streetjust's blog: "My Thoughts & Passions"

I first posted this entry on another site on October 18, 2006. I was recently asked to provide some resources regarding Family Law. I am NOT an attorney. However, I have argued cases in Utah and California. My research on the Violence Against Women Act has been recognized in court. Since I've been researching family law issues for over 10 years it would take me a very long time to list all of my resources. When researching issues of family law it quickly becomes obvious that this is an emotionally charged and politically motivated issue. My recommendations when looking for reliable sources is to avoid those sources that aren't gender-neutral. There exist groups purporting to represent women's rights, men's rights and even children's rights. Be aware of organizations willing to use a noble cause to pervert justice. Here are some of my book marks. Family Law Search tool for state codes & case law http://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/ Downloadable sections of Utah Code http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/code.htm Family law: ‘Changing the way we think’ http://www.timeswv.com/intodayspaper/local_story_288032553.html?keyword=topstory Deadbeat Parents Moms Can Be Deadbeats Too http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html The facts about deadbeat dads by Bruce Walker http://www.ancpr.org/deadbeat.html Restraining Orders Articles detailing abuse of Restraining Orders in Divorce http://www.ancpr.org/articles_detailing_abuse_of_rest.htm Restraining order requests more than double in 5 years http://www.ancpr.org/restraining_order_requests_more_.htm Child Support Child Support Calculators http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/utah/ Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/index.html Domestic Violence Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting http://www.mediaradar.org/ Men as Victims of Domestic Violence- ABC Television 20/20 21st September 1997 http://www.mensrights.com.au/dvusa13g.htm DV False Statistics http://www.desertlightjournal.com/statistics.html

I first posted this entry on another site on October 19, 2006. Family Court Reform Having been divorced 3 times one of my passions has become reforming our family courts. Since retainer fees for attorneys are so expensive I’ve been forced to represent myself all 3 times and argued the cases in 2 different states. Statistically, the majority of Americans will be subjected to this version of our court system for divorce or child custody. Since it is more likely to have an impact on our family than any other version of our courts its unfortunate that we get the least amount of information about it. We see different versions of Law & Order and CSI on television every night, but not one single television series is dedicated to familiarizing us with our family courts. From my experiences with the family courts our legal system is broken. Drastic measures are needed to restore our family courts to a functional entity. Instances of perjury, false allegations of abuse and jurisdiction shopping are commonplace. To make matters worse, judges often aren’t familiar with the state code or case law governing family law. As if that weren’t enough family law has traditionally been reserved to each state. However, our federal government has seen fit to institute such standards as the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA I), the Violence Against Women Act of 2005 (VAWA II), the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), the Uniform Child Custody & Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Enough is enough! These and many other issues neutralize the purpose of the courts and instead of having the Wisdom of Solomon ruling the family courts we are forced to settle for near incompetence. There are several problems with our Family Court judges. The biggest problem is that some of them aren’t qualified to hear family law cases. Family Law is considered civil law. Can you imagine having a judge hear your family law case who specialized in business or criminal law? That logic makes as much sense as having brain surgery done by your dentist. In Utah the same judge hears criminal law, family law, other civil cases, etc. In California, newly appointed judges no matter what their specialty are assigned to the family court to pay their dues before they’re assigned to another court. Another problem with our judges is that they recognize their lack of expertise in Family Law so they refer the litigants to “specialists”. Unlike a court these specialists aren’t required to inform the other party of allegations made or potential evidence submitted against them. This secrecy prevents the other party from rebutting allegations and evidence. These specialists make recommendations to the court. By the time the judge actually hears the case and views any evidence the specialists have already established a direction for the judge to decide. This can be done without one party ever being aware of false allegations or faulty evidence and thereby depriving them of the opportunity to refute any of it. Another problem is that Family Law is a version of civil law. As such, it doesn’t require guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it only requires “a preponderance of evidence”. This means that no evidence is even required. In this situation the judge could decide the case on who is more convincing or something as trivial as who is more likeable. Civil law also does not provide an attorney for you if you can’t afford one for yourself. In this situation you are stuck representing yourself. Attorneys are a huge problem with our family courts. Personally, I have a problem with anybody that seeks to profit from the destruction of families and the misery of children. The longer a case goes on the more an attorney charges. It’s in the best interest of the attorneys to drag out the case as long as possible. This injects more animosity into what is already the most stressful situation most Americans are likely to face. This animosity prolongs an already painful process. The attorney is a hired gun who is paid to win your case by any means necessary. The easiest way for the attorney to guarantee your victory is to destroy the reputation of your spouse and to have the court recognize them as unfit. When the attorney is done he’s off to his office to work on his next case. Anybody who has ever dealt with our government has been exposed to the bureaucracy. The family courts are no different. In some states psychological evaluations are mandatory for both parents during a custody evaluation. This bureaucracy can include psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and custody evaluators. These are the “specialists” that the judge will rely upon in determining custody. These people make their recommendations based on interviews, the recommendations of each other and sometimes by contacting outside agencies such as your private therapist. The custody evaluators are the ones who will make the final recommendation to the judge. Some of these custody evaluators aren’t even certified! Another problem with the family courts is that it’s an adversarial system. Consider that if you’re in a child custody fight it’s unlikely to stay cordial for long. In court it’s beneficial to your case to tear down your spouse or the other parent of your child. That is until the case is over and you have to work together to finish raising that child such as coordinating visitation, child support, school functions, vacations, etc. Now, consider all of the “specialists” within the bureaucracy, attorney’s fees and the court costs. Who do you think pays for all of that? You do! After all of the fighting and emotional upheaval you are likely to be financially destroyed. It’s not unusual for one or both parties to file for bankruptcy soon after their experience in the Family Courts. One more problem that I’ve identified is the lack of a national database for the filings in Family Court. The same case can be filed simultaneously in two different states and neither court would be aware of the other filing. I’m not pointing out the deficiencies of our Family courts just to bitch. Oh no! I have potential solutions. The first solution is to have a dedicated facility for Family Court. In San Jose, California there is a special facility devoted to Family Court cases. The facility houses several courtrooms and Family Court Services, which employ social workers and custody evaluators. In Utah the same judge and courtroom is used to hear all types of cases including family law, other civil law, small claims and criminal law cases. Utah doesn’t have a dedicated facility for hearing Family Law cases. In Utah, I’ve witnessed a child custody case recessed for lunch so that the Sheriff’s Department could escort its prisoner’s to enter a plea in criminal proceedings to the very same judge. San Jose is a little better than Utah in this regard, but only a little. At least the Family Court judges in California only have to familiarize themselves with one type of law. Unfortunately, the California court system’s improvements end there. When somebody is appointed to be a judge their first assignment is in the Family Court no matter what version of law their expertise. The California Family Court is considered a stepping-stone and new judges are assigned there to pay their dues before being reassigned to another court. As a result a judge who was accustomed to criminal law may not be aware of the differences between his area of expertise and the family law he is charged with enforcing. Family Court judges need to be selected based on a specialty in Family Law. To resolve the problem of attorneys in the Family Courts there should be a flat fee for divorce and custody cases. This flat fee should be a nationwide requirement. The fee should be set low enough so that all families could afford it. This would discourage attorneys from prolonging a case for their own financial gain. For instance, if an attorney could only charge $300 for a divorce then he would have to increase his caseload in order to see the same revenue he currently sees. In turn, the attorney would need to settle more cases in order to handle more cases. Attorneys would encourage clients to settle their own disputes. Some solutions to reduce the bureaucracy are a flat fee, certifying custody evaluators and only requiring psychological evaluations when there is a history or allegation of mental illness. The flat fee would have a similar impact as it would with attorneys. Both parties should be encouraged to settle their case at every stage prior to trial. Certifying custody evaluators is simple common sense. Remember, this is the person who makes the recommendation to the judge who may or may not be qualified in family law. It’s inconceivable that somebody with the authority to make a final recommendation to a judge over a child custody case wouldn’t be qualified! Finally, what is the purpose of psychological evaluations when there is no history or mental illness or been alleged? It’s a useless step in the bureaucracy. Eliminate this mandatory requirement and save the family some time, money and aggravation. Change the family court system to a non-adversarial system. The courts should encourage the participants to negotiate. If they can negotiate their own settlement then they are more likely to work together after the court decision. This is certainly complies with “the best interests of the child” standard that family courts are to use when determining custody. Finally, there should be a central database to track family law filings. This would help prevent duplicate filings or a process known as “jurisdiction hunting”. Jurisdiction hunting is the process of filing legal proceedings in another jurisdiction for reasons such as a history of higher child support, favorable towards one gender over the other, making the other party travel for court appearances and thereby incurring financial hardship, etc. The central database would alert jurisdictions to a case that has already been filed elsewhere. All of these solutions would reduce the financial hardships on families who are already going through a traumatic experience. The experience is only made worse by a trial. If your attorney is successful in destroying your spouse and former best friend whom will you celebrate your victory with? Your children will be depressed over the result no matter who wins. You’ll be lucky to get a hug from your attorney. He just wants his money. In addition, by settling their cases prior to trial the parties might even remain friends. I’ve remained friends with 2 of my ex-wives. It’s no coincidence that they are the ones who I was able to settle my cases with. The only one I’m a not friend with now is the only one I had to go to trial against and we haven’t spoken outside of court in 10 years. I’ve been told that divorce is the emotional equivalent to being widowed. It doesn’t need to be the financial equivalent as well.

I first posted this blog on another site on November 29, 2006. Disclaimer: I use the word soldier to describe military members of all branches of service. I intend no disrespect toward the members of other branches. I chose “soldier” because that is a more recognizable term to civilians. Being a retired Air Force member my preference would have been to use “Airman”, but most people wouldn’t recognize that as meaning all services. I also use “he” in reference to both genders. Again, no disrespect is intended toward females in our military or their contributions. While I list facts in this article the conclusions are my opinion. “If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.” – Charles Rangel, November 26, 2006 After hearing these latest comments from Charles Rangel, a prominent Democrat and soon-to-be Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, I can’t ignore this topic any longer. One would expect a decorated wartime veteran like Congressman Rangel to understand the sacrifices made by our military members. That’s right, Congressman Rangel is a veteran. Although we wouldn’t know it from the lack of respect he shows our military. He served in the Korean War and even earned a bronze star for his actions. As a side note military people do not “win” medals. They are earned. To say a military member wins an award suggests that there is a competition among military members for decorations where the winner is awarded a medal. Military life in itself is a daily sacrifice above what is expected of our civilian counterparts. To earn an award such as the bronze star requires action above even that. Wikipedia defines the bronze star as the fourth-highest award for bravery, heroism or meritorious service. Factor in the purple heart that was also awarded to Congressman Rangel and it’s easy to conclude that his bronze star was awarded for either bravery or heroism in the face of the enemy. As a military history buff I’m sure that Congressman Rangel has a story that I would be interested in hearing. Congressman Rangel’s comments might be dismissed as just one person’s opinion if his perception of our military didn’t permeate through the Democratic Party. Senator John Kerry suggested that American soldiers were terrorists during his December 5, 2005 appearance on CBS’ Face The Nation. Let’s not forget this little gem. "Education -- if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." - Senator John Kerry, October 30, 2006 while addressing Pasadena City College When confronted about his comments Senator Kerry claimed it was a botched joke and he would not apologize to anyone. When his personal appearances were cancelled by other Democrats running for re-election Kerry did succumb to pressure and published this statement on his website which received much less publicity than his public appearances "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended," – John Kerry’s website What’s wrong with just apologizing for the words that came out of his mouth? Instead, Kerry further insults the American public by insinuating that they misinterpreted his words because they’re too stupid to understand his thoughts. To think this man nearly became President. What’s wrong with it is that Senator Kerry didn’t intend to apologize for words that he feels are the truth. This isn’t the first time John Kerry has belittled our military. He achieved nationwide notoriety in 1971 after his return from Vietnam for what is commonly referred to as his Genghis Khan speech. John Kerry went on to make a political career off of disrespecting and degrading our military. With overwhelming support Senator Kerry went on to run as the Democrat candidate for the Presidency in 2004. During his campaign his website posted a copy of his DD 214 (Record of Transfer or Separation). This revealed a glaring error in the medals posted on his website which became a public embarrassment for Kerry. It suggested that either Kerry’s DD 214 had been falsified or he approved an inaccurate version of his military record. This conjured up images of the guy trying to impress the pretty girl by telling her that he’s a Navy SEAL when he never spent a day in the military. Senator Kerry and Congressman Rangel may have a valid reason for their disdain of the military. Both faced a draft into military service. John Kerry feared military service so much that he sought to avoid it. As first lady Hillary Clinton banned wearing of military uniforms in the White House. She only relented after the Secret Service voiced their security concerns about being able to locate the person carrying “the football” in an emergency. Hillary Clinton has since denied these allegations despite them having been confirmed by members of the Clinton administration and Secret Service agents. Mrs. Clinton’s insults towards the military also include wanting U.S. Marines stationed at the White House to serve as waiters. Why do the Democrats think so little of those who defend Democracy? Why do they look down on those who defend their right to participate in Democracy? When I was growing up in the 70’s there was a common phrase of the time. That phrase was “If it feels good, do it.” To me that phrase exemplifies the root of all liberal views. Liberals want people to be able to do things that make them feel good without consequence. Military life is the direct opposite of this belief. Military people are taught to consider the consequences of everything we do. There is even a separate code of military law that covers things that aren’t even infractions in civilian life. This is called the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Things such as telling your boss where to go or attempting to quit your job are punishable crimes under this strict code. It’s a code that military people are subjected to in addition to civilian law yet military people accept that this is not considered double jeopardy. The military not only stands for law & order but for tradition. Until the Clinton presidency the military refused to permit gays to join it’s organization. Sodomy is another behavior criminalized by the UCMJ. Bill Clinton’s first significant act as President of the United States was to destroy that tradition by enacting his controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. To help understand why liberals hate our military let me tell you about a man I met during my first military assignment. At my first base I met one of the most influential men of my military career. There were a few of them, but this one was unique because at the time I really didn’t like him. He was my first sergeant and his name was Anthony Hooks. He and I frequently disagreed because I was young and thought I knew more than I actually did not unlike most 18 year olds. He was a mentor before it became a buzzword. Not only was the man physically intimidating because of his size, but he truly loved what he referred to as “my air force”. Being young I thought this view was very self-centered and it wasn’t until many years later that I would understand what he meant. During the time that we were assigned to the same unit I heard this man say another phrase repeatedly. It could have been his motto. His phrase was “God, country, self. In that order.” That was 20 years ago and today when I hear “patriot” being so readily tossed around I’m frequently reminded of my old first sergeant and his words. These are principles that liberals will never understand or live by. The reason that liberals hate our military is because our military represents everything that the liberals oppose. The liberals preach about doing good “for the people”, but very few of them have ever taken up arms to defend “the people” despite several opportunities since December 7, 1941. Those opportunities included World War II in the 40’s, the Korean War in the 50’s, the Vietnam War in the 60’s and 70’s, Desert Storm in the 90’s and currently the Iraq war. Instead of putting their lives on the line liberals typically pay lip service to our military in front of the microphones and then demonstrate against the wars they fight in front of the cameras. These liberals espouse such wisdom as “support the troops, oppose the war”. They try to separate the warrior from the reasons for the war. They ignore that the troops risk their lives in a war and to an extent those actions demonstrate the highest measure of support for that particular war. Some of those soldiers even pay the highest sacrifice. The liberal idea of action is to demonstrate and berate their opposition, neither of which is a direct cause of change. Liberals hate him because his lifestyle is everything they can’t be. The American soldier is a constant reminder of tradition and patriotism. He is the last bastion against the liberal agenda. The verbal assaults launched by liberals are the closest thing most liberals will ever know of war and at the end of the day it’s the American soldier who guarantees their right to free speech and their protection from foreign threats. That’s what really burns the liberal collective ass and that’s why liberals hate the American soldier.

It seems the anti-war crowd is getting more and more attention these days. What makes these people tick? Is it because the candy-ass/guts ratio is too lopsided in these people? Is it because it’s easier to run their mouths about our own government than to actually take action against the terrorists? They’re big on mouth and low on guts. They’ll never take up arms to defend this country. Their idea of taking action is to carry some signs and march in our streets. They don’t know what its like to carry an M-16 and have mortars dropping around them. What I see when the protestors are shown on TV is a bunch of people that aren’t willing to stand up and defend their way of life. I see a bunch of people that aren’t willing to stand up to anything except George W. Bush and the only people willing to put their lives on the line to defend this country, our great military. The news calls them protestors, but when I see them another word comes to mind…Pussies. They say that our military is full of people who have no other options. They claim our military is full of minorities, the poor and the intellectually deficient. I’ve got some news for John Kerry and Rosie O’Donnell. This nation hasn’t had a draft in over 30 years. We’ve been an all-voluntary force ever since. In our military an individual is judged based on their abilities as a soldier, sailor, airman or marine. Unlike the civilian society the liberals have created we aren’t judged on our skin tone. Not only does that not mean that we’re not held back because of our last name, skin color or gender, but it also means no affirmative action. No special treatment without having earned it. The best qualified rises to the top. We like it that way. We like knowing that our commanders were selected because they exhibited leadership qualities. Competent leadership tends to reduce casualties. My opinion of John Kerry and Rosie O’Donnell is that they should stick to what they’re good at. Kerry should concentrate on marrying rich widows and O’Donnell should do whatever she’s good at. The world is still waiting to see what that is.