VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:09:50 09/23/06 Sat
Author: Justice delayed is justice denied (Date: 19 Sep 2003)
Subject: From: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu
In reply to: Justice Delayed, Justice Denied 's message, "The Courier-Journal , Louisville , Kentucky" on 06:06:32 09/23/06 Sat

Justice delayed is justice denied
From: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu
Date: 19 Sep 2003
Time: 23:26:01
Remote Name: 68.20.35.167


Comments
For those of you inquiring about my case, I encourage you to join the mailing list at www.childrensjustice.org. That is the ONLY list to which I regularly post updates. I did post this here to the main boards, but it fell off.

This was posted on August 18, 2003.

- B. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Instant Messenger: AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett ------------------------------------------------------------------

Today I ended day 18 of my divorce trial, where we presented closing arguments (I've included mine below). The judge had initially told us that she was going on vacation 9/1/03 and wanted to be done with this case by then. So, of course my expectations were set (when the hell am I going to learn what judges say and what judges do are 2 very different things?!) Today, she said she'd like to try and finish it by the end of the year, though indicated she didn't know if that would be possible. Her reason? She claims that she is going to read EVERY case in its entirety that we gave her (I think I gave her 66 for the constitutional challenges alone, with a 10-page summary of all my constitutional challenges). If I was a sucker, I'd start to get my hopes up that because she's going to read them, she going to make the proper and fair decisions. But, we all know better. Regardless of whether or not she actually reads them, what she's likely trying to do is to continue to torture me slowly for presenting irrefutable evidence that my wife and her attorneys committed multiple acts of perjury, and because I'm challenging her power base. A 4-year divorce - gotta hand it to those judges and attorneys; they know how to milk this cow for everything its got.



So, I will continue to suffer and start doing my research on how to appeal. Though, suffer as I will, I smile knowing that the jig is up and my daughter will eventually be safe from these destroyers. One way, or another, the end is coming. Thank you CCJ for NOT supporting me, but directing me. It's EXACTLY what we all need.



- B.



------------------------------------------------------------------

Instant Messenger:

AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@gsb.uchicago.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett

------------------------------------------------------------------



CLOSING ARGUMENT



I’m going to begin with a summary of my relief requested. I ask the court for the following:



A. The entry of an Order:

I. Declaring the following Illinois statutes and rules unconstitutional on their face and as applied: the Best Interest of the Child Statutes, the Child Support Statutes, the Maintenance Statutes, and the Attorneys’ Fees Statutes;

II. Declaring the Mandatory Disclosure Rules unconstitutional on their face and as applied;

III. Declaring the Discovery Rules unconstitutional as applied;

IV. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the enforcement, operation, or execution of the Best Interest of the Child Statutes, the Child Support Statutes, the Maintenance Statutes, the Attorneys’ Fees Statutes, the Mandatory Disclosure Rules, and the Discovery Rules (as applied in divorces) by the state, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those in active concert with them;



B. The entry of an Order granting my Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, including:

I. Ordering equal parenting time, privileges, and responsibilities;

II. Ordering no child support, maintenance, or attorneys’ fees be paid;

III. Ordering Samantha’s major expenses (i.e., education and health care), which Ms. Lovett and I jointly agree, to be equally paid by both of us;

IV. Awarding me the home in its full value, the mortgage debt in its full value, my ESOP holding in its full value, my IRA holdings in its full value, my 401 (k) holdings in its full value, and my jewelry holdings in its full value;

V. Awarding Ms. Lovett her IRA holdings in its full value, her 401 (k) holdings in its full value, her stock in its full value, and her stock options in their full value;

VI. Ordering Ms. Lovett to pay me $X, in addition to reimbursing me for all payments made to Ms. Lovett for purported child support and maintenance after today, August 18, 2003, based on the following:

a. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for 50% of the assets she dissipated;

b. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the so-called “contributions” that I have unfairly paid to Ms. Lovett’s 401 (k) loan;

c. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the so-called “contribution” to her flexible spending health care plan that I have unfairly paid to her;

d. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the 50% of her earned income during the marriage that she refused to contribute to the marriage and fraudulently filtered out of the marriage;

e. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for 50% of the home improvement litigation awards that were repayment of my non-marital property;

f. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for “child support” that I have unfairly paid to her, plus all future payments after August 18, 2003;

g. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for maintenance (or contributions to the mortgage that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys like to characterize it as) that I have unfairly paid to her, plus all future payments after August 18, 2003;

h. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the “overpayment” that I have unfairly paid to send Samantha to school, OR, MORE PROPERLY, the full $X that I was forced to pay against my will as a result of being forced to send Samantha to a school decided by the court that I, as a fit parent, completely disagreed with;

i. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me at least $X for the “contributions” that I have unfairly paid for nanny expenses unrelated to Samantha’s care;

j. Ordering Ms. Lovett to pay me back the $56,467 that I am going to be turning over to Ms. Lovett’s attorneys;

VII. Providing an impassioned disapproval of Ms. Lovett’s parental alienation efforts to thwart my strong relationship with Samantha;

VIII. Prohibiting Ms. Lovett’s abuse of me and parental alienation of Samantha with a threat of sanctions;

IX. Ordering the temporary terms of the temporary orders no longer in force;

X. Ordering the Acura as my sole property;

XI. Ordering Ms. Lovett to turnover all of my non-marital items;

XII. Ordering us to equitably divide the remaining marital property items with a threat of sanctions if an agreement is not reached;



C. Sanctioning Ms. Lovett’s attorneys, both David Ainley and Dorene Marcus, per Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, as well as for breach of duty under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, to deter future like-conduct and to punish them as they have committed multiple criminal offenses;



D. Sanctioning Ms. Lovett to deter future like-conduct and to punish her as she has committed multiple criminal offenses;



E. Finally, as I have been forced to unfairly pay all of the court reporter fees so far, I am requesting that the court order that Ms. Lovett reimburse me for half of all fees paid, which I will not have a final number for until the end of trial, and for which I ask leave of court to file the appropriate documents.



Now, this court has instructed me to limit my repetition, so I will do so, as pretty much everything I believe I need to appeal is now in the record. I say that as it is quite clear how this court is going to rule and that I will need to appeal. I am comfortable in making that statement based on what I’ve learned in dealing with divorce courts. For example:



1. The court heard testimony from Ms. Lovett claiming that no formal agreement existed between her and I regarding the disposition of personal property, and that no proper personal property list exists; the court later heard Ms. Lovett’s contradicting testimony when she claimed that the document attached to the Agreed Interim Order was the correct personal property list; the court has in evidence an agreed interim order formally indicating there was a personal property agreement; contrary to Ms. Lovett’s second testimony on the issue, the court has multiple documents that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys filed that indicate the document attached to the Agreed Interim Order is not the correct property list, and that no correct list exists; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorney made statements in open court that no proper property list exists; the court has an e-mail from Ms. Lovett, copying her attorney, that my exhibit KKKK is the agreed-to property list; I have referenced an Illinois appellate decision, which the court was able to access on the CD I provided called David Brubakken, Ph.D., v. Helen Morrison, M.D., 240 Ill. App. 3d 680 (1992), which clearly shows that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys had a responsibility to disclose the existence of Ms. Lovett’s e-mail, but yet refused to do so. In other words, the court has unmistakable, clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett is lying to it, and clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are lying to it. In other words, the court has irrefutable evidence of perjury. There are only 2 possible personal property lists: Exhibit A or Exhibit KKKK. I have presented to the court irrefutable evidence that Exhibit KKKK is the correct list, but also told the court I would accept either all the property in Exhibit A or Exhibit KKKK. But what did the court do? The court disregarded all of the hard, tangible evidence I presented, as well as the blatant perjury committed by Ms. Lovett and her attorneys, accepted Ms. Lovett’s verbal plea, effectively created its own list, and ruled immediately that 2 personal property items that are clearly mine are now the property of Ms. Lovett. So much for the effectiveness of a court order. So much for the legal concept of preponderance of the evidence. So much for the concept of the best evidence rule. So much for the concept that perjury is a criminal offense. So much for justice.



2. The court has evidence that Ms. Lovett made commitments in multiple legal documents that our future income would be ours alone so as to remove any issues of the parties’ spending habits, and that we would be responsible for our own expenses; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett agreed to the terms of the Agreed Interim Order, but then backed out of the child support term after I had met all of my commitments; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett claimed in filed documents that she had only $X and therefore needed alimony and child support; the court has legal documents that Ms. Lovett filed where she didn’t disclose her assets proving that this was not true; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett had at least $X or more when her attorneys filed those documents. The court has evidence that no hearing was ever held, but that I was ordered to pay Ms. Lovett maintenance, child support, and other monies based on their fraudulent, perjured legal documents. In other words, and again, the court has unmistakable, clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett is lying to it, and clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are lying to it. In other words, and again, the court has irrefutable evidence of perjury. So what did the court do? Did the court issue an order to immediately stop this bi-monthly illegal and immoral theft of my property? No, the court is letting me languish on purpose, and not saying a word. And, then went on to penalize me over $57,000, payable almost immediately. It reminds me of something I read somewhere – I think it goes justice delayed is justice denied.



These are just a very few examples of the trauma fathers go through to fight for their Rights and their children's Rights in so-called courts of law. The flagrant abuse of Rights by divorce courts and attorneys is unacceptable. This trial is a farce. So much of Ms. Lovett’s evidence is perjured, willfully and consciously, but the state and courts don’t hesitate to accept perjury when dealing with opponents. When dealing with people who want equity, court orders become useless. Agreements are useless. Crystal clear perjury by officers of the court is ignored. So-called “judicial discretion” has become the real law of the land in the State of Illinois. I have worked too hard all my life to let the court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys destroy it all. And, I love my daughter too much to let the court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys put Samantha’s life in jeopardy. The court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys jokingly attempt to hide behind the so-called best interest of the child and related corrupt divorce statutes to destroy my life, and that of my daughter’s. Well, you can’t hide anymore. The fraud is now visible, and I’m going to end your power to create universal misery on families.



Now, the court will likely claim that it hasn’t created any kind of misery, that I am the one who is responsible for the punishments I have received, and that it is just following the “law.” In fact, the court will likely claim it is protecting Samantha and the institution of marriage. Utter nonsense. Please allow me to remind the court how it has reacted to my crystal clear evidence of perjury and my rock-solid constitutional challenges. The court immediately and forcefully robbed me of 2 valuable personal property items that are clearly mine; the court extorted from me over $57,000 of my retirement holdings to pay Ms. Lovett’s attorneys, ordering me to do so within 7 days which causes me tax penalties, and without even responding at all first to my constitutional challenge regarding attorneys’ fees; the court allowed evidence to be presented that even the court’s own expert admits has no scientific reliability or validity; and the court prevented me from presenting additional evidence of perjury. In other words, the way a divorce court responds to someone who clearly shows the flaws in this fraud is to painfully hurt them by force of a gun with unadulterated retribution. You are intentionally trying to strangle my voice to protect those who participate in the fraud. The court has punished me because I have done exactly what the law plainly allows me to do. According to the words of US v. Goodwin, 457 US 368 (1982), the court has made a due process violation of the most basic sort. Well, this legal oppression is just business as usual in divorce court, as I know full-well that this, and worse, happens to fathers on a daily basis who don’t even know how to spell Constitution or perjury.



And why do divorce courts respond with such a lack of decency? Because as everyone knows, if I’m right in my claims of perjury, and there’s no way that this court can’t know otherwise, these 2 attorneys will never work in the legal profession again. And, if I’m right in my constitutional challenges, and again, there’s no way that this court can’t know otherwise, this court, and every divorce court like it, will lose pretty much every ounce of illegal power to destroy. And everyone also knows that, if I’m right, there are going to be thousands of divorce attorneys out of work. That’s why there can’t be any punishment or consequences for the fraud committed by Ms. Lovett and her attorneys. And that’s why the court must persecute me. And that’s why I do not expect this court to have the courage or conscience to declare these immoral and illegal statutes unconstitutional. Because no trial court, except for one brave loner in Georgia, has the courage to protect Rights and make things lawful. From what I’ve read, it was the same way with civil rights back in the 60’s. I wonder, if this court were operating back when state laws said that separate but equal schools, bathrooms, and drinking fountains passed the rational relation test, if the court would have had the courage or conscience to declare those immoral laws unconstitutional. After all, all of those statutes had plenty of authorities to back judges up. You might initially think that there’s a difference between what happened back then and what is happening now, but if you keep that current useless term “fundamental Rights” in front of your mind at all times, you will know that the situations are almost identical.



Now, though the court was successful in preventing me from presenting some evidence of perjury, there’s now enough evidence on the record to clearly implicate Ms. Lovett and her attorneys. And, besides, the evidence the court prevented me from presenting already exists in the record in my trial brief. And, it’s my belief that this is why the court didn’t inflict on me just a little retribution, but, rather, is attempting to give me an excruciating beating. I’m sure it will please everyone to know that I am suffering terribly. Knowing full-well that I was about to be laid off and lose my job, and knowing that I had over $30,000 in debt that I couldn’t immediately pay, and knowing that I had paid at least $68,000 in legal expenses, and knowing that Ms. Lovett had incurred about $134,000 in legal expenses, the court made me financially responsible for over $124,000 in legal expenses, or 62% which was to be paid almost immediately, while making Ms. Lovett responsible for $77,000, or 34% with no timeframe given as to when she has to pay. That’s the type of rulings that divorce courts consider fair, equal, and “leveling the playing field.” That’s the court’s idea of justice, as completely ridiculous as that sounds to rational people who are monitoring this case.



Having said all that, I expect the court’s final ruling to follow the same amoral logic of its previous rulings, and thus, I obviously am going to have to appeal, as I expected I would. But, two of the primary differences between me and pretty much every other father who comes into these courtrooms are that I didn’t expect to receive justice or a fair trial as most fathers expect, and most fathers don’t have the tenacity and will to fight you on this as I do. In this courtroom, and in those like it across America, concepts like fairness, equality, and due process mean whatever some judge arbitrarily decides they mean. Forget about the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is just words on a legal document. And, legal documents are just ignored anyway, regardless of their content – that is, except by people like me.



And, speaking of the Constitution, I have here 2 certified copies of oaths that this court took pledging to support the Constitution. Not that I really believe that they mean anything though, as they’re just legal documents, and I’ve already proved that what someone says on a legal document isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. I found it funny when Ms. Lovett’s attorneys categorized me as an angry person. In fact, the court’s own expert claimed that I was angry as well. I’ll even bet that this court thinks I’m angry. You think? After all, why shouldn’t I be angry when officers of the court create agreements and then refuse to abide by them? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone lies to steal my money, and then the court looks the other way? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone extorts my property at the point of a gun and there’s not anything I can do about it? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone takes my Rights to my daughter away? You know what? The court should be concerned about my ability to be a parent and an American if I wasn’t angry at the way officers of the court have conducted themselves. Did you miss why I’m getting a divorce? I’m asking for a divorce because my wife has and continues to defraud me and continues to push me out of my child’s life. You bet I’m angry!



The ENTIRE purpose of the Agreed Interim Order was because I knew EXACTLY what would happen without an agreement in place. I’ve spent enough years with Ms. Lovett’s deception to know exactly what we would fight over. I knew that Ms. Lovett and I would spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting over the things in that agreement if we didn’t have that agreement in place (though, never in my wildest nightmares did I believe it would amount to over $200,000). I had and have no interest in fighting with the mother of my child, nor did I have any interest in throwing away my life savings and then some on attorneys. I wanted to take every major bone of contention out of the equation to allow us a somewhat peaceful transition into our individual futures. How naïve was that? I wanted to be able to get on with my life, and to be let alone. I wanted to protect our assets, and protect my daughter. To do all that, I made an enormous sacrifice – I agreed to move out of my house that I enjoyed so much, and that I purchased and improved with my own money, to a dump of an apartment that I now can’t even afford, in order to effectively take almost every contentious item off the table. All I wanted to do was avoid all of the litigation and fighting. And what happened as a result of my enormous sacrifice? Ms. Lovett and her attorneys backed out of EVERY single item in that agreement. EVERY SINGLE ONE! There wasn’t one in there that they didn’t try to defraud me on. And what happened as a result of the fraud perpetrated by Ms. Lovett’s attorneys and the divorce courts? The divorce process has now taken over 3.5 years, the attorneys now have or will have over $200,000 of our money, Ms. Lovett and I are financially ruined and effectively bankrupt, I am out of a job and have no job prospects, and the Agreed Interim Order might as well not have even existed, as it was rendered completely and utterly useless. It was as if there never was an agreement in place. But again, what I failed to learn soon enough is that that Agreed Interim Order was just a legal document, which therefore means it’s worthless in a divorce court, because perjury and lack of integrity are the rule of law here. And, to think that you probably are wondering why on earth I would take it upon myself to challenge the constitutionality of these statutes and not use an attorney to do so.



Now, I’ll bet that if we had a jury trial, based on the evidence the court has, it would be obvious that Ms. Lovett’s credibility and her attorneys’ credibility are effectively non-existent, considering they have shown a clear pattern of constant dishonesty, fraud, perjury, willful and intentional breach of contracts, and avoided complying with the terms of the our agreements and court orders. The overwhelming evidence presented should leave no question of Laurie’s and her attorneys’ culpability. But, that would only be in a court of justice guided by the principles of the Constitution; and divorce court isn’t a court of justice – it’s a court of punishment, a place where constitutionally-protected Rights are revoked, families are willfully destroyed, and private property is forcefully transferred to the officers of the court.



We are taught that America stands for justice and freedom. We are taught that the Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government, and limit its powers and authority. But the Constitution doesn’t apply in divorce courts, as the divorce courts see themselves more powerful than the Constitution. In discussing her decision about my constitutional Right to my daughter, I feel Judge Mathein said it best during a hearing on December 16, 2002, and I quote: "Mr. Lovett, regarding your constitutional rights, when you filed for divorce, you give yourself to the jurisdiction and are governed by the rules of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act ...and so even though we support that right, your rights are subject to the law." In other words, my Rights, supposedly protected by the Constitution, are subject to the divorce laws of Illinois. It also means that in Illinois divorce courts, the Supremacy Clause doesn’t exist. Well, not on my watch. What kind of father would I be to Samantha if I passed on these problems to her – the problems that the state and court can take away her children, her property, and her constitutionally-protected Rights in general based on their personal whim? Regardless of the fact that she will one day be a woman and would therefore get the so-called benefits of these discriminatory laws, I consider it one of my primary responsibilities to protect her from those who seek to do her harm, even if it is her own mother who is initiating all of it. The court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are seeking to inflict unconscionable harm on my daughter and me, and though you’re all going to get away with it temporarily, I will not rest until your threat is gone and my Rights and my daughter’s Rights are restored.



This is a moral crisis, and destruction is the nature of this evil. I, as all fathers, am considered the enemy, which the court is attempting to (and continues to) silence, punish, and destroy. The court’s destructive actions are meant to negate and paralyze this father. The court is a murderer of this father’s capacity to live. The court is trying to force this father to accept your will by pointing a gun at his head. The court demands that this father divorce his principles from the love of his daughter. THIS IS THE COURT’S MORALITY. I have no interest to change the court’s morality – the only interest I have is to take away its evil power so that it can no longer destroy my life and my child’s life.



The court has uncontested evidence that Ms. Lovett refused to contribute over $X of her salary to our marriage, and that she is admittedly funneling thousands of dollars to her family. The court has uncontested evidence that Ms. Lovett was spending tens of thousands of dollars on clothes and other items for herself while we were in the divorce proceedings, which can’t be considered anything but dissipation. The court has uncontested evidence that I purchased, improved, and maintained the marital residence all with pre-marital and non-marital assets. Ms. Lovett didn’t contribute a dime. The court has heard me refer to In re Marriage of Gattone, 317 Ill.App.3d 346 (2000), where the appellate court lays out the standards by which I should be awarded the home. The court has heard me refer to In Re Marriage of Barbara Hagshenas, 234 Ill. App. 3d 178 (1992) which also clearly lays out that I should receive the full value of the home, as the traceability of funds is clear, convincing, and unmistakable. For the jewelry, the court should refer to In Re Marriage of Weinstein, 128 Ill. App.3d 234 (1984) and Dudley v. Uptown Nat. Bank of Moline, 25 Ill. App.2d 514 (1960) that clearly show that just because Ms. Lovett has the jewelry in her possession doesn’t refute my clear and convincing evidence that I never intended to vest the title absolutely and irrevocably to Ms. Lovett. The court has uncontested evidence that the 401 (k) plans, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), stocks, stock options, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) holdings of the parties have not been tainted, and therefore each party should retain the full value of those holdings. In Re Marriage of Preston, 81 Ill. App.3d 672 (1980) will provide additional authority. Not that I expect any of these authorities to make a difference, as I now know that divorce courts only follow the rule of precedence when it serves their own personal opinions, and disregard prior decisions as a matter of “judicial discretion” when they have a different agenda. The court’s intent is clearly to torture me quickly with rulings like awards of attorneys’ fees and personal property, as well as to torture me slowly, like not giving me my money back that Ms. Lovett and her attorneys have stolen from me, and taking my responsibilities and my time away from my daughter.



And, speaking of my daughter, a father who is making good progress in a best interest of the child federal suit against the state of Texas gave me a great idea to ensure fairness in a divorce court’s decision regarding parental time and responsibilities, not that I expect the court to implement it or to be fair. There’s a very effective way to teach children about fairness and equality. When we have two children who want to share a single piece of cake, what do we do? We tell one to cut it and then we let the other choose which "half" he or she wants. In the same spirit, I propose either I develop a parenting plan, or Ms. Lovett develop a parenting plan. The plan should divide Samantha’s time between “Parent A” and “Parent B.” After it's developed, whoever didn't develop it gets to choose whether he or she wants to be Parent A or Parent B. I can guarantee you that this will lead to a fair outcome. But, divorce courts aren’t looking to be fair or equitable – they are looking to punish me and reward Ms. Lovett and her attorneys.



The court has all of my constitutional arguments that have been filed in pleadings during the last few years of this case, which were all consolidated in my trial brief and summarized in my Summary of Constitutional Arguments brief. It’s all part of the record, so even when the court ignores it all, and/or claims the cases aren’t relevant or on-point, as I fully expect it will, the US Supreme Court will be able to review them. As Ms. Lovett’s attorneys have filed their memorandum of law opposing some of my constitutional challenges, I must put on the record the clear-cut flaws in their arguments, regardless of the fact that I know it won’t make a difference at the trial level. But, I will try to minimize any repetition from what I have presented already, except where I feel it is absolutely critical, as I knew long ago from my thousands of hours of research over the last few years what their arguments were going to be.



Now, before I begin my analysis of their opposing arguments, I’d like to point out for the record that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys have completely failed to respond to my constitutional challenges to maintenance and discovery rules. Therefore, all of the so-called temporary maintenance that I have been ordered to pay to Ms. Lovett, which was pursuant to Section 501 as you can see in my exhibits KKK and DDDD, which we both had a right to contest per Exhibit DDDD, does not have any offsetting argument by Ms. Lovett. Furthermore, they claim the discovery and associated disclosure issues are moot at this point in the litigation – therefore, the court has nothing to counter my claims that all of my private papers should not have been admitted into evidence, or that they shouldn’t all be stricken from the record and not used to steal my property.



I’m going to start out with probably my favorite line in their whole document. They claim that “Even if a circuit court judge disagrees with the precedent set by a higher court, she is bound by that precedent.” In response, please allow me to re-quote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803: “Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” I’m sure I’m not telling this court anything it doesn’t already know, but just in case: if something is unconstitutional, then it doesn’t make a difference what a higher court said. Every judge who takes an oath of office in Illinois states as follows (and I’m going to read your honor’s as an example): I, R. Morgan Hamilton, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of associate judge for the Cook judicial circuit of the state of Illinois, according to the best of my ability.” In other words, a court’s highest duty is to support the Constitution, regardless of what ANY other court has said. Any other action to the contrary is a crime against the people who this court works for. Uniformity of unconstitutional laws is illegal. Unless, of course, you’re ok with concepts like separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. Personally, I’m not.



Here’s another good one: they claim that “All statues are presumed to be constitutional, and the Court has a duty to apply a constitutionally valid interpretation to statutes if at all possible.” Regardless of the fact that it’s not possible here, they obviously haven’t read Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980), which states quite clearly: “It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional.” You won’t find any mention in Ms. Lovett’s opposing argument that the



Ms. Lovett’s attorneys claim throughout their brief that the legislature and, thus, the courts, can pretty much do whatever they want when it comes to creating laws and regulating their terms. I think Thomas Jefferson put it perfectly when he said: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape in any form they please.” Well, I’m here to educate the legislature and the divorce courts, because obviously they all missed this day in law school – states cannot regulate fundamental Rights without a compelling interest. That’s why it is supposed to be almost impossible to create laws that implicate fundamental Rights. Let me end my response to their opposing arguments with this. They claim that this court has no choice but to follow Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate court decisions. I clearly know the political ramifications for a judge, especially a trial judge, to rule that these vulgar statues are unconstitutional, and I’ve provided plenty of US Supreme Court decisions that not only provide the correct moral and legal logic and basis to blow away the state’s lower court rulings, but also to provide this court the political cover it would undoubtedly need. The only deciding factors are the courage, integrity, and conscientiousness of the court. Please, be strong – I believe in my heart that you know what the right decision is, even though you also are being pressured to continue this farce. Please don’t block my progress, and that of my daughter’s, toward greater happiness. And, also remember this: There are multiple federal and civil cases in states like Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Ohio with similar arguments to the one’s that I have presented that may get to the US Supreme Court before I will. Therefore, there is no chance that these statues will survive. This sham is all over. So, be a hero to children and parents around the country now. Or, go down in history as one of many judges who broke their oath to support the Constitution. Take the opportunity I’m offering you to positively change the world, because we are going to win anyway, and you only get this one opportunity to let America know what you stand for.



You likely consider my manners, approach, tone, and words as threatening and disrespectful. I almost find it humorous that the court steals my money, personal property, and my daughter, and then thinks that I’m being disrespectful (Judge Mathein had told me she felt “insulted”). I’m not looking for friends in this courtroom. I don’t accept sympathy or charity. I’m not interested in making you like me, and I know quite clearly you don’t. I’m looking for you to do your job the way you are supposed to, to obey the Law of the Land, and to respect my fundamental Rights; though I have no expectation or naiveté that I will get what I seek. I certainly mean no personal threat to this court, but make no mistake about it – I intend to threaten the very foundation of this court’s power, which is the corrupt and immoral laws that allow the court to destroy family’s lives and commit robbery. If you want to go ahead and allow perjury by officers of the court and witnesses, you may not see me raise a stink in an appeal, as that’s not my primary fight. But, if you attempt to take away my daughter from me in any way, or take away any of my property in any way (including the property that you’ve already stolen from me), or take my Rights and give them to Ms. Lovett, there is no beating that you will ever be able to inflict upon me to keep me from thoroughly destroying everything that gives you that power. The court has robbed me, a producer, and then protects Ms. Lovett and her attorneys in their enjoyment of what you have stolen from me. Well, the end is near to this particular fundamental Rights catastrophe – better get used to the idea. We are no longer going to be innocently generous in allowing you to destroy our lives and those of our children. We will no longer be a part of our own destruction. We are not evil – that which destroys is evil. I am an excellent father. I have earned the right to spend time with my daughter equally, to provide for her, and to guide her as I see fit. I am interested in preserving, fulfilling, and enjoying my life with my daughter. I will not surrender my own self-interest, my daughter’s right to self-interest, or my mind. I will not accept “happiness” delivered by force of a gun and given to me contingent on self-destruction. I am suffering tremendously, and my suffering will likely get worse before it gets better. But my happiness will only come from joy without penalty or guilt – it will never come from self-destruction. Contrary to what the court wants, I will not consent. If I consent, then I deserve what you force on me. I will not silently default. This court will not run my life, or my daughter’s life. This is a battle for my right to live.



I will endure the pain and suffering you have and will continue to inflict on me, rather than submit my conscious, and that of my daughter’s, to your unlawful statutes. Considering the massive civil rights infringements that the states and courts inflict on parents, I think it fitting to end with a quote from someone who clearly understood civil rights violations, and had the courage to take real action – Dr. Martin Luther King: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Thank you.

Consider obtaining both the Win Child Custody and Custody Evaluation Videos at http://www.winchildcustody.com and http://www.custodyevaluation.com They will be invaluable for your case.


Website - http://www.childcustody.org/ncustparent/_disc111/00000144.htm

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.