The U.S. Constitution defines the inalienable or natural rights that cannot be taken from among citizens. Among those is not just the right to defend their person, but also in the judicial system. In this article readers will read about a situation in New Hampshire where a citizen is being denied due process. Also, below you can see video resources which have more views with the help of the trusted social media company themarketingheaven.com. You are born with the right to defend yourself in court, this is a natural right that long predates the Constitution. This document defines the powers of the courts, and the 5th and 14th Amendments exist to do just that. Courts do not have the power to deny your rights to representation, or a fair trial. The 5th reads: “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”; and the 14th reads: “…; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
All too often now we are learning that violations of our rights have become common in our “free” society. What is free though? Is it a country where the people writing the laws are not also subject them? Our judicial system in America has long since lost touch with the supreme law of our great nation. By denying citizens their liberty and right to due process, our courts are depriving many too of their inalienable rights. Many agents of the court are as power hungry as the “higher ups” in other areas of society, and all this does is erode any degree of fairness or morality in our courts. Its been argued throughout history that if a court writes unrespectful laws, they will challenge peoples morality. When the judicial system allows some people to be punished for crimes while others walk free, this is tyranny. When the civil servants do not show the same respect for the document they swore to protect, this too is tyranny. Each one of us is born with rights that cannot be taken from us and due process is outlined in the 6th Amendment.
This amendment is the most important one, because the right to council, fair trial, and a jury of your peers are the checks and balances on a judicial system. Tyranny is when your government takes away your ability to defend yourself. If you are facing any branch of your state or federal government and counsel is too scared to defend you, that is a clear indicator that something is very wrong. This Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” These rights are impeded differently all to often, and in many ways. Where the prosecutors and judges are paid for and directed by the government, it is this amendment that defines your irrevocable rights in a court room. Currently in New Hampshire, a woman who had spent time exposing violations of our rights now finds herself in trouble too.
To explain what is happening to Janet Delfuoco and her history with the Judicial system, its best to start a few years ago. When she and her ex-husband split up, the hearings for both divorce and custody were drawn out and left her filing complaints with the court. Another woman, Margaret Kris, also of New Hampshire had issues during her custody battle over her daughter. In her case, her husband at the time had been documented as beating her, while holding their infant daughter, and still the court awarded him full custody, and her visitations in a state facility funded by taxpayers. In Margaret’s case, over a decade later she still fights the court on the matter. What Janet faces now is quite a bit more serious. After the divorce, her husband stopped making loan payments at the bank which had their home as collateral. For several years Janet engaged in litigation regarding this home equity loan, with her seeking to have the bank discharge the mortgage. After two dismissals, the bank again demanded they resolve the financial matter and she made some posts on Facebook that were taken out of context.
According to discovery, screenshots were taken by a GSCU manager and forwarded to an unrelated attorney a day later. According to interviews with the Attorney General, the manager, Gallant forwarded these photos to Judges Weaver and Anderson. These two Judges had both previously had involvement in her custody dispute. For roughly a year these judges operated an investigation into her, and her associates before issuing her any sort of indictment. She now stands charged with two felonies and one misdemeanor for her posts on Facebook, and will have her day in court on April 8. The issue is that she cannot afford an Attorney and the same court system has denied her requests for a public defender. The prosecution must prove that her posts were caused with intent to harm a person to influence opinion or as retaliation for their actions as a government official. The law this is based on is because of a special class implemented in 2007 and has yet to be argued in the supreme court.
In the case of Margaret, she was never married to her daughter’s father. When it came time for the custody battle he bought the divorce lawyer from his previous marriage who he also left with over $30,000 in legal bills, and later pled bankruptcy. During their time together there was a documented history of domestic violence. At one point over 11 years ago police officers came with a court order to take her daughter after the separation. The court awarded custody to the abusive ex for 10 years before he finally left the state to Indiana. For over a year the court system has done nothing about his leaving, and the battle over custody still continues in New Hampshire. Margaret also had to file a complaint to be involved in her daughter’s education because her ex’s new wife said she was the mother. Her child has an auditory processing learning disability and as such has special needs. In Janet’s case she has asked the court to have Weaver not oversee her hearing, as he was involved in her custody dispute already while investigating her which would be the opposite of impartiality. Likewise Margret has asked that one Judge recuse themselves for not filing a single complaint while he violated every court order for a year.
The supreme law of our nation and it’s preamble is enough to define its purpose. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Now, this has two phrases that I’d implore readers to call attention to: establish justice, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. One could infer from these clauses that the Judicial system should be securing and preserving the Blessings of Liberty. If our inalienable or natural rights are part of Liberty, secured by the law of this document through the courts, then ideally the courts should be protecting the rights listed impartially. That would in my opinion be what they had in mind when designating power to the courts. Through due process, the courts would never acquire enough power to deny any citizen their Liberty.
Liberty is defined as being free in a society from oppressive restrictions by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. If the laws our courts create and enforce are bound by the principle that all citizens have an unalienable right to Liberty, then how could any agent of the court defy the document and not also face criminal charges? Tyranny, I’ve used this word a lot as it is important. This is defined as cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power by the Government on it’s people. In America, our Government was separated into three branches as a check and balance to prevent tyranny. To see an America where the Government again seized absolute power without legal right, all three branches would have to become tyrannical. These incidents in New Hampshire are only two of the countless examples that could be made about our failing judicial system. Something needs to change soon, as history would indicate that the more American’s are denied their natural right to Liberty, the closer we get to something far worse than what we have seen in this generation.