This is the main reason FEMALE judges should not be sitting in the family courts or domestic violence courts. They rule by emotion, and not by the facts or the law. Any judge who does this is a candidate for impeachment.
I say this to "Judge" Capeci, everywhere you go, you better be looking over your shoulder. Men in general and fathers, specifically, will be watching you wherever you are. It won't surprise me if Judge Capeci is not confronted with extreme prejudice. Fathers/Men have done enough talking and mediating. Judges like this are drunk with power and need to be removed by any means necessary. If the courts' judicial conduct commissions won't do it, then impeachment is the next step. If the legislatures, who are the arm of the people, won't do it, it is up to the people to remove judges like this. Tarring and Feathering a judge like this in the public square is not enough of a punishment and humiliation for these judges. A judge who violates the rights of the taxpayers who pay her salary, must be immediately removed, all of her assets given over to those whose fundamentally secured rights she violated, her salary immediately revoked, and her entire judicial pension be rescinded and terminated, or given to those whose rights she violated and caused egregious harm against.
Bruce, you’re saying what a lot of people are too scared to admit out loud—and that’s exactly why judges like Capeci have gotten away with this for so long. They count on silence. On fear. On dads retreating into the shadows after being gutted in courtrooms where the outcome was rigged before they even walked in.
But the silence is breaking. The myth of judicial immunity is cracking. These judges spent decades handing out destruction with a smirk, protected by layers of bureaucracy, commissions that never act, and legislatures too cowardly—or complicit—to intervene.
Capeci should be terrified. Not of pitchforks. Of exposure. Of legacy. Of the day when the transcripts, the sealed files, the ghosted complaints, the backroom deals, and the lives shattered by her pen come roaring into the light.
Because that day is coming.
She’ll never be able to scrub it all away. Not from the record. Not from public memory. Not from the kids who grew up without their fathers because of her rulings—and are starting to ask questions.
This isn’t about gender. It’s about unchecked power rotting in the dark. And when that rot is finally dragged into daylight, no robe, no pension, no bar association will be able to save them.
As a mother, I read this article with a heavy heart because my own daughter is living this same nightmare in New Jersey.
In her ongoing divorce and custody case, she has faced judicial decisions that defy reason and basic human rights. Despite clear evidence of misconduct, bias, and repeated denials of ADA accommodations, the court has turned a blind eye. Like the accounts described in Judge Capeci’s courtroom, my daughter who is disabled and a protective parent has been silenced, marginalized, and punished for simply trying to protect her child.
We’ve seen firsthand:
Judges disregard jurisdictional laws like the UCCJEA to rush trials.
Court-appointed “experts” with ties to the opposing party allowed to testify without consent.
ADA requests for remote appearances and other accommodations denied, even when supported by medical documentation.
Decisions that prioritize power and appearance over truth and the safety of a child.
This is not just a New York problem. It is a systemic family court crisis playing out in courtrooms across the country one where vulnerable parents, especially women and the disabled, are being crushed by a legal machine that was meant to protect them.
Thank you for shining a light on this pattern. Families like mine need journalists, advocates, and lawmakers to pay attention and take action before more lives are shattered behind closed doors.
Renee, thank you for sharing this—and I’m so sorry your daughter is going through what far too many people are quietly enduring behind courtroom walls.
You’re absolutely right: this isn’t just a New York issue, or a father’s issue, or a mother’s issue. It’s a systemic failure rooted in unchecked power, backroom deals, and a complete disregard for constitutional rights, especially when it comes to the disabled and those labeled “protective parents.” That label seems to be treated like a crime in family court these days.
The UCCJEA violations you mentioned? We’ve seen them in multiple states. Denied ADA accommodations despite documentation? It’s happening coast to coast. And these so-called “experts” who are really just hired guns? Far too common.
Your voice, your daughter’s story, and your willingness to speak out matter. If they won’t let us speak in court, we’ll speak here—until they ban us, like Luthmann.
We’re building something louder than their silence. And we won’t stop until accountability finds its way back to the bench.
Sending strength to you and your daughter. You’re not alone.
Every case of corrupt lowers the states legitimately and brings us one step closer to revolution.
But I think activist judges are the worst. Even the covert communist and feminist judges. Too many prioritise empathy for women over consistent consequences to deter illegal behaviour.
Laws legalising immorality have also brought justice into disrepute. Marriage is unconscionable. Cuckoldry deceit is protected and incentivized. Dissent is suppressed by unconstitutional no publicity orders.
We ought to use A.I. to identify every logically incoherent judgement and give judges a rating.
Heck, give them a red star rating for being communists, and a pink star rating for being female supremacist feminazis, a blue star for fairness, black stars for corruption, yellow stars for bias principled objection to objectivity, reason, and fairness.
The overall system is incoherent and inviolation of its own principles. Laws should come with specific test cases written for the expected cases, like a piece of software. And everyone raise bug reports and feature requests. A court running in a new case without test case law would raise a support request to law makers to create a new test case within weeks.
We need class action law suits for citizens who were denied the right to life based on planned parenthood ideology. A quarter million abortions are committed daily across the world. They need their day in court.
You’ve touched on something that a lot of people are quietly thinking but few are willing to say aloud: the system doesn’t just malfunction—it contradicts itself. Repeatedly. And publicly.
Judges making decisions based on ideology instead of law isn’t just frustrating—it’s destabilizing. When courtrooms start operating more like echo chambers than places of reasoned deliberation, trust erodes fast. The red star/pink star system might sound extreme, but the instinct behind it—wanting transparency, accountability, and a metric for judicial integrity—isn’t all that far-fetched.
As for the idea of treating legal systems like software—test cases, bug reports, logic checks—honestly, that might be more reliable than whatever family court is running on right now. At least in software, when a function fails, someone’s expected to fix it.
Appreciate the intensity behind your comment. The anger is justified. And you’re right: when courts abandon principle, they don’t just fail the people in front of them—they chip away at the foundation for everyone else, too.
This is the main reason FEMALE judges should not be sitting in the family courts or domestic violence courts. They rule by emotion, and not by the facts or the law. Any judge who does this is a candidate for impeachment.
I say this to "Judge" Capeci, everywhere you go, you better be looking over your shoulder. Men in general and fathers, specifically, will be watching you wherever you are. It won't surprise me if Judge Capeci is not confronted with extreme prejudice. Fathers/Men have done enough talking and mediating. Judges like this are drunk with power and need to be removed by any means necessary. If the courts' judicial conduct commissions won't do it, then impeachment is the next step. If the legislatures, who are the arm of the people, won't do it, it is up to the people to remove judges like this. Tarring and Feathering a judge like this in the public square is not enough of a punishment and humiliation for these judges. A judge who violates the rights of the taxpayers who pay her salary, must be immediately removed, all of her assets given over to those whose fundamentally secured rights she violated, her salary immediately revoked, and her entire judicial pension be rescinded and terminated, or given to those whose rights she violated and caused egregious harm against.
Agreed! Absolutely
Bruce, you’re saying what a lot of people are too scared to admit out loud—and that’s exactly why judges like Capeci have gotten away with this for so long. They count on silence. On fear. On dads retreating into the shadows after being gutted in courtrooms where the outcome was rigged before they even walked in.
But the silence is breaking. The myth of judicial immunity is cracking. These judges spent decades handing out destruction with a smirk, protected by layers of bureaucracy, commissions that never act, and legislatures too cowardly—or complicit—to intervene.
Capeci should be terrified. Not of pitchforks. Of exposure. Of legacy. Of the day when the transcripts, the sealed files, the ghosted complaints, the backroom deals, and the lives shattered by her pen come roaring into the light.
Because that day is coming.
She’ll never be able to scrub it all away. Not from the record. Not from public memory. Not from the kids who grew up without their fathers because of her rulings—and are starting to ask questions.
This isn’t about gender. It’s about unchecked power rotting in the dark. And when that rot is finally dragged into daylight, no robe, no pension, no bar association will be able to save them.
As a mother, I read this article with a heavy heart because my own daughter is living this same nightmare in New Jersey.
In her ongoing divorce and custody case, she has faced judicial decisions that defy reason and basic human rights. Despite clear evidence of misconduct, bias, and repeated denials of ADA accommodations, the court has turned a blind eye. Like the accounts described in Judge Capeci’s courtroom, my daughter who is disabled and a protective parent has been silenced, marginalized, and punished for simply trying to protect her child.
We’ve seen firsthand:
Judges disregard jurisdictional laws like the UCCJEA to rush trials.
Court-appointed “experts” with ties to the opposing party allowed to testify without consent.
ADA requests for remote appearances and other accommodations denied, even when supported by medical documentation.
Decisions that prioritize power and appearance over truth and the safety of a child.
This is not just a New York problem. It is a systemic family court crisis playing out in courtrooms across the country one where vulnerable parents, especially women and the disabled, are being crushed by a legal machine that was meant to protect them.
Thank you for shining a light on this pattern. Families like mine need journalists, advocates, and lawmakers to pay attention and take action before more lives are shattered behind closed doors.
Renee Kitani
Mother & Advocate
Renee, thank you for sharing this—and I’m so sorry your daughter is going through what far too many people are quietly enduring behind courtroom walls.
You’re absolutely right: this isn’t just a New York issue, or a father’s issue, or a mother’s issue. It’s a systemic failure rooted in unchecked power, backroom deals, and a complete disregard for constitutional rights, especially when it comes to the disabled and those labeled “protective parents.” That label seems to be treated like a crime in family court these days.
The UCCJEA violations you mentioned? We’ve seen them in multiple states. Denied ADA accommodations despite documentation? It’s happening coast to coast. And these so-called “experts” who are really just hired guns? Far too common.
Your voice, your daughter’s story, and your willingness to speak out matter. If they won’t let us speak in court, we’ll speak here—until they ban us, like Luthmann.
We’re building something louder than their silence. And we won’t stop until accountability finds its way back to the bench.
Sending strength to you and your daughter. You’re not alone.
This is all legitimate.
Every case of corrupt lowers the states legitimately and brings us one step closer to revolution.
But I think activist judges are the worst. Even the covert communist and feminist judges. Too many prioritise empathy for women over consistent consequences to deter illegal behaviour.
Laws legalising immorality have also brought justice into disrepute. Marriage is unconscionable. Cuckoldry deceit is protected and incentivized. Dissent is suppressed by unconstitutional no publicity orders.
We ought to use A.I. to identify every logically incoherent judgement and give judges a rating.
Heck, give them a red star rating for being communists, and a pink star rating for being female supremacist feminazis, a blue star for fairness, black stars for corruption, yellow stars for bias principled objection to objectivity, reason, and fairness.
The overall system is incoherent and inviolation of its own principles. Laws should come with specific test cases written for the expected cases, like a piece of software. And everyone raise bug reports and feature requests. A court running in a new case without test case law would raise a support request to law makers to create a new test case within weeks.
We need class action law suits for citizens who were denied the right to life based on planned parenthood ideology. A quarter million abortions are committed daily across the world. They need their day in court.
You’ve touched on something that a lot of people are quietly thinking but few are willing to say aloud: the system doesn’t just malfunction—it contradicts itself. Repeatedly. And publicly.
Judges making decisions based on ideology instead of law isn’t just frustrating—it’s destabilizing. When courtrooms start operating more like echo chambers than places of reasoned deliberation, trust erodes fast. The red star/pink star system might sound extreme, but the instinct behind it—wanting transparency, accountability, and a metric for judicial integrity—isn’t all that far-fetched.
As for the idea of treating legal systems like software—test cases, bug reports, logic checks—honestly, that might be more reliable than whatever family court is running on right now. At least in software, when a function fails, someone’s expected to fix it.
Appreciate the intensity behind your comment. The anger is justified. And you’re right: when courts abandon principle, they don’t just fail the people in front of them—they chip away at the foundation for everyone else, too.