Abused Swan 

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 security numbers from public court records at Macomb County Court. 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 accidently 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 mo­tion 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

  

 

 

 

WHEN LAWBREAKERS RULE A NATION

 

By David Brownlow

September 9, 2003

NewsWithViews.com                                               http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david10.htm

Think back to those nostalgic days when the Republicans pretended they were fighting to "reduce the size of the federal government." I don't know about you, but they had me hook, line and sinker. I really believed in them. It was maddening that with all the effort and energy we spent trying to rein in the growth of the federal government, it only continued to grow (up over a million federal employees since 1999!). But we hung in there with the Republicans, failure after failure, because we were sure the Democrats were the reason nothing was ever accomplished.

Well, it turns out that "big government" was never the real problem. It also turns out the Republicans had no more intention of "reducing the size of government" than the Democrats did. All the talk and all the partisan fights were just a diversion to keep us preoccupied, while the real damage was being done behind the scenes.

There is no doubt our federal government is a huge problem that has grown into an enormous behemoth, chewing up the last few remaining pieces of our freedom. And there can be no argument that our government has gotten bigger every year, no matter which faction within the one-party system is in charge. But, big government is not the problem. Big government is only a symptom of the problem.

The real problemis that we are being ruled by a group of elitist politicians who absolutely refuse to obey the law. We can fight the symptoms all we want, but until we deal with the core issue - that lawbreakers are ruling our nation - we have no chance of getting this mess straightened out.

There are so many of our leaders breaking the law on a continual basis that our government has come to more closely resemble a criminal enterprise than it does a legitimate government. And whenever lawbreakers rule a country, chaos and loss of freedom will always result. Exploding budgets, tyrannical courts, rampant abortion, undeclared wars, elaborate income transfer schemes, a debased currency, $450 billion a year deficits and a burgeoning federal police state are only the most obvious indications that we are being swindled out of the very lifeblood of our country.

How have we gotten ourselves into this situation? It is because we have allowed criminals and lawbreakers to rule us.

The very first sentence of the Constitution essentially defines the entire structure of our government. "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." The rest of the Constitution lays out "All the legislative powers" in great detail, which consist of the limitations and restrictions that were to be placed on the federal government. It is obvious that our founders were determined to grant Congress only very limited, narrowly defined powers.

How far we have veered off that path!

The powers vested to Congress are specific, non-ambiguous and were intended to be a comprehensive enumeration of the powers of Congress. They were not intended to be a set of guidelines or a list of suggestions. The limitations of power were designed into our government because the framers of the Constitution were very aware (with brilliant foresight) that power consolidated at the federal level would lead to an eventual loss of our freedom.

Please take a moment to look at a summary of the vested powers of Congress. Aside from these, Congress has no other powers. All other powers belong to the states and the people. Any encroachment by the Congress into state and individual powers (which is nearly everything they do!) is an illegal usurpation of power.

Congress has the vested power to:

·Provide for the common defense
·Raise, fund and regulate the Army and the Navy
·Borrow money on the credit of the United States
·Declare war
·Approve treaties, Cabinet-level appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court (Senate only)
·Regulate the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
·Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers
·Introduce Constitutional amendments, call a convention
·Override presidential vetoes
·Regulate commerce with foreign countries and between the states
·Establish rules for citizenship
·Coin money and regulate the value of currency, determine punishment for counterfeiting
·Define and punish crimes committed at sea
·Establish federal courts
·Create all bills for raising revenue (House only)
·Levy and collect taxes, duties.
·Pay all debts
·Organize and arm the state militias
·Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the

District of Columbia

.
·Establish post offices and postal roads
·Create bankruptcy laws
·Regulate patents and copyrights
·Assemble at least once in every year on the first Monday in December
·Establish times for elections
·Discipline it's own members
·Oversee all federal property and possessions (what few there should be)
·Fill a vacancy in the Presidency in cases of death or inability
·Receive electoral votes for the Presidency
·Keep and publish a journal of its proceedings
·Conduct a census every ten years

As you can see, these vested powers range from the mundane, such as writing a Congressional journal, on up to the big ones like raising and regulating an army, declaring wars and approving treaties.  From the level of detail written into these defined powers, we know that the framers of the Constitution intended to leave very little to interpretation. These powers were to be the entirety of the powers of Congress.

If any were tempted to step outside of these specific limitations of power, the Constitution goes even further and mandates that Congress pass only the laws that are "necessary and proper" for executing the vested powers.

Conspicuously missing from these clearly defined powers is any Congressional authority for involvement in education, health care, food distribution, housing, foreign aid, farming, transportation, spotted owls, retirement, job creation, energy production, gun regulation, space exploration, "family planning", day care, the "arts", community development etc.

In other words, roughly 80% of the programs for which the Congress provides funding are, in fact, illegal.

Check out the 2003 budget and try to find even the slightest correlation between this budget and the powers that have been granted to Congress.

How they could read the Constitution

and come up with a budget like this is a total mystery.

It is impossible to believe that those who serve us in Congress do not understand the Constitutional limitations that have been placed on their power. Since they ignore those limitations with impunity, we can therefore conclude that the vast majority of those who swore an oath to defend the Constitution did so knowing full well they intended to break that oath (and the law) on a daily basis.

People who break the law on such a massive scale usually end up behind bars. But, since the politicians seem to be immune from the laws you and I must obey, the only thing we can do is work to kick every one of the offenders out of office.

Unfortunately, it will be quite a challenge to replace the current group of lawbreakers with politicians who will be any more likely to obey the law. (Any who could ever get elected, that is!) Nearly a century of brainwashing by our government schools has left us with few who understand and believe in the Constitutional principal of limited government.

One thing is for sure - if we continue to send the same lawbreakers back to

Washington year after year, the current downward spiral is only going to get worse.

A "lesser of two evils" voting trend has left us with a Congress that is packed full of dishonest and evil men who are working tirelessly in their efforts to destroy our country. Since the courts have long ago abandoned any pretense of defending the Constitution, we are the only ones can bring some sanity back into our government.

There is no easy answer, but it has become clear that the solution will not be found within the "two-party" charade we call the Democratic and the Republican parties, which for all practical purposes have merged into one. We need to try something different.

Daniel Websterwas thinking a couple of hundred years ahead when he said:

"I shall exercise every facility I possess in asking to prevent the Constitution from being nullified, destroyed or impaired: and even though I should see it fall, I will still, with voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing can extinguish … call on the people to come to its rescue."Daniel Webster, 1782-1852

The hour is late. If ever there was a time when our

Constitution needed to be rescued, the time is now.

© 2003 David Brownlow - All Rights Reserved

 

 

June 19TH join a march to "Investigate Family Court Corruption"