A motion for intervention, in the context of family law, is a petition by an interested party to testify to the best interests of a child when the existing parties cannot adequately protect a child’s best interests. The laws granting intervenors a procedural right to be heard by the court are designed to make sure the court has free and ready access to all relevant information.

Laws governing motions for intervention vary by jurisdiction, but typically provide that such a motion may be granted based upon the following:

1. A caregiver relationship exists between the person and the child or ward;
2. The intervention is in the best interests of the child or ward;
3. The reason for intervention and the specific relief sought are consistent with the best interests of the child or ward; and
4. The existing parties cannot adequately protect the best interests of the child or ward without the intervention.

In some instances, intervention is allowed “as of right”, and in other cases, it is permissive. The mandatory or permissive status of the intervening party may affect their right to appeal a denial of the motion to intervene.

Incoming search terms:

• motion to intervene connecticut
• CT motion to intervene what happens
• how to file a motion to intervene in connecticut
• motion to intervene family law
• connecticut motion to intervene
• motion to intervene form
• motion to intervene
• how long does a motion to intervene last with dcf
• Example Motion to Intervene: Family Custody
• ct reasons to file motion for intervention family

This hits home…. it is so true what is going on in this Country

Here’s the oath taken by Connecticut attorneys upon entering the profession:

You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.  Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 1-25.

For Connecticut attorney’s, prior to stumbling upon this post, when was the last time you thought about or read your oath?

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM CONNECTICUT LAW BLOG

Incoming search terms:

• conneticut corrupt laws
• Oath of Attorneys in CT
• penalty for perjury in ct regarding dcf
• connecticut judicial oath
• ct attorney oath
• lawyer oath bribe
• lawyer oath conn
• oath attorney ct
• state of ct attorney oath

There has been a lot of things going on in the family court, and nothing that is good.  Sadly everything is for sale, most know that when it comes to D.C.F, but you would think that in a court of law things would be different. Not true at all, with what is being said and written the trouble between the two are not that far off. They both seem to do a great job destroying families, and they both do it for money.

While researching some major concerns we came across a lot of cases from all over the state, and with these cases the same Dr. was involved. This Dr. would work with the children and parents, but it cannot be a coincidence that this same Dr. is getting the wrong parent custody. We believe that children should have both parents with equal parenting time, that would be in a perfect world, and we are so far from that.

Money truly does talk, while reading and speaking with dozens of people the same name comes up, over and over. Dr. Kenneth Robson, he is the Dr. that seems to be able to get children into the custody of abusive parents. He has a hefty fee but to some people money is not an issue. While the other parent is cast out to sea to wonder what will become of the child/children. All of these story’s and this Dr. Kenneth Robson is able to continue this. There are many questions, and complaints out there. I would just like to know how this is possible. No matter what court house he goes to Dr. Robson prevails. With what I have read, my opinion is the care about what would be best for the child is the last thing it appears he cares about.

If you have had any concerns about Dr.Kenneth Robson, please speak up. The answer is in the jigsaw puzzle somewhere. There is another story that will follow this, and it is a start to putting the pieces together. The sides of the faces in these courts, and the balls and events we are not asked to…

Incoming search terms:

• dr kenneth robson
• dr ken robson
• kenneth robson connecticut
• dr ken robson ct
• dr keneth robson ct
• kenneth robson ct

Human rights are “commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.”^[1] Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone). These rights may exist as natural rights or as legal rights, in both national and international law.^[2] The doctrine of human rights in international practice, within international law, global and regional institutions, in the policies of states and the activities of non-governmental organizations has been a cornerstone of public policy around the world. It has been said that: “if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights.”^[3] Despite this, the strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights continue to this day. Indeed, the question of what is meant by a “right” is itself controversial and the subject of continued philosophical debate.^[4]

Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of the Holocaust, culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The ancient world did not possess the concept of universal human rights.^[5] Ancient societies had “elaborate systems of duties… conceptions of justice, political legitimacy, and human flourishing that sought to realize human dignity, flourishing, or well-being entirely independent of human rights”.^[6] The modern concept of human rights developed during the early Modern period, alongside the European secularization of Judeo-Christian ethics.^[7] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval Natural law tradition, became prominent during the Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

From this foundation, the modern human rights movement emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century. Gelling as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.^[8]

Incoming search terms:

• natural rights
• 2 Human rights are thus conceived as universal (applicable everywhere) and egalitarian (the same for everyone)

CIRCUIT COURT A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court of Cook County is a criminal enterprise. U.S. v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518, 1531 (7th Cir. 1985).
The United States Supreme Court recently acknowledged the judicial corruption in Cook County, when it stated that Judge “Maloney was one of many dishonest judges exposed and convicted through ‘Operation Greylord’, a labyrinthine federal investigation of judicial corruption in Chicago”. Bracey v. Gramley, case No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997).

Since judges who do not report the criminal activities of other judges become principals in the criminal activity, 18 U.S.C. Section 1, and since no judges have reported the criminal activity of the judges who have been convicted, the other judges are as guilty as the convicted judges.

The criminal activities that the Federal Courts found in the Circuit Court of Cook County still exist, and are today under the care, custody and control of Judge Greylord II (Chief Judge Donald O’Connell). The Circuit Court of Cook County remains a criminal enterprise.

JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

Judges have given themselves judicial immunity for their judicial functions. Judges have no judicial immunity for criminal acts, aiding, assisting, or conniving with others who perform a criminal act, or for their administrative/ministerial duties. When a judge has a duty to act, he does not have discretion – he is then not performing a judicial act, he is performing a ministerial act.
Judicial immunity does not exist for judges who engage in criminal activity, for judges who connive with, aid and abet the criminal activity of another judge, or to a judge for damages sustained by a person who has been harmed by the judge’s connivance with, aiding and abeting, another judge’s criminal activity.

TRESPASSERS OF THE LAW

The Illinois Supreme Court has held that “if the magistrate has not such jurisdiction, then he and those who advise and act with him, or execute his process, are trespassers.” Von Kettler et.al. v. Johnson, 57 Ill. 109 (1870)
Under Federal law which is applicable to all states, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that if a court is “without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.” Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828)

The Illinois Supreme Court held that if a court “could not hear the matter upon the jurisdictional paper presented, its finding that it had the power can add nothing to its authority, – it had no authority to make that finding.” The People v. Brewer, 128 Ill. 472, 483 (1928). The judges listed below had no legal authority (jurisdiction) to hear or rule on certain matters before them. They acted without any jurisdiction.

When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law,and are engaged in treason (see below).

The Court in Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F.Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962) held that “not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. … it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse.” When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judges orders are void, of no legal force or effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974) stated that “when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he “comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.” [Emphasis supplied in original]. By law, a judge is a state officer.  The judge then acts not as a judge, but as a private individual (in his person).

VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE

In Illinois, 705 ILCS 205/4 states “Every person admitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law shall, before his name is entered upon the roll to be kept as hereinafter provided, take and subscribe an oath, substantially in the following form:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be), that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law to the best of my ability.’”

In Illinois, a judge must take a second oath of office. Under 705 ILCS 35/2 states, in part, that “The several judges of the circuit courts of this State, before entering upon the duties of their office, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation, which shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State:

‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of judge of ______ court, according to the best of my ability.’”

Further, if the judge had enlisted in the U.S. military, then he has taken a third oath. Under Title 10 U.S.C. Section 502 the judge had subscribed to a lifetime oath, in pertinent part, as follows:

“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; …”.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958).

Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution of the United States wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.   Having taken at least two, if not three, oaths of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, any judge who has acted in violation of the Constitution is engaged in an act or acts of treason (see below).   If a judge does not fully comply with the Constitution, then his orders are void, In re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (1888), he/she is without jurisdiction, and he/she has engaged in an act or acts of treason.

TREASON

Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason. U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821) What is the penalty for treason?  Citizens for Legal Responsibility suggest that the following judges may have acted without jurisdiction and therefore may have engaged in an act or acts of treason:

• Judge Philip L. Bronstein
• Justice Robert Chapman Buckley
• Judge Grace G. Dickler
• Judge Thomas C. Dudgeon (DuPage County)
• Presiding Judge Timothy C. Evans
• Judge Lester D. Foreman
• Chief Judge Michael Galasso (DuPage County)
• Justice Michael J. Gallagher
• Judge Francis A. Gembala
• Justice Thomas E. Hoffman
• Judge Moshe Jacobius
• Judge Thomas James
• Judge Aubrey F. Kaplan
• Judge Philip S. Lieb
• Judge Veronica B. Mathein
• Justice Sheila M. O’Brien
• Chief Judge Donald O’Connell (Cook County)
• Judge Edmund Ponce de Leon
• Judge Daniel J. Sullivan
• Justice Mary Jane Theis
• Judge William F. Ward, Jr.

Any judge or attorney who does not report the above judges for treason as required by law may themselves be guilty of misprison of treason, 18 U.S.C. Section 2382.

NOTE: Citizens for Legal Responsibility® is in the process of compiling a list of laws detailing the penalties for treason. Citizens for Legal Responsibility® requests that readers who have knowledge of any laws relative to the penalties for treason, please either mail or email such information to us.

Incoming search terms:

• dishonest corrupt district court judges
• what to do about judicial corruption
• judge daniel j sullivan corrupt
• judge carole clark cps
• bracey v gramley
• what to do if judge is corrupt
• what to do when your county is corrupt
• what to do if a court is corrupt
• what to do about dishonest judges
• what to do about a corupt judge

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)^[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States, citing a constitutional right of parents to rear their children, struck down a Washington state law that allowed any third party to petition state courts for child visitation rights over parental objections.

[edit] Impact of Troxel v. Granville

In the case of Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court has said that “the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children–is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.”^[2] The Supreme Court also made it clear that this fundamental right is implicated in grandparent visitation cases. The plurality opinion stated at the outset that statutes allowing grandparent visitation orders to be imposed over parental objection “present questions of constitutional import.” The Supreme Court flatly declared that a parent’s fundamental right to the “care, custody and control of their children” was “at issue in this case.” The Supreme Court struck down the Washington grandparent visitation statute because it unconstitutionally infringed on that fundamental parental right.

State courts considering non-parent visitation petitions must apply “a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.”.^[3] Troxel requires that State courts must give “special weight” to a fit parent’s decision to deny non-parent visitation. “Choices [parents make] about the upbringing of children . . . are among associational rights . . . sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”^[4] This principle must inform our understanding of the “special weight” Troxel requires courts to give to parents’ decisions concerning whether, when and how grandparents will associate with their children. Even though Troxel does not define “special weight,” previous Supreme Court precedent indicates that “special weight” is a strong term signifying very considerable deference.^[5] The “special weight” requirement, as illuminated by these prior Supreme Court cases, means that the deference provided to the parent’s wishes will only be overcome by some compelling governmental interest and overwhelmingly clear factual circumstances supporting that governmental interest.

[edit] See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 530
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume

[edit] References

• Works related to Troxel v. Granville at Wikisource
• Edward Walsh, “Court Limits Visitation Rights of Grandparents; State Can’t Overrule Decision Of a Fit Parent, Justices Say,” Washington Post, June 6, 2000.

1. ^ 530 U.S. 57 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
2. ^ Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65; 120 S Ct 2054, 2060 (2000).
3. ^ Troxel, 530 US at 69; 120 S Ct at 2061, 2062.
4. ^ MLB v. SLJ, 519 U.S. 102, 116-117 (1996).
5. ^ See, e.g., Comstock v. Group of Institutional Investors, 335 US 211, 230 (1948); Tibbs v. Florida, 457 US 31 (1982).

Incoming search terms:

• parent v wa state cps
• troxel v granville

Where is Judge Soloman? To MANY COMPLAINTS is that why?

Where is Judge Simone from the Juvenile court in Rockville Ct?  Where are the comments? Why are the comments blocked?

So really where are the judges that are supposed to be upholding the law?

Clearly they do not, they have ruined so many lives, that is why all of the comments are gone.

What happened to Connecticut? It is the “SWAMP STATE”

You are supposed to be able to rate them, I guess they must sweep the dirt they do under the rug. It is very bumpy.

EVERY COMMENT that was left on SOLOMAN has been erased!!!!! ASHAMED?

visit www.ratethecourts.com

Try and find a judge that has destroyed YOUR  life, start complaining to the legislatures, Malloy, start asking questions. The horrific things they have done.

Soloman…. why have all of you comments have been removed???

And Jose Suarez, does it make you feel good to know that you are walking in the steps of this man, Judge Soloman?

Simone, Soloman, and Suarez of Tolland county…. why is it you do not follow the oath you swore on??? These are FAMILIES, CHILDREN but yet you care only about MONEY.

Incoming search terms:

• marleytellier
• judge jose suarez
• judge jose suarez connecticut reviews
• judge jose suarez ct
• judge jose suarez connecticut
• what happened to ratethecourts com
• magnifying glass
• judge suarez rockville complaint
• rockville ct court judges
• rockville ct criminal court judges names

The new weapon of destruction

HOW IS IT ALLOWED

What about the children?

What about how they feel?

Video By: Vanessa Garnet

A suffering mother

Incoming search terms:

• Parental Alienation in CT
• parental alienation psychologists in CT

Mother or Father…  Child support is killing people, they cannot afford double payments. Courts allow it, the deny it. As there is another soul lost, a child without a father or a mother

Incoming search terms:

• why push childsupport
• child suppoert laws are corrupt
• child support is corrupt 2012