Page 1

May 28, 2017 What’s the fuss? Etymology is the study of words. It’s the study of where words come from and how words change over time. According the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “burden” comes from an old English word meaning “a load, weight, cargo,” also “a child, to carry.” It came from the word “burthen” which meant “capacity of a ship.” “Burden of proof” started being recorded in the 1590s. What’s the trend? Well, in court, the burden of proof is known to be the responsibility of the filing party to produce enough evidence and/or witnesses during a trial to shift a forgone conclusion away from their opponent in favor of them. In criminal court, for example, the burden of proof standard to shift the conclusion of innocence to the filing side is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This means that the charge-filing side must persuade either a judge or a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt” during a trial that what they are charging is true, or else it remains false.

In civil case filings and most child support filings, the burden of proof standard at trial is said to switch from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a lower “preponderance of evidence.” “Preponderance of evidence” is also known as balance of probabilities because

the side charged against must also take some offense because the conclusion of innocence is not a given. If there’s no successful negotiations before trial, then both sides must persuade either a judge or a jury that a “preponderance of evidence” supports their side to win. In family court visitation filings, the burden of proof standard is, “what’s in the best interest of the child.” But if that were possible, then wouldn’t children be listed along-side, or above their parents in the title of those case filings instead of being listed down below where property is listed? Wouldn’t there be a table in the courtroom, or just one table for each child’s representative instead of just a table for mom’s and dad’s representatives? Can a judge or jury decide what’s best for a child when there’s only two conflicting positions that are visible and available to choose from: mom versus dad? It’s an ultimatum court and ultimatum filing machine. It’s not equally inclusive. Likewise, parental alienation (PA) has unfortunately become an unbridled national epidemic. PA is when a child hears a false impression of the excluded parent over time instead of a true impression. Children don’t even get a chance to testify unfiltered until they are old enough to be sometimes thoroughly alienated.

Why declining standards? Although accurate records aren’t kept by most states, estimates by CBS and a Massachusetts survey agree that more than 90% of family cases are folded up before trial. Every hearing ahead of a trial is a pinch point for the art of an agreement. Which means that there are no standards in making over 90% of family court visitation decisions. Tricking is acceptable. But when false allegations are played, then each pinch point can be like whipping a baby if the baby is crying without first checking to see if the child has an injury. Many times, the victim of severe mislabeling can’t bear the pain and caves in to wrongful terms for all. Scientific transitions Transitions are difficult on everyone involved and can have a lasting traumatic effect. Especially on the excluded children who often must internalize their grief, deprivation, and/or misleading. Stabilizing the time that a child spends with each parent from before to after a divorce transition would lessen the chance for trauma, minimize any negative labels naturally, and maximize any positive labels naturally. This would be in the realm of a scientific law practice. Allegedly, the only practice with the capacity to be in the best interest of the children.

Intellectual tail twisting The Intellectual Tail Twisting Theory is that every leverage vs. leverage competition system with all of its inherent voids and shortcomings always ends up sinking itself down or downer. But this is like a star implodeing. When everyone realizes that the standards for the least severe files against humanity are lower than the standards for the most severe files against humanity, then mislabeling an opponent worse than they mislabel you is the method for making a deal. In fact, CLU has an Intellectual Twisting Scale called the W-Scale: W1 - False allegation W2 - Persecution (false) W3 - Proviction (Conviction for a false allegation) W4 – Parental Alienation (10 years worth) W5 – Coriolation Incarcerated The real burden is carrying these weights throughout life. Victims of bullies often bear the burdens of W1’s & W2’s. Victims of false legal filings can carry all of them up to W-12’s (not listed). But what would the world be like if we stopped putting innocent parents in the same seats as criminals (around 50% of parents) and with the lowest standards? Is it too heavy? When the burden of proof is innocence, like for innocent parents in family court, then the message is to be artsy or else you’ll be deprived of whatever’s on your opponent’s list. So, is “justice” imploding itself? When the burden of proof is innocence, then is it any wonder that citizens who’ve been deprived so bad have no choice but to take it upon themselves to make things right? What’s new? In the scientific world, proof is not a burden that changes depending on what’s on the line. It’s not a game that has to be exaggerated just to meet in the middle. Children may have lower places and lower

standards than criminals, but that’s not safe. Scientific negotiations aren’t easily misrepresented and can’t pass around the blame like a hot potato. It is the hot potato but it cools itself off. The scientific method has five simple steps for decision-making.

These are some scientific standards. The theories & laws that develop from this method are what builds monumental things like cars, skyscrapers & smartphones. The old MO is to start with the most severe “law,” and renegotiate until someone caves. Some will say, “Ya, but how do you experiment with a case that previously happened?” And the answer is that you don’t. Recording causes and effects will show the probability of events which gets higher and higher over time. It’s logical instead of artsy. A syllogism, mathematical, or logical method needs no burden of proof. They can be freely shared. One plus one equals two. Axe in hand plus victim’s blood on hand equals a 99.9% chance of an assault. No games required. Children who spend 10 hours a week with one parent and 20 hours a week with the other parent before a divorce require half as much time with one parent as with the other parent for the transition to have as little instability as possible. What changed? Courts and parents don’t always jive. And the glaringly reason why is that most parents don’t think of their children as a burden today. Maybe in the olden days when it was a struggle to survive, to find food, to find work, or to ship cargo. But most parents today see children as a blessing, or even as an accessory. Many dads are “Stay at home dad’s.” And many

moms are “Bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan.” And rightfully so. Children can carry on our name, both parent’s names, provide endless hours of joy, and help their parents with things that parents cannot do for themselves. The fact is that children are a blessing in these modern days. And any incubator which functions otherwise warrants re-evaluation. Studies show that children are in jeopardy without one firm grip on their mom’s hand and one solid grip on their dad’s hand just like safety rails through-out life. And that any unhealthy “grips” can literally pull their life out of socket forever. Any judicial savant can see that when there’s no standards, then alienating your opponent becomes the best rule of thumb to win. So what can we tell our children to protect them in court? Make up false allegations against your opponent before they do it to you? But is that civilized? And when both sides have to do it to each other so as not to be deprived, well, then will their children end up going to a family member or to the state? Shouldn’t we just stop the madness and intervene? Reverse the trend? In the olden days, it may have seemed natural to pour a little salt on wounds. State systems are notorious for pouring salt on the wounds of any victim who cries “ouch!” But the concrete grounds to reverse this trend is that scientific systemics will provide maximum public safety for all. CLU

“A reuniting law practice.” {All rights reserved}

May 28, 2017 Clean Law News  

Reversing the Trend of Powerful Minds Alienating or Enveloping Weaker Minds.

May 28, 2017 Clean Law News  

Reversing the Trend of Powerful Minds Alienating or Enveloping Weaker Minds.