1/23/09 JPC Study Group
Report-Looking Injustice In The Eye Having watched this whole study
progress from a bill to introduce JPC in our
laws, HF1262, to the completion of the
Judiciaries study group report, I can say this
has been an amazing process to watch unfold.
In the beginning, the idea for the opposition
was to take a play from Washington state and
produce a credible report like the one produced
from the University of Washington in 2004 that
basically said joint custody isn't in the best
interest of children and forget about the other
information because we can't hear them, the NCP,
and MN was hoping this study group would work
equally as well for them.
As it turned out, the Judicial branch did
what they should do at a minimum and just
stated the facts which is exactly what the
report is, a statement of what was discussed.
They didn't draw any conclusions about the what
the legislatures should do and only suggested
other recommendations to prolong potentially
another study. The board that made up the
study group was basically acting like a grand
jury and was staked from the beginning of being
13 to 2 with special interest agencies of the
state. Having state employees sit on grand
juries in most states is illegal but below is
the list of the members of the study group.
It's interesting to note that they said they
couldn't conclude anything but they never even
took any votes on concluding anything. The
study could have taken a vote at anytime and
forced a consensus but didn't and there are many
legal reasons why they didn't and shouldn't
have, which was a good thing.
The meeting agendas were essentially controlled
by Mark Toogood, the GAL director for the state,
and chaired by Judge Eide from Carver county who
was appointed to convene this group. Judge
Eide and the other Judge, Schellhas, both showed
tremendous restraint in not over stepping their
powers and I think they should be commended for
not letting the state and special interests run
away with the agenda.
With that, the key to understanding this report
is what was not said and what they weren't able
to conclude. This is a political war
against the family and the weapons are words.
The opposition is trying to hold onto a facade
of power that they don't have and want to
justify more taxpayer spending by attacking the
families and children and would love another
never ending study while the discrimination
continues to go unabated.
As is well known, discrimination affects
minorities disproportionately but did you know
the married family is now a minority group, 49%.
Even within this minority group it's the
traditional minorities that are suffering even
more and I was impressed with the Employment
Action Center, Quincy Boyle, Anthony Kane and
John Corliss, who were fathers representing
diverse communities telling about how
discrimination hurts in more than just one area.
In other words, even targeted discrimination has
In the end, the concerned public citizens and
parents affected by this mess have all come
together and said loudly to this study group,
"Give Us Our Kids Back!" And, on the other
hand, the opposition of judges and special
interests groups a much smaller group in terms
of public testimony will continue with their
game of silencing it's victims to try and keep
things the way they are for as long as they can.
Those opposed to the rebuttable presumption have
an interest in keeping things the way they are
and that's where UPRO has looked injustice eye
and said NO MORE secrecy. The average
citizen alone doesn't stand a chance against
this public fury of special interest court
procedures and we are on the right side of
justice. These court procedures strip
everyone of their individual rights with
grouping procedures that have discrimination
built into them.
518.17 subd3 (3), states our laws can
discriminate on gender just not
solely on gender.
The monster that feeds this baby is the IV-D
ponzie scheme and any other federal funding
program administered by the DHS.
This upcoming legislative session is going to be
interesting as the corruption and our rights
begin to unfold and our constitution starts
to stand up again for God's people. My
philosophy on this is, just because the state
may claim to have a foot, it doesn't mean they
can bust down my door with their word games.
Equality for Non-Custodial Parents doesn't mean
equal treatment for slaves, it means the welfare
benefits go with the children's family and we
deserve equal legal representation if they are
to help our spouses in any way. We aren't
saying they can't enforce a valid agreement
entered into fairly by the parties. We are
just saying the mechanisms in which these
supposed agreements are being enforced are
violating our right to non-voidable due process
and illustrate the many procedural defects in
the family courts that are violating our
Here's to UPRO for looking Injustice in the Eye
and helping take this deceitful Monster Down!
Without everyone's help we wouldn't have been
able to bring balance to the non-report.
The non-report only further proves the judicial
branch and the legislators don't have
jurisdiction over a Presumption of Joint
Physical Custody because We The People already
have a Presumption of Innocence secured into our
liberty interests and we should be free from
special interest rule. We don't need more
judicial discretion in any of these fixes or
problems, we need balance in our state statutes
without the discrimination which is exactly what
a presumption of JPC means.
Let's stop the City Pages deadbeat bombing
campaign and let's resolve the differences for
the People and let's start by saving the tax
payers money by only providing welfare benefits
for those that qualify for benefits and then
keeping the benefits with the children's family.
Does MN really have a state interest in
splitting up the American family? The
answer is yes if they continue they way they
are. If the state has any law contrary to
sound doctrine we need to repeal or pass new
laws and this next set of legislative sessions
are going to be interesting.
Study Group Members:
The Honorable Kevin Eide served as the chair of
the Study Group. The members of the Study Group
were: Chad Barthelemy, Citizen Representative;
Sharon Durken, Minnesota Kinship Caregivers
Association; Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D.,
University of Minnesota School of Social Work;
Ben Henschel, American Academy of Matrimonial
Lawyers, Minnesota Chapter; Paul Masiarchin,
Minnesota Fathers and Families Network; Jill
Olson, Minnesota Department of Human Services;
Molly Olson, Center for Parental Responsibility;
Irene Opsahl, Legal Aid Society; Glen Palm,
Ph.D., Child and Family Studies, St. Cloud State
University; Liz Richards, Minnesota Coalition
for Battered Women; Judge Heidi Schellhas,
Minnesota Court of Appeals; James Street,
Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services; and
Pamela Waggoner, Minnesota State Bar
Association. The Study Group was staffed by Mark
Toogood, Family Services and Guardian ad Litem
Manager, and Jodie Metcalf, Manager, Child
support Magistrate Program. Nancy Ver Steegh,
Vice Dean for Academic Programs, William
Mitchell College of Law, served as a
nonparticipating reporter, and Jim Hilbert,
Center for Negotiation and Justice, William
Mitchell College of Law, facilitated two
Subject: Judicial Branch Releases
Joint Physical Custody Presumption Study
Item was sent to the following groups:
Study Group, State GAL Program, State JAD,
Judicial Branch Releases Joint Physical Custody
Presumption Study Group Report
January 15, 2009
The Judicial Branch
has released the Joint Physical Child Custody
Presumption Study Group Report, which considers the
impacts of a presumption of joint physical custody
in Minnesota. State Court Administrator, Sue Dosal,
was charged by the 2008 Legislature with convening
the study group.
Led by Carver County
Judge Kevin W. Eide, the group met throughout the
fall, reviewed many scholarly articles and the
experience of other states, conducted a
well-attended public hearing on the issue, and
received hundreds of written comments. "While the
group ultimately did not feel they had enough data,
nor consensus, to recommend a change to the custody
statutes at this time, they did cover considerable
ground and have put together a foundational piece of
work for the Legislature to consider," said Judge
"The group worked
diligently to comply with the ambitious scope of
their charge under a very short timeline," said
State Court Administrator Sue Dosal.
Among their primary
findings, the Study Group found that:
Idaho is the only
state that appears to have a clear presumption of
joint physical custody
Nine states have
adopted presumptions of joint physical custody that
apply only when both parents have agreed
The District of
Columbia and eight states, including Minnesota, have
presumptions in favor of joint legal custody
Minnesota is the
only state that specifies a presumptive minimum
percentage of parenting time that the non-custodial
parent must receive (25 percent)
11/24/08 JPC Study Group MN A legislative study group commissioned by the legislature to have the
Judicial branch investigate the impact a
presumption of JPC would have in MN.
Current Legal Status Per Appellate Court
Judge-First Hand testimony that Anoka County
follows it's own rules in the court of equity.
Nancy Lazaryan and Troy Molde testifying on
Les Jobst from Fathers for Justice testifying
for a presumption of JPC.
Judge Eide at end of 11/24/08 meeting
saying there are limits to what the judicial
branch can produce. In a nutshell our
parental rights are an at law issue and they are
dancing around the issue. At law issues
mean our constitutional protections apply.
How can that be? How can a person’s liberties be
removed without a jury trial?
Don’t we have a constitution that guarantees a
person’s liberty will not be taken unless a jury decides the person guilty?
Apparently the legislature and judges in
Minnesota have failed to read and abide by the state and federal constitutions,
as these “public servants” have created, maintained and continue to enforce an
unconstitutional prison known as “Family Law”.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly
upheld parental rights are “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests recognized by this court.”But, once a person enters the
quagmire of “Family Law” all liberty rights also known as parental rights, are
stripped from the Citizen.
Children are repeatedly and consistently removed
from their parent(s) without a jury trial. Parents are GUILTY first and then
must prove their innocence. Perjury is rampant and totally accepted by the
UPRO has valiantly fought with other Citizen
groups to expose the wholesale elimination of liberty within the prison known as
In their efforts they have petitioned the
legislature to repeal unconstitutional “Family Law” statutes. Instead of
responding and acting upon the demands of the People to cease the violations of
our liberties, the Minnesota legislature formed a “special study group” to
evaluate the impact of “Joint Physical Custody” in divorce cases.
For this “special study group” to evaluate the
impact of “Joint Physical Custody”, the group will have to first proclaim that
parents have NO parental rights. The group would have to determine that the
children all belong to the state and the parents have never “had” Joint Physical
Custody prior to the separation.
Every parent that enters the courtroom already
HAS “Joint Physical Custody” of his/her child(ren). The status
(relationship) between the parent and the child does not change merely
because the parents are separating. The United States Supreme Court cases that
declare our rights to parent as constitutionally secured as LIBERTY means that ONLY a jury can remove our
right to fully parent our children.
The corrupt system in Minnesota, which created a
multi-billion dollar industry that feeds off the destruction of the family, has
commissioned a study to justify the violations of our liberty. Ninety percent of
the members of the study group all benefit from the lawless removal of children
from their parents. On Sept 22nd, Oct 27th, Nov
24th, and Dec 15th, 2008 Mondays (1:30 to 4pm)--Judicial
Center St Paul 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King--Room G06
this “special study group” will convene.
UPRO is inviting any true Citizens
remaining in the state to attend, have your voice heard and stand shoulder to
shoulder as we fight for our secured right to liberty.
7/22/08 Rights Already Secured To The Citizen Since When Did
We Need A License To Run For Office?
The Right and Duty of the sovereign people is
decide what person is qualified for public
office by deciding which candidate is more
qualified through an impartial election
administered by our Secretary of State Mark
Richie. We created our government and we
decided long ago who gets to serve us, which is
the fundamental question being argued
Minnesota State Constitution
ARTICLE VI JUDICIARY Sec. 5.
Judges of the supreme court, the court of
appeals and the district court
shall be learned in the law.
Inalienable rights are endowed to us as individuals and
aren't suppose to be negotiated away by a mob force.
One of the most instinctive, adamant, forceful urges of
human beings is to protect their own children.
The Family Courts present themselves as the solution to
the very problems they themselves have created.
75% of the men and 35% of
the women think the laws are slanted towards mothers.
Most divorces are brought on by
Are constitutional protections
just reserved for the citizens that have done nothing
Marrying solely to acquire the
benefits of divorce does have an appeal.
For the first time in history, married families are now a
Everything else being equal, it is more financially rewarding
to have children with more than one father.
Custody: All about the power of the
Painting individuals into groups
or categories is unconstitutional without a jury trial.
Soviet Union conviction rates are
around 90%, Family Courts conviction rates are just as
comparable if not higher.
Constitutional rights extends even
to those in which our convictions are challenged!
Our individual freedoms are lost
when our society is allowed to barter away our
inalienable rights by grouping citizens into categories
of fortunate and less fortunate.
While we may agree on the common
goals, we just disagree on the parties solutions.
When one parent says "Let's share
custody" and the other parent says, "No, I want sole
custody," which parent is demanding to be in control?
Revolutions are hard on bad
We are looking for volunteers to help organize, promote and
take action for peoples rights.
"Equality doesn't come by bringing the top down but
instead is achieved by bring the bottom up."
"In order for the states to maximize their
welfare functions, they must discriminate as much as
Health Care Initiative-Eliminate all pre-existing condition
clauses on all health care packages and health care related services and limit the
questions pharmaceutical and insurance companies can ask customers related to
billing or intake questions, kind of like a customers bill of rights by
restoring the citizens right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizures by
private or public institutions. Healthcare is an inalienable right and we
need to make sure everyone has it and can afford it.
Tax Reform-While our government needs the
ability to stimulate our economy and protect ourselves from foreign or domestic wars on our
currency, we can right now stimulate our economy by flat-lining the growth tax
on citizens overtime earnings.