---

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

IT IS OFFICIAL: JUDGE BANS FATHER'S BOOK ON CORRUPTION IN FAMILY COURT

 

On March 22, 2006, Essex Probate and Family Court Justice Mary McCauley Manzi, made it clear that First Amendment rights do not apply in her courtroom when she banned Kevin Thompson's tell-all book titled "Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts."

 

What makes this particular ruling so outrageous is that Manzi is prominently criticized in the book for her judicial misconduct in Thompson's case.  Therefore, a clear conflict of interest existed that should have excluded Manzi from having jurisdiction.

 

This issue has caused a stir among civil rights and fathers' rights groups in the state who have tired of the illegal treatment that they receive in family court where constitutional law is routinely ignored.  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.  I think the Family Court has lost all sight of the Constitution in this matter and in many others."

 

Aware of the media interest in the story, Judge Manzi refused to release her ruling by phone to Thompson, who received his notice by mail on Friday, March 24, 2006.  The order permanently restrains Mr. Thompson from disseminating any information related to his custody case and impounds the custody case itself until the year 2021.

 

Manzi's rationale for this action is that "impoundment is necessary to protect the best interests including the privacy interests of the parties' minor child."  She wrote further, "no harm will be caused to the community interest by impounding this file."

 

When reached for comment, Mr. Thompson asked, "what privacy interests of my son have been compromised and whose interests are being protected other than the personal interests of Judge Manzi, Judge Digangi, and the three judges in appeals court who don't want their crimes to be exposed?"  Mr. Thompson commented further,  "No community interest is harmed other than the community's right to scrutinize the judiciary, hold it accountable, and prevent from happening the concealed crimes committed against fathers and children every day in family court for profit."

 

When asked whether he would adhere to the order, Mr. Thompson commented, "I made it clear at the hearing that Judge Manzi did not have the jurisdiction to ban my book.  Any order issued from such a hearing would be illegal and therefore, null and void.  Since I respect the law, I have no intentions of adhering to an illegal order issued by a judge with her own agenda."

 

Thompson is scheduled for court on April 19, 2006, to respond to the Mother's request for attorney fees incurred to ban Thompson's book.  Judge Manzi has requested financial statements from both parents before she rules on this motion.  Thompson commented, "what could possibly be the relevance of financial statements in the determination of whether or not to extort the mother's attorney fees from me?  This is how the family courts bully fathers into silence - jail them for ignoring illegal orders or financially ruin them by making them pay for attorneys who they did not hire.  Everything that I am doing right now is for my son.  I will not be shut up."

Today by mail, I received notice that my book was officially banned.  I received an Order of Impoundment and a Temporary Restraining Order.  My custody case and a DSS report, which substantiate the crimes that I have experienced, was impounded until 2021. 

 

Manzi's rationale is that "impoundment is necessary to protect the best interests including the privacy interests of the parties' minor child. 

 

Comment:  What privacy interests of my son have been compromised and whose interests are being protected other than the self-serving interests of Judge Manzi, Judge Digangi, and the three judges in appeals court who don't want their crimes to be exposed?

 

Manzi's second argument is that "no harm will be caused to the community interest by impounding this file."

 

Comment:  No community interest is harmed other than the community's right to scrutinize the judiciary, hold it accountable, and prevent from happening the concealed crimes committed against fathers and children every day in family court for profit.

 

The other day, I shared the testimony that I was able to communicate in court. 

 

Below is the prepared testimony that I DID NOT get to communicate after Manzi sustained the Mother's objection.  It begins with the last paragraph that I WAS able to communicate. 

 

The fact is that most cases involving two fit parents should end immediately with one simple question, "Do either of you intend to prove that the other parent is unfit?"  If the answer to that question is "no" from both parents, then 50/50 joint physical custody should be ordered without exceptions.

 

Of course, if this were the rule in family court, billable litigation would be significantly reduced, the domestic violence industry would lose customers that it currently gets with the incentive for mothers to make up false allegations, the child support services department would need to be downsized, and the state would lose federal dollars that it currently receives every time the child support guidelines are applied.

 

Since every legitimate statistic and study confirms that it is in the best interests of children to have both parents significantly involved in their lives, it is clearly all about the money to be made off of fathers and absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the children.

 

If I can bring an end to the corruption in family court by exposing this hidden agenda and generating the outrage needed to force changes, then those efforts will ultimately benefit every male in this state... including my son.

 

Just as the benefits of 50/50 shared parenting far outweigh the trivial inconvenience of a child having two homes... exposing betrayals of public trust by government officials who have sworn to uphold the rights of its citizens far outweigh the minor inconvenience of exposing the Mother's crimes in the process.

 

My son and I are two real-life "flesh and blood" victims of the corruption described and substantiated in my book.  The picture of us on the back cover puts a face to that injustice.

 

Only in family court are fathers treated like criminals without a criminal's rights to due process, equal protection, and a jury of their peers.

 

Only in family court is the burden of proof, a burden placed on every other accuser in this country, waived for mothers who choose to manufacture vile claims of abuse as a court strategy. 

 

Only in family court are there no consequences for mothers who are found guilty of making false allegations and violating court orders.

 

Only in family court can judges ignore constitutional laws that forbid the creation of second-class citizens. 

 

Only in family court are the best interests of a child interpreted to mean removing loving fathers from the lives of their children and replacing them with visitation hours and cash payments.

 

Only in family court are the actual facts of the case irrelevant so that the court can believe everything alleged by the mother as fact and ignore everything expressed by the father.

 

Only in family court can you not find a single "employee" who supports shared parenting - an opinion supported by 85% of the population outside the walls of this court house.

 

And, most importantly, only in family court are mothers guaranteed sole custody by simply choosing to be hostile and uncooperative with the child's father.

 

Family courts repeat the same rhetoric over and over and then defy it behind closed doors.  As Hitler put it, "Society will tolerate almost any injustice so long as you tell them it is for the children."

 

In family court, "no fault" divorce means "man-fault" divorce.

 

The "best interests of the children" mean the "best interests of the mothers and racketeers" who profit off "man-fault" divorce.

 

And the court's assertion that the law looks to both parents as being equal is defied behind closed doors by judges with an agenda-driven interpretation of those same laws.

 

The bottom line is that my book is long overdue and should be required reading for every legislator, judge, and concerned citizen in the state.

 

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!