Truth Bomb 1

Hi. I'm Ron Palmer with Fix Family Courts, and  I'm here to give you a 1st Amendment Truth Bomb   that you can use to keep your judge under control  basically. The constitution applies to your judge,   the constitution limits your judge, and you  have rights and your children have rights. And   those rights have to be respected even in a child  custody suit between fit parents. And, the most   important right you have, or the highest protected  rights you have are the 1st Amendment rights. And,   I'm going to give you a series of 9 different  Truth Bombs that will help you put in front   of your judge the requirement that your judge  has to do more than just express his personal  

viewpoint about what is best for your child. Your  judge has to actually pass 1st Amendment scrutiny   before he can violate your rights, but you  need to know what these rights are and you   need to understand how they apply. And here they  are in simple terms, right. You're relationship   with your child is the source of constitutional  protections for your parental rights. Let's say   that again. It is not the marriage between you and  the child's other parent that provides the source   of your parental rights. If you are a natural  parent, and the child is biologically yours,   then you have parental rights based on the  association you established with your child.   A lot of people don't understand this. They  are still stuck in this 19th century viewpoint  

that your parental rights are somehow dependent  on your marriage to the child's other parent.   And if that marriage goes away your parental  rights go away. And the judges in the family   law courts and the family law code in every  state in this country are based on this outdated   19th century beliefs that have been invalidated  by the Supreme Court. And yet they continue in   family law. The way to stop them is to assert  your rights strongly and powerfully, and force   these courts to justify what they are doing.  Your rights are not rights based on marriage.   Your rights are individual rights. Your child's  rights to you are individual rights. Not rights   related to a nuclear family or some  fantasy idea of the perfect family.  

They are individual. One parent, one child. That's  a protected association by the Constitution.   And that association is protected as both  an intimate and an expressive association   by the 1st Amendment. Many attorneys  will try to argue with you that your   intimate association rights are only protected by  the 14th Amendment and not by the 1st Amendment.   They will say that intimacy is protected  under the definition of what is a liberty   interest under the 14th Amendment, not under  the 1st Amendment speech protections. But they   are totally wrong. They argued this with me  years ago and I dug and dug and dug until I   proved that they were wrong. And the Supreme Court  of the United States says that they are wrong.  

Now the test to this is very simple, any time  an attorney throws this at you or a state court   judge throws this at you, you simply ask them.  "You're Honor, how is it possible to have an   intimate association without expressing that  intimacy to the other partner, and that partner   receiving that expression of intimacy? Without  that there's no intimate association. Therefore,   an intimate association, while still a unique  type of association, is undeniably an expressive   association. They cannot be separated. Now there  are expressive associations that are not intimate   such as your belonging to a political party for  instance. This is an expressive association of   all the members of the party. But all the members  of that party are not intimate with one another,  

they are not close, they don't share private  aspects of their lives with one another, which   are the hallmarks of an intimate association. So,  always, always, always, keep that in mind. You're   intimate and expressive association with your  child is an individual right that you and your   child both have. It is protected as an individual  right. It is protected as a 1st Amendment right.   And you, as a fit, natural parent have every right  to establish this association and maintain it.   Now your minor child cannot protect their  rights on their own. They cannot express   their rights on their own. But you as their fit  parent have every right to say, "My child is going   to have an association with me. And because I am  a fit parent that has a constitutionally protected  

right to make this choice, my child and I share  a 1st Amendment protected intimate and expressive   association." The Supreme Court has expressed  this idea almost exactly like this, right. And,   let's talk about what they said. The Supreme Court  said, "We have emphasized that the 1st Amendment   protects family relationships. That's about as  simple as it gets. They said a whole lot of other   things in this sentence, but the pieces of this  sentence that matter, that absolutely hold true   is that, "We have emphasized that the 1st  Amendment protects family relationships.   Words of the Supreme Court not my words. So your  state court judge and your opposing attorney can   argue all they want but they are not arguing  with me and they are not arguing with you,  

they are arguing with the United States Supreme  Court. Good luck with that for them. Now one   of the things they'll throw at you is that  the 1st Amendment says absolutely nothing   about association. They're right. The word  "association" is not in the 1st Amendment.   So how is it a 1st Amendment protected right?  It's what's called a penumbral right. Or it's   one of the rights that emanate from the 1st  Amendment. And it's there and it's protected   precisely because the 1st Amendment protects  speech. It doesn't protect speech in a vacuum.   It doesn't protect your right to speak in an  empty room. It protects your right to speak   with other people. And it protects those other  people's rights to receive what you have to say.  

And that only happens if you can associate  with those other people. And, therefore,   the right to association is undeniably essential  and necessary to protect the right of speech.   And so that's where the right of association comes  from and that's why it's a 1st Amendment right.   It's also protected by the 14th Amendment. And you  will see this quite a bit as a liberty interest,   right. But that liberty interest, the definition  of liberty in the 14th Amendment incorporates the   definitions of all of the protected elements of  the 1st Amendment. That's how the Supreme Court   applies 1st Amendment protections to the states by  incorporating 1st Amendment definitions into the   word liberty under the 14th Amendment. So even  when the 14th Amendment protects your right of  

association against state action it's protecting  the definitions that are inherent in the 1st   Amendment, and those elements of individual  liberty that the 1st Amendment protects.   So, in essence, when the court talks about 14th  Amendment protections for association, it's not   talking about a different kind of association or a  different definition of association, it's talking   about those associational definitions that are  inherent in the 1st Amendment and the penumbral   right of 1st Amendment speech and association.  This is critical for you in a child custody case   because you have the right to speak to your child,  and as we'll see later, the right to educate your   child. And your child has the right to receive  that speech from you. But from a purely intimate  

standpoint, a close family standpoint, you have  the right to share intimacy with your child,   explain to your child that you love your child,  and that you care deeply about them and how they   feel and what they believe and how they're getting  along in life. All those things that matter to us   from a concept of "matters of conscience."  Not matters that the state can interfere with,   but private matters of personal choice in things  like religion and your place in the world,   your place in the universe. These are things  that come from the heart and come from the most   personal aspects of one's being. And they  are protected as "matters of conscience."   And your intimate association with your child  requires that expression, and it requires your  

child to be able to receive that. So when  your custody court interferes with that,   they are interfering with one of your most basic  1st Amendment rights. And your child's most   basic fundamental rights. And this is critical  because there are rules that come along with   1st Amendment violations. And those rules are  very strong. There are a lot of them. They are   well litigated. There are tons and tons of cases.  The Supreme Court has said you have these rights.   The Supreme Court has said children has these  rights -- minor children have these rights. And   they are protected against the government. They  are not protected against parents from telling the   child what they can and can't say. But they are  protected from the government telling your child  

what they can and can't say or telling you what  you can or can't say. So your state court judge   cannot become a super parent and start dictating  to you what you can or cannot say to your child.   That is a clear violation of the  1st Amendment that will not survive   any kind of challenge under the family code or the  idea of a child's best interest. It's just absurd.   And the courts would hold it so if they're proper  courts applying 1st Amendment law, right. So your   rights to your child were inherently, when the  constitution was created, and even when the 14th   Amendment, was ratified, your rights to your child  were a special type of property right. So when  

our founding fathers established the constitution,  and they thought about protecting parental rights,   which surely they did because several of them were  parents. Thomas Jefferson was a single parent.   His wife had died. And he spent many years abroad  while his children, his daughters were in the care   of another family member. Do you think for a  second Thomas Jefferson thought it was in the   government's power to take his children away from  him just because he was away as a diplomat in   France, you're out of your mind. He did not. And  he certainly thought the constitution protected   those rights under property law. Because children  were considered a certain type of property. If you   go back far enough in your state's codes and how  they dealt with custody rights, you'll find that  

it was usually put into the state's property  code. Now we can no longer tolerate the idea   of children as property even if it was a special  kind of non-chattel property. It's not like they   were slaves. But they were treated as property  in that the adult parent had pretty much total   control of them. Far more control than we have  today. And rules of property were a good clean way   to deal with this because they were clear rules,  they were well understood -- everybody understood   them -- and the courts knew how to deal with  them and follow the strict scrutiny set of rules.   Now the problem with that of course was that  the property laws were applied unequally,  

right, and men owned all the property.  Women weren't allowed to own property.   And that threw a big monkey wrench in all of these  things. And so, in attempting to give women more   authority over their children they  switched away from property rights.   And ultimately where they got to or where the  Supreme Court got to is holding that when you   come forward and create and association with  your child and take over the responsibility of   being a parent -- you care for the child, you  look out for their interest. That means the   constitution protects your rights. That's how  your rights get protected by the constitution.   Now with women it's presumed this happens  because they carry the child in their bodies  

for nine months, they give birth to the child,  they are there obviously when they give birth,   and generally people are witnessing all this,  so the bond between mother and child is presumed   because of this. Now there are situations where  this presumption would not hold. For instance,   if the mother gave birth in isolation, nobody  knew she was pregnant which happens occasionally.   And perhaps she abandons the child immediately  after. She might not even have known she was   pregnant. It happens sometimes, women don't even  know they are pregnant. They have babies just,   they don't know what's going on. So these kind  of situations that presumption might not hold up,   right. Especially if the mother abandons the  baby and the baby is found and later the mother  

comes forward. Then there's some things that the  mother has to do to prove it. But other than those   exceptional cases mother's are usually presumed  to be parents, the natural parent. Fathers on the   other hand have to somehow assert their parental  rights over their child. One of the ways this is   done is if you're married to the mother, then the  law generally presumes that you're the natural   parent of the father, you're name goes on the  birth certificate and it's all presumed. It's   presumed you're the biological father. If this  is not the case, there are ways to challenge   all that. That's not what this is about. What the  point is, because so many fathers deal with this,  

is that the moment you come forward and take  care of your child and build that parent-child   association. You're rights receive constitutional  protection under the First Amendment.   This includes taking care of the mother while she  is pregnant, right. Being there when the child's   born. Not necessarily in the room, but being there  and caring for them, and bringing them home. And   doing all the things the new father would do with  the child. Certainly feeding the child and caring   for the child -- all those things. If you do that,  the constitution protects your rights. And it   protects them because of that association. That is  the source of First Amendment. In the early days,   for all of our recorded history, before the  early 1970s, the rights of parents didn't  

come from the First Amendment or the association.  The law held that the rights of parents came from   the marital relationship between the child's  parents. If they were married to each other then   they were the parents because of that marriage. If  they weren't married to each other then the father   had no rights to the child and the child had no  rights to the father. These fathers weren't even   required to pay child support in a lot of places  like Texas. There's a Supreme Court case about   this in Texas. Where they changed that ultimately  after the 1970s. But the law was that the parents   of these illegitimate or bastard children were  not required to even care for their children.  

Now most of the time the mother had rights  to the child, but that's not an absolute. A   lot of times the local governments  took over the rights of the child,   so even the mother didn't have natural rights  to the child if she had a child out of wedlock.   A lot of times they would take the child and give  them to another couple, those kind of things.   Put them in homes for children. All kind of things  went on under what were called the bastardy codes.   And then in the early 1970s a series of cases  came to the Supreme Court on different subjects   all related to the legitimacy of children. And the  courts ultimately said that the law cannot punish  

a child for the sins of the parents. So if the  parents do something that the government does not   like, it is cruel and unjust to punish the child  for what the parents did. And this is the law.   And in all of those cases, there are  about seven or eight, nine of them.   The courts held very clearly that the rights are  individual rights not dependent on the marriage,   not dependent on a nuclear family. Individual  -- one parent/one child creates a family unit   that is protected by the constitution. Now, this  transformed the landscape everywhere in law where   rights between parents and children mattered  -- inheritance law was a big one. And several   of these cases were about inheritance. And,  but the one place it didn't catch on was in  

family law between fit parents. So if you look at  every family code in the state, or at least every   one we've evaluated, and we've evaluated quite  a few of them. Every single one of these cases,   or the family codes is based on the outdated,  discredited, overturned, 19th century beliefs   that your rights as a parent depend on  your marriage to the child's other parent.   And this is evidenced in the statements that you  will see in the family codes. One of them, for   instance in Texas, the judge is allowed to grant  these natural parents rights, parental rights,   after they divorce. Well that begs  the question, how can you grant a   right to someone who already has that right as  a natural right protected by the constitution?  

What this is telling you is that these  family codes are presuming that the rights   disappear simply because you got divorced. And  so that says they are following the old 19th   century bastardy codes that tied the rights  of parents and children to the marriage.   Those are unconstitutional. There's no way around  that. The famous case that said that fathers had   to care for their illegitimate children -- child  support -- was a Texas case. It went to the United   States Supreme Court and the United States Supreme  Court said "knock it off Texas, if a legitimate   child is entitled to care then an illegitimate  child is entitled to care." It's that simple.   There's no way around it because the rights are  individual. So this is important to know. If  

you know and you realize everything these family  codes are doing and everything these child custody   judges are doing has no foundation, it's based  on 19th century beliefs that are discredited,   overturned, and unconstitutional. Everything  they are doing is wrong and they know it.   They only get away with it because you let  them get away with it. And as long as you   continue to let them get away with it, they  will continue to do what they've always done.   What we are suggesting is that you use your  First Amendment rights to put a stop to this.   You let them know that you know your rights are  individual and they cannot be taken away from   you simply because you either did not marry or  because you divorced the child's other parent.  

Because when they do, what that is, is punishing  you and punishing the child for rights you're   exercising -- a constitutionally protected  right of choice regarding marriage.   Your right to get married is a constitutionally  protected choice. Your right to not get married   is a constitutionally protected choice. And  your right to dissolve the marital association   is a constitutionally protected choice as  association rights protected by the 1st Amendment.   The right to associate also includes your right  not to associate either by never associating or   by terminating your association. And  your state can't punish you for that,   and they certainly cannot punish your child for  that. That's what they are doing. So knowing that   your rights are individual and are protected by  the First Amendment is vital. So this knowledge,  

individual First Amendment protected  parental rights changes this game completely.   One of the things you'll realize after you  realize the individual nature of the rights   and the First Amendment protected nature of the  rights. Is that your ex is really not the enemy.   It feels like your ex is the enemy, and  you've got a lot of emotion tied to the ex,   and the ex is certainly trying to take your  rights away from you. But the ex has no state   power. They have no government power. They can  try to take your rights away from you, but on   their own they cannot accomplish this. They have  to reach out and exercise government power to take   these rights away from you. And the individual  that does that is your child custody judge.  

And your child custody judge is violating the  constitution every single day of his or her life   and they know it; at least the intelligent ones  know it. And it's your job to put them on the   spot and let them know that you know it too and  you're not going to tolerate it. There's a lot   involved in that and we help you with every stage  of that. But this is the core part of it. Knowing   that the real enemy in these cases, child  custody suit, is not your ex, it's the judge.   The sooner you realize that, the sooner  things will turn around in your case.   If you're going and begging your enemy to  give you something they don't want to give you  

they may laugh in your face or they may act like  they're going to give it to you and torture you   with the hope that they're going to give it to  you. In the end, they're going to do whatever   the heck they want because they have the absolute  power to do that unless you know how to stop them.   And the power that stops them is the first  amendment. So take this Truth Bomb and put   it before your judge, and the other 8 Truth Bombs  and put them before your judge. Get the motions   that we, the sample motions that we provide, get  the education and knowledge we provide in our   membership site, so that you know how to put this  before the judge in a way that they cannot deny,  

and that they cannot fight. Or  you just go along with the system,   beg the judge, and you get what you get  --- whatever, it's just your kids right?   Your choice. You fight the corrupt system, knowing  why the system's corrupt and how it's corrupt,   or you go along with the system and hope for the  best. That's the only two choices you've got.   We like fighters. We're fighters. We fought  and won. And we're to help other fighters   fight and win for their children. So good  luck and I'll see you at the next Truth Bomb.