Systemic Failures

Eight Key Warnings for the Public

While seeking a lawful conclusion to my own divorce, I spent years navigating the internal machinery of the court system. What I discovered were not isolated errors, but a series of repeatable, systemic failures. The following eight warnings represent the most critical vulnerabilities I uncovered—structural collapses that bypass standard oversight, compromise due process, and threaten the fundamental rights of any individual entering the legal system.

State Family Courts: The “Private Club” Operating in a Data Blackout

Family courts exist to resolve legal issues within families—not to serve the personal or professional relationships of those working inside them. Yet in many states, these courts have devolved into insular, self-reinforcing networks where judicial interests are prioritized over constitutional rights.

The Closed-Loop Culture and Engineered Data Blackout

Within these networks, professional roles are fluid and relationships are dominant. An attorney may represent a petitioner today, a respondent tomorrow, and serve as a Guardian ad Litem or a court-appointed Receiver the following week—all performing before the same judge. This revolving door legal culture creates a closed-loop economy where the currency of exchange is not the law, but professional familiarity. In this environment, justice is stripped of its blindfold; it becomes a discretionary commodity traded on informal alliances rather than legal merit.

This opacity is a shield, not an accident. Unlike other branches of government, there is no national metric for due process, no tracking of judicial bias, and no data on family outcomes. There is no independent audit to reveal how often specific judges rule in favor of a “favored” circle of attorneys, or how frequently constitutional mandates are ignored for administrative convenience. This engineered data blackout ensures that family courts remain the most opaque institutions in American law. When a courtroom functions as a private club, the law becomes a mere suggestion, and justice is reduced to a matter of judicial whim.

The Accountability Gap: Private Funding vs. Public Scrutiny

The fundamental difference between criminal and family courts is the source of their power—and their capital.

  • Criminal Courts: Fueled by public funds, every dollar spent is a matter of public record, inviting oversight and scrutiny.
  • Family Courts: Largely financed by the litigants themselves. Because the money comes from private pockets rather than taxpayer budgets, there is zero institutional incentive for transparency.

In criminal court, the state pays to play, so the state watches the books. In family court, billions of dollars move quietly through a system operating with virtually no external checks. It has become a for-profit adjudicative model where parents are essentially paying for the “privilege” of being subjected to unconstitutional procedures.

State Appellate Courts: The Constitutional Failure of Institutional Shielding

State appellate courts are mandated to enforce the rule of law and correct the errors of trial courts. Yet, too often, they abdicate this fundamental responsibility, acting instead as institutional shields that prioritize the protection of judicial authority over the confrontation of clear injustice.

In cases involving blatant fraud, manufactured records, or constitutional violations, appellate judges frequently rubber-stamp flawed rulings. They then conceal their reasoning through the use of unpublished opinions. These rulings serve a dual, deceptive purpose:

  • Insulation from Scrutiny: They ensure the decision remains off the public radar and away from the eyes of legal watchdogs and the press.
  • Erasure of Precedent: By designating a ruling as unpublished, the court prevents it from becoming binding law. This effectively erases the paper trail of trial-level abuse, ensuring that administrative laundering can continue without creating a legal record that other victims could use to find relief.

This is not mere legal conservatism; it is systemic self-protection. The culture of deference runs deep. Appellate judges often serve alongside trial judges on judicial committees, attend the same conferences, and maintain professional relationships that make genuine oversight uncomfortable at best—and institutionally discouraged at worst.

When state appellate courts prioritize professional collegiality and judicial image over correction and accountability, trial-level abuse doesn’t just persist—it is legitimized by silence and buried in secrecy. This turns the court of appeals into a laundry for lower-court fraud, where forged records are granted the seal of state approval behind a veil of anonymity.

The Perfect Circle of Immunity: The Illusion of Federal Access

When constitutional violations occur in state court, many assume the federal judiciary serves as a crucial safeguard. The truth is far more grim: That safety net is a carefully engineered illusion. Through a combination of procedural hurdles and absolute judicial immunity, the legal system has created a “perfect circle” that traps citizens in a state of perpetual injustice.

The Procedural Cages: Rooker-Feldman Doctrine and Domestic Relations Exception

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine categorically bars federal district courts from reviewing or overturning state court decisions. No matter how blatant the judicial misconduct, if your case originated in state court, lower federal courts claim they are powerless to intervene. This doctrine essentially tells the American citizen: “Your constitutional rights stop at the state line.”

The one remaining path—the U.S. Supreme Court—is effectively sealed by the Domestic Relations Exception. This entrenched tradition holds that family matters are “local concerns,” shutting the federal door even when state courts themselves inflict grievous, state-sponsored harm.

The Liability Shield: Absolute Judicial Immunity

If you cannot overturn the decision, you might attempt to hold the bad actor accountable through damages in federal district court. However, that path is foreclosed by absolute judicial immunity. Under long-standing precedent, judges are shielded from liability for virtually any act performed in their judicial capacity.

As the Seventh Circuit bluntly stated: “A judge has absolute immunity for any judicial actions unless the judge acted in the absence of all jurisdiction” (Polzin v. Gage). The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a judge is not deprived of immunity even if their action was “done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority” (Stump v. Sparkman).

A Court in Name Only

The U.S. Supreme Court has morphed from the final safeguard of the Constitution into a highly selective tribunal that denies review to over 99% of petitions. On October 6, 2025, the Court denied my petition for certiorari—a filing that provided forensic evidence of judicial forgery—without comment. My petition was one of over 800 rejected in a single day.

When the highest court in the land refuses to address documented forgery in the lower courts, it is no longer a court of justice—it has become, in effect, no court at all. This creates a constitutional vacuum where state judges can operate as autocrats, knowing the federal government will never look behind the curtain.

The Structural Silencing of Reform

In a functioning democracy, citizens rely on elected representatives as their direct connection to government. Yet the current rules of engagement are rigid and antiquated: You are generally permitted only to petition officials who represent your specific district or state. While this framework might seem reasonable for local zoning, it is a catastrophic barrier to systemic reform.

The Barrier to Collaboration

In my pursuit of justice, while one state representative engaged in dialogue, no tangible action resulted, and multiple other elected officials simply refused to engage. This experience revealed a systemic wall: Meaningful action requires broad legislative coordination, which is virtually impossible when an official’s authority, budget, and political interest are strictly confined to their own constituency. The moment an issue crosses a district line, the system itself becomes a barrier to collaboration.

A Filter that Enforces Silence

This is not a personal failure of any one lawmaker; it is a structural design flaw. The current framework treats widespread judicial misconduct as a series of isolated local incidents rather than the national crisis it actually is. This ensures that:

  • Reformers are Isolated: By tethering advocacy to geography, the system prevents victims of judicial fraud from pooling evidence to prove a national pattern of abuse.
  • Systemic Problems are Minimized: Well-intentioned representatives are structurally discouraged from addressing loopholes—such as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine—that affect families nationwide but don’t “belong” to their specific district.
  • National Issues are Filtered Out: Because citizens cannot easily reach beyond their local representatives, democracy stops functioning as an engine of change and begins functioning as a filter that enforces silence.

The Need for a National Platform

When injustice is national in scope, the remedy must be national in power. My case proves that judicial misconduct does not stop at the county line, yet the legislative response does. We cannot fix a broken federal safety net through local-only dialogue. This structural isolation is why the system refuses to change—and it is why we need leaders who refuse to be silent simply because a fundamental constitutional issue “belongs” to a different jurisdiction.

Title IV-D: The Federally-Funded Engine of Conflict

While it was not the primary catalyst of my case, my research into shared well deceptions uncovered a troubling nationwide truth: Title IV-D of the Social Security Act fundamentally prioritizes revenue collection over fairness, family stability, and constitutional protections.

The Profitability of Sole Custody

Under Title IV-D, states receive federal reimbursements and incentive payments based on the volume and aggressiveness of their child support collections. This creates a perverse financial structure that monetizes family dissolution:

  • Higher orders equal higher reimbursements. Because the highest child support orders are mathematically associated with sole custody arrangements, the system is financially incentivized to discourage shared or cooperative parenting.
  • Family cooperation is penalized. Low-conflict resolutions, private parenting plans, and co-parenting agreements that keep families out of court risk reducing a state’s federal payout. In essence, the state is financially penalized when families resolve their own disputes.

A $50 Billion “Black Box”

With over $50 billion flowing through the family court system annually, there are virtually no federal requirements for transparency, ethical auditing, or performance evaluation. The federal government monitors the dollars, not the due process.

  • Revenue over Best Interests: Though courts claim to act in the “best interests of the child,” the Title IV-D framework makes high-conflict litigation more lucrative for the state.
  • Institutionalized Harm: Federal tax dollars are currently being used to fuel parental conflict under the guise of “child support enforcement.”

An Engine of Harm

This is not merely bad policy; it is a federally funded engine of harm hidden in plain sight. It transforms the “best interests of the child” into a profit center for the state and ensures that the most aggressive, high-conflict outcomes are the most efficient for the state’s bottom line. As long as the federal government rewards collection over constitutional integrity, the family court system will remain a marketplace for conflict rather than a sanctuary for justice.

The Death of the Public Record: The “Re-Creation” Doctrine

The fraudulent manufacture of my divorce decree was not a mere clerical patch; it was the implementation of a radical and lawless judicial philosophy. During the January 2023 hearing—the very proceeding that birthed this invalid judgment—the judge explicitly defended the retroactive fabrication of records. He stated on the record: “If the judgment… has to be re-created through all sorts of different means, that’s what has to happen,” specifically equating the process to “re-creating” a criminal conviction for a prisoner already in a cell.

This is the death of the public record, and the public interest concern is profound:

  • The End of Objective Truth: Our entire society—from home ownership to parental rights—rests on the assumption that a government record is an objective fact. If a judge is allowed to “re-create” reality “through all sorts of means” (backdating, forging signatures, or ignoring missing documents), then the public record is no longer a shield for the citizen. It becomes a weapon for the state.
  • The Administrative Deepfake: We are currently terrified of deepfakes in media, but here we have a deepfake in the judiciary. If a court can manufacture a document and attribute it to a retired official who never saw it, they have broken the chain of custody for truth. Once a judge can “re-create” a divorce, they can “re-create” a property deed or a criminal sentence. No one’s legal status is safe if the paperwork can be retroactively manufactured to fit a judge’s memory or convenience.
  • The Elimination of Defense: A citizen cannot defend themselves against a “re-created” record. You cannot argue against a ghost. When the court replaces a missing contract with a “re-created” one, they are effectively stripping the citizen of their right to use evidence in their own defense.

If this “Re-Creation Doctrine” is allowed to stand, then “the law” is no longer what is written in the books—it is whatever a judge decides to “re-create” today to cover for a mistake he made yesterday. This is the transition from a democracy of records to a dictatorship of the bench.

State-Sponsored Parental Interference: The Human Rights Violation

In family law, the “best interests of the child” is a standard that requires the highest level of evidentiary integrity. However, when a court uses a fraudulent, backdated, or forged document to govern custody, it isn’t just a “legal error”—it is a state-sponsored human rights violation.

The public interest concern is a matter of fundamental liberty:

  • The “Legal” Kidnapping of Identity: A custody order is the document that defines a child’s reality. When that order is based on a “re-created” or fabricated MSA, the state is effectively kidnapping the legal identity of both the parent and the child. They are forcing a family to live according to a counterfeit reality manufactured by a judge to cover a clerical mistake.
  • Administrative Fraud as a Tool of Control: By trapping a mother and child in a “legal” house built on forgery, the state is weaponizing administrative fraud to interfere with the most fundamental liberty interest recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court: the right of a parent to the care, custody, and management of their child.
  • The Trap of the Compromised Court: The human rights violation is compounded when the judge who manufactured the fraud refuses to recuse himself. This creates a closed-loop of trauma where the victim is forced to return, month after month, to the very perpetrator of the fraud to ask for “justice” regarding their child. This is not a trial; it is institutionalized psychological and custodial entrapment.
  • A Threat to Every Family: If the state can use administrative convenience or “re-created records” to override the actual agreements and biological rights of a family, then parental rights are no longer “unalienable.” They are discretionary grants that can be edited, backdated, or erased by any judge with a digital signature and a motive.

When a court prioritizes covering its tracks over the biological and legal truth of a family, it ceases to be a court of law and becomes an instrument of state-sponsored interference. This moves the case beyond a simple divorce dispute and into the realm of a constitutional crisis regarding the state’s power to dismantle families through fraud.

The Constitutional Contradiction: Marriage as a Fundamental Right vs. State Licensing

The entire family court system is built upon a fraudulent jurisdictional foundation. U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right, but state have rebranded it as a regulated privilege subject to mandatory licensing. This is more than a bureaucratic formality; it is a constitutional bait-and-switch.

The “Fundamental Right” Mandate

In Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is of fundamental importance, and that state regulations cannot significantly interfere with the decision to enter into that relationship. This was further solidified in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which declared marriage a centrality of liberty that should not be denied.

In American law, the government cannot license a fundamental right. One does not need a license to exercise free speech, have children, or to practice faith. By requiring a marriage license, the state performs a legal sleight-of-hand:

  • The State as an Undisclosed Party: The license effectively turns the state into an undisclosed third party to the marital contract.
  • The Conflict of Interest: Because the state is a party to the licensed marriage, the court—as an arm of the state—cannot be a neutral referee. It is acting as the adjudicator of a contract in which it is also a vested, interested party.

The Divorce Trap: Swapping One State Contract for Another

Most people view a divorce as a “breakup” between two people. In reality, however, it is a state-mandated contract substitution, wherein.

  • Upgrading State Control: You are not just exiting a marriage contract; you are being forced to swap your marriage license for a divorce decree. This new contract is far more invasive, granting the court continuing exclusive jurisdiction over your assets and your children.
  • The Financial Engine of Conflict: This swap is particularly lucrative for the state when children are involved. Through Title IV-D, the state receives federal incentive payments based on the amount of child support collected. Consequently, the state-appointed judge is no longer a neutral adjudicator; they are the collection agent for a system that profits from your family’s dissolution.

The Throckmorton Vitiation

The U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Throckmorton (1878) that “Fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments.” Millions of Americans entered these marital contracts without full disclosure of the State’s third-party role or the eventual surrender of rights. When a court then uses forged, backdated, or “re-created” records to govern that divorce—as in my case—the original lack of informed consent is compounded by active fraud. Under Throckmorton, these resulting judgments are not merely “errors”—they are legally void.

If the state can swap your private agreement for a “ghost contract” of its own making, then the centrality of liberty promised in Obergefell is an illusion.

For full case details, click here.

My case provided the evidence; your voice proivdes the impact. To see how you can get involved, click here.