What people don’t get is that children have become the “cash cow” for the legal system.  There is no access to the federal courts for blatant constitutional violations by the family law courts of Georgia or any other states thanks to a little known and even less understood republican doctrine called the “Rooker - Feldman doctrine.  The expense of going to the Supreme Court of any state is astronomical and beyond the means of most citizens.

When and if the Plaintiff wins in this case the court will “remand the case back to the same judge who made this ridiculous ruling in the first place with some narrow “recommendation that he shouldn’t so clearly express his own prejudices in his rulings and he will be free to do whatever he desires and I mean whatever.  At the top of his/her desires will be the desire to teach a lesson to whomever embarrassed and made a fool of him by appealing his order to a higher authority.  I have seen it over and over and over again in Georgia.

Katz v. Katz in the early nineties a mother appealed what was called a draconian order (Atlanta Journal Constitution) by a Gwinnett County,  Judge Richard Weingarden, when she “won” and the case was remanded back to the judge he simply took custody away from her.  So much for winning.  In other cases I have observe the a person “win” in the Georgia Supreme Court and when the case went back to the losing judge, Michael Clark, Gwinnett County, Georgia he simply declared that they hadn’t reversed him and went on with business as usual.  When the “winner” went back to the Supreme Court to enforce their order they declined saying they didn’t have jurisdiction over their own previously decided case.

The judicial Qualifications Committee is equally devoid of any moral or ethical authority.  When a citizen complained that Judges were practicing law in their own courtrooms.  The complaints were dismissed, citing the first sentence of a two sentence statute.  the first sentence stating that magistrate judges may practice laws (act as attorneys).  The second being that they MAY NOT practice in their own courtroom.  I will guarantee you everyone involve will make lots of money, the judges, the lawyers, the court reporters, etc., and that the biggest loser will be the child and the parent who dared complain to the dishonorable Georgia Supreme Court.  the court will, of course be the loudest in voicing their concern for “the best interest of the child.”  The media will disappear after the Supreme’s rule and never report the sorry end of the case because that would destroy the grand illusion of our justice system and oh, never mind, it doesn’t matter anyway…

Rea,

Puhleeeze, if limiting an aspiring appellant to the Federal Court System to SCOTUS accepting a petition of certiorari, is not limiting access to Federal Courts then, you must have your head up your rear far enough to conduct an endoscopy while there.  Scotus hears less than one percent of the petitions it receives and the ones they hear rarely have any relation to requirements such as settling conflicting opinions of the appellate courts on similar issues.  Having a petition accepted by SCOTUS is less likely than winning the lottery, irregardless of the merits or anything else.

You have obviously chosen to line up under the “less understood column.”  Regardless of the anecdotal evidence,  you said, “It’s ideologically neutral—”  This quote from the Duke Law Journal:

“The principle behind the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 seems simple enough: of all the federal courts, only the United States Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments.2 Yet from this innocuous principle rooted in our country’s federalist foundations …”(emphasis added)

Here is the link should you care to educate yourself.  It just goes to show, one doesn’t have to have much understanding to “invoke” anything.

You suggest that,

“And if you think federal courts are more sympathetic to constitutional claims than state courts, you haven’t paid much attention to who has been appointed to the federal bench in the last 29 years . . .”

You must be practiced at ignoring history, the issue is not how many Republicans v Democrats have been appointed to the federal bench, but when States (think Georgia. Mississippi, Alabama) and their courts systematically engaged in the denial of fundamental constitutional rights to say, for instance, discrimination against racial minorities it has taken federal intervention to make the needed correction and bring them in compliance with the U.S. Constitution. 

This Federalist doctrine was legislatively suspended by our Republican brethren in congress to allow the Supremes to bloviate on the Terry Schiavo case and suspended by the Supremes so the conservative majority could bless the country with their selection of an idiot savant, George
W. Bush, as President.  Your assertions were disingenuous at best.

This case was apparently filed before October 31, 2007, see Ga Supremes web site here.  At the same site the GA Supremes also have posted an article headlined, “GEORGIA SUPREME COURT RANKED NATION’S MOST PRODUCTIVE” see it for your self here.  Very apropos that the study went no further than just counting opinions issued by the court - no judgment concerning the garbage that might be contained within said opinions.

If you think a child might be permanently harmed or effected by this overt reinforcement of discriminatory behavior then you should be outraged.  It would seem that the court, in it’s wisdom and disinterest in the good of the people, perpetuated this abomination for going on two years and probably much longer, if we had access to the the filings and could see when the original order being appealed was filed.

I also find it amazing that we hear about this case referencing a UK publication (Pink News) and not a publication in this country like say the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  The previous Public Relations Officer of the court bragged that the media only printed what they sent them when I inquired as to why there were rarely any reportes present in the court. I hope someone can copy and post the petitions and related briefs since they are a matter of public record.  I am sure they would be enlightening.

The last time I tried to copy some public records in Gwinnett County using a economically feasible digital camera I was threatened with arrest and prohibited by the Gwinnett County Court Clerk.  this was despite a Open Public Records Act posted here on the Georgia Secretary of States web site.  They insist on the 50 cent/pg copying fee which can mount up in a hurry when copying legal documents further limiting the public’s access to information.

Rea,

Comparing “your vast experience” with my vast experience is really not the issue or decisive of any debate, something akin to a “straw argument” and your clear reaching for “authority”.  Your complete lack of reference for your claims speaks volumes about their validity.  The number of briefs I’ve written versus the number of briefs you’ve written is hardly definitive or decisive of a debate, although I am not without briefs either.

I was being gracious when I called your argument disingenuous, I was aware of your allusions, or should I say illusions,  to a legal background, but without being sure I wanted to excuse what appeared to be deliberately perpetuating a fraud.  Anyone who would suggest that the Rooker – Feldman Doctrine is simple, can’t possible understand it and I would challenge you to reference any professional literature that would support such a position.  I’ve given you quite respectable references suggesting Rooker Feldman is based in ideology and all you offer in return is chest thumping and saber rattling.  You sir are the epitome of what is wrong with the so called “legal profession” and that would be a total lack of professionalism.  Don’t waste my time or anyone else’s with bull shit, take it into a courtroom where it would be more likely to be appreciated or shall we say tolerated.

Rea,

Well, let me assure you - I wouldn’t want you to think I care in the least what you think.  I have zero tolerance for intellectual dishonesty hiding behind the cloak of “legal authoritarianism.”

P.S. the suggestion, “If you want a system in which every state child custody decision is followed by a round of federal litigation rehashing all the same issues, and you think that such a system will lead to better results—well, despite you vast knowledge of Rooker-Feldman, you’re a fool”.  Not foolish enough not to recognize another, what must be deliberate, misrepresentation of the facts.  Not every custody order (very few as a matter of fact) contains egregious violations of basic constitutionally protected fundamental rights and if they did that would be a very good argument for getting these issues considered by the Federal Courts.  When B.O. said government was broken I didn’t hear him exclude the judicial branch, did anyone else?

“That Rooker has been around since 1923,” is another example of a misleading argument.  Rooker (Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)) might lead the less legal astute to think that the Rooker - Feldman doctrine has been around since 1923, not true.  Rooker is only half of the name and less than half of the doctrine.  The Rooker - Feldman Doctrine continues to evolve but it certainly wasn’t developed until 1983 when “District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,” 460 U.S. 462 (1983) was decided.  The “doctrine” continues to be controversial and evolving in interpretation, once again best stated by the article in the Duke Law Review previously referred to as follows, “Although Exxon Mobil cut away at much of Rooker-Feldman’s ground cover, it left the doctrine’s federalist roots intact.  This case was decided in 2005 and the review leaves no doubt that the doctrine has its roots in Federalist ideology and continues to evolve and hopefully will disappear in its present form.

Just so you know, I’m not a lawyer and proud of it, I have too much self respect and independence to go there.  I have fought over the Rooker - Feldman Doctrine and I know it well.  I have fought a couple of basic constitutional rights battles in State Court one all the way to the Supreme Court and “won” .  One against local government over something so simple and basic as due process.

I couldn’t find one local attorney who was willing to concede that I knew what I was talking about or take my case, so I did it myself.  They weren’t about to admit they were all afraid to cross the powers that existed in local government.  It had to do with zoning which can get a little complex, but some things are really pretty simple.  A zoning change rendered our house uninhabitable and it was done without notice of any kind.  Torture is pretty simple, despite the tortured language used by Woo and others to arrive at a finding that torture wasn’t torture.  When I did my legal cases the internet wasn’t available, ugh, but now anything, like even the Rooker - Feldman Doctrine, is available at the touch of your fingertips if one is interested.

I don’t mind an academic disagreement, but basic fundamental dishonesty, I’ve seen too much, like Woo and others who have virtually brought this country to it’s knees, morally, ethically and financially and are now ensconced in their ivory tower at Berkley churning out more little fascists or mansion in Dallas enjoying all the fruits of their rape and pillage of our country.

The legal profession is without accountability as are so many others.  If we don’t demand some accountability the same old dishonesty and hypocrisy will continue.  BTW, the county attorney who lost the “Due Process” case is now a judge and I would hate to find myself in front of him.  They could have won any time just by admitting a mistake and giving me a hearing and then doing what they wanted to do, but they are so full of themselves that they will continue over a cliff rather than admit a mistake to just a nobody plain old citizen and so it goes on an on.

It was never about “winning” with me (I like to be right just as much as the next person but not at the expense of being wrong, intellectually) it was about how to conduct a debate looking for the truth.  This problem has permeated our national discourse for much too long on really important matters like global climate change, when some people are clearly promoting a lie that endangers the planet why even give them a forum, there really is no disagreement in science, except maybe how bad but everyone agrees it’s bad.