Petulant News Reporters. What’s a parent to do?–when petulant news reporters start filing motions in the midst of your family law case?! Family court is headache enough already — without the added stress of petulant news reporters! Srsly!–what can you do? Ever consider filing a motion to strike? Under Rule 11(a)?
“I’ve successfully used Rule 11(a) to strike Falconi filings — and I’ll do it again.”
~~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. ~~
NRCP, Rule 11(a). Rule 11(a) provides all pleadings “must be signed by at least one attorney of record … or by a party,” [Rule 11(a)]. And thus, Rule 11(a) forbids Falconi and his attorney from signing pleadings in other people’s cases. Why?–because, of course, Falconi and his attorney are NOT “parties” or “attorneys of record” in other people’s cases.
The Signature Requirement. If you, in your custody case, were to object to a proposed media order, neither Falconi nor his attorney may file papers responding to your objections. Why?–because neither Falconi nor his attorney are legally eligible to sign papers in your case. Again, Rule 11(a) requires that all papers filed into your case must be signed by either: (i) an attorney of record, or (ii) a party, [Rule 11(a)]. And thus, with no eligible signature, all attempted filings by non-parties — as a matter of law — “must” be stricken, i.e., for lack of eligible signature, [Rule 11(a)].
Unsigned Papers. It’s legally *impossible* for non-parties to affix signatures on papers filed into your case. And, with no legal ability for non-parties to sign papers, all non-party filings are thus deemed unsigned papers — and pursuant to black-letter law — “[t]he court must strike an unsigned paper,” [Rule 11(a)]. Et, voilà!
Unsigned Papers Must Be Stricken. Simply stated, Rule 11(a) provides that — where papers filed into a case bear no signatures from parties or attorneys of record, such papers are deemed unsigned — and must be stricken. Yeah!–it’s that simple! 😀
No Judicial Discretion. And, here’s the best part — there’s no room for judicial discretion! The reader will note, Rule 11 relies on the verb *MUST* — as in, “[t]he court MUST strike an unsigned paper,” [Rule 11(a)]. Capisci?
No Rule 11 Sanctions. Note also, the Rule 11 “certification” applies only to parties and their attorneys of record; therefore, news reporters and other non-parties, as a matter of law, cannot certify pleadings in your custody case. And, perhaps more significantly, non-parties cannot be subject to Rule 11 sanctions motions, which effectively prejudices the parties by making inaccessible a powerful litigation tool.
No Jurisdictional Basis. When all’s said, despite your best efforts, a judge may ultimately allow camera access in your custody case; however, there’s still no legal basis for news reporters to engage in motion practice in your case. And, if the judge sets a briefing schedule that allows news reporters to submit briefs, then demand that the judge identify the jurisdictional basis that allows non-parties to engage in motion practice in the midst of your case. (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist.)
Know Your Rights. Remember, under Nevada law, a news reporter may do only one thing, i.e., make media requests — and that’s it, [SCR 230]. Whether camera access will impair the parties’ right to privacy or a fair trial — is a matter between the parties and the court. Petulant news reporters, as a matter of law, lack standing to engage in motion practice in your custody case. #KnowYourRights
EDITORIAL STAFF ATOMIC COURT WATCHERS ~ “I” TEAM 🙂
“The only way that entire car is worth five hundred bucks is if there’s a three hundred dollar hooker sitting in it.” James M. McGill, Esq.
In today’s rapidly changing world, political hacks appear almost every day with some new promotional device.
But some of these devices have been known to leave irreparable scars on the minds of foolish young consumers!
One such case is now seated before you.
Ultimately, YOU must decide.
Is STEVE SANSON telling the TRUTH?
The WHOLE TRUTH? And NOTHING BUT?
SANSON vs. ABRAMS (DEUX!)
Below, we see the caption page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), from STEVE SANSON’S defamation lawsuit, Sanson v. Schoen, [Clark County No. A-23-884249-C].
In the next panel, we see the Verification page of the First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at p. 11), in which STEVE SANSON — under PENALITIES of PERJURY — verifies the facts of his complaint —
In the next panel, we see STEVE SANSON, under penalties of perjury, make the remarkable allegation that he is NOT a PUBLIC FIGURE! 😮
The next panels (below) are from SANSON’S Facebook pages, in which he openly and notoriously ADMITS he *IS* a PUBLIC FIGURE — thus contradicting his sworn statements to the Court — and thus impeaching his already dubious credibility!
Srsly! Folks!– you can’t make th*s shit up! See for yourself! —
In the next panel, we see SANSON’S First Amended Complaint, (“FAC”), (at ¶ 21), in which SANSON makes the rather spurious allegation that he cannot be deemed a “limited purpose” public figure because (get this) SANSON claims he has not thrust himself into a public controversy or public concern —
In this next panel, we see STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —
Again, here’s STEVE SANSON — not thrusting himself into an area of public concern —
Remember, in defamation cases, the “public figure” allegation is an element of plaintiff’s case-in-chief; in other words, it’s a “material” allegation. And thus, it would appear SANSON is affirmatively misleading the court concerning a “material” allegation.
Even viewed in a favorable light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, lacks evidentiary support, which constitutes a violation of the statewide certification requirement at Rule 11, [see NRCP, Rule 11(b)(3)].
Viewed in a critical light, SANSON’S allegation, i.e., that he’s not a public figure, carries an audible ring of preposterousness! SANSON impeaches his own credibility — which is now irretrievably shot.
To provide deeper insight into these scandalous developments, Our I-Team met-up with legendary civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., at Jimmy John’s, a sandwich shop situated in Boca Park.
Our I-Team sought to speak with T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. because, as our readers know, Phillips is ALSO suing Jennifer Abrams and her crew for defamation.
We asked Mr. Phillips’ opinion, is Steve Sanson a public figure (or not)? “Duuuh!–of course he’s a public figure!” said Phillips.
Phillips continued, “But, seriously, it would appear Mr. Sanson makes false statements of material fact with specific intent to mislead — and I imagine the Abrams defendants will have no trouble impeaching Sanson’s credibility — with his own Facebook posts — in which Sanson makes public admissions that run directly contrary to the material allegations of his sworn affidavit.“
Our I-Team undertook a 0.29-second Google search — which revealed that perjury, in Nevada, is typically a cat-D felony, [see NRS § 199.120].
Our I-Team asked Mr. Phillips — what’s the best way to handle froggy litigants who play reindeer games in court?
“Hey, I’m NOT a Nevada lawyer! But any fool can see the Abrams defendants are wise to give this prestidigitator an ultimatum — immediately withdraw your glaring misstatements of material fact,” continued Phillips, who added, “and if he persists in playing reindeer games, a motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees would do quite nicely.”
Phillips explained the anti-SLAPP dynamic! “Look! It’s mathematically impossible for Sanson to win! C’mon! He already blew the statute of limitations! The only question is WHEN will Sanson tap-out! Asked another way, will Sanson tap-out BEFORE Jenny Abrams goes anti-SLAPP?”
Phillips departed the shallow waters: “Dig it. If Sanson taps-out first, then it’s a simple game over. However, if Jenny goes anti-SLAPP first, then Sanson CANNOT tap-out. Once my girl Jenny goes anti-SLAPP, it effectively precludes Sanson from dismissing his own action — and Sanson would thus remain on-the-hook for potential attorney’s fees PLUS the $10,000 bounty.”
Phillips then went deep: “Remember, this scenario played-out in the landmark case, Willick vs. Sanson! Along with Abrams, Willick also brought a STOOPID defamation lawsuit against Sanson. Then, Willick saw Abrams getting Shaq’d on anti-SLAPP, and Willick soon realized he too would have to pay attorney’s fees, plus a $10,000 bounty, and so, Willick tried to flee the battlefield by dismissing his own case, like the cowardly [expletive deleted] that he is! But Carson City wouldn’t let Willick dismiss!”
“That’s right! Once a defendant files an anti-SLAPP, the plaintiff may no longer dismiss his or her own case! In California, this principle is well-established. In Nevada, my boy Willick had to learn it the hard way!”
“How ironic! First, you got Willick ‘n Abrams, aka “Dumb ‘n Dumber,” who bring their cute, little TWINSIE lawsuits against Sanson, but then, they get banged on anti-SLAPP for attorney’s fees, plus the $10,000 bounty! But now, thanks to the ever-turning Wheel of Fate, the roles have been REVERSED! Now, you got Sanson facing attorney’s fees and FIVE bounties — at $10,000 apiece — for the FIVE Abrams defendants! So, yeah, it’s a RACE to the courthouse — will Sanson dismiss his [expletive deleted] lawsuit BEFORE Jenny brings down the anti-SLAPP thunder!“
Sources close to the investigation reveal the Abrams defendants have until Apr. 18, 2024 to file a responsive pleading.
Our I-Team checked the sporting odds at Caesar’s. Apparently, it’s a bullish bettor’s market. They’re giving 5:4 odds that the Abrams defendants will go full anti-SLAPP.
So, that’s our report from UFC APEX! And, yeah, we’re expecting a Freaky, Fast, Finish for Sanson and his bogus FLAWSUIT. 😀
EDITORIAL STAFF ATOMIC COURT WATCHERS ~ “I” TEAM
Next Week’s Cliffhanger Episode
Will the ABRAMS defendants move to declare SANSON vexatious?!
Will they allow FALCONI to submit a media request to broadcast ABRAMS’ highly anticipated 12(b)(5) motion? And, if so, will FALCONI publicly ridicule SANSON in the opening 15-second bumper of the ONJ video?
“If fools did not go to market cracked pots and false wares would not be sold.” James M. McGill, Esq.
by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. California State Bar No. 165833 U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
Phillips vs. Henderson On Mar. 27, 2024, T. Matthew Phillips filed a Sec. 1983 lawsuit against Judge Bill Henderson, Dept. R, and Clark County, alleging civil rights violations, [Phillips vs. Henderson, (2:24-cv-00594-DJA)]. Phillips’ lawsuit seeks injunctive relief.
Unconstitutional Policy The lawsuit exposes an unconstitutional Eighth District policy — i.e., where fundamental rights are at stake, judges too often skip-over basic due process requirements — to wit, “notice” and “opportunity to be heard,” [XIV Amendment].
Issue Presented When news reporters submit proposed media requests — must the court give the parties “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” — beforethe judge signs the proposed media order? (Yes, of course!)
Governing Law When news reporters submit media requests, due process requires the parties be given “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” — beforethe judge signs the proposed media order.
14th Amdt – Liberty Clause The 14th Amendment Liberty Clause guarantees the individual’s right to “life, liberty, and property.” And, this guarantee of “liberty” includes the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial, [see XIV Amendment].
14th Amdt – Due Process Clause No court may consider a proposed order affecting one’s “life, liberty, and property” — including privacy and a fair trial — without first providing the individual with due process of law, [see XIV Amendment].
In a Nutshell “Due process of law” means that, where fundamental rights are at stake, courts must provide the individual with *NOTICE* and *OPPORTUNITY to be HEARD* — before the judge considers any order that materially affects the individual’s fundamental rights, including their right to privacy and a fair trial, [see XIV Amendment].
Statement of Facts On Mar. 9, 2024, a news reporter submitted a media request into Phillips’ family case — but Phillips was totally unaware of its existence because Dept. R failed to discharge their constitutional duty to notify the parties.
“Shall Be Notified” In addition to federal “notice” requirements at the 14th Amendment, the state also requires the parties “shall be notified … of any such request by a news reporter,” [see SCR 230.1; (bold italics added)].
State and Federal Violations Dept. R violates federal law, i.e., the 14th Amendment — for failure to give the parties “notice” and “opportunity to be heard” concerning a proposed order that materially affects the parties’ fundamental rights. In addition, Dept. R also violates state law, i.e., SCR 230.1 — for failure to notify the parties that a news reporter had submitted a media request in the first place, (“shall be notified“).
Particularized Findings State law also creates a particularity requirement. When news reporters request media access, “[a] judge shall make particularized findings on the record,” [see SCR 230.2]. However, in the signed media order, (Mar. 13, 2024), Henderson made “check-the-box” findings — which do not qualify as “particularized” under SCR 230.2.
Check-the-Box Findings On Mar. 13, 2024, Henderson signed a “fill-in-the-blanks” media order — prepared by a non-lawyer. This dubious document comes with “pre-fab” language that prompts judges to make findings — by checking a box; but again, Phillips argues that “check-the-box” findings are not sufficiently “particularized” for purposes of SCR 230.2.
Unauthorized Practice of Law (‘UPL’) Phillips contends that the news reporter engages in the unauthorized practice of law — by preparing and submitting a proposed order — on behalf ofanother entity — a media corporation. (Sidebar: family court is stressful enough already — without the added headache of meddlesome, third-party interlopers secretly submitting documents to your judge — documents that affect your life!)
The Challenged Order Below is the challenged media request and order (which, curiously, identifies only one party). The form was executed on two dates — Mar. 9, 2024, (news reporter signature), and Mar. 13, 2024, (judicial signature). The reader will note, the Register of Actions duly records the events of Mar. 13, 2024; however, the Register of Actions is SILENT on Mar. 9, 2024 — the day on which the surreptitious news reporter secretly submitted his “off-the-record” proposed order to Dept. R.
Negligently Drafted Media Order Objectively speaking, the media form is defective per se — because it has no blank space for judges to add remarks. As the reader can plainly see, (supra), Henderson was forced to superimpose his remarks on top of the underlying order, (which makes for a confusing record on appeal).
Errors ‘n Omissions To make matters worse, the media order contains more defects — it omits four of the “six factors” enumerated at SCR 230.2(a)–(f). For reasons unknown, the sleight-of-hand news reporter created a proposed order — with only two of the required “six factors.” (For goodness’ sake!–why not cut ‘n paste ALL six factors?!)
Recipe for Disaster With only two of the “six factors” in the media request form, it’s a recipe for disaster. Why?–because it’s reasonably foreseeable that some judges will view the media form in a semi-colorable light and mistakenly conclude it’s legit. These judges will rely exclusively on the contents of the media form — never venturing beyond its four corners, and thus, never considering the other four factors at subsections (b), (c), (e) & (f) of SCR 230.2.
The Media Form Omits ‘Privacy’ In ruling on the media request in Phillips’ case, Henderson never considered the parties’ right to privacy, a blatant civil rights violation — although, arguably, this judicial faux pas, in some respects, may be attributable to the errant news reporter — who created a facially defective media form that omits the term privacy.
The Right of Privacy Sure, the hapless news reporter may be a proximate cause of Henderson not having considered the parties’ privacy; however, Henderson, remains duty-bound to follow the Constitution, as well as black-letter law, which provides that, upon receipt of media requests, “the judge shall consider” the parties’ “right of privacy,” [see SCR 230.2, at sub. (b)].
Safety and Well-Being State law also requires that “the judgeshallconsider … the safety and well-being of any party,” [see SCR 230.2, at sub. (c)]. But that didn’t happen in Phillips’ case. As the reader may guess, the media form omits the “safety” factor.
Star-Chamber Proceedings The current Eighth District policy — of allowing news reporters to submit proposed orders — in total secrecy — and allowing judges to adjudicate proposed media orders — in total secrecy — with no “notice” to the parties — nor “opportunity to be heard” — is constitutionally intolerable.
The Very Word Secrecy “The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society; and, we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings,” [Pres. John F. Kennedy, address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association, (Apr. 27, 1961)].
Hey, stewardess, is there a movie on this flight?” Seriously?
Buckle-up! It’s gonna be one helluva bumpy ride!
Friends! Romans! Fight Fans! Atomic Court Watchers I-Team continues its LIVE, ongoing coverage of the ultimate, no-holds-barred, mixed martial arts, grudge match at UFC APEX! Daniel Cormier is calling it the Defamation Case of the Century! — Sanson vs. Abrams — Deux! [Clark County No. A-23-884249-C].
Atomic Court Watchers I-Team has gone behind the scenes! — to bring you an exclusive sneak peak at the ruling!
We’re good like that.
Ladies ‘n gents, without further ado, our Atomic Court Watchers I-Team exclusively presents this exclusive presentation!
So, click on the link to download Sanson vs. Abrams — Deux!
Taken just moments after prevailing, attorneys James M. McGill and Kimberly A. Wexler celebrate their victory over Steve Sanson and Veterans in Politics at Eighth Judicial District Court, (July 19, 2024). [Photo courtesy of UTI]
“Perfection is the enemy of the perfectly adequate.” James M. McGill, Esq.
Dateline: Los Angeles, Calif., Oct. 10, 2023 On Sept. 29, 2023, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, filed a “parental rights” class action lawsuit — in U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.
Parenting is a Constitutional Right The lawsuit seeks to train California judges that parenting is a constitutional right. On Oct. 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, (see below).
D’Souza vs. Guerrero This federal lawsuit, D’Souza vs. Guerrero, alleges that California fails to train judges — first, that parenting is a fundamental right — and second, that the Constitution forbids physical custody orders that grant no actual parenting time — unless a parent is found “unfit” — i.e., with evidence of actual harm to a minor child.
Plaintiffs are ‘Fit’ Parents Plaintiffs are “fit” parents — they’ve never been found “unfit.” Plaintiffs never committed: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) abandonment, or (iv) endangerment. Plaintiffs never harmed their children. But still, the State effectively terminated Plaintiffs’ right to parent, which infringes upon fundamental rights that the 1st and 14th Amendments guarantee.
No ‘Actual Parenting Time’ for Plaintiffs The lawsuit further argues that supervised visitation is not “parenting.” Where courts issue “supervised visitation” orders, (and “no-contact” orders), it leaves noncustodial parents with no actual parenting time — because they have no actual ability to exercise care, custody, and control of their children (which deprives 14th Amendment rights), and no actual ability to exercise private familial speech with their children (which deprives 1st Amendment rights).
Humanitarian Crisis The lawsuit points-out that, compared to Plaintiffs, prison inmates have greater access to their kids. However, there’s a basic human need to bring-up one’s children — it’s a basic necessity of life — like food or water — and yet, California judges daily deprive the People of this most basic human necessity. It’s a humanitarian crisis.
Parent-less Children The lawsuit estimates that, on each day the courts are open for business, approximately 100 California children lose a parent. Exact numbers of parent-less children are unknown, but Phillips hopes to learn the true and correct numbers via the discovery process.
Minimum Constitutional Guarantee Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to prevail because California judicial policies grant unto the People fewer parental rights than the minimum constitutional guarantee. ~~TMP.
BIO: Attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, is a member of the California State Bar — Lic. No. 165833 — in good standing — for 32 consecutive years. Phillips is also federally licensed — in U.S.D.C., Central District of Calif., U.S.D.C., Northern District of Calif., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the United States Supreme Court. Phillips is a graduate of San Fernando Valley College of Law, Woodland Hills, Calif.
The lawsuit is brought in conjunction with KidsMatter,
by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. California State Bar No. 165833 U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
Dateline, Carson City, Nev. — Aug. 1, 2023.
Last week, on July 27, 2023, NevadaCourt of Appeals issued a published decision in the matter of Roe vs. Roe, [139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023)]. We here present the case with editorializations by civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
“[A]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights.” — C.J. Michael P. Gibbons, Nevada Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court of Appeals, C.J. Michael P. Gibbons explains, “In this opinion, we … outline what a district court must consider when entering an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (at p. 1–2); (bold italics added].
“In this opinion, we provide a definition of sole physical custody to ensure custodial orders are properly characterized. We direct district courts when entering an order for sole physical custody to first find either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or to make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reason primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 3) (bold italics added)].
C.J. Gibbons continues, “Following either of these findings, the district court must consider the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible to avoid constraining the parent-child relationship any more than is necessary to prevent potential harm cause by an unfit parent and meet the best interest of the child. If the court enters a more restrictive parenting time arrangement than is otherwise available, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 3)].
Constitutional enthusiasts statewide were quick to note C.J. Gibbons’ clear and unambiguous language: “The parent-children relationship is a fundamental liberty interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 15), citing, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923); (bold italics added)].
Mr. Chief Justice Gibbons writes, “[a] permanent change to parenting time affects a parent’s fundamental rights concerning the custody of their child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 15–16), (bold italics added), citing, Gordon v. Geiger, 133 Nev. at 546, 402 P.3d at 674, (2017)]. “Even parents deemed highly emotionally dysregulated retain their fundamental rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16)].
Most significantly, C.J. Gibbons identifies three distinctive types of physical custody: “Nevada district courts enter one of three parenting time arrangements in a custodial order—joint, primary, or sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 16); (bold italics added].
What is sole physical custody? “[W]hen a district court enters an order that limits parenting time to restrictive supervised parenting time, virtual contact, phone calls, letters, texts, [etc.], it has entered an order for sole physical custody,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 18–19); (bold italics added)].
“Because the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child is so severely restricted, sole physical custody orders implicate a parent’s fundamental rights . . . [C]hild custody decisions implicate due process rights because parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 19); (bold italics added)].
The Chief Justice shows compassion for constitutional procedure: “the severe restriction on the noncustodial parent’s care, custody, and control of their child requires additional findings and procedure,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19); (bold italics added].
The Chief Justice articulates public policy: “the public policy of Nevada is to preserve and strengthen family life,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19)]. “To protect a noncustodial parent’s rights, judicial discretion is tempered by this state’s policy of supporting ‘frequent associations and a continuing relationship’ between parent and child after the parents’ relationship which each other has ended,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 19), citing NRS § 125.001(1)].
C.J. Gibbons sets the *abuse-of-discretion* standard: “a district court risks abusing its discretion when it orders sole physical custody without sufficient cause or otherwise unnecessarily restricts and threatens the parent-child relationship,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 19–20)].
The Chief Justice suggests that sole physical custody must be linked to a finding of “unfitness,” (i.e., based on clear and convincing evidence of (i) child abuse, (ii) neglect, (iii) endangerment, or (iv) abandonment). The Chief Justice writes, “[t]o avoid unnecessary restrictions on parental rights, a district court must only enter an order for sole physical custody if it first finds either that the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or if it makes specific findings and provides an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interests of the child.” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (pp. 20–21); (bold italics added)].
The Chief Justice further suggests strict scrutiny analysis: “After making either of these findings supporting sole physical custody, the district court must then order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible that is within the child’s best interests,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 21; (bold italics added)].
“When entering its custodial order, if a less restrictive parenting time arrangement is available, or proposed but rejected, the district court must provide an explanation as to how the best interest of the child is served by the greater restriction,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 21)].
Ultimately, C.J. Gibbons finds that family court judge, Dawn Throne, committed legal error by: (1)failing to consider a less restrictive parenting time arrangement; (2) failing to adequately explain why the greater restriction was necessary; (3) failing to make findings how true primary physical custody was not in [the minor child’s] best interest; and (4) implementing an almost unachievable plan with no ending, review, or even status check date, and accordingly has undermined Nevada’s public policy, issued anorder inconsistent with Nevada jurisprudence, and violated [the mother’s] parental rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id., (p. 24); (bold italics added)].
The Chief Justice finds abuse of discretion. “As a result, we conclude that [Dawn Throne] abused [her] discretion when [she] effectively awarded [] sole physical custody of the minor child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)]. The COA then reverses Thorne. “Thus, we reverse the parenting time allocation and direct the district court, on remand, to enter a parenting time order consistent with Nevada jurisprudence and this opinion,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 24); (bold italics added)].
In conclusion, C.J. Gibbons writes, “Sole physical custody is a custodial arrangement where the child resides with only one parent and the noncustodial parent’s parenting time is restricted to no significant in-person parenting time,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36)].
Most remarkable, the Chief Justice writes, “[a] district court entering an order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights, Nevada public policy, and future modification rights,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)]. But what does it mean — to create tension — with a fundamental right? Absent findings of unfitness, do district judges have subject-matter jurisdiction, (“authority”), tocreate tension in the parent-child relationship? (At what point does judicial tension rise to the level of substantial interference?– i.e., when does the tension become constitutionally intolerable?)
The Chief Justice continues, “a district court must first find that either the noncustodial parent is unfit for the child to reside with, or it must make specific findings and provide an adequate explanation as to the reasons why primary physical custody is not in the best interest of the child,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (p. 36); (bold italics added)].
The Chief Justice again suggests strict scrutiny analysis. “Afterwards, the district court must enter the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible consistent with a child’s best interest,” [Roe vs. Roe, id. (pp. 36–37); (bold italics added)].
“Should it enter a more restrictive order, it must explain how the greater restriction is in the child’s best interest. Moreover, it must retain its decision-making authority over future custodial modifications and parent time allocations, as well as enter order with sufficient specificity to allow enforcement. These steps are to ensure that when a district court enters an order for sole physical custody, it does so equitably and in accordance with Nevada’s statutes and jurisprudence, thereby preserving the noncustodial parent’s fundamental rights to the greatest degree possible,” [Roe vs. Roe, 139 Nev., Adv. Op. 21; No. 84893–COA; (July 27, 2023), (at p. 37); (bold italics added)].
~~TMP. (Aug. 1, 2023)
EDITOR’S NOTE
Our Atomic I-Team noted, at page 36 of the Roe decision, it states, “[a]n order for sole physical custody creates tension with a parent’s fundamental rights.” Okay, stop right there!
Note the awkward, euphemistic language, “creates tension.” Well, that’s one way to say it! Another way to say it might be that the judge, Dawn Throne, violated mom’s fundamental right to parent — which the 14th Amendment guarantees!
MELVIN GRIMES — Man or Mythology?
Melvin Grimes distinguishes himself from the run-of-the-mill attorneys who infest Clark County family court. Melvin is a breed apart!
But what makes Melvin so special? A unique blend of courage, gumption, and derring-do! Melvin boldly argues that parenting is a constitutional right — *IN* Clark County family court, (a barren, godless wasteland where federally protected civil rights go to quietly suffocate and die…).
Hear ye, hear ye! We salute the Bravehearts — such as Mel Grimes — i.e., attorneys who actually argue the Constitution in family court!
A constitutional scholar and man-about-town, Melvin knows and understands that custodial orders may not restrict or limit one’s fundamental “right to parent” absent a showing of “unfitness” — based on clear and convincing evidence of: (i) child abuse, (ii) child neglect, (iii) child endangerment, or (iv) child abandonment.
It was a once-in-a-lifetime interview. Our Atomic I-Team met-up with Melvin *Primary Custody* Grimes — at a Dotty’s on Boulder Hwy. Grimes wasted no time. “Listen up,” said Grimes. “New rule!–family court judges must order the least restrictive parenting time arrangement possible!”
A trailblazing maverick, Grimes urged our I-Team members and Dotty’s patrons, “You should see recent published decisions and see what real lawyering looks like. Let me help you … go to Nevada Supreme Court website and search the Nevada advanced opinions for a brand new case about custody. Then read the briefs… that is what a real lawyer can do for people!”
Every living soul at Dotty’s was awestruck. Weak-kneed ladies helplessly swooned. Stout-hearted men openly wept.
Grimes explained that, “Under the Troxel presumption, fit parents are presumed to be acting in the best interests of their children.” Grimes continued, “When it comes to fit parents, no family court judge may infringe upon — or otherwise create tension with — the fundamental right to parent — which is a liberty interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees unto We The People!”
Our Atomic I-Team asked Grimes what Roe means for Clark County family court. “C’mon! It’s a game-changer!” “From now on,” Grimes explained, “custody orders must be narrowly tailored — with the least restrictive custody arrangement possible.” Grimes added, “Furthermore, the trial judge must devise a game plan or road map to reinstate those custodial rights that the outlier parent lost — along with periodic status checks.”
On that sultry, summer afternoon at Dotty’s, all eyes and ears were trained on Melvin Grimes, who worked the crowd, liberally dispensing business cards and warmly shaking hands with locals!
So, is Grimes now a heavy hitter? We put that question to civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips. “Are you effin kidding me?!” exclaimed Phillips. “Melvin is a letter-high fastball over the centerfield wall — home run, y’all!”
Phillips added, “In the vast majority of divorce cases, we see two fit parents standing before the court. In such instances, the Equal Protection Clause demands that both parents share equal and undivided physical custody, fifty-fifty! Why?—because both parents are similarly situated in the eyes of the law — because Torxel’s fitness presumptionapplies to both parents equally.”
JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY—FOR ALL “FIT” PARENTS!
Because the best interests of the children demand equal access to two loving parents.
DATELINE: Sacramento, Calif., June 14, 2023 — Yesterday, the California Senate passed Assembly Bill No. 957, which provides that parents may lose custody of their children — and ultimately go to jail — if they refuse to “affirm” their child’s transgender status.
And now, Sacramento insiders today revealed that California Governor, Gavin Newsome, will soon sign Senate Bill No. 182 — which requires Child Protective Services, (“CPS”), to perform “in-home inspections” and “custody evaluations” prior to moms being allowed to leave hospitals with newborns.
Proponents hail the bill as a victory for neonatal rights. However, opponents see it as another Newsom assault on constitutional rights.
In support, Dr. Kaye Shozeh, California Dept. of Soc. Svcs., stated, “The health and safety of your child is our top priority.”
According to family law experts, the State’s paramount concern is the child’s “best interests.”
Senior litigation attorney, Wilfrid Robarts, Esq., San Bernardino County Fathers’ Rights Legal Group, explained, “Yes, the State has authority to enter your home — to ensure the safety of your kids.”
In opposition, California civil rights attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, Esq., spouted, “No! — this is one of the most overreaching governmental overreaches in the history of governmental overreach!“
Attorney Phillips added, “Seriously, am I the only one who watched AMC Breaking Bad? — Remember Jesse Pinkman in the R.V.?” — “This is my own private domicile — and I will not be harassed …. B-word!“
State Senator, Richard Pan — who last week announced his bid for Mayor of Sacramento — supports RainbowAmendments to the Constitution — to ensure the safety of all t-children.
On a related note, an unnamed Sacramento insider described the Constitution as a “stale-dated document written by toxic, white males who owned slaves and wouldn’t even let women vote.”
Our I-Team spoke with New Mexico criminal rights attorney, Saul Goodman, Esq., who believes the bill is unconstitutional. “C’mon! — the Fourth Amendment prohibits CPS from entering your home — unless they have a search warrant supported by probable cause! — Now, what’s for lunch, huh?”
Sources close to the investigation indicate the proposed bill could be on Newsom’s desk early next week. ~~ Maggie Corbin (Contributing Editor)
* * *
Yes, you’ve been hoaxed. 🙂
There is, of course, no S.B. 182 — this is just a glimpse into the dark future that lay ahead for American parents.
If you believe the gov’t has no authority to impose in-home inspections — at the time of birth — then by what authority does the gov’t impose such inspections — at the time of divorce?
A.B. 957, on the other hand, is very real indeed.
The cold, hard truth about A.B. 957 is this — if parents refuse to affirm that their t-children should be castrated (by puberty blockers), then those parents will lose custody and go to jail — and the State will then castrate their children — free from parental interference.
Know your rights!
Tell others!
#AtomicCourtWatchers
Produced and Directed by TMP’s Midnight Minions in association with Chapter Eleven Productions, Fly-By-Night Management Services, and Neurotica Entertainment Group
Copyright 2023 – by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
“Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government away from your children.” ~ T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. ~
by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq. California State Bar No. 165833 U.S. Supreme Court Bar No. 317048
“One Hundred Year Anniversary of the Right to Parent!” June 4, 1923 to June 4, 2023
One hundred years ago today — on June 4, 1923 — the U.S. Supreme Court established the “right to parent” as a fundamental right — i.e., a “liberty” interest that the 14th Amendment guarantees.
Know Your Rights The Constitution mentions certain rights, which we label as “constitutional” rights; however, there are other rights of constitutional magnitude — which, curiously enough, the Constitution never mentions — such as the right to “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting” — which we label as “fundamental” rights. And remember, “fundamental” rights are accorded “constitutional” status and protection.
Constitutional Rights vs. Fundamental Rights In the eyes of the law, both “constitutional” rights and “fundamental” rights are accorded the same legal status — with the same constitutional safeguards and procedures. The only difference is that “constitutional” rights are actually mentioned in the Constitution, while “fundamental” rights, strictly speaking, are not.
Examples Examples of constitutional rights include the right to “free speech” and the right to “keep and bear,” which, of course, are written into the Constitution — while examples of fundamental rights include the rights to “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting,” which are not mentioned in the Constitution.
Not in the Constitution–But Still Constitutional That’s right, the words, “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting,” never appear in the Constitution; but still, we consider them to be constitutional rights — more precisely, fundamental rights — which means that “privacy,” “marriage,” and “parenting” receive constitutional status and protection — as if those terms had been specifically written into the Constitution.
Fundamental Rights Can Be Eliminated There is, notably, one glaring difference between constitutional rights and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court may not eliminate constitutional rights, because, of course, such rights are enshrined in the Constitution; however, the Court may indeed eliminate fundamental rights — just like they did recently — when they declared that “abortion” is no longer a fundamental right — in last year’s Dobbs decision, (June 24, 2022).
Roe vs. Wade Way back in 1973, the Supreme Court decided that abortion is a fundamental right and that abortion should be granted constitutional status and protection; but then, remarkably, 49 years later, in 2022, the Supreme Court reversed its own decision — and just like that — abortion was no longer a fundamental right, no longer accorded constitutional status and protection.
Moral-of-the-Story The notion of “what” constitutes a fundamental right is liable to change at any time — depending on the particular mood of The People as reflected through the nation’s highest court.
Legal Criteria Okay, but what criteria does the Supreme Court use? How do they determine whether a so-called “right” should be deemed fundamental (or not)? The answer turns on whether the activity in question has been “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition.” Has this supposed right, for the last 800-or-so years, been an “essential component of the scheme of ordered liberty?”
An Unruly Horse Making an inquiry into whether a supposed right has been ingrained into the “scheme of ordered liberty” is like trying to sip champagne astride an unruly horse — it’s difficult. But still, nine solemn individuals — cloaked in quasi-religious attire — ultimately decide the trajectory of the tennis ball — which may quite randomly fall on either side of the net.
Contraception is a Fundamental Right Take, for example, the right to “contraception.” Is this a fundamental right? Well, ask yourself: is contraception “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition?” Yes! It is. Back in 1965, the Supreme Court declared that contraception is indeed a fundamental right. Okay, what about physician-assisted suicide? Just ask yourself: has physician-assisted suicide, during the last 800-or-so years, been an “essential component of the scheme of ordered liberty?” Hmm…
Physician-Assisted Suicide is Not Back in 1997, the Supreme Court faced the issue of physician-assisted suicide. Is it a fundamental right? The high court said, “No,” which means there are no minimum constitutional safeguards or procedures for physician-assisted suicide.
Location is Everything Today, when individuals seek abortion or physician-assisted suicide, they must be present in states that have legalized abortion or physician-assisted suicide. The federal gov’t neither guarantees nor protects abortion or physician-assisted suicide. These supposed “rights” are not deemed fundamental — why? — because neither were found to fall within the “liberty” interest guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Due Process Clause The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees “liberty” unto The People. Okay, but what does “liberty” even mean? What exactly does the 14th Amendment guarantee?
The Liberty Interest According to the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest includes activities that, historically speaking, are fundamental to the American way of life, for example, “privacy,” “marriage,” “contraception,” “parenting,” etc.
Jazz-Age Party-Time It’s party time! One hundred years ago today, the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment “liberty” interest includes the “right to parent.”
Let freedom ring! 🙂
Meyer vs. Nebraska In Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)], the Supreme Court defined the “liberty” interest to include the fundamental “right to parent,” which means the right to care, custody, and control of one’s children; so too, children enjoy an accompanying right, i.e., the “right to be parented” by their natural parents.
On This Day in History One hundred years ago today, on June 4, 1923, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Meyer vs. Nebraska. In 1919, Nebraska had passed a law prohibiting teaching school children any language other than English. Mr. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under this statute. Issue: Did the Nebraska statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes. The statute violated the “liberty” interest that the Due Process Clause guarantees.
Liberty Means More than ‘Merely Freedom from Bodily Restraint’ “Liberty,” the high court explained, means more than “merely freedom from bodily restraint.” “Liberty” also includes the fundamental right of a parochial school teacher to teach German to a 10-year-old student, as well as the parent’s fundamental right to control the upbringing of their child — in any language — as they see fit.
“Liberty” Defined In Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)], the Supreme Court declared that the “liberty” interest includes at least seven things: (1) the right to freely enter into contracts; (2) the right to freely choose one’s occupation; (3) the right to freely pursue education; (4) the right to freely marry; (5) the right to freely establish a home and bring up children; (6) the right to freely worship God, (likewise guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment); and, most curious of all, (7) the right to freely enjoy common law privileges essential to the “scheme of ordered liberty.”
Language of the Supreme Court On June 4, 1923 — with Mr. Justice McReynolds writing for the majority — the Taft Court held that —
“Without doubt, [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” [Meyer vs. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, at 399 (1923)]
Parenting is a Fundamental Right Yes, the right to parent is a fundamental right — it’s accorded constitutional status and protection; therefore, the state may not infringe on the right to parent — unless the state observes minimum constitutional safeguards and procedures.
Your Family Court Judge Does your family court judge know the case of Meyer vs. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390 (1923)]?–or that it declared parenting a fundamental right accorded constitutional status and protection? Does your judge understand that family courts may not separate children from parents, unless the state observes minimum constitutional safeguards and procedures?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Know your rights!
Tell others!
“Freedom means nothing if you can’t keep the government away from your children.”
Dateline: Las Vegas, Nev., Nov. 11, 2022. Unnamed sources close to the investigation indicate that a Clark County family court judge — Mathew P. Harter — died on Wed. Nov. 9, 2022, having committed suicide with a firearm.
Harter was on administrative leave at the time.
Our Atomic I-Team managed to obtain, from unofficial sources, an unofficial copy of Harter’s suicide note, which we below reproduce and transcribe.
TRANSCRIBED
“I hear the cries of children at night. I see their faces grow sallow with alienation. Who draws the line between what’s wrong and right?”
“And when I ask what my life’s been for, it’s all been for nothing. Save your regrets for the dead. Pain is for the living. It hurts so much. This suffering must stop. (Unintelligible)”
“This I do knowing that, for once, I acted in the best interests of the children.”
MPH
MANDATORY PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS
for ALL FAMILY COURT JUDGES NOW!
And when they demand YOUR psych evaluation, insist they produce an affidavit supported by probable cause!
“Through the Looking-Glass: Summary of TMP’s Arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court” by T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
First,family courts wrongfully allow parents to act as “private prosecutors” — to privately prosecute criminal causes of action against one another. However, parents lack “standing” to bring criminal complaints in the midst of child custody disputes. Besides, there’s no such thing as a private right to bring criminal causes of action. Only the state may bring criminal causes of action — and only in the name of the People. Where litigants are allowed to play the dual roles of “prosecutor” and “victim,” the case wrongfully morphs into a “vigilante” proceeding. Family courts violate the right to a fair trial, [14th Amdt] by allowing vigilante justice — with one parent playing the role of both “victim” and “prosecutor.”
Second,family courts wrongfully allow judges, with no underlying criminal complaint, (aka “indictment”), to try and convict parents on criminal statutes. Family court judges routinely find and conclude that parents violate criminal statutes — despite the fact that there are no underlying criminal complaints, (“indictments”). However, where there are no underlying criminal complaints, no judge has subject-matter jurisdiction, (“legal authority”), to make criminal findings and conclusions. Family courts violate due process, [14th Amdt], by trying and convicting parents on criminal statutes — with no supporting criminal complaint. Sadly, the accused parents never receive notice of (i) the criminal facts alleged, nor (ii) the criminal statutes allegedly violated. But again, with no underlying criminal complaint, the family court judge necessarily lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, (“legal authority”), to adjudicate criminal accusations. And, perhaps more importantly, where judges lack subject-matter jurisdiction, for want of a supporting indictment, such judges are powerless to issue orders; and, where judges do issue orders with no subject-matter jurisdiction — such orders are deemed nullities — “void” ab initio, of no force or effect, from the date of issuance.
Third, family courts wrongfully allow judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes based on “clear and convincing” evidence, but this standard-of-proof is too low. When it comes to adjudicating criminal statutes, the proper evidentiary standard, of course, is the constitutional standard, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Family courts violate due process, [14th Amdt], by using a standard-of-proof too low for criminal statutes; (and, now that you mention it, criminal statutes should be argued in criminal courts in the first place!). Ironically, both family courts and criminal courts convict individuals on the same criminal statutes — but with different evidentiary standards. For example, criminal courts adjudicate NRS 207.190, (“coercion”), on the higher, “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard; however, family courts relax the evidentiary standard — adjudicating the same criminal statute — on the lower, “clear-and-convincing” standard. Truth is, in family courts, criminal statutes are put to an “off-label” use. Criminal statutes are obviously designed and intended to put the bad guys behind bars, but family courts use the same criminal statutes as pretext to kidnap your children! Again, the proper evidentiary standard on criminal statutes is the constitutional standard, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” — regardless of whether the courthouse happens to be labeled “C” for “criminal” or “F” for “family.” And, most significantly, the “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard must be decided, not by a judge, but by a jury!
Fourth, family courts wrongfully allow judges to control the fact-finding by abolishing the parent’s right to trial-by-jury — the most precious of all civil liberties. Jury trials are the last best hope to check unbridled judicial discretion (which may explain why Las Vegas, Nevada designed its family court with NO jury boxes!). But still, where litigants face criminal accusations — and the possible punishment is limitation or termination of fundamental rights, (for example, the right to parent) — such litigants are entitled to a jury trial. Family courts violate the Sixth Amendment — by denying jury trials to parents accused of violating criminal statutes — in instances where the possible punishment includes deprivation of parental rights, which, for parents, is an ever-present Sword of Damocles!
Fifth, family courts wrongfully allow judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes, even though the parents are never proven guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” — and this defeats the constitutional “presumption of innocence.” Remember, unless or until the state proves guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt,” family court judges must presume all parents are innocent — and that they never violated a criminal statute. Until the moment comes when the state actually proves a parent guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” no judge may conclude that a parent violated a criminal statute. By allowing judges to conclude that parents violate criminal statutes — despite the fact that the state has never proven guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” — family court violates the parent’s right to “presumption of innocence,” [5th & 6th Amdts].
To justify the rampant judicial kidnappings, family courts must turn parents into criminals. And thus, the objective of family court is the mass criminalization of American parents. Notably, this criminalization comes, not in the criminal court system, but in the family court system — where criminal allegations are much easier to prove because family court features: (i) no indictment requirement, (ii) a private prosecutor, (iii) a relaxed evidentiary standard, (iv) no presumption of innocence, and (v) no jury trials.
The question presented is this — where parents stand accused of violating criminal statutes, and possible punishments include limitation or termination of parental rights, must family courts recognize the parents’ entitlement to the “rights of the accused?” — [5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments]? “Yes!” — because the constitutional right to parent hangs in the balance! The “rights of the accused” should indeed extend to family court parents accused of violating criminal statutes — in instances where the possible punishment includes limitation or termination of parental rights. In America, all persons accused of crimes — who stand to lose fundamental liberties — are entitled to the benefits and protections of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Rule-of-Law — where parents stand accused of committing crimes, and possible punishments include deprivations of parental rights, family courts must recognize the accused parents’ rights under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Know your rights! ~~TMP.
“Call the first witness,” said the King; and the White Rabbit blew three blasts on the trumpet, and called out, “First witness!”
DOWN the RABBIT HOLE!
Does the King of Hearts have subject-matter jurisdiction, (legal authority), to try the Knave of Hearts — for stealing the Queen’s tarts? Well, it depends on whether the Knave has been indicted on a burglary or theft statute. The 14th Amendment requires the Wonderland District Attorney’s Office to file a criminal complaint, (aka “indictment”), containing due process notice of some burglary or theft-related statute.
The 14th Amendment provides that the Knave of Hearts is entitled to receive a criminal complaint containing due process notice, which means notice of (i) the criminal facts surrounding the tarts, and (ii) the criminal statutes allegedly violated.
Must the King legally presume the Knave innocent? Yes! — his innocence must be presumed — until the day comes when the Wonderland District Attorney’s Office actually proves the Knave guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And, in order to maintain his presumption of innocence, the King may not conclude that the Knave violated any criminal statute — unless or until a jury so concludes — and only under the constitutional standard of proof, i.e., the “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” standard, [see 5th and 6th Amdts.].
Should the King of Hearts be allowed to play the role of “prosecutor?” No! — because his wife, (the Queen), is the “victim!” Vigilante justice defeats the right to a “fair trial,” [see 14th Amdt.]. If charges are to be brought, the Wonderland District Attorney’s Office must bring them — and bring them in the name of the People.
Next, may the Wonderland District Attorney’s Office establish guilt under the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard? No! — criminal cases must be proven to a Wonderland jury, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Finally, is the Knave of Hearts entitled to trial-by-jury? Boy howdy! Of course, he is! The Sixth Amendment requires trial-by-jury. So too, the Fifth Amendment entitles the Knave to Miranda warnings, preliminary hearings, and assistance of counsel, etc.
“In the very middle of the court was a table, with a large dish of tarts upon it: they looked so good, that it made Alice quite hungry to look at them–`I wish they’d get the trial done,’ she thought, `and hand around the refreshments!'”
Atomic Court Watchers 