How The Law Works
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This is a good example of what mothers go through.
Between May 27, 2008, and July 29, 2008, Judge Antonio Viviano three
times denied a young mother’s request to remove her family’s social The
woman, a mother of two young children, whom will be referred to as Ms.
Z, feared that her social security numbers would be taken from the public
records and used to steal her identity and endanger her family legally
and financially.
During her divorce, social security numbers for Ms. Z and her family were
accidentally included in public documents at the court. Ms. Z sought to
redact the social security numbers of herself, her ex-husband, and her
two young children, from the public record. Since Ms. Z is struggling
financially, even receiving public assistance, hiring an attorney was
financially impossible.
Without alternative recourse but to represent herself, Ms. Z drafted a
simple motion based upon the law and the Michigan Supreme Court
Order which states that social security numbers should not be included in
public records. Ms. Z filed her momotion to remove her family’s social
security numbers with Judge Viviano’s court in May 2008.
Judge Viviano denied Ms. Z’s motion to redact the social security
numbers at the hearing. Reviewing a copy of Michigan Supreme Court
Administrative Order 2006-2, presented by Ms. Z, Judge Viviano stated
on the record that he “did not know where the order came from,” and he
“did not know what court the order applied to.”
Judge Viviano told Ms. Z to “file a new motion, retain an attorney, file a
brief citing the legal authority for the request, and provide more proof of
where the Administrative Order originated and what court it applied to.”
Legal consultants informed the Family Rights Coalition that every judge
has a reference manual on the bench with information regarding all of
the state administrative orders from the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2006-2 in
February 2006 in response to passage of the Michigan Social Security
Number Privacy Act, a law to prevent identity theft and misuse of social
security numbers exposed in public court documents. Administrative
Order 2006-2 ordered all Michigan courts to limit the collection and use
of social security numbers. It orders ALL courts to comply by redacting
social security numbers upon motion by either party.
In June 2008, the Family Rights Coalition sent letters to the Michigan
State Court Administrator and the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,
on behalf of Ms. Z, requesting a full investigation of Judge Viviano’s
failure to uphold an important privacy law. The State Court Administrator
responded stating that Judge Viviano said that Ms. Z’s request was
“overly broad in that it would have redacted the parties’ social security
numbers from “all documents” without specifying dates or exempting
documents in which the social security number is required by law.”
Following the State Court Administrator’s inquiry, Judge Viviano held a
new hearing on July 29, 2008. In this hearing, Judge Viviano still
harassed Ms. Z, because she was representing herself and not
accompanied by an attorney.
At the start of the hearing, Ms. Z requested that Judge Viviano turn on
the courtroom video recorder to make a proper record. Judge Viviano
responded saying, “Video Record? I don’t know what you are talking
about.”
Judge Viviano then proceeded with the hearing, without a video record.
The Family Rights Coalition had court watchers in attendance. Judge
Viviano added more burden to Ms. Z telling her that she needed to
specify each and every document in the public record and divorce file
containing her family’s social security numbers or he would not grant her
request.
Ms. Z used the clear language of the Michigan Supreme Court Order in
her request which states: “A person whose social security number is
contained in a document filed with the clerk on or after March 1, 2006,
may file a motion asking the court to direct the clerk to: redact the
number on any document that does not require or allow a social security
number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of
collection activity when it is required for identification.” Administrative
Order 2006-2 does NOT state that a person “must specify exact
documents and dates of documents in a motion to redact social security
numbers.”
Ms. Z cannot afford legal representation. For such a straightforward
clerical request, thousands of dollars in legal costs should not be
required to avail a citizen protection for one’s family that is already
provided for by law. Ms. Z has been subjected to 4 unnecessary trips to
the court, which if represented by an attorney would have cost at leas
$3,500 for court time, research and documents filed.
Judge Viviano has shown insensitivity to the ethical and economic
ramifications of Ms. Z’s concerns about privacy and identity theft which
can result from public access to court records. Judge Viviano also shows
his disregard for both the rule of law, the authority of the Michigan
Supreme Court and the code of judicial canons which guide professional
behavior. The Family Rights Coalition has filed grievances requesting a
full investigation by the Michigan State Court Administrator’s Office and
the Judicial Tenure Commission and awaits results of the investigation.
Mark Havas is Membership director of the Family Rights Coalition of
Michigan. To discuss FRC membership issues or the content of this
article, contact Mark: 248 275 6234. n
Between May 27, 2008, and July 29, 2008, Judge Antonio Viviano three
times denied a young mother’s request to remove her family’s social The
woman, a mother of two young children, whom will be referred to as Ms.
Z, feared that her social security numbers would be taken from the public
records and used to steal her identity and endanger her family legally
and financially.
During her divorce, social security numbers for Ms. Z and her family were
accidentally included in public documents at the court. Ms. Z sought to
redact the social security numbers of herself, her ex-husband, and her
two young children, from the public record. Since Ms. Z is struggling
financially, even receiving public assistance, hiring an attorney was
financially impossible.
Without alternative recourse but to represent herself, Ms. Z drafted a
simple motion based upon the law and the Michigan Supreme Court
Order which states that social security numbers should not be included in
public records. Ms. Z filed her momotion to remove her family’s social
security numbers with Judge Viviano’s court in May 2008.
Judge Viviano denied Ms. Z’s motion to redact the social security
numbers at the hearing. Reviewing a copy of Michigan Supreme Court
Administrative Order 2006-2, presented by Ms. Z, Judge Viviano stated
on the record that he “did not know where the order came from,” and he
“did not know what court the order applied to.”
Judge Viviano told Ms. Z to “file a new motion, retain an attorney, file a
brief citing the legal authority for the request, and provide more proof of
where the Administrative Order originated and what court it applied to.”
Legal consultants informed the Family Rights Coalition that every judge
has a reference manual on the bench with information regarding all of
the state administrative orders from the Michigan Supreme Court.
The Michigan Supreme Court issued Administrative Order 2006-2 in
February 2006 in response to passage of the Michigan Social Security
Number Privacy Act, a law to prevent identity theft and misuse of social
security numbers exposed in public court documents. Administrative
Order 2006-2 ordered all Michigan courts to limit the collection and use
of social security numbers. It orders ALL courts to comply by redacting
social security numbers upon motion by either party.
In June 2008, the Family Rights Coalition sent letters to the Michigan
State Court Administrator and the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission,
on behalf of Ms. Z, requesting a full investigation of Judge Viviano’s
failure to uphold an important privacy law. The State Court Administrator
responded stating that Judge Viviano said that Ms. Z’s request was
“overly broad in that it would have redacted the parties’ social security
numbers from “all documents” without specifying dates or exempting
documents in which the social security number is required by law.”
Following the State Court Administrator’s inquiry, Judge Viviano held a
new hearing on July 29, 2008. In this hearing, Judge Viviano still
harassed Ms. Z, because she was representing herself and not
accompanied by an attorney.
At the start of the hearing, Ms. Z requested that Judge Viviano turn on
the courtroom video recorder to make a proper record. Judge Viviano
responded saying, “Video Record? I don’t know what you are talking
about.”
Judge Viviano then proceeded with the hearing, without a video record.
The Family Rights Coalition had court watchers in attendance. Judge
Viviano added more burden to Ms. Z telling her that she needed to
specify each and every document in the public record and divorce file
containing her family’s social security numbers or he would not grant her
request.
Ms. Z used the clear language of the Michigan Supreme Court Order in
her request which states: “A person whose social security number is
contained in a document filed with the clerk on or after March 1, 2006,
may file a motion asking the court to direct the clerk to: redact the
number on any document that does not require or allow a social security
number pursuant to statute, court rule, court order, or for purposes of
collection activity when it is required for identification.” Administrative
Order 2006-2 does NOT state that a person “must specify exact
documents and dates of documents in a motion to redact social security
numbers.”
Ms. Z cannot afford legal representation. For such a straightforward
clerical request, thousands of dollars in legal costs should not be
required to avail a citizen protection for one’s family that is already
provided for by law. Ms. Z has been subjected to 4 unnecessary trips to
the court, which if represented by an attorney would have cost at leas
$3,500 for court time, research and documents filed.
Judge Viviano has shown insensitivity to the ethical and economic
ramifications of Ms. Z’s concerns about privacy and identity theft which
can result from public access to court records. Judge Viviano also shows
his disregard for both the rule of law, the authority of the Michigan
Supreme Court and the code of judicial canons which guide professional
behavior. The Family Rights Coalition has filed grievances requesting a
full investigation by the Michigan State Court Administrator’s Office and
the Judicial Tenure Commission and awaits results of the investigation.
Mark Havas is Membership director of the Family Rights Coalition of
Michigan. To discuss FRC membership issues or the content of this
article, contact Mark: 248 275 6234. n
If any of you
has a dispute
with another,
dare he take
it before the
ungodly for
judgment
instead of
before the
saints?
Is it possible
that there is
nobody
among you
wise enough
to judge a
dispute
between
believers! But
instead, one
brother goes
to law against
another- and
this in front of
unbelievers.
The very fact
that you have
a lawsuits
among you
means you
have been
completely
defeated
already.
1 Corinthians
6
has a dispute
with another,
dare he take
it before the
ungodly for
judgment
instead of
before the
saints?
Is it possible
that there is
nobody
among you
wise enough
to judge a
dispute
between
believers! But
instead, one
brother goes
to law against
another- and
this in front of
unbelievers.
The very fact
that you have
a lawsuits
among you
means you
have been
completely
defeated
already.
1 Corinthians
6
For God is
not a God of
disorder but
of peace.
1Corinthians
14:33
not a God of
disorder but
of peace.
1Corinthians
14:33
| The Wise One In a village long ago and far away lived an old man, known by all as the Wise One. He discerned truth from lies and right from wrong. He solved the most perplexing riddles. It was said that he could peer into the depths of a person’s soul. Whenever villagers faced a difficult problem they always knew where to turn- to the Wise One. A young villager, jealous of the Wise One’s respect and acclaim, set out to prove that he could outsmart the old man, thereby stealing some glory for him self. He recruited a group of villagers and marched to the old man’s cottage. When the old man came to the door, the young man, with a sarcastic tone and sly grin, said, “Wise One, I am here to prove that you are not as wise as everyone thinks. I challenge you to give me the true answer to this question. In my cupped hands I hold a small bird- is it alive or dead?” The Wise One saw the trap immediately. If he said “alive,” the young man would simply squeeze his hands together and kill the bird. If he said “dead,” the young man would open his cupped hands and the bird would fly away. How could he provide an undeniable true answer? Anticipating that the young man was about to dethrone the Wise One, the villagers waited anxiously for his answer. The Wise One looked directly into the young man’s eyes and said in a soft voice, “Young man, the answer is in your hands.” • Author Unknown taken from Act On It Do you see the family court systems trap? No matter what you do, it will be wrong. If you say “alive,” the judge will simply squeeze their hands together and kill the bird. If you say “dead,” the judge will open their cupped hands and the bird will fly away. The answer to changing the corrupt family court system is in your hands. |
| The Federal Judicial Center, in a study of case data from 10 federal district courts during 1991–1994, reports that 21% of all filings were by self represented persons. Court Of Appeals Facilitate Handling of Pro Se Cases, The Third Branch, July 1995 A report from California based on 1991–1995 court data found that one party appeared pro se in 67% of all domestic relations cases and in 40% of all child custody cases. Shortage In The Court, The Daily Journal, Jan 20, 1995 A recent Iowa newspaper account stated that “lawsuits filed by people acting as their own attorney are increasing. Domestic abuse pro se cases soared from 188 cases in 1990 to 5,340 in 1997.” Santiago, Trend: Iowa Litigants Heading to Court Solo, The Des Moines Register, August 18, 1997 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
