A Child's Right

A Kid's Right News

2009-11-13T06:19:50-05:00

Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 5:50 PM

AKidsRight.Org - All the information in our messages if FREE for reuse as
you desire. Subscribe/unsubscribe info at end of this message.
=========================================
Good People & People of Faith,

This message has info on:

1. Court takes newborn from obese Mother - best for the kids!
2. Why risk jail? - ask Donald Tenn.
3. What's your goal - shared parenting sounds nice?
4. Support? System Down - discounts on movie preview!

1. Court takes newborn from obese Mother - best for the kids!
----------------------------------------------------------
[ This is a good article. Should social services have that much power
over family life. I don't think so (see below in #3). How about just
'offering' help from the community - no threats allowed?

OR - How about taking kids from people that smoke at home - easy! How
about taking kids from people who: never donate to charity, never done
anything to help anyone else, and have also been convicted of welfare
fraud and are tax cheats -- just bad examples!? - John ]

Submitted by: Rev. Gregory Allen Smart Sr <cpsvictim@gmail.com>

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27585-San-Diego-Courts-Examiner~y2009m10d
29-Courts-Briefly-Take-Obese-Mothers-Newborn-Child-Overweight-Family-Raises-
Issue
<http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27585-San-Diego-Courts-Examiner%7Ey2009m
10d29-Courts-Briefly-Take-Obese-Mothers-Newborn-Child-Overweight-Family-Rais
es-Issue>

2. Why risk jail? - ask Donald Tenn.
------------------------------------
[ Many of you have heard of Donald Tenn <donaldtenn@yahoo.com>, he
has been active organizing F4J in the U.S. and also participated in
hanging a banner off a crane outside a Ohio State football game. He
is now facing trial on some serious charges for that...

Why would he risk jail. I encourage you to follow the story below.
Great pictures of him and his little girl, Madison -- definitely
worth the risk! - John]

Submitted by Teri Stoddard <teri.sharedparentingworks@gmail.com>

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d4-V
AWA-facilitates-and-funds-illegal-parental-child-abduction--part-one
<http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15873-Family-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d
4-VAWA-facilitates-and-funds-illegal-parental-child-abduction--part-one>

3. What's your goal - shared parenting sounds nice?
----------------------------------------------------

> Children should have the right to have both parents involved in the
> daily lives. With the exceptions that if either parent would harm
> the child or allow someone else to harm them, they should not be. If
> both parents love and care about their children then we believe both
> should be in their children's lives.

Maybe stronger words are needed. One bite of the apple is 'sharing'
and so is seeing your child every other weekend, or less if we don't
think that is best. Who is going to measure if I "love" my child or
have shown the correct amount of "caring"? Sounds like the same
system we have now?

Should we perhaps consider, the only way to truly have 'both' parents
is two have two EQUAL parents. Whether they are good, average, or
poor parents? This may sound radical, but I don't have to prove my
"love" for my child to anyone to be an EQUAL parent.

Couldn't it be simpler? We are EQUAL, unless a unanimous jury verdict
in a criminal trial finds us guilty of intentionally trying to harm
our kids with malintent? Is this too bold a standard? It seems it
would get rid of a lot of family court fights about who cares most or
what's best. It would also make the noble goals of more mediation
actually work -- because you have equal parties.

http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm
http://www.NationalPLC.Org/

4. Support? System Down - discounts on movie preview!
-----------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Angelo Lobo <info@supportthemovie.com>

Thank you for supporting this project! We Are now offering the
official T-Shirt worn at the Peach Tree Film Festival along with a 60%
DISCOUNT OFF the "Sneak Peek" DVD in hopes to raise awareness to these
issues. BUY-IT NOW and pass it to your legislators, judges, lawyers,
organization and friends. Every thing helps.

Please use the code (supporter) for an additional discount at check out.
Thank You.

http://www.shop.supportthemovie.com/product.sc?productId=6
<http://www.shop.supportthemovie.com/product.sc?productId=6&sourceCode=suppo
rter> &sourceCode=supporter

[ Very good video from a parent in New Jersey: We won't enforce you
seeing the kids, but keep paying the money! - John ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-zXaOj9bZ4

--
John Murtari
__________________________________________________________
Coordinator AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
(315) 944-0999(x-211) http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
=========================================
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
---
Newsletter mailing list
Newsletter@kids-right.org
http://kids-right.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter

Term-Limit Justices, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings

2009-10-30T06:32:17-04:00

Term-Limit Justices, Let Congress Veto Court Rulings
by Mark R. Levin
Posted Dec 19, 2006
This is the sixth in an occasional series of exclusive articles in which leading conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration explain how they believe the principles of Reagan conservatism ought to be applied today and in the coming years. This week, Mark R. Levin, who served as chief of staff to Atty. Gen. Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department, addresses the Supreme Court.

President Ronald Reagan was a limited-government conservative who firmly believed in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and in the representative form of government that the Constitution set up.

Unfortunately, like other Republican Presidents before and after him, Reagan’s efforts were, for the most part, stymied by the subsequent behavior of certain of his own appointees. As a consequence, the Supreme Court remains a threat to the Constitution and representative government.

Reagan did not fail for lack of trying, however. He did his best to appoint justices who shared his judicial philosophy. Over two terms, Reagan filled three vacancies and elevated conservative William Rehnquist to chief justice. He nominated the great Antonin Scalia to replace Rehnquist as an associate justice. But two Reagan appointees—Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy (his third choice after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg)—would become huge disappointments.

When Reagan left office, the Supreme Court was still controlled by a majority of activist justices, as it is today.

I believe the Supreme Court is so broken it cannot be fixed simply by naming seemingly good candidates to the court, then hoping they vote like originalists during their life-long terms.

Institutional Reform

The Supreme Court needs to be reformed as an institution. It needs systemic solutions. Two I favor are limiting the terms of justices and giving Congress the power to veto a Supreme Court decision with a super-majority vote in both houses. Both reforms would require constitutional amendments. But it is time for conservative political leaders to start advocating them aggressively and making the case for why they are needed to the voters.

Originalists in the Reagan mold believe the federal government possesses only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the role of the courts is strictly limited. Their job is neither to make laws nor amend the Constitution but to interpret the laws and the Constitution as written, guided by the plain meaning of the words and the intent of the Framers.

“Judges are not to overturn the will of legislative majorities absent a violation of a constitutional right, as those rights were understood by the Framers,” Judge Robert Bork once explained. “[J]udges may look to the text, structure, and history of the Constitution, but are prohibited from inventing extra-constitutiona l rights.”

Bork himself paid a high price for fidelity to this principle, and the Reagan Administration’s experience with his nomination helps illustrate why reform of the Supreme Court itself is needed.

When Reagan nominated Bork to the Court in 1987, liberal politicians and their allies in the media and in special-interest groups targeted him for character assassination. His views were systematically mischaracterized and maligned.

Even though Bork had been a law professor at Yale and had served with distinction as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, four members of an American Bar Association review panel had the audacity to rate him “not qualified” to serve on the Supreme Court.

What they really meant is that they feared Bork’s intellectual power and commitment to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Left's Desperation

The liberal elite are desperate to keep the Supreme Court on their side to advance liberal policy priorities that lack the popular support to win approval from state legislatures or Congress. It was not elected lawmakers who expelled God from the public square, conferred due process rights on al Qaeda terrorists and forced states to educate illegal aliens. It was unelected justices on the Supreme Court. For decades, this is the way the American left has won its most important political battles—not at the ballot box, but in court.

Because this is so, the liberal establishment will do whatever it can to stop the confirmation of originalist justices. If it cannot stop the confirmation, it will attempt to seduce the justice into its own ranks once he is sitting on the court. As I wrote in Men in Black, President Nixon clearly understood this when he was trying to decide whether to nominate Harry Blackmun to replace Justice Abe Fortas after the Senate had rejected Nixon’s first two choices for that vacancy.

Blackmun later recalled that Nixon asked him, “What kind of woman is Mrs. Blackmun?” When Blackmun wondered what this question was getting at, Nixon said, “She will be wooed by the Georgetown crowd. Can she withstand that kind of wooing?”

Blackmun contended she could. But, later, when Blackmun was contemplating whether the Constitution protected a right to privacy that encompassed a right to abortion, Mrs. Blackmun turned out to be the best-placed lobbyist for the pro-abortion movement. As Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong revealed in The Brethren, the justice’s wife told one of Blackmun’s pro-abortion clerks: “You and I are working on the same thing. Me at home and you at work.”

The result was Blackmun’s Roe v. Wade opinion, which took the abortion issue away from state legislatures, where it had always been, and elevated abortion to a constitutional right.

After the eventually disappointing nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the first Supreme Court vacancy of the Reagan presidency, the Reagan Administration developed a very good system for vetting judges. But even this system did not always succeed.

Potential Reagan nominees were not subjected to a litmus test, but they were carefully interviewed about their overall judicial philosophy. The guide for this interview was the Constitution itself. Anthony Kennedy got through the interview.

On the surface, Kennedy looked good. He was an intelligent man who had compiled a good record serving in the hostile, liberal environment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco. On the West Coast, Kennedy hadn’t drifted noticeably left. But in Washington, D.C., he did. He wrote the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas—holding that same-sex sodomy was a protected constitutional right. As part of his reasoning, Kennedy pointed to the European Court of Human Rights view on the subject.

Kennedy’s decision in that case was a classic example of judicial activism. He started with the result he wanted, and then went looking for a basis to justify it. In the end, he manufactured one.

Senate Democrats have made it even more difficult to achieve a majority originalist court with their widespread and unconstitutional use of the filibuster. Republicans will likely need a 60-vote Senate majority, or more, which would be a very difficult accomplishment.

While I believe the Supreme Court is long overdue for systemic reform, the requirement of amending the Constitution to achieve both term limits and the legislative veto would be a very difficult task. But unless we begin making the case now, explaining the necessity of the amendments to the public, we will never solve this threat to the system and process of government enshrined in the Constitution.

Putting term limits on justices is not a radical idea. It would actually help restore the balance the Constitution envisioned between the three branches of the federal government. With term limits, the Supreme Court would remain an independent body, but they would allow for the replacement of justices on a timely basis, rather than waiting for them to die or set their own retirement date. And if justices are going to use their positions to set policy and, in essence, participate in the political process without the benefit of standing for election, there really is no reason for them to serve for life.

Giving Congress a veto over Supreme Court decisions would also help restore the balance between the court and the legislature. If it took a two-thirds majority vote in both houses to veto a decision, such vetoes would not happen often. But it does allow the people, through their elected branches, to have the last say. For example, I believe the horrendous Kelo v. New London decision, which said local governments can seize private homes and turn them over to private developers for the purpose of raising the tax base, may have garnered the bicameral two-thirds needed for a veto. Were the court to misuse the 14th Amendment to create a right to same-sex marriage, as I suspect it might, that, too, might secure the two-thirds votes necessary for a congressional veto.

There was no greater advocate of representative, constitutional government than Ronald Reagan, and no more outspoken opponent of unbridled judicial activism. If we are to preserve the Constitution as he and the framers understood it, then the Supreme Court must be reigned in through these modest reforms that also respect the independence of the court.

US HR 739 SAFE DV Industry Act

2009-10-03T11:09:34-04:00

H.R. 739 ‘SAFE’ Act – Ignoring…

An Industry

Battered by Reality

H.R. 739, the SAFE (Security and Financial Empowerment) Act has been introduced in the House to address alleged discrimination against victims of abuse.

But if we want to curb domestic violence, we first need to ask why existing domestic violence policies and programs have done such a poor job in helping victims and stopping abuse.

Evidence of the pervasive problems began to mount six years ago:

1. Ms. Foundation for Women: Minorities Harmed by Arrests

The original VAWA law provided millions of dollars to law enforcement agencies to implement mandatory arrest laws. But such policies have turned out to be ineffective, and the impact on minority communities has been devastating.

In 2003, the Ms. Foundation for Women concluded: “Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities.”^{^[1]}

2. OMB and DoJ: No Evidence of Effectiveness

In 2004, the Office of Management and Budget rated the effectiveness of abuse shelters supported by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. The OMB rating states flatly, “Not Performing: Results not Demonstrated.”[2]

That same year, Angela Moore Parmley of Department of Justice admitted, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”^{^[3]}

3. National Academy of Sciences: Programs ‘Driven by Ideology’

The following year the National Academy of Sciences released its report, Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women. The report concludes that many domestic violence programs are “driven by ideology and stakeholder interests rather than by plausible theories and scientific evidence of cause.”^{^[4]}

4. Researcher: ‘Factoids from Nowhere’ are Common

In 2007, University of Pennsylvania researcher Richard Gelles published a report documenting the widespread use of misleading and false claims by representatives of the domestic violence field. Professor Gelles concluded such “factoids from nowhere” could turn out to be “harmful to women, men, children, and the institution of the family.”[5]

5. CDC: Women More Likely to Abuse

Later that same year, the Centers for Disease Control released a national survey on partner aggression. Published in the May 2007 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, the study found that women were the aggressors in 7 out of 10 cases of one-way partner violence.[6]

This study confirmed over 200 other studies showing women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner violence. And last month, former NFL quarterback Steve McNair was murdered in his sleep by his ex-girlfriend.

Despite such compelling evidence, the domestic violence industry consistently refuses to acknowledge that violence-prone women need help.

6. Lawsuits

In recent years, a number of lawsuits have been filed against domestic violence programs.

· In California, a ground-breaking lawsuit resulted in the Third Court of Appeals ruling that domestic violence programs in the state were engaged in illegal sex discrimination.

· In West Virginia, a pending lawsuit alleges discrimination and dissemination of false and misleading information.

7. Florida IG: Cover-Ups

Last month the Florida Inspector General released the results of investigations of two abuse shelters in the state: Another Way and Harbor House.

Both investigations document attempts by top managers to thwart the reporting of child neglect and abuse that had occurred within the shelters. The similarity of the cases raises questions why two abuse shelters were engaged in such cover-ups.

8. California: Draconian Budget Cuts

Facing a $14.5 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently cut the budgets of almost all state departments by 10%. But when it came to abuse shelters, the governor opted to slash all – that’s 100% -- of the state funding.

One wonders if the governor will now demand accountability and proof of effectiveness before restoring funding to these abuse programs.

12-Point Plan to Rescue VAWA

Beset by a myriad of complaints, lawsuits, and budget cuts, the domestic violence industry has fallen into dire straights. But the industry refuses to acknowledge a problem even exists.

The upcoming renewal of the Violence Against Women Act provides a historic opportunity for lawmakers to institute long-overdue reforms. These are the changes that are needed:

Respect the wishes, decisions, and autonomy of victims.
Assure policies and programs are based on sound science, not rigid ideology.
Assure policies and programs are culturally-sensitive to the needs of African-Americans and other minorities.
Assure fairness and equal opportunity in funding for culturally-sensitive domestic violence programs.
Assure that services are made available to all groups. Avoid discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Assure programmatic and financial accountability.
Assure the criminal justice system respects due process protections. Phase out mandatory arrest laws that have been proven to be harmful.
Assure training and community education programs provide accurate information, and do not promote harmful gender stereotypes.
Assure that persons who provide services to victims and offenders have the necessary academic credentials and training.
Reform VAWA’s immigration provisions to restore due process and protect the rights of the falsely-accused.
Base services on a careful needs assessment that takes into account the many factors that can cause intimate partner aggression.
Respect the integrity of the family. Encourage counseling over incarceration.

HR 739 shrugs off the pressing need to revitalize the faltering domestic violence industry. We ask you to assure the upcoming Violence Against Women Act addresses the 12-point plan for VAWA revitalization.

Do victims of abuse deserve anything less?

For more information, contact:

African-Americans for

VAWA Reform

P.O. Box

8701

South Charleston, WV

25303

(304) 342-7752

www.aavreform.org

References

[1] Ms. Foundation for Women. Safety and justice for all.

New York

, 2003. http://www.ms.foundation.org/user-assets/PDF/Program/safety_justice.pdf

[2] Program Assessment: Family Violence Prevention and Services Program. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10002150.2004.html

[3] Parmley A. Violence against women post VAWA. Violence Against Women Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004. p. 1424.

[4] Kruttschnitt C, McLaughlin BL, and Petrie CV (eds). Advancing the Federal Research Agenda on Violence against Women.

Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2005, p. 6.

[5] Gelles RJ. The politics of research: The use, abuse, and misuse of social science data—The cases of intimate partner violence. Family Court Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2007.

[6] Whitaker DJ et al. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.

Puple Heart"s Final Beat

2009-09-23T16:28:47-04:00

Posted by: "Dan" dandiebolt@yahoo.com dandiebolt

Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:17 pm (PDT)

This is one of the most disturbing videos I have seen come out of our movement and it should move any legislator and judge to shame for the way soldiers and fathers are treated in our family courts. Additionally, it is very well scripted and produced here in Michigan. In fact, I think the producer should apply for Michigan Film Office for the tax credits so he can fund additional videos.

We need a concerted campaign to drive this video up in the number of views, add supportive comments and video replies. Lets help it go viral.

Purple Heart's Final Beat - A Soldier Suicide Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_StCzStBy0

This is why each state needs to have a US Hero Parent Child Custody Protection Act that does not allow the FOC and Family Court to use any time spent deployed in the service of our country against a parent in a child custody decision.

Molested by the State

2009-09-14T06:19:47-04:00

WorldNetDaily: "Molested by the State"

Posted by: "Stephen Baskerville" sbaskerville@cox.net

Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:08 am (PDT)

My article, "Molested by the State," is published today on WorldNetDaily.

----------------------------------------------------------
Molested by the state

----------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 12, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Stephen Baskerville
© 2009

A recent United Nations report advocates giving mandatory instruction in masturbation to children as young as 5. "Sexuality education is part of the duty of care of education and health authorities and institutions," according to the U.N.

Entitled "International Guidelines on Sexuality Education," the document is published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO. The entire document is a manifesto for governments to assume control over the "sexual education" of children, to inculcate in them politically correct ideas about sex and sexual politics, and to undermine and marginalize their parents.

To read the rest: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=109563

************************************************

Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia 20132

Available from Cumberland House Publishing:

Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family
STEPHEN BASKERVILLE, PhD

"This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children." -- Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

Order today at Amazon's special price of $16.47 (regular price $24.95).
For more than 80 articles and studies in mainstream publications on the abuses of the divorce industry, see www.stephenbaskerville.net.

Title IV Legislative Info

2009-09-06T14:18:24-04:00

We know of the much heralded Social Security Act of 1935, that is where retirees’ Social Security Checks come from. It may not be fully correct, to think that SSA is just about Retirement. It may well be, that certain individual’s willingness to expand U.S.A. Federal Programs, is what causes some to be wary of a National Health Plan.

Would we the people, as a nation, ever pay to separate children from their Fathers? You may very well be saddened and shocked to find that we do. Following are some brief excerpts, and a few hyperlinks, only by researching the Social Security Act for yourself, will you believe that Social Security is least concerned with Retirement.

Can a noncitizen receive Supplemental Security Income benefits? A noncitizen may receive Supplementary Security Income (SSI) if he or she meets the requirements of the laws for noncitizens that went into effect on August 22, 1996 and all the other requirements for SSI eligibility, such as the limits on income and resources. Certain aliens who have been subjected to battery or extreme cruelty or whose child or parent has been subjected to battery or extreme cruelty.

Did you know that there are forty-two titles to the Social Security Act, contained in two volumes? Each Title is comprised of Sections, and sub-sections, and sub-sub-sections, and Clauses and Conditions. Have you for instance read SSA Title IV, Sec. 403 (2)(A)(ii)(I)(aa)

SSA Title IV, Sec. 403 (A)(C)(ii)(3)(C)(5)(A)(vi)(C)(iii)(III)(dd)

In order to protect custodial parents and children who may be at risk of domestic violence, the preceding provisions of this subclause shall not be construed to affect any other provision of law requiring a custodial parent to cooperate in establishing the paternity of a child or establishing or enforcing a support order with respect to a child, or entitling a custodial parent to refuse, for good cause, to provide such cooperation as a condition of assistance or benefit under any program, shall not be construed to require such cooperation

Did you know: Title XX of the Social Security Act is administered by the Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services?

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title20/2000.htm

Social Security Home Page

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/ssact/ssact.htm

Compilation of the Social Security Laws

Social Security Act Table of Contents

volume two TOC

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/comp2/comp2toc.html

Truly,

Bob

van Ee, a DAD

Executive Director

West Michigan DADS

mailto:West_Michigan_DAD

Wyoming Michigan

49509

Action Alert: Michigan FOC Legislative Change Now

2009-09-03T22:02:31-04:00

ACTION ALERT: Join Me in Sending Recommendations for the Michigan Fr

Posted by: "Doug Dante" dougdante1@yahoo.com dougdante1

Wed Sep 2, 2009 4:59 pm (PDT)

Hi,

Please join me in sending recommendations for the Michigan Friend of the Court to Michigan's Judiciary Committees. To make it easy, I've created a form message that you can use below. Use this message, or just share your own personal experiences.

Thank you in advance to the many people who will take action.

Sincerely,

Doug Dante

TO:

markmeadows@house.mi.gov; EllenLipton@house.mi.gov; LisaBrown@house.mi.gov; BobConstan@house.mi.gov; marccorriveau@house.mi.gov; AndyCoulouris@house.mi.gov; AndrewKandrevas@house.mi.gov; bettiecookscott@house.mi.gov; rebekahwarren@house.mi.gov; tonyaschuitmaker@house.mi.gov; JustinAmash@house.mi.gov; JosephHaveman@house.mi.gov; rickjones@house.mi.gov; EileenKowall@house.mi.gov; toryrocca@house.mi.gov; senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov; SenACropsey@senate.michigan.gov; SenASanborn@senate.michigan.gov; SenBPatterson@senate.michigan.gov; SenGWhitmer@senate.michigan.gov; SenHClarke@senate.michigan.gov; SenRBasham@senate.state.mi.us

Subject:

Recommendations for the Michigan Friend of the Court

Body:

Members of the Michigan House/Senate Judiciary Committees,

Here are my recommendations for
the family justice system in Michigan or the Michigan Friend of the
Court. As
you know, these programs effect millions of Michiganders, including
children, parents, and extended family members, and as members of the
Michigan House and Senate Judiciary Committees, you are the people's
elected representatives regarding these matters.

There is a previously available summary and recommendations here which may assist you:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12745431/Suggestions-to-Help-the-Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Strengthen-Families

However, recommendations to you committee include matters such as:

* Reform child custody procedures so that African American fathers are no longer only 3/5hs as
likely as White Non-Hispanic fathers to receive a custody
recommendation for joint custody or a for father sole custody.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6169001/Analysis-of-Friend-of-the-Court-Custody-Recommendations

*
Reform court procedures to ensure that parents and children get due
process and that an impartial court has weighed all of the relevant
facts.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3123830/Michigan-Child-Custody-Survey-Report
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2561734/Some-Thoughts-on-Child-Custody-Hearings

* Reform the Friend of the Court Association to stop illegal lobbying using taxpayer dollars.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12744555/Is-the-Friend-of-the-Court-Stealing-Taxpayer-Dollars-From-Children-for-Illegal-Lobbying

* Reform the office of court recorder so that all litigants can get contemporaneous recordings, and we don't
have consistent accusations that court proceedings were altered after
the fact by insiders.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2257035/Contemporaneous-Recordings-for-Referee-Hearings-in-Michigan

* Create an independent fraud tip line and an independent internal investigative unit at the FOC to uncover underhanded activities. Provide a mechanism for
members of the public to submit reports of fraud and underhanded
tactics to such an organization. Provide specific guidelines for
investigations, including undercover investigations, and provide
specific guidelines for turning over information received to law
enforcement. Provide specific guidelines for annual public reports of
investigations and wrongdoings uncovered.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/948712/Detecting-Fraud-in-Court-Filings-Postal-Meters-Color-PrintersCopiers-and-Cartridges
http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives
http://www.scribd.com/doc/477791/A-Review-of-the-CSPER-Report

* Apply FOIA to the FOC and SCAO in matters not regarding a particular case,
including policy matters and those matters normally FOA-able in other
departments.

* Investigate evidence of fraud in child support calculations.
Change procedures so that fraud is more difficult, including requiring
that FOC must not coerce parents into signing away their rights, as
they do on the standard FOC child support form, and change procedures
so that parents can actually see how the 2008 MCSFM is applied in their
case. Children are harmed when child support amounts are either inadequate or excessive.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(Search for "fraud")
http://courts.michigan.gov/SCAO/courtforms/domesticrelations/support/foc10a.pdf

*
Review
the 2008 MCSFM. At this time , I do not believe that it
provides an adequate amount of the child's resources to his/her care
when in the care of the parent paying child support. In particular,
since the 2004-2008 formula, the elimination in the new 2008 formula of
the 50% overnight refund for more than 6 days as well as the
application of the new "difference of cubes" of overnights rule for
child support allocation means that children receive substantially
fewer family resources while in the care of one parent versus the care
of another. For example, a typical single child with a total base
support of $703.71 can receive only a paltry $29.37 per month to care
for his/her needs when spending about a third of his or her waking
hours at the paying parent's home. This is wrong and simply serves to
hurt children, although
it reduces the workload at the FOC and increases federal program income
for the FOC.

http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2008MCSFmanual.pdf
http://www.courts.michigan.gov/scao/resources/publications/manuals/focb/2004MCSFmanual.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/458394/Michigan-Friend-of-the-Court-Child-Support-Modification-Request
(Search for "Parenting Time Offsets Could Often Be Insignificant")

Michigan HB 5114 Opinion on Bill for Children

2009-08-29T22:55:21-04:00

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200908190430/OPINION03/908190304

August 19, 2009

Michigan House Bill 5114, Children Need Both Parents, was introduced June 17 by Rep. Brian Calley (R). HB5114 would mandate that "in a custody dispute between parents, the Court shall order joint custody unless either of the following applies: (A) The Court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit, unwilling or unable to care for the child," or, (B) if a parent "is unable to maintain the child's school schedule without interruption."

HB5114 has 19 co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, Mark Meadows (D), chairman. Meadows is against efforts by parents of broken homes to equally raise and care for their children, and is not expected to allow HB5114 a proper hearing.

...

Phillip N. Wurm
Vice president and west Michigan regional director,
A Child's Right
Hastings

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200908190430/OPINION03/908190304
[HOMEWORK] There is an active comment thread on this opinion piece written by fellow advocate Phil Wurm. Add your comments to the thread and include links to movement resources.

Support? goes to Atlanta!

2009-08-20T16:30:43-04:00

Dear Supporters,

Please pass this along today!

We are very excited for our first feature film festival coming up next month in Atlanta.

WE MADE IT!

Please go to www.supportthemovie.com for more info on dates and times or buy your tickets today at www.pviff.com .

If you or someone you know can help us with some of the following we really could use help raising some funding. We have added some awesome SUPPORT? white T-shirts so you can help by wearing them proudly. http://shop.supportthemovie.com/main.sc

If you can make a donation of $5,$10,$20,$100 or whatever fits your budget please do so we need the following NOW:

2- National Press Releases before the event $165 each with PR News wire

Marketing posters and flyers : $300.00

Hotel stay for 2 nights-$250.00

You can go to our website www.supportthemovie.com and click this banner now.

Please just go to www.paypal.com and send your contribution to info@supportthemovie.com

We hope to see you there and as always THANK YOU for those that believe in us and continue to support this project!

May God Bless you.

SUPPORT? system down

www.supportthemovie.com

Warmest Regards,

Angelo Lobo

SUPPORT? system down

www.shop.supportthemovie.com

Email: Info@supportthemovie.com

Follow-Us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/supportthemovie
Website : www.supportthemovie.com
Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/user/SupportTheMovie
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/supportthemovie
FaceBook: Supportthemovie

Action And Support for Ohio Cases

2009-06-29T14:52:40-04:00

Posted by: "PACE Akron" pace_akron@hotmail.com drmashie

Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:30 pm (PDT)

It seems like all I ever get to do is report a new set back or ask for
money so we can jump through some new hoop that the courts have thrown in front
of us as we work to challenge the constitutionality of Ohio's custody law
and protect our rights as parents. In some ways I have to do that BUT in
some ways we have made some progress.

With the latest move by the court in Chuck Evan's case, I truly believe that
we are getting very close, maybe too close for the courts, and they are now
really reaching into their bag of tricks to stop us. But tricks like this
new one simply make us reach deeper into our own bag and come out swinging
harder.

Chuck has been declared a vexatious litigant and the courts have now taken
away his ability to defend himself in his divorce. Can you say, "Blatant
violation of his due process rights?" When one has to bow to the discretion
of the court in deciding what you can or can NOT file to protect yourself,
there is no way that a proper defense can be presented. Under the current
situation, there is no adequate remedy!

As we told you, Chuck had filed a Writ of Prohibition to prevent the courts
from having a temporary custody hearing stopping any chance of seeing or
getting custody of his son so that he could put the needs of others ahead of
his own in a quest for equal custody for all fit parents. The court of
Appeals has denied the Writ BUT they did give us the complete proper
procedure on how to proceed with have the Constitutionality of the Law heard
by the Family Court. This declaration that he is a "vexatious litigator" now
requires him to ask permission, from the same judge that declared him
vexatious, to file anything in any state proceeding. He has already been
denied the right to appeal the decision!

If we are going to make this happen for everyone as Chuck wishes to do we
need to file:

1. A Writ of Extraordinary Mandamus with the Ohio Supreme Court so he can
proceed with the appeal and overturn this malicious finding of being a
vexatious litigant.

2. A Constitutional Challenge to the Vexatious Litigant laws as they
pertain in Family Court situations in Federal Court.

3. A Constitutional Challenge to Ohio's Custody law 3109.04, the
Temporary Hearings law 3109.043 and Old Civil Rule 75N in Federal Court.
This case we are going to ask the Federal court to hold in Abeyance pending
a decision by the State Court on Chuck's original Declaratory Judgment case.

For this to happen we need money and we need it now. Chuck Evans, Mike
Galluzzo, a few unnamed individuals and I have funded these cases with some
outside help but we are all broke and out of funds. The hours expended are
enormous! It is easier for many to share the cost than for a few to pay the
bill.

We have set up a Chip In on the PACE site to track progress on this effort.
This will allow everyone to donate thru PayPal. If you want to simply mail a
check or money order to Chuck that can happen also by mailing today to:

Please send donations to:

Chuck Evans

1892 REAR Oakland Park Ave.

Columbus, Ohio 43224

That is why we need your financial help immediately! As you know,
litigation can kill you financially and we have nothing to proceed with!
You have probably been in that situation yourself, but even a small donation
($5 - 20) will help if you can't donate more.

Chuck has sacrificed for many years to get us to this point and the least we
can do is help with the filing fees. His victory in this will be a great
help to all of us!

It is time to stand up and be counted!

Thank you for your support!

Ray Lautenschlager

PACE Akron

"The keeper of the penny"

#3

"Success is more permanent when you achieve it without

destroying your principles". - Walter Cronkite

We are continually faced with a series of great opportunities

brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.
- John W. Gardner

<http://www.pacegroup.org/> www.pacegroup.org

<http://www.raylautenschlager.com/> www.raylautenschlager.com

http://www.pace-akron.net

<http://tagged.com/raylautenschlager> http://tagged.com/raylautenschlager

Home: 330-907-0664