PROPOSED CHILDREN'S BILL OF RIGHTS FROM S.P.A.R.C.

The Children's Bill Of Rights

HERE IS A PROPOSED BILL OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS FROM THE S.P.A.R.C. WEBSITE AT WWW.DELTABRAVO.NET.  WHAT DO YOU THINK?  WOULD YOU RATIFY IT?   All children shall enjoy the following inalienable rights: The right to be treated as important human beings, with unique feelings, ideas and desires and not as a source of argument between parents. The right to a sense of security and belonging derived from a loving and nurturing environment which shelters them from harm. The right to a continuing relationship with both parents and the freedom to receive love from and express love for both. The right to "listening" parents. The right to express love and affection for each parent without having to stifle that love because of fear of disapproval by the other parent. The right to grow and flourish in an atmosphere free of exploitation, abuse and neglect. The right to know that their parents' decision to divorce is not their responsibility and that they will still be able to live with each parent. The right to continuing care and guidance from both parents where they can be educated in mind, nourished in spirit, and developed in body, in an environment of unconditional love. The right to honest answers to questions about changing family relationships. The right to know and appreciate what is good in each parent without one parent degrading the other. The right to have a relaxed, secure relationship with both parents without being placed in a position to manipulate one parent against the other. The right to have one parent not undermine time with the other parent by suggesting tempting alternatives or by threatening to withhold activities with the other parents as a punishment for the children's wrongdoing. The right to be able to experience regular and consistent parental contact and the right to know the reason for not having regular contact. The right to be a kid and to be insulated from the conflict and problems of parents. The right to be taught, according to their developmental levels, to understand values, to assume responsibility for their actions, and to cope with the just consequences of their choices. The right to be able to participate in their own destiny.

<><>

LEGAL RIGHTS OF CLIENTS! YES, FOLKS, WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOME!

CLIENT'S BASIC LEGAL RIGHTS

As the client or consumer of legal services from an attorney or other professional, you have certain basic rights that you can expect your attorney to abide by. Be aware that although you have these rights, getting them enforced can be problematic. A reasonable, tactful approach to enforcing these rights will often be your best bet, since attorneys are reluctant to sue other attorneys and bar associations are notoriously ineffective at policing their own members. Nonetheless, if your attorney (or opposing counsel) has committed a breach of ethics, you have every right to report them to their professional association and any other applicable governing bodies. Legal Rights Of Clients You have a right to discuss the proposed rates and retainer fee with your lawyer and you have the right to bargain about the fees before you sign the agreement, as in any other contract. You have the right to know how many other legal staff (including additional attorneys) will be working on your case at any given time, and what you will be charged for their services. You have the right to know in advance how you will be asked to pay legal fees and any other expenses at the end of the case. If you pay for a retainer, you may ask reasonable questions about how the money will be spent or has been spent and how much of it remains unspent. You are under no legal obligation to sign a Promissory Note or agree to a lien or mortgage on your home to cover legal fees. You are under no legal obligation to waive your rights to dispute a bill for legal services. You have a right to a reasonable estimate of expected future costs. If your lawyer agrees to lend or advance you money for preparing your case, you have the right to know periodically how much money your lawyer has spent on your behalf. You also have the right to decide after consulting with your lawyer, how much money is to be spent to prepare a case. If you pay the expenses, you have the right to decide how much to spend. You have the right to ask your lawyer at reasonable intervals how the case is progressing and to have these questions answered to the best of your lawyer's ability. You have the right to make the final decision regarding the settlement of your case. You have a right to original documents that are not part of your attorney's work product. For instance, if you gave your present attorney documents from another attorney, you have a right to those documents. You have a right to ask your attorney to forward documents to you in a timely manner as he/she receives them from the opposing party's attorney. You have a right to be present at ALL court conferences relating to your case that are held with judges and attorneys, and you also have the right to bring a family member or a friend to all court proceedings, unless a judge orders otherwise. You have the right to know the approximate cost of bringing a motion. The cost may vary depending on the lawyer's rates and circumstances of the case, but you have the right to a general estimate. If at any time, you, the client, believe that your lawyer has charged an excessive or illegal fee, you have the right to report the matter to a disciplinary or grievance committee that oversees lawyer misconduct. Please Note:  This list of Client Rights was taken from the S.P.A.R.C. website at:  www.deltabravo.net.  For more excellent information, check out this website.  It is extremely helpful to all litigants.

JUDGES 2012 ANNUAL MEETING, INSULTS SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES, CONTINUES TO AGGRANDIZE POWER! SEE BELOW!

JUSTICE VS. FAIRNESS!

As I have prepared for my case, I have spent a lot of time reading case law, not as much as you might imagine I would, but enough. As I read through the discussions, when it gets to the point of decision, the Trial Court will often pause to make a statement such as, "but since our Trial Courts are Courts of Equity we will do the following" implying that, somehow, if they weren't Courts of Equity they might not act as they have chosen to.

So, my question is, what does that mean, that our Family Courts are Courts of Equity? Here is the story.  Apparently, there are two kinds of Courts--Courts of Law and Courts of Equity. 

Courts of Law, which are based upon Common Law, emerged during the reign of King Henry II of England around the 1150s and 1160s.  Before then, the Courts ruled based upon the broad range of local customs, and decisions on similar offenses would vary based upon where you lived.  However, when Henry II came into power, he attempted to create a unified code of common law throughout England.  This continued to develop throughout the 12th and 13th centuries resulting in collective judicial decisions based upon tradition, custom and precedent. 

In other words, King Henry II established Common Law.  Common law, which is also known as case law, bases decisions on precedent. In essence, whatever has been done before in a similar case, will very likely be done in the next case. This is known as casuistry.

The idea behind the common law system is that it is unfair to rule differently on the same set of facts. Thus, if there is a question of what does the law require people to do in a particular situation, the judges will look at what has been done in these situations in the past and rule accordingly. This kind of decision making is based upon the principle of stare decisis, i.e. the concept that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results. 

However, if there is something about a particular case that has not yet been ruled upon, or what is called a "matter of first impression", judge are required to make the law by creating a new precedent. After that, the new law then becomes the precedent and all future trial courts will have to act on the basis of that new precedent. 

Also, fundamental to the practice of Common Law is the adversarial system, which, as most of us know means that each side, Plaintiff and Defendant, face off against each other in a pitched verbal battle, and the judge decides who wins the case.  There is probably a lot more to it, but that is as far as I would like to discuss this idea at the present time! 

Another important concept that came along with the development of Common law was the doctrine of the supremacy of the law. Supremacy of the law was originally intended to say that no one is above the law, not even the King. This doctrine has since been expanded to mean that even government agencies are subject to the law.

Common law is different from statutory law--law that is enacted by the legislature, and regulatory law, law that is established by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule making authority from the legislature.

The Courts of Law (which, again are based upon Common Law) are in contrast to Courts of Equity.  The Courts of Equity were developed two or three hundred years after Common Law was established as a method with which to introduce fairness into the legal system. 

With Common Law, sometimes enforcement of laws and legal rules was unfair or harsh because the rules were administered in an inflexible manner. That is, they were applied rigidly, even if the outcome was, in fact, unfair. To overcome this inflexibility, Equity Courts (also called Courts of Chancery) were established.

Originally, If they felt the Courts based upon Common Law had failed them, litigants could appeal to the conscience of the King--in other words have the King adjudicate the case.  This got to be rather burdensome, so eventually, rather than handle all these cases, the King delegated the work of adjudicating them to the Lord Chancellor, usually a member of the clergy, who was a symbolic representative of the King's conscience and  an important member of the King's Council.

Eventually, this business of appealing to the King soon evolved into another court system based upon concepts of equity, or canon law (Church Law) which was based on broad principles of justice and fairness.  This new court system was known as the Courts of Chancery, and eventually became known as Courts of Equity.

So, perhaps it is legal for Mr. Jones to take Mr. Smith's land, but would it be fair?  The question of what is fair is the province of Courts of Equity.  Thus, according to Black's Law Dictionary, equity is defined in part as, "Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of Common Law."

Courts of  Law generally handle contract, landlord/tenant, foreclosure and other cases where a written document is involved. In these cases, it doesn't matter what was going on with you, or what your social circumstances were, the question is did you or did you not obey the contract, or did you or did you not pay your rent or mortgage.  If you committed the crime, then you would be punished. 

Courts of Equity generally handle family law cases and/or bankruptcy cases. The way it goes in a Court of Law, a judge must follow the law even if you were justified in breaking the law. In a Court of Equity, the Court can use its own discretion to determine whether you were justified or not in breaking the law, taking into consideration the litigant's motivations and social circumstances

One distinct aspect of a Court of Equity is that it does not allow for a jury trial based upon the 7th Amendment to the Constitution.  In a Court of Equity, only the judge is the trier of fact.  However, Courts of Equity do have a broader range of discretion to provide relief to citizens who come before them. 

It is also important to note that remedies in common law are defined by monetary damage while remedies in equity may be further expanded to injunctive relief that can order someone to do something or refrain from doing something.  In a Court of Equity, failure to follow the court's order to do or not do this thing can then be enforced by a contempt of court order resulting in fine or imprisonment or both.

At this point, the vast majority of Trial Courts in the United States have merged so that Courts of Law and Courts of Equity are often in the same courts, but they are flexible about providing both remedies.  Attorney James M. Bright provides the following example of that kind of situation:

"John Sodbuster has planted 10 acres of wheat, but just as the seeds are sprouting Sam Cattleman decides to drive his cattle over John's field.  A civil Court of Law could determine the value of the damage caused by Cattleman to Sodbuster's crop and order payment, but that does not solve the whole problem.  If Sodbuster gets reimbursed for his lost crop and Cattleman continues to drive cattle across Sodbuster's land, then Sodbuster is suffering additional damage which cannot easily be ascertained or which may not be compensable with money.  At this point, equity can step in and the court can order Cattleman not to drive cattle across Sodbuster's land.  If he continues to do so, the Court could not only assess  additional charges, the Court could lock Cattleman in jail for failure to heed the Court's order." 

So basically, Law is the set of rules which are to be enforced.  Equity is a system of justice administered according to standards of fairness.  Equity follows the law.  This means that, in Courts of Equity, applicable laws will be followed where they exist.  Where there are no applicable laws, principles of equity will be followed. 

Why this is important? It seems to me is that, if you are in Trial Court and the opposing counsel brings up case law as a sole justification for a decision against you which would be not only unjust, but unfair, I think you would be well within your rights to remind the judge that Family Court is a Court of Equity. 

If the outcome of a decision based upon case law would be unjust, since family court is a court of equity, it must also take into consideration the issue of fairness when making a determination.  Or to put it another way, as a Court of Equity, Family Court should not be allowed to rule in a manner that is fundamentally unfair.  That is an interesting point, don't you think?

KEITH HARMON SNOW'S "SCREW THE BITCH": A QUICK OVERVIEW

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ABUSE CASES GROSSLY MISHANDLED.

On February 15, 2011 eight year old Max Liberti's behavior was so extreme that his mother, Sunny Kelley, had become desperate. All the evidence indicated that Max was being raped and tortured. At the time, Dr. Eli Newberger, M.D., an expert in child abuse who teaches at Harvard Medical School, heard that Max was having suicidal thoughts. Dr. Newberger was seriously concerned for the boy's life.

Furthermore, Max had become increasingly psychotic and uncontrollable, running around groping adults' privates, singing songs about killing himself, or dissociating, staring off, lost in space, unreacheable by his mother or the other women trying to protect and care for him. Max was hitting himself in the face, and talking about death.

Similarly, Lori Hanrahan faced her own nightmare. Her daughter, Mila, was being raped by her husband. As she explains it, in June 2009 her daughter, Mila, came home with a shredded vagina and experts concluded that her husband, Igor, had raped her.

Both Sunny Kelley and Lori Hanrahan are well respected members of their community. Sunny is a white, middle class, affluent, 38 year-old professional sound engineer living in Southern Connecticut.

Lori Hanrahan is a Professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington, D.C. Her credentials are impeccable: Over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world. She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in The New York Times.

AUTHORITIES AND FAMILY COURTS COLLUDE WITH SEXUAL ABUSERS TO PERPETUATE THE ABUSE.

"I spent two years in Maine, from 2008 to 2010, where by court order I was forced to traffick my daughter and deliver her to her father." Lori breaks down and sobs over the phone. "They made me traffic my daughter or go to jail."

In Sunny's case, there was a divorce trial which was held over the course of fourteen days in August 2011 with four additional days in October. The end result was that the Judge in the case, Lynda Munro, gave full custody of Max Liberti to his father on a silver platter. Since that time, Sunny has been denied access to her child.

Instead of the protection that they deserved from the legal system, that system delivered both Lori Handrahan's daughter, Mila, and Sunny Kelley's son, Max, to their sexual abusers. Both of these abusers were supported by the courts and appear to be part of sex crime networks. Both mothers are fighting for their children's lives at the expense of their own. They have been slandered, disabused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened and attacked. They have been financially devastated.

Still, they have fought back on behalf of their children, but the more they have fought the more the system has restricted hammered and punished them. Every move they have made has brought further retaliation upon them. And they are not alone. It is the same story for Susan Skipp (Tittle v. Tittle), Sandra McVicar (McVicar v. Buggy), Marlene Debek (Bhatia v. Debek), Lisa Foley (Foley v. Foley), Elizabeth Richter (Richter v. Richter), and many more.

Yet, unlike some protective mothers who now live on the streets or in their cars or committed to mental health asylums, mothers like Sunny Kelley, Lori Handrahan, Susan Skipp, Sandra McVicar, Marlene Debek, Lisa Foley and Elizabeth Richter have not succumbed to the institutionalized corruption and criminality served on them in an effort to silence and destroy them--and deliver their children to the abusers. They are broke; they are exhuasted; they are depressed and disillusioned: How can society have let them down so badly? And yet, they are courageous beyond belief. And they are still fighting.

Some mothers have taken the law into their own hands and attempted to flee. For example, the documentary film "No Way Out But One" tells the story of Holly Collins, a protective mother persecuted by the family court system for trying to protect her children. A family court ignored Holly Collin's complaints of sexual and domestic violence, and the physical evidence of serious child abuse, and gave full custody of her children to her abusive ex-partner. Holly Collins became an international fugitive when she fled the United States in 1994 and became the first U.S. citizen to gain asylum in the Netherlands.

In January 1993, Linda Wiegand, a resident of the State of Connecticut, found out that the father of her second son, Thomas Wilkinson, had sexually abused her older child Ben as well as Thomas. Even though there was overwhelming evidence that the children had been sexually abused, it was not enough evidence for the Connecticut Family Court System. Thus, in January of 1994, Linda Wiegand disappeared with her children. Then in July 1996 Wiegand was found and arrested in Las Vegas, and both children were delivered to their abuser.

THE MEDIA IS SILENT.

Every effort to get media exposure for these two women's stories--whether through the New York Times or Nightline or the Associated Press, or CBS-affiliated local TV stations like WABI in Portland, or regional papers like the Portland Herald Press or the Hartford Courant--was initially met with great interest as journalists and bureau chiefs recognized "hot" stories. After a short time one promise of imminent and certain publication after another turned into refusals to return phone calls or emails. Threatened or silenced by someone, the "hot" stories went cold.

While Sunny Kelley ad most other protective parent's stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan's efforts to save Mila have resulted in a very high profile case garnering national atatention--thanks to the internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country. Still major social netowrking media--Twitter and Facebook and others--have also censored Lori and Mila's story.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

The roads to these mothers' hell are virtually the same, and they are unique only in particulars, not in generalities. Each year, tens of thousands of families across America are being ripped apart through Family Courts and private profiteering, protecting and growing trafficking in women and children in America.

Investigations have uncovered a web of corruption involving state agencies from Connecticut to Maine, from Georgia to California. Investigations have involved FBI agents, but as often as not the FBI is part of the problem, not the solution and information delivered to the FBI is suppressed, ignored or used against the people trying to defend children and mothers from abuse.

The problems with Family Courts pervade all levels of the federal and state systems, and no United States citizen are immune: rich and poor are exploited, only differently. At the root of the problem are these central truths:

1. The five billion dollar a year budget of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provides a black hole of funding that filters millions of dollars down to "gatekeepers" posted to key positions in Family Courts, State Agencies, Law Enforcement, and affiliated non-profit organizations that have learned to milk the system;

2. Over the past 40 years, the destructive 'Father's Rights movement has evolved into a hydra that has overtaken judicial systems and social services, and it now uses them to persecute mothers and destroy families according to the otherwise reasonable dictate that access and visitation with both parents is in 'the best interest of the child';

3. The United States is both a domestic and an international hub for a trillion dollars a year sex industry trafficking in women and children.

Of course, it is not only women and children who are abused--across the nation, good men and good fathers are waking up to the national epidemic of pedophilia and sex trafficking involving federal and state governments and officials, and the horrors of 'Family Courts'.

READ ON.

For more information on these matters, please locate the more lengthy article at the following link:

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america/

HEARINGS ON TANF MONEY WHICH IS FUNNELED INTO THE FATHER'S RIGHTS GROUPS THAT SUPPORT MEN IN TAKING CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR MOTHERS!

LIFE WITH OR WITHOUT FATHER, THAT'S THE QUESTION ON FATHER'S DAY

I was sitting in Starbucks a few days ago and it all of a sudden hit me. I turned to a fellow at a neighboring table and asked, "Is father's day this upcoming weekend?" 

He told me "yes".
 

I'm not sure why I chose that time to ask. Father's day had been breathing around the corner for quite some time by then. Just around the middle of May I began to feel that tense feeling in my stomach, the feeling that I have to do something and I'd better not forget. 

Trying to be good ex wife, I immediately sent a quick email to my ex asking him if there was anything special he would like to do for father's day and could I help with the arrangements to get him and the kids together for a celebration. You see, this weekend is not his weekend, so technically based on our parenting plan (clearly this is not everybody's parenting plan), I don't really have to let them get together.

We put together an arrangement which involves me doing a lot of driving I'd rather not have to do. Then I got a snippy email from him telling me to make sure the kids pick out a nice card for him as if that is apparently my job. And by the day before, which is now, I'm wondering whether this is what I really wanted to do

It is kind of a difficult dance here. On the one hand, my ex is the kids' father, but then, on the other hand, look at what he did. If I help get the kids together with their Dad, am I endorsing all those things that he did to hurt me and the children? Am I somehow saying that it is acceptable what he did? 

What kinds of messages am I sending and what lessons do I want my children to walk away with after this weekend of celebrating father's day with their Dad. Early today I said to my daughter, "I'd like you to pick out a very nice card for your Dad when we go to the store." "But he doesn't deserve it." says my daughter. 

So what do you say to that. Now, from that comment, please don't get the idea that I spend all my waking hours bad mouthing their Dad. In fact, I would like them to get along with their Dad and have a relationship with him. On the other hand, certain truths are pretty clear to the children.

They have figured out that when the electricity has been cut off in the past it isn't because some drilling in the street broke a cable; it's because I didn't have the money to pay the bill because Dad didn't pay child support. They have figured out that when I walk away from the house to talk to Dad on the phone outside of their hearing, it isn't just that I need privacy, it is because I am crying when I'm talking, or I'm upset about some new outrage that I have no control over because I don't have any attorney or a family court system to protect me. And I don't want them to know so that they get caught up into the situation. And these are the milder things that have happened.

They are old enough to see the situation very clearly and it is harder to pretend. So when they make remarks acknowledging the problems with Dad, and when they refuse to get something nice for Dad on father's day, should I validate their feelings and let them do what they want to do, or insist that they act like good citizens regardless of what is going on or how they feel.

Sometimes I feel as if no matter what I do, they are going to be harmed nonetheless.

One approach I often take is to say, yes, Dad has disappointed you in the past in regard to this or that particular area, but do you remember what a great sense of humor he has, or wasn't that fun to go on the field trip to the museum together. 

Of course, this would be much easier for me to do if what my ex had done wasn't so severely damaging. So I'm not lying, but I am ackowledging whatever strengths he has, no matter that privately I think those strengths in no way make up for all the harm he has done, and he has done considerable harm. For example, they already know that we have no money to pay for their college education because it took every dime I have to make sure that I would have residential custody. 

I have heard that it is important for children to have a father in order to grow up properly, but seriously, does it make sense for them to maintain a relationship with a father who is a schmuck? What do studies say about children who maintain relationships with schmucky fathers after divorce? I'd really like to know the answer to the question. 

Of course, I can't be sure whether my kids are telling me everything they feel about their father. To what extent could they be trying to play up the negative in a mistaken attempt to please me. Aren't there areas of relationship between these children and their father that is unique to that relationship and that I may never fully grasp? Even though I find it hard to believe that this special space still exists between my children and their Dad, aren't I obligated to make these meetings happen just in case it does, just in case it matters? Or am I just kidding myself? 

There are many occasions that happen like this, the confirmations I remind my ex of, or the graduations and award ceremonies, where I send an email saying, "Don't forget..." and provide times, locations, and directions, acting like I used to when we were married. "Don't forget your golf shirt, and do you have your cell phone, and pick up a box of donuts when you go." Maybe it is time for me to stop arranging, to stop taking responsibility. 

For this year, we will still all pack into the car and I will drop the kids off at our meeting place. For this year, I have been able to convince myself I am doing the right thing. It is a statement I am making that there is still hope for our kids and their Dad. And no matter how bad it gets, it means something to me to be able to preserve that hope. Without it, I would feel as though there was a death in the family.  So, next year, I may feel differently, but for now, I'm not going to think that far ahead.