Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Silhouette]

That's a nice strawman mdk. Meanwhile, do or do not all parties to a case require counsel to brief the court? It's OK, take your time. I know this one is gonna be hard for you.

The foundation of your argument is that children are parties to the marriage contract of their parents. That legal standard exists only in that obsessive wasteland you call a mind.

Let's look at Obergefell again to clear up whether or not children are beneficiaries (parties to and of) the marriage contract:

Obergefell, (page 15 of Opinion) Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

Are we clear now on whether or not the Court believes that children were/are parties to/beneficiaries of the marriage contract? Where was the counsel on behalf of children briefing the various cases? Oh that's right: NOT PRESENT.

Say it with me folks "Mistrial".... Where is the separate counsel briefing the court on Dumont v Lyon? Say it with me folks.....

 

[mdk]

Let's look at Obergefell again to clear up whether or not children are beneficiaries (parties to and of) the marriage contract:

Obergefell, (page 15 of Opinion) Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution

Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

Are we clear now on whether or not the Court believes that children were/are parties to/beneficiaries of the marriage contract? Where was the counsel on behalf of children briefing the various cases? Oh that's right: NOT PRESENT.

Say it with me folks "Mistrial".... Where is the separate counsel briefing the court on Dumont v Lyon? Say it with me folks.....

 

[Syriusly]

That's a nice strawman mdk. Meanwhile, do or do not all parties to a case require counsel to brief the court? It's OK, take your time. I know this one is gonna be hard for you.

The foundation of your argument is that children are parties to the marriage contract of their parents. That legal standard exists only in that obsessive wasteland you call a mind.

Let's look at Obergefell again to clear up.

If we look at Obergefell we should look at the very clear and very precise language of Obergefell that says what you advocate harms children.

Quoting Obergefell:
The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples

Why do you want the law to harm and humiliate the children of same sex couples?

Every time you cite Obergefell you cite a ruling that points out that what you demand would harm actual children.

So why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

[Q
Say it with me folks "Mistrial".....

Say it with me folks (we know you all agree"- Silhouette is a complete nutcase.

 

[Silhouette]

If we look at Obergefell we should look at the very clear and very precise language of Obergefell that says what you advocate harms children.

Based on the best guesses of five layman lawyers without being briefed as required by competent counsel representing children's unique interests in the age old mother/father benefits they got out of marriage, up for radical revision at Obergefell.

They just painted a whining liberal picture without professional briefing on behalf of the mother/father benefits. And, they misinterpreted the US Constitution doing so. You'd think they'd have gotten one of those requirements right.

 

[Syriusly]

If we look at Obergefell we should look at the very clear and very precise language of Obergefell that says what you advocate harms children.

Based on the best guesses of five layman lawyers without being briefed as required by competent counsel representing children's unique interests in the age old mother/father benefits they got out of marriage, up for radical revision at Obergefell..

'best guesses of five layman lawyers'?

In the opinion of the 5 of the 9 top judges in America. In the opinion of 5 of the top legal experts in America.

You are the one citing Obergefell- and conveniently leaving out that Obergefell explicitily says what you promote harms children.

If you ignore that part-if you pretend Obergefell is not valid- why do you cite Obergefell at all?

More importantly- why do you want to harm children?

 

[Silhouette]

If we look at Obergefell we should look at the very clear and very precise language of Obergefell that says what you advocate harms children.

Based on the best guesses of five layman lawyers without being briefed as required by competent counsel representing children's unique interests in the age old mother/father benefits they got out of marriage, up for radical revision at Obergefell..

'best guesses of five layman lawyers'?

In the opinion of the 5 of the 9 top judges in America. In the opinion of 5 of the top legal experts in America.

They are not experts on child psychology however, and so, they were relying on their own best guesses and not competent required counsel briefing such nuanced issues from peer-reviewed experts on behalf of children's unique stake in mother/father marriage.

Mistrial.

 

[Syriusly]

If we look at Obergefell we should look at the very clear and very precise language of Obergefell that says what you advocate harms children.

Based on the best guesses of five layman lawyers without being briefed as required by competent counsel representing children's unique interests in the age old mother/father benefits they got out of marriage, up for radical revision at Obergefell..

'best guesses of five layman lawyers'?

In the opinion of the 5 of the 9 top judges in America. In the opinion of 5 of the top legal experts in America.

They are not experts on child psychology
Mistrial.

Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.

And every time you say 'mistrial' regarding a Supreme Court decision....the world laughs....

It is legally impossible for a Supreme Court decision to be a 'mistrial'

So why do you want children harmed?

 

[Silhouette]

Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.

Yes, the way courts work is AFTER the judge(s) have been BRIEFED on the issues at hand by ALL COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT, they THEN rule on the case. It doesn't work if the judges are laymen ruling on behalf of their own self-briefing/guessing re: one of the parties to the case.

 

[Syriusly]

Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.

Yes, the way courts work is AFTER the judge(s) have been BRIEFED on the issues at hand by ALL COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT, they THEN rule on the case. It doesn't work if the judges are laymen ruling on behalf of their own self-briefing/guessing re: one of the parties to the case.

Supreme Court justices are not 'laymen'- they are Justices of the Supreme Court- as described in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decides who is required to be present- as it decides what cases it will hear.

The Supreme Court has never decided that children were parties to be represented in any marriage case- not in Loving v. Virginia, not in Turner v. Safley, not in Zablocki v. Redhail and not in Obergefell.

Because children were not parties in any of those cases and Supreme Court justices- not one of the 9 in any of those cases- ever said otherwise.

 

[Silhouette]

Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.

Yes, the way courts work is AFTER the judge(s) have been BRIEFED on the issues at hand by ALL COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT, they THEN rule on the case. It doesn't work if the judges are laymen ruling on behalf of their own self-briefing/guessing re: one of the parties to the case.

Supreme Court justices are not 'laymen'- they are Justices of the Supreme Court- as described in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decides who is required to be present- as it decides what cases it will hear.

The Supreme Court has never decided that children were parties to be represented in any marriage case

The Supreme Court isn't infallible. If they were, then no case would ever be reversed. But they have been, haven't they?

And, what do you call a case where the sitting judge or judge panel both acts as representative(s) to one of the parties to a case (who has no counsel present nor invited), and the final deciders of said case? Answer: tyranny. The exact type of tyranny we created our country for to escape this type of kangaroo justice going on in England at the time.

Again, 5,000 courts and old case law may have fucked up FUNDAMENTAL justice, that doesn't make their fuck-ups legit. We're not talking about a typo on a brief here. We're talking about the systematic exclusion of parties fundamental to a question of law BEING EXCLUDED FROM BRIEFING EACH AND EVERY CASE INVOLVING THEM. And it was so because even learned people forgot about the Infancy Doctrine with respect to children sharing contractual benefits with adults requiring them to have unique representation at any contract-revision hearing.

Ooopsies. We'd better get on that before there are no more protections for children left. I mean after all, said fuck ups just recently removed either a father or mother for them for life as a convenience to crafty adults.... Might want to read the base premise for the creation of the Infancy Doctrine. I'd say blocking out representation of children at Obergefell and Dumont v Lyon was/is a rather crafty act on behalf of the courts from the bottom up. Too bad in law school such little emphasis is given covering the Infancy Doctrine and it's long line of supporting case law:

Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

1. ELEMENTS AND RATIONALES OF THE INFANCY DOCTRINE

A. The Rule

The infancy doctrine protects persons under the legally designated age of adulthood from both "crafty adults" and their own bad judgment. The doctrine is based on the presumption that minors are generally easily exploitable and less capable of understanding the nature of legal obligations that come with a contract.

I argue that the courts may have known that kids were required to have representation, but that liberal activist judges keenly intuited an argument against dissolving their ancient benefit from marriage: both mother AND father. The more conservative judges in various panels were too buried in case load and too focused on "well we've never required this representation before so it must be legit" to stage a blockade in the process as required until the problem was/is corrected. So to eliminate that little pesky argument from briefing, they simply didn't invited the required separate counsel to attend. It would bung up the works the liberal judge cartel so smoothly planned to look "like legitimate justice".

 

[Silhouette]

The simple immutable fact is, all parties identified (as children were in Obergefell itself, page 15) to a case/contract revision are required to have unique separate counsel briefing. That never happened. And that is injustice and mistrial in each and every single case of the many cases it happened in.

The most important contractual "benefits to children" (direct quote from Obergefell) was the ancient enjoyment of BOTH mother AND father from marriage. That vital bedrock contractual benefit was wiped away and a new contract that can bind-away children from either mother or father for life was ratified. And all that happened with the little ones scooted out of courts with a pat on their head and a "run along and play dears, this doesn't concern you".

 

[Syriusly]

Well its a good thing that they aren't asked to be child psychologists, but instead rule on the law.

Yes, the way courts work is AFTER the judge(s) have been BRIEFED on the issues at hand by ALL COUNSEL REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT, they THEN rule on the case. It doesn't work if the judges are laymen ruling on behalf of their own self-briefing/guessing re: one of the parties to the case.

Supreme Court justices are not 'laymen'- they are Justices of the Supreme Court- as described in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court decides who is required to be present- as it decides what cases it will hear.

The Supreme Court has never decided that children were parties to be represented in any marriage case

The Supreme Court isn't infallible. If they were, then no case would ever be reversed. But they have been, haven't they? .

The Supreme Court isn't 'infalliible'- but their judgements are legally binding.

Not a single Supreme Court decision has ever been 'reversed'- there are only two ways that the outcomes of Supreme Court decisions have changed:
a) The Constitution was amended (see Dredd Scott) or
b) A later Supreme Court comes up with a different interpretation- but it doesn't reverse the original decision. If a Supreme Court in the future for example, decided that it was constitutional to ban mixed race marriages- that wouldn't be reversing Loving v. Virginia- all of the marriages that depended on Loving would still be in effect- but moving forward in the future states could ban mixed race marriages if they chose to.

 

[Syriusly]

The simple immutable fact is, all parties identified (as children were in Obergefell itself, page 15) to a case/contract revision are required to have unique separate counsel briefing. .

There is virtually not a single true thing in that statement.

Not one.

You almost have to try to manage to get every single thing wrong like you have.

 

[Silhouette]

The simple immutable fact is, all parties identified (as children were in Obergefell itself, page 15) to a case/contract revision are required to have unique separate counsel briefing. .

There is virtually not a single true thing in that statement.

Not one.

You almost have to try to manage to get every single thing wrong like you have.

So you are asserting that a person who is clearly identified as a party to a case can be shut out of having counsel briefing the court on that case? Did I get that right?

 

[Silhouette]

Hon. Judge Paul Borman presides over Dumont v Lyon. His court staff can be reached at:
Address:
Theodore Levin US Courthouse
231 West Lafayette Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48226
United States

Phone: 1-313-234-5005
Fax: -
Web url: United States District Court -- Eastern Michigan District

If anyone wants to ask who the separate counsel is briefing the court on children's unique interests with regards to being placed in a home with a contract that banishes them for life from either a mother or father.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court isn't 'infalliible'- but their judgements are legally binding.

Until they are overturned. I can think of one way to overturn a USSC judgment. Prove that a vital party to a case did not have counsel briefing the Court(s) (all along since these cases began). Prove that = mistrial(s).

 

[Silhouette]

I hope the court in Michigan won't ban children from having unique representation as required on such a question concerning all children via precedent. At the very least I hope they'll read these studies before forcing adoption agencies to place boys or girls in a home where either the father or mother are banished for life by a contract: Importance of fathers: fatherhood.pdf Importance of fathers to sons and mothers to daughters: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

I notice there was a motion to dismiss and a response filed this month on the 6th. It's inching along. I've asked the court to provide me with the name of the attorney(s) briefing the court on behalf of children's unique interests in the precedent being considered. I'll post the names here if the court wises up and follows due process as required.

 

[Silhouette]

It's not just a case that's being decided. LGBT cult has taught us that we'd better pay attention to the precedent they're after.

 

[Silhouette]

When bringing up need for children to have separate counsel in the various family law cases regarding marriage and adoption, this thread with 12,000 views was sent (disappeared) to "The Rubber Room" by moderators. Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum