tstarkey -
I don’t mean to be unkind, but since I’m the only one who responds to your posts, aren’t you getting the idea that no one of importance shares your concerns? Thomas Jefferson is dead and has no dog in your fight. If you’re expecting that expressing your views here will be anything more than personally cathartic, you’re in for a big disappointment. You’re free to continue tilting at windmills here if you want to, but you might find some other pursuit more productive and satisfying.
Socrates

Well, Socrates, the title of this section of the Highlands Today is called “Your Voice.” I have simply expressed my views on the topic of this blog, and I believe you have expressed some of yours. I do want to bring this topic to a close by responding to the outstanding issues you have previously brought up. Then, as long as the Highlands Today will allow me to continue expressing my voice, I will open up a new topic which will encompass what we have discussed so far but will be expanded as I stated earlier to include other issues relevant to the entire Judicial System in the State of Florida. I’ve discovered a number of things during my last nine years of involvement with Civil Court, along with my work experience within the criminal justice system about which I do not believe others are aware. I believe my desire to educate the public is consistent with the goals of the Highlands Today, “informing today, shaping tomorrow.” And, I hope they will allow me to continue to do so. Thank you for your opinion and the insight.

Socrates,
You know as well as I do that my only alternatives are to file complaints with the Florida Bar and the Judicial Qualifications Commission. You also know that the burden of proof with them is, “beyond a shadow of a doubt,” and even then they will reject your complaint if the defendant is politically well connected. And, this is because the Judicial branch of our government is self-regulated, self sustaining, and self-perpetuating. They very, very, carefully write the rules they are required to follow, they interpret the rules they are require to follow, and they decide whether one of their members is subjected to disciplinary actions when complaints are filed. When was the last time you heard of someone in our area being disciplined for misconduct by the Bar? I will tell you, it was some idiot riding drunk on a jet ski, or some such nonsense. He was probably naked too.
In my nine years of being involved in litigation on my behalf and on behalf of my children I have only met one man, one man who I felt was worthy of respect, and I have had several lawyers and a number of Judges. Each and every one of them except for this one individual was what I believe Thomas Jefferson would call the artificial aristocracy, the pseudo-aristoi, those whose influence is founded on wealth, birth, or in our day and age political connections, not virtue and talents.
I don’t want to “burst your bubble” but virtually all common people know our legal system in general and family court specifically stinks of corruption. They just accept it because they have their on lives to be concerned about. And, as long as it is not their “ox that is gored,” they will continue to ignore the problem and go about their merry way and complain about crime and complain about the “youth of today,” continuing to accept no responsibility for the decay we are currently witnessing in our society. I know that I will not be successful in generating much if any response here, particularly in this demographic environment, but this area unfortunately has jurisdiction, Therefore, this is where my voice will be heard.

What exactly is the point of all of this Starkey?  What are you attempting to accomplish with this rather odd tirade of yours?  Just curious.

gritshifter - 21 October 2007 12:44 PM

What exactly is the point of all of this Starkey?  What are you attempting to accomplish with this rather odd tirade of yours?  Just curious.

Gritshifter,
Well, I’m not sure what to say about your wording, “odd” tirade. After think about it, I guess it is “odd” in the sense that my comments are out of the ordinary for the Highlands Today.com , so I guess I’ll agree that some of them are odd. Now, not all of my comments could be classified as a tirades, although I will agree that the last couple could be classified in that manner.
Since, you have not disagreed with anything I’ve said, can I assume that you agree with my comments and support my views? Well, actually even I think I got carried away and was perhaps rude with my comment regarding the pseudo-aristoi. I think actually most are “talented” in the sense that they are very well adapted to their environment, an environment in which their activities are only governed only by “self-discipline and self-restraint,” not an independent authority as the rest of of us are governed.
My view about family court is that it, in its present form, is the most anti-family institution in the history of mankind perhaps with the exception of institutionalized slavery, and as such it is a menace to society, and it in no small way serves as a catalyst of societal evolution, and does so in a negative manner.
I think our Court system overall needs supervision from the citizens under its jurisdiction, and if I can through this blog contribute is some small way to informing the citizenry, and bringing this goal to fruition then I believe I would have done my civic duty. Thanks for the question.

tstarkey-
Again, family courts do not solicit business from citizens. Citizens must solicit the courts. Citizens appear before family courts as petitioners or respondents. Based on your unusual hostility toward the court, I have to assume you were a respondent rather than a petitioner. If you consider family court to be “the most anti-family institution in the history of mankind perhaps with the exception of institutionalized slavery”, no rational person is going to take you seriously. Law is a specialized field. Judges are referees who must use laws as guidelines for their decisions. Family court cases usually have a winner and a loser determined by a judge who probably has no personal relationship with the contestants before him and nothing personally to gain or lose regardless of the outcome. The loser is almost always angry about losing and takes the loss personally. Since courts are guided by statutes passed by legislative bodies, maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not saying there is a problem, but have you considered the possibility that, if there is a problem, it is legislative rather than judicial in nature? If you would have citizens supervise the courts, would you also have prison inmates supervise the Department of Corrections, or drug addicts supervise pharmaceutical manufacturing?

Socrates - 22 October 2007 10:28 AM

tstarkey-
Again, family courts do not solicit business from citizens. Citizens must solicit the courts. Citizens appear before family courts as petitioners or respondents. Based on your unusual hostility toward the court, I have to assume you were a respondent rather than a petitioner. If you consider family court to be “the most anti-family institution in the history of mankind perhaps with the exception of institutionalized slavery”, no rational person is going to take you seriously. Law is a specialized field. Judges are referees who must use laws as guidelines for their decisions. Family court cases usually have a winner and a loser determined by a judge who probably has no personal relationship with the contestants before him and nothing personally to gain or lose regardless of the outcome. The loser is almost always angry about losing and takes the loss personally. Since courts are guided by statutes passed by legislative bodies, maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m not saying there is a problem, but have you considered the possibility that, if there is a problem, it is legislative rather than judicial in nature? If you would have citizens supervise the courts, would you also have prison inmates supervise the Department of Corrections, or drug addicts supervise pharmaceutical manufacturing?

Socrates,
I don’t have alot of time right now but just to clarify, I was the Petitioner. Maybe, I will go into the specifics of my case here but I just don’t want to be cut off for inappropriate content. I am not going to be quite however. I personally know children who are starving in the environment they have been placed in. And, I don’t mean starving for love and affection only, I mean starving for nutrition, while the individuals designated by the Court, not by God, to protect and nuture them, are fat, happy, buying cars and a home, going on vacations, and having unnecessary and expensive elective surgery. One child I know recently blacked out at school from a lack of nutrition and has lost 10 pounds in the last two years, the childs’ growth years. Now, this is only the physical aspect of it, can you imagine what the children are going through mentally and emotionally in this Court-ordered environment? And, this is just a small part of it.

tstarkey -
You’re free to express yourself and I’m not trying to silence you. But I don’t think you’re being rational or objective. You posted your original question about the courts on September 27. Since then there have been 53 posts. All but three or four of those have been exchanges between you and me. There have been 1497 views of those posts. Most of those are also probably you and me. If the problem was as bad as you percieve it to be, you would have had greater response. You’ve been highly critical of family courts, and that is your right. But I have to wonder why you have nothing critical to say about the parents who abandoned their responsibilities to their own children and forced the court system to intervene. The courts and foster care system cannot replace a responsible mother and father who are married and devoted to each other and are committed to remain that way for life. It is unrealistic to think that they can.
S.

tstarkey - 21 October 2007 08:42 PM

Since, you have not disagreed with anything I’ve said, can I assume that you agree with my comments and support my views?

No sorry I cannot agree with you at all.  In order for me to agree with you, I would have to have experience in dealing with “family court”, which up to now, I have not.  I still don’t understand exactly why you have a problem with “family court”.  You are obviously extremely upset about your personal experience with the court.  What exactly was the trigger to your dissatisfaction?  What in your personal experience was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”?  I think that if you were to go into more detail, people might be able to make an informed decision on if they agree with you or not.

Socrates - 22 October 2007 01:33 PM

tstarkey -
You’re free to express yourself and I’m not trying to silence you. But I don’t think you’re being rational or objective. You posted your original question about the courts on September 27. Since then there have been 53 posts. All but three or four of those have been exchanges between you and me. There have been 1497 views of those posts. Most of those are also probably you and me. If the problem was as bad as you percieve it to be, you would have had greater response. You’ve been highly critical of family courts, and that is your right. But I have to wonder why you have nothing critical to say about the parents who abandoned their responsibilities to their own children and forced the court system to intervene. The courts and foster care system cannot replace a responsible mother and father who are married and devoted to each other and are committed to remain that way for life. It is unrealistic to think that they can.
S.

Socrates,
Regarding the number of participants, there was originally three but due to my mistake that number was reduced to two, and you and I have dominated the conversation. However, there is great dissatisfaction with family court nationwide and I know many people here in my age group and younger are not happy with it in the 10th Judicial Circuit. Furthmore, I know there are a number of kids who do not have voice who are missing their Daddys who have been run off by the system. The audience here is a very selective sample and even then some may feel uncomfortable discussing it here. In addition, this blog only reaches a small segment of the population of the area. Also, the demographics here are are not conducive for an awareness of the problems that they deserve.
With regard to the number of views, every time I hit on the blog it shows two views, so I guess at least you, me and Big Brother is paying attention.
My view on your perspective that the judicial system is only a reactionary institution and only barometer of societal decay, is a traditional linear view of individuals and society. I really don’t have the knowledge, skills, or ability to do justice to the concept but the paradigm by with I view the problems with our court systems and family court specifically is from a systems theory perspective. Society and its individuals are much more complex than geometry with multiple, interrelated components.
One of those components in my view is our family court system which with every order, rearranges the family unit and all to frequently places a disproportionate share of the parental authority with one individual, usually the mother, while placing a disproportionate share of the financial responsibility with the other individual, usually the father. And this is done so in an arena, the Court room, by Judges and lawyers who all to frequently view their activities as nothing more that a sport where the lawyers are keeping track of their wins and losses and are not concerned about, or are unable through a lack of understanding to address, the best interests of the children.
I believe within systems theory, there are concepts know as intended consequences and unintended consequences. The intended consequence of a Court order providing one parent the primary daily responsibility of raising a child and the other primary financial responsibility I believe is to provide a stable environment with sufficient financial resources to meet the child’s needs. The unintended consequence I think usually is that the child ends up with only one biological parent actively involved in the child’s life.
Now, we know that many children out there are getting into trouble are frequently from broken homes, lacking adequate parental supervision. So, for this reason and several others, it just does not make any sense to me to allow these Courts to continue to break up our families and run off our fathers simply so one of the litigants can receive the “prizes,” child-support and primary custody. The Courts presently have the authority to make whatever award of custody it choses but for reasons other than the best interests of the children it almost always seems to award custody to one parent and financial responsibility to the other. And, most of us noncustodial parents cannot afford to maintain a disproportionate share of the financial responsibility and meet our basic needs. So, economically we are forced out of the lives of the children.
On the subject of the court system being self-regulated, I believe the lawyer lobby would argue “judicial independence,” maintenance of the integrity of the system. This would be the intended consequence. The unintended consequence is that we have the most powerful profession in our society parasitically seeking to exploit every weakness in our society for their own material gain. I believe that it is time to restrain this infestation by providing an independent authority to provide a check on the power of this profession.
“Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” -Winston Churchill

gritshifter - 22 October 2007 03:34 PM

tstarkey - 21 October 2007 08:42 PM

Since, you have not disagreed with anything I’ve said, can I assume that you agree with my comments and support my views?

No sorry I cannot agree with you at all.  In order for me to agree with you, I would have to have experience in dealing with “family court”, which up to now, I have not.  I still don’t understand exactly why you have a problem with “family court”.  You are obviously extremely upset about your personal experience with the court.  What exactly was the trigger to your dissatisfaction?  What in your personal experience was the “straw that broke the camel’s back”?  I think that if you were to go into more detail, people might be able to make an informed decision on if they agree with you or not.

Gritshifter,
This camel has had straw stacked on his back for years, each and every piece a burden unto itself. While my back is not broken, I’d say this last straw has temporarily dropped me to my knees. I suppose this last straw was a Court order to pay legal expenses to the counsel for the opposing party, an order that I find morally unconscionable in my role as a father, particularly in light of the activities of these individuals during which these expenses were incurred. My failure to comply with this order which to me on the most basic level is evil, has resulted in a Warrant for Civil Contempt being issued for my arrest. A warrant issued under the auspices of being a warrant for failure to provide “support,” and I’m meeting my child support obligations. I’m not sure how much detail I should go into but suffice it to say that I feel as though I’ve been “run out on a rail,” with no regard to the interests of my children. Lawyers and Judges seem to have ways of dealing with those who complain.

tstarkey -

At the risk of making you mad, your reply to Gritshifter tends to support many of my observations in my previous postings. Using the sports analogy, the short version of your story is that you (petitioner) challenged an opponent (respondant) to a contest; you lost the contest; instead of accepting defeat graciously, you’re angry; you think the opponent cheated and the referees (judges) are bad; you want the game declared null and void and you want the rules rewritten to accomodate you; in the mean time, you have absconded with the trophy in protest.

Nearly everything that you’ve posted here is broadly philosophical and highly arguable. You have objected to most of my basic proposals concerning the judicial system and those who find themselves involved in it, but you’ve posted nothing that factually refutes those proposals. It is clear to me that no amount of facts, logic or reasoning will change your mind. You are obviously so angry that you are not thinking clearly. I would respectfully suggest that you seriously consider getting some professional counseling from an impartial and unbiased third party so that you can move on with your life.

S.

Socrates - 23 October 2007 04:33 PM

tstarkey -

At the risk of making you mad, your reply to Gritshifter tends to support many of my observations in my previous postings. Using the sports analogy, the short version of your story is that you (petitioner) challenged an opponent (respondant) to a contest; you lost the contest; instead of accepting defeat graciously, you’re angry; you think the opponent cheated and the referees (judges) are bad; you want the game declared null and void and you want the rules rewritten to accomodate you; in the mean time, you have absconded with the trophy in protest.

Nearly everything that you’ve posted here is broadly philosophical and highly arguable. You have objected to most of my basic proposals concerning the judicial system and those who find themselves involved in it, but you’ve posted nothing that factually refutes those proposals. It is clear to me that no amount of facts, logic or reasoning will change your mind. You are obviously so angry that you are not thinking clearly. I would respectfully suggest that you seriously consider getting some professional counseling from an impartial and unbiased third party so that you can move on with your life.

S.

Socrates, I’m not angry, just frustrated. What do you think of “systems theory?” What about the children who miss and need their fathers in their lives? Do you think family court in its present form of being nothing more than a sport for the lawyers and judges makes for a better society today and a better future for our children and theirs’ who have to live with the consequences of their actions? What about the self-regulated legal profession scouring the countryside parasitically seeking out new weaknesses in society to exploit for their own personal gain? I brought up a number of issues with you so far in this blog and in my most recent comments. Should I accept your opinions on faith, simply because they are yours?
I believe through this discussion, I have responded to each opinion you have put forth. I’m concerned about what family court is responsible for and I think I’ve made it clear that I think they are responsible for many of the problems we are facing today and have provided some evidence to support that view.
Now, I guess I’ll move to open a new blog regarding the Judicial System in the State of Florida as a whole unless you or someone else has further comment here.

I surely thought that I had made the following statement but if not I’ll make it here. I’ve spoken to a number of DJJ employees and they have told me that one of the things many of these troubled children have been missing in their lives, and something they attribute to their rule-breaking behavior, is a lack their father being an active part of their upbringing. Now, I would ask you in addition to so many other questions you have refused to answer, how does the family conflict game played by the legal profession influence this lack of fatherly involvement?

tstarkey -
I don’t think about “systems theory.” I think about objective reality. Angry personal attacks against lawyers, judges or anyone else do not support your views. “Parasitic” lawyers wouldn’t exist without the “parasitic” clients who solicit their services. How you can see greedy clients as virtuous, but greedy lawyers as evil is a mystery. Lawyers do not create family conflict. Lawyers are solicited after the fact by family members who are already engaged in conflict. No doubt broken homes and family conflicts are several of many contributory factors in children with behavioral problems. But the adults in those families are responsible for those breakups and conflicts. Judges and lawyers are not. That is a fact that you, for reasons I can only guess at, refuse to acknowledge. I don’t think you’ll accept mine or anyone else’s opinions on faith or with evidence if those opinions are contrary to your own preconceived notions. If you directed as much passion and energy toward purifying your own life as you did toward trying to purify the family court system, you would be one formidable individual. But for the moment, you just sound like another person who is angry because they didn’t get their way and is trying to blame someone else for their losses. Take a break. Start at the beginning and slowly read through and think about each post in this thread, and you might realize that.
Best wishes,
S.