>>Valley Patriot>>
|
Family Court or Family
Disaster?
Ralph Wilbur
Kevin
Thompson is a physics teacher in Methuen and the author
of a book titled, “Exposing the Corruption in the
Massachusetts Family Courts.” On March 22,
2006, Mary McCauley Manzi, an Essex County family court
judge who is heavily criticized in his book, made it
clear that he feels First Amendment rights do not apply
in her courtroom when she “banned” Thompson’s
book. I spoke with Thompson about the book ban and
the content of his book.
Q: Mr. Thompson, were you surprised that Judge
Manzi “banned” your book?
A. Actually, it did not surprise me at all. If
I have learned anything in the last three years, it is
that constitutional rights do not apply to fathers in
family court.
Q: Tell us a little about the book ban. What
did Judge Manzi say to justify her ruling?
A: Manzi wrote in her orders that the book would
cause “irreparable injury” to my son.
What was outrageous about this statement is that the
mother of my son, who as the moving party had a burden of
proof to overcome, did not even submit the book itself
into evidence. But still, Manzi was able to
conclude that a book, which she has never seen, would
cause irreparable injury.
Manzi also claimed that “no harm will be caused to
the community interest by impounding the book.”
No community interest is harmed other than the community’s
right to scrutinize the judiciary, hold it accountable,
and prevent from happening the concealed crimes committed
against fathers and children in these kangaroo courts.
Q: The Mother, her attorney, and the court
have all argued that the book is not banned.
Q: How do you respond to this?
A: They can call it whatever they want but
impounding content from my book and restraining me from
releasing it IS a book ban. They obviously want to
distance themselves from the term “book ban”
because book bans are associated with the kind of
censorship and suppression that occurred in places like
Nazi Germany.
Q: You refer to the “crimes” committed by
the judges in your case. What crimes were committed
against you?
A: It took me 315 pages to detail the crimes
committed against me so it would be impossible to
summarize them in one or two paragraphs. I will say
that it is not a crime to ignorantly believe that fathers
are lesser parents than mothers. Certainly everyone
has a right to his or her opinion. What is corrupt
is a system that manipulates the court process to
guarantee an agenda-driven outcome and covers up the
misconduct of its judges.
Q: How was the court process manipulated in your
case?
A: Judges in family court limit trials to “he
said/she said” hearsay so that they can believe
everything said by the mother as fact and ignore
everything conveyed by the father. Rules of court
procedure are only referenced and objections are only
sustained when they can be used to sabotage the father’s
communication to the court. Any testimony or
evidence that discredits the mother is deemed irrelevant.
Q: How would you convince skeptics that your claims
of corruption are real?
A: I would direct skeptics to the chapters
containing my appeal, which a three-judge panel of the
appeals court called “frivolous with no basis in law
or fact” to extort from me double the mother’s
attorney fees and costs.
The general consensus from readers of my book is that
these judges committed fraud with this description.
One reader called the appeals court response an egregious
betrayal of public trust and the laws of the land that
these justices have sworn to uphold.
Q: How do the courts get away with this?
A: They get away with this because there is no
accountability. You have a system policing itself
where absolute power has corrupted absolutely.
Fathers who report judicial misconduct are forced to pay
for attorneys who they did not hire and lawyers who
“snitch” have been disbarred.Judges have also
given themselves immunity from consequences. So
even when it can be proven that a judge’s actions
are malicious and criminal, he or she cannot be sued or
removed from the bench.
Q: So you believe that the courts get away with
these crimes against fathers because judges are not held
accountable?
It is not the whole story. The family court and
domestic violence industries that profit off “man-fault”
divorce have effectively brainwashed large segments of
the population to believe that women are leaving
marriages en masse to escape abusive relationships.
Consequently, men are all evil monsters to be
punished. Women are all victims to be pitied and
protected.
This “man-hating” propaganda, spread with lies,
phony statistics, and control of the media empowers women
to allege anything to secure the house, the children, and
a large percentage of the father’s future
income.
Q: Where do you place the blame?
A: I place much of the blame on the media. For
three years I have been pleading with my local newspaper,
the Eagle Tribune, to do an investigative story on the
family court system and for three years those efforts
have been ignored.
Senior editor of the Tribune, Bill Ketter, regularly
writes about the importance of open courtrooms. He
has written about the “watchdog” efforts of his
newspaper.
But for some reason those efforts have not extended to
the most corrupt setting in this country, where good
fathers are systematically removed from the lives of
their children without due process or just cause by the
very institution that exists to protect them from such
injustice.
Q: What would be your solution if you had the power
to change things?
A: I would take away judicial immunity and bring
back judicial accountability.
In family court, I would remove all discretion from
judges. Judges would have one mandatory question
for parents of a breakup, “Do either of you intend
to prove that the other parent is unfit?” If
the answer to that question is “no” from both
parents, then 50/50 joint legal and physical custody
would be ordered immediately, without exceptions.
If either parent seeks to challenge the fitness of the
other parent, then the accused parent will receive the
same protections that are afforded to common
criminals. The accused will be presumed innocent
until proven guilty, the parent bringing the accusation
will have a burden of proof to overcome, and the accused
will have a right to a jury trial. Those found
guilty of making false allegations will be punished to
the full extent of the law.
Of course, those profiting off the current “winner
takes all” corruption will always oppose this
solution because billable litigation would be
significantly reduced, the child support services
department would need to be downsized, the domestic
violence industry would lose customers that it gets with
the incentive for mothers to make false allegations as a
court strategy, and the state would lose federal dollars
that it gets with every child support order.
Q: Any final comments?
A: Yes. The claim made by the racketeers in
family court that their gender-biased rulings are made in
“the best interests of the children” is a
lie. The decisions in family court have absolutely
nothing to do with the interests of the chldren and
everything to do with generating business.
How is it in the best interests of children to remove
loving fathers from their lives and replace them with
visitation hours and cash payments?
How is it in the best interests of children to provide a
cash incentive for mothers to maintain conflict with
fathers?
How is it in the best interests of children to
financially ruin families so that lawyers can profit off
cases that could and should be resolved instantly?
And how is it in the best interests of children to defy
the hundreds of statistics and studies, which confirm
that the most powerful predictor of future well-being is
the significant involvement of both parents in a child’s
life?
*Send your questions comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com
The May, 2006 Edition of
the Valley Patriot
The Valley Patriot is a Monthly
Publication.
All Contents (C) 2006, Valley Patriot, Inc.
We publish 8,000 newspapers and distribute in Andover,
North Andover, Methuen, Haverhill,
Lawrence, Dracut, Tewksbury and Lowell.
|
Valley Patriot Archive
|
