Black Robed Dictators At It Again
In keeping with out long standing dislike for the Black Robed Kings By Committee, we come across this story from FoxNews.com.
Court Order May Violate First Amendment
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
By Wendy McElroyA child custody case in Massachusetts may be placing family court procedures on a collision course with the First Amendment.
Last week, a Massachusetts family court judge issued an order restraining the distribution of a book entitled “Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts.” The author, Kevin Thompson, is a non-custodial parent who feels betrayed by a judicial system that he calls “anti-father.”
Hmmm, seems to me that a disgruntled father found a way to fight back and the judges don’t want the truth to be told. This make me want to know what’s in the book. How about you?
Thompson claims that his book is “banned” in the Boston sense of that word. But according to the order, which Thompson received by mail last Friday, impounding the book is necessary to protect the privacy interests of the minor child. In other words, the book includes information about Thompson’s 4-year-old son, which violates a minor’s privacy in a legal proceeding.
(“Family court” is commonly defined as “a separate court, or more likely a separate division of the regular state trial court” that adjudicates family conflicts, such as divorce, and legal matters involving children such as custody, child support and adoption. Its proceedings are far more cloistered than those of other courts; this protects privacy but also prohibits scrutiny.)
Concern for a child’s privacy, however, does not explain some of the circumstances surrounding the restraining order. For example, the issuing judge is also the subject of an entire section of Thompson’s book: Chapter 17, “Judge Mary McCauley Manzi.” Canon 3 of “The Code of Conduct for United States Judges” requires a judge to recuse him or herself when “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Manzi would seem to have a conflict of interest.
You bet there is a conflict of interest. She is the subject of this book and she doesn’t want information which may cast her in a biased light.
We all understand that unless there is some sort of evidence in a custody case showing the mother as unfit, the courts usually award custody to the mother. An obvious bias I’m sure we can all agree. The mother has to be an extremely terrible person in order to be declared unfit.
There are judges who award custody to drug addict mothers. We all know that happens. Here we have a man who wants his child in an age when most men are running from theirs. He experiences the legal system and decided to write about the process. He has a right to tell others.
Bottom line is that this judge don’t want her dirty laundry aired. There is another judge mentioned in the story who also recused himself of the case because I guess Thompson lambasted him in the book also. Which leads me to believe that that entire court system is rotting with corruption and bias.
Thompson has a 1st Amendment right to express his opinion. I’m sure the ACLU would agree with that assumption. He is the biological father of this child and is willing to be the custodial parent. With that in mind, I believe that he would be able to make the decision as to whether or not his son’s name appears in a book that he has written himself.
The judge’s assertion that the restraining order was issued to protect the identity of the child is razor thin. This is nothing more than a cover up.
Email This
Posted by Justin Higgins on March 29, 2006 8:16 pm
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, News
Trackback URL:
- muchspace.com » Blog Archive » pinged this post.
Comments
One Response to “Black Robed Dictators At It Again”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
“The judge’s assertion that the restraining order was issued to protect the identity of the child is razor thin. ”
What makes you say that?