Today by mail, I received notice that my recently released book, “Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts” was officially banned. I received an Order of Impoundment and a Temporary Restraining Order. My custody case and a DSS report, which substantiate the crimes that I have experienced, was impounded until 2021.
Manzi’s rationale is that “impoundment is necessary to protect the best interests including the privacy interests of the parties’ minor child.
Comment: What privacy interests of my son have been compromised and whose interests are being protected other than the self-serving interests of Judge Manzi, Judge Digangi, and the three judges in appeals court who don’t want their crimes to be exposed?
Manzi’s second argument is that “no harm will be caused to the community interest by impounding this file.”
Comment: 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.
I am not at all familiar with this case and it is worth mentioning that the above description of events is Mr. Thompson's version, but still it sounds pretty fishy to me.
Jeff Goldstein has more, including this spot-on comment:
Interesting that the “banning” of the book is tied to privacy rights of a child—you don’t, for instance (and perhaps this is a bad analogy) see such concerns evident in movie of the week versions of little girls in Utah who are abducted and later found with bearded crazies in Utah—so one aspect of this story I’d like to ask about (particularly those with experience either in law or in the family courts) is does this injunction make legal sense?
You'd think the fact that Mr. Thompson is writing about his own son thus should be able to weigh the privacy considerations at play here.
This from a recent Phyllis Schlafly column (via The Whistler in the comments to my earlier father's rights post) is also worth noting:
When a married couple with children is divorced, the family court typically renames the husband and wife as noncustodial and custodial parents. The more time with the children that is awarded to the custodial parent, the more money the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay and then can be reported by the state as collections that merit federal bonuses.
Federal funding thus provides powerful monetary incentives for states to maximize the number of single-parent households with high transfer payments, and to minimize equal child custody which would lessen transfer payments. Depriving or reducing children's access to one parent is thus a source of revenue for states.
These incentives drive family court discretion and skew the opinions of the vast army of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, and parenting counselors who are used to rationalize the process. They hide their predetermined custody rulings under the subjective slogan "the best interest of the child."
Put another way, forcibly depriving children of access to one parent, usually the father because he usually has a higher income than the mother, is a big source of revenue to states. The more support orders that are issued, the higher they are, and the more fathers who are threatened with jail and suspension of their driver's and professional licenses for challenging the system, the better chance a state will receive more money from the federal government.
Kind if sickening, isn't it?
Read the whole thing.