top of page


Updated: Dec 21, 2020

(Available on Amazon)

The Re-Re-Re-Re-Redacted Life chapter of this book is a partial phase during my (Aaron Wemple) life, and of many others, as far as experience with our judicial branch of government. Civilians look at it in terms of our perceived American Dream (or lack thereof), our family sustainability (or lack thereof), and in terms of civility (or lack thereof). It's the reason why many of us have become “champions for children” and want every child to have a family today.


When you’re a child and you dream of being an astronaut, you may never have the right steps presented to you to take along the way to get there as you grow up. And billions of different people are going to mislead you in a billion different ways.

If you’re a child whose family is living on the edge of safety and fortunate enough to be tried with a military deployment war or high-conflict divorce battle, and you dream of staying connected to both of your parents, then billions of different people are going to mislead you a billion different ways. None of them authentic.

It was the summer of 1992. It was not only hot outside; it was heated inside of our family too. That year our lives were turned forever inside-out.

And then it was the summer of 2010 when my dreams died. Old societies and systems are in no way compatible with organic childhood safety of loving their own hopes and dreams.

So, many of us were forced to ask ourselves, why do we feel so much different than everyone else? Why does searching for help come back on us and make us feel so much more different inside? Why does not having a big, powerful position, a rope, badge, uniform, pedestal, prestige, paycheck, and mountains of clerks make us goo-goo-ers feel different?

Maybe the American dream is dead upon arrival in some areas. Maybe it is time we re-imagine childhood protection, family sustainability, and the American Dream?

Does your family have its child safety file shelter?


In the summer of 1993, I (Aaron W. Wemple) traveled as a concerned parent to my local "family" court to try and help my family find a healthy answer for one difficult issue. A common belief in those days was that separating a family was better than my young wife and I fighting all the time and conflicting our son. Fighting, in our case, which led to Corey being lifted up off of the ground and pulled by one arm out the threshold of his home harshly. This escalation in fighting worried me not only for the safety of our child but the sustainability of our family and marriage. As an idealistic adolescent myself, I was pleased to begin working with the family law and family court systems. Both seemed to have the objective of helping us properly raise our young 2-year-old boy in his best interest. After a recent Illinois legislative battle, the organization known as Healthcare and Family Services (HFS) was a highly respected department in the state. Little did I know that separating was at the heart of what the "family" court did. Many counties in Illinois welcomed HFS assistance since it was known that they contracted child support with their institutional charts and federal funding. "Family Services" in my county implied that they could show young couples like us how to address one simple issue and become whole again.

Disillusionment came as we realized that the court system did not know how to help families like mine resolve their issues and those widespread sufferings. The problem of young people finding help for their family issues are much more complex and obstructive than many of us can imagine. Also, one of the principal dynamics of our county board and state general assembly are two political party protocols - to escalate divisiveness as a means of maintaining attention and policy-making power - often dominated our news and community concerns. There seemed to be no low-cost or inclusive space for simple help and simple answers to sometimes life-threatening marital problems. Disillusionment's quickly wove together over time like a strengthening vine when I looked at other struggling families, many of whom were my friends, some of whom took their own lives, and we realized together that "family law" and "family" court had many inherent problems of their own that had yet to be resolved. For example, why do guilty criminals have the right and the cash flow pipeline of a procedural safety net in the form of a counselor when they are poor but truly innocent parents, many of whom have children on the line, do not have that same safety net and that same cash flow pipeline for a safety net while in they are both in the same system, with the same procedures?

The "family" law v. law practice and "family" court themselves faced many monumental problems of their own that had accompanied what some felt were cottages industries to protect those oversights- governmental sprawl and squalor, monumental disconnects, bias and discrimination, party-centric pipelines above all. So, I was forced to ask myself, what is family? Is it good or is it bad? 

Disillusionment's later evolved into disenfranchisement when I filed a legal "Civil Complaint" in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois (case number 3:2011cv03376) to get to the bottom of that issue. And to hopefully someday find an answer to the original question that I had asked back in 1994. It was now 2011 and eight months after that original "family" case was over in court (case number 06-f-66). Besides family, my second concern was for the sake of civility. It was unfortunately denied and relabeled by the judge as something that it wasn't. 


There's an old joke about the slowness of a snail. It goes like this. A lady was sitting at home when she hears a knock at the door. She opens the door and sees a small snail on the porch. She picks up the snail and throws it as far as she can. Two years later, there's another knock at the door. She opens it and sees the same snail again. And the snail says, "What was that all about?"

The point being, it took the small snail two whole years to get back to the place where he could ask a civilized question again. Eight years after my first simple question, it evolved into having to knock and ask another door to let me in to try and answer what was now two questions. Can "Family law" help my issue, and can this court help me understand why a small civilized question was picked up and thrown as hard as it could be?

Mistrust came again when I went to a second courthouse door that was even farther but seemed to be a possible answer to the first question and now to the second question. Although my child was grown up now and help with the first question was no longer relevant, I filed a second so called "Civil Complaint" in United States District Court case number 3:2013cv03015 to try and solve my second and now third questions - why my family and I weren't worthy of an answer, why civil court could not be civil, and why am I constantly being thrown out of contention? This time I added what I felt like was proof of my snailness compared to real people: Truly guilty criminals like mass murders have free legal; help to access and navigate the legal system for answers to questions and cases, but poor and truly innocent young parents do not have that same right in the same system. Needless to say, as a caring parent and a concerned citizen asking too many questions, I started getting locked up and hidden away. They made even my slimy appear toxic. I was thrown out of my life and lost everything and everyone. So, I was forced to ask myself, what is civility? Is it good or is it bad?

I then moved near a third courthouse door and knocked again. I was thrown farther away yet. Then a forth door, a fifth, and a sixth door. Every time I was thrown as far away as they could. The ole small snail had its trail of voided wounds. . And that’s just one parent’s worst nightmare. Just one parent’s worst separation pains ever. These are dream killers.


The preface in the book is just one person's tiny background to supposed honest paths of family sustainability and civility. Hopefully it will act as a warning sign along with Family Law 2.0 and child safety files that things are REALLY never what they appear to be. Obviously, I wasn't the only one with a question and too scared to ask. Even after decades of living in fear.

It is only the beginning though. But it's time for children to be able to re-imagine their dreams. And I'm personally very tired. But there is much more to learn and many more questions to hear and properly guide answers. Participants who are intrigued by a subject or point made and want to learn more should comment below, research, experiment themselves, or else contact us today. We encourage families with issues to love, but to love safe. We encourage lawyers to win civil cases but to win safe. Intelligent justice would respond to and answer questions willingly. That would be a family-oriented and civil-oriented world. A Family Law 2.0 license shows physical evidence of exceptional work for your own family and clients, community, civility, and courts above and beyond the norm. You'll get to the bottom of it instead of wasting it.

The world is changing rapidly and significant developments have taken place. Exceptional works leading to ripple effects of fairness, balance, community developments, and social responsibilities are often seen. True pioneers and authentic leaders are answering tough conflicting questions and issues all the time in a universal way. Think of the internet which saves us gas money and a trip to the library or another service provider. That's Family Law 2.0. It's a family safety net for every child and parent. Ways that are therapeutic at worse, and practical to absolute at best. Because everyone deserves a family. 


Clean Law Network.

An authentic peer-to-peer, mother-to-mother, father-to-father, child-to-child, free-to-free situations, and solutions naturally bring with it inclusion like never seen before. It adds to freedom, and it continuously grows the probabilities of healthful decision results for new questions. Like fishing for families with problems just to give them answers freely. The opposite of bait-and-switch. Shared and uninfringed upon or adulterated information legalized from one party to another, one parent to another, one child to another, and one free person to another, without going through a legal institution. Just think, no more long waits for snails and no more "toxic" snail trails. Together, we'll clean the world!

The Trust Issue.

Law on individual family members had come to rely almost exclusively on legal institutions serving as trusted third parties to process conflicts and issues within those members using excluding mechanisms, procedures, and proceedings. Institutionally favoring decisions that rippled throughout society with more pressing weight than even a group of families could float through together. Dangerous to try on one's own. While the system works adequately for most cases, it still exhibits weaknesses chipping away on its trust-based model. Completely non-reversible decisions are not possible and automatic reversals on trying accusations are not possible. The cost of mediation increases basic issue costs while also reducing the dependability of those decisions. The cost of "guardians" and "mediators," for example, increase basic issue cost while also reducing the dependability of that information and those resulting decisions.

Fluid Files Express.

We define authentic Family Law 2.0 as an experience and an uninterrupted corresponding chain of a child safety file published network. Like a bright torch being passed from one horseback rider to another during the challenging days of the Pony Express. Trying desperately to get messages from loved one to loved one without risky interference's. Each owner is shown transferring the law to the next by electronically clerking the safety file. After all, in cases of family and civility issues, time really is of the essence too. A simple time difference, or lag-time between big positions available to answer the little questions from a centralized top-down system can be naturally adversarial in nature. Which may even seem hostile or diabolical at times to little snails. Which forces the "" to run downhill. Where it's already too swampy.

Re-imagining Childhood Safety: Geared Towards Prevention

I came to recognize that family and civility are both concepts that should allow us to examine and make some sense out of the complex issues that people face today. Many of these issues are minor at first, like someone saying something bad on Facebook, but easily escalate or even culminate to the point of a self-solution. Minor issues increasingly seen as national issues because they're put-off and scrambled the same. Should a charge like "impeachment" be all that's on the table in any family-oriented or civilized nation? Or, could there be mitigating charges available too like "attempted to abuse power?" In our world right now, there is only an open-ended trend to exacerbate issues and no legal procedure to minimize, or judicially publish constructive family or civil issues. Are we wasting law like digging for coal just like moles instead of enjoying the sun like flowers?

That's when it finally hit home, I was the child of a divorce. Crafted to be buried like a mole in between two starving alligators at best, or one starving alligator at worse. I was created to be consistently thrown out of my life and to fail. You see, the supercharged divisions in high conflict divorce contracts or even school strike to get a deal, constantly devour the lives of the poor and weak. It eats life, liberty, kids, family, civility, and happiness. So, we designed Family Law 2.0 to reverse these pipelines.

New Authentic Law

The family shield is here. Welcome to the family dome! There's proven to be social benefits that go along with this authentic Family Law 2.0 practice with child safety files during life wrecks like divorce and similar concrete divisive deals. (The terms "divorce" and "deals" are both common uses of the procedure of "contracting" - working towards a treaty, or mutually agreeable contract). The CLU ( bridge and the Clean Law network are both organizations dedicated to family members alone. Because we want every child to have a family.

  On May 3, 2018, Clean Law launched the child safety file invention at the Decatur Business Expo. The rest is history. Maybe someday all of the secrets knocks and all the insane throwing, both in the name of "family" and civility," can come clean. But in the meantime, please don't let your little snails go knocking on doors or holding their hands up to ask a question where they might be picked up and thrown to never get an answer to any simple question they're looking for. Doors and what's closed-off behind them can be mean.

It was the summer of 2010 when my hopes and dreams died.Old societies and systems are in no way compatible with organic childhood safety of loving their own hopes and dreams finally died.

Does your family have its child safety file shelter?


Roberts, J. J. (2011, February 25). Wemple v. Wemple. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from,2006F66,IL011015JL2006F66P1

US District Court, & Central District of Illinois. (2011, October 4). Wemple v. Illinois State Bar Association & its members. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from

Wemple v. IL State Bar Association Members et al, No. 3:2013cv03015 - Document 2 (C.D. Ill. 2013). (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from

20 views0 comments
bottom of page