Read into the record almost verbatim on August 18, 2003
I’m going to begin with a summary of my relief requested. I ask the court for the following:
A. The entry of an Order:
I. Declaring the following Illinois statutes and rules unconstitutional on their face and as applied: the Best Interest of the Child Statutes, the Child Support Statutes, the Maintenance Statutes, and the Attorneys’ Fees Statutes;
II. Declaring the Mandatory Disclosure Rules unconstitutional on their face and as applied;
III. Declaring the Discovery Rules unconstitutional as applied;
IV. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the enforcement, operation, or execution of the Best Interest of the Child Statutes, the Child Support Statutes, the Maintenance Statutes, the Attorneys’ Fees Statutes, the Mandatory Disclosure Rules, and the Discovery Rules (as applied in divorces) by the state, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those in active concert with them;
B. The entry of an Order granting my Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, including:
I. Ordering equal parenting time, privileges, and responsibilities;
II. Ordering no child support, maintenance, or attorneys’ fees be paid;
III. Ordering Samantha’s major expenses (i.e., education and health care), which Ms. Lovett and I jointly agree, to be equally paid by both of us;
IV. Awarding me the home in its full value, the mortgage debt in its full value, my ESOP holding in its full value, my IRA holdings in its full value, my 401 (k) holdings in its full value, and my jewelry holdings in its full value;
V. Awarding Ms. Lovett her IRA holdings in its full value, her 401 (k) holdings in its full value, her stock in its full value, and her stock options in their full value;
VI. Ordering Ms. Lovett to pay me $X, in addition to reimbursing me for all payments made to Ms. Lovett for purported child support and maintenance after today, August 18, 2003, based on the following:
a. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for 50% of the assets she dissipated;
b. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the so-called “contributions” that I have unfairly paid to Ms. Lovett’s 401 (k) loan;
c. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the so-called “contribution” to her flexible spending health care plan that I have unfairly paid to her;
d. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the 50% of her earned income during the marriage that she refused to contribute to the marriage and fraudulently filtered out of the marriage;
e. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for 50% of the home improvement litigation awards that were repayment of my non-marital property;
f. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for “child support” that I have unfairly paid to her, plus all future payments after August 18, 2003;
g. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for maintenance (or contributions to the mortgage that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys like to characterize it as) that I have unfairly paid to her, plus all future payments after August 18, 2003;
h. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me $X for the “overpayment” that I have unfairly paid to send Samantha to school, OR, MORE PROPERLY, the full $X that I was forced to pay against my will as a result of being forced to send Samantha to a school decided by the court that I, as a fit parent, completely disagreed with;
i. Ordering Ms. Lovett to reimburse me at least $X for the “contributions” that I have unfairly paid for nanny expenses unrelated to Samantha’s care;
j. Ordering Ms. Lovett to pay me back the $56,467 that I am going to be turning over to Ms. Lovett’s attorneys;
VII. Providing an impassioned disapproval of Ms. Lovett’s parental alienation efforts to thwart my strong relationship with Samantha;
VIII. Prohibiting Ms. Lovett’s abuse of me and parental alienation of Samantha with a threat of sanctions;
IX. Ordering the temporary terms of the temporary orders no longer in force;
X. Ordering the Acura as my sole property;
XI. Ordering Ms. Lovett to turnover all of my non-marital items;
XII. Ordering us to equitably divide the remaining marital property items with a threat of sanctions if an agreement is not reached;
C. Sanctioning Ms. Lovett’s attorneys, both David Ainley and Dorene Marcus, per Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, as well as for breach of duty under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, to deter future like-conduct and to punish them as they have committed multiple criminal offenses;
D. Sanctioning Ms. Lovett to deter future like-conduct and to punish her as she has committed multiple criminal offenses;
E. Finally, as I have been forced to unfairly pay all of the court reporter fees so far, I am requesting that the court order that Ms. Lovett reimburse me for half of all fees paid, which I will not have a final number for until the end of trial, and for which I ask leave of court to file the appropriate documents.
Now, this court has instructed me to limit my repetition, so I will do so, as pretty much everything I believe I need to appeal is now in the record. I say that as it is quite clear how this court is going to rule and that I will need to appeal. I am comfortable in making that statement based on what I’ve learned in dealing with divorce courts. For example:
1. The court heard testimony from Ms. Lovett claiming that no formal agreement existed between her and I regarding the disposition of personal property, and that no proper personal property list exists; the court later heard Ms. Lovett’s contradicting testimony when she claimed that the document attached to the Agreed Interim Order was the correct personal property list; the court has in evidence an agreed interim order formally indicating there was a personal property agreement; contrary to Ms. Lovett’s second testimony on the issue, the court has multiple documents that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys filed that indicate the document attached to the Agreed Interim Order is not the correct property list, and that no correct list exists; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorney made statements in open court that no proper property list exists; the court has an e-mail from Ms. Lovett, copying her attorney, that my exhibit KKKK is the agreed-to property list; I have referenced an Illinois appellate decision, which the court was able to access on the CD I provided called David Brubakken, Ph.D., v. Helen Morrison, M.D., 240 Ill. App. 3d 680 (1992), which clearly shows that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys had a responsibility to disclose the existence of Ms. Lovett’s e-mail, but yet refused to do so. In other words, the court has unmistakable, clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett is lying to it, and clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are lying to it. In other words, the court has irrefutable evidence of perjury. There are only 2 possible personal property lists: Exhibit A or Exhibit KKKK. I have presented to the court irrefutable evidence that Exhibit KKKK is the correct list, but also told the court I would accept either all the property in Exhibit A or Exhibit KKKK. But what did the court do? The court disregarded all of the hard, tangible evidence I presented, as well as the blatant perjury committed by Ms. Lovett and her attorneys, accepted Ms. Lovett’s verbal plea, effectively created its own list, and ruled immediately that 2 personal property items that are clearly mine are now the property of Ms. Lovett. So much for the effectiveness of a court order. So much for the legal concept of preponderance of the evidence. So much for the concept of the best evidence rule. So much for the concept that perjury is a criminal offense. So much for justice.
2. The court has evidence that Ms. Lovett made commitments in multiple legal documents that our future income would be ours alone so as to remove any issues of the parties’ spending habits, and that we would be responsible for our own expenses; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett agreed to the terms of the Agreed Interim Order, but then backed out of the child support term after I had met all of my commitments; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett claimed in filed documents that she had only $X and therefore needed alimony and child support; the court has legal documents that Ms. Lovett filed where she didn’t disclose her assets proving that this was not true; the court has evidence that Ms. Lovett had at least $X or more when her attorneys filed those documents. The court has evidence that no hearing was ever held, but that I was ordered to pay Ms. Lovett maintenance, child support, and other monies based on their fraudulent, perjured legal documents. In other words, and again, the court has unmistakable, clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett is lying to it, and clear-cut evidence that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are lying to it. In other words, and again, the court has irrefutable evidence of perjury. So what did the court do? Did the court issue an order to immediately stop this bi-monthly illegal and immoral theft of my property? No, the court is letting me languish on purpose, and not saying a word. And, then went on to penalize me over $57,000, payable almost immediately. It reminds me of something I read somewhere – I think it goes justice delayed is justice denied.
These are just a very few examples of the trauma fathers go through to fight for their Rights and their children's Rights in so-called courts of law. The flagrant abuse of Rights by divorce courts and attorneys is unacceptable. This trial is a farce. So much of Ms. Lovett’s evidence is perjured, willfully and consciously, but the state and courts don’t hesitate to accept perjury when dealing with opponents. When dealing with people who want equity, court orders become useless. Agreements are useless. Crystal clear perjury by officers of the court is ignored. So-called “judicial discretion” has become the real law of the land in the State of Illinois. I have worked too hard all my life to let the court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys destroy it all. And, I love my daughter too much to let the court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys put Samantha’s life in jeopardy. The court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys jokingly attempt to hide behind the so-called best interest of the child and related corrupt divorce statutes to destroy my life, and that of my daughter’s. Well, you can’t hide anymore. The fraud is now visible, and I’m going to end your power to create universal misery on families.
Now, the court will likely claim that it hasn’t created any kind of misery, that I am the one who is responsible for the punishments I have received, and that it is just following the “law.” In fact, the court will likely claim it is protecting Samantha and the institution of marriage. Utter nonsense. Please allow me to remind the court how it has reacted to my crystal clear evidence of perjury and my rock-solid constitutional challenges. The court immediately and forcefully robbed me of 2 valuable personal property items that are clearly mine; the court extorted from me over $57,000 of my retirement holdings to pay Ms. Lovett’s attorneys, ordering me to do so within 7 days which causes me tax penalties, and without even responding at all first to my constitutional challenge regarding attorneys’ fees; the court allowed evidence to be presented that even the court’s own expert admits has no scientific reliability or validity; and the court prevented me from presenting additional evidence of perjury. In other words, the way a divorce court responds to someone who clearly shows the flaws in this fraud is to painfully hurt them by force of a gun with unadulterated retribution. You are intentionally trying to strangle my voice to protect those who participate in the fraud. The court has punished me because I have done exactly what the law plainly allows me to do. According to the words of US v. Goodwin, 457 US 368 (1982), the court has made a due process violation of the most basic sort. Well, this legal oppression is just business as usual in divorce court, as I know full-well that this, and worse, happens to fathers on a daily basis who don’t even know how to spell Constitution or perjury.
And why do divorce courts respond with such a lack of decency? Because as everyone knows, if I’m right in my claims of perjury, and there’s no way that this court can’t know otherwise, these 2 attorneys will never work in the legal profession again. And, if I’m right in my constitutional challenges, and again, there’s no way that this court can’t know otherwise, this court, and every divorce court like it, will lose pretty much every ounce of illegal power to destroy. And everyone also knows that, if I’m right, there are going to be thousands of divorce attorneys out of work. That’s why there can’t be any punishment or consequences for the fraud committed by Ms. Lovett and her attorneys. And that’s why the court must persecute me. And that’s why I do not expect this court to have the courage or conscience to declare these immoral and illegal statutes unconstitutional. Because no trial court, except for one brave loner in Georgia, has the courage to protect Rights and make things lawful. From what I’ve read, it was the same way with civil rights back in the 60’s. I wonder, if this court were operating back when state laws said that separate but equal schools, bathrooms, and drinking fountains passed the rational relation test, if the court would have had the courage or conscience to declare those immoral laws unconstitutional. After all, all of those statutes had plenty of authorities to back judges up. You might initially think that there’s a difference between what happened back then and what is happening now, but if you keep that current useless term “fundamental Rights” in front of your mind at all times, you will know that the situations are almost identical.
Now, though the court was successful in preventing me from presenting some evidence of perjury, there’s now enough evidence on the record to clearly implicate Ms. Lovett and her attorneys. And, besides, the evidence the court prevented me from presenting already exists in the record in my trial brief. And, it’s my belief that this is why the court didn’t inflict on me just a little retribution, but, rather, is attempting to give me an excruciating beating. I’m sure it will please everyone to know that I am suffering terribly. Knowing full-well that I was about to be laid off and lose my job, and knowing that I had over $30,000 in debt that I couldn’t immediately pay, and knowing that I had paid at least $68,000 in legal expenses, and knowing that Ms. Lovett had incurred about $134,000 in legal expenses, the court made me financially responsible for over $124,000 in legal expenses, or 62% which was to be paid almost immediately, while making Ms. Lovett responsible for $77,000, or 34% with no timeframe given as to when she has to pay. That’s the type of rulings that divorce courts consider fair, equal, and “leveling the playing field.” That’s the court’s idea of justice, as completely ridiculous as that sounds to rational people who are monitoring this case.
Having said all that, I expect the court’s final ruling to follow the same amoral logic of its previous rulings, and thus, I obviously am going to have to appeal, as I expected I would. But, two of the primary differences between me and pretty much every other father who comes into these courtrooms are that I didn’t expect to receive justice or a fair trial as most fathers expect, and most fathers don’t have the tenacity and will to fight you on this as I do. In this courtroom, and in those like it across America, concepts like fairness, equality, and due process mean whatever some judge arbitrarily decides they mean. Forget about the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is just words on a legal document. And, legal documents are just ignored anyway, regardless of their content – that is, except by people like me.
And, speaking of the Constitution, I have here 2 certified copies of oaths that this court took pledging to support the Constitution. Not that I really believe that they mean anything though, as they’re just legal documents, and I’ve already proved that what someone says on a legal document isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. I found it funny when Ms. Lovett’s attorneys categorized me as an angry person. In fact, the court’s own expert claimed that I was angry as well. I’ll even bet that this court thinks I’m angry. You think? After all, why shouldn’t I be angry when officers of the court create agreements and then refuse to abide by them? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone lies to steal my money, and then the court looks the other way? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone extorts my property at the point of a gun and there’s not anything I can do about it? Why shouldn’t I be angry when someone takes my Rights to my daughter away? You know what? The court should be concerned about my ability to be a parent and an American if I wasn’t angry at the way officers of the court have conducted themselves. Did you miss why I’m getting a divorce? I’m asking for a divorce because my wife has and continues to defraud me and continues to push me out of my child’s life. You bet I’m angry!
The ENTIRE purpose of the Agreed Interim Order was because I knew EXACTLY what would happen without an agreement in place. I’ve spent enough years with Ms. Lovett’s deception to know exactly what we would fight over. I knew that Ms. Lovett and I would spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting over the things in that agreement if we didn’t have that agreement in place (though, never in my wildest nightmares did I believe it would amount to over $200,000). I had and have no interest in fighting with the mother of my child, nor did I have any interest in throwing away my life savings and then some on attorneys. I wanted to take every major bone of contention out of the equation to allow us a somewhat peaceful transition into our individual futures. How naïve was that? I wanted to be able to get on with my life, and to be let alone. I wanted to protect our assets, and protect my daughter. To do all that, I made an enormous sacrifice – I agreed to move out of my house that I enjoyed so much, and that I purchased and improved with my own money, to a dump of an apartment that I now can’t even afford, in order to effectively take almost every contentious item off the table. All I wanted to do was avoid all of the litigation and fighting. And what happened as a result of my enormous sacrifice? Ms. Lovett and her attorneys backed out of EVERY single item in that agreement. EVERY SINGLE ONE! There wasn’t one in there that they didn’t try to defraud me on. And what happened as a result of the fraud perpetrated by Ms. Lovett’s attorneys and the divorce courts? The divorce process has now taken over 3.5 years, the attorneys now have or will have over $200,000 of our money, Ms. Lovett and I are financially ruined and effectively bankrupt, I am out of a job and have no job prospects, and the Agreed Interim Order might as well not have even existed, as it was rendered completely and utterly useless. It was as if there never was an agreement in place. But again, what I failed to learn soon enough is that that Agreed Interim Order was just a legal document, which therefore means it’s worthless in a divorce court, because perjury and lack of integrity are the rule of law here. And, to think that you probably are wondering why on earth I would take it upon myself to challenge the constitutionality of these statutes and not use an attorney to do so.
Now, I’ll bet that if we had a jury trial, based on the evidence the court has, it would be obvious that Ms. Lovett’s credibility and her attorneys’ credibility are effectively non-existent, considering they have shown a clear pattern of constant dishonesty, fraud, perjury, willful and intentional breach of contracts, and avoided complying with the terms of the our agreements and court orders. The overwhelming evidence presented should leave no question of Laurie’s and her attorneys’ culpability. But, that would only be in a court of justice guided by the principles of the Constitution; and divorce court isn’t a court of justice – it’s a court of punishment, a place where constitutionally-protected Rights are revoked, families are willfully destroyed, and private property is forcefully transferred to the officers of the court.
We are taught that America stands for justice and freedom. We are taught that the Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government, and limit its powers and authority. But the Constitution doesn’t apply in divorce courts, as the divorce courts see themselves more powerful than the Constitution. In discussing her decision about my constitutional Right to my daughter, I feel Judge Mathein said it best during a hearing on December 16, 2002, and I quote: "Mr. Lovett, regarding your constitutional rights, when you filed for divorce, you give yourself to the jurisdiction and are governed by the rules of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act ...and so even though we support that right, your rights are subject to the law." In other words, my Rights, supposedly protected by the Constitution, are subject to the divorce laws of Illinois. It also means that in Illinois divorce courts, the Supremacy Clause doesn’t exist. Well, not on my watch. What kind of father would I be to Samantha if I passed on these problems to her – the problems that the state and court can take away her children, her property, and her constitutionally-protected Rights in general based on their personal whim? Regardless of the fact that she will one day be a woman and would therefore get the so-called benefits of these discriminatory laws, I consider it one of my primary responsibilities to protect her from those who seek to do her harm, even if it is her own mother who is initiating all of it. The court and Ms. Lovett’s attorneys are seeking to inflict unconscionable harm on my daughter and me, and though you’re all going to get away with it temporarily, I will not rest until your threat is gone and my Rights and my daughter’s Rights are restored.
This is a moral crisis, and destruction is the nature of this evil. I, as all fathers, am considered the enemy, which the court is attempting to (and continues to) silence, punish, and destroy. The court’s destructive actions are meant to negate and paralyze this father. The court is a murderer of this father’s capacity to live. The court is trying to force this father to accept your will by pointing a gun at his head. The court demands that this father divorce his principles from the love of his daughter. THIS IS THE COURT’S MORALITY. I have no interest to change the court’s morality – the only interest I have is to take away its evil power so that it can no longer destroy my life and my child’s life.
The court has uncontested evidence that Ms. Lovett refused to contribute over $X of her salary to our marriage, and that she is admittedly funneling thousands of dollars to her family. The court has uncontested evidence that Ms. Lovett was spending tens of thousands of dollars on clothes and other items for herself while we were in the divorce proceedings, which can’t be considered anything but dissipation. The court has uncontested evidence that I purchased, improved, and maintained the marital residence all with pre-marital and non-marital assets. Ms. Lovett didn’t contribute a dime. The court has heard me refer to In re Marriage of Gattone, 317 Ill.App.3d 346 (2000), where the appellate court lays out the standards by which I should be awarded the home. The court has heard me refer to In Re Marriage of Barbara Hagshenas, 234 Ill. App. 3d 178 (1992) which also clearly lays out that I should receive the full value of the home, as the traceability of funds is clear, convincing, and unmistakable. For the jewelry, the court should refer to In Re Marriage of Weinstein, 128 Ill. App.3d 234 (1984) and Dudley v. Uptown Nat. Bank of Moline, 25 Ill. App.2d 514 (1960) that clearly show that just because Ms. Lovett has the jewelry in her possession doesn’t refute my clear and convincing evidence that I never intended to vest the title absolutely and irrevocably to Ms. Lovett. The court has uncontested evidence that the 401 (k) plans, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA), stocks, stock options, and Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) holdings of the parties have not been tainted, and therefore each party should retain the full value of those holdings. In Re Marriage of Preston, 81 Ill. App.3d 672 (1980) will provide additional authority. Not that I expect any of these authorities to make a difference, as I now know that divorce courts only follow the rule of precedence when it serves their own personal opinions, and disregard prior decisions as a matter of “judicial discretion” when they have a different agenda. The court’s intent is clearly to torture me quickly with rulings like awards of attorneys’ fees and personal property, as well as to torture me slowly, like not giving me my money back that Ms. Lovett and her attorneys have stolen from me, and taking my responsibilities and my time away from my daughter.
And, speaking of my daughter, a father who is making good progress in a best interest of the child federal suit against the state of Texas gave me a great idea to ensure fairness in a divorce court’s decision regarding parental time and responsibilities, not that I expect the court to implement it or to be fair. There’s a very effective way to teach children about fairness and equality. When we have two children who want to share a single piece of cake, what do we do? We tell one to cut it and then we let the other choose which "half" he or she wants. In the same spirit, I propose either I develop a parenting plan, or Ms. Lovett develop a parenting plan. The plan should divide Samantha’s time between “Parent A” and “Parent B.” After it's developed, whoever didn't develop it gets to choose whether he or she wants to be Parent A or Parent B. I can guarantee you that this will lead to a fair outcome. But, divorce courts aren’t looking to be fair or equitable – they are looking to punish me and reward Ms. Lovett and her attorneys.
The court has all of my constitutional arguments that have been filed in pleadings during the last few years of this case, which were all consolidated in my trial brief and summarized in my Summary of Constitutional Arguments brief. It’s all part of the record, so even when the court ignores it all, and/or claims the cases aren’t relevant or on-point, as I fully expect it will, the US Supreme Court will be able to review them. As Ms. Lovett’s attorneys have filed their memorandum of law opposing some of my constitutional challenges, I must put on the record the clear-cut flaws in their arguments, regardless of the fact that I know it won’t make a difference at the trial level. But, I will try to minimize any repetition from what I have presented already, except where I feel it is absolutely critical, as I knew long ago from my thousands of hours of research over the last few years what their arguments were going to be.
Now, before I begin my analysis of their opposing arguments, I’d like to point out for the record that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys have completely failed to respond to my constitutional challenges to maintenance and discovery rules. Therefore, all of the so-called temporary maintenance that I have been ordered to pay to Ms. Lovett, which was pursuant to Section 501 as you can see in my exhibits KKK and DDDD, which we both had a right to contest per Exhibit DDDD, does not have any offsetting argument by Ms. Lovett. Furthermore, they claim the discovery and associated disclosure issues are moot at this point in the litigation – therefore, the court has nothing to counter my claims that all of my private papers should not have been admitted into evidence, or that they shouldn’t all be stricken from the record and not used to steal my property.
I’m going to start out with probably my favorite line in their whole document. They claim that “Even if a circuit court judge disagrees with the precedent set by a higher court, she is bound by that precedent.” In response, please allow me to re-quote Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison in 1803: “Anything repugnant to the Constitution is null and void.” I’m sure I’m not telling this court anything it doesn’t already know, but just in case: if something is unconstitutional, then it doesn’t make a difference what a higher court said. Every judge who takes an oath of office in Illinois states as follows (and I’m going to read your honor’s as an example): I, R. Morgan Hamilton, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of associate judge for the Cook judicial circuit of the state of Illinois, according to the best of my ability.” In other words, a court’s highest duty is to support the Constitution, regardless of what ANY other court has said. Any other action to the contrary is a crime against the people who this court works for. Uniformity of unconstitutional laws is illegal. Unless, of course, you’re ok with concepts like separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks. Personally, I’m not.
Here’s another good one: they claim that “All statues are presumed to be constitutional, and the Court has a duty to apply a constitutionally valid interpretation to statutes if at all possible.” Regardless of the fact that it’s not possible here, they obviously haven’t read Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980), which states quite clearly: “It is well settled that, quite apart from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law “impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively unconstitutional.” You won’t find any mention in Ms. Lovett’s opposing argument that the Right to the custody, care, control, companionship, and nurture of a divorcing parent’s child isn’t a fundamental Right. You won’t find any mention in Ms. Lovett’s opposing argument that the Right to property isn’t a fundamental Right for a divorced spouse. You won’t find any mention in Ms. Lovett’s opposing argument that the Right to privacy isn’t a fundamental Right for a divorced spouse. Why? Because even they know they don’t have a leg to stand on to present those arguments. In fact, they claim on page 6 of their brief that “the right of two parents in an intact marriage to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is fundamental.” That, of course, is a complete mischaracterization of every US Supreme Court ruling regarding this issue, and they either know it, or should know it. Nowhere does any US Supreme Court decision state that the parents must be in an intact marriage to have the fundamental Right. In fact, they don’t address married vs. divorced parents at all when discussing that Right. Do you know why? Because there is no difference! Therefore, quite to the contrary of what they claim, all the statutes are presumptively unconstitutional, as there can be no question that they all explicitly and implicitly impinge on fundamental Rights. But, of course I’m not telling you something you don’t already know.
They cited the case Kaufman, Litwin, and Feinstein v. Edgar in their brief claiming that attorneys’ fees are constitutional. I read that case, and I would almost bet that this case was a plant specifically to establish this purported precedence. The arguments that this law firm presented are complete and utter nonsense, and I have a very hard time believing that a bar-licensed attorney would even consider such an approach without a covert reason. The primary premise of this case is a separation of powers argument, and the secondary arguments are laughable. Have Ms. Lovett’s attorneys been listening to me? Of course they are listening – but they are intentionally ignoring and avoiding my arguments because they know they have no defense. Nowhere do I claim that attorneys’ fees are unconstitutional because of an inappropriate separation of power – that’s utter nonsense. Property is a fundamental Right! The State cannot infringe on fundamental Rights without a compelling state interest narrowly tailored, and strict scrutiny is the hardest test to meet. Except for railroads in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s which have established on-point authorities for the constitutionality of attorneys’ fees, no one has ever attacked these divorce attorneys’ fees statues before like I am. And, I’ll bet I know why. Just follow the money. And, if that isn’t enough, your own statutes contradict themselves. Statute 750 ILCS 65/15 (2) specifically states that “[n]o creditor, who has a claim against a spouse or former spouse for an expense incurred by that spouse or former spouse which is not a family expense, shall maintain an action against the other spouse or former spouse for that expense…” Ms. Lovett’s legal expenses have only benefited herself and her attorneys, because they have certainly injured Samantha and me.
They claim in their brief that the state has a parens patriae duty to protect children. Yes, I’m familiar with the state’s belief that they can use this to usurp parental authority from fit divorcing parents. Actually, the parens patriae doctrine does not control in any "best interests of the child" decision occurring in the same state. It is strictly a statutory authority which directly contravenes adult citizens' cross-district constitutional Rights only temporarily in EMERGENCY situations where jurisdiction is NOT ascertainable immediately and the child is in imminent, perceptible danger. Parens patriae only controls in INTERSTATE or inter-district decisions, and is NOT part of the “best interests” scam. Parens patriae in conjunction with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) confers only TEMPORARY authority in the courts of a foreign state to impose remedies for imminent abuse, neglect, or abandonment, or other imminent danger. The UCCJEA is adopted in fundamentally identical form by all states, and in Illinois, it’s 750 ILCS 35, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. If you want some history into the parens patriae power that shows the power only arises between states, read Hawaii v. Standard Oil, 405 US 251 (1972). But, I think the most on-point case that you should really pay attention to is Schall v. Martin, 467 US 253 (1984), where the US Supreme Court said “Children, by definition, are not assumed to have the capacity to take care of themselves. They are assumed to be subject to the control of their parents, and if parental control falters, the State must play its part as parens patriae.” Well, you have 2 fit parents here. Therefore, parental control has not faltered. Therefore, the state has no role as parens patriae. Having said that, here’s what Santosky v. Kramer says regarding this: “Yet while there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships exist, the parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of natural familial bonds.” Here’s what Santosky also says: “Any parens patriae interest in terminating the natural parents' rights arises only at the dispositional phase, after the parents have been found unfit.” So much for the opposing argument that the state has this power or duty between fit parents, as Ms. Lovett’s attorneys allege with the DeFranco case.
They cite the US Supreme Court decision Palmore v. Sidoti, and claim that the state “has a duty of the highest order to protect the interest of minor children.” Well, sorry, but not in contravention of the PARENT'S RIGHTS, EVER, unless the parent has abdicated his or her rights, or forfeited them by committing a crime which impacts the children. The case goes on to say “particularly those of tender years.” Wrong again. The “tender years doctrine” was generally gone by 1984 and doesn’t exist anywhere anymore. Now, by Shepardizing authorities, you can analyze their current value as precedent. Well, guess what: this will not Shepardize and is “bad law.” It goes on to say: “In common with most states, Florida law mandates that custody determinations be made in the best interests of the children involved.” So what? The law is unconstitutional on its face AND as applied. It then continues: “The goal of granting custody based upon the best interests of the child is indisputably a substantial government interest for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.” Did anyone notice that the US Supreme Court said it was “a substantial governmental interest?” Well guess what? A “substantial governmental interest” is INSUFFICIENT to overcome the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS and LIBERTY INTERESTS of adults embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. Only “compelling” state interests -- reviewed under the strictest scrutiny – can do that. So, you can pretty much disregard that entire authority.
They cite another US Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores. I’m familiar with that one, as it is referenced in Troxel v. Granville, and quite frankly, I’m shocked that they presented this case. After putting this authority in my trial brief, I decided to take it out because I though it was overly redundant to my other authorities already. It’s therefore quite obvious to me that they know they are hanging on by a thread because they’re using cases that actually prove what I’m saying. I don’t find it surprising that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys didn’t quote the Court’s statements regarding the best interest of the child standard made directly after the line that they did quote. So, allow me to present what Ms. Lovett’s attorneys failed to:
“But it is not traditionally the sole criterion -- much less the sole constitutional criterion -- for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. Even if it were shown, for example, that a particular couple desirous of adopting a child would best provide for the child's welfare, the child would nonetheless not be removed from the custody of its parents so long as they were providing for the child adequately. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978). Similarly, "the best interests of the child" is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: so long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves. See, e. g., R. C. N. v. State, 141 Ga. App. 490, 491, 233 S. E. 2d 866, 867 (1977).
"The best interests of the child" is likewise not an absolute and exclusive constitutional criterion for the government's exercise of the custodial responsibilities that it undertakes, which must be reconciled with many other responsibilities.”
I’ll bet everyone knows by now why the US Supreme Court said the best interest of the child standard is not “the sole constitutional criterion.” I’ll also bet everyone knows by now why the US Supreme Court said “the best interests of the child is not the legal standard that governs parents' exercise of their custody: so long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of the parents themselves.” It should probably also go without saying that this case involves juveniles who were illegal aliens not accompanied by their parents. Here’s what the Court said on page 302 in this case: “Rather, the right at issue is the alleged right of a child who has no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the government is responsible, to be placed in the custody of a willing-and-able private custodian rather than of a government-operated or government-selected child-care institution.” And, to think that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys accuse me of presenting cases not on point. Here’s what else the US Supreme Court says in that case: “…where the custody of the parent or legal guardian fails, the government may (indeed, we have said must) either exercise custody itself or appoint someone else to do so.” Did everyone catch where the custody of the parent fails? Well, as you know, there has been no parental failure with regards to Samantha in this case. So, you can pretty much disregard that authority as well, except for the fact that it confirms everything that I’ve been saying.
Now, this opposing argument made me smile, as I had been patiently waiting for this one. I preface my response by noting that Ms. Lovett’s attorneys spent an entire page, beginning on page 4, on telling the court why the state is a third-party in every divorce, and that the “conscience of the court” fills that position. Now, on page 6, they tell you that my “reliance on Troxel v. Granville and Wickham v. Byrne is misplaced.” They go on to tell you that “The state is not allowed to override the wishes of a fit parent in favor of a third party.” They continue that “There is no third party in this case.” So, which one is it? Is the state a third-party in every divorce, with the court filling that role, and thus in this case? So, if the state is a third-party, and the court is not allowed to override the wishes of a fit parent in favor of the third-party, the “conscious of the court” can’t override my wishes. Or, is it that the state is really not a third-party, and therefore has no say whatsoever in my parental decisions? Do you see how flawed the logic is, and why you cannot have it both ways? I sincerely doubt it, because if you see it, you’ll be obligated to strike down the best interest of the child. Therefore, it will be more convenient to close your eyes.
Here’s the core problem with most every authority that supports these corrupt and immoral statutes. The appellate courts and state supreme court are using the absolutely wrong standards of the rational relation test and sometimes intermediate scrutiny. Everyone here knows it. The appellate courts know it. The state supreme court knows it. These are fundamental Rights you’re messing with. Claims by judges, the state, and attorneys that you have a compelling interest to infringe on fundamental Rights to minimize disadvantages between people, or provide for children of a class that you intentionally invented is such utter nonsense that I cannot believe they would let you out of law school without knowing that. The logic of Ms. Lovett’s attorneys, as well as pretty much every other attorney and judge out there is that care for children and possession of property are fundamental Rights when you are married, but as soon as you get divorced, care for children and possession of property are no longer fundamental Rights. Says who? By enforcing this logic, the court and its officers are encouraging shameless, cruel, and more devastating and destructive acts than that of a common criminal. No one is able to show me any authority out there in any jurisdiction that claims a divorce means a state citizen is no longer allowed fundamental Rights. And do you know why? Because a divorce does not mean you give up fundamental Rights! But I’m not stupid – I know exactly why attorneys, states, and judges completely avoid and ignore fundamental Rights. All you have to do is follow the money. The reason we are in this state of mess is because past generations after our Founding Fathers thought it was ok to compromise between liberty and government. I don’t compromise when it comes to my fundamental Rights. It’s black or white – I either have them, or I don’t. There will be no gray.
Ms. Lovett’s attorneys claim throughout their brief that the legislature and, thus, the courts, can pretty much do whatever they want when it comes to creating laws and regulating their terms. I think Thomas Jefferson put it perfectly when he said: “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape in any form they please.” Well, I’m here to educate the legislature and the divorce courts, because obviously they all missed this day in law school – states cannot regulate fundamental Rights without a compelling interest. That’s why it is supposed to be almost impossible to create laws that implicate fundamental Rights. Let me end my response to their opposing arguments with this. They claim that this court has no choice but to follow Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate court decisions. I clearly know the political ramifications for a judge, especially a trial judge, to rule that these vulgar statues are unconstitutional, and I’ve provided plenty of US Supreme Court decisions that not only provide the correct moral and legal logic and basis to blow away the state’s lower court rulings, but also to provide this court the political cover it would undoubtedly need. The only deciding factors are the courage, integrity, and conscientiousness of the court. Please, be strong – I believe in my heart that you know what the right decision is, even though you also are being pressured to continue this farce. Please don’t block my progress, and that of my daughter’s, toward greater happiness. And, also remember this: There are multiple federal and civil cases in states like Colorado, Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Ohio with similar arguments to the one’s that I have presented that may get to the US Supreme Court before I will. Therefore, there is no chance that these statues will survive. This sham is all over. So, be a hero to children and parents around the country now. Or, go down in history as one of many judges who broke their oath to support the Constitution. Take the opportunity I’m offering you to positively change the world, because we are going to win anyway, and you only get this one opportunity to let America know what you stand for.
You likely consider my manners, approach, tone, and words as threatening and disrespectful. I almost find it humorous that the court steals my money, personal property, and my daughter, and then thinks that I’m being disrespectful (Judge Mathein had told me she felt “insulted”). I’m not looking for friends in this courtroom. I don’t accept sympathy or charity. I’m not interested in making you like me, and I know quite clearly you don’t. I’m looking for you to do your job the way you are supposed to, to obey the Law of the Land, and to respect my fundamental Rights; though I have no expectation or naiveté that I will get what I seek. I certainly mean no personal threat to this court, but make no mistake about it – I intend to threaten the very foundation of this court’s power, which is the corrupt and immoral laws that allow the court to destroy family’s lives and commit robbery. If you want to go ahead and allow perjury by officers of the court and witnesses, you may not see me raise a stink in an appeal, as that’s not my primary fight. But, if you attempt to take away my daughter from me in any way, or take away any of my property in any way (including the property that you’ve already stolen from me), or take my Rights and give them to Ms. Lovett, there is no beating that you will ever be able to inflict upon me to keep me from thoroughly destroying everything that gives you that power. The court has robbed me, a producer, and then protects Ms. Lovett and her attorneys in their enjoyment of what you have stolen from me. Well, the end is near to this particular fundamental Rights catastrophe – better get used to the idea. We are no longer going to be innocently generous in allowing you to destroy our lives and those of our children. We will no longer be a part of our own destruction. We are not evil – that which destroys is evil. I am an excellent father. I have earned the right to spend time with my daughter equally, to provide for her, and to guide her as I see fit. I am interested in preserving, fulfilling, and enjoying my life with my daughter. I will not surrender my own self-interest, my daughter’s right to self-interest, or my mind. I will not accept “happiness” delivered by force of a gun and given to me contingent on self-destruction. I am suffering tremendously, and my suffering will likely get worse before it gets better. But my happiness will only come from joy without penalty or guilt – it will never come from self-destruction. Contrary to what the court wants, I will not consent. If I consent, then I deserve what you force on me. I will not silently default. This court will not run my life, or my daughter’s life. This is a battle for my right to live.
I will endure the pain and suffering you have and will continue to inflict on me, rather than submit my conscious, and that of my daughter’s, to your unlawful statutes. Considering the massive civil rights infringements that the states and courts inflict on parents, I think it fitting to end with a quote from someone who clearly understood civil rights violations, and had the courage to take real action – Dr. Martin Luther King: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” Thank you.