Recently we celebrated the little known Constitution Day, commemorating the adoption of the United States Constitution on September 17, 1787. It gives pause for all of us to reflect on the ever eroding rights protected by that venerable document. We are fortunate to have this “rule of law” handed down by “we the people” to prevent tyranny of the kind we routinely confront overseas.


But by taking such rights for granted, we enable powerful entities to make a mockery of that Constitution. Apathy, arrogance and ignorance are only some of the means used by these entities to bring us ever closer to tyranny without much notice taken. We may already be considered a socialist nation in defiance of the kind envisioned by our forefathers.


There are few rights more under attack today than the right to parent ones offspring. According to the Supreme Court, it is the “oldest liberty interest” protected by that Constitution, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000). I learned this the profound way as a parent victimized by politicians masquerading as jurists. Together with an army of service providers, they purported to act in the “best interests” of our children. In reality they were detracting from the promotion of their own self-interests.


My ordeal is well conveyed in my latest release, Whistleblower in Paris. It is a book that exposes the realities of divorce and family courts. So revealing and supported is it that aggrieved family members are sharing this book with their lawyers and presiding judges. Even opposing parties are exchanging it to reach compromise and avoid all the carnage caused by an antiquated and adversarial child custody system.


This book is now available at major bookseller sites, any Barnes and Noble store, the publisher on-line at Author and Amazon. Get a free insight on the book’s website at Help us make it viral for the sake of innocent children everywhere. Here is an excerpt which is timely on this little known day of recognition:



A Supreme Court justice had this to say about America’s family courts: “Under our Constitution, the condition of being a boy does not justify a kangaroo court.” [1] But that was 1967. An erosion of rights since then has changed his pronouncement to the condition of being a father or career mom separated from offspring under the stigmatizing classification of “non-custodial parent.”


Meanwhile the national focus remains on parent-child separations among illegals at our borders.


Is the disregard of our own crisis then explained by a blind surrender of rights? The answer remains censored by propaganda. The state dictates to the parents that it is acting in the best interests of the child, a dubious claim before it bankrupts them in a protracted legal battle. It manufactures an incendiary contest over one’s offspring reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum only to reap huge profits from the crimes and emotional trauma which predictably result.


Victims who oppose this centralized power face the prospect of losing everything in these courts. And the retaliation occurs without due process, jury rights, or other constitutional protections. [2] It’s all justified by “the law” created by those who crave that power. During my reform efforts across the country, I encountered victims who could not fathom what was truly happening to them while being subjected to undue scrutiny and evaluations for every kind of indiscretion.


This easily abused best interests of the child standard remains the weapon to achieve all sorts of unconscionable outcomes. Many children are effectively controlling their parents under this system, an inverted order of childrearing as I described it in my reports. Moms and dads under constant threat of losing “custody” are spoiling these children while surrendering their natural authority to “birthing” concoctions and those more focused on self-love than time tested honors.


That was the essence of my public message. It was certainly not novel but promoted by a lawyer and parent singularly qualified to expose it. The abused power I was after had its roots in feudal England where the King declared his sovereignty over all children. That edict was adopted by the courts here despite its clash with our Constitution. [3] It gives pause to reflect on a state leader who understood this power and exploited it over time to wage the most horrific war in human history:


The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty …


                         Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, pg. 403.

[1]   In re Gault, 387 US 1 at pg. 28.

[2]    In his 550 page book, The New Whistleblower’s Handbook (2017) at xvi, leading whistleblower attorney,

Stephen Martin Kohn, depicts the realities of retaliation:

Difficult choices face (those) who uncover wrongdoing. According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, even whistleblowers who won their cases had a most difficult time, both at work and at home. While fighting their cases, they suffered “devastating financial consequences,” including (the forced sale of) their homes, having their cars repossessed, and losing their retirement accounts. Many whistleblowers simply reported that they had “lost everything.”

That handbook was obtained from its author during a 2017 Annual Whistleblower Convention in Washington D.C. Although the ordeals documented there are alarming, none rise to the level endured here by a whistleblower exposing the wrongs committed by those who preside over such cases. It is a niche few lawyers dare occupy. See also, Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011)(due process and counsel denied to support defendant after jail term)

[3]   Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429, 148 NE 625 (1925), quoting In re Spence, 41 Eng. Rep. 937 (1847)