Tag Archives: Judicial Immunity

Mom Files Civil Rights Lawsuit to Restore Parental Rights, Press Conference

Advertisements

Coming Soon: Timeline & Catalogue Of Judge Alfred Levinson’s Illegal Orders In This Case

Coming soon:  a time-line & catalogue of Judge Alfred Levinson’s illegal orders in this case.  Rolling Meadows Cook County, Ilinois.  Case #09 D 331 278

Judge Levinson said he didn’t care because he’d be retiring soon.  Investigative Journalist Michael Volpe had this to say:  “Other than complicating an already complicated situation, what purpose did appointing the child rep Natalie Koga serve, when you’ve already had a custody evaluation and CPS looked at it and they determined who the problem parent was?  The child representative was the third or fourth court professional to be assigned to this case and besides making an already complicated matter even more complicated having so many court professionals holds no logical purpose.  Because that’s where corruption thrives – when you can make a situation complicated.  Dr. Stanton Samenow, not only in Chris Mackney’s case, would come in as a so-called independent arbiter but end up communicating, and often being paid, exclusively with one side. He would pretend as though his so-called expert opinion was objective while being bought and paid for and that’s what it appears happened in this case as well. Not only with Dr. Fisher, but Natalie Koga and others in this case. The veneer of independence is one of many reasons why I believe all court ordered professionals should be outlawed immediately. They are not merely a waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars but counter-productive and often actively work to create conflict in cases in order to justify their continued involvement.”– Michael Volpe, Author of Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney’s Kafkaesque Divorce

We Demand That Family Court Insiders Immediately Cease & Desist From Treating Us Like Their Personal Money Machines, by Lisa Nadig

If we really care about our nation’s children, we will insist on oversight and accountability in our highly lucrative, self-policing family courts that operate without any checks and balances.  We demand reform, accountability, and checks and balances in this system.  

We demand that our Constitutional Rights be upheld, Due Process, Rules of Evidence and the State Statutes be followed.  We demand that Family Court judges, who receive their salaries and pensions from our tax-payer money, adhere to their sworn Oath of Office.  

We demand that attorneys and court vendors adhere to the Code of Ethics for their respective professions.  We demand an immediate end to false reporting, perjury and Judicial Deception on the part of Child Representatives, Guardian Ad Litems, and all court vendors.  We demand that all Child Reps and GAL’s adhere to the statutes pertaining to their work.  

We demand an immediate end to the illegal practice of forcing litigants into so-called “therapy” with their buddies.  We demand an end to all cronyism and corruption.  

We demand that all family court judges, attorneys and court vendors behave in an honorable and decent fashion.  We demand that they treat each and every litigant and child in the system with honesty, respect, kindness, and courtesy.  We demand that family court insiders immediately stop exploiting litigants and Cease And Desist from treating us like their personal money machines.

Supreme Court Roundup; Ruling Says Judges May Be Sued In Civil Rights Cases

“The Supreme Court ruled today that state judges may be sued for civil rights violations and may be ordered to pay the lawyers’ fees of those who sue them successfully.

While the 5-to-4 decision permitted only suits for injunctions, not damages, it marked a significant retreat from the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity to which the Court has long adhered.

Six years ago, for example, the Court ruled that a judge who had ordered a young woman to be sterilized without her knowledge or consent was absolutely immune from the woman’s subsequent damage suit.

The decision today, written by Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun, retained the bar against suits for damages. But the dissenters, in an opinion by Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell, argued that there was little practical difference, from the point of view of a judge’s pocketbook, between a damage suit and an order to pay lawyers’ fees.”

Supreme Court Roundup; Ruling Says Judges May Be Sued In Civil Rights Cases