I received this email last night. It looked interesting so I've gotten permission to re-post from Joan (see end for more info)
I do have to say, I'm not a happy woman that this gentleman made this email gender specific, but it is what it is and I can't change that. With that in mind though.. this can be used by both the mother or father that's getting screwed in court.
From Anthony Moore, who has an active law suit similar to what he describes below;
Often a non-custodial father's civil rights under the Constitution of Georgia and under the Constitution of the United States are violated (i.e due process, equal protection, actual fraud, DNA fraud, etc.), but how many father [sic] sue in federal court?
If you feel your rights have been violated you should think about suing the County (not the judge) in the United States District Court.
Many of us fromer FAPT and GFLR members have decided to do just that. During the civil rights movement the way minorities got the freedom to exercise their civil rights was not just marches and protest but lawsuits in federal court. (See below)
The only way fathers are every going to be treated fairly if we sue, sue, sue in federal court!!!
In the 1960's, federal laws against racial segregation in restaurants, schools and hotels came into conflict with laws, policy, custom or regulations of some southern states which required separate accommodations for African-Americans and whites.
In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the plaintiffs (Brown)
asserted that this system of racial separation provided perpetuated inferior accommodations, services, and treatment for black Americans.
The defendants (the Board of Education), while masquerading behind in the disguise of ‘best interest’ of the state, declared that these laws provided separate but relatively equal treatment of both white and black Americans. The United States Supreme Court declared that state
laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. The federal court ruled that separate educational facilities are
As a result, racial segregation was declared a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Based upon the decision in Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, supra a state, county, city or policymaker’s who makes rules, regulations, decision, policy, court orders or customs that are in conflict with federal laws, those acts are deemed invalid based on Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the ‘Supremacy clause’, which provides that the constitution and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.
"[T]he supremacy clause of the United States Constitution requires that all conflicts between federal and state law be resolved in favor of the federal rule".
SUE THE COUNTY OVER THE ACTS OF THE POLICYMAKER
A “[J]udge like other ‘elected county officials’, such as the sheriff and treasurer holds virtually absolute sway over the particular tasks or areas of responsibility entrusted to him by state statute and is accountable to no one other than the voters for his conduct therein.
Thus, at least in those areas which he, alone, is the final authority or ultimate repository of county power, his official conduct and decisions must necessarily be considered those of one whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy for which the county may be held responsible under section 1983”. Lucas v. O'Loughlin, 831 F.2d 232 (11th Cir. 1987).;
Also see Parker v. Williams, 855 F.2d 763 (11th Cir. 1988).; "[A] county judge can be
considered a policymaker under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983, provided he is the final authority or repository of county power”. Louise Boston v. Lafeyette County , Mississippi , 743 F. Supp. 462 (1990)..
see Owens v. Fulton County, 877 F.2d 947 (11th Cir. 1989) and Bryant v. Jones, 464 F.Supp.2d 1273 (N.D.Ga. 2006).
Joan T. Kloth-Zanard
Consulting for Individuals, Families and Businesses
Refresh - Go to homepage