▪ CEL III …he might see how psychology is used as a tool of social oppression and control…. just as in the movie, just as in Texas Family Courts—I was hoping I’d get a reaction from you on that point since you have some experience there….
▪ 11:10pm Ellyn Trayne What is your specific objection to the Texas Family Code or do you object to all of it?
▪ 11:21pm CEL III A series of closely related and interlocking concepts: (1) Judicial Discretion knows no boundaries in Family Court. (2) The entire bill of rights is subordinate to this jurisdiction and “the best interests of the child” is the most cynical standard of decision in the world. (3) Family Courts routinely suppress procedural as well as substantive due process rights. (4) (Relating to my former friendship and deep admiration for Valorie W. Davenport): Texas USED to have the strongest protection for First Amendment rights in the entire United States (as the Texas Supreme Court affirmed in Davenport v. Garcia—her first big case). (5) Family Courts routinely ignore that and will punish parents (and children even) for purely expressive, communicative acts. (6) The Family is the Template for the Larger Society, and when the rights of individuals can be trampled inside the home, as between the most private and personal relationships of one family member to another, they effectively have ceased to exist for society as a whole. (7) On a broader historical level, I believe that the First Amendment was enacted in large part to prevent the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (my Church, oddly enough) ever from being enacted at the Federal Level—my interpretation of the phrase “respecting an establishment of religion” is that it would be construed to bar Congress from legislating on ANY topic covered by the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. This clearly excludes all aspects of marriage, childbirth, education, and family life: it should be absolutely outside the realm of Federal Power. (8) If we accept the doctrine of “incorporation” of the First Amendment promulgated most enthusiastically by the Supreme Court between “Gitlow v. New York” 1925 and “Lemon v. Kurtzman” in the early 1970s (several cases, Lemon I, Lemon II, etc.) but clearly reaffirmed in the recent Second Amendment cases, “D.C. v. Heller” and “MacDonald v. City of Chicago“, the STATES are likewise forbidden to legislate in ANY are covered by the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, which is roughly co-existensive with the Seven Sacraments of all Christian Denominations which keep to the Sacraments… (9) And yes, this IS my “Short Answer” to your question…. if you were ever to work with me, you’d get to know the longer version…. (lol!) after about a year or so…. because I’m very passionate about it.
▪ 11:30pm Ellyn The Family Courts, like all other courts, and lawyers are for the most part corrupt. It is no longer, or maybe never was, about the “best interest of the child.” Judges need money for elections. Lawyers that give lots of money to a judges reelection campaign typically get the law contorted in whatever manner to their favor, regardless of facts or best interests.
▪ 11:36pm CEL III It’s just that the standard of decision, “Best Interests of the Child” is so vague and amorphous it gives maximum free reign, I think to that omnipresent tendency towards corruption. In some fields there are still fairly rigorous standards of proof, although it seems that those fields are pretty much only occupied by those fields of law controlled exclusively by extremely large and wealthy law firms like the first one I worked for when I first finished my judicial clerkships (Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft) or the ones that two Tulane (2L) girls sitting next to me at Kyoto at 4920 Prytania were talking about last night at dinner—one was going to Jones Day and the other to Hogan & Hartson…. they made me positively ill talking about the rigors of shopping to impress their bosses and colleagues at these firms. “To hell with the law, to hell with justice, to Hell with absolutely everything we’re working for $10,000 a month this summer so that we can go SHOPPING.”
▪ 11:38pm Ellyn What legal standard would you consider more reasonable in determining child custody?
▪ 11:43pm CEL III Don’t you get it? I don’t think the State Courts have any business being involved at all, with the sole exception of where there is a contract between the parties—an actual, written contract. I want to go back to a world where people have to depend on their parents, and on each other, for honorable behavior. In this sense, I guess, I am a true anarchist: I simply do not believe that State Court Judges should be able to invade the private precincts of family life at all. I think these are the realms of life left up to the people, and such “Non-Governmental Organizations” as they might voluntarily imbue with dispute-resolution power, and I guess by “NGOs” in this case I mean primarily Churches. I take a radical position because I believe that the Family Courts do only harm and no good. I really and truly, honestly and sincerely, have never seen a Family Court right any wrong or make any bad situation better. I have seen Family Courts drive people to do bad things who would not have done them otherwise. Effectively, these Courts were the first front, I think, for trying to drive ordinary people stark raving mad….
▪ 11:46pm CEL III When I say that “the Texas Family Code is Unconstitutional,” I basically mean that, in addition to being incompatible with the Federal Bill of Rights, the existence and practice of the Texas Family Code and the Texas Family Court system are even more incompatible with Article I, Sections 1-29 in particular. (Some of the recent amendments are pure crap, I admit…)
▪ 11:46pm CEL III But the Texas Bill of Rights really is MUCH stronger than the US Bill of Rights, incorporating as it does many provisions of the English Bill of Rights Adopted in 1689…
▪ 11:48pm Ellyn Trayne Well, I am afraid I think a lot of children would not be alive today, if the fathers were not ordered to pay child support.
▪ 11:49pm CEL III Well, you know, that’s because of the general breakdown of the Family, isn’t it? When a woman’s parents are divorced, and she has no home to return to for whatever reason, the Family Code becomes incorporated into Title 42 of the United States Code as an element of the Welfare System…
▪ 11:49pm CEL III Can you name, perhaps, the most famous Deadbeat Dad in all of Texas History, revered in song and story, mythologized in movies? Possibly the most famous deadbeat dad in all of United States/North American history? (Hint, he died in March 1836….. )
▪ 11:52pm Ellyn Bowie, Crockett? I’m guessing here.
▪ 11:54pm CEL III Well, you’re very close, but no…. I think it would have to be Colonel William Barrett Travis of South Carolina. His children all survived because their mother went back to live with her family on their farm/plantation—that’s just how people lived back then. It goes to the root definition of the relationship between Freedom and Responsibility. When the people depend on government to arrange their most private affairs, they are no longer free….
▪ 11:55pm Ellyn Trayne But with the breakdown of the family, some protections needed to be put in place to protect the mother’s rights. Hey you said Texas. Scratch that, you said Texas History.
▪ 11:56pm CEL III Question of chicken and egg: the breakdown of the family was CAUSED by governmental regulation promoting the same…. the family could possibly begin to regenerate if the State were kicked out of the home…. What do you mean by “Hey you said Texas.” ?? …
11:58pm CEL III William Barrett Travis is most famous as commander of the Alamo, author of the letter “We are besieged by six thousand Mexicans…. I will never surrender or retreat.”