See status as of: February 3, 2003 | August 18, 2003 | June 2, 2004 | November 21, 2004 | December 16, 2004 | May 6, 2005 | June 28, 2005 | November 22, 2006 | December 22, 2006 | March 30, 2007 | June 1, 2007 | October 1, 2007
Justice is blind
Dearest Samantha,
I would like to tell you we have something for which to be thankful this coming Thanksgiving, but I refuse to lie to you. About 1.5 years ago, I filed my final brief in the appellate court, knowing full-well that it would not make a bit of difference to any of its intended, corrupt audience. Today, the day before Thanksgiving, the proof was revealed as the appellate court gave me their “unpublished decision.” In summary, none of the illegal and dishonest acts by the trial courts were reversed. I’m sorry beautiful. I know you want to be able to see your father more, but it just isn’t going to happen. (Daddy, please try harder.) I’m sorry munchkin – I just don’t know what else to do, and I can’t find anyone else who knows either.
Sunshine, their decision is as big of a joke as I expected. You see, this pretty much happens to all fathers and their children, so I was already well-prepared. Putting aside that they outright ignored every fact (that is, other than the ones like “Laurie alleged…” or “Laurie specifically stated…”) and every relevant U.S. Supreme Court decision, which is what all judges do, they also COMPLETELY ignored the most important part of the constitutional challenges: the REQUIRED test for statutes that impinge on fundamental rights being something called “strict scrutiny.” (I made it the very first part of my appellate brief to make sure they wouldn’t miss it, and then repeated it again as the very first part in my reply brief.) You see baby, they had to ignore this critical and foundational fact; otherwise, we would win. And there wasn’t any chance these morally corrupt judges were going to let us win. Your mom’s attorneys were at least candid in their response: they answered “[n]o response is made.” (I hope they listen to you daddy.) You’ll have to look within yourself for hope precious, as I can’t set the example for you. I have none.
As an aside, the so-called “justices” sent me a document indicating that they refused to hear me speak in-person (what’s known as oral argument). Over one year ago, I spent a great deal of time writing what I had intended to say. Even though these cowards won’t look me in the eye, I hope you will, someday, read what I was planning to say (which I’ve placed below). I hope it will continue to reinforce how much I love you even when I’m not allowed to see you. (I’m giving you a million kisses now daddy, even though you haven’t shaved today, because I see how sad you are.) I love your kisses pumpkin – thank you.
There’s an adage that justice is blind. It’s true sweetheart. Justice is blind because, to paraphrase Patrick Henry, they refuse to know the painful truth (much less a father and daughter’s love for each other). There’s also an expression from the Bible about “the blind leading the blind.” With that said, on to the Illinois supreme court.
Love always,
Daddy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.loveisearned.com
Instant Messenger:
AOL: brilovett, MSN: blovett@chicagogsb.edu, Yahoo: bm_lovett
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. –You are welcome (and encouraged) to forward this message to everyone you know. To be removed from my list, please send a blank e-mail to blovett@chicagogsb.edu with the subject REMOVE. Sorry to trouble you. If this e-mail was forwarded to you and you would like to join my list, please send a blank e-mail to blovett@chicagogsb.edu with the subject line SUBSCRIBE. As always, I will continue to post an updated status on my site. If you cannot see the links embedded in this e-mail, you will find them at http://www.loveisearned.com/html/Status.htm.
Oral Argument (not delivered)
I am the appellant, Brian Lovett. Though you and your corrupt “family courts” use the ridiculous and insulting term “non-custodial parent,” I am the father of Samantha Lovett. This is my appeal.
Henry David Thoreau once wrote that “[i]f a plant cannot live according to nature, it dies; and so a man.” Drafting the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the “Laws of Nature” provide “self-evident” truths that we are a “free people.” Yet, according to your laws, I am no longer a free man. My wife stole money from me without my knowledge and I decided to divorce her. Now she steals from me openly using your laws, and your guns protect her. You can imprison me at any moment for failure to give her my money. You can require me to provide personal financial information at her whim or yours. Your laws presumed that this was my obligation before I even entered your courts – although I am guilty of no crime. You have imposed a sentence of financial obligation and deprived me of my precious little girl - finding me guilty of what crime? You found me guilty because I was married, guilty because I was a father, guilty because I had a job, guilty because I saved for my daughter’s future, guilty because I was authentic. How are these actions crimes? They are not. Yet you have punished me as though they are. Worse, you have punished my innocent daughter by sentencing her to a life without her father.
Your laws and judicial misconduct made my divorce twice as long as my entire 2-year marriage. Your laws and judicial misconduct made my life into a hellish war. Your laws and judicial misconduct took everything that was in the best interest of my daughter and attempted to destroy it – her parents; her home life; her money; her education; her psychological development.
The devices you used to inflict these punishments are the current law - the barbaric statutes of the State of Illinois – and your unlimited, chameleon-like judicial discretion. For example, in my case, there was no finding that I was an unfit parent. In fact, there were plenty of findings that proved I was a STELLAR parent (not that these findings should even matter). At that point, any discussion of custody or parental control should have ended, as both parents were not found unfit. At that point, the trial judge should not have been able to even utter the counterfeit words “best interest of the child” because my daughter was not in harm’s way. Or, at least, that would have been the “constitutional thing” to do, which is supported by so many U.S. Supreme Court cases that you shouldn’t even be able to think twice about it. But, of course, you and your courts don’t follow the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in your decisions. Judge Veronica Mathein explained this to me clearly on December 16, 2002 after I asserted that the care, custody, and control of my daughter was a fundamental and constitutionally-protected right. She replied: “Mr. Lovett, regarding your constitutional rights, when you filed for divorce, you give yourself to the jurisdiction and are governed by the rules of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. And, so even though we support that right, your rights are subject to the law.” My constitutional rights are subject to divorce laws, huh? My fundamental liberties can be removed by a simple CIVIL procedure, huh? Your counterfeit “best interest” standard cannot overcome my fundamental rights. Yet, that is how you all have perverted our liberties – our FUNDAMENTAL liberties. That is how you disregard the oath of office each of you takes to, above all else, uphold the Constitution. That is how you’ve destroyed my relationship with my daughter. That is how you made my life into a war. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Though the court’s first and most important job should have been to secure the individual rights of all three parties equally, which includes my daughter’s right to have both parents involved in her life equally, as soon as I filed for divorce, both parents were automatically and permanently replaced as having control of our child. Effectively, Samantha’s mom and I were both made non-custodial when I filed for divorce, and the judge assumed custody. As soon as I filed for divorce, your laws made my daughter a ward of the state, to do with as you please. How else can you explain your purported “ability” to “grant” custody? Simply submit a piece of paper to a court clerk and, immediately, your child now belongs to the judiciary. Just look at the blatant words you use in your illegal statutes. For example, section 602 states: “There shall be no presumption in favor of or against joint custody.” In other words, both parents had equal fundamental custodial rights to their child before they entered the court but, after, the presumption no longer existed. Section 604 uses the term “visitation.” “Visitation” with your own child? Your corrupt laws can’t even make it past a basic facial challenge.
Though there is no question in my mind that you already know these two basic facts, I’ll state them for the record anyway as they are the heart of all relevant U.S. Supreme Court decisions: 1) fundamental liberties, like the care, custody, and control of your own child, can ONLY be removed with a CRIMINAL procedure, and; 2) the REQUIRED test for statutes that impinge on fundamental rights is “strict scrutiny.” I will call your attention specifically to my assertion in my appellate brief that “when a state law or rule affects fundamental rights, the traditional standard of appellate review is abandoned, there is no presumption of constitutionality, and the court is required to apply strict scrutiny. Ms. Lovett conceded that critical point by stating in her appellee brief that “[n]o response is made.” Ergo, the state bears the burden of proving that these provisions are necessary to serve a compelling state interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that end. The state cannot. Ms. Lovett’s attorneys cannot. You cannot. At that point, your corrupt laws and this whole farce become immediately invalid.
Even if the state, or anyone else for that matter, could show a compelling state interest – which it cannot – the counterfeit “best interest of the child” statutes would fail because they are not narrowly tailored, and because they are unconstitutionally vague. Ms. Lovett’s brief wholly fails to overcome these additional constitutional hurdles.
There is a recent case that was decided by the 7th Circuit, of which I’m sure you are all aware. It’s not mentioned in my briefs, but I will add it as just one more nail in the coffin of your corrupt laws, not that I should even need it. The court struck down as unconstitutional the content-based restrictions of the distribution of video games in Illinois. In E.S.A. v. Illinois, the court stated: “If controlling access to allegedly “dangerous” speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in our society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the State.” In other words, I, as her parent, get to control my daughter’s psychological development – not the state. Or, more directly, a trial judge doesn’t get to decide the best interest of my daughter – I do. I know you all already know this. Additionally, in relation to the bogus injunction on my speech to my daughter, here’s what E.S.A. v. Illinois has to say: “To put it another way, “the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority.” But, with the counterfeit best interest of the child standard and your guns, that’s exactly what you all have done. And, what makes me nauseous is that I am 100% confident that you all know this.
I’ve provided in my briefs more evidence, logic, and U.S. Supreme Court cases than any jury would ever need to rule these statutes unconstitutional. Judges Hamilton and Mathein couldn’t refute them, so they just ignored them and brandished their guns instead. Ms. Lovett’s attorneys can’t refute them, so they also ignored them. I’ve read many of your past decisions and, therefore, I expect you will do the same. I have no formal legal training or education. You are the “experts;” not only lawyers, but judges - those bound to not only understand the law but interpret it in accordance with what used to be known as the highest law of the land - the United States Constitution. You’ve known - or should have known - about these issues long before I could spell law. To me, that means you’ve been intentionally ignoring them and betraying your oaths of office. Perhaps you have been able to ignore them because you never experienced the wrenching injustice of the state taking your child and all of your property from you. Perhaps you have had no reason to consider these issues because no other person has had the determination I do. You must consider them now.
I don’t expect you to rule any one of these corrupt statutes unconstitutional, I don’t expect you to put down your guns, and I do expect you will continue to persecute me. I’ve read your decisions that support these barbaric statutes many, many times. I am SICKENED by them. I’ve read Stanley v. Illinois, and how you ignored the clear unconstitutionality of that law. It continues to be beyond my comprehension that Illinois courts can claim to recognize a parent's liberty interest in raising children, as in Lulay v. Lulay, yet still allow this fraud to continue. I don’t know how you can rationalize the blatant contradiction. I don’t know how you can live with yourselves letting this fraud go on one minute longer. In your decisions, you use guns in place of rationality and logic.
For example, I read a recent unpublished case of yours: Felzak v. Hruby, where you illogically, torturously, and falsely attempted to assert the state’s subject matter jurisdiction as you continue your subversive actions to ignore and avoid U.S. Supreme Court precedence and constitutional barriers. Yet, here’s what you said regarding Wickham v. Byrne:
In Wickham, the court held that the state cannot interfere with parents' fourteenth amendment rights to the care, custody, and control of their children unless it does so to protect the health, welfare, or safety of the children. A fit parent is presumed to act in the best interest of her child, and consequently, any interference with parental decision making must begin with this presumption. As a result, the Wickham court held that when ruling on a petition for gran dparent visitation, a trial court must accord some special weight to a fit parent's determination of her child's best interest. Because sections 607(b)(1) and (b)(3) failed to accord this weight to a parent's decision, they significantly interfered with parents' liberty interests under the fourteenth amendment. Furthermore, the Wickham court found no compelling interest in that case that would justify such an intrusion on these rights. While the court recognized that the state may interfere with a parent's right to the care, custody, and control of her child to protect the health, safety, or welfare of the child, it found that the parent's decision to prevent gran dparent visitation presented no such threat. Therefore, in that case, the court found that no compelling state interest existed to overcome the parents' fourteenth amendment rights to limit gran dparent visitation. (Citations omitted.)
Oh, and by the way, you likely know that in Felzak v. Hruby the court ruled as unconstitutional a court order limiting the communication that a parent has with his children regarding the court case, EXACTLY as one of my constitutional challenges does. Just to remind you of this court’s words:
In this case, the trial court usurped defendants' power, as parents, to decide whether to discuss the outcome of the case with their daughter. The topics of conversation barred by the trial court involved both Katie's visitation with her grandmother and her parents' imprisonment, both of which concern her care and upbringing. As a result, we conclude that the court's order forbidding such discussion interfered with defendants' parental liberty interests as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment. Such an intrusion will be justified only when the state has a compelling interest. (Citations omitted.)
There’s a character in my favorite book Atlas Shrugged named Judge Narragansett. His resolve is to be the “guardian of justice,” but he quits being a judge when he’s asked to use force to violate the rights of unarmed men… those who came to him seeking his protection. He quit “because [he] could not have borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' address[ed] to [him] by an honest man.” Reading the many decisions coming out of this court, it appears you all do not feel the same humanity or humility.
Ergo, I don’t expect you, all-of-a-sudden, after decades of furthering this fraud that destroys our children and our families, to get consciences and do the right thing. You have no motivation to do so, and I understand that. If you rule these statutes unconstitutional, that reduces the state’s power, the court’s power, and the state will lose tens of millions of dollars. We all know you are all profiting immensely from this destruction, as you falsely claim that child support is the same thing as supporting your child. The happiness of an innocent 7-year old girl and her father are of no consequence in comparison to the power and money that these illegal statutes give the states and officers of the court. I know all this. My daughter and I are unimportant – we have no power, no control, no guns, and nothing to offer you to give us back the freedom that you’ve stolen from us. Your sympathy is of no consequence to either my daughter or me. It will do nothing to improve our well-being, and in fact, would simply be an insult to both of us. Your action is the only thing that matters.
I’ve spent years of my life on my war against this fraud. I may spend the rest of my life on it. I have no choice - you’ve taken away my most precious freedom, my right to my child. You tore me away from the daughter that I love. You tore my daughter away from a father that she loves. You’ve made me the disfavored parent. My daughter will grow up effectively without a father in her life if I cannot prevail. The most I can do in this situation is present my case as best I can - supported by U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an outdated document that used to be known as the highest law of the land. Conversely, your attitude is “persecute him until he shuts up – until he believes what we tell him to believe.” Your attitude is “we can’t have parents believing that they can decide what is in their children’s best interest.” I’m thoroughly convinced that George Orwell was a psychic.
Putting together all of these documents, learning the law in the makeshift/under-fire way that I’ve had to, suffering as I have, and standing up for my daughter has done nothing for me to get back the rights that the circuit court and the state stole from me. You have taken away my rights. You have taken away my daughter. You have taken away my property. You may ask: why do I even bother to fight this war that I have no expectation and little hope of winning? You may also ask: why do I fight for principles when the people I’m fighting against have none? Because someday, my daughter will grow up and learn the truth. That even though she was taken from her father by force, without cause, her father loved her enough to never stop fighting, to never, ever give up. She will know that she was the sole reason why I would never be broken, no matter how many of your guns you pointed at me. She will learn that principles matter. For her to know that she alone, at 7-years old, provided me that strength to maintain my principles and my love for her, I will accept the torture you will continue to inflict on me. As her father, I cannot teach her anything more important.
I stand before you deprived of my daughter, deprived of my property, deprived of my speech, deprived of my freedom, all without a crime ever being committed. I stand knowing the definition of equal, which all of you have obviously forgotten. (Let me remind you: according to The American Heritage Dictionary , it means having the same privileges, status, or rights: 'equal before the law.' Does any of that ring a bell to you, or do you refuse to know it?) I stand knowing that regardless of my pleas, logic, and evidence, you will very likely continue to uphold your arbitrary rule of law. I stand knowing that you will continue to isolate me from my most precious possession. I stand only with principles, courage, love for my daughter, and the strength to continue to stand. If any of those things will influence you to make the morally proper decision in this case, I offer them freely to you; I have nothing else.
I will continue to openly disagree with you, knowing full-well that you can violently attack me anytime at your whim. But, until you put down your guns, my daughter and I will not be free. You have taken everything that is inherently good between a father and his child and stripped it to the bone. You have punished my daughter and me by stealing my time with her and allowing me visitation. Your actions are nothing less than barbaric torture and destruction of my most basic civil liberties. You may ignore everything I have said today, all that I have argued, and everything I have written. You may deny my appeal with camouflaged words. But, as you enjoy watching me pick-up the pieces of my broken dreams – the dreams I’ve held since my own childhood that you, yourselves, have destroyed – you cannot ignore or deny this: there is no such thing as visitation between a parent and a child.
Thank you.