I have written before about how, on Veteran’s Day 2007, mangina Andrew Marton of the Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram published his “Brokered Bride” slander provided by a Russian woman fighting a child custody battle with her ex-husband. The victim had been unable to provide his side of the story because he was abiding by court rules.
Among the most blatant mistakes in the article is the fact that the ex-wife admits (in the article) to having intentionally scammed her husband for citizenship after the “journalist” spent most of the article painting her as someone who had “come to America in good faith.” The article describes the husband (Glen Henderson) as having translated her phone calls to others, while failing to discuss how those “translations” revealed that the woman had a boyfriend back in Russia and a boyfriend in Canada before and during her “marriage” to Glen. The article also does not describe how Glen and his wife were friends for several years before she convinced him to marry her and bring her to the USA despite the fact that they were mostly just friends.
The Star Telegram is part of the giant McClatchy Newspaper Corporation. Dozens of men phoned and emailed them about the outrageously one-side article. Andrew and his colleage, Kirstin Campbell, would slither like snakes when discussing their mistakes on the phone. They would say “It is too late to change the story” despite the fact that an online version of any story can be changed easily.
This is typical of the ”Hit and Run” experience men are now having with newspapers that have apparently lost all interest in having men as customers. The “journalists” do a hit piece on men and then say “it is too late to change the story” after it comes out.
Outrageously however, on December 5th, the Star Telegram republished the same article and got a dozen McClatchy affiliates to highlight the article. This tactic of republishing is highly unprofessional and unethical. But then, as the dinosaur media declines, the people they hire are getting less and less ashamed to blatantly push their anti-male agenda.
Here is my open letter to the victim of McClatchy Newspapers (one can argue that his child is the ultimate victim of this treachery):
Hello Glen (Henderson),
McClatchy Newspapers interfered with your child custody case when they published the “story” of one party in the court proceedings, knowing full well that you were abiding by court rules and Natasha was not.
Could I have a word with your lawyer?
Now McClatchy Newspapers has added malice to the mix by republishing the slander, despite having been told (as if they needed to be told) where the story is inaccurate and how ideologically biased it was. These two URLs reveal the unprofessional “double publishing” maneuver just occurred: http://www.star-telegram.com/600/story/297522.html and http://www.star-telegram.com/462/story/343565.html. They did this to spite you Glen. They don’t want your side of the story and never did.
The December 5th 2007 republication of the slander was multiplied yesterday to many McClatchy affiliates. This, despite the fact that Star Telegram employees admitted to me that they were ideologically biased against “men’s rights types” and despite the fact that Andrew Marton had said he would finally look into the constitutional aspects of that “marriage broker” law. Here is just one example of the open bias:
Andrew,
I figured it was only a matter of time before the “men’s rights” types came out of the woodwork. They’re always rather put upon, in my experience.
Marcia
Marcia Melton was the so-called “research assistant” who fed misinformation to Andrew Marton
If this were happening to me, McClatchy would be sued for $3Million in damages and an article with my side of the story published on the front page of McClatchy papers nationwide.This is an open and shut case. Newspapers do not have a 1st Amendment right to interfere in child custody battles like this.
Obviously, these people believe that you are the loser they described in the article. Like so many men who could simply walk into a courthouse and get that unconstitutional “marriage broker” act (IMBRA) overruled, you are not doing anything and they have already assumed that you will not do anything. I have come to the conclusion that many of the men who date foreign women deserve everything they get because they simply will not do the minimum that a normal man would do to stick up for his rights.
Please realize that the federally funded Tahirih Justice Center is also behind this slander and you could easily get a Texas-based federal judge to stop them from getting $1Million in funding that Congress just authorized for them (deep inside the CJS Appropriations Bill), because it is not Constitutional for Congress to fund operations that interfere with child custody battles (or any domestic affairs for that matter).
These people are all counting on 1) you and your lawyer being passive and dumb and 2) your lawyer not wanting to work for free or for part of the damages money and 3) your not accepting the help of the Men’s Rights Community which can provide expert witnesses showing how women like Natasha scam the system and get anti-male ideologues in the media to help them.
Stumble It!Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
PolishKnight said,
I’m happy to say that men who date foreign women do “deserve everything they get” because most of them wind up with feminine, caring wives and this resentment from women such as Marcia is an indication of that. They don’t like seeing men happy and even worse, not in the servitude of American women.
Sadly, poor Andrew is not the only person to have a meek or lousy attorney. I was F’ed over serveral times by employers and the lawyers I consulted gave me poor information about my rights because they hoped I would blow tons of money on them for “evaluations” where they would then demand a massive contingency (and starting fee) to continue making legal proceedings worthless. The only time a lawyer is somewhat helpful is when someone’s been injured. A bunch of friggin’ ambulance chasers or corporate droids, the lot of ‘em.
He should shop around for an attorney or maybe even just start out with a paralegal (those guys work their butt off to make a buck and are usually just as good if not better.)
December 7, 2007 at 10:10 am
Roger F. Gay said,
December 7, 2007 at 12:00 pm
khankrumthebulgar said,
Talk is cheap. Posting on the Internet is not the same as raising money to defend our Rights to Free Association.
Feminists are actively trying to enslave American Men. Gents we need to raise the money to fight this. And hire some high dollar aggressive Litigators to go to War Legally on our behalf.
December 7, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Roger Knight said,
Please forgive me for not thinking so. Thundering silence is not support!
As for just walking into any courthouse and getting IMBRA overruled, be my guest! Go ahead, try it!
You just might find out it is not that easy, no matter how good your argument is, how professionally and beautifully presented.
I am willing to bet that without publicity support, most federal judges will not only deny any challenge to the constitutionality of IMBRA, but will slam the challenger with sanctions for raising a “frivolous” issue.
And why not? They were appointed by the same Presidents and Senators who gave us IMBRA, VAWA, and the federal laws funding the Child Support Crusade.
I really would like to see more men coming out demanding our rights under the Constitution and exacting retribution upon the bastards and bitches on Election Day.
As the Antipeonage Act has never been found unconstitutional, perhaps screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law, in NUMBERS, might provoke a federal grand jury or two to “run away” and commence enforcing the law!
December 8, 2007 at 12:27 am
amfortas said,
But it is spoiled by your own (understandable) impatience. No need to suggest that he is dumb or reinforce the idea that he is a loser, even obliquly. And this, “I have come to the conclusion that many of the men who date foreign women deserve everything they get “, is completely out of order.
Come on Jim. You can do better than that. I’ve seen you do better.
December 8, 2007 at 12:34 am
Jim Peterson said,
I like the idea about using a paralegal. I don’t agree at all with the idea that a Pro Se challenge against IMBRA would fail because the judge would care only about public support.
Judge Clarence Cooper, who initially put a TRO on IMBRA and only later bowed to political pressure (Hillary) by upholding IMBRA (by saying that, if you must register to own a gun, you must register to meet a woman) was:
1) Overruled recently on a similar decision where he said that registered sex offenders would not be “overly burdened” by having to sell their homes if they lived within a certain distance of schools. His superiors, conservatives suprisingly, overruled him on that saying it would be quite a burden to have to sell a home because of some new law.
2) Forced to rule against IMBRA because the European Connections owner had testified as the plaintiff that he AGREED WITH THE DAMNED LAW except he did not want the commercial liability from it (he said that the government should take over the background checking and leave him not liable for mistakes on that end).
In other words, IMBRA HAS NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED
The Ohio AODA Case on IMBRA was brought by a group of Keystone Cops who hired a feminist lawyer at Sirkin Pinales thinking she would convince her allies in the justice system that the law was wrong. Talk about politically correct nonsense! She took no advice from men who dated foreign women and then told a Republican judge that the “Supreme Court has never recognized a fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner” and then asked him to “create a new right” based on Roe vs Wade and Lawrence vs Texas (the right to have gay sex).
Naturally the Republican judge, a Bush appointee named Thomas Rose who was not too bright otherwise, seized on refusing to grant a “new right” based on Roe vs Wade and the gay sex decision that 4 conservative supreme court justices had dissented on.
SO THE OHIO CASE DID NOT COUNT AS A REAL CHALLENGE TO IMBRA EITHER
So please: anybody CHALLENGE THIS LAW YOURSELF NOW
You will NOT be sanctioned for doing so. It is your right.
And I do NOT want to hear the old nonsense of “why don’t you do this yourself” anymore because I have said 1000 times that wild horses couldn’t have stopped me in most of my adult life from challenging a law like this. But I am unable to come back from Europe to do so within the next 6 months for some very important reasons.
The person who can easily challenge IMBRA on his lunch break will:
1) Have at least $10K in the bank if not an independent flow of income
2) Someone who lives in a part of the US where jobs are plentiful
There would be no sanctions for providing a good 12 point complaint on which the judge would have to upend the Constitution to refuse a TRO.
I predict an easy win. Nobody has ever tried to argue that it would not be an easy win.
The problem has been that Americans in general do not know anything about their right to pro se challenges. We have been asleep most of our lives to think that laws can only be challenged by huge organizations like the ACLU that we assumed cared about the rights of white males as much as anyone’s rights (the ACLU will not help us on this).
Our problem has been the lack of intelligent men who can spell and who are winners…meaning people who will actually do something for their rights.
Believe me, I would not have ever posted at MND or anywhere else if I had been living in the USA and I could have easily handed a document to a federal judge at the local federal courthouse.
December 8, 2007 at 4:30 am
Jim Peterson said,
But otherwise there is a strong tradition in the United States of self-representation. In the original colonies, every educated man had a copy of the Bible and Blackstones. Blackstones was basically a guide to being your own lawyer. A modern version of Blackstones would be something like the famous book “How To Be Your Own Lawyer” at http://www.amazon.com/How-When-Your-Own-Lawyer/dp/0399527303/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b.
Now that the Bar Association is the 4th branch of US government, it is a lot harder to represent oneself and they have used the media to bury the culture where people once did so.
Lawyers now have a vested interest in saying that Pro Se challenges are a bad idea. It would cut their value greatly if eloquent citizens (the few who can spell) were able to pull off more efficient challenges than they could (because the citizen might know more about a subject like dating than the lawyer does). These lawyers do correctly point out that dozens of losers try, every day, to challenge the government for things like going to war in Iraq or keeping Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo. But these losers mostly do Pro Se challenges when they are further left than MoveOn or the ACLU.
Usually, those cases that the ACLU will not take really are fruitcake causes and most of them have to do with liberating terrorists or putting Bush in jail for fighting them.
Nobody has ever tried a Pro Se challenge against the new radical feminist laws. This, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the Castle Rock Case in 2005 saying that a woman could not sue the police if they fail to arrest a stalker (one would presume this to be a feminist cause that most people and most judges would actually support).
In fighting IMBRA, I have learned of federal judges who are shocked and angered by IMBRA when they are unofficially told about it.
But these judges have to be the ones that are given to someone who actually complains.
Another thing is this: we can have a $200K lawsuit going on in one district but get a pro-feminist judge while we have a $20K going on somewhere else that also gets a pro-feminist judge, while a 3rd challenge against IMBRA comes from a single Pro Se challenger somewhere else who gets the right judge.
But getting the right judge at the district level is not enough, nor is it necessarily enough to have a $300K lawyer to present a case that would survive up to the Supreme Court. Another key factor is that the quantity of arguments made can be crucial. An expensive lawyer who wants to be sparse in his or her arguments, can lose because those few arguments can be more easily batted away by an ideological judge.
An example of where quantity of detailed arguments won a case would be Reno vs ACLU where the winning argument happened to be that the plaintiff (ACLU) mentioned that a film “American Beauty” could not have been filmed if a law had been in force against using adult actresses who looked like minors.
The arguments themselves were not convincing so much as the use of film and literature to drive home what the world would have been like if such a law were allowed to be in force.
We could have a $300K lawyer who doesn’t mention a dozen films and books and loses an IMBRA challenge while a single Pro Se challenger can present the book 1984 and the film Titanic (where an American man meets a foreign woman) and win. The EC Case against IMBRA was won by the feminists because they overloaded the judge with 98 pages of anecdotal junk detail on how some women married men who were not perfect husbands.
By the way, IMBRA does not have popular approval and few politicians remember voting for it (because it was buried deep in other legislation). This can be easily proven in court. In fact, the easiest thing to prove is that IMBRA has been covered up and hidden from the public. Anyone who hears about is shocked, as was Judge Cooper who immediately put a restraining order on it when he heard about it (and was only later convinced to reverse his decision because the plaintiff provided no case and because Hillary would have told him he would not be nominated to the SC if he went against her).
[Litigating my rights? Tried that. Did you support me in my efforts? Please forgive me for not thinking so. Thundering silence is not support!]
Who did not pay attention to this? Was anyone told about it? What litigation is being referred to here?
MND should have a link at the top of the page referring to any open litigation that attacks a law itself and not just an ex-wife in a family squabble.
If the litigation was about an individual family situation, then nobody is going to pay attention to that.
Understandably, rights have to be fought class action and at the federal level for anyone to care about a particular action.
Example of my frustration with some others’s thinking over this:
One dating site owner told me that he wanted to sue other site owners because they were taking advantage of IMBRA by taking men’s money while knowing that the foreign women would never get the chance to read and approve of background checks because the women had no email.
I told the site owner “Challenge IMBRA itself and not other site owners. Fight the government and not each other”.
He realized that I was correct…but why did I have to be the one to make such an obvious point?
So many men want to fight each other over these matters instead of the government.
Five or sex men told me that they would like to challenge IMBRA themselves without a lawyer but they could not spell to save their lives, so I talked them out of it, which was unfortunately not hard to do.
I want to find a guy whom I cannot talk out of doing a challenge. He needs to be motivated to fight for his own rights, not mine (anyone who says “Jim, why don’t you do this yourself” is saying that he does not care to fight for his own rights).
We need the kind of man whom wild horses cannot stop from challenging this kind of law.
Can anyone name a challenge that has ever been leveled against VAWA?
December 8, 2007 at 4:55 am
Jim Peterson said,
ZERO ATTEMPTS TO LEGALLY CHALLENGE ANYTHING
Zero interest in learning about the US justice system and related challenges (Castle Rock, CDA, COPA, Reno vs ACLU).
And as Khan, above, stated: ZERO ATTEMPTS TO FUNDRAISE other than a PayPal button.
We need a full-time professional fundraiser on these matters.
And another trend would be men who refuse to think on large terms that we need hundreds of millions of $ in backing in the long term, not just $100K for a lawsuit that would get IMBRA overturned for a few years until President Hillary alters the Supreme Court in her favor.
I wouldn’t mind if someone took $100,000 and spent his time in Monte Carlo making friends with the kind of foreign billionaire who would put really serious money into this.
Remember, this thread is about the McClatchy Newspaper Corporation caught red-handed republishing a controversial hit piece against males that they knew interfered with a child custody case. That is a huge, well-funded, adversary, but with a fairly straight-forward case against them.
December 8, 2007 at 5:17 am