|
|
Why Undertake This Sort of Advocacy?
I have been frequently asked why I am
willing to undertake this sort of advocacy. After all, my divorce
is in the past. I have little to gain, particularly from the reforms
in the custody and financial areas.
While there is arguably a gain to be
had from the child support angle in my case, that's a two-edged sword
as well - if I end up with sole custody in the future, or primary
residential custody (which would require only a few-percent change
in time!) I'd be actually hurting myself.
The answer is simple: Justice.
Each of us has perception problems in
our daily life. We are challenged to see things as they really are,
and to react to, and attempt to put right, injustices that may arise.
This is part of our human calling. It is also an essential element
of being a citizen of the United States.
Each day we arise and see our leaders
– in political and other areas of life – making decisions that can
be described as indefensible only with great charity. We see evidence
that our society is crumbling around us – that we are losing, as a
people, major parts of what made this country great. Let’s look at
a few of these points:
Our families are in ruins. We hear daily
that family doesn’t really matter; that its just as good to put your
kids in daycare as to take care of them at home, and that any combination
of adults can make a "family unit". The definition of family – a married
couple with children, and their extended families around them – is
now a minority in the United States. Worse, we have laws on
the books today that promote the break-up of traditional, two-parent
families - including the current custody, divorce and child-support
laws.
Our Constitution is right behind the
family. The ACLU seems to now have a picture of the "Bill of Rights"
with a few missing components – notably any amendment they don’t favor
this day. Laws are passed every day that are blatantly unconstitutional
– almost as if legislators are daring people to sue and have
them overturned. Our legislators and other elected officials forgot
that they took an oath of office that includes the duty to protect
that same Constitution that they are using as toilet paper.
Violent crime rates are through the roof.
The solution? More civil rights violations. Never mind the fact that
two obvious points emerge from any debate on gun control, criminals,
and civil liberties restrictions – a gun needs a person to pull
the trigger, and a criminal does not care if he or she violates the
law – or these "restrictions". That’s why we call them criminals!
All sacrificing our freedoms on the alter of "security" does is
tell the criminals in society – of which we seem to be increasingly
talented in turning out – that we’re all sitting ducks waiting for
our turn in the shooting gallery.
If you need more proof just look at our
imprisonment rate - almost one in every 150 persons in this country
is now behind bars. That rate is exceeded only by the Soviet Union,
and sociologists believe we will be number one in the world in this
area within the next five years.
Now couple this with a new reality –
that the system really is as bad as people have been saying
all along.
I know a number of divorced individuals.
I’ve known several of them for a long time. I’ve heard about injustices,
insanely-high child support awards, and punitive actions sanctioned
by law. But somehow, you just don’t believe it when you hear these
things. Some of us, perhaps even most of us, like myself, have this
"pie in the sky" belief that no government in the United States could
possibly do all those evil, horrible, nasty things to one gender.
I was wrong. Now I’ve experienced it
first-hand, and everything people have claimed is not only true, they’re
understating the depth and severity of the problems.
Every complaint you have heard from your
divorced friends about how unfair the system is right on.
Let’s review, quickly, the basis for
a just government. It really is quite a short list:
- Government procedure must be deterministic to
the average citizen. You must, as a citizen, be able to reasonably
understand the laws, why they exist, and how punishments are
calculated.
- The costs assessed by government against
either individual or aggregate citizens must be calculated in
the open where the citizenry can see the figures in order
to prevent fraud from occurring and verify the figures being presented.
- The system of law and adjudication of disputes
must be subject to (1) open, fair, impartial hearings, and (2)
the opportunity to examine the evidence against you in any such
proceeding, including witnesses, facts and figures, before
a finding of fact is rendered.
- Penalties may not be imposed prior to a finding
of fact (this and the above point are together known as the Due
Process requirement, and is a Constitutional protection in
this country and all 50 States. A law which violates these two
requirements is presumptively unconstitutional.)
- Penalties and responsibilities must be calculated
in the open, along with the rationale and justification for the
figures computed, and said amounts classified as either restitution
for some wrong, a penalty for wrongdoing (otherwise known
as a fine), or imprisonment (a penalty consisting of loss of liberty).
Combinations of the above are also permissible.
- Penalties and responsibilities may only attach
to you through judicial process once you have been found responsible
for having committed a wrong. There are two ways in which
you may be alleged to have committed a wrong – either criminally
or civilly. The salient difference between these two is that a
criminal wrong carries with it the possibility of imprisonment,
and has a much higher burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt).
A civil wrong may only carry a penalty of loss of money or specific
performance of some duty, and must be proven with a preponderance
of the evidence.
- The law must apply equally to all citizens,
in that they must stand equal before the halls of justice in the
courtrooms and other enforcement mechanisms which society puts
in place. A law is unjust on its face if it does not protect
all citizens equally, is designed so it can only be enforced against
one group or class of persons, or if the judiciary and enforcement
branches of government only use it against one group or class
of persons.
- The law must protect the citizenry against underhanded
and illegitimate use of the courts to harass others. If a pleading
is filed in which wrong-doing is alleged, it may not be permitted
to be withdrawn unless compensation is given to the person
who had their rights abridged in the interim period of time.
If a challenge to such a filing is made, the evidence must
be heard. To do otherwise makes a mockery of the requirements
for due process and equal protection.
- Your fundamental rights - along with those of
everyone else affected by or subjected to a judgment of a court
- must be protected to the fullest extent possible. Most importantly,
those rights must not be violated unless you, personally, did
something to warrant that infringement.
These are some of the basics of a free
society. There is more – the right to freedom of the press, the right
to have a believe in a superior being (or none at all) and practice
that belief (religion), and the right to defend liberty – both your
own and the nation’s collectively. But for the purposes under discussion,
these are sufficient.
Just how did I personally witness
these basic protections and freedoms being violated? Let me list some
of the violations, either while in court awaiting my case being called,
or in some cases, as direct abuses upon a free society perpetrated
against my own person:
- Costs must be determined in the open.
Nowhere, in any of the 50 States, is there published by the state
an actual body of evidence used to compute child support award
amounts. In fact, the imposition of percentage-of-income awards
is presumed in violation of this rule. Note that while
we pay percentages of income in our income taxes, there is a difference
– the state and federal governments must publish, annually, their
justification for that tax – it is called the budget! You, as
an ordinary citizen, have the right to review that budget and
see where the money extracted from you in taxes actually goes.
Further, should you discover waste or inappropriate
spending of that money (say, on bribes) you can bring suit
for redress and people are jailed when they misuse the funds
entrusted to them. In comparison, "Child Support" is not computed
on any actual basis of need, you have no right to know how it
is being spent, and even if your ex-spouse spends it on booze,
drugs and lotto tickets you have no recourse!
- Due Process is a joke in the family court
system. Among other things ex-parte orders of protection and
assessment of your opponent’s lawyer’s fees against you without
a hearing, for starters. The intent of these procedures and
laws is to destroy your ability to litigate the case, and if you
survive that, prejudice the outcome of a custody determination.
These confiscations of money and denials of your civil rights
occur routinely even if you're defending against an unwanted
divorce or custody action!
- Penalties are imposed routinely without a
finding of fault, and in fact are imposed even where no fault
is determined at the end of the case! The imposition of "child
support" awards when no factual determination has been made
that a party is unwilling to directly support their children through
direct parental involvement violates the constitution and the
law. It is the imposition of a penalty without a predicate act
of intentional or negligent harm! Further, laws asserting
a proper cause being the protection of the standard of living
of the mother, or child, post-divorce are prima-facie unconstitutional.
The child simply does not have a right to the parent’s
standard of living – this is a settled area of law and has been
for many, many years. Second, and once again, even if this
was constitutional in order for such a law to be valid
you would first have to find that the parent(s) involved
were unwilling to support the children directly, in their
household, at that standard of living before you confiscated their
earnings. Since in fact no such finding has ever been rendered,
it is ludicrous to suggest that such laws are constitutional,
as they are nothing other than a flat confiscation of money when
no predicate offense – civil or criminal - has occurred!
- To the extent that child support awards are
in excess of one half of the child’s actual needs, they constitute
the imposition of a punitive damage award payable to the custodial
parent! Current child-support awards are prima-facie unconstitutional
as nearly all divorces today are rendered in a "no fault" mode.
That is, while you do sue for divorce, you do not in fact prove
that the other party did anything wrong! For the court to award
damages when no fault has first been established is a flat
violation of the law and Constitution. To attempt to dodge
this truth by a flat claim that such funds are "for
the children", when no requirement exists to actually
spend the funds on the children, no input into disbursement of
those funds is permitted, and no audit may be called upon the
parent receiving the funds, is simply a lie.
- No family court in the land can point to
an actual, scientific, peer-reviewed study which supports their
findings that the "guidelines" used in computing child support
are appropriate. In fact, such studies are not, to the best
of my knowledge, available to the public anywhere. No legislature
has published the results of any they have commissioned and no
judge can cite facts and figures supporting their awards. This
fact moves virtually all of the child support award into the category
of an arbitrary punitive damage award – levied against the non-custodial
parent – who has not been adjudicated to have committed any wrong!
- When a parent is removed as a full joint custodian
of their children without a finding of criminal conduct, under
criminal standards of proof, their civil rights and those of
their children have been violated. It is important to
remember that no court can award custody. A Judge can only
remove custody. When two parents come to divorce court
they are both joint custodians of their children, in fact and
in law. The court is powerless to award something that is
already vested in each of the parents! Under our system of
government a court may not remove your civil rights – of which
parenting is one – without a finding that you have first committed
a criminal offense. Yet this very act happens every single day
in our family courts across the country! This act of removal
of a civil right when the parties to the lawsuit have both admitted
that no wrongdoing has occurred – when the divorce is being granted
under "no fault" – is a prima-facie violation of the Constitution
and the non-custodial parent’s civil rights. Far worse, the
children - who did not ask for the divorce and are not party to
the proceedings - are treated worse than the family dog!
- Laws must apply equally to all citizens.
Yet they do not. Fully 85 to 93% of the cases coming before the
court end with primary custody vesting in the mother, depending
on where in the country you happen to live. There is not
one state in the Union where a father has a full, fair, 50/50
shake in this litigation. If the same standards were applied
based on the color of one’s skin there would be – and in the past
have been – riots in the streets. Police officers have been jailed
for showing less bias than this. Yet it is practiced daily
in our family courts and absolutely nothing is done. It is so
bad that most family-law attorneys advise their male clients not
to even bother trying to get primary or joint custody if their
soon-to-be-ex-wife objects.
There were many other violations of rights
that I witnessed – both against myself and others – in the 18 months
that I was involved in "active combat" during my divorce. However,
these are more than enough to fuel the fire within me to support,
protect, and defend my country and its Constitution.
I have learned one thing from all of this - the
family court system is unjust and wrong. It is unconstitutional, does
not obey the precept of due process, and it is impermissibly biased
against men. This system removes civil rights from men and children
every single day, without prior adjudication of fault, and without,
in many cases, even a right to confront the witnesses against them.
The legislators and senators who make the laws,
along with the Governors and Presidents who sign them, are the ones
responsible for the financial and emotional rape served upon the men
and children of this nation each and every day in these courts.
I have dedicated my life to fixing this system
and holding those legislators, senators, governors and presidents
accountable.
If it takes me the next 50 years of lobbying,
writing letters, filing lawsuits and working to vote out of office
each and every lawmaker who refuses to stand up with me and work to
resolve these injustices then so be it. I will NOT give up, I will
NOT stop, and I will NOT cower under the bridge.
This country was founded my men and women brave enough
to stand up and say in a loud voice "enough!" The time has
come to say it again.
Join with me in doing so. Make a difference.
Speak for equality under the law, as well as both the rights of children
and their parents.
Karl@denninger.net
Karl S. Denninger
28 Riverside Drive
Deerfield,
IL 60015
|