Legal Abuse Syndrome
WARNING: Protracted litigation can be hazardous to your health.
Legal abuses are invisible to the average citizen, are found readily in Legal Abuse Syndrome victims' assaults and lance the heart of a healthy society. Justice substantially validates the worth of the citizen and reaffirms his positive social identity. More and more, crime is being recognized as a major health problem. In a climate where it is predicted that every citizen will be a victim of violent or nonviolent crime at some point in his life, the future will be teeming with psycholegal issues. Four attitudes need to be adopted by the community of American citizens to insure healing from Legal Abuse Syndrome.
Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Disqualification of Judges
Disqualification of Judges
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Does your judge follow the law?
Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However since some judges believe that they are the Lord, they may not follow the law. (Judge Rosen entered his courtroom each day, stood before the court audience, raised his hand, and stated that he was the Lord. The night before he was to be indicted, he took a gun and blew his brains out. So much for a judge being the Lord.)
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
One of our members has filed several motions for disqualification, only to have the judge ignore the motions. The member will post on this web-site several of the motions filed, to give the public a taste of the law and how judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and we suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
Our Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
One of our members not only did not receive justice from a prejudiced judge, but he does not believe that he received justice from the judge, as required by law.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Does your judge follow the law?
Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued any judge who has been disqualified by law are valid, they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
However, as we know, many judges ignore the law, but by doing so, they not only attempt to harm you, the public, but they have made a mockery of the law, and have evidenced a disdain for Justices of higher courts, such as the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal. If judges do not have respect for other judges, why should judges expect the respect of the public?
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his/her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. The judge has no more lawful authority than your next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However since some judges believe that they are the Lord, they may not follow the law. (Judge Rosen entered his courtroom each day, stood before the court audience, raised his hand, and stated that he was the Lord. The night before he was to be indicted, he took a gun and blew his brains out. So much for a judge being the Lord.)
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that your judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
One of our members has filed several motions for disqualification, only to have the judge ignore the motions. The member will post on this web-site several of the motions filed, to give the public a taste of the law and how judges ignore the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and we suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
Remember Child Custody is About the Children – Not As a Weapon of Divorce — Modern Weapons
Remember Child Custody is About the Children – Not As a Weapon of Divorce — Modern Weapons
Okay, here is the scoop. I am a product of divorce and I have had a divorce. My mother’s divorce was brutal for my brother and I. My older sister was from an earlier marriage and divorce. According to all involved, that divorce was none to civil either. To my mother’s defense, her second divorce was not due to her. My father is the one that used us to his ends. Their divorce lasted five long years.
My brother and I went back and forth as my father demanded. My mother never prevented him from seeing us. She was between a rock and a hard place. She had no choice. If she did not then my father would have called foul and we would have been taken away from her. My father held all the cards. He had all the money and the lawyers. He paid child support when he felt like it and my mother had to deal with it.
My mother made barely enough for the four of us. It became so bad that we were sent to live with relatives, until my mother could get things together financially. My father agreed only if he could contact us whenever he felt like it, no exceptions. He would call early mornings on weekends, late night of weekdays, showed up unannounced, would send for us when my mother had planned to do something with us. Anything that he could do that hurt and punished my mother, he would do.
As a child I knew that something was wrong but all that my mother would do is shake her head and say that my father loved us very much. She refused to follow my father’s lead. Whenever he took us, she would always put a good spin on it. Each time my father did something, he would wait for my mother’s response. If no response then he would buy or do something outrageous.
That is how we had the first high tech stereo in our neighborhood, a working microscope, a television in each of our rooms, a computer, scientific calculator, expensive clothes, trips outside of the US, and so much more. I knew that it might not be the nicest thing in the world to take the gifts, but the excitement of having brand new items before everyone else was more than we could bear.
I remember the love for my father and my mother and just wishing that things would stop being so painful.
When the divorce was final, I saw a different person in my mother, one that was happy and free. I saw her try new things and throw off my father’s rules. I saw my father try and fail to recapture my mother’s pain.
When I saw these things I vowed never to forget them. When I got married, I believed that I would be married forever. That did not happen.
I was scared because my husband was just like my father. Things were made worse because we had a child together. I indeed did remember. I went looking for the best lawyer that I could afford without making my husband suspicious. It took me about three months but I knew that I had to be prepared. Before I signed the lawyer’s retainer, I gave my marriage one last chance. My husband’s response was to leave me at home without transportation and no money for three days.
I survived by my wits and signed the papers to start divorce. I remembered my past, and I refused to paint my daughter’s father as the bad guy. When he would try to use her in a power play, I would remove her to an objective party. I set rules that he would break and then I would talk with him offline. I never maligned him in front of her.
Staying calm was very difficult but I knew that he would only turn around and use it against me with our child. I knew that she would be confused enough. I worked very hard in making sure that she would not be hurt. Yes, I wanted to be free of my abusive husband, but my daughter was always number one. Work, family and friends were second to my daughter.
Everything that I did, I did with her in mind. When he requested to visit with her, I let him but I stayed nearby in the neighbor or followed close behind. When he made his late night calls, he got my answering machine. When he would drop by unannounced, I let him see her except if it was real late. If he showed up at the sitter’s house I would leave work to be there to watch what was going on.
Was it hard?? Hell yes, but my daughter was always worth any pain that I endured.
It took six months for our divorce to become final. I won sole custody. How? I let him be the idiot that I knew he could be. I documented everything he said, did, or went. I wrote down when he paid his child support and then when he bounced the checks. I saved everything that he sent me good and bad. When the time came, I showed them to the lawyer, who showed the judge. That’s how I won.
When I hear about friends and family facing divorce, I cry. Both sides have forgotten that the most important thing is the children. Yes, we all deserve to be happy but not at the expensive of our children. They are what matters the most, always. No exceptions. Your child did not ask to be here anymore than you did. You are responsible for their happiness until they can make their own happiness.
As adults, we forget what it means to be a child. We forget what it feels like to have no say and no recourse. As adults, we need to remember that our children are children, not weapons of divorce. We may be having a difficult time but the children are having their world torn apart into millions of pieces.
Divorce changes their life’s, and affects them well into adulthood. What you do, say, and how you handle things will stay with them forever.
Yes, it is very difficult to remain calm and not retaliate, but that is what you must do. The freedom that you will feel is the gift to yourself but it must be delayed until after the divorce is final. Remember, your children depend on you to show them the right way to handle situations. Remember their happiness depends on you and what you do.
How is my daughter? Well she had the chance to be a kid. She is a happy, well adjusted child, with her life ahead of her. She remembers little of the divorce because I refused to involve her in the tug of war. I made it clear the “war” was not to be about her. I kept it between my husband and I.
Today there are many, many places to go for help in a divorce. Remember that when you go looking for a lawyer, look for one that is willing to give you advise, and is willing to take what evidence you have. Most importantly, look for one who has your child’s happiness as top priority.
I have written a couple of articles/ad about a group that might be very useful if you are involved in a divorce. They have a wealth of information that will help you to keep your child out of your war with your spouse. They even have ways to help you when your other half brings your child into the “war”. They explain about the rights of everyone involved, including grandparents.
Okay, here is the scoop. I am a product of divorce and I have had a divorce. My mother’s divorce was brutal for my brother and I. My older sister was from an earlier marriage and divorce. According to all involved, that divorce was none to civil either. To my mother’s defense, her second divorce was not due to her. My father is the one that used us to his ends. Their divorce lasted five long years.
My brother and I went back and forth as my father demanded. My mother never prevented him from seeing us. She was between a rock and a hard place. She had no choice. If she did not then my father would have called foul and we would have been taken away from her. My father held all the cards. He had all the money and the lawyers. He paid child support when he felt like it and my mother had to deal with it.
My mother made barely enough for the four of us. It became so bad that we were sent to live with relatives, until my mother could get things together financially. My father agreed only if he could contact us whenever he felt like it, no exceptions. He would call early mornings on weekends, late night of weekdays, showed up unannounced, would send for us when my mother had planned to do something with us. Anything that he could do that hurt and punished my mother, he would do.
As a child I knew that something was wrong but all that my mother would do is shake her head and say that my father loved us very much. She refused to follow my father’s lead. Whenever he took us, she would always put a good spin on it. Each time my father did something, he would wait for my mother’s response. If no response then he would buy or do something outrageous.
That is how we had the first high tech stereo in our neighborhood, a working microscope, a television in each of our rooms, a computer, scientific calculator, expensive clothes, trips outside of the US, and so much more. I knew that it might not be the nicest thing in the world to take the gifts, but the excitement of having brand new items before everyone else was more than we could bear.
I remember the love for my father and my mother and just wishing that things would stop being so painful.
When the divorce was final, I saw a different person in my mother, one that was happy and free. I saw her try new things and throw off my father’s rules. I saw my father try and fail to recapture my mother’s pain.
When I saw these things I vowed never to forget them. When I got married, I believed that I would be married forever. That did not happen.
I was scared because my husband was just like my father. Things were made worse because we had a child together. I indeed did remember. I went looking for the best lawyer that I could afford without making my husband suspicious. It took me about three months but I knew that I had to be prepared. Before I signed the lawyer’s retainer, I gave my marriage one last chance. My husband’s response was to leave me at home without transportation and no money for three days.
I survived by my wits and signed the papers to start divorce. I remembered my past, and I refused to paint my daughter’s father as the bad guy. When he would try to use her in a power play, I would remove her to an objective party. I set rules that he would break and then I would talk with him offline. I never maligned him in front of her.
Staying calm was very difficult but I knew that he would only turn around and use it against me with our child. I knew that she would be confused enough. I worked very hard in making sure that she would not be hurt. Yes, I wanted to be free of my abusive husband, but my daughter was always number one. Work, family and friends were second to my daughter.
Everything that I did, I did with her in mind. When he requested to visit with her, I let him but I stayed nearby in the neighbor or followed close behind. When he made his late night calls, he got my answering machine. When he would drop by unannounced, I let him see her except if it was real late. If he showed up at the sitter’s house I would leave work to be there to watch what was going on.
Was it hard?? Hell yes, but my daughter was always worth any pain that I endured.
It took six months for our divorce to become final. I won sole custody. How? I let him be the idiot that I knew he could be. I documented everything he said, did, or went. I wrote down when he paid his child support and then when he bounced the checks. I saved everything that he sent me good and bad. When the time came, I showed them to the lawyer, who showed the judge. That’s how I won.
When I hear about friends and family facing divorce, I cry. Both sides have forgotten that the most important thing is the children. Yes, we all deserve to be happy but not at the expensive of our children. They are what matters the most, always. No exceptions. Your child did not ask to be here anymore than you did. You are responsible for their happiness until they can make their own happiness.
As adults, we forget what it means to be a child. We forget what it feels like to have no say and no recourse. As adults, we need to remember that our children are children, not weapons of divorce. We may be having a difficult time but the children are having their world torn apart into millions of pieces.
Divorce changes their life’s, and affects them well into adulthood. What you do, say, and how you handle things will stay with them forever.
Yes, it is very difficult to remain calm and not retaliate, but that is what you must do. The freedom that you will feel is the gift to yourself but it must be delayed until after the divorce is final. Remember, your children depend on you to show them the right way to handle situations. Remember their happiness depends on you and what you do.
How is my daughter? Well she had the chance to be a kid. She is a happy, well adjusted child, with her life ahead of her. She remembers little of the divorce because I refused to involve her in the tug of war. I made it clear the “war” was not to be about her. I kept it between my husband and I.
Today there are many, many places to go for help in a divorce. Remember that when you go looking for a lawyer, look for one that is willing to give you advise, and is willing to take what evidence you have. Most importantly, look for one who has your child’s happiness as top priority.
I have written a couple of articles/ad about a group that might be very useful if you are involved in a divorce. They have a wealth of information that will help you to keep your child out of your war with your spouse. They even have ways to help you when your other half brings your child into the “war”. They explain about the rights of everyone involved, including grandparents.
Bond set for accused child killer, Stepmother
Bond set for accused child killer : News : ConnectMidMichigan.com
A bond has been set for a step-mother accused of sexually abusing and killing a MidMichigan two year old.
Renee King has been charged in the death of two year old Lily Furneaux.
At first, a judge set no bond but has changed that to a million dollar bond.
Lily died in November of last year.
Lily's biological mother, Lauren Furneaux of Metamora, is raising money to help fight child abuse.
Renee King's next court date is February 7th.
A bond has been set for a step-mother accused of sexually abusing and killing a MidMichigan two year old.
Renee King has been charged in the death of two year old Lily Furneaux.
At first, a judge set no bond but has changed that to a million dollar bond.
Lily died in November of last year.
Lily's biological mother, Lauren Furneaux of Metamora, is raising money to help fight child abuse.
Renee King's next court date is February 7th.
N.C. goofs, must repay feds - State - NewsObserver.com
N.C. goofs, must repay feds - State - NewsObserver.com
The state owes the federal government more than $541,000 for improperly reporting how much it paid for birth control drugs under the Medicaid program.
According to a federal audit of the Medicaid family planning program, the state underreported how much it had received in drug company rebates. The federal government pays most of the state's Medicaid costs, and because the rebates were reported inaccurately, the federal government paid too much.
The state Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged that it made mistakes. In a December letter, DHHS secretary Lanier Cansler agreed to the repayment and said the problem uncovered in the audit would be fixed.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/01/959692/nc-goofs-must-repay-feds.html#ixzz1Ci5FeZIg
The state owes the federal government more than $541,000 for improperly reporting how much it paid for birth control drugs under the Medicaid program.
According to a federal audit of the Medicaid family planning program, the state underreported how much it had received in drug company rebates. The federal government pays most of the state's Medicaid costs, and because the rebates were reported inaccurately, the federal government paid too much.
The state Department of Health and Human Services acknowledged that it made mistakes. In a December letter, DHHS secretary Lanier Cansler agreed to the repayment and said the problem uncovered in the audit would be fixed.
Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/01/959692/nc-goofs-must-repay-feds.html#ixzz1Ci5FeZIg
Monday, January 31, 2011
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Inquest sparks calls for changes to Social Services
BY BARB PACHOLIK AND KARIN YESKE, SASKATCHEWAN NEWS NETWORK; REGINA LEADER-POST JANUARY 31, 2011
-The grandmother of a three-year-old boy who died in foster care is making a tearful plea that his death result in changes so other families are spared from such a tragedy.
"One dies so many will live," said the woman, who cannot be identified under a publication ban.
"This was a preventable death. We pray for all the children in care. This inquest took place to prevent this from happening to other children."
A coroner's jury late Friday night deemed the death of the little boy a homicide.
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Death+foster+child+ruled+homicide/4195120/story.html#ixzz1CfmGkPYD
Death of foster child ruled as homicide
Inquest sparks calls for changes to Social Services
BY BARB PACHOLIK AND KARIN YESKE, SASKATCHEWAN NEWS NETWORK; REGINA LEADER-POST JANUARY 31, 2011
-The grandmother of a three-year-old boy who died in foster care is making a tearful plea that his death result in changes so other families are spared from such a tragedy.
"One dies so many will live," said the woman, who cannot be identified under a publication ban.
"This was a preventable death. We pray for all the children in care. This inquest took place to prevent this from happening to other children."
A coroner's jury late Friday night deemed the death of the little boy a homicide.
Read more: http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Death+foster+child+ruled+homicide/4195120/story.html#ixzz1CfmGkPYD
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)