Exposing Family Court Judges’ Abuse of Power Exercised With No Accountability, Responsibility or Morality, Obtaining Redress for Victims, and Compelling Reform
My story documents family court judges’ abuse of power and blowing the whistle on the connivance between power and politics. Macomb County Circuit Court, Family Court entered three non-consented to “settlement agreements” (judgments) and illegally subjected me to parental alienation, unjust/inappropriate child support enforcement, bench warrants (no bond), the loss of my home and all contents, professional licenses, retirement accounts by an attorney malpractice trial, and life savings for parental rights. These non-consented to “settlement agreements” should be void ab initio. Michigan Democratic State Representative Stone read my book and responded November 19, 2019: “With that all said, it is still well documented that either recourse is an uphill, and sometimes impossible, battle for a person when looking for judicial recourse and is in need of reform.” (FACTS #1-6): EXTRINSIC FRAUD
FACT #1: NO CLIENT CONSENT OR MODIFICATION TO AN ORIGINAL OR TWO AMENDMENTS of “CONSENT JUDGMENT of ANNULMENT”
Macomb County Circuit Court, (Judge #1)Judge Servito, Court Docket Falsification:
- August 19, 1997: Consent Judgment of Annulment
- September 2, 1997: Amended Consent Judgment of Annulment
- September 8, 1997: Second Amended Consent Judgment of Annulment
May 11, 1999: Macomb County Circuit Court, (Judge #2) Chief Judge Maceroni:
- MACERONI: Consent judgment of annulment, what is your issue regarding it?
- CHRISTINE: The validity of it. I never consented or signed that, and neither did my attorney.
- MACERONI: Your attorney did.
- CHRISTINE: He said to form only, not content (rights).
- MACERONI: Ms. Morrison, you are objecting to items that have been entered almost two years ago, and that’s entitled to consent Judgment of Annulment.
- CHRISTINE: Not without a signature.
- MACERONI: That was approved as to form only (not the content of rights), and as far as Mr. Aiello was concerned and signed by Mr. Perakis, and if there was any problem with that, it should have been appealed a long time ago.
- CHRISTINE: I never consented.
October 12, 2000: Chief Judge Maceroni, Michigan Macomb County Circuit Court: Motion to Conform the Judgment of Divorce to the Consent Agreement Placed on the Court Record June 3, 1997 (taken under advisement 10/30/00).
August 20, 2001: (Judge #4)Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, lawyer malpractice proceedings of Aiello, Mr. Henry representing me, and Aiello’s own attorney, Mr. Geyer:
- GEYER: Your Honor, for the purpose of speeding things up, I’ll stipulate that the clients did not sign either amendment.
- COURT: Okay.
- HENRY: Or the original.
- GEYER: Or the original.
- HENRY: Thank you, I’ll accept the stipulation, then.
August 20, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, cross examinations by Mr. McKinney representing Christine, and Aiello attorney, Mr. Geyer:
- McKINNEY: Do you recall whether Ms. Morrison was in court with you August 19?
- AIELLO: I can’t remember.
- McKINNEY: Is this your signature on that document?AIELLO: Yes.
- McKINNEY: So, you approved that judgment?
- AIELLO: I can’t remember.
- McKINNEY: You don’t remember?
- AIELLO: Whatever a judge says, you do. If the judge says go sign it; sign it. If the judge says don’t sign it; don’t sign it. You know that. I do what the judge tells me to do.
October 3, 2019: Michigan Supreme Court Oral Argument: https://lexforipllc.com/recent-events/ Foster v. Foster: Chief Justice McCormack: Normally, we do not permit collateral attack on a underlying judgment.
As, Cole Stuart J.D. was – a parent, lawyer, legal activist, former partner at a large international law firm, and a tireless family court reformer stated, it’s time to recognize Family Court for what it is—a corporate crime ring raiding parents and children of financial and psychological well-being, and devouring our children’s futures. Adkins Case #15-754: “This unconstitutional parental intrusion by Family Courts in this country is (has) causing financial ruin and emotional distress for “post-judgment” parents and children that ultimately have a negative effect on the government fiscal (FACT #2 TITLE IV-D) and administrative interest. The problem is that the U.S. Family Court system can act as a black hole where the presumption of innocence is a fairy tale, make-believe laws rule the land and successful appeals are a unicorn, creating a safe haven for “unfriendly” parents and Family Court dictators to reap material wealth and any unfortunate family that enters its boundaries risks finding themselves at a point of no return until the children age out of the system.” In addition, Kirby v Mich High Sch Athletic Ass’n, 459 Mich 23, 40; 585 NW2d 290 (1998) (noting that “[a] party must obey an order entered by a court with proper jurisdiction, even if the order is clearly incorrect, or the party must face the risk of being held in contempt”)—–that includes losing your life (suicides/bench warrant- Walter Scott), liberties and property, ILLEGALLY (FACTS 2-6). It is time to hold these public servants accountable for widespread fraud and liable to their victims.
by Christine Morrison Facts#2-6
Family Court is not about the best interest of the child, it is about the state’s treasury and maximizing federal child support incentives, under Title IV-D. Michigan and “other states are obtaining federal funding for its child support enforcement agency/program under false claims of compliance with federal civil rights laws and the United States Constitution (due process and equal protection). Defrauding American taxpayers (p.8-10): http://www.gndzerosrv.com/Web%20Pages/cummings.htm. Divorced parents are a targeted “debt ower” group being denied basic Constitutional and human rights by being subjected to draconian, tyrannical state procedures depriving them of their substantive and procedural due process rights, as well as equal protection under the law. In South Carolina, Walter Scott was shot dead for fleeing a child support warrant. The State made me a fugitive by the issuance of 4 bench warrants. Senator Nancy Schafer stated, “Child support is a crime against humanity for financial gain, rights removed from parents as human rights, civil rights, and even religious rights.” As, Michigan’s total collections received FY 2018 = $1,380,738,611 (Table P-29 p.35). Michigan reported $24,919,164 in undistributed child support collected and received $25,800,000 in estimated incentive payments from the federal government. For every $1 spent on the child support program, the state collected $6.37 in return.( p.37/38/89/115/127 p.11 Table P-5 Cumulative Collections 1976-2018 @ https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/fy-2018-preliminary-data-report .
FACT #2: MICHIGAN OBTAINED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY UNDER FALSE CLAIMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS
LAW: PROHIBITION OF RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION OF CHILD SUPPORT OCSE: CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SECTION 9103 OF PUBLIC LAW 99-509
November 18, 2008: Macomb County Circuit Court, (Judge #3) Judge Yokich, Attorney O’Brien (Perakis wife):
- Judgment Regarding Retroactive Child Support, Attorney Award Fees, Setting Show Cause and Related Matters: Child Support and Statutory/Fees: For the time period commencing January 1, 2005, and continuing through May 2008, (Christine) owes (Hannaford) child support in the amount of $33,764.70. However, Defendant (Christine) is entitled to the credit of $9,906.95 existing pursuant to Friend of the Court records on November 18, 2008, plus an additional credit of $153.00. Therefore, the Friend of the Court records shall be adjusted effective as of November 18, 2008, to reflect a child support arrearage owing by Defendant of $23,704.75 with the statutory surcharges to be calculated retroactively to November 16, 2007. Defendant shall pay the total arrearage to Plaintiff on or before December 18, 2008, which is 30 days from this court’s ruling on November 18, 2008. Statutory surcharges and monthly fees of $3.80 shall continue to accrue as provided by law until the arrearage is paid in full.
- Attorney Fees: Awarded attorney fees, $12,188.97. Christine shall pay such amount in full no later than January 2, 2009, which is 45 days from the date of hearing in this matter.
- Date for Show Cause: In the event (Christine) has failed to pay the full amount of retroactive child support award in the amount of $33,764.70 then (she) shall appear on January 6, 2009, before this court at 1:30 p.m. to show cause why she should not be held in contempt and subjected to the penalties set forth in MCL 552.635(2), including why this court should not suspend her occupational license’s in the State of Michigan and pursue such suspensions in other jurisdictions, as permitted by law.
January 12, 2009: FULL CASH BOND $46,577.74
January 14, 2009: Judge Yokich Court Orders:
- Bench warrant;
- Retroactive child support award of $33,764.70;
- Attorney fee award, $12,188.97 (illegal compensation?);
- Denial of cash appeal stay bond
February 10, 2009: Michigan Supreme Court Appeal (#138219):
- The Trial court committed reversible error when it applied the retroactivity of imputed income and child support owing to the Defendant (Christine) prior to the date on which Plaintiff (Hannaford) first filed his petition for an increase in child support, (which was) November 16, 2007.
- The court reviews questions of statutory construction de novo, Perry v. Galling Chrysler Plymouth Jeep, Inc. At issue is MCL 552.603(2), which provides in pertinent part that “retroactive modification of a support payment due under a support order is permissible with respect to a period during which there is pending a petition for modification, but only from the date that notice of the petition was given to the payer or recipient of support.”
- Interpretation of this portion of the statute is at the heart of the Malone v. Malone appellate decision, (in which the court) ratified the prior decision of Waple v. Waple, 179 Mich App 673,675–677; 446 NW2 536 (1989), wherein it stated “by the critical terms of this statute, retroactive modification of support for periods prior to the [November 16, 2007], date of notice of the petition is prohibited.” Malone v. Malone is the Michigan Court of Appeals’ clear and definitive statement on the statutory construction of the retroactivity of a petition for change in child support; that Court was clear in its holding that “MCL 552.603(2) allows for the retroactive modification of child support from the date that notice was given to the recipient of the support payments of the petition to modify support.”
March 13, 2009: Michigan Supreme Court Appeal #138219- Denied. Judge Yokich Order:
- Releasing/forfeiting appeal bond of $25,485.68 (included child support, statutory fees);
- Attorney award fees, $12,188.97;
- Setting aside bench warrant (1-14-09);
- All other provisions of the 1-14-09 order shall remain in full force and effect.
March/2009: Experian Credit Report: The State of Michigan’s Office of Child Support reported a negative child support balance owing of $25,485.00. The court docket record confirms a cash bond was posted for $46,577.74 on January 12, 2009.
FACT: (JUDGE #2) RELIANCE UPON KNOWN FALSE FINANCIAL TESTIMONY:
July 20, 1998: Macomb County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Maceroni, Court Transcript:
- CM/ATTORNEY: She has the burden of proving that he is underrepresenting his income. She’s trying to meet that burden. She, you know, she has to pay support. That’s fine, she’s paying it, but let’s be upfront about what his financial. [. . .] With regards to his weekly income, it says it’s $500.00. First, as the Court is aware, there are a lot of arguments regarding what Mr. Hannaford’s income is.
- JUDGE MACERONI: Just tell me, what is his income?
- PERAKIS: She just said it’s $540.00 a week, it’s $770 a week, which the Friend of the Court has already determined to be his net income.[. . .] however, I believe my client (Hannaford) is not alleging a proper income.
January 25, 1999: Judge Maceroni Court Transcript:
- MACERONI: Ms. Morrison, I will assess actual court costs, I will assess Mr. Perakis’s attorney fees against you, and I may assess some costs to Mr. Hannaford in the event he’s out of work. And if you don’t pay those costs, I’ll hold you in contempt of Court and you will spend some time in Sheriff Hackel’s jail. Those are the ground rules. You go back with Mr. Perakis now if you want to get a date for an evidentiary hearing (financial discovery/Hannaford).
August 21, 2001, Oakland County Circuit Court, Attorney Malpractice Trial, Exhibit Z: (Suppression of material evidence): Analysis by John Dery, CPA, CFE, CIRA, an accounting firm specializing in litigation and forensic accounting shows the adjusted gross receipts from Hannaford’s corporate federal tax returns. The business analysis and financial summary for the base years of 1994–1997 showed a net profit of $2,023,999. (book p. 34)
I had two trial witnesses, many trial exhibits and much testimony on this subject, including my expert financial reconstructionist/certified public accountant, John Dery testified as to the actual amount of income Hannaford made during the time of 1994–1997, which was more than $2,000,000 for the four years, which was far more than the mere $17,500 per year in 1994 that he under-reported to the Macomb County Friend of the Court (Trial Exh. X), or the $42,000 he told the IRS for that same 1994 year (Trial Exh.Y) which was part of the reason I who became disabled (12/98) and was not working at all at the time, was ordered to pay a grossly inappropriate and egregious amount in child support ($275 week).
FACT: MICHIGAN’S APPLICATION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT FORMULA IS UNJUST/INAPPROPRIATE. CHILD SUPPORT LAWS ARE TO APPLY EQUALLY IN ORDER TO PASS EQUAL PROTECTION:
APRIL 15, 1992: My filing with the Friend of the Court, “Complaint about Child Support and Restitution” (against Hannaford): Macomb County Friend of the Court awarded Christine during a brief separation, $58 per week in child support. August 24, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, Lawyer Malpractice Trial (Aiello):
- HENRY: I am handing you what is marked as proposed Exhibit KK (1993: 1120 U.S. Corporate Short-Form Income Tax Return $253,725), and ask if you can identify this document, yes or no.
- HANNAFORD: 1993? I thought this was limited.
- HENRY: It’s not.
FACT #3: (JUDGE #2) EX-PARTE SEIZURE OF HOME AND ALL CONTENTS: July 30, 1999: Ex-parte Petition/Order to Show Cause order on a non-party, no advanced notice of a motion for real (condominium) and personal property lien on (condominium) my property resulting in two court orders within 24 hours of each other, on September 1 and 2, 1999 (taken under advisement 11-8-99):
Chief Judge Maceroni, Macomb County Circuit Court, Court Orders:
- 9/1/99: Seizure, sealing and immediate possession of my home (condominium);
- 9/2/99: Lien on the title of my condominium (cloud on the title for three years);
- 9/23/99: Ex-parte motion requesting a court order to sell my home.
September 22, 1999, Mr. McKinney (my attorney) filed a Motion for Abatement of Child Support Order (disabled 12/98), Rehearing of Orders dated September 1 and 2 in 1999:
- The Defendant has learned that on or about September 1, 1999, that this Court entered a Judgment against Defendant without notice or an opportunity to defend in violation of her Constitutional Rights to due process of law. By a hearing on September 1, 1999, the Court further ordered the seizure of assets exceeding $100,000.00 by Plaintiff, again without notice to Defendant or opportunity to defend in violation of her Constitutional Rights to due process of law, which had the effect of excluding her from her home. Further, the Order of Lien Dated September 2, 1999, incorrectly states that Notice of Hearing has been served on both parties, when in fact (Christine) received no notice, and no proof of service is contained in this Court’s file. That the Orders entered allowing a lien, seizure, and inventory are beyond the Court’s authority and was excessive in the scope and amount of property seized and placed (Christine’s) assets at risk without an appropriate bond or other protections.
- That on September 22, 1999, (Christine) has paid, with borrowed funds, to the Macomb County Friend of the Court, under protest and with full preservation of her appellate rights $25,846, which represented the full amount owed under the Judgment dated September 1,1999 and included all arrearage plus two weeks of child support and all administrative Friend of the Court fees. That, as a result of these actions, (Christine) has a paid the Friend of the Court account through October 11, 1999.
- This Court’s blatant violation of the Court Rules and Ms. Morrison’s constitutional rights with its Court Orders of September 1, 1999, and execution thereon by its Order of September 2, 1999, and the Court’s impending hearing of a Motion for sale of her home, scheduled for September 23, 1999, but not served (to Christine) as of this date, September 22, 1999, establishes that this Court is biased against Christine Morrison and cannot act impartially toward her, according to MCR 2.003(A) and (8)(1).
- WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court will grant her an immediate abatement against the Court’s Ordered Child support; and FURTHER WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that this Court will grant her an immediate stay of its Order of July 14, 1999 (no bond bench warrant), for Defendant cannot be found in contempt of the Court’s Child Support Order when she has been unable to work since December 10, 1998, and this Court’s further preventing her access to her property by this Court’s Order dated September 1, 1999, and any use of her equity in that property, and by virtue of a payment in full of all currently stated arrearages and Court ordered costs.
- FURTHER WHEREFORE, this Court abate the Child Support Order retroactive to December 10th, 1998, the date the injury was sustained and not allow interest on any arrearage.
- FURTHER WHEREFORE, this Court allow the Defendant access to the real property located in the city of Fraser, Michigan, and her personal property.
- FURTHER WHEREFORE, this Court allow a rehearing as to the Judgment Dated September 1, 1999, the Lien Order dated September 2, 1999, and the Order allowing inventory of personal property, sealing of real property, and notice dated September 1, 1999, and in fact set aside said orders for lack of notice to Defendant and mootness since all monies contained in the Judgment and Lien have been paid to the Macomb County Friend of the Court, plus expenses (Perakis attorney award fees ) incurred by Ms. Morrison approaching $2,500.
- FURTHER WHEREFORE, this Court Judge will disqualify himself from all further actions in this case, forthwith, and the case shall be reassigned by blind draw reassignment by the Clerk’s office.
October 11, 1999, Attorney Perakis sent a letter to my attorney, Mr. McKinney which stated:
- My client cannot consent to an Order Returning the Condominium keys to Ms. Morrison (no money owing).
November 8, 1999, my Attorney McKinney filed a Motion for rehearing on Orders dated September 1 and 2, 1999. The Court record shows admitted judicial bias and full monetary satisfaction of September 1 and 2, 1999 court orders, but Chief Judge Maceroni rules “motion taken under advisement”:
- McKINNEY: I have several motions up today, your Honor. I believe the first one we should address is the motion to disqualify this Court from continuing to have jurisdiction over this case. I have submitted a memorandum of the actions taken by this Court that I believe demonstrate the bias and prejudice of this Court.
- I think the first issue is on July 14th, 1999, when this Court issued a civil bench warrant (no bond) for contempt, alleging (Christine) had failed to appear on an order to show cause because hearing scheduled for that date. The problem with that is, your Honor, that a review of the transcripts indicates at that time the attorney representing Ms. Morrison was requesting an evidentiary hearing on her ability to pay. As such, the Court should have granted an evidentiary hearing on that matter and set the matter for hearing.
- However, the Court indicated that it was going to rule on that, that issue and at that time coming back in the afternoon; the defendant refused to return. It is my contention that the failure to give an evidentiary hearing was evidence of the bias, the fact that you were already going to rule on the motion before allowing an evidentiary hearing on her ability to work showed bias and prejudice by the Court.
- Additionally, the warrant was issued was for civil contempt and was made without a bond, and therefore was in violation of the laws that require on the civil contempt that the keys to the jail be in the hands of the contempt or. In this case, a bond should have been set that would have allowed her to not be placed in jail pending an ultimate hearing in this court.
- Additionally, on September 1, this Court again allowed to be heard and entered orders against the Defendant without notice or opportunity for her to defend, which violated her constitutional rights to due process.
- COURT: Where do you suggest that we would have sent her notice?
- McKINNEY: I would have suggested you send it to her last known address, or at least some effort be made to serve those. It seems to me what happened in that case was the Court allowed a judgment to be entered without notice, it then imposed a lien on property without notice, which then placed my client’s residence, real property, in the possession of the Plaintiff—again without notice.
- It caused her to be removed from her home, and she has now been out of her home since September 1, by the locks being changed by the Plaintiff under your court order. This was all done without any notice to, to the defendant. I have an affidavit from Ms. Frederick (Christine’s prior attorney) indicating she did not receive notice of any hearing. Also, Ms. Morrison is here.
- She received no notice of the hearing, and this Court proceeded to enter various orders, and what’s even more, I think, egregious in this case is that this was not even a motion that was originally or initially directed at the Defendant; it was directed at a non-party to the case, a Betty Morrison, who happens to be Ms. Morrison’s stepmother. The order that set it for hearing was an order to Show Cause that only directed Ms. Betty Morrison be here. So, even the stepmother could not have advised her of what was going on at this hearing. Proceeding beyond that, actually allowing it, even had she been here, violated numerous and various statutes. I’ve mentioned them in my presentation of all the bias of the Court.
- First of all, under MCLA 566.11, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act—that’s the statute under which the motion was brought—requires to obtain jurisdiction of all necessary parties including whoever the person who allegedly received the transfer along with the transferee, and that she’s also entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the fraudulent transfer. That is because when you are trying a title for fraudulent conveyance under MCLA 600.6131, the issue of fraudulent intent is a question of fact, and that question of fact is for the jury. It is not a question of law; therefore, in an action to try title, an action to declare an act of fraudulent conveyance, we have a right to a jury trial, number one, and number two, it is not to be handled in a summary proceeding by the issuance of a Show Cause order on someone who is not even party to the litigation.
- Next, I believe, the Plaintiff had cited MCLA 552.625 as support for issuing a lien on the support of the Defendant in this case, specifically her house. That statute specifically requires that it can only be entered after notice to the payer and an opportunity for a hearing. This Court, number one, didn’t require notice to the defendant, and number two, issued relief without the opportunity for a hearing, again, I believe, demonstrating bias and prejudice of the Court.
- Additionally, the Court violated Michigan law by imposing a lien upon the property. Under MCLA 552.27, the lien can only be imposed as a part of the Judgment of Divorce. In this case, there was no Judgment of Divorce. Under Wells v. Wells, 144 Michigan Appeal 722, the Court has no authority at that point under 552.27 to issue a lien on the property unless that right is reserved in the initial Judgment of Divorce, and it is not. More specifically, the Defendant’s property, including many items of personal nature, are exempt from execution under MCLA 600.6023. The Court allowed, in effect, the Plaintiff, prior to the finalization of the Judgment, have possession of all the items of property that are exempt from execution contained in her home, including pictures and so forth. I’ve cited the statute and provided all the things that are exempt from execution. Another thing is this Court allowed him to have possession of it.
- Now, let’s back up. The amount of the arrearage that was alleged at the time was in the neighborhood of $25,000. This condominium is worth approximately $70,000. There is an additional $20,000–$30,000 worth of personal property contained in that condominium.
- This Court allowed the Plaintiff, without any opportunity for the Defendant to appear or have any notice of the hearing, to seize those assets, and he’s now maintained those assets without bond, without any protection for or anything that would rightfully belong to the Defendant, and allowed him to have those since September 1, and have done nothing to return the property to the Defendant.
- By the way, we have requested it, and Mr. Perakis wrote me a letter that I received on Friday, indicating they will return the condominium that she’s been dispossessed of since September 1, by virtue of this Court’s order. Further, the statements made in open court by this Court also indicate that you have some prejudice against the defendant. Specifically, when I appeared here on September 23, this Court indicated, despite my filing of motions, that it would not hear any motions presented by me on her behalf until she appeared before you.
- Additionally, your Honor, on the issue of the Show Cause hearing, I have now requested an evidentiary hearing, and this Court has granted. This Court, when we appeared on October 7, conducted a hearing and proceeded to find my client in contempt prior to any evidentiary hearing, and therefore, it appears that any hearing on the issue of contempt has already been decided by this Court and would show that you have predecided the case, prior to any evidence being submitted. I presume the evidentiary hearing is going to establish that my client has not had the opportunity to work since December 10, 1998; therefore, she has no income.
- She also has medical restrictions that make her unable to continue her career, and therefore, to earn the type of income that she had prior. I believe we will also have evidence presented that she has, in fact, paid all child support arrearages; therefore, there is no reason for contempt proceedings to continue. On the issue of a motion to disqualify you.
- COURT: I would assume you want me to answer that issue before I rule on any more motions, right?
- McKINNEY: That’s correct.
- COURT: Okay. Counsel?
- PERAKIS: Your Honor, you know, with regard to your motion or his motion to disqualify you, this case has been up on appeal to the Court of Appeals in fact to disqualify you. When that issue was, was decided by Judge Nowicki, there was an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals in May of 1999. That appeal was dismissed. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. That for leave to appeal by Ms. Morrison also included this issue of disability. That was once again dismissed by application, on the application for leave to appeal. Many of these issues you’ve been, had been before you on at least three or four occasions, you have made decisions in the past, and your Honor, what’s very ironic about this case and what Ms. Morrison has continued to do is abuse this court system, as I believe this Court is well aware.
- MACERONI: What’s disturbing to me is that if any bias was shown it was toward Ms. Morrison, especially when she was unrepresented by counsel. Motion to disqualify me is denied.
- McKINNEY: I have an order, your Honor.
- COURT: Counsel, as you well know, in my capacity as Chief Judge, you have every right to appeal this, but the Supreme Court Administrator’s office must assign someone other than one of my colleagues. Now, if you want to exercise your right, you go right ahead. If not, if you want me to rule on the other motions, I will.
- McKINNEY: No, your Honor. I do have additional motions, your Honor. Specifically, I have a motion for relief from the judgments that were entered on or about September 1, 1999, in this case. As I stated earlier, I believe that all of those orders were done without notice or opportunity to defend by Ms. Morrison, and in fact, since that time, although the Plaintiff still has possession of the property, the Judgment that underlines the presumed reason for giving him possession has been satisfied and there is no legal or factual basis upon which he should, number one, continue to maintain possession, and number two, continue to maintain a lien issued pursuant to a Judgment that has been satisfied in full.
- Additionally, as I indicated earlier, I believe that the orders were improperly obtained without notice or opportunity and in fact violated numerous statutes and my client’s constitutional rights. Therefore, I’d ask that the judgments entered on September 1, which include the Judgment for back child support be set aside and vacated, the lien order also vacated, and the Plaintiff be ordered to return possession of the property to the defendant. It is my understanding that there’s also a videotape recording, at least from Mr. Perakis, of the items of personal property that were contained in the premises at the time (Mr. Hannaford) took over. I would like a copy of that videotape, so we can confirm what was there at the time he took over and what might be there when we retake possession. I would also like to have keys, since he’s apparently changed the locks.
- COURT: Mr. Perakis, what are you suggesting to the Court?
- PERAKIS: What I’m asking, your Honor, is this: Is that if we were to take a look at what the future child support is, place a lien on the condominium to the full extent of its value, and allow that issue to be dealt with at a later date, so long as child support is current. If child support is current, the lien will be reduced as to each payment the child support occurs, and at the point that child support is paid-in-full, the lien will be released.
- COURT: Response to that?
- McKINNEY: Well, your Honor, there is no statutory requirement or authority to determine what “future child support” might be and impose a lien based upon what future child support might be. As of today, there is a zero balance on the Friend of the Court obligation here.
- What he’s asking you to do is to determine what this child support is going to be for the next eight years, impose a lien on the property to that extent. There is no basis for that in law. Bottom line here is this property, and beyond that (Christine) still, is being denied her property. It is one thing to impose a lien; it is another to lock the doors and keep her out, so she’s required to live on the streets. This is what the Court did by its order of September 1.
- COURT: On a piece of property that she didn’t even own, she deeded it to somebody else. I’m going to take the motion under advisement in connection with the lien, stand by your letter, return the premises to Ms. Morrison. What is your next motion?
- McKINNEY: My next motion is to abate de novo child support order and other relief. Your Honor, we had this hearing in front of the Friend of the Court, and my client and I have a doctor’s letter, a doctor’s affidavit, and deposition testimony indicating that she’s been disabled.
- COURT: I’ll give you an evidentiary hearing (Order granted 12/28/99 heard November 7, 2001).
- McKINNEY: Thank you, your Honor. And my final motion is a motion to quash the evidentiary hearing on the bench warrant. I have submitted a brief on the issue of the contempt hearing indicating that since this is civil contempt and since if the Court is attempting to punish the Defendant for past action, the past action of “not returning for an afternoon hearing,” which appears to be what the Court is considering, that is not civil contempt, but rather criminal contempt. She’s not been charged with criminal contempt, and there is no basis for this Court to continue with a civil contempt hearing when in fact, the underlying offense of the payment of child support has in fact been remedied by full payment.
- Also, the issue was addressed by this Court when we appeared on October 7 was the issue of Mr. Perakis’s fees. The Court had not set aside the September 1 order when this Court awarded him $2,165 in attorney fees, which have been paid. Mr. Perakis represented on the record those were the fees he incurred to collect the child support; therefore, it does not appear that even sanctioning her in terms of awarding additional attorney fees is appropriate, and therefore, the whole bench warrant issue and the evidentiary hearing should be quashed and dismissed. The bench warrant should be withdrawn.
Nine weeks later, my home was returned, but thousands of dollars in personal property were missing. The condo association placed a lien on the title due to non-payment of the association fees for nine weeks that I later had to pay. However, on November 18, 1999, a demand letter was sent to Mr. Perakis for the videotape inventory along with the return of missing property. Mr. Perakis did not respond. It was not until July 3, 2003, Hannaford released the unlawful lien clouding the title. NO REMEDY AT LAW- PREDICTABLY, October 31, 2001, in a response letter by Michigan Attorney General, Jennifer Granholm to a grievance from my attorney about judicial misconduct, she wrote: “court decisions can only be reviewed or altered by appealing the decision to a higher court.” FACT: Multiple Claim of Appeals in Maceroni Court was filed and denied.
FACT #4: (JUDGE #2 CHIEF MACERONI) STATE PARENTAL ALIENTATORS
Supporting the United States Supreme Court case (No. 15–754), On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Michigan Supreme Court, a brief of Amici Curiae was filed on January 25, 2016, by attorney Patricia Barry for the outcome of the Adkins v. Adkins case, “because ex-parte proceedings are often used to deprive Mothers of custody in violation of their due process and equal protection rights,” such as in Macomb County Circuit Court, Chief Judge Maceroni:
June 4, 1999: Attorney Perakis filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend and/or Restrict my Parenting Time.
June 14, 1999: The motion was heard in court, but I was not present due to lack of notice. The document was not served, and no proof of service was provided to me or my attorney.
June 15, 1999: I filed a motion to disqualify Chief Judge Maceroni.
June 17, 1999: My attorney filed objections to the FOC report:
- Defendant’s attorney further requests this hearing due to lack of notice and opportunity to defend Defendant during Plaintiff’s Motion to Suspend and/or Restrict Defendant’s Summer Parenting Time with Minor Child. Plaintiff’s counsel did not contact Defendant’s attorney to advise her that he was bringing this motion and failed to serve this motion upon her prior to hearing of this motion pursuit to Michigan Court Rules.
June 21, 1999: Chief Judge Maceroni signed an order in accordance with the FOC recommendation, despite timely objections. Appeal filed, in a remand order June 30, 2000, the higher court rules:
- The case be REMANDED to the circuit court (parental alienator/Maceroni) for a de novo hearing on the matter of Christine’s summer parenting time.
This June 4, 1999 motion impaired my ability to see my daughter for more than two years. A full summer and an additional one and half years were lost as a direct consequence, causing my child to feel abandoned by me. My ex-husband, the lawyers, and the Court did nothing to discount such a terrible impression, and instead fueled it with further abuses for both me and my daughter.
July 14, 1999: Chief Judge Maceroni: NO BOND BENCH WARRANT
October 11, 1999: Attorney Perakis letter to my attorney, Mr. McKinney:
- My client is unwilling to allow visitation.
December 3, 1999: My attorney, Mr. McKinney’s letter to the FOC:
Take this letter as an additional request for a Show Cause against Plaintiff for his continual refusal of the minor child’s visitation with Defendant. Your office seems more intent upon forcing child support out of a documented disabled person (12/1998), demonstrating what appears clear bias in favor of the Plaintiff. For your review and consideration, I attach a copy of two additional letters from Dr. Miller that has been confirmed under oath. It seems incredible to me that the Friend of the Court and Judge Maceroni have failed to consider her disabled or at the very least her capacity to earn wages decreased.
October 30, 2000: Chief Judge Maceroni,
Michigan Macomb County Circuit Court: Motion to Conform the Judgment of Divorce to the Consent Agreement Placed on the Court Record June 3, 1997, rules “motion taken under advisement.” October 24, 2000: Attorney Perakis response to the motion:
- The liberal parenting time was not part of the record (it was). Even assuming a mistake was made, which Plaintiff does not believe happened, the Court rule cited above-required defendant to file a Motion within one year of the Judgment. This motion is brought over three years after the Judgment of Default was entered. The relief requested is not available at this late date. Plaintiff does not concur in the relief sought by Defendant in this matter.
August 22, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, Lawyer Malpractice Trial Aiello:
PERAKIS (drafted one-sided settlement): Because Mr. Aiello has made prior errors, which precluded her from having visitation with her daughter…She couldn’t be with her daughter, that’s it exactly.
Adkins Case #15-754:
Only in the Family Law Court systems throughout the United States and specifically the Family Law Court of Michigan (hereafter, Family Court), do litigants walk into the courthouse and enter a time warp that takes them back more than 200 years ago when the Constitution did not exist. Rather than serving litigants by protecting their rights and interpreting the law, as charged by the Constitution, Family Court acts as a dictatorship with goals and objectives of its own, often in conflict with parents’ and children’s rights. Family Court has all the power and when their power and our rights conflict, we lose, which is repugnant to the Constitution. “We the People” created the government to serve us, not the other way around. If you observe Family Court today, it would be difficult for an outsider to determine that “We the People” don’t exist to serve Family Court. The culture of Family Court has become so relaxed that written laws aren’t followed and procedural due process requirements are ignored, so the parens patriae summary mode of decision making from a century ago is alive and well allowing Family Court to, on a whim, outright destroy the unfortunate unfree souls of “post-judgment” parents and children.
With no safety (“substitute procedural safeguards,” Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)) and no liberty (familial rights free from government intrusion), many “post-judgment” parents and children of today are found to be receiving the same injustice as the slaves living in the same land as the Founders of the Constitution. Slaves were not only denied liberty, their enslavement certainly gave them no reason to feel secure and so the continuum of liberty did not apply to them. The Founders erected boundaries to limit liberty to those of their own kind in order to reap material wealth from others (slaves) deserving neither liberty nor security. In the current landscape of Family Court, the judicial system has erected boundaries to oppress “post-judgment” parents and children in order for those in the legal community, service providers, and adverse parties to reap material wealth.
FACT #5: (JUDGE #2 Chief Judge Maceroni) DISABLED 12/10/98: DENIED DOWNWARD CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION for THREE YEARS. CHILD SUPPORT MODIFIED 11/7/01, OVERPAID $15,000.
Chief Judge Maceroni Macomb County Circuit Court/FOC:
January 4, 1999, CM letter to the “Friend of the Court”, Susan Thorman Esq., Judicial Service Officer:
- I am off work indefinitely per Doctor Miller’s order. [ . . . ] I have been continually denied due process and at every turn had acts of nonfeasance inflicted upon me. It has been over three-and-a-half years without full disclosure, evidentiary hearings, discovery, or unanswered interrogatories so a fair, proper and equitable evidentiary hearing, with all the facts and full disclosure, may be conducted. Friend of the court personnel have repeatedly refused and failed to perform their clear legal duties in ensuring that all parties receive an equal application of the law and follow the clear guidelines in making their determinations.
- The Friend of the Court Act, 552.517a. Sec. 17a: The office (Friend of the Court) shall make available to payer’s form motions, responses, and orders for use by the payer in requesting the court to modify his or her child support order, or in responding to a motion for support modification without the assistance of legal counsel. The office shall make available instructions on preparing and filing the forms, instructions on service of process, and instructions on scheduling a support modification hearing.
January 4, 1999: Friend of the Court, Susan Thorman, Esq., Judicial Service Officer, responded immediately by issuing:
- Petition and Order to Show Cause for Contempt (Child Support), scheduled January 19, 1999, in Judge Maceroni’s court.
January 19, 1999: Chief Judge Maceroni, Court Transcript:
- PERAKIS: We would ask you if, if jail is necessary, put her in jail. [ . . . ] She’s playing the game hoping that she would eventually be able to have a good excuse to not work.
- CHRISTINE: Objection. I have doctor’s documentation.
Judge Maceroni Court Order After Show Cause Hearing for Nonpayment of Support:
- Defendant to pay $1,343 on or before 1/29/99 and remaining child support balance on or before 2/26/99, or serve 30 days in Macomb County jail.
- Defendant responsible for medical bills assessed to account as of today, one-year submission rule required by FOC is abated. Defendant’s portion is 50%.
May 3, 1999: Chief Judge Maceroni Court Transcript:
- CHRISTINE: Okay, on the 4th of January (1999), I gave the Friend of the Court a letter, and on (paragraph) number 13, it said that I had a doctor’s letter and I was indefinitely off work. Would you like to see that?
- MACERONI: This is your letter?
- CHRISTINE: To the Friend of the Court.
- MACERONI: To the Friend of the Court. All right. I’ll agree that paragraph 13 states, Further, defendant is off work indefinitely by Dr. Miller’s order.
- CHRISTINE: And the second to the last page, there should be Dr. Miller’s—
- MACERONI: I have that already. I have a disability certificate dated January 26 of ‘99.
May 12, 1999: Christine letter to the Friend of the Court, (no response): Notice and presentation of substantiated evidence in support of defendant’s disability with request to process disability and modify child support.
July 14, 1999: Chief Judge Maceroni, NO BOND BENCH WARRANT:
- MACERONI: For the record, that is for contempt of court, so there will be no bond that will be set. She will be arrested and brought to this court forthwith.
July 17, 1999: Friend of the Court, Susan Thorman, Esq., Judicial Service Officer:
- Dear Judge Maceroni: On May 11, 1999 I had a show cause in front of you regarding the nonpayment of support on this file. [ . . . ] You indicated, on the record, on May 11, 1999 that if the woman was wrong regarding her objections (12/98 disability), she would be going to jail. [ . . . ] You have decided twice that her claim of disability is false or fraudulent because we were receiving Income Withholding payments (paycheck shows sick/vacation time paid to FOC) during the same time that she claimed disability.[ . . . ] Also, the doctor’s statements that she provided were not adequate.
February 4, 2000: FOC Susan Thorman, Esq., Judicial Service Officer:
- My response to the two issues you pose: our office cannot enforce visitation rights [ . . . ] and no administrative adjustment on the support account will be forthcoming based upon your client’s disability.
October 5, 2000: Friend of the Court, Susan Thorman, Esq., Judicial Service Office:
- As I discussed with Mr. McKinney (my attorney), the Friend of the Court has a procedure for temporarily reducing support, which is afforded an individual upon their request and proof and which would not require them to file a motion for reduction. The specific requirements are a doctor’s statement with specific time periods and a specific medical diagnosis. On May 11, 1999, Judge Maceroni found that the disability certificate dated January 26, 1999, which stated that Ms. Morrison was off-work “indefinitely” and secondly, the letter from Dr. Miller dated January 14, 1999, stated she would be off indefinitely “due to a specific medical problem requiring this type of advice” was not sufficient.
Fact #6:(JUDGE #4) OAKLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, LAWYER MALPRACTICE TRIAL (AEILLO): ISSUES (a)Settlement Agreement (NO CONSENT)= (b) Parental Alienation (c) No Accurate Financial Discovery
A successful attorney malpractice action by me against my attorney (Christopher Aiello) was improperly reversed on appeal, proving that lawyer misconduct is protected by higher courts in domestic relations and other cases. My attorney, Mr. Aiello, committed attorney malpractice by allowing an original and two amendments of the “Consent Judgment of Annulment” to be entered without client consent and when it was non-conforming to the settlement agreement placed on the divorce court’s record under oath, June 3, 1997 and the record is replete with financial discovery Mr. Aiello should have achieved in Macomb County Circuit Court. I incurred $100,000 in legal fees and costs due to having to have counsel try to fix the errors created by Mr. Aiello. My trial costs exceeded $220,000, and the state appellate courts improperly reversed the attorney malpractice trial. Attorney Aiello then unlawfully collected and liquidated $80,000 in my retirement accounts for taxed trial costs, in violation of holdings in the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Rousey v. Jacoway, and Florida retirement statute exemptions 222.14 and 221.21.
(a) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
August 17, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, lawyer malpractice proceedings the cross examination by Aiello’s own attorney, Mr. Geyer :
- GEYER: Your Honor, for the purpose of speeding things up, I’ll stipulate that the clients did not sign either amendment.
- COURT: Okay.
- HENRY: Or the original.
- GEYER: Or the original.
- HENRY: Thank you, I’ll accept the stipulation, then.
August 20, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, Lawyer Malpractice Trial (Aiello):
- McKINNEY: Did your client rely on your professional judgment when you’re presenting her case?
- AIELLO: No.
August 24, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, Lawyer Malpractice Trial (Aiello):
- McKINNEY: What did you do? You were presented with a problem as an attorney.
- AIELLO: Bailed out of the case.
- McKINNEY: How long have you been a lawyer?
- AIELLO: Probably too long.
- McKINNEY: You’re suggesting you got unsigned copies and you did nothing about it?
- AIELLO: I was fired. I was gone one month later. I was done. I was out of the case. Thank God. I got out of the case.
(b) PARENTAL ALIENATION: August 22, 2001: Judge Templin, Oakland County Circuit Court, Lawyer Malpractice Trial Aiello:
- PERAKIS (drafted one-sided settlement): Because Mr. Aiello has made prior errors, which precluded her from having visitation with her daughter… She couldn’t be with her daughter, that’s it exactly.
(c) NO ACCURATE FINANCIAL DISCOVERY BY AIELLO, SUBPOENAED FINANCIAL TRIAL EXHIBITS WERE BY MY ATTORNEY, MR. HENRY:
1994–1997: Financial Trial Exhibit Z: Financial Trial Exhibit Z: Analysis and Financial Summary of Bill’s Suburban, Inc., (Edward M. Hannaford): John F. Dery, CPA, CFE, CIRA the accounting firm specializing in litigation and forensic accounting, provided Hannaford’s business analysis and financial summary for the base years of 1994–1997, with findings of a net profit of $2,023,999 on adjusted gross receipts from Hannaford’s corporate federal tax returns.
- 1988–1996: Hannaford Trial Exhibit DD: Macomb County Circuit Court, Case # 88-4945-DM, Divorce Stipulation: Hannaford paid his first wife $1,600 per month: $150 per week in child support and $1,000 per month in a property settlement.
1994: Hannaford Financial Trial Exhibits:
- Trial Exhibit X: 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return: $17,350: Friend of the Court File.
- Trial Exhibit Y: 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return Reported to IRS: $42,350.
- Trial Exhibit KK: 1120-U.S. Corporate Short-Form Income Tax Return Reported to IRS: $253,725.
1995: Hannaford Financial Trial Exhibits:
- Trial Exhibit II: W-2 Wage and Tax Return: $24,800: Friend of the Court file.
- Trial Exhibit LL: 1120 -U.S. Corporate Short-Form Income Tax Return Reported to IRS: $297,777.
1996: Hannaford Financial Trial Exhibits:
- January 3, 1996: Friend of the Court Final Recommendation, by Lori Swidorski, Support Investigator: “Said investigation would indicate that Hannaford’s weekly income amounts to $404.66.”
- 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return: $24,800: Friend of the Court file.
- Trial Exhibit NN: 1120 -U.S. Corporate Short-Form Income Tax Return: $327,717.
1997: Hannaford Financial Trial Exhibits:
- Trial Exhibit JJ: W-2 Wage and Tax Statement: $42,126.
- Trial Exhibit: 1120 -U.S. Corporate Short-Form Income Tax Return: $343,588.
THE STATE APPELLATE COURT IMPROPERLY REVERSED THE ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE TRIAL: June 16, 2004: Judge Mester, Oakland County Circuit Court:
- Bench Warrant (no bond) for failure to appear at creditors examination, this Court ordered: The arrest of Defendant, Christine Morrison with a cash bond in the amount of $36,000 shall be posted for her release.
- February 9, 2005: Court order Ex-Parte: Judge Mester, Oakland County Circuit Court, Aiello: Ex-Parte Motion to Reinstate Bench Warrant.
- November 21, 2005: Order to Set Aside Bench Warrant: Judgment against Christine Morrison has been paid in full including costs and interest.
THE ABOVE FACTS CANNOT BE DENIED. Family Courts’ failure to abide by the Rule of Law should be the subject of a UN Human Rights investigation. Next, Congress Must Ratify the Treaty for America to Join the International Criminal Court. Consider the intergenerational social and economic consequences to parents and children. In McGinn, the Court of Appeals explained the importance of finality in the context of divorce judgments: Public policy demands finality of litigation in the area of family law to preserve surviving family structure. Wikipedia: The U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines domestic terrorism as terrorism involving groups based in, and operating entirely within, the United States and its territories, without foreign direction. The FBI further divides domestic terrorism into three basic categories: right-wing, left-wing, and special-interest terrorism. McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020). Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority stated: “Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.” Id. at 2482.
August 23, 2020: Via Email Only: To Democratic State Representative Stone, Senator McMorrow, Congressman Andy Levin (LinkedIn): ACTION REQUESTED: My book clearly documents the State entered three non-consented to judgments that I want VACATED. In fact, multiple appeals were denied for clear, obvious, egregious errors in the law, and two motions remain, “taken under advisement.” Michigan’s “One Court of Justice” has no effective avenues of redress and relief for the role of judges and attorneys in persistent legal system abuse.
October 5, 2020: Americans Against Abusive Probate Court https://aaapg.net
Family Court –Another Equity Hellhole and Reuters Report on “The Teflon Robe” Posted on October 5, 2020 by Sam Sugar, MD in Uncategorized: I was recently contacted by a victim of Family Equity Court whose website is well worth a look —https://judicialcriminal.com/ –which meticulously details the outright criminality that passes for legal process in Family/Divorce Court. The pain inflicted by the racket that flourishes in these courts is as unbelievable as it is outrageous. We should not have to endure the thinly disguised racket that ruins lives of the young–children of divorce–, the young adult trying to escape a bad marriage or the elderly abused and exploited by the probate court insiders. We have much in common with victims of Family court, or should I say Family destruction court. And if you have not yet seen it, The Reuters Report on Judicial Misconduct is a great resource. See it here You can research the misdeeds of judges that were sanctioned at this Reuters database. Incredibly not one single Probate Court Judge in my State of Florida has ever been sanctioned from 2008 thru 2019 !!!
FACT: July 30, 2020: Foster v Foster: http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2020/073020/73524.pdf Michigan Supreme Court has again remanded this case to us to “address the effect of [its] holdings on defendant’s ability to challenge the terms of the consent judgment.”
June 5, 2020: Statement from ABA President:
Lawyers have a special duty to address injustices done in the name of law. ABA President Judy Perry Martinez pledges action in her statement.
May 29, 2020: Researching Reform:
Parents Who Make Allegations of Abuse in Child Contact Cases – Voice of the Child Podcast by Natasha For our sixteenth Voice of the Child podcast we speak with Professor Joan Meier about the first ever nationwide study in the US on child custody cases which feature allegations of abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation, and how those allegations affect mothers’ contact rights in court.
Professor Meier explains the findings from her research, raises concerns around “junk science” used in child cases, and calls for a Me Too Movement within the family courts to raise awareness about gender discrimination and the impact of gender bias on child protection.
November 3, 2019: Hon. Judge Aquilina via LinkedIn:
Looks like an interesting read. Our justice system is broken in so many ways….
July 7, 2019: News Agency News247WorldPress, Philomena O’ Grady:
Family Court: fraud the social, economic, political and national security “black elephant” that Australian politicians have refused to tackle and enforcement agencies refused to prosecute.
August 20, 2013: Cole Stuart, JD, A parents’ right group, the California Coalition for Families and Children file a federal racketeering lawsuit (case no. 3:13-cv-1944 CAB BLM Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo) against family court judges, charge criminal extortion, bribery, abuse of office:
The abuses of parents and children by Family Courts, social workers, and family law attorneys have harmed children and parents for far too long. Family court is designed by makers to be probably the most dangerous life event parents and children can endure. And behind the curtain of this machine of misery we’ve uncovered its cause-the multi-billion dollar divorce industry, populated by judges, attorneys, and a machinery of tax-dollar fed “judicial administrators,” social workers that George Orwell would marvel at.
We’ve been delivering that message kindly for years now, yet the tide keeps rising on families in crisis. We’ve appealed to the county courts, state and local politicians, state judicial oversight bodies, United States Representatives, and just plain old human dignity, but the harassment and abuse of parents and children has only increased. A resort to federal court intervention in the widespread criminal collusion in state government was the next logical step.
It’s time to recognize Family Court for what it is—a corporate crime ring raiding parents and children of financial and psychological well-being, and devouring our children’s futures. And its not just divorce lawyers—its judges, “judicial administrators,” psychologists, cops and prosecutors—people we should be able to trust—in a modern day criminal cabal using county courtrooms and sheriff’s deputies as the machinery of organized crime. Since state officials’ hands are too deep into the cookie jar to stop their own abuse, we’re seeking the assistance of federal oversight.
S.P.A.R.C: HR 1488, the HYDE-WOOLSEY Child Support Bill:
A California appeals court also declared that some Child Support incarcerations were a violation of the 13th Amendment for involuntary servitude *fn64. Federal enforcement of Child Support through the IRS, as proposed in H.R. 1488, is arguably unconstitutional by forcing the states to comply with Title IV-D *fn65. The United States Supreme Court stated *fn66, “Congress is without power to enlist state cooperation in a joint federal-state program by legislation which authorizes the States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.” and “[W]hile the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is ‘so unjustified as to be violative of due process.’ In child support politics, the Constitution has become passé and encumbers or impedes the cash machine that has been created. In this entire domain of “Family Law” the Constitution as we know it has ceased to exist. “State judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights.” *fn67 This responsibility has been abandoned to pursue Title-IV funding for the states.
Judicial Accountability Testimony (Let Tennessee lead the nation reforming corrupt judiciary) https://wethepeoplev50.com/videos
JANUARY 13, 2011: CALIFORNIA LEGALIZED ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE, in the Supreme Court decision, Cassel v. Superior Court. Professor Richard Zitrin of UC Hastings has written:(http://www.clrc.ca.gov/pub/2016/MM16-60s1.pdf):
the Cassel case leads to an absurb result-one that allows lawyers to be sloppy, negligent and incompetent without cost to them, and even worse, to cheat their clients with impunity.
FACT: America’s principle of non-discrimination, as well as that of equality before the law and equal protection before the law without discrimination, are firmly anchored in international human rights instruments and form the foundation of the rule of law.
According to Article 8 of the universal declaration of human rights provide that:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted to him by the constitution or by law.
The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2, paragraph 3(a) and (b) provide that:
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy…
October 24, 2019: Reparations for victims of human rights violations are not optional, says a new report by UN expert Fabián Salvioli (Special Rapporteur) shall deal with situations in which there have been gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law.
The Government should acknowledge the lack of remedies available to victims of discrimination and provide sufficient judicial and administrative avenues through which such victims can seek compensation. Therefore, victims of legal system abuse denied a fair and impartial administration of justice, should receive reparations without regard to applicable statutes of limitations or limiting provisions due to ineffective judicial/administrative remedies.