Texas Judge Polly Jackson Spencer accused of Judicial Misconduct

Jay Kofler is a Dad. He has been deprived of his Constitutional right to raise his child.

Judge Polly Jackson Spencer appears to be out to get Jay Kofler.

Here is a letter that Jay Kofler has sent to Judge Polly Jackson Spencer….

The “Honorable” Judge Polly Jackson Spencer:

Your Honor, I am writing to you today representing myself as a Sovereign Citizen of these United States, This is not how I wanted it to be, but I am involved in a Texas Supreme Court case and after that a likely United States Supreme Court concerning my child, and do not currently have representation in your county. I cannot be present in court because you currently have a warrant out for my arrest on a charge of contempt, when I wrote you and the other attorneys to request a continuation due to the need to take care of my home that had been damaged in a storm, had a hole in my roof, and needed other repairs that made it impossible for me to make it back to Texas in time to appear before you. You refused my request for continuation and you put a warrant out for my arrest. That you denied me a continuance isnâ€™t very fair, considering you granted every such request of the other side, once even for attorney Gayler’ vacation and another time just because they were not quite ready to proceed.

When you commit a crime, the State must appoint you an attorney if you cannot afford one, but if you are defending yourself from an attack on your Fundamental Family Values, your Constitutional rights to raise your child, and you are being disenfranchised of your due process and parental presumption with no finding of unfitness, the State takes no such position.

I request this case be continued as we are presently awaiting a decision by the Texas Supreme Court. Furthermore I request that my rights to visitation be reinstated immediately, as the court suspended my rights due to my not appearing in court on charges that fall under res judicata in my divorce, a legal inviolate contract under most civilized laws not to mention US Supreme Court rulings.

This case is against Texas law as referenced in Article I, Section 18, of the Texas Constitution below:

You cannot be held in contempt in all circumstances. Not all orders are enforceable by contempt. The following are restrictions on the enforceability of orders through contempt:

1. Orders for the payment of debts are not enforceable by contempt, as such as would violate Article I, Section 18, of the Texas Constitution.

2. A person cannot be held in contempt for failing to perform an act he is incapable of performing.

3. The court cannot hold a person in contempt for something that is beyond its power to order.

4. A person cannot be held in contempt unless the judgment or order specifically â€œspells outâ€ what the respondent is to do and how he is to do it.

Even if an order cannot be enforced with contempt however, there may still be contractual remedies to enforce the terms of an agreed decree. I have never agreed to these decrees you have issued. I am being robbed of my child. For no reason, with no proof of being a danger to my daughter, just because I do not have the money the ex step father has through my ex father in law or the cadre of attorneyâ€™s whose fees I am now expected to pay for the loss of my child, through no fault of my own. Perhaps you can begin to see the circular battle I have found myself in.

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Consequently, the use of the best interests of the child test is improper in a contest between a parent and a stepparent:

While we recognize that 40-4-221, MCA, gives a non parent standing to request a custody hearing, that section does not give the district court the authority to deprive a natural parent of his or her constitutionally protected rights absent a finding of abuse and neglect or dependency.

Jay Koffler asks the court to scrutinize certain statutes under a Strict Scrutiny standard. There are two situations in which a Strict Scrutiny analysis is required.

When a fundamental constitutional right is involved.

In this case, at least two fundamental rights are at stake.
The right of fit parents to parent their children is as fundamental a right as our nationâ€™s Founders could have imagined. It is pre-constitutional. It is pre-governmental. It is pre-civilizational. It is one of those bedrocks for the protection of which people establish any kind of government in the first place. And in the uniquely-American context of the relationship between citizen and government, it is one of the few rights that when the government fails in its duty to provide protection, the very legitimacy of that government is called into question.

The second fundamental right at stake in this case is Fundamental Fairness.

Trials that are fundamentally fair are the sine qua non of American jurisprudence.
An essential element of a fair trial is utilization of an evidentiary standard that provides adequate protection for the interest at stake.
In Texas family courts, under the authority of Texas FamilyCode Â§105.005, we are currently using the same evidentiary standard we use for traffic tickets: Preponderance. Preponderance is a constitutionally-insufficient evidentiary standard for dealing with the parent-child relationshipâ€”not just when the State seeks to terminate the relationship, but in any proceeding in which fundamental parental rights

Respectfully, your honor, Mr. Moore, joined by C.P. Medore { both of whom have a very unsavory history–violence and abuse.} began this custody case by sending me a subpoena to give up my rights as a parent to Camille. I did not initiate this suit.

I am simply trying to respond to their demands in the only way I can, to refuse that request, and to fight for the rights I am afforded within the Constitution of the United States and the Texas Constitution to raise my own daughter.

Your Honor the court has accused me of not loving my daughter among other things, what the court seems to forget is that I was forbidden every step of the way from seeing my daughter Camille once Mr. Moore came into the picture. I was once again denied by this court this past summer to enjoy the company and companionship of my child, and now the biggest complaint seems to be that I not only did not see her this summer, but I also did not contact Mr. Moore to tell him what he already knew. He was present when my right to see my daughter was denied by you with the full weight of the bench and the heavy hand including a warrant for my arrest.{ under Color of Law?}

Your Honor the court and the attorneys can interfere for as long as they are making money but the truth cannot be so easily covered up, I love my daughter, and once she spent some quality time with us she opened up and was free to share what her mother had told her about her life with me when she was younger. She again returned to the closeness we once had, we shared hours of talking while looking through hundreds of pictures of the three of us together as a family and memories came back with them to her young mind. That develops a bond that no one can take away, although I can see them trying hard every single day. Sadly the court is helping them with their endeavors to make sure that Camille loses her sole surviving parent. I fail to see how this is referred to as Best Interest of the child.

I am not the one, your Honor, who struck my ex-wife. I am not the one who left my daughter and her step sister at home alone to hide from the law, while protecting my own sons by bringing them with me. I, your Honor, am not the party who served a year of community service or ever have had CPS involvement in my life. That “person” is Mr Moore.Maybe someone in the court room should take the time to look at the evidence and if not in the court you will be able to read all about it on line as of the end of this year. I know that there are a lot of people in the USA that still care about the law and Family Values and my God is bigger than this. Just like there is a Supreme Deity there is also Supreme Law and no one is above it.

The Police Power and Parens Patriae

The state has two sources of power to interfere in family matters: the police power and parens patriae. However, the exercise of both these powers to deprive parents of their rights is restricted to those situations where the present circumstances jeopardize the childâ€™s health or safety. And in either scenario, before the state may interfere and change a parentâ€™s decisions, the court must see clear-and-convincing evidence that the child is facing a clear and present danger. â€œIt is clear from Supreme Court precedent that some harm threatens the childâ€™s welfare before the state may constitutionally interfere with a parentâ€™s right to rear his or her child.â€ Indeed, the doctrine of parens patriae has been invoked as the reason to NOT terminate the rights of parents concerning their children. Here, the trial courtâ€™s records do not reflect that the court employed a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard when Moore
sought to modify the parent child relationship between Koffler and his child. Indeed, just the opposite is proven. Moore needed to prove that Koffler was an unfit parent by clear and convincing evidence. He did not do so.

In Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981) it states: The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC Â§ 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely. That was the case with me, Your Honor, my rights to my child were negated completely.

I have been painted as the bad guy with nothing substantive -I repeat unlike Mr Moore I do not have a record with CPS and I have never felt a need to restrain a family member or a wife by grabbing and holding her from behind by the throat and hitting her all over her body [Police pictures are available as evidence}. I have been laughed at and ridiculed in this courtroom concerning my disability, my belief system, my age (even being made older than I was by the ad litem), my occupation as an artist, and my available funds. I have been asked by this court how I could possibly support a child on my income.

I was told that my decision to stop child support in an attempt to change the fact that my daughter was being withheld from my visitation with her was the wrong choice. Perhaps it was, but in my defense, Camille and I together were being deprived of our parent child relationship. As we all know there is no Department of Child Visitation Enforcement, the alienated father is left with no recourse but to pay or else.

I attempted to correct this forced alienation by alerting no less than 7 State leaders and organizations by certified letters, including the Family Court, Attorney General, CPS, Child support authorities and others that I was being denied my rights to my child no less than 5 times and finally aware that I was being given no recourse other than to stop paying child support if I could not see my daughter. I had no other recourse available at the time, and actually believed that we were a nation of laws based on fairness and that a Judge sworn to obey the Supreme Laws of the United States would use the law to protect our rights to keep our family together. The internet was not then what it is now, I didn’t know what to do and while fighting it, I was seriously ill, had just received a heart valve replacement and a kidney transplant due to my Agent Orange exposure. I was weak, and had nothing left with which to fight. This has dramatically changed, I have awakened and become engaged and involved politically, as you read this it is also being read by the office of Governor Scott [FL], Attorney General Pam Bondi [FL], Governor Perry [Tx], The Texas GOP, the Texas Board of Ethics, the Law Review copies are also sent to the Heritage Foundation and all the Fox Television and Radio Personalities, not to mention Facebook and all social/political internet media [our friends on LinkedIn alone number over 500 giving us access to hundreds of thousands on one site], Court Watch, Sui Juris, Fathers Rights, Fathers Liberation Army, Freedom Watch, Reform Family Court, Family Justice Movement, Grass Roots Dads, Legally Kidnapped, The Federalist, Harris County Republican Party, Congressman Allen West, American Action Network, etc. I will not be silenced.

I have stated my decision to stop paying child support was because I was being forced into alienation by not receiving my parental rights. I was forbidden by Melissa Medore and Beau Moore the right to see my child. Mr. Moore, while on the stand was asked why he did not uphold the CPS rules surrounding providing Melissa with alcohol and visitation with the children was that he was “afraid she would withhold the girls from him”. Where did he learn of that idea Your Honor, if not from witnessing that it had already happened with Camille towards me?

It is an outrage that I start out defending an attack on my parental rights by a common criminal and I am the one threatened with jail for contempt,any righteous citizen would think and expect that before threatening a father and child relationship the state and thus the court would have to have done a strict scrutiny review of all evidence and the truth not unproven theories of whom the courts like better. As we all remember from Law 101 “contracts are inviolate” the marriage contract in this case was between Melissa Medore and Jay Koffler –Camille Medore Koffler was the product of that marriage contract, the divorce contract that followed comes under Ras Judicata and no one a party to it had any legal actions or complaints against it, not to mention TRINSEY v PAGLIARO D.C.PA.1964 “Statements of counsel in Brief or in Argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment”

According to the Supreme Court, a divorce decree is a final judgment entitled to res judicata effect. This means that all matters addressed in the decree are fully and finally
adjudicated as between the parties to the decree, and they may not be re-litigated in a subsequent proceeding. This seems very clear to me.

In Mabra v. Schmidt, 356 F Supp 620; DC, WI (1973) it states: the Father enjoys the right to associate with his children which is guaranteed by this amendment (First) as incorporated in Amendment 14, or which is embodied in the concept of “liberty” as that word is used in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

That right was denied me. I was at my wits end. Rightly or wrongly, I felt the only choice available to me was to precipitate a confrontation by denying child support. I sent her a note by certified mail to that end, to which I never received a response. In the years following, Melissa Medore, Beau Moore, CP Medore, the Texas Attorney General or Child Support Enforcement did anything to challenge me on that point, but after her death, those who are interested in removing my child from my life permanently as evidenced by that very first subpoena, which thankfully this court denied, now want to change the standing of our agreements. Melissa Medore and Jay Koffler are the two parties involved in this legal contract and contract are supposed to be inviolate according to the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution. Melissa apparently agreed as she never contacted anyone to enforce Child Support or the Attorney General.

Melissa is now dead, her father C P Medore– an accused violent sexual abuser- is aware that Melissa gave me her hospital records that itemize his behavior against her and her brother for safe keeping. Both Melissa and her brother are now dead. Most of Melissa’s friends are fully aware and disgusted with CP Medore and are horrified that this court has now given him access to another little girl—Mr Moore â€“ who was divorced from Melissa for over a year at time of death, is a “man” who felt it necessary to physically assault Melissa Medore to the point she had to be Hospitalized [Police photos are available], who was accused by CPS of abuse and neglect of these children and served comunity time on those same charges, yet the courts give a known abuser my child AND want to go back and change that subsequent agreement to MY divorce. Neither Child Protective Services nor San Antonio Police Department thought that it was important to inform me of my ex wife’s death.

Your Honor, There are mounds of evidence some not presented to the court as no one was interested in seeing it and or requesting it from the proper authorities, you would think this would have been the minimum expected from the paid Ad Litem Mr Marcus P Rogers { not experienced as an Ad Litem} hired. You would think he would not â€œtake sidesâ€, but look at factual evidence to safeguard Camille Medore Koffler. Best Interests and safety? He did not even report that Mr Moore had the two little girls sleeping in his bedroom with him in a three bedroom rental house [ at the same time we were and still are living in a wonderful three bedroom and den house with an enclosed swimming pool that Camille enjoys very much when allowed to visit her real father], nor did Mr Fisher [the unlicensed “Therapist” the opposition brought in to testify] testify about violence in the Moore home, although he was very willing to testify at great length { and the court willing to listen} about my wife Jo Ann and I and how bad we would be for her. Mr. Fisher knew nothing about us, had never even met or spoken with us, nor were any of these easily available CPS or hospital records submitted to the court by the oppositions cadre of attorneyâ€™s, Mr Gayler, Mr Monnig, Mr Hearney, and crew. Do you see the position that puts me in? I can’t fight the court I am not a lawyer, I can’t raise my daughter, I can’t undo what has been done, but as a Sovereign Citizen of the United States I do know how the court gets its jurisdiction and I am aware of Sui Juris–Due Process and Parental Presumption. I can’t have Melissa tell her side and I am painted as the bad guy who must now pay arrears, attorney fees, and to add insult to injury, still lose the rights to my child.

How does this happen in a nation of laws? The only person accused by Melissa of being after her money in writing is Mr Moore in the CPS documents, yet through the lies and innuendo of counsel I stand accused of only coming forward after learning that there was money involved. I was aware of her Grandmotherâ€™s money during our marriage. E.D. Sammons and I liked each other, telephoned and faxed daily. She was very involved in our lives. We vacationed and spent holidays together, went to the Dallas Symphony in her Rolls Royce limo with her personal driver, enjoyed and participated in art gallery shows together. In fact, I still have many faxes and gifts from her. E.D. Sammons [Grandmother ,better known as NANA] spent many hours teaching me about and explaining her company and how to make money. my opportunities to have her finance something I wanted to do for business were many, yet I never took advantage. She also spent much time and effort in the design of our home studio and furnishings as many faxes can show. Her wealth was a part of our everyday life all during our marriage and life together which lasted a little over ten years [and this WITHOUT any violence, drunkenness, drugs, Police, or CPS involvement in our lives.] Also unlike Mr Moore, Melissa Medore and Koffler never had to apply for any protective orders, not once in over ten years. The “man” you gave my daughter to can not say that, and neither can the grandfather {C.P.Medore} to whom my daughter is now exposed to thanks to your court appointed Ad Litem, Mr Rogers who never could be bothered to investigate anything about that side. He was mostly busy in Kerrville and carving birds. Not to mention court appointed forensic psychologist Dr J Ferrell PhD who with two DWIs and his license to practice suspended by the state of Texas was to be the last word on my morals and parental skills to the court.

I shudder to think what would have happened in this court if I had brought a Habeas Corpus suit for the return of Camille, if I had Mr Moores’ official documented record that you and your Ad Litem Marcus P Rogers chose to ignore. I am sure trial would not have lasted a single day.

As it is this case points to a terrible series of mistakes and a miscarriage of justice. The errors are many. Parental Presumption has been denied. Due Process has been denied. An Attorney flat out lied to the court in a written statement under his signature as well as another attorney who was sworn in and testified in a case while he was in the employ of the opposition. [ Trinsey v Pagliaro ] Complaint on the court record.

In Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347, (1976) it states: Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government.

That is where I am today. I have suffered irreparable injury and now I am being asked to endure the adding of insult to that injury. This action is an action of Res Judicata your honor, a principle or doctrine that generally bars re litigation or reconsideration of matters determined in adjudication ,the doctrine of res judicata precludes the presentation of issues in a post-conviction petition which have previously been decided upon direct appeal ÂStowers v. State, 657 N.E.2d 194 (1995):

In Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745, (1982) the ruling was: Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.

and

The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.

This court ruled that because my relations were strained with my daughter, that it was entirely my fault. It believed I did not do all I could do. I did, Your Honor, do all that I knew to do. Again I would ask the court to please inform me as to were in Texas is the Department of Visitation Enforcement Now I am being punished for that. I have been forever removed from my daughter’s life as her primary caregiver for no other reason that I was divorced and I was placed into a position of forced alienation in my visitation rights.

In Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

The U.S. Supreme Court implied that “a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from a mother and is no longer living with his child” could not constitutionally be treated differently from a currently married father living with his child.

and

We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”

Stanley, 405 U.S. at 652. states clearly that: Because of the magnitude of the liberty interests of parents and adult extended family members in the care and companionship of children, the Fourteenth Amendment protects these substantive due process liberty interests by prohibiting the government from depriving fit parents of custody of their children. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 760, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Duchesne v. Sugarman, 566 F.2d 817, 824 (2d Cir. 1977); Hurlman v. Rice, 927 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1991). In the United States Supreme Courtâ€™s view, the state registers “no gains toward its stated goals [of protecting children] when it separates a fit parent from the custody of his children.”

Respectfully your honor, they began this custody case by sending me a subpoena to give up my rights as a parent to Camille. I am simply trying to respond to their demands in the only way I can, to refuse that request and to fight for the rights I am afforded within the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution to raise my own daughter.

I know that the court does not want to hear this Your Honor, but I feel I must say it and ask you to please bear with me as I do. I was well underrepresented in this courtroom and my rights were not seriously protected. Every time I walked in to this court room, there were no less than 5 attorney’s on Mr. Moore’s side, from ad litem, to trust attorneys, to sometimes even criminal attorney’s.

I had one attorney, Mr. Garcia, who I heard say felt intimidated most of the time by the big guns aimed our way and the rest of the time felt slighted because he was not making the money his counterparts on the opposition’s side were, and he stated the latter quite often to me in writing and in person- including a letter warning me not to mention my Fundamental Constitutional Rights and Protections or the Texas Constitution as he would walk out and quit my case I have kept the mail that he sent.

As they say, “every dog has his day in court” but it is to be a fair and impartial court and jury–my daughter and I had neither. My daughter and I have both been denied our constitutional rights.

In Wise v. Bravo, 666 F.2d 1328, (1981) it states: The non-custodial divorced parent has no way to implement the constitutionally protected right to maintain a parental relationship with his child except through visitation. To acknowledge the protected status of the relationship as the majority does, and yet deny protection under Title 42 USC 1983, to visitation, which is the exclusive means of effecting that right, is to negate the right completely.

That was the case with me, Your Honor, my rights under Title 42 USC Â§ 1983 to my child were negated completely, by the other side and by you.

This is what is happening to me today with the court suspending my daughters summer visitation and filing a bench warrant for my arrest then a couple of months later filing and the court entertaining new temporary orders on visitation because I have not seen her all summer, a bit disingenuous and heavy handed by anyone’s standards . I am put in the position of if I go to Texas, I go to jail where I do my daughter no good, or I stay out of the state of Texas and forget about my child – in which case you can look yourself in the mirror while telling yourself and anyone that will listen to you “you see he did not love her enough,he does not care about her.”

Well there is another choice and I opt for that one and that is to fight as loudly and as mean as the forces arrayed against me and shine the light of truth on the halls of justice. I was under the misguided impression that attorneys and officers of the court were not allowed to flat out lie in court without having to show proof of their statements and that “judges” were honest and cared about the truth- I have learned differently and now know that a “lie told in court left unchallenged becomes truth” But also I am now aware of Trinsey v Pagliaro D.C.Pa.1964 and the fact that everything we think about the court system is a very thin facade that is mostly a shock to good honest citizens until they get run over by it.

Thankfully we are at a time were almost all citizens have access to the internet and they are becoming aware, Color of Law violations are not as easily hidden.

That right was denied me. As a Sovereign Citizen of the United States I object to the unlawful removing of our rights under 1st 4th 5th and 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States and will so file with the Texas Ethics Board and the Department of Justice, with names and addresses of all actors in this drama.

That is where I am today. I have suffered irreparable injury and now I am being asked to endure the adding insult to that injury. This action is an action of Res Judicata your honor, a principle or doctrine that generally bars re litigation or reconsideration of matters determined in adjudication, the doctrine of res judicata precludes the presentation of issues in a post-conviction petition which have previously been decided upon direct appeal ÂStowers v. State, 657 N.E.2d 194 (1995):

and

This court ruled that because my relations were strained with my daughter, that it was entirely my fault. It believed I did not do all I could do. I did, Your Honor, do all that I knew to do. Now I am being punished by that. I have been forever removed from my daughter’s life as her primary caregiver for no other reason that I was divorced and I was placed into a position of forced alienation in my visitation rights.

In Quilloin v. Walcott, 98 S Ct 549; 434 US 246, 255^Q56, (1978).

and

There is a lot of information available on the rest of the cast of characters…

JAY PAUL KOFFLER–FATHER OF CEMK

HAROLD “beau” MOORE–EX STEP FATHER OF CEMK
Abuse/neglect finding CPS–SAPD Domestic Violence Report

LAWRENCE l. GARCIA–ATTORNEY FOR KOFFLER
257 E. HILDEBRAND
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78212
[210] 826-6618

Law Office of Michael L. Gayler, PLLC — ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
Independence Plaza III
14310 Northbrook, Suite 260
San Antonio, TX 78232
(210) 495-5180, office
(210) 495-5170, fax
(210) 262-0222, cell

HEARNE & SCHUBLE—- ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
14310 Northbrook, Suite 260
San Antonio, TX 78232
(210) 495-5180, office
(210) 495-5170, fax

EDWARD B. COHEN—- ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
FAX [561] 361-9770

AMY E. BITTER—– ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
P.O. BOX 438
CASTROVILLE, TEXAS
[210] 822-5900

JAMES E. MONNIG—— ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
310 S. ST, MARY’S SUITE 1470–Record available SA Express News
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78205

MARCUS P. ROGERS— ALLEGED AD LITEM FOR CEMK–ATTORNEY FOR MOORE
2135 EAST HILDEBRAND AVENUE–Totally inept and inexperienced.
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78209
[210] 736-2222

DR. JACK FERRELL PhD—–FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST
14310 NORTHBROOK, STE. 120–DWI–
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS 78232

JUDGE SPENCER–PRESIDING JUDGE
PROBATE COURT No. 1
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

Signed by,

Jay Paul Koffler

4281 14th Ave Se
Naples Fl 34117

Addendum–On family Court

Family Court Judgments Are Illegitimate

The fundamental right to parent your child is an unalienable right – one for which our country was formed to secure. It can’t be denied to you unless the full constitutional due process is invoked to prove you ‘unfit’. Here’s what it means and why the family court judgments are illegitimate.

What due process should be in effect when your fundamental rights like parental rights are at issue – as in the family court. Due process is the legal process that’s ‘due’ to litigants. When fundamental rights are at stake, a high level of due process is required. Criminal behavior comes under criminal law. Its due process is well-known. However, in civil processes, it’s still supposed to be difficult for the state to deny or impair an individual’s fundamental right. Fundamental rights require ‘substantive’ due process whenever they’re at stake in an action at law.

*Substantive due process rests on two conditions:

First, the state has to have a ‘compelling interest’ to deny your fundamental right. ‘Compelling’ connotes a grave circumstance – like death is imminent if the right is not withheld.

It’s usually invoked when a child may die unless if he’ not operated on but the parents refuse the operation. Compelling interest doesn’t mean that the child may be better off financially or socially in another setting – as determined by the court. That’s a rational or legitimate reason. And such a reason is not sufficient.

That’s because our rights are ours; they’re inalienable. The government can’t impair any right if it thinks it could handle things better!

Remember that point. That’s what freedom and unalienable rights are all about. It also means there is no obligation for either a moron or an expert at court to determine what’s best for you or your children.

We’ll see that as long as you’re not proven ‘unfit’ to parent – and what that means – it’s not anyone’s business about how you care for your kids.

Second, if the compelling interest is at hand, then the state can only impair your fundamental liberty in the “least possible way” to the extent necessary to ameliorate the compelling interest. The ‘least possible way’ is necessary, again, because our fundamental rights are so important to each of us. In the case where the state forces an operation to save the life of a child – a compelling interest – the state must return the child to the parents’ custody once the operation is over.

*Three subsidiary requirements must be met in these determinations:

First, the compelling interest cannot be vaguely stated, but must be precise, so that citizens may know beforehand what behavior will invoke impairment of their liberties. It must be obvious to the general public what actions are serious enough to deprive us of our rights.

Incidentally, if a law jeopardizes our fundamental rights because it imposes what’s not obviously a serious crime to reasonable citizens, then it’s bad law. That’s why our founding fathers demanded a jury for our protection against bad law.

The ‘best interest of the child’ standard is classically void as a reason to deny a fit parent his parental rights because it’s vague. And, it’s why the best interest of the child standard is supposed to serve only when there’s no ‘fit’ parent available. The ‘conditions’ it uses to help determine custody are rational reasons for choosing to award custody of a child to somebody. They don’t map out wrongs or serious endangerment to the child.

Second, the burden of proof is on the state (or the person asking the state to impair the fundamental liberty of someone). It is a high burden of proof – at least “clear and convincing” (90%) in civil proceedings and certainly not “preponderance of evidence” (51%). It’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings.

So you don’t have to prove you’re a good parent or a better parent. The state must prove you’re an unfit parent- not just a poorer parent or a second choice parent. That’s important!

Third, the state must particularize the case with detailed findings of ground level facts and clear causal connections to show just where the compelling interest is justified. It can’t be a general excuse of sorts.

That means the court has to show exactly how you’re an unfit parent. Again, that means you’re seriously injurious to the life of your child. It’s a condition that something everyone would recognize as life-threatening behavior. And it must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. So you can see that substantive due process required for impairment of a fundamental right has strict standards. Any court that doesn’t use such standards cannot make any judgement that negates, or limits any of your fundamental rights – including your parental rights. That court’s judgments are invalid, void and treasonous.

*Fit parents under divorce and the equal rights clause:

If under a divorce or paternity suit where each parent has an unalienable right to their child and neither is proved unfit under the substantive due process mentioned above, neither can either be denied his rights. No one has the right to deny another person his fundamental rights.

Under the equal rights clause of the 14th amendment and the ‘least possible way’ condition when a right maybe limited, the parental rights of both parents must be equalized if a court judgment is invoked. This probably would imply a 50% allocation of full parental rights over some relatively short time span such as a week. Of course if those fit parents decide on any other arrangement of alternating or sharing parental rights, it should be their decision – and not the courts.

*Family court judgments are illegitimate and treasonous:

Fathers – and mothers – who participate in family court actions can readily see that the judgments that deny or restrict parental rights overwhelmingly of fathers are unfair and do not follow the necessary substantive due process. These judgments are illegitimate and voidable, in fact, treasonous. Judges should read their oath of office before starting any new case before them and should not be allowed to be above the law.

William M. Windsor

I, William M. Windsor, am not an attorney. This website expresses my OPINIONS. The comments of visitors or guest authors to the website are their opinions and do not therefore reflect my opinions. Anyone mentioned in any article is invited to respond on the record. This website does not provide legal advice. I do not give legal advice. I do not practice law. This website is to expose government corruption, law enforcement corruption, political corruption, and judicial corruption. Whatever this website says about the law is presented in the context of how I or others perceive the applicability of the law to a set of circumstances if I (or some other author) was in the circumstances under the conditions discussed. Despite of my concerns about lawyers in general, I suggest that anyone with legal questions consult an attorney for an answer, particularly after reading anything on this website. The law is a gray area at best. Please read our Legal Notice and Terms.

{jcomments on}

William M. Windsor

Leave a Reply Cancel reply