Dear Fathers and Friends:
The attorney for my son's mother went first and
argued that the Mother had not given me permission
to release information related to the Mother,
our son, or our custody case. She also argued
that the DSS report was impounded and that I should
not be able to reference it in my book. She also
implied that the book was embarrassing to the
Mother and could cause harm to my son.
The attorney stated that she did not want to
ban the book, but "impound" it and "restrain
me" from referencing anything related to
our custody case (?!). Sounds like a ban to me!
I got through most of what I planned on communicating
in court before the Mother's attorney interrupted
me. Below is what I was able to say in court from
First of all, I want to state on record that
this court does not have the jurisdiction to impound
my book. In fact, this case can only be heard
legally in a federal court since the title of
the book itself excludes the Commonwealth from
having jurisdiction. Since you, Judge Manzi, are
also mentioned in the book, there is a clear conflict
of interest. Any order issued from this hearing
would be illegal and, therefore, null and void.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Supreme
Judicial Court Rule 3:09) states that "a
judge should disqualify herself in a proceeding
in which her impartiality might reasonably be
This case is also not an equity court matter
because there is a remedy that can be had at common
law. Miss Moran alleges in item 10 of her affidavit
that the book contains "a multitude of inaccuracies
and untruths." If that were true, then Miss
Moran has complete remedy to sue me for libel
in Federal Court.
Since every single word in my book is fact or
opinion substantiated by facts - neither of which
constitutes libel, I encourage Miss Moran to pursue
this legal option. It will give me the opportunity
to confirm the facts of this case before a jury
of my peers - an opportunity that was denied to
me in family court.
There is only one reason why Miss Moran has brought
this action. Her efforts are to keep concealed
the crimes that she committed to slander me and
deceive the court into granting her sole custody
of our son. There is absolutely no harm to my
son caused by this book. In fact, my son can only
benefit as a male by reform of a court system
that currently discriminates against his gender.
If my son were old enough to understand this
matter, he would be proud of my efforts in the
same way that I would have been proud and appreciative
of my father if he had been forced to defend my
right to a balanced relationship with him.
The ONLY harm to my son has been generated by
a court system that is teaching him to hate himself
for being male; for teaching him that fathers
are lesser parents; and for handing sole custody
to an unstable woman who has used him as a pawn
to play games with his father.
The article that publicized my book was seen by
thousands of readers of the Lawrence Eagle Tribune.
A means of reaching me was also included in that
article. Of the hundreds of messages that I have
received by phone and email, not a single person
commented that the detail of my case or my son's
picture on the back cover was inappropriate.
In fact, I have received an overwhelming show
of support for my efforts. And every single reader
of the book who has taken the time to rate and
review my book at the lulu.com web site has rated
it "outstanding." The First Amendment
to the Constitution of these United States protects
my right to free speech.
This Amendment applies to the States via the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which protects against government interference
with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government
may not prohibit speech merely to avoid discomfort
Regarding the contents of my custody case, a
U.S. Court of Appeals (7th District) unanimously
ruled less than three weeks ago (March 1st, 2006),
that sealing judicial cases illegally prevents
the public from scrutinizing the judiciary.
Also in the recent news (February 22, 2006),
a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court of Arkansas
struck down a judge's restraining order that had
prohibited The Helena Daily World from publishing
testimony alleging judicial misconduct. The panel
argued that the injunction improperly chilled
the newspaper's First Amendment rights.
With that being said, I learned in my research
for my book that my specific case is the only
one of Judge Digangi's 31 cases that have gone
to appeals court over the last three years that
was secretly impounded at both the appeals court
and Supreme Judicial Court level. Since the court
had no legitimate grounds to impound my case,
the only explanation that I can come up with was
to conceal from the public Judge Digangi's judicial
misconduct and the crimes of fraud and extortion
committed by his accomplices in appeals court.
If I have learned anything in these secretive
family courts it is that where there is no publicity,
there is no justice. This book was written to
gain justice in the court of public opinion because
justice certainly does not occur behind closed
doors in these "winner takes all" courtrooms
where absolute power has corrupted absolutely.
The sanctimonious claim that the secrecy of family
court cases protects the privacy of the litigants
is a lie. The only interests that are protected
are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites
who invade "family privacy" by removing
loving fathers from the lives of their children
against their will and without just cause to fill
Where is this concern for privacy when the family
court system publicizes on posters alleged deadbeat
dads? Would this not embarrass the children of
these fathers? And are these people really deadbeat
dads or are they "court-manufactured deadbeat
dads" who were supporting their children
prior to the time when "big brother"
stepped in and stole their children from them?
Regarding Attorney Dow's comment that my efforts
to publicize the corruption and hypocrisy in family
court are all about me... I have better things
to do with my time. Contrary to her opinion, it
is not fun and games for me to take on a system
that currently has the absolute power to do whatever
it wants behind closed doors. I chose to publicize
the corruption and will continue to accept the
stress, the extortion threats, and the sacrifices
of time that come with publicizing the corruption
because there is NOTHING more important than protecting
my son's future well-being.
I refuse to let ignorance and incompetence, if
not corruption, condemn my son to becoming a third-generation
casualty of his mother's dysfunctional family.
If no man objected and no man rebelled, these
wrongs would last forever. Regarding Miss Moran's
comment that I have refused Judge Digangi's additional
hours because it is a "consolation prize,"
I never used any such words because there are
no prizes to fathers in family court, consolation
When Rosa Parks was told to go to the back of
the bus, she didn't compromise and go to the back
half. When it comes to my inalienable rights,
I will not compromise them away.
If I accept Judge Digangi's bone thrown my way
of a few extra hours every other week, then by
my actions, I have accepted the injustice that
this corrupt court system has shoved down my throat.
My relationship with my son will be on my terms
until I have corrected the injustice.
A few measly hours every other week does not change
the fact that my son is in a situation that will
ruin his life if I cannot correct it. All because
an arrogant, out of touch family court judge thinks
that he knows better about what is best for my
son than me.
Who is really the expert here? I have been working
with kids my entire adult life as a high school
teacher. I grew up in a loving intact family with
two great role models as parents. And I did my
master's thesis 12 years ago on the effect of
one parent versus two parent homes on the behavior
and academic success of high school students.
I witness every day the damage that is done in
single-mother homes which is
the reason why I cannot allow it to happen to
my son. Miss Moran, herself, is living proof of
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course
there are, but Miss Moran does not possess the
emotional stability or the maturity to overcome
these odds. 85% of prisoners, 78% of high school
dropouts, 82% of teen pregnancies, and the majority
of drug and alcohol abusers, all come from single-mother
But still the family courts in this state defiantly
ignore "the obvious" to claim that it
is in the best interests of children to hand sole
mothers. The fact is that most cases involving
two fit parents should end immediately with one
simple question, "Do either of you intend
to prove that the other parent is unfit?"
If the answer to that question is "no"
from both parents, then 50/50 joint physical custody
should be ordered without exceptions.
The bottom line is that my book is long overdue
and should be required reading for every legislator,
judge, and concerned citizen in the state.
After the interruption from the Mother's attorney,
I commented that the references to the DSS report
in my book did not compromise the Mother's privacy
because the DSS comments were limited to the Mother's
slanderous lies about ME.
I also noted that a book which exposes the corruption
in the Massachusetts Family Courts would be meaningless
without substantiating my claims with the concrete
facts of my case. Although I have not heard her
ruling yet on banning my book, I am quite sure
that she will be banning it. Manzi argued that
she DOES have jurisdiction and she marked the
calendar for us to meet in three weeks, April
19th, with Financial statements in hand, to hear
the Mother's motion for attorney fees.
My thought was, what is relevant about the financial
statements in the determination of attorney fees
other than to calculate how much money they think
they can steal from me? The audacity of this has
me sick to my stomach. We are meeting with Judge
Manzi in three weeks, a judge who I trashed in
my book, to determine whether she will decide
to extort the mother's attorney fees from me (?!).
I have no doubts that the court will order ME
to pay for the Mother's efforts to ban my book.
Lastly, as I said in court - Any order generated
by this hearing would be illegal and therefore,
null and void. Consequently, I have no intentions
of adhering to a "book ban" or paying
a single penny to her scumbag attorney. I will
go to jail before I pay.
Kevin Thompson; 1-978-691-1191; firstname.lastname@example.org