NationalPLC.Org

 

kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

Galluzzo Ruling / Lowell Jaks takes child / NonViolent Action in Syracuse

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Webmaster (webmaster@AKidsRight.Org)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 16:55:23 EST


This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.
======================================================================

Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on:
1. Galluzzo Federal Ruling - Custody is a legislative issue!
2. Parent's group leader suspect in 'kidnap' - Lowell Jaks took custody.
3. NonViolent Action Feb 12th - In custody in Syracuse.


1. Galluzzo Federal Ruling - Custody is a legislative issue!
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray R Lautenschlager <ma5hie@hotmail.com>

> On  January 23 Judge Magistrate Michael Merz issued his ruling in
> Mike Galluzzo's federal case which had sought to find Ohio Rev Code
> 3109.04 and Civil Rule 75N unconstitutional. As this was a long
> fought for challenge and what seemed like an eternity in waiting for
> the decision, we had hoped that the Federal Court in Dayton would do
> what no other court had done so far and legally establish the EQUAL
> rights of every fit parent in Ohio and every state of the nation.

> Merz did the most unthinkable act and what may go down in history as
> the BIGGEST NON-decision ever made by a Federal Court. After agreeing
> that the Federal Court system was the proper venue for this to
> proceed, he ruled that the argument was interesting and compelling but
> that parental equality should be sought through the legislature not
> the federal court system.

From: "Michael Galluzzo" <magalluzzox@hotmail.com>

> SHOCK AND AWE !!   Used by the military to destroy the moral of the
> enemy!  Used by the courts to destroy the parent-child relationships!

> Well, that is what I felt when I received the decision Judge Michael
> Merz filed on Jan. 23, 2004 dismissing our complaint and challenge,
> with prejudice, to the constitutionality of Ohio custody statute
> 3109.04 and Civil Rule 75(N).  In the decision, the court appears to
> contradict itself on several occasions.  The court agrees that divorce
> is NOT in the best interest of the children and that it is better for
> children to maintain strong ties with both parents.  We all know
> that!  Why does he think we are challenging the stupid law in the
> first place!?  (I'm sorry, but I don't feel like being eloquent
> right now!)  If the law were appropriate and reasonable, we wouldn't
> need to change it!

> The court cites numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting the
> rights of parents as fundamental but points out that these cases
> involved parents and third parties!  Well, isn't the state a third
> party?  As Chuck Evans has so eloquently stated, ``A parent either has
> full entitlement to custody of children or no entitlement... a
> fundamental right cannot be allocated.''  What this guy is trying to
> do is separate the parental rights of divorced parents and those of
> parents in an intact marriage.  What he fails to understand is that
> deprivation of the fundamental right to custody begins BEFORE the
> parents are divorced!  He does not find in the 14th Amendment a
> fundamental right of divorced parents to shared or joint custody.
> Once again, your fundamental right does not evaporate just because
> your spouse files for divorce!

> The court also agrees that shared parenting would inure to the benefit
> of many children and non-custodial parents, but we should be seeking
> this in the General Assembly and not the federal courts.  That may
> sound well and good, but when the General Assembly passes statutes
> that infringe on a parents fundamental rights and merely refuses to
> correct the statute, the federal courts should step in and protect the
> people.  If Judge Merz didn't want to answer the constitutional
> question, he could have certified it to the Ohio Supreme Court for
> resolution.  He chose not!
.....

> This decision will be appealed!  More on that later.  Copies of the
> decision, Motion for Reconsideration and Supplement, and the decision
> on the reconsideration are posted on the PACE web site at:
> http://www.pacegroup.org/.

Michael A. Galluzzo, President
National Organization for Parental Equality (NOPE)


2. Parent's group leader suspect in 'kidnap' - Lowell Jaks took custody.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following news story has generated a lot of interest and following
it we share of the messages we have received.  Our sympathy to the
entire family, both Lowell (whom the system found 'expendable' in the
life of his child) and also to Elaine (who's spouse found her
'expendable' in the life of their child), and their 10 year old son.
What a tragedy.  Have we all forgotten that two wrongs don't make a
right?

Some people see this type of act as "Civil Disobedience" -- this is why
we are so careful to call for "NonViolent Action" at our website.  To
call for public action based on Faith, Love, and personal sacrifice.
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil_back.htm -- much of what you will find
below is hopelessness, anger and revenge.  We welcome your FEEDBACK.

Also, note the reference to the ANCPR web site below -- the reporter
seems to misrepresent that also (we added the URL below).  The main
thrust of the site is equal parenting.

-------------------
(Feb 2, 2004) 07:57 PST RIDGECREST, Calif. (AP) -- 

A parents rights advocate is wanted by police, suspected of abducting
his own son, officers said.  Lowell Anton Jaks, 52, has a $100,000
felony warrant out for his arrest after Alec Norman Jaks disappeared
last Tuesday morning on his way to Pierce Elementary School.

Elaine Jackson, Lowell Jaks' ex-wife and the child's mother, had asked
for a protective order on Jan. 21, when she first started suspecting her
husband intended to take her child away. Her suspicions began three
weeks ago, when she drove with her son past a passport photos store and
the 10-year-old told her he'd applied for a passport there with his dad.

A week later, Jaks placed ads in the local paper seeking to sell most of
his belongings, and got rid of his dogs, Jackson said. She still allowed
her son to ride to school on his bike, but when he didn't come home at
the end of the day, she called the school, and found out he'd never
arrived.

"I immediately called the police," Jackson said.

Police in Chino, 112 miles from Ridgecrest, on Saturday found a
silver-gray pickup that Lowell Jaks rented from the Ridgecrest
Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Jackson is afraid Jaks, who speaks some Spanish,
took their son out of the country.

Jaks founded the nonprofit Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents Rights in
1994, soon after his marriage to Jackson, because he had been married
before and did not want to pay child support for his daughter. The
organization's Web site gives tips on how to avoid paying child support.
[ http://www.ancpr.org/ ]

A 2002 Associated Press article about violence among divorced fathers
quotes Jaks, the president of the organization, as saying: "None of these
guys are poster children. But when you cause this much pain to so many men,
there are going to be repercussions. A certain percentage are going to
crack."
-----------


-- Don Rufty <DonRufty@aol.com>

> Sorry not to be up to speed on Pres. Jaks. But, has he had equal
> parenting time?  No? Was he "found" to be an unfit parent? No? If that
> is the situation, his rights have been violated, probably Under Color
> of Law, Under Color of Office and Under Color of Authority. That being
> the case, Felonies have been committed against him by state
> actors. Federal Criminal Complaints are in order, on his behalf, if
> that is the way things have come down.

> Are we willing to march in the streets in support of him and The Rule
> Of Law?  Are we willing to stand up for Citizens' Rights? Or are we
> willing to continue to take it on the chin? Are we willing to stand by
> and watch him be wrongfully crucified?


--  Mike

>   Marching in the streets is ineffective. Nobody watches. To be effective
> you must work in, around, over and under the system. Civil disobedience
> still works. I've been charged 19 times with Contempt of Court for
> refusing to pay Child Support. Now, they don't even waste their time
> tossing me in jail. Oh... they still try to garnish my bank accounts,
> intercept any tax refunds, but that is all handled by going "under" the
> system and learning to keep it off their "radar screen".


-- "Eric Ericson" <Eric87443@peoplepc.com>

>> "However, we currently have a bunch of limp-wristed, non-aggressive types
>> running such organizations who don't want to rock the proverbial boat and
>> only want to push mediation, presumptive joint custody and visitation
>> drop-off centers.  These are all losing propositions and will only delay
>> the fathers movement even further."  -- Bruce Eden
>
> I could not agree more with your assessment except to add that I think you
> forgot about the chicken livered MEMBERS of these groups, too.  :)
>
> Most talk the walk.  Maybe 1 in 15,000 walk the talk...
>
> I sure wish I knew how to get that .007% together someway, somehow.  If we
> did, we could change the world...


--- Glenn Sacks  <Glennjsacks@cs.com>   http://GlennSacks.com/

> One question I haven't seen addressed in any of the e-mails I've
> received--what was Lowell Jaks' justification for abducting his son?

> I think we all can agree that parental abductions are an evil, and
> that in some extreme cases they are the lesser evil. I do know fathers
> whose situations are so terrible and unjust that parental abduction is
> defensible. What evidence is there that Lowell Jaks' case is one of
> them?


--- Dean Tong <DeanTong@aol.com>

> What Sacks is saying is that unless Jaks had proof that the kid was in
> imminent danger because of mom, mom's boyfriend, et al, that he might
> not have had grounds to do what he did. If he was accused falsely of
> anal sodomy of his son and/or if he had proof mom's boyfriend or new
> husband was molesting the kid or beating his brains in, then he might
> have been justified to take his son.

> But, there's no way in heck he should have done what he did based on a
> few visitation blockages and restraining orders. If we abdicate to
> child abduction based on visitation interference and/or restraining
> orders there'd be a heck of a lot of missing kids in America.



3. NonViolent Action Feb 12th - In custody in Syracuse.
------------------------------------------------------
In the continuing effort of the group to get a meeting between Senator
Hillary R. Clinton and mothers and fathers hurt by our family law
systems -- John Murtari was again taken into custody by Federal Police
outside her offices on the 14th floor of the Syracuse Federal Building.
He was arraigned and released by US Magistrate Judge DiBianco.

As usual, he was carrying a simple petition made up of pictures of moms
and dads and children who have been separated. For more details see
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/actionc_syr

Your help is welcome!

==================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to
Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 03:12:01 EST