Scranton Political Times

One More MaMa Bear · Guru

RE: Online Case Docket vs. actual Register of Actions

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

One More MaMa Bear wrote:
Drstephaniet wrote:
Drstephaniet wrote:
Dunbar v. Dunbar et al
More Sharing ServicesShare |
Plaintiff: Stanley Dunbar
Defendants: Angela Dunbar, Danielle Ross and Lackawanna County Family Court

Case Number: 3:2011cv00135
Filed: January 19, 2011

Court: Pennsylvania Middle District Court
Office: Scranton Office
County: Lackawanna
Presiding Judge: Joel H. Slomsky

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Outlaw, can you check and see how many more of these are out there?

Sure. I charge by the hour.

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

wag the dog wrote:
drstephaniet
Outlaw, it wasn't until my ex appealed the Judge's last Order (it was quashed) and I entered my pro se appearance that I was FINALLY able to get my hands on my file. There are memorandums by the GAL that I never saw, there are copies of medical records of my four year old (not my ex-husband's child) that I never gave consent to be released, as well as sealed documents from another case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You might be pro se, but you are romantically involved with a walking law library in Joe Pilchesky, right? Must be nice to get the cow at such great prices. More power to you. Women need all the help they can get to escape their own lawyers. The world needs more Joes to go around. Where do I find one?

DrT, looks like you haven't been feeding someone's pride well enough recently, please administer another dose...

wag the dog · Senior Member

drstephaniet

Outlaw, it wasn't until my ex appealed the Judge's last Order (it was quashed) and I entered my pro se appearance that I was FINALLY able to get my hands on my file. There are memorandums by the GAL that I never saw, there are copies of medical records of my four year old (not my ex-husband's child) that I never gave consent to be released, as well as sealed documents from another case.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You might be pro se, but you are romantically involved with a walking law library in Joe Pilchesky, right? Must be nice to get the cow at such great prices. More power to you. Women need all the help they can get to escape their own lawyers. The world needs more Joes to go around. Where do I find one?

One More MaMa Bear · Guru

Drstephaniet wrote:
Drstephaniet wrote:
Dunbar v. Dunbar et al
More Sharing ServicesShare |
Plaintiff: Stanley Dunbar
Defendants: Angela Dunbar, Danielle Ross and Lackawanna County Family Court

Case Number: 3:2011cv00135
Filed: January 19, 2011

Court: Pennsylvania Middle District Court
Office: Scranton Office
County: Lackawanna
Presiding Judge: Joel H. Slomsky

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Outlaw, can you check and see how many more of these are out there?

One More MaMa Bear · Guru

Sorry that didn't post correctly. I'll take down in a sec.

For some reason I can't edit the abstract. Would someone just delete it for me please?

-- Edited by One More MaMa Bear on Wednesday 1st of August 2012 04:54:10 PM

One More MaMa Bear · Guru

-- Edited by One More MaMa Bear on Wednesday 1st of August 2012 05:10:00 PM

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts wrote:
This appears to exist but at least for me, now, redirects to a site ending in "http://bs-art.ru/" and not in English except one panel" BUSINESS ART CONSULTING GROUP- no matter which link. Interesting graphic on the page, too (shows March 2012 date apparently) What do you find?
One of the drawbacks of WWW.!!!

Defending Holy Matrimony

www.defendingholymatrimony.org/
Jan 25, 2011 An Educational Initiative to Reclaim Christian Marriage.Defending Holy MatrimonySM (DHM) is an Educational Initiative aimed at preparing ...
Contents

The Problem and the Solution. Documents · Arcanum (On ...
Mutual Consent Makes Sense

Why Mutual Consent Makes Sense By Patricia Owen, Grassroots ...
Contact / Mission

Our Mission: The Mission of Defending Holy Matrimony is to ...
The Politics of Family Destruction

The Politics of Family Destruction by Professor ...The debate on ...
Articles

It is easier to divorce my wife of 26 years than to fire someone I ...
Defending Matrimony is New ...

Defending matrimony is new challenge, pro-life supporters...

That letter below (yellow-background) (so disturbing!), I'm attaching it -- is addressed to "50 shepherds of the church," and at the top we see the chain of authority clear enough:
50 Shepherds of the Church
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicor of Jesus Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal ChurchVatican City
Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic SignaturaVatican City

(the line will not allow me to COPY so I"m retyping it here:
H.E. FRANCIS CARDINAL GEORGE - ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO, IL.

(??THERE ARE 50 UNITED STATES . . . . ??)

(Biblical #s relating to rulership are more often 12, 40, or "the 70") (this reminds me more of Romans/centurions, etc.) Philadelphia is "H.E. Justin Cardinal Rigali" (these are "Knights of Columbus")... is 'Vicor" really misspelled above? (should be "Vicar" I think).

MANY KNOW WHAT KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS IS, ARE IN IT, OR HAVE HEARD OF IT. BUT LEGALLY SPEAKING, WHAT (IN ANY STATE) IS "KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS" -- HERE'S A POSTING FROM A CONNECTICUT CHURCH:

Thanks to the efforts of Father Michael J. McGivney, assistant pastor of St. Marys Church in New Haven and some of his parishioners, the Connecticut state legislature on March 29, 1882, officially chartered the Knights of Columbus as a fraternal benefit society. The Order is still true to its founding principles of charity, unity and fraternity.
The Knights was formed to render financial aid to members and their families. Mutual aid and assistance are offered to sick, disabled and needy members and their families. Social and intellectual fellowship is promoted among members and their families through educational, charitable, religious, social welfare, war relief and public relief works.
The history of the Order shows how the foresight of Father Michael J. McGivney, whose cause for sainthood is being investigated by the Vatican, brought about what has become the world's foremost Catholic fraternal benefit society. The Order has helped families obtain economic security and stability through its life insurance, annuity and long-term care programs, and has contributed time and energy worldwide to service in communities.
The Knights of Columbus has grown from several members in one council to more than 14,000 councils and 1.8 million members throughout the United States, Canada, the Philippines, Mexico, Poland, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Panama, the Bahamas, the Virgin Islands, Cuba, Guatemala, Guam and Saipan.

DOFH.ORG - A PO BOX # 99014 IN TROY, MICHIGAN 48099-9014 BASIC WEBSITE, NOT SOLICITING (ON THE WEBSITE) THAT I CAN SEE....

E-mail: michael@dofh.org
Phone: 248 561-7272

Recent Posts
Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles
Safeguarding Catholic Marriage from State Civil Court Violation
Saving Children: Safeguards for Spouses and Society
A Covenant Call
Finally Fixing Broken Family Law! Responsible Spouse Guidelines
Ultimate Purpose
Autobahn To Recovery
Marriage is Pro-Life
No-Fault Divorce: Americas Divorce Mill
Community Marriage Policies Answer a Vital Need
A Time For Marriage
Ministering to the Marriage Needs of the Community
Marriage: The Disappearing American Dream
The Conciliation Courts - FUNNY HOW THIS GROUPS KNOWS THE HISTORY, BUT MOST PEOPLE COMING THROUGH FAMILY LAW COURTS DON'T...! (I'm posting over at K4$$ topic) -- all they omitted is the organizational and financial history (completely),including judges' slush fund, and AFCC....
In Search Of A Safe Harbor
Strengthening Marriage and Family For The Common Good: In Motown & All America

submit to save.
Then I'm checking USPTO for that trademark, "Defending Holy Matrimony." will be back....

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Tuesday 31st of July 2012 03:37:51 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Tuesday 31st of July 2012 03:38:52 PM

Wow! I got chills!

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Online ...vs. actual .... IN RE: Troy Michigan 'DEFENDING HOLY MATRIMONY" group (K of C association)

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Call No Man Father: Understanding Matthew 23:9 PHILIP GRAY Why do Catholics call priests father, when Jesus says call no man your father on earth (Mt. 23:9)?

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

Drstephaniet wrote:
Dunbar v. Dunbar et al
More Sharing ServicesShare |
Plaintiff: Stanley Dunbar
Defendants: Angela Dunbar, Danielle Ross and Lackawanna County Family Court

Case Number: 3:2011cv00135
Filed: January 19, 2011

Court: Pennsylvania Middle District Court
Office: Scranton Office
County: Lackawanna
Presiding Judge: Joel H. Slomsky

Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: None

Outlaw, can you check and see how many more of these are out there?

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

Dunbar v. Dunbar et al

More Sharing ServicesShare |

Plaintiff:	Stanley Dunbar
Defendants:	Angela Dunbar, Danielle Ross and Lackawanna County Family Court

Case Number:	3:2011cv00135
Filed:	January 19, 2011

Court:	Pennsylvania Middle District Court
Office:	Scranton Office
County:	Lackawanna
Presiding Judge:	Joel H. Slomsky

Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Cause:	42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	None

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

The Washington Times, Sunday, June 22, 2003, Section B, Commentary, Page B5, Forum

Putting the justices on trial

Last week seven Justices of the Virginia Supreme Court were put on trial in their own court by attorney Linda Kennedy who was disbarred last year.

The justices had the spotlight turned around on them when Ms. Kennedy addressed them from the podium. Ms. Kennedy was there to appeal her disbarment for violating the unwritten First Commandment of Virginia Legal Ethics: Thou Shalt Not embarrass the Virginia Bar by blowing the whistle on white-collar crimes they commit against an unwitting Virginia public.

Ms. Kennedy began by throwing Chief Justice Leroy Rountree Hassell Sr. off guard. She complimented him, saying she heard him preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ at Regent University. Maybe he momentarily forgot that a similar tactic was used by the Apostle Paul to subdue King Agrippa.

The justice straightened up and beamed with pride as he was reminded of the distinction that Regent bestowed upon him in the eyes of his black community by honoring him as a professor of law and theology.

Next Ms. Kennedy quoted a second one of the justices, a woman, who was published as stating that legal process must always be above

--------------------------------------------

On the Internet, it is now an open secret that court records are being falsified routinely in cases all over the state and all over the country while the high courts hear it with a deaf ear.

--------------------------------------------

suspicion. Ms. Kennedy thanked her for the statement but added that the message apparently has not yet reached the Virginia Bar.

Ms. Kennedy silenced a third justice by interrupting his question and asking that the justices not ask her any more questions. She said they had a copy of her written brief, and she wanted to use her entire 15 minutes to explain to them in person how their legal system has become disgracefully corrupt.

And if that did not convince them, then nothing ever would.

Nonetheless, a moment later a fourth justice, another woman, interrupted to ask if she understood correctly that Ms. Kennedy did not want to answer their questions, perhaps implying that Ms. Kennedy had something to hide. But Ms. Kennedy rebuked her. Ms. Kennedy said it could not have been made any plainer: "No questions." The justice pushed herself back in her chair showing consternation, but she had nothing more to say.

These justices are the senior officers overseeing the Virginia Bar whose lawyers are trying to cover up the fact that Ms. Kennedy caught them red-handed falsifying the very court record that these justices had sitting right there under their noses on the bench. The legal process that brought them the case record was not merely suspicious it was blatantly fraudulent.

Ms. Kennedy fished through trash cans and found court transcripts with handwritten notes clearly showing falsifications proposed by the Bar Prosecutor and approved by the trial judge to cover up perjury by the lawyer who heads the Virginia Bar's Ethics Department.

Ms. Kennedy has audiotapes that prove what the Ethics leader really said, in his own recorded voice. But the trial court record is cut out at the part where the trial judge refused to allow those audiotapes to be played. Ironically, the trial judge's comments were falsified in the record, claiming he said he would have exonerated Ms. Kennedy if only she could have proved what the audiotapes in fact do prove.

Talk about smoking guns. But this is just one of the more glaring cases. On the Internet, it is now an open secret that court records are being falsified routinely in cases all over the state and all over the country while the high courts hear it with a deaf ear. Zed McLarnon, a forensic audiovisual expert, has documented that transcripts in Massachusetts courts are altered with the knowledge of court personnel. In Indiana, Rebecca Rohrs has conclusively documented literally thousands of alterations in hearing transcripts in a child custody case.

"This is criminal misconduct," attorney Eugene Wrona says of similar practices in Pennsylvania, "and these people belong in jail."

Further, it is notorious among lawyers that lawyer whistleblowers can all expect to share Ms. Kennedy's fate. Law students are misled like the public, being told in law school that law is an honorable profession. Not until they begin practicing do they discover how money really changes hands. Only after they have invested years in their law school education are they taught that they must maintain an unwritten code of secrecy. Then they shut up or they are disbarred.

The justices in this case will pronounce a verdict on themselves. If they order a full investigation and a new trial of Ms. Kennedy's disbarment, then the justices will have pronounced their innocence. Otherwise, Regent ought to reconsider whom they allow to preach to our youth, and maybe it ought to be Linda Kennedy.

ED TRUNCELLITO

Mr. Truncellito is an attorney and director of development for Defending Holy Matrimony.

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Con'td from the UBaltimore CFCC BLUEprint for a UFC: Commentary indented:

The Unified Family Court is a single court system with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over all cases involving children and families.

Yup, that's what they want, so it's described as if in present tense (AFCC does this: "parenting coordination IS....." before it was mandatory in some states, etc. Makes it sound more legitimate)

In other words, centralized power is wanted -- hardly in accord with our Constitutional concepts -- but family courts already degraded that concept to start with by adding so much mental health stuff to set up the USA Gulag Archipelago and undermine due process and the concept of INDIVIDUAL standing of a person under the law. ("pSilent weapons for pSilent wars"). So this is what happens when you let a set of megalomaniac problemsolvers into positions of power. They cut you out of the decision-making process.

The court coordinates efforts to produce resolutions tailored to an individual family's legal, personal, emotional, and social needs. UFCs are a response to clear and devastating problems.

(such as feminism? -- and lack of submission to personal physical assault, rape, etc. including of one's offspring -- and divorcing their men.... not attending church regularly. .. . copying men in their sexual habits, including with things like adultery, and having children by more than one partner (men never do this, typically, right? -- see US Congress).

Lawyers have LONG given us examples of their ability (not) to handle life's tough problems -- like being poor, or ethical -- or, like a videotape of them being caught in a crime -- or having to suddenly switch from HAS to DOESN'T HAVE when "HAS" was a seven-figure # ($X,000,000 for the mathematically challenged). They tend (especially males) to do this in a very in a mature manner, sometimes including plans to burn houses, down, or suicide. Then again, non-attorney men also do that at times...

This one was in Arizona: (posted the other day). No I wasn't hunting for it-- (seeURL -- it's in the ABAjournal). Note the age:

Lawyer Took Cyanide After Arson Verdict, Then Collapsed and Died, Medical Examiner Says

Posted Jul 27, 2012 3:21 PM CDT
By Martha Neil

A 53-year-old lawyer whose finances apparently took a nosedive in recent years committed suicide in an Arizona court last month by swallowing a cyanide pill, immediately after a Maricopa County jury convicted him of burning down his own upscale home in the Phoenix area.(photos are from a dailymall.UK article, click imagesfor article:

Michael James Marin collapsed within minutes after a video of his June 28 arson conviction shows him seemingly putting something in his mouth and then swallowing. Medical examiner Kevin Horn announced Friday that his death was a suicide, reports Reuters.

At trial, prosecutors said Marin had $50 in his bank account at the time of the fire, compared to $900,000 a year earlier, and substantial debts, according to the Associated Press and a 2009 Phoenix New Times article.

Marin was a Yale University law graduate and the New Times profile says he had described working in the 1980s and 1990s in Asia for Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Salomon Brothers.

In more recent years, however, it is unclear from the article how Marin brought in the bucks to support a lifestyle that included the purchase of the multimillion-dollar home and Pablo Picasso etchings, for which he said he paid an amount in seven figures.

His family got a nice email about the paperwork -- he's a father of four and a grandfather.... (Lawyers need to learn how to lose more gracefully . . . in this case, he was facing Sheriff Arpaio's hospitality 16 yrs, now that would be intimidating...)

He was an ex-Wall Street trader who enjoyed collecting art including Picasso sketches and described himself as a 'careful thrill seeker' to the Phoenix New Times after scaling Mount Everest and trips into the jungles of south-east Asian.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2172006/Arsonist-Michael-Marin-53-collapses-dies-Phoenix--Family-man-swallowed-pill-died-shortly-guilty-received-delayed-email-died-police-labelled-cyanide-car.html#ixzz229XB9tRt

He did this in front of his girlfriend in court (convulsions, etc.) (Susie Spicer which answers the question about, was he married).......

Lawyers are a wonderfully resourceful and strategically planning sort, whether those plans go south or north, for sure.

For sure, if I had social and emotional needs, I would call up a lawyer and seek one of the lawyer's associates to help me with them. Being a mother (and family court vet), I have "no idea" how to handle personal, social, or emotional needs, poverty, or losing in court (sure, right) or difficult personalities. Somebody PLEASE tell a Law School in Maryland to structure a one-size-fits-all sea-change to the legal system so we don't have personal, social, or emotional needs, or poverty. I'm sure they can do it.

Unified Family Courts in Depth (website at UBaltimore School of Law)

...re: "The court coordinates efforts to produce resolutions tailored to an individual family'slegal, personal, emotional, and social needs. UFCs are a response to clear and devastating problems."

It's about to tell us what the problems are: I'm listening!!

For many lawyers and judges working in family law, it became apparent years ago that the justice system was not working as well as it could or should for the parties and for society as a whole.

OK, the problem was "THE JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS NOT WORKING AS WELL AS IT COULD..."

So is this a Good Cop/Bad Cop argument? Poor families, the justice department (which is historically about judging matters under the law) -- and needs to be retooled for more centralized jurisdiction -- and your personal affairs -- and your emotional needs -- and your social needs -- and expanded to cover ALL things families and children have to deal with ...

OK, I"m still listening... because if something is apparent to lawyers and judges it must be important....

The family justice process was expensive, inefficient, and often traumatic,

Actually to me it was the process of gradually realizing that protection ended at the front door of the family courthouse, among other things...and justice was not available inside.

I'm sitting here trying to figure out why, suddenly, lawyers should care? ???? They make a living from its expenses, particularly if it's NOT efficient . . . . . . I'm also thinking how the retooled version is not traumatic (because of its efficiency it has dispensed with an interest in the facts of most cases)

and it did not make the most effective use of community resources that could help families undergoing difficult transitions. This growing recognition of a fractured family justice system created urgency for law reform.

"Families in Transition" is code for Judith Wallersteins' NCalifornia Center for Families in Transition....The theme is everywhere now (One listed in Maricopa County Courthouse, too) (NH: is actually about homelessness)-- divorce is a transition, so we need more Kids turns, and KidFirsts, and Children in the Middle classes. The Tulsa County Courthouse now has one (/) KENtUCKY state court has one (a CLASS) This psychologist from Skokie, IL has one (although AFCC isn't mentioned, related associations are -- collaborative law, etc. Site logo (http://www.familiesintransition.info/page2/page2.html) (interesting logo)...

Spoiler

This site (from MN -- but I believe it's NAFCJ material, with maybe some updates) talks about the influence of Joan B. Kelley & Judith Wallerstein in both CRC (Childrens Rights Council), as advisor to NFI (National Fatherhood Initiative and in testifying before the House about the problems with single custodial mothers. It also alleges she (they) train judges in such matters -- and I found an example with some Judges in Prince George County (MD) which narrates a "hypothetical example." One thing at a time here, though:

FAMILIES IN TRANSITION (rather than Individuals moving forward in life) . Found at Carver County Corruption(a MN site). Looks like I got wallerstein & Kelly Switched as to which did the F.I.T. center.

AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal model custody programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition. Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallersteins and Kellys research. [23]

Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and special masters (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected primarily through CRC to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding parenting time and alienation. [8]

Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOWs Family Court Report 2002, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony along with David Levy of CRC to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the problems of single female parent families. [24]

Members of Wallersteins Center for the Family in Transition and Kellys Northern CA Mediation Center, have reformulated PAS as alienated children, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner. However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and threat therapy at AFCC conferences around the country and the world. [25] [Actually -- scroll down HERE; it was a 2003 article by Cindy Ross (then assoc. with NAFCJ -- California) and citing the other website... Same text...] (Carver county site shoulda credited it, but often doesn't, I've noticed)

There are so many "Families in Transition" references it's hard to actually find Wallerstein's -- but here's a 2000 NYT interview with her at age 78 (so now she's 90??) mentioning support from David Blankenhorn, and calling her stuff pseudoscience.

For 20 years, Ms. Wallerstein, now 78, has been the grandmother of an evolving view that divorce is more harmful to children than anyone thought. Divorce may liberate parents, she says, but it traps their sons and daughters for years: "It's a river they've got to cross that other kids don't have. And they've got to find how they do it. They're going to ford that river, or build a bridge over it, or learn to swim or drown."

She dares to say that couples should consider staying together for the sake of the children, and that it doesn't matter in the slightest to children that their parents don't sleep in the same bed. Her research has attracted a fervent army of critics, particularly feminists, who have attacked her gloomy outlook and her methods of research. She dooms children to lives of unhappiness, her critics say, and encourages people to stay in miserable marriages.

Spoiler: This month and last Ms. Wallerstein engaged in a particularly bitter exchange in the pages of The Nation with the columnist Katha Pollitt, who called her work "pseudoscience," criticized her for using composite characters (she does) and pointed out that "every five years her warnings about the dire effects of divorce on children make the headlines, the covers and the talk shows."

Ms. Wallerstein, a psychologist, has intensively interviewed a much smaller group. (She says she has also interviewed thousands of others at her Center for the Family in Transition in Corte Madera, Calif., whose stories are not included in her book.) ...Ms. Wallerstein readily says that her interest in the study of children and loss comes from her own family history. Her father, a director of Jewish community centers, died of Hodgkin's disease in New York City when she was 8, in an era when death was rarely discussed with children. "I knew he was sick, but I didn't know he was very sick," Ms. Wallerstein said. Her mother, who had emigrated as a child from Russia, never told her that her father was in the hospital. Since he traveled a great deal, Ms. Wallerstein said, she wasn't curious about his absence. His death came as a shock. As was also the custom for children, she did not go to the funeral.

...Interesting, a fatherless child born before women got the vote, between the wars as it were, and in an entirely different era is somehow empowered to define family for the rest of us? i'm not in favor of not telling children what's up with family -- but it seems this crowd are so often making up for their own pasts -- on the generations of new people who must pay for their perceived losses.....

After her father died, Ms. Wallerstein moved with her mother and younger brother to what was then Palestine, where her mother taught English in Tel Aviv and Ms. Wallerstein received "a very classical" Hebrew education. She returned to New York, graduated from Hunter College, married Robert Wallerstein, then trained the same time he did at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kans. There, she also had their three children all of them now married with children of their own. In 1966 the family moved to California, where Ms.Wallerstein taught at Berkeley. In 1971 she began her study of the effects of divorce on 131 children from 60 mostly white, affluent families.

She's lucky do have done so well and had a fine education, sounds like and a mother who was able to teach and support the family, and raised them in a time before the US financial system was taking a nosedive. it seems to me that like many fatherhood-is-mandatory preachers, their own lack of a father growing up didn't compromise their future college, professions, or success in life.

Here as promised is a case of JBKelly (theory at least) being rehearsed to judges.

Conference Gives Very Yellow Light to Child Relocation

The grande dame (this was 2012) presented a panel and two judges moderated a response. (GROUP setting -- transference -- see signature block on some of this) Scroll down to the relocation presentation and judges' panel afterwards. note the example used of a career woman offered a Chair at Harvard -- children not young, father not particularly involved in their lives (skipping visitation, etc.). Vote was 90/10 (in a panel moderated by some judges) that she should not be allowed to relocate -- even if it meant switching custody to the father.

I rest my point about Tavistock and the power of "group transference" and why we should not be letting courts set their models from foreign states (i.e., not in the home state) in closed-corporation conferences paying attention to THEIR groupthink. There's a literal cult going on here, enabled by internet and many other issues . . .They are authoritarian in the "group" mode and don't like being questioned about the systems from people not on the speakers' list. Kinda like church....

Obviously.

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 09:41:23 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 09:47:34 PM

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

One More MaMa Bear wrote:
How did a lab manage to explain sending that to your X! You're a doctor! Doesn't HIPPA come up with that issue?

How did my ex obtain my daughter's, not his daughter's medical records and have them show up in my file?

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

[FYI -- these comments take a while to finish. Looks like I got (above) a more complete version of it from Dr.T. -- w/photos of the attorney who took cyanide in the courtroom after being convicted of arson on a multi-million$$ estate, over which he was in legal trouble on (two photos, one of the burnt-out home one of him). so I cleared out most of this one & adding an interesting previous article on the same guy:

Burning Man: Attorney says he escaped his home in Scuba Gear -- now he's being charged with Arson (phoenix times, August 2009)

Like yes, he did attend Burning Man festival in Nevada -- but he was raised Mormon (Brigham Young) and had second child while graduating from Yale. And at that time had Jana Bru, a different long-term girlfriend than the Suzy Spicer one treated to the courtroom convulsions.

He was not Mormon at this time. Estate had been an investment home.

Those who read this article will find a fascinating real estate deal on this home -- involving a Nevada-based Biltmore Estates, Inc., the head of which is former estate owner Benson & VP, is Marin (the attorney's) then-girlfriend "Jana Bru." He owed this group (on paper) $950,000 -- with his other home as collateral, in a promissory note (that document is associated with the burnt-out mansion.. . In fact, the previous RE investor who ALSO lost it to foreclosure (or was going to -- balloon payment -- Greg Benson -- is apparently a former partner of Marin's on another RE company: Once Again.

So our friend(sic) Greg is living at the mansion but not current on payments, and up the place goes for auction. A third party (representing PRIVATE INVESTORS who'd sponsored the Benson & the later Marin purchase) Scott Gould then goes looking for a buyer, and here comes Marin. The home is allegedly $3.x million -- but "a deal at" (approximately what Benson paid for it). The higher appraisal apparently comes from the extra $950K loan registered on the property in a separate deal with a different (nevada) company -- the one where Benson's friend but now Marin's girlfriend, Jana Bru, is listed.

She then forgives (Marin) the $950K note. Go figure...the next month his note is forgiven, but had the effect of raising the APPRAISED value of the home. I wouldn't have got this far -- except the next step: Now Marin (again in trouble with the house -- gee, I can't imagine why!) is partnering with a Child Crisis Center (2011 annual report) in Mesa (AZ) to raffle off the home, which is legal in AZ (not Nevada) if the homeowner doesn't make a profit. The crisis center was in a funding crisis from loss of state moneys.

So the raffle was good to go, and no problem with the publicity -- Marin goes to climb Mt. Everest; but meanwhile the Dept. of Gaming had some questions about the legitimacy. Marin wrote the raffle rules which ensured a tidy profit for himself (see artificially inflated price) -- only if they raised $4million could the house be won, i.e., some nice profits to split ($2.7 million total).

Mormon, Yale, Burning Man, Trader, Mountain Climber (Scuba Diver), real estate (and art) wheeler/dealer, father of four, grandfather, a number of girlfriends after the ex-wife (who didn't make any news stories that I saw so far), and one article talks about a lifetime of guilt and shame (apparently didn't purge it), flying back and forth from Japan monthly at one point -- collaborating with/involving a Children's Crisis Center (who deal with adoptions and foster care, among other things) on the (dishonest) deal and trying to stay ahead of his own scams ("careful thrills"). . . .

Perhaps if the elite of this country (and their media) were as fascinated with the details of life of the poor as they are with men like this, they might have figured out where some of this poverty came from. ...

The monthly mortgage on the place would feed a small family for a year. The yearly interest on the mortgage ($200,000) -- which was going to the private lenders, whoever they were -- would put a group of two or three solidly into upper class, depending on how they controlled their expense to income, and ROI, etc.

Anecdotal and UP for Posting:

Regarding ARIZONA, NEVADA, Nonprofits and MARRIAGE-PROMOTERS -- not posted yet, but among the year 2000 signatories to the "Marriage Movement" document (a conference put on by: 1. a corporation (Dianne Sollee's DC-based "LLC" that trademarked "smartmarriages.com"[tr], 2. David Blankenhorn's NY-based NONprofit Institute for American Values, and a Center (funded by Louisville, KY nonprofit foundation & the Lilly Endowment, religious focus) at the UChicago Div School -- and attended by many religious leaders (?) with a corresponding career path in getting HHS marriage promotion grants [not to mention, Wade Horn himself, & Maggie Gallagher & Mike McManus)-- I looked up one that seemed rather, er, "fake," situation -- Les & Leslie Parrott, Ph.D.s (both) -- who'd established (with help) a Center in Seattle.

I went to the corporation page in Washington state, and the charitble registration for their "Foundatino for Healthy Relationships" (or whatever it was) and found a street address. AS MY HABIT IS, I looked up the street address (on Google) and -- lo and behold -- this foundation, and two other versions of the Parrotts -- were listed as board of directors on an ARIZONA LLC (probably property). You just never know til you go look. . . .

This is the crowd, along with AFCC, that is obsessed with training OTHERS (not themselves) the honorable and ethical way to live life -- including abstinence, and make sure THEIR profits and success in life come from working an honest job ABOVE board in the current economic crisis -- which some of the more speculative and dishonest sectors of society have themselves created.

Just for a little on-topic reminder, the COURTS police the behavior and issue court orders (Valid or invalid, who knows?) which also direct the futures of those to be subject to the less profitable half of the double-standard. Court orders can incarcerate, and perhaps Michael Marin is an object lesson in combining religion, Yale (law), and controlled thrill-seeking, and being able to take responsibility for one's own crimes.

(Did he ever actually practice law?) My understanding of the Mormon religion is that marriage outlasts death (I could be wrong) so it's good he switched religions beforehand.

Now go back to the UBaltimore (hardly "Yale") School of Law and listen to how attorneys and the court are going to solve social problems through (socialism & the Protestant Work Ethic for the poor, and paper profits & losses for the more financially literate and less honest):

~ ~ ~

The court coordinates efforts to produce resolutions tailored to an individual family's legal, personal, emotional, and social needs. UFCs are a response to clear and devastating problems.

. . . .

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Tuesday 31st of July 2012 12:55:32 PM

One More MaMa Bear · Guru

How did a lab manage to explain sending that to your X! You're a doctor! Doesn't HIPPA come up with that issue?

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

I could not get a copy of the numerous drug tests I was ordered to obtain until I entered my pro se appearance despite asking for them in writing from BOTH the GAL, Ross and all of my former attornies. What was really interesting, was that I found letters addressed to my ex-husband from the lab that LCFC sends litigants to get tested, Easy & Affordable notifying him of my results!

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Abstract from a 1997 paper (see SSRN link below) of Prof. Barbara A. Babb -- reasoning behind why the legal system has to change to therapeutic jurisprudence.

Notice the language they are talking in;


2.		An Interdisciplinary Approach to Family Law Jurisprudence: Application of an Ecological and Therapeutic Perspective

Published Indiana Law Review, 1997 -- 68pp:

ndiana Law Journal, Vol. 72, p. 775, 1997
Accepted Paper Series

Abstract:

Traditionally, the legal system has attempted to fashion morality in determining family legal issues rather than to devise legal remedies that accommodate how families live. This approach must change, and a new approach based on legal realism that effectuates the well-being of families and children must be developed. This article proposes an interdisciplinary approach based on an ecological and therapeutic jurisprudential paradigm to resolve family legal proceedings. An ecological approach, emanating from the ecology of human development social science paradigm, is one in which family law decision-makers consider factors beyond their conceptions of the family. This approach urges decision-makers to account for the family ecology, which includes the institutions within which family members participate, such as neighborhoods and religious organizations. Utilizing an ecological approach to family law jurisprudence implies that decision-makers appreciate the importance of socially rich environments for family members and facilitate linkages between and among as many systems in litigants' lives as possible. The therapeutic jurisprudential paradigm emerges from the field of mental health law and looks at the role of law as a therapeutic agent. The author urges that family law decision-makers consider outcomes that have therapeutic or positive consequences for families and children. To employ this interdisciplinary ecological and therapeutic framework, the court system must accommodate a range of dispute resolution techniques, including negotiation, mediation, and adjudication, allowing the judge to strike a balance between the parties' own resolution and a full court trial of family law issues. An interdisciplinary paradigm for family law jurisprudence that applies the ecology of human development perspective and notions of therapeutic jurisprudence can ensure that family law decision-makers and the courts are a source of strength and support for the continued and enhanced functioning of America's families.

Straight, main-lined AFCC -- an idea from the 1970s, and stated as such on their (old ) website.

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 06:57:53 PM

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

This article is Republicans talking about reserving the police powers to the state (but it's in re: obamacare). As it talks about jurisdiction, just decided to post it here:

From The Legal Intelligencer (see date below)

The Constitution's "Police Power," Including Tort Law, Isn't Subject to Federal Authority

Andrew Cochran

Contributor

Posted by Andrew CochranJuly 18, 2012 10:54 AM

2 Comments

Print Article

Subscribe

The Supreme Court's decision in the Obamacare case (Acrobat document) highlighted the limits of federal authority over states' and individual rights. Over and over again, Chief Justice Roberts wrote of the Constitution's enumerated powers for the federal government and of the need to protect states from an overreaching federal government. He defined states' rights in terms of the inherent "police power" which is reserved for the states. Here is a key quote:

The Constitution may restrict state governments--as it does, for example, by forbidding them to deny any person the equal protection of the laws. But where such prohibitions do not apply, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act. The States thus can and do perform many of the vital functions of modern government--punishing street crime, running public schools, and zoning property for development, to name but a few--even though the Constitution's text does not authorize any government to do so.Our cases refer to this general power of governing, possessed by the States but not by the Federal Government, as the 'police power.' See, e.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 618-619 (2000).

And Justice Roberts was unwilling to enable the federal government to mandate the purchase of health insurance under the Commerce Clause, in contradiction to the "police power" of the states.

"The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions. Any police power to regulate individuals as such, as opposed to their activities, remains vested in the States...

Spoiler

The Government argues that the individual mandate can be sustained as a sort of exception to this rule, because health insurance is a unique product... The proximity and degree of connection between the mandate and the subsequent commercial activity is too lacking to justify an exception of the sort urged by the Government. The individual mandate forces individuals into commerce precisely because they elected to refrain from commercial activity. Such a law cannot be sustained under a clause authorizing Congress to 'regulate Commerce.'"

Justice Roberts cited the U.S. v Morrison case, in which then-Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote several times that the Constitution reserved the "police power" to the states, and quoted from the Supreme Court's ruling in the U.S. v Lopezcase: "[W]e always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power."

Paul Clement, who argued the case against Obamacare before the Court, also asserted that "the police power resides with the states" in a debate at the 2011 Federalist Society national convention. In the brief filed for the State of Florida before the Court, he asserted that the Constitution "reserves the plenary police power to the states" (page 17 of the brief).

So what is included under the umbrella of the constitutional "police power?" Well, one of the Republicans' favorite legal experts and anti-Obamacare theorists says that tort law is a "police power" not subject to federal authority:

Prof. Randy Barnett, in May 2011: "But tort law -- the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries to their person and property -- has always been regulated by states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart of what is called the 'police power' of states... Indeed, if Congress now can regulate tort law, which has always been at the core of state powers, then Congress, and not the states, has a general police power."

And other top Republican, anti-Obamacare constitutional experts clearly agree with Prof. Barnett's conclusion that Congress has no business regulating tort law through, for instance, federal limits on awards in medical malpractice lawsuits.

OK, rest is under SPOILER:

Spoiler

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, in November 2011, writing about a Senate bill to cap awards in medical malpractice cases: "The legislation is breathtakingly broad in its assumptions about federal power, particularly the same power to regulate commerce that lies at the heart of all the lawsuits (including Virginia's) against the individual mandate of the 2010 federal health-care law... This legislation expands federal power, tramples the states and violates the Constitution."

Sen. Mike Lee on Fox Business Network in March: "It's the states that license and regulate health care, health insurance companies. It's the states that come up with the system of tort laws that govern medical malpractice lawsuits."

Prof. John Baker, in June 2011: "To justify their efforts to nationalize medical malpractice law, House Republicans are stretching the Supreme Court's New Deal Commerce Clause jurisprudence almost as far as Democrats did for Obamacare."

Carrie Severino of the Judicial Action Network, in October 2011: "The law's own justification for its constitutional authority should be chilling to anyone committed to limited federal power... Congress would be nationalizing purely local activity because state-by-state solutions would require a lot of resources and hard work."

Rob Natelson, writing about the Founders' intentions in the Constitution in his monograph titled, 'The Roots of Judicial Federalism': "Reserved to the states would be nearly all the authority they had exercised previously, including power over state court procedures and over existing areas of substantive jurisdiction. With a few exceptions, therefore, the states were left in exclusive possession of the law of torts, contracts, inheritance, property, and criminal law."

So there's no argument among top Republican experts - tort law just isn't a federal issue, and the Obamacare decision only made that point crystal clear.

Tags: Founding Fathers of the United States, Judson Phillips, jury trials, Ken Cuccinelli, medical malpractice, ObamaCare, Randy Barnett, Rob Natelson,states rights, Tea Party, tort reform, 7th Amendment

RE: ""The Commerce Clause is not a general license to regulate an individual from cradle to grave, simply because he will predictably engage in particular transactions." -- no, but a sincere effort will be made to do so through the carrots and sticks method of doling out and withholding federal grants (including to feed the huddled masses of poor so they don't clog the streets and interrupt commerce within the states) -- and also because, the GAO can't track it's own stuff anyhow, nor can/does the US treasury department know exactly where a few trillion (DOD) or 5 dozen billion (HUD) or ??? (HHS-- no one really looking too hard) -- actually went. That's what the Kelly O'Meara article on one of these posts (dated to about 2004/2005) was saying.

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 06:41:44 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 06:44:37 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 07:01:25 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 07:02:31 PM

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

The last comment on the SCRIPPS foundation was just because of their collaboration in the Truancy project with this University of Baltimore school of law center called "CFCC." Remember how Harhut was commended for setting up the Truancy program (STARS) way back when, and how innovative it was? well maybe it was, but hardly original idea -- it came from being promoted by these personnel, with help from ScRIPPS-Howard, which is involved with media.

JURISDICTIon that way now -- it really, really counts! And people who unified these courts, knew that (they are, after all, lawyers & judges, etc.)

We the People with Unalienable Rights or Indentured to USA, Inc. [and its debt, and fake money]? Slaves only get to sue their masters if their masters wave sovereignty, which most don't.

Whose JURISDICTION are you really in? Concepts .. USConstitution

CFCCs & Corps push UFCs to get subject matter jurisdiction
Govt& Court affiliated NONprofits exist to hide people, profits & this purpose
Courts = to collect the debt. ALL Attorneys = Officers of the Court
So, who is the ABA, then? Or "faith-based" corporations?

I just showed how ONE Baltimore-based Center (CFCC at a Law School -- train up the next generation; central location to WDC) started in California and Washington DC looks like (year 2001 is as far back as they show on the one site) -- and started setting up a BLUEPRINT FOR UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS -- here we go on "SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (red link, above):

Notice, no one bothered to solicit input from the 50 states, John and Jane Doe -- this is a Roundtable of the Righteous Experts and Concerned Family-Helpers (and members of their local bar association, a good percent):

Source: http://law.ubalt.edu/centers/cfcc/ufc/blueprint.cfm

A blueprint to design a Unified Family Court should include:

pay careful attention to what they wanted (and now have, who knows how many places?)

A specialized court structure either a separate court or a division or department of an existing court established at the same level and receiving the same resources as a trial court of general jurisdiction.

They want funding and equal clout.

Comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over the full range of family law cases, including juvenile delinquency and child welfare.

There you go. the words "subject matter jurisdiction" caught my eye (finally) after I read the other material on jurisdiction. I'd already known that in the history of family courts, all that was required for "jurisdiction" was a custody dispute that the couple couldn't settle. HOWEVER, this is now centralized and expanded subject matter jurisdiction to claim all the social service resources that come with dependency -- including adoption, foster care, therapy etc.

NOTE -- already (and separately, sort of) the NACC and others had been pushing (HARD) the realm of children's welfare law as a certifiable speciality within ABA.

A case management/processing system involving early and hands-on contact with each family law case.

They don't want others screwing it up with differing theories, or without the right cronies. This also assures more income overall for GALs, etc.

A judicial assignment system where the family appears before one judge for resolution of the entire case, or where a case management team coordinates the case.

that way non-AFCC judges or judges with the wrong concepts (like, old school, and more interested in due process, etc.) won't contaminate the recipe - -and one BAD (or good) JUDGE can determine a child's future.

These are no longer individuals (with their unalienable or even legal in their own state rights) coming before, but "cases" which have to be managed. What chance would such individuals within a family of complaining to "management" in this setup?

An array of court-supplied or court-connected social services that meet the litigants' non-legal needs, including those related to family law problems.

i.e., the court gets to order "non-legal needs" although it still is posing as a court and not a therapist's or doctor's office (so far; give it some time).

Obvious non-legal needs will probalby have a close match to Access/Visitation endorse or Welfare-supported Diversionary causes -- or simply be billed outright to the non-indigent.

A user-friendly court accessible to all family law litigants, including self-represented litigants.

well-informed pro se litigants can still challenge a power structure, and there are other places where (we) are being appropriately "managed."

. . . . .Sorry about all the indented sarcasm, but there it is.

it's signed Professor Marcia Babb -- and here are some of her prior writings about it: - notice dates written (1997,1998 -- one in 2008) versus dates put up on-line. They were first published in law journals, later in SSRN -- which is a social services writings database:

Professor Barbara A. Babb

(i've talked about Prof Barb Babb on blog before, and this center, but never fully noticed the SUBJECt mATTER JURISDICTION and how it was #1 -- create the specialized courts (with equal clout & funding) and #2 -- give them subject matter jurisdiction over the desired populations. . . . . . Smart, huh?

Meanwhile, here were some of the connections held in the 1990s;

She is an Advisory Council member and former member of the ABA's Standing Committee on Substance Abuse and has participated in that committee's model national unified family court project. Babb also is a member of the ABA's Unified Family Courts Coordinating Council. She is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Family Court Review. She frequently teaches continuing legal education courses in the family law and child advocacy areas.

Babb served as a consultant to Chief Judge Robert C. Murphy's Family Division Review Committee in 1993, to the Court of Appeals of Maryland's Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to draft the Family Division Rule in 1997, and to Chief Judge Robert M. Bell's** Ad Hoc Committee on the Implementation of the Family Divisions from 1998 and 2000. She chaired the Pro Bono Coordinating Council from 1990 until 1994, and she was a member of the Board of Directors of the People's Pro Bono Action Center, Inc. during that same period.

[Please notice coincidence of position on Pro b ono Action Center // Coordinating Center, while drafting rules for the family division (1997).

**An amazing judge, I put interview/biography up at familycourtmatters.wordpress.com. His parents were sharecroppers (NC) but separated while he was VERY young (never really knew his father)-- mom & boys migrated north to Baltimore; he and his 2 brothers were raised by a single mother from a broken family and they appeared to have been poor.

He helped challenge and overturn segregation, graduated from college AND Harvard and had a fantastic career as a judge, absolutely proving that there is NO hope for fatherless children and children in his position will never again have the privilege of going with their mother where her motherly or survival instincts lead them.. Therefore more funds should be given to push fatherhood on low-income (heck, no -- everyone!) lest we have more Judge Bells who upset the (white male) status quo as he and some associates/mentors (eventually including Thurgood Marshall) obviously did! Someone needs to keep those independent women under better control; who knows they might raise a future President of the United States (again) or something!

Did I mention graduated from Harvard Law School in there somewhere?

Articles on Social Science Research Network (may or may not display below, accessible through web, I think free. Notice 1997 dates refer to publication in law journals (here & there) and later dates, to on this SSRN database).

1.

-

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 06:23:02 PM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 06:23:46 PM

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

The Early Years (1878-1934)

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Outlaw, it wasn't until my ex appealed the Judge's last Order (it was quashed) and I entered my pro se appearance that I was FINALLY able to get my hands on my file. There are memorandums by the GAL that I never saw, there are copies of medical records of my four year old (not my ex-husband's child) that I never gave consent to be released, as well as sealed documents from another case.

Unbelievable yet believable; I know another case (cross-continent) where the mother barely could get her file. It's why I say it's not the personalities, it's the system. In a system with checks and balances, this would not happen. Primary reason for such corruption: don't believe in the law; money, fraud.

The system is not "broken" it's a system with inherent design flaws, and not by accident. Steer clear of people who say it's broken and they have a fix -- they're not looking straight (or talking straight, or both).

It's here, we have to deal with it -- but notice, it's when you went pro se that you got results? Officers of the Court. Well, who is the court -- and who is it representing?

See subject matter jurisdiction, baby... Unified family courts have jurisdiction over many matters re: family; but before then conciliation courts had other types of jurisdiction. This was planned.

Spoiler: Please note (I just read a little more carefully) top-left link "Jurisdiction" in my signature block is obviously a Christian (or at least religious) explanation of concepts: types of jurisdiction, contract, oath, duly constituted court and that "court" originally referred to a king (or delegates) which was where people came to settle some disputes. i do not agree with the dogmatic statements here & there in it, for example that right to choose is primary (yes), but when we choose not to follow God he makes us slaves because He loves us (no). I do believe that's where freedom lies --and that turning away from freedom (which includes voluntary self-restraint) leads to slavery, etc.

Here's some of the links on jurisdiction (that wouldn't fit in signature block): See the two on CFCCs and "subject matter jurisdiction"

We the People with Unalienable Rights or Indentured to USA, Inc. [and its debt, and fake money]? Slaves only get to sue their masters if their masters wave sovereignty, which most don't.

Whose JURISDICTION are you really in? Concepts .. USConstitution

CFCCs & Corps push UFCs to get subject matter jurisdiction
Govt& Court affiliated NONprofits exist to hide people, profits & this purpose
Courts = to collect the debt. ALL Attorneys = Officers of the Court
So, who is the ABA, then? Or "faith-based" corporations?

CFCC link leads to the Center for Families & Children in Baltimore (UB School of Law). This is an AFCC-type center and openly admits they are into therapeutic jurisprudence (not justice based on law). But to have legal ability to order services from cronies still took some doing -- this explains how they did it.

Also references the NCSC (National Center for State Courts) -- see ABA thread. See lackawanna AOPC report which references it (Can search the term on-line if you load the pdf).

They went around providing training-- this is gradual centralization of our country based on ideas NOT from "we the people" but "them the Officers of the Court in association with mental health professionals for mutual PRIVATE benefit to be sold to the public at large as mutual PUBLIC benefit."

All I do is read their material and see what it's saying and compare to reality. Yep, that's what's going on!

Provided presentations on the structure, theoretical foundations, advantages, physical attributes, operation, services, and performance evaluation of Unified Family Courts in collaboration with the National Center for State Courts (December 2008). (NEW MEXICO) Note the courts were to be their own evaluators - -how's that for "separation of powers!") [I talk about NCSC -- AOPC WmBrowning mentions them; it distributes ideas to the courts.]
Developed workshop and provided technical assistance to Memphis task force considering a Unified Family Court model (January 2008). [gave them a nudge, but no doubt there were already connections in Memphis]
Summit on Unified Family Courts: Serving Children and Families Efficiently, Effectively and Responsibly, Baltimore, Maryland. {{notice, it's not about "JUStICE" but about "SERVICING Children & FAMILIES" -- no "individual rights" here, baby! Not even on the map. Collectivism. How noble.

Over one hundred fifty judges, court personnel, attorneys and academic experts representing twenty-five states attended the Summit, co-sponsored by the American Bar Association and CFCC and funded by the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts and Casey Family Programs.

Oh, you mean people in BALTIMORE weren't following the budgets of THEIR AOC either? Or were asleep at the wheel? (note MD proximity to WDC).

The conference covered issues critical to the development of Unified Family Courts, including services and accountability, standards and measures to assess Unified Family Courts, the critical need for judicial leadership and training, the ways to establish Unified Family Courts, the critical need for judicial leadership and training, the ways to establish a Unified Family Court, addiction and other non-legal issues, collaboration in the legal community, and self-represented litigants (2007).

Rather than legislative leadership (representative government) it's JUDICIAL leadership (Judges are typically lawyers, right?). From father knows best to "the Court knows best." Which of the public were solicited to attend the conference? (No, that would be too messy and argumentative, right?)

American Bar Association (ABA) [SEE new Topic, incl. their consolidated audited financial statements!] Truancy Court Program Initiative, ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. Provided technical assistance and wrote a project report for the Scripps-Howard Truancy/Literacy Project [URL is to "BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE" report (2002-2003)....

wait a minute, I thought Truancy project (STAR) was Harhut's great creative original idea!.. wait a minute -- how many of the juveniles sent upstate @ "KidsForCash LUZERNE" were sent up on minor infractions (from school) or truancy matters?
Could anyone have POSSIBLY foreseen this setup might've been abused?Aren't we glad we have the courts, schools, and the ABA (plus a private foundation) working closely together, seeing as the schools can't teach all their graduates to READ, and ILLITERACY leads to violence?

"Preface to "Truancy, Literacy and the Courts". . . .

Spoiler

Perhaps because of the role of lawyers and judges in the criminal system, the legal profession has long been aware of the connection between illitera- cy and social problems. It is estimated that, overall, 27 million Americans do not know how to read or write at all, that 47 million more possess only the most minimal literacy skills, and that up to 74 million more just dont read, even though they once learned. [True, I bet!] As we live in a society in which a per- son cannot function without reading and writingcannot get a driving license or open a bank account or even apply for welfare**it should be no surprise that 75% of prison inmates in the United States are illiterate.* For the fact is that without the ability to read and write well, a persons opportunities can narrow to the point where crime becomes a mode of survival. Lawyers and judges see this first hand."

**interesting the first three things they mentioned would help people forfeit their "unalienable" rights in exchange for a government privilege or contract, unless we know how to handle ourselves without doing that. (I'm still reading on this).

Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Provided technical assistance to the unified family court pilot site. (2002) (was already unified, just getting a Boost from Baltimore CFCC) (wonder how! More ideas?)
District of Columbia Family Court Project, District of Columbia Superior Court. Drafted Congressionally-mandated legislation establishing a family court in the D.C. court system (2001)****[drafting & pushing for legislation is a key feature of AFCC personnel...]
- Notice -- these are LAWYERS. how easily could they have provided a link to that legislation, sothe public can see how they pulled this off --- but simply forgot to, I guess.
- I also note that DC is not a regular "state." Do they have an elected senator or representative ?? (NO....) So AFCC (or at least this particular CFCC) must have had some influence with Congress.
.Summit on Redefining Florida's Family Courts, Florida Family Courts. Assisted Florida judicial circuit courts to facilitate family court pilot projects and developed recommendations for model court (2001).

If anyone should be redesigning family courts, it should definitely be the people working in them, and not the people who will later be subject to the redesigned courts, who need not be in on the "blueprint" specs. (next post here I guess)

- Discussion Paper and Program on Unified Family Courts,California [AOC] Administrative Office of the Courts. Presented information about Unified Family Court model during an interactive workshop (2001) [FOR WHO? Where are all these LINKS?]

Why are they so interested in UFC's (Unified Family Courts?) -- I've posted on it here and over at wordpress (the LGH blog) -- why the intense interest in the courts being CHANGE AGENTS for the entire country? Especially from Annie E. Casey, Scripps-Howard** (FORD, Rockefeller), out in our area, Wm. T. Grant Foundation, etc.?

(See that second link right next to the one I pasted from here.)

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 10:30:56 AM

-- Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Monday 30th of July 2012 11:58:21 AM

Drstephaniet · Senior Member

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts wrote:
Today I was looking at Lackawanna County records -- and again noted that the mental health records are private. What if someone had been improperly (and forcibly) institutionalized under some of those records?
What else also, if the judge knows about a version of your own record that you don't even have? I'm not talking about missing transcripts etc (which I've heard of) -- but of a dual set of record-keeping. This has come up in San Diego, CA, in various jurisdictions, I've heard of it from a woman in Texas. . . . . . Just a topic to keep in mind:

The record you see versus the actual record, dual sets, invalid court orders etc.
http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-06-how-to-get-copy-of-your.html
Taken verbatim from the blog inproperinla.blogspot.com -- I keep forgetting this issue
HOW TO GET A COPY OF YOUR REGISTER OF ACTIONS:
_______

1) Prepare a letter as follows in two copies:

TO: the Clerk John A Clarke, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
FROM: (your name)

Please accept this notice as request to access court records, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to my Due Process and First Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

This request pertains to the Register of Actions (NOT the online Case Summary) in case caption (case number), in (name of courthouse).

Date:
[signature]
_________
(your name)

DECLARATION OF (your name)
1) I went on to the courthouse.
2) I delivered a copy of the letter (Exhibit 1) to Deputy Clerk (his/her name) .
3) The Deputy Clerk refused to provide the records.
2) Go in person to the Office of the Clerk in the courthouse where the case was heard.
3) Present the two copies to a person, who MUST HOLD THE TITLE OF "DEPUTY CLERK" (no other person is under oath relative to court records).
4) Ask to have your copy stamped "RECEIVED".
5) Practice a bit of civil insistence - make it clear that you know that the Case Summary is NOT the Register of Actions, and that it is your basic Civil Right to have a copy of the court records in your case, and that the Deputy Clerk is in violation of his/her Oath of Office if he/she deny you access to the records.
6) It may also be helpful to bring a copy of the standard Disclaimer, published online, which shows that the Case Summary is not a court record at all: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881015/
7) In case they still refuse to provide a copy of the Register of Actions, I would ask for a short declaration, documenting the interaction:

DECLARATION OF (your name)
1) I went on to the courthouse.
2) I delivered a copy of the letter (Exhibit 1) to Deputy Clerk (his/her name) .
3) The Deputy Clerk refused to provide the records.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Other links, same topic:
Computerized or Con-Puterized? (i've probably posted here before long ago) SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM THAT COMES WITH TRANSITION FROM PAPER TO ELECTRONIC, BUT BOTH SYSTEMS IN FORCE:
here are escalating concerns that the legal system in the U.S. is vacating the Constitution as well as violating the rights of increasing numbers of its citizens. A number of recent disclosures buttress this perception:
The Kids for Cash scandal in Pennsylvania (6500 juvenile cases overturned and vacated)
The strange and inexplicable imprisonment of Los Angeles attorney Richard Fine for nearly a year, following his attempts to confront the judges in Los Angeles County for the conflict of interest in receiving monies that were adjudicated unconstitutional (Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles)
The recent revelation in the San Bernardino County Sentinel that many California judges are receiving large and unexplained property loans which are possibly redolent of bribes and payoffs
The failure of Barack Obama to produce a birth certificate indicating he is, in fact, a natural born citizen and thus has legal standing to run for President of the United States
(I'm going to leave that last one alone, but then it goes on to tell what Zernik discovered -- and how he got "rounded up"shortly after this was published
Spoiler
Amidst the rumblings that equal justice under the law is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor --first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.

Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as Sustain, installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.

Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed Sustain as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.

In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.

There is a further issue that Zernik finds equally troubling. The Notice of Electronic Filings (NEFs) now regularly produced by the computer systems may not even contain any signatures, digital or no, that are traditionally needed to prove that a document has been appropriately entered. Under CM/ECF, Zernik found that in certain cases no digital signatures whatsoever were issued in the NEFs of court orders and judgments. This raises grave questions as to the validity of the documents.
And how is the public to know if court papers are valid or not? According to Zernik, the public now cannot, in fact, know. The NEFs, the most critical instrument in determining which papers were valid court papers, were made visible only to specific attorneys in a given case, through CM/ECF, and were entirely omitted from PACER the public access system.
Zernik likens this system to a complex and invisible form of check fraud. The dual system created by the US courts through PACER and CM/ECF can be thought of as issuing checks, where the public is required to accept the checks from the courts in lieu of cash, while the court resorts to the habit of distributing unsigned checks, but only a select group of people are permitted to see which checks bear signatures and which ones do not, says Zernik.
Remember Maryanne Godboldo case? No valid court order, but the SWAT team came after her kid anyhow.
http://dunwalke.com/sidebars/andrew_cuomo.htm (far more complex, but footnotes the one I was after) (well, this is some of the history):
http://solari.com/learn/articles_missing_money/Insight-Treasury_Checks_&_Unbalances.pdf

Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), chairman of the subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management, tells Insight that his subcommittee has been focused on trying to learn "what financial systems are working and those that aren't, and what is being done to fix the problems. The biggest challenge to getting a clean audit is DoD, and its biggest problem is its financial-management systems. The GAO has said that the challenge there is long-running institutionalized practices they've identified several thousand different financial-accountability processes used there and they're trying to get those thousands of systems to be uniform and combined as one efficient system."

(dated 5/8/2006

. . .the DoD recently added to its Website a slide show that begins with "We are America's Oldest Company, Largest Company, Busiest Company and Most Successful Company." The accompanying slides describe the DoD as a corporation by explaining that it is bigger than Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, GM and Ford and refers to President George W. Bush as the chief executive officer and Congress as the board of directors, with the American people being the "stockholders."

Critics point out that DoD has been the biggest impediment to getting the federal government's books balanced, that under Bill Clinton in fiscal 2000 the department could not account for $1.1 trillion (and still hasn't), and that for seven years it has been unable to audit its books. Rumsfeld has turned the air blue trying to impress both the Pentagon establishment and the entrenched and congressionally protected civil-service bureaucracy with the need to correct these problems. He is fully aware that if DoD were indeed a corporation the bankruptcy courts and the Securities and Exchange Commission long ago would have shut down this "corporation" on which the nation relies for its defense.

Indeed, the GAO further reports, "As a result of material deficiencies in the federal government's systems, record-keeping, documentation and financial reporting, readers are cautioned that amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and related notes may not be reliable."

So the books can't be audited and what information is made available "may not be reliable."

And why was the GAO unable to "provide an opinion"? According to David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, "there are three primary reasons" why the consolidated financial statements remained unauditable for fiscal year 2003:
(1) serious financial-management problems at the Department of Defense (DoD);
(2) the federal government's inability to account for billions of dollars of transactions between federal entities; and
(3) the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

Walker explains in his report of the government's financial statements that "We designated the serious financial-management problems at DoD as high risk since 1995.

HERE IT IS: http://www.dunwalke.com/resources/documents/ArticleScans/Sized/Insight-59B_Missing_2005-11-07_v5a.pdf (A google cache. HUD Cannot account for $59Billion, for real!)
Susan Gaffney, HUD Inspector General had to testify infront of a House subcommittee, Stephen Horn (R-California). . . .
"What is amazing is that Gaffney devoted most of her testimony to failed processes, rather than instances of theft, conversion, embezzlement or other larceny... "A huge computer system isn't need for HUD to balance the books -- a monthly statement reconciliation is all that's necessary (cf. Lackawanna AOPC report -- you find they've been doing this with the GAL or Parenting Coordination or Kids First programs? ha, ha, ha ....)
whistleblower Jack Ballinger quoted...
anonymous " blaming computer glitches is what they do when they want to hide fraud." (just read it!)

This type of fraud is similar to Medicaid -- one set of bills is submitted and another to the patient. Same deal when it comes to federal reimbursement for court-related programs which are based on YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY#.
Apologize for the format, and I'll stop initiating extra topics -- but this one has to do with accountability and justice for sure. Consider the implications of false arrest records and disappearing children -- or citizens!

Outlaw, it wasn't until my ex appealed the Judge's last Order (it was quashed) and I entered my pro se appearance that I was FINALLY able to get my hands on my file. There are memorandums by the GAL that I never saw, there are copies of medical records of my four year old (not my ex-husband's child) that I never gave consent to be released, as well as sealed documents from another case.

Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts · Guru

Today I was looking at Lackawanna County records -- and again noted that the mental health records are private. What if someone had been improperly (and forcibly) institutionalized under some of those records?

What else also, if the judge knows about a version of your own record that you don't even have? I'm not talking about missing transcripts etc (which I've heard of) -- but of a dual set of record-keeping. This has come up in San Diego, CA, in various jurisdictions, I've heard of it from a woman in Texas. . . . . . Just a topic to keep in mind:

The record you see versus the actual record, dual sets, invalid court orders etc.

http://inproperinla.blogspot.com/2009/12/09-12-06-how-to-get-copy-of-your.html

Taken verbatim from the blog inproperinla.blogspot.com -- I keep forgetting this issue

HOW TO GET A COPY OF YOUR REGISTER OF ACTIONS:
_______

1) Prepare a letter as follows in two copies:

TO: the Clerk John A Clarke, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
FROM: (your name)

Please accept this notice as request to access court records, to inspect and to copy, pursuant to my Due Process and First Amendment rights, as re-affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978).

This request pertains to the Register of Actions (NOT the online Case Summary) in case caption (case number), in (name of courthouse).

Date:
[signature]
_________
(your name)

DECLARATION OF (your name)
1) I went on to the courthouse.
2) I delivered a copy of the letter (Exhibit 1) to Deputy Clerk (his/her name) .
3) The Deputy Clerk refused to provide the records.

2) Go in person to the Office of the Clerk in the courthouse where the case was heard.
3) Present the two copies to a person, who MUST HOLD THE TITLE OF "DEPUTY CLERK" (no other person is under oath relative to court records).
4) Ask to have your copy stamped "RECEIVED".
5) Practice a bit of civil insistence - make it clear that you know that the Case Summary is NOT the Register of Actions, and that it is your basic Civil Right to have a copy of the court records in your case, and that the Deputy Clerk is in violation of his/her Oath of Office if he/she deny you access to the records.
6) It may also be helpful to bring a copy of the standard Disclaimer, published online, which shows that the Case Summary is not a court record at all: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39881015/
7) In case they still refuse to provide a copy of the Register of Actions, I would ask for a short declaration, documenting the interaction:

DECLARATION OF (your name)
1) I went on to the courthouse.
2) I delivered a copy of the letter (Exhibit 1) to Deputy Clerk (his/her name) .
3) The Deputy Clerk refused to provide the records.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Scranton Political Times

Dunbar v. Dunbar et al

Dunbar v. Dunbar et al

Defending Holy Matrimony

Contents

Mutual Consent Makes Sense

Contact / Mission

The Politics of Family Destruction

Articles

Defending Matrimony is New ...

Recent Posts

Defending Holy Matrimony

Contents

Mutual Consent Makes Sense

Contact / Mission

The Politics of Family Destruction

Articles

Defending Matrimony is New ...

Recent Posts

Call No Man Father: Understanding Matthew 23:9 PHILIP GRAY Why do Catholics call priests father, when Jesus says call no man your father on earth (Mt. 23:9)?

Dunbar v. Dunbar et al

Dunbar v. Dunbar et al

Conference Gives Very Yellow Light to Child Relocation

The Constitution's "Police Power," Including Tort Law, Isn't Subject to Federal Authority