Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

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

The following article was first published by LewRockwell.com and may be viewed by visiting http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville9.html.

 

Banned Near Boston
More chicanery from the underworld of family law.

by Stephen Baskerville
by Stephen Baskerville, PhD

Nearly ninety years ago, when divorce liberalization was being advocated by feminists, G.K. Chesterton warned in The Superstition of Divorce that undermining the family would imperil civic freedom.

His warning was vindicated recently when Massachusetts family court judge Mary Manzi outlawed a book that criticizes government officials. Manzi herself is sharply criticized in the book but obviously did not recuse herself from the proceeding.

On March 24, Kevin Thompson received an order prohibiting distribution of his book, Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts. The court also impounded the records of Thompson’s custody case, reinforcing the secrecy in which family courts like to operate.

The standard justification for secret courts is the one Judge Manzi now extends to censorship: "privacy interests of the parties' minor child." Thompson’s son has already been forcibly separated from his father, and his life is now under the total control of state officials. What "privacy" does this child have left? Thompson understands that the true reason for the secrecy and censorship is not to protect privacy but to invade it with impunity: "The only interests that are protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites who invade ‘family privacy’ by removing loving fathers from the lives of their children against their will and without just cause to fill their pockets."

Many people have trouble believing the harrowing tales of human rights abuses now taking place in American family courts and wonder why, if they are true, we do not hear more about it. Perhaps because in many jurisdictions it is a crime to criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law cases publicly. In other words, censorship works.

Thompson’s case is not isolated. Under the pretext of "family privacy," parents are gagged and arrested for criticizing the courts:

bullet Alice Tulanowksi of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was placed under a gag rule in 2000, though judges and the New Jersey Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts were left "free to discuss the intimate details of Alice’s case" in public.
bullet Stanley Rains of Victoria, Texas, in 2001 was gagged "from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions" about why he was cut off from his daughter for more than two years, according to court documents. The order covers private conversations and discussions with mental health professionals and his minister. Issued with no evidentiary hearing, the order followed an article Rains published in Fathering Magazine. He was also prohibited from criticizing a city council candidate who was a divorce lawyer. The order precluded Rains from photographing death threats written on his mother’s car.
bullet The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was arrested and jailed for talking to reporters about his divorce.
bullet A California judge shut down the web site of the Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Attorneys and Judges in 2001.
bullet In 2005, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott formally asked a federal court to punish Charles Edward Lincoln, for criticizing the state’s family courts. Abbott termed the criticism, which consisted in filing some court papers, "bloodless terrorism."

Outright censorship is only the start, since judges usually prefer more subtle methods for stopping the mouths of their critics. Thompson is also being forced to pay the attorneys who advocated the book ban. This practice has the marvelous double effect of providing booty for the judge’s cronies and justifying incarceration of critics who cannot pay the instant "debt." Following his criticism of the family courts in testimony to Congress, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children and ordered to pay $6,000 in fees of attorneys he had not hired. He was soon after arrested for nonpayment.

Censorship of speech and press is only the tip of the iceberg and serves to cloak even more serious constitutional and human rights violations. Writing in the Rutgers Law Review, David Heleniak recently revealed the "due process fiasco" of family law. Calling family courts "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice," Heleniak identifies six major denials of due process by which courts seize children and railroad innocent parents into jail: denial of trial by jury, denial of poor defendants to free counsel, denial of right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, lack of notice, and improper standard of proof. In family law, "the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant," according to a handbook for local officials published by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Dean Roscoe Pound writes that "the powers of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile court and courts of domestic relations."

In fact, even this only scratches the surface. One can run point-by-point down the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections, and there is hardly a clause that is not routinely ignored or violated in family law, where practices include mass incarcerations without trial, summary expropriations, presumption of guilt, coerced confessions, ex post facto provisions, bills of attainder, and more. Family courts and their hangers-on are by far the greatest violators of constitutional rights in America today.

Journalists of both the left and right studiously ignore these violations, as do "human rights" groups, even when shown undeniable evidence. It will be interesting to see if they can ignore censorship that touches their own profession.

For his part, Thompson says he intends to ignore the censorship. "Everything that I am doing right now is for my son," he declares. "I will not be shut up."

April 4, 2006

Stephen Baskerville [send him mail] is a political scientist and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views expressed are his own.

Copyright © 2006 Stephen Baskerville

 


__________________
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).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #2 

As I am using the internet in a nearby Arabic country (I am on vacation from Iraq) I decided to test their censorship - since I am a Born Again Christian and I'd heard Jesus was very taboo here.  Unfortunately, there is not much you can read about Him that is positive so I doubt Arab's can have a balanced view of Jesus.  The internet blocks everything good about Jesus and lists another version alien to Christians.  Now that is some serious censorship! 

 

Most of the world heavily censors what they don't want their people to know about.  America's strength has always been the freedom of religion, expression and the press with our incredible First Amendment rights.  U.S. Judges are on a slippery slope when they stop us from expressing what they have done in public.  Do we want to stifle freedom in this country?  Democracy only works when you let the views of people you may not agree with to still express themselves appropriately.  Injunctions against free speech are always contrary to Democracy and usually backfire. 

 

Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #3 

I third the motion...


__________________
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
Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #4 

It's time for a new "decision maker-decider", a grown-up in the White House. One who will return it to the families, children and grandchildren of America.

 

Anyone recall what it was nick named? The Peoples House.

 

Dr. Mark Klein has the wisdom, the intelligence and the background to usher in a new era. We can make it happen.


__________________
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
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!