If a 'Judge' admits that the Constitution is invalid in his courtroom logically it must be a court moving in Admiralty.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]
Judge Bans Book On Corruption In Family Court[o:p style="font-weight: bold;"][/o:p]
In the state of Massachusetts, a Judge has banned a book on the
corruption of family courts. There is a chapter in the book devoted
to the same Judge Mainz who has just issued an injunction until the
year 2021.
Attached is a press release the book's author has written on this
order. Kevin is nothing more that a father wanting to see and be
with his child.
[hr style="width: 100%; height: 2px;"]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
IT'S OFFICIAL: JUDGE BANS FATHER'S BOOK ON CORRUPTION IN FAMILY COURT
On March 22, 2006, Essex Probate and Family Court Justice Mary
McCauley Manzi, made it clear that First Amendment rights do not apply
in her courtroom when she banned Kevin Thompson's tell-all book titled
"Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."
What makes this particular ruling so outrageous is that Manzi is
prominently criticized in the book for her judicial misconduct in
Thompson's case. Therefore, a clear conflict of interest existed that
should have excluded Manzi from having jurisdiction.
This issue has caused a stir among civil rights and fathers' rights
groups in the state who have tired of the illegal treatment that they
receive in family court where constitutional law is routinely ignored.
Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of the parental advocacy group Fathers and
Families, argued, "Manzi should have recused herself from ruling on a
book in which she's criticized. I think the Family Court has lost all
sight of the Constitution in this matter and in many others."
Aware of the media interest in the story, Manzi refused to release her
ruling by phone to Thompson, who received his notice by mail on
Friday, March 24, 2006. The order permanently restrains Thompson from
disseminating any information related to his custody case and impounds
the custody case itself until the year 2021.
Manzi's rationale for this action is that "impoundment is necessary to
protect the best interests including the privacy interests of the
parties' minor child." She wrote further, "no harm will be caused to
the community interest by impounding this file."
When reached for comment, Thompson asked, "what privacy interests of
my son have been compromised and whose interests are being protected
other than the personal interests of Judge Manzi, Judge Digangi, and
the three judges in appeals court who don't want their crimes to be
exposed?"
Thompson commented further, "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 every day in family court for profit."
When asked whether he would adhere to the order, Thompson commented,
"I made it clear at the hearing that Judge Manzi did not have the
jurisdiction to ban my book. Any order issued from such a hearing
would be illegal and therefore, null and void. Since I respect the
law, I have no intentions of adhering to an illegal order issued by a
judge with her own agenda."
Thompson is scheduled for court on April 19, 2006, to respond to the
Mother's request for attorney fees incurred to ban Thompson's book.
Manzi has requested financial statements from both parents before she
rules on this motion. Thompson commented, "what could possibly be the
relevance of financial statements in the determination of whether or
not to extort the mother's attorney fees from me? This is how the
family courts bully fathers into silence - jail them for ignoring
illegal orders or financially ruin them by making them pay for
attorneys who they did not hire. Everything that I am doing right now
is for my son. I will not be shut up."
