THE PEOPLE’S WILL VERSUS JUDICIAL WILL
IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS’ POST-DIVORCE JUDGMENT CUSTODY CASES
The record and facts underlying the US Supreme Court’s so-called “domestic relations exception to federal subject matter jurisdiction,” which in fact amounts to the federal court’s disclaimer of its duties and obligation under Article III of the US Constitution in the states’ process of domestic relations cases demonstrates that the federal court scholars and the federal bar have wrongfully catered to federal judges. I use the acronym “DRE” to define this federal court practice of limiting the People’s access to federal justice to seek redress against states in domestic relations matters.
As a result of the DRE, an unauthorized and intolerable situation has squirmed into state legal processes involving US post-divorce domestic relations matters. Over time state judges and lawyers has developed a widely shared but completely false belief that family law judges have special legal powers, so called “wide discretion,” over family matters including those affecting the People’s freedom of religion, speech and political ideology and their rights to raise their children free from government interference. Nothing could be more distant from the truth or the law. Nowhere is judicial discretion more constrained by law and as a matter of nature and general ethical principles than in the area of domestic relations. Unfortunately, once the judges and lawyers agree on a court room scheme, the governor and the state attorney general simply defend the chief judges and their judges. Thus the People’s Will, their legislatures, the assemblies of the People’s representatives is by-passed and the People’s Will and freedoms is usurped by judges and lawyers. Of course, this is a violation of the most basic American constitutional rights—but with the Governor and State Attorney General protecting the Chief Judge and the DRE, the People’s Will is left out.
All judges are constrained by statutes and legal precedence. Judicial jurisdiction is constrained by the People’s assemblies and rules governing the legal issues and the creation of legal materials, such as evidence. No judge has any power or authority to impose his own preferences into law and order in general, and most certainly into domestic relations. Why? Because domestic relations questions cannot be adjudicated through unbiased neutral standards and principles. Without general standards a judge can indulge his own preferences without legal authority or reasoning. Thus the DRE creates judicial hubris in an area of law where natural and legal law mandates judicial humility. In the end this is a clash of wills between the People and chief judges where the governors and state attorney general’s automatically go on the wrong side, against the People. Without federal intervention the People are no match for these govern officials.
The result of having exalted government officials giving power to judges and lawyers without legislative authority or federal oversight over the People’s most precious and unalienable rights is deliberate judicial corruption designed to cause agitation, aggravation, disturbance and disruptions in our families.
On the day before Thanksgiving, I filed a unprecedented federal civil rights complaint aimed directly that the massive judicial corruption that the DRE allowed to creep New York State’s custody cases. The suit is supported by conclusive hard evidence, hard won evidence notwithstanding the Chief Judge Janet M. DiFiore’s interferences and retaliations, demonstrating that Adetokunbo O. Fasanya, a New York County Family Court Magistrate, acted as exalted government agent’s act: he colluded with his own agents, fabricated charges, manufactured charges and fees out of thin air. Chief Judge DiFiore barred the evidence acquired by my investigation, which I commenced on May 15, 2014, from all New York courts, including her own New York’s court of last resort, the Court of Appeals. The investigation details the official misconduct of 123 state senior officials, including 26 judges. This is unfortunate in one way, fortunate in others. Chief Judge DiFiore’s took part in 63 orders including 8 at the Court of Appeals without ever allowing any legal proceedings. It was the only way for her to protect Fasanya and her system. We will see the story she fabricates in federal court as she attempts to conceal herself under the DRE. I did it for my family, and my heritage Cuban refugee from the Bay of Pigs era who is a product of New York’s parochial Catholic school system who went on to graduate Penn and Wharton. Hopefully, my family will be one of the last to suffer the pain of having an exalted government official invade their homes.