On May 25, 2006 Madison Tenn was illegally moved six states away from her Sacramento, California home by her mother, says dad Donald Tenn.  Since that time Shannon Phillips has committed fraud and perjury in two states, wasted thousands of tax-payer dollars and kept a little girl from her loving, stay-at-home, primary caretaker daddy, he adds.

Tenn is speaking out about his own case he says, because he’s facing 18 months in prison for a peaceful protest for parents rights.  He wants people to know the truth; that he and Shannon were happily married, “We never had domestic problems.  I’m not a violent person.  I believe in communication.  The police were never called to our home.”

My wife told me she was taking Madison to visit her relatives in Illinois . After she arrived she said she wasn’t coming back.  She wanted me to follow her.  I told her a decision like that should be made together.  I asked her to come home and  take six months to talk it over.  She refused.

Tenn says a friend who is an Illinois real estate agent called and told him Phillips and her mother had been looking at houses for sale.  Tenn explained to Phillips that she could stay in Illinois, but she needed to return Madison.  He says she refused.  What he did next, it seems, caused Phillips to set into motion the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) machinery that removes innocent parents, usually fathers, from the lives of their children.

I told her the law says she has to return Madison to California; that there are move-away laws that protect children from this sort of thing.

Tenn filed for an emergency ex-parte hearing.  It was a Friday. By the Monday morning hearing Phillips had declared to people at WEAVE in CA and DOVE in IL, and attorney Tony Nevarez that she feared Tenn.   Phillips was given a restraining order and returned to IL with Madison.

Wanting to keep their close bond, Tenn started sending Madison packages every few days with books, snacks, stickers and small toys.  At first he was allowed phone conversations with Madison by Phillips and her mother Kathy Waseen, but that didn’t last.

Fifteen months later, on October 19, 2007 Judge Peter J. McBrien had a hearing in Sacramento on Phillip’s request to extend the restraining order.  (case #06fl05871)

Judge McBrien stated that he did not believe Shannon.  He chastised her for illegally removing Madison from California.   He did not believe any of her testimony or renew the order.  He told Shannon to come to an agreement on parenting time or he would make a ruling that she wouldn’t like.

I wanted an equal parenting plan but agreed to every other weekend and 2 days a week. I remember Judge O’Brien said, ‘This father will be immediately reunited with his daughter.  I am ordering his first visitation for 2 days from today, Sunday the 21st of October.’  He asked if I could be in Illinois on that date and I stated I certainly would be.

Tenn flew to Illinois and was at Phillip’s mother Kathy Waseen’s house in Bethany for the prearranged exchange.  It didn’t go smoothly.

Shannon kept pulling Madison away from me in order to instill fear in her, as if Madison should be concerned. Her mother Kathy Waseen interfered by taking Madison away from the car for as many as 10 minutes.  Finally, I stated that this parenting time belonged to Madison and I and that we needed to go as our time was limited.

Then Phillips said something that no one expected from the woman who had claimed so much fear of Tenn that she couldn’t return to California.

Shannon suggested that she come along with Madison and I and we all visit together. I was shocked.  I told her that would not be possible.

What Phillips and Waseen didn’t realize was that with two cameras rolling, Tenn got the entire incident on tape.

Continued in parts two and three.

Dedicated to Madison website

I discovered, as have many parents, that if my relationship with my child is challenged by a former spouse or even a social worker — my child and I have no right to family. A trial may occur, but there will be no jury of my peers. A lone judge will decide what’s in the “best interest” of my child.

I’ve come to believe we have a Civil Right to be presumed FIT & EQUAL parents to our children, unless you are convicted in a criminal court of being a demonstrated threat to your kids. Good, average, and poor parents are all FIT & EQUAL parents.

I welcome your thoughts on the rationale I present below to defend this statement.

Why this strong presumption? Because one foundation of morality is the supremacy of individual conscience – what many know as “let your conscience be your guide.” What more important natural obligation does any parent have than to care for their own kids? To be present in their lives in the many roles that only a parent can fill.

Reference From the Vatican web site:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
1778. Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right….

1782. Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience….”

A second precept says any law which stops us from acting according to a “well formed” conscience is immoral. Is it any wonder parents and children unjustly separated find it one of the most painful and disruptive experiences of their lives?

Fit parents should decide what’s in the best interest of their child. Some think a distinction should be made between good, average, and poor parents. But how can we make a single determination in a multifaceted and dynamic relationship? Like most of us I have mixed feelings about what my parents chose for me. Times I knew they made mistakes, times when I would have preferred one over the other. I saw our relationship change as I matured, but we all grew together as family through good times and bad.

Only the bad parent should be excluded, one who threatens the safety of their child with malintent. Society justly intervenes for those who seek to destroy the relationship. There would be no potential for growth. This would be a serious crime prosecuted in a criminal court.

In the vast majority of cases parents would be free to establish parenting time as they desire. While negotiating a custom schedule, a default standard would alternate physical custody on a weekly basis. Both parents would share legal custody and would alternate “tie breaker” authority on an annual basis. What would all this mean?

A single judge acting alone could not issue an order that destroys a family. The animosity and terrible waste of resources that goes into Family Court battles about which parent is “better” would be eliminated. Mediation services would be more effective when dealing with equal parents. Children would benefit from regular contact with both parents. Community resources could be better focused on identifying and prosecuting the few bad parents that exist and protecting children.

If we look through our history, the recognition of basic Civil Rights has resulted in some disruption and change — but overall they have strengthened our society. Our nation has seen an explosion of well- intentioned Family Law in the last 40 years. It is now time for a Federal Family Rights Act that will recognize and protect our ability to raise and nurture our own children.

As described in Jailed parent Amir Sanjari has refused food for two weeks Sanjari, an Iranian-born British citizen has faced injustice and corruption throughout his ordeal. His website CorruptUSJudicialSystem has background information.

In a recent call from the Elkhart County jail Sanjari says his civil rights are still being violated.  “Before this call, I wasn’t allowed to use the phone for 12 days,” he said.

At one time Sanjari and his ex-wife shared equal custody and had similar incomes, yet he was ordered to pay $1,000 a month in child support.  When he lost his job and applied for a reduction, it was denied.  His ex-wife won sole custody of the children, he says, by lying about him while he was out of the country on vacation.

From the same jail where a man doing community service work was trapped inside a cell for over 12 hours, Sanjari says the child support system is a conspiracy.  “It’s fraud,” he explained, “They’re lying in order to criminalize [non-custodial parents] to force them to pay the money.  They get away with it,” he says, “because people don’t ask questions.”

Sanjari says there is no due process.  “I asked Judge Bonfiglio to recuse himself because I’ve sued him in Federal court in the past, but he refused.”  He says he’s powerless while people at the jail make problems for him.  “They delayed my paperwork,” he said, “so it couldn’t be filed.”  He says the prosecutor is playing dirty too.  “They refused to recognize that I was representing myself,” he explained, “so they wouldn’t have to share information and evidence with me.  The court had to order them to do it.”

In an attempt to draw attention to the human rights violations that separate parents from their children and turn them into criminals, Sanjari hasn’t had any solid food since March 26, the day he was arrested.  Once a thin but healthy 150 lbs, Sanjari now weighs about 115.  He says he drinks nutritional supplements for the potassium and sodium, to keep his brain functioning normally.

A pre-trial hearing was held on the 22nd, with another scheduled for Oct. 29.  Sanjari’s trial for nonsupport of a dependent child and contempt will be November 9 at Superior Court 6, 315 S. 2nd St, Elkhart, IN.  (case # 46516)  Sanjari, who spent his time helping other parents with their cases while he was on the run, hopes parents dealing with the family court system and child support collections will come to his trial to show their support.  (MAP)

Amir can receive mail:

• Dr. Amir Sanjari
• ID # 106395
• Medical Unit – MI – A11
• 26861 County Road 26
• Elkhart, IN 46517

Subscribe to my family rights articles by email or RSS or:

Recent articles:

• Activist Murtari resumes You’re a Parent Notification Act campaign in Lyons
• Texas denies male victims of domestic violence
• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Tortured for child support
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400

Recent SF Family articles:

• Make these pet costumes for little or no money
• Serve the family healthy hearty stew for ten bucks
• Thursday’s Shake Out drill, family earthquake education
• Energy conservation requested after fallen transmission tower, storm
• Cheap costumes and Antioch’s free costume exchange Wed
• Visit these Bay Area haunted houses
• Halloween freebies for kids and pumpkin stencils
• Thrill the World announces six Bay Area locations for breaking world record
• Halloween decorations: shrunken head apples to electronic displays
• Mom asks Bay Area community to help find missing son

1.  Know your parental rights.

You don’t have any.

Nor does any other parent. Parental rights belong to the child, not to the parent.

You have parental responsibilities, and the powers and authorities essential for discharging those responsibilities. These are not “rights,” in the conventional sense, in that you are not “allowed” to use these powers and authorities, if and when you so choose. You are required to use them, on behalf of our child, at all times.

2.  Know your child’s parental rights.

Your child’s parental rights include your best efforts to enforce those rights. That includes, among other things, putting your child’s needs and interests first. Not yours.

Your child’s parental rights also include liberal access to, and quality parenting from, both parents. Unless you or your co-parent is unfit, your parental responsibilities include your best efforts to enforce these parental rights, as zealously as you would any other.

3.  Know how to discuss parental rights.

Similarly, your purpose for discussing your child, with your co-parent, with the Court, or with your lawyer, is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Not yours.

Discussing your own needs and interests, rather than those of your child, suggests that you assign little or no importance to your child’s welfare whenever it is inconvenient for you to do so.

Check your needs and interests at the door.  Do not discuss them. Do not refer to them. Do not even mention them.

4.  Know who “owns” your child.

You do not own your child.

Lincoln freed the slaves. Since then, human beings may not “own” other human beings. Even if they are parent and child.

Indeed, if anyone owns anyone, your responsibilities to your child suggest that your child owns you, not vice versa.

5.  Know the relationship between your child’s welfare and yours.

Your welfare is crucial to your child’s welfare.

That means you have a duty to your child to be as strong, happy and healthy as is possible. To do otherwise will decrease your ability to show up as a parent, and will set the wrong example for your child to follow later.

Hence, protecting your child’s parental rights absolutely requires protecting your health and welfare, to the wall. You cannot put your child’s interests first, unless your health and welfare allow you to do so.

6.  Know your options for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.

You have two options: Negotiation and litigation.

Here is the answer to many of your most complicated questions: There are two ways, and only two ways, to get anything done for your child. They are:

(a) You attempt to convince your co-parent agree to it; or,

(b) You attempt to convince the court to order it.

There are no other options. Ever.

7.  Know the Eight Magic Words essential for acquiring and enforcing parental rights.

If you remember nothing else from this article, remember to use these eight magic words, religiously:

“This is in our child’s best interests, because . . .”

Every argument, suggestion, position or perspective that you and your lawyer advance, either to the court or to your co-parent, must begin with these magic words.

Arguments that do not begin with these words will have zero merit or relevance. They will also kill your credibility as a concerned parent. Throw them out now, save everyone else the trouble, and save yourself the embarrassment.

8.  Know how to label your child.

You should refer to your child in only the following ways: (a) “Our child;” (b) “Our son” (c) “Our daughter;” and, (d) By your child’s first name.

Let’s make very sure that we clearly understand the following, key concepts: (a) “Children” are “persons,” not “property;” (b) “Persons” have rights and interests. “Property” does not; and, (c) “Children” need constant access to, and parenting from, both parents. “Property” does not.

If you refer to your child as “my” anything, it will suggest the following:

(1) You believe that your child is an item of mere property, that you somehow own, rather than a sovereign human being for whom you are responsible; or,

(2) You are unable or unwilling to recognize how essential it is to the child to have constant access to, and parenting from, the other parent; or,

(3) Both of the above.

When referring to your child, always use the options suggested above to avoid this problem.

9.  Know how to choose the right attorney.

You owe it to your child to choose an attorney that thoroughly understands and adheres to these concepts.

Your job is to protect and to promote your child’s rights and interests. Your attorney’s job is to help you to do that. If your attorney is not helping you to put your child first, find another attorney who does.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Attorney Dean M. Schreyer is licensed to practice in California, and serves as a staff attorney at Men’s Legal Center in San Diego. To find out more about either Mr. Schreyer or Men’s Legal Center, please go to: www.menslegal.com.

The material on this document is intended for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal or other professional advice for any purpose. No attorney/client relationship, and no confidential relationship of any kind, is formed by reviewing or using this material in any way, or from any direct or indirect contact with any attorney arising from that review or use. If you need legal or other professional services, consult with the appropriate, competent attorney or other professional.

• It shall be the duty of a parent to notify the other parent upon the birth of a child.
• This notification shall occur within 30 days of the event.
• The State will maintain a registry of notifications.
• If the birth event is witnessed by medical or other health professionals they will assist in making sure notification is completed.

PHOTOS OF MURTARI’S CHALK MESSAGES

Murtari has been communicating with Oaks and his staff since May of 2006 about introducing the bill, but he hasn’t gotten very far.   He explains, “They are all very nice people, but right now [Oaks] feels there would be strong political risk in such a Bill and will not introduce it. ”

Saying he’s willing to go to jail to bring attention to the lack of respect for parental rights, Murtari plans on ramping up his peaceful protesting. “I’ll be writing with sidewalk chalk on Monday,” he said, “but this time I’ll be outside the police station.”  (Village Offices at 76 William Street, at 2 PM.)  Murtari says he expects to get arrested, and he’d like to have other parents join him.

Murtari is best known for being fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days during a peaceful protest while incarcerated for child support he says he never owed.  He was interviewed at that time by news channel 10 and film producer Angelo Lobo.  Murtari can be seen in the documentary SUPPORT? System Down trailer.  He says he gave a preview of the movie to Oak’s staff.

SUPPORT? SYSTEM DOWN TRAILER

When asked why he is willing to sacrifice his liberty for family rights he replied with these words:

“Do we remember that for the majority of “written” human history: slavery was a norm, there was no freedom of religion, no real democracy.  The “early promoters” of modern freedoms were persecuted and killed.  They just didn’t “get it.”  But BIG change did happen.

We think we have “arrived” in our modern time.  That “all Civil Rights” are recognized, but in the near future folks may look back and say, “Can you believe how it was back then, just because you separated — you weren’t an equal parent anymore!  Barbarians!”

Again, again, and again I have to go back to Civil Rights history. The GREAT rights are defined by the sacrifices people made to achieve them. All the GREAT Civil Rights were made manifest by the will of the people — not defined by some Court.

By it’s very nature, sacrifice is not a contract.  You give up this and you will gain that. That would make it easy.  Sacrifice is you give up this and then maybe, maybe, you will gain that?  But always – you gain satisfaction & self respect & peace.  ”They told me to move to the back of the bus in my kid’s life — but I said, ‘No.’  They had to carry me and hold me down.”

Sacrifice – no GREAT CIVIL RIGHT has been won by talk alone, nor with a guarantee of success. In the 50s a Black who peacefully participated in a rally against segregation stood a good chance his home could be burned down by the Klan. At a recent parent’s meeting I asked those assembled if they would attend a Rally for Family Rights, if it meant a chance they would lose their homes/job — not one hand went up…”

“Nonviolent resistance … is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice.  Consequently, the believer in nonviolence has deep faith in the future …[and] can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship.” — Martin Luther King

http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm

Original article

Related:

• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• More articles on John Murtari
• SUPPORT? System Down
• akidsright.org

Recent family rights articles:

• Texas denies male victims of domestic violence
• Child support torture victim claims hidden bloody evidence
• Tortured for child support
• Feminist DV service providers fight for cash and control, not equality
• Fathers 4 Justice announce support of CT father on hunger strike
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400

Recent SF family articles:

• Make these pet costumes for little or no money
• Serve the family healthy hearty stew for ten bucks
• Thursday’s Shake Out drill, family earthquake education
• Energy conservation requested after fallen transmission tower, storm
• Cheap costumes and Antioch’s free costume exchange Wed
• Visit these Bay Area haunted houses
• Halloween freebies for kids and pumpkin stencils
• Thrill the World announces six Bay Area locations for breaking world record
• Halloween decorations: shrunken head apples to electronic displays
• Mom asks Bay Area community to help find missing son

Bardes, ex-wife Betsy and teen daughter Allie describe the co-parenting lifestyle they and Allie’s brother David now enjoy in Tortured for child support arrears, he didn’t owe – part five.

Today he says that while he lay bleeding in the infirmary after a beating by deputies in the Charleston County Jail, he used his blood to write the letter “L” (his school letter) on a small piece of paper, folded it up, then hid it.

Bardes thinks authorities will try to find and destroy the paper.  He points out that it’s proof that he was bleeding while in that room.  “Then you have to ask, ‘why?,”  he says.

When asked if he’s worried it will be found before he can get to it he replied, “They’ll never find it.”

Tortured for child support arrears, he didn’t owe – part five

A lot of noncustodial parents complain about government child support collection.  Many of them have personal horror stories to go with their disdain.  None so far have topped the story of David A. Bardes.

As described in parts one, two, three and four Bardes was tortured in a South Carolina jail for child support arrears he did not owe.  Bardes spent 32 and a half hours in a hypothermic chamber jail cell.  That’s 31 and a half hours longer than international terrorists have to endure, according to Bush’s torture memo.

One question that hasn’t been answered is what about Bardes’ ex-wife?  What part did she play in this?  Betsy Bardes reluctantly agreed to a phone interview, and the result is both interesting and heartwarming.

Most of what this pair shared is similar.  Betsy says she feels guilty, but blames her attorney, who she said was rude towards her and “was out to get David.”  There are parts of the story where their realities differ.  Instead of going into detail, since it’s the the typical “he said, she said,” this part of the story is about redemption.

At one point shortly after Bardes was released from jail this couple decided to put their children first.  Who initiated this peace offering is unclear.  But what is obvious is that they are now successfully co-parenting.

“David and I were at holy war,” Betsy told me.  “And the kids were fighting all the time.”  The children weren’t getting positive guidance because the parents were spending all of their energy fighting each other.  And now?  “We function as the perfect marriage, where he lives in his house and I live in mine,” she replied, “and the kids get along great.”

David Sr. has custody of son David Jr, 15, while Betsy has custody of daughter Allie, 14.  They live four miles apart.  What makes these parents really unique is that even though they are not romantically involved, they’ve chosen not to date others.  They don’t want to burden their children with additional parent figures, at least while the children are minors.

David adds, “The laws and treatment of men are so bad (and I got hit by all of them) that I am not going to date anyone.  Any American male would have to be crazy to ever date, and God forbid, sire children with an American female.”  He adds, “Am I jaded?  Obviously yes, with good reason though.  Now what would happen if I met and fell absolutely in love with a woman?  Then, I guess, it’s all out the door. So I can’t say that I am going to remain single for life, but that is the current plan.”

Maybe what makes their co-parenting easier is that Betsy and David started their relationship and fell in love when they were just 13 and 15-years-old.  David says, “We have a lot of history together.  Yes, the kids will be off on their own in a few years, but Betsy and I will remain just as close, hang out together, travel finally.”

This family shares dinner three times a week, on average.  They even vacation together.  The accompanying photo shows the family swimming with dolphins during a recent week-long cruise to the Bahamas.

One might wonder what all of this means to the children.  Allie agreed to share her views.  “Compared to my old life, shared parenting is not just one of the best things that has happened, it is THE best thing that has ever happened to my family,” she stated.

It wasn’t easy prior to her parents’ unity.  Allie explained, “Life was so hard trying to balance things out with two parents that could not even talk to one another without arguing.  It took a toll on my brother and I for many years.”  “I was so confused.  I would ask my friends things like, ‘What is it like to wake up and have your Dad and your Mom say good morning and then go to work?,” she went on, “I have and never will know what it is like to wake up with my mother and father in the same house, married.  Divorce is a rough thing, it is unfair and unjust.”

David said, “Shared parenting is really, really good for the kids.  They thrive under it.  Both kids are healed and excelling.  Because of the sacrifices Betsy and I have made together, our kids have the next best thing to having a real mom and a real dad, we are just not under the same roof.  What we are giving our kids is their ‘childhood.’  They will grow up with the knowledge and experience of having both parents there being for them 100% of the time.”

Betsy says, “If you put all of your energy and priorities on the children, then everything works out.”  Allie, who maintains a straight A average in school adds, “I will never wake up with a mom and a dad under the same roof married.  But since the shared parenting, I can wake up with both parents having a cup of coffee and laughing like friends. I would have it no other way.”

Original article.

Subscribe to my national family rights articles by email or RSS or:

Coleman was convicted without any physical evidence or witnesses, only his wife’s testimony.  Fathers & Families’ Robert Franklin, Esq. wrote about another questionable rape case, “This is the way the American judicial system works. It’s aimed at putting people in prison and does so with ruthless efficiency. Most of those people committed the illegal acts they’re charged with. But that same system can be equally ruthless when an innocent person finds himself on the conveyor belt that begins with a charge, runs through court and ends in prison.”  (Duke II?, 7/12/09)

Friends questioned the quality of his legal representation after Coleman didn’t testify in his own defense.  Michael Gannon, Coleman’s defense attorney had his license to practice law suspended two years later, yet Coleman hasn’t been allowed to have a retrial.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut is assisting Coleman, a British citizen, in regard to his force-feeding. Patrick Doyle, education program manager for the ACLU-CT told the New Haven Advocate that after the first procedure Coleman was sneezing up blood and was covered in vomit.  Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program wrote that “brutally force-feeding” Coleman violated his basic human rights and his right to make a political statement by refusing food.

Coleman told Fathers 4 Justice board member Donald Tenn that he doesn’t need to be strapped down for hours each day.  (See Abducted child’s father faces prison for peaceful protest to learn more about Tenn.) Tenn says Coleman’s case is an example of why Fathers 4 Justice has a “No Jail For Being A Dad” Campaign.

Coleman is one of many parents who choose this form of protest.  John Murtari of akidsright.org was fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days after refusing to eat or drink voluntarily while incarcerated for child support arrears in NY.  Murtari traveled to Illinois recently for the showing of Angelo Lobo’s documentary SUPPORT? at the Peachtree Film Fest.

False accusations of rape are not uncommon, evidenced by recent news stories:  Women held for blackmailing man [with false rape claim] 9/29/09, False rape accusations forces gay U.S. Soldier to out himself 9/29/09, Nanuet woman accused of making false rape report 9/29/09, Rape accusation traumatizing, former suspect says 9/18/09, Woman charged with filing false rape report after road rage incident 9/10/09, Woman faces charges for false rape claim 9/4/09, as well as high profile cases like the Duke lacrosse case and the alleged gang rape that turned out to be consensual sex at Hofstra University.

Bill’s brother Geoff told the Advocate, “Shame on the people who have violated [Bill's] rights, his mind and his body, shame on a justice system that fails the very people it sets out to protect.”  Coleman’s supporters are having a rally at the prison today from 11 am to 6 pm.

After speaking with Coleman and his ACLU attorney, Tenn who is best known for protesting 4 days on a 175′ crane during a thunderstorm (cnn news report) and helping UK Fathers 4 Justice activists climb the Lincoln Memorial to hang a banner in support of America’s fathers is convinced Coleman is innocent.  Tenn announced in a press release yesterday that he’s currently traveling to Connecticut to meet with him.  Rumors are buzzing, but whether we’ll see another high profile peaceful protest for family law reform is yet to be seen.

Rally in support of Bill Coleman

October 2, 2009

11 am to 6 pm

MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution

1153 East Street South

Suffield, Connecticut 06080

Bill Coleman’s Statement of Protest

I, Bill Coleman, in September 2007, stopped eating solid food as a form of protest. I am protesting a broken judicial system that is incapable of providing justice as well as protesting the State of Connecticut assisting in the abuse of my children. The system has failed my children and me and I have communicated this in several forums, including in court. My case in not an isolated incident; countless others have been subjected to the injustice of the judicial system. Innocent people do not belong in prison and I now just want to be left alone to protest. Force-feeding me by inserting a tube through my nose into my stomach against my will violates all medical and international law. Furthermore, I am not demanding anything from the Department of Corrections or the judicial system. I want to make very clear that my goal is not to detrimentally affect the order of the prison or Department of Corrections, and it would be disingenuous for anyone to suggest that my actions would.

I also want to make sure it is clear that my protest is not a reflection of the Connecticut Habeas Unit. They are good people doing a good job by fighting against an increasing amount of injustice in the system. The system is broken and corrupt and is also void of any moral or ethical values for the truth. This is further exacerbated because those incarcerated are not offered rehabilitation, which is no more than a token gesture, thus making society a more dangerous place on a daily basis. This is compounded by politicians and legislators putting blame on everyone and everything other than themselves, where it belongs. More laws and longer sentences are not the answer. What Connecticut citizens should know, even if they don’t care about my children and me, is that they are one ‘falsely accused’ arrest themselves away from my nightmare. Make no mistake, your arrest is your conviction in the State of Connecticut.

What surrounds my conviction is filled with suspicious wrongdoing of many types. Having explored every avenue, to save my children and prove my innocence, I now believe the system is not an option for the truth to come out and I choose to fight to the maximum with my life. I do not want to die, but I am willing to die. Force feeding only prolongs death as my organs, after a period of time, will eventually give out. This means the DOC will have to force feed me until my death. Instead of letting me continue my protest the State is wasting valuable resources to temporarily prolong my life for only an undetermined short period of time. These resources should be spent on a better cause such as an investigation of the corrupt judicial system which would help not only me, but also others who have been wronged.

Finally, I forgive those who have wronged me and I ask forgiveness especially to those I have troubled. My family, friends and supporters vowed to never stop until my children are saved and what surrounded my case and conviction is exposed. For this, and more, I give them my eternal love and gratitude and to the Lord “I commend my spirit.”

• Fathers 4 Justice
• Bill Coleman Innocent Man Wrongfully Convicted
• Tenn’s Dedicated to daughter Madison website

More family rights articles:

• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• Tortured for child support
• MA getting closer to equal parenting via HB 1400
• Dirty little secrets of domestic violence programs
• Family Rights 101: Why is there a fathers rights movement?
• Family Rights 101: Where can I learn more and hear victim stories?

He had never been married to or even cohabiting with the boy’s mother. The two had a brief affair and when the mother had the baby in 1987, she told Hatley that the baby was his.

A couple of years later, the mother applied for and received public assistance. The state demanded reimbursement from Hatley who agreed to make those payments believing the boy was in fact his son. In 2000, DNA tests showed that Hatley was not the biological father. A court ordered that Hatley be relieved of any obligations for future support of the boy. However, this order did not relieve him of the back payments owed when it had been assumed he was the father so Hatley continued making those payments from the money he earned at his job of unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers.

In 2007, Hatley was laid off from his job. Unable to afford housing, he lived out of his car. Nevertheless, he continued to make child support payments to the state out of his unemployment benefits.

However, he fell behind in his payments, was found in contempt of court and jailed. He was recently released because he is indigent. Soon after his release, a judge relieved him from any obligation to pay the support on which he was in arrears – but which he never should have owed in the first place.

It is good that Hatley is free and relieved of any future financial obligations in the case. However, this does not rectify the injustice that he has suffered. It does not return the money he already paid out of his extremely limited funds nor does it make up for the thirteen months he spent in jail.

The Hatley case illustrates a crying need for an overhaul of the child support system. Firstly, there is the fact that poverty is not a defense against the failure to pay child support. Even if the child had been his, the facts are that Hatley was unable to adequately support himself and did not have the money to support the child. However, the law took a jobless, penniless man living out of his car to jail for not making child support payments. This is a modern day version of the old Victorian horror of debtor’s prison.

People should not go to jail in 21st Century America just for being poor – but Frank Hatley did and so have many others.

Of course, the case began because of a misidentification in paternity. Many observers would criticize the mother as a liar and see her as someone who should be prosecuted for what is often called “paternity fraud.” I do not. The mother was there at the time of the conception but it is unlikely that she was taking notes. Human memory is extremely fallible and this fallibility is exacerbated by the emotionality of questions involving sex and reproduction. Given these truths, a DNA test should be routinely taken before paternity is assigned. If the DNA test is negative, a man could still voluntarily agree to assume the role of the father – with the financial responsibilities incurred as a result – but it would be his free and informed choice.

That we need to fix this system is obvious when a man has been treated as a criminal and jailed for failing to provide money he does not have for a child who is not his.

Producer/director Angelo Lobo says he made SUPPORT? System Down to, “give a voice to millions suffering through custody battles and losing sight of their children, in many cases forever!”

The film is educational and provocative, and Lobo hopes to spark a call to action.  He insists that reform is much-needed in the family courts.  “How is it that society accepts the idea of ’standard visitation’ which often allows children of divorce or separation to see their beloved parent, usually fathers but sometimes mothers, only 4 days a month, if that? It’s not enough time,” said Lobo.

One recent child support case reported on CNN (8/11/09) supports the film’s premise that something is seriously wrong with the system. Georgia’s Frank Hatley spent a year in jail for owing back child support reimbursement although he is childless. The system knew that Hatley was not the father, yet incarcerated him anyway. Hatley was recently released from jail after his case came to the attention of a human rights group who intervened on his behalf.

SUPPORT? includes interviews with parents, professionals, family rights advocates and equal parenting activists like New York’s John Murtari of akidsright.org.  After refusing to eat or drink voluntarily while incarcerated for child support arrears, Murtari was fed via Nasal-Gastric tube for 123 days.  The film also includes Harry Crouch of the National Coalition for Men, California Men’s Centers and PaternityFraudDNA, Glenn Sacks of Fathers & Families in MA and yours truly.

Murtari, who watched the film with Karen DeCrow when it played in New York and who plans on attending the Atlanta showing says, “Karen DeCrow [Syracuse area, former President of NOW], who I believe is one of America’s legendary feminist icons, will appear in the new documentary movie Support? System Down expressing the views of millions of Americans.  We have a serious problem of our families being torn apart by a broken system in Family Court.”

Crouch said, “During the production of this film the producer, Angelo Lobo, was rejected from court houses, refused interviews, and even threatened. It appears a concerted effort has been to suppress his film too, though I trust the film’s showing in the Atlanta Film Festival will be the first of many showings regardless of political pressures to bury the truth about the family (in)justice system.”

You can see SUPPORT? System Down at Underground Atlanta’s Event Loft this Satuday, September 26 at 4:00 pm.  A single film viewing pass is just $3.99.  Buy your ticket here.  MAP Due to the recent flooding in the Atlanta area I’ve included this road closure map.

Watch the movie trailers HERE.

Subscribe to my family rights articles by email or RSS.

• Tortured for child support – part one
• Tortured for child support – part two
• Tortured for child support – part three
• Tortured for child support – part four
• Dirty little secrets of domestic violence programs
• Abducted child’s father faces prison for peaceful protest
• Family Rights 101: Why is there a fathers rights movement?
• Family Rights 101: Where can I learn more and hear victim stories?
• Parental alienation information and support
• Equal custody advocates offer help to unmarried and divorcing parents

Part one

Part two

Part three

“I began to lose parts of my memory. I was trying to “think” of things and events to keep my brain alive, but each time I thought of something it would disappear with a snap. I was losing memories at an increasing pace. I knew the end was near and I thought of my two children.

Then the memory of my son disappeared and my last thought of my life was of my daughter. I held onto my daughter until the end. My respirations were shallow and my heartbeats had slowed. I slipped into hypothermic coma, a death-like condition that occurs before bodily death.”

Left for two days without food, water and bedding, he says there were four changes of the guard who kept him locked in that cold cell, noting, “each made the decision, or was given orders, to not let me out.”  On the third day, April 5, at 3:30 am Bardes was saved.  He describes how two unknown sheriff deputies rescued him.

“They had badges on. It was dark, but I was brought back from the dead with a faint voice saying over and over again, “What is your name? Who are you?” I could not answer them because I did not know.

One was on top of me with his hand around my neck, as if he were taking a pulse. The other said, “Shit, we have to get him out of here.” Someone had removed my ID armband, why I have no idea. The one guy came back and told me my name was David Bardes; it did not register. I was totally out of it, but still alive, barely.”

Bardes was taken to an older area, placed on a floor mat and covered with a blanket.  At 6:00 am he had new guards who didn’t know what happened early.  Apparently, Bardes says, he was causing a problem because he didn’t know his name or have his ID armband, was in street clothes, and he couldn’t stand or move his limbs.

“As I was on the ground the guards beat me and kicked me with their boots. They kicked me in the head, arms, torso, and legs. They kept saying “Get up! Stand up,! What is your name?” A large man reached down and grabbed me under the arms and hoisted me into the air and said, ‘Stand up!’”

Eventually the guards realized that something was wrong and got a wheel chair.   Bardes remembers a female guard’s voice saying, “I’ll tazer yo ass, and then we see whoz getz in dat chair.”

A large male guard strapped him in and he was taken to the hospital ward.  But things didn’t improve.  They put a suicide gown on Bardes and dropped him onto the floor of a suicide watch room.

“I was wracked with the pain of warming up quickly. They left me in pain on the floor for another day. As I lay on the floor of the suicide watch room still alive, my body was technically in critical condition. I was suffering from ventricular tachycardia and sky high blood pressure.

Just as many victims die from cold during the warming up phase. The heart can’t take it and many die from heart failure. I was not out of the woods; not by any means. My heart was pounding quick beats in my chest. I could feel my heart stressing.”

Bardes was then visted by a male nurse who took his blood pressure and checked his pulse and temperature while Bardes told him what had happened.  He says at that point things became frantic.

“He freaked out and said to me, “Stay right there, I will get you the help you need.” He ran down the hallway.

Someone came back with a form for me to sign. I could not see the form without my glasses. I told them to get me to the hospital. I assumed the form was some kind of liability release, but the man would not tell me what it was for. I hesitated and he left.

A few minutes later, another man came and begged for me to sign the form. In hindsight, I should have signed it and let them take me to the hospital, but I was scared, all alone, and in terrible pain. The man said, “You’ll be sorry,” and he left. They dumped me back on the floor of the suicide watch room to wither in my pain and agony.”

Part four

Torture in jail is not as rare as one might suspect.  David A. Bardes is just one of tens of thousands who responded when True Equality Network asked the question, “Were you tortured while incarcerated?”

As he lay in the jail’s suicide watch room Bardes took an inventory of his body parts.

“My right leg was charlie-horsed in pain and not working that well, my right forearm was the same way, my left index finger was not responding, and I could not keep my left eyelid open. I also had little feeling from the waist downward. My body’s nervous system was out of whack and kept sending signals to my nerve nodes causing involuntary muscle spasms. My brain was coming back on line and was re-programming itself to see if it had command of all of the body’s various functions.”

The medical staff knew they had a problem.  A ‘Refusal Form’ was filled out, and every single worker signed it as witnesses. One nurse even signed it twice, Bardes says, because she was so “freaked out.”  He adds, “They went to great lengths to cover their liability should I have died while in their care.”

After five days they released him from suicide watch.  Bardes spent one night in a hospital bed and the next day was transferred downstairs to the “medical observation unit.”  He then had his mugshot taken and was issued a prison uniform and content kit, all which should have been done when he first arrived.

Bardes was placed in a cell with a man he describes as “a violent deaf mute lunatic.”  It took his family 73 days to negotiate his way out of jail.  Bardes even had to agree to leave the state of South Carolina forever.

Authorities wouldn’t let him buy a bus ticket.  Bardes says he was escorted to the airport and observed until he boarded the plane out of state.  He had to sign a form stating he wouldn’t sue anyone over the incident, which he says doesn’t apply since he agreed while under duress.

Today Bardes has his case in Federal court.  (#02:08-487-PMD-RSC)  He’s been litigating the case pro se for about 20 months.  Most of the defendants were put aside, not due to a lack of responsibility, but because of immunity.  Not so for Sheriff James Al Cannon.

Bardes has lingering physical and psychological problems due to the torture.

“The first two PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) attacks wound up with me in the emergency room.  Today the attacks come in waves, some start with shaking of the hands, followed by intense abdominal pains. I take a pill and ride out the attacks curled up in the fetal position on my bed until the symptoms subside. They last for about three hours. The worse attacks last all day and include horrible flashbacks.

I suffer from Major Depression, Acute Anxiety Disorder, and PTSD. I am balanced on medication. Both my psychologist and my psychiatrist say I am doing well for what I have been through. I walk with a slight limp, have permanent memory losses, and have memory lapses during conversations, but that may be caused by the medication.

The insidious thing about hypothermia as a torture technique is that if you don’t die from it, you physically recover almost 100%, that’s almost 100%. The psychological damage, however, far overshadows any physical effects. I have lifelong psychological damage.”

Subscribe by RSS,  email, or follow me on twitter to get notified of part five, and to hear about other stories of parental injustice.

• Family court documentary SUPPORT? at Atlanta film fest this weekend
• Family Rights 101: Why is there a fathers rights movement?
• Family Rights 101: Where can I learn more and hear victim stories?

According to Ash Patil, President of shared parenting group Fathers4Equality, “These provisions in the family law act were specifically implemented to reduce the epidemic of false allegations and parental alienation that permeate every corridor of the Family Law Courts, to the clear detriment of the innocent children caught in the cross-fire.

But Bryant wants them removed, and fails to explain how the innocent victims of maliciously false allegations would be protected without them.

James Adams adds, “What is more astonishing it seems is that unlike the parliamentary committee that recommended these laws in the first place, the Chief Justice has not consulted widely before making such an extraordinary intervention (in fact she has not consulted with any fathers’ groups at all).

Rightly or wrongly, Bryant will now be perceived to have compromised views on this issue, denying her the opportunity to have played a unifying force in the process of family law reform in this country, much like the wasted opportunities of her predecessor.”

The two provisions Bryant wants specifically removed include:

*the order of costs, at the Judge’s discretion, against a parent who has been proven to have “knowingly” made false allegation in Court,

and

*unspecified actions, at the Judges’s discretion, against a parent who has purposely alienated or deliberately maligned the children against the other parent.

The importance of these provisions Patil explains.  ”These provisions have been specifically implemented to reduce the disturbingly common practices by some separated parents in making contrived and sinister allegations in Court against the other parent, and to otherwise engage in concerted efforts to destroy the relationship between the child and the other parent. This is done knowing full well the children will be irrevocably harmed in the process, both psychologically and emotionally.

Yet it goes on and will continue to go on given human nature, unless we have laws to help it stop.

“So these are ‘good’, modest provisions designed to stop misguided parents from misusing the system and abusing innocent children”  were introduced only after extensive community consultation.

According to Adams “These provisions were agreed to by a bi-partisan parliamentary committee (both Labor and Libs/Nats) that went around Australia canvassing the views of all Australians for over two years.

Finally this committee was so appalled at the extent of institutional abuse in the Family Court that it recommended measures to protect innocent children and parents who were victims of contrived allegations and parental alienation by spiteful ex-partners.

” But Bryant wants to override the will of the Australian people and the will of Parliament, and to completely remove all disincentives against lying in the Family Court.

Really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

Patil, who claims that many F4E members are subjected to false allegations, states that “Proving that someone has ‘knowingly’ made false allegations rather than ‘mistakenly’ or ‘recklessly’ is quite a tall order. The standard of proof in these matters is a very tough hurdle to pass, and as a result ‘knowingly false’ allegations have only been proven in a relatively few cases in recent years.

If they are proved, they may result in a costs order, although this has been rarely applied in children’s matters by the judiciary. “Now given that perjury in any other Australian court may result in 10 years or more jail time, one must be mindful of the fact that this is a really soft penalty for a very serious crime.

It is a provision however that can work as a disincentive, albeit a modest one, in dissuading many parents from lying in the Family Court in the first place.” So these are “good”, modest provisions designed as a disincentive to those misguided parents who may in a moment of weakness be tempted to make contrived allegations in Court.

Measured responses to issues of concern Patil and Adams are frustrated by the logic used by the Chief Justice, and Patil adds that “Bryant justifies the need for these changes by suggesting that some people have misunderstood these provisions.

Even if this is true, her suggested fix is a remarkable over-reaction to an issue that could be addressed through a number of simple measures.” “Given that most parents in family law proceedings are either represented by lawyers, have visited a family relationship centre or have sought government funded legal services, a simple review could identify the cause of this misinformation from within these service providers, and provide an opportunity for corrective measures to be implemented.”

Adams wonders why the Chief Justice needs to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and opines that “a request to the Attorney General to implement an educational campaign to educate parents about these provisions would go a long way in addressing any existing misconceptions, and would be a more measured and effective approach to the issue at hand.”

Adams continues “Given the unprecedented nature of these family law amendments, what is required are sensible, well-measured & ultimately timely approaches to these issues, in order to allow for proper outcomes based research to develop. Anything less than this would put at risk the very wellbeing of those we are trying to protect.”

Broader consultations as a first step Fathers4Equality would like to encourage the Chief Justice to put some thought into what checks and measures she would alternatively suggest be implemented, if the current provisions are removed, to protect children from the devastating damage resulting from alienation and perjury in Court.

Given that lying in the Family Court and parental alienation are forms of child abuse, we stress the importance of carefully considering the implications to the welfare of children if these safeguards are removed.

Secondly and in reference to a recent campaign that has promoted a less than accurate reflection of these new laws, we would ask the Chief Justice to consider making a public statement to the effect, as is the case, that no evidence exists of any escalation of child abuse as a result of the new amendments.

This would be an important statement from the Chief Justice in the interests of an informed community discussion on this matter, and would help ensure that the debate is discussed in terms of facts, not innuendo.

Finally, we would like to draw attention to the increasingly under-resourced and overworked child protection authorities in this country, and the fact that too many cases of genuine abuse are not thoroughly investigated, in part because of the level of false allegations emanating from the Family Court.

It must be recognised that for every hour that a child protection officer is investigating a false allegation, it is one hour less protection that can be given to a child in genuine need, and this is a cost that the children of Australia simply cannot afford. Fathers4Equality would be open to discussing these important issues further with the Chief Justice, if she is willing to accept our invitation.

Part One

Bardes, who lost 126 friends in the World Trade Center attack on September 11, wanted nothing more than to be a good dad and equal parent to his son and daughter.  He didn’t ask his wife to have an affair with the nanny’s husband.  And when his ex-wife moved their children to another state after the divorce, Bardes followed, twice.

Due to the children living in three states over a short period of time (PA, NC, SC) Bardes had all three states charging him child support, resulting in mistaken arrears.  Bardes says he never willfully withheld child support, and documents related to his Federal court case (#02:08-487-PMD-RSC) support his claim.

Bardes developed severe depression after being treated like a criminal. He says they “seized assets, destroyed my credit ratings, destroyed my business and income, and my mental health.”  He lost so much weight he was “skin and bones.”  This man who once made $180,000 a year now had a hard time finding employment.

One judge dismissed the arrears.   Which makes one wonder why the next one, South Carolina Judge Garfinkel knowingly filed paperwork stating that Bardes was in serious arrears,  charging him with immediate arrest and six months in jail.

Bardes alledges that the State Attorney for South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) John Magera sent him a death threat earlier through a friend.  Judge Garfinkel’s decision, the arrest of Bardes, and the torture that followed almost left two children without a father.

“On the ride to jail, I looked out the back window and stared at the drivers that were tailgating and passing the jail truck. I was forlorn and the situation was surreal.

I was going to my death, and I accepted it fully. I was not sure how they were going to kill me, but I was soon going to find out.”

Bardes was now under the control of Al Cannon, Jr. Esq, Sheriff of Charleston County.  On April 3, 2006 at 6:20 pm Bardes was left in a small jail cell that had forced cold air coming through two large vents.  (see photo)

The air was 55 degrees.  After a short time Bardes realized this was a hypothermic chamber.  That fact would be confirmed in the reply to his inmate grievance form which states the cell is used to “subdue” prisoners, so they are “less likely to riot.”  (see document)

Part Two

David A. Bardes left his job on the 101st. floor of the World Trade center and moved to Charleston, South Carolina so his children would have their father in their lives.  Once there he was falsely accused of being in “gross” child support arrears.

He says he proved to the state attorney that he was not in arrears, and that he had actually overpaid his child support.  Bardes was left in arrears anyway and says the “destroy deadbeat mechanisms” went into full force.

“I met with judge #1, who agreed to put me on trial so I could clean up my good name and reputation.  Judge #1 told me in court, three times, that I have no Constitutional rights. Then came my trial, which I was found innocent by judge #2.

Then the state attorney, issued a death threat and typed up a fake court order stating that I was “guilty”. He scheduled a snap hearing and judge #3 tossed me into jail for six months without even as much as hearing.”

Bardes was charged with civil contempt of court and taken to the Charleston County jail.  He was shackled and chained before a female sheriff deputy shoved his head into the wall, knocking his glasses to the floor and causing a lense to pop out.   Jailers threw his medication in the trash, including his asthma inhaler.

Bardes admits that he refused to sign forms put before him, and that he ignored orders to stop smiling for his mug shot.  Taken aside and placed in a cell that is used as a hypothermic chamber, Bardes began to shiver.  He asked for his jacket multiple times but was refused. Then he began to shiver violently.

“As my body temperature reduced one degree at a time, wave after wave of excruciating pain enveloped my body. I knew I was going hypothermic.”

After six hours, Bardes says, the shivering stopped.

“I had passed through the first and second stages of hypothermic shock, and was now at the third and final stage. I could not move my arms or legs. The pain was horrific.

A guard came into the cell and I told him to tell the nurse that I had just gone into hypothermic shock as my body was no longer able to shiver to keep itself with heat. The guard, said, “I will do no such thing until you comply.”

“Comply with what?,” I thought. My head was in such a cloudy state and the guard’s words fell onto my brain in slow motion. Before I could assemble more words the guard left and the door lock clunked closed.

There was nothing left but to die from hypothermia. It was a matter of hours. I had to keep my mind alert because if I lost consciousness, it would then lead to bodily death. With hypothermia, conscious death occurs before bodily death. Eventually you die from either heart failure or brain death.

I had to keep my brain active at all cost. I had lost the use of my limbs and my head was back against the wall. I was unable to move and all I felt was the thousands of daggers stabbing my body all over. I was slowly and painfully dying from hypothermia. My eyes were closed and I could feel my body heat being sucked away by the blowing cold air. My body felt like cold meat; like a corpse.”

This is an ongoing series.  Follow me on twitter to get notified of updates on this and other stories of parental injustice.

Concinnity.

For those of you that this fine word has eluded in the past, as it has me, it means:

Harmony in the arrangement or interarrangement of parts with respect to a whole.

And it would seem to be a word apropos of the times where it involves the men’s rights movement,  and a concept direly needed.

There seems to be a rift in the movement between proponents of gay marriage and advocates for family values.  And I say seems most intentionally, because from the outset this is an erroneous and misleading definition in terms.

Searching high and low, I have found no MRA’s that have taken on the cause of promoting gay marriage.  They don’t exist that I know of, though I could have easily missed something in a movement so comprised of scattered voices.

There are some, like myself, that view it as a non issue and a waste of time.  Most of these are MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) minded fellows who are much more worried about the personal and legal hazards of heterosexual marriage than they are the supposed dangers of gay marriage to the culture.

So perhaps we can jump start the walk toward concinnity with a more accurate and honest description of the problem, keeping in mind that there is no absolute and monolithic mindset on either side of the fence.

The rift, if we have one, is between some MGTOW’s and some family values advocates.  Or to be shorter, and more succinct, those that promote traditional marriage and those who think it should be avoided.  In my mind, it is a rift that has been largely manufactured from within our ranks and is purely unnecessary.

Indeed, with some balanced perspective it is easy to see where these two camps complement each other and have the possibility for productive synergy, via concinnity.

First, the very reason that family advocates in the men’s rights movement exist is because the institution of marriage has been crippled and reduced to a hazard zone for men and  children, and to a lesser degree, for women.  The efforts of activists to change this is important and laudable. We will have marriage for some time, and growing numbers of people are losing their freedom, property and family bonds to the state enforced intrusions we now allow.

These would be the same intrusions, by the way, that drive many MRA’s to speak out against involvement in the institution in the first place.

Being motivated by the same factors would seem to be a motivation toward concinnity as well, but for reasons beyond my grasp we are in a movement that never seems to miss an opportunity to divide and implode.

I hope eternal it is just growing pains, and in fact believe it is.

And part of the pain of that growth is born from facing honest assessments and taking appropriate action, regardless of how we wish things were, or how we think they ought to be.  Advising men to invest in marriage because we are trying to make changes in the laws is like telling people to keep smoking because we are working on a cure for cancer.

The very idea is as unsound as blindfolding men and pointing them toward the mine field with marching orders and an “atta boy,“ and it sadly reflects an abject indifference to their mangled bodies when inevitable explosions come.

Such are the results when we forget that being a men’s rights activist means advocacy for the men themselves, not necessarily the institutions that they have historically served.

And in taking this unfortunate stance we take from the movement what could be the one-two punch against the current paradigm by boycotting marriage and simultaneously pushing for reforms in family law.  Instead, in the folly of this divide, we turn that flurry of punches inward, and suffer the self inflicted wounds of infighting.

We rob the movement of the concinnity that could actually result in inertia and momentum, breeding destructive divisions; taking the move out of a movement that has still not found its initial stride.

I will always support work to change family law and to lessen the stranglehold the legal system now has over our parents and children.  I consider the men and women who pursue these changes an indispensable asset to the men’s rights movement.

I also support men and women who warn of the pitfalls of modern marriage, and caution men in the strongest possible terms to avoid it.

I am one of those with such a message and I won’t do much in the future but turn up the volume.

When marriage has been made safe again, the dynamics and the message, at least my message,  will change.

Till then, I hope we can see the wisdom in supporting efforts toward change on all fronts, in keeping our fingers off each others throats, and in helping children and men avoid the gallows till some badly needed changes occur.

Paul Elam is Editor-in-Chief for Men’s News Daily and publisher of A Voice for Men.

With the ‘officials’ managing the system living in the next street along one might imagine that a chat over a cup of tea would resolve most issues. But no. There is a vast government machine numbering, oh, say, 10 people, determined to add to the Global Financial Crisis by bumping up debt to employ an army-company sized bunch of zozhial verkers mitt batons.

A chap in NZ writes…….

$1.5b owed in child support

This mornings Dominion Post : Almost a third of liable parents are shunning child support obligations, the highest rate in five years. At June 30, the child support hole totalled $1.5 billion. Inland Revenue is chasing more than $527 million owed by parents, with more than $1 billion owed in penalties. Fathers in Manukau and Gisborne and mothers in Invercargill and Dunedin were the worst offenders. A third of all debt is from Kiwi parents living overseas.

This article is a skewed spin doctoring of child tax debt, he says.

1) Only $527m in child tax is “owed”, the rest is penalties that go to the tax-womans coffers.

2) Dunne has had 9 years to resolve the “debt crises”, but has only managed to continue to grow the debt.

His actions and his officals advice, which is implemented in Law to fix the problems always makes it worse. If any other group where treated like this it would not be tolerated.

Children’s Commissioner John Angus said parents had a moral and legal obligation to pay. Parents were not meeting their responsibilities to their child when they elected not to pay. “Children can get a message the non-custodial parent doesn’t care about them and how they are getting on, because they don’t care enough to make a financial contribution for them,” Dr Angus said.

I would suggest, says my Kiwi correspondent,  that this is reflective of the level of understanding of the Familes Commission on the subject of Child Tax – they dont have a clue what they are talking about.

Angus reduces the support of children to some English poor law notion from the 19th Century . Children never see any of the Child Tax paid, and in many cases don’t see the paying parent but that has no relationship at all to weather a parent cares about his child or not.

His statement is filled with bias and assumption,  not reality and fact.

Mr Dunne said a Government review of the child support system was under way and would assess the actual cost of raising a child, how payments were measured and whether the system was fair, and would propose changes

The review is by people whose type of thinking created the current mess – Officials and The Families Commission – The reality is that new thinking is required.

Putting a human face shoved into the coal-face to it , yet another Kiwi writes:-

Funny thing….I went off the DPB in January when I started a full time job, and because both parents worked full time, niether of us paid child support. Then 5 months later the organisation I worked for got into financial difficulties and went into recievership.

I worked for 6 weeks without pay before I finally went to WINZ and applied to go back on the DPB. Because my son stays with me ONLY 50% of the time (week about), I get aprox. $100 per week less than the full DPB… $332 per week to be exact.

My weekly costs are; rent $225, Genesis power $40 (I can’t change this) and $61 per week for a bedroom suite for my son. Thankfully I have $6 left per week to pay for groceries, transport, medical, clothing etc. Or at least I thought so…

IRD have started charging child support again since I applied for the DPB, and in two months it has already accumulated to $144 and they are now adding on penalties.

Peter Dunne should be forced live on $332 per week with one child and give his child’s food money to IRD to pay for child support. What a circus you run Mr Dunne.

See all at:-

http://menz.org.nz/2009/1-5b-owed-in-child-support/#comment-283945

Amfortas

Ask who the Grail Serves.

In fact, ask who has nicked the Grail and ran off with it.

This is not just a scenario endemic to divorce. It is not just the best we can do with a system that means well. It is a bad system that does bad things for all the wrong reasons, with, of course, money at the root.

The family law system has evolved, or devolved, depending on how you look at it, into an adversarial theater of the damned, where turpitude and mendaciousness are considered good breeding; where children, fathers and families are exploited as a matter of routine.

Court officials are quick to tell anyone interested that they act in “the best interest of the children.” They even practice saying it in a haughty, sanctimonious tone.

Don’t buy it. The courts are about only two things. Money and winning, in that order. They even have it rigged so that we usually know who the winner is before the gavel ever hits the wood. The only real mystery is the final tab.

And children? Their best interest is the first thing to go, disposable as Kleenex. That’s what happens when you turn them into property and use them as bargaining chips along with houses, cars and bank accounts, and when you put them at the mercy of judges and lawyers that see them not as children being traumatized by the unraveling of their families, but as marks in a carnival side show.

The money game goes much deeper than the bottom of the average pocket. Carol Rhodes, author of the highly recommended “Friend of the Court, Enemy of the Family,” was involved in the family courts for 20 years. She is a former enforcement officer and investigator for the 37th circuit family court in Michigan.

Her considerable experience in a system touted to be in the best interest of the child, was quite actually the opposite.

“It was all about money,” she says.

“How to get the federal and state dollars that were allotted each case for enforcement. In fact,” she continues, “our director would say regularly, ‘we are not the friend of the family, we are the friend of the court.’”

In her book she goes on to describe how caseworkers were instructed to push through increases in child support, with rubber stamping from the judge, because it meant increases in revenue to the court. She details how her offices were managed with a philosophy of deception and a focus on increased revenue rather than the interests of families.

It was a system, she maintains, that regularly buried complaints over visitation because there was no money in enforcing the rights of the visiting parent, or in acting in the interest of the children from which those parents were severed.

“In the years I worked in the system,” she says, “I witnessed regular deception to clients that was mandated by office policy. I saw gender bias and discrimination. I saw records destroyed.”

Ultimately the 37th Circuit became such a success at generating revenue for the court that they became a model of training for other counties and states that were only too happy to emulate their practices.

Gathering up the cash from broken families isn’t limited to the courtrooms and the lawyers.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, in his enlightening book, “Taken into Custody,” also exposes the rampant corruption in the entire system. Baskerville points out that psychotherapists, social workers and various social agencies are also in the game; all cogs in a great machine that demolishes what is left of broken marriages and sorts the remains, separating cash from the broken dreams.

He cautions us to remember and consider, and I quote, that “Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails.”

It is evident, both from sound research and common sense, that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain a close, loving relationship with both parents regardless of the marriages collapse; to let the parenting continue, to insist on it, even as the marriage ends. Courts could make that the objective if they were interested in childrens welfare. Instead what usually happens early in the process is the first strike by the court on the core of the family, the restraining order, almost always on the father. They issue them without proof or corroboration, not to protect children, but to take the family down the road to child support orders and the money the courts make from enforcing them.

Read Roades and Baskerville. It’s all there.

Fighting the process is treacherous. Rhodes informs us that when men who knew their rights or fathers rights activists came to the court, the word was passed around beforehand and they were targeted for all the punitive wrath at the judges considerable disposal.

It’s all part of protecting the game; in the best interest of the court, as it were; perhaps violating Rico Statutes as much as it does the lives of children.

And the bias toward women as better guardians of children from earlier days fits in quite well with the schemes of modern courts. All the better and easier for the fixed fight to have a designated winner. No one has to take a dive when the judges hold the scoring cards and have them marked before the opening round.

Best interest of the child? Indeed.

If it stopped there, at the money, it would still be bad enough. But that is the problem. The courts set up Mom and Dad as lifetime adversaries. They system instigates continued battles long after the final decree, sending them back to court repeatedly, like addicts to a crack house. Their children (remember them?) ever caught in the crossfire.

Let’s be really clear about what child custody means. It translates quite literally to ownership. It isn’t just the ability to control when and where Dad and children see each other and how much he will pay Mom and the courts for the privilege of doing so. Managing conservators have the unilateral power to undermine visitation and the father-child bond with impunity. The courts give it to them.

They have the daily opportunity, and quite frequently the desire, to assassinate the character of the absent parent, aka, the father; to twist the child’s memory and perceptions to fit with those of the embittered mother.

Over time, fathers go from being Daddy to being a visitor to being estranged to being a memory, and probably not a good one. It’s not uncommon. You know people to which this, or something like it, has happened. And likely as not you have witnessed their children deteriorate socially, academically and otherwise in the process.

And the next time you hear someone bemoan that Dad doesn’t even try to spend time with the kids since the divorce, consider what he might be dealing with when he does.

Sara Jane: “Daddy, did you beat mommy up?”

Dad: “No, sweetie, I never did anything like that!”

Sara Jane: “Mommy said you did and that is why you had to leave.”

Dad: “Well, honey, I never did.”

Sara Jane: “Daddy?”

Dad: “Yes, sweetie?”

Sara Jane: “Are you going to beat me up, too?”

He can’t fight this. He doesn’t have enough parenting time to give the needed, corrective balance to his daughters life. The courts have made sure of it. The ex knows it and uses it.

It is easy to tell Dad that he just needs to man up and rough it through seeing the minds of his children poisoned with lies and hatred against him. But of course, if we do that then we are no more really concerned with the best interest of the child than the courts or some of the mothers. For in the conversation you just read, it is the child who suffers most. She is being condemned to a worldview of men and fathers that will stain each and every relationship she has for the rest of her life.

Restructuring a family is a delicate and difficult matter. But it will remain much more difficult than is necessary until we restructure or eliminate the corrupt, arrogant and destructive family courts that currently have the responsibility for doing so.

There is no panacea, though getting government out of marriage and divorce would be a good idea. In the absence of that, removing incentives for courts to exploit broken families would be a start. False allegations in family court to obtain restraining orders should result in prison terms. And judges should be removed from the bench and prosecuted themselves for severing a parent-child relationship without a proven reason.

It’s child abuse, pure and simple, and sadly illustrates that while what we need desperately are judges with integrity and a passion for justice, what we have in reality are legions of Tony Soprano’s in black robes.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

- Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller (1946)

It was in the 1980s, I think, that I first began to notice a few newspaper articles quoting victims of arbitrary government intrusion. Perhaps it was the 1970s, as the first generation in American history to face greater economic challenges than their parents (ignoring the Great Depression) began routinely punching the clock, eventually giving rise to Ronald Reagan’s campaign question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? A few articles here and there. Although many of the facts have since escaped my memory, what has not was the striking similarity in reactions. “I cannot believe,” “I would not have believed” “that this could happen in the USA” except that “it happened to me.”

Bad things can happen. I have always been a realist. It is a big country with many people. Don’t kid yourself. Everything happens here. There were more articles, each one corresponding in some way to a recently created federal government program. I felt sorry for the victims. But there was more. There seemed to be no recourse. The victims truly believed they had experienced something that should not happen in the USA. They spent years or decades seeking correction. Their cases – when considering the specific facts of each – seemed eminently reasonable. Politicians made the case that their reforms were important, but their implementation seemed – to use what became a term that became increasingly popular with time – quite “draconian.” What happened to individual rights?

In the late 1980s, I began investigating the “science” underlying federal reform of the child support system. The reforms themselves had been promoted – primarily with conservative phrasing – as part of “welfare reform” but had obviously crossed over into a federal takeover of family law. I had been drawn to the investigation by recognizing that all the “science” created in relation to the reforms was wrong and created a research project at Intelligent Systems Research Corporation with the thought of correcting the problem. The technical problems were challenging, if one truly wanted a solid theoretical foundation for child support determinations, but eventually yielded to a few years worth of determination and sweat.

An unexpected result came from my desire to know why all the “science” had been completely wrong to begin with, why major reforms had been built on a radical and highly-suspect foundation, and why there was so much objection to correcting the problem. Not to wonder seemed extremely arrogant; to assume that the highly educated government consultants were all total nincompoops and that only I had the intellectual capacity to clean up the mess. In the process, my own days of ignorant bliss came to an end and I unexpectedly became an expert on Big Lie Politics.

If what you’re reading feels slightly familiar, it may be at least in part because of Al Gore’s tendency to overplay the system. His global warming hoax has always been based solidly on “science” – or so he claimed – again and again and again ….. So you may already be aware of the modern Political Class has politicized science in order to create lobbying material in support of their agenda. And yes – there is a pattern to the way Big Lie Politics is played – and it is played again and again and again …

There’s more, and I promise you that if you read and understand, your days of ignorant bliss will also come to an end. You will be afraid – and you should be because it is the truth. Emboldened by past success, the Political Class is just thinking bigger than ever before. Yesterday – control marriage and family. Today – the world!

If you are not too young, your recollection of the 1990s includes its repetitious use of the term “Deadbeat Dads.” The phrase appeared in every newspaper in the country as far as I could tell, a very large number of magazines (often enough on the cover), and Dan Rather seemed obsessed with it. It was one of the largest and most intense propaganda campaigns in US history. The Political Class had decided to take over marriage and family; turning it from a sacred, private institution – left Constitutionally to the States and the people and protected from arbitrary government intrusion through enforcement of individual rights – into an integral part of government “social programs” where it and its participants could be arbitrarily manipulated.

I must now be a tiny bit technical and detailed enough to provide the basis for what you are reading. Take your time. This is important:

In 1993, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt the final death blow to marriage as we knew it in P.O.P.S. verses Gardner (998 F.2d 764). They classified the child support issue as “social policy” as if no question existed that it was so. Yet, throughout the nation’s history, throughout the history of western civilization, marriage and family issues had been private matters handled under Civil Law. The Civil Law classification meant being protected from arbitrary government intrusion through enforcement of individual (“civil”) rights. “Social policy” by contrast, shares an established Constitutional status with “economic policy” (they are basically the same) like tax rates and welfare entitlement levels. P.O.P.S. was a case brought by a group of divorced fathers who had never been welfare recipients, nor had their families, and none were behind in child support payments. The Court’s classification clearly was to apply to everyone – legally taking the institutions of marriage and the family with it.

The federal government, under Clinton, now unhampered by Constitutional concerns, proceeded to expand the federal child support bureaucracy’s information collection efforts to include everyone in the country. (You were told they were looking for “Deadbeat Dads” who had abandoned their families.) Every new hire was registered, employers, banks, and other institutions were forced to provide information automatically electronically via the Internet. (Too Late to Stop National ID)

With a single action, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrated that a single phrase, reclassifying law, has the same effect as abolishing the Bill of Rights. Used merely in response to a decision by Congress to modify a program with additional funding to states, the system of checks and balances was eliminated. Lower courts, where citizens typically plead their cases, were blocked from offering relief from arbitrary intrusion. When the decision was published, it was as though all history since the Magna Carta suddenly vanished and a new Dark Age was given roots. No longer concerned about Constitutional limitations, the Political Class was on its way to absolute power and the theft of wealth beyond the dreams of Hitler and Stalin combined.

Why? Power and wealth are not new temptations. What has changed in the USA is the extent to which use of government power has become unrestrained. The goals of the Political Class do not appear to be long-term, which would require maintenance of the nation. Instead, they are on the fast track; pushing the largest imaginable plans yielding the greatest short-term pay-off. Unimaginable sums are laid out like pizza money without aiming to serve the purpose claimed and they promise more. They do not display the least concern for what happens to the nation or “the masses” in their wake. Instead, they merely mock and scorn all those who oppose them.

If you were somewhat more interested in politics during the 1980s (and beyond), you know of so-called “public-private partnerships.” Government has always purchased goods and services from the private sector, so why does it need a new name? It needs a new name because there is a fundamental difference. Public-private partnerships exist where businesses could not sustain themselves in the private sector, where either there is no demand or there is no credible service that can be offered, or in support of government program goals that are entirely make-believe. Such is the case with the child support collection industry, created by the federal government, existing almost entirely on public funds, and not making a dent in real child support payment statistics. Such is the Cap-and-Trade industry in its effort to control the climate. It is a money machine – transferring your wealth – or hope of it – to people who are politically connected. And here comes health care reform, with a community organizer spin to a private “health cooperative.” There is no need for Congress to read the bills. They know that. The money transfer machinery is in place. There is a large budget. That’s all that matters.

“We need to stop this from happening,” they say. “Marriage is one man and one woman. God-almighty Hisself said so.” And then there is the obligatory, nauseatingly redundant, “We need to protect the sanctity of the institution.”

Excuse me? The sanctity of the institution?

It makes me wonder if they have a rehab for this type of thinking.

Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture and it wasn‘t homosexuals that got us here. Nor will it be them that drives the final nail in the coffin.

As usual, we are not facilitating any real understanding with sound bites from talking heads. “One man and one woman,” no more illuminates the problems of modern marriage than nonsense like “my body, my choice,” illuminates the issue of abortion.

Worse yet, as any men’s rights advocate knows, marriage hasn’t been “one man and one woman” for a long time. The reality of the times is that men marry the state they live in. The woman just comes with the deal for a few years. When it’s fini with the woman, things really heat up with the state, shearing the man of his assets and adding a new, bizarre dimension to “till death do us part.”

And allowing gays into this fiasco is going to hurt the institution?

I wish I could corner a couple of these pundits and make them answer some questions. Maybe Hannity, or the anorexic looking chick with stringy bleached hair.

The questions would be simple. Where were you? And what are you doing about it now?

When the feminists pushed for and got no fault divorce, and the divorce rate consequently hit the stratosphere creating legions of dysfunctional, fatherless children, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When feminist ideology spread like a malicious rumor though the media, academia, government and the culture, demonizing all things masculine and creating the fundamental rift between the sexes that plagues marriage to this day, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When the family courts started taking Title IV-D money, turning benches into private fiefdoms, profit centers whose stock-in-trade became eviscerating the father-child bond, where were you? What are you doing about it now? And add to that another question. Do you even know what Title IV-D money is and how it makes it’s way from the federal government into family court coffers? Or would that take more information than you can squeeze in between Cialis commercials on Fox News?

Of course, the point is that we already know where these people were and where they are now. They’re in the place they have always been, crawling like roaches over every media news outlet that will call on them to say something profoundly meaningless about profoundly meaningless topics, in the name of plugging profoundly meaningless books.

These vultures want to protect the sanctity of marriage in the same way Courtney Love wants to protect chastity.

And those that caterwaul the loudest about the supposedly sinister prospect of gay marriage are the same ones that can’t stop wagging their tongues about the virtues of constitutional conservatism.

I’m fascinated by people that call themselves limited government conservatives, but sit by complacently like grinning, plastic bobble-heads, as long as the government is enforcing their religious and moral beliefs on the rest of the population.

News flash, that is not conservatism, it’s not even a cheap imitation. It’s theocracy. Ayatollah style. And it’s about as conducive to men’s rights as feminism.

I wouldn’t be bothered by this all that much if it were contained to media pinheads. I expect them to say a lot and understand little. It’s what they get rich doing.

But when I see MRA’s espousing this cause célèbre, it puts a spike in my “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot” detector.

Why, for the love of Pete, would men’s rights activists seek to protect the sanctity of an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them?

But I see it all the time, from MRA’s, rather from patriarchs who think they are MRA’s.

Just as theocratic zealots shouldn’t confuse themselves with constitutional conservatives, patriarchs shouldn’t confuse themselves with MRA’s. In this writers opinion, our agendas are diametrically opposed.

Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told. I’m sure it was a nice world for the control obsessive, but that toothpaste is out of the tube and is not going to be squeezed back in. And chivalry, in that it hinges on putting women first, has much more in common with feminism than it does with men’s rights.

MRA’s just want to escape the sexism and bias and treachery involved in marriage and every other institution that affects men. And that puts us, again in this writers opinion, in the ironic place of finishing what feminists started; an all out assault on marriage itself.

The feminists won this one. Game over. A shutout. What remains of marriage is not salvageable. It’s water that can’t be decontaminated; a cripple that can’t be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. Hopefully that would be sometime after the culture has recovered from the damage of feminist doctrine and placed some sanity back on the table.

So if gay marriage erodes the sanctity of the institution, I say fine, let’s print them licenses by the truckload. I’ll spring for some rice.

There are plenty of real issues, the ones the pundits ignore, that need plenty of real attention. I won’t be bothered to invest in anything else, especially something that ultimately undermines men even more.

It was no doubt feminists that put marriage on life support. We should mourn that and look to the future for renewed hope that some day men and women will share life again with love and dignity. But today, MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men.

Dear Mr. Yas

This is in response to an article you wrote in May regarding the efforts of Joe Ureneck and the Fatherhood Coalition to prevent two nominations to the Governor’s Council.
I’ve meaning to respond since I first read it but it’s taken me until now to get around to it.

First off, thank you for quoting my article. I thought that riff on Hillary was one of the better lines in the piece, so thanks for the exposure.

By way of background and to nip in the bud any potential guilt-by-association mischief you might consider to further tarnish the Fathers Rights movement (henceforth: “FR” and “the movement”) and specifically the Fatherhood Coalition, I am no longer associated with them or any other organization. I removed myself from the Fatherhood Coalition quite some time ago for various reasons, mainly personal.

As I’m not associated with any organization, I’m not constrained to censor my words for any of the typical reasons: to conform to what is—believe it or not—the PC conventions of the movement, to get published in the mainstream media, to increase the credibility of the movement or an organization, or even in the vain hope of educating someone from “the other side” who may turn out to be educable.

No, you’re going to get it straight from the shoulder, Mr. Yas.

To further elaborate on that point, I recall the mantra of George Kelly of Concerned Fathers, the reigning FR organization in the state at the time I fell victim to THE THING (refer to Aldous Huxley, “Ape and Essence”) over 15 years ago: “You get more flies with honey than vinegar.” I disagree with that sentiment. I believe the movement needs to focus far more on attacking its enemies rather than trying in vain to educate them.

As such, feel honored that I have taken the time to write this missive to you, as lately personal matters have limited my ability to engage in much activism of any kind. So, my essential message to you is simply this:

David Yas, you are an ignorant fool.

I will repeat this or some variant throughout this piece, as it is what you deserve, what you have earned, and what you need to hear—not just a polite rebuttal of your misguided beliefs.

Ignorance comes in two flavors. One may be ignorant because the truth has been hidden from them. Such ignorance is a lesser offense. Then we have ignorance in spite of the truth. In the matter at hand, this would include people such as you who are actually in the business; those who are confronted with the truth yet wish to remain ignorant and whose wish is being granted, to paraphrase a quip from Christopher Hitchens.

With respect to your kind of ignorance, another quote comes to mind, from the seventies’ comedy troupe Firesign Theatre: “Everything you know is wrong.”

And furthermore your ignorance is not benign, it is harmful. It leads to a continuation of an evil. Evil, furthermore, is not excused by ignorance. After 9-11, I am a believer in the aphorism “evil is as evil does.” The fruits of your ignorance, exemplified by your article, are a contribution to an ongoing evil.

David Yas, you are not only an ignorant fool, you are causing harm.

In your article you carefully choose words and expressions to mock and discredit both Ureneck and Ned Holstein and their claims. To wit, according to you, they (Ureneck and/or Holstein):
• are “plotting to defeat judicial nominees whose philosophies don’t comport with their own.”
• are “spurned by the courts and angered by a society that has been sensitive to battered women.”
• “loudly protest[ing] judicial nominees who have shown any sort of sensitivity to domestic-violence issues.”
• “utter things that many of us would say simply defy reason.”
• “may be on the fringe.”
and:
• “Ureneck didn’t sound like a fanatic when I spoke with him over the phone.”

I will give you one thing, Mr. Yas, unlike most reporters on this subject, you make no attempt to conceal your bias.

No such pejoratives are used when you rescue the reader by introducing the voice of reason, Lydia Watts, from the Victim Rights Law Center, a DV feminazi. [I warned you that I don’t censor my words; regardless of what anyone else might think of Rush Limbaugh he has earned my gratitude for coining this wonderfully evocative, and wholly appropriate, conjunction of “feminist” and “nazi.”]

“No. There is no epidemic of women fabricating tales of domestic violence,” you say, followed by her direct quote: “I have heard thousands of victims’ stories and barely ever doubted one.”

So here’s the 4-1-1, Sherlock. Anyone that claims they have “barely ever doubted” just “one” DV victim’s story out of “thousands” has automatically demonstrated a complete absence of credibility, as any honest person with experience in the courts and a molecule of common sense would know.

And you say, “I believe Watts.”

Davis Yas, you naive, gullible, dupe.

In case it isn’t abundantly clear to the reader what you think of Joe Ureneck and the FR movement by this point in your article, you “recall a scene” from a Gene Hackman sports film where “a narrow-minded fellow” tells coach Hackman, “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb: the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter; the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”

I guess it doesn’t matter exactly how the reader interprets this paragraph. Regardless of whether Ureneck is the “narrow-minded fellow” or “the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon” or “the guy who does the same thing in my living room,” the point is clear. Ureneck is not worth listening to.

So here’s the truth about domestic violence. Women initiate interpersonal violence with partners more often than men, as the “evil patriarchy” instills in boys that it is fundamentally un-manly to ever hit women. Women are not so constrained by our cultural mores. Taking into account the scientific data and figuring in a fudge factor for the inherent biases of both the respondents (the man to underreport assault by his wife, in good chivalric fashion; the woman to underreport her own violence, as women are conditioned to see themselves as victims) and the research methodologies (where a man who raises his arms to defend himself when a woman is attacking him is considered the aggressor if the woman’s fists come into contact with his arms), it is probable that women are more likely than men to be the initiators in the majority of real domestic violence incidents.

And here’s another fact you can cast into your “defy reason” category: women often hit themselves and then call the police and show their marks as evidence that they have been beaten. Why don’t you run that by your trustworthy expert Ms. Watts and watch the blood rise to her face?

I repeat, to make sure you get it: women’s initiation of violent assault and battery on their partners and their inflicting their own injuries are facts. I have personally observed this behavior, and when I have heard similar stories by others over and over, there is little reason to doubt them because I experienced it myself, and I am not unusual. It’s called the school of life.

Back to 209A. The vast majority of 209A protection orders taken out by women against the fathers of their children are taken out not for protection, but as weapons to cause harm—specifically, to gain “temporary” custody of children (and a child support order) and immediate occupancy of the driver’s seat in the divorce. Shared custody is off the table from the court’s perspective once there is a 209A order in place. Didn’t you get the memo?

When marriages break down, the parties are usually (always?) angry with each other. There is often a sense of betrayal. The feelings and emotions that arise during the breakdown of a marriage can be the most virulent the parties have ever or will ever experience again. Listen to what women often say when looking back on their divorces, things like, “I can’t believe the things that I did.”

Recall the words of prosecutor Mia Magness in her closing arguments to the jury in the trial of Clara Harris, the woman who killed her husband by repeatedly hitting and running over him with her Mercedes:

“[If you catch your husband cheating] you do what every woman would do in this county: You take him to the cleaners. You take his house, his car, his kids. You make him wish that he was dead. But you don’t kill him!”

Magness argued.

There was no shock or outrage at this admission: that a woman has the power to make a man “wish he were dead” by going after him in divorce court. It’s simply an accepted fact of life. Because it’s a universal truth. Magness didn’t even need to mention the really heinous things women do in divorce, like accusing their husbands of sexually abusing their own children, or rape, sexual assault or battery.

Question: How is it that this potential for using the courts with deliberate malice exists, and yet there is no punishment or even disincentive? Answer: look no further than your own article. The legal system has been hopelessly corrupted by so-called “feminist jurisprudence,” of which the domestic abuse regime is a cornerstone. And stupid, gullible men like you that cheer them on…

Women know that if they wish to “teach him a lesson” the state will be their willing accomplice. How is it possible that in what is supposed to be a civil court there exist offices and agents whose specific purpose is to aid one of the parties, the plaintiff in a domestic abuse allegation—with the further outrage that this “service” is denied to men who are seeking protection from women?

In a divorce, custody battle or other domestic relations, it is not “he said, she said,” nor is it husband v. wife. It is man versus wife-and-state. And man does not have a chance.

All women know this, and every father is a potential victim to it.

Ureneck is dead on when he describes the 209A regime as a “travesty.” I’ll go one further: it’s a monstrosity.

You and your colleagues have been taught the standard catechism, that “not so long ago” (translation: over a century ago) wife and children were property of the father. After the rare divorce, children went with their owner, the father. Wifey, usually lacking the education or professional skills to support herself to any dignified degree, was left to her own devices. Hence “rehabilitative alimony,” a phrase delicious with irony considering the feminist mantra that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Unquestionably, women suffered more after divorce… then. Besides the devastating emotional and psychological toll, there was the often enormous loss of standard of living.

However, ask any father today and he will tell you that he would gladly trade places with the 19th century divorced wife, because today, feminists haven’t merely “leveled the playing field,’ they haven’t just “got even,” they have turned divorce into a process of criminalization for men. The emotional and economic hardships faced by the divorced woman of yesteryear are trivial when compared with the lot of today’s divorced father: loss of children, loss of wealth, loss of one-third of his income for 23 years, and criminalization: a constant threat of loss of liberty itself—as in jail—for an infraction, real or imagined, of the state’s so-called “child support” regime or wholly unconstitutional “domestic abuse” regime, whereby a mere hearsay claim by a woman of illegal contact between a man and his children is sufficient by law to send him to jail for two-and-half years.

David Yas, you ignorant fool.

Several years ago Steve Basile of the Fatherhood Coalition set out to show that abuse protection law is applied differently to men and women, something that is common knowledge to everyone “in the system” regardless of whether or not they choose to admit it. (As of course, everyone in the system does indeed deny it.) When the DV feminazis got wind of the research being done in the Gardner District Court, they furiously went to work. Deliberately manipulating and misinterpreting email messages from the study’s author regarding the progress of the study, they in record time managed to get a bill through the Statehouse amending Massachusetts’ version of the Freedom of Information Act, preventing any further such research. Read the relevant documents on the Fatherhood Coalition web site for a blow-by-blow: http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/Gardner_209A_study_index.htm.

All has been recorded for posterity. Basile also maintains a scrapbook of all news items relating to the study. The study has now been referenced in around twenty other research papers, though feminazis in Massachusetts have sought to discredit the study and Basile himself, referring to him, a software engineer with a Masters degree from UMass Lowell in Applied Math, as “some guy off the street.”

Seeking justice in courts that have become little more than feminist tribunals where men are punished for “gender crimes” and the sins of the patriarchy, is a Kafkaesque nightmare. If you ask me exactly how justice is subverted for a man charged with a gender crime like domestic abuse, I would answer, “in every way that it is possible to do so.” By simply violating rules of procedure such as rules of service; by violating the law itself; by hiding files; by “losing” files; in short, whatever is expedient at the moment to accomplish the goal of preventing the male litigant from moving forward. First the simplest ploys, then, if that isn’t sufficient, the tactics increase in subtlety, with the subsequent punishments for the litigant who dares to challenge the status quo ratcheted up commensurably with the degree of work required to quash his efforts. A loss of a weekend of visitation. His wife’s attorney fees. An increase in his child support, etc., etc.

As has already been pointed out to you, the state’s anti-SLAPP statute, our whistleblower law designed to protect individuals from retaliation who reveal crimes by moneyed and/or powerful enterprises, has been transmogrified to protect the 209A/domestic abuse regime from men who seek redress in higher courts from a foul injustice under the law’s many police-state provisions.

Here’s what the law says:

209A Section 1
“’Abuse’, the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members:
….
(b) placing another in fear of imminent serious physical harm;”

As has been pointed out to you, this is a subjective standard that cannot be disproved. And you are an attorney?

David Yas, you ignorant, stupid, fool. This law is indeed an ass, as are you.

Along with the isolated cases of women who are legitimately terrified by a violent man in their life (rarely the biological father of her children), 209A is a weapon of choice used by vindictive women to cause harm to a man that they wish to punish, for any of a variety of reasons, to any of a variety of ends, including gaining automatic custody of children, a child support order, a Judgment Nisi on terms most favorable to her, or even something as mundane as a higher number on a public housing list.

The law is written and applied to accommodate such a woman. All attempts to modify the law to just give it the appearance of comportment with foundational liberty precepts such as the presumption of innocence and due process, by removing and/or modifying the most egregious provisions, always die in committee. The dozen or so proposals I crafted into the 209A Reform Bill in 2004 sought to achieve a good balance without diluting or removing any of the real protections in place for true victims of real domestic violence.

Refer to: http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/legislation/2004/209A_Reform_long_w_old_text.htm

Just to quell your impulse to dismiss me as an angry embittered, misogynous man, though I don’t make a habit of explaining myself to people who deserve no such courtesy, know the following. I regained custody of my children 6 years after they were (legally) stolen from me. Both children are college graduates and doing well. We enjoy a wonderful relationship. I am on good terms with my ex-wife who considers me her dearest friend, and who regrets taking the actions she did (which included a 209A order that took me three years to beat once I shed lawyers and represented myself).

Though I no longer have a personal stake in this issue, I remain outraged at the terrible injustices perpetrated against men and their children under the rubric of protecting women from “domestic abuse.” And I expect to continue from time to time to emerge from my now peaceful retirement from the movement to serve up the figurative two-by-four between the eyes to individuals like you who are sorely in need of correction.

The last point I wish to make is the one that ‘good’ FR advocates are expected to make first. It is considered politically suicidal to criticize battered women advocates, and so the nuanced approach is to first offer ‘validation’ for true female victims of domestic violence before letting loose with the criticism. I offer it here last.

Do not infer from anything that I have written that I am somehow unaware of the reality of domestic violence (against women). It is insulting to even suggest such a thing. We are all aware of the all too real cases where vicious men brutally assault and abuse their wives or girlfriends. Even make-believe violence against women is difficult for me to watch; after all, I’m but a helpless victim of patriarchal conditioning. I still cringe during the domestic violence scene in “The Godfather.” One of the most difficult things I have ever had to watch is the infamous example where some animal actually videotaped himself abusing his wife.

And this knowledge contributes to my utter disdain for DV feminazis who exploit real victims of domestic violence by manipulating public perception because of such sympathies and emotions that are experienced by all good people.

Don’t bother to reply. I have no interest in educating the stupid. Besides cc’ing Joe Ureneck (who is unaware of this letter) I will however be posting this on the web as an open letter. All this effort shouldn’t go to waste… perhaps some good may come of it if it inspires others to similarly upbraid fools like you.

If you do wish to actually learn something about the subject, I suggest you get back in touch with Joe Ureneck, one of the few people in the movement whom I hold in high regard—and see if he is willing to overlook your hatchet job and expend some effort to educate you. Better yet, go to an actual courtroom and talk to litigants. And never, ever, trust anything spoken by a feminazi.

FINI

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-199033051/commentary-domestic-violence-out.html

Domestic violence: out of the frying pan …

By David Yas, Lawyers Weekly, May 4, 2009

Joseph Ureneck really wants me to write that wives physically abuse their husbands just as often as husbands physically abuse their wives.

He wants me to write that the vast majority of women are lying when they claim that they have been beaten by their husbands.

And he wants me to write that the law is so flawed in Massachusetts that men accused of domestic violence lose everything important in their lives without a real chance to defend themselves.

I can’t write that. I won’t. But Ureneck has my attention.

His group and others like it are plotting to defeat judicial nominees whose philosophies don’t comport with their own.

Spurned by the courts and angered by a society that has been sensitive to battered women, fatherhood rights groups have landed on our turf, the judicial system.

Buttoned-downed and organized, they are now making a point of loudly protesting judicial nominees who have shown any sort of sensitivity to domestic-violence issues.

Ureneck didn’t sound like a fanatic when I spoke with him over the phone. The chair of the Fatherhood Coalition, Ureneck in recent days urged the rejection of two judicial nominees, Laurie MacLeod and Sydney Hanlon, at their confirmation hearings. Both judges were ultimately confirmed (MacLeod to the Palmer District Court; Hanlon to the Appeals Court).

Said Ureneck: “We saw two individuals who were proactive in promoting the 209A [restraining-order] regime. … Our perspective is that there is something akin to a Holocaust going on, and so it is worth rejecting a judicial nominee.”

Ned Holstein, executive director of Fathers and Families, claims that “in a relatively short period of time, we will look back on this as an embarrassing era. It reminds me of the McCarthy era, or the anti-immigrant hysteria, or other periods of time when we have singled out particular groups.”

Holstein and Ureneck utter things that many of us would say simply defy reason.

Ureneck estimates that between 80 to 90 percent of women who claim they have been beaten, or are in genuine fear, are lying.

Both men are convinced that the notion that men are more likely to do harm to women than vice versa is a myth, largely citing the comprehensive work of a professor of psychology named Martin S. Fiebert.

“It’s a seriously flawed argument that men are inherently violent,” Ureneck declares.

Holstein says: “There’s no question … it’s not a matter of debate.”

I asked Holstein: Can’t most men overpower most women? Isn’t that common sense?

“When you actually think about it, it’s not common sense at all,” he says, claiming that most people know of an incident of a wife becoming violent with her husband. He recalls the image of a wife hitting her husband with a frying pan.

“Culture thinks that’s funny,” he says. “But if a man did it, it would be unacceptable.”

Lydia Watts, executive director of the Victim Rights Law Center, says what a lot of us think: No. There is no epidemic of women fabricating tales of domestic violence.

She says: “I have heard thousands of victims’ stories and barely ever doubted one.”

I believe Watts. Or at least I want to. But the uneasy truth is that I don’t know for sure.

Watts says that Fiebert’s research is flawed, and perhaps it is. But I cannot stand up and say that Ureneck and Holstein are 100 percent wrong. And, in fact, voices, including that of Governor’s Councilor Christopher A. Iannella, have made the point at confirmation hearings that reform is needed in the law to give divorced dads a fair shake.

Ureneck and Holstein may be on the fringe. They may even be downright sexist. (Mark Charalambous, who writes a column for the Fatherhood Coalition’s website, wrote on the subject of then-presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton: “There has never been a female president. Ergo, no woman candidate can be perceived as ‘presidential,’ assuming a rational interpretation of the word. When one thinks of the phrase ‘commander in chief,’ a pear-shaped woman in a pants-suit doesn’t come to mind.”)

But they also may have found a comfortable forum to state their case.

Hanlon, a leading voice against domestic violence during her days as a practicing lawyer, heard no fewer than five speeches from representatives from the Fatherhood Coalition at her confirmation hearing. That’s a lot, even given the Jerry-Springer-like hysteria that can erupt at any given Governor’s Council hearing.

As it turns out, Ureneck had rallied his group with the following post on the coalition’s website: “Please rendezvous with Joe Ureneck who will be at the Governor’s Office and will be wearing a badge that says, ‘Vote No on Hanlon.’”

The Fatherhood Coalition then uploaded to YouTube video footage of the hearing that its members had shot – in 13 parts. I’ll let you know when I’m done watching them all.

And this sort of thing will continue.

“This is a fast growing movement,” Holstein says of calling out judges and judicial appointees. “It’s not new in concept, but it is new in execution.”

I am reminded of a line from the film “Hoosiers,” when a narrow-minded fellow is concerned that Gene Hackman’s new-to-town, unconventional basketball coach is turning the small town of Hickory upside-down. He tells the coach: “Look, mister, there’s two kinds of dumb: the guy that gets naked and runs out in the snow and barks at the moon, and the guy who does the same thing in my living room. First one don’t matter; the second one you’re kinda forced to deal with.”

Yes, judicial nominees are going to have to deal with groups like Ureneck’s and Holstein’s.

Watts, of the Victim Rights Law Center, says these groups “are free to do what they want, but the frustration I have is that this is a calculated effort against judges. These are judges who have shown strong understanding and commitment, and they are penalized for doing so.”

The modern manifestations of free speech – public hearings, websites, the vast chaos of the blogosphere – tend to turn the sullen into spokespeople.

Seeing these groups protest at judicial confirmation hearings gives dads who have been accused of domestic violence some hope. But is it false hope?

Before showing up at a hearing and telling their tale, men embittered by their treatment in the legal system should demand answers.

Are these leaders arguing facts, or are they playing on emotions? Will attacking a judicial nominee keep an unqualified person off the bench, or will it merely stain the reputation of someone who will serve Massachusetts well?

Fatherhood rights groups should be careful that their attacks are really meant to improve the judiciary and are not just borne out of the most contemptible of motives: revenge.

END

I have decided to do a piece offering some marital advice to men. And I know men pretty well. I might as well be doing a porn review for the readers of Ms. Magazine. But I am feeling dangerous and my fingers are starting to work, so here goes.

My first piece of advice when it comes to marriage is simple.

Don’t. And I do mean never. And, yes, that means you.

I don’t cotton much to psychobabble, so I won’t make a hypocrite of myself by putting you though it. Thankfully, it is not necessary. For it isn’t relationship dynamics that will get you. It’s math. And the numbers are scary.

First, and most of you know this, more than half of all marriages end in divorce, not counting the ones that end in murder, suicide and psychiatric facilities. But that doesn’t mean that only half of marriages are failures. There is a lot of failed marriages that don’t end up as divorces. These are people who stay married and make a hobby of hating each other like Palestinians and Israelis.

And the math on marriage isn’t near as disturbing as the numbers you will be faced with when it‘s over. The equation goes roughly something like this.

1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1981 Buick Skylark.

Numbers are sometimes ugly, but they don’t lie.

But wait, you say, I can change that equation with a pre-nup!

Yes, you can. Here are the factor weighed results.

1 angry wife + 1 lawyer + 1 family court + 1 prenuptial agreement = 1 impoverished man living in a studio apartment and driving a 1982 Buick Skylark.

Pre-nups take more time to draw up than the courts take tossing them aside.

The fact of the matter is that in modern culture men are better off downing ten shots of tequila and stumbling blindfolded through a mine field. The odds are better.

Think about it for a moment. Marriage is quite literally an investment of not only your heart, but all of your work, income and future income, especially when children are involved. Now, if an investment broker told you he had a deal in which you could invest, with mostly intangible returns, and there was more than a 50% chance that you would be wiped out and spend most of the rest of your life paying the margin call or going to jail, how much would you invest?

Well?

Oh, come on now, you might be saying. It’s not fair to reduce the institution of marriage into a financial equation. Well, yes it is. Believe me, if the woman you marry doesn’t heavily consider your income prior to saying yes, she is the infinitesimal exception. And for those of you who still think it is natural and right for a man to be the breadwinner and the head of the family, please know that would be the same head that gets lobbed off in the family court where more than half of you will end up.

And even if you don’t think, for who knows what reasons, that marriage is about money, you better believe that divorce is. Reducing holy matrimony to assets and liabilities is precisely what family courts are designed to do. And they do it with brutal efficiency. If you walk in to one of those places as a man in western culture, you will find that out in the most sobering ways imaginable.

Your experience there will leave you with a mental block. You won’t even be able to say the words “family court” again, for they will find you, shivering in the corner, mumbling incoherently about “that place.”

A lot of married men already know this. Those are the guys in the other half of the marriage statistics. You know, the group that is “successful?” Plenty of them have consulted lawyers because they wanted to escape insufferably nasty, horrifically high maintenance wives, but the more legal realities they heard, the more those banshees they were married to began to resemble June Cleaver. As soon as they coined the phrase “Take him to the cleaners,” the follow up, “cheaper to keep her,” wasn’t far behind.

Just don’t do it.

Living with a woman may be a better option, but you need to be careful with that one, too. Depending on the laws where you live, you could end up married without knowing it. So gather your facts.

Yes guys, that means go see a lawyer, one that understands men’s legal issues, before you even shack up. Do it the moment she asks if she can leave some clothes in your closet. Better yet, do it now, while you don’t have a girlfriend and can still think from the neck up. Consider the legal consult the investment of a lifetime, because it is.

And having children? Sure. Just be prepared to have every connection to those children severed when it’s over, except, of course, for the financial connection. That will be maintained at gunpoint.

So choose that Skylark carefully. You’ll be driving it for a long time.

I know that some of you are thinking, “Oh, that will never happen to me.” All I can say is that more than half of you are deluding yourselves, and the rest of you have no reliable way to know just how lucky you will be. For those who maintain that adolescent sense of invulnerability, such admonitions will fall on deaf ears. Never underestimate the power of denial.

I also know that some of you, especially some women that are reading this, are saying “Hey, wait! Not all women are like that! They are not all the same!” And you are right. But all family courts are the same. Screwed in L.A. Shafted in New York. Swindled in London. They are all the same.

Just don’t do it.

But, in the rare case you are not going to listen to me and make your own decisions, and you insist on taking that plunge, I have some suggestions on finding a suitable bride that might help with damage control down the road.

First, never finance a relationship. Only date women that pay their own way from the start. Admittedly that reduces your chances of dating, much less marriage, but there is a sound reason for it.

It leaves you with a better, if less common, class of woman. For if a woman feels that she is entitled to ride your wallet though life when she is infatuated with you, when you can do no wrong and are the most amazing man she ever met, just imagine how she will feel about your wallet when she hates the very sight of you and the sound of your voice makes her want to claw her own eyes out.

Watch her behavior and learn from it. How does she act when you disappoint her? What is her reaction to hearing the word “no,” or when you choose your way instead of her way?

If she takes it in stride and moves on, then you might have a keeper, inflection on the word might.

However, if she responds to the fact that you went golfing when she didn’t want you to by cutting you off in the bedroom for a few days, or by telling you how selfish and immature you are for having any interests that don’t revolve around her, what do you imagine she will do when she fully believes that you are the anti-Christ and are responsible for every ill in her miserable life?

And that, gentlemen, is precisely the woman you will face in a divorce. She won’t be rational or reasonable or even principled. She will be, quite literally, your mortal enemy. And she will have the full force of the state on her side.

Make that a 1971 Pinto.

And so there you have it, guys. A brief primer on the potential house of horrors we call marriage. All you need to do to have a fighting chance, though, is find a woman who makes her own money and considers it natural to pay her own way; a woman who understands that no one is the center of the universe and that meeting in the middle is the only sane path to a partnership.

In other words, just don’t do it.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men

The following list consists of internet podcasts and radio shows, some live and interactive, as well as audio archives about family rights issues.  These audio shows feature interviews with professionals and victim families.

• Best Interest of the Family
• DadsDivorce.com podcasts
• Dads on the Air
• Get Your Justice Live
• Lee PAS Foundation
• Split in Two