DIVORCE CORP - The reviews

Well Done!

A movie that presents aspects of my annihilation by divorce has the potential of being 'misery porn' which was something I feared before going to this film.

I was concerned that my experiences which had been handled and those emotions filed away would be pulled out and thrown back into the air around me.

Since 2007, I had been in contact with many of the people in the movie... they hadn't helped. Among them Gloria Allred who I thought came across well in the movie. We had exchanged emails years ago. Judge Lynn Toler who has not blocked me from communication on Facebook and must be aware of my terror. The private investigator who calls it as it is... Death is easier than Divorce. He presents the truly aggressive possibilities. I can assure you his raw and direct information is sugar coated when compared to reality.

I cried at a few parts. An emotional relapse. I had tried to prepare myself for it, Make myself laugh before going in. For the record, the movie IS NOT IN 3D.

I lived every aspect of the movie, and continue to do so, since 2007. They don't even show the other abuses which occur. The false allegations don't begin to demonstrate the destruction. The abuse of county resources, like the psych wards. The terror inflicted by an aggressive pursuit of 'deadbeat dads'. Child Support IS a weapon, which can cause you to be jailed, arrested, attacked, prevented from employment, denied drivers license, and more.

While under the childs support system, the facts are summarily dismissed. The pre-Thanksgiving, pre-Christmas, and pre-Fathers Days roundups of 'deadbeat dads which is televised in every corner of the country and treated as a national joke is truly an evil joke for the public which terrorizers the victims. The system loves to shit on an attacked dad... and no one listens.

The Appeal process in the movie doesn't show that when the judge HAS COMMITTED a deliberate error in their orders, they obstruct the appeal process. There are 2 orders which are more powerful than the US Constitution. The secret order issued behind your back which makes you seem paranoid and will crush you when you find it. And the deliberately defective and void order which lacks jurisdiction and any authority. The deliberately void order is followed by everyone even when they know it is invalid... because the judges won't expose the crimes of the judge who issued the order. They just pretend that the order is valid... even when you present the defect over 80 times. ANYONE may attack anything about you and wave that order to get away with their crimes.

It became necessary to find out why everyone thought their actions were lawful. Why is became 'lawful' to ignore the law and my rights. The result of that investigation was the Constitutional Challenge of Rule 1.6 filed on August 8, 2013 in US Federal Court. The movie supports the information which lead to the challenge. Things started in the late 80's as Rule 1.6 was enacted in EVERY US State. Injustice became 'lawful'. Ignoring judicial crimes became 'lawful'. Though still VERY unconstitutional, law enforcement was not lawfully permitted to address judicial corruption. The reforms suggested in the documentary will not work until peoples rights are no longer ignored. That will occur when Rule 1.6 is declared unconstitutional in every state.

Rule 1.6 is Confidentiality of Information. Same number, same name in every state. It's is a law which lawyers must follow. When they do it requires them to ignore people's rights, mandates injustice continue, and prevents and obstructs any law enforcement person from acting on your behalf and prosecuting the crimes and abuses. Enforcement of Rule 1.6 is strongly enforced with a heavy hand. It's the first rule of "Fight Club". It is also the second rule.

I exited the movie hopeful. The movie ends somewhat abruptly. I witnessed the ending twice as we had gotten to the theater early and caught the end of the previous showing. Both were the same. People sitting in silence... attempting to pull themselves back together before heading back out into the world that ignores them.

I could't keep myself from asking through that silence. "So, we have all survived this?" While my thoughts were on those who had not survived. A theater full of people who understood isolation and had shared 90+ minutes isolated together went back out into their nightmare.

The movie may not have been in 3d, but the experience shared was more realistic than if it had been. The 3D glasses helped hide the hollow feeling while I put everything back into its emotional compartment.

---

HUFFINGTON POST
Divorce Corp.: Documentary Paints Horrific Picture of Intimidation, Collusion, and Excessive Billing in Family Courts

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: This cautionary doc could well scare off prospective brides and grooms.

Divorce Corp. Powerful Indictment of Corrupt System

To the Court Reporters:

Message to the Court Reporters:

Please advise the court reporters that I plan to file a complaint with the Superior Court regarding their deliberate failure to produce the transcripts as required by the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

I will additionally be filing federal suits against each for their participation in the obstruction of justice and denial of due process which they have chosen to become involved in.

Judge Page lacked jurisdiction and engaged in intimidation tactics to prevent justice in this matter.

Please advise your reporters accordingly.
Terance Healy
www.work2bdone.com/live

Email Exchange Regarding Court Reporter Preparation of Transcripts. 1. On April 30, 2013, upon receipt of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Appellant/Defendant filed the document with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-391 ) ( EXHIBIT A ) 2. Appellant/Defendant then went to the Court Reporters Office to arrange for the production of the transcripts for the matter. Appellant/Defendant met with P. Fajardo, and also met briefly with Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter.. 3. Appellant/Defendant was traveling to Florida the next morning to attend the funeral of his father who had passed away on April 28, 2013. ( EXHIBIT B ) 4. During his time in Florida, Appellant/Defendant contacted P. Fajardo by telephone to update the list of transcripts necessary for the Appeal. 5. On May 15, 2013, upon his return, Appellant/Defendant filed with the Prothonotary a Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” listing the transcripts necessary for the Appeal. ( #2007-12477-394 ) The Notice included a signed copy of the Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 6. On May 15, 2013, a copy of the time-stamped Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” was emailed to P. Fajardo in the Court Reporters Office. ( EXHIBIT C ) 7. On May 15, 2013, P. Fajardo acknowledged receipt of the listing, and accepted responsibility to notify the appropriate Court Reporters. ( EXHIBIT D ) 8. On May 16, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant, and exhibits missing from the official transcript for February 11 & 20, 2013 were raised as a concern. (EXHIBIT E ) 9. On May 16, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that the Appellant/Defendant would be contacted if any further information was required. ( EXHIBIT F ) 10. On May 19, 2013, the Court Reporters' Office was thanked by the Appellant/Defendant who inquired as to when the transcripts would be available to review. ( EXHIBIT G ) 11. On May 20, 2013, P. Fajardo indicated that my inquiry would be forwarded to the individual court reporters. ( EXHIBIT H ) 12. On May 20, 2013, Appellant/Defendant was contacted by Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, by telephone. Byron indicated that Judge Page had contacted the court reporters with instructions to NOT prepare the transcripts. 13. On May 21, 2013, Appellant/Defendant wrote to the Court Reporters Office requesting that they continue to work towards producing the hearing transcripts, as there had been no information shared by Judge Page; no contact between Judge Page and the Appellant/Defendant; no hearing or conference had been petitioned; no hearing or conference had been scheduled; no hearing or conference had been held. ( EXHIBIT I ) 14. On May, 21, 2013, Appellant /Defendant received via email the transcript for a brief proceeding held on January 17, 2013. The Court Reporter additionally filed a copy of the transcript with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-397 ) ( EXHIBIT J ) 15. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed P. Fajardo requesting the name of who had added the transcript for the brief proceeding on January 17, 2013 to the list of transcripts to be produced. ( EXHIBIT K ) 16. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant resubmitted the Notice “Request for the Production of Transcripts” to clarify the transcripts required and the associated Court Reporter for each hearing. ( #2007-12477-398 ) ( EXHIBIT L ) 17. On May 22, 2013, P. Fajardo responded to my email with a courtesy copy of a Court Order signed by Judge Garrett D. Page on May 21, 2013. ( EXHIBIT M ) 18. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant acknowledged the email and the order, further calling attention to the courts lack of jurisdiction. The lack of jurisdiction was further compounded by the pendancy of a prior appeal which had been deliberately neglected by the Prothonotary. The Prothonotary failed to prepare and forward the matter to the Superior Court after the August 15, 2011 Notice of Appeal. The email additionally pointed out the overall injustice and corruption which has interfered with every aspect of the matter since 2007. ( EXHIBIT N ) 19. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant assembled and posted the issues regarding the Order of May 21, 2013 to his web site, and opened up discussions with friends about how to address the issues. ( EXHIBIT O ) ( www.work2bdone.com/live ) 20. On May 22, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter who had transcribed the January 17, 2013 requesting the name of the person who requested/authorized the transcription of the matter. ( EXHIBIT P ) 21. On May 23, 2013, the Order of May 21, 2013 signed by Judge Garrett D. Page was filed and docketed with the Prothonotary. ( #2007-12477-399 ) ( EXHIBIT Q ) 22. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter indicated via email that Byron Battle, Chief Court Reporter, had instructed her to transcribe the proceeding from January 17, 2013, and that she believed that it was at the request of Judge Page. ( EXHIBIT R ) 23. On May 23, 2013, the Court Reporter followed up her email with another indicating that as a result of the Judge's recent Order, I would be expected to make arrangements for payment for the transcripts prior to them being transcribed and produced for the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT S ) 24. On May 24, 2013, Appellant/Defendant emailed the Court Reporter to clarify the issues involved. In a follow up email, Appellant/Defendant further indicated that Judge Page lacked jurisdiction to revoke his Order Granting Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and it appeared as if Judge Page was attempting to prevent the record from being delivered to the Superior Court. ( EXHIBIT T )

COURT REPORTERS HAVE EACH INDIVIDUALLY CORRESPONDED DIRECTLY INDICATING THEIR REFUSAL TO PRODUCE THE TRANSCRIPTS.