That is all I can say right now because I'm no attorney but can definitely tell a railroad job when I see it, so can others...
< Motion to Object; Motion to Set Aside Order, et al. | Parental Alienation for 5 days straight... >
Suggestions?
If you would like to contribute news suggestions, news tips, or submit your article for your review, you can provide your submission to laryholland@sbcglobal.net.
If you would like to contribute financially to Write to Parent, Inc. c/o Family Court Reports, please send your contribution to 5119 Highland Rd. #229, Waterford, MI 48327. Please be sure that your checks are made payable to "Write to Parent, Inc."
Join this Meetup
Syndicate This Blog
Sites Listed Here
Vote
Should All States Mandate Equal Parenting
Archives
Archives
Show tagged entries
17th Circuit Court acfc A Child's Right advocacy advocacy and research tools alec baldwin andy coulouris announcements arlan meekhof Articles associated content barbara farrah barry county bert johnson Best Life bettie scott bike trek bill caul bill huizenga bob constan Brenda Clack brian calley brian holladay brian palmer bruce caswell california campaigns and awareness candidate child-support child abuse child custody child protection children need both parents children need both parents inc child support childsupport child support enforcement Chrissy Chrzanowski chris ward city of flint civil disobedience coleman young comments commercials constitutional issues Correspondence council Court of Appeals cps craig deroche crispe CSE custody Daddyblogger Daddy Blogger dads and moms of michigan daniel acciavatti darwin booher dave hildenbrand david agema david law david palsrok david robertson dcfestival2008 dcfestival2009 dc rally dcrally2008 divorce divorce rate domestic violence dr. charles corry dudley spade ed clemente edward gaffney election 2008 embezzlement equal equal custody equal parenting equal protection equity events exposing the system f4j false allegations false imprisonment family court family preservation family preservation festival family rights coalition fatherhood fathers fathers-4-justice felony FightBack flint Flint Journal Flint Video florida FOC foster care fran amos frank accavitti Fraud frederick frederick county friend of the court fulton sheen gabe leland gary mcdowell gender issues george cushingberry get off the bench getoffthebench gino polidori glenn steil goeff hansen google video grand rapids Greedy Grievances HB4564 hoon-yung hopgood House Bill house of representatives howard walker Identity Theft illinois income withholding orders In General iowa jack brandenburg jackhoogendyk@house.mi.gov jacob hoogendyk james marleau jeff mayes jim semerad joe hune joel sheltrown john espinoza john garfield john moolenaar john pastor john proos john stahl johnstahl@house.mi.gov john stakoe joint custody judge judicial watch judy emmons kathleen law kathy angerer keith owen kenneth horn kent county kevin elsenheimer kevin green kim meltzer lamar lemmons lansing lary holland lawyers lee gonzales lisa wojno lorence wenke Maine Malicious Mommy martha anderson marty knollenberg maryland media radar mediaradar.org meetup meetup.com michael lahti michigan mike nofs Minnesota Morning Star murder national family justice association nationwideblueprint nationwide blueprint nationwideblueprint.com neal nitz neglect new research nfja north carolina oakland county ocse Office of Child Support Enforcement Ohio
The courts of Michigan particularly family court have denied many DUE PROCESS.
The proceedings are not not hearings in many cases they are lynchings. The ability to have a hearing is afforded to all of us. The same with the ability to defend yourself and present evidence. This referee being an attorney should know better than to blatantly deny you DUE PROCESS.
When you cannot speak without intimidation of 2 bailiffs standing just feet from you , there is no justice in that room. That referee should be disbarred for her actions. As an attorney she should know the law and uphold it not create her own rules of law. One could certainly hope her conduct would be cause for a review by the Attorney Discipline Board. Certainly the FOC does not appreciate those who have studied the laws and understand them and want them upheld. Why is that some might ask?....It is all about the money!! Let people begin to win according to law and the cash cow of the federal government will stop sending the revenues that keep these deplorable actions going.
Fight the good fight !! Honesty and Integrity will prevail......Climbing the mountain seems impossible at times but for those who reach the peak there is a true sense of accomplishment and pride. You will one day reach the summit as you have desire and fortitude.
To all lets rally behind this man and support his momentum......keep this issue climbing so others dont feel defeat.
One of the court observers posted an excellent account of what occurred from a third party perspective. I hope he posts it for all to see.
It is my contention that this specific day's proceedings were decided in the 15 minutes prior to the entrance of the referee, who was approximately 15 minutes late starting the proceeding with no other apparent reason than becasue she can be. The friend of the court agent presented her version of the case to which Mr. Holland pointed out documented inconsistencies, which went ignored by the referee. Mr. Holland also stated his objections to the administrative proceedings as well as the fact that the proceeding was missing a critical piece of required documentation to make the proceeding valid. This too went ignored by the presiding individual.
Every objection placed by Mr. Hollad went ignored, which is amazing since the referee had there before her as well as the copy the friend of the court official had, the previous ruling which violated the same rule of procedure and was reveresed by the circuit judge. Ultimately, this proceeding was not even close to an action consistent with ones right to due process. Mr. Holland explained that he did not believe that he would receive an imparshall hearing in the proceeding due to the fact that the requirement of imparshality is not extended to a referee as it is a judge, which also went ignored, however if one had to make a decision based soley on appearance, overall the proceedign was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate Mr. Holland into submission to the will of the Kent County Friend of the Court.
As Mr. Holland was stating his case, it became apparent that the court recorder had summoned not one but two balif's in an attempt to intimidate Mr. Holland. This became apparent not so much when they entered, however when they moved up to stand within 3 feet of Mr. Holland as he continued to present his case. The ultimate end result of this proceeding was a fine that I am relatively certain will not stand due to the fact that the fine was imposed for the "crime" of civil contempt, based upon a past action. Due to the fact that a civil contempt proceeding serves the purpose and in fact is coercive in definition and intent, one can not undo a past action and therefore the minnimal fine that was imposed is inconsistent with both purpose and procedure.
In the end this proceeding was nothing more than a one sided rail road job due to the fact that the issue at hand in the proceeding, could only be proven or disproven by Judge G Patrick Hillary forcing compliance with the request for production that Mr. Holland had previously filed. The proceeding was decided with NO Evidence, and the fine was imposed without regard for the pending issues before the court regarding the evidentiary facts surrounding the incident at hand. So as I said in my last related post Kangaroo Court. This was nothing more than an administrative process with the soul intent of placing derogatory information within the record with regards to one parent so that it will furhter sway the future decisions of both the friend of the court and the presiding officials.
outside the court room. Myself, Mr. Holland and another CourtWatcher
entered the court room several minutes before the hearing was scheduled
to begin only to wait for the Referee to enter approximately 15 minutes
after the scheduled start time. From the beginning it was obvious that
a decision had all ready been made as each and every objection Mr.
Holland put forth was routinely denied. Mid point through the hearing
two balifs entered and approached to within a few feet of Mr. Holland
in a clear attempt at intimadation. At no point did Mr. Holland
exhibit any behavior which would warrant such an action.
The case at hand hinged on evidence that Mr. Holland had previously
requested and been denied access to. A judgement against Mr. Holland
was entered based on no evidence and a denial of due process and a
small fine imposed.
I even complained about the misinformation...but did they listen? I am assuming you know the answer to that question. In wandering around your website I really had no clue how "bad" the FOC really was. I will definitly keep updated on your website and I am definitly thankful for someone like you that is not "scared" to fight the fight.