Saturday, December 24, 2005

Civil and Criminal Defendants - Who Has The Most Rights?

"Civil contempts are sometimes civil in name only, entailing what are in reality criminal punishments." -- Wyman v. Uphaus, 360 US 72(1959)

Well, you haven’t been diligent and have fallen behind in your alimony payments. The ex-spouse has filed a motion for contempt of court against you. Now what do you do?

As you will see, you have fewer rights than a criminal. Criminal defendants are assumed innocent until proven guilty, provided a public defender at taxpayer expense, given a trial by jury and given every consideration to guarantee that their civil rights aren't violated in the process of ascertaining their guilt. If they are convicted, they receive a jail term that is definite. Whereas a spouse can be deprived of children, home and life savings, and freedom with none of these constitutional protections.

In Civil Court, child support and alimony trials operate on a presumption of guilt, where ‘the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,’ according to the US National Conference of State Legislatures, which favors aggressive prosecutions and ignores due process of law. Contrary to Common Law and the US Constitution, courts have ruled that ‘not all child-support or alimony contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,’ and ‘even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.’ Thus impoverished spouses who lose their ability to pay alimony and/or their children through literally ‘no fault’ of their own are the only defendants who must prove their innocence without counsel and without a jury of their peers.

You’ve just been railroaded and you won’t get to enjoy the ride. Is this justice and equality? No, you’ve just entered the Twilight Zone!

Despite prohibitions on incarceration for debt, a spouse can be jailed without trial for failure to pay not only child support and alimony but also the fees of lawyers, psychotherapists and other professionals he has not hired. A judge can summon a legally unimpeachable citizen who is minding his own business and order him to turn over his earnings or go to jail.

Family law is now criminalizing such basic rights as free speech and freedom of the press. In many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. Under the pretext of ‘family privacy’, parents are gagged from publicly disclosing how government officials have seized control of their children.

I ask you, is this the justice due an American citizen??? I hardly think our forefathers ever had this in mind when they signed the constitution.

* Islam feminists urge gender jihad

* This Land Is Not Your Land: Judges go wild.
* Group Says Palumbo Shows Bias in Cases

* Now they are trying to make it a federal crime not to pay support. See H.R.4861 - Title: To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for failure to pay certain obligations to spouses and ex-spouses that are similar to the penalties imposed for failure to pay child support obligations, and for other purposes.
* SJC ruling validates prenup agreement
* Proposed constitutional change qualifies for ballot – a constitutional amendment on next year's ballot that would strip judges of immunity from lawsuits over decisions they make.

Be sure to visit this site:

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Featured Website:

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional rights." --Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F 2d 946(1973)

Have you ever wondered how or why websites get started? The Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. with their website has helped many people to seek relief from the burden of spousal support in the courts across the country and is diligently working to eliminate the unconstitutional alimony statutes in Florida.

Here a little background on the Alliance from Chairman Dick Lindsey who gives this description:

“In 1981, I was sued for divorce. I had 5 girls ages 4 through 11. Their mother did not want the children, saying that they cramped her style. She was deeply politically motivated. She ran on the State lever for Commissioner of Agriculture in 1982 against the Democrat, Bill Connor who had held the position for about 20 years. She got over 1 million votes but did not get elected. She ran again about 4 years later on a ticket for Governor; she was the Lieutenant Governor candidate.”

“We had many hearings prior to the final hearing. She only wanted money, lots of it, while I wanted the children. The Final decision of the court was that Barbara got money and I got the 5 kids, then aged 5 through 12. The oldest girl is blind loosing her sight to optic neuritis between the ages of 6 and 8. I did not get any child support but was ordered to pay the children’s mother lifetime alimony which I am still paying 23 years later.”

“In about 1986 I filed for an award of child support based on change of
circumstances. Barbara had landed a political job in Washington paying about $30,000. She countered with a custody battle for the children. When the smoke cleared, there was no child support for me and no children for Barbara. Barbara refused to exercise her visitation as ordered by the Court and often went a year before seeing the children, often refusing to take all 5 at a time.”

“Then in 1995 when the oldest girl turned 18 I was sued again for more
alimony, saying that since I no longer had to support the children, I could pay more alimony. I countered for termination of alimony based on change of circumstances. The final outcome was about 3 years later. I had to pay her Palm Beach lawyer about $45,000 and my lawyers about $75,000. The end results were that there was no additional alimony for Barbara but I was still held in bondage by the system.”

“By this time I was seasoned and recognized that the system was badly
flawed. I started writing letters to the editors and state legislators and the Governor. The local newspaper, the Stuart News, sent a reporter who did a front page article on my situation. My phone started ringing with people who were disgusted with a system that functioned the way it did in my case.”

“One of those that called was Sieg Christman, president of the Ft. Pierce chapter of the ACLU. He offered his help and suggestions saying the system were at best unconstitutional. He offered many suggestions and we had a meeting in Stuart where about 30 attended.
This was the start of the Alliance for Freedom From Alimony, Inc.”

“Our web site was set up and created with the help of Sieg Christman to
promote and advertise our organization and what we were attempting to
do-----Reform the Alimony Scheme. Sieg & I wrote the introduction and contents of our original web site. It was part of our initial organizational efforts. We incorporated as a non-profit Florida Corporation. We applied for 401-C non-profit status with the I.R.S., which, with the help of a specialized law firm in Miami, was finally approved. At first the search engines did not pick up our web site but now they are and we get many inquiries for help from the web site.”

“Do you know of an attorney who might foster the cause of men in family law by challenging the constitutionality of some family law statutes? Or, who will foster the Right of Privacy in the context of family law? Please let us know.”

* Women leading in political campaigns

* Derrick Sego

* Ending Judicial Activism
* Losing Liberty Judicially
Judicial ethics

* Third District: Post-Nuptial Agreements – from Abstract Appeal Blog
Family law fans may wish to add this decision to their "if you sign it, you're bound by it" file. The Third District reversed a trial court's decision invalidating a post-nuptial agreement that a husband would make his wife's daughter an equal heir with his natural sons. The trial court had found the agreement to be the product of undue influence, but the appellate court found the evidence not to support that result.

* The military continues to allow service members’ retirement pay to be calculated into alimony payments.
* a web site which tracks news and information about men's issues from around the world.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

Statutory Requirement Offers Hope To Alimony Payors

"Before the last 40 years, who ever heard of a lower level civil court judge having complete control over a person's life till they died - in America? What makes it all the more unbelievable, to the point of being silly, is that it's over a broken state marriage license." -- James Darden

Our team has come across a small but promising statutory requirement that might offer the possibility of relief to those making support payments. If you can utilize this requirement, you can probably void any harsh orders entered against you.

When a judge is elected or appointed, they need to file an oath of office for the campaign and entry to the office. You need to consider checking out each judge in your case as to whether or not they timely filed their oath of office. Even though the information below refers to Florida, the same should apply to your state.

According to a 1996 opinion issued by Robert A. Butterworth, then Florida Attorney General, the form of the oath is prescribed in Section 876.05 of Florida Statutes. The Attorney General ruled that the statute is applicable to all employees and elected officers of the state, including judicial officers.

The oath is a prerequisite to qualify for public office the opinion states. Any candidate who fails or requires filing the requisite oath will have failed to qualify as a candidate for public office and the name of such person shall not be printed on the ballot as a qualified candidate. The provisions are mandatory and binding on all officers.

Florida law states that if any person required to take the mandated oath fails to execute same, the governing authority under which such person is employed shall cause that person to be immediately discharged and his name removed from the payroll.

In Florida, as in New York and other states, the law is very explicit. Chapter 114(h) of the Fla. Statutes states that upon the failure of a person elected or appointed to office to qualify for office within 30 days from the commencement of the term of office, the office becomes vacant.

We'd like to encourage all "victims" to call and visit their clerk of court office and personally physically view the document. It would not hurt if you got a copy of it. Then if we find one judge who did not do it for the campaign and after election we have a great press release...can you imagine the mess if a judge’s orders on any trial are voided?

Here is a recent story that offers an example of how this requirement was used:

We'd like to request that anyone searching for a judge's oath send us the results of your findings (judges name, court, state, oath or no oath) and we will post them on our website. This way people can see the status of judges to save multiple searches and save time.

Please remember that there is a good chance that your judge has met the requirement, but keep in mind that errors do occur and discovering them are like finding gold. You can use them to your advantage. So take a little time and do the research.

Be sure to let me know of any experiences you have in researching this.

* Why do fewer people marry?

* Marvin Davids: may he rest In peace

* Judicial activism: another case where the judges define the law rather than the legislature.
* Judge Assini Censured For Intemperate Behavior, Rights Violations

Legal Ethics Materials Click the link for your state.

* In Defense of 'Deadbeat' Dads. Includes persons jailed for contempt of court in support cases.
* Jessica Simpson could wind up paying alimony for up to 18 months.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

Separation of Powers – Part 7

A law is something which must have a moral basis, so that there is an inner compelling force for every citizen to obey.
-- Chaim Weizmann (1874 - 1952)
Legal Arguments:

E. Legislative Improper Delegation of an Authority not Permitted by Art. I § 23, Fla. Const., Right of Privacy

The “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions are written in the prohibited privacy zone of a personal decision relating to marriage. Littlejohn, 786 F.2d rules that divorce is entitled to right of privacy protections.

The legislature lacks authority to legislate such concepts as alimony in the privacy protected zone of Dissolution of Marriage absent a compelling state interest minimally applied. The alimony provisions place an undue burden on Floridians seeking to alter their right of privacy and associational rights related to the personal decision to dissolve their marriage. The legislature compounds the Separation of Powers infringement by improperly delegating unrestricted authority to the judiciary in the “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions, and on top of it, the legislature lacks that authority to exercise such regulation itself, let alone improperly delegate it to the judiciary.


"Constitutional rights must be enforced by courts even against the legislature's powers, and privacy in particular must be enforced even against majoritarian sentiment. Shaktman. Indeed, the overarching purpose of the Florida Declaration of Rights along with its privacy provision is to "protect each individual within our borders from the unjust encroachment of state authority from whatever official source into his or her life." Traylor v. State , 596 So. 2d 957, 963 (Fla. 1992).
“At a fundamental level, the role of the Justices and judges of Florida is to guarantee and enforce the protection afforded by these basic rights. This is at once a judge's greatest calling and heaviest burden. It is an obligation we shoulder by our oath of office, binding ourselves to enforce individual liberty even in the face of public or official opposition. To shield the liberties of the individual from encroachment is uniquely the task of courts. In that sense, we are obliged to give sanctuary against the overreaches of government."
Justice Kogan dissenting in Krischer v McIver, 697 So.2d 97 (Fla. Jul. 17, 1997)
The Right of Privacy attaches to the “Dissolution of Marriage” alimony provisions. No state interest, let alone a compelling state interest minimally applied that in fact furthers the interest exists to rehabilitate the provisions from their presumptively unconstitutional nature. They are null and void ab initio and unenforceable.

The alimony provisions impermissibly conflict with Connor 688 So. 2d and the public policy established therein by impermissibly transforming Floridians who are economically independent before and during marriage into economically dependent Floridians simply because they exercise their fundamental constitutional right of association and privacy to alter their marriage by dissolving it.

The alimony provisions grant unbridled legislative authority to the legislature to create the law and public policy contrary to Art. II § 3 Fla. Const. Furthermore, the legislature via the alimony provision is granting legislative authority to the judiciary which it itself does not have because of Art. I § 23 Fla. Const. Right of Privacy.

* A 'marriage strike' emerges as men decide not to risk loss

* Clarkston judge admits to unethical behavior

* False Allegations

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Separation of Powers – Part 6

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it. --Thomas Paine

Legal Arguments:

3. Judiciary Cannot Implement the Improperly Delegated Authority
The Florida Judiciary itself admits it does not know how to implement the improper delegation of unbridled authority given to it by the legislature in the alimony statute.

The Report of the Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission (1990), which resulted from the Florida Supreme Court’s appointed commission on gender bias in the Court system, contains the follows observations and conclusions.
“Most of Florida's circuit court judges dislike dealing with family law matters. This attitude can affect the outcome of cases.” (page 6)

“As a result of their almost unlimited discretion, trial courts distribute marital assets either as property or alimony with a lack of certainty and consistency. This may lead to inappropriate property settlements between the parties.” (page 7) [Emphasis added]
The follow up Gender Bias—Then and Now, Continuing Challenges in the Legal System, The Report of the Gender Bias Study Implementation Commission (1996) states,
“…alimony decisions, backed by competent substantial evidence to support the trial court rulings, are now required by statute, as was originally recommended…. However, it is not clear, based on appellate decisions, whether a trial judge must consider all the statutory factors and give equal weight to all, or just the relevant ones….” (page 7) (Emphasis added)

“The original Commission recommended that the laws dealing with the amount of spousal support require the trial judges to set consistent amounts, in all cases, and amounts which comport with the supported spouse’s marital standard of living, analogous to child support guidelines. This has not been done. Section 61.08 requires the trial judge to make a laundry list of fact-findings when alimony is asked for and either awarded or denied. It is not clear whether all the statutory factors must be considered, or only relevant ones, and whether or not there is any factor or factors which should be given more weight than others.” (page 7) (Emphasis added)
The authoritative body appointed by the Florida Supreme Court offers the above opinion on the unbridled discretion and the demonstrated inability of the judiciary to implement it.

Department of Insurance v. Southwest Volusia Hospital Dist,. 438 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1983), cites Askew as the source of the test for determining whether a statute violates the nondelegation standard and repeats:
“[T]he crucial test in determining whether a statute amounts to an unlawful delegation of legislative power is whether the statute contains sufficient standards or guidelines to enable the agency and the courts to determine whether the agency is carrying out the legislature’s intent.”
The above commission reports prove the alimony provisions fail this test.

A measure of legislative intent is contained in the specific provision of the Dissolution of Marriage Statute Purposes. The alimony provisions in no way fulfill the purpose succinctly expressed in the statute.
61.001 Purpose of chapter.--
(1) This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied.
(2) Its purposes are:
(a) To preserve the integrity of marriage and to safeguard meaningful family relationships;
(b) To promote the amicable settlement of disputes that arise between parties to a marriage; and
(c) To mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their children caused by the process of legal dissolution of marriage.
History.--s. 1, ch. 71-241; s. 111, ch. 86-220.

Richardson 866 So. 2d “courts should refrain from reading elements into a statute that plainly lacks such additional elements. See Schmitt, 590 So. 2d at 414.” That is precisely what the judiciary has been doing when it constantly invents purposes of the statute that do not exist in F.S. § 61.001.

The judiciary has used the unbridled discretion improperly delegated to it to “legislate” a myriad of “purposes” for the alimony statute none of which exist in the § 61.001 Fla. Stat. This judicial legislation is further evidence the undelegated authority improperly granted the judiciary has run the gamut of indiscretion. The judiciary legislates and makes new law because of the unbridled discretion of § 61.08 Fla. Stat. Neither the legislature nor the judiciary has noticed this and invitiated or attempted to reinstate the separation of powers necessary in the statute.

* Imprisonment for debt in Maryland. Explanations and case law on whether or not support (alimony) is a debt.

* Statutory Exemptions and Garnishments

* Judge's Claim Of Intimidation Deemed Misconduct
* Judicial and quasijudicial absolute immunity is the primary source of the injustice plaguing our judicial system.

* Iran: Iranian slapped with 10,000-year alimony order

* Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic

* Tyranny Response Team

* Christmas Light Display. An impressive use of lights and sound. Extremely entertaining.