A Father’s War: Retired Marine James Sisco vs. Orwellian Virginia Judge David Bernhard
Veteran’s Dad's Fight Exposes Marxism, Shocking Systemic Corruption in Virginia Family Court.
Your ability to pay bears no relationship to your obligation to pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
That is a fundamental maxim of family law. The needs of the children are paramount. There is no justification, no excuse for not meeting what the courts command FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
This principle justifies the arrest and incarceration of deadbeat parents when you willfully ignore court support orders FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
James R. Sisco has never disobeyed a lawful order. A Marine Corps and Navy veteran with 23 years of service, including combat tours in Desert Storm and Afghanistan, Sisco is now fighting his most brutal battle: surviving the Virginia family courts.
Sisco faces imprisonment, and you would, too, in Virginia Family Court if you cannot obey a maniacal judge’s orders. These orders are not FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS but FOR THE CORRUPT FAMILY COURT FAT-CATS’ NEEDS.
The same judicial system meant to protect families has morphed into a weaponized bureaucracy, where parents like Sisco face financial ruin and incarceration in what advocates call modern-day debtor’s prisons.
An Orwellian Judge Promoted
David Bernhard, a Fairfax County, Virginia judge, is leaving the trial bench. On January 1, 2025, he will be promoted to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the intermediate appellate level in the Virginia state courts. His term will last eight years.
Let’s celebrate him.
Bernhard’s tenure as a trial judge had been fraught with controversy. An immigrant from El Salvador, Judge Bernhardt ordered the removal of the portraits of white judges from his courtroom in December 2020. Judge Bernhardt wrote:
To the public at large making use of the courthouse, other than some attorneys who might have appeared before the judges portrayed, there is no context to learn about who is depicted. The portraits in sum, are of benefit to only a few insiders who might fondly remember appearing before a particular judge or to a retired judge’s family making to rare visit to the courthouse.
From the WOKE vantage point, maybe this is for the best. History is full of old White lawyers and judges that no one cares about. Let’s rewrite a new history, or better yet, disregard history entirely.
Non-WOKE legal scholars like Jonathan Turley quickly realized that under Judge Bernhard’s logic, leading jurists who fought slavery and segregation would be removed because of their race.
Thus, Earl Warren, who wrote Brown v. Board of Education, would have to be removed because he was white. Chief Justice Warren wrote:
“To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” Brown, 347 U.S. at 494.
Under Judge Bernhard’s approach, Warren’s portrait must be removed. His image would create that same “feeling of inferiority” because he happened to be white.
There is no legal cognitive dissonance with Judge Berhard’s courtroom, where “Equal Justice Under The Law” is claimed and the “Great Emancipator” is denied entry. None whatsoever.
It appears Judge Bernhard may have been trained in the storied Salvadorian authoritarian tradition, reflected in the famous Orwellian line from 1984:
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
Judge Bernhard’s jurisprudence has fully embraced this Marxist canon of legal interpretation - law devoid of historical context:
“The Communists fight ... for the momentary interests of the working class … Communism … therefore acts in contradiction to all historical experiences.” Karl Marx, Revolutionary Program and Strategy, The Manifesto of the Communist Party.
His parting decision in James Sisco’s case may be his coup de grâce as a trial court judge, where he can only affect the case in front of him. Now, Judge Bernhard will sit on the appellate bench, where he will palpably affect dozens, if not hundreds, of litigants with every pen stroke.
The Costs of Judicial Overreach
Sisco’s custody battle with his ex-wife, Elizabeth Holtzman, exemplifies the harshest practices of the family court system. Judge Bernhard imposed severe financial penalties, including $66,666 in legal fees, $8,896 in medical expenses, and additional costs for court-appointed services.
A contempt order issued against Sisco cited him for failing to meet “spousal and child support obligations,” a shortfall caused by financial depletion due to ongoing litigation.
Jim Sisko’s money was gone. It went to the lawyers and the court appointees. It went to pay FOR THE CORRUPT FAMILY COURT FAT-CATS’ NEEDS.
Judge Bernhard dismissed Sisco’s attempts to comply with court orders as insufficient. Despite providing evidence of his financial struggles and efforts to maintain a connection with his children through Skype, the court portrayed him as uncooperative.
The Orwellian Jurist even restricted Sisco's social media activity, ordering him to delete posts deemed “detrimental to his ex-wife’s reputation” or “potentially harmful to their children.” In Judge Bernhard’s "Brave New World,” NO LAW restricting the speech of American citizens or the ability of a Free Press to stand as a watchdog to the courts doesn't really mean NO LAW. It means what Judge Bernhard says in his courtroom and what THE PARTY commands:
“[T]he Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising.”
Where in the past, a parent like Jim Sisco could only be placed in chains for failing to pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS, the law in family court - in pure Marxist fashion - has been rewritten.
The Modern Family Court Colloquy
If you are a family court litigant, this modern colloquy might sound familiar:
Did you pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S SCHOOL? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S MEDICATION? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR YOUR SPOUSE’S ALIMONY? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE OTHER CHILD? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE THIRD CHILD? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE PROFESSIONAL PARENTING TIME SUPERVISOR? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE REUNIFICATION THERAPIST? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE COURT LITIGATION MANAGER? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT? Yes, Your Honor.
Did you pay FOR THE SPECIAL DISCOVERY MASTER? Yes, Your Honor.
You were a GOOD little lamb. You let the FAMILY COURT HOGS FEAST.
But remember, even GOOD little lambs get led to the slaughter. But not as quickly as the BAD little lambs
Did you pay FOR YOUR SPOUSE’S LEGAL FEES? Yes, Your Honor, but I have some questions. Those bills seemed inflated.
I ORDERED you to PAY. Did you DISOBEY? No, Your Honor, I OBEYED.
Too late, you already PAID. And you’re lucky you did.
But what about the REALLY, REALLY BAD little lambs:
Ok. Everything is in order. Wait one moment. There are some new fees.
Did you pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S ADDITIONAL EXPENSES?
Did you pay FOR YOUR SPOUSE’S ADDITIONAL LEGAL FEES?
No, Your Honor. I can’t pay anything else. I’m tapped out. My family is tapped out. My finances are in peril. I can barely make ends meet for myself.
WHAT! You can’t PAY? YOU CAN’T PAY FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS?
But Judge, you said that most of that money was for lawyers, for court appointees, and others. It wasn’t for my kids. You told me to pay FOR THE CORRUPT FAMILY COURT FAT-CATS’ NEEDS, not FOR MY CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
No, I don’t see it that way. You are ORDERED to pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
Buy Judge, I have a HISTORY of payment.
The LAW need not account for HISTORY.
Judge, if I didn’t pay FOR THE CORRUPT FAMILY COURT FAT-CATS’ NEEDS, I would be able to pay FOR MY CHILDREN’S NEEDS.
No, I still don’t see it that way, and if you APPEAL me, the APPEALS COURT will side with me.
Judge, don’t I have DUE PROCESS?
Are you a CRIMINAL? No, Judge, I’m not.
Good. You are ORDERED to pay FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S NEEDS. Or else you can GO TO JAIL.
But Judge, isn’t that where the CRIMINALS go?
Just OBEY and PAY, and I won’t have to make you a CRIMINAL?*
*[Sample Colloquy from the American Family Courts, circa 2025].
A System Rooted in Injustice
Critics argue that family courts have become de facto debt collection agencies. Sisco’s Virginia case mirrors others nationwide, where parents are jailed for failing to meet court-imposed financial obligations.
Nishani Naidoo, a Connecticut mother, was jailed for failing to pay her ex-husband $37,512.50 in legal fees. Judges are supposed to protect families, not tear them apart—but not in Connecticut and not before Judge Erika Tindill.
Judge Tindill’s decision followed Naidoo’s inability to pay Connecticut Attorney Gary Cohen by the May 1, 2024, deadline. The court had granted her full custody of her children and decreed the sale of a rental property to cover her financial obligations.
However, delays in the property sale prevented Naidoo from paying Gary Cohen on time. Despite her offer to make a partial payment and even her ex-husband's plea not to jail her, Judge Tindill remained unmoved.
The resurgence of practices akin to debtor’s prisons in family courts has sparked widespread criticism. Legal experts note that judges wield unchecked power to incarcerate individuals over civil financial disputes, a practice deemed unconstitutional nearly two centuries ago.
“Judicial power has gone unchecked for too long,” said Peter Szymonik, a family court reform advocate. “These courts have become profit centers for lawyers and court-appointed professionals.”
The Toll on Families and Finances
The court's demands drained Sisco’s military pension and personal savings, once a symbol of stability. He has spent hundreds of thousands in legal fees, with no end in sight.
“This system is designed to break people,” Sisco said. “It’s not about justice; it’s about money.”
The court’s financial penalties extend beyond legal fees. Sisco was ordered to cover therapy costs for a court-appointed psychologist who reviewed his Skype calls with his children.
These charges, amounting to $5,357.30, were characterized as necessary to “protect the children’s well-being” but have further burdened Sisco financially.
Now, the children’s needs cannot be met because Judge Bernhard found payment FOR THE CORRUPT FAMILY COURT FAT-CATS’ NEEDS was necessary.
A Fight for Reform
The plight of parents like Sisco has ignited calls for reform. Advocacy groups are pushing for greater oversight of family courts to prevent judicial overreach and ensure financial penalties are proportionate to a parent’s ability to pay.
“The system needs transparency,” said Jill Jones Soderman, Executive Director of the Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (fcvfc.org). “Judges are not just arbiters of justice; they’ve become bill collectors for court-appointed minions.”
Reform advocates argue that financial penalties in family courts disproportionately harm low- and middle-income parents, effectively turning custody disputes into profit-driven enterprises.
Federal funding streams, such as Title IV-D incentives tied to child support enforcement, exacerbate the problem by creating financial motives for courts to impose harsh penalties.
The Human Cost
Sisco’s battle is not just about money; it’s about the right to be a father. Separated from his children for nearly a year, his only connection to them is through brief video calls.
“I’ve faced enemies on the battlefield, but nothing compares to this,” Sisco said. “I will not stop fighting for my kids, no matter what it costs me.”
The human cost of judicial overreach extends far beyond Sisco’s case. Family Court litigants like retired NYPD detective Guy Simonetti and Wall Street financier and Family Court Fraud Warrior David Weigel (familycourtfraudwarrior.com) have shared similar experiences.
Simonetti, a disabled 9/11 responder, was threatened with jail for failing to pay legal fees in his divorce case.
Weigel was sent to Rikers Island over a false “Silver Bullet” claim in his divorce case, pending before New York State Supreme Court Justice Tandra Dawson. His wife has allegedly made an additional baseless report to the NYPD in the days before Christmas.
Christmas Chaos: Shyster Attorney Nottes and 'Sociopath' Dimasin Strike Against Family Court Fraud Warrior
By Richard Luthmann and Dick LaFontaine
“This isn’t justice; it’s extortion. The business model of the Family Courts is fraud,” Weigel said. But we can come together now and create lasting change.”
A Call to Action
The first step to lasting change is transparency. James Sisco’s story is being told despite the risk of life and limb foisted upon him by unjust Judge Bernhard in Virginia. The “social media gag order” blatantly violates the First Amendment. It restricts James Sisco’s ability to speak publicly about his life and legal battle.
Judge Bernhard says he cannot go into the (digital) public square and broadcast his experience with corrupt government and courts.
But that is not true.
The great English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. It is regarded as the leading work on the development of English law. It played a pivotal role in the development of the American legal system and was arguably the most influential book on the minds of the Constitution’s framers after the Bible.
His portrait would not find its way onto Judge Bernhard’s courtroom walls.
Blackstone famously said, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”
Under our system of government, Judge Bernhard’s order is palpably unconstitutional because James Sisco has a natural law right to be a father and to speak. We have the God-given right to hear him and question our governmental authorities.
This wayward gag order does not protect children. It shields questions about a clearly authoritarian and Marxist Judge’s potential judicial corruption from public scrutiny, effectively silencing dissent and concealing the Virginia Family Court’s questionable practices.
Sisco’s story is a wake-up call for policymakers, advocates, and citizens. It underscores the urgent need to address systemic corruption in our family courts. Financial penalties and debtor’s prisons cannot continue to be wielded against litigants as the toolbox of oppression, corruption, and obeisance.
“We need to hold these judges accountable,” Sisco said. “They’ve turned the family court into a battlefield, and the casualties are our children.”
As Sisco continues his fight, he remains steadfast in exposing the system’s flaws.
“This is about every parent who’s been crushed by a system that’s supposed to protect our kids,” Sisco said.
The fight for justice in family courts is far from over, but stories like Sisco’s illuminate a system desperately needing reform. For now, the battle continues, with parents like James Sisco leading the charge against a system that has forgotten its purpose.
Fairfax county it’s not really Virginia. It’s a suburb of Washington DC. God pray for us. Great state of Virginia.