Judicial Abuse

 

 

Judicial Abuse [from web archive]

Introduction

Judicial abuse occurs when the effects of law itself are damaging to the person access to justice. In the most severe forms, Judicial abuse often occurs involving the most vulnerable members of our world: Children. For some time, judicial abuse has occurred across systems and mostly against mothers and children. Considering that it was not that long ago that both women and children were seen and not heard, just as things were improving it seemed as though humanity was finally valuing each and every precious human life. Out in the public, such things would and do cause enough outrage for a sense of "natural justice". Away from the public eye, these human rights atrocities occur almost unseen and unheard like a thief in the night.

Secrecy

There are laws that prevent survivors from speaking out about their experiences. Whilst it is "for the children", children are not allowed to speak about the proceedings either. The media have written too few articles on the family court. To bring the case to the media, participants must seek permission from the court itself or face imprisonment. Controversially, fathers rights groups were allowed to heavily voice their stories of "no contact", "falsely accused of child abuse and domestic violence" and few were allowed to challenge that except in utilizing generalist terms and evidence based research. We are aware that most of these stories are not the case at all but are withheld by law to bring the public the truth.

Family Court

In the process of seeking more time with children and promoting what appears to be the most noble cause, has entrenched the rights of mothers and children in their ability to seek safety from violence. Heads have been quoted in the media for stating that "family violence is our core business". The propaganda that is spread about the voices of children and their access to justice promotes the profitability in manufacturing child abuse and domestic violence. They can do something about it, but it is not within their best economical advantage to do so. This will continue until something is done

Kansas Mother Karen Williams Fight for Daughter Could Change Case Managers and other ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ Laws in Kansas

Therapeutic Jurisprudence - 3rd party ‘Access to Justice’ deniers - Fathers Rights, SHARIA style to take his property.

Another Great Exposure Report on the Injustices of Mothers via Court Appointed Case Managers, parenting coordinators, Custody Evaluators et el.

"Supervised visitation also is used as a first step toward a custody switch away from protective mothers to abusive fathers.''

Fight for Daughter Could Change Law in Kansas

Tess Koppelman 

Topeka, Kan. — A mother said her daughter was taken away from her and she’s never been allowed her day in court to fight for her child. The woman’s story has now inspired lawmakers to look into what they can do to change the system.

Karen Williams  went to the Kansas Appellate Court arguing that her constitutional rights were violated when a Douglas County judge removed her daughter from her custody all based on the word of a court appointed case manager. The case manager suggested to the judge that there was “probable abuse.” Continue Reading

“Kansas Representative Joe Patton (R-Topeka) wants to change the law to require educational standards for case managers…..”

Joe Patton, “Shame on you”. You are an attorney for goodness sake. LAW, FACT, COURT – What part is not clear about this? FACTs only NOT ideas or the ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence’s’ - OPINION, Theory, Personal Belief System, Societal Culture, ‘Philosophy’ - an ‘Idea’ -a-could-be-might-be 16^th century witch DoktoR – voo-doo-thinking ‘get a stick and beat it to death’ mentality, who have created for their selves, HIGH Paying Jobs Where NONE should exist to begin with. None.

The "Trial Within a Trial" Court-Appointed, Case Managers, Custody Evaluators et el. Waste Judicial Resources and Parents' Funds

The primary reason psychologists and other mental health professionals should be banned from the family court systems, except to answer limited and narrowly-defined questions actually within their expertise, is that their presence does not add value, but rather, wastes court, lawyer, and litigant time, money and resources. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/TheDetectives.html

Parenting Evaluation, Parenting Plans...
Reevaluating the Evaluators: “Rethinking the Assumptions of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Family Courts” http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

A call for a revolt altogether against the notion of "therapeutic jurisprudence" -- which has been proved to do little to benefit children, much to benefit the divorce industry, much to complicate and pervert our family laws, much to erode fundamental rights and liberties, and much to harm the families who become trapped in the system. There are many problems, of course. But they are symptoms. Step one is to get the agent of most of them out of our family courts. The Emperor has no clothes.

Lawyer Conflict: MHP’s and “therapeutic jurisprudence” ultimately must be – and will be – taken out of the family courts.

Lawyers' unacknowledged conflicts are destroying the quality of family law representation. One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems into the courts is the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the multiple ways this happens in the family courts is through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referral. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/child-custody-evaluations.html

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CASE MANAGERS, CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

DOJ Study: Child Custody Evaluators' Beliefs About Domestic Abuse Allegations- Their Relationship to Evaluator Demographics, Background, Domestic Violence - Knowledge and Custody-Visitation Recommendations Final Technical Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice

Parenting Coordination, a bad idea

• Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
• Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
• Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
• Parenting coordination violates privacy
• The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
• Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
• Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
• No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
• No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families' lives or child wellbeing.
• Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
• Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
• Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
• Nothing qualifies any third party to "fill in the gaps" in someone else's contract
• There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
• Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
• It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
• Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
• Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
• Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other's funds
• Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
• Parenting coordination is not confidential
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
• Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
• Parenting coordination can never be "voluntary" because it implements unwanted court orders
• Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign "consents" that give up constitutional rights
• Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
• They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
• They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
• Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
• Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
• Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state's police power
• Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
• They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of "focus on the children"
• They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
• They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
• Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
• Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
• Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
• They alone decide if a parent is "cooperating" with them
• They are given unwarranted authority to impose or recommend sanctions against parents
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with extended family, friends, and collaterals
• They are given unwarranted authority to speak with children, teachers, and school officials
• They are given authority to demand private medical and therapy records
• They are able continuously to undermine the credibility and competence of parents to third parties
• They are able continuously to divulge private family issues to third parties
• They are given authority to demand meetings, and meeting times and places
• There are no studies of parenting coordination methods or techniques
• There is no research into parenting coordinators' efficacy, and there cannot be
• Decisions are based on the parenting coordinator's private agendas, values, and beliefs
• Most parenting coordinators lack psychological insight
• Parenting coordination is not "co-parenting therapy" which rarely works anyway
• Mental health professionals are ignorant of the repercussions in law of their ideas
• There is no valid "training" because there is no body of knowledge to base training on
• Decisions are made without actual knowledge of people's households and daily lives
• Parenting coordination provides a forum for the arguing of minutiae, not just major decisions
• Parenting coordinators frequently make bad decisions
• The parenting coordinator has absolutely no incentive to work himself or herself out of a job
• Parenting coordinators tend to be individuals who can't make a go of practicing their profession
• Many have axes to grind; others need to re-live and normalize their own family-of-origin issues
• Parenting coordination is unregulated and practicably unable to be regulated
• There is no effective oversight, and there cannot be
• There is no recourse against the parenting coordinator for malfeasance or malpractice
• Parenting coordinators have control to self-generate their work and churn fees
• The claim of parenting coordinators that they sought this role in order to "help" people is specious
• Parenting coordination proceedings are informal, outside court, and not subject to effective oversight
• Parenting coordinators can report conversations and events differently from how they really happened
• Parenting coordinators can cover themselves by blaming parents for the failure of the venture
• Parenting coordinators can and do give parents make-work at whim
• Parenting coordinators may not have any personal parenting experience
• Parenting coordinators may not have experience being primary caregivers, or as single parents
• Many of those drawn to the field are by nature meddlers, incompetents, or petty tyrants
• Parenting coordination is dangerous, founded on erroneous beliefs about "high conflict"
• Parenting coordination is a tool to force fit parents and children to invest in abusers' rehabilitation
• "High conflict" means "abusive relationship", not "difficult learning situation"
• "High conflict" means "threats to security and well-being", not "lack of communication skills"
• Fears and concerns are real, not irrational, vindictive, or merely personality disordered
• "High conflict" means that the "parenting plan" is inappropriate, unjust, unhealthy, or unsafe, and
• there is no "adjustment period" to get through or equal "co-parenting relationship" to regain
• Parenting coordinators have missed domestic violence
• Parenting coordinators have inflamed emotions and exacerbated legal issues
• Parenting coordinators have assumed facts that are not true
• · Parenting coordinators have perceived emergencies or situations incorrectly
• Parenting coordinators have mischaracterized events
• Parenting coordinators have made egregious judgmental mistakes
• Parenting coordinators have lied outright
• There is no basis to presume their "good faith" or their "neutrality"
• There are no ethical guidelines that practicably can be enforced
• There are, and can be, no enforceable practice parameters, only vague aspirational generalities
• Parenting coordinators will be biased because of the nature of human relationships and the role
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has more credibility than either parent
• Court oversight is illusory because the parenting coordinator has the ear of the judge, and
• because the parenting coordinator has relationships with supportive guardians ad litem, and
• because the parenting coordinator has other courthouse referral relationships who will back him or her
• Court oversight is illusory because it's easy to claim a parent is uncooperative or lying
• Court oversight is illusory because it's expensive
• or there is not enough time to get a hearing
• or the party doesn't have a lawyer post-decree, and
• because the judge who appointed the parenting coordinator did so because he didn't want to hear it
• Most of all, parenting coordination is proof that joint custody does not work

Therapeutic Jurisprudence – Child Trafficking via family Courts. It’s monetary. It's all about their money and the "gravy train" ride. THEY MUST BE ELIMINATED FROM ALL FAMILY COURTS!!

You cannot ‘PREDICT’ or see in any “Crystal Ball”. It is not FACT and these Case Managers, Guardian Ad Litem’s, Parenting Coordinators, Co-parenting, Shared Parenting, SUPERVISED VISITATION and ACCESS VISITATION Centers should have NEVER been allowed into the Kansas Courts to begin with! It is all Therapeutic Jurisprudence that denies ‘Access to Justice’. It does not matter, in fact will only ‘entrench’ these NON Fact – Pseudo Science, self serving Profiteers with ‘god’ like authority if you Give them a simple pedigree in B.S. crystal ball reading experts forced, CAPTIVE litigants to hire by the Court of Law and Fact. You still have the same thing as you do with a non licensed A$$hole. Oxymoron. Allow the Judge to ‘Judge’ not anyone else. If these people want to ‘judge’ rule and play god in an already EGO ruled Entitlement Family Court then let them become ‘Judges’.

Opinions only - None are based in any FACT—A Court of Law, must be FACT. The difference between non licensed and licensed ‘carnival crystal ball reading – theory, assumption, future predicting based on their own personal beliefs’ is the PRICE they charge.

The Amicus Brief by the one Dr. Milfred 'Bud' Dale Amicus Brief - Karen Williams- Case Managers Kansas – EXPERT of the experts for hire by the experts- forensic PROFESSIONAL expert - in the end is still just ‘one man’s personal opinions’, self interest, extremely profitable and continuing expenses for his ‘captive’ clients. This completely denies the Constitutional Right to a Court of Law governed by FACT.

(I know this first hand) 

(KS) Dr. Dale and Pedophile Dr. Gardner: Similarities Engaged

A Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

Courtesy www.TheLizLibrary.org

Topeka Kansas Evaluation: Teaching the mother to NOT REPORT sexual or physical Abuse: As Ordered by the Courts;

by Dr. Milford “Bud” Dale.

then see below same? hmm……

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/RAG.html

Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner’s Opinions

on Pedophilia and Child Sexual Abuse

Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is the creator of the creator and main proponent for Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory. Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He made his money mainly as a forensic expert.

Get rid of them. The best interest of the child is to remain with their primary attachment figure (usually their mothers) stop ripping the hearts and the lives out of these mothers and her children, by the highly profitable lucrative ‘industry’ of Case managers, Guardian Ad Litems, et other 3^rd party ‘Justice’ interferers. S

Sharia Law In Kansas Courts : Ronald W Nelson ‏ @KansasDivorce An Overland Park Fathers Rights Attorney PRO Sharia Law In Kansas Courts - OPPRE$$ion of Women for Profit – *** KER - CHING$

Ronald W Nelson ‏ @KansasDivorce #KSLegislature: Rep. Mast Makes Pitch for Anti-Sharia Law, Wading Into Pending Divorce Trying To Make Her Point http://bit.ly/Jfz5rR

From Kansas to Gaza—this is NOT His first ride on Sharia – From Overland Park to the Middle East

Claudine Dombrowski ‏ @AngelFury @KansasDivorce U R a misogynist pig that love$ keeping women oppreSSed Fuck you! Good for MAST NO Sharia LAW NOT in KS Divorce Courts!!

 

10 American Families and Shariah Law

American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.

This post is a shout out to the following Court Whores ( Money Making Profiteers ) and Senate Paid Bribed Co-Conspirators  who dare to even think that Sharia law should eve be considered an option in US courts and in Kansas Courts. 

Naming Names

• Ron Nelson
• Guardian ad litem  aka (Court Appointed Child Abuser) Leah Gagne
• Kansas Fatherhood Initiatives  aka “DADDY WELFARE” (and the above sucking the gov teet)
• The Guardian Ad Litem Scandals
• Human Rights Violations
• KS Senators Jean Schodorf, Jeff King, David Haley, Tim Owen http://t.co/IKO0SoTC

Its monetary- it’s ALL about the Money. Always….

   

KSLEG KS last-ditch effort 4 Senate vote on a bill to keep foreign laws out of Kansas courts. (cont) http://tl.gd/hc8h5e Kansas bill titled “Concerning the protection of rights granted under the Constitution" which prohibits courts... fb.me/1filrq2qk Pro-Sharia Islamic forces are rallying against Kansas legislation which would prohibit courts from allowing Sharia law. http://t.co/wX6BP9Wt Ten American Families and Shariah in American State Courts THEY ALL DENY MOTHER CUSTODY OF HER CHILDREN http://t.co/G35g7pAi OF COURSE ALL MOTHERS LOST THEIR CHILDREN---- sound familiar... too familiar? http://t.co/G35g7pAi KS Senators Who WANT Sharia in Our Courts WTF?? Jean Schodorf, Jeff King, David Haley, Tim Owen http://t.co/IKO0SoTC #PullHeadOfFuckingAss

Mast makes last pitch for Kansas Sharia Law Bill

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL
Photo Topeka Capital Journal
In a last-ditch effort to get a Senate vote on a bill to keep foreign laws out of Kansas courts, Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, staged a news conference this week to draw attention to a Wichita divorce in which she said the husband is requesting the court apply Islamic law, or sharia.

Mast planned to have a representative for the wife in the case at the event, but the representative decided against appearing at the last minute on the advice of the wife's attorney, because the case is still pending.

Mast plowed ahead with the event, telling a crowd of about 30 people who gathered Wednesday in the Statehouse's Old Supreme Courtroom that "there's been a lot of people feeling like we need to protect our Constitution and protect the freedoms we have."

The Wichita case involves Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor. According to a brief filed by his wife's attorney, Hamdeh had two previous marriages in which he brought women from the Middle East to the United States and subsequently divorced  them and was awarded "what appears to be substantially all of the property and custody of the minor children."


Hamdeh's attorney, John Lehecka, said he couldn't comment on the pending case except to say that Mast appeared to have only heard one side.

"The court has heard both sides and the court’s going to make an appropriate decision based on the evidence and testimony the court has heard," he added.

The brief states Hamdeh met and married his current wife, Hala Hamdeh, in Lebanon in 2003 when he was 50 and she was 31. He brought her to the United States the same year and since then she has been a homemaker and mother to their daughter, Tala, and her step-son, Ahmad. Hala Hamdeh, the brief states, has no post-secondary education and is not fluent in English.

Hussein Hamdeh filed for divorce in November 2010. A point of contention in the case appears to be whether his promise of a $5,000 marriage gift, or Sadaq, is sufficient to settle his wife's side of the divorce financially, per his understanding of Lebanese religious laws and a "prenuptial" agreement, in English, that he had her sign in Wichita after their marriage. In the brief Hala Hamdeh's attorney argues that applying Islamic law to interpret whether there is a valid prenuptial agreement would violate her constitutional rights.


The brief states that in similar cases in New York and California, courts ruled that state divorce laws apply.
Ron Nelson, a family law attorney in Lenexa, said even under Islamic law the Sadaq, or dower, does not fulfill a husband's financial obligations to his wife in a divorce. He surmised that it may have entered the Hamdeh proceedings more as a negotiating tactic than a religious argument. (of course it did you likely suggested it—From Kansas to Gaza)


"The husband's claims that dower should satisfy his marital obligation are simply his positioning — much the same as nearly every other person who is going through a divorce and makes a goodly sum of money tries to do," Nelson said. "But that's not a sharia question. (oh but it is which is why you  so want sharia to increase your own finances- this way you can fuck EVERY mother in family court after all daddy is the Big financial pay off—protecting your own Job Security as the scum of the lawyers ) And it's certainly not a position limited to men with Islamic beliefs or a Middle East background.

What it comes down to is that in any divorce pending in Kansas, the courts apply Kansas divorce and property division law and Kansas law on the support of spouses and children."

The judge has not made a ruling in the case, but Mast still said she's concerned about the use of "foreign law entered as evidence in the Kansas court system." (even when not stated as such women have fallen to the Courts Heavy hand of misogyny, cronyism and money making by oppressing women and TAKING her children from her.)


Nelson said whatever Mast's intentions, it's unwise for a legislator to wade into divorce proceedings that are two years in the making and still undecided. ( That’s because this fuck is a mega money player in the Kansas fathers Rights to ABUSE OPPRESS MAIME TORTURE and KILL. 
The KS Legislature creates laws  not to deny them – Have ever heard of the Constitution? or did you miss that in lawyer 101 school? apparently… anything to See your name huh? well google your name now)


"This case has over 43 pages of docket," he said. "It's obviously a complex and rancorous case." (hmmmm must be some shit serious abuse going on as is ALWAYS the case in ALL so called “High Conflict Case” *ker* ching-


In a media release, Mast suggested that Hala Hamdeh's rights to custody of her daughter are also under threat because of sharia, but the guardian ad litem (better know nas  Court Appointed Child Abusers—also very much a part of the of Color of law to deny Civil Rights –several in collusion-  *Ker ching$   appointed by the court to look after Tala's best interests, Leah Gagne, said religion has not been a factor. (religion? come the fuck on religion? ha Just another easy word for your  bias and cover so you can keep making the mula)


“All cases that involve extensive and heavy litigation take their toll on kids," Gagne said. (get rid of Therapeutic Jurisprudence bitches like you that MAKE IT HEAVY LITIGATION – oh wait then you'd have to work for a living- loose that easy blood money) 


"This is no different than two Protestants fighting over a child, two Catholics fighting over a child, two atheists fighting over a child.” ( You Dumb fucking Bitch its not religion but hey what ever it takes to make your $$$)


Mast told the crowd that gathered for her media event that she's most concerned about the rights of women and children in Kansas being abridged or violated by Islamic law. She said she's been working on the foreign law bill for two years, bringing in speakers like an ex-terrorist and a former Delta Force special operations soldier.

"If the bill does not pass this year, it's going to be hard to gin up enough energy for the next two years," she said, referring to the next election cycle.