FAMILY COURT: THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION MACHINE and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 666: “The Mark of the Beast”

I have previously written on this blog that the de facto aim of the present de facto government of the United States is the de facto destruction of the Family, Private Property, and the Constitutional State, whether these aims are ever adopted as a complete de jure repeal of the Constitution or not.  

Ever since 1995, I have become increasingly aware that the customs, practices, and policies of Family Court jurisdiction all tend towards the complete abrogation of the Constitution and the Common Law. The mortgage foreclosure crisis is bad.  In fact, it is a tragedy, and it is sapping America’s vitality and transforming this nation, populated and settled on the concept of the family farm and homestead, into a nation of tenants whose control over their own destinies is nil.  A mediaeval serf or tenant farmer could at least sustain himself and his family, feudal levies and rents notwithstanding.  But the modern tenant in an apartment in the Urban or Suburban setting of America has no power or autonomy whatsoever: he is a slave to the Corporate-Governmental oligarchy.

Periodically I have tried to move into other fields of advocacy for legal reform and forget or at least ignore for a while the pain and agony that family court inflicts on the people of the modern world, but time-and-time again, I return to this conclusion: the engine destroying the family and private property is the same engine destroying the Constitutional State.  But while the American People might conceivably recover from an Economic Crisis which wiped them out of their homes like a tidal waive or earthquake all over the continent, there will be no recovery from the destruction of the family.   In South Central and Eastern LA and similar neighborhoods nationwide the combined institutions of poverty-prolonging and dependence-perpetuating welfare together with endless parallel cycles of poverty-prolonging and dependence-perpetuating crime, probation, and incarceration have led to a situation where the only families are those built around grandparents.  

Once the grandparents of the current generation are gone, I suspect that all traces of the nuclear family will be gone and that the lower and lower middle classes will be ripe for permanent harvesting into state institutions.  These observations are all new to me in that I have been collecting them first hand through interviews and participant observations throughout Los Angeles, but they are hardly new to those who have been living this way for going on two-three generations already.  See, e.g., San Clemente, California, writer Star Parker’s “Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation” (and her earlier book on the same theme):  (Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can do About It.).  

Without any doubt, welfare and the welfare state are the worst things ever to happen to the American Constitution and to freedom and honest government in general.  The worst thing about the welfare state is not the particular, individual frauds, even outrageous $13.8 trillion frauds such as the non-existence of the Social Security Trust fund and the complete failure of Congress to honestly account for the receipt and distribution of Social Securities taxes.  

No, the worst thing about socialism the welfare state is the Satanically dishonest promise of good things, benefits, for those who are so weak and unfortunate and marginal that they cannot defend themselves.  And the very worst and most dishonest welfare-state promise is that on which the Family/Domestic Jurisdiction Courts rest their license to destroy the Constitution: these Courts, their officers and “clients” premise their authority and invocations of power on the introit that they work for “the Best Interests of the Child.”  

Vagueness is always the enemy of judicial fairness, genuine equal protection of the laws, and due process in any meaningful or substantive way.  Nothing could possibly be more appealing than the idea that a Court must do whatever “is in the best interests of the child” or of “the children.”  And yet you will find it hard to locate two people on the planet who will ever agree what that might be.

So, in the aftermath of “No Fault” Divorce and the integration of Child Welfare and Family Protective Services under Title 42 of the United States Code (see especially Title 42 U.S.C. Section 666—yes, believe it or not, that “Mark of the Beast” REALLY is the code number—under the Title “Public Health & Welfare”).  

You know, who could possibly oppose anything that promotes Public Health & Welfare?????

Well, in fact, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of modern European history should remember that the Reign of Terror in Revolutionary France was Presided over by (and in large part conducted by) “The Committee on Public Health”–“Comité de Salut Public.”  It is odd to think that a Committee on Public Health would have been responsible for the execution of 20,000-40,000 citizens without (for the most part) keeping records of trials, evidence, or verdicts, or even of the number of executions aside from those of extremely famous people such as the Bourbon King Louis XVI & his fabled Queen Marie Antoinette, plus the Duke of Orleans, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier, Madam Roland and the Girondists. But whether appropriately or merely ironically or sarcastically named, the Comité de Salut Public operated as the highest governmental [merged legislative, executive, & judicial] power in France from April 1793-through the execution of Maximilien Robespierre, on July 28, 1794 although it continued to exist until the Constitution of August 22, 1795 with diminished power under the name “Committee on Public General Security & Public Health” (“Salut” normally means “Health” but is often translated in this historical context as “Safety”).   My personal opinion is that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a cover and quiet combination [non-standardized] IQ/History test for the American People.  And the American people, in allowing the Department of Homeland Security to be created, obviously totally and completely failed to see the parallels between Maximilien Robespierre’s and George W. Bush’s Reigns of Terror separated by just 210 years.  My further opinion and prejudice is that anyone who advocates curtailing the Constitution or Freedom in any way in the name of Safety, Health, or Security should be, in the immortal words of the Honorable Judge Michael Paul Jergins of the 395th Judicial District of Williamson County, Texas, be required to walk down the streets naked (or in barest underwear) if it were judicially determined and ordered that such conduct would be “in the best interests of the children”.

And yes, it was in fact the Honorable Michael Paul Jergins, together with Laurie J. Nowlin, J. Randall Grimes, & Michael P. Davis of Cedar Park, Round Rock & Georgetown in Williamson County, Texas, who first persuaded me that the abolition of the Family Codes and Courts of the United States was the only meaningful path to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of liberty and freedom in the United States of America.  I had suspected as much from encounters with Travis County Judges Lora Livingston and Jeanne Meurer in Austin, but it was Judge Jergins, Laurie J. Nowlin, and J. Randall Grimes who turned me into a crusader (Mike Davis was mostly good for laughs, especially when he once confused Geometric & Algebraic Pi with Culinary Pie, but generally every time he spoke).  And today, as I have done several times before, I rededicate my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor to attacking and undoing the harm that Federally Sponsored State Judges do every day in the Courts of Family & Domestic Relations Jurisdictions throughout the United States in the name of “the best interests of the child.”

But the focus of my thoughts today is not the evils of the exercise of Family Court Jurisdiction over Cedar Park, Georgetown,  or Round Rock in Williamson County, but the exercise of such jurisdiction over Huntington Beach, Orange County, California, where tonight there is one woman hiding in a shelter (threatened with illegal arrest) and another crying for her children in her Beverly Hills apartment on Los Angeles’ Westside because of a monster equal to Judge Jergins: the Honorable Clay M. Smith, a 1974 graduate of Brigham Young University and a 1977 Juris Doctor from the University of Utah Law School, who has served as a Judge since 1997 and as a Superior Court Judge since 1998.  This Judge Clay M. Smith, a Mormon (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) has a horrible reputation among women for favoring even the most abusive fathers over the most worthy mothers. (See,e.g.  There is a long-term pattern here that has been observed over and over again: Family/Domestic Relations practice is always to award custody to the worst parent, in hopes and expectations that the better of any two parents is more likely to contest the assignment by the Court of custody to the least fit of two parents, so that lawyers’ wallets and judicial power and bureaucratic child protective “services” will continue forever to be a major “growth industry” in the world of No Fault “Easy” Divorce, where the cost of divorces and the regularity of divorce litigation as a “tax” or redistributive burden on the population is now over 500 times as great as it was in the “bad old days” of “difficult” divorce.

Judge Smith has come to my attention because he has entered orders in State Court during periods of removal in violation of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, and has thereby acted in the COMPLETE absence of jurisdiction as he goes forward enforcing and imposing his own (strange for a Mormon) Secular Humanist Standards of education and religious family orientation on a Jewish Family, and simultaneously making up statutory provisions by which to coerce transfers of custody and threats of imprisonment from a fit and non-violent mother to an unfit and child-abusing father.

To remove the “money machine” behind all this, it is now high time to wipe-out all Federal guidelines and redistributive subsidies for the Family Law Codes and Family Court Systems and all Child Welfare and Protective Services Nationwide.  That is a matter of merely holding the Federal Government to the clear letter of the Constitution—there is no room for such statutes anywhere under the Original Constitution or any of the 27 subsequent (ratified) Amendments.  

To abolish the State Statutes creating Family Courts and general Domestic Relations Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court’s doctrine of 14th Amendment “Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights to the States would have to be evenly applied to each of the first ten amendments.

The Supreme Court-approved ability of the States to limit trials-by-jury is one major exception to incorporation which has had a disastrous effect on both the Constitution and the Common Law in the Civil Courts of Law & Equity in the United States. 

On the whole, however, the abolition of the Family Courts and Domestic Relations jurisdictions in the several states requires only the even-handed enforcement of the Supreme Court’s already regularly reaffirmed incorporation of each clause of the First Amendment to the States, possibly combined with the Ninth Amendment reservation of rights to the people.  

As I have repeatedly argued, as (ironically enough) as Mormon Judge Clay M. Smith has recently reaffirmed, State Family Courts and Domestic Relations Jurisdictions exist primarily to take the place of religion in governing family life.  State Family Courts and Family Codes and Domestic Relations legislative constitute a complete invasion of the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Marriage (three of the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church which, when re-established by Parliament in England as Protestant rites under the rule of Kings Henry, Edward & Queen Elizabeth Tudor, were clearly within the exclusive purview of the Ecclesiastical Authorities).  

The United States Supreme Court has so often stated since the 1930s that no fundamental right can ever be licensed, especially no religious or expressive right under the First Amendment, that the mere enactment of 42 U.S.C. Section 666 and all related provisions is/are blatantly unconstitutional.  

In essence, State Family Codes and Domestic Relations Laws REPLACE the English Book of Common Prayer and related Jewish and Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian Legal Codes with A SECULAR HUMANIST ESTABLISHMENT OF SACRAMENTS which is expressly forbidden by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  To maintain that famous “Wall” separating Church and State in this Country, we must GET THE STATES and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOREVER OUT OF THE MARITAL AND FAMILY REGULATION BUSINESSES!

State mandated Marriage Licenses must be abolished, and individual responsibility to enter into marital contracts reestablished.  Any individuals incapable of entering into a written marital (or “partnership”) agreement should be penalized for their carelessness and lack of caution by a flat denial of governmental assistance in resolving their disputes.  The Statute of Frauds would continue to exclude judicial enforcement of “oral” contracts of marriage or domestic partnership.  Together with the abolition of marriage licenses, all statutes creating the state regulation of marriage must be abolished.  

In the future, the Civil Courts of the United States (state or Federal) should only adjudicate any marital dispute to the degree that a marital contract required interpretation, clarification, modification, or enforcement.   And Couples should never be given only one option for Courts to which to address their marital problems.  The Jewish People of the United States have led the way by the continued existence of Jewish Courts (Beth Din/Beit Din)—and these courts could (based on contractual consent) be given full authority to adjudicate all Jewish Marriages.  Christian Ecclesiastical or Parochial Courts have all but vanished, but there is no reason not to resurrect them—or, more properly stated—allow the people, under the Ninth Amendment, to resurrect or create any courts they wish pursuant to any contracts they might wish to resolve any disputes into whose hands the people might voluntarily choose to create as pluralistic paths of authority.  “One size fits all” is communism at its worst and extremely impractical.  Large Industry Guilds (for example in the Motion Picture, Radio, and Television Industries) and other Labor Unions already have internal courts conferred by contract with great power to resolve contractual disputes.  Every enforceable marital contract should have a “choice of jurisdiction” for any dispute arising during marriage.  And Churches (or Temples or….although I shudder to think about the possible consequences of allowing Sharia Law any operative force in the United States … Mosques) could have as many possible remedies as they could devise.  Many would doubtlessly favor reconciliation over mandatory divorce such as is “pushed” in the State System, but others—I imagine the Unitarians and Universalists, would allow extremely easy marital dissolution.  And this would then be a choice a couple would have to think of before signing their marital contract: what SYSTEM of marital regulation do they like the best?

Aside from Beth Din/Beit Din and Sharia law, other local non-Secular Humanist State “Sacramental” versions of marital law already exist within the United States: namely Eskimo, Hawaiian Native, and other Title 25 Indian Tribal Courts.

3 responses to “FAMILY COURT: THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION MACHINE and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 666: “The Mark of the Beast”

  1. Pingback: The Libertarian: Book Recommendation

  2. Charles,

    I could never interest you in the idea that the definition of the term “State” in 42 U.S.C., Chapter 7 (a.k.a. Social Security), Sub-chapter XI (general provisions) Section 1301 (definitions) (a) (1) restricted the bulk of Social “Security” provisions to D.C. and its territories and possessions, or to put it another way, the feds have a hell of a lot more legitimate authority over themselves, their agencies and employees and their territories and possessions.

    However, if you ever happen to be in a good law library, or can otherwise access earlier volumes of the United States Code, you will find that prior to the admission of Alaska and Hawaii as full fledged States of the Union, 42 U.S.C., Chapter 7, Sub-chapter XI, Section 1301 (a) (1) did in fact include both Alaska and Hawaii by name in the definition of the term “State”.

    Then when Alaska achieved full statehood, it was dropped from the definition leaving Hawaii, then in its turn Hawaii was dropped from the definition of the term “State” when it achieved statehood.

    Similarly, various and sundry parts of virtually all United States Code Titles were tweaked, and a comprehensive tally of these changes can be found in what are called the Alaska Omnibus Act and the Hawaii Omnibus Act.

    These changes collectively amount to the feds giving up micromanagement of what was a Territory, and handing over these functions to a somewhat Sovereign State.

    The feds are exercising legitimate (if poorly used) power when they force these rules and regulations on Courts and Legislatures of Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands etc. that they have termed “State”(s), but have no authority to do so in the 50 States of the Union and the law is written to reflect this.

    I submit there is a lot of wink, wink, nudge, nudge consensual fraud against the public going on by both the feds and the AGs of the various 50 States, for the benefit of their bureaucracies.

    I believe I told you once about how Professor Sampson of UT was testifying before a Texas House Committee and confirmed my testimony that Texas could drop out anytime it wanted to and was required to do nothing under Sub-chapter IV-D.

    Incidentally, I was wondering if you have had a chance to read the Amici brief filed by Texas and 5 other States in the SCOTUS case of Carol Anne Bond v. United States?

    It is most interesting because your old friend Greg Abbott presumably approved it, and in part it admitted States sometimes attempt to sell out their citizens to unconstitutional federal laws and programs…essentially for the money, but that “the State could not waive the rights of its Citizens”
    among other real gems.

    Daniel Simon

  3. You should ready my posts on Social Security elsewhere on this blog. The integration of Social Security Chapter IV-D, 42 USC Section 666 just as an example, is the direct result of a revenue sharing contract between Congress and the States known as the Social Security Act, implemented in stages 1935-1940, and evaluated by the Supreme Court in a pair of cases in 1937, per Justice Benjamin Cardozo, as a common access “checking account” for all government sovereigns, state and federal. We should talk. I always acknowledge the degree to which you have influenced my thinking—I am just very cautious and I have to learn things from the top down rather than the bottom up, on account of my training I guess, but your analysis is both right and incomplete. I think I now know the missing details, and they have to do with the original Fraud of the New Deal which created a Social Security Trust fund without any of the common law elements of trust—NOT ANY OF THEM!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s