I’ll post the same comment here as I posted at proteinwisdom (sorry for being cheesy, but my "the internets" time is somewhat limited):
He should appeal to the Supreme Court of Mass. State supreme courts will and do hear cases out of family courts and overturn the decisions fairly often (at least, here in New Hampshire they do)--which maybe accounts for the fact that SCOTUS hasn’t been hearing a lot of custody cases: they get resolved in appeal at the state level.
My amature opinion of what’s wrong with family court and law: 1} It’s not held to the same standard as criminal law. In criminal court if I accuse someone of a crime, I have to be able to prove the charge I make--the defendant’s innocence is presumed. However, in family court if I accuse someone of some sort of wrong-doing (abuse, drug use, etc), it’s up to the defendant to prove that they are innocent--innocence isn’t truly presumed with the practical effect of women all too often playing the victim card, whether they are really a victim or not.
2} There is no right to an attorney as there is in criminal court. If you don’t have lots of money or a good understanding of the law, you most likely won’t come out well after a visit to family court. This works against both men and women.
3}There is no trial by jury--so one bad/prejudiced judge/master (see #4, below) can result in a very bad and very binding decision.
4} Family court in some (most? all?) states has “marital masters”, who aren’t really judges and aren’t trained in jurisprudence to the same standard as a judge. So going to family court is often like buying a ticket to a major leage game only to see little league take the field.
Seth Williams - 01:03pm on 03/27/2006
Ironically, the impoundment of the book illustrates brilliantly what is wrong with family law. Begin with a "preponderance of evidence" standard (or, as Robert108 notes, "the ex-wife is always right", continue to deprive a man of his rights of fatherhood, seal the evidence, and then impound a book which dares to violate the court order sealing the proceedings.
Now what the author can do is slightly modify his book to not refer to the actual case, but rather the proceedings which banned his first book.
Robert Perry - 01:03pm on 03/27/2006
...or modify the book enough that it plausibly (I’m sure I spelled that wrong) doesn’t refer to his case specifically.
Seth Williams - 02:03pm on 03/27/2006
Convert the book to PDF and post it on numerous websites around the world. Sure, no one will make any money, but the Massachusetts family courts don’t have any jurisdiction in other countries. Plus I’m sure it would really piss them off.
Steve - 03:03pm on 03/27/2006
The book must be burned.
The Whistler - 03:03pm on 03/27/2006
You can grab a copy of the PDF at:
http://www.lulu.com/content/198514
Andy - 04:03pm on 03/27/2006
Did that Shifer article really say that a state gets Federal funding ("bonuses" ??) simply because they got someone to owe another someone money? WhY? What is the listed reason for this?
If the state can claim they maintain the highways through their state tehn teh Fed may be inclined to give tehm some help, sure. If the state can prove that the father is blowing off his payments, then the mother should get her money from somewhere, enter the Fed (I suppose).
But to get bonuses simply for assigning the award? Is there a simple explanation for this? Or did I miss something? Thanks.
Tom_with_a_Dream - 05:03pm on 03/27/2006
Oh, and I never tire of reading about Jay Tea’s Massholes over at another blog.
Tom_with_a_Dream - 06:03pm on 03/27/2006
I have to say Seth is dead on here with the appelate thing. In my situation we had a judge that clearly had his mind made up before we walked in the door and as I stated earlier (another post) statement in open court, that maybe he was old fashioned but he just thinks kids belong with their mother’s. This judge then basically dared my attorney to appeal when she pointed out statute in Arizona that states that gender can not be used for the basis of judgement. Not only was he overturned but the appelate court ordered that another judge hear the case.
The two things I learned from this experience is that the family courts are out of control and very few understand how they work, I thoroughly believe that more than half of the decisions made in family court in almost any state would be overturned on appeal, at least it did in my case and my brother both in Arizona and because in both cases the judge let gender weigh heavily in their decisions.
Second always no matter what the cost have a court reporter in the court room. In my case we had to pay for it annd it was worth every penny the appealate opinion in my situation was based almost entirely on the review what the judge said and what my ex said on the stand.
In the book case I am almost positive that this is not in the perview of the family courts.
richard - 04:03am on 03/28/2006
If anyone here has a copy, or is willing to give me a copy of this book,
Please email me this book. I would love to read it.
"Corruption in Massachusetts Family courts"
I am presently going to court having to fight false claims of abuse here in Ottawa.
I’ll post the same comment here as I posted at proteinwisdom (sorry for being cheesy, but my "the internets" time is somewhat limited):
He should appeal to the Supreme Court of Mass. State supreme courts will and do hear cases out of family courts and overturn the decisions fairly often (at least, here in New Hampshire they do)--which maybe accounts for the fact that SCOTUS hasn’t been hearing a lot of custody cases: they get resolved in appeal at the state level.
My amature opinion of what’s wrong with family court and law:
1} It’s not held to the same standard as criminal law. In criminal court if I accuse someone of a crime, I have to be able to prove the charge I make--the defendant’s innocence is presumed. However, in family court if I accuse someone of some sort of wrong-doing (abuse, drug use, etc), it’s up to the defendant to prove that they are innocent--innocence isn’t truly presumed with the practical effect of women all too often playing the victim card, whether they are really a victim or not.
2} There is no right to an attorney as there is in criminal court. If you don’t have lots of money or a good understanding of the law, you most likely won’t come out well after a visit to family court. This works against both men and women.
3}There is no trial by jury--so one bad/prejudiced judge/master (see #4, below) can result in a very bad and very binding decision.
4} Family court in some (most? all?) states has “marital masters”, who aren’t really judges and aren’t trained in jurisprudence to the same standard as a judge. So going to family court is often like buying a ticket to a major leage game only to see little league take the field.
Ironically, the impoundment of the book illustrates brilliantly what is wrong with family law. Begin with a "preponderance of evidence" standard (or, as Robert108 notes, "the ex-wife is always right"
, continue to deprive a man of his rights of fatherhood, seal the evidence, and then impound a book which dares to violate the court order sealing the proceedings.
Now what the author can do is slightly modify his book to not refer to the actual case, but rather the proceedings which banned his first book.
...or modify the book enough that it plausibly (I’m sure I spelled that wrong) doesn’t refer to his case specifically.
Convert the book to PDF and post it on numerous websites around the world. Sure, no one will make any money, but the Massachusetts family courts don’t have any jurisdiction in other countries. Plus I’m sure it would really piss them off.
The book must be burned.
You can grab a copy of the PDF at:
http://www.lulu.com/content/198514
Did that Shifer article really say that a state gets Federal funding ("bonuses" ??) simply because they got someone to owe another someone money? WhY? What is the listed reason for this?
If the state can claim they maintain the highways through their state tehn teh Fed may be inclined to give tehm some help, sure. If the state can prove that the father is blowing off his payments, then the mother should get her money from somewhere, enter the Fed (I suppose).
But to get bonuses simply for assigning the award? Is there a simple explanation for this? Or did I miss something? Thanks.
Oh, and I never tire of reading about Jay Tea’s Massholes over at another blog.
I have to say Seth is dead on here with the appelate thing. In my situation we had a judge that clearly had his mind made up before we walked in the door and as I stated earlier (another post) statement in open court, that maybe he was old fashioned but he just thinks kids belong with their mother’s. This judge then basically dared my attorney to appeal when she pointed out statute in Arizona that states that gender can not be used for the basis of judgement. Not only was he overturned but the appelate court ordered that another judge hear the case.
The two things I learned from this experience is that the family courts are out of control and very few understand how they work, I thoroughly believe that more than half of the decisions made in family court in almost any state would be overturned on appeal, at least it did in my case and my brother both in Arizona and because in both cases the judge let gender weigh heavily in their decisions.
Second always no matter what the cost have a court reporter in the court room. In my case we had to pay for it annd it was worth every penny the appealate opinion in my situation was based almost entirely on the review what the judge said and what my ex said on the stand.
In the book case I am almost positive that this is not in the perview of the family courts.
If anyone here has a copy, or is willing to give me a copy of this book,
Please email me this book. I would love to read it.
"Corruption in Massachusetts Family courts"
I am presently going to court having to fight false claims of abuse here in Ottawa.