Grounds for Disqualification

Familawt

This page was last updated on Wednesday March 16, 2005

I searched the Internet last month (May 2002) and discovered familawt - a caricature of Camelot.  The creators of this web page included this statement: "Here are a few highlights from the infamous AAML Symposium 2002" (AAML is an anti-male and communist organization stands for the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers). The web page showed nine photographs of judges, commissioners, referees, and lawyers joking about family law. The top left hand photograph shows three queens and three kings of their self proclaimed Round Table.  The prominent center piece of this picture is King David Haet replete with gown and crown and whatever.  This is the person I wrote about in Junk Justice where he falsified my testimony after I gave it and changed court papers after I signed them.  Other men reported the same behavior on part of Haet.

Their public insincerity and private preferences are evident by the following of their own creation.

AAML divorce lawyers were polled and "eighty percent of those polled said they had actually handled a case where they believed there was false accusation of abuse, as in disputes over custody of children, for instance."   [News Release, from The Dilenschneider Group Inc., (representing the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers), Three First National Place, 70 West Madison Street, Chicago, IL 60602, November 1991.

Endnotes

1. The photograph and the text entitled familawt are copies from the Northern California American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) web site. The photograph is one of nine photographs that appeared on their web page. I changed the visual appearance of jingle ‘familawt’ from double spacing to single spacing to enhance its visual clarity and to save space. I did not change capitalization. At least twice, the title ‘familawt’ appeared in their writings as imaged text.

Though somewhat attractive and imaged text does have its use, it is unreadable by common word processors. So I changed the imaged text and uncommon fonts to another that is more widely accepted and did so with consideration toward portability without changing their words. Some web browsers will do this automatically.

2. There were no copyright notices on their web page.  However, I claim fair use under United States Code Title 17 Chapter 1 § 107.

3. The statement, "We must divide the assets equally" is not true.  California is not an equitable distribution state.  California is a community property state that recognizes that the separate property of each spouse remains their own.  This includes inheritances, personal injury awards, and income arising from separate property.  Only the marital property is divided equally.

4. Certain restraining orders are automatic in every California divorce.

•  Both spouses are restrained from concealing, destroying, borrowing against, transferring, or selling any property except in the normal course of business, or by court order, or with the written permission of the other spouse.
   
• Both spouses are restrained from cashing in, borrowing against, or canceling any insurance policy held for the benefit of the divorcing couple or their minor children.
   
• Both spouses are restrained from taking their children out of the state without prior written permission from the other spouse and the court.

5. Attorneys and former California judges have acknowledged that false allegations of abuse are not uncommon in California courts.  Some have estimated that the percentage of false allegations to be as high as 85%.

6. Falsifying records is not uncommon in Solano County courts.  For additional information see Behind Our Backs at this web site.

Edward S. Nunes