Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 

Hello Members,

 

I’m looking at developing a “Pro Se” class action lawsuit against the state of Iowa in Federal Court regarding repeated violations of the 14th Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.  It’s my belief the court system wont know how to handle hundreds of fathers representing themselves in one case. It will also bring about public recognition that the state of Iowa can not afford but our legislators’ lack of action has left us little choice.

 

Please respond and let me know if you are interested in participating. I look forward to hearing from you and will get out the details once they are finalized for those participating!

 

Sincerely,

Bryan Iehl

Founder

IowaFathers.com

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
ede

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #2 

we must do something in order to be heard

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #3 

Exactly!  I think this approach will catch them off guard.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
ede

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #4 
so when will one happen in linn county
 i am willing to gather parties any time you would like
 i also am interested in starting a chapter in cedar rapids
 i think there are a lot more fathers upset or willing to speak out the what we have here at this site 
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #5 

Excellent!  We need support groups in every major market in Iowa. I know that B.J. Smith is looking into establishing a meeting place in Cedar Rapids and I will also post any information I find out. 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #6 
Linn county is absolutely incredible! It is such a joke and I am so disgusted with how they handle things. There does need to be some sort of father's support group in Cedar Rapids because it is too much for those residents to drive to Waterloo for our meetings.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #7 

I'd like to have a father support group available in every major market in Iowa.  I believe there is a dire need and that people will travel a little distance for support and advocacy. However, the success is dependent upon father involvement and commitment.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #8 
Has anyone thought of or tried naming our exes in a civil case for mental anguish and hardship.
__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #9 
chad that is a good idea and with the crazy legal/judicial system that we have, it might actually work.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #10 
I live in Monticello so a group in CR would help me out, if theirs anything I can do to help let me Know. Also I would really like to look into suing our exes for hardship and mental anguis so if anyone know a lawyer who might be interested let me know.
__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #11 
There is law called "Intent to inflict emotional distress" and I have wondered for years if this could be tried.  Several attorneys have claimed judges will not hear cases like this otherwise every divorced couple would file.

Regarding the Class Action Case...I am still wanting to bring a class action case against the State of Iowa for violations or our constitutional rights.  As many know, I currently have a case in the Court of Appeals that I must fight first.  This could be a stepping stone and foundation of the case.  Much of this depends on if the Appellate Court or Supreme Court reverses the terrible ruling by Judge Beckelman. What I find mind boggling, it the lack of case law available to fathers to fight for our legal rights.  This ultimately, may be what hangs the Iowa Court System in Federal Court.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
rockdundee

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #12 

We should also include the DHS in this type of suit.  Because as most of us know they have no problem with "Intent to cause emotional distress" and it is usually aimed at fathers who have been accused but they can't manufacture enough evidence against.  Also they have no problem crushing Constitutional rights under foot or tap-dancing on the Bill Of Rights. And they are immune to civil law suits, supposedly. But if they are named in a suit against the state of Iowa as a co-defendant this might side step their supposed immunity. What do you all think???


__________________
"When life puts an obstacle in your way...go over, go under, go around or go through it...but NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP."
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #13 

It's long about time for a class action suit. also has anyone tried the cuel an unsual punnishment approach. I'd say its pretty cruel to take someones child away then make them pay for it. esp. since we didn't even do anything wrong in the first place.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
misstee

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #14 
I have just discovered this site. Have you any thoughts on moving forward this this? 
Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #15 
The national class action suit, filed by Torm Howse in Indiana and about 40+ states has resulted in lots of paper recycling. In other words, it's gotten nowhere. Perhaps Bryan has a better angle, children need both parents. (period) and EQUALLY, no more games, no more courts, no more BS.

I tried "stepping up to the plate" as the Iowa coordinator and couldn't even get an ink cartridge donation. Some signed on, but never heard back from them. Whazzamatter with these folks?



__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #16 

IowaFathers.com is trying to get members to list their cases on the Message Board under "District Court Judges and Rulings (New 4-28-05) - Accountability Starts Here." It will not happen over night, but eventually we will show a pattern of continued denial of non-custodial parental rights by the legal system. When this happens, I will notify members and give them the chance to join in the class action case.  We stated documenting in April and slowly but surely we have added cases.

 

Currently, IowaFathers.com is in the process of going over the statistics of HF22 before and after the law was established with the Governor's Office.  Why you ask?  Governor Vilsack and IowaFathers.com wants to strengthen the relationship a child has with non-custodial parents and it is quickly becoming aperrant the judges are disregarding 598.41 as listed below. Due to the quick results of the evidence, several legislators are taking notice and I'm positive a Bill will be submitted this coming session to modify 598.41 removing judicial opinion or bias towards awarding joint physical placement.  

 

Click here to read an article written by "Equal Parenting Group" in British Columbia, about Iowa and HF22.  More specifically, how it was change from its original format so judicial opinion or bias could continue.

 

Ken Richards setup a meeting a few weeks ago between IowaFathers.com, Children Need Both Parents, and Fathers' for Equal Rights and we decided to combine efforts to change 598.41. When the time comes, we need members to lobby in Des Moines this year! I will post the proposed changes once this has been finalized.

 

Quote:

Current Law States:

598.41 Custody of children.
 
1. a. The court, insofar as is reasonable and in the best interest of the child, shall order the custody award, including liberal visitation rights where appropriate, which will assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved the marriage, and which will encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child unless direct physical harm or significant emotional harm to the child, other children, or a parent is likely to result from such contact with one parent.
 
1 c. The court shall consider the denial by one parent of the child's opportunity for maximum continuing contact with the other parent, without just cause, a significant factor in determining the proper custody arrangement. Just cause may include a determination by the court pursuant to subsection 3, paragraph "j" , that a history of domestic abuse exists between the parents.
 
2. a. On the application of either parent, the court shall consider granting joint custody in cases where the parents do not agree to joint custody.
b. If the court does not grant joint custody under this subsection, the court shall cite clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to the factors in subsection 3, that joint custody is unreasonable and not in the best interest of the child to the extent that the legal custodial relationship between the child and a parent should be severed.
 
5. a. If joint legal custody is awarded to both parents, the court may award joint physical care to both joint custodial parents upon the request of either parent. If the court denies the request for joint physical care, the determination shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusions of law that the awarding of joint physical care is not in the best interest of the child.
 
b. If joint physical care is not awarded under paragraph "a" , and only one joint custodial parent is awarded physical care, the parent responsible for providing physical care shall support the other parent's relationship with the child. Physical care awarded to one parent does not affect the other parent's rights and responsibilities as a joint legal custodian of the child. Rights and responsibilities as joint legal custodian of the child include, but are not limited to, equal participation in decisions affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.
 
 
Here are definitions according to Iowa Statute:
 
598.1 Definitions.
 
1. "Best interest of the child" includes, but is not limited to, the opportunity for maximum continuous physical and emotional contact possible with both parents, unless direct physical or significant emotional harm to the child may result from this contact. Refusal by one parent to provide this opportunity without just cause shall be considered harmful to the best interest of the child.
 
3. "Joint custody" or "joint legal custody" means an award of legal custody of a minor child to both parents jointly under which both parents have legal custodial rights and responsibilities toward the child and under which neither parent has legal custodial rights superior to those of the other parent. Rights and responsibilities of joint legal custody include, but are not limited to, equal participation in decisions affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.
 
4. "Joint physical care" means an award of physical care of a minor child to both joint legal custodial parents under which both parents have rights and responsibilities toward the child including, but not limited to, shared parenting time with the child, maintaining homes for the child, providing routine care for the child and under which neither parent has physical care rights superior to those of the other parent.
 
5. "Legal custody" or "custody" means an award of the rights of legal custody of a minor child to a parent under which a parent has legal custodial rights and responsibilities toward the child. Rights and responsibilities of legal custody include, but are not limited to, decision making affecting the child's legal status, medical care, education, extracurricular activities, and religious instruction.
 

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
misstee

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #17 
My husband and I are an hour away from Des Moines, but would be happy to make the drive!
Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #18 

Let's Roll... many of us are already "at the plate"... and have had it with custodial parents that are barely in the ballpark.


__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
mweichers

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 63
Reply with quote  #19 

You can count me in. Just name the date and I will be there with my fiance


__________________
Romans 5:3-5
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Lindseylu47

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #20 

I'm new here.  It looks as though my husband will have to start a lawsuit.  His ex denied him the right to even see his daughter from April-Sept of this year.  Towards the end of last month she finally gave in and allowed him to see his daughter, once a week from 9am-5pm.  After five months of his now two year old not seeing him she still remembered, ran up to him for a hug and said, "Daddy!"  He was so happy, but now his ex called today and said that her lawyer advised her to not let my husband take his daughter anywhere.  So, if he wants to see his child he needs to call the ex, make sure both of her parents are home (she has no job she quit the last one "Because it was too childish", and lives with her parents at the age of thirty, getting what she can from the government).  Anywho, if they are all there and agree to him coming over, he can for a few hours as they supervise him with his child.  He's never been in trouble with the law, has never drinked nor smoked in his life, never threatened to take his child away, or abuse her or the mother.  Never done anything bad to deserve this.  And yet all she has done is lie to my husband about everything.  At conception they were living together in California, she purposely went off The Pill without telling him, they soon broke up.  Seven months later he gets a call from his ex saying she was seven months along and that it was his, and that she had moved in with her mommy in Iowa.  So he prepares to move out here to help raise his child, then a month later he gets a call from her parents saying she went into labor a month early and had a baby girl.  When he got here they had paperwork ready for him to sign so he'd be on the birth certificate.  He filled it all out, said they'd take care of it, then purposely didn't turn it in and lied to him about it for the next year and a half.  And it's been nothing but hell for him since.  His daughter is underdeveloped for her age or so her doctor says, does nothing but sit in front of the tv.  His ex claims she is "making an effort to play with her once a day."  It's not that she's physically abusive, just neglectful, only seeing her daughter as a cuddly toy who will always love her and never leave her, instead of as a child with needs.

 

Anyhow, what I wanted to get to is that he'd love primary care or joint physical custody.  Yet him and I are concerned whether he even stands a chance, given he's the father, not the mother.  His lawyer sounded doubtful, saying that the courts typically favor primary care to the mother even when it is painfully obvious its best for the child to be with the father. 

 

I guess he and I feel in a rut, without much hope.  Does anyone know if this law regarding joint physical custody actually stands in court.  We live in Marion, she in Anamosa.  It's a half hour drive, as it would say if she were on the Southwest side of cedar rapids.  Could the distance affect this?

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #21 

Lindseylu47,

 

Welcome to IowaFathers.com.  Do you currently have a visitation schedule established through the court?  If so, and your husband is being denied visitation, he can file a "Contempt of Court" action.  If he does not have a visitation schedule established, he needs to get one established immediately along with joint legal custody and request a hearing to determine physical placement. 

 

Joint Physical Placement is a good law but unfortunately many judges are ignoring it. The distance could potentially pose a problem but perhaps you and your husband would be willing to move within the same school district if granted? Make sure your attorney understands your wishes and remember, your attorney works for you!  The Court of Appeals has already overturned a few rulings where judges did not grant Joint Physical Placement.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
bjsmith

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Falls
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #22 

I too would like to welcome Lindseylu47 to Iowafathers and good suggestion Bryan.  One comment  that was said and overlooked is that the mother gave birth she was not held accountable to place the fathers name on the birth certificate right away  This is a reoccurring theme and for years the system has been holding fathers accountable and has a double standard for the rest of the system.  This is the time to stand up and show the fatalities of the system  and with everyone's help change this ill gotten stain on society.

 

thanks again     bj

Lindseylu47

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #23 

My husband and his ex were never married and have nothing worked out legally regarding custody or visitation.  He's been talking with folks from the Child Support Recovery Unit so child support will start soon, they also said they'd put his name on the birth certificate.  We don't really have a favorable opinion of them to date.

His ex told him a while back that her step-father, whom she resides with, was accused of sexual molestation by his daughter.  We don't know if he's ever been convicted, I assume not because he's not on the Iowa Sex Offender Registry, but either way it's extremely discomforting knowning that my step-daughter is living with this man.  Does anyone know how to obtain more info regarding this?  Or if it is even worth bringing up.

My husband meets with his lawyer tomorrow morning so hopefully something will become of this mess, even if it's just baby steps towards a resolution.  I just know that him not seeing his child is breaking his spirit.

Lindseylu47

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #24 

This doesn't pertain to this thread, so I'll post it elsewhere as well. 

Anywho, has anyone tried mediation?  If so, how'd it go?  Was it worth it?

Roland

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 105
Reply with quote  #25 

Mediation works for some and it doesn't for others. You can always try it and see how it goes.

bjsmith

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Falls
Registered:
Posts: 138
Reply with quote  #26 

lindseylu47 One of the most upsetting and controversial issue facing parents and Lawmakers is the issue of child molestation.If you Have Checked on the Iowa Sex offenders Registry  and This Persons name is not on it ,Then the

allegations of sexual abuse were probably never files or don't really exist.

Even when people from other states move to Iowa they are required to register. Sorry this isn't much comfort  but comfort may be taken  if you know that his former told you and is probably keeping and eye on the situation,

and if something does happen in the future (lord Forbid) she could be held accountable for knowing and not doing something to prevent it.  

 

bj

Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #27 
What we should do is find a way to go after the Iowa BAR for discriminatory practices and expose them to the public as the mony grubbing leaches everyone knows lawyers to be. We should use public adds and broshures to turn the public against them then file a case and clean them out.
__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #28 

Update:

 

IowaFathers.com is joining 37 states in filing a class action law suit against each individual county within Iowa.  We really need member involvement from each county to make this successful. We are also looking for a County Leader for each county who will serve as a contact for that county.

 

Please visit the IowaFathers.com Class Action Center by clicking on the following link:  http://iowafathers.com/blog2006/?page_id=2


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #29 

UPDATE: 05/25/07    Did you see the new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)?

 

 Learn more about the county classactions via this link:

 Again, if you haven't yet, please review the new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page. It covers virtually everything, like the structure of the legal team, comparisons between the older state-based lawsuits versus the new county-based classactions, eligibility requirements, the paperwork process, and every other who, where, when, how, and why that would come to most people's minds.

 Click your state link to access your county/city group and team leader:

State:
Abbrev:
Links to Counties:
Alabama
AL
AL counties
Alaska
AK
AK counties
Arizona
AZ
AZ counties
Arkansas
AR
AR counties
California
CA
CA counties
Colorado
CO
CO counties
Connecticut
CT
CT counties
Delaware
DE
DE counties
Florida
FL
FL counties
Georgia
GA
GA counties
Hawaii
HI
HI counties
Idaho
ID
ID counties
Illinois
IL
IL counties
Indiana
IN
IN counties
Iowa
IA
IA counties
Kansas
KS
KS counties
Kentucky
KY
KY counties
Louisiana
LA
LA counties
Maine
ME
ME counties
Maryland
MD
MD counties
Massachusetts
MA
MA counties
Michigan
MI
MI counties
Minnesota
MN
MN counties
Mississippi
MS
MS counties
Missouri
MO
MO counties
Montana
MT
MT counties
Nebraska
NE
NE counties
Nevada
NV
NV counties
New Hampshire
NH
NH counties
New Jersey
NJ
NJ counties
New Mexico
NM
NM counties
New York
NY
NY counties
North Carolina
NC
NC counties
North Dakota
ND
ND counties
Ohio
OH
OH counties
Oklahoma
OK
OK counties
Oregon
OR
OR counties
Pennsylvania
PA
PA counties
Rhode Island
RI
RI counties
South Carolina
SC
SC counties
South Dakota
SD
SD counties
Tennessee
TN
TN counties
Texas
TX
TX counties
Utah
UT
UT counties
Vermont
VT
VT counties
Virginia
VA
VA counties
Washington
WA
WA counties
West Virginia
WV
WV counties
Wisconsin
WI
WI counties
Wyoming
WY
WY counties



__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #30 

I signed up some time ago and haven't heard squat from anyone on this. Why don't we just do our own case here in Iowa? Lord knows we have one of the bigger movements in the nation here.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #31 

We are working with leaders and lawyers nationwide on the Complaint.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #32 

I understand that, but they sure aren't moving very fast. Is that clock counting down the amout of time before they file these suits? What about counties that don't have the pre-requisite # of people? I haven't heard anything from our county leader. It sounds like a huge carrot that looks tempting, but isn't really attainable. Still, why couldn't we do something state wide here with our organization so that we are in control of it and call the shots? 


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

[i]I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be. [/b]
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #33 

Actually we are.  Once the Complaint is finalized, it will be modified so it is Iowa specific.  We are at a disadvantage because most states only have a 1/3 of the counties and are more populated.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!