Am I the only one who sees this GAL is wrong?

The stages of realizing there is a problem with the Family Court System is universal for families, relatives and friends who have experienced the system first hand. In our frustration with the courts we spend different lengths of time working through a series of 5 steps that are similar to the 5 stages of Loss and Grief as first proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book “On Death and Dying” No one person will go through this list in the order we have them and many will only experience a few.

Like the Five Stages our model is based on how we try to rationalize a process which cannot be rationalized. We may go through each stage in order or out of order. We may associate with each step or only a few. The Stages of Family Court Dysfunction (FCD) are:

1. Belief – As consumers of judicial services we enter the court system with the idea that this country has the best judicial system in the world. That the professionals who operate within this system do so with neutrality and fairness.

2. Self Doubt and Puzzlement – As the divorce/ custody process gains momentum and hints of flaws with the process start to show we think these issues are the result of things we are doing. “It must be me” that this is happening. We become puzzled by the direction of the divorce/ custody. We realize that things are not going in a direction which makes sense. There is often a flip flop of common sense and values. Black becomes White and White becomes Black.

3. Reason and Disillusionment – We begin to try reasoning with the players. The Guardian ad litem, lawyers and court. Presenting evidence and facts because if they only just read or viewed they would understand what is going on. Disillusionment creeps in when we realize that no matter how much evidence and facts presented – the system is unwilling to listen and understand what your concerns are.

4. Anger – As the reality of the situation starts to settle in we become upset that ‘justice’ does not exist. That those whom we have invested with our trust are untrustworthy. A system which is supposed to protect our children is more concerned with our behavior and whether or not a Guardian ad litem, Special Master or Parent Coordinator will get paid. Our anger can be aimed at anything – our ex, the children, the family pet even the court system.

5. Settlement – Sadly we may never find settlement as the process can continue far into the future. There are parents who settle and do so for far less than what they should and are grateful for what they have. Then there are others who carry on the fight long after their divorce/ custody is over to that future divorcing families will not have to go through what they have experienced.

The process one goes through is one of personal attitude change with exposure to more and more data. This data can come from many sources – from talking and sharing with others, the internet and those who have taken the issue publicly as well as personal experience. Some will try to fix this system with the hopes of repairing their own case; others do so as public spirited citizens, who hope to help others who are going through what they themselves have experienced. How one publicly markets both the human experience in need of fixing and the fixing itself is critical. It will require educating the public and politicians on what the issues are not only for your case but those of others. It took some time for you to understand that your case had problems. Imagine how others who have no experience with family court will respond? They will have a hard time understanding – some will get it. Many will not.

It is important to note that you are not alone and that others have experienced what you have gone through. There are many grassroots organizations that one can find offering support and help on a national as well as local level. It should be noted that out of 50 states there are very few instances of court officers who have been disciplined for malpractice.

If you have had issues with a court officer – Guardian ad litem, Special Master, Parental Coordinator or some other flavor of court appointed officer. We urge you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Public Lockout: From Deliberations by the Judiciary Committee of the Maine Legislature

All legislative committees are mandated by Maine law to conduct hearings, deliberations, and work sessions in public.

But in a May 19 speech on the Senate floor, state Sen. David Dutremble (D-Biddeford) reported that the Judiciary Committee conducted such business in private over the weekend that started May 8. Its deliberations concerned the reappointment of controversial Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz – the judge who issued an illegal gag order in January – and whose reappointment was opposed by many members of the public.

Maine citizens deserve to know what transpired that weekend with their Judiciary Committee. Did the members, in fact, meet behind closed doors and/or have private conversations in violation of state mandates? A legislative inquiry into the actions of the committee is warranted to protect the interests of the public.

Here’s what is clear: Without a single comment or question, the Judiciary Committee on May 12 unanimously recommended that Moskowitz be reappointed. One by one, each committee member simply voted yes. Those of us who witnessed this were dumbfounded. It left us with the uncomfortable feeling that something was amiss. How was their unified position reached outside of public view?

This spring was the first time in 20 years that judicial reappointments were challenged. And many citizens vehemently and passionately expressed their opposition to Judge Moskowitz, as well as to Judge Patricia Worth before him. In both cases, the Judiciary Committee nevertheless unanimously recommended approval. And at least in the case of Moskowitz, committee members allegedly deliberated outside of the public’s view and earshot.

This is extremely concerning. State mandates requiring the utmost transparency are meant to protect us all.

Input from those who are consumers of the court system – not just lawyers who earn their livings in front of judges – must be heard. People also deserve to know that the systems set up to protect them are working as they’re supposed to. When systems become about protecting themselves instead of the citizens they were designed to protect, the delicate fabric and balance of our constitutional rights is put in jeopardy. Legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and thereby remove public oversight are the antithesis of a democratic society.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action and give the public answers. When asked to explain how his committee could unanimously approve a judge with no public discussion whatsoever, the chair of Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Burns (R-Washington), responded that, “it is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the committee members.”

Hey, I’m just asking a question! There’s nothing impugning in that. These aren’t lofty, academic issues – of concern to just a fragment of society. They’re the very foundation of public trust. Transparency is the key to a free and just society.

With what’s been publicly asserted, there is a clear need for a formal inquiry into this committee’s “13 yeses” that led to approval of a judge whose illegal order brought disgrace to our state around the globe. Members of the public should be included in this inquiry.

Those who may dismiss this call for investigation, attributing it to “sour grapes” or “angry litigants,” demonstrate a lack of respect for the most essential principles that define our nation. Private meetings and/or private discussions that result in appointing a judge who attempted to abrogate the First Amendment – one of our dearest rights – should be a concern to all of us, not just those who may face this particular judge in court. It is of little comfort that the order was retracted only after the Portland Press Herald defied it.

To date, the president of the Maine Senate, Michael Thibodeau, has failed to respond to requests for a public inquiry about the actions of the Judiciary Committee.

This raises additional concerns. Without a legislative inquiry and report, Maine citizens will be left to wonder if their legislative and judiciary truly are the separate branches of government that are fundamental to freedom and liberty. We need to know what our legislators are doing – and why they’re doing it.

If you agree with me on this, We urge readers to contact their legislator and request an investigation. Let’s just find out what happened.

MeGAL is working to bring about Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform so that those in the future do not have to experience what you experienced in this dysfunctional system. As part of this reform we encourage you to contact your representative to let him/ her know the issues you experienced with Family Court. Please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook for more information.

Other related posts:
2015-06-03 Public Access: Is the Judiciary Committee Leveling With You?

2015-05-25 Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

Public Access: Is the Judiciary Committee Leveling With You?

When State Senator, David Dutremble (D. Biddeford), in a speech form the floor of the Senate (audio) on Tuesday, accuses members of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee of manipulating the judiciary re-appointment of controversial Judge Moskowitz, it is a serious charge that demands investigation. When members of the public are excluded from important committee deliberations addressing this judicial re-appointment, something is seriously wrong. When there is no response from the President of the Maine Senate when asked by numerous people to investigate further, it looks like more exclusion. All of these recent actions raise ethical and legal questions in the minds of the public. What happened between members of the Judiciary Committee in their private deliberations about Judge Moskowitz over the weekend of May 9-10th? How were their unified positions reached outside of public view? And… is this secrecy permitted by laws that insist on transparency?

On Tuesday, May 12th, members of the committee reconvened in the Judiciary Committee hearing room, and without question, conversation or comment, submitted a string of 13 “yeses” (audio), approving Judge Moskowitz re-appointment and advancing the process to the Maine Senate. It left observers dumfounded. It was one further public exclusionary action in the judicial re-appointment process, which appeared to be tightly controlled, by Maine Bar interests at every step. It is about the need for active public “oversight” of judicial appointments – or re-appointments – that have heretofore been a “rubber stamp” process in the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. In the present re-appointment situation, reporters commented on the fact that committee members asked not one question of Judge Moskowitz during the public hearing.

The entire judicial vetting process – and the subsequent handling of its piece of the process by the Judiciary Committee – raises many questions. The primary question is: “is this process, which is said by some on the judicial re-appointment committee to be standard, in the public’s interest”? We ask this question with special regard to those members of the public, who have the experience of using our courts? 74% of family court matters are ‘Pro se’ (self-represented/without a lawyers); 26% (the minority) have lawyers, yet the process doesn’t reflect this compelling statistic. “Private” deliberations in the Judiciary Committee are troubling and raise a slew of ethical and legal questions. Why hide deliberations? Why the secrecy? Aren’t legislative maneuvers that eliminate transparency and, thereby remove public oversight, undesirable in a democratic society?

Since the Judiciary Committee’s 13 yeses approving Judge Moskowitz, there have been widely expressed concerns that the committee appeared to be “gaming the process”, using techniques, known to senior members of the committee which enable public exclusion, while following the “letter” of the laws about transparency? We would suggest a knowledge of how to bypass the law – and, more importantly its use – is unseemly (and tainted?) in anyone, especially our elected officials.

We urge the Maine Legislature to take action in getting answers to these questions. They are not academic issues of concern to a fragment of society. They are the foundation of public trust: that we can see what our elected officials are doing. There is a need for a formal inquiry into the “13 yeses” that quickly decided approval of a “controversial judge” for reasons that remain opaque to the public. Investigation of this matter should be carried out in a transparent manner with public “consumers” of the system included.

One of our concerns is about committee attitude justifying the prejudicial dismissal of all opposition. Some on the judiciary committee dismiss opponents of Judge Moskowitz as only a bunch of people who got an unfavorable result in court. This characterization justifies secrecy?   Not only is this claim untrue, betraying gross prejudice, secrecy in the judiciary committee cannot be justified by theories about good or bad results in courtrooms. It is about the integrity and honesty of our government.

MeGAL is working to bring about change in Family Court and the role of Guardian ad litem. We do this by educating the public and our representatives to the issues involved with this branch of the court system. If you have had a bad experience in Family Court or with a Guardian ad litem we would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Previous posts regarding the re-appointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

2015-05-25 Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Twitter:
#ReappointmentOFMoskowitz   #MeGAL

Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Within hours of our letter going out to Senator David Burns we received a response back from him. Below is Sen Burn’s response.

Dr. Collins,

Thank you for your questions. First and foremost, the Judiciary Chairs follow the Maine Constitution and Joint Rules to conduct the process of reviewing Judicial nominees. As I said on the Senate floor, our Committee listened to a very long and, we feel, fair Committee hearing on Judge Moskowitz, as we do for each nomination. The Chairs did all in our ability and power to give everyone opportunity to be heard on the issue. It is very difficult to be exact on just how much time each speaker gets without rudely cutting someone’s time short. I believe that was done fairly, in spite of what some have protested about. Everyone’s testimony is equally important. When there is written testimony, we try to keep oral comments as close to the allotted time as possible.

As you know, the Committee had much written comment and materials provided to them before, during and after the Public Hearing. Also, the rules that are set before us, allow for the nominee to have opportunity to respond to testimony given. After the hearing, there was a break where our individual caucuses had an opportunity to talk among themselves, which is consistent with the Legislature’s Joint Rules in any issue brought before us. The Chairs were in agreement that a sufficient amount of time was needed for each Committee member to review and consider all that had been provided to them on this issue, before voting. It was also important for any response from the nominee to come forward. For these reasons the Chairs decided that we would hold the vote, as the rules allow, until after the weekend. As you also know, there was a considerable amount of unsolicited e-mails that were circulated to us during that time period. Each of those were provided to the clerk to be made a part of the public record. There were no inappropriate meetings or discussions that took place during that time that the Chairs are aware of. All testimony and written comment that the Committee was provided is public and available for public access.

When we reconvened, the Committee members had each come to their own conclusions of the “fitness” for this nominee to be reappointed and cast their vote accordingly. This is a process that is in place for us to follow and I believe that each Judiciary Committee member takes it very seriously. It is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the Committee members. Having spent the last, nearly 5 months, with them, I can assure anyone that they are all very committed to fairness, transparency and of the utmost integrity. We all understand that some of the criticism over this “process” and some of the judicial nominees comes as a result of very difficult personal experiences with family courts and none of us minimize the importance of those experiences and the significance of those perspectives. However, some of the slanderous statements that have been made surrounding these proceedings are unconscionable and do not have any place in legitimate and constructive debate and discussion!

Respectively,

David Burns

MeGAL is working on Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. If you are or have been a consumer of judicial services and have had an issue with the court. We would encourage you to contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Letter to Sen David Burns may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

In an effort to have government transparent we are publishing the following letter to Sen David Burns. The letter deals with the confirmation deliberations that the Judicial Committee had over a weekend before a unanimous vote was given. It was emailed to all committee members the Senate President and the Bangor Daily News as well as the Portland Press Herald. We are presenting to you the letter:

May 23, 2015
Senator David Burns
Chair Judiciary Committee

Dear Dave,

I’m writing you as chair of the Judiciary Committee to ask that you help us understand the committee’s “deliberations” on the reappointment of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz. Like many people who followed the May 12 proceedings, I’m puzzled.

What we witnessed that day was the committee entering the hearing room, sitting, and immediately giving a round of 13 “yeses” – with no comment and no questions. It was a stunningly synchronized delivery, and many people are wondering how this degree of orchestration was achieved.

From some of the committee members, we’ve heard a variety of “explanations” that shed little light on what actually transpired to arrive at a unanimous decision, and Sen. David Dutremble related some of these in his speech from the Senate floor on May 15. The Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald both have published several stories on the Moskowitz reappointment, but there clearly is more to this than was reported.

We’d like to understand why you chose not to include the public in your committee’s deliberations on this “controversial judge.”

I greatly would appreciate a reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jerry Collins

MeGAL supports any effort to bring about Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Please contact us if you have had any issues in or with either at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

From the Mouth of Kenneth Altshuler Esq – Frat Boy Support of Judge Moskowitz – WGAN 560

WGAN AM 560/ FM 105.5 Ken & Mike’s First Take. The hosts Kenneth Altshuler and Mike Violette talk about the unanimous vote for reappointment of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz. We present the transcript of the banter between the two radio hosts. Crass? Ignorant? Tasteless?  You be the judge.

Mike: Ya Boy!

Ken: Victory

Mike: Ya Boy! District Court Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz overcoming a courtroom controversy and heavy criticism but of course getting bolstered by the testimony of Kenneth P Althsuler Esq.

Ken: I don’t think I put it over the top

Mike: I think you cinched if for him. Unanimous vote of approval Tuesday he’s going to be back on the bench. Good for the judge..

Ken: So let me.. So let me take this moment ti also say that these people who complain. First of all three lawyers. Oh four lawyers came out against him

Mike: Uhh.. Mathew Nichols awww..

Ken: Seth Berner was one.

Mike: Darrick Banda and William Bly

Ken: Yeah and I don’t know the last two. And look I’m fine with lawyers

Mike: They must be ambulance chasers huh?

Ken: And by the way let me make it really clear there have been judges..

Mike: These are the kind of guys who hang out at the emergency room at the hospital waiting for clients?

Ken: That.. That I have been opposed to and I have sent letters to the Judiciary Committee saying this judge is a bad judge. Don’t reappoint this judge. One judge I opposed didn’t get the reappointment. Not because of me but because everyone hated him.

You know this was.. You know once again being a judge is not a popularity contest.

Mike: Nope

Ken: And if you’re popular you are probably a lousy judge. This judge is one of the best two or three judges in the state – SHUT UP!

Mike: Aww you poor little dears… You lost your case…

Ken: The people with the GALalert – which is a organization against Guardian ad litems.

Mike: Yeah

Ken: and who said that the public is not involved enough in the selection process of judges that’s why we don’t have elected judges. Because we have crappy judges when that happens. Go down to Alabama. You know what happens when you have elected judges? All of the lawyers donate to both campaigns.

Mike: Yeah. Look I’m an advocate for electing the attorney general and the secretary of state but we can’t be electing every judge.

Ken: Exactly right…..

WGAN First Take – skip ahead to 10m53s for segment 5 dealing with Judge Moskowitz.

MeGAL is working to right the so many wrongs that we find in our Family Courts and Guardians ad litem unlike Kenneth Altshuler Esq. We feel the 26% (Kenneth Altshuler and other lawyers associated with the Divorce Industry) has taken advantage of the majority long enough. We encourage you to contact us with your story or look us up on Facebook.

2015-05-14 BDN Maine Senate puts off vote on judge who issued gag order on press

Maine Senate
2015-05-14 Me Senate 2-1 Confirm Of Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz – Sen Burns to Table

Is the Re-appointment Process of Judges Broken – the Endorsement of the Hon Patricia Worth

On Thursday March 19, 2015 was a moment of truth at the re-appointment hearing for the Hon Patricia Worth. A gang of lawyers, a representative of the bar, a judge and the head of the Judicial re-appointment committee came to give testimony about Judge Worth – which was glowing. Stating that we are lucky in this state to have such a judge, that this judge is caring about the clients before her, helping those who are Prose and involved in the community. If the testimony stopped there (and quite often it does), one would come away from the hearing that there is nothing wrong with our judges in this state. Classic lawyer references of another lawyer

But these fawning views are out of touch with reality in our Family Courts and courts in general.

A unique and quite different “reality check” was offered by several parents and concerned citizens. They did something that was previously unthinkable. These parents and citizens stood before the States Judiciary Committee, a room full of lawyers and judges and told true, personal stories of Judicial abuse which was inflicted and suffered in the Judge Worth Family Court.

These parents and citizens who went before the Judicial Committee were scared, upset, concerned and outnumbered by those testifying from the legal profession. They were in a personally uncomfortable position but had the strength to stand up and let the committee know – their elected Representatives – that there is a problem. A BIG problem that has been festering for years which needs to be addressed.

Their testimony touched all listeners, as they presented the human face of parents ripped away from their children. Stripped financially. Emotions drained by the process that a judge put them through.

Are our Family Courts there to inflict punishment on good parents? In the Worth Court one would think that is the case where good solid parents are prevented from having a relationship with their children. Supervised visits are common, testing, screening and various questionable courses with no end in sight. No goal for outcome – but there is always a carrot being dangled in front of their faces to keep them hoping, keep them hooked. These parents would be better served by Child Protective – because the worse of abusers has a goal. Not in this court.

How many lawyers came out to testify that there might be a problem with this court? By our count not one. You see there is a disincentive to tell the truth when the committee is collecting testimony. As a lawyer working in Hon Patricia Worth‘s court, if I speak ill of her performance and behavior I put my professional career at risk. I put my family’s financial lives at risk. Because now the Judge can pay back my testimonial truth in unfavorable judgements.  Or… engineer a ‘Sua sonte‘ complaint with the Overseers of the Bar against me.

These parents and concerned citizens took a risk. You can also. It you have been hurt by the Family Court process. By a Guardian ad litem. Speak up and let your representatives know what you went through. Rock the boat and educate those around you. If you remain silent – change will never come. You can bet the other side is talking. Support Family Court reform. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com – find us on Facebook or call/text 207-370-9801

Provided here is some of the testimony given by concerned citizens and parents:

Dr Jerome A Collins – Audio

Kirk Thomas – Audio

Laurie Ryan – Audio

Christie Griffin – Audio

Christie Starett – Audio

Tardiff V Sullivan – Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It’s allegations – by themselves – as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think “outside of the box” in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth’s ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.

The brief which was submitted to the Supreme Court may be found here. Please note that the name of the child has been redacted and that the pdf will need to be down loaded for the links to function properly.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.

Chief Justice Saufley on the Pro se Litigant before Maine Judicial Committee.

Chief Justice Leigh I. Saufley recently spoke before the Judiciary Committee of Maine. Among many topics she mentioned Pro se representation. Presented here is the sound bite dealing with Prose. Below is the transcription of the sound bite:

“To many people who have to come to court without lawyers – and that is a very long conversation, but we have all kinds of innovations we are working on. We’re watching other states to see what’s working there. The bottom line is that people should have an attorney to help them when something in their life has gone so wrong that they have to be in a court room. Its not a good idea to not be represented, so we’re working on plans to help improve all of that… ummmm…”

The sound bite may be found here: Chief Justice Leigh Saufley.

We would like to ask Chief Justice Saufley if she could gave us an example of some of those “innovations” she mentioned. How will they make the court system better? Are some of these “innovations” simply a euphemism for more money for Maine courts? The problems that the Judicial Branch have – go beyond the mantra of more money and innovations. Our Judicial Branch is the foundation to our system of justice here in this state and the structure that they are trying to patch is beyond mere cosmetic changes for which they have proposed before in the past.

Take for example the Family Court system that the Chief Justice has admitted is in trouble. Guardians ad litem that practice psychology, social work and law without a license but sanctioned and encouraged by the court to do so. On a regular basis we see the use of Consumers have been subjected to Judicial Out Sourcing; Junk Science; Psycho-eugenics; Legal Abuse Syndrome and Moral Equivalency. There is no scientific basis or history for these ideas – yet – the courts fully embrace these ideas. There is no management of the various parts and no oversight. 74% of the parents entering the Family Court system who do so Pro se and for the vast majority they have no idea how to conduct them selves. We have court officers who provide the bare minimum of help to the 74%. What “innovations” will help these customers of Family Court services? More money will not help. Money has poured into finding a solution and so far the investment has bared no fruit. Why are we “watching” other states? Are we looking for a patch that is less painful for customers? Once those solutions are found will the Judicial Branch even be able to implement process and systems change? I mean we are talking about a bunch of lawyers here. They know how to find innovative ways of charging their clients – but do they know anything about systems and process improvement?

As a foundation upon which the various courts stand – the Judicial Branch cannot afford to continue to make decisions that harm their consumers to the benefit of the 26% who are not Pro se. It may be time to stop patching the building(s) and bring in an outside contractor for help. Someone who is not embedded in law, knows systems analysis and can identify issues and ways to improve them so that we have a world class court – as we did in the past.

Please contact us if you need help in filling out forms for Family Court. We are not able to provide legal advice (we are not lawyers) – just help. Contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Also find us on Facebook.

Child Trafficking American Style: How Cash-for-Kids exists and how to Stop It by January 16, 2015

Divorce Corp has asked for our help in trying to stop the – Cash-for-kids – that goes on between the states and Federal government. These videos encapsulates the problems that parents suffer through in the Family Court system. Towards the end Joe Sorge and Divorce Corp tell you how you can make a difference:

Director Joe Sorge (Divorce Corp) reveals how good intentions gone bad and a callous legal profession has catapulted the United States into the unenviable position of leading the developed world in single parent households. Six billion dollars per year of taxpayer money motivates some of the worst public policy imaginable, leading to the bankrupting of families, the imprisonment of wage earners, and the manipulation and misuse of children as a currency for separating parents and opportunistic professionals. The Federal Government has opened up a rare opportunity to comment on these outdated and dysfunctional laws. Joe Sorge makes an appeal to write to Washington by the end of the public comment period, January 16, 2015, to reform these misguided Federal regulations. A link is provided to Divorce Corp’s web site, showing recommended changes to the Federal Regulations, and suggested reform language to send to Washington.

A YouTube video may be found here: YouTube

Please share this video with your contacts and look for us on Facebook.