Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘habeas corpus’

That’s my USA: 1770s-Founding Fathers design a nation, including “Congress,” 1990s-Congress redesigns “Fatherhood,” [Omitting “motherhood”] while slaves and women try to fit in somewhere along the way

with 2 comments

And inbetween (1863, 1963), two major civil rights leaders (one white, one black, both male), remind the nation about the original proposition of Justice.  

Meanwhile, before and after the Civil War, women ask to be included in the nouns referring to “citizens” and “persons.”  Somewhere around World War I, Congress passes this; with Maryland waiting til 1958 to send its acknowledgement in…

 

 

Yep, that’s what I love about this country, the “USA”:

 

1770s, let’s say 1776. . . . 

Some forefathers held a number of  meetings (summits) and designed, among other things Declared Independence from Longstanding and Egregious Pattern of Oppressions, declared certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protested and enumerated (specifically) some nasty things the Mother Country (England) and its King had done, and in an attempt to make sure the people had a voice in their own government.  They designed two houses of Congress to meet and make laws; an EXECUTIVE Branch to enforce & execute them (NOT write them) and a JUDICIAL Branch to judge fairly as to the enforcement of these laws.  

This all based on the premise that no one individual or entity should have too much power over the people.  

The concept of a national definition of “Happiness” I don’t think was set in concrete; but that life and liberty would enable men to pursue it, at least.  

Keywords:  “Forefathers Design Congress”

For “oppression,” compare “abuse.”

SAMPLE:

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

  • He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
  • He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
  • He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.  ((NB:  The standing armies of our day & time may have other names, but are backed up by police force….))
  • He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

Hmmm. . . . . Interesting . . . . . 

 

1848 — 72 years later, women say, “Us, too!”

Some women, referring to the Declaration of Independence meet in NY to demand equal rights, including the vote.

Fighting for the Vote

The first women’s rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in July 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that “all men and women are created equal” and that “the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.” Following a long list of grievances were resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote.

 

1863 (87 years later….)

President Lincoln remembers what 1776 was about

Growing pains — some discrepancies of interpretation of the word “men” arise, and more discrepancies about the balance of powers between Federal and States.  

President Lincoln — following a 2-hour speech, gives a memorable 2- MINUTE speech referring to the above:

 

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”                  

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow, this ground — The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

 


“With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in suffrage for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women.”

 

1866-1868 –

13th, 14th, & 15th, Amendments still not thought to include women:

Constitutional Grants of Powers to Congress under the Civil War Amendments

AMENDMENT XIII

     Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. 

     Section 1.  
     Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

      Section 2.  
     Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

AMENDMENT XIV

     Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. 

     Section 1.  
     All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

      Section 2-4 [omitted]. 

     Section 5.  
     The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

AMENDMENT XV

     Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. 

      Section 1.  
     The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 

      Section 2.  
     The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

========

1871 (95 years later) Congress has yet to acknowledge women as citizens or persons, in re: voting

Petition to Congress, December 1871

In the year following the ratification of the 15th amendment, a voting rights petition sent to the Senate and House of Representatives requested that suffrage rights be extended to women and that women be granted the privilege of being heard on the floor of Congress. It was signed by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other suffragists. Well known in the United States suffrage movement, Anthony and Stanton organized the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in 1869.

(http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/petition-to-congress.html)

1920 — US. Constitution 19th Amendment, gives

women suffrage.

Nineteenth Amendment 
     Passed by Congress June 4, 1919.  
Ratified August 18, 1920. 

Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. 

Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  
    

Which countries granted women the vote first?  Do you see USA on here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_suffrage

1958

Maryland finally sends its acknowledgement that women can vote (now 38 yrs old) to Congress.

 

1963  (187 years later). . .. 

 

This man, speaking at the “Lincoln Memorial” remembers both Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence.

Because of copyright (image is public domain), please review at link (title) for audio and transcription:

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. 

 

1966 –  N.O.W.   formed, and says:

We, men and women, who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society. Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

AND:

NOW we have Congress Designing Fatherhood, trying to “equalize” the progress since, say, women got the right to vote, own property, sue their husbands in divorce situations, and become increasingly educated:

 

1990s, before women’s right to vote turns 100, Fatherhood Fights Back . . . 

The Fatherhood Industry – initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, stigmatize absentee fathers

Progressive, The ,  Nov, 1999   by Judith Davidoff

Created in 1994 to “counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority,” the National Fatherhood Initiative believes that “fathers make unique and irreplaceable contributions to the lives of their children.”

In its first year, the group convened a National Summit on Fatherhood in Dallas. The purpose, according to the group’s literature, was to gather the nation’s “civic, business, and philanthropic leaders” together to “build a national consensus on the need to quickly reduce father absence.” The National Fatherhood Initiative provides technical assistance to the Governors’ Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, whose goal is to help “rebuild the institution of fatherhood” in the twenty-first century. And the group works with the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,formed in 1997 to promote leadership in combating “fatherlessness.”

1992/1993, Jack Straton writes about “what’s Fair to Children of Abusive Men?

1994 – VAWA act passed.  Losing no time, 

1994 — NFI Formed

JUNE 1995? — Clinton, Fatherhood Executive Memo (see my blogroll), directing ALL Federal Depts & Agencies to review and revise their policies to include fathers.

June 1998 — House of Reps passes a resolution (see below; I also posted the 1999 Congressional resolution earlier).

http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/105/hr417eh.txt.pdf.

 

AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH…

The Declaration of Independence AND The Gettysburg Address AND the “I Have a Dream” speech contain complete sentences:  subject, object, verb.  They reference specific time and place and identified principles.

  • Several of the doctrines I find so damaging and hurtful to families in this nation, USA, today, do not even have a verb!  They are buzzwords, sound-bytes, with no nutrients inside.  They are enzymes, not protein, not fiber, not a healthy balance of nutrients.  When even the SUBJECTs (agents of the missing verbs) are missing, then we have no open accountability for either precipating the action leading up to the desired state:
  • “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.”
  • “Healthy Families”
  • “No Child Left Behind” 
  • “Personal Work and Responsibility Act” (i.e., get off welfare)
  • “Violence Against Women Act”
  • “Parental Alienation Syndrome”
  • “Equal Parenting” (a made-up word, attempting to eradicate the difference between “mother” and “father” and in essence, delete the word “mother” from public discourse, reducing us instead to “female.”), and, as I said yesterday,
  • “Explicating Domestic Violence in the Context of Custody.”
  • “Best Interests of the Child.”  (anyone have a DEFINITION of that??)

 

We would be better off promoting justice, rather than “fatherhood” (but not motherhood”), to promote which requires UNDERmining the justice process, outside of plain view of the participants.

 

 

That’s enough for today.  More of the same can be found at the HHS website.

I will share some of the “funding” of the fatherhood movement (some, only) in a separate post.

 

1998 H. Res 417 s

Next thing you know, about 222 hundred years later

 

DOCID: f:hr417ih.txt]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 417

 Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
                            their children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 1998

   Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogan, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
  Gingrich, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr.
 Bonior) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
                            their children.

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well
        over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not
        become delinquents;
Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant
        development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a

http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9851889234+2+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

1998_H04249.pdf (application/pdf Object).

The vote (Roll No. 212) was yeas 415, nays 0, not voting 18.

REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS IN RAISING
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN

(House of Representatives – June 09, 1998)

H. Res. 417

Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of
children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;

Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and
father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual
abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;

Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive
outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average
depression report having a close relationship with their father;

Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence
self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing
environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant
family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the
resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United
States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was
absent;

Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe it is important for
children to live in a home with both their mother and their father’;

Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their
childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;

Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50
percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;

Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes
have not seen their father in the last twelve months;

Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared
without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent
families;

Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have
low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;

Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all
mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;

Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good
conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;

Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend
less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

Whereas President Clinton has stated that `the single biggest social problem in our society may be
the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes to so many other
social problems’ and that ‘the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out
of wedlock births in this country’;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on
Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was
formed in February 1998;

Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes
that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively
involved in the rearing and development of his children;

Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are
promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;

Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in
Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the
most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services,
education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;

Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate
will be participating in this event; and

Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement
of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

(2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children,
to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual
development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to
fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;

(3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that
children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family
environment; and

(4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 1, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with , , , , , ,

(Dis)Order in the Courts — get a perspective!

with one comment

 

Actually, I’m not totally sure what went down with The Hon.Judge Henriod, (Utah), in his jailing a woman for texting in court. She did 2 days of 30 assigned, with the rest hovering.  Was it about Order in the Court?  Was it about her attempting to help her ex hide assets, and so protecting the case?  It APPEARS to include some violations of due process.  

But this is as good an excuse as any to note that “Disorder in the Courts” (2002), while not as old as the VAWA act, which I HOPE your Senator supports full funding for this time round, is still relevant.

 

Humor me, here are the lead-ins: 

(1)  Texting and Driving — Crash & Jail

 

There are laws against texting and driving for good reasons:  the distraction can be fatal to others.  When it does, jail seems appropriate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7865114.stm

“Texting death crash woman” jailed

{{I’ve been through family court, and one gets called names in there frequently.  Can you imagine writing the by-line for this item:  “texting death crash woman?”  What a handle, what a claim to fame.}}

A motorist who sent and received more than 20 text messages before she crashed into another car killing its driver has been jailed for 21 months.

Philippa Curtis, 21, from Suffolk, was texting before she hit the back of a stationary car at 70mph on the A40 near Wheatley in Oxfordshire.

Victoria McBryde from Northamptonshire, who was dealing with a burst tyre, was killed in the crash in November 2007.

Curtis, of Bury St Edmunds, was also given a three-year driving ban.

Judge Julian Hall said it had been “folly and madness” to use a phone while driving and it had been “disastrous” for Curtis, Ms McBryde and her family.

‘Various calls’

Curtis, who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in December, had told Oxford Crown Court she felt there were times when using a phone while driving was acceptable...

THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE REASON TO JAIL SOME ONE FOR TEXTING.  SOMEONE GOT HURT.  I DON’T THINK THIS COULD BE CHALKED UP TO GENDER-RELATED, DO YOU?  THERE ARE REASONS FOR LAWS AGAINST USING CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING, AND THIS IS THE REASON.  LIKE THE LAWS AGAINST (SORRY TO HAMMER THIS ONE HOME) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE REASON IS, SOMETIMES, THAT ACTIVITY CAN BE FATAL.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

BUT WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM WOULD YOU PUT THIS “JAILING FOR TEXTING”???

(2)  Texting in court – Citation and jail

 

Now, on reading the articles, I am not fully of one opinion or the other.  It raises a few issues…  If I wanted to lambast judicial irresponsibility, this judge might not be the textbook case or poster boy, there are worse for sure.  Also, some said this woman was texting AFTER the hearing….

Woman jailed for texting is released

TOOELE — A young mother who was sentenced to 30 days in jail for text messaging inside a courtroom — sparking an uproar that reached national media outlets — was released Wednesday after two days behind bars.

However, the judge who imposed the sentence for contempt of court defended his actions Wednesday and said he believed the woman was helping her husband hide assets in a complicated debt collection case before creditors could claim them.

“I have an affidavit from a woman who was sitting behind her who heard her and her mother-in-law talk about hiding assets,” 3rd District Judge Stephen Henriod said Wednesday.

Henriod had found Susan Henwood in contempt of court for text messaging her husband, Josh, during an earlier court hearing in which the judge believed the woman was tipping her husband off about collection measures for debts. Josh Henwood had said he was sick and could not attend the court hearing.

At issue is a legal battle involving a plaintiff, Bob Wisdom, who is seeking financial compensation from Josh Henwood. Wisdom’s attorney, Gary Buhler, said all his client wants to do is get paid and make the case go away.

Buhler decried media attention that focused on Susan Henwood’s youth and four young children, which he suggested painted her as a victim, while ignoring efforts that he said have been made to conceal or transfer ownership of a long list of assets that should be used to pay off debts.

The witness who sat by Susan Henwood said in her affidavit that she observed Henwood continuously texting someone during the hearing and remarking to an older female seated nearby that “Buhler is not getting that” and “we will just move it, they are not getting it.

Other quotes on this case:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705300489/Woman-who-texted-in-court-released.html?pg=2

But Susan Henwood’s attorney, Alan Stewart, said she has no experience with courts and was simply reporting what was happening to her ill husband using a method she thought would be the least disruptive in the courtroom. Stewart also noted that Susan Henwood is not a party to the debt collection case.

“You’re using his wife as collateral,” Stewart told the judge. “You’re saying, ‘We’ll take your wife as hostage.’ A judgment debtor has rights, too.”

Hilder said individuals can be held in contempt if they willfully defy a court order, or if they assist someone else to defy a court order. Judges also are charged with maintaining order in the court, which does not mean simply the physical environment.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=96560

And from worldnet daily, a different viewpoint of the arrest process:

LAW OF THE LAND
Judge reviews case of texting courtroom spectator
Woman freed although contempt ‘conviction’ remains

Posted: April 30, 2009
12:30 am Eastern

 

 

 

 

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

It was at some point subsequent to the hearings on her husband’s case a woman notified the judge there had been text messages sent.

Susan Henwood said she never would knowingly violate the law but was startled when she was cited. Then when she went to court Monday on the contempt citation, she said she was refused permission to testify on her own behalf.  

 


Susan and Josh Henwood

 

The complainant, instead, was allowed to testify unchallenged that Susan Henwood had been texting more or less constantly through the hearing, which apparently had gone unnoticed by the judge, the lawyers and the bailiffs at the time.  {{alert:  Hearsay??  Violation of due process, much??}}

Then the judge announced the 30-day jail sentence for her actions.  {A transcript of this matter would settle what happened}

She thanked the news agencies that reported on her predicament and that of her husband, left at home with four children under the age of 10.

. . .Just a quick refresher (and I am no lawyer):

14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“

“Josh Henwood’s stepfather and Susan’s father-in-law, Dennis Jackson, reported there were no notices or warnings posted about the use of texting, a statement contradicted by the clerk’s office spokeswoman, who told WND that visitors to court were told of the judge’s ban on text messages. However, when asked how the warning was delivered, by sign or verbal statement, she said, “I have no idea.”

“Conversely, in another case, Henriod gave a former teacher probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.

“What is of primary importance to me is that [the boy] is doing well,” the judge ruled.” 

 

(3) Sex and School  — Probation Only

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (It was felt that the woman did not fit the profile of a pedophile.  Interesting, someone else said that about the Huckaby case in Tracy, California also — but that has a gag order, now that she’s on death row for “special circumstances.”)  (“equal” protection under the law?)

It appears to me that at least WNDaily is following up on this, and that possibly the Judge had some cause for concern, HOWEVER, before jailing, a person should be allowed to testify.  I will not pronounce on all this (hearsay).

By the way, the “teacher” above was a woman (hover cursor over link for short comment on the story)

Another Perspective on No Child Left Behind?

{{I know, I’m kind of merciless on the NCLB theme.  Sorry, but I think the mentality that drives that thinking was related to why I lost my kids.  Ignore the DV, target the oddball parent who doesn’t support the federal almost-monopoly (give it time….) on “education.”  ALSO, that mentality and dialogue (dare you to find it on Whitehouse.gov….) ignores cases like this: }

Former Utah Teacher Gets Probation For Student Sex

Written by: Doug G. Ware 
Email: dware@kutv2.com 
Last Update: 10/19/2007 12:57 pm

SALT LAKE CITY – A former Utah high school teacher avoided jail time on Friday, instead being sentenced to serve three years of probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.

Christy Anne Brown, 33, had pleaded guilty to having sex with one of her students while she was an English teacher at Cyprus High School in Magna.  But despite a recommendation for some jail time by Adult Probation and Parole officials, the judge decided that a probationary term was enough…(the boy’s parents didn’t want her jailed, particularly, either, it goes on to say…)

(What IS it about Utah, eh??)

(Maybe this is a commentary that we ought to go back to attempting to have young people become reasonably morally, character-wise, and behavior-wise a little more mature by the time the hormones and this drive start pumping through them. . . But again, this is a family court blog, not a  schools blog, I will restrain myself here). 

 

(4) Due Process, DOJ and the U.S., holding tanks:

(according to Glen Greenwald — and all I did was search “habeas corpus,” which thought was provoked by the Henwood case, above….):

The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions.  Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all.  The Bush DOJ — and now the Obama DOJ — maintain the President does and should have that right, and that’s an issue that has been extensively debated.  It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.

Can I argue this case coherently, and have I been following loss of habeas corpus in these matters?  Not really — I’ve been much more concerned much closer to home — in re:  men, women, children, and the family law courts.  My daughters’ habeas corpus was violated — they were falsely imprisoned for a month, and no enforcement of any penal code against this.  As minors, the purpose of my prior attempt to get all parties in involved (and there were far more PEOPLE involved in this, both in my family and throught the courts, than literal “parties” in the actions at hand.  Only TWO parties were in the action at hand, involving custody in a divorce and domestic violence dynamic.  Those two parties were the parents of the children.).  Therefore, to my pea-sized brain, if I were to put some ORDER into my personal life — including work life, associations, weekly schedule, and what not — the most sensible way would to insist that the court ORDERS be enforced, consistently (perhaps it was the teacher in me that wanted this order), so that something profitable and practical could actually get accomplished in our lives.  In my case, that entailed making a living (despite repeated interruptions to that process) and raising children, which if you’ve done this, you understand has certain requirements attached, and takes both time, energy, and also money (food, housing, clothes, transportation, what not).

Which brings me to:

 

(5) DIS-order in the Courts

The title I sought was a publication by CANOW which addresses the topics I, and many on the blogroll, have been.  It is now such a commonplace google term, that we get hits such as this:

A.

DISORDER IN THE COURTS:

JUDGE CONVICTED OF CHILD SEX CRIMES

 

Jim Kouri, CPP October 13, 2005 NewsWithViews.com

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Thompson, who traveled to Russia to have sex with a teenage boy, was convicted by a federal jury last week on a charge of sexual exploitation of children. The judge also produced a videotape of sex with a minor and then transported that videotape back to the United States. Judge Thompson is associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group which promotes sexual relations between adult men and children. NAMBLA is currently represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

After merely 10 hours of deliberations, the jury convicted Judge Thompson, 59, of one count of traveling in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the sexual conduct. The jury found the defendant not guilty only by reason of insanity on count two, charging possession of child pornography.

 

This one got caught.  Finally.  Kind of undermines confidence in the judiciary, eh?  SUPERIOR court judge?  

When I taught music, it was a commitment/ a round the clock type of thinking.  I thought about it when not actually teaching or performing, although it is most certainly possible to dwell on other things, do other things, etc.  But for central passions in life, they influence you.  They are not just mindless occupations you pick up for some hours and put down.  I will say this for being a mother as well.  It’s not something a judge can rule that I have to cease being, and I can readily comply with that — internally.  It’s built-in, and a part of me, just like music.  Taking both of them out, that’s a rough call.  

So how about this judge having what clearly was a central passion (others, it’s money, others, I’m sure it’s “justice”)  – – this is going to cloud judgment.  Good thing he got caught.  How many were hurt, en route?  

 

B.

“CA NOW recognizes that there is a crisis in the family courts.”  http://www.canow.org/ca_now_family_law/

Disorder_sm

Ladyjustice

 

 

 

 

 

Do you??

(Direct quote from the above page):

We have had hundreds of complaints from mothers whose divorce, custody and child support cases denied them their right to due process and failed to consider the best interests of the child.  CA NOW documented the results of analysis of 300 family law cases in our 2002 Family Court Report. 

About 40% of custody cases are contested today due to allegations of child abuse, molestation and domestic violence. Tragically, in some of these cases perfectly fit mothers are losing custody of their children to abusers. Pseudoscientific psychological theories are used as legal strategies to switch custody from or deny visitation rights to mothers of abused children.   In cases where fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody 40 to 70 percent of the time.

Disorder_sm

CA NOW published an e-book, Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and their Allies Take on the Family Court System, which is a collection of essays by mothers and their advocates addressing different aspects of the problems with the courts. 

Purchase your download of this e-book online, or contact CA NOW at 916.442.3414 x101.

We have lobbied for legislation that protects mothers and children, and against legislation that is harmful.  We have worked in coalition with other organizations to address the systemic problem of court injustice.  We have demanded accountability from officials, and utilized the media to bring attention to the issue. We have created and gathered resources for mothers, advocates and attorneys that you will find on the side bars of this page. 

CANOW does not provide legal advice, referrals, or funding for litigation. We are taking action for family court reform through political pressure and exposure, legislation, public education and working in coalition with other organizations. We encourage individuals to find others in their communities who can organize grassroots efforts to do court watches and to use public forums (speak outs, protests, media, etc.) to bring attention to the corruption in their courts.

C.

So Does NOW NYS:

http://www.nownys.org/disorder_courts.html

(From a link on this page:  This section refers to cronyism, misuse of taxpayer dollars, slowness to prosecute ethical violations, and it SPEAKS to the character of those who make crucial decisions in family’s lives.  Some of these cases (of judicial misconduct) do not just show one form, but multiple forms of horrible behavior, if not felony.  It BOTHERS me that people of this character still populate courts that I know (see post on “therapeutic jurisprudence?”) are an institution seeking to itself teaach and “reform” those on the lower spectrum of the socioeconomic radar, and make no bones about it either, with parenting classes, marriage promotion, batterer intervention programs of dubious efficacy, psychological analyses  as a short-cut to fact-finding, or at times even reading the court record/evidence already on it.  ):

The commission began probing Robin Garson four years ago after she told a grand jury that Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson – her husband’s cousin – confessed to improperly taking $100,000 from his elderly aunt.

Michael Garson, who resigned in December, has been indicted on grand larceny charges for allegedly looting the nearly $1 million fortune his Aunt Sarah Gershenoff saved over 50 years as a legal secretary.

His trial is expected in October.

Robin Garson, Gershenoff’s personal guardian, also testified that the power of attorney Michael and Gerald Garson used to pilfer Gershenoff’s money was forged.

Ethical rules require judges to report criminal acts. She did not at the time.

Gerald Garson is now serving three to 10 years for taking cash, cigars, free drinks and meals from crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky in exchange for awarding lucrative appointments and fixing cases.

Last April, NOW complained that Robin Garson “exploited her official status to obtain special privilege” during her husband’s trial, passing notes to defense lawyers and entering the courtroom through special doors reserved for officials.

In the Aug. 1 letter, NOW exhorted the commission to pursue Siminovsky’s testimony that Gerald Garson asked him to help Robin Garson’s election campaign as part of their corrupt relationship. {{NOTE:  Simonovsky is testifying because he was caught himself; part of the plea bargain was helping to catch this crooked, divorce-fixing-for-pay judge!!  The crooked relationship in question was the Simonovsky/Gerson one, let alone any Garson to Garson ones}} 

“Please be transparent in your investigation,” Pappas wrote. “Judicial canons require that judges maintain ethical standards and avoid any appearance of impropriety. Please help us rebuild our public faith and trust in the state judiciary.”

FINALLY, ON THIS LONG POST:

I ask you to visit the link above.  I am going to put most of it as a separate post, and underscore personally:

Here’s SOME of it:

When women come to court because of abuse they need help, not harassment
by Tracy S. Simmons and Mary Frost, edited by Gloria Jacobs, Esq.
Stop Shooting the Messenger:  When women come to court because of abuse they need help, not harassment.
A. Women are often afraid to report incidents of violence and abuse to the police as the law is often not upheld properly at that level.  The consequence of this action at the court level is it often gets treated as either a false allegation when she finally musters up the courage to seek help in court, or she is blamed for not seeking help sooner.  The Court punishes the victim for not handling the matter as they see fit rather than offer support up front. 
B. Guilt, trauma and fear are often misinterpreted as weakness, hysteria, overly emotional, overly protective and out of control.  Women are punished by the courts for being protective and nurturing.  It is often used as the litmus test to their credibility whereas men are not judged by the same standard. 
C. Even when there is evidence of physical abuse, the court uses a psychological smokescreen/syndrome/theory to vilify the protective parent.  The courts responsibility is to uphold the law and not to make decisions on what new theory will be medically acceptable.  That job is for the AMA, who does not accept Parental Alienation Syndrome.  Therefore it must not be acceptable for any court to allow any non medically accepted theories/syndromes and other non medical legal tactics, which only serves to fuel the multi million dollar cottage industry it has created by removing children from their mothers while rewarding the abusive party.  
D. Judges need to meet with the children during an on-going custody suit prior to making any custody decision.  Further, there should be a periodic review.  Children need a venue to be heard that will be safe.  The meeting should be recorded and not sealed.  It should be noted that contrary to the position LG/GAL’s often hold, children are often empowered by the ability to communicate and will do so willing and honestly to a Judge, given the chance. 

I (blogger) wish to qualify this:  children who are coming out from abuse understand, quite often, that there is retaliation for reporting it.  I have had my kids tell me, “no way” were they going to open up to a (mediator) who is to them a stranger.  Conversely, our mediator expressed to me the concept that I had (per se) that the children would much more readily confide in him (note:  they were girls) than me, their mother, or their father.  That’s narcissistic and shows no awareness of either the dynamics of abuse.  This particular mediator already knew of the original restraining order, too.  Trust me, the children read the adults better than the adults read the children, in general.

It needs to be understood that the children’s safety OUTSIDE the courtroom is paramount. 
E. Stop using discriminatory processes against women in court.  We can not choose to isolate and punish one specific group of people and not another for the same thing.  So called Parental Alienation Syndrome, and its many incarnations, is not used in criminal cases nor is it used against the angry neighbor screaming nasty comments over the fence in front of children.  It’s not used where intact families berate each other in front of the kids.  Its ONLY purpose is as a legal tactic used against divorcing woman, to diminish the legal consequences of abusive behavior and up the ante on an already unleveled playing field.   
F. Equal protection under the law….That includes women and children.
   

Orders of Protection (OP)
A. Grant orders of Protection for the abused NOT for the abuser:  Train judges so they are not issuing retaliatory OP’s to angry abusive husbands who receive an OP against them. 
B.

Grant permanent OP’s where necessary.  We’re not seeing any permanent OP’s, even for the most dangerous offenders. {{IF I’d known such were available…}}
C. Orders of Protection  must be strictly enforced  {{If-Only….}}
D. Battery , assault and sexual abuse is a crime and must be treated as such.  These matters should not only be heard in the family or supreme courts, and women should be informed that criminal court is available to them.    {{When I found it — a few years into the family court process.  When it was driven home — after the child-stealing.}}}  Hold abusers criminally responsible even if there is a custody or divorce matter before the court, criminal matters need to be directed to the correct authority.

 

I am not, FYI, a member of NOW, and not about to become one.  There are some issues and priorities on which I differ.  But i question why it takes a feminist group to state the issues so clearly?    Thank God for them, and their groundwork!

 

Feminists have been targeted and namecalled in many sectors, but some forget where they came from to start with, responding to some very real, and very outrageous discrimination and civil rights violation.  I remind the fathers viewing this, that women got the vote ONLY in the last century.  Talk about “equal parenting time” coming up in a decade or so only is simply not credible.  

If you think you have “identity” problems — or are tired of participating in the rat race society that, I would just about bet, women (if they’d been making decisions) — I mean, ordinary women, not foundation owning women — we would have understood to allow for some time with our children, but not having this be our sole identity or talent.  Our corpus callosus” is thicker than yours; we naturally multi-task (perforce, also!), and the place your kids belong, when they are young, is in our arms, primarily, assuming we are decent.  Our hips are generally speaking set to have a kid on them.  We live longer.  We have more body fat in general.  We are designed for this, and a lot of smarts are developed in these categories.  Give us a _____-ing break in express-pumping milk for two-year olds (Toronto judge) so you can get equal time with your former wild oats.  

I’ve been a professional, including teacher, and worked many fields.  I was a Mom, and instantly (late 30s) I was supposed to drop that identity and STOP what i was doing.  But also, bring home the bacon.  But, stay home, barefoot, kind of, and car-less.  Then that didn’t satisfy my confused mate, and towards the end, I was told to work nights, but this didn’t produce any more household cooperation, either in house OR child care.  When I didn’t come up with enough $$ to compensate, I was lectured.  helpers were flown in to lecture me, in front of my daughters, on how to be a wife (this was shortly before I threw him out).  I later did a background check on the particular individual flown in to do this, and it wasn’t pretty.  

 

I then (mid-40s) took legal action to protect myself (himself, given the context) and our children.  I began repairing and rebuilding, and taking care of the children AND working.  Child support was finally ordered.  I moved for a fresh start, and then the hounding me, advising, lecturing, and attempting to direct me (not how to be a wife, but how to be a single Mom), came in, from another male (who had never raised kids), the same one that wasn’t smart enough to help us get a restraining order, or intervene in the wife-beating.  When I deterred from this enforced “advice,” the punishments resumed – out of court, in the courts, and economically.  I therefore had to restructure HOW to provide for us, and I had only two hands, not three.  Work, household, children was enough.  Fending off intruders and learning legalese was not on the map.

It is now.

I was told, then (approaching 50s here…) I was TOO enmeshed with the kids, then (as child support was withheld and jobs were lost, around the family law system) I was “abandoning them at home alone” (approximate quote), which, apart from being untrue, referred to at most, perhaps 4 hours a week of evening work, in my profession, necessitated by the prior reversal of schedules brought on by the court actions.  This is called knee-jerk co-parenting. It’s impossible, and not good for kids.

 

Women, sirs, are generally short of time, and frequently finances also.  If you want something done right the first time, perhaps you ought to ask us.  I believe that, generally speaking, we know the value of our time, our $$ (and yours) and I find it hard to believe that a growing being that spent +/- 9 months inside us is just a piece of property, or a meal ticket.  When and where that has happened, whose institutions has that young mother come through to start with?

Individually, and collectively,

we are personally unavailable for scapegoating from here on out.

 

For a counterbalancing view, see Chesler’s “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman.”  It happens.

 


Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 30, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with , , , , , , , ,