have been sent a BostonHerald.com
Local / Regional News Article from
Today the court banned the book until
Thompson can be reached at 978-691-1191.
Click here for the full article
Father’s book courts trouble
A judge who figures prominently in
a Methuen father’s new book about
losing custody of his child issued
an order yesterday on whether sales
of Kevin Thompson’s tell-all should
be banned. But you won’t read all
about it here because Essex Probate
and Family Court Justice Mary McCauley...
KevinThompson and his son Patrick,4,
at their home.(Staff photo by Stuart
here to read about the
other great marshmallow roast of history.
(I don't agree with all this, but
its a great read.)
I talked to Kevin tonight,
and he is on lots of TV shows tomorrow.
QUOTE: Dr. Ned Holstein, founder of
the parental advocacy group Fathers
and Families, argued Manzi should
have recused herself from ruling on
a book in which she’s criticized.
LEGAL ANALYSIS BY THIS REPORTER:
OK. A judge wants to ban a book
in which she is a criticized.
Hmmm. Is there a conflict of
interest? Think Rinaldo, think.
Hmmmmm. The judge wants to ban
a book in which she is criticized.
Hmmmm. Damn, I am at a loss.
I can’t think of any conflicts of
interest, can you? (Click
here for definitions of
conflict of interest.)
Let’s look at some definitions
of conflict of interest:
situation occuring when an official's
private interests may benefit from
his or her public actions.”
That doesn’t apply. Can’t see
how the private interest of preventing
embarrassment in a book critical of
oneself may benefit from the public
action of banning the book as
a judge. Nope, not at all.
ABOUT THIS DEFINITION: “A conflict
between an individual’s personal interest
and his or her public duty. This can
exist whether or not money is involved,
and whether the conflict is actual
or only perceived.”
Hmm. Don’t really see
how banning a book critical of oneself
constitutes, “A conflict between an
individual’s personal interest and
his or her public duty.” Nope.
ABOUT THIS DEFINITION: “A clash between
the private interest and the official
public responsibilities of a person
in a position of trust or power.”
Clash, what clash? So the judge
banned a book in which she was criticized?
How is this a “A clash between the
private interest and the official
public responsibilities of a person
in a position of trust or power”?
Its good to be king!
“a situation in which a public official's
decisions are influenced by the official's
Look folks. You can’t stretch
a theory too far. So, Kevin
called the judges and the system totally
corrupt. I don’t see how a few
comments—well, a whole book—about
how one could improve their performance—i.e.,
stop being a corrupt rogue that has
more bias a Klansman—would influence
a person’s opinion. Don’t see any
influence here. Theories have
to be grounded in possibility and
not be far fetched.
“A conflict of interest is a situation
in which someone in a position of
trust, such as a lawyer, a politician,
or an executive or director of a corporation,
has competing professional and/or
personal interests. Such competing
interests can make it difficult to
fulfill his or her duties fairly.
Even if there is no evidence of improper
actions, a conflict of interest can
create an appearance of impropriety
that can undermine confidence in the
ability of that person to act properly.
This definition would not apply. After
all, nobody really trust a family
Sorry Ned. You may have gone
to Harvard, but you don’t know what
a conflict of interest is. Trust
me. There is absolutely no conflict
of interest when a judge bans a book
containing scathing criticism of herself.
HOLSTEIN RANTS ON: “ “I think
the Family Court has lost all sight
of the Constitution in this matter
and in many others,” Holstein said.”
ANALYSIS: Sure Ned. Pull
out the US constitution. What
are you going to do Mr. Ned Holstein?
Make a federal case out of this?
that your saying Ned? WHAT ABOUT THE
FIRST AMENDMENT?: Boy you smucks
really want to go right after the
technicalities. Just remember this
fundamental point of constitutional
law—the first amendment is at its
low point when prior restraints are
being invoked to suppress political
criticism of the government. Very
low. Conversely, we afford maximum
protection to obscenity. Just
trust me on this. Oh, and when
the government actor being criticized
is banning the book, this is immunized
under the sovereign immunity claim
that the “king can do no wrong.”
NED, HAVE YOU REALLY READ THE CONSTITUTION?
It says, “Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances.”
ANALSYSIS: “Congress” Ned.
“Congress.” An arrant judge
totally making up law and making up
powers she could not possibly have,
and acting totally apart from the
law, and making up the law is not
“congress.” Got that Ned?
It is a part of the inherent powers
of courts to totally deprive you of
your fundamental right to speech.
Didn’t you know that? No first amendment
WHAT ABOUT THE MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITUTION?:
Article XVI. The liberty of the press
is essential to the security of freedom
in a state: it ought not, therefore,
to be restrained in this commonwealth.
The right of free speech shall not
GOT TO LOOK CLOSE
FOLKS: The right to free speech
shall not be abridged. FREE
speech. But Kevin Thompson had to
pay a printer to publish his book—and
that wasn’t free. Now mind you,
if the printer printed the book gratis,
hey it would have been “free speech.”
But this speech wasn’t free, it had
to be paid for. And it is only
free speech that cannot be abridge.
You have to get up pretty early in
the morning to trick this judge!
FINAL ANALYSIS: A judge banning
a book in which she is criticized
neither constitutes a “conflict of
interest” nor implicates any constitutional
right to free speech.
TO BAN THE BOOK TO PROTECT THE CHILD,
AND YOU DON'T HATE KIDS, DO YOU? DO
RINALDO’S NOTES: Hey, they only wanted
to edit out the portion where Kevin
actually try’s to prove the courts
are corrupt. And they need to protect
children! Other statesmen have
used this approach before in history,
such as . . . .
"The state must declare
the child to be the most precious
treasure of the people." Adolf
here for more fun ways
we can use the image of protecting
children to further sick and oppressive
tyranny. (I don't agree with everything
written, but it is a good read.)