Legal Disclaimer

GENERAL DISCLAIMER

The information on this site is provided as is, without any assurances as to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose. Legal information and data is prone to errors, and other defects. We assume no responsibility for any decisions made on the basis of the content presented on this site.

We draw particular cautious attention to our reliance on proper technical interpretation and application of case law for a number of important decisions for our reasoning and series of posts and materials regarding constitutional application to family law. While having the tremendous advantages of the reasoning and experience of the Palmers’ completeness and logic: (1) are based on non-legal training and may have legal technical errors or not specify a particular legal mechanisms, (2) and may have variations of application based on differing local rules and state and federal applications, and (3) and you may have particular difficulty with family court judges, and unconstitutional precedents that have been perpetuated in the appellate courts.

We further caution that these arguments usage are only as good as the way that they are applied, that the way they are applied and argued at any given stage and time make the results that each person gets different, and judges are unpredictable and variable, and that the definition and statutes of the states reflects a particular set of preferences of the state that may not agree with those judges that are following the unconstitutional practices.

Please be aware that your family law judge is most likely tasked with political enforcement of your state's best interests of the child policy and child support policy which under well-established federal due process precedent makes them biased in judicially adjudicating your rights under that state policy. In every state we have had experience in so far, the state's civil law family code establishes the state's political policy interests in your child custody rights and delegates to a judge the political jurisdiction to enforce that civil law policy interest against your rights in a predetermined and biased fashion. If a state court judge accepts this political policy enforcement authority and does NOT recuse as the judge holding judicial jurisdiction over your challenge to the state's civil law family code, federal law holds that the judge's actions are a constitutional nullity.

The federal constitution does NOT permit the same person who politically enforces a state policy interest to adjudicate the constitutionality of that enforcement. Even in administrative courts where the administrative judge works for the executive branch, and is NOT a judicial official, they do NOT permit the administrative judge to also be the policy enforcer in the same case. To our knowledge this is only done in family law, particularly in child custody cases between fit parents and our opinion is that it constitutes base judicial corruption. So please be aware that you should expect corrupt judicial responses from state child custody judges who are merely protecting thier own political policy enforcement authority.

You should also know that the federal government pays the state, through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, to enforce child support as a right of the child to a percentage of an arbitrarily chosen fit parent's income in direct violation of that parent's federal property rights. The Social Security Administration and its many attorneys surely know that your state will NOT protect your property rights against the child support policies that are certified to be compliant with Title IV-D federal family law policy interests. So the federal government is intentionally paying the state to violate your property rights so that the federal government can save money. The federal government pays the states to violate your rights.

While many federal judges would stop this if it were properly put before them, the scheme itself forces you to sue a judge to challenge the state's family code. Judicial immunity is improperly applied to prevent state family codes from being constitutionally challenged in federal courts. The issues involved are very technical and we are working very hard to get past this artificial barrier. But you should also know that a significant number of federal judges were previousely state judges who have a personal interest in enauring that we do NOT succeed in overturning your state's family code.

Fighting family law abuses in the courts is a rigged game but we believe that we will eventually win this fight by relentlessly exposing the corruption involved in family law and legally defeating every artificial barrier they place in our way. Smart judges have an incentive to be more fair when they see that you know how to expose them legally and properly. We have had clients who received better results by properly inserting constitutional challenges into the court record through written pleadings, by making the arguments we trained them on in thier hearings, and by being prepared to expose the lies that judges improperly use to protect their unconstitutional power.

In parent vs parent child custody cases, judges apply a different set of due process rules without first following the rules that permit them to legitimately apply a diffent set of rules. They simply apply the law unequally, genereally as a direct penalty for marital choices the state disfavors but that the constitution protects. Your ability to articulate these violations and to document them in the record makes it much more risky for the judge to walk all over your rights as they typically do.

LIABILITY

If you use anything you get from us, you use it at your own risk, and with full agreement that you have read and understand all of our Legal Disclaimers. We are not liable for anything you use from us. We are not responsible for your results. We are not responsible if you suffer damages and/or consequences for how you use any information that you receive from us. We do not make any guarantees as to what results you get.

Any guest posts or information from others or any referral resource you get from us, we do not necessarily condone or are in agreement with. The content and resources are being shared for your consideration and for you to decide what is right for you. We share information to help you broaden your scope and breadth of information so that you can make better choices and decide for yourself what might help you get the best results for you.

There are now multiple comprehensive and free Internet resources where you can read the cases we cite and research the legal arguments we make. We generally use https://scholar.google.com/ to find the court opinions we use. We urge you to read these cases for yourself and to validate our arguments for yourself. If your judge were acting properly, they would have NO reason to get upset with you for seeking clarification of the constitutionality of thier asserted powers. If they get upset or mad, you should be suspicious of their motivations.

We are NOT permitted to take responsibility for your case or to directly represent you in your case. However, the First Amendment ensures that we can share with you the information you need to either better defend yourself or to better convey your expectations to your attorney regarding thier defense of your rights. What you do with the information and materials you receive from us, no matter how specific to your case they may be, is entirely in your hands and is entirely your responsibility.

Some attorneys embrace this assistance and some see it as a threat to their family law income. If the constitution were properly followed, it is very unlikely that family law attoneys would make the same kind of revenue from family law that they make today.