Non Custodial Mothers
| Abused Swan |
Mothers going through this situation feel as if they are alone. There are no support groups and very few
counselors are educated on how the system works in favor the abuser. Out of all divorces, 80% are uncontested
custody cases, and the mother is the primary care giver to the children. Those 20% that are contested cases, the
abusive father will gain custody 72% of the time.
"Studies show batterers are able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in
approximately 70% of challenged cases." (American Judges Association) (Custody Preparations for Moms
Organization, 2006) "Fathers who batter mothers are two times more likely to seek sole physical custody of their
children than are nonviolent fathers." (APA 1996, P, 40) (Custody Preparations for Moms Organization, 2006)
counselors are educated on how the system works in favor the abuser. Out of all divorces, 80% are uncontested
custody cases, and the mother is the primary care giver to the children. Those 20% that are contested cases, the
abusive father will gain custody 72% of the time.
"Studies show batterers are able to convince authorities that the victim is unfit or undeserving of sole custody in
approximately 70% of challenged cases." (American Judges Association) (Custody Preparations for Moms
Organization, 2006) "Fathers who batter mothers are two times more likely to seek sole physical custody of their
children than are nonviolent fathers." (APA 1996, P, 40) (Custody Preparations for Moms Organization, 2006)
Women are leaving their husbands and find themselves in a legal battle to keep custody of their
children. These mother's have no idea that their lives will be turned upside down, trying to get
away from an unloving man.
When you help Abused Swan you are helping hurting mothers across the US!
children. These mother's have no idea that their lives will be turned upside down, trying to get
away from an unloving man.
When you help Abused Swan you are helping hurting mothers across the US!
Create your own video slideshow at animoto.com.
| Judges want non custodial parents to pay the highest amount of child support because they get a kick back from the federal government for every dollar they collect from the non custodial parent. |
Los Angeles, June 2 – Joseph Zernik, PhD, and Human Rights Alert (NGO), has published a draft request for review
and investigation of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access and case management systems of the
US courts by the US Attorney General Eric Holder. [[i]] The draft is circulated as a request for comments and
suggestions prior to its submission to the US Attorney General.
The request notes that numerous deficiencies were identified in the electronic record systems of the US courts, to the
degree that such systems seriously undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the people, Banking
Regulation, and the Rule of Law.
The request claims that the systems particularly harm pro se filers, who seek remedy for alleged abuse of their rights
in the US courts, [[ii]] and that attempts to seek remedy such conditions through the US courts themselves were
unsuccessful. [[iii],[iv]]
Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, stand in stark contrast with the laws enacted by the US Congress,
presidential directives, and regulations pertaining to the validation and authentication of records systems in the
Executive Branch.
The request notes that thorough review of the records systems would be a lengthy process, and implementation of the
necessary corrective measures even longer. However, timely response is requested, at least regarding intent, if any,
by the US Attorney General to address the matter.
The writer, Joseph Zernik, PhD, has gained substantial experience in recent years in analysis of large government and
corporate record keeping systems
The writer has gained substantial experience in analysis of large record keeping systems: [[v]]
His opinions in such matters were reviewed and adopted by the United Nations official Staff Report, as part of 2010
UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States.
His opinions in such matters were supported by law enforcement and computer science experts.
Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in an international computer science journal with
an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and criminology
conferences.
The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) and case management
(CM/ECF) systems in the US courts, which undermine the integrity of US court records.
The request detailed numerous deficiencies in the electronic records systems of the US courts. Furthermore,
implementation of the electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures. The US courts failed
to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by the US Courts following
the implementation of the systems.
The core deficiency of the systems is in enabling the publication of simulated PACER dockets, and simulated court
orders and judgments, which the clerks of the US courts refuse to certify. [[vi]]
Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF effectively established two separate and unequal classes in access to the
courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against pro se filers and the public at large.
Pro se filers (non-attorneys) are routinely denied access to electronic filing and to court records through
implementation of the systems. Therefore, the request claims that the systems undermine their Human, Constitutional,
and Civil Rights.
The electronic public access and case management systems of the US Supreme Court undermine the foundation of
the Rule of Law.
The request notes similar deficiencies also in the electronic systems of the US Supreme Court. [[vii]]
Conditions, which were established through implementation of the electronic records system, undermined the integrity
of the US courts in both Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights and Banking Regulation matters.
The request claims that restoration of integrity of the electronic records systems is essential not only for the protection
of rights of the People, but also for restoring the integrity of US Banking Regulation. [[viii], [ix]] It claims that conduct of
the courts is a key factor in the current financial crisis, which is often overlooked.
Unless the issues are addressed, it is unlikely that US Banking Regulation will be restored.
Therefore, it is claimed that addressing these issues is essential for restoring both civil society and socio-economic
development.
Proposed corrective measures
The request also proposes corrective measures:
Restoring the integrity of the offices of the clerks of the US courts:
It is claimed that conditions that today prevail in the US courts are similar to those that prevailed in the early 20th
century, and that both then and now, such conditions are central cause of the socio-economic crises. The Salary Act
(1919), which placed the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General was credited with
restoring the integrity of the offices of clerks of the US courts a century ago. [[x]]
Enactment of federal rules of electronic court records:
As part of the transition to electronic administration of government, the US Congress passed the E-Government Act
(2002) and the E-Sign Act (2000). The US Department of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (2004) further
established policies for validation and authentication of electronic systems and electronic records of the Executive
Branch agencies. Standards were accordingly promulgated and applications were implemented. In contrast, the
records systems, implemented by the US courts, were not covered by such laws and regulations.
The People, and computing professionals in particular, should exercise their civic duties in ongoing monitoring of the
integrity of electronic court records:
The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v
Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court stated
that the right was necessary for the People "to keep a watchful eye on government".
Once public access to electronic court records is restored, the People must keep a watchful eye on electronic court
records. No other measure could substitute for scrutiny of court records by the People in safeguarding the integrity of
the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
The request will be copied to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Dianne
Feinstein.
_____
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
and investigation of the integrity, or lack thereof, of the electronic public access and case management systems of the
US courts by the US Attorney General Eric Holder. [[i]] The draft is circulated as a request for comments and
suggestions prior to its submission to the US Attorney General.
The request notes that numerous deficiencies were identified in the electronic record systems of the US courts, to the
degree that such systems seriously undermine the Human, Constitutional, and Civil Rights of the people, Banking
Regulation, and the Rule of Law.
The request claims that the systems particularly harm pro se filers, who seek remedy for alleged abuse of their rights
in the US courts, [[ii]] and that attempts to seek remedy such conditions through the US courts themselves were
unsuccessful. [[iii],[iv]]
Conditions, which now prevail in the US courts, stand in stark contrast with the laws enacted by the US Congress,
presidential directives, and regulations pertaining to the validation and authentication of records systems in the
Executive Branch.
The request notes that thorough review of the records systems would be a lengthy process, and implementation of the
necessary corrective measures even longer. However, timely response is requested, at least regarding intent, if any,
by the US Attorney General to address the matter.
The writer, Joseph Zernik, PhD, has gained substantial experience in recent years in analysis of large government and
corporate record keeping systems
The writer has gained substantial experience in analysis of large record keeping systems: [[v]]
His opinions in such matters were reviewed and adopted by the United Nations official Staff Report, as part of 2010
UPR (Universal Periodic Review) of Human Rights in the United States.
His opinions in such matters were supported by law enforcement and computer science experts.
Papers he authored on the subject were peer-reviewed and published in an international computer science journal with
an Editorial Board listing scholars from six European nations and Canada.
His opinions in such matters were selected for presentation in international computer science and criminology
conferences.
The Administrative Office of the US Courts has implemented invalid public access (PACER) and case management
(CM/ECF) systems in the US courts, which undermine the integrity of US court records.
The request detailed numerous deficiencies in the electronic records systems of the US courts. Furthermore,
implementation of the electronic records systems amounted to a sea change in court procedures. The US courts failed
to publish valid Rules of Courts, to establish the new court procedures, deemed effective by the US Courts following
the implementation of the systems.
The core deficiency of the systems is in enabling the publication of simulated PACER dockets, and simulated court
orders and judgments, which the clerks of the US courts refuse to certify. [[vi]]
Implementation of PACER and CM/ECF effectively established two separate and unequal classes in access to the
courts and to court records, thereby allegedly discriminating against pro se filers and the public at large.
Pro se filers (non-attorneys) are routinely denied access to electronic filing and to court records through
implementation of the systems. Therefore, the request claims that the systems undermine their Human, Constitutional,
and Civil Rights.
The electronic public access and case management systems of the US Supreme Court undermine the foundation of
the Rule of Law.
The request notes similar deficiencies also in the electronic systems of the US Supreme Court. [[vii]]
Conditions, which were established through implementation of the electronic records system, undermined the integrity
of the US courts in both Human, Constitutional and Civil Rights and Banking Regulation matters.
The request claims that restoration of integrity of the electronic records systems is essential not only for the protection
of rights of the People, but also for restoring the integrity of US Banking Regulation. [[viii], [ix]] It claims that conduct of
the courts is a key factor in the current financial crisis, which is often overlooked.
Unless the issues are addressed, it is unlikely that US Banking Regulation will be restored.
Therefore, it is claimed that addressing these issues is essential for restoring both civil society and socio-economic
development.
Proposed corrective measures
The request also proposes corrective measures:
Restoring the integrity of the offices of the clerks of the US courts:
It is claimed that conditions that today prevail in the US courts are similar to those that prevailed in the early 20th
century, and that both then and now, such conditions are central cause of the socio-economic crises. The Salary Act
(1919), which placed the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General was credited with
restoring the integrity of the offices of clerks of the US courts a century ago. [[x]]
Enactment of federal rules of electronic court records:
As part of the transition to electronic administration of government, the US Congress passed the E-Government Act
(2002) and the E-Sign Act (2000). The US Department of Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 (2004) further
established policies for validation and authentication of electronic systems and electronic records of the Executive
Branch agencies. Standards were accordingly promulgated and applications were implemented. In contrast, the
records systems, implemented by the US courts, were not covered by such laws and regulations.
The People, and computing professionals in particular, should exercise their civic duties in ongoing monitoring of the
integrity of electronic court records:
The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v
Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court stated
that the right was necessary for the People "to keep a watchful eye on government".
Once public access to electronic court records is restored, the People must keep a watchful eye on electronic court
records. No other measure could substitute for scrutiny of court records by the People in safeguarding the integrity of
the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
The request will be copied to Senator Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator Dianne
Feinstein.
_____
Joseph Zernik, PhD
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Linda Marie Sacks Press Release May 6, 2011
Posted by Family Court in America on May 5, 2011 · Leave a Comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact:
Linda Marie Sacks 386-453-3017
Kathleen Russell, Center for Judicial Excellence 415-388-9600
HISTORIC CASE FILED IN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TODAY
Washington, D.C. May 6, 2011 –– In an effort to protect her children and tens of thousands of children in
similar situations, Linda Marie Sacks from Daytona Beach, Florida – an “all-American mom” who never imagined
that she could lose custody of her children – will appear today in a landmark case before the Supreme Court to
present a Petition for Certiorari.
Ms. Sacks stated, “My appearance before the Supreme Court is an historic moment for all of America’s mothers
and their vulnerable children. Before the 2007 ruling by Judge Shawn L. Briese, I was my daughters’ primary
care giver. I was my children’s class mom, soccer mom, and car pool mom. I was a community volunteer and
had no history of drug or alcohol abuse, no history of child or spousal abuse or infidelity. In my case, the trial
court dismissed, ignored, and suppressed credible evidence of child sexual and physical abuse, and I lost
custody of my children for trying to protect them from that abuse. More and more battered women are losing
custody of their children; it has become a nationwide problem that has been described as “epidemic and
widespread” and it has created a public health crisis for America’s children.”
Ms Sacks added, “The family court system is giving pedophiles and batterers custody, and the “fit” parent’s
rights are terminated, or like me are placed on supervised visitation for years without a case plan or
reunification plan. Worse, our minor children are not being protected.”
Ms. Sacks concluded, “A judge legally kidnapped my children. I am not alone, it is well documented that nearly
60,000 children are ordered by the courts to live with a sexually or physically abusive parent after a divorce in
the U.S. The nation’s family courts did not protect my children. If this could happen to me, it could happen to
anyone.”
Posted by Family Court in America on May 5, 2011 · Leave a Comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Press Contact:
Linda Marie Sacks 386-453-3017
Kathleen Russell, Center for Judicial Excellence 415-388-9600
HISTORIC CASE FILED IN UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TODAY
Washington, D.C. May 6, 2011 –– In an effort to protect her children and tens of thousands of children in
similar situations, Linda Marie Sacks from Daytona Beach, Florida – an “all-American mom” who never imagined
that she could lose custody of her children – will appear today in a landmark case before the Supreme Court to
present a Petition for Certiorari.
Ms. Sacks stated, “My appearance before the Supreme Court is an historic moment for all of America’s mothers
and their vulnerable children. Before the 2007 ruling by Judge Shawn L. Briese, I was my daughters’ primary
care giver. I was my children’s class mom, soccer mom, and car pool mom. I was a community volunteer and
had no history of drug or alcohol abuse, no history of child or spousal abuse or infidelity. In my case, the trial
court dismissed, ignored, and suppressed credible evidence of child sexual and physical abuse, and I lost
custody of my children for trying to protect them from that abuse. More and more battered women are losing
custody of their children; it has become a nationwide problem that has been described as “epidemic and
widespread” and it has created a public health crisis for America’s children.”
Ms Sacks added, “The family court system is giving pedophiles and batterers custody, and the “fit” parent’s
rights are terminated, or like me are placed on supervised visitation for years without a case plan or
reunification plan. Worse, our minor children are not being protected.”
Ms. Sacks concluded, “A judge legally kidnapped my children. I am not alone, it is well documented that nearly
60,000 children are ordered by the courts to live with a sexually or physically abusive parent after a divorce in
the U.S. The nation’s family courts did not protect my children. If this could happen to me, it could happen to
anyone.”
| 1-800-706-4951 |