Does Peter Walsh Hate the Amish?

To Mr. Peter Walsh:                                                        April 12, 2006

PERSONAL LETTER TO PETER P. WALSH

Well I have had a chance to read through your 10 pages you titled “Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” My first reaction was phew, he had his client write it, because he certainly would not have sent such a document. But then, after getting through all the contradictions and all the errors and such that were made in it, I sent it to two other licensed attorneys. They had similar, if not the same, reactions that I did. Let me explain, and mind you this is not all inclusive.

You first allege that my Motion for Summary Judgment is a preemptory attack on some unseen Order to Show Cause regarding child support on a temporary order that was issued about two and a half years ago. Fact one: the only people that know about any order to show cause are you and your friend Daniel J. Fojtik, whom you admittedly have colluded with in your letters. Daniel J. Fojtik works for the 17th Judicial Circuit Court. Fact two: your ex parte contact with Daniel J. Fojtik, who is an agent of the Judge, is not allowed. See in a principal/agency relationship…the judge cannot extend more authority to his agent then he himself has, and since it is against the Judicial Code of Conduct for him (which I don’t personally doubt he regularly violates as well) it would automatically be against the Judicial Code of Conduct for his agent to assist him in breaking the rules. I fully intend on grieving Judge G. Patrick Hillary for his misconduct in the past on a few issues as well as the Chief Circuit Court Judge for allowing this type of regular behavior between you and your friends at the Courthouse. If this is too much for you to comprehend or you consider this unintelligible, that is only due to your own lack of understanding and training and you should consider reading Canon 3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct.

You secondly seem to have a lack of understanding of what hedonic inalienable rights are. Hedonic means relating to or marked “by pleasure” and inalienable rights are those that are inseparable from the being. In most philosophies, such as Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan and other very famous philosophers and politicians that influenced the framing of the Constitution of the United States believe that you cannot separate the natural rights of man from the being, since they are indeed a part of one’s existence. Inalienable rights include but not limited to life, liberty, health, right to property ownership, and the one of topic here… parenthood.

You thirdly state that my Motion for Summary Disposition is “frivolous” but there is plainly a court rule that allows for such a motion and you seem to be more upset by things that appear on a website than what appear in the Motion for Summary Disposition. In fact, a lot of what you (or your client, whichever one wrote the response) seem to complain about events and alleged statements/conduct outside the realm of the pleading itself.

You fourth state in paragraph 7, that you do not know of any reports exist but yet in paragraph 14 you state that the Friend of the Court investigation clearly indicate “that Defendant is unfit and incompetent to be either a primary or equal physical custodian.” Did you forget what you wrote in paragraph 7 Pete? Which one is it, what are these reports. Since you are clearly confused even about your own writing, I would not expect you to be able to comprehend my writing.

A fifth item is that you state that I did not attach reports regarding a claim that I stated regarding false allegations, but yet you “informed the Kent County Friend of the Court” of certain issues and stated in letters that you colluded with Daniel J. Fojtik weeks ago on an issue, but fail to attach your communications to substantiate your statements in your response. You fail to practice what you preach Peter and are making a fool of yourself to your peers and to the public.

A sixth item is that you state in Paragraph 18 that I do not have a citation backing up that Defendant has a Constitutional Right to the control and custody of his child[ren] superior to any statutory rights. The next sentence you immediately state that “the courts of this state have clearly determined that parents do have constitutional rights concerning their children” but fail to offer a citation. Again, you fail to practice what you preach Peter and you are making a fool of yourself to your peers and to the public. This one, an attorney actually laughed most at regarding your statements.

A seventh item is that you try to state what legal gibberish I am bringing, but one thing that is clear is you either don’t understand that Constitutional Liberties trump Statutory Rights or you haven’t really read the Constitution with any level of comprehension in the first place. Inalienable rights are self-evident and can only be taken away by force and intimidation, pretty much what Kent County Circuit Court regularly does to people. The big difference is that I am willing to stand up for things that I believe in, including the right to raise my children without your client interfering and without your friends interfering. Equal means Equal. Not Judge G. Patrick Hillary’s version of affirmative action in the court room.

An eighth item is that I was unaware that you were an expert on “contemporary living” according to your statement of “indicates that Defendant suffers from some form of mental incapacity that interferes with his ability to conform to generally acceptable standards of contemporary living.” This is pretty funny stuff Peter as I was not aware that the Amish were all mentally ill… Because they have a right of choice to live differently from you, I cannot believe they all suffer from mental incapacities. I also think that you lack any sufficient credibility to make such determinations of the poor Amish folk that you are impliedly biased against.

A ninth item that you bring up is that “Defendant has posted on the Internet comments insulting to this Court and others when anyone with any common sense and reasonable intelligence would avoid at all costs engaging in such tactics especially with a case currently pending. This behavior clearly indicates that Defendant does not have a grasp on basic social graces necessary to raises a child” (note your typo not mine) “What is he teaching his children about obeying the law and respect for courts and other institutions?” This is actually a pretty good statement because first of all, we live in a country that has a First Amendment Right to Free Speech along with many other “inalienable rights” that the Constitution LIMITS the federal government and subsequently the states from INTERFERING with. The practice of Kent County Circuit Court Judges flies in the face of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Constitution much like Judge Dennis Kolenda “thumbing his nose at the U.S. Supreme Court” because he disagrees with a Supreme Court Decision. He now states that he does not have to follow the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. I wonder if you think he is also unintelligent and that he does not deserve his children.  Also what would you have said about Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Moray stating “"....that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that the invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance.” I bet you would have thought because he spoke out about the Judiciary that he too should only be a visitor to his children. You only make a fool out of yourself Peter, both to your peers and to the public.

Lastly, but not all-inclusively Peter, “We hold these truths to be self-evident" that human rights are endowed by “the nature of man's creation and are inalienable” and if you don’t believe that Peter, go to the source. Before you demean my intelligence, you may want to consider what my testing scores would be in comparison to yours. If you want to make the statement insinuating that you are simply more intelligent because you are a conformist, than you are clearly misinformed about what intelligence is.  

Very Truly Yours,

/s/ /s/

Lary Holland

Cc:      Kent County Friend of the Court (your friend and your client’s welfare attorney Daniel J. Fojtik)

FixTheFoc.Com

File