judge except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Grand Jury shall, without voir dire beyond personal relationship, cause to be impaneled twelve special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a judge with no more than four years on the bench from a county other than that of the defendant judge. The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular jury.  The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within this State. Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
[This procedure is essential for the effective implementation of this Law.]

            39.        No judge complained of or sued civilly shall be defended at public expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this Law.
[Currently, the government office responsible for taking action against a judge is also the office that provides counsel to represent judges at the taxpayer's expense.  Judges should have to pay for their own legal counsel, or represent themselves, just as we the people have to do.]

            40.        Any judge or government official removed from office shall not thereafter serve in any government or judicial position.  Retirement for such removed officials shall not exceed one-half of the benefits to which such person would have otherwise been entitled. 
[We must cease giving outrageous benefits to those who commit wrongdoing.]

            41.        Attorneys and government employees will not be eligible to serve on a Special Grand Jury.
[Attorneys and government officials have an automatic conflict of interest and a natural bias for one of their own.  Attorneys may also be risking their careers due to reprisals from a judge or government official that they take action against.]
            42.        All Bar documents must be public record.
[Nothing in the legal world should be secret, especially complaints about participants in the legal process.]

            43.        The Model Code of Professional Conduct for attorneys shall become law, and the Bar Association will cease to have the authority to discipline attorneys except as members of their club. 
[There is a conflict of interest to have the association of attorneys disciplining their members for actions that affect citizens of the state.  The vast majority of problems with the legal system and dishonest and corrupt government officials are with attorneys.  Many attorneys ignore their so-called rules of conduct, and nothing is done about it.  By making law out of the rules they are supposed to operate by, the citizens will have a much better chance of a fairer legal system.]
           
44.        The Code of Judicial Conduct shall become law, and fellow judges shall cease to have authority to discipline judges. 
[There is a conflict of interest to have judges in charge of reviewing complaints against their fellow judges for actions that affect citizens of the state.  Many of the problems with the legal system and dishonest and corrupt government officials are with judges who are attorneys.  Many judges ignore their so-called code of conduct, and nothing is done about it.  By making law out of the Code they are supposed to operate by, the citizens will have a much better chance of a fairer legal system.]
            45.        All attorneys and judges must pass a competency exam on constitutional principles, particularly rights.
[States must ensure that qualified people are in place.]
           
46.        Impose requirements for bonds on all attorneys and judges, which they pay for out of their own pockets, and make it possible for their victims to file complaints reviewed only by the Special Grand Jury.
[This will clean up a lot of corruption and dishonesty.]
           
47.        This Law applies to federal courts as well as state, county, and local courts, because federal courts and federal judges are allowed to operate in the state as a guest of the state.
[Federal courts must not be allowed to operate in a dishonest or corrupt manner.  Federal employees functioning in our state must abide by our state's laws.]
           
48.        Corruption must be minimized in government. [The government has not been able to effectively deal with corruption in government.  We must put the power to deal with corruption into the hands of the people.  The provisions of this law are designed to do just that.]


Next week I will put together CINC issues! If for some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/




Monday, September 17, 2012

September 15, 2012 Marriage


STRENGTHENING MARRIAGE


September 15, 2012

Legislators and friends,

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to encourage commitment back into marriage is to bring back "fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.  No-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all. Neither court nor judge can mitigate the pain and suffering of divorce for a family. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a divorce lightheartedly.
The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces.
The liberalization of divorce that is no-fault reflects cultural changes. The law caught up with society in the 1960s. The rise of no-fault divorce can be traced to the recognition that requiring people to state the traditional grounds for divorce often led to fraud or lying; that rehearsed perjury diminished respect for the law; that society had no compelling interest making a couple stay together if the marriage has broken down and the two of them don’t want to stay together.
From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parent’s part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s.
In the years since 1980, however, these trends have not continued on straight upward paths, and the story of divorce has grown increasingly complicated. In the case of divorce, as in so many others, the worst consequences of the social revolution of the 1960s and '70s are now felt disproportionately by the poor and less educated, while the wealthy elites who set off these transformations in the first place have managed to reclaim somewhat healthier and more stable habits of married life. This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American society, and leaves the most vulnerable Americans — especially children living in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would otherwise be.
But what about the children? In the older, institutional model of marriage, parents were supposed to stick together for their sake. The view was that divorce could leave an indelible emotional scar on children, and would also harm their social and economic future. Yet under the new soul-mate model of marriage, divorce could be an opportunity for growth not only for adults but also for their offspring. The view was that divorce could protect the emotional welfare of children by allowing their parents to leave marriages in which they felt unhappy. In 1962, as Whitehead points out in her book The Divorce Culture, about half of American women agreed with the idea that "when there are children in the family parents should stay together even if they don't get along." By 1977, only 20% of American women held this view.
When a couple marry with the hope of life together and the marriage fails, easy divorce is an oxymoron. Contrary to popular opinion, few people enter into a divorce lightheartedly. A divorce is wrenching, and for most people going through one is, under the best conditions, an experience in mental and emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is the only answer, it is painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the idea of victory and winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce breeds divorce," meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other couples more likely to divorce, has grown in its foundation. Divorce has become contagious.

What is no-fault divorce?
The claims were that, the no-fault divorce helped courts get rid of “cooked-up stories in the court of law”; a spouse now no longer needs to prove that their partner had faulted in the marriage. Issues concerning “irreconcilable differences” and “incompatibility” are now reasons strong enough to get a divorce under no-fault divorce laws. No-fault divorce helps one spouse get rid of a burdensome relationship even if there has been no infidelity, desertion, brutality, abandonment or any related crime. No-fault divorce strips out a legal recognition of blame. The injured or rejected partner, perhaps the one who does not want the marriage to end, has little financial and emotion recourse. Moralists argue that no-fault divorce makes it too easy to get a divorce, which get you in to the court system faster and easier..
            Similar claims were made that no-fault divorce laws would offer or ensure a speedy divorce and this would ultimately be less expensive compared to fault divorce, of course they didn’t see the lawyers and Judges using this process to exaggerate or lengthen the process with Parent Coordinators or Case Management evolving. Everybody has heard of a “Pandora's Box”? This is an artifact in Greek mythology; the "box" was actually a large jar which contained all the evils of the world. Today, to open a Pandora's box means to create evil that cannot be undone – Parent Coordinators and Case Managers.
This was to displace some of the volatility of what makes negotiations so explosive; that a couple would negotiate the end of the marriage without assigning blame or fault, wow did they miss that one! It is always advantageous to avoid a divorce trial, having agreed to end their marriage without a finding of fault and have successfully negotiated the terms and conditions of support and custody and the division and distribution of the marital estate.
            The reality is the Domestic Courts have had an explosion in increased numbers and states are paying a toll larger than they ever dreamed in state agencies (child support, court trustee’s, etc.) and then the untold story of the negative impact on the children as the courts and the state attempt to lay claim to working in the “child’s best interest” knowing there is nothing they can do to make the situation more positive. We need the state out of this process and we need to take the money out of divorce.
            Many scholars, therapists, lawyers, Judges and journalists served as enablers of this kind of thinking. These elites argued that children were resilient in the face of divorce; that children could easily find male role models to replace absent fathers; and that children would be happier if their parents were able to leave unhappy marriages. In 1979, one prominent scholar wrote in the Journal of Divorce that divorce even held "growth potential" for mothers, as they could enjoy "increased personal autonomy, a new sense of competence and control, [and the] development of better relationships with [their] children." And in 1974's The Courage to Divorce, social workers Susan Gettleman and Janet Markowitz argued that boys need not be harmed by the absence of their fathers: "When fathers are not available, friends, relatives, teachers and counselors can provide ample opportunity for youngsters to model themselves after a like-sexed adult."
Thirty years later, the myth of the good divorce has not stood up well in the face of sustained social scientific inquiry — especially when one considers the welfare of children exposed to their parents' divorces. Since 1974, about 1 million children per year have seen their parents’ divorce — and children who are exposed to divorce are two to three times more likely than their peers in intact marriages to suffer from serious social or psychological pathologies. In their book Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, sociologists Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur found that 31% of adolescents with divorced parents dropped out of high school, compared to 13% of children from intact families. They also concluded that 33% of adolescent girls whose parents divorced became teen mothers, compared to 11% of girls from continuously married families. And McLanahan and her colleagues have found that 11% of boys who come from divorced families end up spending time in prison before the age of 32, compared to 5% of boys who come from intact homes.
Research also indicates that remarriage is no salve for children wounded by divorce. Indeed, as sociologist Andrew Cherlin notes in his important new book, The Marriage-Go-Round, "children whose parents have remarried do not have higher levels of well-being than children in lone-parent families." The reason? Often, the establishment of a step-family results in yet another move for a child, requiring adjustment to a new caretaker and new step-siblings — all of which can be difficult for children, who tend to thrive on stability.
Skeptics confronted with this kind of research often argue that it is unfair to compare children of divorce to children from intact, married households. They contend that it is the “conflict” or “high conflict” that precedes the divorce, rather than the divorce itself, that is likely to be particularly traumatic for children. The problem here is there is no threshold or clear definition for these terms.
More than two-thirds of all parental divorces do not involve such “highly conflicted” marriages. And unfortunately, these are the very divorces that are most likely to be stressful for children. When children see their parents’ divorce because they have simply drifted apart — or because one or both parents have become unhappy or left to pursue another ¬partner — the kids' faith in love, commitment, and marriage is often shattered. In the wake of their parents' divorce, children are also likely to experience a family move, marked declines in their family income, a stressed-out single parent, and substantial periods of paternal absence — all factors that put them at risk. In other words, the clear majority of divorces involving children in America are not in the best interests of the children.
            Even under no-fault divorce, things can turn acrimonious when children are involved. The primary consideration in child custody is the best interests of the child; this may force the couple to take adversarial roles to demonstrate that the other is not as fit to be a parent. Thus even a supposedly non-adversarial approach can quickly pit one spouse against the other.

Disadvantages?
It has been observed that as a result of no-fault divorce laws, there has been a jump in the number of divorces in USA. In a study carried out in 1989 by Justec research in Virginia on the impact of no-fault divorce laws in 38 states of USA, have shown that there has been a 20-25% rise in the number of divorce cases. One of the reasons for the increase is found to be due to the ease with which people can divorce each other as provided by the laws of no-fault divorce. People are increasingly becoming less tolerant to each other and wishing to break up the marriage as the law also permits them to do so! Thus, to say marriage has become a matter of joke and the beauty of the relationship is getting lost!
            Sometimes a spouse contests a divorce for all kinds of reasons, some of which are not in his or her long-term best interest. Divorce is so wrenching an experience that people sometimes do not think clearly. One spouse may want to reconcile, so he or she hopes for a change of heart in the other. Or one spouse, hurt and angry by the other’s rejection, may want to make it difficult. Sometimes, one spouse wants additional time to hide assets that would be distributed. A party may have religious or philosophical objections to ending a marriage.
            When a couple marry with the hope of life together and the marriage fails, easy divorce is an oxymoron. A divorce is wrenching, and for most people going through one is, under the best conditions, an experience in mental and emotional anguish and sadness. Even when divorce is the only answer, it is painful and dislocating, and when it becomes a war, the idea of victory and winning is an illusion. The belief that "divorce breeds divorce," meaning that the easy availability of divorce makes other couples more likely to divorce, seems to have a foundation. Growing up in a two-parent home has its advantages, and thus there may also be advantages to a system which puts up some barriers to divorce, at least among parents.
           
New measures and Laws
There are no magic cures for the growing divorce divide in America. But a few modest policy measures could offer some much-needed help to the problem.
            First, the states should reform their divorce laws. A return to fault-based divorce is certainly going to raise the bar back up but this will become a political matter, but some plausible common-sense reforms could nonetheless inject a measure of sanity into our state and nation's divorce laws. Require married adults to prove any of the traditional grounds for divorce: adultery, physical or mental cruelty, abandonment or desertion, imprisonment, insanity, and drug or alcohol addiction. The benefit of a fault divorce is that, if one spouse is clearly to blame, the other may be entitled to greater benefits in the form of spousal maintenance. Also, a fault divorce allows a couple to avoid any state-mandated waiting period for a no-fault divorce. Spouses who are being divorced against their will, and who have not engaged in egregious misbehavior such as abuse, adultery, or abandonment, should be given preferential treatment by family courts. Such consideration would add a measure of justice to the current divorce process; it would also discourage some divorces, as spouses who would otherwise seek an easy exit might avoid a divorce that would harm them financially or limit their access to their children.
Second, Congress could extend the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative. In 2006, as part of President George W. Bush's marriage initiative, Congress passed legislation allocating $100 million a year for five years to more than 100 programs designed to strengthen marriage and ¬family -relationships in America — especially among low-income couples. As Kathryn Edin of Harvard has noted, many of these programs are equipping poor and working-class couples with the relational skills that their better-educated peers rely upon to sustain their marriages. Many of these programs will be evaluated; the most successful programs serving poor and working-class communities should receive additional funding, and should be used as models for new programs to serve these communities. New ideas — like additional social-marketing campaigns on behalf of marriage, on the model of those undertaken to discourage smoking — should also be explored through the initiative.
Third, the State and the Federal government should expand the child tax credit; incentivize it by the fact that one marriage gets more benefits. Raising children is expensive, and has become increasingly so, given rising college and health-care costs. Yet the real value of tax deductions for children has fallen considerably since the 1960s. To remedy this state of affairs, have proposed expanding the current child tax credit and making it fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. A reform along those lines would provide a significant measure of financial relief to working-class and middle-class families, and would likely strengthen their increasingly fragile marriages. I would promote the Fair Tax model as it protects the Family Budget and gets government OUT of the Social Engineering business.
Of course, none of these reforms of law and policy alone is likely to exercise a transformative influence on the quality and stability of marriage in America. Such fixes must be accompanied by changes in the wider culture. Parents, churches, schools, public officials, and the entertainment industry will have to do a better job of stressing the merits of a more institutional model of marriage. This will be particularly important for poor and working-class young adults, who are drifting away from marriage the fastest.
This is a tall order, to say the least. But if our society is genuinely interested in protecting and improving the welfare of children — especially children in our nation's most vulnerable communities — we must strengthen marriage and reduce the incidence of divorce in America. The unthinkable alternative is a nation divided more and more by class and marital ¬status, and children doubly disadvantaged by poverty and single parenthood. Surely no one believes that such a state of affairs is in the national interest. Nothing in a fault or no-fault, uncontested divorce, however, speaks to the sadness and sorrow of a family torn apart and NO ONE should profit from such a tragic event.
Besides the efforts in Michigan to eliminate some forms of no-fault divorce, three states have established a second form of marriage, called a covenant marriage, which makes divorce more difficult to obtain. In 1997 Louisiana became the first state to establish covenant marriage, followed by Arizona and Arkansas. Under covenant marriage, the couple agrees to pre-marital counseling and accepts fewer grounds for divorce. (Domestic violence and adultery, for example, are still valid grounds.) Even with these barriers in place though, the couple could still obtain a divorce in another state which does not recognize covenant marriages.
Although the no-fault divorce caught on rapidly in the U.S. in the last 40 years, the efforts by state lawmakers in Michigan, Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas to make divorce more difficult to obtain may reflect a growing concern over high divorce rates, and point to a growing trend. No-fault divorce may face increased scrutiny both in Massachusetts and throughout the country.
No more than the comment that when government trumps religion as the provider of organization of the culture the result is the indulgence of self-interest and the art of the deal when it comes to marriage. A model of a business contract that impersonally must be dissolved.





Next week I will put together the Corruption of the Judicial Branch issues! If for some reason you need to find out more on certain subjects please don’t hesitate to call or email me or visit our blog at http://kansasjudicialsystem-casemanagers.blogspot.com/





Chris Brown
browncontract@hotmail.com