Stating that our courts are “CORRUPT” is incredibly insufficient.Posted on May 5, 2015 by arnierosner
On May 5, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Theodore Visner
Speaking to the current and intentional state of our Michigan courts.
Stating that our courts are “CORRUPT” is incredibly insufficient. The identification and exploitation of
criminal intent is required to establish a basis for meaningful and lasting change.
In “Child Protective Proceedings” (CPS Cases), the Michigan Supreme Court has built a provision into the
Michigan Court Rules that serves to save lower courts from wanton Due Process violations with regard to
Respondent Parents. The specific court rule is MCR 3.920(H).
This Michigan Court Rule allows the court, the prosecutors, public defenders and agencies such as CPS
and DHS to rely on the ability to unlawfully establish jurisdiction without proper lawful notice to the
parties which is a terminal defect to the proceedings themselves.
“MCR 3.920(H) Notice Defects. The appearance and participation of a party at a hearing is a waiver
by that party of defects in service with respect to that hearing unless objections regarding the specific
defect are placed on the record. If a party appears or participates without an attorney, the court shall
advise the party that the appearance and participation waives notice defects and of the party’s right
to seek an attorney.”
This alleged Michigan Court Rule is completely unconstitutional on it’s face! If you come to court seeking
the return of your kidnapped children you are appearing and participating in the proceedings against you
and now it doesn’t matter that the courts have already deprived you of your inalienable right to due
process and you are forever stuck in a jurisdiction unlawfully obtained and criminally maintained!
Through the “creation” of this Michigan Court Rule, the Michigan Supreme Court is intentionally
complicate in the conspired deprivation of our inalienable right to Due Process under color of law.
The Michigan Supreme Court is without virtue and without honor.
When you combine this with the fact that Respondent Parents in Michigan are assigned a “Court
Appointed Attorney” before these respondent parents are even aware of the fact that they may need
representation we come full circle with a strategy that places the state in the winners bracket every single
time in cases involving children. “They can NOT lose”.
Court Appointed Attorneys are assigned by order of the court. How is it that court appointed attorneys
are being appointed before the proceedings have begun? Who is appointing these “Court Appointed
Attorneys” without asking the Respondent Parent if they require a court appointed attorney?
Respondent Parents in Michigan (as well as many other states) are being assigned representation
without ever having made a request for an attorney in violation of Michigan Court Rule MCR 3.915(B)(1)(b).
MCR 3.915 Assistance of Attorney
(B) Child Protective Proceedings.
(a) Advice and Right to Counsel. At respondent’s first court appearance, the court shall advise the respondent
of the right to retain an attorney to represent the respondent at any hearing conducted pursuant to these
rules and that
(i) the respondent has the right to a court-appointed attorney at any hearing conducted pursuant to these
rules, including the preliminary hearing, if the respondent is financially unable to retain an attorney, and,
(ii) if the respondent is not represented by an attorney, the respondent may request a court-appointed
attorney at any later hearing.
(b) Appointment of an Attorney. The court shall appoint an attorney to represent the respondent at any
hearing, including the preliminary hearing, conducted pursuant to these rules if
(i) the respondent requests appointment of an attorney, and
(ii) it appears to the court, following an examination of the record, through written financial statements,
or otherwise, that the respondent is financially unable to retain an attorney.
(c) The respondent may waive the right to the assistance of an attorney, except that the court shall not accept
the waiver by a respondent who is a minor when a parent, guardian, legal custodian, or guardian ad litem
objects to the waiver.
Additionally, the forced appointment of a court appointed attorney is in direct violation of Article 1 § 13 of the Michigan Constitution
which reaffirms the people’s right to represent themselves and/or to seek counsel of their choosing.
§ 13 Conduct of suits in person or by counsel.
Sec. 13. A suitor in any court of this state has the right to prosecute or defend his suit, either in his own
proper person or by an attorney
When the court forces the appointment of attorneys that refuse to object to terminal defects in the
case, the case is allowed to continue due to MCR 3.920(H) and every BAR member gets paid and Michigan
parents are deprived, the state of Michigan is deprived and our nation in general is deprived.
This is the opposite of justice and it is being perpetrated by the entity masquerading as our “judiciary”.
Thanks to: http://scannedretina.com