Ginger Gentile. I'm the Erase child whisperer and I discuss parental alienation 

Mark Fidelman and Ginger discussed strategies for dealing with parental alienation, including understanding love languages and acknowledging past trauma.

Ginger shared her personal experience of estrangement from their father and the impact it had on their life. The group also discussed the prevalence of narcissistic abuse and alienation in divorce cases, emphasizing the importance of identifying narcissistic traits early on and taking steps to protect oneself.

Ginger also highlighted the importance of learning how to communicate effectively with high conflict people in personal and professional settings, including identifying triggers, healing inner child wounds, and developing a new skill set for communicating with empathy, firmness, and informativeness.

• Ginger Gentile shares her experience with parental alienation and high conflict divorce.
• Speaker estranged from father after parents' divorce and subsequent parental alienation.

• Ginger revealed that their parents had 50/50 custody, but their mother accused their father of domestic violence and sought more child support.
• Ginger believes that their parents' behavior was informed by their own love languages, with abuse being one of them.
• Reconciling with estranged parents can be challenging, but it's possible with effort and support.

• Ginger reflects on their parents' divorce and alienation, recognizing the nuanced complexity of the situation.
• Ginger made a film about parental alienation, realizing it was about their own life after hanging up on their dad multiple times during filmmaking.
• Ginger researched the topic by talking to parents and kids, including those on social media, to understand the impact of alienation on families.

• Ginger raised half a million dollars for their documentary by changing their fundraising pitch from "thank you for coming" to "give me money or the film won't happen and you'll never see your kids again."
• Mark Fidelman and Ginger agree that the documentary has raised awareness about parental alienation and its impact on children.
• They suggest strategically showing the film to judges, lawyers, and psychologists to bring about change.

• Ginger jokes about doing anything to see their kids, including hosting a free screening of a film in a library, but acknowledges that parents who are serious about reunification may not be willing to take such actions.
• Ginger and Mark Fidelman discuss the challenges of getting back into a child's life when the child has been alienated by a parent, with Ginger emphasizing the importance of taking a proactive approach to reunification.
• Ginger worked with a father to approach a court case non-confrontationally, resulting in overnights with his daughter without going to court.
• Ginger helped the father see an opportunity to connect with his daughter instead of viewing it as a right, leading to a peaceful resolution.

• Mark Fidelman suggests detaching from the alienator's reactions and using new communication methods to address the issue.
• Ginger advises parents to act quickly if they suspect alienation, as courts can take years to resolve the issue.
• Ginger warns that lawyers may give false odds of winning, and some outcomes may be impossible to achieve in family court.

• Ginger suggests that instead of trying to change the alienator, parents should focus on changing their own behavior to stop the alienation.
• The speaker advises parents to use sweet talking and attention-seeking tactics to manipulate the alienator into changing their behavior.
• Ginger helps parents who are alienated from their children by teaching them how to communicate effectively and rebuild their relationships.
• Ginger's approach involves understanding the root cause of the alienation, letting go of anger and trauma, and learning how to message and communicate clearly.

• Mark Fidelman expresses frustration with family court system and its handling of parental alienation.
• Ginger advises against marrying someone who is likely to alienate you due to their narcissistic tendencies.
• Heal inner child, identify triggers, and develop communication skills to prevent alienation.
• Learn to communicate with high conflict people using friendly, firm, and informative language.

• Speaker provides free resources, including a film and training course, to help parents reunite with their alienated kids.
• Speaker offers personalized coaching and a community forum for ongoing support.
• Mark Fidelman and Ginger discuss the challenges of alienation in divorce and the importance of staying out of court.
• Ginger shares her personal experience of being alienated and offers advice on how to reunite with one's children.

David Segui discussed the challenges and misconceptions surrounding family court, particularly in cases of alleged child abuse, and the need for a different approach to better protect children. They also shared personal experiences and ongoing legal cases, highlighting the financial drain and manipulation of the system, and the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions. The conversation concluded with a commitment to stop a certain issue from escalating and a pledge to remove judicial immunity, particularly in cases of flagrant lawbreaking. Sponsored by KidsMatter.charity  We Give kids A Voice in Court 

Family Court Misconceptions and Reform

Mark and David Segui discussed the misconceptions and issues surrounding family court, particularly in cases of alleged child abuse. They argued that the current system often does more harm than good, with the industry's main goal being to reunify the child with the abusive parent, rather than protecting the child. The discussion highlighted the need for a different approach and better support for children who have experienced abuse.

Mark and an anonymous David Segui discussed issues related to family law, with a focus on child custody and parental alienation. They discussed the challenges faced by families without financial means, and how the legal system can exacerbate existing problems. The conversation touched on the perception of power dynamics in family court, and the lack of understanding among the general public regarding the daily realities of those going through a divorce. Mark announced his return to advocacy work for children's rights, signaling a renewed commitment to the cause.

Mark and David Sege discussed the challenges faced by victims of abuse in the Family Court system. David, a former Major League Baseball player, introduced himself as a father involved in a Family Court case after escaping an abusive household environment. He shared how the court system operates through coercion and control, similar to abusive relationships, threatening consequences like losing child custody or facing sanctions for speaking out or reporting abuse. David mentioned guiding other "Momma Bears" through the process of reporting abuse while navigating the court system's challenges.

The speakers discussed the challenges and strategies involved in navigating the family court system. They recognized that the system can be exploitative and compared it to a game, where certain parties have an advantage. David expressed concern about the financial drain that the system can cause and the difficulty in getting out of it once involved. They also discussed the need to remove judicial immunity to facilitate exit. The conversation then shifted to specific cases, with the speaker indicating that they would continue the discussion in this area.

The attorneys agreed on proceeding with the case, which involves allegations of child alienation. The main speaker described a situation where their children were taken away due to an emergency order, despite the children being found to be in good health and happy in California. The speaker claimed their ex-partner made false allegations of abuse and used threats to maintain control over the children. The case has been ongoing for over three months, and the speaker is seeking to regain custody of their children.

False Allegations and Child Abuse Discussion

The discussion centered around allegations of abuse made by David's sons against their mother and her boyfriend, who was a former teammate of David's. The boys had reported these allegations after attending religious camps. David claimed that the mother had made false allegations against him, and was given custody of his children by the court despite evidence of her wrongdoing. David and his sons were left to deal with the aftermath of these false allegations and abuse.

David and Mark discussed the negative effects of withholding information and lying to the court, and the importance of taking an offensive stance against those who abuse the system. They also talked about the issue of child welfare camps, with Arizona and California being mentioned as states that have implemented them.  The conversation indicated a growing momentum against these camps, with several states having already banned them. Then Mark and David also highlighted the brazenness and arrogance of those running these camps, expressing their belief that the truth will ultimately prevail.

Mark proposed a plan to make individuals accountable for their actions, which included retroactive legislation for egregious cases. They discussed the issues surrounding parental alienation and the misuse of abuse reports in divorce cases.

The person on the other end of the call shared their personal experiences, highlighting how the system often favors the party with more financial resources and can be manipulated to make false allegations of abuse. They also noted that the accusations of parental alienation can be used to discredit the protective parent, even when there is clear evidence of abuse.

Mark and David discussed the legal and social system's response to child abuse cases. The anonymous participant argued that the system often protects the abuser, allowing them to regain custody of the child and causing further trauma. They also mentioned the use of therapists and attorneys to manipulate the situation and gaslight the accused's partner. Mark agreed with this assessment, highlighting that the abuser is often allowed to financially drain the good parent's resources. Both parties acknowledged the challenges and potential outcomes of legal cases, noting that many families might not have the resources or willpower to pursue such cases.

Mark and David discussed their goal to stop a certain issue from escalating and their unwillingness to be intimidated. Mark emphasized the importance of accountability in the judicial system, a theme he had previously explored with Sherry Lund. A charity event was announced, with David's attendance and a pledge to remove judicial immunity, particularly in cases of flagrant lawbreaking. Both parties expressed their commitment to the cause and thanked each other for their cooperation.

Mark and Sherry Lund discussed the creation of a podcast focused on court reform and family issues, with Sherry sharing her personal experiences and advocating for better safeguards and accountability in the legal system. 

They also criticized the criminal activities of the legal mafia, the lack of due process, and the impunity of judges and lawyers, emphasizing the need for significant changes in the system. The discussion also touched on the injustices caused by the legal system, the importance of legislative action to remove judicial immunity, and the challenges they faced in trying to expose and address these issues. A KidsMatter.charity Production 

Sherry's Personal Experience With Court Reform

Mark and Sherry discussed their plans to create a podcast focused on court reform and family issues. Sherry shared her personal experiences as an advocate for family court victims, including her own legal battles with probate courts.

She described an emotionally charged situation where her stepdaughter fell ill, leading to a lengthy and contentious legal battle over her inheritance and accusations of misconduct against her family.

Sherry recounted how her family, with her husband's involvement, fought against a well-connected legal team and the accusations made against them. The legal team repeatedly served legal papers on her family, even on holidays, as part of their tactics to keep the case going.

Improving Estate Management and Conservatorships

Sherry shared her family's experience with the mismanagement of a loved one's estate and their subsequent legal struggles. She highlighted the need for better safeguards and advocated for a new bill that guarantees the right to an accounting of the estate and access for interested parties.

She also discussed her involvement with the Free Britney movement in California, highlighting the violations committed against Britney and the need for conservators to appoint their own attorneys. Sherry emphasized the importance of due process and the rights of the person of interest, even in probate cases involving minors' trusts. Mark agreed with Sherry's perspective, pointing out the potential for abuse when attorneys are appointed to take over trusts for minors.

Legal Mafia and Systemic Issues

Sherry and Mark discussed the criminal activities of the legal mafia, a highly organized crime syndicate operating under the color of law. They identified a significant issue within the legal system, where state court judges and actors do not always acknowledge federal law, leading to a lack of accountability.

Sherry also shared her family's experiences with the legal system, where her relative, Michelle, has been wrongfully accused and denied visitation, causing emotional distress. Sherry urged individuals not to use the court system to settle personal scores, as the innocent party is often the one who suffers most.

Judicial System Accountability and Impunity

Sherry and Mark discussed the issue of judges and lawyers acting with impunity and violating the rights of others. Sherry expressed her concern about the judicial system's inability to hold judges accountable for their actions, even when they break the law. They both criticized the system for its lack of due process and the complicity of certain individuals in maintaining a problematic situation.

They highlighted the double standard in the legal system where attorneys could lie in court but others had to prove the truth of their statements. They both agreed on the need for significant changes in the system and noted that any false statements made in court were protected activity.

Addressing Judges' Law Violations and Accountability

Sherry and Mark discussed the issue of judges violating the law and the lack of accountability for their actions. Sherry shared her efforts to address this issue, including reaching out to Senator Cavanaugh and working on a petition to choose the attorney for a trial by jury before a guardian or conservator is appointed.

Sherry also highlighted her work on a bill related to disability rights, which faced unexpected opposition from Judge Polks. The discussion also touched on the need for accountability in stakeholder meetings and Sherry proposed a thought experiment to emphasize the importance of accountability and address the growing frustration with judges.

Injustices in the Legal System Discussed

Sherry and Mark discussed the injustices and abuse caused by the legal system, specifically targeting families and children. Sherry shared her personal experiences and highlighted the devastating impact on families, including the loss of loved ones and the destruction of relationships.

Mark expressed his outrage and blamed the press for not exposing these issues more widely. Both were critical of the actions of lawyers and judges who they believed exploit vulnerable individuals for personal gain, and they expressed frustration at the lack of accountability in the system.

Critiquing the Court System and Judges

Sherry and Mark discussed the issues with the current state of the court system, particularly highlighting problems with judges and their decision-making processes. Sherry voiced her frustration about the lack of accountability and the need for impeachment, suggesting that outside investigations should be conducted by those with no connection to the court.

They also discussed the negative impact of court procedures on families and the importance of trying to resolve issues through communication and negotiation before involving the court. Mark agreed that the system is flawed and that judges often make decisions based on gut feelings rather than following the law.

Addressing Judicial Immunity and Accountability

Sherry and Mark discussed the issue of judicial immunity and lack of accountability in the legal system. Mark proposed organizing a charity fundraiser event on September 21, 2024 in Arizona to address this problem. Sherry expressed concern over criminal activities by some lawyers and judges. Both agreed on the need to abolish judicial immunity for greater accountability. Sherry shared her experience with her daughter's former attorney being investigated.

Addressing Unlicensed Psychiatrist Cases

Sherry and Mark discussed a case involving a judge who appointed an unlicensed psychiatrist to evaluate a child, disregarding the child's best interests. They expressed their frustration with the legal system's complicity in such cases and the challenges they faced in trying to expose and address these issues.

They also discussed the need for legislative action to remove judicial immunity and allow victims to seek justice. Mark emphasized that the legal establishment's resistance to change could only be overcome through direct pressure and public exposure.

Welcome to Divorce Matters, a podcast where we delve into the intricate and often misunderstood world of divorce, custody battles, and the legal system that navigates these turbulent waters. Today, we're unpacking a case that has captured national attention and sparked a significant conversation about the integrity of the family court system, the impact of false allegations in custody disputes, and the profound emotional toll these battles take on families. Our focus is on a landmark $21.3 million jury verdict awarded in a disputed Colorado custody case, a verdict that calls into question the actions of an ex-husband, the decisions of family court evaluators, and the rulings of a judge that led to a mother being barred from any contact with her children based on allegations now deemed to be falsely manipulated.

--------------------------------------------

SPONSORED BY www.kidsmatter.charity   WE'D LOVE YOUR DONATION 

------------------------------------------

This case, stemming from Routt County, Colorado, involves Cynthia Hayek, a mother who lost all contact with her children due to her ex-husband Steven Herron's allegations that her new fiancé sexually abused one of their children. These allegations, which were later found to be part of a "false narrative" cultivated by Herron, led to a series of legal and child protective actions that isolated Hayek from her children and ultimately resulted in a jury finding Herron liable for defamation, conspiracy, outrageous conduct, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. As we dive into the details of this case, we'll explore the implications of the jury's verdict, the systemic issues it highlights within the family court system, and the path forward for those seeking justice and reform in similar disputes. Join us as we navigate the complex, heart-wrenching, and ultimately hopeful journey of Cynthia Hayek and the broader lessons this case teaches us about the power of perseverance, the importance of truth, and the need for systemic change in our family courts.

Details 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant:

Cynthia Hayek, an individual

V.

Defendants/Counterclaimant/Third Party

Plaintiff:

Steven Herron, an individual; and Christine

Herron, an individual,

V.

Third Party Defendant:

Kenneth Wayne Hamp, an individual.

This case revolves around a deeply contentious and complex legal battle stemming from the divorce and subsequent disputes between Cynthia Hayek and Steven Herron, involving allegations of child abuse, manipulation, and emotional distress. After their divorce, Herron and Hayek became embroiled in a series of legal confrontations, with Herron accusing Hayek and her boyfriend, Kenneth Wayne Hamp, of various forms of abuse towards their children, leading to a series of investigations and legal claims. These allegations, which Hayek contends are entirely fabricated and part of a "False Narrative" created by Herron to gain an advantage in custody and parenting disputes, have led to a multifaceted legal battle involving claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The case highlights the severe personal and legal ramifications of such disputes, touching on the emotional toll on all parties involved, the impact on the children at the center of the allegations, and the broader implications for the legal and community systems navigating such deeply personal and contentious issues.

In light of the resolution of this contentious custody case, where a jury awarded $21.3 million in damages after finding that the ex-husband corruptly manipulated proceedings to gain full custody by falsely alleging abuse, here are revised questions reflecting the allegations and the jury award:

1. Legal and Ethical Implications:
   • "With a $21.3 million verdict against Steven Herron for defamation, conspiracy, outrageous conduct, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution, what message does this send about the use of false allegations in custody disputes?"

Join us as we delve into the harrowing story of a 61-year-old woman who fell victim to the corrupt family courts in San Diego, California. With two judges admitting to the falsification of a court judgment by her ex-husband, a CPA and forensic accountant who specializes in fraud, the courts have yet to take action and fix their error. Our podcast seeks to uncover the truth behind the injustice faced by countless families in the San Diego family court system and shed light on the need for change.  About Karie Mcewen I am a 61-year-old woman who is the victim of the family courts in   San Diego CA. Two judges, one being the Presiding Judge Michal T. Smyth have admitted that the court took a fake judgment that my  ex-husband who is a CPA, a Forensic accountant specializing in fraud had submitted to the court and got a clerk to stamp it to make it appear real with the court's stamp on it.  This Judgment did not show in the register of action.  The Judge whose name is on the fake Judgment and the two attorneys whose names are on the fake Judgement have all said   it never happened . 

My ex-husband has walked away with all my retirement and has left me and my autistic son penniless. My question to the court is when the courts make a mistake who fixes it?

The court media person Emily Cox said Judge Michael T. Smyth sent this to the D.A.’s Office to be investigated in August 10, 2022 three days later the D.A.’s office said they did not have enough to prove my ex-husband who has worked with the DA's office on many cases and has been exonerated. The DA's office also ignored Judge Ratekin in 2019 who also sent this fake document and a fake wage assignment to have the D.A. to only be ignored.    The courts have enough evidence to prove it did not happen. Two judges now have been sent the judgment and fake wage assignment to the D.A. 's office.  To date 5 years have passed and the court still has not fixed the error. 

There is no dispute of the validity that the Judgment was a fake and was never heard in front of a Judge and was never a court ruling. The courts have admitted in open court that the Judgment was fake, and the court clerk should not have stamped it.

I have the tape recording of the Judge saying it in court in 2019. I have spent thousands of dollars to have the court fix their error.  

Who fixes a court error in Family court in San Diego? I still have not had one judge fix the court error and to date still am being held to this fake Judgment. The courts have delayed this case until October of 2024.

Due process is not a real thing in family court in San Diego.

In this podcast episode of "Divorce Matters," host Mark welcomes guest Ira Paskowitz, a law enforcement officer in South Florida, to discuss parental alienation and parental interference. Ira shares his personal experience dealing with family court and custody issues with his ex-girlfriend, who engaged in relentless parental alienation towards him and his family. Despite paying $1,100 a month in child support, he was denied visitation with his daughter. The conversation highlights the financial and emotional toll of these legal battles and the impact on children caught in the middle.

Guest Rhonda Noordyk 

The "Divorce Matters" podcast episode features guest Rhonda Noordyk , founder and CEO of the Women's Financial Wellness Center, discussing seven ways to prepare for divorce. The host, Mark,, asks Noordyk's about common issues that lead to divorce, and Noordyk notes that infidelity, mental illness and abuse, and addiction are common factors. Noordyk  also emphasizes the importance of one's partner making a sincere effort to change in order to avoid divorce.

Noordyk goes on to discuss the importance of financial preparedness in divorce, as well as seeking out emotional support and being realistic about what to expect in the legal process. She also stresses the need to have a clear understanding of one's own values and priorities, in order to make informed decisions throughout the divorce process.

The host and guest also touch on the emotional toll of divorce and the importance of self-care during this difficult time. Noordyk emphasizes the need to prioritize self-care in order to stay emotionally healthy and to make clear-headed decisions.

Overall, the episode offers practical advice for anyone going through a divorce, with an emphasis on financial and emotional preparedness. Noordyk's insights and advice can help listeners make informed decisions throughout the divorce process, and help them emerge from the experience with their financial and emotional well-being intact.

Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1

Contact Michael at www.judicialrevolution.us 

Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to www.KidsMatter.charity 

In this heart-wrenching episode of our podcast, we speak with a father whose children were taken away by CPS under suspicious circumstances. He shares his story of how their happy family life was suddenly shattered, and how he's fighting tirelessly to get his children back. With firsthand accounts from the father and a look at the evidence that led to the removal of their kids, we delve into the complex world of child protection services and the impact it can have on innocent families. This is a story of resilience, hope, and the power of a father's love. And we also discuss how to avoid the same situation if you ever get into one. 

Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1

Contact Michael at www.judicialrevolution.us 

Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to www.KidsMatter.charity 

Join legal experts Lisa Johnson and Chris Barry in this episode as they discuss the abusive nature of family court systems. With firsthand experience dealing with clients across the world, they share their perspectives on the corruption and cronyism within the industry that leads to extreme cases of high-conflict divorce. Tune in to learn about the challenges faced by good parents and the problems with the current court system that prioritizes money over the well-being of children.

So let's jump right in now, though. Lisa, you were in Connecticut. Is that correct? Is that the court system that you're in? And then Chris, where were you? New York only? Okay, so you guys have got a northeast perspective, which isn't too far off from California. 

I think they share a lot of things. Whereas other parts of the country can be quite different actually. Yeah, but I would. I would agree that the family court system is quite abusive, I actually think they encourage it. And I'm not talking everybody everyone knows I have an asterisk next to most things I say, because I've met some good judges. But they're the exception, not the rule. But I feel like most courts are have been developed. A family courts have been developed to encourage this type of behavior because their friends get richer off of it. And again, not every judge but I feel like most of the stuff could be shut down very quickly. And most of these things can be resolved in a room or in two or three days. But they're not but because of all the money involved. So either one of you chime in where am i right? Or am I wrong? Okay, well, we have this weekly legal abuse support group, we meet on Sundays for about an hour and a half over zoom with clients from all over the world, different laws, same issues, everywhere that we know of that speaks English, where we have clients. And we say that divorce is a tremendous money making industry. And that it's not just you and your difficult ex, but they're actively participating in keeping these things going these high conflict cases and everybody benefits, except you and your children. And so, Chris, why do you think that is? Do you think these people are truly evil? Do you think like, they're just trying to attract money? Or the pirates? What are they? So I think, I think maybe calling them evil is a little bit of a stretch, maybe? Certainly, there are some evil ones out there. But I think so there's a couple of different contributing factors. One is, there's ignorance, right, because most people enter the court system in a divorce, they're angry, there's a reason they never got married, thinking we're when we get divorced, this is how it will be they don't intend to get divorced. So something happened and it got bad enough that they ended the relationship. And sometimes, you know, if their kids involved, they really really didn't want to end it. But it got so bad that they had to so people start off angry. But usually, you know, after a year or nine months, year, year and a half, most rational people calm down. So when what the case is, at least I deal with, there's something going on with our clients, former former partner, where you know, it's a like a mental health issue, whether it's narcissism or borderline, you know, we're not psychologists, we're not qualified to, to diagnose anyone, we look at the behaviors. And it's amazing how consistent the behaviors are, you know, we don't need a label, we look at the behaviors. So that's, that's the biggest factor in the ones that we deal with, we deal with the 5% were that people never the other spouse never comes down. Their anger never subsides, they act irrationally, they spend way more, you know, at least we'll talk about her case, but they spend way more on attorneys fees than if they just reached a reasonable settlement to begin with. So that's that's one. That's the biggest one for us. That the courts don't understand that stuff. It doesn't always take two to tango. Let me challenge you on something. What do you mean, the courts don't understand that you don't think they understand what's going on? They don't they look at these high conflict, generally speaking, okay. You know, not in every case. But generally speaking, they look at when two people are fighting, they can't settle. That it's both their fault. They're both the you know, the term is mutual combat. Yeah. You know, or takes two to tango is another thing that people say all the time. They're not sophistic judges, you're so overloaded with it with cases, they just want you out of their your business transaction to them. Right, so why won't you settle and they get angry at both parties, without having the time or the expertise to like dig deep into what's going on. Also, you know, the toxic personalities, which I know this isn't about toxic personalities. But those people there, they're really, really persuasive. They're manipulative, they've been practicing it for really their entire adult lives. So they go in there and they spin these fantastic lies, and distractions, all kinds of stuff. The other issue though, is because I know I'm going on with this response. A big part of it also, is this sort of this cronyism system that's grown up around divorce. So whether it be parenting, you know, custody evaluators, parenting coordinators, guardian ad litem, or as we call them in, in New York attorneys for the children.

Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1

Contact Michael at www.judicialrevolution.us 

Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to HTTP://www.KidsMatter.charity 

Where are we with the Robert Emert case? A lot of you have been emailing and calling and all that. So he's still in jail. Unfortunately, if you don't recall, we had a, a podcast about this thing a few episodes ago. And because he's still in jail, literally for ridiculous reasons. Things that I believe were either made up by the DEA or exaggerated. In order to teach Ron the lesson, he filed a federal lawsuit. This is a title 42 USC 9083, which is essentially a federal lawsuit used against people that are violating his civil rights under color of law. And he named nine defendants because you can't sue the state, typically, unless they violate your ADEA, which are Americans with disabilities. And they did. So in part, he sued a state actor, I don't believe he sued a state. But he didn't sue nine people in total that were violating his civil rights, including the DEA investigator, Luis Pena, here in San Diego, who I believe was the one that was behind this with another woman that's in the DHS office, just basically a travesty. And these are the things that the people have to rise up and demand change. Because if you can throw a dad in jail, who was for all intents and purposes, one of the best dads of the year, he just got angry with the courts who were trying to take his son away from them and put them put him in the home. So now, we're in a situation where he's got a federal lawsuit, which they've got 21 days to respond. I think that was from February 7. So we'll get back on at the end of the month and talk to you about what happened there. We just witnessed a preliminary hearing, I believe it was yesterday where they presented their evidence. And I can tell you, I was looking at the DA was looking at Louis Pena, these people are nervous. Her hand was shaking, and she was reading from it because they know this is a fraud. It's BS, what they're trying to do. And if they win, and they set precedents here, then if you miss, or if you have an infraction of any sort, and they deem you, as someone that they don't like, then hey, you could be arrested without bail. It's insane. And they know it.

Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1

Contact Michael at www.judicialrevolution.us 

Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to www.KidsMatter.charity 

Michael's YouTube Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/MrPropriaPersona1

Want to help us fight judicial injustice? Donate to KidsMatter.charity 

https://kidsmatter.charity/campaigns/kids-matter-donate/donate/