PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Friday, July 13, 2012

KILLER DAD AARON SCHAFFHAUSEN MURDERS HIS THREE DAUGHTERS

Tragedy strikes Wisconsin divorced mother when ex husband kills their three little girls.  Copy and paste the link below into your browser:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/aaron-schaffhausen-murder-daughters-amara-sophie-cecilia_n_1669792.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D178915

Sunday, July 8, 2012

LEGAL SEPARATION CONVERSION TO DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT, BUGGY V. BUGGY (2)

The procedure to convert a legal separation agreement into a dissolution agreement is governed by C.G.S. Sections 46b-65 and 46b-66 and Practice book Sections 25-36 and 25-37.

According to these statutes, a motion for a decree of dissolution after a legal separation may be filed at any time after the entry of a decree of legal separation and must state in the motion that the parties have not resumed marital relations.  Mignosa v. Mignosa, 25 Conn. App. 210, 214, 594 A.2d 15 (1991). 

Then, in order to grant such a decree dissolving and terminating the marriage, the court need only find that the parties have not resumed marital relations since the entry of the decree of legal separation. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 26 Conn. Sup. 224, 224-225, 217 A.2d 70 (1965).  So not only does the litigant have to state there are no marital relations, the trial court then has to confirm that the statement is, indeed, a fact.  First step one, then step two. 

So what does that mean "marital relations"?  I just looked it up in the English Dictionary online, and apparently it is a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse.  So the term marital relations is to be distinguished from marital relationship, the former just having to do with the sexual part of a marriage, while the latter having to do with the whole being in a relationship, having dinner together, sitting in the same house, chit chatting, etc. etc. 

I don't know about putting Memoranda of Decision online--I mean does everyone have to know this?  THEY AREN'T HAVING SEX ANYMORE, GUYS!  I can just imagine how this plays out in trial court.  First the plaintiff's motion on not having sex, then there is the defendant's response on not having sex.  Then you have testimony in trial court regarding not having sex, then the trial court's verbal determination that you are not having sex, and then you get the written one that you are not having sex. 

I mean, damn, if this happened to me, I wouldn't want to talk about sex for the rest of my life! 

But then, the whole decision gets onto the internet, and then your neighbors know you aren't having sex, folks on the pew next to you at Church know that you aren't having sex, pretty much the whole world knows you aren't having sex.  I mean, at least with your ex. 

What I want to know is if there have been situations--and I'm sure there have been--where the one party disputes the lack of marital relations and says, yes, we did too have funky, hot diggity dog marital relations under the dining room table two weeks ago and these are the details!  I can, seriously, imagine a full day of testimony trying to prove or disprove that. 

No, it was a makeout session--that doesn't really count. I let him kiss me once.  Ok, Ok, Ok.  Maybe twice, but just on the lips and there was no tongue involved.  

I did not have sex with that woman! 

It would be a pretty interesting day of testimony, as you can imagine!  More on that later. 

Anyway, in regard to converting a separation agreement into a dissolution agreement there is some disagreement as to how that is to be done .  On the one side, C.G.S. 46b-66 and considerable case law dictates that the court inquire into the financial resources and actual needs of the spouses before doing so.  In other words, "The fact that the agreement was presumably found fair and equitable at the time of the legal separation, does not excuse the failure of the court to make such determination (i.e. a determination regarding whether a legal separation agreement should be turned into a dissolution agreement without any kinds of changes) in the light of the situation of the parties at the time of the dissolution and to afford an opportunity for a hearing on the issues involved." Mignosa v. Mignosa, supra, 25 Conn. App. 215-216.

However, an earlier case Mitchell v. Mitchell, 194 Conn. 312, 481 A.2d 31 (1984)  disagrees, stating that the intention of the statutes in regard to legal separation is to reduce the role of the trial court when the parties on their way to dissolution have acknowledged that they have not resumed marital relations.  Under those circumstances, "the statute requires the court to give effect to the parties' status and convert a de facto dissolution into a de jure disolution."  In other words, change what is a matter of fact into a legal reality without making changes in the legal separation agreement and just incorporating it as is into the dissolution agreement. 


The reason why Mitchell v. Mitchell should have a greater impact in making a decision is because an earlier decision provides a better precedent. If you recall my earlier blog regarding the development of Common Law, you will remember how I said that Courts of Law are bound by precedent, meaning that cases are decided based upon what has been decided previously.  So Mitchell, as an earlier decision, is more significant than the later decisions that, for some reason or another deviated from it.

If the parties agree that there has been no resumption of marital relations, then the trial court would move forward with a summary process to dissolve the marriage.  However, if there was dispute over whether the parties had or had not resumed marital relations, then the parties could not proceed under the summary method and would have to move forward with ordinary dissolution proceedings. 

At question is not the issue of fairness and equity, but simply the question of did the parties or did they not have marital relations. 

If they did resume marital relations, then they would be required to continue forward with regular dissolution proceedings to determine whether the legal separation agreement is fair and equitable at the time of dissolution.  Thus, Gilbert v. Gilbert FA 04 0485657 (May 13, 2008) states, "The actual holding of Mitchell is that once the marital relations have resumed, the parties have vacated the decree of legal separation, and, therefore, in order to obtain a decree of dissolution, the parties must proceed under Sec. 46b-40." 

In other words, if marital relations were resumed, then the legal separation agreement can be changed.  And that is where, as I said previously, you could end up having very entertaining court hearings on whether marital relations did or did not resume.  Because if one or the other party doesn't like the legal separation agreement, making the case that you did resume marital relations could be quite beneficial. 

The central point to understand is in the following remarks from the holding in Gilbert v. Gilbert, "conversely, when there has been no resumption of marital relations and no intervening change in their relationship, the statute requires the court to convert the decree [of legal separation into one of dissolution].  To require a fresh look at the agreement when there has been no resumption of marital relations makes the decree of legal separation a nullity.  There would be no purpose in obtaining a legal separation.  Doing so fails to give any effect to General Statutes Sec. 46b-67(b) which provides:  'A decree of legal separation shall have the effect of a  decree dissolving the marriage except that neither party shall be free to marry.'

In other words, "If the parties' relationship is unchanged, the court plays a minor role and merely converts the de facto dissolution to a de jure dissolution."  Elaborating further, Bemonte v. Bemonte, 44 Conn. Sup. 431, 435-36, 693 A.2d 739 [16 Conn. L. Rptr. 336] (1995) states that in a situation where there has been no resumption of marital relations, "the judgment of legal separation, once the appeal period has expired, is final.   The division of assets and liability is also final.  An assignment of property is nonmodifiable." 

What this means to me is that, under circumstances where there is a legal separation agreement, and that agreement is a good one for you and you like it, and then the trial court tries to change it, you have considerable grounds to challenge such an attempt. 

In the Buggy case, after all this discussion, the trial court continued on to make changes in the financial agreement that was in the parties' legal separation agreement.  If the parties in the case had not agreed to allow these changes, granting the discussion I've just read, I seriously suspect that it would have been very tough on the trial court to have ordered those changes.  Has anyone had any experience here on this issue?  I would love to hear your comments.

Friday, July 6, 2012

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (3)

A certain lawyer was quite wealthy and had a summer house in the country where he retreated for several weeks every year.

Each summer, the lawyer would invite a different friend of his (no, that's not the punch line) to spend a week or two at this home, which happened to be in a backwoods.

On one particular occasion, he invited a Czechoslovakian friend to stay with him. The friend, eager to get a freebee off of the lawyer, agreed.

They had a splendid time in the country -- rising early and living in the great outdoors. Early one morning, the lawyer and his Czechoslovakian companion went out to pick berries for their morning breakfast. As they went around the berry patch, gathering blueberries and raspberries in tremendous quantities, along came two huge Bears -- a large male and a smaller female.

The lawyer, seeing the two bears and sensing danger, immediately dashed for cover. His friend, however, being ignorant of nature, was not so lucky. The male bear charged the paralyzed Czechoslovakian, then swallowed him whole.

Terrified, the lawyer rushed back to his car and sped into town to get the local sheriff. The sheriff, upon hearing the lawyer's unsettling story, grabbed his rifle and dashed back to the berry patch with the lawyer following closely behind. Sure enough, the two bears were still there.

"He's in THAT one!", cried the lawyer, pointing to the large male bear, all the while visions of lawsuits from his friend's family flashed through the back of his mind.

He just had to save his friend!

The sheriff looked at the two bears, and without batting an eye, leveled his rifle, took careful aim, and SHOT THE FEMALE.

"What did you do that for!", exclaimed the lawyer, "I said he was in the other one!"

"Exactly," replied the sheriff, "Would YOU believe a lawyer who told you the Czech was in the male?"

DON'T GO DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT! DON'T GO DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT! BUGGY V. BUGGY! (1)

Have you ever watched a horror movie where people are being cut and chopped, sliced and diced, and then one of the few remaining characters hears a noise in the basement and says, "I'm going to go check and see what that noise is."  The music mounts dramatically, the basement door creaks open, and the heroine goes slowly step by step down the stairs waving a completely inadequate flashlight, and you the audience are screaming the whole time, "Don't go down there!  Don't go down there!"  But inevitably the lady goes down there gets her head chopped off or something like that, and you're like, "I knew it!"  Of course, we know it.

The same goes for getting a divorce from an abuser.  Every bone in our body tells you when you are filing for divorce from an abuser, don't do it, don't do it, but do we listen to ourselves?  No.  And then we get hit with the eternal lawsuit where our lives and reputations get dragged through the court, let alone the muck and mud, for years to come.

The ultimate wisdom is that you should never get a divorce from an abuser.  Now, of course, I know all you feminists are shrieking "How could you possibly say that!"  But see it from our perspective.  Before the divorce, we just have our abuser torturing and controlling us, but once the divorce has been filed, we now have the entire family court system, their mental health cronys, and DCF torturing and controlling us, so what do YOU think is best?  Right.  The answer is, "Don't go down there!" same way as any self respecting, smart character in a horror flick, if there are any, wouldn't go down into the basement like you told them to. 

This is pretty much what seems to be going on in Buggy v. Buggy.  The plaintiff, Sandra Buggy filed for a dissolution of marriage from the defendant, Glenn Buggy on July 1, 2005.   The Parties have two children J. born on August 23, 1997 and K. on April 6, 2000.  Then, on August 3, 2006 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint requesting a legal separation which was granted on August 11, 2006.  Their separation agreement was incorporated into the judgment of legal separation.  

Two years later, the Parties decided to go ahead with the dissolution of their marriage.  In preparation for the trial, which was held from June 7, 2010 to June 25, 2010, the Defendant, Glenn Buggy submitted a Motion for Modification proposing that he be given sole custody of the children and residential custody of the children.  In other words, Glenn Buggy wished to take custody from a good mother who had always been primary caretaker of the children.  Why?  You guessed it, Parental Alienation, again!

Multiple paragraphs of the motion to change the custody state variations on "The defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the plaintiff to the defendant is in the best interest of the minor children."  Right.  And who is involved in encouraging this change in custody?  You guessed it, our old friend Dr. Kenneth Robson! If you are not familiar with Dr. Robson, this is a custody evaluator who specializes in taking children away from their mothers making bogus diagnoses such as parental alienation. See "A Life Sentence" by Keith Harmon Snow at the following link:

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

Then, Mr. Buggy also wished to reduce his financial obligations, including the amount of educational expenses he owed.  Now, I can understand wanting to cut back on child support and alimony, but money for your children's college education?  Money for your children's future success?  You want to cut back on that AND get custody.  Right.

So, can that be done?  At the time of dissolution, can you change the agreements made in a separation agreement?  In general, the answer would be "no", and sorting that question out could have been quite a challenge to the trial court in this case.  But again, in general, whatever might not be possible ordinarily can actually happen if you as the parties in the matter agree to it. 

And that is what took place in this particular case.  The parties agreed to allow modification of the separation agreement, or as the memo states, "Subsequently, on June 10, the parties agreed that the following provisions of the separation agreement were modifiable:  Article II (custody and visitation), Article III (unallocated alimony and child support) except 3.10 (debt of $78,450.46 owed by the defendant to the plaintiff), 3.11 (amount of $2,000 borrowed from the minor children's account by the defendant) and 3.12 (payment of 1/2 of the moving expenses of the plaintiff by the defendant)  The parties further agreed that Articles IV, VIII through XVIII were nonmodifiable.  Article V was not mentioned."  Article V had to do with college expenses. 

Now, as I am reading through the list, I'm like shame on you Mr. Buggy for "borrowing" from the minor children's account.  How many times do you I have to hear about so called borrowing from children's accounts during a divorce.  That is a shame and a disgrace, I don't care how small the amount is.  Don't take things from your kids, please.

Furthermore, Mr. Buggy complained that there had been a "significant decrease in his earning" which meant that he could not meet the financial obligations he had agreed to.  Seriously, folks, there should be a law about either party deliberately reducing their income just around the time of divorce and complaining they have no money.  I'd like to see a statistical analysis of how many litigants do this because I hear it so, so often. What is it about divorce that leads the more financially responsible party to become suddenly brain dead and unemployable?  Beats me!

Clearly, just reviewing the Memorandum of Decision in the Buggy case, the question of changing the separation agreement is the source of considerable legal head scratching and convoluted reasoning.  

The bottom line is that it was not in Sandra Buggy's interest for the the separation agreement to be changed.  Were it me I would have fought that question out before the trial court and made it as hard as possible to change the separation agreement.  Instead, Ms. Buggy agreed, which saved the trial court considerable trouble because it could then shift responsibility off their shoulders and say, "Well, she agreed to change the separation agreement to a stipulation." 

That's where I would say, were it me, or were I Ms. Buggy's attorney, I'd have been saying, "Don't go down into the basement!" 

Of course, maybe there is something I don't know, but I see this happening, how many times?  Often.  I've been told by my attorney, the court, or someone, go and sign this stipulation, which, as it turns out, will cause me nothing but harm.  Then the trial court justifies the harm by saying, "But you agreed to it." which is what the judge in the Buggy decision did at the end of the discussion. 

Trust me, if you feel uncomfortable, if it doesn't feel right, if you see everyone in the room all prepared to break out into happy grins, don't sign it.  Think it over.  Put off the decision for another day.  Do anything, but don't go down there! 

To be continued. . . 

Thursday, July 5, 2012

LAWLESS AMERICA VISITS CT AS PART OF CORRUPTION DOCUMENTARY!

As many or some of you know, Bill Windsor is traveling across the United States working on a documentary about the corruption in this so called “great nation”.  Tomorrow, he will be arriving here to listen about the corruption in CT, from our corrupt judges, lawyers, state agencies, if there is corruption this man wants to know about it.  This event will be held at the following location:

Homewood Suites
338 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT  06103
For more information, see the following link:

http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/lawless-america-visits-ct-as-part-of-corruption-documentary/






Wednesday, July 4, 2012

FACTS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: IT'S PRETTY SHOCKING!

I know Violence Against Women is a reality lots of people don't want to know about, but it's real, it's happening and it has affected you or someone you know, people in your life whom you love. 

Father's rights groups don't want you to know it, but the vast majority of perpetrators are men. 

See the link below:

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

THREATS OF RAPE ON FACEBOOK AGAINST PROTECTIVE MOTHERS

Maine attorney Michael Waxman has launched a facebook attack against Protective Mother Lori Handrahan resulting in threats of rape and sodomy against her, primarily coming from Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man with a grudge.  '

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents' stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain unknown and unheard, where the judicial system covers up their stories so they are not believed, Lori Handrahan's courageous efforts to save her child, Mila, have resulted in a very high profile case garnering national attention, thanks to the internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.

Sadly, despite their strenuous efforts to save their children, and to obtain justice for their children, neither Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter, Mila, being raped by her husband, Igor Malenko, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan technically never lost custody of the her daughter, Mila, yet the trial court did nothing to protect Mila from ongoing sexual abuse.

At this time, according to the "Saving Mila" Facebook page, Mila continues to be sexually abused, the abusive father has received free lawyer services over several years, and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation.  Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for providing legal services to Mila's father is approximately $250,000.  Now, to divert attention from this criminal activity, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori Handrahan and threatens to have her committed and jailed.

Then, in a recent facebook discussion, Jeff Pyle, a Waxman supporter (mentioned above) took it upon himself to sexually berate women who were discussing the Handrahan case and threatened to "come back there" to find, rape and sodomize them.  The post has now been deleted.  But so has a post defending the women by Investigative Reporter Keith Harmon Snow been deleted and Facebook has informed Mr. Snow that HE is under investigation for his post.

There is also additional abuse online directed towards Lori Handrahan in the Waxman created STEAM website which reports disingenuously on child abuse cases largely committed my mothers and/or their boyfriends and featuring Lori as their central news item.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized  sexism and support for domestic violence arises due to online media's attempts to be social friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers. 




Monday, July 2, 2012

PRO HAC VICE: GETTING AN ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF STATE

Once you get sick and tired of what your own attorney is doing, and once you have gone through several other attorneys in the course of your high conflict divorce, you might start thinking about going out of state for help.  This is not uncommon in a high conflict divorce.  

Is it possible to obtain legal representation from out of state for an action within the State of Connecticut?  Yes, you can.  Under those circumstances, you would obtain an attorney pro hac vice.  I have no idea of what that means in latin!  Maybe one of the readers of this blog knows and can tell me!  

This means you bring in an attorney from out of state by obeying Section 2-16 of the Rules of Superior Court.  

This section of the rules allows "any attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, upon written application presented by a member  of the Connecticut bar, to be permitted in the court's discretion to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any Connecticut state court."  

In order to be admitted pro hac vice, an attorney from another state must provide an affidavit stating the following:

1) certifying whether he has a grievance pending against him in any other jurisdiction, has ever been reprimanded, suspended, placed on inactive status, disbarred, or has ever resigned from the practice of law, and if so setting forth the circumstances concerning such action; 

2) designating the chief clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which he will be appearing as his agent upon whom process and service of notice may be served, and agreeing to register with the statewide grievance committee while appearing in the matter in Connecticut and for two years after the completion of the matter in which he appeared; and 

3. identifying the number of cases in which he has appeared pro hac vice in Connecticut superior court.  The attorney from out of state must agree to have a member of the Connecticut bar be present at all proceedings and this member must sign all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court and assume full responsibility for them and for the conduct of the cause and of the attorney to whom such privilege is accorded.

Where feasible, the application to represent a client pro hac vice shall be made to the judge before whom such a case is likely to be tried.  If that judge is not available, the application should be made to the administrative judge in the judicial district where the matter is to be tried.  

The rule requires that there has to be a good reason for granting such a privilege and states that such a reason will be limited to personal or financial reasons that affect the client, not the attorney.  

An example of this could be a longstanding attorney-client relationship that predates the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation such that the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client's affairs important to the trial of the cause, or that the litigant couldn't obtain services of a Connecticut counsel.

Upon the granting of an application to appear pro hac vice, the clerk of the court in which the application is granted must immediately notify the statewide grievance committee of such an action.  

Rule 62-8A contains similar rules for appearing pro hac vice in the Connecticut Appellate or Supreme Court.

Arbitrations:  Apparently, in 2005, Judge Berger banned the use of out of state attorneys from Connecticut Arbitrations, thus joining a short list of states which won't allow them for such proceedings.  

The bottom line is that there are so many requirements for having an attorney appear for you out of state that it is ultimately prohibitive for anyone to do it.  

Also, how many attorneys here in Connecticut do you know that would be willing to sign his or her name endorsing some other attorney's briefs and pleadings and take full responsibility for another attorney's actions, particularly when they are going to represent a client with a difficult case who has already tried and failed with several other attorneys?  I don't see that happening.  

My best guess is this kind of situation happens with corporate attorneys with a large company which can take responsibility for the actions of the attorney coming from out of state.  But it is not likely to happen in high conflict divorce cases.  

Also, are you ready to pay for two attorneys when you go to a hearing in your case?

But don't rule this approach out entirely.  If you are willing to be flexible, the law doesn't prevent you from obtaining valuable support and advice from attorneys out of state by phone or email.  Many of the procedures for pursuing a case in family court are similar no matter what state you are in, so out of state attorneys can provide you with direction, while you follow through with the practical steps.  

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (2)

     A truck driver would amuse himself by running over lawyers he would see walking down the side of the road.
     Every time he would see a lawyer walking along the road, he would swerve to hit him, and there would be a loud "THUMP" and then he would swerve back onto the road.  
     (At this point, some of you are probably wondering how the trucker could distinguish the lawyers from the humans.  Obviously, he saw the trail of slime they left!)  
     One day, as the truck driver was driving along he saw a priest hitchhiking.  He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.  
     He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"
     "I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road." replied the priest.  
     "No problem, Father!  I'll give you a lift.  Climb in the truck."  
     The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.  
     Suddenly the truck driver saw another lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him.  But then he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him so, at the last minute, he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer.  
     However, even though he was certain he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUD".  
     Not understanding where the noise came from he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father, I almost hit that lawyer."  
     "That's okay", replied the priest.  "I got him with the door!"

Saturday, June 30, 2012

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:

  1. The right to be treated as important human beings, with unique feelings, ideas and desires and not as a source of argument between parents.
  2. The right to a sense of security and belonging derived from a loving and nurturing environment which shelters them from harm.
  3. The right to a continuing relationship with both parents and the freedom to receive love from and express love for both.
  4. The right to "listening" parents.
  5. 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.
  6. The right to grow and flourish in an atmosphere free of exploitation, abuse and neglect.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. The right to honest answers to questions about changing family relationships.
  10. The right to know and appreciate what is good in each parent without one parent degrading the other.
  11. The right to have a relaxed, secure relationship with both parents without being placed in a position to manipulate one parent against the other.
  12. 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.
  13. The right to be able to experience regular and consistent parental contact and the right to know the reason for not having regular contact.
  14. The right to be a kid and to be insulated from the conflict and problems of parents.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.

Friday, June 29, 2012

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?

Thursday, June 21, 2012

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: