The Lawyers.com Law Forums will be shutting down on June 30, 2017. We encourage you to resolve any outstanding discussions prior to that time. If you have any questions about this change, please email info@martindale.com.

History of these "secret courts"

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post Wed, Mar 1 2017 10:01 PM by Dave381. 32 replies.
  • Fri, Feb 24 2017 9:19 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    >>So this is all just generalized ranting, and you're not going to provide any specific facts about any particular case.  Got it.<<

    It's not ranting, it's a question.  And it is a general question, not one about any specific case.

    >>Why there weren't immediate challenges:  because having specialized courts that are devoted to particular types of proceedings is almost universally considered a good idea (for example, just as there are specialized family and probate courts, there are also specialized criminal courts).  In other words, there was nothing to challenge.<<

    That answers half the question.  Having specialized courts is a good idea if there are lots of cases falling into a certain legal subcategory.

    >>Where you run into a problem is when you allege "that [these courts] don't have to follow the Constitution."  Of course they do.  Just because isolated constitutional violations occur (and I can assure you that they occur in EVERY type of court, whether it be a specialized court like probate or family court or whether it be general civil or criminal court) doesn't mean that the courts are set up such that they don't have to follow the Constitution.  The very notion is absurd.<<

    NO, THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!  And this is because no one is watching these courts!  They are closed to the public, evidence is mishandled, judges throw out evidence because they feel like it (or because their county won't get Title IV funds if the parents win their case), testimony is not allowed from some witnesses, etc.  This happens CONSTANTLY, not just once in a while and by mistake.

    You didn't like the links I gave before, so just Google "CPS corruption" of "Family Court corruption" or "CPS false accusations" or "Elder medical kidnapping" to see the stories.

    I understand that a lot of people are not aware that these separate courts do these things.  Most of us believe that children or elders are taken from their parents or desired caregivers due to actual abuse or neglect. I didn't know it myself until I was looking into men's issues in divorce, and found out what Title-IV of the Social Security Act is and what it's about, and then discovered the sinister uses it is put to by these courts.

    There's things going on in this world that people don't know about unless it's in the daily paper or on the six o'clock news on a regular basis.  This particular issue is not in the news all the time.  People have to be pointed to this information.

    Educate yourselves about these things, and then get back to this thread.  Thanks.

  • Fri, Feb 24 2017 9:33 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Here, this might help.  It's a story about how, among other things, CPS tried to kidnap the children of the attorney who was defending the mother against false CPS accustations:

    State CPS takes attorney's kids in retaliation for defending mother without evidence !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBLhzIOuHEk

  • Fri, Feb 24 2017 10:22 PM In reply to

    • DOCAR
      Lawyer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Sat, Dec 9 2000
    • NV
    • Posts 5,478

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Oh I forgot, if it is on the internet it has to be true.

  • Sat, Feb 25 2017 12:02 AM In reply to

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Dave381:
    Allowing social workers and police to break into people's homes and steal their children without a warrant, based only on some baloney a social worker wrote on a piece of paper (violates Fourth Amendment--unreasonable search and seizure, without probable cause or evidence that a crime has taken place.)

    Can you provide evidence of where this has actually occurred, and more significantly, that this is something routine in these courts and not isolated instances? I have never seen in the courts of any state where I practice where the courts “allowed” the police and/or social workers to “break into people’s homes and steal their children.” The very language you use colors the discussion. Instead of describing the facts of what happened you are charactering the acts as “breaking in” and “stealing” without offering any support for that. I strongly suspect you are using the inflammatory language that appears on some web sites that are strongly opposed to the current child protection system and parroting those rather than having any real basis for the claim. You cannot simply believe every site you see. Any site that uses inflammatory language like that and that cannot back it up with facts should raise red flags for you. Again, you might be tempted to believe them because their positions more closely match yours, but simply believing something that seems appealing to you does not help you learn anything.

    Dave381:
    Allowing police to deprive a man of the right to his own home that he paid for, based only on what his wife said, and not allowing the man to have a hearing where he can present evidence and testimony of his own first (violates 14th Amendment, both due process and equal protection of the laws, as the woman gets to stay in the house and he doesn't.)

    That’s pretty vague. What exactly are you talking about, i.e. in what circumstances does it occur? Can you provide any evidence that what you describe happens routinely? Can you provide proof that it is only men who are ever excluded from the home (and I can tell you right now that is not the case)? You do understand that in some instances where there is a need for immediate action the police can act and the due process (court hearings, etc) occurs later, right? There is nothing necessarily unconstitutional about that. The details matter.

    Dave381:
    Not allowing parents whose kids have been seized to know who reported them to CPS and why (violates 6th amendment--right to face accusers.)

    The reason for confidentiality of reports to CPS is to prevent retaliation against those reporting to CPS. But even with those statutes, the reports can be made available to parents in some circumstances in child removal proceedings. Again, details matter. Your assertion that it violates the 6th Amendment, however, is wrong on two counts. First, the Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser only applies in criminal prosecutions. Child removal proceedings are civil actions and thus this right does not apply. Second, the right to confront the accuser means a right to confront (i.e. cross-examine) those who testify against them at the trial. If the person who made the CPS report is not going to testify for the state, there is no need for parent to confront them because that person’s testimony is not being used against them.

    Dave381:
    Having state laws that say parents whose children have been seized will have a hearing within 72 hours, then saying there's no room on the docket, and dragging it out for months (violates 6th amendment right to a speedy trial.)

    That may be a violation of the state law (and again actual details matter, including exactly what the law is in the given state). But once again, you are mistaken in saying that it violates the 6th Amendment. The right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment only applies to criminal proceedings, not civil matters. As these proceedings are civil, the constituional right to a speedy trial does not apply to them. Note, too, that quite often the reason that these cases are delayed is because the parent seeks delay to prepare their case and to try to work things out with CPS before going to trial. 

    Dave381:
    Parents in CPS or spousal custody cases are not allowed to tell the news media or post on social media the facts of their case and ask for help, lest they be threatened or jailed (Violates 1st Amendment--freedom of speech.)

    Can you provide specific examples of that and, importantly, provide any evidence that this is rountinely done, as you seem to assert? Gag orders are not all that common in the courts in the states in which I practice, including family matters, so at least where I practice your claim is not true.

    Dave381:
    Allowing hearsay evidence in court (violates 6th Amendment--parents and/or fathers cannot cross-examine hearsay, thereby denying the right to face their accuser(s).)

    The Constitution does not expressly bar hearsay evidence. The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence law. Every state has an evidence code, and many of them share similar rules on hearsay (often following the federal rules of evidence). Those rules tend to apply in all the courts in the state except in some states small claims type proceedings are excluded and have simplified rules. Hearsay is not what most of the public thinks it is. While the general rule is that hearsay is not admissible, there are exceptions to that. The rules can get a bit complex, which again most nonlawyers will not understand. The bottom line here is that in no state I'm familiar with is there some special set of evidence rules for family law courts that treat hearsay significantly different than in any other court. So I’m not buying either your claim that hearsay (as that is defined in the law) is treated somehow differently or that the way it is handled violates the Constitution. Perhaps if you provide some details of what kinds of statements are being allowed it would help advance the discusison.

    Dave381:
    Family courts, under CPS suggestion, order parents to cooperate with CPS and to sign releases of private medical and psychiatric information. They are told if they do not sign they will lose their children (violates 5th Amendment right not to be a witness or have to incriminate oneself.)

    I suspect this too is mischaracterized. Where a court has made a finding of abuse or serious neglect of a child, the court will, with input from CPS, often order a plan designed to help cure the abuse or neglect problems. If the parent refuses to go along with that plan then the court may very well terminate the parent’s rights as the parent is not demonstrating that he or she wishes to provide a safe home for their child. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. 

    As part of an investigation they might ask parents for private medical information, especially the medical information for the kids. Failure to provide that information can have negative consequences in the court proceedings. This is not unique to child removal proceedings. It can occur in any kind of civil case. 

    Your claim that it violates the Fifth Amendment, however, is once again misplaced. The Fifth Amendment is a testimonial privilege. It permits one to refuse to answer questions if the answer might implicate them in a crime. It does not, however, shield the person from having medical records (or any other kinds of records) created by and held by others used against them since (1) the statements in those medical records are not testimonial statements made by patient; they are the records of the medical professional or facility that treated them and (2) those records are almost never going to implicate a person in a crime. 

    Dave381:
    Allowing CPS to imprison children in state facilities or foster homes where they don't want to be, without good reason (Violates 14th Amendment right to life and liberty that cannot be taken away without due process of law.)

    Once again, you are using inflammtory language — imprison — that does not accurately reflect what is going on. Minor children do not have a right to decide where they are going to live. That decision is made in the usual course of things by their parents. No one accuses a parent of imprisoning their kids simply because the kid for whatever reason wants to live someplace else. CPS has to place kids someplace else if the parent’s home is unsafe. This decision is not made without due process of law. I get the impression you are tossing around the term “due process” without knowing what it actually means. Kids are not placed in state facilities or foster homes without there first being a court proceeding — due process — to determine that it is appropriate to do so. Kids may be removed from the home temporarily if the home environment poses a serious risk of harm to the child without first going to court, but then court proceedings are held shortly thereafter. I'm going to bet you do not have any evidence that courts routinely allow kids to be placed into foster homes or state facilities for any significant period of time without there being court proceedings to ensure that it is appropriate.

    It is of course possible to find isolated examples where CPS, police, and/or the courts have screwed up and violated the constitution. Do not make the mistake of assuming that because a few such cases exist that it means it happens all the time. It's like running red lights. We know some people do sometimes run a red light. But that fact does not logically allow for a conclusion that all people run red lights or that even most people run red lights. So don’t fall into that logical trap. Some sites out there will point to a few bad cases and then try to use that to imply that those cases are the norm to advance their agenda. You ought to be wary of folks who employ that misuse of logic. 

  • Sat, Feb 25 2017 3:07 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    DOCAR:

    Oh I forgot, if it is on the internet it has to be true.

    If you'd have looked at the video, which you obviously did not, you'd see that it is a broadcast of an investigation done by WLKY Target 32 News in Louisville, Kentucky.  It's not "just some ranting someone posted on the Internet"

     

  • Sat, Feb 25 2017 4:49 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Taxagent:
    Can you provide evidence of where this has actually occurred, and more significantly, that this is something routine in these courts and not isolated instances?

    Again, stories abound online.  Follow the links I gave above, or simply Google the search terms I gave above.

    Taxagent:

    Dave381:
    Allowing police to deprive a man of the right to his own home that he paid for, based only on what his wife said, and not allowing the man to have a hearing where he can present evidence and testimony of his own first (violates 14th Amendment, both due process and equal protection of the laws, as the woman gets to stay in the house and he doesn't.)

    That’s pretty vague. What exactly are you talking about, i.e. in what circumstances does it occur? Can you provide any evidence that what you describe happens routinely? Can you provide proof that it is only men who are ever excluded from the home (and I can tell you right now that is not the case)? You do understand that in some instances where there is a need for immediate action the police can act and the due process (court hearings, etc) occurs later, right? There is nothing necessarily unconstitutional about that. The details matter.

    The circumstances are 1) Woman goes to court to get a restraining order. 2) Police show up and, without doing any investigation, give the man 15 minutes or so to pack a few things and get out.

    No, it is not only men who are excluded from the home.  But it usually is men. And if there was a need for immediate action, the police would be able to see that when they get there.

    Taxagent:
    The reason for confidentiality of reports to CPS is to prevent retaliation against those reporting to CPS. But even with those statutes, the reports can be made available to parents in some circumstances in child removal proceedings.

    Not only do parents in CPS actions not know who reported them or what was said, many times they don't even know what the scummy social worker wrote in the report.

    Taxagent:
    Your assertion that it violates the 6th Amendment, however, is wrong on two counts. First, the Sixth Amendment right to confront an accuser only applies in criminal prosecutions. Child removal proceedings are civil actions and thus this right does not apply.

    And this is a huge, glaring problem.  Child Abuse is CRIMINAL act, but here it is being dealt with in a CIVIL court.  See the problem?

    Taxagent:
    Can you provide specific examples of that and, importantly, provide any evidence that this is rountinely done, as you seem to assert? Gag orders are not all that common in the courts in the states in which I practice, including family matters, so at least where I practice your claim is not true.

    Again, there are stories everywhere.  The video link I posted immediately above, the newscaster states that the TV station had to go to court just to be able to air the story, because the family court was trying to bar them from doing so.

    Google "Melissa Diegel" from Arizona.  She had posted all over Facebook what happened with her and her two daughters due to CPS and a lying doctor.  She was court ordered to remove her online postings.  Since she lost her parental rights, she has come back with some new postings, however  MedicalKidnap.com, which covers many CPS and evil elderly guardian stories, will not take down the information already posted, as they are not party to the case (not that courts haven't tried to get them to do so.)

    Arizona, on average, steals a child every 40 minutes, and can't seem to explain why:

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/01/22/arizona-department-child-safety-why-kids-taken-away-too-often-answer-unknown/96539080/

    You can read other stories on MedicalKidnap.com about this.  Or you can Google "CPS gag order" and read all sorts of stories there.  You can't accuse everyone on the Internet of lying about this.

    Taxagent:
    The Constitution does not expressly bar hearsay evidence. The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence law. Every state has an evidence code, and many of them share similar rules on hearsay (often following the federal rules of evidence).

    OK, hearsay may not be expressly barred by the Constitution.  But parents still are denied the right to face and question their accusers.

    There may be no official exceptions for hearsay for the family courts.  But the judges don't care, because no one is watching them and they are getting a piece of the Title IV money.

    Taxagent:

    Dave381:
    Family courts, under CPS suggestion, order parents to cooperate with CPS and to sign releases of private medical and psychiatric information. They are told if they do not sign they will lose their children (violates 5th Amendment right not to be a witness or have to incriminate oneself.)

    I suspect this too is mischaracterized. Where a court has made a finding of abuse or serious neglect of a child, the court will, with input from CPS, often order a plan designed to help cure the abuse or neglect problems. If the parent refuses to go along with that plan then the court may very well terminate the parent’s rights as the parent is not demonstrating that he or she wishes to provide a safe home for their child. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.

    Parents are being charged with a criminal act (child abuse), and are having to release information protected under the 5th Amendment.  Also, these "findings" are made by a CPS worker writing something on a piece of paper or saying something in court, and the judge just goes along with it.

    Taxagent:

    Dave381:
    Allowing CPS to imprison children in state facilities or foster homes where they don't want to be, without good reason (Violates 14th Amendment right to life and liberty that cannot be taken away without due process of law.)

    Once again, you are using inflammtory language — imprison — that does not accurately reflect what is going on. Minor children do not have a right to decide where they are going to live. That decision is made in the usual course of things by their parents.

    You're using semantics. A foster home or state shelter, and a prison may not be the same thing, but they ultimately have the same effect--removing someone's liberty.  And you can't just say that minors have absolutely no rights under the Constitution.  If that were the case, people could do all kinds of things to minors and get away with it--things I won't mention here because they're too disgusting.

    Taxagent:
    Kids may be removed from the home temporarily if the home environment poses a serious risk of harm to the child without first going to court, but then court proceedings are held shortly thereafter. I'm going to bet you do not have any evidence that courts routinely allow kids to be placed into foster homes or state facilities for any significant period of time without there being court proceedings to ensure that it is appropriate.

    The problem is that many times, there IS NOT a risk of harm to the child.  The so-called harm is made up by the social worker.  And the "court proceedings" are a sham and a farce.

    Again, please look online for the examples of these things.  Use the search terms I gave you.  I cannot post every single link to a story about these things happening here.

     

  • Mon, Feb 27 2017 12:32 PM In reply to

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Dave381:
    NO, THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!

    Turn off the caps lock key.  I'm aware of all the rant posts all over the internet.  I don't assume the gospel truth of what I might read there.  I also know that folks who are satisfied with the court system rarely, if ever, post on the internet, so citing to a bunch of claims about corruption isn't especially meaningful.  I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of courts follow the consitution most of the time.  It's also worth pointing out that there's a distinction between not following the constitution in a particular case and not being required to following the constitution (which is what you've been ranting about to this point).

     

    Dave381:
    And this is because no one is watching these courts!

    Nonsense.  Do you know the number of family law cases that were reviewed by appellate courts and how many times the appellate courts reversed a lower court's ruling?  No?  Didn't think so.

     

    Dave381:
    They are closed to the public

    No, they're not (at least not in most cases).

     

    Dave381:
    evidence is mishandled, judges throw out evidence because they feel like it (or because their county won't get Title IV funds if the parents win their case), testimony is not allowed from some witnesses, etc.  This happens CONSTANTLY, not just once in a while and by mistake.

    Ok.  Cite me something RELIABLE and NEUTRAL that discusses the frequency with which this happens.  Just because you say it happens "constantly" doesn't make it so.

     

    Dave381:
    You didn't like the links I gave before, so just Google "CPS corruption" of "Family Court corruption" or "CPS false accusations" or "Elder medical kidnapping" to see the stories.

    If you want to change the minds of those who disagree with you, telling such persons to "do your own research" is a piss poor way to go about it.

  • Mon, Feb 27 2017 12:33 PM In reply to

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    And it's ONE ISOLATED incident.  What about the tens of thousands of cases in which nothing improper happened?

  • Mon, Feb 27 2017 5:52 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    ca19lawyer2:

    And it's ONE ISOLATED incident.  What about the tens of thousands of cases in which nothing improper happened?

    One isolated incident?  I gave you links to several incidents.

  • Mon, Feb 27 2017 6:55 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    ca19lawyer2:
    I'm aware of all the rant posts all over the internet.  I don't assume the gospel truth of what I might read there.

    Too many people are posting their stories online for this to be only happening occasionally.  And that doesn't even include the parents who said nothing because they were given an unconstitutional gag order to so so.

    ca19lawyer2:
    It's also worth pointing out that there's a distinction between not following the constitution in a particular case and not being required to following the constitution

    They may have official, written rules stating they need to follow the Constitution, but because there's no one to put a foot in their rears when they don't, they simply don't.  They want that federal money.

    ca19lawyer2:
    Do you know the number of family law cases that were reviewed by appellate courts and how many times the appellate courts reversed a lower court's ruling?  No?  Didn't think so.

    No, I don't have a total number of these cases.  But I know this--many parents do not have the money to pay an attorney to have an appellate court review their cases.  Especially after having to pay child support on their stolen children, pay for all the parenting classes and other stupid stipulations social workers put on parents who had their kids stolen, and of course, paying for the lawyers to fight the cases in the Family courts.  Lawyers that sometimes are bought off by the State.

    ca19lawyer2:

    Dave381:
    They are closed to the public

    No, they're not (at least not in most cases).

    "For the most part, family law hearings are open to the public. In certain cases involving minors (like guardianship hearings, adoptions, etc.), the courts will generally be closed to any but the parties involved."

    https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/are-family-court-hearings-open-to-the-public--262586.html

    And there's the rub.  Divorce proceedings might be open to the public, but when it involves CPS stealing kids, they can close it to the public.  Then the court people can do whatever they want.

    ca19lawyer2:

    Dave381:
    evidence is mishandled, judges throw out evidence because they feel like it (or because their county won't get Title IV funds if the parents win their case), testimony is not allowed from some witnesses, etc.  This happens CONSTANTLY, not just once in a while and by mistake.

    Ok.  Cite me something RELIABLE and NEUTRAL that discusses the frequency with which this happens.  Just because you say it happens "constantly" doesn't make it so.

    What is your definition of "Reliable and Neutral"?  I posted a bunch of links, and all you can say is that those stories are made up.  What do you want?  Something from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh?

    ca19lawyer2:

    Dave381:
    You didn't like the links I gave before, so just Google "CPS corruption" of "Family Court corruption" or "CPS false accusations" or "Elder medical kidnapping" to see the stories.

    If you want to change the minds of those who disagree with you, telling such persons to "do your own research" is a piss poor way to go about it.

    Again, you didn't like the links I posted, so I said you could search these terms and see for yourself.

    Here's some stuff from the American Family Rights Association.  Will this work for you?:

    http://www.fightcps.com/pdf/expose4.pdf

    http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/pdf/1218129741.pdf

    By the way, YOU are on the Internet.   Does that mean you're not to be trusted?

     

     

     


  • Mon, Feb 27 2017 8:02 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Was the late Nancy Schaefer just a liar when she worked with 300 cases of wrongly stolen children and published a report about it?

    http://fightcps.com/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

    Schaefer published this in November 2007, and was about ready to publish a more in-depth report before she wa murdered in March 2010.

  • Tue, Feb 28 2017 10:25 AM In reply to

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Dave381:

    ca19lawyer2:

    And it's ONE ISOLATED incident.  What about the tens of thousands of cases in which nothing improper happened?

    One isolated incident?  I gave you links to several incidents.

    I'll ask again:  What about the tens of thousands of cases in which nothing improper happened?

    You seem to expect us to assume that the handful of instances you have described are representative of every case that happens in every family law/probate court in every state in the country, but that's absurd on its face.

    You're either unwilling or unable to address the fact that people who are not unhappy with how the system has worked for them will not express their lack of unhappiness in the same way as those who are unhappy.  As a result, you are pulling from a pool of results that is inherently UNrepresentative of the whole.

    You also seem unwilling to consider any evidence that doesn't support your predetermined conclusion.

  • Tue, Feb 28 2017 11:57 AM In reply to

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    Dave381:
    What is your definition of "Reliable and Neutral"?  I posted a bunch of links, and all you can say is that those stories are made up.  What do you want?  Something from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh?

    I never said that anything you posted was "made up."  If you misstate what I have told you, you ruin any credibility you had to start with.  What I will tell you is that stuff from sites with urls like "fightcps.com" are not going to be viewed with any presumption of credibility.

    But you've missed the point.  I don't want anecdotes.  Are there cases in which folks have gotten hosed?  Of course.  Are there times when the public officials involved have violated the Constitution or behaved corruptly.  Again, of course.

    You are arguing that EVERY court in EVERY county in EVERY state is full of nothing but corrupt people who "steal" children.  This claim is so broad and all-encompassing as to be obviously bull manure.  However, I'm open to seeing evidence to support this.  Even a couple dozen isolated examples -- and even if those examples are construed in a manner most favorable to your argument -- it doesn't support th sweeping generalizations you are making.  I'm looking for some sort of reliable evidence of the widespread corruption you are claiming, and a few isolated examples don't cut it for that purpose.

  • Tue, Feb 28 2017 2:55 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    ca19lawyer2:

    I'll ask again:  What about the tens of thousands of cases in which nothing improper happened?

    You seem to expect us to assume that the handful of instances you have described are representative of every case that happens in every family law/probate court in every state in the country, but that's absurd on its face.

     

    I never said that justice wasn't always served in courts.  Some people do win their cases and everything is fine.  But that doesn't seem to happen much in these "secret courts".  There is Federal money involved that they want, and many times they will go around the law to get it.

    ca19lawyer2:
    You're either unwilling or unable to address the fact that people who are not unhappy with how the system has worked for them will not express their lack of unhappiness in the same way as those who are unhappy.  As a result, you are pulling from a pool of results that is inherently UNrepresentative of the whole.

    I understand that people for whom justice was served won't talk badly of the court.  

    You talk about the "handful of instances" I've posted.  I cannot post every single instance here on Lawyers.com.  You know that.   But with 250K to 300K children being kidnapped by CPS every year, that definitely screams of a problem.

    ca19lawyer2:
    You also seem unwilling to consider any evidence that doesn't support your predetermined conclusion.

    Evidence such as.............?

  • Tue, Feb 28 2017 3:18 PM In reply to

    • Dave381
      Consumer
    • Top 150 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Jul 29 2008
    • MO
    • Posts 370

    Re: History of these "secret courts"

    ca19lawyer2:
    I never said that anything you posted was "made up."  If you misstate what I have told you, you ruin any credibility you had to start with.  What I will tell you is that stuff from sites with urls like "fightcps.com" are not going to be viewed with any presumption of credibility

    Why do you think people put up sites like that (these sites then have other people all over the country post to them with similar stories?)  Just for something to do to entertain themselves?

    ca19lawyer2:
    But you've missed the point.  I don't want anecdotes.  Are there cases in which folks have gotten hosed?  Of course.  Are there times when the public officials involved have violated the Constitution or behaved corruptly.  Again, of course.

    I can't travel to every single county-level courthouse and look up all the cases where this has happened.  Even if I could, I wouldn't get all the information, because these courts keep many of these records away from the public, saying it's to "protect the children".  All we have is the Internet.  And even the Internet doesn't always have the full story of most cases, due to gag orders by the courts.  I know you like to say that most everything on the Internet is just "garbage", but that's not the case.

    ca19lawyer2:
    You are arguing that EVERY court in EVERY county in EVERY state is full of nothing but corrupt people who "steal" children.  This claim is so broad and all-encompassing as to be obviously bull manure.  However, I'm open to seeing evidence to support this.  Even a couple dozen isolated examples -- and even if those examples are construed in a manner most favorable to your argument -- it doesn't support th sweeping generalizations you are making.  I'm looking for some sort of reliable evidence of the widespread corruption you are claiming, and a few isolated examples don't cut it for that purpose.

    You're creating a false dichotomy here.  Not EVERY court or individual within these courts is corrupt.  But many are.  You're trying to defend one part of the false dichotomy--that there's no true evidence of these things happening, therefore it never happens, or happens very seldom.

     

Page 2 of 3 (33 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS

My Community

Community Membership Search Community