On the front page of the Denver Gazette in large bold letters, the headline reads: “Judge rules parenting evaluators get immunity”. Well, not exactly. The judge just dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by a group of mothers against one evaluator. He based his ruling on a law that grants quasi-judicial immunity to court-appointed officials. But, yes, by dismissing the lawsuit, he is affirming that
I am losing my vision because of Court criminal abuse. My obstetrician says it's from high blood pressure. High blood pressure caused from stress from unspeakable crimes committed against me and my children. This is all of our story although we may have different physical and emotional manifestations of systemic institutional misogyny. No lawyer will take my case. No lawyer will take my case because this network won't let them unless they agree to throw the fight. I fought for over 40 years. My story is a story of judicial retaliation and family Vendetta joining forces. Organized crime is being paid for by the asleep-at-the-wheel taxpayer. We need to attack the law schools not just the Bar Association who allows this Behavior after training. It is Satan worshiping nothing less that these attorneys buy into. The details of my case are a blueprint of how these kinds of atrocities against mothers and our children are executed by the most cunning and well-connected. Hatred of women is the most prevalent hate crime on Earth globally and across time. Women have a disadvantage because we birth Humanity. We get no respect for doing so, only distain. I want to tell my story. In detail. But not to the press. To our uderground. I have The MRA Playbook. We all do. The direct targeting is akin to the KKK targeting tactics back in the day make no mistake, enlisted once a Woman dares to open her mouth. This is Domestic Terrorism. I name names and I've been told if I end up "dead on the side of the road don't be surprised. Pro tip: there is no separation of church and state in the United States of America. If women step out of line they will come for your kids, the ultimate punishment before your death or theirs. And neither is of any consequence to the secret-society, $atanic mob that is Family/Probate Court who I know up close and personal. No woman is safe. No child is safe. Our anguished cries are their most extreme pleasure. Know thy enemy. To the death.
It can certainly feel that way. I know this might be an expression of feelings of being controlled and ganged up against, coloring the picture of systematic abuses with words can be off putting to people without estrogen. Sometimes it is just a feeling and sometimes abusive ex-husbands join the mob, marry into families with lots of money and social connections they misuse to hurt the person they stole from, and attorneys use protection rackets for their criminal enterprises. I believe you and I empathize with you. I have similar thoughts when I think about my own battles.
It is called difference feminism, acknowledging a well-deserved emotional reaction of a female person should be understood differently than a man is not insulting.
The article complains of a ruling and unnecessarily gives it power over people by assigning a meaning. If your group takes the perspective that it has no additional meaning because it is outside of common law standards, then it doesn't inevitably propagate the societal trends of which it complains. While rulings create common law standards Judges don't legislate from the bench. Information to effect positive changes requires sharing information on cases law that assets in the battles. Furthermore, Socratic debate is an important part of the democratic process. I too want to figure out why family law is such a total mess of subjectivity and corruption. If you want change a social trend, as I do, then please don't insult or exclude someone for having a thought you don't like. I have been hurt as much as you have. I suffer from the same wounds, and I want change because of that but I do not believe in blind allegiances and group thought. You can't fight bullying and hyperbolic thought with more of the same.
I don't get to see or speak to my child because of a guardian ad litems unconstitutional actions and lies. She violated a host of positively imposed state laws and federal regulation of the VWVA and UCCJEA, had the judge order arbitration with a pre-selected arbitrator in violation of the stipulated divorce, and conducted concurrent proceedings, effectively selling the custody of my child to his abuser as part of a business deal by covering up child abuse determinations made by the MPD and Social Services which are required to be presented to the judge or arbitrator and taking money to do so. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for another blow of judicial hurt, this time in federal court, and I wonder if I will survive it. I doubt that I will. I highly doubt that I will. The guardian ad litem wanted to be the judge and jury in the case (because it is profitable) and that isn't her job according to state law. The GAL system in Wisconsin is a private payer system, she has little in terms of immunity as a result of her 320 dollar an hour mandated fees, because immunity of a GAL is also relative to the other incentives provided by the state to ensure participation in the system. There are states that publicly fund the GAL, there are states that have systems that are volunteer based, there are states that pay 40 dollars an hour... In Wisconsin the judge decides any amount he wants and requires the parents to pay making less of an immunity than a public fund or free system would. The Alternative dispute resolution system is also entirely privately funded by litigants, so in ADR there is no reason for the lawyers to feel restrained by litigating unnecessary matters. Judges have no reason to limit the costs in ADR. The family law lawyers love ADR requirements because there is no triage based upon public cost, they can rip people off and destroy lives just to fill their wallets.
Very dissapointed to see this loss. I would encourage the class action group to appeal the dismissal and never give up exposing the issues until the court reforms their practice. Cant you take the class action to your government and the parliament!?
If there were a federal standard established by an appeals court ruling that would help you in your state what do you imagine it would it be?
If you will share your thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I have a case to make at the federal level. Since I expect injustice because it is all I have ever experienced, I am working on concepts for appeal considering arguing under the bill of rights as incorporated into the 14th amendment. (explained loosely below).
17. That the defendants sought an order for binding arbitration pursuant to a framework provided by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(d)(4.) and Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(e). That the binding arbitration was not in compliance with the requirements against concurrent action and of exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the subject matter of the Uniform Child Custody Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in Wis. Stat. ch. 822 and required by Wis. Stat. § 767.01(2m), nor the Fair Credit Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) codified in 28 U.S.C. §1738A, enforceable as a federally protected entitlement right according to Violence Against Women Act (VWVA) as informed by the use of rights creating language “ (except to the extent that they are entitled to full faith and credit under federal law). ” 18 U.S.C § 2266.
18. Subject matter jurisdiction is a requirement of a fair hearing further protected by the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, § 1. In Wisconsin subject matter jurisdiction is required for all civil actions, and nothing in Wis. Stat. chs. 801 to 847 affects the subject matter jurisdiction of any court of this state. Wis. Stat. § 801.04(1).
19. A forum change to arbitration has been established as a material factor. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 203. (1956). That regardless of the interpretation of the judgement of divorce’s ADR clause, the arbitrator clearly exceeded her power by deciding on visitation rights.
20. In the endeavor of this conspiracy the defendants concealed the father's financial misdeeds and omitted evidence of the father's abuse of the child, as was alleged by social services and MPD.
21. That the divorce was amicable up until the morning of Aug. 1, 2016. That day the child disclosed activities at his father’s home indicative of child abuse. The mother texted the father to delay the informal parenting switch. The father reacted dramatically and called the police. The mother explained to the officer on the phone that she had acted within her legal rights. In this call the mother revealed her location. The father tracked down the family and tried to abscond with the child. The police responded to the domestic disturbance, and the mother then reported the child’s disclosure of the abuse to the responding officers.
22. At the instruction of the MPD, the child was interviewed by social services on Aug. 4, 2016. the mother was issued a protective order temporarily barring the father from contact with the child, and a VARDA alarm was installed in the home. The MPD conducted an investigation based on the child’s statements. Charges of first degree sex assault - contact with person under 13, Wis. Stat. §948.02(1)(e) were referred to the district attorney. The district attorney declined to prosecute, but the declination letter clearly states the reason as a difficult case to win and states the decision is not a reflection of the father's guilt or innocence.
23. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant GAL Friedrich knew of the child abuse but failed to report it. It is a violation of Equal Protection and rights of Due Process for guardian ad litem to fail to present existing evidence of child abuse in a proceeding on custody and placement at which the court’s consideration of abuse is a required factor. Reporting child abuse is a non-discretionary ministrative task. See Baumgardt v. Wausau School District Board of Education, 475 F. Supp. 2d 800 (2007). Although the determination that a child is being abused involves discretionary acts, once that determination is made, a duty-bound individual such as guardian ad litem must act. See Cf. Chart v. Divorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 102, 203 N.W. 2d 673 (1973).
24. GAL Friedrich negligently and intentionally misrepresented the social services report by purporting the word ‘unsubstantiated’ as meaning ‘unfounded.’ Child protective services’ use of the term ‘unsubstantiated’ is not indicative of non-occurrence. “At times, agencies will “screen out” or “unsubstantiate” reports of alleged maltreatment and not take any further action. This does not necessarily indicate that the alleged actions did not occur.” Wis. Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem. at 50-51 (2017). The social services report reasons the screen out as, the mother, the custodial parent was taking steps to protect the child from further abuse and was keeping the child from seeing the abuser.
25. GAL Friedrich purported the child made up the molestation game by equivocating the phrasing “made up” to mean a lie, as opposed to how the child used the phrase to mean created. The report states the child said, he “made up the game and played it 100s of times.” Dane County Soc. Servs. R. Case -.
It is not absurd to ask the Court to consider restraining the states from unconstitutional laws regarding immunities of guardian ad litem or family study coordinators in family law as they are a cause unfair and bias hearings. The composite of State laws on appointments of guardian ad litem creates what prior U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment §1983 cases have decided may be considered as innately bias officials. The case of Tumey found a bias official is one in a system “which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . ." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532. The aspects of the Wisconsin system of guardian ad litem appointments which makes it unconstitutional are: the judge decides which controversies should be tried, selects and appoints the guardian ad litem, assigns rate of payment, controls expenses, administers payments, and then sits as tryer of the case. The judge selects and orders the guardian ad litem and negotiates their rate of pay, by repeated use the court forms an ongoing relationship with the guardian ad litem and, and then relies on the recommendations of the guardian. The relationship between judge and guardian ad litem leads to judges forgetting the burden of proof required in a court of law. The guardian ad litem recommendations do not accord with the standard of a legal brief, are largely based upon reports of “experts” and testimony of persons hand selected by the guardian ad litem and ordered by the court. Here too, between court expert and guardian ad litem a relationship develops in which the court ordered family studies are filled with unsupported claims and hearsay. Litigants are unconstitutionally forced to defend against a subjective opinion formed by a stranger upon which an unconstitutionally large amount of deference is granted by the court. The court is the controller of costs and fees, and these costs are not assessed at a standard rate, nor assessed to parties according to any standard formula of income or assets, and are left to the discretion of the judge. Courts have found similar fee schemes unconstitutional in Cain v. White, 937 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2019); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 878 (2009); and Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972).
In this regard under the 14th amendment. In Duncan v. Louisiana, the Court faced questions as to whether a right is among those "'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67 (1932); whether it is "basic in our system of jurisprudence," In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948); and whether it is "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148-49 (1968). Additionally, the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, and as Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, said of these rights in his speech:
To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.
"Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . .
". . . The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765-2766 (1866).
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968)
The Supreme Court in Palko v. Connecticut, found “that certain Bill of Rights' provisions were made applicable to the States by bringing them "within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption." Concluding that the Bill of Rights Amendments that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" are "absorbed" by the Fourteenth as protections against state invasion. Id. 302 U.S. at 326. Here to protection may be found in Fourteenth Amendment. Any other interpretation is similarly destructive to an essential American limitation on government because the means the State’s executive statement of an immunity defense is in conflict with the State’s existing legislative enactments.
The immunity defense is not a legitimate act of government for its conflict the law of the land, although these local laws offer a gauge for social and ethical judgements. Dist. of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 628 (1937) (“Doubts must be resolved, not subjectively by recourse of the judge to his own sympathy and emotions, but by objective standards such as may be observed in the laws and practices of the community taken as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.”). John Locke theorized that societies form governments by mutual (and, in later generations, tacit) agreement. Thus, when a king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him. (Two Treatises of Government (1690)). Under this theory where a State has taken an immunity the protection of a Sovereign is no longer applicable. Thomas Jefferson’s agreed and wrote, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
U.S. Constitution First Amendment prevents the States propagating and amplifying false or misleading speech. This protection exists so that people will be able to obtain objective information to make informed decisions and hold their elected representatives accountable. The First Amendment prevents the States from curbing factual criticism of government officials and policies. In practice, whether intentionally or accidentally, the Supreme Court has enhanced democratic practice in the States by finding that the liberty interests protected by substantive due process include First Amendment (or equivalent) rights. The assertion is inapposite with a meaningful exercise of political participation.
Giving effect to the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause (and the Privileges or Immunities Clause) thus requires a conception of what the limits of legislative power are—that is, what distinguishes a genuine law from what the Supreme Court would describe as “mere will exerted as an act of power.” (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 535 (1884).) (Randy E. Barnett and Evan D. Bernick, No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist- Theory of the Due Process of Law, 60 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1599 (2019), at page 72, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol60/iss5/2.).
The ends for which legitimate governments are established, according to the political-philosophical premises on which the Constitution rests, makes means that are contrary to those ends arbitrary, and therefore contrary to the original spirit of the Due Process of Law Clauses.
At the state level, identifying arbitrary legislation requires a judicial inquiry into whether (1) it is within the scope of power that is delegated to state legislatures by their own constitutions; and (2) whether it is prohibited by the federal Constitution’s limits on state power, including Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a state statute to be a law rather than a mere act of power, it is necessary, but not sufficient, that a state constitution authorize a particular exercise of power. Such acts must also not deprive people of the due process of law or “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Judges already routinely seek to determine whether legislative enactments sought to be applied to individuals are law rather than exercises of arbitrary power by a legislature, even if they do not use this precise language.
The due process of law to which a person is entitled before being deprived of his or her life, liberty, or property requires a realistic evaluation of a contested law, not a formalistic one. Such an inquiry ought to operate as follows: Once a party has made a threshold showing that he or she stands to be deprived of his or her life, liberty, or property, the government should be made to offer a reason for its actions and to bear the burden of producing evidence in support of its actions.
I assume the lawsuit is off by that "miss as good as a mile."
Think about it this way. Equal Protection and fundamental right to parent of a fit parent both require criminal adjudication of the unfutness of an alleged criminal felon.
That is the U.S.Constitution requires criminal adjudication of an unfit perpetrator BEFIRE any adjudication of custody i.e. a criminal's access to child victims can be decided.
In what world are criminal child rapists allowed to live with their victims? Never happens in criminal court.
Reposting so that you can easily see something positive and uplifting. In the case of Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019), plaintiff, Jade sued private parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiring with state officials to violate her due process right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of her child. The claim was heard in the district court, challenged on appeal based on sufficiency of evidence to the 7th circuit in 2019, and the district court's decision was not overturned. Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2019) (paraphrasing original). The Court decided the conspiracy was proven based on the evidence that the Howser's had driven in from out of town and were waiting round the corner in a car to take custody of the child upon the arrest of their daughter Jade. Everything else was just their word against hers. In this comparative case, the plaintiff, “Jade claimed a group executed a plan to place her child in the Howser’s custody in violation of the procedures dictated by Illinois law, thereby also violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her child. See Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463, 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that the Fourteenth Amendment protects parental custody rights). [. . .] the suit against the Howsers proceeded to a jury trial over which a magistrate judge presided. At the end of the trial, the jury awarded Jade $470,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $970,000.” Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019).
The Southern District of Illinois and the 7th Circuit under Chief Wood, a WOMAN, deserve an applause for their protection of rights, specifically a young woman's equal protection and due process rights. Do NOT forget that a parents right to rear their child is a fundamental right. See Troxel v. Grandville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Judges do not often get a New York Times headline for a successful and honorable divorce trial, strengthening laws such as the VWVA offers little rewards. Raising our voices only when the leaders get it wrong doesn't seem to be effective, so there has to be a better way. Your state legislators need to impose a duty. "[A] duty is regarded as ministerial when it has been positively imposed by law, and its performance required at a time and in a manner, or upon conditions which are specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer's judgment or discretion." Sabo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211258, at *32-33 (quoting Pinter v. Vill. of Stetsonville, 2019 WI 74, ¶41, 387 Wis. 2d 475, 492, 929 N.W.2d 547, 555). Then corruption as it readily exists in a divorce with an abusive element can become a clear “known danger” exception to municipal and public officer immunity. More State laws impose the duty so that the embattled women seeking protection in a court of law will be able to overcome immunity. It is "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, “the conduct involved in the case may so obviously violate [ ] th[e] constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Id. at 1255 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in the original). This “narrow” category encompasses those situations where “the official's conduct lies so obviously at the very core of what the [relevant constitutional provision] prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to the official, notwithstanding the lack of case law.” Id. at 1257 (internal quotation marks omitted). Loftus v. Clark–Moore, 690 F.3d 1200, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2012). I think there must be a way to make the conduct of these subjective "professionals" more clearly against the law. Revision to State legislation must be easier than court reforms.
The judge is looking to State laws... Let's change those laws.
Judges abuse their power and endanger our children. Class action lawsuits are decided by judges. Judicial rulings are questionable. Systemic male entitlement has deep roots. The good old boys stick together and work together. Judges are part of the problem. They cover for each other. They do go along to get along. Mothers have to stick together and work together to unravel this dangerous and controlling network. Our children have one childhood. These judges are destroying it for them and for us. Mothers have to shine the spotlight on the legal and the human rights violations we and our children are forced to endure. Mothers have to keep pushing for a new system. Women must channel their rage to gain the power needed to protect our children.
Evaluators should not have the same immunity as judges. And if they break the law immunity doesn’t apply. No one is above the law. Neither judges nor evaluators.
From now on every parent who is sent to see an evaluator should refuse to be assessed, as there is no guarantee they will be assessed competently and without fabrication being made up.
If a judge makes an order for a parent to enter into a contract (under duress) with a third party, i.e. an evaluator (psych, counsellor, etc.) is breaching a contract law. It is beyond any judge’s jurisdiction to force parties into a contract (for consideration). Contract entered under duress is invalid.
I am losing my vision because of Court criminal abuse. My obstetrician says it's from high blood pressure. High blood pressure caused from stress from unspeakable crimes committed against me and my children. This is all of our story although we may have different physical and emotional manifestations of systemic institutional misogyny. No lawyer will take my case. No lawyer will take my case because this network won't let them unless they agree to throw the fight. I fought for over 40 years. My story is a story of judicial retaliation and family Vendetta joining forces. Organized crime is being paid for by the asleep-at-the-wheel taxpayer. We need to attack the law schools not just the Bar Association who allows this Behavior after training. It is Satan worshiping nothing less that these attorneys buy into. The details of my case are a blueprint of how these kinds of atrocities against mothers and our children are executed by the most cunning and well-connected. Hatred of women is the most prevalent hate crime on Earth globally and across time. Women have a disadvantage because we birth Humanity. We get no respect for doing so, only distain. I want to tell my story. In detail. But not to the press. To our uderground. I have The MRA Playbook. We all do. The direct targeting is akin to the KKK targeting tactics back in the day make no mistake, enlisted once a Woman dares to open her mouth. This is Domestic Terrorism. I name names and I've been told if I end up "dead on the side of the road don't be surprised. Pro tip: there is no separation of church and state in the United States of America. If women step out of line they will come for your kids, the ultimate punishment before your death or theirs. And neither is of any consequence to the secret-society, $atanic mob that is Family/Probate Court who I know up close and personal. No woman is safe. No child is safe. Our anguished cries are their most extreme pleasure. Know thy enemy. To the death.
I am very sorry if you felt insulted. I didn't mean to add to your hurt.
I'm not insulted or hurt I just don't know what you're talking about and I don't care. Doesn't sound like you're one of us.
It can certainly feel that way. I know this might be an expression of feelings of being controlled and ganged up against, coloring the picture of systematic abuses with words can be off putting to people without estrogen. Sometimes it is just a feeling and sometimes abusive ex-husbands join the mob, marry into families with lots of money and social connections they misuse to hurt the person they stole from, and attorneys use protection rackets for their criminal enterprises. I believe you and I empathize with you. I have similar thoughts when I think about my own battles.
People without estrogen what's your point?
Women communicate differently than men. It is biological and totally normal, but society expects Venus to write like Mars.
You're on the wrong thread dude.
It is called difference feminism, acknowledging a well-deserved emotional reaction of a female person should be understood differently than a man is not insulting.
The article complains of a ruling and unnecessarily gives it power over people by assigning a meaning. If your group takes the perspective that it has no additional meaning because it is outside of common law standards, then it doesn't inevitably propagate the societal trends of which it complains. While rulings create common law standards Judges don't legislate from the bench. Information to effect positive changes requires sharing information on cases law that assets in the battles. Furthermore, Socratic debate is an important part of the democratic process. I too want to figure out why family law is such a total mess of subjectivity and corruption. If you want change a social trend, as I do, then please don't insult or exclude someone for having a thought you don't like. I have been hurt as much as you have. I suffer from the same wounds, and I want change because of that but I do not believe in blind allegiances and group thought. You can't fight bullying and hyperbolic thought with more of the same.
I don't get to see or speak to my child because of a guardian ad litems unconstitutional actions and lies. She violated a host of positively imposed state laws and federal regulation of the VWVA and UCCJEA, had the judge order arbitration with a pre-selected arbitrator in violation of the stipulated divorce, and conducted concurrent proceedings, effectively selling the custody of my child to his abuser as part of a business deal by covering up child abuse determinations made by the MPD and Social Services which are required to be presented to the judge or arbitrator and taking money to do so. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for another blow of judicial hurt, this time in federal court, and I wonder if I will survive it. I doubt that I will. I highly doubt that I will. The guardian ad litem wanted to be the judge and jury in the case (because it is profitable) and that isn't her job according to state law. The GAL system in Wisconsin is a private payer system, she has little in terms of immunity as a result of her 320 dollar an hour mandated fees, because immunity of a GAL is also relative to the other incentives provided by the state to ensure participation in the system. There are states that publicly fund the GAL, there are states that have systems that are volunteer based, there are states that pay 40 dollars an hour... In Wisconsin the judge decides any amount he wants and requires the parents to pay making less of an immunity than a public fund or free system would. The Alternative dispute resolution system is also entirely privately funded by litigants, so in ADR there is no reason for the lawyers to feel restrained by litigating unnecessary matters. Judges have no reason to limit the costs in ADR. The family law lawyers love ADR requirements because there is no triage based upon public cost, they can rip people off and destroy lives just to fill their wallets.
Very dissapointed to see this loss. I would encourage the class action group to appeal the dismissal and never give up exposing the issues until the court reforms their practice. Cant you take the class action to your government and the parliament!?
If there were a federal standard established by an appeals court ruling that would help you in your state what do you imagine it would it be?
If you will share your thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I have a case to make at the federal level. Since I expect injustice because it is all I have ever experienced, I am working on concepts for appeal considering arguing under the bill of rights as incorporated into the 14th amendment. (explained loosely below).
17. That the defendants sought an order for binding arbitration pursuant to a framework provided by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(d)(4.) and Wis. Stat. § 802.12(3)(e). That the binding arbitration was not in compliance with the requirements against concurrent action and of exclusive and continuing jurisdiction of the subject matter of the Uniform Child Custody Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), adopted in Wis. Stat. ch. 822 and required by Wis. Stat. § 767.01(2m), nor the Fair Credit Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) codified in 28 U.S.C. §1738A, enforceable as a federally protected entitlement right according to Violence Against Women Act (VWVA) as informed by the use of rights creating language “ (except to the extent that they are entitled to full faith and credit under federal law). ” 18 U.S.C § 2266.
18. Subject matter jurisdiction is a requirement of a fair hearing further protected by the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, § 1. In Wisconsin subject matter jurisdiction is required for all civil actions, and nothing in Wis. Stat. chs. 801 to 847 affects the subject matter jurisdiction of any court of this state. Wis. Stat. § 801.04(1).
19. A forum change to arbitration has been established as a material factor. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U.S. 198, 203. (1956). That regardless of the interpretation of the judgement of divorce’s ADR clause, the arbitrator clearly exceeded her power by deciding on visitation rights.
20. In the endeavor of this conspiracy the defendants concealed the father's financial misdeeds and omitted evidence of the father's abuse of the child, as was alleged by social services and MPD.
21. That the divorce was amicable up until the morning of Aug. 1, 2016. That day the child disclosed activities at his father’s home indicative of child abuse. The mother texted the father to delay the informal parenting switch. The father reacted dramatically and called the police. The mother explained to the officer on the phone that she had acted within her legal rights. In this call the mother revealed her location. The father tracked down the family and tried to abscond with the child. The police responded to the domestic disturbance, and the mother then reported the child’s disclosure of the abuse to the responding officers.
22. At the instruction of the MPD, the child was interviewed by social services on Aug. 4, 2016. the mother was issued a protective order temporarily barring the father from contact with the child, and a VARDA alarm was installed in the home. The MPD conducted an investigation based on the child’s statements. Charges of first degree sex assault - contact with person under 13, Wis. Stat. §948.02(1)(e) were referred to the district attorney. The district attorney declined to prosecute, but the declination letter clearly states the reason as a difficult case to win and states the decision is not a reflection of the father's guilt or innocence.
23. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant GAL Friedrich knew of the child abuse but failed to report it. It is a violation of Equal Protection and rights of Due Process for guardian ad litem to fail to present existing evidence of child abuse in a proceeding on custody and placement at which the court’s consideration of abuse is a required factor. Reporting child abuse is a non-discretionary ministrative task. See Baumgardt v. Wausau School District Board of Education, 475 F. Supp. 2d 800 (2007). Although the determination that a child is being abused involves discretionary acts, once that determination is made, a duty-bound individual such as guardian ad litem must act. See Cf. Chart v. Divorak, 57 Wis. 2d 92, 102, 203 N.W. 2d 673 (1973).
24. GAL Friedrich negligently and intentionally misrepresented the social services report by purporting the word ‘unsubstantiated’ as meaning ‘unfounded.’ Child protective services’ use of the term ‘unsubstantiated’ is not indicative of non-occurrence. “At times, agencies will “screen out” or “unsubstantiate” reports of alleged maltreatment and not take any further action. This does not necessarily indicate that the alleged actions did not occur.” Wis. Governor’s Council on Domestic Abuse and End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin. Domestic Abuse Guidebook for Guardian Ad Litem. at 50-51 (2017). The social services report reasons the screen out as, the mother, the custodial parent was taking steps to protect the child from further abuse and was keeping the child from seeing the abuser.
25. GAL Friedrich purported the child made up the molestation game by equivocating the phrasing “made up” to mean a lie, as opposed to how the child used the phrase to mean created. The report states the child said, he “made up the game and played it 100s of times.” Dane County Soc. Servs. R. Case -.
It is not absurd to ask the Court to consider restraining the states from unconstitutional laws regarding immunities of guardian ad litem or family study coordinators in family law as they are a cause unfair and bias hearings. The composite of State laws on appointments of guardian ad litem creates what prior U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment §1983 cases have decided may be considered as innately bias officials. The case of Tumey found a bias official is one in a system “which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused . . . ." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532. The aspects of the Wisconsin system of guardian ad litem appointments which makes it unconstitutional are: the judge decides which controversies should be tried, selects and appoints the guardian ad litem, assigns rate of payment, controls expenses, administers payments, and then sits as tryer of the case. The judge selects and orders the guardian ad litem and negotiates their rate of pay, by repeated use the court forms an ongoing relationship with the guardian ad litem and, and then relies on the recommendations of the guardian. The relationship between judge and guardian ad litem leads to judges forgetting the burden of proof required in a court of law. The guardian ad litem recommendations do not accord with the standard of a legal brief, are largely based upon reports of “experts” and testimony of persons hand selected by the guardian ad litem and ordered by the court. Here too, between court expert and guardian ad litem a relationship develops in which the court ordered family studies are filled with unsupported claims and hearsay. Litigants are unconstitutionally forced to defend against a subjective opinion formed by a stranger upon which an unconstitutionally large amount of deference is granted by the court. The court is the controller of costs and fees, and these costs are not assessed at a standard rate, nor assessed to parties according to any standard formula of income or assets, and are left to the discretion of the judge. Courts have found similar fee schemes unconstitutional in Cain v. White, 937 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2019); In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 878 (2009); and Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972).
In this regard under the 14th amendment. In Duncan v. Louisiana, the Court faced questions as to whether a right is among those "'fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,'" Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67 (1932); whether it is "basic in our system of jurisprudence," In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273 (1948); and whether it is "a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial," Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148-49 (1968). Additionally, the 14th amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, and as Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, said of these rights in his speech:
To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.
"Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . .
". . . The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765-2766 (1866).
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166-67 (1968)
The Supreme Court in Palko v. Connecticut, found “that certain Bill of Rights' provisions were made applicable to the States by bringing them "within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption." Concluding that the Bill of Rights Amendments that are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" are "absorbed" by the Fourteenth as protections against state invasion. Id. 302 U.S. at 326. Here to protection may be found in Fourteenth Amendment. Any other interpretation is similarly destructive to an essential American limitation on government because the means the State’s executive statement of an immunity defense is in conflict with the State’s existing legislative enactments.
The immunity defense is not a legitimate act of government for its conflict the law of the land, although these local laws offer a gauge for social and ethical judgements. Dist. of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 628 (1937) (“Doubts must be resolved, not subjectively by recourse of the judge to his own sympathy and emotions, but by objective standards such as may be observed in the laws and practices of the community taken as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.”). John Locke theorized that societies form governments by mutual (and, in later generations, tacit) agreement. Thus, when a king loses the consent of the governed, a society may remove him. (Two Treatises of Government (1690)). Under this theory where a State has taken an immunity the protection of a Sovereign is no longer applicable. Thomas Jefferson’s agreed and wrote, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 2 (U.S. 1776).
U.S. Constitution First Amendment prevents the States propagating and amplifying false or misleading speech. This protection exists so that people will be able to obtain objective information to make informed decisions and hold their elected representatives accountable. The First Amendment prevents the States from curbing factual criticism of government officials and policies. In practice, whether intentionally or accidentally, the Supreme Court has enhanced democratic practice in the States by finding that the liberty interests protected by substantive due process include First Amendment (or equivalent) rights. The assertion is inapposite with a meaningful exercise of political participation.
Giving effect to the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process of Law Clause (and the Privileges or Immunities Clause) thus requires a conception of what the limits of legislative power are—that is, what distinguishes a genuine law from what the Supreme Court would describe as “mere will exerted as an act of power.” (Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 535 (1884).) (Randy E. Barnett and Evan D. Bernick, No Arbitrary Power: An Originalist- Theory of the Due Process of Law, 60 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1599 (2019), at page 72, https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol60/iss5/2.).
The ends for which legitimate governments are established, according to the political-philosophical premises on which the Constitution rests, makes means that are contrary to those ends arbitrary, and therefore contrary to the original spirit of the Due Process of Law Clauses.
At the state level, identifying arbitrary legislation requires a judicial inquiry into whether (1) it is within the scope of power that is delegated to state legislatures by their own constitutions; and (2) whether it is prohibited by the federal Constitution’s limits on state power, including Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. For a state statute to be a law rather than a mere act of power, it is necessary, but not sufficient, that a state constitution authorize a particular exercise of power. Such acts must also not deprive people of the due process of law or “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Judges already routinely seek to determine whether legislative enactments sought to be applied to individuals are law rather than exercises of arbitrary power by a legislature, even if they do not use this precise language.
The due process of law to which a person is entitled before being deprived of his or her life, liberty, or property requires a realistic evaluation of a contested law, not a formalistic one. Such an inquiry ought to operate as follows: Once a party has made a threshold showing that he or she stands to be deprived of his or her life, liberty, or property, the government should be made to offer a reason for its actions and to bear the burden of producing evidence in support of its actions.
I assume the lawsuit is off by that "miss as good as a mile."
Think about it this way. Equal Protection and fundamental right to parent of a fit parent both require criminal adjudication of the unfutness of an alleged criminal felon.
That is the U.S.Constitution requires criminal adjudication of an unfit perpetrator BEFIRE any adjudication of custody i.e. a criminal's access to child victims can be decided.
In what world are criminal child rapists allowed to live with their victims? Never happens in criminal court.
Reposting so that you can easily see something positive and uplifting. In the case of Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019), plaintiff, Jade sued private parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conspiring with state officials to violate her due process right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of her child. The claim was heard in the district court, challenged on appeal based on sufficiency of evidence to the 7th circuit in 2019, and the district court's decision was not overturned. Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2019) (paraphrasing original). The Court decided the conspiracy was proven based on the evidence that the Howser's had driven in from out of town and were waiting round the corner in a car to take custody of the child upon the arrest of their daughter Jade. Everything else was just their word against hers. In this comparative case, the plaintiff, “Jade claimed a group executed a plan to place her child in the Howser’s custody in violation of the procedures dictated by Illinois law, thereby also violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her child. See Hernandez ex rel. Hernandez v. Foster, 657 F.3d 463, 478 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that the Fourteenth Amendment protects parental custody rights). [. . .] the suit against the Howsers proceeded to a jury trial over which a magistrate judge presided. At the end of the trial, the jury awarded Jade $470,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $970,000.” Green v. Howser, 942 F.3d 772, 778 (7th Cir. 2019).
The Southern District of Illinois and the 7th Circuit under Chief Wood, a WOMAN, deserve an applause for their protection of rights, specifically a young woman's equal protection and due process rights. Do NOT forget that a parents right to rear their child is a fundamental right. See Troxel v. Grandville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
Judges do not often get a New York Times headline for a successful and honorable divorce trial, strengthening laws such as the VWVA offers little rewards. Raising our voices only when the leaders get it wrong doesn't seem to be effective, so there has to be a better way. Your state legislators need to impose a duty. "[A] duty is regarded as ministerial when it has been positively imposed by law, and its performance required at a time and in a manner, or upon conditions which are specifically designated, the duty to perform under the conditions specified not being dependent upon the officer's judgment or discretion." Sabo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211258, at *32-33 (quoting Pinter v. Vill. of Stetsonville, 2019 WI 74, ¶41, 387 Wis. 2d 475, 492, 929 N.W.2d 547, 555). Then corruption as it readily exists in a divorce with an abusive element can become a clear “known danger” exception to municipal and public officer immunity. More State laws impose the duty so that the embattled women seeking protection in a court of law will be able to overcome immunity. It is "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, “the conduct involved in the case may so obviously violate [ ] th[e] constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.” Id. at 1255 (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in the original). This “narrow” category encompasses those situations where “the official's conduct lies so obviously at the very core of what the [relevant constitutional provision] prohibits that the unlawfulness of the conduct was readily apparent to the official, notwithstanding the lack of case law.” Id. at 1257 (internal quotation marks omitted). Loftus v. Clark–Moore, 690 F.3d 1200, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2012). I think there must be a way to make the conduct of these subjective "professionals" more clearly against the law. Revision to State legislation must be easier than court reforms.
The judge is looking to State laws... Let's change those laws.
Judges abuse their power and endanger our children. Class action lawsuits are decided by judges. Judicial rulings are questionable. Systemic male entitlement has deep roots. The good old boys stick together and work together. Judges are part of the problem. They cover for each other. They do go along to get along. Mothers have to stick together and work together to unravel this dangerous and controlling network. Our children have one childhood. These judges are destroying it for them and for us. Mothers have to shine the spotlight on the legal and the human rights violations we and our children are forced to endure. Mothers have to keep pushing for a new system. Women must channel their rage to gain the power needed to protect our children.
This is scandalous!
Evaluators should not have the same immunity as judges. And if they break the law immunity doesn’t apply. No one is above the law. Neither judges nor evaluators.
From now on every parent who is sent to see an evaluator should refuse to be assessed, as there is no guarantee they will be assessed competently and without fabrication being made up.
If a judge makes an order for a parent to enter into a contract (under duress) with a third party, i.e. an evaluator (psych, counsellor, etc.) is breaching a contract law. It is beyond any judge’s jurisdiction to force parties into a contract (for consideration). Contract entered under duress is invalid.