• Log In
• Register
• Find Password

• home
• rss
• submission guidelines
• masthead
• letter from the editor
• mra principles and goals
• mnd lifestyles

How to survive the coming food shortage.

5 Responses to “Fasting inmate to be subject of film on reforming family court”

1. 
   1
   Roger Knight Says:
   November 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

   It is a crime of peonage. John Murtari said so in his pleadings to the court before this incarceration. The real problem with the Child Support Crusade is that it is a perversion of the law, of decency, and of common sense. It could not exist in its present form with honest, faithful, and truthful enforcement of the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the bill of attainder clauses of the Constitution, where the meaning of each word in the Constitution is based on what Webster’s Dictionary says such word means.
   It is only called “child support” because there is absolutely positively no requirement that such funds be accounted for in how they are spent for the needs of the child, and where paid through a state agency, even of proof such funds are disbursed to the custodial parents of such children, or even if such children are still alive or ever existed.
   In any society, there are extremely good public policy reasons for prohibiting armed robbery, extortion, and peonage. These good public policy reasons do not magically disappear merely because the funds extorted or stolen are designated “child support”.
   One can argue that the individual rights set forth in our Constitution are the HIGHEST interest of our government, but unfortunately that view is not popular with the black robes. Indeed, the black robes do not like the rules of statutory construction applied to the Antipeonage Act!
   Thus we have this state sponsored armed robbery, extortion, and peonage.

2. 
   2
   FamilyLawyer Says:
   November 20th, 2006 at 10:17 pm

   Roger Knights continual rantings about a law and laws that do not apply to child support only serve to promote the argument that those who want to see the system reformed are doing so only to avoid the payment of child support.

   Roger Knight is just another deadbeat father as is John Murtari. Both of them belong in jail – and perhaps in mental health counseling.

3. 
   3
   macklin Says:
   November 21st, 2006 at 8:33 am

   FamilyLawyer, perhaps you didn’t read what Roger Knight wrote in his post (you probably didn’t think you had to), but his point was that calling State-sanctioned looting of a father’s assets ‘child support’ doesn’t mean that it’s OK. Exempting ‘child support’ from being answerable to laws designed to protect people from the kind of abuse Knight and Murtari are protesting about was a technical necessity, not a legal virtue. It’s still theft, whether you call it ‘child support’ or ‘ripping dad off and laughing all the way to the bank’. It was nothing but a device created to fund feminist social policy, which is systematically anti-male, anti-father and anti-family.

   Fathers should not have to pay ‘child support’. Not a cent. They should be free to dispose of their assets as they see fit, giving as much or as little to their children and former spouse as they choose. With no right to his assets, the govenment would have to deal with ‘child support’ in a more constructive way: by supporting the basic social structure now sneeringly referred to as the ‘traditional family’. As things stand, any crackpot social theory – feminism, for instance – can be promoted on the assumption that all we need to do to make it work is find enough money to throw at it. It isn’t men’s fault that this doesn’t work, and men should not be criminalised in a desperate attempt to make it work.

   Murtari and Knight belong in jail and perhaps mental health counseling? Excuse me? Study after study in many different countries shows that the best environment for children to grow up in is generally with their own biological mother and father. Under the influence of feminist ‘theory’, governments have igored these findings and ploughed on with socially destructive policies requiring the kind of legal corruption described in Roger Knight’s post. Are the ones responsible for this social vandalism the ones we’re supposed to consider mentally healthy and blameless?

4. 
   4
   thurston861 Says:
   November 21st, 2006 at 9:26 am

   Here Here! to Roger Knight.

   FamilyLawyer has vested financial interest and debates with invective.

   Well done Mr. Knight!

5. 
   5
   chas Says:
   November 21st, 2006 at 4:13 pm

   The underlying quest is to remove all power that would come from decision making by all oppressive males, regarding all oppressed females. The system wants the mother, to be the one who makes all significant decisions, about the child, without the father’s involvement, but continue to require the father, to pay up. It is also the underlying quest to have socialized medicine, where the woman or the child, will have their health care provided by Hillary Clinton, without the oppressive husband, or father being involved in the decision making process. The husband or father, used to have some control over the lives, of the wife and child, being the one who made the decisions, over payment of these things. The system is stripping fathers and husbands, of this control of a wife or daughter’s lives. The system now oppresses men, holding them responsible for all the payments in the form of, taxes, divided property, alimony, and child support, to support women without any power of control. There used to be a thing in non-profit organizations, about when a criminal or gangster was trying to donate money it was dirty money and rejected by the organization. I doubt there has ever been a wife going through a horrible divorce that has hated the husband so much that she wouldn’t take his money, because she considered it dirty money. If women were told they had no chance for fifty percent, alimony, and child support, or socialized medicine, or welfare most would not have the courage to walk away from the person providing the money, and would continue to allow the modicum of social order, that comes from an oppressive male.

Leave a Reply