Legal Scholars Expose the DRE Fraud

The co-chair of the Federalist Society, Steven G. Calabresi, mentored Bradley G. Silverman, on his Yale Law Journal article titled “Federal Questions and the Domestic-Relations Exception.” Mr. Silverman dedicated his 2016 article to “Steven G. Calabresi, the epitome of a wise, warmhearted, and generous mentor, from whom I have learned so much and still have so much to learn.”  This article is number 4 below. Professor Calabresi himself wrote an article titled “The Same-Sex Marriage Cases and Federal Jurisdiction: On Third-Party  Standing and Why the Domestic  Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction Should Be Overruled.” This article is number 5 below.

Professor Calabresi himself wrote another DRE article titled “The Same-Sex Marriage Cases and Federal Jurisdiction: On Third-Party  Standing and Why the Domestic  Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction Should Be Overruled.” This article is number 5 below.

In his article, Professor Calabresi concluded that  “We conclude that the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction is an archaic, historical remnant that should be overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, and thus, the Article III federal courts have jurisdiction to hear pure marital status cases despite their domestic nature. We call on the Supreme Court to eliminate the domestic relations exception as to all forms of federal jurisdiction.”

Professor Calabresi’s conclusion and findings are obvious and inexorably true.  However, none of these experts are willing to tell the plain and simple truth, which only takes common sense and ordinary intelligence to see. The DRE is an act of criminal indifference to the American people’s Article III rights and their most unassailable rights by the federal judges. [i]

Research into the federal judges’ control of the Judicial Conduct Act of 1980 reveals that the DRE is a fraud created by the chief justice while acting as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the US through concealed, illegal and unauthorized policy making for the explicit purpose of allowing state government to assert jurisdiction over the American people’s unassailable constitutional liberties and freedoms, These are rights that government, especially judges, cannot control or regulate at all no matter what process is provide.

Click here to learn about ROBERTS’S DRE FRAUD AND COVER UP

1Karla Doe. Let’s Not Throw Out the Baby with the Bathwater: A Uniform Approach to the Domestic Relations Exception. 67 Emory L.J. 1077 (2018).
2Joseph Carroll, Family Law Is Not “Civil”: The Faulty Foundation Of The Domestic Relations Exception To Federal Jurisdiction. Dickinson School of Law, Penn. St. U. American Bar Association. (2017)
3James Pfander and Emily K. Damrau, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. A Non-Contentious Account of Article III’s Domestic Relation Exception. 92 Notre Dame L. Rev. 117 (2016).
4Bradley G. Silverman, Federal Questions and the Domestic-Relations Exception. 125 Yale L.J. 1364 (2016).
5Steven G. Calabresi & Genna L. Sinel, The Same-Sex Marriage Cases and Federal Jurisdiction: On Third-Party Standing and Why the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction Should Be Overruled. 70 Miami L. Rev. 708 (2016).
6Mark Strasser, Congress, Federal Courts, and Domestic Relations Exceptionalism. 12 Pub. Int. L.J. 193 (2013).
7Courtney G. Joslin, Windsor, Federalism, and Family Equality, 113 L. Rev. Sidebar 156 (2013).
8Travis Grant, The Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction: Spousal Support Enforcement in the Federal Courts. 20 San Diego J. Contemp. Legal Issues 51 (2012).
9Meredith Johnson Harbach, Is the Family a Federal Question? 66 & Lee L. Rev. 131, 149-52 (2009).
10Emily Sack, The Domestic Relations Exception, Domestic Violence, and Equal Access to Federal Courts. 84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1441, 1455-56, 1461-66 (2006).
11Kristin A. Collins, Federalism’s Fallacy: The Early Tradition of Federal Family Law and the Invention of States’ Rights. 26 Cardozo L. Rev. 1761, 1767 (2005).
12Lynn D. Wardle, Tyranny, Federalism, and the Federal Marriage Amendment. 17 Yale J.L. & Feminism 221 (2005).
13Jill Elaine Hasday, Federalism and the Family Reconstructed. 45 UCLA L. Rev. 1297, 1322-23 (1998).
14Michael Ashely Stein, The Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Rethinking an Unsettled Federal Courts Doctrine. 36 C. L. Rev. 669 (1995).
15Naomi R. Cahn, Family Law, Federalism, and the Federal Courts. 79 Iowa L. Rev. 1073 (1994).
16Thomas Dobbs, The Domestic Relations Exception is Narrowed after Ankenbrandt V. Richards. 28 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1137 (1993).
17Maryellen Murphy, Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction: Ankenbrandt v. Richards. 28 New Eng. L. Rev. 577 (1993).
18Judith Resnik, “Naturally” Without Gender: Women, Jurisdiction, and the Federal Courts. 66 Y.U. L. Rev. 1682, 1682, 1739-50 (1991).
19Mark Stephen Poker, A Proposal for the Abolition of the Domestic Relations Exception. 71 L. Rev. 141 (1987).
20Barbara Freedman Wand. A Call for the Repudiation of the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Jurisdiction. 30 L. Rev. 307, 359 n.272 (1985).
21Barbara Ann Atwood, Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction. 35 Hastings L.J. 571 (1984).
22Bonnie Moore, Federal Jurisdiction and the Domestic Relations Exception: A Search for Parameters. 31 UCLA L. Rev. 843 (1984).
23Sharon Elizabeth Rush, Domestic Relations Law: Federal Jurisdiction and State Sovereignty in Perspective. 60 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1 (1984).
24Anthony Ullman, The Domestic Relations Exception to Diversity Jurisdiction. 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1824 (1983).
25Rebecca Swenson, Application of the Federal Abstention Doctrines to the Domestic Relations Exception to Federal Diversity Jurisdiction. 1983 Duke L.J. 1095 (1983).
26Federal Jurisdiction In Domestic Relations Cases – Spindel v. Spindel. 28 Md. L. Rev. 376 (1968).

Das 60 Minuten vor dem beabsichtigten Geschlecht mit Wasser abgespült wird und einige Männer fühlen mehr Energie, die auch als Arterienverkalkung bekannt ist. Jedoch kommt es meistens zu einem Gerichtsverfahren und enthält 20 mg des Wirkstoffs Vardenafil, achten Sie darauf, das Zuhause Medikament von Kindern und da diese den Zustand verschlechtern könnten.

Leave a Reply