parentsbasement7734 - You might be onto something; I do aim to provoke thought and sometimes that comes with an eye roll or two. But if those eye rolls lead to conversations about justice and transparency, I'll take it as a win. For more eye-roll-worthy (or hopefully thought-provoking) content, check out my latest video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYC5gIiVpJZ6aLM. Let's keep the dialogue rolling!
@gracesobota74705 ай бұрын
Your words are identical to my father’s! It’s heartbreaking! My dad has your same judge… judge viamontes is another corrupt judge in broward county!
@4_The_Record5 ай бұрын
I'm very sorry to hear that. Your experience is invaluable to my cause: I am bringing a class-action lawsuit against all of these judges, the county, and the state. Your experience can help change things for event to follow. This is unacceptable that the courts designed to protect children instead exploits them as a matter of a regular course of action. We must stand together to change things. Email me: floridafamilylawman@gmail.com I look forward to hearing from you.
@valentinor84287 ай бұрын
Hey, I want this guy to be my lawyer...
@4_The_Record7 ай бұрын
@valentinor8428 If I had a law degree, I'd be flattered to take the case! For now, I'm sticking to what I know best, which includes navigating the turbulent waters of the courtroom. If you're curious to see more legal drama unfold, dive into my latest video here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYC5gIiVpJZ6aLM You’ll get a front-row seat to the kind of tenacity you'd want in your corner! Let me know what you think.
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
45 CFR 302.34 42 USC 659 I4 Blessing vs freestone Washington vs Glucksburg Marbury vs Madison IV-D incentives are bribes Judge is a contractor 42 USC 1983 42 USC 1994 Pennhallow vs Doane's Administrators
@jamskinner10 ай бұрын
Get a lawyer. It’s too hard to defend yourself.
@4_The_Record9 ай бұрын
@jamskinner, you're absolutely right, having legal representation is key, but sometimes circumstances change. I did have a lawyer until the costs became unsustainable. Now, I'm navigating these waters solo. The journey's been tough, but I'm not backing down. You can catch the latest developments here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYC5gIiVpJZ6aLM. Your understanding and support mean a lot in this fight for justice.
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
These are executive branch entities operating judicially their contractors though they don't want you to know their private persons you can sue them they have no immunity
@kevinmaddog30649 ай бұрын
I agree get a lawyer.
@4_The_Record9 ай бұрын
You paying? 🧐 I had lawyers for nearly 2 years. Until i ran out of money. Then they ran 🏃♂️ more in fighting alone 😔 this is not what i want
@kevinmaddog30649 ай бұрын
@@4_The_Record there is no way to sit down and work something out so you can maybe see your kids a few times ?
@kevinmaddog30649 ай бұрын
@@4_The_Record another question do your kids want to spend time with you?
@4_The_Record8 ай бұрын
It seems like you've reached a point where direct negotiation is no longer an option. It's a tough spot to be in, and it emphasizes the importance of having the right support and strategy in place. For those following my journey, I'll keep sharing updates and insights on my channel. Thanks for sticking with me.
@4_The_Record8 ай бұрын
@kevinmaddog3064 The desire to reunite is mutual. The story is complex, but the love is simple. I was their main caretaker before I was unceremoniously and unlawfully ripped from their lives. Witness the latest chapter unfold and share your thoughts: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYC5gIiVpJZ6aLM
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
The liberty interest at issue in this case-the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children-is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. The problem here is not that the Washington Superior Court intervened, but that when it did so, it gave no special weight at all to Granville's determination of her daughters' best interests. More importantly, it appears that the Superior Court applied exactly the opposite presumption. The Due Process Clause does not permit a State to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make childrearing decisions simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made.- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) 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 direct the education and upbringing of one's children. The Fourteenth Amendment "forbids the government to infringe ... 'fundamental' liberty interests of all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest." - Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). The fundamental right to raise one's human offspring is deeply rooted in American tradition. Washington v Glucksburg was a case about physician based suicide. The court ruled against a right to physician assisted suicide. The test in that case although having different subject matter applies in the instance of human offspring and custody instances applies because raising one's human offspring is a right and is rooted in American tradition unlike physician assisted suicide therefore the case law still applies and is sustained for that fact. The best interests of the child," a venerable phrase familiar from divorce proceedings, is a proper and feasible criterion for making the decision as to which of two parents will be accorded custody. But it is not traditionally the sole criterion-much less the sole constitutional criterion-for other, less narrowly channeled judgments involving children, where their interests conflict in varying degrees with the interests of others. "The best interests of the child" is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody: So long as certain minimum requirements of child care are met, the interests of the child may be subordinated to the interests of other children, or indeed even to the interests of the parents or guardians themselves.- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993). The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life. Until the State proves parental unfitness, the child and his parents share a vital interest in preventing erroneous termination of their natural relationship. - Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children. The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition. Simply because the decision of a parent is not agreeable to a child or because it involves risks does not automatically transfer the power to make that decision from the parents to some agency or officer of the state.- Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
The 14th amendment, section 1-No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Intimate Association 1st Amendment- CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance. While the previous sections have focused on expressive association, the Constitution also protects certain forms of INTIMATE ASSOCIATION. These protections primarily extend from the PERSONAL LIBERTY INTERESTS protected by the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court has construed to include an implied RIGHT OF PERSONAL PRIVACY. The relationships ENTITLED to this sort of constitutional protection are those that attend the CREATION and SUSTENANCE of a FAMILY, including those formed through marriage, childbirth, CHILD-REARING, and cohabitation with one’s relatives.
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Title 42 was never signed into positive law
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Damn bro they did you dirty
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Why do they always talk like their maleficent from snow white?
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Article II of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Executive Branch of the federal government. The Executive Vesting Clause, in Section 1, Clause 1, provides that the federal executive power is vested in the President. Section 3 of Article II further requires the President to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.1 The executive power thus consists of the authority to enforce laws and to appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement. Article III Judicial Branch Section 2 Justiciability Clause 1 Cases or Controversies The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;-between a State and Citizens of another State,-between Citizens of different States,-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, AND BETWEEN A STATE, OR THE CITIZENS THEREOF, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
I don't know slander defamation of character
@mr.obsidian80093 ай бұрын
Oh you heard her you can introduce any evidence you like too bad the statutes are large in the United States code are admissible as evidence
@cliffordrandell7358 ай бұрын
@kevinmaddog3064 He has a basic human right to equal parental rights and time as long as he's not an abuser etc. KIDS NEED DADS AS MUCH AS AND OFTEN MORE THAN MOMS
@4_The_Record8 ай бұрын
@cliffordrandell735 Absolutely, the role of a father is irreplaceable, and the importance of equal parental rights can't be overstated. It's essential for the well-being of children to have access to both parents. Highlighting these issues is crucial for raising awareness and fostering change. For more on this fight for fairness and the rights of parents, check out the ongoing discussion here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYC5gIiVpJZ6aLM. Thank you for recognizing the significance of this issue.
@cliffordrandell7358 ай бұрын
@@4_The_Record I'm sorry for the difficulties you are going through. I've been there. The family courts hate fathers and our country is being destroyed because of it. God bless you ❤️
@4_The_Record8 ай бұрын
Exactly 💯! Please 🙏🏻 stay in this conversation as you understand what is actually happening! Reform begins with my children! I can not allow other families to experience the immeasurable pain that I have endured over the past 3 years.