LSLI: "Spaht"-"Downs" on The People's Rights

LSLI: "Spaht"-"Downs" on The People's Rights
LA: A Shining State Example of this government at It's Distorted, Bastardized and Illegitimate Finest.
September 10, 2004 http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/15/ward.htm

Author's Note: 9/17/04. Damn LSLI meeting was canceled because of the hurricane. Wimps. Had 30 handouts of this article and 30 little paper business cards. Wasn't much, but, I thought it was pretty damn good effort for being "in the hurricane". the 'crats, the press: they love the spread of fear. the appearance of help. the lack of effectual concern. It's a multi-layered oppressive attack on mass psych. Fear!---> cratgov Safety---> Repeated and repeated, etc, etal, in each of the multiple areas of our lives. It was amazing to sit and see it in action... (Continued at:
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/cgi...l?new_thread=4

For the rest of you read the article the way it was supposed to be seen at:
http://thepriceofliberty.org/ward.htm
or

Finish reading it here.

On May 7, 2003, the rights of Louisiana Non Custodial Parents (NCPs) and their children, a section of The People, were "Spaht"- "Downs" on by the (LSLI) Louisiana State Law Institute's representatives. Despite LSLI's stated purpose of advising, researching and recommending reforms, there was not going to be any of that foolishness in the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting of May 7th. Despite evidence to the contrary, LSLI Representatives, Katherine Spaht and Karen Downs, advised and argued the Committee, which seemed to be for SB 290 (Equal Shared Parenting) at the start, that there were No Problems with the Current Law and SB 290 would take away To Much Discretion from the judges.
Interesting, Ms. Spaht's article entitled, ..."Implementing the "Children First Principle.", Ms. Spaht wrote, "While some degree of judicial discretion is perhaps unavoidable, it can and should be reduced. A regime of fixed rules or guidelines based on the principles of the family as a community would contribute to ensuring...". Equality and the Rights of The People, can not be left to the Discretion of a judge.
Does LSLI and LSU School of Law no longer bother with the 14th Amendment? Has it been repealed? Does the 14th Amendment have no place in the advisory and reform of legislation? Does LSLI not concern itself with the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States? Apparently, the Amendments of the Constitution are no longer taught at the LSU Herbert School of Law and LSLI sees no need to reform current laws to conform to the Constitution of the United States, when there are billions of dollars to be made by divorce attorneys on the backs of dead fathers and destroyed children. Has LSLI and the LSU Law School replaced The Bill of Rights with the Distorted, Bastardized and Illegittimate Interpretations of the Constitution?
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." --- James Madison.
Is that statement, by the Father of the Constitution, too technical for LSLI or LSU School of Law. The average 8th grader must certainly have a clue as to the only interpretation legally binding on the representatives of The People, after reading that statement. How is it that any learned lawyer could not understand that the Historical Background Constitution is The Only Interpretation which is legal. "This Constitution" requires an Oath or Affirmation by every Representative of The People, since the ratification, in 1787, of "this Constitution"... (Article VI. Para 3..."The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;"
"All authority belongs to the people... In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson
Georgia has State Supreme Court Case law which states, "right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has stated in her opinion in Troxel v. Granville, "In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children." "Parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear their children, including the right to determine who shall educate and socialize them." [Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion.] Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment (first) which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Reynold v. Baby Fold, Inc, 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, US 963, Il, (1977) Law and Court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356, (1886).
Are lawyer Spaht and lawyer Downs deaf, dumb and blind? Allegedly, they knew of no problems with the current law. Yet, the room held many people who had taken off from work, supported the bill, and talked about the problems with the current law. Could lawyer Spaht and lawyer Downs not see, hear or comprehend them? Was Kristi Kimble, who spoke about the problems in her life created in her view by her lack of being able to be around her father, merely a figment of other people's imagination? Is empathy for The People and the basic rights of the The People no longer taught at LSU Herbert Law School or Supported by LSLI?
The above information was based on the notes and reports of 2 separate individuals at the meeting.
1. DELAWARE: Each has equal powers and duties with respect to such child, and neither has any right, or presumption of right or fitness, superior to the right of the other concerning such child's custody or any other matter affecting the child.
2. IOWA: Assure the child the opportunity for the maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents... encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of raising the child
3. KANSAS: - Presumptive Shared Parenting
4. MAINE: - Presumptive Shared Parenting
5. OHIO: - Presumptive Shared Parenting
6. OKLAHOMA: - Presumptive Shared Parenting.
7. WISCONSIN: -Maximizes the amount of time the child may spend with each parent,
8. OREGON: The court shall recognize the value of close contact with both parents and encourage joint parental custody and joint responsibility for the welfare of the children.
9. GEORGIA: - ...right to shared parenting when both are equally suited to provide it.
While Louisiana law states "Joint Custody", It is Still a Sole Custody State. Civil Code, Section 3, "(3) The domiciliary parent shall have authority to make all decisions affecting the child unless an implementation order provides otherwise...." This shows the reality of where the Louisiana Representatives of The People place the Constitutional Rights of The People and in particular the Rights of Families. How does a parent lose their Constitutional Rights to their Child because 2 parents no longer live in the same house? How does a Child lose their Constitutional Rights to their Parent because they no longer live in the same house as both parents? How can one have Joint Custody when the Custodial Parent can Make All of the Decisions for the Child, including who they see or talk to?
Where in "this Constitution" does it grant the authority to invade inalienable rights? Where in "this Constitution" does it allow the removal of "this Constitution" from Family courts and, in some cases, Criminal courts?
It is estimated that there are 1/4 to 1/3 of a Million fathers incarcerated for being unable to pay their Assessed and Assigned child support after having been made visitors to their children.. Supposedly, 250,000 to 350,000 fathers would rather be incarcerated, lose their jobs, be made felons and some have even taken their lives in jail, rather than pay for their children. Louisiana's quota would be 5,000 jailed "encouraged" fathers. I've just mentioned fathers, because they are By Far more "encouraged" than mothers, even though mothers made NCPs are Far More likely not to contribute child support for their children.
Another estimated 12,000 divorced fathers will take their lives in suicides this year. That's one divorced dad every 45 minutes. Louisiana's quota for fathers driven to suicide would be 250 dead fathers. But, perhaps lawyers Spaht and Downs have the real figures that are not released by this Distorted, Bastardized and Illegitimate government. (Don't tell me it's not. Tell James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution".) For surely, lawyers Spaht and Downs must know the answers to the "encouraged and dead", since there are No Problems. How many of The People are being incarcerated without The People knowing the numbers. An unknown number of incarcerated parents are nothing more than political prisoners. How many political prisoners are there locked up for this, distorted, bastardized and illegitimate governments "contempt of court" charge that is Not Reported by this government?
A Parent Is A Terrible Thing to Waste.
The predominance of child suicides, mental health problems, crime and teen pregnancy come from sole parent custody homes. But, The Constitution, death and devastation seem to matter little in an industry that is as lucrative as divorce.
Ed Ward, MD, MT.