Comments on: Paternity Without Process http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Nathan Alexander http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-63893 Nathan Alexander Sun, 18 Nov 2007 04:07:55 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-63893 Great job DRS--Keep it up! Great job DRS–Keep it up!

]]> By: drsanto http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-63821 drsanto Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:20:52 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-63821 Men and women of courage (such as the man mentioned in the article) and integrity are beginning to stand up for their Rights and for Justice. Though many of us are not interested in overthrowing the system, unless it reforms, it may come to that. Just a few days ago (and after waiting 2 years for justice,) I received a ruling from Nebraska's Appeals Court which was a perversion of it. In short, the chief Judge of the Appeals Court (Inbody) dismissed very flagrant violations of due process (the lower judge did not allow me a trial before an unbiased "judge", to cross-examine a witness, didn't allow me to put on evidence and threatened me with arrest when I reiterated my rights) but awarded me an additional .56 cents a month as an "award". This is an insult to Justice and will not stand. So many of society's ills are caused by a Father not being in the home with the children. I encourage all men and women of integrity to support their local Father's Rights groups to work towards changing this... DRS Men and women of courage (such as the man mentioned in the article) and integrity are beginning to stand up for their Rights and for Justice.
Though many of us are not interested in overthrowing the system, unless it reforms, it may come to that.

Just a few days ago (and after waiting 2 years for justice,) I received a ruling from Nebraska’s Appeals Court which was a perversion of it.

In short, the chief Judge of the Appeals Court (Inbody) dismissed very flagrant violations of due process (the lower judge did not allow me a trial before an unbiased “judge”, to cross-examine a witness, didn’t allow me to put on evidence and threatened me with arrest when I reiterated my rights) but awarded me an additional .56 cents a month as an “award”.

This is an insult to Justice and will not stand.

So many of society’s ills are caused by a Father not being in the home with the children.
I encourage all men and women of integrity to support their local Father’s Rights groups to work towards changing this…

DRS

]]> By: sedonaman http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-63813 sedonaman Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:18:48 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-63813 Dr. Santo: Your experience is just more evidence that in this country a child is the <i>de facto</i> property of the mother, both before and after it is born. Abortion is the perfect example of the manifestation of those property rights before birth, and experiences like yours are similar examples after birth. Dr. Santo:

Your experience is just more evidence that in this country a child is the de facto property of the mother, both before and after it is born. Abortion is the perfect example of the manifestation of those property rights before birth, and experiences like yours are similar examples after birth.

]]> By: drsanto http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-63775 drsanto Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:55:41 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-63775 I am a very active member of the Father's Rights of Nebraska (http://www.fathersrightsne.org/) and this ruling does not at all surprise me. Far too many "judges" rule, absent common sense and justice. In my particular case, Douglas County District "judge" John D. Hartigan, Jr. awarded custody of my son to a woman that traded my son's family stability so that she could be a sex-slave to multiple men. (http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520) He "ruled" the clear and convincing evidence I had (pictures, journals, instant message conversations, web sites with her profiles, etc...) inadmissible and refused to allow me to ask her questions about her behavior. This, despite the fact that "Moral Fitness" is a legal test of parental fitness in the State of Nebraska. She even had a warrant for her arrest at the time of the trial, but he let her skate and gave her custody of my son. "Judges" seem to be able to do whatever they want. This is why our organization is not only exposing these "judges", but also drafting legislation to limit their decision-making power to a more appropriate level. Also, why we are working to draft binding legislation holding "judges" accountable to the same laws we are. We are not going to be silent about this evil, any more! DRS I am a very active member of the Father’s Rights of Nebraska
(http://www.fathersrightsne.org/) and this ruling does not at all surprise me. Far too many “judges” rule, absent common sense and justice.

In my particular case, Douglas County District “judge” John D. Hartigan, Jr. awarded custody of my son to a woman that traded my son’s family stability so that she could be a sex-slave to multiple men. (http://www.fathersrightsne.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=520)
He “ruled” the clear and convincing evidence I had (pictures, journals, instant message conversations, web sites with her profiles, etc…) inadmissible and refused to allow me to ask her questions about her behavior. This, despite the fact that “Moral Fitness” is a legal test of parental fitness in the State of Nebraska.
She even had a warrant for her arrest at the time of the trial, but he let her skate and gave her custody of my son.

“Judges” seem to be able to do whatever they want.

This is why our organization is not only exposing these “judges”, but also drafting legislation to limit their decision-making power to a more appropriate level.
Also, why we are working to draft binding legislation holding “judges” accountable to the same laws we are.

We are not going to be silent about this evil, any more!

DRS

]]> By: sedonaman http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-62342 sedonaman Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:12:02 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-62342 I thought the law established the mother's husband to be the <i>legal</i> father of her child. Has this law changed as a result of the availability of DNA evidence? I thought the law established the mother’s husband to be the legal father of her child. Has this law changed as a result of the availability of DNA evidence?

]]> By: Nathan Alexander http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/comment-page-1/#comment-61965 Nathan Alexander Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:43:06 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/11/07/paternity-without-process/#comment-61965 The problem as I see it is that most judges realize they have next to no ability to determine who the better parent is, let alone arbitrate between competing parental claims at a reasonable cost. The result is that the judge naturally wishes to fall back on procedure as much as possible--which prevents him/her from rendering an egregiously incorrect decision. Hence "court decisions" are largely defaults which accomodate the "prevailing cultural winds" at the time. This case seems to illustrate what is in fact behind almost all custody related court decisions: arbitrary decision making justified *by* procedure--or any procedure that can be construed to legitimate the judge's seemingly arbitrary ruling. Setting child support at 28 percent of a father's gross is also part of the scam. Assuming the father remains in contact with his child, ie. he's not living w/ his parents, he'll be unable to afford legal representation if his salary isn't over 45K. This means that it's easy to throw out a father's argument on most anything be recourse to procedural violations--which, not being an expert--he's bound to commit. While our leftist friends wail over the lack of legal representation of the terrorists in Gitmo, nearly 35 percent of American males cannot afford legal representation in cases involving their offspring. The problem as I see it is that most judges realize they have next to no ability to determine who the better parent is, let alone arbitrate between competing parental claims at a reasonable cost. The result is that the judge naturally wishes to fall back on procedure as much as possible–which prevents him/her from rendering an egregiously incorrect decision. Hence “court decisions” are largely defaults which accomodate the “prevailing cultural winds” at the time.

This case seems to illustrate what is in fact behind almost all custody related court decisions: arbitrary decision making justified *by* procedure–or any procedure that can be construed to legitimate the judge’s seemingly arbitrary ruling.

Setting child support at 28 percent of a father’s gross is also part of the scam. Assuming the father remains in contact with his child, ie. he’s not living w/ his parents, he’ll be unable to afford legal representation if his salary isn’t over 45K. This means that it’s easy to throw out a father’s argument on most anything be recourse to procedural violations–which, not being an expert–he’s bound to commit.

While our leftist friends wail over the lack of legal representation of the terrorists in Gitmo, nearly 35 percent of American males cannot afford legal representation in cases involving their offspring.

]]>