Day 146 of the Founding Fathers March, sponsored by the Parenting Rights Institute, is committed to judicial reform. Our march is not simply one to secure fair treatment for fathers in domestic relations matters, it is also intended to restore basic rights exercised by all people under our Constitution. Today we are focused upon the right to own and enjoy property as secured through our Bill of Rights. In divorce and support court, this right has been severely eroded simply because the state has declared that it is acting in the best interests of our children.

A case is featured on our site in which a father was made subject to an unlawful invasion of his home by a state tax department in order to seize his vehicles for so-called “child support” obligations. In fact, the father was current on his payments and a court order entered by agreement of the parents only two months earlier had specifically excluded any such seizure as a remedy for any delinquency. In addition, the warrant provided by local police and child support agents was directed to another location. In short, the “swat” team of flatbed trucks, at least two patrol cars and multiple tax agents was trespassing and stealing property like common criminals.

The subsequent civil case for damages should have been a no-brainer, but because the plaintiff-victim was a public critic of New York’s domestic relations courts, the matter was passed along between courts until venue requirements finally placed it in Albany (because an injunction was being further sought against the state tax department to avoid another swat-like assault during the holidays). However, the presiding judge there, Thomas McNamara, made it clear that he was not inclined to grant such an extraordinary remedy. He also conceded that he had not even read my court papers. Decision was put off for a week, and then, on the Friday before Thanksgiving, he denied my motion as premature and unsupported by “clear and convincing” evidence.

It was obviously another miscarriage of justice in an ongoing ordeal caused by the victim’s exercise of rights under the First Amendment. There can be no clearer case for an injunction than this one. Indeed, only six months out of law school during the eighties, I managed to secure an injunction upon a $30 million high school project on a lesser showing of proof. The case was anything but premature given its prior history and weeks of consideration. It was certainly far more developed on the record than the swat assault hastily and violently put together by a collection of law enforcement agents incapable of reading the terms of a simple one page warrant.

A lawless government cannot be tolerated by a free country. It represents tyranny of the kind which was rampant in this very same community 200 years earlier when the Crown used the people’s homes to quarter troops and seize assets. Anarchy and revolution followed along with a Constitution so that such abuses would never again scar the American continent. And yet here we are in the year 2011 faced with a judge, who like his counterparts in colonial Albany, New York, is too timid to hold our tax department accountable. In those days, the judges that did exist were more concerned with their nobility and personal livelihood than they were the rights of the citizenry.

Today’s case begs the question: what is it that Judge Thomas McNamara fears? We know that the tax department conducts audits and provides the revenues for recently scheduled judicial pay raises, see i.e. Chief Judge v Governor, 65 AD 3d 898 (AD 1, 2009)(lawsuit by New York’s court system against people of New York for judicial pay raises from $136,000 to over $170,000 annually). But the tax department is not exempt from the Constitution any more than the Governor or state police are. Why is he acting like his predecessors who presided over the people here when they were governed by a King. If our courts will allow this kind of abuse to occur to a civil rights advocate and constitutional law expert, imagine what they will do to you. Why pay for a lawyer? Please donate to the Parenting Rights Institute and help us make the Founding Fathers March happen on April 20, 2012

Help us help you by making a donation today!

Day 148: Shopping With Martha on Black Friday

Judge Martha Walsh HoodDay 148 in the sequel leading up to the Founding Fathers March is committed to Martha Walsh-Hood, a Family Court Judge in Syracuse, New York. Martha recently participated in National Adoption Day with highway banners and taxpayer advertising designed to find homes for foster children. Certainly an admirable cause, it was unfortunately masked by a court process, administered by the same judge, which produced the very products that Martha was seeking to sell to an unsuspecting public.

Our purpose is to expose the propaganda of America’s “child business” as one Family Court put it. This propaganda is plainly seen in the parenting disputes manufactured by lawyers and judges (former divorce lawyers). These disputes produce federal incentive grants, child support interest revenues and all kinds of fees based on the number of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents mass produced in these domestic relations courts. They also produce the kind of products, foster children, which the public is asked to shop for on Black Friday.

I have described this as the “custodial institution of childrearing”, a collection of laws which keeps otherwise cooperating parents engaged in bitter disputes over “custody” and “support” awards. If these disputes can be perpetuated long enough, parents will resort to lucrative tactics for lawyers, even false charges, which can then lead to “unfit” behavior and the state’s placement of more children in foster care. It is, very simply, an underhanded exploitation of a rule of nature. Lawyers know that parents will do anything to keep their children from an enemy (the other parent) created by state law.

These custody and support awards are mandated even among self sustaining maternal and paternal family units which have no need for them. Unequal parenting laws are inherently unjust, based on a time when moms stayed at home, and for these reasons parents return to court time and again duped into believing that this is where justice can be found. In reality, it is a multi-billion dollar child industry they are facing, one that is engaged in profits and political patronage. It is the ultimate gold mine in which parents are targeted as unwitting employers and facilitators.

Reform is long overdue, however, even progressive judges are quickly overturned while like minded parenting advocates (like me) are suppressed. See for example Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Albany Family Court, 2001) where a veteran judge found that custody and visitation have “outlived their usefulness”. He was reversed only months later. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is happening. In the end, parents and children suffer while the state takes over childrearing until it has more victims than it can handle.

As a result, New York’s judicial branch of government, known as the Unified Court System, is sponsoring “Adoption Day”. In so doing, it has violated the most basic tenets of our Constitution and reason for its existence. The judicial branch is required to maintain independence from outside activity so that its neutrality might not be compromised by events which later come before it. Judicial canons of ethics further require judges to avoid even “an appearance of impropriety” in these outside activities.

Recently this court system brought action in its own courts against the people of New York for pay raises, scheduled now to acclimate from $136,000 to over $170,000 annually in a state which is $10 billion in debt, see i.e. Chief Judge v Governor, 65 AD 3d 898 (AD 1, 2009). People like Martha Walsh-Hood know that the more controversy which can be created between parents in “her” court, the more resources that can be made available to pay for all this.

The Parenting Rights Institute would like to see a good home for all foster children. But we must first reform the system which is adding to their numbers. On our Thanksgiving Day post, and prior ones dedicated to the “Child” and “Purple Heart Soldier” (Days 155, 153 and 149), you can gain a better understanding of this epidemic which is causing vast injury to the productivity, moral fiber and health care capacities of an entire nation. Let’s all join together in a reform effort to end Martha’s shopping sprees.

November 25, 2011                                                                Dr. Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

Syracuse, New York                                                               Parenting Rights Institute

Help us help you by making a donation today!