Now there’s a headline you’ve never seen. But it is shockingly true and a reflection of how insignificant we are as parents in this country. Every year our constitutional right to raise our children is being further eroded without so much as a footnote in the decisions from our high court. For the past ten years I have done everything legal and humanly possible to reverse that trend, to give you human dignity as a loving mom or dad, but sadly, due to an utter lack of funding, I have failed.

Meanwhile the right to abort children and market their body parts has been well funded and well received during that same period. Indeed only a few months ago, among the most recent cases heard and decided by the Supreme Court, you will find a pro-abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt and Texas, et. al. Case No. 15-274 (June 27, 2016). Meanwhile three of the four parents who announced their filings at the Supreme Court on June 17, 2016 are being considered for the same day. Yours is destined for the same fate.

Nevertheless it is too important an issue to surrender. If you’ve been following my petition now being considered by the Supreme Court you know that a Supplemental Brief was recently accepted to provide additional support for such a case, a historic first which I sacrificed everything to achieve. Among other things, due to the severe neglect of this right in recent decades, I have asked for appointment of a Special Master to investigate and report on parent-child abuses in our nation’s divorce and family courts.

Yesterday we gave you a summary of cases over the past 100 years since the parenting right was first announced. Today we show you what happens when a judicial whistle blower, civil rights attorney and model parent tries to reform a lucrative divorce industry which is producing damaged children, unprecedented immorality and the kind of crime our society can no longer control. Government simply throws more tax dollars at this epidemic while profiting off our misfortunes.

We hope you will join our cause by contributing to this site or sponsoring any of our services at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. You can also call our office, Parenting Rights Institute at (315) 380-3420. Here is a modified segment from my Brief:

Point One:  Based on this Court’s recent decision in McDonnell v United States, the respondent district court committed an egregious abuse of discretion by suppressing challenges to vague, absurd and retaliatory court orders.

Petitioner has been exposing court corruption and misconduct for ten years in virtually every state of the union, even Hawaii when President Obama visited. It has reached epidemic proportions with no sign of reform or shared parenting structure mandated by our Constitution. That is because the suppression of speech, press and organizing efforts is so profound in our judicial branch of government that relevant experts and civil rights lawyers such as petitioner are persecuted beyond conscience.

In McDonnell v United States, No 15-474 (June 26, 2016), decided after the originating petition here was filed, this Court vacated a conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell based on jury instructions and a statute which was found to be overly expansive. The definition of an “official act” for purposes of criminal liability was deemed to have serious constitutional infirmities.

Whether petitioner’s ordeal is analyzed from a First or Fourteenth Amendment standpoint, or some other federal right such as the parenting liberty, the result is the same. A public critic is being subjected to something far more egregious than an over inclusive statute. He is being pounded by orders laced with such absurdity that no conduct provides a safe harbor. The opening segment of this brief is ample demonstration of this…

At the same time, petitioner is being victimized by …vague and overbroad orders in New York’s domestic courts with undue, unfair and excessive scrutiny by attorney disciplinary agents. Indeed this is by far an unprecedented case. The state has usurped the self-governing rights of a democracy in order to profit off our children. The atrocities over a natural right tracing itself to the beginning of civilization are being perceived as everyday oppression by an increasing variety of terrorists, criminals, protesters and mainstream parents.

A remedy is now required to show that our system of American justice works after all, even if petitioner can never be made whole again. The “prohibited alcohol related gesture” finding was never prohibited previously and concocted from a wedding toast. It was conceded at a “mini-hearing” without due notice, ten minute limits for case presentation and no recording for appellate purposes. On such a hearing, petitioner lost his children potentially forever in light of the severe and un-remedied alienation underway over the past three years. Other than pure evil and the violation of a fundamental right, what else can explain the concoction?

On the last weekend together in January, 2014, there was happiness, sharing of plans, hugging and promising father-daughter relationships to last a lifetime. But the quest for money and revenge was so prevalent that these girls were brainwashed and made to shut out all trace of their natural father without so much as an allegation of abuse. This evil course of action was pursued not by a natural mother but a creature of statute known as a “custodial parent” trained to war against her counterpart. Dads, moms and children are increasingly viewed as objects instead of dignified human beings under this “opposition framework” for parenting.

It was sufficient to cause respondent appellate Judge John Centra to issue a stay order on December 13, 2013 on grounds that the proceedings here were “structurally flawed” with petitioner having no record of abuse. That order facilitated the last weekend petitioner spent with his girls before being vacated by the same Judge Centra and his panel only days after exposure of related misconduct.

It occurred on petitioner’s website which has become the target of censorship by all respondents due to a tagging of publications relating to individuals. Petitioner’s global following has become so impacting that these publications can arise on a first page Google search of a judge or lawyer. Sufficiently offensive as it is protected by our Constitution, this has set in motion very alarming reactions. Oppression is otherwise corroborated by such cases as Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp.2d 367 (NDNY 2011). A police investigator committed a murder-suicide after exiting support court, a key factor that was ignored, leaving three children without parents and the city with a $2 million liability.

Respondents have been exploiting judicial weapons to punish these publications. They have all but stated this in decisions, actions and defamatory orders throughout the record. With an arsenal at their disposal perceived as sacrosanct by an unsuspecting public, they have been able to shut down reform as their public critics emerge in courts throughout the country. Indeed at least two other pro se parent petitions are pending for conference on the same day as this one. Dr. Mario Jimenez and John Batista joined petitioner at a news conference outside this Court to announce our filings only to incur further retributions.

Truth itself is ever elusive in these courts because offspring are made the prize or “award” in custody wars. In this case, respondents exploited the patent fabrications of Judge King and the brazen perjuries of William Koslosky and Hawse-Koziol. This is well established in prior filings here and the records below. These frauds remain so pervasive and even encouraged for retribution purposes that almost anything can be conjured up to finish off this public critic. But only the public critic was prosecuted with non-criminal and inflated support obligations based on a highly abused “imputed income” practice. This was in lieu of reliable evidence and a proper distribution of the burdens of proof.

Terminology routinely employed in these courts is more relevant to a Syrian war zone than a forum for raising America’s children. This is not merely your petitioner’s position. It is shared by esteemed jurists and experts of the Miller Commission in its 2006 report to New York’s Chief Justice. It is also shared by veteran jurists such as Dennis Duggan in Webster v Ryan, 729 NYS 2d 315 (Fam. 2001):

At the outset, the Court notes that the terms ‘custody’ and ‘visitation’ have outlived their usefulness. Indeed their use tends to place any discussion and allocation of family rights into an oppositional framework. ‘Fighting for custody’ directs the process towards determining winners and losers. The children, always in the middle, usually turn out to be the losers… This Court has abandoned the use of the word ‘visitation’ in its Orders, using the phrase ‘parenting time’ instead. If the word ‘custody’ did not so permeate our statutes and was not so ingrained into our psyches, that word would be the next to go… This misplaced focus draws parents into contention and conflict, drawing the worst from them at a time when their children need their parents’ best.”

The disrespect increasingly directed at parental rights is corroborated by the July 7, 2016 summary order of the Second Circuit. It affirmed Judge Sharpe’s August 10, 2015 decision denying leave to file an appeal pursuant to FRAP Rule 4(a)(5). The frauds and perjuries in family court became so insurmountable that petitioner’s children could have their residence concealed on the family court record for a period of eight months without any accountability.

Such callous disregard was clearly retaliatory. Devastation to petitioner when this scheme was discovered on Fathers’ Day 2015 was so severe that it forced him to escape the region and miss a next day filing deadline regarding Judge Sharpe’s May 22, 2015 decision. Such devastation mattered not at all for “good cause” or “excusable neglect” and was sadistically cast aside without so much as a footnote. Judge Sharpe concluded instead that petitioner “had only himself to blame.” A-I at 68. See also Kirtsaeng v John Wiley 15-375 (June 16, 2016) on Sharpe’s abuse of fee sanctions.