Knowing your Rights

The Founding Fathers felt strongly about limiting the power of judges because they had suffered under tyrannical and dictatorial British judges. In fact, reforming the judiciary, along with “no taxation without representation”, was among the American colonists’ principal complaints about the British Empire prior to the revolution. A number of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence relate to judges dictatorial and illegal behavior. As a result the Constitution provided for a narrowly defined and limited judiciary, as Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist Papers.

Since the New Deal of the 1930s, however, the power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives of the people in the other two branches. The judiciary has acted on the premise of “judicial supremacy,” where courts not only review and apply laws, but also actively seek to modify and create new constitutional law from the bench that the Supreme Court has asserted should be binding on the other two branches.

This is why we have to bring the Courts back under the Constitution and start restoring the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated Constitutional powers available to the President and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.

Having a national conversation over reestablishing a Constitutional balance among the three branches, how to best bring the Courts back under the Constitution. Within this context we need to have formulating executive orders and legislative proposals that will establish a constitutional framework for reining in lawless judges. The rejection of judicial supremacy and the reestablishment of a constitutional balance of power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches will be an intense and difficult undertaking. It is unavoidable if we are going to retain American freedoms and American identity.

The family and juvenile courts are run unconstitutionally and illegally without proper Due Process and without respecting the Civil and Constitutional rights of citizen’s every day. Under the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court Case Law, judges have no legal authority to assign custody of a child or terminate any parental rights without "clear and convincing evidence" (this is a high standard to reach) that a parent is harmful to a child. A showing that a parent is unfit is required to terminate any parental rights. Even if "unfitness" is proven in the case, judges are required to take the minimum possible steps to protect the child without infringing on these rights.

The liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interest recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Gransville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right, May v Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection, Lassister v Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).

The divorce courts are run for the ease and egos of the judges and to, maximize the money lawyers make by separating the parties and causing as much fighting as possible. The "best interest of the children" and families is a distant third priority. These judges consider their time far more important than justice. Juvenile and Family court judges do not care what the law says and will do what they want due to the fact that they have legislated themselves near total immunity.

The facts are that the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and State Constitutions trump any lower laws; this is the law of Supremacy. Ignoring these higher laws is technically "treason" against the government and the people and is a violation for the judges of their oath of office. Under the Constitution no State is allowed to make any law that takes away fundamental Constitutional Rights of "we the people" and there is enough Supreme Court case law to choke a horse in parental rights. Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution, or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The constitution is the highest form of law in the American legal system. State judges are required to uphold it, even if state laws or constitutions conflict with it.

Under the U.S. Constitution, you have the right to a jury trial in any matter worth over $20 in Superior Court. Juvenile and the Family court system have illegally usurped and ignored this right for decades even though our children, homes, and future income is all at stake and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more by any measure. Erosion of these rights by judges is not lawful under the Constitution.

TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE PART1 -- ORGANIZATION OF COURTS CHAPTER 21 --GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO COURTS AND JUDGES Sec. 453. Oath of justices and judges. Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of their office: "I, ___ ___ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform al the duties upon me as _____ x _____ under the Constitution and Laws of the United States. So help me God." Therefore these judges break their oath of office and literally commit "treason" against the U.S. each time they ignore these higher laws of the land. The Federal Courts have been ignoring this abuse for decades as they consider it a can of worms or beneath them and so they allow the states to constantly violate the constitution. Our Federal Government is sleeping through this, or they want to give you the appearance that they are, “we didn‘t know this was happening“. Many cases have been thrown out under the so-called "Roofer-Feldman" doctrine and other excuses. There have been class action cases in all 50 states and are now being filed by county where less immunity is available.

We have to confirm that there is a constitutional dimension to the rights of parents to direct the upbringing of their children, it is cardinal that the custody, care and nurturing of the children reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the “State” can neither supply nor hinder. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause states that heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interest does include the parents fundamental right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children to make decisions concerning the care, custody, management, and control of their children and is among the unalienable rights with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims. The Fourteenth Amendment also provides that no “State” shall deprive any person of life liberty, or property, without due process of the law. The Ninth Amendment states the enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage. The Fifth Amendment guarantees more than fair process; this clause also includes a substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interest. This liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause establishes a right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their children and the primary role is that of the parents. The child is not a creature of the state, those who nurture them and direct their destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare them for additional obligations. As long as the parents adequately care for their children (i.e., is fit), there will be no reason for the “State” to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question the ability of the parents’ to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of that parents’ children. The state does not have the ability to temporarily or constructively terminate parental parents without being judged by a jury of their PEERS.

A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures. Pp. 455 U. S. 752-754. The "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard prescribed by § 622 violates the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 455 U. S. 758-768. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the right of parents with their natural child, due process requires that the State supports its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. A "clear and convincing evidence" standard adequately conveys to the fact finder, the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process. Determination of the precise burden equal to or greater than that standard is a matter of state law properly left to state legislatures and state courts. Pp. 455 U. S. 768-770. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 344 (emphasis added). Since the litigants and the fact finder must know at the outset of a given proceeding how the risk of error will be allocated, the standard of proof necessarily must be calibrated in advance. Retrospective case-by-case review cannot preserve fundamental fairness when a class of proceedings is governed by a constitutionally defective evidentiary standard. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254, 397 U. S. 262-263 (1970), quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Whether the loss threatened by a particular type of proceeding is sufficiently grave to warrant more than average certainty on the part of the fact finder turns on both the nature of the private interest threatened and the permanency of the threatened loss. Lassiter declared it "plain beyond the need for multiple citation" that a natural parent's "desire for, and right to, the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children'" is an interest far more precious than any property right 455 U. S. 759 The fact finding does not purport -- and is not intended -- to balance the child's interest in a normal family home against the parents' interest in raising the child. Nor does it purport to determine whether the natural parents or the foster parents would provide the better home. Rather, the fact-finding hearing pits the State directly against the parents. The State alleges that the natural parents are at fault. Fam.Ct.Act § 614.1.(d). at the fact-finding, the interests of the child and his natural parents coincide to favor use of error-reducing procedures. However substantial the foster parents' interests may be, cf. Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 845-847, they are not implicated directly in the fact-finding stage of a state-initiated permanent neglect proceeding against the natural parents. If authorized, the foster parents may pit their interests directly against those of the natural parents by initiating their own permanent neglect proceeding. Fam.Ct.Act § 1055(d); Alternatively, the foster parents can make their case for custody at the dispositional stage of a state-initiated proceeding, where the judge already has decided the issue of permanent neglect and is focusing on the placement that would serve the child's best interests; Fam.Ct.Act §§ 623, 631. For the foster parents, the State's failure to prove permanent neglect may prolong the delay and uncertainty until their foster child is freed for adoption. But for the natural parents, a finding of permanent neglect can cut off forever their rights to their child. Given this disparity of consequence, we have no difficulty finding that the balance of private interests strongly favors heightened procedural protections. An elevated standard of proof in a parental rights termination proceeding would alleviate "the possible risk that a fact finder might decide to [deprive] an individual based solely on a few isolated instances of unusual conduct [or] . . . idiosyncratic behavior."Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. at 441 U. S. 427 severance, of natural familial bonds. "[The State registers no gain towards its declared goals when it separates children from the custody of fit parents." Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. at 405 U. S. 652. Majorities of the States have concluded that a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof strikes a fair balance between the rights of the natural parents and the State's legitimate concerns. See n 3, supra. We hold that such a standard adequately conveys to the fact finder the level of subjective certainty about his factual conclusions necessary to satisfy due process.

           This also does not allow either the adoptive parent or foster parent to interfere with your cause of action, or allow either one of them to suggest that a custody placement would be better suited with them, instead of reintegration back into your family prior to the finalization of the custody issue. This is allowed to occur in most cases we have seen. This creates a bias, prejudice or conflict of interest. In most cases we discovered that these agencies make you go through all the steps, yet their appointed counsel either has not requested discovery from these agencies prior to going to trial, or has not requested if the court or judges have a signed contract with these agencies. This would place the judge or courts in a conflict of interest, due to the contracts they have signed. They make money off of your case due to the contracts. When the courts or judges have signed on with these agencies it places everybody at risk, while making money off the contracts they signed. Now you see how the money and corruption by the judges and courts 101.

Judicial supremacy operates on the assumption that a Supreme Court decision on constitutional interpretation is final for all branches of government unless the Court reverses itself in the future, or a constitutional amendment is passed. The result is that courts have become more assertive and politicized to the point of an abuse of power. As federal courts have intervened in sectors of American life never before imaginable, the public has increasingly come to view them as a usurpative device for unelected rulers. This abuse of power and loss of public confidence amounts to a constitutional crisis. Yet judicial supremacy only survives due to the passivity of the executive and legislative branches, which have refused to use their respective powers to correct the Court.

      House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in 2005 about the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, which weakened citizen protections against government seizure of property: "It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation on a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision." Such a view holds that only a constitutional amendment can limit or overturn a Supreme Court decision on constitutional questions. But surely anyone holding this view would concede that the Supreme Court could reverse itself, which it has done well over 100 times. If Supreme Court decisions can only be overturned by a subsequent court decision or by constitutional amendment, then that would mean that that a Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution has the force of a constitutional amendment.

John F. Kennedy stated in 1961, “No President can excuse or pardon the slightest deviation from irreproachable standards of behavior on the part of any member of the Executive branch. Therefore, when our chief justice Rehnquist made the statement publicly,

“That he believes that judges who follow the (strict construction) jurisprudence should vote against the Defendant in criminal cases and against Plaintiffs in civil cases.” Why wasn’t he dismissed immediately? Maybe the question should be did he instruct all other judges to rule against Plaintiffs in civil litigations against government or public officials in 1983 civil rights cases? Is this the reason it is so hard to win a case against the government or public officials?

These views are fatally flawed. The Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances among the three federal branches that were intended to operate in the normal course of governing. It was precisely this balance of power between the three branches that the founding fathers believed would protect freedom. They based their understanding of a constitutional division of powers on Montesquieu's writing, which would have explicitly rejected any one branch's supremacy. The amendment process was reserved for making fundamental changes to our constitutional structures; the amendment power was not intended to be used as a way to check and balance Supreme Court decisions. Our founding fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers.

Take for example the legislative check on the executive branch’s war making powers. If the legislative branch disagrees with the executive’s conduct, it can always decide to use its power of the purse to not appropriate monies that fund the executive branch’s conduct of a war. The idea that the legislative branch would have to pass a constitutional amendment to oppose the executive branch’s actions would strike anyone as ludicrous. Yet, if the Supreme Court were to hand down a decision concerning the constitutionality of the executive branch’s war making powers with which neither the executive nor the legislative branches agreed, we are supposed to believe that the only recourse to checking this decision of the Supreme Court is to pass a constitutional amendment. This view is clearly fatally flawed.

Drawing together 290 House members, sixty-seven senators, and thirty-seven states to pass a constitutional amendment is a difficult and time-consuming task. It is little wonder that the American people lose interest, shrug their shoulders, and give up on the fight if they believe they have to do so in order to correct a decision of five fellow citizens serving on the Supreme Court. However, a constitutional amendment is a fight that neither of the other two branches is required to undertake in order to exercise checks and balances under the Constitution. The Constitution does not require a constitutional amendment to correct a Supreme Court decision, nor has it been the American tradition.

We as Americans have lost faith in our halls of justice, because our justice system has become a business, and our faith or belief in justice has become a farce. We have to innovate our system, to protect those who abuse the system we have put in place, so our system does not become corrupt. We have to have either a 12 or 24 member panel of private citizens for a citizens review board, instead of the good old boy system. We have to give them the power to review our judges or also ethic complaints, with 2 legal advisors (only as a capacity to advise the citizens review board) on legal questions. Then we need to give this citizens review board the power to oust or remove a judge from his / her position, or recommend a grand jury investigation to investigate the judge who had acted under the color of law without jurisdiction to do so, or illegally in his / her official capacity. This would turn the courts back over to the citizens, as well as, alleviate and reduce any possibility of corruption within our halls of justice for political favors, or bribes.  This would also better our system to protect the citizens from any violations of their constitutional or due process rights, that the judge has taken an oath to protect upon receiving their judgeship, and which we find that they have violated over and over again.

          My only goal is to make a difference and possibly assist those who have no knowledge of what to do, or even why these individuals have complicated your case, just to make huge profits. This is to possibly give you the insight to carry you through your troubled times within this system we call justice, that we see as a farce. It has become a multimillion-dollar business for the attorneys, courts, or the system (SRS, DPS, DFS, and other agencies), profiting from our pain and suffering. They succeed, because they hope by the time you have figured it out, you will be out of your legal time limitations for any legal recourse within your cause of action. Basically, you will be out of time to bring any legal action against these individuals for interfering with your constitutional rights to family pursuant to the Family Parentage Act or violations of your due process rights to justice, and violations of your right to have equal access to justice in a court of law, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act.