Recently Courts are Sending People to Counseling - This is Unconstitutional and NOT Allowed in Civil Matters

Many things judges are doing are not lawful and supported by proper legal basis, but few people know this and lawyers will not point it out and irritate the judge even when they know.

 

I can not believe this is legal or constitutional in any way without committing a crime.

By what right could they steal your time and money for this? To deny you freedom (time) and property (money) they must convict you of some crime according to the constitution.  It is blackmail for visitation? I would ask for a complete trial by jury under the constitution as denying you freedom, property etc. requires you commit a crime of some kind and is not appropriate in civil matters:

If it comes down to counseling and being ordered to do so...

 
1. The divorce or custody proceedings are civil in nature.
2. Ordering one party to counseling in no way "makes whole" the moving party and therefore should not be allowable relief for the moving party.
3. It should only be ordered if both parties are equally forced into counseling on a finding of need or upon agreement of both parties.
 
The purpose of a civil case is to make whole and having one party go to counseling actually harms the other person and does not make either party whole in the civil suit. If it is demanded for one, automatically be prepared to fight it and disobey the order or otherwise request it for both.
 
Also if you are ordered to something against your will... then ask that the court/state pay for the expense since they took away your choice or argue that it is an unfunded mandate and that you will not pay for it.
 
Don't let them call an apple anything but an apple guys.
 
Lary Holland
http://www.laryholland.org
http://www.removethesepeople.org

Very well put. A civil suit does not carry a high enough protection for the litigants to abridge constitutionally protected rights. Resist any coercive measures that abridge your rights. You can only surrender your protected liberties in a civil suit they cannot be taken away, because the suit is between the parties. There is not sufficient burden of proof to take/abridge the rights. If more people understood this, it would make these fights a lot easier.

What did they do to conclude you should have that counseling?
Were you interviewed by a psychologist?
Did they have a particular diagnosis?  (just a yes or no, personal info not being requested)
What is the statutory authority to order this?
Who was the Judge?
What happens if you do not go?
Is there a probation order of sort attached to this?
 
Is there a specific person you must see, or is any one of your  choice allowed?  Outrageous rates. More leeching off our problems. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable,


IS THIS EVIL SUFFERABLE OR INSUFFERABLE?

IF is sufferable, take it on the chin, if it is not sufferable, then
don't take it..


STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

THE ORDERS ARE VOID AB INITIO, because they where based on Perjury, Fraud,

Lack of Notice, Violation of Due Process, Violation of Rights &
Violations under color of law!

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a119.htm
<http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a119.htm

Since this was questioned, as to why a MANDAMUS was issued in this case:

A writ of mandate is appropriate for challenging the constitutionality
or validity of official acts. Bramberg v. Jones, 20 Cal. 4th 1045, 1055
(1999). <http://lw.bna.com/lw/19990803/s076784.htm A writ of mandate
is particularly appropriate to compel a government official to perform a
ministerial act. California Educational Facilities Authority v. Priest,
12 Cal. 3d 593, 598 <http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/12C3d593.htm
(1974).
 


 Do not declare that you are not going to follow an order because once
 it is ordered it is "lawful" until properly challenged.
 
 Make sure that you properly object to anything that infringes upon
 your right, do your best to document that there is no real authority
 behind the order, remind them that it is a civil case between the
 parties and that the relief requested serves no purpose to make whole
 the complainor.
 
 Let them know you do not have the money to do what they order. They
 will attempt to contempt you, let it be placed on the record that you
 don't have the money but if they pay for it, you would be happy to
 comply.
 
 do this simultaneously while challenging the authority through
 motion for reconsideration and on appeal. Think in syllagisms when
 writing.