As a man who is about to hit the half century mark in years I thought I might consider what is the most important feature in my life?
No thought needed to answer this question.
My four children are the greatest asset in my life.
My millionaire mate said to me the other day that I was a lucky man with four beautiful children.He said he would swap all his money for a single child. That got me thinking about life and I guess I am a lucky bugger.My mid twenty twin sons are over six foot blond blue eyed chick magnets and my daughters are stunning teenagers, and all of them love me.
As a proud and happy father of four I enjoy strong bonds of love with each of my children. My kids love me heaps.Nothing can break those bonds of love.The sinister lying Family Court tried to destroy me(just like they did mum in)however 52 lawyers and 12 judges can't look me in the eye, as they all know they fucked me good and they were wrong in doing so.My book will exact revenge on these filthy low down scum.
Infact my sons get rather irrate about the cowardly smears continually thrown at me as a blogger. They both read kiwiblog and both want a wee chat with some vicious sly creep blogger who runs with the name big bruv.His day will come and I suppose that's why the internet is the ideal breeding ground for gutless keyboard fools unhappy in life. Lets have a crack at d4j that'll make you feel better.What gutless filth.
Anyway enough of the negative, this is a joyous day as I am a positive fit father of four.If you have children then remember you must earn their respect as they are your sacred primal priority. Nothing in the world has more value than a child's love.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Dr Phil exposes lies from a vengeful and vindictive woman
An interview segment on a recent Dr Phil showed a woman admitting (reluctantly, by Dr Phil persists) lying about domestic violence allegations she had made which resulted in her husband being jailed for 10 months.
The segment is located at the following link:
http://current.com/items/91870358_a-woman-admits-lying-about-domestic-violence-to-jail-her-husband-for-10-months.htm
A woman on Dr. Phil show admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months.
The segment is located at the following link:
http://current.com/items/91870358_a-woman-admits-lying-about-domestic-violence-to-jail-her-husband-for-10-months.htm
A woman on Dr. Phil show admits lying about domestic violence to jail her husband for 10 months.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Anger Management
Anger Management
by Patrick Moreno
Often times, especially when a relationship ends, there is animosity on one or both parties involved. It is rare when both parties amicably split and maintain a healthy friendship. What we need to understand is that there is hope and only WE are responsible for our feelings. If you analyze this further, we maintain total control over the emotions that we have. Although there are times when we seem that we are out of control, ultimately WE are the ones that take charge and change the things that can be changed. According to the American Psychological Association it is natural to feel anger, especially when it comes to our children. The good news is that anger is something that we can take control of and learn to change our ways of thinking. It is not a disease and it does not have to hinder our lives.
One of the methods that we are able to control our anger is to listen twice as much as we speak. Many times in communication we find ourselves only hearing the parts of communication which we want to hear and do not receive the entire message. Take the time to listen first. Second, if you find yourself feeling anger, do not speak what you are thinking until you have an opportunity to analyze what your options are. Many times we speak from emotion and the message we send to the person which we are communicating is unclear and the issue(s) continue to exist.
Remember that WE need to make good decisions and changes in our lives for the better of our children. Children pick up your emotions from observational learning. There is hope for change when it comes to managing your emotions and it is something that will better your future; more importantly for your children. Instead of telling yourself, "oh, it's awful, it's terrible, everything's ruined," tell yourself, "it's frustrating, and it's understandable that I'm upset about it, but it's not the end of the world and getting angry is not going to fix it anyhow."
References
Unknown. (2009). Controlling Anger -- Before It Controls You [Anger Management]. Retrieved December 5, 2009, from American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html Web site: http://www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html
About the author: Patrick Moreno is a advocate for a equal rights parenting group as well as PAAwareness organization. He is the father of a two year old son and studies family law in Cedar Falls Iowa. He enjoys helping other parents who have encountered the challenges of alienation as well as giving opportunities for education within the court system to those who are financially indigent. In his free time he enjoys spending time with his son.
by Patrick Moreno
Often times, especially when a relationship ends, there is animosity on one or both parties involved. It is rare when both parties amicably split and maintain a healthy friendship. What we need to understand is that there is hope and only WE are responsible for our feelings. If you analyze this further, we maintain total control over the emotions that we have. Although there are times when we seem that we are out of control, ultimately WE are the ones that take charge and change the things that can be changed. According to the American Psychological Association it is natural to feel anger, especially when it comes to our children. The good news is that anger is something that we can take control of and learn to change our ways of thinking. It is not a disease and it does not have to hinder our lives.
One of the methods that we are able to control our anger is to listen twice as much as we speak. Many times in communication we find ourselves only hearing the parts of communication which we want to hear and do not receive the entire message. Take the time to listen first. Second, if you find yourself feeling anger, do not speak what you are thinking until you have an opportunity to analyze what your options are. Many times we speak from emotion and the message we send to the person which we are communicating is unclear and the issue(s) continue to exist.
Remember that WE need to make good decisions and changes in our lives for the better of our children. Children pick up your emotions from observational learning. There is hope for change when it comes to managing your emotions and it is something that will better your future; more importantly for your children. Instead of telling yourself, "oh, it's awful, it's terrible, everything's ruined," tell yourself, "it's frustrating, and it's understandable that I'm upset about it, but it's not the end of the world and getting angry is not going to fix it anyhow."
References
Unknown. (2009). Controlling Anger -- Before It Controls You [Anger Management]. Retrieved December 5, 2009, from American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html Web site: http://www.apa.org/topics/controlanger.html
About the author: Patrick Moreno is a advocate for a equal rights parenting group as well as PAAwareness organization. He is the father of a two year old son and studies family law in Cedar Falls Iowa. He enjoys helping other parents who have encountered the challenges of alienation as well as giving opportunities for education within the court system to those who are financially indigent. In his free time he enjoys spending time with his son.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Summary of Life
Summary of Life
GREAT TRUTHS THAT LITTLE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED:
1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats..
2) When your Mum is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.
3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always catch the second person.
4) Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato.
5) You can't trust dogs to watch your food.
6) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
7) Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same time.
8) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
9) Don't wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts.
10) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandpa's lap.
GREAT TRUTHS THAT ADULTS HAVE LEARNED:
1) Raising teenagers is like nailing jelly to a tree.
2) Wrinkles don't hurt.
3) Families are like fudge...mostly sweet, with a few nuts
4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground..
5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the inside.
6) Middle age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.
GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT GROWING OLD
1) Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional..
2) Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
3) When you fall down, you wonder what else you can do while you're down there.
4) You're getting old when you get the same sensation from a rocking chair that you once got from a roller coaster.
5) It's frustrating when you know all the answers but nobody bothers to ask you the questions.
6) Time may be a great healer, but it's a lousy beautician
7) Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
THE FOUR STAGES OF LIFE:
1) You believe in Santa Claus.
2) You don't believe in Santa Claus.
3) You are Santa Claus.
4) You look like Santa Claus.
SUCCESS:
At age 4 success is . . . . not piddling in your pants.
At age 12 success is . . . having friends.
At age 17 success is . . having a driver's license.
At age 35 success is . . . .having money.
At age 50 success is . . . having money.
At age 70 success is . .. . having a drivers license.
At age 75 success is . . . having friends.
At age 80 success is . . . not piddling in your pants.
Pass this on to someone who could use a laugh.
Always remember to forget the troubles that pass your way;
BUT NEVER forget the blessings that come each day.
Have a wonderful day with many ! *smiles*
Take the time to live!!!
Life is too short.
Dance naked. woo-hoo!
GREAT TRUTHS THAT LITTLE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED:
1) No matter how hard you try, you can't baptize cats..
2) When your Mum is mad at your Dad, don't let her brush your hair.
3) If your sister hits you, don't hit her back. They always catch the second person.
4) Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato.
5) You can't trust dogs to watch your food.
6) Don't sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
7) Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same time.
8) You can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
9) Don't wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts.
10) The best place to be when you're sad is Grandpa's lap.
GREAT TRUTHS THAT ADULTS HAVE LEARNED:
1) Raising teenagers is like nailing jelly to a tree.
2) Wrinkles don't hurt.
3) Families are like fudge...mostly sweet, with a few nuts
4) Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground..
5) Laughing is good exercise. It's like jogging on the inside.
6) Middle age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.
GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT GROWING OLD
1) Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional..
2) Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
3) When you fall down, you wonder what else you can do while you're down there.
4) You're getting old when you get the same sensation from a rocking chair that you once got from a roller coaster.
5) It's frustrating when you know all the answers but nobody bothers to ask you the questions.
6) Time may be a great healer, but it's a lousy beautician
7) Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
THE FOUR STAGES OF LIFE:
1) You believe in Santa Claus.
2) You don't believe in Santa Claus.
3) You are Santa Claus.
4) You look like Santa Claus.
SUCCESS:
At age 4 success is . . . . not piddling in your pants.
At age 12 success is . . . having friends.
At age 17 success is . . having a driver's license.
At age 35 success is . . . .having money.
At age 50 success is . . . having money.
At age 70 success is . .. . having a drivers license.
At age 75 success is . . . having friends.
At age 80 success is . . . not piddling in your pants.
Pass this on to someone who could use a laugh.
Always remember to forget the troubles that pass your way;
BUT NEVER forget the blessings that come each day.
Have a wonderful day with many ! *smiles*
Take the time to live!!!
Life is too short.
Dance naked. woo-hoo!
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Dr. Bone - About Parental Alienation
http://www.jmichaelbone.com/
About Dr. Bone - About Parental Alienation - Resources - Courses/Online Store - Contact - BLOG
This website is devoted to addressing the issues regarding Parental Alienation.
Parental Alienation and Family Court Cases involving Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) are perhaps the most vexing and difficult that exist in Family Court. These cases require careful and painstaking preparation, analysis of voluminous documentation, preparation of experts and collateral witnesses. They can be difficult to demonstrate in court and include arduous steps that exceed the normal representation of a Family Law case without parental alienation. These cases exploit and wear down the system, and do so in the service of the alienation.
Do the following statements sound familiar? Your case has experienced numerous delays, multiple filings of motions and counter-motions for relatively small issues, yet without resolution. There have been outcomes that you have been told "should not have happened" perhaps even by your own lawyer. You have received Orders from the Court that are favorable to your position, yet are constantly being violated. Factual evidence is ignored, while hear-say and unsubstantiated allegations are accepted as truth without hesitation. Statements, evaluations and testimony by expert witnesses, mental health professionals and others seem "watered-down", incomplete or completely untrue.
The statements mentioned above represent only a few examples of how parental alienation can affect a Family Court case and I see many, many more each day. If you are interested in reading more on how I can help your specific situation and your family, visit the About Dr. Bone Section of this website.
"Never, never, never, never give up." - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
J. Michael Bone, PhD.
Dr. Bone is an experienced consultant for cases involving Parental Alienation.
Dr. Bone provides both educational services and individual consultation for parents, attorneys and mental health professionals.
About Dr. Bone - About Parental Alienation - Resources - Courses/Online Store - Contact - BLOG
This website is devoted to addressing the issues regarding Parental Alienation.
Parental Alienation and Family Court Cases involving Parental Alienation and Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) are perhaps the most vexing and difficult that exist in Family Court. These cases require careful and painstaking preparation, analysis of voluminous documentation, preparation of experts and collateral witnesses. They can be difficult to demonstrate in court and include arduous steps that exceed the normal representation of a Family Law case without parental alienation. These cases exploit and wear down the system, and do so in the service of the alienation.
Do the following statements sound familiar? Your case has experienced numerous delays, multiple filings of motions and counter-motions for relatively small issues, yet without resolution. There have been outcomes that you have been told "should not have happened" perhaps even by your own lawyer. You have received Orders from the Court that are favorable to your position, yet are constantly being violated. Factual evidence is ignored, while hear-say and unsubstantiated allegations are accepted as truth without hesitation. Statements, evaluations and testimony by expert witnesses, mental health professionals and others seem "watered-down", incomplete or completely untrue.
The statements mentioned above represent only a few examples of how parental alienation can affect a Family Court case and I see many, many more each day. If you are interested in reading more on how I can help your specific situation and your family, visit the About Dr. Bone Section of this website.
"Never, never, never, never give up." - Winston Churchill
--------------------------------
J. Michael Bone, PhD.
Dr. Bone is an experienced consultant for cases involving Parental Alienation.
Dr. Bone provides both educational services and individual consultation for parents, attorneys and mental health professionals.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haiti Petition
Dear friend,
Thank you. Your name has been added to the petition and your comments will be delivered to Finance ministers, the IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Development bank and bilateral creditors.
Time really is of the essence. Please help us spread the word to your friends and family so they know what's going on. You can just forward the sample letter below.
Spreading the word is critical, but please only pass this message along to those who know you -- spam hurts our campaign.
--The ONE Campaign Team
Here's a sample message to send to your friends:
Subject: Take action and help the people of Haiti
Hi,
Like millions of people around the world I've been shocked by the terrible events in Haiti.
Only now is the true scale of the disaster emerging. Reports now suggest as many as 50,000 people may have died, with hundreds of thousands made homeless.
The work ahead to recover from this tragedy is immense. So here's our goal: $890 million for Haiti. That's how much Haiti owes to the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, and a handful of others.
Sign the petition below to ask Haiti's creditors to act quickly and cancel Haiti's debts:
http://one.org/international/actnow/haiti/index.html?rc=haiticonfemail
As Haiti begins to rebuild we can help by lifting this debt.
Together as ONE we can make a difference!
Thanks!
Thank you. Your name has been added to the petition and your comments will be delivered to Finance ministers, the IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Development bank and bilateral creditors.
Time really is of the essence. Please help us spread the word to your friends and family so they know what's going on. You can just forward the sample letter below.
Spreading the word is critical, but please only pass this message along to those who know you -- spam hurts our campaign.
--The ONE Campaign Team
Here's a sample message to send to your friends:
Subject: Take action and help the people of Haiti
Hi,
Like millions of people around the world I've been shocked by the terrible events in Haiti.
Only now is the true scale of the disaster emerging. Reports now suggest as many as 50,000 people may have died, with hundreds of thousands made homeless.
The work ahead to recover from this tragedy is immense. So here's our goal: $890 million for Haiti. That's how much Haiti owes to the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, and a handful of others.
Sign the petition below to ask Haiti's creditors to act quickly and cancel Haiti's debts:
http://one.org/international/actnow/haiti/index.html?rc=haiticonfemail
As Haiti begins to rebuild we can help by lifting this debt.
Together as ONE we can make a difference!
Thanks!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
John Cleese reveals the injustice of modern divorce law
John Cleese is my all time favourite actor. I was brought up on Monty Python humour, before no fault divorce, which has become a Ministry of Silly Walks idea. The good old happy days before destructive family law made London the “divorce capital of the world”, but to be fair on the poms, New Zealand is a gold diggers paradise. Sad days for kiwi men in Feminist PC Kiwiland. Just look at the male suicide rate. I suppose this line from a very rich lawyer on the family law gravy train sums it up nicely when he states - "If you want to protect your money from the powers of the court, don't get married.” Pity that it's follow the money honey. The Life of John. Another done over by lewd Family Court judges!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/lizhunt/6051110/Divorce-laws-a
re-a-gold-diggers-charter.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/lizhunt/6051110/Divorce-laws-a
re-a-gold-diggers-charter.html
Monday, January 11, 2010
PETITION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO MALE SUICIDE FOLLOWING A RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN..
PETITION FOR AN INQUIRY INTO MALE SUICIDE FOLLOWING A RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN.
Over three hundred each year commit suicide following the ending of a marriage or relationship.
This shocking statistic which approaches the annual road toll. Why should this be so?
• More women choose to end an unsatisfactory relationship and are more likely tp plan ahead for this event and are therefore more prepared for it than men are when it occurs.
• Women are more likely than men to share their pain with female friends and, once separated, have more community supports such as Women’s Refugee counseling services and a range of welfare services and benefits than men do. Many men do not like to discuss their matrimonial problems with others.
• Women are likely to capitalize on the image of the violent man placing her safety and safety of the children at risk. Domestic Protection Orders are now easier to obtain and a partner alleged to be violent can be removed from the home immediately. Unless he challenges the order it can be made permanent, that order also protecting the children as well. There is no requirement in law that the female partner has to prove that her allegations are true.
• Following separation fathers may find that the mother blocks or frustrates access to the children and, if he is given supervised access, this means that he is not allowed to see his children on his own. This is humiliating as his good-name as a father is irreparably damaged. In some worse case scenarios his wife /partner may insinuate that he has molested or is likely to molest his children particularly if he contests custody in the Family Court. Sadly this further alienates the children from him and he usually feels highly vulnerable and heartbroken. This should be rightly regarded as a form of psychological violence perpetuated by women on men and research on family violence suggests that women are more likely to respond vindictively when the male partner chooses to end the relationship.
• More men than women are likely to face financial hardship and child support payments set as such a high level that he cannot afford to start a new relationship or a second family.Finicial difficulty can be a major factor in his decision to take his own life.
• It is a sad reality that once a man makes this decision it is more likely to be lethal whether that is by shooting or hanging himself or gassing himself in the family car. By contrast, more women make unsuccessful attempts that do not end their lives.
• Male suicide should be regarded as form of family violence even though the violence is self inflicted. It has taken twelve years for the number of women killed by their male partners to reach a total of lives lost. That total is exceeded in one year by men ending their own lives.
Over three hundred each year commit suicide following the ending of a marriage or relationship.
This shocking statistic which approaches the annual road toll. Why should this be so?
• More women choose to end an unsatisfactory relationship and are more likely tp plan ahead for this event and are therefore more prepared for it than men are when it occurs.
• Women are more likely than men to share their pain with female friends and, once separated, have more community supports such as Women’s Refugee counseling services and a range of welfare services and benefits than men do. Many men do not like to discuss their matrimonial problems with others.
• Women are likely to capitalize on the image of the violent man placing her safety and safety of the children at risk. Domestic Protection Orders are now easier to obtain and a partner alleged to be violent can be removed from the home immediately. Unless he challenges the order it can be made permanent, that order also protecting the children as well. There is no requirement in law that the female partner has to prove that her allegations are true.
• Following separation fathers may find that the mother blocks or frustrates access to the children and, if he is given supervised access, this means that he is not allowed to see his children on his own. This is humiliating as his good-name as a father is irreparably damaged. In some worse case scenarios his wife /partner may insinuate that he has molested or is likely to molest his children particularly if he contests custody in the Family Court. Sadly this further alienates the children from him and he usually feels highly vulnerable and heartbroken. This should be rightly regarded as a form of psychological violence perpetuated by women on men and research on family violence suggests that women are more likely to respond vindictively when the male partner chooses to end the relationship.
• More men than women are likely to face financial hardship and child support payments set as such a high level that he cannot afford to start a new relationship or a second family.Finicial difficulty can be a major factor in his decision to take his own life.
• It is a sad reality that once a man makes this decision it is more likely to be lethal whether that is by shooting or hanging himself or gassing himself in the family car. By contrast, more women make unsuccessful attempts that do not end their lives.
• Male suicide should be regarded as form of family violence even though the violence is self inflicted. It has taken twelve years for the number of women killed by their male partners to reach a total of lives lost. That total is exceeded in one year by men ending their own lives.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Stephen Baskerville -Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary
Quote: Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary
The New American
7 January 2010
Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary
By Stephen Baskerville
Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.
Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.
The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.
Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.
But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”
While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”
Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.
Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”
Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.
Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”
What Gottschalk is describing is feminism’s version of Stalinism: the process whereby radical movements commandeer the instruments of state repression as they trade ideological purity for power.
Path to Prison
The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.
Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.”
Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”
Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.
The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”
In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media. “Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims,” writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.
Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations — and no official ones — to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.
The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.
Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one “women’s studies” graduate, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.… ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’”
Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.
The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.
Violent Lies
“Domestic violence” is an even more purely political crime. “The battered-women’s movement turned out to be even more vulnerable to being co-opted by the state and conservative penal forces,” writes Gottschalk, again with contortion. Domestic violence groups are uniformly feminist, not “conservative,” though here too conservatives have enabled feminists to exchange principles for power.
Like rape, domestic “violence” is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.
Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”
Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.” Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases and “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Domestic abuse has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” according to the Rutgers Law Review.
Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey’s statute “a due process fiasco” in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting “alleged” is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”
Special “integrated domestic violence courts” presume guilt and then, says New York’s openly feminist chief judge, “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as “pre-fascist”: “Domestic violence courts … are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there’s no presumption of innocence.”
Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.”
Child-support Chokehold
Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.
Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds (“no-fault”). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The “deadbeat dad” is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”
Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.
While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support,” writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, “have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.” Abraham calls the machinery “Orwellian”: “The government commands … a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration.”
Here, too, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka’s Joseph K., the “defendant” may not even know the charge against him, “if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the [allegedly?] delinquent parent,” says NCSL. Further, “not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury.
Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an “expedited judicial process” before a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge surrogate.” Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked “as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation” dealing with child support.
Though governments sensationalize “roundups” of alleged “deadbeat dads,” who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found “ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support.” Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration. Government literature “yields so little information on it that one might be led to believe that arrests were used rarely if at all. While May personally witnessed fathers sentenced in St. Louis, “We could find no explicit documentation of arrests in St. Louis.” In Illinois, “We observed courtrooms in which fathers appeared before the judge who were serving jail sentences for nonpayment, but little information was available on arrests in Illinois.”
We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for “deadbeat dads.” The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal “to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center” for “deadbeat dads.”
Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.
More Malicious Mayhem
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support “crackdowns.” Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is — the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution — it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.
We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.
---
Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family"
.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary
The New American
7 January 2010
Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary
By Stephen Baskerville
Liberals rightly criticize America’s high rate of incarceration. Claiming to be the freest country on Earth, the United States incarcerates a larger percentage of its population than Iran or Syria. Over two million people, or nearly one in 50 adults, excluding the elderly, are incarcerated, the highest proportion in the world. Some seven million Americans, or 3.2 percent, are under penal supervision.
Many are likely to be innocent. In The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton document how due process protections are routinely ignored, grand juries are neutered, frivolous prosecutions abound, and jury trials are increasingly rare. More recently, in Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent (2009), Harvey Silverglate shows how federal prosecutors are criminalizing more and more of the population. “Innocence projects” — projects of “a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing” — attest that people are railroaded into prison. As we will see, incarcerations without trial are now routine.
The U.S. prison population has risen dramatically in the last four decades. Ideologically, the rise is invariably attributed to “law-and-order” conservatives, who indeed seldom deny their own role (or indifference). In fact, few conservatives understand what they are defending.
Conservatives who rightly decry “judicial activism” in civil law are often blind to the connected perversion of criminal justice. While a politicized judiciary does free the guilty, it also criminalizes the -innocent.
But traditionalists upholding law and order were not an innovation of the 1970s. A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.”
While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”
Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.
Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”
Feminists and other sexual radicals have even managed to influence the law to target conservative groups themselves. Racketeering statutes are marshaled to punish non-violent abortion demonstrators, and “hate crimes” laws attempt to silence critics of the homosexual agenda. Both are supported by “civil liberties” groups. And these are only the most notorious; there are others.
Feminists have been the most authoritarian pressure group throughout much of American history. “It is striking what an uncritical stance earlier women reformers took toward the state,” Gottschalk observes. “They have played central roles in … uncritically pushing for more enhanced policing powers.”
What Gottschalk is describing is feminism’s version of Stalinism: the process whereby radical movements commandeer the instruments of state repression as they trade ideological purity for power.
Path to Prison
The first politicized crime was rape. Suffragettes advocated castrating rapists. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who opposed it for everyone else, wanted rapists executed.
Aggressive feminist lobbying in the legislatures and courts since the 1970s redefined rape to make it indistinguishable from consensual sex. Over time, a woman no longer had to prove that she was forced to have non-consensual sex, but a man had to prove that sex was consensual (or prove that no sex had, in fact, happened). Non-consent was gradually eliminated as a definition, and consent became simply a mitigating factor for the defense. By 1989, the Washington State Supreme Court openly shifted the burden of proving consent to the defendant when it argued that the removal of legislative language requiring non-consent for rape “evidences legislative intent to shift the burden of proof on the issue to the defense” and approved this blatantly unconstitutional presumption of guilt. The result, write Weiss and Young, was not “to jail more violent rapists — lack of consent is easy enough for the state to prove in those cases — but to make it easier to send someone to jail for failing to get an explicit nod of consent from an apparently willing partner before engaging in sex.”
Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. “People can be charged with virtually no evidence,” says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. “If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else — and I mean nothing else, no investigation — the police will go out and arrest someone.”
Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection. “A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence … can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser,” write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply “naming the person accused” along with the time and place “will support a verdict of guilty.” Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.
The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”
In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media. “Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims,” writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.
Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations — and no official ones — to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.
The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid “victim advocates” to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. “Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line.” What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: “calling a rape complainant ‘the victim’ — with no ‘alleged’.” “Unnamed complainants are labeled ‘victims’ even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed,” according to CMR.
Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. “If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape,” opines one “women’s studies” graduate, “she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn’t raped, but he clearly violated her in some way.” This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men’s education: “I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.… ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’”
Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism’s role but instead emphasized race — a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other “gender” crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.
The Kobe Bryant case demonstrates that a black man accused by a white woman is also vulnerable. Historically, this was the more common pattern. Our race-conscious society is conditioned to remember lynching as a racial atrocity, forgetting that the lynched were usually black men accused by white women. Feminist scholars spin this as “the dominant white male ideology behind lynching ... that white womanhood was in need of protection against black men,” suggesting fantastically that white “patriarchy” used rape accusations to break up a progressive political romance developing between black men and white women. With false rape accusations, the races have changed, but the sexes have remained constant.
Violent Lies
“Domestic violence” is an even more purely political crime. “The battered-women’s movement turned out to be even more vulnerable to being co-opted by the state and conservative penal forces,” writes Gottschalk, again with contortion. Domestic violence groups are uniformly feminist, not “conservative,” though here too conservatives have enabled feminists to exchange principles for power.
Like rape, domestic “violence” is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes “extreme jealousy and possessiveness” and “name calling and constant criticizing.” For such “crimes” men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of “domestic” violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.
Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. “Women lie every day,” attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. I’m lying. It didn’t happen’ — and they’re not charged.” Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at “the number of women attending the seminars who smugly — indeed boastfully — announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!” He added, “The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.”
Domestic violence has become “a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory,” write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. “No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice.” Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in custody cases and “become part of the gamesmanship of divorce.” Domestic abuse has become “an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice,” according to the Rutgers Law Review.
Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating.” Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey’s statute “a due process fiasco” in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it “perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless.” Omitting “alleged” is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse … may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.”
Special “integrated domestic violence courts” presume guilt and then, says New York’s openly feminist chief judge, “make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions.” They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself. Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as “pre-fascist”: “Domestic violence courts … are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there’s no presumption of innocence.”
Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, “I have physically and emotionally battered my partner.” The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. “I am responsible for the violence I used,” the forms declare. “My behavior was not provoked.”
Child-support Chokehold
Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.
Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds (“no-fault”). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity. The “deadbeat dad” is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, “forced to finance the filching of his own children.”
Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.
While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to “fault,” nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. “The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support,” writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, “have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state.” Abraham calls the machinery “Orwellian”: “The government commands … a veritable gulag, complete with sophisticated surveillance and compliance capabilities such as computer-based tracing, license revocation, asset confiscation, and incarceration.”
Here, too, “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Like Kafka’s Joseph K., the “defendant” may not even know the charge against him, “if the court does not explicitly clarify the charge facing the [allegedly?] delinquent parent,” says NCSL. Further, “not all child support contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,” and “even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer.” Thus defendants must prove their innocence against unspecified accusations, without counsel, and without a jury.
Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an “expedited judicial process” before a black-robed lawyer known as a “judge surrogate.” Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked “as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation” dealing with child support.
Though governments sensationalize “roundups” of alleged “deadbeat dads,” who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found “ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support.” Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration. Government literature “yields so little information on it that one might be led to believe that arrests were used rarely if at all. While May personally witnessed fathers sentenced in St. Louis, “We could find no explicit documentation of arrests in St. Louis.” In Illinois, “We observed courtrooms in which fathers appeared before the judge who were serving jail sentences for nonpayment, but little information was available on arrests in Illinois.”
We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for “deadbeat dads.” The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal “to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center” for “deadbeat dads.”
Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.
More Malicious Mayhem
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support “crackdowns.” Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is — the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution — it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.
We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population. Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America’s homegrown Stalinists.
---
Stephen Baskerville is associate professor of government at Patrick Henry College and author of "Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family"
Friday, January 8, 2010
Ex-cop Pat Burns tells the Tiger Woods story
Ex-cop Pat Burns tells the Tiger Woods story
By Erik Rolfsen
Tue, Jan 5 2010
http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/gobig/archive/2010/01/05/ex-cop-pat-burns-tells-the-tiger-woods-story.aspx
The latest person to weigh in on what really happened at the Tiger Woods home on the night of Nov. 27 is former Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens head coach Pat Burns.
Burns, a one-time police officer who lives Florida and reportedly has many law-enforcement contacts there, related what he's heard to a Montreal radio station on Tuesday morning. His version is very similar to that which first emerged on the blog of retired sports columnist Furman Bisher shortly before the new year. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove this version of events, but Burns adds another voice in support of it.
According to the Toronto Sun, Burns told CKAC Sports that Tiger has remained out of public view since the incident because a nine-iron to his face — courtesy of wife Elin Nordegren — knocked out two of his teeth.
Burns said he got his information from a friend in the highway patrol who visited the Woods home on the night of the incident. His version includes the detail about Woods leaving his cell phone behind as he played poker at a friend's house, while alleged mistress Rachel Uchitel was still texting him.
Burns also gave credence to the story that Woods was flown to Phoenix for surgery on his teeth.
By Erik Rolfsen
Tue, Jan 5 2010
http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/gobig/archive/2010/01/05/ex-cop-pat-burns-tells-the-tiger-woods-story.aspx
The latest person to weigh in on what really happened at the Tiger Woods home on the night of Nov. 27 is former Toronto Maple Leafs and Montreal Canadiens head coach Pat Burns.
Burns, a one-time police officer who lives Florida and reportedly has many law-enforcement contacts there, related what he's heard to a Montreal radio station on Tuesday morning. His version is very similar to that which first emerged on the blog of retired sports columnist Furman Bisher shortly before the new year. Nobody has been able to prove or disprove this version of events, but Burns adds another voice in support of it.
According to the Toronto Sun, Burns told CKAC Sports that Tiger has remained out of public view since the incident because a nine-iron to his face — courtesy of wife Elin Nordegren — knocked out two of his teeth.
Burns said he got his information from a friend in the highway patrol who visited the Woods home on the night of the incident. His version includes the detail about Woods leaving his cell phone behind as he played poker at a friend's house, while alleged mistress Rachel Uchitel was still texting him.
Burns also gave credence to the story that Woods was flown to Phoenix for surgery on his teeth.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
France 'to criminalise shouting at your wife'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6938961/France-to-criminalise-shouting-at-your-wife.html
Married couples could be arrested and charged for insulting each other under a new law in France banning 'psychological violence'.
Published: 7:00AM GMT 06 Jan 2010
The proposed legislation would punish partners who 'overstep the mark' during verbal spats in the home.
The law would apply to husbands and wives, as well as cohabiting couples.
It is expected to cover every kind of slur from repeated rude remarks about a partner's appearance, false allegations of infidelity and threats of physical violence.
Police are being urged to issue a caution in the first instance of a reported crime, but repeat offenders could face a fine, electronic tagging or jail.
The law, being put forward by the prime minister, Francois Fillon, is aimed at protecting women who are the main victims of abuse in the home.
But men would also have the right to report their wives for verbal abuse.
Mr Fillon said: "It's an important move forward as the creation of this offence will let us tackle the most insidious situations, the ones that leave no physical scars but which still injure the victims inside."
But some experts have called the law a gimmick that will be impossible to enforce, and that the government should not be interfere in non-violent domestic squabbles.
Anne Giraud, a psychologist, said: "Squabbling couples will allege all kinds of things about each other, but they won't necessarily be true.
"The police are likely to be called out more and more when this law comes into force this year, but often it will be a case of one person's word against the other.
"Psychological violence is a very serious matter, but punishing it through the courts is a very different matter altogether."
Pierre Bonnet, a sociologist, added: "Next they will be making rudeness a crime, and the police and courts will be overrun with work."
In 2008, 157 French women and seven French men were killed by their spouses or partners, with hundreds more injured in outbursts of domestic violence. Mr Fillon said the new law had the support of the majority of the government and could come into force within six months.
Married couples could be arrested and charged for insulting each other under a new law in France banning 'psychological violence'.
Published: 7:00AM GMT 06 Jan 2010
The proposed legislation would punish partners who 'overstep the mark' during verbal spats in the home.
The law would apply to husbands and wives, as well as cohabiting couples.
It is expected to cover every kind of slur from repeated rude remarks about a partner's appearance, false allegations of infidelity and threats of physical violence.
Police are being urged to issue a caution in the first instance of a reported crime, but repeat offenders could face a fine, electronic tagging or jail.
The law, being put forward by the prime minister, Francois Fillon, is aimed at protecting women who are the main victims of abuse in the home.
But men would also have the right to report their wives for verbal abuse.
Mr Fillon said: "It's an important move forward as the creation of this offence will let us tackle the most insidious situations, the ones that leave no physical scars but which still injure the victims inside."
But some experts have called the law a gimmick that will be impossible to enforce, and that the government should not be interfere in non-violent domestic squabbles.
Anne Giraud, a psychologist, said: "Squabbling couples will allege all kinds of things about each other, but they won't necessarily be true.
"The police are likely to be called out more and more when this law comes into force this year, but often it will be a case of one person's word against the other.
"Psychological violence is a very serious matter, but punishing it through the courts is a very different matter altogether."
Pierre Bonnet, a sociologist, added: "Next they will be making rudeness a crime, and the police and courts will be overrun with work."
In 2008, 157 French women and seven French men were killed by their spouses or partners, with hundreds more injured in outbursts of domestic violence. Mr Fillon said the new law had the support of the majority of the government and could come into force within six months.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)