Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site

The state-of-the-art in what is best for children of divorce. Every parent, judge and family law attorney must view this video to save their children from the ravages of divorce.
Click Here to Learn More.


      Writ of Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court Exposing Corruption of State Family Courts

Full Petition on Writ of Certiorari is available

U.S. Supreme Court

Kathreinlv.lMcNamara, Kinsella, et.al.

Petition on Writ of Certiorari to
The Supreme Court of the Unites States
Filed May 8, 2006

Summary of the Petition
[verbatim abridgment]



Jeffrey R. Rosenberg and Daniel V. Kinsella, of the Chicago law firm Schuyler, Roche & Zwirner, P.C., are attorneys employed by Michael Moner. The attorneys engaged in the practice of 'padding' their petitions for fees. Their acts were aided and abetted by two judges in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Brigid M. McGrath and Paddy H. McNamara. All are respondents.

The judges supervising petitioner's State civil case ignored evidence and procedure, obstructed the record, retaliated, manufactured facts and ignored others, dismissed valid claims and defenses, suborned perjury, mischaracterized pleadings, engaged in ex parte communication, did not read petitioner's pleadings, refused to hear petitioner's motions, ignored motions for findings of fact or conclusions of law, and misapplied the law. Petitioner alleged these acts were knowing and intentional. They are well supported in the record.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 242 provides that judges are liable for criminal acts committed under “color of law.”

Petitioner moved the Federal district court for direct access to the Federal grand jury to present his evidence of the mail frauds and other crimes perpetrated by the judicial and attorney respondents against petitioner, pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) and F.R.Civ.P. 6(a).

The the lower court conspicuously avoided the well-pled assertion of this right by improper application of the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine.

In an unpublished Opinion, the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's application of Rooker but upheld dismissal sua sponte for failure to state a cause of action. It denied appellant's request for direct access to the Grand Jury as follows:

"...appellant sought and was denied an order compelling a federal grand jury to investigate alleged crimes committed by the various defendants. In challenging those denials, he persists with his frivolous contention that he is entitled to appear before a grand jury to present his allegations. See Korman v. United States, 486 F.2d 926, 933 (7th Cir. 1973) (holding that authority to convene federal grand jury is vested in district court); cf. Cook v. Smith, 834 P.2d 418, 420-21 (N.M. 1992) (recognizing New Mexico’s procedure permitting citizens to petition for convening a grand jury as rare). Appellant admits that the goal of his proposed investigation is to lead to the prosecution of the individuals that he has sued, but a private citizen lacks standing to demand the prosecution of another. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Johnson v. City of Evanston, Ill., 250 F.3d 560, 563 (7th Cir. 2001)."

This Writ for Certiorari seeks to test the application of checks and balances. It asks the Supreme Court to settle the intent of Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3332(a) and to determine whether the “public interest” in F.R.Civ.P. 6(a) should be excepted by those against whom it is invoked.
Did Congress intend that the subjects of inquiry (judges) be the gatekeepers of inquiry and if so, would this sanction a conflict of interest against the public interest?

Judges routinely ignore 18 U. S. C. § 242. They have given themselves the power to block all investigations of judicial corruption. It is impossible to get a criminal complaint against a judge, past a judge.  Thus, judges are above the law.

The "inalienable" civil right to enjoy a fair trial exists at the judiciary's pleasure.

For the reason set forth above, this petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.