subject: Fathers, Know Your Inalienable Rights The U.s. Was Formed To Secure For You [print this page] Fathers are being deprived of their fundamental rights in family court. That's due to strong feminist influence dominating how law is to be administered and a divorce and domestic violence industry thriving off of depriving fit fathers of their children and then extorting them for money.
Fathers must resist the current propaganda that their rights are being served. That's a fraud. This article outlines some of their fundamental rights and the 'due process' required to deprive them of one or more of them.
Our inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence were considered self-evident; i.e. you have an inherent understanding of what's your fundamental rights are as a human being.
The 'Bill of Rights' was ratified as part of the Constitution to elucidate some rights and make clear how the state must be restricted from abridging those rights. Further amendments and U.S. Supreme Court case law clarified more rights.
*Rights relevant to fathers - and mothers:
You have the right -if you're a fit parent- to the care, custody, maintenance, and companionship of your child(ren) since this is recognized as one of the most fulfilling aspects to a purposeful and satisfying life. Your children are your most precious possession. The state can only alter a parental right of he's 'unfit'. The best interest of the child is inherent in a fit parent and not in the state's purview.
You have the right to follow any choice of lawful occupation without the state's interference.
You have the right to not have your private lives invaded by the state if you have not committed a crime.
You can't be put in prison for not paying a debt either incurred by you through your agreement, nor imposed on you by a state.
You cannot be held (in jail or restricted in where you can go) without justifiable cause.
You cannot be incarcerated under civil or criminal contempt unless you've had full due process warranted for such a serious deprivation of rights. That includes a trial with a witness you can call and evidence you can get to support you, and ability to cross examine your accuser -nothing less. You are in civil contempt only when you willfully refuse to obey an order of a court. You are in criminal contempt when you act up in a court or blatantly refuse to obey or comply with an order of the court.
Essentially, the state can't deprive you of any of your fundamental right unless you've done something wrong - a serious wrong - and a wrong that any reasonable man would clearly recognize as wrong.
*The Constitutional 'due process' required to deny a fundamental right:
Due process is the legal process that should be a fair process for litigants when their rights are at stake. Our fundamental rights require a high level of due process since they're so important.
Criminal behaviour comes under criminal law. Its due process is well-known. However, in civil processes, it is still supposed to be difficult for the state to deny or impair any fundamental right of an individual. In any case, fundamental rights require substantive' due process whenever there is a chance that one may be denied to you.
*Two conditions are required for substantive due process:
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- not just a rational or legitimate reason. 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!
Second, if the compelling interest is achieved, the state can, then, only impair your fundamental liberty in the "least possible way", i.e. only to the extent necessary to meet its compelling interest.
*Next, there are three subsidiary requirements 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. The best interest of the child 'standard' is classically void as a reason because it's vague.
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.
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.
So you can see that substantive due process required for impairment of a fundamental right has strict standards. Two fit parents under a divorce can't be denied their parental rights. At most they may be equalized to 50% time - and not less.
What is absolutely designated for the protection of the people against an ever-encroaching state are the right to
1) own property, and
2) trial by an informed jury. Informed juries are those that understand that they can judge the law as well as the facts in a trial - and find according to their conscience on these two matters, irrespective of what the judge instructs them to decide or restricts them from deciding.
Our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both understood the importance of guaranteeing trials with fully informed juries. Jefferson stated, "The jury trial is the only anchor by which the people can hold the government to the constitution's principles".
So, fathers, now you know the truth of the matter. You are being duped and robbed by our current system of feminist jurisprudence that denies you your children, and your property (earnings and more) without an informed jury trial and without substantive due process.
*Our Ultimate Right:
The Declaration of Independence also states, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e. securing the unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...".
