Child Abuse and Custody Evaluation

Free Child Custody Newsletter Click Here

Click buttons above for custody websites

Tel 1-800-805-5226

arrow1.gif (923 bytes)Click Here for Custody Attorneys

[ Home | Search ]

horizontal rule

Battling custody, child support, alimony, or attorneys’ fees? READ NOW!

From: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu
Date: 29 Mar 2003
Time: 04:24:48
Remote Name: 67.39.177.74

Comments

For those of you who don't participate in the Center for Children's Justice (www.childrensjustice.org) and didn't see my post... GET INVOLVED NOW! WE ARE BRINGING THIS FRAUD DOWN. Stop wasting your time and money and do EXACTLY what the CCJ suggests. Most of you should even get rid of your attorneys - they are all useless. This (below) is the ONLY way we will succeed. My successful day is proof.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 3, 2003

Not a great day, but a good day

Family and friends,

To the extent that the following is not an oxymoron: I had a good day in court today. I am fighting for my fundamental, Constitutional right to be equally involved in my 3-year old daughter Samantha’s life (among many other things).

Today, the Cook County court denied my wife’s request that I pay her attorneys almost $40,000. My wife’s attorneys then basically withdrew their motion to temporarily force me out of Samantha’s life (they didn’t withdraw it completely, but they didn’t set another hearing date) when it became obvious that the judge didn’t want to have a hearing on Constitutional rights in her courtroom -- which is the ONLY way for a father to fight this corrupt system.

Additionally, the attorney assigned by the court to represent Samantha (called a GAL) withdrew and waived her remaining fees because, as she said, “it would likely be too difficult to try and get them.” She also mentioned to the court that never in over 25 years of representing children has she withdrawn from a case, but she did so today because now that I am representing myself (I recently fired my second attorney), she no longer feels that she can “effectively protect” Samantha’s best interests.

The irony. Because I am no longer being held back by “officers of the court” and simply arguing for my Constitutional rights, an attorney who is an employee of the state can't effectively protect the rights of a little girl... the very rights guaranteed that little girl by the Constitution I'm defending. The insanity of all this merely needs my report, not my comment.

For those of you who might need clarity on my position, FIT parents ALWAYS act in a child’s best interest. Not the state. Not a judge. Not an attorney. FIT parents. Any other intrusion by the state is an infringement on our inalienable right to privacy, not to mention our right to the care and control of our children.

All of today’s events are temporary. At the final trial, the judge will VERY likely take Samantha away from me, and will VERY likely take away most of my property (and future income) and give it to my wife and her attorneys. Why? Because the LAW SAYS THEY CAN – FOR NO OTHER REASON. Not because I’ve been alleged an abusive father, not because I don’t love and care for Samantha, not because I’ve injured my wife in any way, not because I’ve broken any laws. They can do this because Illinois (as all states) decreed it so. Why did the legislature give the judiciary the power to do this? MONEY: Illinois gets significant monies from the federal government, and political supporters (e.g., attorneys) get very high-paying jobs for encouraging extremely litigious divorces.

Too hard to believe that a country with our Founding Fathers could do all this? To you I merely say: Do your homework. EVIL like this happens, and destruction is its nature. Think about Civil Rights. For over 100 years after the Civil War, systematic abuses of equality were the norm experienced by black Americans. It CAN happen here.

But not under my watch it won’t, or rather, not any longer. The law is wrong – don’t take my word for it. I will prove it to you. I will not accept someone else’s will as they murder my capacity to live by pointing a gun at my head. I will not divorce my principles from my love of my daughter. As our forefathers did, I am fighting for America’s values and morality WITH ACTION. I owe it to our Founders for their sacrifices, I owe it to my daughter for how wonderful she makes me feel, and I owe it to myself in the name of humanity and my own happiness. I am fighting for my own benefit, and for my daughter’s future. This is MY morality – that of creation, not of destruction. I will no longer be part of my own destruction by giving the legislature and judiciary my permission to destroy my freedom. They work for ME. I will not let the state, judges, and attorneys commit fraud on reason. My morality will win against the destroyers. Don’t watch. Join me.

The answer is simple: the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees fit parents equal custody of their children – there is NO AMBIGUITY. The 4th Amendment says you cannot take property from “A” and give it to “B.” Again, there is NO AMBIGUITY. Join me and the growing number of parents around America who are standing up for the rights bought for us by noble blood of patriots for 227 years. Your children and property are yours -- not a court's. They are yours by your RIGHTS. But you have to fight for your rights. No one will give them to you.

The judge and attorneys in my case were put on notice today – without an “officer of the court” (i.e., attorney) holding me back, I am now on the offensive and will stand up for my Constitutional rights. Though I don’t understand all of the legal process, I do know my rights better than ANY judge or attorney out there. I (and a small group of individuals) intend to bring down this entire FRAUD across America. The flagrant abuse of Constitutional rights by the legal system every day (i.e., judges, GALs, child evaluators, and even our own attorneys) is unacceptable not only because it destroys relationships between parents and children, but also because it destroys America's values and way of life. Fathers like me have been innocently generous in allowing divorce courts to destroy us and the U.S. Constitution. I will no longer be a part of my own destruction. I am seeking that 14 Illinois statutes (750 ILCS 5/602, 603, 604, 607, 609, 610, 506, 501 (a), 505, 513, 504, 501 (c)(1), 503 (j), and 508) be declared unconstitutional as they violate my fundamental rights to my child, my property, my privacy, my personal liberty, equality, and due process.

I am an excellent father. I have earned the right to spend time with my daughter, to provide for her, and to guide her as I see fit. I am interested in preserving, fulfilling, and enjoying my life with my daughter. I will not surrender my own self-interest, my daughter’s right to self-interest, or my mind. I will not surrender my hard-earned money to tyrants who force it from me, or to those who have not earned it. I will not accept “happiness” delivered by force of a gun and given to me contingent on self-destruction. My happiness will only come from joy without penalty or guilt – it will never come from self-destruction. I will not silently default. The divorce courts will not run my life, or my daughter’s life. This is a battle for my right to live.

Below I’ve included part of a draft opening statement I intend to make on June 23, the first day of my trial. I encourage you to read it and get involved, not just for my benefit, but for yours. The state and judiciary are trying to take away my fundamental rights. You can bet that yours are next. Take ACTION and prevent it. Don’t let your corrupt governments bully you into thinking you can’t win or that you can’t make a difference. I won today, WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY, even if it was a small win, and even though it is only temporarily. The government works for you – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. The only reason the government has power is because you gave it to them. Help me take it back.

Join and support the Center for Children’s Justice (www.childrensjustice.org) NOW. They have been INVALUABLE to me in making this day a success. They are one of the reasons I will be successful in the future. Without them, I would have never gotten this far this fast. Unlike every divorce judge, attorney, and politician out there, these people truly understand the meaning of fundamental rights. Please join us and learn what the term FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS mean.

I encourage you to widely forward this message. All my best to you.

- B.

P.S. – If you know any attorneys (with any integrity left, that is) who want to be part of one of the biggest legal challenges since Brown v. Board of Education, please send them my way. I will need help to make my appeal up to the U.S. Supreme Court. The chosen attorney will likely get a wealth of media coverage. I’m only interested in attorneys who are interested in changing the world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PARTIAL DRAFT OF OPENING STATEMENT

The ONLY relevant issue in a divorce proceeding with fit parents is the separation of MARITAL assets. The parties’ individual, FUNDAMENTAL rights (e.g., to children, to property, to privacy, to personal liberty, to equality) continue to exist as they have. Fundamental rights are rights that cannot be impinged on IN ANY WAY or taken away from any U.S. citizen UNLESS they have been convicted of a CRIMINAL crime. The State/judiciary does not have ANY jurisdiction or authority to usurp fundamental rights without criminal conviction. Any attempt by the State/judiciary to do otherwise is a flawed and obvious attempt to “rule” rather than to “serve,” and is therefore unconstitutional.

As such, BRIAN challenges the constitutionality of all Illinois statutes that refer to the “best interest of the child” (i.e., 750 ILCS 5/602, 603, 604, 607, 609, 610, and 506), on their face and as applied, which compel the State's judiciary to make awards of child custody and parenting time, or allocation of parental responsibilities and rights and allocation of parenting time, or assignment of “guardians” and evaluators, within the context of dissolution of marriage actions and post-decree of dissolution of marriage actions concerning children. BRIAN contends that the challenged statutes violate well-recognized FUNDAMENTAL rights, including the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection of the law, and the right to the care, custody, control, companionship and nurture of one's offspring embodied in the fundamental liberty interest in family, which rights are secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. BRIAN is seeking that the challenged “best interest” statutes are declared unconstitutional.

Additionally, the so-called “child support” statute (750 ILCS 5/505), the maintenance statute (750 ILCS 5/504), and the attorneys’ fee statutes (750 ILCS 5/501 (c)(1), 503 (j), and 508) are all directly and egregiously violative of the United States Constitution and Illinois Constitution. Specifically, BRIAN contends that the statutes are unconstitutional on their face and as applied because they violate the FUNDAMENTAL rights to equal protection, due process, privacy and property, and proscriptions about involuntary servitude, all of which are guaranteed to BRIAN under the Constitution of the United States. Further, the statutes are unconstitutional as threatened to be applied to BRIAN because they violate the right to not be imprisoned for debt and proscriptions about private takings for private use or public use, all guaranteed to BRIAN under the Constitution of Illinois. BRIAN is seeking that all of these challenged statutes are declared unconstitutional.

• CHILD SUPPORT: In the instant matter, and for that matter, in the vast majority of cases, each parent stands in the same relation to the child as they did before the divorce. They each owe the child a duty of support, the threshold of which is reasonable support - food, clothing, shelter, safety. The State cannot dictate how much money or other assets must be expended for the benefit of children in married families, except to the extent that a threshold of reasonableness is achieved. The State cannot treat parents in non-intact families differently from intact families. The only time the State can act in either family is if they have passed below the threshold of reasonableness. Additionally, the child support factors have no economic basis and are not rationally related to their initial/intended purpose (i.e., Georgia’s child support guidelines model was struck down in 2002 as unconstitutional for these very reasons, and Illinois’s model is based on the same underlying economic factors and data as the Georgia model). • MAINTENANCE: The State cannot treat spouses or ex-spouses differently, regardless of their income levels or asset base. The State lacks a legitimate or compelling interest in re-allocating future earnings of one spouse or non-related person to another. Evidence of legislative intent is no longer applicable nor applies in the award of maintenance. Alimony was designed for the wife of a broken marriage who needed financial assistance, and to compensate women for past discrimination during marriage which left them unprepared to fend for themselves in the working world following divorce. The underlying facts of maintenance/alimony no longer exist, in that sex is no longer a factor (i.e., women are no longer the only recipients of alimony) and women now more fully participate in the workplace. Further, reverse discrimination has occurred as a result of women overwhelmingly being “awarded” custody. Additionally, the maintenance factors have no economic basis and are not rationally related to their initial/intended purpose. • ATTORNEYS’ FEES: The State cannot treat spouses or ex-spouses differently, or discriminate against financially able individuals, regardless of their income levels, asset base, or financial ability. The State lacks a legitimate or compelling interest in awarding attorneys’ fees from one spouse or non-related person to another when there is no showing of fault, tort, compensable injury, or damages. This Court has told BRIAN openly that BRIAN’s Constitutional rights are subject to the law, and more specifically to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. By this statement, this Court obviously feels that it is functioning appropriately under the State law when it interferes with BRIAN’s FUNDAMENTAL rights. BRIAN offers a reminder of history: the Nazi high officers in Germany during World War II also believed they were functioning appropriately and maintaining order the entire time they affected the Terminal Solution and created untold human misery and pain.

BRIAN’s plea for this Court’s understanding and care should be obvious. Constitutionally, ethically, developmentally, and psychologically, children need as much time, love, support, and nurturing as humanly possible from both parents. If this Court, by force of a gun, allows SAMANTHA’s mother to hurt SAMANTHA by depriving her, an innocent child, of her father, the destruction will be irreparable. This Court must not allow SAMANTHA’s mother to hurt her like that. With every means available, this Court must fight for and protect an innocent child’s life, just as her father is doing already. This Court must fight to help educate SAMANTHA’s mother about the harm her actions and behaviors will do to SAMANTHA. Anything less by this Court is not only unconstitutional – it is morally wrong and should be considered State- and Judiciary- sponsored child abuse. Regardless of the overwhelming data and evidence available that demonstrates children are significantly worse off without their fathers (which was too voluminous to mention it all here), the mere fact that SAMANTHA’s mother wants to take SAMANTHA away from her loving and fit father should be all of the evidence this Court needs to know that LAURIE does not have SAMANTHA’s best interest in mind or at heart. BRIAN is a dedicated, caring, nurturing, loving, full-time father whose daughter loves him, and his fight for his right to be equally involved in his daughter’s life should be the only proof this Court needs. Bestowed upon it by flagrant legislative errors and malice, this Court must not underestimate the mental abuse and damage it has the capability and power to deliver on an innocent, little child. You have the power – use it wisely.

Additionally, BRIAN fully understands the magnitude of what he is asking this Court to do. BRIAN is asking this Court to restore constitutional legitimacy to the dissolution of marriage. The wide applicability of declaring these statutes unconstitutional will create problems of considerable complexity, especially economic ones, across the entire country. The decision will even have widespread impact around the world. In our country’s early history, we said that the economics of freeing the slaves made it impossible. It could not be done, even if it was morally right. In the early 1950's, racial segregation in public schools was the norm across America, with laws making it so. We also had segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms. Many tried to prevent righting that flawed morality as well. The United States Supreme Court has said these past atrocious state laws were wrong. If this Court refuses to correct the State’s moral and legal errors now when they are so clearly presented here, the United States Supreme Court will do so.

There are only two things that stand between tyranny and liberty: the U.S. Constitution and our will. Despotism only occurs when we allow it. We are not a democracy in that a majority of people cannot limit the inalienable rights of the minority – we are a Constitutional republic. Our rights to life, liberty, and property cannot be denied. The State is not sovereign, contrary to what it believes. The government works for me and exists for my purposes; I do not exist for the purposes of government. I have a right to demand that this Court correct the infringements of my liberties, and this Court has a duty to do so. The Judiciary may not neglect its duties to the U.S. Constitution.

Additionally, the matter of judicial immunity obviously is not absolute. Case law provides ample examples of when a judge loses judicial immunity, such as acting without jurisdiction or violating clear and settled law. This Court is required to know and understand basic constitutional law, especially the meaning of FUNDAMENTAL rights, and to know and take protective action when fundamental rights are implicated as they are so obviously implicated here. The right to your children, the right to your property, the right to your privacy, and the right to equality are but a few examples of fundamental rights implicated by these statutes. Should this Court order any decision contrary to BRIAN’s relief sought and exile him by denying BRIAN’s right to his child, or denying BRIAN’s right to property, or denying BRIAN’s right to personal liberty, or in any way deem him less than equal, it would not only be considered extortion but also Court-sanctioned child abuse, and will be a clear and flagrant abuse of power under Title 42 USC 1983. This Court does not have the authority to deny BRIAN, a fit parent without criminal conviction, of fundamental rights. Please do not destroy the heart, mind, and soul of an innocent child, much less her father, by denying fundamental rights without criminal conviction.

Our children statewide are being raped by the court system of their parents, their birthrights, their heritage, and their civil rights. In addition to these rights, parents are also being raped by the court system of their children and their property. Most of the divorce laws in Illinois, as in most states, are morally destructive, legally flawed, and harmful to children. This Trial Memorandum presents the indisputable proof, even though it should be morally obvious to any rational person. Regardless of any claims it may make, the government has NO interest in regulating FUNDAMENTAL rights, and may not restrict FUNDAMENTAL rights without a criminal conviction. BRIAN begs this Court to quickly order it so to prevent further destruction and allow us to start rebuilding the freedom that has been lost.

The Win Child Custody and Custody Evaluation Videos will prove invaluable for your case.

Order Form:  Select Video Option Below and Click the "Buy Now" Button for Secure Order

Select Video Option for Order

horizontal rule

Child Custody Network Tel 1-800-805-5226
© Child Custody Network