Tag Archives: Domestic Relations

How to Celebrate July 4 by Compassing the Death of the King—a day to Remember the Importance of Bad Manners, Disrespect All Authority, Never to be Satisfied with anything “Conventional”, and so Always to Resist the Lure of Safety in the Authoritarian Impulse

In particular—STAND UP FOR SMALL TIME BULLYING, HAVE A FIGHT WITH YOUR SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER (then make up), AND GIVE A COP A COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS HIGHLIGHTED and tell him to study it real hard and consider getting an honest job where he’s NOT a paid bully for the richest and most powerful people only….. or even that he use his experience in oppressing others and destroy lives for meaningless violations of traffic laws, zoning regulations, and the like—and turn around and join in the cause of freedom.

I have meant to write about this one minor topic all year because it has been irritating me: the Southern Poverty Law Center has been sponsoring a gigantic national campaign against “BULLYING” all year, and I think it’s about time somebody stood up for the Bullies.

What is particularly disturbing about the SPLC’s campaign to stop bullying is that it is all about suppressing the bad manners of “little people.”  I do not favor BIG Bullies—I have dedicated my life to fighting the arrogance of the Banks, the Judges and “licensed” attorneys they carry around in their pockets, and all the legal and systemic ways in which our Government of the Rich, by the Rich, and for the Rich has, in the name of “the General Welfare” assumed to tell us all what to do.

Do you see where this is leading?  The SPLC campaign against Bullying is just one more attack on the Freedom of Speech, the right to maintain highly individualistic values, and the right to deal with other people in whatever manner seems appropriate—or even without any manners at all.

Now I grew up in a home where decorum was valued above all things.  Everyone was extremely quiet and no one ever spoke above a hush.  I guess that’s why I eventually married a Greek girl who came from a family where everyone yelled at each other morning news and night, fought constantly, and basically acted the way out of control Mediterranean types are famous for acting.  Ok, it’s also a large part of the reason why that particular Greek girl and I parted company, but the point is, liberation from norms is: LIBERATING.

Now the SPLC has paid HUNDREDS, maybe nationwide THOUSANDS of extremely good looking young kids (99% white) to go around in red v-neck shirts or jackets, depending on the weather, in malls and commercial streets from the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica to Michigan Avenue in Chicago and Newberry Street in Boston asking people to sign petitions and make contributions to stop BULLYING in Schools.

What this plainly means is that the SPLC wants to invade yet another social arena and tell people how to live and what to think.  You see, ridicule is a key element of political discourse—I’ve dished it out and I’ve taken it, sometimes gracefully sometimes not so much.  Ridicule and “Ritualized Humor” as a means of social control was and remains a powerful tool.  It is very sinister when the corporate Government itself resorts to manipulation of norms through ridicule—and the Obama administration and its allies have engaged in a great deal of such manipulative conduct through their agents and operatives on the World Wide Web—including ridicule of some of the positions nearest and dearest to me (such as the importance of adherence to the Constitution and Barack Hussein Obama’s status as a non-Christian, non-American, non-Democratic, and completely non-Constitutional President).

I object to the use of “big money” to engage in bullying for “big players”—and what I see is the huge IRONY of the SPLC employing major corporate money and corporate methods to try to suppress “the little guy or gal” even more than s/he is already suppressed.

The BULLYING that the SPLC wants to attack is, of course, bad manners directed in politically incorrect ways at certain “disadvantaged” and hence now FAVORED groups in society.  The SPLC wants to USE THE POWER OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (i.e. the power of the STATE, for all intents and purposes), to correct people’s manners in school in regard to whatever the “SPLC cause supported group du jour” may be.  In short, to enforce POLITICAL CORRECTNESS even for adolescents and pre-teens in Middle School, High School, and probably even elementary school and kindergarten.

THIS IS CALLED: STATE CONTROL OF MIND-FORMATION.   And of course, the concept of “bullying” is just vague and nebulous enough that it can apply to criticism or ridicule of anything you want it to apply to—I daresay that EVEN ordinary political debate could easily be targeted—”You Republicans have got to stop bullying the Democrats”—or vice versa….Anyone ridiculed, in particular, for supporting the current President, I daresay, would be a bully worthy of expulsion from any school at any level.  Unofficial, Private Audience Criticism of the President has already cost people their jobs in the U.S. Army and led to summary discipline against even U.S. JUDGES—who ordinarily cannot be reprimanded or reproached for ANYTHING.  (look up, for example, the case of Montana District Judge Richard Cebull, whose crime was that he dared quite literally to call Obama a “son of a bitch”—and was ordered to write a letter of apology to the President and his family: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/richard-cebull-obama_n_1317131.html).

We all have to have the right to call the President a “Son-of-a-Bitch”—or worse.  I recall in the movie “Raising Arizona” in the opening narrative I think, when Ronald Reagan was called a “Son-of-a-Bitch” and I can’t remember anybody (right or left) so much as batting an eye.  I had voted for Reagan and I certainly laughed at the jab in its context.

So it worries me extremely that just as the right to ridicule the high and mighty is under attack, and that people as “immune” from any sort of prosecution as Judges and military officers are being persecuted for speaking ill of the President, that the SPLC goes out into the malls and preaches that even small acts of unkindness or breaches of manners should be punished.

So, for this Fourth of July—-PLEASE insult someone in a position of power, and hand him or her a copy of the First Amendment as you do so—maybe even the whole Bill of Rights.   And, here’s another suggestion—either have a fight with your husband or wife or significant other, or just discuss the bumper sticker I’ve seen on the back of so many LAPD squad cars recently: IS THERE ANY EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

I would contend there is: we are HUMAN, and in ADAMS FALL, WE SINNED ALL.  An old song by Hank Williams, Sr., (not coincidentally called “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS”) includes the wonderful line “If my wife and I’re a fussin’ brother that’s our right, cause me and that sweet woman got a license to fight, why don’t you mind your own business.“)

I suggest that any couple who cannot admit that they are incapable of controlling their emotions and actions at all times is not mature enough to be married—but that’s just my opinion and I don’t plan on trying to enforce it on others.  I definitely believe, however, that any couple contemplating marriage or living together should ask themselves whether, when they get into a fight, one or the other would resort to dialing 911 and calling the police.   Any prospective partner who says “yes” he or she would call the police—should be SHUNNED.  Marriage and home-making are all about forming a new community, a shelter from the larger cruel world, and any spouse who would bring in the ravenous dogs of state-empowered law enforcement into that community is unworthy.

I write this today, July 4, 2012, because exactly ten years ago today and tomorrow, my aforementioned Greek wife Elena destroyed our home and marriage precisely by calling the police (Williamson County Sheriff’s Department) when we were having a marital dispute about who should drive our one remaining car (since one car was in the shop) to run las minute holiday errands, including buying a fireworks display for the Fourth of July.

Elena called 911 only after she had bitten and stabbed me, which was a bad move on her part because the Williamson County Sheriff’s Department ended up arresting HER rather than me.  Oddly enough, I worked for the next forty eight hours to get her out of jail, but she never forgave me (even though it was pretty much all her fault).  That was the beginning of the end.  But it was also the beginning of my education in the most horrific abuses of the Family Courts in America—all of which were embodied in and committed by Judge Michael Jergins and attorney-flesh eating vultures such as Laurie J. Nowlin and J. Randall Grimes of Williamson County Texas, without any doubt the scum of the earth, along with social workers like Travis County’s Mark Ashworth, who work to make sure that all marriages fail and all spouses turn to the state for dispute resolution—when that resolution is always destruction, which is always the feeding of the vultures.

The use of the police to intervene in Domestic Relations disputes is another clear and plain attack on the autonomy of the home, the sanctity of the family, and the autonomous responsibility of each individual to govern himself or herself.  The use of the Courts to impose restraining orders on one or another spouse who may have raised his or her voice or slapped or hit the other is just a matter of putting the state in charge of our human nature.  We are animals, and animals fight—more commonly in nature about sex and food than anything else.

Judge Michael Jergins in Williamson County adjudged me a bad father because I discussed my family’s problems with our minor son, Charlie, who was the primary victim of our family’s problems.   It was Michael Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who opened my eyes to the possibility that Family Law and Domestic Relations law could be used to overturn the constitution “in the best interests of the child” and finally I understood the relationship between Welfare and Communist Dictatorship: “you will lead good lives, as we define good, or else you will die and have nothing.”

When Moses handed down the commandments from Mount Sinai and Christ preached to the people to love and care for one another—these were exhortations to the people to live a good life—not warning that their lives would be taken away if they didn’t.  In fact, it was precisely this kind of legalistic bullying and oppression by the Pharisees and Sadducees that Christ came into the world to protest.

No group more epitomizes the Pharisaic path of oppressive bullying more than the SPLC in modern times—CONFORM OR BE OSTRACIZED!  So, at the very least, they deserve to be ignored when they come forward asking you to contribute to their campaign.  Or you can, as I’ve done several times now, ask them how they square their views of bullying with the First Amendment to the Constitution—not to mention the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (powers and rights reserved to the people).

So we need to celebrate our bad manners, disrespect all authority, never be satisfied with anything “Conventional” (especially manners, norms, or wisdom) and above all we must alway accept the dangers of freedom—that we will fight with those we love and then have no one but ourselves to fall back on when there is no one to come to our aid—and hence to be REQUIRED to FORGIVE and LIVE TOGETHER, in order to take care of each other, as Christ taught us all.

So on this Fourth of July—let us celebrate our Free Will, our freedom to engage in bad manners is protected by the Constitution, and we should celebrate the fact that returning to the Sermon on the Mount is a far better solution than either the strictures of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Numbers, or the Family and Domestic Relations Code of any State.   If we cannot live well, in fact, we must at the very least strive to live free.

Expressing our opinions of others—i.e. “Bullying”—is good and healthy so long as we do not use the excessive and overwhelming force of government to “act it out.”  The SPLC, the police, the family courts and their social workers, and other arms of the current corporate governmental regime are our enemies, not our friends, lest we ever forget.  Let us never allow THEM or their rapacious tyranny into our homes and schools lest they consume our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

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

To end on a slightly lighter note, I suggest singing and reflecting on the real wisdom of Hank Williams’ lyrics to “Mind your Own Business”—if some elements are out-dated (such as the reference to “party line”) some are timeless, immortal and directly relevant to the doctrines of Political Correctness and Elitist manipulation such as that engaged in by the SPLC “Mindin’ other people’s business seems to be high tone“):

Words and music by Hank Williams, sr.

If the [d] wife and I are fussin, brother thats our right cause me and that sweet womans got a license to fight [d7] Why dont you [g7] mind your own business (mind [d] your own business) cause if mind [a7] your business, then you wont be mindin [d] mine. Oh, the woman on our party lines the nosiest thing She picks up her receiver when she knows its my ring Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) Well, if mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If my woman stay out til two or three Now, brother thats my headache, dont you worry bout me. Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. If I get my head beat black and blue Now thats my wife and my stove wood too Just mind your own business (mind your own business) If mind your business, then you wont be mindin mine. I got a little gal that wears her hair up high, The boys all whistel when she walks bye. Mind your own buisness blah blah, you sure wont be minding mine. Mindin other peoples business seems to be high-toned I got all that I can do just to mind my own Why dont you mind your own business (mind your own business) If you mind your own business, youll stay busy all the time.

Candidate Statement 2012: For Freedom and Real Social Diversity, “Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call “Freedom”.

It Is My Intention To Run For United States Senator In The Non-Partisan Primary Election Currently Scheduled For June 5, 2012—

I intend to run on the following statements:

ALL FINANCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL MONOPOLIES, AND LEGAL IMMUNITIES FOR WRONGFUL TAKINGS OF LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY MUST END, WITH FULL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE ILLEGITIMATE MONOPOLIES AND TAKINGS.  Government licensing and government regulation of the economy are inherently destructive to the public welfare they seek to protect.

I STAND FOR THE RESTORATION OF A JEFFERSONIAN FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC wherein governmental intrusion into private life is limited by the constitution, reserving all powers to the people!

My interim campaign managers in this venture are: in Orange County: Renada Nadine March (949) 276-1970 and Aurora Isadora Diaz (714) 767-3311; Ed Villanueva in San Diego County (858) 231-5033; as well as my Campaign Treasurer, National Coordinator, and longtime personal trustee Peyton Yates Freiman (512) 968-2666.

Anyone interested in promoting “diversity” in the Democratic Party and U.S. Senate by electing a Conservative, sound money, pro-Private Property, pro-Common Law, pro-10th-Amendment, Libertarian Candidate to replace the hopelessly establishmentarian and politically correct Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has played a leading role as member of the Senate Committees on the Judiciary and Intelligence in approving and ratifying the corruption which shackled America, should seriously consider backing me for Senate.

To elect anyone with my “outsider” credentials and background would “send them a message” inside the Washington Beltway that the people are uncomfortable and dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want real change.

My specific platform planks are:

(1) restoration of full First Amendment rights, and the abolition of all forms of governmental regulation of speech and expression, including the elimination of penalties for advocacy and repeated submission of petitions for redress in the Federal Court system.

One of my favorite passages in the Gospels is Luke 18:1-8, the Parable of the Unjust Judge—which tells of a Judge to whom a widow repeatedly brings her petition for redress, and which Judge finally grants her relief rather than hear her plea again.  Apparently, in Ancient Israel, it was unimaginable that any person would be penalized for repeatedly seeking justice—even it was by no means certain that this particular widow or any person would obtain anything by her efforts.  The Federal Courts, with Congressional support, have all but cut off the power of the people effectively petition through the Courts.  Federal Courts seem to exist only for the benefit of large corporations and law firms.  This particular corruption must end, even though, harking back to one of the passages in the Hebrew Bible, it is an ancient problem.

The following, from Isaiah 59, seems to me to embody my own frustration, and the frustration of many I know, with the Judicial System and its most numerous “officers of the court” who are the lawyers (one of my Great Grandfathers was a Judge & Justice in Louisiana—according to family legend he had a plaque on the walls of his chambers which read, “Dead Lawyers Lie Still”.   ISAIAH 59:

4 No one calls for justice;
no one pleads a case with integrity.
They rely on empty arguments, they utter lies;
they conceive trouble and give birth to evil.
5 They hatch the eggs of vipers
and spin a spider’s web.
Whoever eats their eggs will die,
and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.
6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing;
they cannot cover themselves with what they make.
Their deeds are evil deeds,
and acts of violence are in their hands.
7 Their feet rush into sin;
they are swift to shed innocent blood.
They pursue evil schemes;
acts of violence mark their ways.
8 The way of peace they do not know;
there is no justice in their paths.
They have turned them into crooked roads;
no one who walks along them will know peace.
So justice is far from us, and righteousness does not reach us.
We look for light, but all is darkness;
for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.
At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;
among the strong, we are like the dead.
11 We all growl like bears;
we moan mournfully like doves.
We look for justice, but find none;
for deliverance, but it is far away.
14 So justice is driven back,
and righteousness stands at a distance;
truth has stumbled in the streets,
honesty cannot enter.
15 Truth is nowhere to be found,
and whoever shuns evil becomes a prey.

(2) restoration of full Second Amendment rights, on the grounds that the power of the people to defend themselves against government is the necessary backup to the freedoms secured by the First Amendment (an all-powerful army and police force with the monopoly of legitimate violence is simply incompatible, in both the long and the short term, with meaningful individual or social freedom). We must reinvigorate the concept of the civilian militia, composed of every adult man and woman in society.

Switzerland and Israel both follow this model of public participation, which just shows that there are no guarantees of anything in life or politics: Switzerland by its rigid neutrality has avoided direct involvement in all the wars of the past century, while Israel has been in a state of nearly constant war since even before its creation 63 years ago in 1948.

In the United States, we have somehow combined both worlds: up until 1992, we had enjoyed a century of nearly complete domestic peace.  Discounting several dozen essentially disorganized and nearly random urban riots relating to the Labor movement in the 1890s and the Civil Rights and Vietnam War Protest movements in the late 1950s-early 1970s, there was no serious conflict or “state of hostility” on United States soil following the withdrawal of occupying forces from the South in 1877 and the dawn of the “Decade of Domestic Terrorism” which ran from 1992-2001, and led to the transformation of American government and the near obliteration of civil rights.

(3) freedom of contract from governmental interference of every kind;

To fully implement this phrase would eliminate such a large portion of the United States Code and the work of lawyers generally that overtaxed pulp-tree farms (and recycling plants) everywhere would heave a sigh of relief.   Just as an example, the IRS code and many Federal Courts frown on contracts for barter or exchange—meaning that the most basic instinct of exchange of goods, labor, or services of any kind for negotiated substantive value without assigning any formal cash value has been very nearly made a Federal crime.

(4) reduction in governmental subsidies with a goal towards ultimate elimination, of  corporate welfare, individual welfare, and all programs which foster dependency on the state rather than freedom and social-interdependence of people on each other as equals—again of absolutely every kind;

(5) reduction in governmental power over all aspects of human life, but including especially but not limited to all regulations which tend to affect individuals as members of families, and to alienate the individual from his family as a considered governmental “benefit” or “service” in support of “domestic relations” laws; and also including all regulations which tend to impose uniform philosophies or beliefs, or enforce normative standards of human philosophy, religion, or ideology of any kind.

Returning to the point about the First Amendment above, a free society (such as existed in the United States during the Colonial, Early Republican, and up through mid-19th century period at least) must foster the development of new and divergent lifestyles based on emergent new philosophies rather than trying to straightjacket society and culture into a “one-size” fits all narrow menu of politically correct and socially acceptable choices.

(6) abolition of government programs such as massive environmental regulation (including the construction and maintenance of dams and nuclear power plants) which necessarily increase the dependence of the people on the government and government controlled monopolies for their very survival;

(7) the abolition of all kinds of official immunity, including but not limited to judicial and prosecutorial immunity, for violation of civil rights, and especially for those violations and abuses of office which design or promote private or unofficial political and “social engineering” goals;

(8) any and every attempt by the state or federal government to regulate or control family organization in the name of “public welfare”;  here again, multiple apparently opposing interests may be reconciled creatively.   The interests of so-calle “social conservatives” will be served because the Federal government would no longer subsidize the state-sponsored breakup of families, pitting husbands and wives against each other in an eternal redistributive battle which ultimately enriches only lawyers and empowers only Judges and social workers.   Moreover, the power of Churches, Religious, Philosophical, and/or even Private Social or cultural groups to institute, promulgate rules, and regulate marriage and the education of the young will be restored.

However, persons of a socially liberal bent will find that the abolition of all civil and criminal restrictions on “gay marriage” and any other (victimless, voluntary) “alternative lifestyles” will lead to complete individual choice and private decision-making, limited only by individual imagination and the criminal laws against physical injury and slavery of any kind.

In a truly free society, if the Unitarian Universalist and other churches wish to solemnize gay marriage, they shall do so according to their own rules and regulations without leave or license from any state officer. But at the same time, the Conservative Presbyterians and Southern Baptist Convention will be free to ban and forbid membership to any individuals choosing what appears to these groups an “ungodly” lifestyle.  The marketplace of ideas, in short, will be open to all competing models, and the triumph or failure of any ideology will be utterly without beneficial or detrimental consequences in the law.

(9) a restoration of strict construction of the constitution and civil rights as respecting life, liberty, and property ownership;

(10) a complete restructuring of the banking and government finance systems, including but not limited to abolition of the Federal Reserve and the Federal income tax;

(11) a restoration to the people of the power (and the duty) to structure their own lives and social relations by contractual agreement without governmental interference, the major legitimate function of the courts being to enforce and judge the fairness of private contracts, including but not limited to marriage contracts and other agreements relating to domestic relations, such that the marriage license and state-sponsored divorce should be forever abolished and erased from the American social scene, restoring true freedom of association and freedom of religion to the people so that MEANINGFUL cultural and social diversity can flourish in the absence of regulation.   In this connection, all victimless crimes should be abolished, and the definition of “crimes against society” or humanity should be strictly limited to those behaviors which actually place real individuals in physical danger.  ”Moral” or “Mental” injuries such as the consequences, for example, of merely “hateful” expression (without associated conduct such as assaultive behavior) must no longer be allowed to be a cause for criminal punishment (although tortious actions for “emotional distress” and other forms of non-physical victimization would be greatly expanded and liberalized, although subjected to the funnel and fulcrum of trial-by-fully-informed juries).

(12) corporate and professional, like governmental immunity, should be abolished or at least severely curtailed so that corporate, like governmental, officers, cannot hide behind legal shields while they wield immensely destructive financial swords, (

13) electronic voting should be carefully and independently monitored and subject to citizen audits, as should all governmental actions, but electronic voting should be supplemented by duplicative paper ballot receipt systems where the voter casts his vote electronically, but then casts and keeps a confirming paper copy of his vote, so that recounts will have double and triple built in security systems,

(14) all ancient prerogative writs, including quo warranto should be restored and forever guaranteed to the people,

(15) Federal judicial rules should be reformed in favor of freely amended pleadings and limiting the discretion of judges to dismiss complaints based on subjective criteria such as “plausibility”, while the right to decide all matters of credibility and fact-finding should be strictly reserved to juries, which should also have the power to decide whether laws are fairly applicable in each individual case.

I submit that I am a candidate for all the people.  As an individual, I was born a “WASP” from the Upper Middle Class of White America, and for much of my life I thought of myself as a “Goldwater-Reagan” Republican, albeit with deep admiration for Conservative Democrats such as populated the South through at least the 1970s.   But as an Anthropologist and Historian, I should hope I have a deeper than average appreciation for the mechanics and implications and demands of REAL socio-cultural and political diversity.

And because of my unusual individual life-history, I should find a “common table” with traditional elements of the California “Blue State” Democratic coalition including California’s Hispanics (I am fluent in Spanish and support official bilingualism in Government and the Court System on what you might call “the Canadian Model”), as California’s African Americans (I have suffered more than my share of unjust judicial and financial oppression and I recognize that they have been uniquely victimized as a group), along with California’s labor unions, for whom I would always defend the rights of freedom to organize, freedom to associate, and freedom to negotiate and contract without governmental interference.

Finally, I think that my social-”diffusion of power” program regarding lifestyle choices and values should appeal not only to every ethnic group belonging to the California “plurality of diversity” but also to every Californian who shares in this state’s tradition of eccentricity and the embrace of real normative divergence. The socialist tyranny which has characterized California politics and social policy during most of my lifetime stands in marked contrast to the real diversity of the California population—at least by origins.   All who enjoy support California’s diverse makeup must admit that such diversity cannot meaningfully coexist with homogenization through coercive unitary educational, financial, and legal systems.   “Good fences make good neighbors” and the freedom the build good fences and maintain actual distinctions is one of the freedoms to whose protection I am most deeply committed.

Above all I think I will appeal to California’s homeowners and property owners of every ethnic and class background: like no one else in this or any other race, I will fight first and foremost to restore the integrity and reality of private property against all Federal Tax-based schemes and programs of securitization and transfers of real ownership as a result of corrupt banking and lending laws.   A

s an anthropologist and archaeologist, I think I have a better appreciation for the cultural history and diversity of all groups in California than anyone else, and understand the importance of maintaining identity and actual diversity by avoiding forced assimilation of any and every kind: “Vive la difference.”

As strongly indicated above, I also support absolute freedom of expression and religion, and would work to remove all Federal Support for or mandates involving state licensed or controlled marriage or relating marriage or support to the social security system, which has turned the State Family Courts into surrogate Federal Tax Collection facilities for the purpose of welfare and wealth redistribution.

As a United States Senator I would demand proof of the legitimacy and honest integrity of all our programs, institutions, and officers, including but not limited to the monetary system (the value of the dollar, the threat of renewed inflation), the Federal Reserve Banking System as a whole, every branch of the Federal Government, and yes, even of the Presidency and of the current occupant of the White House.

I would specifically fight in the U.S. Senate for amendments to the Civil Rights Statutes of Titles 18, 28, and 42 which would amendments would ensure the color blind application of the civil rights laws.   “Equal opportunity under the law” must flourish and promote itself as among the greatest of American Values, not so much as a divisive but unifying slogan and ideal in our courts—available to the members of the DAR and recent immigrants alike.

I would also fight for the repeal of the recent National Defense Authorization Act, the Patriot Act, and the Real ID act, FISA, and the secure restoration of meaningful Habeas Corpus, and the removal of every sort of unnecessary governmental program intruding upon or regulating any aspect of business or private life.

My approach to developing a policy for California’s ecological and environmental would be simple: nature is best, all modifications of nature which pervert demographics from their natural tendencies are bad.  In particular, no more dams should ever be built with Federal Funds and those dams which exist now should be subjected to retrospective environmental assessment to see which can be removed to restore rivers and lakes to their natural configurations.  I think that the restoration of natural hydrology will ultimately lessen the need for governmental regulation and intervention in economic and social life, as well as solve many of the most pressing environmental threats to all life on earth.   I will support every sort of incentive to develop non-fossil fuel energy bases EXCEPT hydroelectric based on damming our rivers.  Deserts should probably remain dry rather than the site for suburban sprawl.  Restoration of natural water flows will decrease the tendency for the United States Federal Government and State Governments to become modern day examples of “Oriental Despotism.”  Energy independence for the individual household and family or local communities through wind and solar power is the ideal to be preferred.

Please consider supporting me in my attempt to shake up the California Democratic Party and Washington establishments!  In sum, and conclusion, I would just offer as a Haiku-like motto

“Jeffersonian Democracy” defines everything we call freedom.

Statement originally published on May 20, 2011 @ 1:54, & May 21, 2011 @ 2:08 AM

Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson’s Second Appeal of Remand: Civil Rights Laws should be Race-Neutral and Colorblind

July 2 2010 KAGL INITIAL BRIEF ROMAN PAGES 07-02-10

07-02-10_Appellant’s Opening Brief_KAGL_2nd

Appellant’s Opening Brief Cover Sheet July 2 2010

03-10-2010 KAGL SECOND NOTICE OF REMOVAL 28 USC 1443(1)

Civil Rights Removal should be permissible whenever State Law absolutely precludes the possibility that the Defendant will win on the core issue at stake in the suit. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has simply raised the undeniable truth that it is impossible, in the State of Florida, for a Respondent, once served with a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, to stop the dissolution of marriage. This is called “No Fault” divorce, but it is actually “strict liability” for divorce—the rule is, or would appear to be: if you are once married, you must become divorced immediately or else you are to be condemned as an anti-social pariah.

April 29 2010 Judge Oftedal’s Final Judgment of Dissolution

It is completely obvious that the policy of breaking down the American Family is the most important in all State and Federal Government. That is the conclusion one has to reach by reviewing the Lawson v. Lawson litigation and the dispositions entered by Florida State Circuit Judge Oftedal and U.S. District Judge Marra’s against Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

It’s amazing to think of a default being entered under circumstances wherein Kathy had so vigorously opposed this process every step of the way. It was as if Oftedal had to silence her or lose all his “credibility” as a good Florida Circuit Court Judge: “Who will rid me of this Troublesome Woman?” Someone must have said? (Cf. “Murder in the Cathedral” by T.S. Eliot).

2-24-2010 Notice of Appeal of Two Oftedal Orders per Florida 9-130

Kathy filed two Notices of Appeal of Non-Final Orders pursuant to Fla. App. Rule 9-130. The question is whether the express language of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9-130 renders Judge Richard L. Oftedal’s Final Judgment, entered April 29, 2010, null and void? Will the Florida 4th District Court of Appeals uphold the plain letter of the law, or will it weasel around and find that Kathy’s constitutional challenge to the basic Florida Marital and Dissolution Statutes was so “obstructionist” as to justify Judge Oftedal’s actions in ignoring the plain letter of the law. Since when is “obstructionism” based on constitutional arguments an evil thing? Is it that the Constitution has become hazardous to our Government’s feelings of absolute control over the population, so that Constitutionalists must all be eliminated and/or severely repressed/suppressed/ or just ridiculed and belittled until they become psychologically depressed? If the Courts, State and Federal, can apply just enough “pressure” on all people like Kathy who assert their rights, maybe there won’t be any people like Kathy anymore, and the Courts can act as arbitrarily and capriciously as they want in the name of “public health and welfare” and the “best interests of the child.”

Marra’s April 19 2010 Order Denying Kathy Garcia-Lawson’s Rule 59(e)

Divorce is much more important than Marriage. State disposition of martial rules is much more important the private contract or private arrangements regarding private life. And above all, the State’s complete usurpation of power over marriage and child-rearing is NOT communistic, NOT even socialist, and is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NOT AN EFFECTIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF SECULAR-HUMANIST RELIGION BY THE POWER OF THE STATE UNDER THE GUISE OF THE STATE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH & WELFARE.

KAGL Objections to Order Setting Trial February 26 2010

Since when is vigorous assertion of constitutional rights so offensive to a court that a Judge dares to strike all such assertive pleadings and enter a default against the party asserting constitutional rights to be heard and complain about the way the system works? Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson has spent the past five years challenging the Florida state statutory scheme, as well as the judicial customs, practices, and policies implementing this legislative panorama. Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson contends that it is wrong, it is a violation of the American spirit, of the American dream of liberty and freedom, that the State and Federal government have ganged up to force and require that all individuals and family depend for their personal relations and family life, which lie at the heart of every person’s “pursuit of happiness”, on the arbitrary and capricious whims of state judges. Only with the abolition of State Family Court systems, of all State and Federal interference with domestic relations, can real freedom be restored in the United States of America, or in any of the countries of the world which have copied our extremely bad example…..or the bad examples that we copied (such as, truly but surprisingly, the old, now defunct and collapsed, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

April 13 2010 KAGAL Rule 59(e) Motion for REVOCATION OF REMAND.doc- Kathy’s draft

Was it Manifest Error to Ignore the Plain, Racially Neutral, Statutory Language of 28 U.S.C. Section 1443? Or was it Manifest Error for the Supreme Court of the United States to construe 28 U.S.C. Section 1443 Civil Rights Removal so as to judicially insert or apply race-based criteria or classification schemes to race-neutral statutory language, especially when this was done during the “Civil Rights Movement” which was supposedly removing racial divisions as motivating factors, or factors of competition or oppression, among the people of the United States? Or could it be that Population-wide-Equal Civil Rights were not the real concern of the United States Supreme Court?

ORIGINS, SUPPRESSION, AND DESTINY OF THE FAMILY, PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND THE DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN STATE

The autonomy of the Family and Private Property, the freedom of the individual and his closest worldly associates to arrange all of their affairs free from governmental interference, is the foundation for Capitalism and the Democratic-Republican State.  No issues are more important today than to restrict the overweening power of the Family and Probate Courts, which are responsible for more day-to-day infringements upon the rights and liberties of the vast majority of the people than the penal system, however horrible and corrupt, will ever be.  The greatest deception is that the government exercises power through the Family and Probate Courts for the benefit and promotion of welfare.  The reality is that Federal regulations enacted or promulgated pursuant to the Federal Power of Public Health and Welfare, Title 42, is the most egregious and oppressive intrusion into private life in the history of the world.

Civil Rights Laws may have evolved in the context of racial conflict, within the context of United States history, but until the Civil Rights laws are enforced in a race-neutral and colorblind manner, the status and concept of Civil Rights in the United States will remain hopelessly perverted.

Death in a Judge’s Chambers (Melbourne, Florida): Notes from Last August: Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson against the Family Courts in Florida

 

RE: Grayson (capital punishment for alleged child support arrearages?)
Montag, den 31. August 2009, 15:00:06 Uhr

Von:
kathy Garcia-Lawson <garcialawson@hotmail.com> 

Kontakt anzeigen

An: Mike MCManus <michaeljmcmanus@cs.com>

Mike:

You’re a news man right? The only reason that I thought this story was newsworthy is that a relatively harmless, decent, well-respected man died in a Judge’s chambers upon being sentenced to “immediate incarceration” concerning disputed arrearages in child support.
This man, Dr. Grayson, may not have been perfect: are you?  He undoubtedly had his faults and eccentricities.  He may have been unusual in some regards.  He was probably a sinful son of Adam.  He many not have been loved by every person he met in life: are you?
But did he deserve to die in handcuffs on the floor in front of a judge’s office desk?  Was this his preordained destiny, his time to die?
Or did the system finally kill him?  And are these newsworthy questions in your mind?
The circumstances are that this man has been struggling for ten years or more and has been frustrated and denied due process at every turn.  The judge made it clear that he had pre-determined a sentence of incarceration for a man in his sixties with a pre-existing and well-known heart condition who testified that being jailed would destroy his career and livelihood. This man showed symptoms of heart failure and was immediately handcuffed for this “offense”.
The Judge up in Melbourne, once it became obvious that the symptoms were real, “modified” his order of incarceration so that the victim dying on his floor would not have to be sent to a county medical facility.
This special set of circumstances seems to me something that would shock the conscience and disturb the tranquility of most readers, of most people in the United States, for the simple reason that it raises this question: at what stage of alleged “arrearage” and under what circumstances and at what stage of the litigation process does failure to pay child support become a Capital Offense?
Are compliant, sheep-like parents who submit to the system, in your eyes and conscience, “good people?” Are those who complain and resist, who, like trapped coyotes, would rather chew off their legs than remained trapped in the system, “bad people?”  Is a moral system which judges the compliant as good and the resisters as bad consistent with American values? with Christian values? with your values?  With the values of our grandparents who fought the Nazis and Japanese Imperialists and later tried to protect America from Godless Communism?  Where is equal protection in this system?  Where is due process?  Where can the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be found in the Family Courts, anywhere in America?
The Florida Family Code Statutes and Domestic Relations Courts supposedly exist to improve the lives and general welfare of the people by simplifying domestic disputes and facilitating wealth redistribution and welfare transfers among private parties so that members of economically “viable” families will not become dependent upon the “public dole” or “feeders at the public trough.”
How does the death of Dr. Grayson, as the direct and proximate result of a Family Court Judge’s oppressive ruling on a disputed question, improve public welfare or equitably redistribute the wealth of our now nearly socialist republic?  As to rationality, what is the relationship between economic rationality and honor?  At what price do you suggest we all submit to injustice?
Imagine this, if a small claims court judgment were entered unfairly against you for $60, and in your mind that judgment were the equivalent of theft, because it was obtained by lies and deceit, “does it make sense to you” that you, as a man of honor and integrity, might spend perhaps $300 to defend yourself in a small claims Court rather than submit to theft?
Many of us feel that no judgment ever issues from nor is ever handed down by a Florida Domestic Relations Court except by and through Judicially sanctioned and protected lies and deceit, and we do feel this is especially true in Florida although it appears to be the “norm” nationwide, and so we feel that to preserve our honor and individual integrity, we must fight every step of the way, and ultimately fight to eliminate the system.
I personally have resisted the Satantic temptation to turn my welfare and my daughter’s over to the state, although my Husband left home four years ago and has been seeking a decree of dissolution more-or-less actively ever since.
Now, having seen that the system will not yield to my personal pleas, I am inviting and seeking the assistance intervenors in my case, to join me in demanding that the Florida Domestic Relations Courts all abolish themselves, that they assemble and march out of our lives (without armed revolution) just as the British Imperial Army assembled and Marched out of India in 1947.
When human bodies such as Dr. Grayson’s drop dead in Family Court upon the rendering of judicial orders of incarceration relating to the handling of money in family affairs, I submit that the “public welfare” purpose of the Dissolution Courts has vanished.
When more children are abused in Foster Homes selected by the State than at the homes from which Foster children were removed, I submit that the child custody system has ceased working in “the best interests of the child.”
When post-dissolution litigation and disputes routinely and everywhere continue and go on until children turn 18 or graduate from college, I submit that the “peacekeeping” role of the courts has become utterly nugatory.
If you would be interested in reviewing my constitutional theories regarding the illegitimacy of the Domestic Relations jurisdiction in any court, I can send you the Notice of Intervention which I am inviting every interested in person in Florida to submit in my divorce.
I’ll tell you right now that my theory is based on consistent prongs of Supreme Court jurisprudence: (1) marriage and the private ordering of family relations are fundamental rights, especially when asserted as matters of freedom of philosophic or religious or moral expression, (2) no fundamental right, especially none protected by the First Amendment, may be limited by any state through a state approval, licensing or other monopolistic procedure, (3), the substitution of state statutes for religious sacraments and private control over family relations creates an excessive entanglement of government and private religious practice as well as private moral determination which is intolerable in a free and democratic republic, “conceived in Liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
I for one am happy to be now engaged in a great struggle, to determine whether any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure….
Kathy Ann Garcia-Lawson 561-624-8725

From: MichaelJMcManus@cs.com
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:36:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Grayson
To: garcialawson@hotmail.com

Kathy,

Let us assume that your friend did have his income falsely imputed.  It should ahve been $40,000 a year not $50,000 or whatever.  But he should have paid on the basis of the lower number, to be credible.  Instead he paid no child support, apparently spent $300,000 arguing for a lower figure.  Doesn’t make sense to me.

Am I wrong in stating the facts?

Mike

Michael J. McManus
syndicated columnist
“Ethics & Religion”
President & Co-Chair
Marriage Savers
9311 Harrington Dr.
Potomac, MD 20854
http://www.marriagesavers.org
301 469-5873


Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. Find out more.