The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process…

THESE JUSTICES WERE BOUND BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
court-of-public-opinion-2015

By thefitparentsrights

…and the “liberty” it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. (citations omitted). (Due Process Clause “protects individual liberty against ‘certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them’ ”) (quoting *720 Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331, 106 S.Ct. 662, 665, 88 L.Ed.2d 662 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 1446-1447, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851, 112 S.Ct., at 2806-2807. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to… to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); [and] to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925);…

Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, *721 “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” id., at 503, 97 S.Ct., at 1938 (plurality opinion); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934) (“so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”), and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” such that “neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed,”(citations omitted).

Continue reading The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process…

Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Ask any civil trial lawyer in Florida how many days one has to move for rehearing of an order simply granting a motion for summary judgment, and the odds are good the lawyer will respond, “Ten days.” Pursue the matter further with the lawyer, and ask where this 10-day period is set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the lawyer will invariably point to Rule 1.530, which by its title governs motions for new trial and rehearing.

Rule 1.530, however, provides that a motion for rehearing must be served no later than 10 days after “the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.”1 An order simply granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment; rather, it is a nonfinal order.2 So, too, are myriad other orders entered by a trial court before final judgment. Attorneys in Florida nevertheless regularly file “motions for rehearing” directed to such nonfinal orders. Often they believe they must do so within 10 days. Sometimes they also believe that such a motion tolls the time to seek appellate review of the nonfinal order.

Motions for rehearing of nonfinal orders are not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.3 Noting that motions for rehearing are exclusively governed by Rule 1.530, the Florida Supreme Court has observed that “[u]nless the filing of a motion for rehearing to an interlocutory order is authorized by a rule of court promulgated by the rule-making authority, then its filing is improper.”4 Indeed, it is not unheard of for an attorney to file a motion for “rehearing” of a nonfinal order and subsequently be confronted with a response from the other side echoing the court’s language and declaring that such motions are unauthorized and improper.

Yet while the rules of civil procedure themselves do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to nonfinal orders, a trial court does have the inherent authority to reconsider and alter or retract such orders prior to the entry of final judgment.5 Rather than constituting a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530, a motion directed to a nonfinal order is actually a “motion for reconsideration” based upon this inherent and discretionary authority of the trial court.6 Despite this distinct and well-established basis for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, there still exists confusion among many practitioners about the differences between reconsideration and rehearing.

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that parties and the courts frequently use the terms interchangeably, at least in the context of motions directed at nonfinal orders. This is perhaps understandable given the lack of any rule-based authority for reconsideration of nonfinal orders; the articulation of the trial court’s inherent authority has of necessity come through the development of the common law. An attorney will, therefore, only be aware of the basis for reconsideration — as well as its effect on any subsequent appeal — from the case law.

Common Law Origin of Motions for Reconsideration

Continue reading Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Lawyers Lie To Themselves and Their Clients

United States of America Of the Lawyers, By The Lawyers, & For The Lawyers…
Just The Facts –

– Lawyers Write the Laws –
Lawyers use their legalese to construct laws that generally only a lawyer can understand or interpret
– Lawyers Make the Laws –
Lawyers comprise the majority of local, state and federal legislative bodies.
– 1 Lawyer for EVERY 200 Adults in America!! –
1,143,358 lawyers. Law Schools are graduating 40,000 new lawyers each year as they have over the last 20 years. We are being overrun by lawyers, who not being subject to the normal laws of supply and demand, simply create work for themselves at an increasing cost to each of us.
– Your Civic Duty –
Work and your life are secondary to – Your Civic Duty – at about $8.00 PER DAY while the Lawyers & Judges are making HUNDREDS of DOLLARS PER HOUR! But you understand, after all the lawyers and judges do tell us that it is ‘the best system in the world…’
– All About Billable Hours –
Confusion and conflict produce billable hours. Simple
common sense decisions and solutions are almost extinct because they are in conflict with the billable hours required to support the ever growing legal profession.
– Taxation Without Representation –
Lawyers represent 3/10th of 1 percent of the population yet have an 80% representation in our government. Translation: The taxation of 99.997% of the American people is created, implemented, controlled, and enforced by .003% of the people: indeed a privileged class.
– Lawyers & Government –
Any wonder why the government is so wasteful and
inefficient? The majority of lawyers in government have never had any experience in the operation or budgeting of a real business in the real world. And, in the world they did work in, they could earn more in a few hours than most people can earn in a week or a month and sometimes even a year!
– 2 More Lawyers in the White House –
Remember the Clintons? Remember the Scandals?
Remember the National & Worldwide Disgrace America was Subjected to? Remember How Bin Laden Killed
Americans at will BUT there was not enough evidence to bring him to Court!!
– 9 Lawyers Decide How All American’s Live! –
Nine Lawyers on the Supreme Court decide the laws, the
morals, and the culture of 300 million FREE Americans?
Arguably The Founding Fathers Biggest Mistake!
– The U.S. Constitution –
The Founding Fathers never had a clue how their
masterpiece, The Constitution, would be a Cash Cow for the lawyers…

Just The Factsdownload signJust The Facts

· VoteFamily.Us · GLOOGBOOK.COM ·

Liar Joel Greenberg Broward County FL Liar - 2016Why Lawyers Lie (To Themselves and Their Clients)

Ethics and practicing law have a fascinating relationship. I posted last week about how it’s silly to suggest that ethics requires lawyers (or anyone) to always tell the truth. In the comments, I wrote the following in a reply to a comment by Scott Greenfield:

I think the lawyer’s biggest moral (as opposed to “ethical” re the rules) conundrum is the question of whether the lawyer is lying to himself that what’s good for the lawyer is good for the client. Self-deception is the real problem, because it makes our lies to others feel like the truth.


Scott suggested that was an idea for a post. I agreed, so here goes.

Lawyering, despite the efforts of those who write the ethics rules, has a conflict of interest built in: what’s good for the client is often the exact opposite of what’s good for the lawyer. And lawyers, being mere mortals, are morally fallible, and they know it.

They have to get past that knowledge if they are going to at least sometimes choose to do what’s best for themselves instead of what’s best for the client. To cope with making that choice, they lie to themselves in order to believe that what’s good for themselves is in fact what’s best for the client.

Continue reading Lawyers Lie To Themselves and Their Clients

Justice4Children ~ Family Law and Child Welfare Reform

AFLA LOGO 2 - 2015Judges merely redirect the dysfunction of one parent as a means to achieve an equitable settlement without regard for children. Prospective lawyers to become judges practice under a code of ethics where they are only allowed to have regard their clients and not the children. A prospect practices under these rules of engagement for 20-30m years before a simple letter of appointment to the bench. They can in no way be expected to have regard for children after this indoctrination.

Family Law Reform sm - 2016The code of ethics for those lawyers practicing family law needs to change before anything gets better for children.

Just know the enemy of your children are the lawyers and judges themselves.

The Children’s Rights Facebook Group now has over 18,000 Members. We’re here for Parents who need morale support, information, and more. Come check us out!family court in focus - 2015

!! ATTENTION FLORIDA VOTERS !!

852e6-florida2bcommission

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE LEGISLATORS WHO HAD VOTED AGAINST THE FAMILY REFORM BILL:

First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform's photo.FOR SENATE SB 668 NAY VOTES:

Abruzzo (D-Wellington), Braynon (D-Miami Gardens), Bullard (D-Cutler Bay), Clemens (D-Lake Worth), Detert (R-Venice), Flores (R-Miami), Hukill (R-Port Orange), Joyner (D-Tampa), Legg (R-Lutz), Montford (D-Quincy),
 Ring (D-Margate), Sachs (D-Delray Beach), Smith (D –Ft. Lauderdale), Soto (D-Kissimmee)

FOR HOUSE SB 668 NAY VOTES:

Antone (D-Orlando), Avila (R-Hialeah), Berman (D-Boynton Beach), Bileca (R-Miami), Bracy (D-Ocoee), Campbell (D–Miami-Shores), Clarke-Reed (D-Pompano Beach), Cortes, J. (D-Kissimmee), Cruz (D-Tampa), Cummings (R-Orange Park), Dudley (D-St. Petersburg), Edwards (D-Sunrise), First Husbands Advocacy Group - Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform's photo.Fitzenhagen (R-Fort Meyers), Geller (D-Dania Beach), Ingoglia (R-Spring Hill), Jacobs (D-Coconut Creek), Jenne (D-Hollywood), Jones, M. (D-Jacksonville), Jones, S. (D-West Park), Kerner (D-Palm Springs), Lee, L (D-Ft. Pierce), Mayfield (R-Vero Beach, moved to Brevard), McGhee (D-Cutler Bay), Moskowitz (D-Coral Springs), Murphy (D-New Port Richey), Narain (D-Tampa), Pafford (D-West Palm), Powell (D-West Palm), Pritchett (D-Miramar), Rader (D-Boca Raton), Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D-Tallahassee), Richardson (D-Miami Beach), Rodriguez, J (D-Miami), Rouson (D-St. Petersburg), Slosberg (D-Delray Beach), Stafford (D-Opa Locka), Stark (D-Weston), Steube (R-Sarasota), Torres (D-Orlando), contact_rick_scott-sb-668Trujillo (R-Doral), Van Zant (R-Palatka), Watson, B. (D-Miami Gardens), Watson, C. (D-Gainesville), Williams (D-Tallahassee)

Remember to vote in the August primary and November general election!

First Husbands Advocacy Group – Florida Alimony and Custody Laws Reform

BRAVO and CONGRATULATIONS to this man.
He is FREE of his alimony tether.
We applaud your good fortune and wish you all the best in life and love.
You are an inspiration to all other reformers.
Mother's Blocking Access - 2016

Parental Alienation Awareness - IT IS CHILD ABUSE --2016As we had predicted …
What a bunch of crap.
No…we NEVER will respect nor “honor” any of you who are stealing from us via lifetime alimony.
Honor and respect has to be earned.

Ya’ll are and will be pieces of shit to us…and the kids will know that forever and ever and ever.

Fatherless Day Rallies In Every State and Across The Globe!!

FRM USA - 2015Our current system of resolving child custody disputes rarely considers either children’s needs from children’s own perspective, or current research on child custody outcomes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

View original post 4,025 more words

The Purpose of Family Court Hearings

There are various types of court hearings in family law and each serves a different purpose. Cordell & Cordell family law attorney Rebecca DeVincent joins DadsDivorce Live to explain the difference between each type of hearing, what the purpose of each is and what you can expect to happen at each one.

Source: DadsDivorce Live: The Different Types Of Family Law Hearings

Continue reading The Purpose of Family Court Hearings

Don’t Shoot The Messenger

Evidence Tips and Strategies PresentationDo you believe in Dads - 2016

  • Color of Law Violation 
  • DEPT OF HEALTH COMPLAINT FORM 
  • MANAGEMENT OF CASES INVOLVING COMPLEX LITIGATION 
  • 2012 – CV Linda J Gottlieb LMFT LCSW – PAS 
  • 2012 – Linda J Gottlieb LMFT LCSW – Resumption of Visits 
  • PDF – 2-23-11-F-PETITIONER PROPOSED PARENTING PLAN 
  • PDF – 2-23-11-F-SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION TP MODIFY PARENTING PLAN, TIMESHARING SCHEDULE AND CHILD SUPPORT 
  • PDF – 3-7-11-F-MOTION TO DEVIATE FROM CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 
  • PDF – 3-25-11-F-RESPONDENT MOTION TO QUASH 
  • PDF – 5-5-11-F-NOTICE OF NON-JURY TRIAL 
  • PDF – 7-19-11-F-CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY DISCLOSURE 
  • PDF – 7-19-11-F-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND OR ENFORCEMENT 
  • PDF – 7-20-11-F-PETITIONERS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE 
  • PDF – 7-27-11-F-ANSWER AND OBJECTION TO MOTION TO DISMISS.doc 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING-MOTION FOR CONTEMPT1 
  • PDF – 8-9-11-F-REFERRAL TO THE VILLAGE-RANDOM DRUG TESTING 
  • PDF – 8-23-11-F-MOTION FOR TEMPORARY SUPV VISIT-REQ PARENTING COORDINATOR 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-INTERROGATORIES 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-MOTION FOR REFFERAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-MOTION TO ALLOW TEMPORARY SUPVERVISED VISITATION AS RECOMMENDED BY PSYCH EVAL 
  • PDF – 8-24-11-F-NOTICE TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION TO ORDER OF REFFERAL TO GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 9-2-11-F-REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 
  • PDF – 9-6-11-F-ORDER OF REFERRAL TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES FOR SUPERVISED VISITATION 
  • PDF – 9-28-11-F-OPPOSING PARTIES MOTION FOR CONTEMPT 
  • PDF – 10-3-11-FCS LETTER RE SUPV VISITATION AT LET COURTHOUSE 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING DAVID TO PARTICIPATE IN TIMESHARING 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY 
  • PDF – 10-4-11-F-NOTICE OF HEARING GENERAL MAGISTRATE 
  • PDF – 10-6-11-F-MOTION TO TERMINATE SUPERVISED VISITATION 
  • PDF – 10-11-11-F-MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF REFERRAL TO FCS FOR SUPV VISITATION 
  • PDF – 10-14-11-F-MOTION TO CORRECT FINAL JUDGMENT 
  • PDF – 10-16-11-F-FAMILY COURT SERVICES STATUS REPORT 
  • PDF – 11-4-11-F-RE WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS-DELINQUENT CHILD SUPPORT CASE 
  • PDF – 11-8-11-F-FAMILY LAW FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT FOR DMI 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE OF PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR VASSALL-DR FINLEY 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ADRIANA MENENDEZ 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ANA MESA 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR GORDON FINLEY 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – DR ROBERT VASSALL 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – JAIRO SERRANO 
  • PDF – 11-14-11-F-NOTICE PRODUCTION-SUBPEONA – ORLANDO GARCIA MS LMFT 
  • PDF – 11-28-11-F-MOTION FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM 
  • PDF – 12-1-11-F-EXHIBITS FOR RECONSIDERATION MOTION 
  • PDF – 12-1-11-F-MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND OR MOTION FOR FINAL HEARING 
  • PDF – 12-2-11-F-MOTION TO RE-ENROLL WITH FCS FOR SUPV VISITATION 
  • PDF – 12-2-11-F-NOTICE TO WITHDRAW MOTIONS RE SUPV  VISIT 
  • PDF – 12-14-11-F-MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 
  • PDF – DEC 2011 – ORDER UPON REPORT OF GENERAL MASTERGo Fund Me 1 - Stand up for Zoraya - 2015

But guess what…many Family Law Court Rooms are corrupted by some not so honest Family Law Judges AND Lawyers!

Innocent or not…In the blink of an eye…you can lose your kids, your job, your life savings, your inheritance, your house and or your mind!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading Don’t Shoot The Messenger