In my previous petitions, I talk about whats on the outside. Now let me explain whats on the inside as it applys to our liberty interest. 28. u.s.c. section 351 to 364 effects our liberty interest. Given us no rule of law for us to depend on and gives the judges no accountability totally in conflict with 18 u.s.c. section 241 and 242; 42 u.s.c. section 1985(3). See http://www.thepetitionsite.com/4/petiton-for-the-death-of-us-district-court-judge-stanley-r-chesler-and-family-court-judge-stephen-j/
Knowledge is power. Inorder for us to really understand our true nature, If we strive to believe it we will receive it. Did you really believe that when Dr. Martin Luther King spoke about that mountain top, he was referring to Mount Sinai in its physical sence? Let me explain:
According to natural law theory, which holds that morality is function of human nature and reason can discover valid moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity in society, is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes we use in 28 u.s.c. section 351 to 364 but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, lets be concerned only with natural law theories of ethics.
The Ego has a difficult time dealing with the competing demands of the Superego and the Id. According to the psychoanalytic view, this psychological conflict is an intrinsic and pervasive part of human experience. The conflict between the Id and Superego, negotiated by the Ego, is one of the fundamental psychological battles all people face. The way in which a person characteristically resolves the instant gratification vs. longer-term reward dilemma in many ways comes to reflect on their "character".
THE ID (�It�): functions in the irrational and emotional part of the mind. At birth a baby�s mind is all Id - want want want. The Id is the primitive mind. It contains all the basic needs and feelings. It is the source for libido (psychic energy). And it has only one rule --> the �pleasure principle�: �I want it and I want it all now�. In transactional analysis, Id equates to "Child". Id too strong = bound up in self-gratification and uncaring to others.
THE EGO: (�I�): functions with the rational part of the mind. The Ego develops out of growing awareness that you can�t always get what you want. The Ego relates to the real world and operates via the �reality principle�. The Ego realises the need for compromise and negotiates between the Id and the Superego. The Ego's job is to get the Id's pleasures but to be reasonable and bear the long-term consequences in mind. The Ego denies both instant gratification and pious delaying of gratification. The term ego-strength is the term used to refer to how well the ego copes with these conflicting forces. To undertake its work of planning, thinking and controlling the Id, the Ego uses some of the Id's libidinal energy. In transactional analysis, Ego equates to "Adult". Ego too strong = extremely rational and efficient, but cold, boring and distant.
THE SUPEREGO (�Over-I�): The Superego is the last part of the mind to develop. It might be called the moral part of the mind. The Superego becomes an embodiment of parental and societal values. It stores and enforces rules. It constantly strives for perfection, even though this perfection ideal may be quite far from reality or possibility. Its power to enforce rules comes from its ability to create anxiety.
The Superego has two subsystems: Ego Ideal and Conscience. The Ego Ideal provides rules for good behaviour, and standards of excellence towards which the Ego must strive. The Ego ideal is basically what the child�s parents approve of or value. The Conscience is the rules about what constitutes bad behaviour. The Conscience is basically all those things that the child feels mum or dad will disapprove of or punish. Superego too strong = feels guilty all the time, may even have an insufferably saintly personality.
________________________________________
litigators and advocates to have no rule of law to rely upon. It has become apparent that at times the doctrine is used to serve the rights of adults while affording lip-service to the best interests of the child. While setting out thebasis for the doctrine, this writing calls for a rebuilding of the legal foundations of the best interests of the child standard according to reliable rules of law based on the notion of the child’s interests, as guarded by those who have been “divinely” and “inalienably” charged to protect those interests. The hope is that this Government will use this information to wisely base legal rulings regarding children not on the judge’s own values, nor on the values of the adults bringing the case, but authentically on the foundations of the best interests of those children inherently and intrinsically vested with value and worth “apart” from the law. Without this underpinning, 28 u.s.c.section 351 to 364 that’s in conflict with 18 u.s.c. section 241,242 and 371would have its way useing external arrangements with the ability to make deliberate wrong decisions even very wrong decisions and never be held accountable.
Natural law arguments in favor of parental authority and parents’ rights prevailed during the founding period of the new world. “God had ordained it but also because nature had displayed it—parental authority was believed to derive from the biological and physical realities of the human conditions and, in particular, from the relationship of dependency which existed between the biological parents and their offspring.
The feebleness of infancy demands a continual protection. Everything must be done for an imperfect being, which as yet does nothing for itself. The complete development of its physical powers takes many years; that of its intellectual faculties is still slower. At a certain age, it has already strength and passions, without experience enough to regulate them. Too sensitive to present impulses, too negligent of the future, such a being must be kept under an authority more immediate than that of the laws.
If a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, (w)ithout some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children's best interest, I should have little doubt that the State would have intruded impermissibly on 'the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter."' Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 862-63 (1977) (Justice Stewart concurring), cited with approval in Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).652 Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989).
There was no opinion of the Court. A majority of Justices (Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, White) was willing to recognize that the biological father has a liberty interest in a relationship with his child, but Justice Stevens voted with the plurality (Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy) because he believed that the statute at issue adequately protected that interest.
Unlike the shifting definitions of the "privacy" line of case, the Court's treatment of the "liberty" of familial relationships has a relatively principled doctrinal basis. Starting with Meyer and Pierce, the Court has held that "the Constitution protects the sanctity of thefamily precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this (Nation's history and tradition.) For instance, the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause, and only "reasonable regulations" of such relationship may be imposed. Thus, the Court has held that a state may not deny the right to marry to someone who has failed to meet a child support obligation, as the State already has numerous other means for exacting compliance with support obligations. In fact, any regulation which affects the ability to form, maintain, dissolve, or resolve conflicts within a family is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. 644 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1928). Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality). Unlike the liberty interest in property, which derives from early statutory law, these liberties spring instead from natural law traditions, as they are "intrinsic human rights". Smith v. Organization of Foster Families, 431 U.S. 816, 845 (1977). These rights, however, do not extend to all close relationships. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (same sex relationships). 646 Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 383-87 (1978). Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978). The majority of the Court deemed the statute to fail under equal protection, whereas JusticesStewart and Powell found the due process clause to be violated. Id. at 391, 396. Compare Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 (1977).
Conclusion:When considering the above with serious comprehension to any family court proceeding, do not pay any attention to the outside. Connect the dots and look within to see that satan consumes Judge BePharaohrnstein who wrongfully take these kids through tax payers dollars in exchange for massive federal funding
Think about your own beautiful kids that this could of happen too. The pain, the misery, the suffering steming from a corrupt court system. A court system who tells the family to shut up when speaking your first amendment rights. A court system who shuts the courtroom doors from the public while their in there stealing your kids in exchange for massive federal funding. A court system who uses external arrangements mix with internal arrangements to fabricate your case. A court system who uses mental health doctors to fabricate you unfit. A court system who do not check or test the immediate family members such as the brother, the sister, the grand mother etc. The family court sysytem is a court who takes your kids in exchange for massive federal funding. We are dealing with liers impostors everywhere we turn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protective_Services But we all men and women actually withn each other, with geographical skin colors, channeling from years and years gone by, originating from adam and eve…as we all are one with God. I am.
No comments:
Post a Comment