COMMENTS Form is at the bottom.

This site is maintained and posted by a third person.  No content on this site may be copied without permission.

the buttons link to

Table of Contents and page links

Please email Comments, advice or more information on the court workers and other people mentioned on this site.

Do you know a Star Rating gadget that works in Google Sites?

Please provide Ratings for pages or content on pages so the most important can be highlighted.   

Page and content Ratings 1,2,3,4,5 stars      

   5star - most important information

  1star - least important information

Easy examples:   p4 5star,    p5a 5*  or  Laws Broken 5star  (using the first capitalized keywords from the sidebar)

And searching for answers to KEY POINTS, based on Decree Confirmations.

  1. What part of the law (that doesn't violate the U.S Supreme Court and Constitution) gives the right for a custodian to violate court orders by blocking access to a father and all paternal relatives, and Judge Mayer treats the custodian with immunity to abuse? with their actions, while the judge and custodian pretend the opposite with their words. 

  2.  Based on these facts, for what reasons would a parent need to keep children entirely to herself? including reasons not listed, or only hinted. (for hints to possible answers of question 2, read the full page of common cause, page 10).

  3. Do you believe that men and women should be treated in a different way by judges and court related workers?

The 2011 and 2012 APPEALS are UNOPPOSED by the custodian.  She filed no response for either appeal.  Yet in the 2011 and 2012 appeals, the court was biased enough to completely deny justice to the father and did everything to the benefit of the custodian and the court. In both appeals, the court used their unrestrained powers to abuse the father, as if this is the court's standard mode of operation and women don't even need to lift a finger.  Certainly that is an appearance of bias, when the appeals are unopposed by the other party and then the appeals of a father and requests and Rights of Children are denied completely.

The U.S. Supreme Court  in Baldwin v. Brown mandates that the courts provide "substantial justice" to pro se citizens.  Substantial is defined as full and abundant.  The court in this MN Kids for Cash case has sought out any trick, or petty excuse, or most of the time invented rules that didn't exist, in order to completely deny justice to the pro se father's motions. The court's mode of operation is in complete opposition and in violation and defiance of U.S. Supreme Court mandates.

Dec. 2012 comments.  On a couple of rare phone conversations, but good conversations in the last 2 years, between the father and one child, that child requested to ski with the father and have the father attend athletic games. The custodian interrupted the last telephone calls with 2 children and demanded that she won't allow father-child video calls (to begin).  There have been no father-child phone conversations, since 8/18/2012, even though the father continues to call 2-4 times a week and leave a message every week.  The father filed a motion in Sept. 2012 and Judge Mayer fails to take action.  The children are completely under emotional control by the custodian and her parents.  Based on the requests, it appears that the one child  is one part 'trapped' in the alienation, and one part under the custodian's emotional control to believe the opposite of numerous facts, and has likely given up hope.  Judge Mayer has repeatedly refused to respond to the one child's requests that were in the father's motions.

Anyone want be a volunteer helper or advocate?

Comments may be posted public on this site, unless you specify 'private', which will be honored.  All emails will be private.