Smaller Government

Dear legislators/public officials/ and fellow citizens:

Please hear my call for long needed change. Below are some of my concerns with the overreaching arm of the government. The time to pull that arm back, a long way, is now, on your watch. I have suffered from the oppression of governmental abuse on numerous occasions, which I’m going to share now. Please read all of it and respond (no autoreplies). I will post your responses to my blog http://returntoindepence.blogspot.com for the masses to read. Your lack of response will also be duly noted.

Can a person who is chained, handcuffed, and jailed call himself free? They cannot. Likewise, a person without guaranteed individual rights is not free.

Limiting Discretionary Immunity Protects Personal Rights

The broader immunity provided a public official is coming at a greater and greater cost for individuals. Individuals are left to the mercy of public officials, whether or not they act in good faith. I have personally experienced the pitfalls of such immunity on many occasions.

One (Divorce/Child Custody): The district court judge was guilty of collateral estoppel and res judicata in my divorce/custody proceedings. Forced to take it to an amended findings hearing, it again entered into the final decision. I appealed, citing the same, as well as a constitutional challenge regarding the legitimacy of the presumption of sole physical and joint legal custody. The challenge was properly submitted, and yet ignored by the appellate court and State Attorney General, in its denial. I appealed to the Supreme Court, where they would not hear my case.

Pro Se Issues: This country was founded on the principles of personal rights, including the right to due process. As a Pro Se plaintiff, you are forced to be an attorney, in writing, method, and behavior. I did the best I could, but was not taken seriously. I essentially wasted my time. A persons’ case should be determined on the material facts of the case, not legal technicalities. In the short time frame in which cases proceed, the founding fathers would not have expected an individual to learn all aspects of law in order to be able to represent themselves. Case law says the court is supposed to show leniency to Pro Se individuals, but they clearly don’t. Individual rights are effectively oppressed to give way to government demands.

Two: The guardian ad litem assigned to my child custody case failed to follow any statutes, and did not complete a written report as required. The head of the guardian ad litem was allowed to enter our court proceedings just moments before closing and drop off a hand-written letter from the guardian. This letter said nothing more than I was insistent on her completing the report, and that I demanded my children half-time. It also said I was rude. Is it rude to want a court appointed guardian ad litem to do the work they are entrusted to do? Is it rude, or unjustified, for a parent to desire half-time with their kids? In our state, a father is not considered equal to the mother. Is this equal protection and equal rights as guaranteed by the constitution? If you look at the court statistics you will see that men in contested child custody cases lose nearly every time. This is clearly a constitutional violation that is ignored on a daily basis.

Title IV child support is also claimed in more cases than it was intended. Title IV cases were intended for individuals that met the federal poverty guidelines. The government has built a system that oppresses individual rights in family courts, while creating itself as an employer of child support collections staff, judges, and magistrates. The federal monies they collect deter them changing.  The cost of continuing the presumption of sole physical and joint legal custody, as well as Title IV collections, outweighs these federal payments. How? Courts are bogged down with child custody hearings precipitated by parents that are looking for child support. It is not for the benefit of the children the majority of time. A presumption of joint legal and joint physical custody lets both parents start at equal places. Concerned parents could still try their case in court, but this would eliminate those just seeking to punish the other parent financially. In effect, it would truly place the best interests of the children first, not second.

It would also eliminate a lot of unjust Order for Protections that are taken just to gain advantage in court. This saves the police, court staff, and the court additional time.

Children are not at the forefront of the intent behind the current presumptions and statutes, mothers are. These are generally not the mothers that would sacrifice any part of themselves for the benefit of their children; they are the mothers that want to benefit financially from their ex-husband. They would destroy their children, and many do, to collect a free buck. Some do it out of self-centered behavior, some out of dependency issues, and others because they think “mothers” have the ultimate right to the children. Are these the people this state wants to protect while children’s and father’s rights are ignored?

Fatherless homes are proven to lead to higher rates of teenage pregnancy, delinquency, crimes, drug use, suicide, promiscuity, etc. The social costs are devastating, leads to moral decay, and long-standing problems. Shouldn’t the well-being of the children be the real intent of any statutes regarding custody? They aren’t currently.

Three: Building codes are spiraling out of control with too much power entrusted to public officials, some of which behave atrociously. In my case, the building inspector and the plan reviewer both enforced the wrong code for a rehab building, treating it like a new building. This led to hundreds of thousands in additional costs, and subjected us to increased scrutiny throughout. The building inspector trespassed by letting himself in with an old key he had from the township that previously owned the same building. He made unattended visits (that led to a false report), forced the owners to attend scheduled meetings (that interfered with their work schedules), and kept them from renting out the gym as the township had.

The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry censured the building inspector for his actions and statutory violations. Even with his censuring, the legal process is difficult because of the cloak of immunity given public officials. The lack of “true” accountability ultimately leads to corruption as evidenced in our project. If there is not an equal and available action for such behavior, what real justice exists?

The township itself is guilty of unethical practices, basing a report based on unsubstantiated claims by an inspector that was trespassing. The fire chief also trespassed twice and contributed to the claims made by the township. The evidence is quite clear to us, if you feel untouchable; you can do anything without the fear of consequences.

Conclusion: Legislators need to refrain from granting additional immunity rights to public officials while returning many of the rights meant to belong to individuals. Our great constitution has been watered down to the point of insignificance and one where individual rights have given way to governmental rights. Our individual liberties promised by our dear constitution are nearly gone in our country’s surge towards socialism. Surveys and books suggest Americans, including children, feel lost in navigating through politics, running for office, and in democracy itself. What democracy exists in a country determined to have a government make all the decisions for them? If you wonder what happened to the “spirit of democracy” look no further than the senate floors, the White House, and all politicians. In the absence of empowerment, there is oppression. Socialism and big government leads to the death of entrepreneurial endeavors, risk taking, and the creative soul. Our country cannot return to prominence without individuals feeling empowered and able to make a difference. Eliminate restrictions to personal freedoms wherever you can instead of adding any more.

The Massachusetts election was less about the Democrats and Republican race for senate seats and more about voting against big government. Everywhere you look, and everything you do, is decided in large part by government. You may not be calling it socialism, but if it feels like one and looks like one, it has the same effect – oppression. The rise of the Tea Party and strong conservatives suggest a revolution is under way. Many of us expect the Independent Party to make big gains in this next election because we feel our voices are not being heard. Quit deciding our futures for us and give us our individual freedoms back. I don’t care if you label yourself a democrat, republican, or independent, I, like many others, just want our freedoms, small government, accountability, and moral/ethical leaders.

Your answers and your actions will determine where you sit in the next election. If you can be voted in or out, shouldn’t there be greater accountability to all public officials, elected or not?

I believe that one individual raising his voice is greater than all those that remain silent in the wake of injustice.