Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has just been impeached by the Texas House and will face an impeachment trial before the Texas Senate.

Over the years, we have faced General Paxton in legal and political challenges to Texas’ unconstitutional Civil Law Post Divorce Child Custody Scheme.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has faced several legal and political challenges in recent years. Here are some of the key challenges he has faced:

Legal Challenges:

  • Securities Fraud Charges: Paxton has been fighting securities fraud charges since his first months on the job in 20151.
  • FBI Investigation: More recently, Paxton came under FBI investigation after former top deputies alleged he abused his office to help a wealthy donor1.
  • Impeachment: In 2023, the Texas House voted to impeach Paxton for accepting bribes4.
  • Republican-led Investigation: A Republican-led investigation in 2023 accused Paxton of committing multiple crimes in office, including felonies2.

Political Challenges:

  • Primary Challengers: Paxton’s primary opponents have taken aim at his legal troubles and lack of integrity, arguing that he could lose the seat to Democrats if he is the nominee again1.
  • Impeachment: Despite the cloud that has hung over Paxton, he is counting on political support that he’s amassed as a Republican legal3.
  • Challenging Corporate America: Paxton has challenged corporate America’s newest tactic to target American citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights5.

Paxton’s legal troubles have been a significant distraction as he tries to recapture his party’s nomination1. His primary opponents have argued that he lacks the integrity to be attorney general and could lose the seat to Democrats if he is the nominee again1. Despite these challenges, Paxton has continued to lead conservative legal challenges in states around the country, notably on immigration and gun regulations3.

One of Paxton’s assistants declared that we couldn’t possibly establish a credible equal protection constitutional challenge to Texas law. In response, we have developed a half-dozen or so credible equal protection challenges to every state’s Civil Law PostDivorce Child Custody Regulatory Scheme.

The only reason that these illegal schemes remain in place is that state court judges have a personal financial interest in keeping them in place and they actively prevent parents from receiving legitimate constitutional review of these schemes. Despite Supreme Court cases declaring unequal treatment is unconstitutional, best interest of the child standards are used to treat married and divorced couples differently.

In our battles against General Paxton, only absurdly unfair procedural barriers based upon judicial immunity have kept us from receiving fundamentally fair constitutional review of state family law atrocities in federal court.

In response, we have developed an insurmountable challenge to judicial immunity and have raised this challenge in our own federal civil rights suit against the City of Corinth for its illegal attacks on us in our home.

Perhaps with Ken Paxton gone the quest for constitutional compliance in family court matters will finally be able to be heard without a criminal arguing to keep the harmful court practices in place.

Just as state court judges have a financial interest in preserving the unconstitutional Civil Law PostDivorce Child Custody Schemes in their states, all judges have a financial interest in common with police officers in maintaining the illegal judicial policy of immunity from penalties for violating our constitutional rights. This pecuniary interest in common with the Defendants in our civil rights case is the key to the end of judicial immunity.

You see, there is another federal law specifically applying to Federal District Court Judges and Federal Appellate Court Judges, whose roles are established by Congressional action, NOT constitutional action, mandating that any federal court judge who holds a pecuniary interest in common with a litigant must recuse.

Our judge holds a pecuniary interest in preserving immunity with the police defendants in our case in opposition to our challenge to the justiciability of their claimed immunity defense. Federal law mandates that he must either declare the immunity defense to be unconstitutional or he must recuse himself.

The trick is that every federal judge must recuse in exactly the same manner. If they do, they deny us access to the federal courts to vindicate federal rights which is a violation of our rights.

Additionally, it is well-established that where federal judges have jurisdiction, they have an unflinching duty to exercise it. They have jurisdiction to grant my requested relief. They have NO jurisdiction to entertain the City’s immunity defense.

The only lawful response is to deny the immunity defense and permit the suit against ALL of them to go forward. For eight months or more he has been looking for an alternative. There isn’t one.

This has implications for the Bail Judge who looked at police reports clearly claiming that they entered my home against my will without a warrant and asserted NO exigent circumstances to justify this action. That judge still charged me with posting bail when by operation of law he should have released me without limitation.

It also has implications for the DA who spent two years trying to force me into a plea deal when I had done absolutely nothing wrong.

To make the case even stronger, in Texas, the police are specifically deprived of jurisdiction to enter anyone’s home to arrest them without a warrant. This lack of jurisdiction changes the nature of the two-year seizure, preventing it from being converted into a judicial seizure upon conditions of bail, and making it a two-year police seizure following illegal entry into a home without cause of any kind.

This means the Defendants are responsible for the entire two year seizure and for all of my accumulated damages over that two year period. We have been told that the City has held at least two special meetings trying to figure out how they will be able to pay the damages.

The point of this is NOT to discuss our ongoing case where our judge is paralyzed by our challenges and taking more than eight months now and counting to produce a preliminary ruling that typically takes a week or two.

I wanted to take this opportunity of seeing one of our major opponents being impeached, to give parents a bit of hope that the judicial immunity, that makes it so difficult for parents to get constitutional protections for their fundamental rights respected, will be going away over the next few years.

Soon, those state court judges will face federal civil suits for damages as their immunity is stripped from them by already established and very strong federal law.

I have little doubt that our case will go all the way to the top. We will certainly challenge it all the way if they find some way to weasel out of it or if the judge simply violates federal law to protect his own interests.

The bottom line is that federal district judges have little to no political protection from the impeachment implications that would result from their violating this federal law. No matter what the Supreme Court might say about judicial immunity, the Court has zero power over the impeachment process and thus zero power to protect federal district court judges from being impeached for violating the law.

I didn’t ask to have my parental rights attacked. The state of Texas attacked me. I didn’t ask cops to break into my home and physically attack me, likely for political retribution, the City of Corinth attacked me.

What I do have control over is my response to these state actions. True to my Marine Corps Infantry roots, I attacked back and I am targeting what my enemies hold most dear. I spent a career as a business systems architect and I have a particular set of skills. There will be severe consequences for their attacks on me and those consequences will be legally created by me.

This impeachment of Attorney General Paxton is proof that even the powerful can fall. In that same vein, family law will be brought into Twenty First Century constitutional compliance whether the powerful vested interests like it or not. They know they are fighting a delaying action with NO hope of their ultimately winning.

Current family law practices are based upon unconstitutional Nineteenth Century beliefs, primarily those beliefs that underpinned the Bastardy Codes. These practices are unlawful. If those in power are competent, they must know what they are doing is unconstitutional. Clearly, Paxton was not. Now that he is gone, we hope that the person that replaces him will advocate to:

  • Strip out bias and apply appropriate legal arguments when dealing with divorce cases.
  • Argue that parents have fundamental liberty interests in their children, and the state should only deny those interests under certain circumstances.

The moral of this is that those who deny parental rights, they will be stopped. The mighty will fall.

Articles you might want to read: