by Bruce Eden

    .... imprisonment of political and ideological opponents in concentration camps.

(Fathers are arrested in early morning hours state-mandated statewide child support sweeps under bogus "warrants" obtained in civil matters, where no probable cause to obtain warrants exists.)

With the reinterpretation of "protective custody" (Schutzhaft) in 1933, police power became independent of judicial controls. In Nazi terminology, protective custody meant the arrest--without judicial review--of real and potential opponents of the regime. "Protective custody" prisoners were not confined within the normal prison system but in concentration camps under the exclusive authority of the SS (Schutzstaffel; the elite guard of the Nazi state). 

(Fathers are arrested in domestic violence matters without judicial review in what can be termed as "protective custody".  Fathers also arrested in what are euphemistically known as "coercive" arrests and "coercive" imprisonment to "coerce" payment for child support and alimony.)(Black's Law Dictionary defines coerce and involuntary servitude as being interchangeable words). 

The Third Reich has been called a dual state, since the normal judicial system coexisted with the arbitrary power of Hitler and the police. Yet, like most areas of public life after the Nazi rise to power in 1933, the German system of justice underwent "coordination" (alignment with Nazi goals). All professional associations involved with the administration of justice were merged into the National Socialist League of German Jurists. In April 1933, Hitler passed one of the earliest antisemitic laws, purging Jewish and also Socialist judges, lawyers, and other court officers from their professions. Further, the Academy of German Law and Nazi legal theorists, such as Carl Schmitt, advocated the nazification of German law, cleansing it of "Jewish influence." Judges were enjoined to let "healthy folk sentiment" (gesundes Volksempfinden) guide them in their decisions.

(The American family court system and its judges aligns its goals with radical feminist and domestic violence ideology and dogma, under threat of being humiliated in the press and removed from the bench.)(Further, the family court system is used by high powered members of the bar association to push agendas, create power and riches for themselves).

Hitler determined to increase the political reliability of the courts. In 1933 he established special courts throughout Germany to try politically sensitive cases. Dissatisfied with the 'not guilty' verdicts rendered by the Supreme Court (Reichsgericht) in the Reichstag Fire Trial, Hitler ordered the creation of the People's Court (Volksgerichtshof) in Berlin in 1934 to try treason and other important "political cases." Under Roland Freisler, the People's Court became part of the Nazi system of terror, condemning tens of thousands of people as "Volk Vermin" and thousands more to death for "Volk Treason." The trial and sentencing of those accused of complicity in the July Plot, the attempt to kill Hitler in July 1944, was especially unjust. 

(Special child support enforcement courts against divorced men, with no due process protections, have been set up for some time.  Special domestic violence courts against men, once again with no due process protections, are being set up recently).

After the war, prominent Nazi jurists like Curt Rothenberger, Franz Schlegelberger, and Josef Altstoetter were tried in the Jurists' Trial of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings on charges of "judicial murder" and other atrocities.

(Wilbur Streett, Brian Armstrong and others who owed child support or were chastised and ostracized in the American family courts were murdered in jail after being placed there by family court decrees--judicial murder by decree).

Ingo Muller, in Hitler's Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, provides a penetrating picture of the workings of the criminal justice system in Nazi Germany.  Muller's analysis of the evidence suggests that most German judges--contrary to common opinion--were ultraconservative nationalists who were largely sympathetic to Nazi goals.  The "Nazification" of German law occurred with the willing and enthusiatic help of judges, rather than over their principled objections.

"Feminization" of American Family law--sound familiar?

Two features of German law combined to facilitate the Nazi's evil schemes.  The first was that German law, unlike the law of the United States and many other nations, lacked "higher law" (constitutional or ethical standards) that might be resorted to by judges to avoid the harsh effects of discriminatory laws adopted by the Nazi regime.  The second difficulty was that there was no separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.  Hitler declared, and the Reichstag agreed, had the power "to intervene in any case."  This was done, legally, through what was called "an extraordinary appeal for nullification of sentence."  The nullification invariably resulted in a sentence the Nazis thought was too light being replaced by a more severe sentence, often death.  If these features of German law weren't enough, the Nazis also assigned a member of the Security Service to each judge to funnel secret information about the judges back to Hitler and his henchmen.

There is no right to appeal anymore from family courts.  The entire judiciary, from the municipal courts to the state Supreme Court, is conflicted because the state governments receive federal funding for child support enforcement and collections forwarded to the Federal government for reimbursement incentive funding, domestic violence programs and how many reported cases of domestic violence are forwarded to the Federal government for the funding, child abuse prevention programs and how many cases reported are forwarded to the Federal government for funding, supervised visitation programs, foster home programs, etc.  Judges and state employee salaries and pensions are directly linked to how much money they can extort from fathers, mothers and families to bolster their own pecuniary interests.

Furthermore, there is no separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches
in the United States (specifically with regard to family law matters).  The Governor and attorney general's office are pushing for more and more federal funding.  Case in point:  Men paying hefty sums of child support and alimony based on big salaries.  They lose their jobs because of the economic downturn.  The judiciary has been told by the Governor to not reduce support obligations so the state can keep these artificially inflated numbers on the books to show the Feds, so the Feds send more and more funding to collect the uncollectable amounts.  Also, jailing of these men brings in additional funding for jailing on a per diem basis.   The executive branch and judicial branch are no longer follow the separation of powers.  They all claim immunity for committing human rights violations against fathers and families in child support, domestic violence and child custody/visitation enforcement matters by imprisoning fathers for debt (outlawed by the US Constitution, state constitutions, and Human Rights Treaties), and imprisoning fathers in order to take away their children.

In its decision, the Nuremberg Justice trial tribunal considered what it called Schlegelberger's "hesitant injustices."  The tribunal concluded that Schlegelberger "loathed the evil that he did" and that his real love was for the "life of the intellect, the work of the scholar."  In the end he resigned because "the cruelties of the system were too much for him."  Despite its obvious sympathy with Schlegelberger's plight, the tribunal found him guilty.  It pointed out that the decision of a man of his stature to remain in office lent credibilty to the Nazi regime.  Moreover, Schegelberger signed his name to orders that, in the tribunal's judgment, constituted crimes.  One case described in the decision involved the prosecution in 1941 of a Jew (Luftgas) accused of "hoarding eggs."  Schlegelberger gave Luftgas a two-and-a-half-year sentence, but then Hitler indicated that he wanted the convicted man executed.  Although Schlegelberger may well have protested, he signed his name to the order that led to the execution of Luftgas.  Another case cited by the tribunal concerned a remission-of-sentence order signed by Schlegelberger.  Scheleberger explained in his decision that the sentence imposed against a police officer who was convicted of beating a Jewish milking hand would have been bad for the morale of officers.

Sounds like any number of judges in the Family Courts.  "I WAS ONLY DOING MY JOB".

Volume 1, No. 8 (October, 1991), pp. 118-121

HITLER'S JUSTICE: THE COURTS OF THE THIRD REICH by Ingo Muller, transl. by Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1991).

Reviewed by Donald P. Kommers, University of Notre Dame

Ingo Muller's book, originally published in 1987 as FURCHT- BARE JURISTEN: DIE UNBEWALTIGTE VERGANGENHEIT UNSERER JUSTIZ (literally, "Dreadful Jurists: The Remorseless Past of Our Judiciary"), describes the moral collapse of the German legal profession and its role in facilitating the construction and maintenance of the Nazi regime. Gracefully translated by Deborah Lucas Schneider, HITLER'S JUSTICE seeks, first, to show how legal professionals betrayed their trust as lawyers, prosecutors, and judges and, second, to assess the degree to which Germany in the postwar period reformed its legal system, purged the judiciary of former Nazis, and re-dedicated itself to the rule of law. Detlev Vagt's short introduction to the English edition helps to orient the non-German reader. It contains an overview of Germany's court system, a sketch of the legal profession's organization, a note on the controversies about the role of lawyers and judges under National Socialism, and a summary of the allied effort to reform the German legal system after the war.

The main message of this book is that lawyers and judges trained to serve the Rechtsstaat (a state based on the rule of law) had instead subverted it by going along with Hitler and his criminal regime. Like physicians, professors, and even clergymen -- members of professions dedicated to serving human needs -- lawyers and judges, far from opposing injustice, actually helped to perpetuate it. The judiciary's record by any standard is a tale of iniquity, its collusion with evil having already begun during the Weimar period when judges antagonistic to constitutional democracy openly sympathized with Nazi defendants accused of committing acts of violence against their political enemies. Thus, as the author argues, the German judiciary compromised its integrity even before the Nazis took over.

Lawyers and Judges have sold their souls for power and the almighty buck.  Not to mention they are constantly under scrutiny by radical feminist groups, lesbian and gay groups,  and domestic violence femi-nazi groups if they don't award mothers custody of the children in almost all cases.

There follows an account of the various ways in which lawyers, prosecutors, and judges subverted the Rechtsstaat during the Nazi years. We find them making a mockery of the Reichstag fire trial; conducting political trials and bullying defendants in open court; confining political prisoners to inhuman prison conditions; driving Jews out of the bar and off the bench; depriving them in turn of all other rights of citizenship, even to the point of imposing the death sentence for petty offenses; formulating policies that allowed physicians to experiment genetically on disabled people and to kill persons regarded as unworthy of life; organizing special courts for the prosecution of "asocial elements" and "political and military enemies of the state;" and "correcting" the final decisions of the regular courts to the disadvantage of defendants or litigants disfavored by the state.

Sound too familiar?   Fathers are the targeted class to be outlawed.  Those lawyers and judges trying to make a stand and do what's right for father's rights are driven off the bench and out of the bar, in what is known as "economic suicide".  Lawyers and judges will not defend fathers, unless it's with huge, extortionate amounts of money.

These perversions of justice were real. They happened, and the author hammers home the reality of what happened by parading before the reader example after example of judicial lawlessness and legalized

Page 119 follows:

terror. Much of this story, based heavily on court records and other official reports, has been told before. Actually, this book is intended to refute studies that defend or explain away the record of the judiciary during the Third Reich, seeking to demolish any interpretation of that record that would diminish the extent of its contribution to the rise and acceptance of the Nazi state. Hence, armed with information selected from the sources just mentioned and citing chapter and verse of laws and regulations that sanctioned Hitler's justice, the author proceeds to indict the entire judicial establishment.

"Hitler...considered jurists 'complete fools' incapable of recognizing what measures the state had to take" (p.174). If Hitler really had had his way, he would, like Dick the Butcher in Shakespeare's Henry VI, have killed all the lawyers.

15. Archival footage of Roland Freisler Presiding Over the Trial of the Plotters
Who Attempted to Assassinate Hitler on July 20, 1944. Freisler, who had the
dubious distinction of sentencing some 5,000 people to death, and was described
by William Shirer, in his classic masterpiece The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,
as a “vile vituperative maniac”, is shown screaming and yelling hysterically at
one of the defendants, in decidedly unjudicial and injudicious fashion. The trials
were filmed on Hitler’s orders and Freisler was, in significant part, performing for
Hitler’s benefit. This and the preceding film clip together demonstrate very
graphically that the Nazi judiciary by and large came to lack all semblance of
independence, and became a collective mouthpiece for the regime.

Using original decrees, court decisions, and first-hand recollections of participants, the book Nazi Justiz documents how the German legal system transformed itself into a criminal organization. We see not only how the legal system shaped everyday life, but how good Germans and the business community benefited from the Holocaust. Germany in the 1930s--before the war--is emphasized. Such emphasis demonstrates that a Holocaust can happen in any country sharing the heritage of Western civilization, and warns of the inevitable outcome once ordinary people are targeted in a process of destruction. No other book has so much information on the Holocaust in peacetime Germany; indeed, the chapters on property confiscation and residential concentration are unique. With a richness of detail evoking an immediacy normally found in novels, Nazi Justiz offers a chilling portrayal of persons filled with so much goodness that they become oblivious to horrors they cause. Death camps are the most enduring image of the Holocaust, but they were only the final expression of a destruction process that began in 1933. In that year the Nazi regime mobilized members of an entire society to destroy their neighbors. Lawmakers, judges, attorneys, and the rest of the legal system played a crucial role in reassuring "good Germans" that a war on Jews was legitimate.   

How about the "War on Fathers and Families"?

If German legal actors could have been so easily corrupted, should that not be taken as a warning to other nations whose political structure is also based on the rule of law?  A major impetus for the willingness of the German elite, including its legal elite, to first acquiesce and then participate in the Nazi atrocities was the perception that Germany was being threatened both internally and externally. This precondition is especially relevant to the current predicament being faced by democratic societies living in the Age of Terrorism.

Examining Nazi legal barbarism and the role of German legal actors during the Nazi era to seek lessons for today is not the same, however, as making sweeping analogies between Bush and Hitler or, as one U.S. senator did in June 2006, likening the U.S. military's Guantanamo prison facility to a Nazi concentration camp. The question, instead, is how the German legal system and its actors, especially the judiciary, allowed the Hitler (Obama?) dictatorship to take place and subvert the entire system of laws to the Führer's will. The critical period was 1933-1939, when there was still a possibility of legal resistance. It is this period that can provide the greatest lessons for today. Moreover, the extreme situation of legal barbarism represented by Nazi Germany offers lessons for how (and how not) to maintain the rule of law in times of threat.   

One other major distinction between Germany in 1933-1939 and the contemporary situation is that the perceived "threat from within" in the early Hitler years was not real, but manufactured by the Nazis to justify legal emergency measures to the populace. The Jews of Germany and other persecuted groups did not pose a threat to Germany as a nation. Today, however, the internal threat in the United States, the United Kingdom, Continental Europe, Israel, and other liberal democracies from both homegrown and foreign terrorists is real and calls for legal measures. Nevertheless, the perception of a hidden fifth column within the ranks of society in post-1933 Germany and in these present-day democracies is the same.

(The perceived threat that fathers are violent and deadbeats draining the taxpayers).

Many judges appointed before the Nazi rise to power--because of the economic and social circles that judges were drawn from--had views that were quite compatible with the Nazi party.  A few Jewish judges sat on the bench when the Nazis assumed power--but only a very few.  A 1933 law removed those few Jewish judges from officee.

Most German judges over-identified with the Nazi regime.  They came to see themselves as fighters on the internal battlefront, with the responsibility to punish "the enemy within."

Family court judges see themselves as fighters on the internal battlefront, with responsibility to punish men because they are violent "neanderthals" and "deadbeat dads".  As one New Jersey Family Court Judge said during a domestic violence seminar of judges-in-training:  "Throw the man out in the street with just the shirt on his back and tell him, "See ya".  Don't  worry about his constitutional rights."  You don't want to see your name in the headlines IF SOMETHING goes wrong. (Presumptions and inferences are unconstitutional--See U.S Supreme Court case of Sandstrom v. Montana).

The American Nazi judiciary known as the Family Court are outlawing men by (1) ostracizing them from their families and society, (2) interfering and violating their constitutional rights to travel and work, (3) violating their constitutional rights to a parent-child relationship by denying it under the guise of the unconstitutional "best interests" standard rather than the constitutional strict scrutiny standard that requires a compelling state interest of either child abuse or neglect before the courts can interfere, (4) violating their rights to own property, (5) depriving them of their constitutionally protected liberty interests by re-instating debtors prisons and unconstitutionally arresting fathers and jailing them in civil matters, where no probable cause exists.

Richard A. Posner, federal court of appeals judge and one of the most astute observers of the legal scene, noted that it is not only German judges that might over-identify with popular causes.  

In The New Republic, Posner wrote:
Perhaps in the fullness of time the growing of marijuana plants, the "manipulation" of financial markets, the bribery of foreign government officials, the facilitating of the suicide by the terminally ill, and the violation of arcane regulations governing the financing of political campaigns will come to be no more appropriate objects of criminal punishment  than "dishonoring the race."  Perhaps not; but [the story of the German judges] can in any event help us to see that judges should not be eager enlisters in popular movements of the day, or allow themselves to become so immersed in a professional culture that they are oblivious to the human consequences of their decisions." 

---