Divorce family court free-use commons image

American family courts, the First Amendment, and violations of free speech: Part II

Editor’s note: This article is being published under a pseudonym, for fear of retribution by the family courts. —SM


My apologies to all the readers for the delay in publishing this Part II of this article. After the publication of Part I, I was warned by my counsel that publishing this article, even under a pseudonym, would be very dangerous to the case I am currently fighting in family court. Counsel has advised that the judge would the take the criticisms and analysis in this article personally, and would likely rule against me because of it. However, such threats should never chill the reporting, publication, and information contained in these articles. Additional delays came from a couple more interviews I had to complete for the article and a Men’s Issues Conference that I had to attend. However, here is Part II, and I thank you for your patience.

Part II

When inherent fundamental rights clash with the immediate power structure in place, those rights are the first to fall. Under the direction of corrupt institutions the ideal of inalienable rights becomes a misnomer—since the structures in place have the immediate power to deny you those rights, they are no longer inalienable by instant circumstance.

And so it is with the family courts. Although they co-exist in a land where federal constitutional rights abound, and where such rights are legally controlling, these courts routinely ignore them. The federal “inalienable” right to parent one’s child is barely ever mentioned or entertained.

A fundamental right is not to be infringed upon unless that right was forfeited by the person. Thus, for example, a person found guilty of some offense, via due process, can be denied the right to his freedom. And yet, federal constitutional parenting rights are violated in family courts all the time. Through no fault or action of their own, parents are routinely stripped of their parental custody rights, and of their free speech rights. Later after months or years of such constitutional denial, a hearing may be held that in itself can take months to complete. In practice, and likely by design, it rarely happens or it is too late to mean anything; usually a “settlement” is extorted from the parent.

In combined attrition, parents are beaten down psychologically and financially, through money spent on attorneys and mental health evaluators, and the continuing corrosive denial of their children. During all that time, CPS and social workers, always looking to justify their existence, are constantly yapping at the ankles of parents, ready to pounce upon the slightest anonymous complaint or contrived folk wisdom, eager to interject themselves into the custody proceedings and shift the presumption of parental fitness using hysterical claims, usually against the father.

Thankfully absent throughout the years of the intact family, it is when a family is dissolving CPS workers pop up like cow patty mushrooms, and like blowflies that are attracted to the whole mess. Suddenly neglect and abuse is seen everywhere it was never seen before. Their mere proximity, armed with official henhouse gossip, is enough to dirty the reputation of the target parent in the custody actions, again usually the father, irrespective of either the legitimacy of their accusations or eventual findings of innocence. And it is no accident, CPS agencies are overwhelmingly staffed and driven by ideological feminists.

And all this is considered a perfectly normal template, applied to the assembly line of families to be processed through their machine; milking parents of their resources, time, money, and quality of life. Most importantly to the system, it is the money that can be gouged from them, through threats of fines, imprisonment, loss of their children, and public defamation. With such extortionate powers, the money pours into the family court system like water—the attorneys, psychologists, therapists, evaluators, visitations centers, the filing fees, and transcripts costs. Judicial orders and threats move these things along, with police, tasers, guns, and jail cells not far behind for those who don’t play ball.

As I mentioned in Part I of this article, all these things, traditionally very hidden from public view, provide a backdrop of corruption that would otherwise be prime for public criticism and expose. But the thing thrives in the dark, and can fester only when not being criticized or revealed. Much as a tyrant like Idi Amin was able to get away with atrocities in Uganda, but only while he kept it hidden within his borders, when it spills over into the rest of the world such regimes collapse under their own top-heavy, brittle, and self-justifying existence.

Similarly, the allergic reaction that most family court judges respond with, to anything even approaching public attention or criticism, is a consequence of their guilty knowledge of what they do, and their need to cover it up. Such judges will misuse the power of their office to silence, sanction, remove children from, and even imprison those who dare criticize their system. It makes no difference to them that everything they do is public record by law and a constitutional right of the public to see them. Aware of the zero-tolerance attitude of family court judges to public revelations, savvy attorneys will naturally attempt to game the system by filing motions in these courts seeking to shut down the opposing side’s public speech, motions that in any other court would be considered legally frivolous, and sanctionable.

Information Wants to Be Set Free

As our culture evolves, and since information just wants to be free, we now see increasingly, [1] the popular dissemination and publication of public criticism of governmental institutional abuses, and [2] the reactionary backlash by those same institutions who have grown complacent, sloppy, and self-righteous with the abusive and hidden activities regularly committed out of public oversight.

As they see it, who needs quality control when there are no consequences?

Like cockroaches, the functionaries making up these institutions run for cover when exposed to the light of public attention and will therefore try to subvert any attempt to do so. It is the same dynamic that drives police officers across the nation to falsely assert their right to commit atrocities in public, yet demand that no one be permitted to record them doing it. Similarly, we can see the NSA’s reactions to Edward Snowden’s revelations of their illegal activities, seeking to shut him down preemptively. Even on trivial matters, the NSA sought to shut down even a T-Shirt manufacturer for selling shirts that mocked the NSA.

With the same mentality, family courts have reacted similarly to public disclosure of their normally hidden inner sanctum. With the fortress-like edifice that family courts hold against any review or oversight, the only thing they seem to respond to is public attention and outrage, and have developed ways to keep their violations out of public view. Illegal edicts, threats, and orders often get conveyed to parents in far more subtle ways, ways that lack a formal written record or order that they can be held accountable for. Family court judges will order or threaten parents from the bench, not issuing a formal written order that they know can be appealed or republished to the public. In this way they avoid the disinfecting sunlight of public attention, yet still manage to convey their threats and censorship.

Case Study #1

For example, on January 19, 2011, Nassau County, New York, Judge Anthony Falanga issued a from-the-bench directive and threat to Anthony Pappas, a Professor of Economics at St. John’s University, and litigant in family court. Prof. Pappas had gone public with his complaints and experiences in the courts, of which the judge did not want him to continue, and stated to him:

“I am admonishing you right now, you are not to communicate with anybody inside the court system, outside the court system, about how you feel you were being treated or anything like that. If you feel I am violating your right to free speech, you have the absolute right to feel that way and do whatever you feel is appropriate. If I decide to hold you in contempt, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Do you understand?”

More egregious examples abound, and often occur within the context of counsel seeking to conceal egregious behavior of their clients, and the court’s complicit willingness to permit it. Such attorneys will seek a restraining order to prevent the public speech of fathers, who merely want to share or vent their experiences in court.

Often, judges will threaten the father with sanctions if they continue to express their opinions and experiences; sometimes judges will become retaliatory if the father uses other collateral legal avenues to support his efforts while the litigation is occurring in family court. Such judges will threaten to limit access and/or legal custody of their children as a method of control, punishment, and sanction against such “uncooperative” fathers.

Case Study #2

In Indiana, on April 29, 2009, Judge James D. Humphrey gave an ultimatum to Daniel Brewington: If Brewington continued to post and publish his experiences related to his custody efforts in the Indiana Dearborn Circuit court in his Internet blogging, it would be at the risk of losing custody of his children.

Eventually, when he continued to report to the public of his experiences, Brewington was stripped of all access to his children. When that did not stop him from expressing his free speech, Indiana officials eventually convicted and jailed him, by divining in his writings an unstated hidden threat to a judge.

Case Study #3

On March 11, 2013, Gary L. Jacobs, a candidate for the Suffolk county New York legislature, was called into Suffolk County Family Court (Hon. Julianne S. Eisman presiding) to face a family offense petition for harassment, with his ex-wife seeking a restraining order to prohibit his publishing of his family court experiences on his private Facebook page.

After issuing denigrating admonishments from the bench, accusing Jacobs’s postings as “bad parenting” and “bad ex-husbandry”, and suggestions that he be sued civilly for defamation by his ex-wife, the judge fortunately denied the restraining order and dismissed the family offense petition.

Case Study #4

From 2012, Jason Patric, a celebrated actor, had conducted a public campaign, Stand Up For Gus, to publicize his family court case. He highlighted the inequities where he was denied even the presumption to argue his fatherhood of his child, and he also established a public foundation to fight parental alienation.

On or about February 6, 2014, attorneys for the mother of his child filed a motion for a restraining order to stop his campaign, gag his public speech, and prohibit him from posting on the Internet. Fortunately there too, the judge denied the motion, correctly ruling that such an order would be a prior restraint in violation of the 1st Amendment, U.S. Const.

Case Study #5

On February 14, 2013, Juvenile Court Judge Joseph Johnston suspended Lou and Linda Pelletier’s parental rights by remanding custody of their daughter Justina to Department of Children and Families (DCF) agency. In that order was the directive that the Pelletiers were forbidden from discussing or communicating the circumstances of their daughter’s removal from their care to anyone.

After almost a year of attempting to regain custody of their daughter, Lou Pelletier decided to break the court order, and in February 2014 went to the public with his story. He had brought his daughter to Boston Children’s hospital for a stomachache and cramps, but the hospital then refused to release her back to her parents, asserting that the parents refused to accept their diagnosis of mental illness, not a physical ailment.

DCF then filed a contempt of court petition, citing the Pelletiers’ discussion of their case to the media. DCF then later dropped the charge, after 1st Amendment lawyers criticized the gag order as unconstitutional, and public condemnation descended upon DCF and the court

Citing the parents behavior as unacceptable, in [1] being profane to hospital workers, [2] having publicized the case in the media, [3] objecting to the minimal one hour per week visits they were permitted to see their daughter, the judge concluded that the Pelletiers were “impeding progress in this case” and that they were not cooperating with treatment and conditions that were being imposed upon them and their daughter.

Due to the parents’ insufficient cowering and refusal to validate the removal of their child for no legal reason, the judge asserted that the parents’ custody of their own daughter was against her best interests, and again remanded custody to the state. There were no findings of actual unfitness to conclude this, rather because these parents complained loudly to the media, held obvious animosity to their daughter’s captors, and refused to legitimize this treatment, the court ruled they were unfit to raise and care for their child.

Case Study #6

On December 29, 2013, a father, Christopher Mackney, having suffered the removal of his children, destruction of his life, and further judicial abuse upon himself in the family court beyond his limits, drafted a suicide letter detailing exactly how these courts brought him to kill himself. After his suicide, the letter made its way to the media, where it was then published in various Internet publications and websites.

Soon after, on April 15, 2014, not liking the content of the message Mackney had published to the world with his last dying declaration, his estranged wife asserted legal privilege, claiming copyright control, over the letter and sought via cease and desist demands to remove Mackney’s letter from publication. These efforts are still pending, and the legal threats still ensuing to the publishing outlets.

Case Study #7

On November 23, 2011, Mark Byron of Cincinnati, Ohio, posted on his private Facebook account the statement:

“. . . . if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely — all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner…”

The page was only accessible to his friends, but his ex-wife hacked into the account and read what had been written. She then went to the judge to complain about it. For this generalized free speech lament, on January 25, 2012, Judge Jon Seive of Hamilton County Domestic Court sentenced Mark Byron to 60 days in jail for expressing his angst and observations to his friends. Issuing an order to compel Byron’s speech that was just as violative as the order to restrict it, the judge then extorted Byronoffering to suspend and replace the jail sentence if he posted for 30 days on his Facebook page an apology written by the judge and speaking as if he were Byron to his wife.

Initially Byron complied, but after 26 days he took down the counterfeit apology, and went back to court to face the jail time he was threatened with for his expressing his opinions. By that time, a maelstrom of criticism from over the country had descended upon the Hamilton County Court, accusing it of blatant violations of the 1st Amendment’s protections of free speech, and Judge Seive capitulated the point, and did not imprison Byron, trying save face by stating that he felt Byron had been punished enough.

Case Study #8

Gary Trieste, a Kingston, NY, father embroiled in a three-year custody case starting in 2011, had at an early stage publicized his case on the Internet and media, his case was written up and commented upon, he appeared in documentaries and radio programs, publishing articles and video exposés on the family court system. In January 2014, during the ongoing custody trial, a 50-page motion was filed against him by his ex-wife, seeking a court ordered injunction preventing him from either publishing, speaking to the media, writing articles, or releasing videos of anything related to the family court proceedings, his family, or his experiences in court.

In April 2014, the Ulster County Family Court ruled that such an order would be a prior restraint of free speech and denied the motion; however, in the closing pages of the order, although Trieste’s publications had nothing to do with his fitness as a parent, the judge admonished Trieste’s public activism and criticism as reckless and bad parenting, and threatened that such 1st Amendment activity would nonetheless be used as evidence in the trial, putting at question his fitness as a parent in the custody case.

Case Study #9

In 2010, W. David Kimbrell was in the middle of a heated custody battle in Santa Fe County, New Mexico. The court had assigned a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for the children, to which Kimbrell vehemently objected to and attempted to have removed as biased and in conflict of interest. The lower court ruled that Kimbrell’s attempts to remove the GAL were relentless and improper, and issued an order that Kimbrell should cease and desist those efforts; that order included a provision that Kimbrell could not even communicate his displeasure and complaints to the media. Kimbrell then formed an organization called StopCourtAbuseOfChildren.com (now defunct), from which he continued to publish his issues and criticisms of the GAL.

On July 1, 2011, the court issued an injunction preventing Kimbrell from publishing anything related to his misgivings about the GAL on the Internet. Kimbrell appealed to the NM Court of Appeals, and this order was reversed on the basis that such publications were protected by the freedom of speech clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. The court sent the case back with instruction to the lower court to determine whether Kimbrell’s publications constituted defamation.

Case Study #10

In early 2014, pursuant to a family court custody proceeding, Surrender Malhan was stripped of custody of his two children by New Jersey Essex County Superior Court Judge Nancy Sivilli without even a hearing, as was required by law. After he was interviewed by Channel 9’s newsprogram “Chasing New Jersey,” and he complained about what the court had done and the improper procedures, Judge Sivilli went ballistic, and on May 1, 2014, she issued a censorship restraining order prohibiting Malhan from discussing, reporting, or expressing himself to any of the press, media, or even on his Facebook or Twitter accounts, and ordered him to take down any and all information he had posted online. The judge’s post hoc justification of this order was that any discussion of the court, judge, or proceedings in published or broadcast form would harm the children, using the BIOTC invocation as an excuse to trump his Constitutional rights.

However, in response to the order, Paul Nichols, a reporter for the Bergen Dispatch who wanted to interview Mulhan, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District of New Jersey court, asserting that such capricious orders were a violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, see Dkt #2:14-cv-03821 WJM/MF. In the lawsuit, Nichols argues that BIOTC analysis can never trump fundamental federal rights, and that Sivilli’s order was unconstitutional. The case is still pending review.


The efforts at suppression of public speech is an emerging and accelerating trend in family and domestic courts in America. People are forcibly thrust into an unrecognizable maelstrom of demands and directives, legal wranglings, and Looking-Glass logic; the conflict of interests between those people’s right and inclination to express themselves, complain, or publish their experiences to others via the Internet and other media, unavoidably bumps into the insular and cloistered world of courts, judges, and adjunct professionals (e.g., psychologists, CPS workers, social workers, evaluators, attorneys).

Abuse of the power coming from these courts is nowhere more apparent, self-serving, and hypocritical than family courts. They consider provisional what should be absolute—constitutionally protected free-expression and speech, the right to redress grievances against the government, the right to public court proceedings, and the freedom of the press to publish such information.

Modern technologies are providing such easy broadcast capabilities for speech so as to now become as common place as making a phone call. What once was a major hurdle in information dissemination is now not a hurdle at all, and actually a normal mode of communication, e.g., Twitter, YouTube, blogging sites, Facebook, and special interests websites.

No longer is it acceptable to punish a parent’s expression of his experiences in court. Claiming a best interests of the child as an excuse to silence unrelated speech will be seen for what it is—an obvious excuse to protect the judge, not the child.

Threatening a parent’s custody or access to his child, solely because of such public expression and criticisms, is the province of sadists and sociopaths, and should have no place in an American court of equity.


About Guy Mann

Guy Mann is currently fighting desperately just to be able to see his child in the face of a misandrist family court system.

View All Posts
  • OldandNavy

    Well stated and illustrated. Usable as a resource for others, we all here appreciate the risk (to your own court proceedings) that you take in compiling this post.

    So. …… thank you.

  • Susie Parker

    You can read about the Holocaust a thousand times over, but until you experience it in some small way, it’s “gee, how awful…what’s for lunch”?

    Hundreds of thousands of men experience Family Court on daily basis, yet …you hardly hear a word spoken about it.

    Why? Because of the fear of speaking out about it. Fear from authorities, and fear of further harm to the child by the authorities.

    You CAN and WILL be punished for speaking the truth – either yourself personally will be punished, or they will harm your child to shut you up.

    But shut you up they will.

    This has been going on for a very long, long time. They’re experts at it and there’s no way around them. As one father said to me ” When you zig, they zig. When you zag, they zag”.

    Heads they win, tails you lose. Every time.

    • Bewildered

      You can read about the Holocaust a thousand times over, but until you
      experience it in some small way, it’s “gee, how awful…what’s for

      That’s willful APATHY . ALA your own ass is not on fire you keep your head buried deep in the sand.
      According to Steve Shives a nutcase masturbating in public needs urgent attention whereas the shenanigans in family courts that result in serious injustice done to men is not worthy of mention.It’s seen as the whining of the stronger and more advantaged sex!
      It won’t surprise me if many people agree with him.

      • Susie Parker

        It’s not so much willful as just Incomprehensible. You can listen to chubby Sally Struthers decrying starving children in Africa, or the massive damage from Katrina in New Orleans – but unless you’ve experienced starvation or seen the damage with your own eyes – it’s pretty incomprehensible just how horrific these things are.

        Much less take it to heart.

        • Ted Harrold

          I have to say you’re both right about all your examples and the Family court issues: we do not Truly comprehend the experience until facing it ourselves, but having said that, it’s willful apathy to not Empathize nor attempt to comprehend the situation even if we ourselves are not affected by it.

          One often does (even if it shouldn’t) lead to the other…

          • Susie Parker

            It’s why it’s so imperative that Family Court injustices MUST be discussed, exposed and pounded into people’s collective brains – it’s the only way this will be stopped.

            I know I seem to annoy certain people by bringing up my own court injustice experiences. I’ve been there. I’ve seen it, smelled it, felt it. It’s reall as hell. I think people presume it’s a plea for pity or attention seeking, when, in fact – it’s happened to too many people, and it WILL continue to happen until enough focus is place upon it to stop it.

            My single voice saying – it can and WILL happen to someone YOU know and love – is lost in the wind. Nobody wants to believe it until it happens, and THEN it’s too late.

            Maybe a father’s day telethon seeking donations, petitions and support? Maybe a Grandparent’s reunification encouragement day?

            Maybe “Family Day”? Nah. That would go over like a retail clerk saying “Merry Christmas” in December.

            “I don’t believe in family” “My father molested me/left us/beat me/was a drunk so I hate family” “I’m not into family”.

            “You cannot solve problems with the same intelligence which created it.” – from the Brian Banks Facebook page this morning.

          • garyonthenet

            I didn’t realize it much until after reading this, there really isn’t very much at all in the way of in-depth criticism of family court judges.
            Either it isn’t a public interest story, or everyone is running scared of the consequences.
            Something to ponder over.

          • Susie Parker

            You, sir, are a personal hero of mine for posting that exchange between you and the Social Worker. As someone who has faced that same type of horrible woman, it chilled me to the marrow. I don’t know how others reacted to that, but for me, I was reliving a fresh, raw nightmare.

            More people need to do what you did. That was as real as it gets.

            Respect for life on that one.

          • dreamjoehill

            In the Men’s Rights Movement, Father’s Rights issues are the strongest social justice issues, and break through the feminist indoctrination best.

          • Susie Parker

            All roads lead to Rome. It’s supporting the Constitution that should be the biggest equal/human rights issue for anybody and everybody. It applies to anybody and everybody and it affects anybody and everybody.

            I realize this does not apply to countries not affected by the US Constitution, but we have one – and it works.

            Any and every serious problem this country faces, it faces because exceptions were made to that one basic document. The current illegal immigrant problem is a direct result of Japanese Internment camps. The Largest Prison System In The World is a direct result of circumventing Due Process rights. We keep making the same mistakes over and over.


          • dreamjoehill

            All roads may lead to Rome but travel on some is faster than travel on others. The legitimacy of Men’s Rights is often trashed in the media, and of course by feminists. Pushing Father’s Rights to the front lines of the Men’s Rights agenda will go a long way towards popular support by emphasizing a pro-family, pro-children approach.

          • Ted Harrold

            I fully support you (and anyone else) sharing your story as much as you are comfortable with! As you said: we aren’t gonna learn if we aren’t gonna listen.

            I dunno about where you’re from, but Ontario’s Liberal Party made a Family Day a few years ago as the third Monday of February every year, and the only grumbling was about the province having another holiday (not every province has the same number yet). So far it’s been a great success from what I’ve heard from folks, and I think personally it should be a federal holiday (perhaps named family and friends day to encourage community get togethers too).
            I also think part of the success of it was that it was wnot touted as specific to any one family model: you could be a gay couple, a single-parent home, retired couples with kids livin their adult lives, etc etc, and Family Day was still just “a day for loved ones to have off and spend time together”.
            Even Feminazis can’t argue something like tha and expect anyone to even listen.

        • dreamjoehill

          Katrina was half the equation that brought down the Republicans (other 1/2 = Iraq).
          It got through very far into the US consciousness, but has faded into what Gore Vidal coined the United States of Amnesia.

          • Susie Parker

            Relentless news coverage will do that, I guess. Katrina brought down the Republicans more than a disgraced former POW involved in a banking scandal choosing a ditz-head for a running mate just because she was a gurrl? I doubt that. If John McCain had chosen a half way suitable running mate even I would have voted for him, and I have NEVER voted Republican in my entire life. Even the only-once-shown South Park episode suggesting the McCain campaign was a total scam to concede the election to Obama confirmed I wasn’t the only one to suspect this. Sarah Palin was what finally solidified the belief that “they’re all in cahoots together” for me. Katrina? Pfssst. Iraq? As opposed to Afghanistan STILL not being a problem?

          • dreamjoehill

            W’s poor response to Katrina brought down the Republican Congress.
            US policy in the middle east is a problem, a large one.

          • Susie Parker

            His response to 9/11 was worse. Seriously – what’s more important than getting free birf’ control?

          • dreamjoehill

            What’s birf’ control?

  • Junky

    The worst thing about this is that they will probably “back off” just long enough to let the public calm down so that they do not lose this power in any way shape or form.

  • D.Sinatra

    Good luck G.M. I guess I do not have to tell you to watch Your back. Take care. I’m debating using my real name on my opinions at this very moment. I look forward to meeting you one day. Thank you for the inspiration to speak against family court abuse.

  • DukeLax

    Wow, WTF…. how far have American courts regressed into decay???

    Are they now so “foul”, are they so “Stained” to the degree that speaking the truth to the public about youre case….could get you in trouble.

    • mike gibbs

      …how far have American courts regressed into decay???
      A lot further than most people care to comprehend. As long as it doesn’t happen to me, “I really don’t give a shit” you see? *THIS* is how we came to where we are today but the real shitty part of this whole thing is, now that we know what the corrupt court system is doing and capable of, why the hell don’t we do something about it?????

      • DukeLax

        If the feds are trying to “stimulate the economy”, by pork bloating multiple private and bureaucratic sectors of the economy…Is it too much of a stretch to believe that many of the struggles that American guys now face are simply the result of the feds trying to stimulate the economy by “pork bloating” the legal sector, courts, and law enforcement??? These “Pork bloating triangles” and their make work practices are getting destructive.

  • Chris

    Was reading an article about marriage licenses, if you look carefully they are really contracts between the husband, wife, and “guest” without describing who that guest is. Most would assume the guest is the wedding party. Actually it’s the family courts, and contract law takes over, there’s even talk of privatizing the family courts, making the guest the corporate business arm of an non governmental organization. The contract allows family courts to seize children and property as a third party in the wedding.

    • Andrew_S

      Family courts are effectively a business under the corporate model, they operate the same way under the guidance and ethics of the corporation counsel that represents your county. They decide the make up of what goes on in your county, who does business there and what the future population model should be. Unfortunately they have a legislative body that maneuvers to maximize its productivity by changing rules and procedures to overcome obstacles to it’s existence. For the most part the courts effectively apportion family product which is children to a model which works for the state and will continue to do so, until people understand that as the president and their acolytes have stated time and time again, your existence is a privilege and you must pay for it while provide a welfare system for the third state of the united states, and that is the legal welfare system and its vast bureaucracy that needs feeding.

      Perhaps up to one third of this nations economic output is divested into the legal systems coffers, and does not include state functions which they manage on behalf of the state as various agencies and sub-corporations on a model that states we can do a better job that a state function for the people. The model encompasses medical, insurance, finance and costs of living. Using market shock tests where you are the market and the shock is how far you will take it up the ass before complaining, and apparently this method is so far up peoples asses they appear to not only like it but tolerate it. I do not know of corporate formed body that is not franchised as a leased business, including family courts. Even so, and even if the many corporations that exist within family court claim business status on one hand, they also claim state privilege, and therefore will never produce their accounts but will continue to operate them like a business. Even declaring themselves on Dunn and Bradstreet as a business operation without the accountability. A simple description to use the congressional model created out of this by architects such as the Biden’s, Bradley’s and Clinton’s was the privatization model by suggestion of males following the ‘they will steal from the economy model’, but essentially it works by simply privatizing the profits and socializing the costs against the general public, Despite their thinking that it is a good thing, where the actuality is it exacerbates future problems and costs for the general public as a product of it. After all like the Shakespearean sonnet regarding lawyers in which they create quibbles and contracts out of thin air, and have a master to authorize them by force. That is what is called attorney work product, just like money they create an income stream out of thin air, by blackmail, obfuscation or cost prohibitive procedures or by force at the end of a gun which they collectively may call upon to enforce the doctrine. This in terms of history is nothing new, the parasitic nature of their business has been tried time and time again and unfortunately we have not learned the historical lesson that like leeches they attach and prey on the general public until there is nothing left to feed on for work and then they go away or enjoin with the fate of the culture on which they have been feeding.

      The only way out of this is peaceably by attempting to starve this beast or to take up a cause against them, and like all such arguments until and as historical notes have described they weaken under their own privileged and entitled status off stealing too much from the population. Whatever happens in the future always remember they are after the minds of children whether they know it or not, and children are this nations future but the choice of the corporate state not the individual or their families. Feminism is one such doctrine, and like some religions views the state as their patriarch to determine their fate under the wisdom of some God or other. Many cultures from history were not flash in the pan endeavors they were formed of course less our more expansive technologies with a trust and future. Many existed for centuries at an average of about seven generations, before the weight of the accompanying bureaucracy destroyed them, what makes us any different despite the technology of being able to print as much money to sustain them as they need.

    • garyonthenet

      You say contract law takes over. Well in some perverted way that is true, particularly the jurisprudence view that [1] you cannot enter into an agreement that is in contradiction of preexisting law, [2] a court can legally second guess the clear terms of an agreement if it thinks that it was somehow fundamentally unfair or unknowing, [3] by entering into such a contract, you are also agreeing to a panoply of terms that appear nowhere in the document – by law you implicitly agree to those terms whether you know them or not.
      So the problem with contract law here, is not that the contract you enter into is ambiguous on its face, but rather that all the terms are subject to revision. It is a sucker’s bet, where nothing is understood, or fixed, or reliable. It is basically a procedure where you unknowingly agree to be buttfukt by your ex and the state if your marriage fails.

  • TPH

    Having experienced a gag order stopping me from communicating the issues during my divorce (drug addicted ex-wife, child abusing ex-wife), I undersand what Guy is going through. Through threats, both subtle and direct, I was effectively silenced. I was even forbidden from discussing the issues with my own mother, brother, and sister!

    What is crystal clear to me is the fact that the family courts are way, way past broken. They have become billion dollar businesses who’s aim is to exthort as much money from parents, usually fathers, as possible. The courts operate in a shadow world of hatred, greed, and malfeasance. Question the courts and judges, be prepared to pay up with money and contempt charges. Judges in family courts care about their absolute power and absolute ability to destroy anyone who dares question them, perhaps that’s why there are so many feminist family court judges. Destroying a family, destroying a father and his child/children is routine for family court judges, to them their power means everything, they could care less about the carnage they impose on fathers and children. In the end, its about power and money and nothing else.

    Plenty of articles have been written saying feminism does not want to destroy the family and fathers, yet the actions of the family courts disprove those assertions since most of the judges are trained by feminists and are more likely than not to be feminists. When the odd case of a woman being sanctioned by the family court, perhaps losing custody or being forced to pay child support/alimony comes out, the media goes into full tilt rage at how misogynist the family court system is, never mind the millions of men stripped of their livelihood and ability to be a nurturing father. That won’t sell advertising.

    Family courts and sadistic power crazed judges won’t change unless there is a massive, massive fight by both women and men against the systemic corruption and injustice. As long as the family courts overwhelmingly support women and demonize men, it won’t happen. Many women realize that they’ve got a good thing going with the way the family courts are currently structured. They aren’t going to protest what ultimately benefits them.

    In the end, men really have only two choices: Have relationships, sire children and toss the dice hoping for the best, or avoid the potential trap and pain altogether.

    Men are slowly beginning to see the truth of how deep the government is entwined in personal relationships. The government will get it’s cut no matter what. Men are also awakening to the situation and are voting with their feet. Marriage is at historic low levels, men are avoiding the gun in the room and are routinely shamed and demonized by many women and the government.

    So what’s a man to do with the cards stacked against him?

    Don’t play the game, avoid marriage like the plague, and get educated on boys and mens issues. Knowledge is real power, and it’s also one of the reasons feminists hate our guts, we have awoken and are slowly making the truth known. I’d rather be a heretic in a church of evil then a zealot in the church of feminism.

    • Andrew_S

      What you are describing is POLICY, I have heard many times the filthy word uttered by judges who declare that there is nothing they can do against what is deemed federal policy. So we can all play the game or not the rsult will always be the same. So rather than focus on judges who obey an undeclared public policy and females who for the time being benefit, even the same attorneys who claim equitable arguments for doing the deed, so let us look at the end game. What is their objective, money sure plays a good part in the incentives but that is just an incentive to achieve an objective. Do you know what that is, after all family courts as the article describes are far from being family orientated or even equitable ior even the disposer of justice.

      Have you read Rebecca J. Cooks article on population policy ( the US version) explaining from think tankery how family court judges are to be used., calling for the institution to be in place from 1974 and even further back, the very same years the Biden, Clintons and the Bradleys of this world looked at issues of resolving a population ‘problem’. The same year collectively some nefarious global agencies instituted binding population agreements. China introduced one child policies, the Asian sub continent introduced medical sterilization, the African subcontinent introduced to demographic attrition and here in the US we were exposed to family courts operated by lawyers and government think tanks. If you think that the marriage strike is going to do anything, think again that is an objective for less procreating, as well as feminism, where we promote inter gender hatred which is absolutely masterful. Think about it, their the current system entertains the feminist mystique, rewards certain behaviors and promotes the most psychotic among them for their world views. Why, simply less copulating leaning to more work and the rewards of materialism as opposed to familial. More importantly it promotes the mindset of not individualism but collectivism and the benefits of entitlement by show of force. Just like family courts they gang together to promote the ideology, they for money while sacrificing the family to the state. People behaving badly and according to their nature is a masterful use by the family court for revenue, which it creates for its own ends, but it is operated as a state within a state,

      Remember the statement attributed to Brock Chisolm.

      “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family tradition, national patriotism, and
      religious dogmas.” —George Brock Chisholm, in a Speech given at the, Conference on Education, Asilomar, California, September 11, 1954

      An the UDMA (uniform marriage act) which was formed from the same state, think tanks, academics and policies implemented to achieve the same, they were not joking, believe me. They want less breeders and bread gobblers. Judges are empowered by their omnipotence and unaccountability with such thoughts as viewing anything that comes before them as insects and children. They are probably the most evil product of corporatism as opposed to its communistic ideals. A failure that will cost us all dearly and against everything that Americans believe in, the simple truth.

      • garyonthenet

        I was on occasion thinking along those lines, although I am not particularly a conspiracist minded person.
        But certainly if enough men caught on that marriage, and even procreation, under our current legal system is simply a sucker’s bet, then less would participate in it in significant quantities. Less participation means less babies and less population.
        Although there were population reduction activists very popular in the 70’s, their doomsday scenarios haven’t quite panned out.
        Whether there is a correlation between these population-reductionists, and the anti-male family court policies of today, I am not so sure.
        My guess is that it is more immediately mercenary, socialize incomes so as to make it flow from men to enrich women. The inevitable baby unboom will be a side-effect.

        • dreamjoehill

          As to conspiracy, you know Gloria Steinem admits to running CIA psyops through her CIA front group in the late 50’s?
          She even recruited Zbignew Brzezinski for her ops at the Vienna youth Festival. Alice Walker too!
          History is full of strange conspiracy.

        • Andrew_S

          This below is from from 1974 ~ While all of us are confused, about what state endorsed feminism is, here is the fledgling document indicating a purpose to its inception. While many believe in conspiratorial theories, here it is in its infancy in federal and state policy formulation for enactment.

          While the pain of dealing with the states version of the greater good by sacrificing its populations, it is nothing compared to the ideologists and thinking we have today. I believe the US congress recently rushed through an even more insidious bill declaring 87% of the US population as a threat. With many parts redacted so the information is not available to the public. More importantly this document is more than 50 years old and it has had time for revision. More importantly the Cairo agreement was fulfilled by China as well as many asian policies. They achieved their quotas, while the US has not conformed with the idea that the legal systems model will have an affect for future generations.

          There are many such documents but all basically lead to the same argument, how do you get the bread gobblers to stop stealing oxygen.

          Legal Change
          Before analyzing legal change, one has to consider whether or not legal change should be voluntary or coercive. There are three kinds
          of legal change, ranging from voluntarism to coercion, from which population policy makers can choose: (1) removal of pro-natalist
          policies; (2) creation of incentives and; (3) development of disincentives or implementation of anti-natalist policies.
          1. Removal of Pro-natalist Policies
          Pro-natalist policies originally based on moral grounds have been modified on the basis of the protection of fundamental rights, in
          particular the right of privacy. The first means of removing pro-natalist policies is typified by the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of information on birth control services and methods and the advertising and display of prescription and non-prescription contraceptive devices.

          The next legal step would be to allow abortions” … to preserve a woman’s mental or physical health and/or to avert the birth of defective offspring in cases of rape or incest.” The final legal means of insuring the right of privacy was taken by the Supreme Court in the companion case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The court held that a Texas statute and a Georgia statute which allowed abortions only where continued pregnancy would endanger a pregnant woman’s life’ or endanger her health, was an unconstitutional infringement of privacy and personal liberty.
          The Court held that in the first trimester abortion would be a matter for the woman and her physician to decide; in the second trimes-
          ter, the state may, if it chooses, regulate the procedures in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health; and only in the third
          trimester, subsequent to viability, may the states “regulate and even prescribe abortion except where necessary in appropriate med-
          ical judgment for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. “Along with the repeal of the pro-natalist aspects of laws directly
          affecting fertility it is also necessary to consider the pro-natalist aspects of laws which indirectly affect births through social and economic processesY In order to insure natal neutrality a change in tax laws would include the equalization of income taxes between single and married persons and the removal of tax deductions for children.
          2. Creation of Incentives
          The incentive stage would involve such legal changes as tax rebates for families of two or less children. Such incentives would be positive and would not jeopardize the human rights of an individual if he is a third or fourth child. Another example of an incentive measure is payments to those who voluntarily consent to sterilizations.
          3. Development of Disincentives or the Implementation of AntiNatalist Policies
          The implementation of anti-natalist policies should include the development of measures requiring compulsory sterilization of persons with three or more children. There have been serveral unsuccessful legislative attempts to institute anti-natalist, or population control, policies for those on welfare,38 and it would be a misrepresentation of state activity to avoid mentioning the attempts to institute such controversial measures. Among the examples of coercive legislative attempts were Tennessee and Ohio bills which would have made welfare payments conditional on the number of illegitimate children. If a woman had more than one illegitimate child, she would have been required by the Tennessee bill to be sterilized in order to be eligible for welfare payments. The Ohio bill would have required that a woman have injections of depo provera, the new shot contraceptive to qualify for aid.

          Despite official federal and state reports that the largest proportion of the population increase is attributable to the white middle class, some state legislators continue to introduce coercive legislation aimed against racial minorities under the auspices of population policy. These attempts to alter the racial composition of the population violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution and restrict the fundamental individual rights of one group.

          C. Transformation of Policy Into Law
          The transformation of population policy into law through judicial or legislative action depends on two distinctive functions of the legal
          process. 41 First, the legal process outlines the limitations on the policy maker and defines the boundaries of permissible decision
          making. Second, the legal process shapes policy objectives as it transforms policy into principles of law.
          Once the policy objective (i.e., the stabilization of the population growth rate) “is incorporated as such into law, it takes on a life of
          its own and might well be expanded to cover a variety of circumstances” never contemplated by the policy formulator. Option number one (in figure 1) is the only viable alternative which can be Voluntary or Coercive

          Model removal of lncentives for policy against pronatalists leading to fewer children.
          Legal Policies
          1. Remove laws
          2. Change tax
          3. Enact Change: prohibiting laws: i.e. compulsory contraceptives tax rebates sterilization law to unmarrieds after 3rd child transformed into a binding legal decision under a Griswold rationale whereas option number three can only be based on a policy objective of a decreasing population growth, not on a legal decision. Therefore great care must be taken, both judicially and legislatively, in adopting the requisite legal standards.

          One central issue in determining a population policy relates to the most effective use of scarce resources available to influence popula-
          tion growth. A systems approach to the examination of a comprehensive set of public policies to reduce rapid population growth can
          be a useful tool in assisting decision makers in gaining insight into the feasible alternatives available to them to directly and indirectly
          influence population growth (see figure 2 below). The system could be conceptualized as those sets of public and private decisions
          which influence population growth and the interrelationship between the two sets. Assuming that the objective or output of the
          system is to reduce population growth to a level where a desirable balance between population and available resources is maintained,
          a logical approach would be to determine what kinds of decisions should be taken at the public and private levels to achieve said

          The decision makers include: (1) the couple who decide or do not decide to have another child; and (2) individuals in the judicial,
          legislative, and executive branches of municipal, state, regional and national government, who formulate, implement and administer
          policies. The legal systems model is helpful in conceptualizing the problem, in order that all kinds of law, not just family planning and abortion laws, will be considered in formulating prescriptive population policies. In creating a population policy it is important to analyze pro-natalist laws which have but an indirect effect on a population policy. A change in these laws would also advance the objective of a decreased birth rate.

          The legal systems model is particularly applicable to policy formation within the legislative process. The state legislatures have been an important forum in which prescriptive population policies have been debated, formulated and, often times, implemented. This interplay between prospective policy formulation and law is distinctively a legislative process. Legislators can outline existing laws, determine political and legal constraints on the policy and, based on available options, outline the necessary legal change.

          – However I am of the disposition that like men who ran frog marched or alone to gestapo death pits and welcomed a shot to the back of the head as a relief from the trauma we will be no different, but I am sure we will all make good fertilizer.

      • catmahal

        Population Policy worldwide is now under the dictates of Agenda 21. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8 Very concerning.

        • driversuz

          Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about spam. [Ref: 2379]

          • catmahal

            Thank you for your alert. I was responding the the gentleman above who talked about population control in relation to the family court system. If you see this as spam, so be it.

  • markis1

    Awesome article ! Thank you

  • SineNomine

    Guy, continue to stand strong against the fascist matriarchal court system. Godspeed.

  • Greg Patnude

    Wow… greatly written and informative… I am defying any fear and publicizing my case –> https://www.facebook.com/TheCodeWarrior

    It’s official – Washington State Governor Jay Inslee’s office has approved a Governors Warrant for the extradition of this man over $1800.00


    The Commonwealth of Virginia is attempting to extradite Gregory P. Patnude (52), an Auburn, Washington man over $1836.00 dollars in child support arrears. Patnude, whose children are now 27 and 28 years old has been charged in Virginia with two misdemeanor counts of “Contempt of Court”. Both of his children have college degrees, are self-supporting, and neither lives in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

    Mr. Patnude has offered to pay the amount due yet the Virginia DSCE and Family Court are insisting on extraditing him to Virginia where he could spend 12 months in jail for the contempt charges which stem from an underlying charge of “Failure to pay support”. The Washington State Division of Child Support is collecting regular payments at $1250 per month from Mr. Patnude’s employer on Virginia’s behalf.

    Patnude says “…I am about to be extradited from Washington State to Virginia for $1836 in child support arrears where I could be jailed for 12 months. I have paid over $241,000.00 in support since 1994 and my kids are now 27 and 28.

    A family court judge in Virginia has charged me with “Failure to pay support” under Virginia Statute 20-61 and is now attempting to extradite me on that charge. Virginia statute 20-61 is an explicit statute that specifically states that ‘…any parent who fails to provide support for children under the age of 18 … is guilty of non-support… ‘. I maintain that this statute does not apply because my kids are in their late-twenties and we have a Virginia Supreme Court Ruling form 1998 that proves this charge cannot apply…”

    The charges in Virginia are misdemeanors and Patnude believes that his ex-wife is possibly paying for the extradition under what the authorities in Virginia have been calling a “private extradition”. Patnude was arrested at his home on March 18th at his home on a warrant that claimed he owes $1,052,341.00 in past due child support. As a result of that arrest, Mr. Patnude had lost his job. Patnude works as a software professional in Seattle. Patnude states that this kind of intimidation and abuse of the system is the “modus operandi” in the Virginia Beach family court.

    Patnude claims that the Virginia Beach system is corrupt and that they will do anything, even fabricate evidence in order to accomplish their objectives.
    Mr. Patnude is asking Washington State’s Governor Jay Inslee for protection from an illegal, unjust, and inappropriate abuse of the legal system. A petition to grant Mr. Patnude asylum and to not honor Virginia’s extradition attempt has been started and can be seen at MoveOn.org (http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/governor-inslee-grant).

    Patnude states that this extradition attempt is really a disguised effort to incarcerate him in what is effectively a ‘debtors prison’ and to establish new child support debt for two adult children who are now aged 27 and 28. Mr. Patnude does not contest the $2500 arrears which stems from a 2004 consent order – the same consent order Mr. Patnude agreed to that provided for his two boys to go to college.

    If extradited to Virginia, Patnude’s ex-wife and her attorney will attempt to have the 2004 consent order invalidated and ask for an additional $100,000.00 in child support for children who are now 27 and 28 years old. Mr. Patnude will not have access to legal representation in Virginia; he would be extradited to appear before a family court judge and will not be granted a public defender as the family court system in Virginia does not provide public defenders.

    Mr. Patnude has suffered financial hardships recently and is newly re-employed after 8 months of unemployment. The Washington State Department of Social Services [DSS] is collecting regular payments from his employer. Mr. Patnude goes on to say “…I contacted my ex-wife a few weeks ago to try and set this straight and she complained that she doesn’t have enough retirement savings before she hung up on me…”

    On the issue of child support, Patnude adds “…I know that child support is a huge problem in America. There are a lot of people who actively avoid their obligations. I have two sisters who are owed nearly $250,000.00 between them and have never received a dime from their ex-husbands. I’ve done the right thing for my children, I agreed to pay beyond age 18 so they could attend college. Both of my children are now college-degreed engineers and off to a great start in life. I believe that the right thing has already been done here…”

    Patnude also says “…I am desperate to not be jailed on this as my mother relies on my financial assistance and I need to be here to support her – I deserve to have a life after divorce and not continue to be punished 20 years later. My children are 27 and 28 and have college degrees and decent jobs. College is not a legal obligation – it was written in to my agreement – I have met my financial obligations to my children…”

    If extradited, Mr. Patnude’s family will suffer greatly. Patnude’s life partner is a full-time college student and is reliant on him for financial support as she completes her education at age 47. Patnude states that his extradition will place her in necessitous circumstances.

    Like all of us, Patnude’s mother is aging and going through the normal changes in her physical health one normal expects as we get older. Because she is on a fixed social security income, Mr. Patnude currently provides more than 20% of her monthly financial support. If extradited, she will not be able to maintain her already declining standard of living without his support and she will likely lose her house. Patnude’s extradition will place his mother in necessitous circumstances as well.

    Mr. Patnude goes on to say “…I am looking at something like $125,000.000 in new debt and having to start my life completely over at age 53. I’ll probably end up losing everything but the really ridiculous part is the effect this has on the people around me; my family suffers greatly, all over a few thousand dollars.”

    Patnude adds “…You know, I happen to be a 10-year veteran of the U.S. Navy active during the Gulf-era [1981-1991]. I have two honorable discharges for my service and I can tell you that this is not the same America that I chose to defend back then. I never even dreamed that anyone’s freedoms and civil liberties could be trampled quite like this. This no longer feels like my country tis’ of thee…”

    Mr. Nicholas George, Esq.
    1919 N. Pearl Street, Suite A-2
    Tacoma, WA 98406
    (253) 272-7181

    Greg Patnude
    5810 Terrace View Lane SE / N-107
    Auburn, WA 98092-5521
    Cell: (253) 320-9751
    E-Mail: gpatnude@hotmail.com
    ICQ: 232407433

    Web Site: http://greg.patnude.com/
    Face Book: https://www.facebook.com/TheCodeWarrior
    Petition: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/governor-inslee-grant
    Slide Show: http://youtu.be/SExRcH5LH2s
    Press Release: http://greg.patnude.com/docs/for-immediate-release.docx

    • Susie Parker

      Washington State is a feminist’s stronghold. He didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell with Governor VictimBucks siding against feminists.

    • catmahal

      This is just terrible. No wonder men commit suicide. I wonder what his kids think? They are, after all, adults now.

  • http://miesasia.blogspot.fi Miesasia

    Never knew how fucked up thins are in the “big world”. Lets hope that it get better for the dads soon as possible. In my country we have these things called “sossutädit” (social workers) who tend to tell lies and believe anything the mother says even if its proven that shes lieing they still keep her side on the case :S

    Heres an example:

    Mother says the father is abusing the children.
    Police has show that the mother lies.
    Socialworker (woman 99% on each case) still thinks the mother is speaking truth and the father is an abuser.

    Anyways, thank you for sharing this awesome post “Abou Guy Mann” ! Hope you get your children back and hope you can be part of their lives !

    Remember to visit “Manthing” your friendly Finnish, mens rights page http://www.miesasi.fi “Miehen mittainen sivusto” (lenght of a man site) (doesnt really turn in to english but in english it would mean to be a man of hes words).


  • Andrejovich Dietrich

    I always found it perversely humorous that I was ordered by a judge not to reveal details of the divorce from my children to prevent Parental Alienation Syndrome. However not only did they not care about the mother engaging in it, but didn’t even bat an eyelash over the fact that she flipped the cause of the divorce as being me committing adultery. And the PAS that I suffered (Well continue to suffer) is that my daughter changed her last name to the man who was banging my ex wife for over a year prior to me hearing about how unhappy my ex was being married to me.

    I of course can only imagine her suffering over being a stay at home mother sending the kids to Day care, and having a maid come in to do her job for her. But of course that is the insensitive prick that I was.

  • Andrew_S

    I am sorry to say we use an old addage of ‘Fear is a mind killer’, the modus for any organization whether it be the state and its rising number of agencies or some paramilitary unit is to identify the leadership and decapitate, especially if the political or venture problem is seen as progressive or infectious to others. We cannot have that can we. Problem solved, nobody cares and everyone goes home, party over the dude or the gal was a fake, all along, not the messiah. Currently the argument used mostly is from an old political tool chest. We discredit, we may use any of the basic methods from the usual unprovable but believable perverse or violent sexual acts. All you have to do is place an imaginary seed that plays out in the mind and the various mind screen plays do the rest and that reimaging already has a result and will as a result have people out baying for blood, it great stuff to understand, but the real mind killer is the media and its ability to have people plug in and receive special filtered information on their daily downloads. Voluntarily reinforcing their already non thinking entitled minds.

    Keeps all the natives in check and opinionated on the benile and apathetic problems that have little value to the central planners. Those mindsets that just needs its daily ration of glad that is not me, maybe they will get me tomorrow.

  • Jimmy Wilhelmssohn

    Just a short update on the Paul Nichols First Amendment lawsuit in New Jersey. Judge Sivilli’s unconstitutional gag order is now before Federal Judge William Martini after Nichols’ lawsuit was first rejected by Federal Judge Freda Wolfson citing the Rooker-Feldman sham by which federal judges falsely claim they have no jurisdiction to hear such a case, although a clear violation of the First Amendment. Prof. Eugene Volokh has just written about the case at _Volokh Conspiracy_ here:


    • G Trieste

      Thanks for that catch.
      I will read it, does seem very interesting.

      • Jimmy Wilhelmssohn

        G. Trieste, I have read about your shocking case too! I see you went to the Volokh article and made a comment. Good for you! There is so much more to the fraud and deceit by judges in the Surinder Malhan case than people realize. I like to believe that most women are ethical human beings, but I can’t help but notice that the two judges who gave Surinder Malhan a royal screwing, Judge Nancy Sivilli and Judge Freda Wolfson, are women. Both of them did abominable things to Malhan and to the Bill of Rights by depriving Malhan of due process of law, freedom of speech, and the equal protections of the law. Sivilli summarily seized Malhan’s children, on two hours’ notice and without a hearing, and put them with his ex; and then when he began blogging about the abuse and trying to get media attention for the tyrannies Judge Nancy Sivilli had perpetrated against him and his children, she slapped him with a gag order and then lied that it was to protect the children, not to expose her as a judicial loose cannon and a charlatan.

        So this is why Paul Nichols with the _Bergen Dispatch_ also sued because he is a reporter trying to get information to inform the public about what’s going on in the courthouse, as he has the right an duty to do. But he can’t obtain information if Malhan has been gagged. Fortunately, Nichols obtained a court order from Federal Judge William Martini ungagging Malhan. https://nationalparentsorganization.org/recent-articles?id=22109

        It’s an interesting case of how one federal judge, Freda Wolfson, ruled one way to favor the gag order, and another Federal Judge, William Martini, overruled her in an entirely different lawsuit. Meanwhile, lawyers, litigants, and judges all over the country are crying, laughing, fuming, smirking, cursing, and giggling, depending on where their interests lie.

        But here is where Sivilli’s depraved lies were compounded, abetted, and aggravated by federal judge Freda Wolfson: Several plaintiffs with grievances the same as Surinder Malhan’s filed a class action in the New Jersey Federal Courthouse complaining that Judge Nancy Sivilli’s gag orders violated their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and information. Under Section 1983, the Civil Rights Act, these people had a right to have their day in court in the federal courthouse, but Judge Freda Wolfson threw them out using the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, a sham by which federal judges shirk their responsibilities to intervene when state judges like Sivilli violate fundamental rights.

  • Adar Winzagane

    Check out this new expose – https://youtu.be/n-9JYkt66vc – on Suffolk County Support Magistrate Aletha Fields! Her bias against men is finally exposed. She ruined this man’s life and made him homeless.