|John W. Knight, III
25712 Highplains Terrace
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Plaintiffs in Propria Persona
TO DEFENDANTS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and all interested parties, comes now Plaintiffs John W. Knight, Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto, and all fathers of California who are Members of the Class, and move this Court for a preliminary order enjoining Defendants from continuing to deprive Plaintiffs of basic numerous God-given fundamental Constitutional rights, and to immediately return the minor Plaintiff Children kidnapped from Plaintiff Fathers, to avert their further abuse, and to protect them from further danger at the hand of and by acts of Defendants. This motion is predicated upon the voluminous credible statistical evidence from the State of California which proves that Defendants have removed 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy from Plaintiffs and placed them into fatherless households where, relative to children of father-headed households, they are at substantial and serious risk to an array of social, emotional, educational, moral, religious, ungodly, and economic disadvantages, hereinafter described.
This Court has jurisdiction, and Plaintiff brings this action to enforce his fundamental Constitutionally secured liberties, under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985 (2) & (3), 1986 and 1988; as aforesaid sections are declaratory of the common law; the U.S. Constitution (1789) First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments; the Restrictive and Declaratory clauses to the U.S. Constitution (commonly referred to as the "Bill of Rights"), the statute of 1776 (commonly referred to as the Declaration of Independence),and its declaratory Liberty, Property and Pursuit of Happiness Clauses of said Declaration under God; the Magna Charta; Article III, Sections 1 & 2 (which does not mandate the exclusion of domestic relations cases from the federal court jurisdiction) of the U.S. Constitution; 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 (a); 28 U.S.C. 1343 (1), (2) & (3); 28 U.S.C. 1391 (a); 28 U.S.C. 2284; Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution as it regards to treaties, specifically the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 1-13,16-20,25,30 as adopted by the 50 united states.
This cause also arises under The Federal Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. � 3, 4, 5, 9, 241, 242, 247, 371, 1073, 1383, 1503, 1621, 1622, 1623, 2381 and 2382 as said codes are declaratory of the common law.
In Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 255, Mitchum, DBA Book Mart v. Foster et al. On appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, No. 70-27, argued December 13, 1971 decided June 19, 1972 the United States Supreme Court held that 28 U.S.C. 2283, which is an absolute bar to injunctions against State Court proceedings in most suits, does not apply to a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 seeking an injunction of State proceedings." Plaintiffs are clearly seeking not only a temporary restraining order but a "permanent injunction" against the State of California to cease all actions, including kidnapping and slavery under the Family Law Act. Thus the United States District Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
18 U.S.C. � 3231 clearly establishes the jurisdiction of this court:
"The district court of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States" Plaintiff alleges that the actions of the Defendants violated Federal Criminal Codes and therefore are offenses against the laws of the United States."
The district court of the United States, Central District of California has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. � 3237 (a), which states:
"Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in on district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed."
"For any offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any United States magistrate, or by any chancellor, judge or a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of the common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any state where the offender may be found, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned or released as provided in Chapter 207 of this title, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense. Copies of the process shall be returned as speedily as may be into the office of the clerk of such court, together with the recognizances of the witnesses for their appearances to testify in the case." 18 U.S.C. 18 U.S.C. 3041.
The United States Magistrate has jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871 which was never repealed and clearly places the redress by citizens for deprivation of rights in Federal Jurisdiction. Original "arising under" jurisdiction, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, was vested in the Federal Courts by Sec. 11 of the Act of Feb. 13, 1801, 2 Stat. 92, but was repealed only a year later by Sec. 1 of the Act of Mar. 8, 1802, C. 8, 2 Stat. 132. It was not until 1875 that Congress granted the Federal Courts "Original Cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States " Act of Mar. 3, 1975, Sec. 1, 18 Stat. 470. The jurisdiction amount has since been raised from $500 to $2,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1887, Sec. 1, 24 Stat. 552; to $3,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1911, Sec. 24, 36 Stat. 1091; and to $10,000 by the Act of July 25, 1058, 72 Stat. 415. The provision is now codified as 28 U.S.C. 1331(A). The only exception was Sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 85, providing for Supreme Court review whenever a claim of Federal Right is denied by a State Court. Thus, as originally enacted, Sec. 1 of the 1871 Act provided that the proceedings authorized by the Act are "to be prosecuted in the several District or Circuit Courts of the United States " 17 Stat. 13. This aspect of Sec. 1 is now codified as 28 U.S.C. 1343(3).
Plaintiffs request a "probable cause hearing" be schedule to determine if arrest warrants should be issued for the arrest of the Defendants for violations of Federal Criminal Laws.
This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs common law claims, which arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts, as do Plaintiffs federal claims according to the principles of pendent jurisdiction. Violations of Plaintiffs rights have occurred in California; harassment, intimidation, attempted retribution and retaliation by "officials of the court".
The U.S. District Court has additional jurisdiction under:
28 U.S.C, � 1343-(a): The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:
"(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42."
"(2) to recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent."
"(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State Law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, or any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all person within the jurisdiction of the United States."
"(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights "
28 U.S.C. � 1443"Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of al persons within the jurisdiction thereof,
(2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law."
28 U.S.C. � 2201, 2202 provide for Declaratory Relief defining whether or not the Defendants have any immunity at all since they are creatures of the legislative (Senate) appointment and confirmation process. Judges are confirmed by the political process, fall under the purview of WE THE PEOPLE, and are under our will. WE THE PEOPLE were and are represented by our public servants in Congress which passed the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Acts specifically to deprive all state officials immunity from suit. To date there has never been a modification by Congress or a ratification to change any Constitutional provision, either in the Constitution for the United States of America or any State Constitutions, which ever gave judges or any other state public official any immunities whatsoever.
18 U.S.C. � 3231-"The district courts of the United Sates shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States."
18 U.S.C. � 3237-"(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed."
18 U.S.C. � 3041"For any offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any United States magistrate, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or fist judge of the common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any state where the offender may be found, and at the expense of the United State, be arrested and imprisoned "
18 U.S.C. � 1514Under this statute this court has the jurisdiction to issue a restraining order against Defendants to prohibit the harassment by Defendants of the Plaintiffs, their witnesses, and any other witnesses to the abusive actions of the Defendants.
Before this Court entertains a motion to dismiss, it should consider Ankerbrandt v. Richards, 112 S.Ct. (1992) and Haffer v. Mello, (1991) The Younger and Burford abstentions do not apply to this case. See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 315 F.Supp. 1387.
This case involves vital questions of civil rights important to many Americans of similar circumstances throughout this nation, thus abstention should not be considered. Exception to the abstention doctrine justly lies in this cause as Plaintiffs challenges state action, conduct as state officials, and others where such action and conduct "under color of law" impinges on fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights. Plaintiff urges the Court to take particular concern since the State system has been unwilling to protect those rights itself Plaintiff avers that the State of California, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego has breached its obligation and duty to protect the civil liberties of United State Citizens; the State Constitution; the California Penal Codes; the Federal Criminal Codes and the United States Constitution. By such breaches of its duties the State of California, through its appointed and elected officials has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity for both the State and its appointed or elected officials. Plaintiffs complaint would be improperly placed in the state court as the State has refused to uphold the Constitution. Plaintiffs complaint involves numerous other violations of Federal law and State law.
Even a claim that Plaintiffs might be resolved under the due process clause of the State Constitution would not be grounds for abstention. The Court should further find reason to assume jurisdiction in light of the intimidation tactics by the State judiciary, threats by judicial appointees, intentional violation of the laws of the State by its judiciary and its judicial appointees, all with the design to obstruct him from bringing fourth the exercise of his constitutional and civil rights.
This Court should not hold this litigants pleadings to the same high standards of perfection of lawyers. If faced with a motion to dismiss, the Court should give Plaintiffs pleadings especially lenient treatment so that before the Court dismisses the complaint of this In Propria Persona Plaintiff he can be given an opportunity to offer evidence or further particularize his claim. The Federal Courts have related that In Propria Persona Civil Rights pleadings are to be liberally construed.
Defendants the State of California are the prime offender and are therefore under the jurisdiction of this Court.
All parties fall under the jurisdiction of this court. Other courts may have "partial jurisdiction" and could take actions, but the district courts jurisdiction and the constitutional issues supersede all state or county interests.
This Court has further jurisdiction and venue concerning the Constitution for the State of California (1849). CA Const. Art. III 3 states:
"The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land."
The Constitution of the State of California acknowledges that the Constitution of the United States has priority over "any or all laws, enacted or not enacted" by the State of California and "in fact" transfers, without argument or discussion all jurisdiction over "Constitutional Issues" to the courts of the United States and to the "investigative arms" of the United States.
The United States District Court has the authority and the jurisdiction to order lower courts and official investigative agencies to take actions to retroactively enforce all laws of the United States. Plaintiff demands that the Court exercise this authority and so direct the courts and agencies listed herein to take such actions where specific "jurisdiction may reside."
The Federal Court has jurisdiction as a result of the fact that Plaintiff Children were "legally" kidnapped by Defendants under the provisions of the California PENAL CODE : SECTION 207-210 regarding "kidnapping":
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has jurisdiction over investigation of the conduct of the court, fraud, perjury and other illegal acts of judicial officers.
In 1996 the FBI brought 2,108 counts against Defendants for 18 U.S.C. � 242 violations for "deprivation of rights under color of law", therefor establishing jurisdiction over this case. In 1996 the FBI brought 554 counts against Defendants for "conspiracy against civil rights", therefor establishing jurisdiction over this case. In 1996 the FBI brought 854 counts against Defendants for "conspiracy to defraud the U.S." therefor establishing jurisdiction over this case.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has additional jurisdiction in its capacity as the investigative arm of the United States Attorney and the United States Magistrates Office.
The Civil Rights Division-Criminal Section has jurisdiction over:
"The federal criminal civil rights statutes " (that) "provide for prosecutions of conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights, deprivation of rights under color of law, "
The Civil Rights Division-The Special Litigation Section has jurisdiction to:
" investigate state and local law enforcement agencies alleged to engage in a pattern or practice of violating citizens federal rights and may bring civil lawsuits to remedy such abuses."
The Assistant Chief of Police of San Diego, Nancy Goodrich stated clearly that it was the policy of the San Diego Police Department not to investigate or arrest any person for fraud or perjury and would not enforce the California Penal Code. This places this case clearly and irrefutably into the jurisdiction of the United States Attorneys Office-Civil Rights Division.
The Court has the jurisdiction to request that the United States Attorney General investigate these complaints.
We hereby request that the United States Attorney General intervene in these proceedings on behalf of the Citizens of California and the Citizens of the United States of America under its jurisdiction as outlined in 28 U.S.C. � 2403 which states:
"(a) In any action, suit or proceeding in a court of the United States to which the United States or any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall, subject to the applicable provisions of law, have all the rights of a party and be subject to all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the extend necessary for a proper presentation of the facts and law relating to the question of constitutionality."
The presiding judge of the superior court has jurisdiction and the authority to issue the requested warrants for arrest under CAL. PEN. CODE � 813(a), which states:
"(a) When a complaint is filed with a magistrate charging a public offense originally triable in the superior court of the county in which he or she sits, if, and only if, the magistrate is satisfied from the complaint that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the offense complained of has been committed and that there is reasonable ground to believe that the defendant has committed it, the magistrate shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant..."
The Superior Court of California continually refuses to exercise this authority.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Have Denied Plaintiffs Their Fifth Amendment Right to a Presentment or Indictment of a Grand Jury When Being Held to Answer For An Infamous Crime.
AMENDMENT V states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand jury ." Defendants have criminalized many Plaintiff Fathers by kidnapping Plaintiff Children without an indictment or presentment from a grand jury, and then falsely accusing Plaintiff Fathers of a wide array of manufactured crimes, also without indictments or presentments from grand juries. Without such a grand jury indictment or presentment, Defendants have held Plaintiffs responsible for what has become known as the "infamous crime" of paying too little "child support", not paying it, paying it late, paying it to the wrong person, or even paying it in an improper manner, all of which is a violation of federal law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Have Denied Plaintiffs Their Seventh Amendment Right to a Trial By Jury For Each Matter In Which the Value in Controversy Exceeds Twenty Dollars.
AMENDMENT VII states "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved " Until such time as this amendment (one of the most important of the "Bill of Rights") is amended or repealed, each "controversy" in excess of twenty dollars requires that Plaintiffs right to a trial by jury be protected. A requirement by the court that a citizen make "child support payments" requires a trial by jury prior to any payment exceeding twenty dollars. If the jury does not concur with the courts ruling that these payments be made or continue to be made, then Plaintiffs must be compensated for their past excessive payments. Failure by Defendants to uphold this Constitutional right of Plaintiffs is a violation of federal law.
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 22-22.2 states that "the will of the supreme power is expressed, (a) By the Constitution, and (b) By statutes, and the common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this State." The children involved in a custody proceeding should not be made the pawns on personal desires, either on the part of the contestants or the court, no matter how sincere such desires may be.
Defendants have both denied Plaintiffs their common law rights as well as made their children "pawns on personal desires" by kidnapping Plaintiff Children from Plaintiff Fathers, a violation of federal law.
Failure by Defendants to honor and respect the institution of marriage, the institution in which fatherhood is recognized for the vital role it plays in society, made illegitimate births so financially rewarding to unscrupulous mothers that the illegitimacy rate quintupled. Defendants failed to recognize a right to privacy for Plaintiff Fathers equivalent to that for the mothers of illegitimate children, which greatly increased illegitimate births. The Family Law Act in its entirety involves numerous government employees in private family matters who would be proscribed from involvement in these families had this right to privacy been protected by Defendants. Failure by Defendants to confer a corresponding right to privacy to Plaintiffs is a dereliction of one of their most important duties and is a violation of federal law.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs "free exercise [of religion]" as Afforded By the First Amendment to the Constitution By Failure to Prosecute Adultery.
Defendants are aware that the Family Law Act specifically failed to reiterate the law against adultery, that it failed to provide a Penal Code section for it, and that it described adultery as a crime only by reference to the Act of 1872 (which exists in few law libraries). Defendants failure to enforce existing adultery laws denied Plaintiffs their First Amendment right to "free exercise [of religion]", which led directly to social and economic chaos, and placed Plaintiff Children in harms way. Defendants have openly and publicly asserted that they will not uphold this Constitutional right of Plaintiffs, which is a violation of federal law.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs "free exercise [of religion]" Protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution By Failure to Prosecute Perjury.
Defendants enforce the Family Law Act without regard to the one quarter of one page which describes perjury, or bearing false witness, as a crime. Defendants have thus encouraged numerous false allegations and accusations to go forth with impunity. A record high number of Plaintiff Fathers have been falsely accused and imprisoned as a direct result of these false charges, while those who bring forth known false charges are widely known to be rarely if ever punished. This is in direct conflict with the free exercise of the majority of Plaintiffs who are Christians and Jews, whose "free exercise [of religion]" demands that those bearing false witness should suffer an equivalent punishment as would have been meted out to those they falsely accused had they been convicted. This is a violation of federal law.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs "free exercise [of religion]" Protected By the First Amendment to the Constitution By Interference in the Father/child Relationship Established By God.
Defendants are fully aware that the Family Law Act so severely undermined family unity by removing parental authority from the family that this First Amendment right has been and is being denied to Plaintiffs. Defendants very effectively and completely prohibited the "free exercise" of Plaintiff Childrens rights and abilities to "honor thy" parents, and prohibited parents from educating and disciplining their children to "honor" them, denying Plaintiffs their "free exercise" of a most important provision of most religions. Specifically, Defendants deny the 85% of Californians who are Christians their "free exercise [of religion]" by prohibiting their ability to obey the Fifth of the Ten Commandments--one of the most important of the Ten Commandments--which is a violation of federal law.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs' "free exercise [of religion]" Protected By the First Amendment to the Constitution By Altering A Solemn Promise to God.
Defendants repealed a law which stated: "The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any reasonable place or mode of living, and the wife must conform thereto", which is consistent with the wife's solemn promise to God to "honor and obey until death do us part". They replaced it with "Husband and wife contract towards each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support", which Defendants knew would violate this promise to God, undermine family unity and lead to massive family breakdown, which is a violation of federal law.
The United States Magistrate has jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871 which was never repealed and clearly places the redress by citizens for deprivation of rights in Federal Jurisdiction. Original "arising under" jurisdiction, pursuant to Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1, was vested in the Federal Courts by Sec. 11 of the Act of Feb. 13, 1801, 2 Stat. 92, but was repealed only a year later by Sec. 1 of the Act of Mar. 8, 1802, C. 8, 2 Stat. 132. It was not until 1875 that Congress granted the Federal Courts "Original Congnizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States " Act of Mar. 3, 1975, Sec. 1, 18 Stat. 470. The jurisdiction amount has since been raised from $500 to $2,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1887, Sec. 1, 24 Stat. 552; to $3,000 by the Act of Mar. 3, 1911, Sec. 24, 36 Stat. 1091; and to $10,000 by the Act of July 25, 1058, 72 Stat. 415. The provision is now codified as 28 U.S.C. 1331(A). The only exception was Sec. 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 85, providing for Supreme Court review whenever a claim of Federal Right is denied by a State Court. Thus, as originally enacted, Sec. 1 of the 1871 Act provided that the proceedings authorized by the Act are "to be prosecuted in the several District or Circuit Courts of the United States " 17 Stat. 13. This aspect of Sec. 1 is now codified as 28 U.S.C. 1343(3).
The United States Magistrate has clear jurisdiction for violations of anti-slavery laws enacted following the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves. When President Lincoln "freed slaves" he did not free "black slaves"; he freed "all slaves". Anti-slavery laws have continually used by the courts to "stop the practice of slavery and involuntary servitude" and have applied those laws to Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic groups to stop abusive practices against "minority groups". Through judicial abuse of the California Law Act Defendants have placed Plaintiff Children in bondage and denied them of due process of law. Children of "parents in conflict" are a "minority group" and the traumatic experiences they are forced to endure at the hands of the judicial system in California is "exactly the same" as the trauma experienced by "children of slaves". The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to protect these children and it is appropriately applied to the "children of divorce" and the "non-custodial" parent. The denial of the "childrens" rights to both biological parents fits the definition of slavery, in that the Court (the Slaver), has caused the same traumatic emotional damage that was caused by the institution of slavery abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation. This places jurisdiction clearly in Federal Courts under anti-slavery laws, as this is a violation of federal law.
Vague laws offend several important values; first, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms. Obeying the law requires Plaintiffs to read, understand, and obey 13,787 pages of massive, confusing, misleading, and ponderous law (Deerings Family Code, Civil Code, Penal Code, and California Rules of Court) which is a task which would require a battery of lawyers and court appearances to accomplish, yet Defendants expect them to do this. Seven important religious principles are obscured and obfuscated by these 13,787 pages of law and only 3 of the Ten Commandments are given any consideration at all. Expending the time, energy, and funds necessary for even a minor understanding of the law is virtually impossible for most Plaintiffs, and even this would leave out important religious principles. Defendants enactment, enforcement and support of the Family Law Act is thus a violation of federal law.
Defendants have impermissibly biased case law by prohibiting the publishing of decisions which mismatch Defendants' self-serving agenda. In numerous cases, Plaintiffs appeal to court orders which are found in their favor (e.g., one which denied the ability to exercise an agreement with ex-wives and creditors regarding a debt [child support]), are not allowed to be published. Even though such a decision may have established important precedents, it is unavailable to Plaintiffs because Defendants impermissibly mixed politics (the desire to "crack down on deadbeat dads") with law (which Defendants are responsible, but failed, to uphold). This created a false rationale for violating Plaintiffs constitutional rights, which is a violation of federal law.
Defendants by and through malicious and willful use and abuse of process, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously and intentionally acted in a civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy with each other with the aiding and abetting and assisting of each other to deprive and deny parental and childhood rights, and to cause undue emotional distress upon Plaintiff Fathers and Children. Because of said conspiracy to violate rights, Plaintiff fathers have suffered injuries and damages in violation of federal law.
Substantive due process analysis looks to whether law at issue bears any rational relationship to any interest that Defendants may legitimately promote. Defendants have shown no compelling state interest, however, which would justify their violation of so many constitutional rights to so many Plaintiffs. Even if they produced any evidence at this late date that this Act improved even one minority group, one financial statistic, one economic statistic, or one individual, they still could not justify the $294 Billion annual loss to California. Defendants' assertion that mothers should have a controlling interest over, or an equal interest to, the father in the private affairs of the family upset family structure and stability so severely that family breakup was inevitable. Their assertion that this is "in the best interest of the children" is wildly protested by Plaintiffs who see not a single concern for nor improvement in the "welfare of the children" by Defendants. Their assertion that this was necessary to make up for past "discrimination against" mothers is contravened by the fact that women and mothers are the ones most harmed by this Act -- family breakup is ultimately more damaging to women and motherhood than it is to most men and fatherhood. Their assertion that mothers somehow benefited from this newfound freedom is contravened by every bit of statistical evidence to the contrary. Failure by Defendants to articulate a compelling state interest is a violation of federal law.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, deny Plaintiffs Fatherhood as a Liberty Interest in "life, liberty, and property" Afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The right of parents to the care, custody and to nurture their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating fundamental principals of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions. SUCH RIGHT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. Plaintiffs and their cohorts in California have been constantly and continuously deprived of these Fifth Amendment rights by Defendants enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act for almost 3 decades. Defendants have adamantly and publicly refused to take any steps whatsoever to mitigate or alleviate this problem, and have thus been directly responsible for significantly increasing Californias divorce and illegitimacy rates. This family breakdown is directly responsible for the placement of 3.5 million Plaintiff Children at serious risk by depriving them of care by and contact with their natural fathers, which is a violation of federal law.
It is well established in case law that a parent's interest in custody of children is a "liberty interest" which has considerable constitutional protection. A parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. California records show that 92% of the divorced fathers of California have been deprived of the right and ability to care for and nurture their natural children without this "due process of the law". Defendants not only prevent this "due process of the law" from Plaintiffs through the Family Law Act, but they compounded already serious family problems, criminalized fathers who exercise basic parental responsibilities and rights, and doubled the divorce rate placed both Plaintiff Children and Plaintiff Fathers at serious risk and in harms way: 1) The risk of premature death of those who divorce and remarry increases by 40%. 2) The risk of premature death of those who divorce and do not remarry increases by 120%. 3) The risk of premature death of children whose parents divorced prior to their reaching age 21 increases by 44%. Defendants knew or should have known that an Act which increases the divorce rate is also harmful to Plaintiffs health, and is a violation of federal law.
The separation of the three powers of government--legislative, judicial, and executive--is guaranteed by the Constitution precisely to prevent the abuse of government power under which Plaintiffs suffer. Congress (the Legislative branch of government) passed the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Acts specifically to deprive all state officials of any immunity from suit. To date there has never been a modification by Congress or a ratification to change any Constitutional provision, either in the Constitution for the United States of America or any State Constitutions, which ever gave judges or any other state public official any immunities whatsoever. Defendants, through the judicial branch of government, have used "case law" to supersede this properly established law, a violation of federal law.
Plaintiffs are aware of the conflict which exists between the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment right to "equal protection" which has been responsible for much recent case law. The attempts of the Family Law Act and most recent court rulings to replace vital Christian principles with "gender equality" principles has, in the opinions of Plaintiffs, been sheer disaster. The voluminous statistical evidence cited herein regarding the breakdown of the family, rising crime and incarceration rates, immoral behavior, economic malaise, and high tax rates is evidence enough that the original "Bill of Rights" should not be so easily dismissed. If this court does give "equal protection" a higher priority than free exercise of religion, then the gender-biased manner in which the Family Law Act has removed "equal protection" from fatherhood renders the entire Family Law Act unconstitutional on this basis alone.
Defendants the California State were at all times material to this Complaint. This suit against the State of California is brought under the "expressly authorized" exception of 42 USC � 1983 to 28 USC � 2283 anti-injunction provision for equitable relief. The State of California is sued in cause for its willful participation in the deprivation of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States wherein it is alleged that "under color of law" proceedings of state courts were motivated by i) bad faith, ii) harassment, iii) and deliberate and selective application and/or omission of the Family Law Act and other state law which flagrantly and patently violate express constitutional prohibitions. The State of California includes the Members of the State Legislature which voted for enactment of the Family Law Act of 1970, all current Members of the State Legislature who are aware of this unconstitutional practice and have failed to act to end it, The Governor of the State of California Pete Wilson, all family law Judges who have enforced any unconstitutional provision of this Act, all family law attorneys who have participated in any unconstitutional practices as a result of this Act, and all other members, officers, lawyers, employees, agents, or contractors of Defendants who have in any way aided and abetted the enforcement of, or illegally profited from, this unconstitutional Act. Defendants are being sued jointly and severally and personally, as said defendants were present within this court's jurisdiction for all acts and/or omissions that occurred in this matter during this time.
Every father, natural or by marriage, who has lost his fundamental liberty interest, protected by his Constitutionally secured liberties, to the absolute God-given right and unrestricted right to the fatherhood of his children, and every child who has lost a liberty interest to paternal guidance, by an unconstitutional or ungodly act, or by an unconstitutional or ungodly failure to act, or by any other act and/or omission committed by any member of the California judiciary, legislature, and executive branch, is a Member of this Class. This liberty interest includes but is not limited to the first amendment right to "free exercise [of religion]", the fifth amendment right to "life, liberty, & property", the fifth amendment rights to "due process of the law" and "equal protection of the law", Justice Brandeis' "right to privacy", the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition of slavery and involuntary servitude, the Fifth Amendment right to a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury when held to answer for an infamous crime, and the Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. The Members of the Class are too numerous and too widely spread geographically, and travel costs and time off work would be too high, to enable them to participate in a joinder. There are an estimated 2.6 million Plaintiff Fathers, and 3.5 million Plaintiff Children residing in 2.6 million fatherless households in California who are potential Members of the Class.
The representative parties have precisely the same claims as all the Members of the Class, and their goal is to solely and fairly and adequately protect these vital interests of the entire class and their posterity.
Respectfully Submitted, __________________________
Dated: May 12, 1998 John W. Knight, III, et al, on behalf of
Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto
"Members of the Class"
Plaintiffs in Pro Per
Plaintiffs hereby submit the following Statement of Case.
This is a Class Action Suit filed pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by and on behalf of the Members of the Class, the children and fathers of California whose Civil Rights have been and are being denied in violation of 42 USC �1983. Defendants willfully and knowingly and consistently deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their Constitutional, common law, natural and God-given rights by enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act.
The attached economic analysis documents damages to Plaintiffs in the total amount of $5,013 Billion, for which all Defendants are individually, jointly, and severally liable. These damages shall continue to accrue until these claims are adjudicated.
THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT IS CHILD ABUSE. Claims to the contrary are simply obfuscation and can no longer be tolerated. Plaintiff children are at substantial physical, financial, and emotional abuse when deprived of their natural fathers, as hereinafter described, and they must be protected. Plaintiff Fathers demand that the welfare of their children take precedence over Defendants' misuse and abuse of the principle of "absolute judicial immunity". Defendants' destructive, immoral, illegal, sacrilegious, ungodly, anti-Christian, and unconstitutional practices must be proscribed by this court at the earliest possible moment.
The California Family Law Act passed in 1972 by the Legislature and endorsed and enforced by Governor Pete Wilson, the California judiciary, and the complete legal cottage industry surrounding the resulting chaos, prohibits the "free exercise [of religion]" guaranteed by the First Amendment, violates "due process" protected by the Fifth Amendment, violates the "right to privacy" enshrined by Justice Brandeis, denies fathers and children their "liberty interest" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, increased the mortality rate of Plaintiffs by anywhere from 40% to 120%, and reinstituted slavery in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Coupled with Defendants' prior failures to enforce important existing laws, it silently and comprehensively denies the ability of all major religious peoples, particularly Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to follow, obey, and be treated according to seven of the Ten Commandments. It is so contradictory, confusing, and massive that an ordinary citizen could not reasonably be expected understand the majority of its commands. Even if SAT scores had not plunged 98 points as a direct result of the family breakdown caused by the passage and enforcement of this Act, it would still be unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs can't live by it, can't afford the library which is required to learn about it, and can't take the time to study it without losing much valuable time away from their careers, their families, and their businesses. It is so complex that the media has not and most likely cannot analyze or present it. Most citizens thus don't even know or understand very much about an Act which strikes directly at every principle of freedom, free enterprise, the Bill of Rights, the Bible, religious freedom, natural law, God, family organization and stability, "due process", and "right to privacy".
It was enacted by the California State Legislature at a time in California's history when it should have enacted legislation intended to accomplish just the opposite. The Legislature should have enacted a Family Law Act which strengthened the role of the father and stabilized families. Instead, it enacted laws which Defendants knew or should have known would seriously weaken the fathers' role, lead to family breakdown and crime, reduce incomes and education quality, subject millions of children to the trauma of family breakup and of fatherless homes, and create economic and social chaos. It is no longer conjecture that this is what might happen--this is precisely what did happen immediately following its enactment. Defendants are or should have been aware that, in every way that California's economy and society can be measured, the consequences of this Act have been nothing but disastrous. Defendants might argue that they didn't know this would happen, but that is no better a defense than a murderer arguing that he didn't know the gun was loaded when he shot and killed a policeman. The damage caused to society by Defendants is thousands or tens of thousands of times greater than the damage caused to society by the loss of a policeman's life. In both cases the Defendants are culpable. Ignorance of the law, and of the law's consequences, is not a defense.
Defendants require Plaintiffs to live by 13,727 pages of law which is a mental and physical impossibility. Worse, these 13,727 pages still fail to clarify and even obfuscate crucial moral, ethical, legal, religious, godly, and logical principles. One of the most important of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shalt not commit adultery", but adultery is hardly mentioned in any one of these 13,727 pages. No Plaintiff, no attorney, no judge, and no politician who has been questioned about this Act can even venture a guess about whether adultery is against the law or not. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is not mentioned at all, and its modern day equivalent "perjury" occupies only a quarter of a page (less than 0.002% of the total mass). Plaintiffs, attorneys, judges, and politicians who have been questioned do not know if either of these important principles are illegal, enforced, or even of concern to Defendants. These are the courts now overburdened by the crime created by the family breakdown, which was caused in the first place by the same Defendants in their enforcement of this Act. Plaintiffs question why these two important laws are not enforced and assert that Defendants have placed their financial gain ahead of enforcement of very important laws put in place by we the people through our duly elected representatives in the State Legislature, and never repealed. Requiring Plaintiffs to read and understand 13,787 pages of law, not upholding Gods law, natural law, common law, common sense, the united states Constitution, nor the California Constitution, AND failure to make it clear whether adultery or perjury are violations of the law, is unconstitutionally vague.
Vague language quietly violates important Constitutional and godly rights and creates social and economic pathology. The evidence is now abundant that passage and enforcement of this Act by Defendants led directly to the social and economic pathology described herein. Defendants are aware, and have always been aware, of the voluminous documentation, which shows that the children of fatherless households have a plethora of social, moral, religious, and economic problems relative to the children of intact families. Defendants are aware and have always been aware that this Act was destined to remove California's children from fathers and to put almost 40% of them in precisely into this danger zone. Defendants are aware and have always been aware that a more destructive social agenda has never before been attempted in this State, nor even in this nation. The divorce rate doubled. The murder rate doubled. The incarceration rate quadrupled. The illegitimacy rate quintupled. Two and a half million children now live without their fathers in California. Drug use doubled. Suicide tripled. The "clearance rate" for murders plunged from 92% to 63%. Violent crime increased 560%. Welfare expenditures increased 10 fold. The Personal Savings rate in California dropped from more than 12% to less than 2%. Abortions more than doubled. SAT scores declined 98 points. The number of hours per day that children watch TV increased from 5 hours to 7 hours. Where manufacturing workers outnumbered government workers by 2 1/2 times prior to enactment of the Family Law Act, there are now more government workers than there are manufacturing workers. 70% of the world's lawyers are now in California, producing per capita 28 times as many lawyers as countries like Japan.
Defendants have failed to advance a single social, economic, education, religious, or moral statistic which improved following their passage and enforcement of this Act, and Plaintiffs assert that they are unable to do so. Unless Defendants were very poorly educated, ignorant of the society they were tasked and paid to protect, stupid, or living in Ivory Towers, it is impossible that they could have implemented this act without full knowledge of the disastrous consequences. Plaintiffs assert that they proceeded merely out of a selfish and self-serving concern for the creation of their own economic bonanza, to the serious emotional, health, and financial detriment of their benefactors, the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assert that this is a supreme violation of the trust placed in them by Plaintiffs, God, all California residents, taxpayers nationwide, and fathers worldwide.
The most basic responsibility of Defendants was and is to ensure that no child is reared in California without the best opportunity to benefit from paternal guidance and care by any and all available and living natural fathers. Each and every one of the named Defendants have actively participated in the establishment of a complex, expensive, and aggravating system designed from its inception to fail completely at this vital task. Defendants have been warned time and again, in suit after suit, in trial after trial, in court after court, with dollar after wasted dollar, that their actions have cost Plaintiffs their intact families, businesses, careers, jobs, relatives, friends, reputations, credit ratings, health, and even lives, and that their actions have severely and adversely impacted the California economy, education system, welfare system. Defendants have proven by example that they will continuously fail to act responsibly to correct this travesty of justice unless and until this court exercises its lawful authority and enjoins them from doing so.
I, a Member of the Class, and Plaintiff, am competent to testify in the above entitled matter and if called to do so would testify as follows:
Dated: May 12, 1998 John W. Knight, III
Signatories to the Fathers' Manifesto
"Members of the Class"
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Have Denied Plaintiffs Their Fifth Amendment Right to a Presentment or Indictment of a Grand Jury When Being Held to Answer For An Infamous Crime.
AMENDMENT V states:
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Have Denied Plaintiffs Their Seventh Amendment Right to a Trial By Jury For Each Matter In Which the Value in Controversy Exceeds Twenty Dollars.
AMENDMENT VII states:
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 22-22.2
22. Law is a solemn expression of the will of the supreme power of
22.1. The will of the supreme power is expressed:
(a) By the Constitution.
(b) By statutes.
22.2. The common law of England, so far as it is not repugnant to
or inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or the
Constitution or laws of this State, is the rule of decision in all
the courts of this State.
The common laws of England are represented by the following Maxims:
Justice Louis Brandeis asserted in 1928 that "The right to be let alone ... [is] the right most valued by civilized men" was intended by the framers of the Constitution, even though not specifically stated in writing. Given the associational interests that surround establishment and dissolution of marital relationship, such adjustments as divorce and separation are naturally included with an umbrella of protection accorded to right of privacy. Plaintiff Fathers pray merely for the "right to be let alone" by a legal establishment which:
To provide these two super-rights of privacy to the mother--the right to kill her progeny before it is born, and the right to raise children in a fatherless household--children and fathers both lose 2 rights each. 192,000 children lose the right to be born each year in California as their lives are terminated by abortion prior to birth, and 3.5 million children in California lose their right to be raised in the security and safety of two-parent households. Fathers lose the right to participate in a life and death decision of their progeny, and they lose the right and ability to provide responsible and crucial paternal guidance to those progeny who escape abortion but were literally kidnapped from them by Defendants.
Plaintiffs are not seeking the right to kill their progeny, to kill the mothers who make a decision to kill their progeny, to do further damage to society or to the family structure, nor to provide an unsafe or insecure environment for their progeny. Plaintiff Fathers want merely the "right to be let alone" by a court system which makes inaccurate and devastating decisions for Plaintiff Children, from government interference in their child rearing efforts, to raise their children in the healthiest, most financially secure, safest, and most secure environment for them without government interference, and to be free to make these decisions without being second guessed by third parties who have little or no understanding of, or empathy for, the complexities involved in child rearing.
Potential California mothers who were given this right to privacy exercised it by terminating the lives of more than 3.8 million unborn babies since then. Potential mothers but not Plaintiffs received at the same time another right to privacy, which is the ability to prevent pregnancies with more than 20 contraceptive methods and 35 types of oral contraceptives. Mothers but not Plaintiffs received the right to birth illegitimate children, and to be compensated financially for doing so. Mothers but not fathers of illegitimate children received the right to put these children up for adoption. In the vast majority of illegitimate births, illegitimate children are placed in the custody of mothers and severely denied access to and care by their natural fathers. Mothers are not ordered by Defendants to provide financial compensation to their own children, but Plaintiffs are ordered by Defendants to provide financial compensation to mothers under the misleading term "child support"--while at the same time being denied access to their own natural children.
The corresponding right to privacy due to Plaintiffs to correct this one-sided right to privacy which women received is the right to be financially independent from children which they:
Forced parenthood under California state statutory law violates the fundamental Right to Privacy under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution
A direct logical corollary of the equal right of the male gender to choose parenthood and to choose his level of involvement in rearing his children is the fundamental right to not be compelled into fatherhood at all. Civil suits to force parenthood onto an unwilling party violate a fundamental right to privacy because they violate one's right to determine when and with whom he will become a parent and have a family. Extensive U.S. Supreme Court case law clearly establishes the rule of law guaranteeing this fundamental right. Therefore, California state paternity actions to compel fatherhood are not constitutional or valid in the courts of this state.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently interpreted the U.S. Constitution as barring the violation of a fundamental right. When a state statute violates a fundamental right, judicial strict scrutiny is automatically invoked. Under strict scrutiny analysis, the burden shifts from the individual defendant onto the state. To avoid having a statute declared invalid under strict scrutiny, the state has the sole burden of showing a narrowly drawn, compelling state interest, e.g. in protecting life or health, advanced by the least restrictive means and with no other reasonable alternative. In practice, the state is almost never able to sustain its burden and survive strict scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court has not declared a state interest compelling enough to justify the impairment of a fundamental right since 1944 Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214, 216-20, 65 S.Ct. 193, 194-95, 89 L.Ed.2d 194 (1944).
Multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions make it clear that the right to privacy is a fundamental right, that this right exists under the authority of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, that this right protects individual choice in matters of personal, family, associational, marital, reproductive and procreative privacy, and that this right applies equally to all individuals and all classes of American citizens, including both genders. In the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court defined the Constitutional authority for the right to privacy in reproductive and family matters:
Similarly, the courts and legislature of Georgia have also ruled that one cannot be compelled into involuntary fatherhood. Under Georgia statute �19-7-22, only a biological male donor alone has the right of voluntary unilateral action to legitimate an illegitimate child. Furthermore, this right is absolute and this statute provides the exclusive procedure by which a child may be legitimized.
The right to reproductive privacy can therefore actually be best characterized as a right not to reproduce or be a parent. The above-cited cases that have established the right of reproductive privacy have almost all defined this right in terms of the avoidance of reproduction and parenthood, as in contraception (Griswold and Eisenstadt), and pregnancy termination (Roe, Carey, and Casey), destruction of embryos (Davis); see generally, Robertson J, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies Princeton U. Press (1994); Robertson J, Procreative Liberty and Human Genetics. 39 Emory Law J. 697 (1990). Only three U.S. Supreme Court cases, Buck v. Bell; Skinner v. Oklahoma, and Cleveland v. LaFleur refer to an affirmative right to reproduce, and only two, LaFleur and Skinner, upheld this right, and even then only for narrow classes. Furthermore, the cases that most clearly define the fundamental right to reproductive privacy, i.e. Roe, Carey, and Casey, as well as Kass and Davis, express this right as a right to terminate a life that is already growing into a human being. Such destruction of life or potential life has evoked strong ethical, religious and moral concerns in both the courts and in general opinion. In contrast, all that is contended here is the right not to be compelled into a legal relationship on paper.
The fundamental right of a male to be free from an involuntary association with another, including a parental relationship, is another aspect of the fundamental right to privacy that is grounded in multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions. A fundamental right of associational privacy in family matters can first be identified in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). Meyer expounded, at a relatively early date, a broad view of this fundamental right:
A prime source of conflict in paternity causes of action is that the difference between gene donorship and fatherhood is usually confused or ignored. A paternity petition, for example, typically alleges that a specific male is a gene donor to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, with the presumption that this is equivalent to being a father. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between gene donorship and fatherhood in five widely separated cases in emphasizing that fatherhood is based on a voluntary association between a man and child rather than a mere biological link:
The concept of father is thus a legal and a cultural concept, whereas the concept of gene donor is a biological concept. While these two concepts often overlap within the same male, there are literally millions of exceptions within our society in the form of stepfathers and adoptive fathers. Therefore, being a father requires a voluntary, long-term association between a man and a child that he willingly accepts as his own, for whom he shows a tangible, substantial interest, and to whom he has demonstrated a commitment by coming forward to participate in rearing the child by promoting a way of life through nurture, training, loving protection and instruction Rivera v. Minnich, supra; Lehr v. Robertson, supra; Caban v. Mohammed, supra; Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, supra; Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra; and cits. therein in all of these. An unwitting and unwilling gamete-donor provides none of these functions, and indeed the sole function of such a situated person is typically completed within a few minutes as part of an act of mutual sensual gratification. Even the ancient Jewish rabbinical sages approximately 2,000 years ago noted the difference between the two roles of gamete-donor versus father "He who brings up the child is to be called its father, not he who gave him birth."
The Supreme Court of California has very recently indicated, in a case involving an unwed male gene donor, that the social constraints of marriage and not biology determine fatherhood Dawn D. v. Sup. Ct. 4/6/98 S C. Similarly, the statutes of California also explicitly recognize the difference between fatherhood and gamete donorship in, for example, in adoption laws that allow a male to assume fatherhood of a child that he is not genetically related to and in laws that male gamete donors may be enjoined from fatherhood in cases of unfitness. Similar state laws also apply to females, for example when a female adopts a child or is declared an unfit mother Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Services of Durham Co., N.C., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981).
A basic point that underscores this misunderstanding of the nature of so-called paternity suits is that such suits really have nothing to do with fatherhood. Because the essence of fatherhood is accepting and loving a youngster, no authority, no matter how powerful, can force a man to be a father. Therefore, paternity orders, except for monetary payments, are simply unenforceable. On the other hand, if a man wishes to be a father and desires visitation or custody, no state statutes have any provisions for such assistance and the state will not assist such a man regardless. When this basic fact is realized, "paternity" suits are revealed as a bad faith sham since these suits have nothing to do with a father's love for his children, but are only a monetary tort action by the state on behalf of females against males.
Involuntary fatherhood under California state law almost inevitably works an invidious invasion of privacy against male paternity defendants and their families. This invasion is frequently harsh and overwhelming, and lasts for almost two decades. Analyzed in the light of the above U.S. Supreme Court holdings, state practices under color and authority of California state law paternity statutes clearly rise to the level of constitutional violations. California paternity actions are typically framed and styled by the state as civil actions between two private parties. Therefore, these male defendants are not assigned legal counsel to defend themselves as they would be in criminal matters, in spite of the fact that state attorneys are always assigned to prosecute them on behalf of female complainants. As the state well knows, the large majority of paternity defendants are poor and uneducated and thus do not have the capacity to defend themselves against a massive state apparatus. Yet, after paternity is found, these men are subjected to the equivalent of criminal sanctions for non-payment, including imprisonment and probation.
The paternity statutes are enforced by their own special police force in the form of Child Support Enforcement Offices. These agencies, which are present at both the state and county level in every state in the nation, are staffed with tax-supported state attorneys and deputized officials who specialize in money from male defendants. The cost of running this system nationwide amounts to $1.9 billion a year (Dept. of Health and Human Services, 17th Annual Report to Congress on Child Support Enforcement). In no other area of American civil law except for the IRS is there such a massive government effort and presence.
Under California state law, a central state information agency organizes, coordinates and disseminates information on paternity defendants. This agency is also required to route paternity and support petitions and to make available all of its information concerning the whereabouts of all paternity defendants and their property to all other agencies and all public officials in all states who request such information. This section requires the agency to use all available means to gather this information and find males, including official state records, telephone directories, vital statistics records, police records, information from present or former employers, records of motor vehicle license offices, state and federal tax offices, the Social Security Administration, and all other state departments, boards, bureaus, or other agencies. Some of the information that is typically communicated about paternity defendants are a man's photograph, distinguishing marks on his body, his fingerprints, his social security number, and his employers' names. If a male or his property cannot be located, then the district attorney general must forward its information and court documents to any other jurisdiction where a male or his property may be located, whereupon that court and its D.A. automatically have the same power, without further process, over the defendant and his property.
The California Dept. of Social Services central information agency and all states' support enforcement offices in turn have access to the Federal Parent Locator Service. This federal agency's powerful computer system can find "lost" males and track them across state lines by their social security and driver's license numbers through special "Parent Locator" software programs. In 1993, for example, over 4,484,000 such people were located in the U.S., which is more than double the 2,062,000 people found just 3 years earlier in 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995, 115th ea., Washington, D.C., p. 392, Table No. 618).
After being tracked down through this network and found to be a "father", each male paternity defendant is assigned to a "Support Enforcement Officer" who is typically deputized. These officers have the authority, under the threat of arrest and prosecution for lack of cooperation and contempt of court, to summon the male at will and to request that he produce all documents related to his finances, including payroll stubs, checks, income tax forms, family financial records, and household income and expenses. Furthermore, in practice under color of law, these officers often compel paternity defendants to reveal their wives' and other household members' personal financial data including salaries, expenses, savings and assets even though these other people have nothing to do with the matter. Wives' incomes are often added to male defendants' incomes to arrive at expected support payments such that wives are in effect compelled to support another female's children, even when it deprives the couple's own children of support. California state law further allows the state to garnish a man's paychecks through income withholding at his place of employment, require a cash deposit or performance bond, require him to report personally to the clerk of court periodically to subject his property to lien, seizure or sale or to have him extradited.
If a male cannot provide the money to meet the state's demand, or if his spouse or other family members cannot provide this money, then he is subjected to arrest and imprisonment and held until his family does, in effect, ransom him. In the alternative, Support Enforcement Officers will often threaten a man with prison if he does not get some menial job, regardless of how inappropriate. This state action under law is in spite of the fact that debtor's prison for private civil debts has not been lawful in this country for over 150 years. Cf. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235; 90 S.Ct. 2018 (1970). Such civil liberty deprivations under state law invite a comparison with involuntary servitude as outlawed by the 13th Amendment, especially since the last time that forced breeding and forced labor was allowed in this country was during the slavery era.
Through these statutory provisions and state actions under color of law, a massive nationwide network has thus been welded together with the sole purpose of targeting and pursuing males. The crude nature of this gender-based discrimination is exemplified by that fact that support agencies often stigmatize putative fathers by styling them as "deadbeat dads" or "bad dads" in the news media or featuring them on "Wanted" posters as if under criminal indictment or in a fugitive status. This pursuit of an entire class of Americans across state lines by multiple jurisdictions simultaneously with complex computer tracking devices evokes the tradition of the federal fugitive slave laws. The net result of this massive state apparatus is an overwhelming, Orwellian, 4th Amendment abuse of alleged male gamete donors' and their spouses' and their families' fundamental rights to privacy, to be let alone.
Furthermore, aside from the abuse of process from state agents, the difficulties flowing from state prosecutions of males are also often manifested as abuse directly from a female. The Roe decision, in discussing forced parenthood through state statutory deprivation, noted that:
The fundamental right to reproductive, familial, parental and associational privacy prohibits the Family Law Act from impinging on one's choice of when and with whom to associate in parenthood, as well as how to raise one's biological child. If, however, a state does seek by statute to limit this right, it has the sole burden of justifying the statute only for compelling, narrowly drawn state interests advanced by the least restrictive means and only where there are no reasonable alternatives. While both forced and restricted fatherhood do not, by any reasonable stretch, express a compelling, narrowly drawn state interest, it does violate males' fundamental rights to familial, associational, marital, personal and procreational privacy to decide when and with whom and how to be a parent. Those parts of the Family Law Act that compel fatherhood via paternity suits are unconstitutional and invalid under the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, and should properly be so declared by this Court under the authority of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs "free exercise [of religion]" as Afforded By the First Amendment to the Constitution By Failure to Prosecute Adultery.
The first amendment to the united states Constitution (1789) states:
Neither media, newspapers, TV, nor heathen judges determine, describe, nor even understand Plaintiffs moral, spiritual, and ethical values. The Constitutional protection of "free exercise [of religion]", to the 85% of Californians who are Christians or Jews, requires as a minimum that their ability to live by and to be treated according to the basic principles of The Ten Commandments laid down by God be honored, respected, and revered:
Murderers and thieves are prosecuted and punished. Those who act on their desire to possess their neighbor's house, manservant or maidservant, ox or donkey, or anything else that belongs to their neighbor, except his wife, are punished. But Defendants' failure to prosecute adulteresses has the force and effect of encouraging citizens to covet their neighbor's and others' wives. The major focus of 90% of this Act is to outline a plan to break up families and to redistribute their assets into the pockets of Defendants. The Act is a blueprint for family destruction, social instability, educational disarray, economic disaster, illegitimacy, and the worst form of child abuse, with the clear intent (and obvious result) of being a financial bonanza solely to Defendants. Only Defendants have profited and continue to profit from this Act, and they did so and do so at the expense of Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children.
Defendants are aware that the children of fatherless households, compared to the children of two-parent households, are more likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, and to have a 72% lower standard of living, because it is Defendants themselves who are tasked with collecting this data. It is Defendants themselves who are responsible for managing the damages they themselves cause by this Act, and again it is Defendants themselves who profit from this management of the ponderous legal establishment required to deal with the resulting increase in crime. It is Defendants who have devised and actively support a system, which places 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy in precisely the environment in which they are at the greatest risk. In total, considering the 3.5 million children of California who are tonight going to sleep in a fatherless household, this is the worst form of child abuse imaginable. Defendants have been advised of the solution to this crisis, but solely out of their greedy desire for financial gain, have stubbornly and chronically, in violation of their oaths of office, refused to even examine the problem, much less to act to correct it.
Defendants may consider it a sign of the times that, if a California husband finds his own wife in bed with a stranger and calls the police, the police cannot and will not react unless and until the husband himself takes positive physical (but currently illegal) action in response to this adultery. If the same husband catches the same man having sex with his cat, �286.5 of the Penal Code empowers him to call the police and charge his cat rapist with a misdemeanor. It is not a sign of the times as much as it is an accurate analogy to the state of mind of Defendants. It is an insult to and a violation of the First Amendment right to "free exercise [of religion]" that cats' sex lives now have more legal protection and standing than marriages in Californias courts.
The Act of 1872 noted:
It is of greater importance to enforce adultery law than it is to enforce murder law. It is the seventh Commandment "You shall not commit adultery", right after the Commandment "You shall not murder". It is much more than a "moral" issue. Failure to enforce adultery law is the guiding light behind radical feminism. It is a basic reason that adulteresses can now express their "new found freedom" on national TV by bragging that "70% of wives commit adultery within 5 years of marriage" (Shere Hite on the Phil Donahue Show). Adultery is the reason that up to 20% of the children of two-parent families are not the biological offspring of the husband (Barbara Rothman, "Recreating Motherhood", "20% of DNA testing done for tissue typing during organ transplants showed that the man who thought he was the father was not genetically linked"). The tripling of the murder rate since the time that Defendants failed to enforce this law is due primarily to the moral and legal turpitude of Defendants. Enforcement of adultery law would do more to reduce murder (and other crime) than direct enforcement of the murders laws themselves have.
There are 230,000 marriages each year in California. If 70% of the wives commit adultery within 5 years of marriage, then there are 161,000 acts of adultery each year. There are 585,000 live births in California each year, and if 20% of them are not the biological offspring of the husband (or the man who thought he was the father), then the results of these 161,000 acts of adultery each year are roughly 117,000 children who are not the biological offspring of the husband of the marriage. There are 3,776 murders in California each year, which is three times as many as there would have been if the murder rate had not tripled in the last 4 decades. These additional 2,517 murders each year could easily be the result of the strife and emotional trauma caused by 161,000 acts of adultery and the discovery that 117,000 children born each year are not genetically linked to their fathers but are the products of these acts of adultery. These additional murders are 1.6% of the total suspected number of adulteries, and a father who spends or is charged with spending a lifetime to raise children who were biological children of the man who committed adultery with his wife could by itself explain the tripling of the murder rate. Either California's fathers are too lenient about adultery and the biological status of their own children, or the above feminists are exaggerating the magnitude of the problem. The trauma caused by adultery also leads to other social strife which further impacts crime rates.
Adultery is still a crime in California, even though Defendants have not enforced the law for almost a half a century. It has not been repealed by we the people nor by the State Legislature, yet West's contains 480 pages of divorce annotations, and only one page of adultery citations. Since the last adultery prosecution in California, the murder rate tripled, the illegitimacy rate quintupled, the incarceration rate quadrupled, SAT scores dropped 98 points, fatherlessness quadrupled, the marriage rate dropped in half, suggesting that this failure to prosecute adultery has profound adverse consequences on society.
Defendants theory that adultery law is "archaic" is as much in error as the theory that legalizing abortions would eliminate the need for illegal "coathanger" abortions. This theory holds that legalizing abortions which might have been performed in spite of a law against abortions would reduce the number of unwanted children who would be born. This is not a bad social goal, but the theory is in gross error, because exactly the opposite occurred. There is nothing which discredits such theories more resoundly than the fact that legalized abortions were followed by a quintupling of the illegitimacy rate (the rate of unwanted children born) in the face of 304,000 abortions per year PLUS widespread use by women of the birth control pill. While Defendants claim they hold women's interests at heart, untold hundreds of thousands of women have needlessly suffered from cancer caused by the pill, and from the unreported infections, death, and infertility caused by botched abortions. The magnitude of this problem is beginning to surface in spite of attempts in the name of political expediency to suppress the information.
Defendants gained massive political power and financial wealth only by destroying the most important benefit to a man of marriage -- the sexual fidelity of his wife. There is nothing more important to any Plaintiff than his heritage and posterity, and the specific purpose of marriage is to be the "contract" which protects this asset. Defendants robbed Plaintiffs of their heritage and posterity by using sex as a weapon against men. In the process Defendants destroyed the status of the family, undermined the safety and security of our children, weakened the most important bargaining chip of responsible women, and ultimately did serious damage to society and the economy.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs "free exercise [of religion]" Protected By The First Amendment to the Constitution By Failure to Prosecute Perjury.
The ninth of the Ten Commandments is:
The Family Law Act obscures the importance of prosecuting those who commit perjury by providing only a quarter of a page on this subject, which is less than 0.002% of the total volume of the Act. This failure to even specify in more detail the consequences of perjury, much less to punish those who falsely accuse a father, is a virtual invitation to bring forward false charges against him. This failure to both stress the importance of perjury laws and to prosecute perjury caused an Assistant Chief of Police in California to state she "hasn't even heard of a perjury conviction for 33 years". Of the 8 prosecutions for perjury in federal civil courts since 1993, not a single one was prosecuted in California.
The Family Law Act allows for a "monetary sanction" if a conviction for a false charge is obtained by Plaintiffs. It is Plaintiff Fathers who usually must pay the attorneys to obtain such a conviction, who often must pay for the ex-wives' attorneys as well, the odds of obtaining such a conviction in California's courts are remote to zero, and even on conviction the "monetary sanction" imposed upon the person leveling false charges will most likely come out of Plaintiffs very own pockets.
"Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee" is the fifth of the Ten Commandments. It is 9% of the minimum number of basic principles necessary for the "free exercise" of Christianity in California. A law or Act which discourages or prohibits the "free exercise" of children to "honor thy" parents, or which prohibits parents from educating and disciplining their children to "honor" them, effectively prohibits and discredits the "free exercise" of most religions, and particularly of Christians to practice Christianity.
Defendants accomplished just that by this Act with the rationalization:
Nothing, other than disturbing "the 1872 position of the law regarding the husband's predominant marital rights", could have been accomplished by an act which places the authority of a child ahead of the authority of the father and opens up every single parental obligation and act to scrutiny by the entire State of California. It makes a mockery of fatherhood itself by suggesting to children, as well as to many uncaring and even incompetent public servants, that fathers are little more than fair game for litigation. It removes any trace of the concept of "honor thy father ". It is a subtle invitation for the most absurd, mean, baseless, dishonest, and self serving accusation. It invites all constitutional protection of the father to be removed by a single false accusation from any number of unscrupulous individuals, and it prohibits punishment of those who bring forth those false accusations. It raises the status of a disgruntled child or ex-wife to that higher than the status of the Constitution, while reducing the status of the father to that of a criminal. It creates a nightmare for parenting, and discourages men from getting married, by leaving the responsibility for parenting and disciplining children with the father while removing all authority for doing so and placing it in everyone else's hands. It prohibits children from honoring their parents, and it prohibits parents from educating and disciplining their children, as prescribed by the Bible:
Child abuse is real and traumatic to children. The loss of a father, however, is far more traumatic and devastating than the abuse which this Act pretends to resolve in the first place. Furthermore, this act increased the number of fatherless children dramatically. It is inevitable that children, social workers, Defendants, mothers, and many other unspecified citizens will attack a father's character and financial assets if they know they can profit from it, and particularly if they know that they can never and will never be held accountable for any dishonest, immoral, or illegal acts they commit. Both social workers and judges have amply demonstrated by example that a simple disciplinary action by a father can be easily construed as "child abuse" by almost anyone, and used as a weapon to destroy his fatherhood, family, reputation, business, career, and ultimately used to shorten his life by more years than smoking a pack of cigarettes every day would.
It is thus predictable that, since Defendants enacted this Act, the number of "unsubstantiated reports" of child abuse in California increased by 8 times, that the number of "unsubstantiated reports" of child sexual abuse increased by 28 times, and that the total number of child abuse reports exceeds the number of children experiencing serious injuries (as reported by the American Humane Society) by 136 times.
The majority of what is now considered to be "child abuse" by social workers in California is considered to be "discipline" in countries which now score 37% higher than California on the IAEP tests. It was considered "discipline" in California as recently as 3 decades ago, when California's students scored 98 points higher on SAT tests. This Act guaranteed that the difference between "child abuse" and "discipline" could never be correctly determined. If such a charge were to be "reasonably believed to be in furtherance of the criminal charges" by a vindictive ex-wife, there is no provision in the Act to prevent a judge to "reasonably believe" a completely false allegation brought forth by that clearly vindictive ex-wife. No judge can completely ignore even an obviously false allegation, guaranteeing a propagation of false charges, while at the same time prohibiting the prosecution of those who file them.
Had such child abuse decreased, Defendants would have had some meager justification for contributing to the resulting massive family trauma and breakup. Child abuse increased, just as it would have been expected to if the role of the father is demeaned, denigrated, legally obliterated, and unconstitutionally altered.
Family Code �3064 Requires That Defendants, The Instant They Are Aware of The Social Pathology Surrounding Fatherless Households, Act Immediately To Mitigate This Problem:
Plaintiffs have met the burden of showing that "immediate harm to the children is imminent" as long as they remain under the authority of Defendants. The predominance of the data demonstrates that the acts of Defendants are irrational and unpredictable and present a substantial danger to the physical, spiritual, and emotional well being of Plaintiff Children. The Family Law Act itself provides that the health, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff Children must be considered "in the best interest of the children". Defendants, however, ignore the facts at their fingertips, disobey laws they themselves enacted, and continue their systemic bias against fatherhood, California fathers, and Plaintiff Fathers.
For example, Family Code �3011 requires that they act immediately if the health, safety, or welfare of a child is threatened:
"In making a determination of the best interest of the child in a proceeding described in �3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant, consider all of the following:
All orders by Defendants which improperly removed legal and physical custody of Plaintiff Children from Plaintiff Fathers, providing only "supervised visitation" to Plaintiff Fathers, enabled meager and counterproductive opportunities to care for and nurture their children. Such orders are mostly obtained through artifice and misrepresentation and properly should be corrected by this court, in the best interests of the children.
Punitive measures used by Defendants against Plaintiff Fathers are wholly inappropriate and were improperly applied. With Defendants being a body of Government, the issuance of restraining orders limiting speech creates a chilling impact. Not to insure the exercise of free speech to our young, while teaching in our schools the importance of self expression and constitutionally protected liberties, denies these important rights to those who are in the most need for protection. Orders such as the following must henceforth be reversed by this court:
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs' "free exercise [of religion]" Protected By the First Amendment to the Constitution By Altering A Solemn Promise to God.
Defendants assert that "The Family Law Act of 1970 did not disturb the 1872 position of the law regarding the husband's predominant marital rights". As this Act accomplished little other than to "disturb" those rights, as well as to greatly increase family conflict, divorce, illegitimacy, litigation and divorce legal fees, this is a fraudulent assertion. In 1969, Defendants repealed California Civil Code �5101, which stated:
By this, the Family Law Act prohibits the "free exercise" of every one of the world's religions. It particularly prohibits the "free exercise" of the religions of the 85% of Californians who are Christians, the 2% who are Jewish, and the 1% who are Muslim. It specifically prohibits them from exercising one of the most important and fundamental practices of all three religions, which is the establishment of the father as the head of the family. It sets up an experiment in "gender equality", using our children as lab animals, in spite of the fact that it has already been proven time and time again throughout history, and throughout the world today, to be a totally unworkable and destructive social construct. Defendants have not demonstrated how this can work, nor have they provided any examples of when and where it ever has worked. They have embarked on a social experiment which cost Plaintiffs (and other California citizens) $5,013 Billion, with no proof that California's society or economy could ever have been expected to survive, much less to profit from, this experiment.
The repeal of this single article by itself does far more than simply "disturb the 1872 position of the law regarding the husband's predominant marital rights". Its replacement with �720 portends a bleak future for marriage and family. It upsets 3,000 years of civilized progress and reduces the human family to the status of the baboon. It sets up conflicts in marital relationships from which few families could ever be expected to recover. It destroys a primary motivation for males to marry and to take on the responsibility of raising a family in the first place. It creates gender warfare from which California's society and economy may never recover. It prevents responsible wives from keeping the most important commitment they ever make in their lives, "To honor and obey until death do us part". It makes a mockery of the Constitutional principle of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The most profound benefit of Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism, and the majority of the world's religions is the compact with God which creates a husband/wife relationship which guarantees protection and education of the children of the human species. It is unique to, is responsible for the advancement of, and may be what separates other species from, the human species. This Act threatens the crucial family stability which is necessary for the mere survival of the human species, and indeed each and every social and economic statistic by which we measure California's progress or lack thereof has taken a sinister and distinct turn for the worse since enactment and enforcement of this Act by Defendants. It places the children of all families at increased risk to this social pathology as the children of fatherless households interact with and adversely impact children of two-parent, God fearing, stable families in the publicly funded education system.
Whereas several pages of "family law" were all that were necessary to coddle, protect, preserve, and nurture families for almost a century prior to the Family Law Act, and whereas one page of the Ten Commandments was all that was necessary for 3 millennia prior to that, citizens are now expected to read, understand, and remember 3 complete 700 page volumes of the most outlandish legal jargon merely to be able to understand, much less to obey, basic "family law". Such an experiment could never have been expected to produce any benefits, and indeed it has not produced a measurable benefit for children, fathers, mothers, education, the economy, the taxpayer, nor any other group, other than Defendants themselves. It is inevitable that, even with no other external factors, rampant increases in divorce, illegitimacy, murders, sexual abuse, child abuse, and spousal abuse would follow. The evidence shows that each of these expectations have been fully met.
The Family Law Act is a dishonor to God and a violation of federal law.
The Family Law Act of California is unconstitutional and illegally enforced as it re-establishes the Institution of Slavery in the United States in a form much more insidious and stealthy than that prior to the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. The result is the same: the abuse of a minority segment of our society--our Children and our future. California is destroying the American Family at the expense of the future of our children. Defendants have placed both Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children in "involuntary servitude and slavery" from which Plaintiffs cannot, without the assistance of this court, escape.
This Institution of Slavery is currently administered by the judges and attorneys of the State of California as a method of draining the victims of divorce of their money, and to incite conflict as a method of prolonging court actions, and thus increasing legal fees and costs. The end result, however, is the enslavement of children.
The abuse of the children of divorce, by placing them into slavery, is a major cause of the destruction of the American family, of the 120,000 divorces per year in California, and of the increased violence among young children against adults. Across the nation, 7-12 year old children are shooting teachers and parents as a direct result of the trauma to children surrounding divorce and slavery.
The United States Magistrate has clear jurisdiction for violations of anti-slavery laws enacted following the Emancipation Proclamation freeing all slaves. When President Lincoln freed slaves he did not free black slaves; he freed all slaves. Anti-slavery laws have continually used by the courts to stop the practice of slavery and involuntary servitude and have applied those laws to Hispanics, Asians and other ethnic groups to stop abusive practices against minority groups. Defendants, through judicial abuse of the Family Law Act, have placed Plaintiff children in bondage and denied them of due process of law. Children of parents in conflict are a minority group, and the traumatic experiences that they are forced to endure at the hands of the judicial system in California is exactly the same as the trauma experienced by children of slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation was designed to protect these children and it is appropriately applied to the children of divorce and the non-custodial parent. The denial of the childrens rights to paternal guidance fits the definition of slavery, in that the Court (the Slaver), has caused the same traumatic emotional damage that was caused by the institution of slavery abolished by the Emancipation Proclamation. This places jurisdiction clearly in Federal Courts under anti-slavery laws.
Defendants, by and through the Family Law Act of 1972, have re-established a State Sponsored and Court Supported institution of slavery. Defendants have placed children into bondage in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (APR. 9, 1866), the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Anti-Slavery Laws and the doctrines of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Anti-Slavery laws do not apply strictly to Blacks. They have been interpreted and applied to oppressed persons of all races including white slaves. The Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. 397, commonly known as the White Slave Traffic Act was passed and enforced by the courts to stop the interstate trafficking in prostitution and to stop involuntary servitude. The power to determine to whom and where slavery is being practiced rests within the jurisdiction of this court. It also has the power to determine the badges and the incidents of slavery and the authority to translate them.
Prior to the Mann Act prostitutes and the transportation of prostitutes across state lines was not considered to be an incident of slavery or involuntary servitude. The Congress and the Courts liberally interpreted the Thirteenth Amendment to include these morally decadent acts as being in violation of the amendment. In the decades following the Civil War the courts have applied liberally the Anti-Slavery Laws to include the oppressed, minorities, immigrants, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Asians, indentured prostitutes from Viet Nam, and immigrants from numerous other countries. The children of divorce are an oppressed group. The children of divorce are a minority. The children of divorce are being enslaved if they are denied their rights to have biological fathers involved in their lives. The Courts have a mandate to prevent the enslavement of these children at the hands of Defendants. These children cannot protect themselves.
Now Plaintiffs come before this court to inform you of a misuse of the judicial system that has far-reaching impacts, not only on our generation; but on future generations. Plaintiffs are informing the courts that the Judicial System in the Family Courts of California (and across the country) are abusing, by design, our children; indeed, our future. This abuse is slavery because it places both Plaintiff Children and Plaintiff Fathers in fear of custodial parents, judges, attorneys, and court-appointed experts. The end result is that the minds of these children are forever changed to hate and despise their own biological fathers. In the majority of cases it is the biological father who is the target of this discrimination. Across the nation, as with the Family Law Task Force of San Diego, California, experts are recognizing the badges and incidents of slavery that has placed children in bondage. They identify the violations, under color of law that are the tools of the slavers. The slavers are the attorneys who use fraud, perjury and false allegations as a weapon to win for their clients and the judges who allow it to occur in their court rooms in violation of their mandates to police their courts and to uphold guaranteed rights under the Constitution of the United States. Still, Defendants do not act "in the best interests of the children". This failure to act under color of law is a crime against the common good and is a public offense and falls under the common law theory of tort liability
If these children are being brainwashed to hate one of their parents; denying the Constitutional rights of the other; then they are being made slaves of the other parent with the conspiracy and endorsement of the courts, the judges, the attorneys and the State. This court, in its jurisdiction to stop slavery, cannot and must not ignore these cries from the dark for relief Anti-Slavery laws apply to the abused children of divorce. If this court fails to act; future generations of our children will become the instrument that will destroy our nation from within. The destruction of the family will be our nations destruction.
"It is difficult to determine on the standard by which a nation may be tried, whether catholic, or particular. It is more difficult for a native to bring to that standard the manners of his own nation, familiarized to him by habit. There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning what to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self love, for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst passions, and they nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities." Thomas Jefferson on Slavery
Thomas Jeffersons words are as applicable today as they were when he wrote them. Children are molded by what they see becoming the sum of their experiences. Allowing the custodial parent to mentally manipulate the child to hate the non-custodial parent through the use of parental alienation perpetrates the use of it by that child in the future generation. This mental manipulation is a extreme form of slavery. The child cannot escape the brainwashing, cannot break free of the bonds that hold him or her, cannot free himself or herself, and will be doomed to commit the same abuse on his or her children in the future. The judges of the court and the attorneys who practice before the court have knowledge of this slavery, encourage it as a tactic to win for their clients, and show no remorse for the mental destruction that it causes Plaintiff Children and Fathers.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Defendants have violated the spirit and intent of this amendment to the Constitution as well as the doctrines that followed the Emancipation Proclamation. The destruction of the parent/child relationship of the non-custodial parent violates common law, Gods law, natural law, the basic precepts of the Magna Charta, the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and federal law.
Plaintiff Children have been placed in bondage and brainwashed by Defendants. The mental damages caused by this is, in the evaluation of Dr. Noll Evans, the same as those suffered by black slave children during and before the Civil War. Richard A. Gardner, M.D. describes this campaign of denigration of the parent/child relationship as:
"Typically the child is obsessed with 'hatred' of the parent."
"These children speak of the hated parent with every vilification and profanity in their vocabularywithout embarrassment or guilt. The denigration of the parent often has the quality of a litany. After only minimal prompting by a lawyer, judge, probation officer, mental health professional, or other person involved in the litigation, the record will be turned on and a command performance provided."
"Typical comments of such children include: "I hate him and I never want to see him again in my whole life." "Hes mean and hes stupid and I dont care if I ever see him again," and "If I have to see him Ill see him once a month for an hour. Thats all I can stand".
"A father who was once doting and loving becomes transformed into a noxious individual or a non-person. A father with whom there were joyous experiences is now referred to as boring."
"When asked about the activities the child engaged in with the father after the separation, the child will often say, "I dont remember." When the examiner asks incredulously about the childs lack of memory for all events that occurred prior to the fathers departure, the child claims complete amnesia. It is as if a segment of the childs brain in which were embedded memories of life with father prior to his departure have been totally obliterated."
California judges and attorneys have placed the children of non-custodial parents into bondage by abusing, under color of law, their power over the life and death of children for the sole purpose of prolonging the conflict between parents in conflict. This is against all human rights and God-given rights.
Gardner attributes the rise in occurrences of this syndrome directly to the divorce courts:
"Prior to the early 1980s, I certainly saw children whom I considered to have been brainwashed by one parent against the other. However, since that period I have seen with increasing frequency a disorder that I rarely saw previously. This disorder arose primarily in children who had been involved in protracted custody litigation. It is now so common that I see manifestations of it in about 90 percent of children who have been involved in custody conflicts. Because of its increasing frequency and the fact that a typical pattern is observed different from simple brainwashing I believe a special designation is warranted. Accordingly, I have termed this disorder the parental alienation syndrome."
Plaintiff Children are so abused by Defendants that they suffer severe "Parental Alienation Syndrome". For example, Shannon Hedrick, Plaintiff Child of one Plaintiff Father, suffers it so badly that she "would rather live in a mud hole in the ground" and placed herself in a position to be "RAPED" rather than face any more harassment from Defendants. Defendants have placed a higher priority to financial remuneration to unscrupulous ex-wives then to the rights of Plaintiff Children to have a meaningful relationship with Plaintiff Fathers.
This has made Plaintiff Children slaves to angry and vengeful ex-wives, attorneys, judges, social workers, Child Protective Services agencies, welfare agencies, medicare and social security employees, all of whom have proven by example their total inability to meet basic needs of Plaintiff Children.
Parental Alienation Syndrome is a form of bondage and child abuse. It is the tool of the Slaver to place children of Parents in Conflict into Slavery at the hands of the mother who is allowed to use it and is not stopped by the court.
The spirit and intent of this amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the representatives of we the people to prevent precisely this kind of abuse by Defendants.
Citizens are prohibited by the constitution from holding another citizen in involuntary servitude, and certainly government (and thus Defendants) are clearly prohibited from it. This reinstatement of involuntary servitude and slavery is a violation of federal law.
The children of the parents in divorce cases throughout the State of California are being place in involuntary servitude which is a violation of anti-slavery laws and the Emancipation Proclamation.
Every time a child is denied the right to associate and have a relationship with their father, they are being placed into bondage at the hands of the mother. These children are made slaves by the other parent and are denied their constitutionally protected rights to have two parents in their life.
This denial of rights is also a denial of their rights to due process due to the fact that they are not granted the right to speak for themselves without undue influence of attorneys, judges, psychologists, doctors and the custodial parent.
The State of California has allowed the Family Court Judges and the Attorneys of California to re-establish the institution of slavery. The slavers are the judges and the attorneys and the slaves are the children of divorce. This court has the authority, and the moral and legal responsibility, to abolish both the practice of slavery and the Family Law Act in California.
The spirit and intent of this amendment to the Constitution is clear. Any coercion, civil or criminal, by any authority for a male to perform work in payment of any debt is peonage and is thus in violation of 42 USC section 1994. Defendants have violated common law, Gods law, natural law, the basic precepts of the Magna Charta, the united states Constitution, the California Constitution, common sense, the English language, and federal law by imprisoning Plaintiffs for the "crime" of giving paternal guidance a higher priority than financial remuneration to unscrupulous ex-wives under the misnomer "child support payments". Solely and merely to sidestep this clear provision of important amendments to the united states Constitution, Defendants have confused the terms "obligation" and "debt" by claiming that money owed for court-imposed "child support payments" is not a "debt". Furthermore, they redefined court-imposed payments to be an "obligation" which they then assert is outside of the scope of the united states Constitution by stating:
"Vague laws offend several important values; first, vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning; second, vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application; and third, where a vague statute abuts on sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms, it operates to inhibit the exercise of those freedoms." Grayned v. City of Rockford, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
Raising a family, running a marriage, and settling disputes requires only Ten Commandments and the simple vow to "honor and obey until death do us part". When these simple principles are displaced, frustrated, and/or obfuscated with 492 pages consisting of 378,840 words arranged in the most confusing manner possible, confusion, divorce, illegitimacy, reduced birth and marriage rates, and family breakdown are inevitable. Consider the following example of legislation which is apparently intended to be as vague as possible:
Adultery is considered by the Ten Commandments to be such a serious crime that it is located right next to the Commandment against murder. The Bible describes adultery to be even more serious a crime than murder in many circumstances. In 13,787 pages of California law, adultery is mentioned only by reference to the "Act of 1872", which is not specifically described. Research into case law reveals that adultery still carries a state prison sentence, but it is not even given a section in the penal code, which is required by police departments and districts attorney to prosecute a crime. Even reading each one of these 13,787 pages of law doesn't answer the question: Is it a law, or is it not a law?
The codification of the law into so many volumes would not be unconstitutionally vague if the message were made clearer with these 13,787 pages and if it made it easier to understand and follow the law. Exactly the opposite happened. The single page Ten Commandments is not only clearer, easier to follow, more effective, but is actually more comprehensive. It contains 7 key principles which these 13,787 pages omit and/or obscure, and the obfuscation of 3 of them makes a mockery of an Act entitled "Family Law Act". This is its apparent intended objective.
"Honor thy mother and thy father ..." is a clear and unambiguous principle. "The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any reasonable place or mode of living, and the wife must conform thereto" is almost as clear and unambiguous. But California Civil Law 48.7 confuses everyone.
Also obscured is the compelling state interest which drove Defendants to pass a law which so weakened marriage and family at precisely the point in history when the exact opposite could have and should have been Defendants' objective. It provides no clue as to why the minority opinions and doctrines of the 0.2% of the population which supports radical feminism were given priority over the 85% of the population which is Christians, the 2% which are Jewish, and the 1% which are Muslims. It provides no clue that Defendants even considered the massive destruction of the economy and society of California that was inevitable from the passage of this Act. It provides not a trace of evidence that Defendants thought such a radical minority doctrine had worked, could work, or ever will work, in California or anywhere else in the world. It makes the odd claim that "the prevailing mood of the 1970s" was responsible for the passage of an Act formulated in the late 1960s. It ignores the impact that such an act passed in the 1960s would have on "the prevailing mood of the 1970s". In an attempt to deny Defendants culpability for successive events, it is a virtual proclamation that laws are unable to shape public morals.
This rationale for passage of the Act is tantamount to proclaiming that, even though there is a law against murder, "the prevailing mood of the 1970s" was followed by an increase in the murder rate, so 13,787 pages of laws related to murder will be published to obscure the laws and penalties surrounding murder prosecution. It could then be considered a compelling state interest when the murder prosecution rate declines, even though the murder rate itself continued to increase.
Defendants have impermissibly biased case law by prohibiting the publishing of decisions which mismatch Defendants' biased political agenda. In numerous cases, Plaintiffs appeals to court orders (e.g., an order which denied the ability to exercise an agreement with ex-wives and creditors regarding a debt [child support]), are not allowed to be published. Even though such a decision may have established important precedents, it is unavailable to Plaintiffs because Defendants impermissibly mixed their desire to "crack down on deadbeat dads" with their responsibility to uphold the Constitution, creating a false rationale for violating Plaintiffs constitutional rights. This is a violation of federal law.
Defendants by and through malicious and willful use and abuse of process, have knowingly, willfully, maliciously and intentionally acted in a civil conspiracy and criminal conspiracy with each other with the aiding and abetting and assisting of each other to deprive, deny, and to cause:
Any conceivable compelling state interest which Defendants hoped to achieve could not have been further from attainment in light of the doubling of the divorce rate, the tripling of the murder rate, the quadrupling of the rate of fatherlessness, the quadrupling of the incarceration rate, the 98 point plunge in SAT scores, and the emotional stress imposed upon Plaintiff Fathers and Children immediately following enactment of the Family Law Act. The primary function of the government by which Defendants are employed is to protect its citizens from the very social instability created by Defendants. Defendants had the responsibility to implement, failed to implement, and should have implemented in 1969, a Family Law Act, a Family Code, and Rules of Family Practice designed and intended to mitigate or eliminate these social problems. The most pressing social problems at the time this Act was passed were the already high divorce, crime, murder, incarceration, delinquency, teen suicide, teen pregnancy rates, and the massive social problems like abortion, venereal disease, illegitimacy, poor education quality, etc., already being caused by fornication (out-of-marriage sex), adultery, and unbridled and unpunished acts of perjury. This Act discriminates against fathers, reduces the incentive for California men to marry, and contributes to the severe decrease in the number of two-parent families which underlies the above social pathology.
Greater incentives for families to remain intact, disincentives for the creation of single-mother households, social or financial penalties for divorce, mandatory work programs for chronic welfare recipients who have used welfare to buy illegal drugs and to make public assistance a career, hospitalization and treatment of drug abusers, teaching ethics in public schools, all are acts which would have improved an already relatively stable society. With such programs Defendants could have improved SAT scores, reduced the divorce rate maybe even enough to emulate most divorce rates around the world which are now 1/20th of California's, cut the murder and incarceration rates to a fifth of what they are today (to a level equivalent to Japan's rates), reduced rather than increased fatherlessness, and greatly reduced taxes. These would have been both responsible and achievable goals.
Instead, Defendants implemented, enforced, and continue to enforce a Family Law Act et seq. which not only failed to meet any conceivable public legislative intents or objectives, but which imposed Draconian laws on the otherwise relatively stable California society of the 1960s [read: emotionally damaging, restrictive, unrealistic, unconstitutional, destructive, frustrating, time consuming, cumbersome, inefficient, burdensome, irritating, complex, maddening, irrational, contradictory, vague, combative, destructive, irresponsible, unbiblical, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, antisocial, asocial, misanthropic, cynical, unsociable, expensive, exorbitant, financially devastating, absurd, unsound, fallacious, fraudulent, deceptive, deceitful, hypocritical, misleading, costly, inhumane, counterproductive, biased, discriminatory, wasteful, unproductive, anti-family, anti-children, bureaucratic, empty, conglomerate, sometimes criminal, ungodly, AND unconstitutional].
Defendants have shown no compelling state interest to justify their violation of so many constitutional rights to so many Plaintiffs. Even if they produced any evidence at this late date that this Act improved even one minority group, one financial statistic, one economic statistic, or one individual, they still could not justify the $5,013 Billion loss to California. Defendants' provision to mothers of a controlling interest over or an equal interest to fathers in the private affairs of the family upset family structure and stability so severely that family breakup was inevitable. Their assertion that this is "in the best interest of the children" is wildly protested by Plaintiffs who see not a single concern for nor any improvement in the "welfare of the children" by Defendants. Their assertion that this was necessary to make up for past "discrimination against" mothers is contravened by the fact that women and mothers are the ones most harmed by this Act -- family breakup is ultimately more damaging to women and motherhood than it is to most men and fatherhood. Their assertion that mothers somehow benefited from this newfound freedom is contravened by every bit of statistical evidence to the contrary.
The chronic rise just in the rate of unmarried births was a clear warning signal to Defendants, at every point in time since the passage of the Act, that they were derelict in their duty to a degree beyond even outright infringement of Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights. It is unconscionable that they observed this loud and clear signal of their failure, yet continued to fail to take even one single responsible step to correct it. Plaintiffs are beyond rage when they observe Defendants producing conciliatory political rhetoric which Plaintiffs know will both fail to even address the root problem, much less correct it, PLUS will make the symptoms worse:
Consider the number of illegitimate births as a percent of all births as one mere example of their foolhardiness:
In the 2 decades prior to Defendants' enactment of the Family Law Act, the rate of illegitimate births had increased 2.8 fold, a fact which should have alarmed them into action to correct this clear signal of the destructive social pathology which government exists primarily to prevent. Instead, they passed an Act which not only failed to correct or mitigate the problem, but which in the next 2 decades increased it even faster, by 3 fold.
There is now no compelling state interest more important than reestablishing responsible fatherhood, putting fathers back into the workforce, placing children in the father headed homes in which they are well known to be the most secure and productive, and bringing a speedy end to the severe social and economic problems caused by Defendants through this Act. This is a violation of federal law.
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- Defendants, By and Through the Family Law Act, Deny Plaintiffs Fatherhood As a Liberty Interest Protected By "life, liberty, and property" In The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation.
California records show that 92% of the children of divorce are caused by Defendants to be placed in the custody of their mothers and are thus are deprived of paternal guidance, education, and care. This is due solely to systemic bias against fathers and is contrary to all compelling state interests. Plaintiff Children have limited access to their own biological fathers, in direct contradiction to the welfare of both Plaintiff Children and Plaintiff Fathers. Compared to children of two-parent families where the father is present, they are more likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to have a 72% lower standard of living.
Plaintiff Fathers are most concerned about the resulting 92% rate of mother custody achieved by Defendants through enforcement of a Family Law Act which calls for a presumption of joint custody. Only 3% of California fathers of divorce receive custody of their children solely because of this judicial bias, a violation of the Constitutional rights of both Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children. Defendants could have and should have exercised appropriate responsibility and applied alternative methods which could avoid the chronic lack of paternal guidance available to Plaintiff Children. Defendants flagrantly, openly, publicly, chronically, and consistently disregard the Constitutional and God-given rights, the desires and needs, the resulting social and economic disadvantages, of 3.5 million Plaintiff Children and 2.6 million Plaintiff Fathers by and through this Act. Whether or not it was intentional, a widespread effect of Defendants' passage and enforcement of the Family Law Act has been to criminalize Plaintiff Fathers, and in many cases Plaintiff Children, to prevent them from seeking Constitutional protection.
Defendants have failed to recognize the crucial and significant differences between the contributions each parent makes to the family, between earning ability, between parenting skills and parenting outcomes, and what is required to achieve the optimum parenting results. If Defendants completely ignored the fathers' average superior parenting, earning, educating, and disciplinary skills, and if they assumed that both mothers and fathers were "similarly situated", Defendants would still have the legal and moral obligation to assure that child custody awards, "child support payments", taxation, court orders, enforcement of court orders, jailing and imprisonment for equal violations of court orders, etc., are not biased against Plaintiffs. Divorced fathers are imprisoned for a variety of manufactured "crimes" which apply to neither divorced nor married mothers, nor to married fathers. In addition to this level of bias against Plaintiff Fathers, Defendants ignored and continue to ignore their own data which shows that the children of fatherless households are at a significant disadvantage relative to the children of two-parent and single-father households in achieving this unequal outcome, which is a violation of federal law.
It is well established in case law that a parent's interest in custody of children is a "liberty interest" which has considerable constitutional protection. A parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection.
Yet 92% of the divorced fathers of California have been deprived of the right and ability to care for and nurture their natural children without this "due process of the law". Defendants not only prohibit and ignore "due process of the law" by way of the Family Law Act, but they have compounded already serious family problems, criminalized fathers who exercise basic parental responsibilities and rights, participated in the doubling of the divorce rate, and placed both Plaintiff Children and Plaintiff Fathers at serious risk and in harms way:
A 70-year prospective study reported in the American Journal of Public Health and the American Psychologist reported that either the breakup of one's own marriage or the divorce of one's parents reduces the average life span of both Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children. This study is based on a group of 1,500 gifted children studied throughout their lifetimes. It revealed that divorce is as hazardous to ones health as smoking tobacco, which has received widely publicized federal protection. Men and women who at some point in time experience a divorce, even if they remarry, have a 40 percent greater risk of premature death than those who are steadily married. Those who do not remarry fare even worse--remaining divorced or separated increases the likelihood of earlier death by 120 percent. Among women, the risk jumps 80 percent. When parental divorce occurs before the children reached age 21, the children's risk of mortality increases by 44 percent. Children whose parents divorce are more likely to experience marital breakup themselves, but after controlling for the dissolution of one's own marriage, parental divorce during one's childhood is still a significant predicator of premature mortality. Assuring that families stay together "for the children's sake", or acting "in the best interests of the children", was something that could not have been too serious a concern by Defendants when they enacted the Family Law Act.
Dr. David B. Larson, president of the National Institute for Healthcare Research (NIHR) in Rockville, MD, confirmed this phenomena in another report regarding the impact of divorce on health. Dr. Larson found that divorced people were more likely to be afflicted with terminal cancer, three times more likely to commit suicide, and among men, twice as likely to die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, than their married counterparts. Divorced men who dont smoke have only a slightly lower risk of dying from cancer than married men who smoke a pack of cigarettes a day.
The negative outcomes associated with growing up in a broken home could have been offset by religious faith had Defendants not violated the First Amendment protection to "free exercise [of religion]" described in Causes of Action Five through Eight. Dr. Larson of NIHR, Patrick Fagan of the Heritage Foundation, and numerous others report that religious commitment decreases the likelihood of divorce and increases longevity.
Numerous other studies have confirmed this positive relationship between religious commitment and increased longevity. A study of an elderly population published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that the less religious had mortality levels twice as high as those of the more religious--even after controlling for age, marital status, education, race, gender, the person's health, and previous hospitalizations. Moreover, according to a 10-year follow-up of 2,700 persons in another epidemiological health study, increased church attendance was the only social factor that effectively decreased mortality rates in women.
The threat of the premature mortality of Plaintiffs should have been foremost in the minds of Defendants, and the clear evidence and expectation that divorce shortens the lives of Plaintiff Children should have discouraged them from enacting and enforcing the Family Law Act.
On my own I made some phone calls just to see what I could find out.
Needless to say It all sickened me.I made calls to several different lawyers just for curiosity. Every singleone of them was More than willing to take my case and file my divorce from Larry.
NOT ONE of them would see us BOTH and discuss terms and agreementsopenly! Every single one of them said "Parents don't know what is best fortheir children and the court is set up to ensure the Child is taken careof". I stated to a few, that I am disabled, and it would be best if Larry
were to obtain custody of our son, NOT ONE would set up an appointment under that
condition. Not ONE would set up support payments between us, it HAD to go
through the child support registry. Basically what I learned was, even IF a
mother TRIES to be fair during a divorce the Lawyers and COURTS wont allow
her to "stupidly" keep the father actively involved. Since I was just
fishing for the feel and NOT seeking a divorce I was sickened by this, I
cannot see myself being any different in my beliefs even if Larry and I were
to get a divorce. Women don't have to be vindictive--the lawyers and the
courts do it for her. If she gets sucked into the trend its 3 against ONE.
I Know I want to CHANGE this, and this disability is starting to tick me off
with my limited activities.
Now that is just that portion of what I have been finding out. Believe me
the rest sickens me just as much. I have been told by NUMEROUS agencies I
have contacted seeking help because I am disabled that BECAUSE I AM MARRIED
I do NOT QUALIFY. Social Security Disability HAS ALSO told me because I AM
MARRIED I am NOT entitled to benefits.
Our 4 year old son, CANNOT attend PRE K this Fall because #1 HE SPEAKS
ENGLISH, and (you guessed it) #2 I'm married, therefore he doesn't qualify as
an underprivileged child. He does NOT qualify for the HEAD START program
either, Larry managed to make a bit more that $13,000 last year and of
course since we are MARRIED we don't qualify.
Yet, if the state were to visit my home and view my limitations we could
lose our son to THEM because I'm disabled, YET I DO NOT qualify for any HELP!
Every single place I have contacted in the last few months have ALL stated
because I AM MARRIED, I am NOT entitled for HELP.. THIS COUNTRY ENCOURAGES
DIVORCE! I have yet to find anyone willing to help BECAUSE I CHOOSE to keep
my family INTACT! They rake it in by screwing BOTH parties during the
divorce proceedings. Of course, its VERY attractive to MOM--she gets it ALL,
dad gets the shaft, but the FAMILY is RUINED. Gotta Love that "best interest
of the children".
Just thought I'd share this with you and let you know I am still here.
Defendants know or should have known that divorce is a public health issue as serious as or more serious than smoking tobacco. Plaintiffs demand that Defendants be held jointly, severally, and personally accountable for their devastating role in increasing the divorce mortality rates of both Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff children, a violation of federal law.
The separation of the three powers of government--legislative, judicial, and executive--is guaranteed by the Constitution precisely to prevent the abuse of government power under which Plaintiffs suffer. Congress (the Legislative branch of government) passed the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Acts specifically to deprive all state officials of any immunity from suit. To date there has never been a modification by Congress or a ratification to change any Constitutional provision, either in the Constitution for the United States of America or any State Constitutions, which ever gave judges or any other state public official any immunities whatsoever. Defendants, through the judicial branch of government, used "case law" like the following to supersede this law properly established by Congress, a violation of federal law regarding separation of the powers of government.
Every person who, under color of any statute ordinance, regulation, custom, or by usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE IN AN ACTION AT LAW SUIT IN EQUITY N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.
If two or more persons . . . conspire. . for the purpose of depriving. . .any person. . . of the equal protection of the laws . . . the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages . . . RECOVERY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE CONSPIRATORS, N0 EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs . . . are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable . . . EVERY PERSON SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES. NO EXCLUSION FOR JUDGES BY ANY ACT OF CONGRESS.
"When any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it." State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147 65 NW 262 30 ALR 660. Also see (Watson v. Memphis, 375 US 526; 10 L Ed 529; 83 S.Ct. 1314)
PLAINTIFFS CONTEND THAT JUDGES NEVER HAD ABSOLUTE OR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY UNDER COMMON LAW--DEFENDANTS HAVE NO IMMUNITY FROM SUIT. Plaintiffs demand Declaratory Relief under 28 U.S.C. 2201, 2202 defining whether or not the named Defendants have any immunity at all since they are creatures of the legislative (Senate) appointment and confirmation process. Since judges are confirmed by the political process they fall under the purview of WE THE PEOPLE and are under our will. WE THE PEOPLE were and are represented by our public servants in Congress. Congress passed the 1866 and 1871 Civil Rights Acts specifically to deprive all state officials any immunity from suit. To date there has never been a modification by Congress or a ratification to change any Constitutional provision, either in the Constitution for the United States of America or any State Constitutions, which ever gave judges or any other state public official any immunities whatsoever.
We now have a constitutional issue to be decided by the Federal courts because of the conflict of interest by the state. State judges are empowered by the state Legislative process. The people never gave judges any judicial immunity and it is so stated in the State Constitutions. Defendants have claimed immunity as judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction. They have cited their alleged immunities under common law doctrines that date back to old England and English common law. Defendants have cited numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases to support that their hypothesis of absolute immunity applies to suits brought under the Civil Rights Acts of 1871 (42 U.S.C. 1983). Defendants contend they must be free to act upon their own convictions in the proper administration of justice without apprehension of the consequences. They further contend that the immunity is intended to provide judges with "maximum ability to act fearlessly and impartially without an atmosphere of intimidation or harassment". They have abused their own power by using this as an excuse to continue to act fearlessly to intimidate and harass a significant percentage of California Residents, denying them constitutional and God-given rights.
Defendants have cited Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) as their source for their absolute immunity. Defendants have cited that Pierson states that judges should not be burdened with the fear of litigants "hounding" them with litigation charging malice or corruption. The U S Supreme Court was in major error with regard to the Pierson case and it took it upon itself, as a Super-Legislative body, in an unlawful manner, to reword the meaning of the enacted Civil Rights law. The Supreme Court misconstrued that if Congress had intended to abolish judicial immunity, it would have specifically so provided, had it wished to abolish the doctrine of judicial immunity. The Supreme Court, in its continuance of covering up for the unlawful actions of judges, plainly rewrote the laws of this United States by trying to remove the parts of the Civil Rights Laws that allowed recovery to a person injured by the ruling of a judge acting for personal gain or out of personal motives.
This unfounded misinterpretation is nothing more than an illusion and a distortion of the true spoken meaning of the 42nd Congress in the year 1871. For any Court to change the words or meaning of a Congressionally Enacted Statute is beyond the jurisdiction of such a Court, and any such Court findings should be ignored as blatantly unconstitutional. Therefore, no future Court should give credibility to an improper act of a prior Court. Congress makes laws and only Congress can change their enacted laws.
In Pierson, at page 386 U S 562, the following is stated by the Supreme Court in a misleading manner, leaving out key and important words:
"Hitherto...no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts...Under the provisions of [Section 1] every judge in the State court... will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with the sword of Damocles suspended over him..."
But the full statement to the above has a considerably different sense than this abbreviated version:
"Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge of court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts, and not the ministerial agents of the law have been covered by the same aegis of exemption. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability; and the judiciary has always remained in justice and equity, in intellect and learning, in freedom and in courage, far, far uplifted above the turmoils, the passions, and the vicissitudes of parties and partisan creeds, the central orb of the highest civilizations, and the sheet anchor of law and order. But no tribunal is sacred in the eye of existing usurpation, and every character, however excellent, must go down under the baleful progress of despotic power. Under the provisions of this section, every judge in the State court and every other officer thereof, great or small will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with the sword of Damocles suspended over him by a silken thread, and bent upon him the scowl of unbridled power, the forerunner of the impending wrath, which is gathering itself to burst upon its victims", Globe 42nd Congress, 1st Session, March 31, 1866.
The wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was given much time and effort, along with sufficient learned knowledge and understanding as to the impact upon the State judicial system and its judges and other officials along with the input of the Congressional Judiciary Committee. After due deliberation and with forethought of intention pertaining to the nature of the bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was enacted by Congress on April 20, 1871. The basic words of "Every Person and All Persons" were well considered and used to intentionally include any judge that "knowingly and willfully deprived any person of his Constitutional Rights under color of law". Congress had sound reason to include judges, as by experience in the past it was learned that whenever any person or group of persons is held above and beyond the laws, those persons abuse the laws to the prejudice of the people of the nation.
The 42nd congress in 1871 knew precisely that judges had openly deprived persons of this nation of their Constitutional Rights in the past, and therefore, Congress knowing that State Judiciaries did and would continue depriving Rights, provided the words "Every Person" in the Act so that anyone suffering deprivations of rights had redress in the Federal Courts. The understanding and meaning of the 1871 Civil Rights Act could not have been made more clear.
Plaintiffs are unaware that Congress ever abolished the 1866 or 1871 Civil Rights Acts, or has ever amended it. Moreover, judicial immunity evolved in England and in the early 17th Century Sir Edward Coke in Floyd and Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (Star Chamber 1607) and The Case of the Marshalsea, 77 Eng. Rep. 1027 (Star Chamber 1612), laid the foundation for the doctrine of judicial immunity. Coke established requirements for its application, restricting immunity to judicial acts made within the judge's jurisdiction. In addition, he set forth a policy underlying the doctrine:
Because the Star-Chamber was a mixture of judicial and executive power, it specialized in trying "political" cases, which have great similarity to many of the Plaintiffs' cases. They are deprived of their right to a relationship with their natural children, in violation of fundamental, unalienable First Amendment rights to associate and freedom of religion, not for justifiable means, but for political gains. Given the politically correct hysteria surrounding custody and visitation enforcement, political agendas have taken precedence over Constitutional rights.
Plaintiffs attempts to assert their rights to custody and care of and association with their own natural children results in deprivations of that right, castigation for trying to assert God-given rights, and then being told they "are not cooperating", a mind set that is reminiscent of the 1950's and 1960's Stalinist Soviet Union. They are held in contempt and threatened with a myriad of sanctions, including imprisonment, if assertion of these rights continues. Star-Chamber proceedings are the antithesis of fundamental and basic human rights and as such were abolished in 1641 under the revolutionary government of that time. Today, the unlawful Star-Chamber has been resurrected by the Family Law Act. Defendants, being sued by Plaintiffs, did exactly what the Star-Chambers did--acted without jurisdiction but usurped it anyway, depriving Plaintiffs of a father-child relationship, without ever articulating, demonstrating, or proving that a compelling state interest existed.
Defendants took an Oath to Uphold and Defend the U.S. Constitution and the Laws of the United States, 28 U.S.C. 453 (a) and (b). Based on this, immunity doctrine for judges is an artificial judge-created law/fiction and was never lawfully established by any lawful government through the normal procedures. Based on when the doctrine of judicial immunity was established--during the Star-Chamber era--Defendants must question if immunity is at all lawful. Star-Chamber proceedings were the most corrupt, oppressive and tyrannical form of injustice in the history of the world. To establish the doctrine of judicial immunity from this proven disaster is to say that our present judicial system and the Family Law Act is the progeny of the Star-Chamber. If Defendants must hide behind this purported judicial immunity to be able to remain free from fear of intimidation or harassment, without taking responsibility for the magnitude of their errors, then the judicial system of this nation has failed and Plaintiffs have no choice but to demand total accountability for the judiciary at all times. Plaintiffs, to assure that they meet responsibilities commensurate to their authority, must demand damages from each of them in their individual capacities.
State court Judge G. Michael Hocking of Michigan's 56th Circuit Court was sued and lost. Judge Hocking ordered an attorney jailed for contempt when she argued against his unlawful conduct in a custody and visitation matter. The attorney was literally dragged from the courtroom where deputies beat her. She sustained brain damage from the assault. Her client, the father involved in the visitation dispute protested the action. At one point the Judge ran from the Courtroom, instructed his deputies to seize the father, search him at gunpoint and expel him from the courthouse. The father and attorney filed separate 42 U.S.C. 1983 actions. On June 23rd, 1995 Judge Richard A. Enslen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan entered a directed verdict against Judge Hocking on First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The jury found against Hocking and awarded the attorney and the father money damages.
Plaintiffs, time and again, without committing a crime, and merely in pursuit of these vital Constitutional and God-given rights, have been harassed by Defendants, including but not limited to threats of bodily harm, having Defendants threatening Plaintiffs with contempt, intimidation by Sheriff's officers menacing Plaintiffs, and the threat of physical incarceration. Prohibiting a mere assertion of fundamental rights in the courtroom is contrary to the Oaths the Defendants took to God to defend the Constitution.
DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL OATHS TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY DENYING PLAINTIFFS THEIR FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Defendants took an Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States of pursuant to 4 U.S.C. 101 and 102. Plaintiffs, being WE THE PEOPLE, assert and maintain that the aforementioned denials of effective assistance of counsel, failure to enforce existing laws that are on the books and are clearly established law, and failure to provide Due Process to plaintiffs amounts to Defendants failing to perform their duties under the Oaths that they took. Those Oaths specifically were employed to protect the people and as a result of Defendants' actions, commissions and/or omissions, violated Plaintiffs' fundamental rights, when they violated their own Oaths.
Denying basic fundamental rights to substantive as well as procedural due process and equal protection under the laws, starting with denial of effective assistance of counsel and being forced/coerced into an adverse relationship with their own biological children, is in violation of the Family Law Act itself. Violating Plaintiff s' Substantive and fundamental rights is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242 and 371, Aiding and abetting Plaintiffs' former wives by depriving the minor children and Plaintiffs of a Constitutionally protected, substantive, fundamental, God-given right is a serious violation of Plaintiffs' religious beliefs and training. These criminal actions by state judge actors give rise to further federal criminal acts under 18 U.S.C. 4, 18 U.S.C. 2382 and 2383. Defendants caused and allowed criminal behavior which deprived Plaintiff Fathers of all rights, caused Plaintiff Children to be deprived of all of their rights, and interfered with the sacred religious relationship between father and child established by God.
Since Defendants have always contended that they were acting under State law, they became state actors. Defendants are being sued for violating Plaintiffs' fundamentally protected unalienable substantive rights, in their individual capacities.
Plaintiff Fathers have been unlawfully denied and deprived of their Plaintiff Children for a myriad of unacceptable and mostly false reasons. Plaintiffs have a number of fact and law issues that must be put before a jury. Defendants are guilty of violating Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 241 and 242. Plaintiffs demand damages from Defendants on the basis of their criminal actions and demand that they also be charged and indicted for their crimes against God and humanity.
The vested right to act as a judge who has sworn to an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and adjudicate all matters fairly and to act "under color of law", does not grant a judge to act as an "outlaw". Defendants leave out the important aspect to the accountability of judges which is that they are politically appointed creatures. The doctrine of absolute immunity is improperly situated when it allows judges to render decisions without fear of consequences, especially since judges are legislative, political creatures who are influenced by the political party to which they honor and to the special interest groups that may affect that political party. In citing the Pierson decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, defendants try to persuade that a judge who errs, or acts maliciously or corruptly, can be corrected in appeal. Given the costs of appeal in this country, only the rich can afford that luxury. The majority of Plaintiff Fathers are forced, against their will, to live with improper, erroneous, malicious, corrupt-ridden, and biased orders of Defendants that have no bearing on the law or equity. They are based on the anti-father and anti-family bias of the Family Law Act, coupled with a particular judge or judges' personal prejudices. Furthermore, all of the judges in positions of review are political creatures as well and are basically above the law and allow personal prejudices to permeate the system.
Judges are supposed to be the "supreme law givers", and that is why judges have to be held to the highest accountability of all state actors. Judges who violate the Constitutions and laws of the United States of America lose all immunity from civil suit as well as criminal action. Defendants had and continue to have no right and no compelling state interest, unless in the rare cases of substantiated criminal child abuse, to interfere with Plaintiffs' religious rights to raise their children/family and rights to association and privacy in the care, companionship and nurturing of their children.
Plaintiffs note the fact that there are federal rules & laws regarding suing judges for violations of constitutional rights, which is proof enough that it occurs. Plaintiffs further note that phrases like "an error of law" are used when the law is not in error, but when the judge's ruling\order or decision is "in error of the law" or of "case law". This effectively obscures the fact that a judge's ruling is contrary to or in opposition to the law, setting dangerous and misleading precedents. Plaintiffs further note that the singling out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment constitutes a "bill of attainder".
The Family Law Act could not be enforced, and Plaintiffs' Constitutional rights could not be denied, if Defendants were held personally liable for their role in allowing unconstitutional rulings to go forth. The California taxpayer has already suffered enough at the hands of Defendants. This court has the obligation, the authority, and the power, to restore vital Constitutional principles by holding Defendants personally responsible for their illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, ungodly, anti-social, and/or counterproductive acts.
Plaintiffs are aware of the conflict which exists between the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the Fourteenth Amendment right to "equal protection" which has been responsible for much recent case law. Attempts through the Family Law Act and by many recent court rulings to replace vital Christian principles with "gender equality" principles has, in the opinions of Plaintiffs, been sheer disaster. The voluminous statistical evidence cited herein regarding the breakdown of the family, rising crime and incarceration rates, immoral behavior, economic malaise, and high tax rates is evidence enough that the original "Bill of Rights" should not be so easily dismissed. If this court does give "equal protection" a higher priority than free exercise of religion, then the gender-biased manner in which the Family Law Act has removed "equal protection" from fatherhood renders the entire Family Law Act unconstitutional on this basis alone.
The sanctity of the God-given concept of marriage is embodied in these following references from the Holy Bible:
Females in this country have a well-defined right of reproductive privacy to choose when and with whom to have a child. With this Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, if the Constitution is held to guarantee a specific right for one gender, then the same right must be recognized for both genders. Since females have a fundamental right to control their own parenthood, then the same right equally exists and must be equally recognized for males. The net effect of case law is that state statutory schemes that perpetuate rigid gender role limitations or that provide for differential treatment in distributing benefits and burdens for either males or females always fail to survive scrutiny. Even more, the state's active penalization in paternity suits of one gender because of the actions of the other gender especially evokes an Equal Protection bar.
When a state statute or state action under color of statute effects a different treatment on the basis of gender, a heightened scrutiny is applied. Even though heightened scrutiny is a lower level of scrutiny than strict scrutiny, in actual practice the U.S. Supreme Court has not allowed a gender-based statute to penalize one gender for the benefit of the other since 1973. Even when a gender-based statute merely supports a benign, compensatory purpose, the Court applies the same scrutiny that it does to disadvantaging classifications.
A gender-based statute is not justified even by a generalization that has some basis in biology Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978); Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073, 103 S.Ct. 3492, 77 L.Ed.2d 1236 (1983). The Court has specifically rejected the notion that a gender-discriminatory law regarding illegitimate children can be justified "by a fundamental difference between maternal and paternal relations that 'a natural mother . . . bears a closer relationship with her child . . . than a father does"' Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 at 388, 99 S.Ct. 1760 at 1766 (1979)(citing transcript of oral argument); Just as the Court has rejected a law that presumes that unmarried males are always unsuitable or neglectful parents unless they can prove otherwise. Certainly, no state classification by gender can have a purpose of merely limiting welfare costs Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 254-55, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), to furnish the state another means of encouraging support payments to out-of-wedlock children.
The controlling rule in gender discrimination cases is that the state may not establish classificatory schemes that perpetuate rigid, out-dated, archaic and overbroad notions of gender role limitations. As stated in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan:
While a fundamental rights impairment evokes strict scrutiny, and while a discriminatory classification requires a heightened scrutiny, the case where a state statute or state action under color of statute involves both a fundamental rights impairment and a discriminatory classification evokes very strict scrutiny indeed: "In considering whether state legislation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . classifications affecting fundamental rights . . . are given the most exacting scrutiny." Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456 at 461, 108 S.Ct. 1910 at 1914 (1988). Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 561-62, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1381 (1964); Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. at 670, 86 S.Ct. at 1083 (1966)(full cits. Omitted); cf. Also Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa Co., 415 U.S. 250, 254-55, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1080, 39 L.Ed.2d 306 (1974)(discrimination re: fundamental rights among classes of citizens unconstitutional under Equal Protection Clause)
U.S. Supreme Court case law has established the rule that the Equal Protection Clause equally protects the fundamental reproductive rights of both males and females. In Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1971), for example, the Court declared that treating similarly situated individuals unequally with a state statute infringing on reproductive choice is violative of the Equal Protection Clause. More recently, Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed "the scope of recognized protection accorded to the liberty relating to intimate relationships, the family, and decisions about whether or not to beget or bear a child" 112 S.Ct. at 2810 (emphasis added) and held that "[t]he Constitution protects individuals men and women alike, from unjustified state interference" with family choices and that "[t]he Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power" in regard to decisions about family id., at 2830, 2831 (emphases added).
In its cases dealing specifically with male family privacy rights, the Supreme Court has consistently held that state law may not treat males differently from females in matters of parentage and family privacy. In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972), for example, the Court stated that the state's interests in out-of-wedlock children does not preclude the family privacy rights that all citizens possess, whether male or female, married or unmarried. The state's concern for economic or administrative efficiency do not out-weigh a male's private interest in his constitutionally-protected family liberty id., 405 U.S. at 658, 92 S.Ct. at 1216.
Similarly, in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673, 54 L.Ed.2d 618 (1978), the Court held that a state statute that interfered with a male's fundamental rights to family privacy violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled that such a statute was not justified by state interests in furnishing the state another means of encouraging support payments or to protect children's welfare id., 434 U.S. at 388, 98 S.Ct. at 682; cf. Also Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574 at 581, n.8, 107 S.Ct. 3001 at 3005, n.8, 97 L.Ed.2d 473 (1987). This rule was stated more broadly in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Court held that the state cannot exceed its statutory authority in discriminating between genders in regard to fundamental reproductive and familial decisions even where the law is enacted for the supposed benefit of another id., 112 S.Ct. at 2831. Similarly, the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that even where the government shows a compelling interest in state actions regarding a father's association or non-association with his children, it nevertheless must resort to any available alternative solutions other than one that impairs his fundamental right to family privacy Franz v. U.S., 707 F2d 582, 602-603 (USCA, D.C., 1983).
A further consideration in cases involving equal protection of fundamental family privacy rights is that standards of scrutiny and constitutionality of statutes change in response to social, political and technological changes. In this regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
The male has no equivalent right under the Family Law Act, nor other recent court rulings, even though his contribution constitutes 50% of the ingredients necessary to create a child. The Holy Bible recognizes that his contribution is a mandatory prerequisite without which life could not go on, and that children should be raised by families and not governments. This restricted male legal freedom coupled with the increased female legal freedom has been compounded by broad developments in social attitudes. Vast social changes such as the influx of women into the work force, equal employment laws, the wide availability of day care, feminism, the sexual revolution, sex education in schools, and the acceptance of divorce, re-marriage, premarital relations and cohabitation, have all acted to give women essentially total control over conception, contraception, reproduction, child-bearing, parentage, and child-rearing. The net result of all this social, legal and technological change is that traditional gender roles have mostly disappeared: For example, 93.7% of all American adult, non-retired, non-institutionalized females work in jobs in the civilian labor force, which is actually slightly higher than the equivalent figure for adult males, 93.0% (U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. 1992, Table No. 622, p. 389). Table No. 618, p. 387). This increase in sexual freedom for females and the corresponding decrease in sexual freedom for fatherhood has paralleled an increase in social breakdown: Sexual intercourse is now so common outside of marriage, for example, that virtually all Americans have premarital sex, and both American males and females have an average of 7.1 sexual partners in their lifetime (National Opinion Research Center, General Society Survey 1993, Univ. of Chicago). Both genders have an average frequency of intercourse of once a week and this frequency is approximately the same for both married and unmarried people Id. Under these circumstances as the Supreme Court said decades ago, "[i]t would be plainly unreasonable to . . . prescribe[ ] pregnancy and the birth of an unwanted child as punishment for fornication" Eisenstadt, supra, 405 U.S. at 448, 92 S.Ct. at 1036 (1972).
Furthermore, American women now have available to them the world's most advanced contraceptive technology. Twenty contraceptive methods for females are now in use: Foam, gel, jelly, cream, film and suppository spermicides, 35 types of oral contraceptive pills, vaginal pouches, douches, female condoms, contraceptive sponges, diaphragms, cervical caps, intrauterine devices (IUD's), tubal ligation, "morning after" pills, intrauterine hormone inserts, subcutaneous hormone implants (Norplant), intramuscular injected hormones (Depo-Provera), and hormone pills one can take at home to induce a miscarriage See Heath CB, Helping Patients Choose Appropriate Contraception, 48 Amer.Fam.Physician 1115 (1993). These methods of female contraceptive control are neither esoteric nor difficult. Of the 57.9 million American females of childbearing age, 29.7% are not fertile (most by tubal ligation), 36.7% use contraceptives, 19% are not sexually active, and only 6.5% are sexually active yet do not use contraception (Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, No. 182, cited in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United States: 1992, 112th ea., Washington, D.C., 1992; p. 73). If a female in this country cannot afford this technology, family planning services and contraceptives are available at no cost through Medicaid at doctors' offices or at local health departments.
On the other hand, for those women who have difficulty conceiving a pregnancy, thousands of children have been born in the U.S. through in vivo fertilization, and tens of thousands of embryos have been frozen and stored for future use. Egg donation is routinely available nationwide at infertility clinics to provide fertilized eggs to implant into women whose own eggs are defective. Similarly, sperm banks are widely available for women who wish to have children without the involvement of a man. The use of surrogate mothers to carry the pregnancies of childless couples is both legal and widely used in this country. Current technology allows women to choose the gender of their children and some clinics routinely use these gender choice methods (Note, 344 The Lancet 251 (July 23, 1994)). In vivo implantation of donated ova now allows women in their 50's and 60's to bear children, even to have twins. Women can carry their own daughter's pregnancies when the daughter cant bear a child, thus allowing women to give birth to their own grandchildren. A dead woman's eggs or frozen embryos can be implanted into another woman's uterus thus allowing a woman to become a mother after her death, and eggs can now be removed from aborted female fetuses and implanted into infertile women, such that a child can even be procreated from a mother who never lived. See generally Robertson J, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies Princeton U. Press (1994).
The net effect of all these advances in reproductive technology is that American women now have essentially total control over the exercise of their reproductive rights. At the same time, none of this new technology increases reproductive freedom for men. If a man wishes to become a father, for example, he must first find a willing female and even then his choice remains under her control, even if she marries him. Conversely, if a man does not wish to be a genetic father, the only male contraceptive methods are condoms, which have a yearly failure rate of 12% to 18%, and vasectomy, which involves an invasive, permanent surgical procedure. By contrast, the most common female contraceptive method is birth control pills, which have a failure rate of less than 1% and can be started and stopped at will (Heath, supra).
Because modern women are not disproportionately burdened in their range of reproductive, parental, family and occupational choices, paternity suits attempt to balance a burden that no longer exists. The era when males were the sole providers of economic support by working outside the home and when females always remained in the home to raise the children has long since passed and will surely never return to American society. Paternity suits as a state-sponsored means of enforcing monetary transfer from males to unwed females make sense only under the belief that women are incapable of controlling their own child-bearing and are incapable of competing in the job marketplace. Such actions thus serve only to perpetuate archaic, outdated stereotypes of women as the "weaker" sex needing to be "protected"' and hence are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. City of Cleburne, Tex. V. Cleburne Living Center, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, Personnel Administrator of Mass. V. Feeney, Orr v. Orr, Califano v. Goldfarb, Califano v. Webster, Craig v. Boren, Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Schlesinger v. Ballard, Stanton v. Stanton, Frontiero v. Richardson, Reed v. Reed, supra.
Moreover, not only do women no longer need paternity suits to protect their reproductive rights, but paternity suits also conflict directly and overwhelmingly with men's own fundamental privacy rights. In contrast to womens essentially total control over both biological and legal parenthood, men themselves, beyond the initial few minutes of fertilization, have at present no biological or legal control over parenthood at all. Under these circumstances, no compelling reason, or any other reason, exists for the state to allow females the ability to force parenthood on males. State statutes and practice that allow an unwed mother total control over the parenthood of a male, while the male himself has no control and no rights after conception, automatically invoke strict judicial scrutiny. For, while a female has a fundamental right to avoid biological or legal parenthood, by the same logic a male has the same fundamental right of parental, family, associational, marital, reproductive, procreative and personal privacy to avoid parenthood. In sum, because our legal system guarantees females this fundamental right to control their own parental destiny, under the Equal Protection Clause the state cannot erect a discriminatory class by not recognizing the same fundamental right for males Zablocki v. Redhail, supra; Stanley v. Illinois, supra; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, supra, 112 S.Ct. at 2830-31; Carey v. Population Services International, supra, 431 U.S. at 685-86, 97 S.Ct. at 2016; Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S. at 453-455, 92 S.Ct. at 1038-1039; Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 at 603-604.
That paternity suits are unconstitutional is illustrated by assuming, arguendo, the opposite scenario: maternity suits. If a male could, under the laws and practices of the state, file a maternity suit to force a pregnant female to carry a pregnancy to term and be a mother, then the law regarding paternity suits would be logically consistent under Equal Protection. Yet because there is no legal authority or precedent that any female can be compelled to be a mother against her will, the injustice of forced motherhood is impossible in our legal system. Not only does case law give females total control both before and after conception over whether to give birth, but even after giving birth, a female has the right to either allow a declared father, her parents, or others to assume custody, or she can put the child up for adoption, or she can ask a social service agency to place the child in a foster home.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in regard to illegitimate children, "the basic concept of our system [is] that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility or wrongdoing." Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 406 U.S. 164, 175, 92 S.Ct. 1400, 1407, 31 L.Ed.2d 768 (l972), also cited in Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 505, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2762, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976). To the extent that bearing and rearing a child is a burden, it is a burden that the female willingly chooses. In sum, declining to insure and compensate any female for her risks and her choices of pregnancy and childbirth constitutes no actionable or credible cause Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484, 94 S.Ct. 2485, 41 L.Ed.2d 256 (1974); Prosser & Keeton on The Law of Torts, p. 21f. (5th ea., 1984). The Family Law Act insists that a paternity defendant assume the financial burden of rearing the child of a woman who has not only fully exercised her reproductive rights, but has also attempted to deny the man his right to fatherhood as well as his own privacy rights, while at the same time compelling him to completely subsidize this denial. Such an attempt overwhelms the most basic common sense notions of responsibility, liability and fundamental fairness.
The state's active intervention in paternity suits solely along gender lines is even more blatantly unconstitutional. All 50 U.S. states have enacted paternity laws which detail extensive procedures by which the state can prosecute one gender on behalf of the other gender. These laws are written and enforced in such a way that males are actively discriminated against both in the process of establishing paternity and in enforcing monetary judgment. The net result is a prevasive, overwhelming state discrimination based solely on gender.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled specifically and definitively that the state's interest in establishing paternity of illegitimate children does not justify a gender-discriminatory legal process J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). The Court held that, like discrimination based on race, such discrimination of gender violates the Equal Protection Clause and harms litigants and the community by perpetuating invidious archaic and overbroad stereotypes about the relative abilities of males and females Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1427. It also results in an inevitable loss of confidence in the judicial system in that it "create[s] the impression that the judicial system has acquiesced in suppressing full participation by one gender or that the 'deck has been stacked' in favor of one side.'' Id. (citing Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. at 413, 111 S.Ct. at 1372).
Under these state paternity laws, once a female merely avers on a preprinted paper form with fill-in blanks that he is the gamete-donor to her out-of-wedlock child, the male defendant carries the entire burden of proving his innocence in an embarrassing public trial that he did not "father" an illegitimate pregnancy. Under California state practice, paternity "obligors" are typically burdened with proving their innocence in a fraudulent, invasive, and often threatening genetic test. In the alternative to a forced test, the male is subject to imprisonment until he does agree to the test, or else the rule of adverse inference is applied that presumes the test would show paternity if done, and he is declared the legal father anyway. The 5th and 14th Amendment objections to this process are obvious and overwhelming Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 at 766, n.9, 86 S.Ct. 1826 at 1833, n.9; South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 at 562-63, 103 S.Ct. 916 at 922, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983). This guilt-until-innocence-is-proven presumption under the paternity statutes is otherwise unprecedented in American law. In any other civil matter, a party has only the burden of showing a preponderance of the evidence in order to prevail. Furthermore, this presumption under law that a female's word is more reliable than a male's is reminiscent of Jim Crow-type statutes that Blacks are not competent to give testimony in courts of law against whites.
Although the paternity statute, after the birth of an out-of-wedlock child, can in theory be applied to either gender, in practice the vast majority of state action under this law is directed against males. Of all custodial parents, for example, who live below the poverty level and to whom child support is awarded, only 5.2% are male (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. 1995, 115th ed., Washington, D.C., p. 391, Table No. 616).
In order for a male parent to obtain the protection of the child support laws, he has to finance a custody action, persuade a court to grant him custody, and then pursue a support action. As the state well knows, however, most males prosecuted under California state paternity law are not monied enough to afford counsel to fight even the initial paternity charge much less to obtain custody. Regardless, even if he were able to afford it, the fact that a male has available to him a legal remedy does not justify a gender discriminatory law which a priori deprives him of his fundamental family and associational privacy rights Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. at 647-48, 92 S.Ct. at 1210-11; Zablocki v. Redhail, supra; Franz v. U.S., supra. In any other type of civil action to determine a duty of support to a minor, which are usually divorce actions, both custody and support issues are litigated and decided together. In the case of out-of-wedlock children, however, child support enforcement offices acting under color and authority of state law will assist females in obtaining money from alleged gamete-donors, yet will not assist a male either to fight a false donorship claim or to obtain custody if he does desire to be a father. Therefore, when applying California paternity law to cases of out-of-wedlock children, the state invariably discriminates against males.
The state's discrimination against males in paternity suits is designed solely to transfer financial liability for out-of-wedlock births from females onto males in order to offset the state's own welfare costs. U.S. Supreme Court case law, however, makes it clear that protection of the public fisc is not a compelling or even a legitimate reason to justify a fundamental rights impairment or to discriminate on the basis of gender. Frontiero v. Richardson, supra; Zablocki v. Redhail, supra; Reed v. Reed, supra; Stanley v. Illinois, supra. As the Court has stated, "we place no reliance on the State's interest in avoiding financial responsibility for children born out of wedlock . . . [T]he State's legitimate interest is in the fair and impartial adjudication of all civil disputes, including paternity proceedings. This interest is served by the State's independent judiciary, which presumably resolves these disputes unaffected by the State's interest in minimizing its welfare expenditures." Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 581, n.8, 107 S.Ct. 3001, 3005, n.8, 97 L.Ed.2d 473 (1987).
In conclusion, because the U.S. Constitution guarantees females a fundamental right not to be forced into parenthood, males are cloaked equally with the same Constitutional protection. The California state paternity statutory schemes perpetuate rigid gender roles that have been long since outdated by modern social, legal and technological changes. Such laws always fail to survive scrutiny because they fail to serve a legitimate state interest and do not balance a disproportionate burden. Stated more broadly, these paternity statutes violate the fundamental rights of an entire class based on gender merely to protect the public fisc and are thus unconstitutional under strict scrutiny pursuant to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment.
In addition, however, to the formidable and fatal constitutional bars to paternity suits cited above, paternity actions constitute extremely poor public policy. Because paternity suits encourage illegitimacy, the stated purpose of paternity laws of protecting the public fisc is not served since most paternity defendants are impoverished and the state ends up burdened with these children anyway. Such laws thus compound the very problem they are meant to help. The net result is a $5 trillion liability placed so far on the American tax-payers.
A much more humane and realistic reason for paternity suits than protecting the public fisc would be to help the children. While childrens' rights to a reasonable upbringing are not fundamental rights Stanton v. Stanton, 421 U.S. at 13, 95 S.Ct. at 1377, the state nevertheless has a legitimate interest in out-of-wedlock childrens' welfare Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. at 652, 92 S.Ct. at 1213. Yet state paternity actions are not reasonably related even to this state interest in childrens' welfare. The state has many other reasonable ways to both help these children and protect the public fisc without violating anyone's rights.
Under our legal system, there is no constitutional right to welfare or to child support. Under the present California state paternity statutory scheme, however, females are reinforced for bearing children under the belief that they have no financial responsibility and are actually owed money for having these children. The net effect is that the very problem that the law is supposed to correct, namely impoverishment of out-of-wedlock children, is encouraged, and thus the illegitimacy rate is growing rapidly and the public fisc is being drained.
The vast majority of this payment is to unwed mothers, since in order to be eligible for AFDC/welfare, one must be a single, custodial parent. This figure for direct welfare payments does not include the much larger indirect costs for education, subsidized housing, food stamps, free medical care under Medicaid, energy assistance and surplus food allotments, does not account for fraud against the program, and does not include the costs of running this massive welfare system. The total cost to all local, state and the federal governments to subsidize illegitimacy is now well over $360 billion.
Another way of calculating the costs of this subsidy of out-of-wedlock childbearing is to consider that the minimum cost of raising a child born in 1990 to adulthood is $287,000 (Family Economics Research Group, US Dept.Agriculture, 1990). Additionally, children of fatherless households are at a severe social, emotional, educational, moral, religious, ungodly, and economic disadvantage relative to children of two-parent families. The resulting increased costs in education, imprisonment, crime, drug and alcohol abuse, etc., adds an additional economic burden to taxpayers of more than $1 Million over the life of that fatherless household. The 9.6 million children who are already on AFDC will add more than $12.355 Trillion to the existing $6 Trillion Public Debt--tripling the Public Debt--an amount equal to $53,851 for each of the 235 million non-welfare persons, or $138,045 for each of the 89.5 million working families. This subsidy of illegitimacy in the 30 years since the "War on Poverty" was launched in 1965 is almost $5 trillion, a major portion of the Public Debt.
Extensive statistical evidence indicates that paternity actions rarely help out-of-wedlock children. Of those enrolled in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), for example, the government program that provides welfare, only 11.7% of the 7.4 million welfare mothers with children in 1993 collected any money at all from alleged male gamete-donors (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1995, 115th ea., Washington, D.C., 1995; p. 392; Table No. 618). Out of AFDC expenditures of $17.7 billion in 1993, only 12% or $2.1 Billion was collected from males to offset this amount (id.). The administrative expenses merely to collect these support payments cost approximately 25% of the total amount collected, leaving net paternity collections at $1.6 Billion (Statistical Abstracts of the U.S. 1992, p. 373; also, Dept. of Health and Human Services, 17th Annual Report to Congress on Child Support Enforcement, 1993).
The percentage of out-of-wedlock births has risen from 10.7% in 1970, to 17.8% in 1980, to almost 30% of all births in 1991 (id., p. 69; cf. Also Sen. Pat Moynihan, D-N.Y., Social Behavior and Health Care Costs, U.S. Senate Finance Committee, 1993), to a potential 35% today. The number of out-of-wedlock children living in poverty as AFDC recipients has increased rapidly every year since 1980 (Statistical Abstracts 1995, supra, pp. 392). In just 2 years for example, from 1991 to 1993, the percentage of AFDC child dependents increased almost 20%, from 8 million to 9.6 million (Id., p. 392; Table No. 618). This increase in out-of-wedlock impoverished children is in spite of the fact that paternity cases under the Child Support Enforcement Program increased over 285% in 13 years, from 144,000 in 1980 to 554,000 in 1993, Id. Paternity suits under state law have not stemmed the crisis of impoverished children, have not reduced their numbers, and have not protected the public fisc.
The state's actions under the Family Law Act are not reasonably tailored to help out-of-wedlock children in that the state doesn't attempt to determine if the female's living conditions, lifestyle, and background are compatible with the best interests of the child, or whether a declared father's or an adoptive or foster family's living conditions might be better suited. If paternity support statutes were truly written and enforced with the child's best interest in mind, then they would instantly be placed in the environment in which they would be less likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, and to be ten times more likely to get A's in school and to have a 72% higher standard of living. A voluntary declaration of paternity could be easily obtained from many of these biological fathers if they were immediately granted custody of their biological children. This would resolve much social pathology and assure the financial well-being of a huge number of fatherless children. Statements from fathers prove that most of the "child support money" currently paid to mothers does not ultimately benefit most children.
Programs of instruction and counseling of unwed welfare mothers are other state actions that could reasonably be expected to both help out-of-wedlock children and protect the public fisc. Instead of paying state attorneys to prosecute the male gender for being unwitting, unwilling or alleged sperm donors and then supporting a massive collection system to pursue them, the alternative strategy of paying teachers, social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists to counsel, educate and assist mothers of illegitimate children in job training, birth control, and child care would surely be less expensive and address the problem of illegitimacy much more directly. Public family planning services, for example, originally established by the federal Public Service Act of 1970 and subsidized under Title X and also Titles V and XX of the Social Security Act, allegedly prevents over 360,000 new welfare births each year (White D, MacCabe T, Uncertain future faces programs planned to cut unwanted pregnancy, 6 The Medical Herald S-11 (March, 1996)). At $1,287,000 to rear from birth to age 18, this program alone purportedly saves the economy over $463 billion each year. This is an amount which is 289 greater than total net paternity collections, and it doesn't violate fundamental rights.
Other public nonprosecutorial programs could reasonably be utilized by the state to teach these mothers home economics, first aid, sanitation, hygiene, cooking, job interview skills, communications skills and high school equivalency skills. They could be counseled on drug, alcohol and smoking abuse, parenting skills, civic responsibilities and duties, and the role of the family by the use of individual and group therapy, group discussions, role playing, videotapes, films, peer counseling, behavioral modification programs, performance contracts and token economies, among other techniques. Welfare mothers should be required to attend such classes before handing them a welfare check each month. Similarly, regular home inspections of their housing would do infinitely more than paternity actions to ensure that their children are provided safe, clean environments. Likewise, regular health care visits for routine check-ups, monitoring of height and weight growth rates, nutrition, immunizations and dental care would both help these children and protect the public fisc by lowering Medicaid costs for illness. These suggested administrative and legislative actions illustrate only a few of the viable avenues that the state has besides paternity suits to meet its interests in providing for out-of-wedlock children.
In the immediate last generation, i.e. before 1973, out-of-wedlock pregnancies frequently ruined young women's lives. Nowadays, while no woman has to be burdened with an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, the threat of forced fatherhood has become just as overwhelming. Forced fatherhood is as tragic as forced motherhood, and the children end up losing regardless. The fortunate difference is that, this time, forced fatherhood is not a biological imperative but is entirely a contrived side-effect of a state statutory scheme. The effect of the Family Law Act is to both force and deny fatherhood to Plaintiffs, which both constitutes poor public policy and violates the fundamental rights of a discriminatory class. It thus should properly be declared unconstitutional.
INJURY TO PLAINTIFFS
The loss of constitutional protection cannot be given a dollar value. The loss of one's family and children cannot be adequately described by the written word. The trauma associated with family breakdown cannot be fully understood by any one citizen. The most liberal estimate of the damages due directly to the Family Law Act cannot place a dollar value on the assassination of a President, 22 deaths in a mass shooting, teenagers gunning down fellow students, or the increased number of violent sex crimes, most or all of which are perpetrated by otherwise ordinary people who share one common trait--they grew up fatherless.
Injuries to Plaintiffs which can be reduced to hard cold numbers include their decreased average life expectancy, their reduced potential past and future incomes, and their portion of the increased costs to taxpayers resulting from the increased rate of family breakdown attributable directly to the Family Law Act. There is no chart to determine the cost to the Plaintiffs of the mental, physical, and emotional damages caused by Defendants destruction of the father/child relationship that Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children will suffer over the remaining portion of their lifes. Amounts are determined considering the following facts:
A. The median age of Plaintiff Fathers is 35 years old and they can reasonably be expected to live an average of another 37 years. The damages done to Plaintiff Fathers and Plaintiff Children by Defendants will be present for an average of 37 more years. It is estimated that 25% of the average income of Plaintiff Fathers of $46,000 (or $11,500 ) per year has been removed from them in the name of "child support payments" in the past, and this is expected to continue for an average of 14 more years, for a total amount per Plaintiff Father of $161,000. Due to the trauma, legal costs, time lost in courts and jails, criminalization, etc., their incomes declined by an average of 20% (a reduction of $9,200 per Plaintiff Father per year), for the balance of their lives of 37 years, a loss of $340,400 each, for a total loss of $501,000 each. There are a potential of 2.6 million fathers in California who may qualify as "Members of the Class", and the total estimated loss to all of them is $1,303 Billion.
B. Plaintiff Children can be expected to live for an average of 60 more years. The damages to Plaintiff Children result from: 1) their perception of their biological fathers, and 2) compared to children of two-parent families, they are more likely to go to prison by 8 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 20 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, and to have a 72% lower standard of living. This will reduce their average potential annual incomes of $46,000 each by 20%, or $9,200 each over an average of 60 more years, for a total loss per Plaintiff Child of $552,000. There are a potential of 3.5 million children in California who may qualify as "Members of the Class", and the total estimated loss to all of them is $1,932 Billion.
C. Compensation for past discrimination as determined by this court.
The following $294 Billion estimate is the total annual losses and increased costs to the workers, taxpayers, and Residents of California due merely to the increase in family breakdown which resulted directly from Defendants' enactment and enforcement of the Family Law Act. It is expected that a responsible Family Law Act, or no Act at all, would have had the potential to reduce the problems existing in 1969. This would have saved workers and taxpayers an additional $100 Billion per year, for a total of $394 Billion per year. In the 26 years since its enactment, the total estimated increased losses and costs to the workers, taxpayers, and Residents of California are roughly $5.122 Trillion.
Since its enactment in the early 1970s, the Family Law Act has been directly responsible for financial losses to potential Plaintiffs in excess of $5 Trillion and loss of life exceeding 80,340 lives. We the people, we the taxpayers, we the Residents of California, and we the Plaintiffs have nothing positive to show for it. Plaintiffs and other taxpayers of California paid them handsomely to protect their basic interests, and Defendants responded by severely violating the Constitutional rights of 2.6 million Plaintiff Fathers and 3.5 million Plaintiff Children.
Plaintiffs hereby exercise their right to demand a trial of this cause by a fully informed jury.
VERIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF
I, John W. Knight, III, swear before God that the foregoing is true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
John W. Knight, III
25712 Highplains Terrace
Laguna Hills, California 92653
Subscribed and sworn to before me on March , 1998, by ___________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of California.
Residing at ______________________.
My appointment expires: ___________________________.