Connect with us

Americas

Why President Trump Should Reform The Family Court System

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Now that the Trump Administration has successfully prepared, filed and achieved historic criminal justice reform, something which his predecessors could not get done, or even made worse such as with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton’s cataclysmic Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (“VCCLEA”) often referred to as the “1994 Crime Bill,” which illegally and unconstitutionally jailed or contributed to criminal records to 70 million Americans (more than the population of France), mass incarcerating 1/3 of all blacks, 1/6 of all latinos, and 1/10 of all whites in the United States, now is the time to also pass a comprehensive all encompassing family court reform act as well.

The American family court system is world famous for being one of the most cruel, catastrophic, abusive, arbitrary, and destructive forms of court ordered governance that the world has ever seen.

Rooted in such Hitlerian ideas such as “the best interests of the child” and “preventing domestic violence,” which seem noble and positive on the surface, unfortunately it is the only court system which removes all constitutional guarantees of individual human and civil rights, usually from the father, as soon as he steps into the “family court arena.”

The aforementioned Hitlerian concepts immediately subject a disfavored litigant of his/her 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 13th Amendment Rights, within a closed “star chamber” court, without cameras or spectators allowed, completely and totally ripe for them to be plundered, abused, harassed, threatened, surveillanced, castigated, attacked, bankrupted, invaded and destroyed by all of the career members of this family court system – including the various “magistrates,” judges, court officers, law clerks, child protective service workers, court appointed attorneys and “forensic experts,” law guardians, and anyone else who can either make a buck or get even with one of the parties involved in fighting for his/her life, or that of their children.

It is no wonder that a great many conspiracy theories have emerged that to deposit someone within the family court system is tantamount to a slow motion assassination or torture chamber, wherein that targeted individual is slowly, methodically, and painfully destroyed over many years, sometimes decades, subjected over and over to repeated fear, bankruptcy, incarceration or detention, for crimes/transgressions that did not even exist before the family court even got involved.

And it’s all done in secret, not open to the general public, for the “best interests of the child” or to “protect people from domestic violence (even false allegations thereon).”

Orders of Protection (“OP”), depriving people of their life, liberty, property, children, or possessions are handed out like jelly beans, because no judge or magistrate of first impression wants to be in the newspaper just in case one of the allegations turns out to be true, but by the time a party is determined to be innocent of the allegations contained within the family offense petition forming the basis of the OP, that person’s life has already been irreparably ruined in almost every capacity.

To that end, the family court system must immediately be reformed, if not outright abolished, as follows:

(1) all judges/magistrates must be screened (and then screened again) for any links to extremist domestic or ideological groups or agents such as militant feminism, leftist organizations, racist organizations, socialist organizations, or any other groups which by nature and definition fly in the face of the United States Constitution guaranteeing equal due process rights for each and every one of their citizenry;

(2) no longer should judges or magistrates allow their law clerks or staff to write their judicial opinions – too many times a “life and death” judicial opinion governing a family, children, or domestic partnership is written in near “chicken scratch” without any basis in law or fact, merely on emotion, gut instinct, and personal prejudice, by an untrained individual with no background in the law or the constitution, resulting in complete destruction of their targets for arbitrary and capricious reasons;

(3) orders of protection can not and should not issue as a matter of right – more emphasis needs to be placed on completely and totally evaluating and gauging the imminent threat and seriousness of both the charges (and the evidence) before these are allowed to be issued, which are also unfortunately registered with the federal government law enforcement agencies as well as with the states and local enforcement agencies;

(4) more emphasis needs to be placed on family mediation, arbitration, and even counseling services for domestic partners, husbands and wives to “stay together” for the best interests of the child, if at all feasible and possible, rather than right from the beginning arming both sides to the teeth with legal and equitable weapons of mass destruction designed to mimic a gladiatorial combat, rather than a very sad and sorry state of affairs facing this very vulnerable and disoriented family;

(5) Fathers and Mothers must be treated equally under the law and their children need to be considered a part of both in complete and total equality – the sad cultural norm that pervades the family court system, that somehow, “women and mothers” are always right and are all powerful, with men and fathers having little to no rights whatsoever, needs to change, and change immediately, as this outright discrimination against men is a direct hit and assault on the very words and meaning of the United States Constitution, and undermines the very basis and spirit of the United States of America, and what our Founding Fathers and their legacies within the U.S. Armed Forces fought and died for, decade after decade, since the country’s inception;

(6) Court Officers need to be trained not only in overall court security, but also in common decency and sensitivity as their characteristic “jack booted thug” approach irreparably and for life traumatizes children, families, parents, their lawyers and litigants in the entire family court process;

(7) any indication that one parent is actively interfering with the rights of another parent with regard to visitation, custody, relationship with their own children should be duly noted and punished with extreme prejudice – parental alienation also needs to become a topic covered by child protective service workers and not ignored or covered up like is currently the case now in the family court arena – children are extremely impressionable and sensitive and like to ingratiate themselves to the parent where they feel most safe – and if one parents is alienating or cutting off the other, then that is grounds to change custody immediately;

(8) favoritism within the family court system should be identified and eradicated immediately upon discovery – this reflects the sentiments expressed in Point 1 above, wherein certain litigants in the family court system are allied with the presiding judge or magistrate on purely political, ideological, sexual, financial, ethnic, or other grounds, and then benefit enormously when it comes to case adjudication or decisions handed down from the bench (or from their law clerks/paralegals/forensic experts/court personnel);

(9) the federal government and law enforcement must readily step in whenever and wherever these types of problems arise – currently the position of the federal law enforcement agencies reflect a sentiment that “they do not like to get involved in current court proceedings” but this type of mentality encourages corruption, favoritism, child trafficking, child abuse, parental alienation, contributes to crime, and other social ills/aberrations, and can no longer be tolerated any more;

(10) similarly, appellate and federal courts should no longer outright reject appeals for justice from targeted litigants currently wrestling with a corrupt out of control family court star chamber – and it is not fair or moral that corrupt judges, magistrates, law clerks, and court personnel can claim “sovereign immunity” and thus be insulated from accountability, and then be defended by States Attorneys General and the awesome power and limitless purse of the State, when they commit crimes against children and families.

In short, the American Family Court System, like the Criminal Justice System, needs to be reformed, and reformed now, as it is a National Security issue to preserve and protect the integrity, strength and sanctity of the nuclear family unit.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Just What Is An American?

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

The greatest mistake any leader, or moneyed powerful individual, or even masses of people (all 3 of which tend to have the loudest voices) is to culturally appropriate unto themselves, just exactly what it means to be an American, based on their own selfish notion of what it means.

The fact remains that the ideal of Americanism is a concept – a truly growing, organic, ever changing, and ever expanding idea that is enshrined within its founding documents and laws.

For example, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, US Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Rights Amendment, among scores of other acts of legislation, point to an ever growing ongoing journey to forge a new nation, just like ancient Rome did, united by a common destiny, and drawn from different experiences, cultures, cuisines, religions, ethnicities, races, nationalities, and world views.

So when President Trump on July 15, 2019 told four minority female congresswomen in sum and substance to “go back to there they came from” if they “didn’t like America,” he trampled over their own views, ideals, and experiences as Americans.

Quite simply his statement was an appropriation of what it means to be an American, from the point of view of a German/ Irish American senior citizen male, to a group of Latin/ Somali/ Palestinian/ African-American younger females.

Perhaps President Trump should re-visit his own people’s racial history, wherein the Irish were systematically excluded by the previously arrived and established Anglican Protestants, or even with the Germans in America who were actually interred in camps during the periods of World War I & World War II.

The German-American Experience

During World War II, the legal basis for this detention was under Presidential Proclamation 2526, made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt under the authority of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

With the U.S. entry into World War I, German nationals were automatically classified as “enemy aliens.”

Two of the four main World War I-era internment camps were located in Hot Springs, N.C. and Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia.

Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer wrote that “All aliens interned by the government are regarded as enemies, and their property is treated accordingly.”                                              

The Irish-American Experience

In 1836, young Benjamin Disraeli wrote: “The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.”

Nineteenth-century Protestant American “Nativist” discrimination against Irish Catholics reached a peak in the mid-1850s when the Know-Nothing Movement tried to oust Catholics from public office.

Much of the opposition came from Irish Protestants, as in the 1831 riots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

After 1860, many Irish sang songs about “NINA signs” reading Help wanted – no Irish need apply.

The 1862 song “No Irish Need Apply” was inspired by NINA signs in London.

Alongside “No Irish Need Apply” signs, in the post-World War II years, signs saying “No Irish, No Blacks, No Dogs” or similar anti-Irish sentiment began to appear as well.

Continue Reading

Americas

Billionaires, Vanity and Modern Democracy

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The bullying in Washington is the current trend.  On Monday, the British ambassador resigned his post after Trump refused to deal with him.  Well-liked in Washington and the halls of Congress, his downfall was an honest assessment of the Trump administration as ‘inept’ and ‘dysfunctional’.  The letters were leaked in the U.K.

Suppose the president tweets comments contrary to current established policy, does that mean a policy change?  Do departments adapt promptly.  Nobody knows.  That’s dysfunctional, and everyone knows it.  In the meantime, he has enjoyed 17 golf outings since February averaging three a month.  No wonder he is that rare president who does not seem to age in office from the stresses of the job.  Obama’s hair turned gray.

But then a lighter hand on the tiller has kept us out of war, whereas Obama, the Nobel Peace Laureate, destroyed Libya and escalated in Afghanistan.  The consequences are still being felt in Southern Europe particularly, through the hordes of refugees still continuing to arrive.  Also in the resurgence of anti-immigration political parties in northern Europe.

The supreme irony is the fact of refugees being rescued from ramshackle boats and dinghies or often dying in one part of the Mediterranean while the Obamas cruise on a billionaire’s luxury yacht in another.  Is that a metaphor for democracies in the modern world?  One is also reminded of Mr. Modi’s specially woven pinstripe cloth repeating his name endlessly on the stripes in the material. 

Fortunately, the current president does not like the sea, or we would never see him in Washington.  As it is he has had 14 visits to golf clubs (not as much time on the course however) since the beginning of June.  He once had a small yacht that lay anchored in New York until he sold it.  His pleasures have generally centered on the more mundane:  cheeseburgers and women — the younger the better, although perhaps not as young as those that have gotten his friend Jeffrey Epstein in trouble again.  To be fair, Trump had a falling out with him ‘about 15 years ago’ he said recently.  ‘I was not a fan of his, I can tell you,’ he added although he called him a ‘terrific guy’ in 2002.

At least one party had 28 girls to a so-called calendar-girl party at Mar-a-Lago (Trump’s estate and club) in Florida, meaning selection of a calendar girl.  The male celebrities attending, according to the man assigned the task of finding the girls, happened to be Trump and Epstein, and no one else!  So surprised, the man still remembers the story.  The falling out between Trump and Epstein was rumored to have been a business deal.

It brings us to the second resignation, that of Alex Acosta the Labor Secretary.  A Harvard-educated lawyer, Mr. Acosta was the US attorney for the Southern District of Florida when he made a generous agreement with Epstein who had been charged with sex crimes.  For a 13-month sentence of mostly community work, usually from his mansion, Mr. Epstein was protected from further prosecution.  In a clear rebuke to Acosta, the case has been re-opened with a new charge of sex-trafficking minors.

As a result, Mr. Acosta has had to bow to the chorus of calls for his resignation.  The real question:  How ever did Trump get elected?  A mainstream press failure?

Continue Reading

Americas

What has happened to Western liberal idea?

Published

on

In the recent interview with President Putin, the Financial Times seems to have launched a discussion on liberalism only at its own peril. Inadvertently, a real problem was touched upon, whose pressing nature is no longer denied by anyone in the West. The newspaper had to admit it in its Editorial of 29 June. Its authors claim that the threat to liberalism comes from within, including President Trump and his policies, Brexit and, certainly, the rise of “populist nationalism”. They refer to voters’ disillusionment with liberalism and loss of confidence in the economic system and trust in political elites. The latter are invited to redouble their efforts to take into consideration issues raised by voters and “to renew liberalism”.

Hence, the Russian leader has only identified a problem that Western elites are unable to acknowledge, desperately defending the status-quo as having no alternative. But where is the problem?

The systemic crisis of Western society, if we are to call a spade a spade, has its roots in Reaganomics and Thatcherism. In early 1980s, disregard for the lessons of the Great Depression led to Anglo-American attempts to sort of try the pre-1929 Pure Capitalism. This unleashed the forcers of a “self-regulated market” with the state playing a minimal role – a key concept of liberal economics. The idea of social accountability of business had no place in that system.

At the same time, financial sector was deregulated through the step-by-step repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was one of key elements of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Its architect was British economist John Maynard Keynes. It was only natural that the 2008 crisis also started in the financial sphere which had practically lost touch with the real sector of economy.

Then neoliberalism (as it became known) came to be imposed by Anglo-Saxon nations on the whole of the EU through the Lisbon agenda. The then Prime Minister Tony Blair was pretty good at it. When asked what she considered as her key legacy, Margaret Thatcher pointed to Blair who continued her economic policies under the “New Labour” slogan.

For instance, everyone knows what the nationalization of British railways led to. Profits are reaped by operators, while costs are borne by taxpayers who finance UK Rail, the state-run company responsible for railroad infrastructure. And this is not the only way to privatise profits while collectivising costs. In fact, globalisation has become one such practice for Western elites. Its original motive was quite liberal and far from being altruistic or even geopolitical (Donald Trump has reassessed this part of it when he blamed globalisation for China’s economic rise). It was about cheap labour for increased profits. The jobs  that were to be transferred abroad should have been compensated for by a new technological revolution. But it’s not happening, not even in the second generation. Information technologies do not create as many jobs, and we are already talking of robotisation and artificial intelligence, as well as a universal minimum living allowance as a solution to the problem of poverty and unemployment. It was Keynes who said: “Free trade assumes that if you throw men out of work in one direction you re-employ them in another. As soon as that link is broken the whole of the free trade argument breaks down”.

Liberalism in politics, especially after the end of the Cold War, has degenerated into averaging and alternative-free policies in the “end of history” spirit. Even Henry Kissinger admitted in his “World Order” (2014) that Western elites had again relied on automaticity, as was the case with the market. But as it was shown by Karl Marx supported by modern economists (Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Thomas Picketty and others), free markets always give advantage to the investing classes, which only leads to more inequality.

In this respect, the 45-year post-WW2 period was an exception to the rule due to the creation of a social welfare state – the one that is now being destroyed by the neoliberal economics. Along with it the middle class is being destroyed – the pillar of Western democracy. For these reasons the real discourse of democracy is being substituted in the West by a discourse of liberalism. This involves labelling all protest voters as “populists” and “nationalists”, allowing to side-step the issue of the inability of the actual political system to represent this silent majority. Yet, that is what’s going on when differences blur between the Right and the Left, Tory and Labour in Britain, Republicans and Democrats in the US, or Christian Democrats and Social Democrats in Germany’s “Grand coalition”. Is it any wonder that when an opportunity arises to have a say, this majority votes for Brexit, Trump, or newly-created anti-system parties and movements, often with marginal ideologies?    

In social terms, as BBC is trying to explain in this ongoing debate, liberalism is about protecting the rights of minorities of all kind, including transgender persons. It turns out that there’s nobody to protect the interests of the majority. Yet, we are speaking of the post-war “social contract”, which simply does not work in liberal economics. Anglo-Saxons are on the path of further liberalisation, which the continental Europe cannot afford. Boris Johnson, contributing to the discussion, has said the other day that Brexit is precisely aimed at giving a new lease of life to it by following the US in income tax reductions for business and private individuals.    

British political analyst David Goodhart (in “The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics”, 2017) shows another perspective of the issue. In his opinion, the elites have become cosmopolitan, but the majority has remained rooted in their own countries, regions and communities. In other words, the majority sticks to its national identity, unlike the elites. Even the European middle class, united by similar living standards and occupations, becomes aware of its nationality when hit by bad economic times.

Those who accuse Russia of meddling in internal affairs of Western countries are essentially denying their voters the right to vote, while the genesis of the liberalism crisis clearly points to its roots and origins inside the system. It was no-one else but Angela Merkel who in 2010 spoke of failure of multiculturalism in Germany, while calling for intensifying efforts at integrating immigrants into German society.

It was not Moscow that drew the attention to this problem. As early as 2007, the Economist wrote of a “secular overreachl” in the West, while today many are voicing concerns over a “liberal overreach”. Speaking broadly, it can be said that in the absence of a competitive environment in the realm of ideas after the end of the Cold War (which ended up doing a disservice to Western elites), liberalism has mutated into a dogma, a totalitarian ideology which does not tolerate dissent or pluralism of ideas. No wonder that the elites have resorted to political technologies, media control and political correctness to tighten the grip on the freedom of speech and generate semblance of an alternative-free existence. Social media have put an end to this, becoming a tool for politically alienated electorate to self-organize. As a measure to protect the status quo, the elites are now constructing an artificial dichotomy of liberalism vs authoritarianism, i.e. if not one, it’s definitely the other.

It is, therefore, not about the end of the liberal idea, just as President Putin pointed out, but that it cannot claim to be a one-size-fits-all model negating the wealth of ideas in Europe and the world. The problem is that any ideology, as history has shown, is always aggressive when it claims the ultimate truth, exceptionalism and, as a result, becomes a threat to the world. The notion of a “liberal world order” has also been introduced only recently, as a defensive reaction of the West when its dominance in global politics, economy and finance is coming to an end. Everything could have been different, had Western elites bothered to make this order, Bretton Woods institutions included, truly liberal, open and inclusive. Nobody was preventing them from doing so.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy