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 my notes.

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 questioned.

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 and unpleasantness.

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 their pockets.

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 or otherwise.

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 this damage.

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 headed households.

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 custody to
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; kmtinma@comcast.net