This letter serves as an immediate, mandatory cover notice introducing the attached legal treatise, "THE CONSTITUTIONAL COLLAPSE OF THE TEXAS FAMILY CODE," authored by Ron B. Palmer of Fix Family Courts. This text operates as an unevadable constitutional proof engine. It documentarily strips all state and private actors of the defense of qualified, official, or judicial immunity by applying the "Objectively Unreasonable" standard. You are under an immediate, non-discretionary duty to engage in mandatory risk analysis due diligence.
THE SYSTEMIC CRIME ITEMIZED
• Judicial Civil Rights Crimes & Loss of Immunity
Texas family court judges commit continuous civil rights deprivations under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), a criminal act. Under controlling precedent, judges lose absolute judicial immunity when they perform administrative, executive, or policy-enforcement functions rather than purely adjudicative acts (Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (1988)). By automatically imposing the legislative public policy of the "best interests of the child" (Texas Family Code § 153.002) by default at the inception of a divorce suit (§ 6.406), the judge replaces an independent adjudicative phase with an administrative policy-enforcement action. Because this structural architecture bypasses strict scrutiny and denies the parent litigant a baseline platform to challenge the lawfulness of the state's intervention—especially in proceedings where the state is not even required to appear and meet its high strict scrutiny burden—the judge acts entirely outside their judicial jurisdiction, stripping themselves of absolute immunity.
• The Judge as a Forced Labor Provider
The trial judge directly executes the federal crime of Forced Labor via Abuse of Legal Process (18 U.S.C. § 1589(a)(3)). By utilizing a structurally void, un-scrutinized administrative policy track to manufacture predatory financial metrics (amicus fees, evaluator costs, support metrics), and using the threat of physical restraint (contempt jail) or serious harm (familial destruction), the judge coerces parents to perform market labor to transfer wealth into private commercial accounts.
• The Private Attorney as a Venture Beneficiary
Private family law attorneys, amicus attorneys, and child custody evaluators are not mere passive officers of the court. When private counsel participates in, facilitates, or profits from an unconstitutional proceeding where civil rights are voided under color of law, they participate in a commercial enterprise benefiting from forced labor and extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1589(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1595.
APPLICATION OF THE "OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE" STANDARD
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government official or actor performing state functions is protected only if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). This treatise formally places you on actual, documented notice. Any continuation of standard family law procedural maneuvers following receipt of this notice is objectively unreasonable as a matter of law.
a. Ledger of Documented Instances of Objective Unreasonableness:
- • Demanding "Best Interest" Inquest Without Fitness Challenge: Treating fit parents as presumptively subject to judicial custody rationing without a preliminary, contested finding of parental unfitness under Troxel v. Granville and In re C.J.C.
- • Enforcing Section 6.406 Mandatory Joinder: Coercing a parent seeking marital dissolution into a simultaneous custody forfeiture proceeding under threat of dismissal or default.
- • Imposing Summary Temporary Orders Under § 105.001: Depriving fit parents of equal legal and physical custody during abbreviated, non-record preliminary hearings insulated from immediate interlocutory appeal.
- • Facilitating Commercial Extortion of Litigation Fees: Ordering mandatory payment to court-appointed private vendors (ad litems, evaluators, therapists) under threat of incarceration or loss of child access.
MANDATORY LEVER: RECKLESS DISREGARD AUDIT & DIRECT FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY DEMAND
Because this document establishes the precise jurisprudential mechanisms rendering Chapter 153 void ab initio, all recipients are barred from claiming good-faith reliance on state court traditions. Continued enforcement constitutes intentional, reckless disregard for federally guaranteed rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1595.