A. When he donates sperm to artificially inseminate a female attorney without a written agreement.

It may not be funny, but it is true.

In an apparently “land mark case” the Kansas Supreme Court has again proven that law is totally divorced from reality. See this weeks: Kansas Supreme Court Case No. 96,102 In re K.M.H.

From the ruling:

This appeal from a consolidated child in need of care (CINC) case and a paternity action arises out of an artificial insemination leading to the birth of twins K.M.H. and K.C.H. We are called upon to decide the existence and extent of the parental rights of the known sperm donor, who alleges he had an agreement with the children’s mother to act as the twins’ father.

The twins’ mother filed a CINC petition to establish that the donor had no parental rights under Kansas law. The donor sued for determination of his paternity. The district court sustained the mother’s motion to dismiss, ruling that K.S.A. 38-1114(f) was controlling and constitutional.

That statute provides: “The donor of semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife is treated in law as if he were not the birth father of a child thereby conceived, unless agreed to in writing by the donor and the woman.” K.S.A. 38-1114(f).

One must conclude that a man need not have sexual intercourse with or employ a female attorney to get screwed. Regardless of the evidence of paternity, the state has the right to use perverted logic to terminate paternal rights.

The concept that a father’s paternal rights are a mother’s choice under any circumstance is preposterous. The application of statute law requiring a written agreement in cases of artificial insemination to establish paternity is the ultimate example of how law is used to marginalize men.

Share on digg

Fundamental to our American way of life is law and order. No one including the legal profession is above the law. For years the legal profession has set itself up as a self-policing branch of government and purports to determine for the rest of society what is “legal” and “not legal” supposedly rationally applying the law of the land as established by our Constitution and legislatively established statue law. This worked in a righteous society were the honorable and ethical outnumbered the unrighteous, but that has changed. Few realize how the legal profession makes its own rules and case law that serves attorney interest more than public interest.

Take heed: Millions of Americans including several in the US legislature and one presidential candidate profess the following to be the word of GOD: “And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.” – Alma 10:27

With America’s taming of the West power shifted from might-is-right to law. If the arena of power is in law, a theoretical good, the structure of power is in the legal profession, the top of the food chain – and therein lays the potential for mischief. Lawyers could be called this country’s Nomenklatura, and the rest of us the Proletariat.

Our American laws were derived from English law and that from Roman law based in Judeo-Christian teachings. We now have over 34 million laws and are still grinding them out; yet we haven’t improved on the Ten Commandments. James Madison observed “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

Law reflects, but in no sense determines the moral worth of a society…. The better the society, the less law there will be. In Heaven, there will be no law, and the lion will lie down with the lamb…. The worse the society, the more law there will be. In Hell, there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.” – Grant Gilmore, The Age of Anxiety published in the Yale Law Journal (1975)

We have created our own living HELL. Modern law ought to be a science, but has become a hocus pocus quagmire, masquerading behind an elaborate sham in which nearly any preconceived opinion can be found, justified, or accommodated. Laws encircle us all; but, like locked doors, seem to be most effective against the honest; they are what the innocent abide by and the guilty manipulate. Dickens observed “the one great principle of the…law is to make business for itself.”

Over the history of America, the fundamental religious principles of equity, fairness and justice have become totally perverted by self-serving attorneys that feed on contention and specializes in finding perverted meaning in words. Attorneys live in a world so divorced from reality that they can argue over the meaning of any word. Recall the arguments Bill Clinton, a Yale Law School graduate, offered regarding the meaning of the word “is.” When the Constitution and statute law are nothing but words and words are meaningless we have a serious problem.

Man’s law as determined by our current legal system has become simply meaningless with justice defined not by law but rather by emotion, empathy, political correctness and wealth. Mountains of contradictory case law rulings have evolved over the past two century and leave a judge to simply do as they please and play Humpty Dumpty.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.” -Lewis Carroll

God offered his law in the Ten Commandments sufficiently brief to be carved on two stone tablets. It’s notable that GOD didn’t provide an attorney to interpret them and found no reason to promote a profession dedicated to asking, “What do you want these words to mean?”

The present level of government domination of private affairs violates the principles this country was founded upon. The historic proposition that people are the masters and government is the servant has been reversed. Only summary, or shotgun-justice, is typically found within it. The only difference between law and politics is the spelling. This trend can and must be reversed.

For years the belief that the consequences of exposing corrupt judges and attorneys was not in the best interest of the public as it would undermine public confidence has supported the concept that the judiciary should police itself. Public exposure of a corrupt judge or prosecuting attorney would bring into question all previous cases involving them. This argument may have merit, but the time has come for change when even the dogs on the street are aware of the corruption and attorney jokes are more true than funny. The public outcry of obvious self serving prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse Case has brought this issue to the forefront.

What can be done to reestablish honesty, integrity and general moral character to the legal profession? The American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct that have been adopted as state supreme court procedural rules in most all states with few alterations to insure the legal profession operate in an ethical manner. It contains two basic parts establishing a code of conduct for judges as well as attorneys. It provides that judges are primarily to police the attorneys and their peers. The supreme court rules generally provide also for a “disciplinary counsel to receive complaints directly from the public regarding unethical attorney behavior, but this counsel refuse to investigate unethical behavior condoned by the judge hearing any given litigation. Herein lies a significant problem as the judge is likely a friend of the very attorneys and other judges he is required to police. It’s a classic case of the fox guarding the chicken coop.

If the Model Rules were enforced, to the same extent as parking violations, it would correct many of the ills that plague society including the family courts. Unfortunately judges are not politically in a position to effectively police attorneys, much less other judges. If we continue to ignore the problem the result will be societal collapse with resulting anarchy.

Nothing but public apathy and ignorance prevent this code of professional conduct from being changed from supreme court procedural rules to statue criminal law with public funded investigation and enforcement. Removing the secrecy of prosecution of corrupt legal professionals and the very knowledge of scrutiny will have a significant positive effect.

I checked the Missouri Constitution and find that Article 5, Section 5 assures the Legislature the authority superior to the Judiciary and its Supreme Court Rules. Article 5 Section 5 of the Missouri Constitution states, “Any rule may be annulled or amended in whole or in part by a law limited to the purpose.” The public, not the state Bar CAN determine how and when attorneys and judges are prosecuted for ethical violations.

The simple act making false representation of material fact by attorneys has no meaning to a group that can’t define the word “is.” It is the stock and trade of the legal profession. The public is left to pay someone to misrepresent or distort facts with immunity when a witness or pro se litigant is subject to prosecution for perjury. It gives the legal profession an unfair advantage in any legal proceeding where a party lacks counsel. The more skillful the misrepresentation of fact, the more an attorney is worth.

This neglects the presumption of attorney’s and the court’s knowledge of the law. How often an attorney, especially when dealing with a pro se litigant, will knowingly argue law contrary to that accepted and the judge, though knowing it to be incorrect will accept it because no one objects. A person unaware of the law and perhaps more often the court rules are unable to act without an attorney and are therefore at the attorney’s mercy with no assurance that they are acting ethically with do diligence.

No where are attorney ethics more abused than in family law and other courts of equity or civil matters. Years ago I was personally criminally prosecuted and found my self appealing a criminal conviction only to have the presiding appellant judge ask the prosecutor why he had chosen to prosecute me rather than others far more guilty of the same offense. The prosecutor replied that I had expressed direct and open contempt for the ruling in a civil proceeding. The words of the presiding appellant judge were almost unbelievable. He expressed that after years on the bench, he had little other than outright contempt for most of what he had witness in civil proceedings and proceeded to ask the assistant district attorney if he planned to trump up criminal charges against him for expressing what he know to be true. Prosecutors like Mike Nifong and Don Hymer aren’t interested in justice or ethical behavior, rather they are interest in self-serving gratification and politically correct public support.

Let’s review the ABA’s Rule 8.4 offering a general statement of misconduct.

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law.

Most would find Model Rule 8.4 sufficient to define legal ethics independent of the additional few hundred words composing the balance of the Model Rules. NOT Attorneys! They are so adapted to making work for themselves by arguing that it apparently takes “highly educated” men years to understand all of the possible perverted meanings of a few hundred words. The public would not have much of a problem deciding innocence or guilt based on these words.

Is it not fundament to religious teachings that contention is the work of the devil? We are to strive to avoid contention and forgive rather than pursue a “sue the bastard” mentality so promoted today. Was this not the rational behind the ethical prohibition of attorney advertizing common for most of the 20th century?

Don’t you love those “We make ‘em pay” TV ads where the law firm of Dewey, Cheetam and Hough, advertizes that they have recovered damages “in excess of a billion dollars for clients” without mention of what portion the billion dollars they keep? If the legal profession had ethics it would charge fees based on services rendered, not what they can extort by threaten or protracted litigation.

A good physician certainly deserves a good living for doing his best to save someone’s life, but his charge today represents twice what he requires, with half going to the legal profession as insurance against his error. Is it justified? Attorneys won’t sue just the physician committing the error, but insist on suing everyone involved with the hope of more money from “deeper pockets”. Is this in public’s best interest?

Consider the amount of this country’s Gross Domestic Product that is represented by the legal profession. Billions of dollars are earned annually by a profession that can’t agree on anything and thrives in contention producing nothing of tangible value for the nation. This “service” is actually counter productive to the businesses that actually do produce tangible goods that expand our nation’s wealth. How long can the nation survive when more is spent arguing legal matters and shuffling paper than producing things of value? Can a productive society exist when attorneys have substituted, “caveat venditor,” let the seller beware for “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware.

A fool that chooses to use his power lawn mower to trim his toenails and his attorney are assured a financial reward should the manufacture not post a prominent warning that the mower that it is not to be used to trim toenails. It’s surprising that we manufacture or do anything in this litigious environment.

The university chemist department where I formerly worked has been stripped of almost all chemicals and instruments out of fear that they are “dangerous” and may promote ligation. Learn chemistry by computer simulation is the rule of the day. Sorry it doesn’t work. Life is dangerous and self-serving attorneys attempting to defy natural selection of the least fit will breed a nation of fools that can’t survive.

Currently Missouri Supreme Court rules requires attorney ethics violations be prosecuted by their appointed Chief Disciplinary Counsel before the supreme court en banc. When the legal ethics violations must be tried before the state supreme court, the odds are highly against many successful prosecutions as for all involved, the words are all but meaningless.

I believe the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel has fourteen full time attorneys to investigate and prosecute attorney ethics violations in Missouri. They must spend their full time responding to public complaints by telling the public that what they perceive to be ethics violations don’t exist as almost never does the media report an ongoing ethics investigation.

It’s past time the public regain control over the legal profession and insist on public trials of ethics violations. If there ever were justification for government intervention and wage control in a free enterprise society, it would include first and foremost the legal profession.

The family destruction and separation of children from their parents promoted by the family law industry is likely to go down in history as equivalent to the German holocaust. From biblical times the family has been the fundamental unit of society and seen by early philosophers to be the greatest obstacle to tyrannical government control. Today unethical attorneys for personal gain wallow in our personal lives destroying the last barrier to the totalitarian state.

I read one state ethics ruling finding that an attorney’s moral character has nothing to do his professional character. Apparently, a thirty-something mini-skirted, bimbo with a “bar card” that is sleeping with a judge is ethically qualified to be appointed as a guardian-ad-litem and make decisions on your children’s future. Like the prostitute she is, just pay her the going price for a custody decision. Heaven help the father that doesn’t see his daughter’s pole dancing interest to be a healthy expression of her “sluttyness” as a positive value. How long can society tolerate this?

Custody has become merely a commodity for sale to the highest bidder. Family law as legislated has become totally irrelevant as case law has promoted “judicial discretion” to judicial omnipotence. Ask your state legislature why they bother to enact family law when it is totally subordinate to judicial discretion.

I encourage all to contact their legislators and demand legislation regulating the legal profession. A simple start is to establish the ABA code of Ethical Conduct as criminal law.

If society can afford meter maids to enforce parking violations, it can surly afford a police force to enforce legal ethics and not leave the fox guarding the chicken coop. It is surprising how many law enforcement officers are also appalled by the legal profession. The media is there with dash cam video to insure the law enforcement officers every action is ethical. Perhaps it’s time for court room and judicial chambers surveillance A/V cameras to confirm what really happens behind closed doors.

Share on digg

I received an unanticipated response. It was perhaps one of the best assessments of the FRM I’ve read in years and worthy of serious thought. Walter begins by stating the need for applying the methods of systematic problem-solving to the men’s or fathers’ rights movement. In his words:

The major steps required to be taken are:

1. Problem recognition;

2. Problem analysis and solution design, and

3. Solution implementation and maintenance.

The so-called fathers’ rights movement (FRM) has not yet begun to develop a systematic process to identify what the problem is that ails our society. It is not even close to completing the first step of the problem solving process.

The major aspect of the product of that first step must be that all who participate in it must agree that there is a problem and on what its nature, history and consequences are. Moreover, they need to agree on what is required to move themselves and society from the existing state of dissatisfaction to the desired state of satisfaction. More specifically, they need to determine what that state of satisfaction shall be and that the will exists to attain it. None of that even closely exists in the FRM. The FRM has not even thought about any of that.

The majority of fathers’ rights activists (FRAs) are preoccupied with issues regarding shared parenting, child custody and access, child maintenance, and so on. All of those issues deal with problems that are nothing other than the consequences of separation and divorce.

Separations and divorces are symptoms of fundamental problem causes. One of those causes is the international agenda for the planned destruction of the family. The FRM rarely devotes time to thinking about that. Preoccupation with the consequences of problems obfuscates recognition of causes of the problems whose consequences worry us. That is sad. No problem has ever been solved satisfactorily or successfully by putting Band Aids on its causes. Successful problem solving requires the eradication of the causes of the problems that affect anyone.

There are pro-family organizations that increasingly have a national or international presence, with astounding growth rates — and virtually no FRAs ever heard of them on account of FRAs not being able to see the forest for the trees. That may largely be due to ignorance by most, but at least for a substantial majority of FRM leaders it is due to them not wanting to restore society’s respect for and appreciation of the institution of the family. They want equal or equitable shares of the fall-out of their separations and divorces. If you don’t believe that, then tell me where there is presently a discussion by FRAs on “no-fault” divorce and on the need for abolishing it.

FRAs have reduced themselves to negotiate, from the position of the defeated, the terms of their surrender in the war against the family. By stating that, I have no intention to insist that FRAs do not need to fight and struggle to address the inequities of the fall-out of divorce. However, as FRAs occupy themselves with that, they have absolutely no time for anything else, least of all for any work that strengthens families, communities and nations.

That is a major reason why FRAs receive little respect. They are perceived as working from a position of disgruntlement rather than from a position that is the basis for the promotion of the greater good for all of society.

For a little more on that, you should have a look at the mission of the fathers’ rights movement.

Against that background, where does Ken’s proposal fit in? What will it accomplish with regard to promoting the greater good of all of society? Even if the administration of Ken’s proposal will be effective, technically, what practical value will it provide? A “portal” for FR organizations, with a specific discussion forum for every single imaginable issue for tiny groups of like-minded individual who each individually meet and propound their opinions, with little and perhaps scarcely of any central message or agenda permeating or inspiring them all. It may be somewhat like interactive Cable TV channels, hundreds of them on a single feed, where anyone can surf the channels and select the discussion forum that fits his taste.

Cable TV has done nothing to promote a unified culture, but it has done a lot to further social, jaded and even brutal aberrations and to thereby erase the vestiges of the culture we once had (which is of course a big part of the implementation of the agenda for the “march through the culture” envisioned by Gramsci – and by others like him in the Frankfurt School who brought about the cultural revolution in the US, from where it then spread into all of the West and then to the rest of the world). It effectively legitimizes any social or moral aberration that is fit to be broadcast, with what is being fit for consumption being determined through constantly worsening and ever more degrading moral standards.

How will an FRM portal become an improvement on that? However, there will be one good outcome. It will be possible to eliminate all dissent amongst FRAs by sending every single dissenting group of like-mined individuals to a room of their own, right? However, how will that promote unity and a common and shared policy program to which every FRA is committed?

Ken is an outstanding FRA who has been and still is involved in some extremely important issues. It would hardly serve the FRM if Ken were to disperse his skills by quite possibly squandering them in promoting his scheme that most likely will at best do very little to promote unification of the FRM.

In the long run, FRAs matter very little and do nothing to help prevent the disappearance from view, within about four generations, of the cultural heritage (including the institution of the traditional nuclear family) that we had become accustomed to and even of the populations that once-upon-a-time adhered to that cultural heritage. We progressed from a culture catering to social progress to a culture of death.

I mentioned the pro-family movement of which virtually no FRAs want to have any part. That FRAs don’t is regrettable, because on account of that the pro-family movement is very much influenced by feminists and by feminists goals, doctrine and dialectics.

Now just a few words about current trends in social and political evolution.

The vast majority of FRAs is blissfully unaware of changes affecting those trends. Although feminist-imposed edicts addressing so-called women’s rights issues are very much a reality of every-day life, feminism has fallen into disrepute and is withering on the vine.

The feminist experiment with the family flopped and is one of the worst calamities that ever befell mankind. Our society is slowly waking up to that, even though that fact passes-by the vast majority of FRAs, instead of them taking advantage of that for the sake of the institution of the traditional nuclear family. One of the reasons for that is that many FRAs are in fact feminists or, if not, pursue the goals of feminism by actively or passively opposing the promotion of the traditional nuclear family.

That is an extreme irony. Restore the institution of the traditional nuclear family, and the status of men is automatically restored. That is nothing but common sense. It is reverse-social-engineering of feminism’s implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family.

The feminist movement is dead. All that remains of it now are crones who are nevertheless still very influential in the powerful positions into which they installed themselves in all sectors of society during the last few decades. They will die or retire and be gone. Their positions will be taken by powerful women, and by powerful men who suck up to those women.

Men in society in general will remain in the position of second-class citizens that the feminists (there are more male than female feminists) created for them over the decades. Ultimately it will be fathers who will be left holding the bag. They already are and increasingly will be the Pariahs of society.

In my view it appears that FRAs do absolutely nothing to prevent any of that from happening — web rings or not, Fathers Canada portals or not.

There is quite a bit more to all of this, as all of it must be contemplated within the context of public opinion, of what passes for public opinion (the media) and of how the latter influences the first. In a nutshell, interest groups control the media and the message with which the media indoctrinates the masses. Accordingly, the masses then elect their “representatives” who are in fact individuals that please the media and please the interest groups who control the media.

Solve that conundrum and you will be able to restore the status of men. The feminists did something exactly comparable by creating a solution to an alleged problem, the perception of a lack of status of women, and by usurping (and even by creating) controlling positions in the media and in all sectors of society (including the churches).

Again in a nutshell, feminists preached their message for centuries and for more than a hundred years dominated and controlled the media and the delivery of the message to the masses. It is now time for the FRM (through the Internet) to deliver a new message that becomes the dominant one for the masses.

Share on digg

“Lawyers lounge under the lampposts of jurisprudence, in the moral equivalent of plastic miniskirts and fishnet stockings, breathing, “Oh, ba-a-a-aybee, I’ll do anything for $250 an hour.”

The problem is that the rules of professional conduct are all but ignored by the legal profession including the judiciary that is ethically required to police attorneys and other judges. Policing unethical conduct is all but impossible and there is no financial profit in attorneys suing or prosecuting each other.

Supreme court rules require the trial of unethical behavior by attorneys by the state supreme court en banc. If the rules were enforced, the state supreme court would be doing nothing but hearing ethics violations. Little wonder that misrepresenting material facts with immunity is the stock and trade of attorneys. Public trial by a jury is just as appropriate for attorneys as any other criminal behavior.

Only when the unethical behavior receives media attention such as in the Duke Lacrosse prosecution by Mike Nifong is such unethical behavior effectively prosecuted. The ABA motto of “defending liberty and pursuing justice” has become little more than a public joke. The ABA is dedicated to nothing less than making work for its members by building on the law they make for themselves referred to as “case law” which is sufficient to fill a huge library and sufficiently contradictory to support any possible outcome. The most fundamental documents and the basis of law modern law such as the Magna Carta and the United States Constitution are ignored by the highest courts on a daily basis.

“To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.” – Magna Carta, Clause 40, 1215

Clauses 36, 38, 39 and 40 collectively defined the right of Habeas Corpus that remains to this day. Unfortunately, Clause 54 that says that “no man may be imprisoned on the testimony of a woman except on the death of her husband” has not found equal longevity.

“Justice” is sold daily by unethical attorneys motivated by nothing other than personal greed. Millions have learned how much “justice” they receive in family court when they fail to pay their attorney or the court appointed guardian ad litem. I recently witnessed a court appointed guardian ad litem attempt to extort her retainer from a parent. She threaten that parent would loose custody if she were not paid. The mother couldn’t pay and lost custody. When brought to the attention of the judge, he ignored the unethical behavior and awarded the guardian ad litem $3,200 for her efforts.

The late law professor Edmund Morgan often stated: “There is no proposition so absurd but that some judge, sitting on some bench, has at some time solemnly proclaimed it to be the law.” In addition, the words of Federal Judge William J. Campbell at a Chicago judicial conference are instructive: “guilt or innocence no longer has much to do with justice, since legal technicalities take precedence in court procedure.”

Although lawyers exploit many types of situations, domestic relations may be where they sin most. Easy fees draw lawyers to divorce like sharks to blood. It’s the same reason Willie Sutton said he robbed banks: “That‘s where the money is.” Bleeding people that care about their children is the name of the game. The divorce industry is a cash cow, comprising some 35% of civil litigation. But is that the end of the scam? I suggest that it is merely the tip of the iceberg with family law orders commonly written specifically to promoting more litigation and the resulting injustice simply motivates criminal behavior.

Someone must ask how many men unjustly treated in family court lose faith in our system of government and become anarchist engaging in all forms of criminal acts. Clearly if an attorney devoid of ethics can make money promoting family court injustice, why would they not see the advantage of making more work for prosecutors and defense attorneys? Our civilization is dependent on justice administered by ethical and righteous attorneys and judges.

The public must exercise control over the public servants that compose the judicial branch of our government, yet no such control exist. The judicial branch has done an excellent job of making its own rules prohibiting pubic scrutiny. Election of the judiciary or votes for retention after appointment offer no protection as the judicial acts are almost completely outside public scrutiny. The public only sees through the media what the court chooses to reveal. As long as the public perceives the courts as achieving the politically correct result, no one questions the legality of what goes on behind closed doors.

I checked the election results for judicial retention in the Kansas Tenth District about a decade ago and found that roughly twenty percent of the public voted to retain none and eighty percent voted to retain all sitting judges. The difference between the judges was less than three percent. The public has absolutely no rational way to judge the judges.

In that group of judges voted for retention were two that I had personal experience with. One was the best judge I have ever experienced and the other was the worst. The worst was quietly removed (forced to take early retirement without media attention) after twenty years on the bench acting as assistant prosecutor. I personally filed an ethics complaint against him. No attorney or any of his judicial peers had the guts to file a complaint against this judge. When I ask a public defender about how many of their clients got a fair trial before this judge, they responded, “NONE”.

His legal errs provide numerous attorneys the opportunity to make tens of thousands appealing his rulings. To this day, Kansas Congressman Dennis Moore brags at each election that when he was the county prosecutor in the Kansas Tenth District, he never lost a jury trial. It’s not too difficult when you can choose the judge hearing a given case and have a judge that believes he is an assistant prosecutor. Does anyone believe everyone District Attorney Moore charged with a crime was guilty?

How does the public regain some control over a self-serving and unethical profession?

The only way is to bring public awareness and media attention to the corruption is though cases such as the Duke Lacrosse Case. Far to many innocent without the financial resources of the Duke Students become victims of unethical prosecution. A little public media attention of the legal corruption will bring about legislation that will insure public prosecution and tiral of unethical attorneys and judges.

The Missouri Chief Disciplinary Counsel, Alan D. Pratzel, stated in a recent phone call that the judicial branch of government is “self policing” and outside the jurisdiction of other branches of state government. I pointed to the Duke Lacrosse Case where prosecution of Mike Nifong for ethics violations was very public by the Attorney General, a member of the executive branch of government, making clear that his legal argument didn’t hold water.

Nothing could be a more viable issue in the highly political campaign for state attorney general than prosecuting illegal attorney and judicial behavior. An attorney general opposed to enforcing legal ethics would never be elected. Making legal ethics a political issue will solve many of society’s greatest problems.

As the highest law enforcement officer of the state, the attorney general must be held accountable for enforcement of legal ethics. If the judicial branch wants to argue the point, the state legislature is free to enact legislation codifying the ABA Model Rules of Ethical Conduct as criminal statute law.

Share on digg

To clarify, the Normal distribution, or Bell Curve, is the limiting distribution of a random quantity which is the sum of smaller, independent random phenomena. A person’s mental traits satisfy the definition as they are the sum of many small random variations in genetic and environmental factors. The shape of the curve is a probability distribution centered on the mean or average and the width determined by the variability or deviation from the mean.

It seems appropriate that I add a few words not only to this audience, but in the next revision of Save the Males. I have recommended the following be added to Save the Males:

“The observed differences in the variability of traits between the sexes can be explained genetically. Many brain-related genes are located on the X chromosome, of which women have two copies and men only one. A mutation in one of these genes, whether positive or negative, will thus have a higher impact in males than in females (where the second, presumably non-mutated copy will mitigate the effect of the mutated one).”

It is important to note that this difference in variability between the sexes is of genetic origin and not environmental, and no amount of politically correct thinking can change the fact that there are significantly more very smart and very dumb men than women. It is sheer folly or wishful thinking to suggest that the smartest men can be replaced by equally smart women by any form of affirmative action. Replacing America’s smartest men with fifty percent women will simply result in more bad decisions and less progress.

As Save the Males includes my “artwork” shown below, it is appropriate to clarify that it is just that, artwork, and not the graphing of actual research data. It is intended only to illustrate the general concept common to numerous mental traits from IQ to moral character. The variability difference I graphically depicted is about two, but plots developed from actual data shown on a well referenced Wikipedia page entitled Sex and Intelligence indicate the difference of variance to be five making my artwork very conservative and under representing the actual differences in number at the deviation extremes.

The radical feminists have one thing factually correct: There are far more “deviant” men than women. Perhaps they should consider the “good” as well as the “bad and ugly” male deviants.

Nothing was intended to suggest that the horizontal axis labels are applicable to the same individuals, but rather as mental traits that follow a Normal or Gaussian distribution. No one is suggesting that there are not highly immoral individuals with high IQs or highly moral individuals with minimal IQs. The horizontal axis is actually plotting variability from the mean or average in spite of the labels.

The objective is simply to explain the common observation that more men are both smarter and dumber than women. Nothing herein suggest that that men are smarter than women on average, but only that when looking for the great minds capable of solving societies greatest problems, prudent recruitment would greatly favor men.

It is notable how politically incorrect it is to even suggest that there are more very smart men than women. Even at Harvard a rational and factual statement can cost one his job and promote a totally irrational response. From Wikipedia page entitled Sex and Intelligence I quote:

“In January 2005, Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, unintentionally provoked a public controversy when MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins leaked comments he made at a closed economics conference at the National Bureau of Economic Research. In analyzing the disproportionate numbers of men over women in high-end science and engineering jobs, he suggested that, after the conflict between employers’ demands for high time commitments and women’s disproportionate role in the raising of children, the next most important factor might be the above-mentioned greater variance in intelligence among men than women, and that this difference in variance might be intrinsic, adding that he “would like nothing better than to be proved wrong”. The controversy generated a great deal of media attention, forced Summers to make a number of apologies, and led Harvard to commit $50 million to the recruitment and hiring of women faculty.”

Fifty million sounds about right to recruit a coupe of women faculty with equivalent IQ’s and experience to best male faculty. It makes perfect sense to reject thousands of well qualified men to find a woman that is equally competent simply to be politically correct.

“You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.” – George Orwell

For a little humor and more information one must review the Pinker vs. Spelke Debate entitled The Science of Gender and Science. (That’s really the title. Using the word “science” twice makes it doubly scientific.) We have Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker, an admitted feminist paying homage to Gloria Steinem, with hair that would make his female opponent jealous arguing for the men and Harvard psychology professor Elizabeth Spelke, Co-Director of the Mind, Brain, and Behavior Initiative of Harvard arguing for the women.

Share on digg

“As the title implies, the book is a letter of warning to all Americans about the actions of the Bush administration and the threat these actions pose to our Constitution and our democracy. I hope that you will read this introduction and will be inspired to take action to help save our democracy.”

I happened to catch Ms. Wolf promoting her new book on To the Contrary a PBS show promoted as:

“To The Contrary, Public Broadcasting’s successful all-female news analysis series, is celebrating its 15th season on air. With women in the forefront of politics and on the cutting edge of national agendas, To The Contrary continues to provide an important, timely forum for women to discuss national and international issues and policies. It presents news and views that are rarely, if ever, available elsewhere on television.”

Of interest was Ms. Wolf’s comment that women are always afraid and men are likely equally afraid, continuing that the Bush Administration has put America on the track to become a Fascist state in her “Ten Easy Steps.” It was the first time I have heard a feminist acknowledge that women are by nature afraid and literally depend on government to protect them from everything, from the men in their lives to the right to defy reason and logic. The relationship between feminism and big government and the promotion of every liberal cause should be obvious deriving from the weaker sex natural and now acknowledged fear.

It is ultimate irony that our fearful feminists now proclaim a fear of what they have created; an oppressive government that that sees terrorist threat in every facet of life, from the five year old that make a finger gun, to the man that dares oppose their views. It’s equivalent to the wife that can not be pleased by a husband that follows his wife’s every demand.

For those that seek a true perspective on where the feminist leaders are going, I recommend To The Countrary.  Meanwhile, I’ll just stick with The News Hour.

Share on digg

I reviewed Patrick J. Buchanan’s recent article Is Terrorism a Mortal Threat? in which he effectively argues that Islamic terrorist are hardly the threat they are made out to be and that in spite of the unthinkable terrorist nuclear attack America would not be destroyed. Buchanan writes: “But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?”

I suggest the greatest mortal threat to our nation and Western civilization is the feminization of the society in general. Fear is a feminine characteristic that can and does paralyze society. It’s also the lack of the male risk taking characteristic. A feminized society responds to every problem with an emotional paralyzing response rather than a rational and logical solution.

More airport security and bomb proof trash cans in the subways are no solution to terrorist, yet they are the source of billion dollar Homeland Security spending to pacify a feminized state that is afraid of its own shadow. How can a rational man suggest that immigration is a mortal threat to this nation when we are a nation of immigrants?

Modern technology, medicine and weapons of war are inherently dangerous and the product of male risk taking, reason and logic, not feminine emotion and “wishful thinking”. Playing with DNA or fissionable materials is risky business and best left to the male rational mind.

Less than half the public have IQ’s over 100 and it takes IQ’s over 140 to effectively do modern science. When it comes to IQ’s over 160 very few men and far fewer women have it and they are the ones capable of great accomplishments. Recruiting female engineers and scientist is certainly suboptimal recruitment but is the response in our feminized society.

It makes sense only to a feminized society to promote diversity at MIT by admitting women with an IQ’s of 130 while rejecting men with IQ’s of 160. To make the campus truly diversified, we need to include a few with IQ’s of 50 or less don’t we?

It’s the loss of rational thinking and substitution of feminist emotion that are the greatest mortal threat to this county. Society is doomed when we live in Orwell’s world of 1984 where: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.”

It has become taboo to even suggest that men and women are distinctly different and equally important complements. One must promote androgyny and male female competition regardless of obvious physical differences in the genders. Perhaps the feminized psychologist will define a new entry in DSM V for men that suggest the necessity of male dominance. They must have a mental disorder.

We need not look to outside forces to destroy this great civilization, but the rather to the internal changes resulting from woman’s suffrage to find our mortal threat. Winston Churchill had the guts to say what the feminized males of modern society are afraid to say: “The women’s suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers, and husbands.”

Share on digg

I have a friend living in the State of “Misery” that subsequent to divorce was paying child support on two adopted step daughters well into their mid twenties as their mother continued to claim that they were enrolled as graduate students.  This man wasn’t as lucky as his parents, though not divorced, didn’t see fit to pay for his college education.  One must conclude that only children of divorce are entitled to a college “education” at parental expense.  

What could more of an outrage than to force a man to pay for his child’s graduate degree in Women’s Studies?

Yes, a few “men” are also today majoring in “women studies.”  It’s a fantastic curriculum to meet females according to one perpetual male student working on his fourth undergraduate degree appearing on the Dr. Keith Ablow show. 

No one, especailly attorneys, seems concerned that the Supreme Court (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972) has forbid the state from forcing the Amish to educate their children beyond the eight grade.  It is a parental right of “fit parents” to determine their child’s best interest, not the state’s and certainly not some feminist attorney looking for additional work. 

Least we forget, it was Adolf Hitler who urged that “the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people” and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that “as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.”  It is a page from the radical feminist playbook, in that an emotional argument will overcome rational thought and rule of law. 

Please share you opinions with Ms. Cynthia Fox, cfox@cynthiafoxlawyer.com, as she needs more family law business.    

Share on digg

Why even an avowedly liberal psychologist, Paul Irwing of the University of Manchester, writing in The Independent, unhappily confessed that there are twice as many men as women with IQs above 120 and 30 times as many over 170.

The lessons of The Bell Curve¹ apply to gender equally as they apply to race.  If we represent the number of men and women on the vertical axis, and traits on a horizontal axis starting with geniuses and saints on the left and moving to the villains and the drop-outs on the right we would get Gaussian distribution shapes with average traits in the center representing the majority of each sex. The premise being that human traits are random and follow a Gaussian distribution and areas under the curves are equal representing equal numbers of males and females.  See the depiction below contributed to by Eduard Bakalar, Ph.D of the Czech Republic and illustrated by Lloyd Selberg for MDA.

The flatter the curve, the greater the standard deviation from the average.  From the shape of the curves we conclude that men have a greater standard deviation than women making the extremes more probable.  At both the saints’ end and the sinners’ end men appear in reasonable numbers; women, on the other hand, hardly at all.  Professor Camille Paglia put it rather well when she said, “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack-the-Ripper.”  The Creator and Satan are both widely regarded as males.

This being the case, I often wonder why it is that big media, and particularly female writers and women’s magazines, consider mostly the right end of the men’s line, but concentrate almost exclusively on the left end of the women’s line.

So why it is that maleness and high achievement go so closely hand in hand?  Dr. Charles Goodheart at Gonville & Caius College, who has studied the difference in the results between the sexes for 16 years, states quite frankly that it is all a question of testosterone, the male hormone that gives men “forcefulness, aggression, ambition, originality and general push.”  Women underachieve because they convert the majority of this hormone to estrogens.  The same hormone that produces the yobo also produces the genius.  The higher male levels of testosterone with its associated mental effects clearly explain the greater deviations from the norm be it for good or for evil.  As both sexes produce testosterone as a precursor to estrogens in females and androgens in males, it should be obvious why gender could become ambiguous in abnormal cases.

1)      Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994), 845.

2)      Thanks to Rich Doyle and Mensdefense.org for permitting reprint of the above segment from his book Save The Males. 

Share on digg

In Summers’ words, “Preoccupied with their own imagined oppression, they are of little help to the women of the world who most need it.” 

If in the Western world where women rule democratically by majority vote, yet show little desire to use their power for good and righteous principles, one might question that religious teachings requiring women subordinate to men should apply. 

If American feminism is the natural product of promoting gender equality, then it may prove to be another case where man should have followed the scriptures rather than believing himself superior to GOD.    Ironically, it will take righteous men willing to die, not radical feminist, to help the women of the world who most need it. 

Summers suggest young women are offered a one-sided totally irrational, self-centered college education in self indulgence and self gratification based on “their own imagined oppression.”  While there is nothing new in such revelation, it receives little direct public attention. 

Imagine what would happen if young men were directly educated with the same doctrine.  In fact, they are indirectly being so educated by observing their female peer’s behavior.   Should this continue it’s only a matter of time until society becomes totally amoral and Western civilization fails.   

The reason modern society is preoccupied with the likes of Parris Hilton and Brittany Spears should be obvious as they are icons of female self indulgence and self gratification.   Radical Moslem males could make a good case based in Summers’ argument for suppressing female rights. 

Ms. Summers correctly points to the fact that that it is a significant minority of American women lead by the apparently amoral, irrational radical few that pervade our educational system and influence government decisions. 

Millions of righteous disenfranchised fathers are required by court order to pay for their daughter’s “feminist” college education in the name of “best interest of the child.”  Little wonder the Amish choose to limit their children’s education.  Given the central common theme of religion is, “Service to others, is service to GOD” the majority of young women are taught exactly the opposite.  What could be more sacrilegious?  

Seldom have I come to realize the extent of change that has occurred in the universities over the last couple of decades than by Summer’s essay.   The decade old following quote seems like déjà vu.   

“There are respected academics in women’s studies departments and elsewhere who argue that Jane Austen was a lesbian, that Beethoven’s ninth symphony is an anthem to rape, that mathematics and science are “phallocentric” disciplines ill-suited to “feminine ways of knowing,” and on and on.” – Mona Charen on progressive higher education.

It leaves one with six decades of life’s perspective to wonder whether today’s professors of women’s studies, promoting radical feminist agenda,  were too busy burning their bras in the sixties to have learned anything in a time when Orwell’s writings were mandatory reading:

“You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense.  No ordinary man could be such a fool.” – George Orwell

“Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” – George Orwell, 1984

Share on digg

Imagine the ramifications of a judge or prosecutor being found guilty of unethical behavior.  If they are found guilty of unethical behavior, it brings into question all previous cases they have handled.   

Each state creates its own bar sponsored disciplinary counsel answerable only to the Supreme Court to investigate and prosecute unethical attorneys.   Should the disciplinary counsel recommend prosecution for attorneys, such trials are quietly held before the Supreme Court in banc, not before public juries.  Talk about a case of the fox guarding the chicken coop, this is a classic.  

In a world where words mean only what judges say they mean, and skillful misrepresentation of facts is a time honored professional tradition, the public might confuse morality and ethics and the Bar will not hear of that.

As an example, consider the complaint I filed regarding a thirty-something married mini-skirted bimbo, licensed as an attorney, receiving more than one hundred guardian ad litem appointments from two forty-something male judges with awarded fees averaging $3,000 per case.   Apparently these judges don’t have a problem with having a prostitute effectively determining custody of children.  They didn’t care that she had lied under oath in open court.   

Ethics case law establishes that extramarital sex is not in and of it self grounds for disbarment.  Producing an eye witness to this bimbo’s extramarital office sex would not have disqualified her appointment in spite a female witness ready willing and desirous to testify.   

In most cases, it takes a lower court’s judicial determination of attorney misconduct to initiate an investigation and prosecution of an unethical attorney.    

While the office of disciplinary counsel freely accepts public complaints of unethical behavior, it equally freely tosses them in the trash refusing investigate or claims being too busy to investigate.   Common practice is to hold complaints for thirty to sixty days and claim to make an investigation but no investigator ever contacts the victim.   

I’ve had considerable experience filing numerous ethics complains on behalf of myself and others and never had any investigator contact me for additional information or evidence.   Even if one claims to hold forensic evidence of corruption, falsified court records admitted as evidence, no one investigates the evidence.  

Denial of a pro se litigant’s motions for evidentiary hearings to establish unethical behavior is common.  It simply is a way to insure the judge doesn’t have to report what he doesn’t know.   Judges regularly don’t go after Bar members for ethical violation in spite of clear and convincing knowledge of wrongdoing.   No attorney seeking to practice in a jurisdiction will file an ethics complaint against a judge knowing it will influence that judges actions in all cases tried before him. 

Other judges though aware of what is going on will also ignore the problem in spite of the fact that judicial ethics require that a judge report such unethical behavior. 

I was personally evolved in such a situation a decade ago and learned the extent to which even the good and honest members of the Bar look the other way.  I filed the original complaint against Judge Jerold Hougland, senior criminal judge (more than two decades on the bench at the time)  in the Kansas Tenth District that led to his forced retirement.   According to his court reporter, his court house nickname was Bozo. 

Everyone in the Kansas Tenth District and in Topeka knew of his reputation as a prosecutor judge, but no one did anything and the many resulting injustices remain today. 

Consider the legal consequences of Judge Hougland’s quiet, unpublicized removal.  His court reporter was still doing transcripts for appeal of his cases two years after he was removed.   It’s just more money for attorneys writing appeals and ancillary members of the legal profession.   When is the last time you heard of a wrongly prosecuted man recovering appropriate compensation for his incarceration or legal expense?    

The only one motivated to remove a bad judge, was the Clerk of the Kansas Appellant Courts and fortunately in Kansas, the position includes appointment as Secretary to Commission on Judicial Qualifications.   Removing one bad judge had a significant effect on the appellant Clerk’s work load. 

The most notable use of this corruption was by Congressmen Dennis Moore who made his reputation and began his political career as a Kansas Tenth District prosecutor.   

Unlike Mike Nifong, Dennis Moore has been rewarded for his unethical behavior.

At last election, Representative Moore repeated his claim of having never lost a jury trial while prosecutor of the most populace and wealthiest district in Kansas.  No one seems to realize that a fantastic prosecutor will have a conviction rate of 75 percent and a 100 percent conviction rate is all but impossible without the help of a corrupt judge.  Obviously all people charged with crimes are not guilty or we could simply save the state the expense of a trial.  

Representative Moore spends his days in the US Congress sponsoring bills to prohibit passport issuance to dead beat dads.  He knows this is a politically beneficial expenditure of his time.  As the readers of MND well know, deadbeat dads are leaving the country at rate equal to illegal immigrants entering and congressional action is necessary.  Misandry is a necessary element of political success in today’s feminist world. 

HAPPY FATHER’S DAY TO ALL. 

Share on digg

In The Republic, Plato wrote:

“The wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent. . . . The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter.”

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton observed:

“In short, the democratic faith is this: that the most terribly important things must be left to ordinary men themselves—the mating of the sexes, the rearing of the young, the laws of the state.”

Like Plato, modern-day utopian thinkers have always looked upon the parent-child relationship with suspicion at best, and more often as the crucial obstacle to ultimate state power over the individual. Respect for the autonomy of the family is as central to the democratic ideal as popular sovereignty. The democratic experiment is founded on an optimism in the ability of the people to manage their own affairs, in their capacity as citizens with authority over “the laws of the state,” and in their capacity as parents with authority over “the rearing of the young.” Therefore, restoring parental rights to its original firm foundation in U.S. constitutional law is crucial to the democratic ideal of citizenship.

Over the last century, the concept of family has been redefined subsequent the end of suffrage and enactment of the Civil Rights Act which legally mandated, “equality” for women. A patriarchal society has rapidly been replaced with a matriarchal society. Radical feminist, seeing patriarchal oppression everywhere, have waged a jihad against men and everything masculine using the state to promote matriarchy. The marriage contract is now meaningless. Marriage has become a sort of heterosexual lesbianism with the man as little like a man as possible while having complementary genitals.¹

By promoting divorce in the name of women’s liberation and establishing how the state determines custody in divorce, feminist seek to insure female control over the young, and thus over future civilization.

Men by nature don’t involuntarily subordinate themselves to women, especially women that insist on competing with men rather than accepting the immense benefits offered by male chivalry. While the lioness may be a ferocious hunter, the lion rules the pride. It would be a very foolish lioness that refused to do the grocery shopping and expected the state to force lions to do the grocery shopping or order take-out. Only an over-civilized fool would suggest that women can replace men yet it seems modern Western society is intent on defying nature and establishing an androgynous society.

For centuries, the family was the stable fundamental unit of society and fathers were the undisputed sole custodian of their children. Divorce was minimal under patriarchy and democratic civilization flourished. With the advent of no-fault divorce and the pervasive feminist notion that all women are victims of patriarchy, divorce has become the rule rather the exception. While some men may have abused their wives or children, it is far more the exception than the rule. Government statistics support the premise that the best anti-poverty, anti-crime program ever devised was traditional marriage.

It was Adolf Hitler who urged that “the state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people” and who explained, in the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, that “as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.”² It is a page from the radical feminist playbook, in that an emotional argument will overcome rational thought and rule of law based in Judaeo-Christian teachings.

The feminized state, in the name of benefiting children, has attempted to assume the role of fathers though welfare and support enforcement. Granting effective sole custody of the children to the mother, and reducing fatherhood to visitor status is not only bad government policy but contrary to the most fundament legal principals, religious teachings and in defiance of nature itself.

Few seem to understand that the reason a man marries is that he anticipates a chaste wife and inalienable children in return for his efforts to slay the daily dragons that make civilization possible and productive. Take away that motivation, especially his children and make him a financial slave to an ex wife in the name of his children and the very reasons we have modern civilization disappears.

Western civilization is the patriarchal product of good men seeking to protect their wives and children and is ultimately dependent on presumed father custody. Remove this motivation and men no longer act in a civilized manner and the result is evident everywhere in modern society.

Subsequent to suffrage and women’s liberation the state determined custody based on the so called “tender years doctrine,” insuring maternal custody. When government figured out that collecting child support was far easier when men have some legal custody, this was replaced by presumed joint custody and a “best interest of the child” criteria which greatly favors maternal residential custody and leaves fathers as weekend visitors.

By what authority does the state have the power to make such custody determinations? As parens patriae many incorrectly believe.

The state now grants a single judge the power to impose their will and beliefs on the parents by custody order on a completely subjective criteria supported by virtually unlimited discretion which generally supports political correctness rather than logic or legal science. How can the state make such a custody determination if the fit parents, fathers and mothers, have absolute equal Constitutional rights to control the rearing of the young?

When you think about a custody order, bear in mind that it’s very simple legal concept. A custody order is just an injunction.

We take parents who previously had unrestricted freedom, parents who previously had unrestricted access to their children, and now we enjoin them from exercising part of that prior right. The term “custody award” is a complete misnomer. The rule for dealing with injunctions in every other area of the law is, you impose the minimum restriction on the parties’ prior freedom. You put only the smallest imposition, the smallest restriction on them necessary to resolve the dispute at hand. You don’t go to a disruptive extreme.³ Rationally, the Court must protect parental rights including the continued involvement of both parents and impose only the minimum necessary restrictions just as we would do with any other kind of injunction.

In 2000, in Troxel v. Granville the Supreme Court determined that the state can not apply the subjective “best interest of the child” criteria contrary to the wishes of a presumably fit parent’s wishes.

If parental rights are Due Process Clause, Constitutional 14th Amendment liberty interest rights, as reaffirmed in Troxel v. Granville, then one must conclude the general concepts of injunctions must apply and both parents must be granted equal opportunities to direct the upbringing of their children. It is logically not in the state’s power to apply a “best interest of the child” criterion when determining custody in situations where there has been no showing that either parent is unfit or a danger to the children. It follows, unless the parents agree otherwise, a legal and physical shared 50:50 parenting is the only custody guaranteeing the Constitutional parental rights.

I posed this argument to the matriarch of family law, Professor Linda Elrod. She offered no rational objection, choosing to rather argue her belief that “children have rights.” I conclude that if scientist and engineers applied “legal logic” to natural laws, we would still be in the dark ages and if society continues to permit “legal logic” to control family law, society will return to the dark ages.

Not too surprising, divorce rates dropped when presumed joint custody became the de facto standard and will drop even more if legal and physical shared 50:50 parenting becomes the de facto standard.

The only appropriate questions regarding custody for the state should be determination if a parent is a fit parent. Judicial discretion regarding the subjective “best interest of children” criteria should no longer be an issue.

Any custody order differing from the 50:50 shared parenting must be by stipulation of the parents with appropriate support order and enforcement should be by criminal statute.

In general the best parent for any child is their two natural parents. If the end societal goal is to maintain Western civilization and produce responsible, productive, law abiding parents, then both mother and father must have equal rights to utilize their natural instincts to protect and nurture their children free of government influence promoting some unnatural utopian androgynous society.

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. Continued denial of father’s rights in family courts will lead to increasing male contempt for the law and ultimately to anarchy and a failed civilization. All of history has proven the surest way to provoke a male to violence is to unjustly deny his most fundamental natural rights.

Endnotes:
1) Thanks to Fred Reed for this fitting description of modern marriage.
2) Thanks to Steve Baskerville for this analogy to Hitler’s methods.
3) Thanks to Ronald Henry, for offering this legal argument on behalf of Children’s Rights Council in testimony before Congress in support of joint custody legislation for
District of Columbia more than a decade ago.

Share on digg