Parents’ Rights Activist Murtari Gets Court Date

Murtari will not get a sentence reduction. His reasons for wanting a reduction are not based upon law – but instead upon his refusal to accept responsibility for not only his own actions, but also financial responsibility for his son.

In his affidavit to support his request for a sentence reduction, he all but admits that he is poor because of his own choice – because he feels the need to protest that his alleged civil rights have been violated.

Murtari is nothing more, and nothing less than a sponge on society. He gives good fathers – fathers who are willing to make a true sacrifice for their children – a bad name.

Murtari will not get a sentence reduction. His reasons for wanting a reduction are not based upon law – but instead upon his refusal to accept responsibility for not only his own actions, but also financial responsibility for his son.

In his affidavit to support his request for a sentence reduction, he all but admits that he is poor because of his own choice – because he feels the need to protest that his alleged civil rights have been violated.

Murtari is nothing more, and nothing less than a sponge on society. He gives good fathers – fathers who are willing to make a true sacrifice for their children – a bad name.

Murtari will not get a sentence reduction. His reasons for wanting a reduction are not based upon law – but instead upon his refusal to accept responsibility for not only his own actions, but also financial responsibility for his son.

In his affidavit to support his request for a sentence reduction, he all but admits that he is poor because of his own choice – because he feels the need to protest that his alleged civil rights have been violated.

Murtari is nothing more, and nothing less than a sponge on society. He gives good fathers – fathers who are willing to make a true sacrifice for their children – a bad name.

I think he would do more toward making fathers
equal parents by pounding the floor of the state
capitol in Albany, but men like Murtari—over 40
and with a good technical background—are
increasingly unable to sustain the level of
earning they had when younger and when Americans
were hired to do that kind of work.

His claims that the income he’s imputed is
unrealistic may have considerable merit.

Most deadbeat dads have hitherto been very young,
poorly educated, and lacking work experience: the
new, second wave that’s now making its debut are
the `old,’ too well-educated and overly experienced,
that society has chosen to cast out.

I think he would do more toward making fathers
equal parents by pounding the floor of the state
capitol in Albany, but men like Murtari—over 40
and with a good technical background—are
increasingly unable to sustain the level of
earning they had when younger and when Americans
were hired to do that kind of work.

His claims that the income he’s imputed is
unrealistic may have considerable merit.

Most deadbeat dads have hitherto been very young,
poorly educated, and lacking work experience: the
new, second wave that’s now making its debut are
the `old,’ too well-educated and overly experienced,
that society has chosen to cast out.

I think he would do more toward making fathers
equal parents by pounding the floor of the state
capitol in Albany, but men like Murtari—over 40
and with a good technical background—are
increasingly unable to sustain the level of
earning they had when younger and when Americans
were hired to do that kind of work.

His claims that the income he’s imputed is
unrealistic may have considerable merit.

Most deadbeat dads have hitherto been very young,
poorly educated, and lacking work experience: the
new, second wave that’s now making its debut are
the `old,’ too well-educated and overly experienced,
that society has chosen to cast out.

The problem is that there are too many “FamilyLawyer”s out there who feel they need to make a living putting the word “alleged” in front of the words “civil rights” while feigning a knowledge of the law (first post). History has shown us that there is a no end to the profit that can be made robbing others of their basic human rights. The family lawyer is just the most modern example. Ironically, I can think of no greater “sponge on society” than the family lawyer.

The problem is that there are too many “FamilyLawyer”s out there who feel they need to make a living putting the word “alleged” in front of the words “civil rights” while feigning a knowledge of the law (first post). History has shown us that there is a no end to the profit that can be made robbing others of their basic human rights. The family lawyer is just the most modern example. Ironically, I can think of no greater “sponge on society” than the family lawyer.

The problem is that there are too many “FamilyLawyer”s out there who feel they need to make a living putting the word “alleged” in front of the words “civil rights” while feigning a knowledge of the law (first post). History has shown us that there is a no end to the profit that can be made robbing others of their basic human rights. The family lawyer is just the most modern example. Ironically, I can think of no greater “sponge on society” than the family lawyer.

Family Lawyer, you ought to read Thoreau in “Resistance to Civil Government.” He considers an honest citizen’s options when facing immoral acts of government.

“I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.”

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others–as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders–serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few–as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men–serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least.”

“Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

“If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished.”

“I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them.”

‘The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ’87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact–let it stand.”‘

“If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.”

http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

Was Thoreau a deadbeat and or unpatriotic?

Family Lawyer, you ought to read Thoreau in “Resistance to Civil Government.” He considers an honest citizen’s options when facing immoral acts of government.

“I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.”

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others–as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders–serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few–as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men–serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least.”

“Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

“If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished.”

“I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them.”

‘The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ’87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact–let it stand.”‘

“If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.”

http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

Was Thoreau a deadbeat and or unpatriotic?

Family Lawyer, you ought to read Thoreau in “Resistance to Civil Government.” He considers an honest citizen’s options when facing immoral acts of government.

“I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically.”

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others–as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders–serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as the rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few–as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men–serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be “clay,” and “stop a hole to keep the wind away,” but leave that office to his dust at least.”

“Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”

“If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, “But what shall I do?” my answer is, “If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.” When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned from office, then the revolution is accomplished.”

“I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them.”

‘The lawyer’s truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing. He well deserves to be called, as he has been called, the Defender of the Constitution. There are really no blows to be given him but defensive ones. He is not a leader, but a follower. His leaders are the men of ’87. “I have never made an effort,” he says, “and never propose to make an effort; I have never countenanced an effort, and never mean to countenance an effort, to disturb the arrangement as originally made, by which various States came into the Union.” Still thinking of the sanction which the Constitution gives to slavery, he says, “Because it was part of the original compact–let it stand.”‘

“If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation.”

http://www.constitution.org/civ/civildis.htm

Was Thoreau a deadbeat and or unpatriotic?