Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for September 2010

Enraged, Estranged, Restraining Order, Released (same-day without bond), 4 kids (and wife) Dead, 5th injured, plus 2 orphans. All within one year.

leave a comment »

If you get ONE thing from this article and my blogging it, think twice before obtaining a restraining order. i really do suspect that the people who issue them get a per-capita reimbursement (say, if it’s a nonprofit encouraging the woman to get one), or who knows who else, for issuing one, to justify the existence of this charade. Of course, if a single restraining order would open a window wide enough and long enough (before the batterers’ intervention/supervised visitation/fatherhood-marriage-promotion shared-parenting people get in there) to actually REMOVE one’s ass, and children, and relocate — that’d probably be better. Of course, you might get, as a mother, thrown in jail for depriving children of access to their obsessive, threatening, stalking, jealous, death-threatening (and in this case, “clubbing,” as in alcohol and/or entertainment…) father. Pick one of several unpleasant choices for your individual situation…

(This article says “enraged” man also shot himself {to die? Or for emotional appeal post-murder?} but doesn’t detail whether he survived or was arrested THIS time, without ability to post bail, now that 5 people have died, and a 15-year old was critically injured).

I’m going to risk the wrath of AP and post (with credits) the entire article. I believe this is within copyright limits (see link on my blog to this), and moreover, I believe it MIGHT if heeded save another step-family mom wipeout. Particularly if one of the family members believes a restraining order means anything practically, which it doesn’t.

Let me rephrase that — a restraining order does mean SOMETHING practically (case in point). They piss off the person the restraint was placed on. We should call them (in addition to “certifiably insane”) “inciting orders.” The police then release this person after previous violence, and often a picture-perfect point-for-point match of every item on the typical “lethality risk assessment” check sheet. Perhaps THIS is how DCFS & foster care gets kids?? ??

I’m going to post the whole article ONCE, without interrupting or marking it up (like I usually do) with room for reader response afterwards. There’s a brief “What the ….” followed by blank lines, to put in the emotional expletives I hope will accompany the reading.

Then, a little more time for critical assessment — what did you notice (in the reporting, in the incident?) after which I will point out (besides the language of the report), an area of increasing concern for me, in these “it Bleeds, it Leads” headlines, as well as other of my own possible reading between the lines.

(1) – UNCUT article

Enraged man kills estranged wife,* 4 stepchildren,
self

OK,

“What the _ _ _ _? God D _ _ _! _ _

_!” 36-yr old mother of 7 children loses 4 of them, and her life, despite efforts to save it?

How did this happen? Why did this happen? Is someone responsible besides the father?


Who writes these headlines!?

Do they have a tumbler, one word per card, kind of like the lotto, and when the police blotter says XX people dead, a loose assortment of the verbs, adjectives, and a predictable assortment of posthumous/after-death commentary.

  • Enraged MAN, estranged WIFE.

Why not Man & Woman? But since it’s obviously about (another) domestic violence family wipeout, it should really be “Husband and Wife.” Even enraged, the word “man” encompasses more than “wife” which is a function in a relationship. Minor as it seems, I object to this phrase. How does it go at the wedding? “I now pronounce you husband and wife?” or “I now pronounce you MAN and wife.” If the latter, I recommend calling the wedding off.

  • ENRAGED/RAMPAGE :

Who writes these headlines? This man wasn’t “enraged” — he was a man of his word. He said he was going to put her in the morgue and her family would cry. He did, and I’m sure they did, too — what’s left of them…This was a rampage, as to its effect, but not necessarily as to the man’s mood, or emotions, being worse than normal — normal seems to include death threats, assaults, property damage with weapons that COULD kill (knives), although guns later did, and in general off-the-chart behavior, probably even for that neighborhood where shots were not uncommon.
Don’t you DARE pull “Marriage Promotion” out of this one. She was married, and very possibly need (5 children, one per year, approximately) required help?? Want to guess whether the first Daddy(s) paid child support enough for them to survive? #2, these were married! The children did NOT wake up in a “fatherless” home (if you count stepfathers, plus the two young ones). Now 3/7ths of them they will — I hope at least not with THAT father.

  • ESTRANGED:

This is the LEAST relevant adjective to describe a woman, other than it typically precedes “dead,” so it at least warns the reader. “Terrorized” was more like it. He was the “Strange”one, from what I can tell.

The article says she repeatedly took him back “hoping things would get better.” While I believe her taking him back was more a factor of need (see list of children) and probable threats about what would happen if she left him, (see “jealous/obsessive/stalking, etc.) than her neighbor’s assessment of her mental state. Either that, or she was numbed/terrorized into “hoping” as few other alternatives seemed around. I say this as a mother (we are all still alive, last I heard at least of the Dad) who didn’t leave until guns and knives came into real serious play… And one needs a way to leave in order to do so…

So no, she wasn’t estranged — not until the final restraining order. They had irreconciliable differences, right? He wanted and threatened to kill her. She begged to differ. “Estranged” makes it sound like he holds the central ground, and she was “estranged” from him. (see above: she was a wife and mother. No work life?? Even at 36 yrs old?)

  • DISPUTE

The horror that unfolded around 2 a.m. Monday was the culmination of a lengthy dispute that came to a head Dec. 20, when Whyte-Dell said her husband came after her with a knife, slashed her tires and scratched an “X” into the concrete driveway.

dis·pute/disˈpyo͞ot/

Noun: A disagreement, argument, or debate.

Verb: Argue about (something); discuss heatedly: “I disputed the charge on the bill”; “he taught and disputed with local poets”.” (DICTIONARY.com)

dispute – definition of dispute by the Free Online Dictionary

v. dis·put·ed, dis·put·ing, dis·putes. v.tr. 1. To argue about; debate. 2. To question the truth or validity of; doubt: Her friends disputed her intentions.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disputeCachedSimilar
to engage in argument : debate; especially : to argue irritably or with irritating persistence. transitive verb. 1. a : to make the subject of disputation
I dispute the habitual usage of the word “dispute” (minus any direct object — it’s a transitive verb, see above definitions) in association with the following “death’ as if it were somehow causative. it ain’t. Death, i.e. here, “killings” following threats to kill, results from one individual murdering another which is a choice, unless in self defense (or war). It has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood (as to casuing the death). The cause of death in this case (unless I may legitimately bring up the police factor in releasing without bond, which presumably also involved the unmentioned “judge” (or, sentencing guidelines in the criminal venue) which allowed it) is bullet(s) stopping life. Don’t blame, or even try to implicate the low-level of conflict (by comparison), “dispute.”

This is no small deal when “domestic violence” mixes with “family law,” home of the thesis that this violence is a Dispute and ALternate Methods of Resolving it should be found, than punishing it as a crime, and protecting the victims as the victims they are, not to mention the communities where it occurs.

Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution

Mediating the Litigated Case

Irvine, California (thru Pepperdine Univ. School of Law)

January 20-22 and February 3-5, 2011Six day training program.
Register Now!

From 2005 to 2010, this program has sold out entirely through web site registrations, prior to our advertising the program!

cf., “. As increasing numbers of courts are requiring parties to mediate in order to accommodate an overburdened legal system, there is a growing demand for professionals who, in addition to being able to evaluate a case, can also facilitate negotiations between adversarial parties to reach innovative solutions. Now lawyers and other established professionals can use their expertise to break into a new area of practice with tremendous possibilities. The Mediating the Litigated Case program offers a unique opportunity to learn about the mediation process in a format geared specifically toward civil litigation cases.
Notice, it doesn’t say family, or criminal. Notice the new field of expertise. This says NOTHING about criminal violence, but the treatment of such violence (hich threats are) as IF they were a “dispute” is a violence to logic, sanity, and most particularly to the person , any battered spouse, forced into this. S/he has lost before going in the door — it’s already framed as a “dispute.”
The word “DISPUTE follow”d by DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS is an INSULT. and produces cognitive dissonance. Please innoculate yourself mentally when reading it… It downgrades “Danger” like the word “abuse” downgrades “violence,” which abuse is. It is a mis-USE of a person (or relationship). People exist independently as souls, bodies (and many say — along with me — ) spirits. “Use” of people leads towards Auschwitz. People as people opens that door.

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 29, 2010 at 9:03 am

Reallocating Children for Profit — Then, and Now

with 2 comments

My heart is weary with awareness of the RICO, fraud, lying, and slick promises that at one time was probably a decent U.S. Government. Perhaps… I may need to back out of blogging for a while — do your own homework. That’s the only kind you’ll believe anyhow, right

I also am a mother missing my daughters, and too aware of the risks of re-claiming them. The dialogue among the professionals “fixing” the (supposed — as opposed to actual) problems has become, essentially, the problem.    Notice, I didn’t say “dialogues” — (plural).
This doesn’t necessarily mean that sincere workers are going to have fangs and drool.


Please forgive this post. If it doesn’t look right tomorrow, I may retract it.   HOWEVER, we just have an Australian mother that fled, was caught in part with help from Interpol, associations of firemen, and a dramatic bicycle ride — AND a family court taking a side in the matter, thus training people to report anyone that looks or behaves remotely “inappropriate” (as determined by the status quo).  Independence — particularly in women — IS being bred out of the majority of the world’s population. Some of the most culpable in this are Scandinavian/European, I think.

The professionals want us to learn to identify dangerous abusers, child molesters, etc. (oh yes, and any other “bigot.”)

None of these, hear tell, includes people on the grants circuit, the social service institutes  funded by foundations, or grants, or . . ..  in Congress, the courts, or law enforcement.  In fact we have a sense, somehow, that being a “civil servant” indicates “innately virtuous.”  It doesn’t.   Neither are we taught to suspect that anyone on the public payroll is a psychopath (or criminal).  Unless a few are caught, tarred & feathered on TV, so as to imply these were the eccentrics, and not the routine who got careless, or someone who stepped on the wrong toes at the wrong time.

Above all, the responsibility of the average citizen is to NOT trust his or her own judgment about right or wrong as compared with any printed standard (say, U.S.Code, State Codes, etc.) and act on that integrity.  All hell could break loose if thought broke loose.  THINKING — or thinking one can think (or has permission to) is a clear sign of mental illness, and being at risk to harming onesself or someone else [as opposed to, say, competition with the status quo].

The Internet is a great place to look up terms like “Thought Police” oro “Prison Planet.”  I’ll go with the former, from a Brit relocated to America.  He (or she?) doesn’t miss the sense of being spied on…. (you mean it’s WORSE there??)

Faster computer processors than mine may miss the “google–analytics” noticing and tracking what i read, searched, and clicked through to…as an indicator of what I thought, and might be later SOLD.  Or, TOLD.  ALWAYS remember that primary applications in the world as we know it now, are military in application, however else they are sold.

SIGNS OF THE TIMES:  THOUGHT POLICE!

There are many things I miss about England since I moved to America three years ago. I miss the English food, the English countryside and my English friends.

But there is one thing that I do not miss about England. I do not miss the sense of constantly being watched. I do not miss that gnawing suspicion that my private life is in fact public.

The year before I moved to America, an official report compiled on behalf of the then information commissioner Richard Thomas, revealed that the British people were more spied upon by their political leaders than any other population in the free world.

The surveillance experts and academics who compiled the report pointed out that through the growing network of databases, surveillance systems and security cameras, the average Brit now has his movements tracked, habits profiled and photograph taken up to 300 times a day. Since then, it has only gotten worse, with 2009 being the worst year for civil liberty since the days of the Viking invasions, as this compendium of stories indicates.

And that was before news hit that Britain’s Labour government created a staggering 4,300 new crimes since taking power. (I have mentioned some of the more silly of these rules HERE.)

Living in England was becoming rather like living in the Soviet Union under communism, with lawmakers cultivating what Guardian columnist Henry Porter described as “a we-know-where-you-live edge to the message, a sense that this government is dividing the nation into suspects and informers.” I just read in the news today that the British government is considering offering bribes to people for spying on their neighbors.

I can say from personal experience that Mr. Porter’s words ring true. The year before I moved to America, a social worker visited us to investigate because there had been an anonymous complaint about our parenting. The complaint, we were told, was that our children were not dressed warmly enough when playing outside. [All metabolisms are the same theory…]  Social services also had to investigate us because an anonymous informant reported that our children were being too noisy when playing outside.  [I knew of a case in America, a single father, where his children were too QUIET.  He was smart, and didn’t lose his children…]

So, use some judgment, be circumspect when strangers are propounding WHOM to be afraid of and WHOM to trust.  I have come to understand there is usually an inverse relationship to the urgency of the hunt and the reality fo the danger.  Especially when women with small children are being hunted down and turned in.

The fact is, the most dangerous time for a woman leaving abuse is when she approaches a family law courtroom.  It may look safer than staying home, taking ongoing violence and abuse you at least know where it’s coming from.   This world is not a nice place for “vulnerable.”  It’s a “marketplace” for vulnerables in society.

Otherwise, apart from this net, she might actually get free, with kids. And yes, I DO know women can be violent and abusive — but man of these include second partners, i.e., he is “playing” them against each other. Overall, women’s contributions (i.e., giving birth, nursing, AND being smart enough to run businesses too) have to be artificially handicapped. A mother defending a child can be a formidable force, and this is known. Just look at the animal kingdom, for example, Bears, or Elephants.

OK —

When you think of “sold into slavery,” do you think of a particular skin color?

Well think again. I am, quite honestly, very disturbed by things I wish I didn’t see, well-organized too.

Elected officials have definitely sold us down the river for profit, and this hurts children the most, I’d have to say.

The woman in Wisconsin (Wacko in Wisconsin) committed the “crime” of being bankrupted in a divorce and leaving the state for safety. Powerful and connected individuals worked on her daughter, got a foot in the door, and got the girl. I still don’t know where that mother is. BOY does that hit close to home.

Groups in Australia, UK, and America (and elsewhere) are fighting each other, when what they should be fighting is totalitarian society. In the process of staving off intrusive CPS, you MEN need to fork it over and allow mothers to say NO to being beaten in the home, or we will NOT stand beside you against anything.

You people (USA) who fork over your taxes, we who are dependent on “social services” (which mortgage our young and our souls to others) (and don’t come through anyhow) — YOU need to start audits, demand accountability, request FOIA, and stop expecting the district attorneys and police to stop crime — and the schools to educate your children too, folks. Take some responsibility, so those of us who HAVE, can get away with the sin of independence.

I really do believe that our country has not yet taken into account that it didn’t stop slavery, just repeatedly shifted it around. I came to this conclusion by investigating the organizations (and agencies) that have p_ _ _ _ ed me off by simply draining years of my life I would otherwise have spent productively in my own communities and obeying their laws. Some of which are detailed in “What Decade Were These Stories.”

So, how about “What Century?”

More later — maybe. Visit “http://thesociologycenter.com/slavetrade.html” and upload (or download) some of the documentation. Compare with “Are You An Acceptable Person” by Charles Pragnell.

The author (website person) appears to be from ARKANSAS. Wait til you see the post at the end…

BELOW THIS ARTICLE IS WHERE I GOT IT FROM:

Historian reveals tragedy of Swiss child trade

Marco Leuenberger was inspired by his father's childhood as a 'Verdingkind'
Image Caption: Marco Leuenberger was inspired by his father’s childhood as a ‘Verdingkind’ (swissinfo)

Slave labour, beatings, sexual abuse, fear and isolation were the norm for thousands of “Verdingkinder”, or “discarded children”, who were given away or sold as cheap labour until the 1950s.

Historian Marco Leuenberger told swissinfo that the time has come for reappraisal of this dark episode.

Leuenberger was ten years old when his father first told him of his childhood as a discarded child. Also aged ten, his father had to endure the daily grind of getting up at 5am and working until late into the night.

Inspired by his father and thousands of children like him, Leuenberger in 1991 embarked on a huge research project to explore this dark chapter in Switzerland’s history.

The discarded children were usually orphans, illegitimate or came from the poorest families and they were either given away or sold to farmers.

“Most of these children were used as cheap labour, exploited physically or even sexually abused,” Leuenberger concludes in his study.

Leuenberger and other historians are calling for a nationwide research project to be carried out into the trade in “Verdingkinder”, while many of these former child labourers are still alive.

swissinfo: Were children given away or sold throughout Switzerland?

Marco Leuenberger: Yes, especially in German-speaking Switzerland in the Protestant cantons, though also in Catholic areas. It also happened in [French-speaking] canton Vaud. It is also known that children from [Italian-speaking] canton Ticino were sent to work as chimney sweeps in northern Italy.

swissinfo: How many of these ‘Verdingkinder’ were there?

M.L.: For years, the trade involved more than 10,000 children [every year]. But it’s very difficult to come up with an estimate because there is no evidence available prior to 1820. There were also lots of children who were traded without the knowledge of the local authorities.

swissinfo: How did Swiss authorities manage this child trade?

M.L.: Poor families were forced to register with their local authority every year. It was then decided whether all the family members were [adequately] provided for. Authorities in the 19th century had the right to separate the poorest families.

There were no criteria that [farmers] had to fulfil to receive a “Verdingkind”. They only had to prove that they needed more cheap workers.

swissinfo: Why did the authorities turn a blind eye to the abuses committed against these children?

M.L.: There was a different perspective at the time. Today we speak about children’s rights and children’s right to education. But those kinds of considerations didn’t figure in the 1800s. Lots of children had to work. Poverty was a huge problem at the time.

And even though there were critics of the system even back then, these were voices in the wilderness.

swissinfo: Did these children suffer physically from the work they had to do?

M.L.: That was often the case. They were often given too little to eat [which stunted their growth].

There were also emotional scars. Lots of these discarded children couldn’t cope with adult life. Statistics show that many of them turned to crime.

swissinfo: And these children were also often sexually abused?

M.L.: I found dozens of cases of sexual abuse in court files, most of which never became public. The problem was usually solved by moving the child to another place.

The people who committed these acts were sometimes fined, but never imprisoned.

swissinfo: Did some rejected children complain or rebel?

M.L.: Some tried to, but they usually didn’t find anyone willing to listen.

swissinfo: Children were auctioned off in some places as late as the 1930s. How were these auctions allowed to happen in “free” Switzerland?

M.L.: It’s not possible to explain that. And an explanation wasn’t required at the time

==========

FOR CONSIDERATION:

  1. SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE SWISS CHILD SLAVE TRADE FROM 1850 TO 1950 AND THE CURRENT UNITED STATES CHILD SLAVE TRADE ALSO EXECUTED THROUGH THE PURPORTED CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM
    The recently disclosed Swiss child slave trade (Verdingkinder Scandal) that operated behind a facade of family welfare and child protection from about 1850 to 1950 is identical to the current child slave trade that has developed in the United States child protection system. The Swiss and United States child slave trade systems have the following social processes in common:

    • Poor required to register with the Government. (US Public Assistance, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and numerous other special programs.)
    • Once registered with the Government, Parents were subjected to ongoing monitoring to determine if “the best interest of the child” was served by removing the child from the home and placing the child in the Verdingkinder system.
    • Children who aged out of the system were not intellectually and emotionally prepared for adult life, especially marital relationships.
    • Decisions about the “best interest of the child” were made by Government employees using subjective criteria.
    • Children auctioned off or distributed under government sanction. (US Child Protection Agencies post pictures of children held for adoption on the internet and foster parents are enticed with additional household income generated by foster children.)
    • Children physically abused, starved, and malnourished by State and foster custodians.
    • Children sexually abused by State and foster custodians.
    • Children murdered by State and foster custodians.
    • Children economically exploited. (In the Swiss system by the middlemen, farmers and businesses using the child labor; In the US system by State employees who wrongfully seize children for federal funds to meet the agency payroll, by psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers filing fraudulent insurance claims and crime victim therapy service provider claims for nonexistent or fictitious child crime victims, and by attorneys, prosecutors, child abuse investigators, juvenile court judges, and civil court judges who exploit false child abuse allegation to sustain their income, power or prestige.)
    • Criminal activity was concealed with the absence of records, falsified records and incomplete records.
    • Government agencies paid fees and subsidies to State and foster custodians who physically abused, murdered, sexually abused and economically exploited children.
    • Law enforcement agencies ignored or covered up criminal acts against children by State and foster custodians.
    • When prosecutions did occur for crimes against Verdingkinder, the punishment was minor compared to the crime.
    • The operation intended to benefit poor families and children became an organized criminal enterprise economically, physically, and sexually exploiting children.
    • Government officials and media not directly involved in the criminal activity refused to believe that a child slave trade could have developed in a civilized nation like Switzerland.
    • The economic exploitation of children in the Swiss system did not end until a cheaper means of farm production than child slave labor was found.
    • The Swiss child slave trade also expanded and operated outside of Government control. (The private purchasing and sale of children in the US is conducted by private child brokers and child adoption attorneys.)
    • SWISS VERDINGKINDER SCANDAL ARTICLES
      “No one could help me escape” By Kim Wilsher (Filed: 14/03/2004)
      “Historian reveals tragedy of Swiss child trade,” February 29, 2004.

MONEY LAUNDERING — CAUGHT!

To promote Governance with Respect Ethics Accountability and Transparency (GREAT)

ARKANSAS

Corruption Information by Individual States in USA.

AR: Arkansas

FORMER STATE SENATOR GETS 46 MONTHS IN JAIL FOR FRAUD Mike Todd, former Dem. state senator, was sentenced to a term of 46 months after being convicted of money laundering and mail fraud in which he illegally profited from a state program meant to aid children in custody disputes. He was amongst ten people indicted in the scandal in 1999 and pleaded for a lesser sentence, though the sentence was the minimum under federal guidelines. In another case, Nick Wilson, former state senator, was sentenced to 70 months for bilking state programs of nearly $2 million. (AOL News (AP), Mar. 24, 2001, summary by Marg Reynolds).

Former state senator, Mike Todd, was convicted of money laundering and mail fraud and faces up to 30 years in prison and $2.5 million in fines. Former senator, Steve Bell, was found innocent of the same charges. Former state senator, Nick Wilson, was convicted of tax evasion and is presently serving a 70-month sentence. Todd and Bell, together with six others who struck plea deals, intended to divide $3 million in grants. Todd and Bell were accused of pilfering a program providing legal assistance to children in custody cases. (AP, Nov. 16, 2000, summary by Marg Reynolds).

SECOND EX-ARKANSAS SENATOR CONVICTED OF CORRUPTION. Former state Sen. Mike Todd of Arkansas was found guilty of money laundering and mail fraud for a scheme to illegally profit from a state program created to help children in custody disputes. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $2.5 million in fines. Todd’s co-defendant, former Sen. Steve Bell, was found by the jury to be innocent of the same charges. (Associated Press, 16 Nov 2000, summary by Debbie Uy).

AR: Arkansas: ten people including two state senators, etc. indicted on racketeering, mail fraud and money laundering charges.

(NYT, April 28, 1999, p. A18).

Back to USA with links to other States.

Back to Institute for Ethics and Economic Policy corruption information exchange home page. Remember our Disclaimer.

Last Update on June 28, 2003

(THESE apparently were just a few that got caught….)

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 21, 2010 at 8:23 pm

The Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case

with 2 comments

This post’s title, in my now commonplace format on this blog (providing and labeling the suffix to its shortlink):
The Truth, Half the Truth, and Only Half the Truth — Australian “Ad hominem” Disgrace in Stratton/Thompson case (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-zg,” published 9/18/2010, some format cleanup/clarifications so as to reference, 7/22/2017); I had referenced the Melinda Stratton case making headlines at the time, in Wacko in Wisconsin (or, its Pt.2) published 9/15 and 10/1/2010, respectively…  Blogger Let’s Get Honest updates below may be indicated by “//LGH,” put within “{{…}}” or in some other manner I see fit for the fastest format cleanup around… ///LGH 7/22/2017.   This talks about  a man who bicycled through Europe (advertising the foundation sponsoring him for this) when his wife fled Australia amid allegations of sexual abuse, with her child.  She was hunted down and the child brought back under “the Hague” agreements.   I discuss “ad hominem” at length as applied to name-calling within Family Court, and ask how why these cases boil down to being tried in (a) absence of the relevant documentation and (b) in the mainstream media, with “Only Half the Truth” available to on-lookers.

Here Come Da Psychologists — follow- up.

Thought Crimes / Witch Hunts, 2nd millenium C.E

Poor, Poor Mr. Ken Thompson. He lost weight, but he gained the world, so far…

He had a foundation bankroll him:



Morcombe group bankrolled Thompson hunt

September 14, 2010 in SMH.com.au (link still current 2017), which stands for The Syndey Morning Herald:
AAP (stands for…)

© [2002] Australian Associated Press Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors. “Breaking News” is a service with content provided by AAP. AAP reserves all rights, including copyright, in services provided by it. The information, text and images in the service are for personal use only and may not be re-written, copied, re-sold or re-distributed, framed, linked or otherwise used whether for compensation of any kind or not, without the prior written permission of AAP.

This service is published for information only without assuming a duty of care. AAP is not in the business of providing professional advice, and gives no warranty, guarantee or other representation about the accuracy of the information or images contained in this service. AAP is not liable for errors, omissions in, delays or interruptions to or cessation of the services through negligence or otherwise.

The globe symbol and “AAP” are registered trade marks.

 

(Click image for article quoted in my Sept. 2010 post)

The foundation formed in honour of missing Queensland boy Daniel Morcombe
helped bankroll Ken Thompson’s international hunt for his son.

… It was a euphoric ending to a two-and-a-half-year search that saw Mr
Thompson cycle 6500km across Europe in search of the son he last saw in
April 2008, when his mother took him to Europe.

The parents of Daniel, presumed abducted and murdered on Queensland’s
Sunshine Coast in 2003, have revealed the foundation they set up in his
honour helped fund Mr Thompson’s search
.

The Daniel Morcombe Foundation paid for his flights to Europe and contributed $1000 to the cost of his hunt.

Daniel’s mother Denise said it was the first time the foundation had helped fund
such a mission, after Mr Thompson’s supporters sought help


Website link (checked 2017) + image shows it’s in Queensland, Australia, obviously (this was an Australian court case…)On this blog, I have focused on looking up financials primarily (actually, nearly 100%) of USA nonprofits.  I don’t really have the tools or know the websites to look up others, although I can read about them, or find what their registration # may be in a certain country.  M

Click HERE for foundation reference in my Sept. 2010 post on Melinda Stratton/Ken Thompson international mother-hunt; click image to enlarge.

y USA lookups are, of course, based on Forms 990 (or 990PF, EZ, O, “-N” for the postcards, etc.) and come from such nonprofits in this country (unless exempt under some special category, such as religious, educational, or mutual-benefit) reports to the IRS, “INternal (to the US) Revenue Service.”

However, I do know nonprofits based in the USA which main close ties and memberships (including board members and perhaps at times President or Chairmen) from other Commonwealth nations, including Australia.  Of course I’m thinking in this context, primarily of the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)….  So having things go south after a well-educated mother reports abuse, and seeing the “hunt the crime-committing bitch down” response is not really “foreign territory” psychologically, or in practice.

So here’s from the Morcombe Foundation’s website currently:  {{End, this part of 2017 update //LGH}}

The Morcombe family’s situation was ENTIRELY different from Mr. Thompson’s situation, and happened in a different context.  Linking the two is dishonest, particularly given the quantity  of PARENTAL kidnappings in the context of allegations of abuse.  Parental kidnappings could have two reasons — one, to stop abuse, two – to cover up abuse which has been reported, and/or punish the other parent.  It’s always a bad thing, but it’s DIFFERENT from stranger-kidnapping.

He put the foundation’s logo on his bike shirt in return.”
She urged people to continue to support the foundation, which relies on
donations and the sale of merchandise, to pursue its child safety and
other initiatives, including helping victims of crime.

OVERWHELMINGLY the Media scapegoats the fleeing mother, yet she is not the only one who fled for these reasons.   The underlying issue is whether or not abuse happened.  If abuse happened, then the repeated supervised visitations (3 or 4 times a week) would confuse a youngster (see Jack Stratton, Ph.D./NOMAS on this topic — I have a link) and prioritizes kids as property over children as potential victim.  The most VITAL question to answer is, did this happen or not.  At the bottom, I am going to repost the Caroline Overington article, (2009 Febr.), quoting Ms. Stratton’s reasons for leaving.

I had MY children stolen under false allegations that were easily disproved (not sexual or physical abuse).  The DA would not pursue adn the courts switched custody without giving a reason for doing so.  By law, they are required to, and my attorney, thinking quick on his feet, as the mediator had already ignored this FELONY, by simply failing to give me a cover sheet on which to notate it, but continually ignoring my responses, when he wanted to talk “psychology,” “how’s your relationship?” and I answered directly — I do not know where they are, they are truant, they are missing and have not been found; I have no contact with them, I am frightened for their safety, they have been stolen.”  I doubt this joker didn’t know that child-stealing was a felony.

I had sole physical custody, had done nothing — at all — wrong, no court order had been broken– by me.  And yet, there was a blank wall. Why?  I suggest that, because I am a woman, and in the U.S., a federal grant systems exists (which I found out about 3 years too late) which ties father presence to welfare reform and says, more noncustodial time ALWAYS appropriate.  I had already asked for supervised visitation, in order to reduce trauma of exchanges AND to prevent a kidnapping — and had been rebuffed by the court!  After these failures did in deed produce a kidnapping, did the court say, “oops!  Sorry, we should’ve listened?”  No, it absolutely did not.

I do not know either [member of this couple].  But I do know an unbalanced fight when I see one. 

 

WHAT ABOUT THE RELEVANT TRUTHS?  THOSE ALLEGATIONS!

Almost no one seems except those familiar with the problem of child abuse, and its cover up. seem to go beyond the knee-jerk repetition of ONE parent’s emotions. Perhaps when little Andrew grows up (what about HIS emotions, if he was actually sexually abused, as is alleged below?) he may run across a blog or two, where women supported not the criminality of child-stealing (we know what that feels like, many of us had children stolen illegally, then rubbberstamped “legal” afterwards).

Name-calling is the logical equivalent of face-slapping in response to an assertion:

In Logic, it’s called the “ad hominem.” When you can’t answer the argument, slander or attack the person. A well-known dodge. Of course this general practice pretty much summarizes the family law system.

Ad Hominem: (from “answers.com”)

ad HO-mi-nuhm, HOM-uh-nuhm) pronunciation

adverb, adjective:

  1. Appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or other personal considerations rather than to intellect or reason.
  2. Attacking an opponent personally instead of answering the argument.

Etymology
From Latin, literally “to the person”.

(FIRST, the news (and my commentary). Below, more references on “ad hominem.” It’s RELEVANT — because once any debate gets into the character category — by labeing (versus by showing identified patterns of deeds — it’s almost impossible to have a sane conversation, or defend onesself. This problem is CENTRAL to the structure of the fmaily law system, and the closest indicator I have that it is where batterers go to hide (and child-molesters) because there is plenty of ground cover there. It’s a win-win deal for those two chemically -receptive populations: Batterers and child-molesters need to go SOMEWHERE when the law is involved, the people most likely to notice these things are the other parent of the child, AND, hey — they need to work, too, right? How many otherr fields, besides sales and in government, could any psychologists and get a constant stream of forcibly-referred clientele? The business plan here is brilliant.

Caught, but still being scandalized

Two Parents, Two Possible Truths, the Heavy Hand of the Media Slathers Mr. Thompson’s emotions, worries,tribulations, and hopes — hearsay reports, quippable quotes, etc. across the Internet, aftter Ms. Stratton (Thompson) has been slapped in jail, from which I see not one single interview.

Where are the jailhouse interviews? Any attempts made to contact the Mom?

I want to hear more from her…

, ,

{{Those three tags are from “en.wordpress.com.”  @2017, I DNR writing the above quip; it sounds like me, except throwing in those capitals mid-paragraph….Anyhow, immediately below is a different article.}}

 

What About Melinda Stratton’s side of the Story?

(from: “http://angelzfury.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/what-about-melinda-strattons-side-of-the-story/”)

http://angelzfury.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/what-about-melinda-strattons-side-of-the-story/ or click image to enlarge. Referenced in my 9/18/2010 post; image added during 7/2017 post review/update (for formatting mostly)


In domestic law on September 12, 2010 at 11:53 pm

The news articles are flying in supporting a potential sexual abuser and claiming that Melinda Stratton is mentally ill. Mental illness is the only pathetic explanation as to why a businesswoman would run away from everything that is familiar to her and Andrew. If there was a criminal background, it would be featured, but no Melinda Stratton has nothing but the opinion of a court ordered psych.

Ken Thompson has certainly been around pushing his views to all that challenge until most people just give in and say, “Oh…Um…yes, shes crazy and your not an abuser”.

Note the word most. The exclusion is the community of REAL mothers and children who have been through this and know what Melinda has gone through. Lets face it, experts get paid for their opinion at the end of the day and I am sure some are willing to alter some to get a nice big payout at the end of the day. I place my bets on experience.

In Australia, we now have grown up children who have been forced by court order to stay with an abusive parent. No law is going to stop them from speaking out in the end as Australian jurisdiction only reaches so far.

Angelzfury.wordpress.com is a blogger; the article is still up @7/22/2017:

 

Someone posted another diatribe in a craigslist, a continent and half a globe away. That made me angry, particularly as it reported half the half-truth, and said nothing about “serious allegations” that might have prompted this woman to flee. So I kept reading, and this report tells a little more — not much, but a little:

A hard slog for dad and little boy lost as Ken Thompson waits to bring son Andrew home

[in “Adelaidenow.com.au/news/national…”]

The most unique data below is who was, and who was not gagged. A better title might have read:

“He was not gagged, we were”

Let’s review the case again: (see my previous post) “Serious allegations” by mother. Public is not allowed to know what they are, but some of us can guess.

But the two words “court” and “psychiatrists” should make it clear we are dealing with a royalty situation. You Do understand the connotations of Family COURT, right? No, it’s not like tennis or basketball,l we’re talking who’s in and who’s out at Buckingham, etc. These words indicate clout. Be in awe of them. Professionals are, after all, a higher life form than normal people, i.e., than parents in the courts (no matter what their normal professions may have been outside). Truth sticks better to the professional with more magnetic adhesion to decisionmakers.

Leading Australian psychiatrist (name of this person, is gagged) diagnoses mother as mentally ill, based on her believing certain facts. Status of fact-check (on which her insanity diagnosis might hinge) — not shown. Fact-checking is harder work than name-calling. Fact-checking entails finding evidence (of said facts) and a definition system related to actions. Psychology entails, looking a person in place, calilng the context, and comparing it to previous names called. Probably less foot-work.

The report the mother made is not available to the rest of us, but the mother, and her supporters, did NOT get permission to release it.

The report itself is also not available to the rest of us, but the father got permission to release that one was made, and the diagnosis, by special permission.

Which this article says:

IT ALMOST seems as if the easiest part is over. Ken Thompson’s international search for the son he hasn’t seen for 2 1/2 years ended this week when he wrapped his arms around six-year-old Andrew in an all-enveloping hug. But after cycling 6272km around Europe searching for the boy snatched from Sydney in a custody dispute with his mother Melinda Stratton, the hard yards have just begun.

Yesterday, the former deputy commissioner of the NSW Fire Brigade was waiting to hear if psychologists who monitored Monday’s 40-minute reunion would allow him daily meetings with his son.

There is expected to be a protracted legal fight to bring Andrew home after he was tracked down in the Dutch city of Amsterdam.

Well, THAT should be helpful for this little boy’s future wealth and welfare…

Melinda Stratton is in an Amsterdam jail on an Interpol warrant for taking her son out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. She may well have visiting rights to her son under Netherlands law.

Ms Stratton, who has accused her estranged husband of sexually abusing Andrew, is considering whether to fight her extradition to Australia.

Her family in Sydney is sticking by Ms Stratton, her Sydney lawyer Clayton Long said late yesterday.

Mr Long has been hired by Melinda’s brother John Stratton, chief investment officer with insurance giant IAG.

Mr Long said there was little he or the family could say because while Mr Thompson was given special dispensation by the Family Court to speak to the media in a bid to trace Andrew, Ms Stratton and her family had not.

“He’s not gagged, we are,” said Mr Long, of Clinch Long Letherbarrow Lawyers.

Mr Thompson, who has been staying with friends, is looking for an apartment in Amsterdam and plans to settle in for the long haul.

Under the Hague Convention on child abduction, Andrew has to be returned to his home country unless there are special reasons, such as his having settled in the Netherlands.

He is expected to remain in the care of the Dutch Child Protection Unit and, if he is returned to Australia, it may well be in the company of Australian Federal Police officers.

That would make some sense, particularly as to date, we don’t know whether those allegations had substance or not.

After the adrenalin rush of the reunion subsided, Mr Thompson, 57, said the insights into his child’s state of mind provided by the psychologists looking after him had been concerning.

“They said to me, it’s quite obvious he’s been told some very bad things about me,” said Mr Thompson.

“They’ve had to work through some things with him to make sure he’s comfortable with meeting this person he’s been told is such a horrible person.

Again — if the allegations are true, he IS a horrible person. If not, then we’d have to say he is not, although I don’t think calling in the posse of psychologists was an indicator of common sense. Well, depending on whether one is interested in the truth or not:

In early 2008, Ms Stratton walked out of their marriage.

On April 24, 2008, in the middle of Family Court proceedings, she boarded a Singapore Airlines flight with Andrew to Frankfurt in Germany.

The court allowed Mr Thompson, who denies his wife’s claims of child abuse, to reveal that, just before she disappeared, a psychiatric report found she was suffering from a mental condition that affected her judgment and ability to parent effectively.

Just to reiterate — since this case IS being reported, and tried (essentially) in the public forum, with the help of mindreaders and half the truth — one side’s only, and then only insinuations, no hard data —

Vocabulary Review:

Parenting effectively = As a Mother, Not reporting sexual abuse of one’s child, if one believes it occurred, child exhibits symptoms of sexual abuse, or one has evidence of it.

Mental condition [negatively, in context] affecting one’s judgment — obviously a quality required for parenting ability.

Poor Judgment — particularly after this international case — for a protective mother to think that there’s anywhere in the world to hide, or protect one’s child AFTER “Da Psychologists” came in.

Does actually perpertrating sexual abuse upon an infant constitute poor judgment and a lack of ability to parent effectively?

 

Well, thanks to Family Courts selective suppressing of one side of the story, and the MainStreamMedia — or most media’s following in line, quacking like little duckes whatever draws media to their sites, thanks to “Parental Alienation” having such broad and sloppy applications worldwide — Probably not. Any female that grows up in this situation, and marries someone like her Daddy (or child-abuser) will know by then that the world, in geenral, as we speak, doesn’t like to deal with distasteful unpleasantries, and hence making them go away by saying “she had a mental condition, she was imagining things” indeed is redefining parenting, back to beliefs widespread a century or fifteen ago.

FACTUAL WEIGHT WE SHOULD GIVE TO “SIGNALING.” (Mr. Thompson repeatedly signals — with court permission– she ahd a mental condition. (cf. “Gulag”posts). Every 57 or 75 articles or so, an actual signal gets out to allegations by her. Of course, by public appeal, her allegations are “per se” invalid because, it’s a mental condition. Says who? Well, NOYB.

LOGICAL FALLACY OPERATING HERE: Character assassination is a distraction.

Sometimes crazy people may squeak out a piece of truth. Truth stands on its own two feet, so long as they are on the ground, even if cawed by a crow.

 

AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY ” (from “plover.net”)

[[Images relate only to an updated link-check, and a reminder that links DO expire. Often Obtaining information about whatever platform is publishing information we may wish to quote, more important than may appear at first and obviously was than I thought to back in 2010.  Then again, I didn’t envision a blog going this far or lasting this long.  It’s only still going because of how high, wide, and deep this family court mess and related systems, turned out to be, and how interesting to track….//LGH]]

(#1 of 4 re “Ad Hominem” from expired link / discussion.) Click image to enlarge, or Here for expired Plover.net link to read the rest of the page. || Referenced in my 9/18/2010 post; image added during 7/2017 post review/update (for formatting mostly)

(#2 of 4 re” Ad Hominem” expired link / discussion.) Click image to enlarge, or Here at the Wizely PayPal Donate link to read the rest of the page. || Referenced in my 9/18/2010 post; image added during 7/2017 post review/update (for formatting mostly)

Image #3 of 4 re: expired “Ad Hominem” link at plover.net.” Click image to enlarge, or Here at JUSTIA to read the rest of the page. || Referenced in my 9/18/2010 post; image added during 7/2017 post review/update (for formatting mostly)

Image #4 of 4 re: “Ad Hominem” argumt expired link @ “plover.net”… Click image to enlarge, or repeat the search (read disclaimers too) at IL Corp/LLC site. || Referenced in my 9/18/2010 post; image added during 7/2017 post review/update (for formatting mostly)

{{2017 interjection — platform update.  Plover.net link above, but leads to this information, and solicitation for PayPal Donation which (if clicked) leads to “Wizely, Inc.” who in 2015 applied for a trademark.  I figure that’s about three — make that four (when I realized it was a Chicago company, I looked it up) next images..Former name of Wizely, Inc. was “Textfyre, Inc.” and only incorporated in 2007; three men’s names are on the details (see image 4) //LGH}}

 

(This is funny);

The ad hominem fallacy fallacy


One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

{{smile}}

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Given that the relevant information in the CUSTODY case (as opposed to, the runaway Mom facts) is not open to the public, we cna’t make a legal argument. HOWEVER, it’s clear that in the press accounts, the father is portrayed in context as dismissing her allegagions by calling her crazy. Or, rather calling in someone who called her crazy.

Maybe a 3rd opinion should be solicited. Let’s call in any former partners; his first wife, and any former lovers she may have had. So long as it’s a free-for-all, why not get a few more people involved? Who would call WHOM “having a mental condition,” and how would the public react? Would we, the public, do what the family courts so often do — when confronted with disconcerting evidence, dismiss it with an “oh, that’s just what YOU say?”

— Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.


But enough vagueness. The point of this article is to bury the reader under an avalanche of examples of correct and incorrect usage of ad hominem, in the hope that once the avalanche has passed, the term will never be used incorrectly again. I will begin with some invented examples, before dealing with some real-life misuses of the term at the end.

Not that press is likely to, ever, fully raise itself to the category of reason and logical argument, but –still, a little review on what IS and IS not ridiculous — when responding to a statement of facts (i.e., something alleged) will help defend the honor of this hunted down-woman, or at least the calibre of the publicity, for the sake of the next one.  Let’s get above the reptilian brain from time to time, and engage in the actual argument (statements).

As his example shows, sarcastic flourish, and verbal abuse happens.  This is to be expected in verbal boxing ring. I do it.  But I also point out “anomalies” and missing facts. A substitution of namecalling for engaging the argument IS “ad hominem.”fallacy. It offends me because it diminishes the whole CONCEPT of discourse, to ignore the facts and go for the person delivering them. In contextt, this i s what Mr. Thompson (and his court-appointed psychiatrist) DID, and was allowed to do in hunting her down, in failing to answer that a crime is alleged to have been committed.

{{Reader alert: This is an extended quote, which contains the examples of several rebuttals of a simple statement, and identifying which are, and which are not “ad hominem,” regardless of whatever else they may be. So the larger quote is in light-tan-color background (with thicker blue border lines),

with the internal quotes (writer’s examples of argument/responses re: rodents, weasels and mammals in light-yellow color (also with blue border lines)) to differentiate. Occasionally I jump in to comment, in which case you’ll see white-background and no extra border lines… Perhaps this may make it easier on the eyes to tell who’s talking at any point! //LGH 2017 update}}

A. is the statement.  B is the response, and the question is, is it “ad hominem,” (derailing the issue to the person making it) which would make it a fallacy.


A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. By your own argument, the set of rodents is a subset of the set of mammals; and therefore, a weasel can be outside the set of rodents and still be in the set of mammals.”

Hopefully it should be clear that neither A’s argument nor B’s argument is ad hominem. Perhaps there are some people who think that any disagreement is an ad hominem argument, but these people shouldn’t be allowed out of fairyland.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be amammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow.”

B’s argument is less comprehensive, but still not ad hominem.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. You evidently know nothing about logic.”

B’s argument is still not ad hominem. Note that B directly engages A’s argument: he is not attacking the person A instead of his argument. There  is no indication that B thinks his subsequent attack on A strengthens his
argument, or is a substitute for engaging with A’s argument. Unless we have a good reason for thinking otherwise, we should assume it is just a sarcastic flourish
.

B’s argument is still not ad hominem. B does not imply that A’s sentence does not logically follow because A knows nothing about logic. B is still addressing the substance of A’s argument.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “You evidently know nothing about logic.”

B’s argument is, most probably, still not ad hominem. The word “evidently” indicates that B is basing his opinion of A’s logical skills on the evidence of A’s statement. Therefore, B’s sentence is a sarcastic way of saying that A’s argument is logically unsound: B is attacking A’s argument. He is not
attacking the person instead of the argument.

Put briefly, ad hominem is “You are an ignorant person, therefore your arguments are wrong”, and not “Your arguments are wrong, therefore you are an ignorant person.” The latter statement may be fallacious, but it’s not an ad hominem fallacy.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “This does not logically follow. And you’re an asshole.”

B is abusive, but his argument is still not ad hominem. He engages with A’s argument. There is no reason to conclude that the personal abuse of A is part of B’s argument, or that B thinks it undermines A’s argument.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “You’re an asshole.”

B’s reply is not necessarily ad hominem. There is no evidence that’s hisabusive statement is intended as a counter-argument.  {{emphases added}}

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Fuck you.

Not ad hominem. B’s abuse is not a counter-argument, but a request for A to cease the discussion.   (smile)

Mine, too:  (smile…)

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’ve never had a good grasp of logic, so this can’t be true.”

B’s argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A’s argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.


{{This is EXACTLY what Mr. Thompson did in the custody case allegations.  They were “serious” and she alleged “sexual abuse.”  Just because Mr. THompson AND some “experts” came in and called her mentally unstable and lacking judgment to parent because her “condition” meant she believed some false thing about Mr. Thompson and “others,” there is no DATA other than the level of expert brought in (and if you read this blog, you’ve probably run across some of my sarcastic flourishes  on the matter of “Ex-Spurts.” ) to counter the claim

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’ve never had a good grasp of logic, so this can’t be true.”

B’s argument here is ad hominem. He concludes that A is wrong not by addressing A’s argument, but by appealing to the negative image of A the person.

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument.”

B’s reply here is ad hominem and abusive.  [the word “so” indicates speaker B’s reasoning process]

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a rodent and a weasel, so there goes your argument.”

B’s argument here might appear on superficial inspection to be sound, but it is in fact ad hominem. He is using the terms “rodent” and “weasel” in different senses to those used by A. Although he tries to make it appear that he is countering A’s argument by invalidating one of the premises, he is in fact trying to counter A’s argument by heaping abuse on A.

(This might also be an example of an ad homonym argument.)  (2nd smile…)

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “I’m sorry, but I’d prefer to trust the opinion of a trained zoologist on this one.”

B’s argument is ad hominem: he is attempting to counter A not by addressing his argument, but by casting doubt on A’s credentials. Note that B is polite and not at all insulting.

{{This IS response, and — in practice — walking into  a custody contest in family law, the implication is, these pagans /peasants/parents/”unable to work it out halfgrown adults” PER SE are incompetent — the “competents” must be brought in.  The entire place is an “ad Hominem” Environment.  Of course, there’s also the conflictt of interest and work-referrals also, plus the background of social engineering through the courts — but the LOGICAL air one breathes in the courthouse is that, one’s presence there, and nearly any statement made, lacks credulity, unless a professional is coming in, or a judge makes a personal decision.  But the paraprofessionals’ word being more than eyewitnesses, is a real problem..}}{{and a polite — or NOT so polite — ad hominem argument is VERY likely to show up on an evaluator’s report.  Perhaps, if it does, someone could bring this up — I DNK…}}

A: “Listen up, asshole. All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Yet another ad hominem argument. Ignore this one, folks.”

A is abusive, and his argument is fallacious, but it’s not ad hominem. B’s reply, ironically, is ad hominem; while he pretends to deal with A’s argument, in using the term “ad hominem” incorrectly, B is in fact trying to dismiss the argument by imputing that A is resorting to personal attacks.  [Speaker A DID have some abuse in there, but not as support to the argument.  It was a flourish, and a posture; it had a purpose — but not in support of the argument.]

A: “All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn’t a rodent, so it can’t be a mammal.”

B: “Well, you’re a moron and an asshole, so there goes your argument.”

B’s reply here is ad hominem and abusive.

Why not hit two birds with one stone, eh?

 

OK, more on PROPER application of “ad hominem fallacy” 



Types of ad hominems 

Ad hominem abuse (links below show they were to “answers.com”)

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

Examples:

  • “You can’t believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn’t even have a job.”
  • “Candidate Jane’s proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003.”

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

Where the source taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.

 



AGAIN, here are the mother’s statements, pre-capture:

Mother tells why she took her son and ran
Caroline Overington, The Australian
February 02, 2009 12:00AM

MELINDA
Stratton is a woman on the run. In April last year, she fled Australia
with her four-year-old son, Andrew, to avoid a custody hearing in the
Family Court.

In December, her husband, NSW deputy fire chief
Ken Thompson, asked the court to lift a ban on identifying Andrew so he
could launch an international campaign to find the boy.

Photographs of Andrew are now plastered on buses in Europe, and on billboards in
England. Mr Thompson has launched a website, and a group email has gone
around the world, urging people to contact Interpol if they see Ms
Stratton.

Ms Stratton – a professional woman from Sydney’s northern suburbs, who has an MBA, speaks French and German, and has lived and worked abroad – has so far managed to dodge the authorities,
but yesterday emerged from seclusion to tell her side of the story.

A 10-page letter – the first contact between Ms Stratton and anyone
outside her immediate family since last April – was provided to The
Australian with no identifying marks. It was dated January 15.

Ms Stratton says she had no choice other than to flee Australia, because she had lost faith in the Family Court.

She says the balance of the court – once firmly in favour of granting
custody to mothers – had tipped dramatically towards fathers. The
Howard government’s regime of “shared parenting” had given power to
fathers at the expense of mothers
.

(Sounds like the family court is more mentally unstable than this woman.  They are rethinking it, too:::)****

Ms Stratton said

I have lost all faith in any form of justice coming out of AustraliaBy remaining silent, however, I ensure that they (the Family Court) can continue to treat other mothers and children this way.

Ms Stratton does not say where she is hiding…

WHEN it putting some age-appropriate restrictions on to how YOUNG shared parenting can happen, MensVote Australia is upset at the “psychobabble” — although Mr. Thompson found it handy.  HEY — psychobabble in the courts wasn’t my idea; but don’t blame women for its presence !!!

 

Australian separated and divorced fathers will soon have to prove that their children are developmentally mature enough to live with them under plans by Labor to amend the Family Law Act in 2011.


SOME Parenting orders in doubt after High Court r… (14 September, 2010, 09:24 AM)

Courts
Thousands of family court orders could be invalid after a landmark High
Court decision, of ”Rosa v Rosa”. The federal government has revealed
it is drafting urgent legislation to avoid mass confusion among
parents. The High Court found unanimously that the decision was wrong
and ordered a fresh hearing in March, saying the Family Court cannot
order that children spend equal or substantial and significant time
with both parents unless the arrangement is ”reasonably practicable”
.
A string of recent reviews – including one by Professor Chisholm, who
is a former Family Court judge, and others by the Family Law Council of
Australia and the Australian Institute of Family Studies – have
recommended changes to the laws to better protect children from abusive
parents, and to make the law clearer for parents and judges
. The
reports have received a lukewarm response from the government, which is
reportedly anxious to avoid upsetting men’s groups that welcomed the
change
s.


Domestic violence victims ‘miss out

NineMSN
23:03 AEST Wed Jun 9 2010

Victims
of domestic violence have been dealt a blow in the NSW budget, with a
groundbreaking program missing out on funding, the state opposition
says.

The Staying Home Leaving Violence (SHLV) program was now
under a cloud after an earlier-promised cash injection of $4.5 million
was not included in the 2010/11 budget, opposition spokeswoman for
women Pru Goward said on Wednesday.

The scheme, which helps
women remain in their own home without their violent partner, was
rolled out to six other areas after a successful pilot in Bega and east
Sydney.

A total of 18 services were due to be operating by 2013,
with the government announcing in March it would continue funding the
expansion.

Ms Goward said

The sector had been expecting to see more investment in this program but it wasn’t there.What about Labor actually funds a real life program like SHLV, which is not a government pipe dream.

If it works, it should be funded accordingly.

 

Submitted by

Inspired by the Howard Governments 2006 Family law reforms to respect the
fundamental needs of children to enjoy the love and nurture of both
their mother and their father, the countries of Canada, the United
Kingdom and Israel had moved to embrace shared parenting laws however
policy progress had recently been jeopardised by Australian anti-shared
parenting advocates weighing into the overseas debate.

MensVote
Australia has learned that the Israeli Governmental “Shnit Committee”,
reporting on shared parenting reforms, has been reliably informed that
Family Law in Australia will change next year to consider psychological
developmental milestones of children (read as code for ‘The child being
too young to share’).

AHA — the “Breast is Best” argument.  Because it is.  And she might not want to have all that expressing to do under shared parenting.  …  I looked it up.  This is also funny -so we pause in MensVote Australia to consider ways to undermine the concept of Breast is Besat and help out, well, in the case here, that formula.  Men can use this to say it’s OK for them to split up while Mom has a little one, and still get shared custody.  Why would she split so soon after having a kid anyhow?  Mentally ill?  Surely it has nothing to do with Dad…

Breast is Best, Sponsored by Simfamil: Don Draper Explains It All For Us.

(Dialogue in PINK, for contrast}
{{Expired image link deleted, 2017 update}}

INT:
STERLING COOPER DRAPER PRYCE, DON DRAPER’s OFFICE. PEGGY OLSON and PETE CAMPBELL sit expectantly on the sofa, an easel bearing the Simfamil
logo and a photo of a smiling baby next to them. A box with canisters
of various brands of formula is on the floor.

Enter a typically taciturn DON. He glances at the easel and continues to the liquor
cabinet without breaking stride, pours himself a scotch, then turns his
attention to the pair on the sofa. DON remains standing …..

ON Enfilac, Simfamil, Nestle, their strategies have all been the same. Look at this.

(He grabs a one canister after another out of the box, reading their labels aloud, then tossing them aside.)

“More like mother’s milk”. “The closest thing to mother’s milk.” “Now with more of the same ingredients found in breast milk”. They’re all vying to make their product more like breast milk than any other brand. What’s the problem with that, Peggy?

PEGGY
(thoughtfully)

Well, because there’s just no comparison with breast milk. We’ve looked at all the research, and the brand never matters. Formula just can’t measure up, no matter what brand. So . . . (she gestures at the discarded canisters) . . . how do we set Simfamil apart from them?

PETE
(enthusiastically)

A new package design? Some prettier, younger models as the mothers?

DON

We take on breastfeeding itself.

PEGGY

But you just sai . . . didn’t we just say there’s no comparison to breastmilk?

DON

There isn’t. Formula can’t compete with breast milk. We can’t fight the research and mothers know this. Almost every mother in America wants to breastfeed. There’s no suppressing the truth. Women know that breastfeeding is best. So we’re not going to argue with that.

{THIS IS A COMIC DIALOGUE — I hope not a real one — on how to the ad agency’s formula, getting around the discomforting thought that kids do best at Mama’s breast, not on formula.  The same rationale could also be used — and is — to get around the fact that LITTLE kids really DO need Moms, and that SOME Dads, when mixed with little kids are Dastardly.}{Notice, the company is just going to want to “help” (cf. provide some “services”) but the clear intent is to undermine that breastfeeding, subtly causing faiures, and then pop up with the solution — our product.}}

Back to MensVote

The Committee was also informed that fathers will
need to prove they have the resources to share-parent before being
allowed to enjoy an equal life with their children
. Consequently the
Shnit Committee report recommendations are on hold until after the
anticipated Green-Labor ratification of family law changes. MensVote
convenor Edward Dabrowski said today, “The Israelis have adopted a wait
and see approach given the disclosure that Labor intends to cut back
shared parenting. He said, “This means that psycho-social babble and
text book psychologically will determine the fate of families rather
than parent-child loving relationships. Mr Dabrowski said, “It is
unconscionable that yet another set of hurdles are being put in the way
of fathers wanting to parent normally after divorce and that
segregation of children from their Dads and their paternal extended
family would create another Stolen Generation of desperate and defeated
fatherless kids”

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 18, 2010 at 8:21 pm

Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (published 9/15/2010, updated 7/21/2017)

with 22 comments

Nowadays (posts published = about 715 as of summer 2017), this is how I identify posts:

Post title: Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (with wordpress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-z8”) (published 9/15/2010, format cleanup/standardization / check previous links, 7/21/2017)


Types of updates:  When you see quotes within solid borders (boxed), quotes with different background colors, the borders on the post itself, or comments with dates signed:  “…//LGH  2017 (LGH= “Let’s Get Honest,” i.e., me).  Also the added section in light-green showing several images for some of the links (I didn’t do screenprints, let alone annotated screenprints in 2010.  In general, I’m trying to better distinguish actual quotes from my commentary on them, through formatting.  Wordpress doesn’t naturally enable this, so each time you see it, I’m plowing through html “gibberish” for the specific codes, and tweaking them by “div” or “blockquote” or “span” or “Table.”  This takes considerable time… For image display, the “WYSIWYG” (What You See is What You Get” function is imperfect, so there’s a lot of back and forth (edit, preview, adjust, preview again, etc.) on the layout.  

There may be a more efficient way to do all this, but until then, and still being basically a self-taught amateur for blogging technology, and more to the point, still just one person (focused more on content than format), that’s how it works.)… I spent some time on this post also checking for and, where possible, replacing broken links. ….. some quotation / commentary notations towards the bottom are “best guess” where I no longer had valid links.

Why bother updating older posts? — Well, the other part of this one just got five more comments, so that’s why.  The other reason is the types of people that are visiting the post, based on (html-based visitor ID software) some of the organization names.  In 2016 and 2017 I’ve been hard-hitting at higher levels of organized networks (nonprofit and governmental as coordinated) on on following the money, and showing how to, also giving people again, permission to question any or all of the “experts” in any category, but with the platform and basis for doing so being objective, and on “operations” level.  So, although they aren’t commenting much, visitors show up from various universities (incl. Harvard), or levels of government (esp. from California, where I live and on which blogs tend to focus), and overseas (London School of Economics at least a few times, Legislative Offices, President’s Offices at UC, and so forth).  Sometimes these visitors seem to match what was being posted, sometimes, not.

And other times, I have to admit, it’s just to avoid humiliation in retrospect at the formatting/condition of the earlier posting.

There was a “Part 2” on this theme published 10/1/2010:

Post title (with with wordpress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-z5”) Wacko Wisconsin – Pt. 2, the Walkers — (piecemeal post, published 10/01/2010) (format cleanup to accommodate recent comments 7/21/2017)

Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…

I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?

Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.

SO . .

If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.

THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL:, here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here Come Da Psychologists & Mediators. . . To help return Mr. Thompson’s “wife” to her right mind. Or, she could do the jail thing, instead.

with 3 comments

How many psychologists can you count in this case? Or was it Psychiatrists? And when are the rest of you on the sidelines going to get angry about this “insane” practice?

Where is the “leading Australian psychiatrist’s report” [apparently court-ordered diagnosis??]  that gave this poor, distraught Dad rights and public sympathy, and a high profile that no MOTHER got who’s had her kids legally kidnapped through the courts, or illegally by the father(s). I instead of the nation(s) hunting THEM down with psychiatry, Internet, and Interpol, they simply let it slide.

When did the press become lackeys of this system and why aren’t they REPEATEDLY (like me) pointing out that something’s wrong when a woman has been judged publically, but indicted privately.

(see my last post).

Where’s his first wife? Did they have kids? If you are there, please say something!

In this report, as well as in the photo of the foursome I posted yesterday, Mr. Thompson refers to her as his “wife.” Yet indicators are — first of all, dude, she doesn’t want to live with you! Second, we read “wife” and “former wife.” The word only means “ownership.” In the current global culture, this word has become meaningless, and was most certainly exploited.

Kidnap mother may escape jail in new deal

Paola Totaro, Amsterdam

September 12, 2010

The mother of abducted boy Andrew Thompson – under arrest in Amsterdam and facing a prison term in Australia – could be offered a “get out of jail free” card, under a new system to resolve international custody battles.

A new form of cross-border mediation, tested in the Netherlands, will provide Melinda Stratton with a last-ditch chance to avoid criminal charges – and help parent her little boy – if she can co-operate and come to a binding, workable agreement is accepted by his father, Ken Thompson.

[sentence grammar off, but its intent is clear — to bring her to her knees under threat. This same practice is used in the United States towards (a) domestic violence offenders and (b) child support deadbeat Dads, to downgrade the meaning of criminal activity, typically towards women. Mediation works when there is actually a balance of power, genuine acceptable options, and TWO willing participants willing to work it out. This is nothing of the sort. It’s “threat therapy.”]

This system, thrashed out over two days under intense specialist mediation with a team of counsellors and lawyers, must be agreed to by both parents – and becomes a legally binding order in both the Netherlands and Australia.

Mr Thompson, met a team of psychologists in Amsterdam yesterday and drove to The Hague to meet the legal expert on the Hague conventions who is to manage the complex legal processes needed to return the six-year-old to his father.

It is now likely that he will need to remain in the Netherlands for at least three months as custodial orders from Australia are translated into Dutch and given effect in the local courts. These will allow the legal handover of Andrew while extradition proceedings against his mother unfold. Ms Stratton faces criminal charges and up to 13 years in prison in Australia if she refuses to participate in cross-border mediation system.

This could even result in the boy remaining in the Netherlands with his father as the legal processes unfold there while his mother is extradited to Australia to face charges.

Mr Thompson said yesterday he understood an agreement could be enforced very quickly – perhaps within a fortnight – if there was co-operation between the two parents to come to a resolution in the interests of the child.

Ms. Stratton/Thompson could not have said MORE plainly, and by her actions demonstrated, that there are serious allegations against Mr. Thompson. The public and press are NOT told what these are, but a person of reasonable intelligence might deduce that this woman does not appear to be hard up for another partner, should she wish one, or for supporting herself independently. Perhaps her psychological “problem” is called Mother Able to Decide — meaning per se “M.A.D.” IF allegations are true, best interest of child is no contact or only supervised contact with the father. IF they are false, best interest of child might then be co-parenting.

He has yet to see his child but insists that he bears no malice towards his wife and, while deeply anguished by the events of the past 2ÌÌ [???] years, simply wants to “be a dad to Andrew, to be in his life to love him and to give him back the human rights that were taken away from him“.

Wait a minute. His wife? [My ex went through this also, repeatedly calling me his wife, while living with someone else and arguing with authorities for his right to disobey standing court orders.]

Please. Everyone consider the current U.S. President (among others) who was raised by his mother. Also, Fatherhood Expert Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., apparently ditto. Did you notice the “Ph.D.”??? Perhaps mothers can do all right, if the word were still acceptable to use in public apart from the words “paranoid” and “facing criminal charges.”

Mr Thompson, visibly relieved after his day with lawyers and psychologists, said he believed Andrew’s was the first case worldwide in which the internet had been used successfully to track down an abducted child.

It’s time for our society to start considering their collective responsibility for allowing the courts to become psychology-normative, and administering threat-therapy instead of justice. If this continues, someday it might be YOUR turn for reasoned civil disobedience (which this case sounds like, to me, and the “wife” states it was). And then who will speak up for you?

Europeans are sometimes just too obedient, as if this solves problems. You know what other population was characterized that way? Rwandans.

We did it on a shoestring and so many fantastic people have helped me. I lived on less than 50 euro a day for the past four months – and I found my son.

He lived on 50 euros a day for 4 months, and got a lot of public support, empathy, publicity, and eventually, they did the work for him, turning in this mother. A conference of mayors of major U.S. cities has concluded that domestic violence is a major source of homelessness. I know women whose wages are being garnished below survival level, whose disability benefits — the disability being related to serious injury by the father — are being garnished (below living level) and from this position, they advocate for contact with their children, and no charges any more serious than disobeying (without kidnapping) a court order probably as arbitrary as the mysterious one surrounding this case. Welcome to OUR world, Mr. Thompson — poverty in pursuit of justice, and our children. The difference being, when was the last time an abducting father was called “paranoid” and hunted down like an animal? Or jailed, when caught

“OK, my legal fees are horrendous … overdraft on overdraft on overdraft, and I don’t even want to think about my mobile telephone bill. But I could not give up. Ever. A young guy with the fire services built the FindAndrew website for me – and he had never done this before. I had the most amazing people helping me if I was in trouble with electronic banking or a lost card. I had emails, thousands of them, in support. I’ve got people around the world who saw my plight and felt something. I can’t thank them all enough.

He should thank the U.S. IRS, whose progressive income tax policy made it possible to accumulate astounding amounts of $$ for use by the likes of Wade Horn, “National Fatherhood Initiative,” Fathering Courts, Fatherhood.gov, and a complex web of federal grants promoting marriage — at any cost — throughout the land. This makes possible — when combined with astounding wealth from tax-exempt foundations — to restructure society. He should thank Presidents (in approximate order) Bush, Clinton and Obama for making sure this never stops, and also the Conciliation Law / AFCC folks in Southern California who learned early on how to defraud even the IRS with a judges’ slush fund and developed organization-morphing techniques to avoid accountability and cover up collaboration and conflicts of interests, from which we eventually got a worldwide ogranization to promote the viewpoints of pedophile and incest-friendly gentlemen as Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell (quite the psychologist these days).

He should thank his lucky stars, or if he subscribes to one of the three Abrahamic religions, he should thank whoever put the book of Esther into the canon, where a Gentile Queen told the king “No!” when asked to come forth and strut her stuff halfway through what was likely a drunken banquet. Some accounts say, she’d have had to disrobe. She indeed DID say “No!” (as the story goes) and so was replaced. The search went throughout the land for more submissive, nubile young women, who knew their place in life, lest ALL men might need to experience the horror of a wife saying “no!” and changing society.

What grateful Mr. Thompson with his team of psychologists and psychiatrists doesn’t seem to empathize with, or appreciate, is the position he put his “wife” (or former wife) and THEIR son in when he called in a court psychiatrist to counter the serious allegations that we aren’t allowed to know about. If he wanted a more docile wife, he shouldn’t have picked a tri-lingual MBA.

I hope, I really hope that my wife will co-operate and that we can find a way for Andrew. I will stay here for as long as it takes and until Andrew is ready to move on. I have an EU passport and no visa issues … It will take time to reintroduce the relationship. It has to be carefully managed.”

It is understood that the little boy now both speaks Dutch and has lived under a different surname.

Psychologists have made clear that the reintroduction must be slow and carefully supervised as it is not known what the little boy has been told during the years of avoiding authorities.

Mr Thompson, a former NSW deputy fire chief, cycled 6500 kilometres across Europe to raise awareness of international child abductions and to distribute bumper stickers with Andrew’s face and promote his website to try and find his boy.

An alert Dutch woman checked her suspicions about the little boy and his mother on the internet and Googled “missing children” and “Australia” and discovering he had been kidnapped. It was her decision to contact Dutch police that traced him and led to the arrest of his mother.

The Bitch. Does she know anything at all about this field? Did she forget about Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Does she know what happens when women lose their children in similar situations? It’s rare we get them back. Did she forget the Holocaust, and the label “Juden”??

(If I were able to put my case details on this blog, you might understand the sentiment.)

Take Heed — the press is owned, for the most part. I found only ONE press (as opposed to blogs, which are many) stating that this mother might have had a legitimate reason for fleeing. The Internet WAS developed originally as part of a military technology; now we see some of its real purposes — nowhere to hide. Citizens (GLOBAL citizens) must be trained how to think, act, and report on each other, and call in the authorities — lawyers, psychologists, and of course police. Remember the Gulag. You’re in it.

IF laws were enforced equally, with similar amount of effort as Mr. Thompson put in, I wouldn’t be so “vociferous” (mouthy) for the other possible interpretation of this case.

EVERY United States citizen ought to examine some of the fatherhood sites, and the federal grants system, and start demanding accountability. Sleep less. You can do it! Get religion out of government; and part of government is education. Learn to barter, and minimize taxes all round. I seriously considered (as to education) a requirement that all parents, without exception, should educate their OWN offspring up to a certain level (far above what the government currently requires them to) and the public schools should be shut down, so that adults and children can develop normal relationships with each other. If the neighborhoods retained some vitality, then, perhaps — just perhaps — people might KNOW each other well enough to stick up for an abused wife, or child — and stop dreaming that someone else they pay, funded from a distant centralized government, might be doing the job without indoctrination about what is the “appropriate” psychological norm.

Which brings me to this page by Charles Pragnell, whom I quoted yesterday, on this same case:


Are you an `Appropriate’ person?

A Huge Hidden Iceberg of False Accusations of Child Abuse

ByCharles Pragnell January 04, 2007

The last decade has seen an insidious drive by the British government to turn the country into a totalitarian regime marked by the unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion and interference in family life by agents and employees of the State. This has been done under a perverse pretext of protecting children and a belief system within governmental departments that children need protecting from their parents and that the State can raise children better than parents or at least they can transfer large numbers of children to the care of the “approved” substitute parents as part of a latter-day social engineering experiment.

Britain is not becoming what politicians term, a Nanny State and the concept of welfare services being a `Safety Net’ no longer applies. It is much more sinister than that. A Nanny State is driven by a benign altruism whilst the present changes are being driven by an insidious and malignant ideology reminiscent in some respects of the Stalinist regime in Russia. “We know what is best for you all” is the mantra of the faceless bureaucrats inside the respective government departments to which can be added, “but it will be painful for some of you who will not or cannot change to fit in with our Utopian dream!”

The ill-defined boundaries of what is `appropriate’ and what is `Inappropriate’ behaviour of members of the general population, are now being constantly driven back by psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, doctors and nurses and all of those other professionals involved in child protection work. They in turn are driven more by the alluring seduction of fame and status within the profession for creating a new theory of child abuse, rather than a compassionate concern for the safety and welfare of children. A successful adopted theory of child abuse can rapidly lead to demigod status as has been seen on several occasions albeit some of those demigods careers and reputations now lie in ruins as the country begins to awake to their deceptions.

He is writing her about parents (plurall) vs. child protective services.  It’s a blend, when the situation comes to divorce, though.  In any conflict, whatsoever, here comes the STATE, and in their trail, are psychologists.

Let me explain, a little, how this “EVERY CHILD NEEDS BOTH PARENTS, REGARDLESS …” works out, already, in cultures where divorces is a crime, as is adultery.  And European,  Australian, Western, “developed” countries need to accept and openly acknowledge that their present-day psychologists are NOT too far a cry from this:

This mother, an Egyptian Coptic Christian, wished she had listened to her daughter.  Now it’s too late:

Among Egypt’s Christians, few question Church rule

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt — When Irini Ibrahim, a young Coptic Christian woman, floated the idea of divorce from a husband she said was abusing her, her parents immediately opposed it, reminding her of the Biblical vow, “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”

So the 25-year-old Ibrahim entered “reconciliation sessions” with her husband Rizk Kands, moderated by a priest. In April, the priest anointed Ibrahim and Kands with sacred oil, pronouncing their union healed.

Hours later, Ibrahim’s battered body was found in an Alexandria hotel room the couple had booked for a sort of second honeymoon. Kands, an Egyptian who also holds U.S. citizenship, fled to the United States, charged by an Alexandria prosecutor of strangling his wife after slamming her against the wall and toilet. Kands’ trial opens Sept. 21. He will be tried in absentia.

The case sparked shock and grief among Egypt’s Coptic Christians. But it did not bring much soul-searching over the Coptic Orthodox Church’s almost total ban on divorce. The ban makes divorce such a taboo among Christians that no matter how bad or unbearable the marriage, ending it is unthinkable in the face of the social shame.

Alternately, in Egypt, one could be part of the Muslim majority, and as a woman, one of several wives, and sharia law integrated with the law of the land:

But the “Western”  “liberalized” way, no matter the religion, is to use psychologists, psychiatrists, and just hunt her down, and make a public, press scandal of it.  This is called separation of church and state (in the US, a thing of the past) lest these newfangled concepts get a toehold, and infect other women with thinking that there is a safe place somewhere to raise  a child safely.

Mr. Thompson, I”m sorry, but your story lacks credibility.  Congratulations for your persistence, but don’t expect me to believe you really believed she was paranoid.  You haven’t accepted that she left you, as witnessed by continually calling her your wife. and an “in” with the press does NOT substitute for facts, or shouldn’t, in the public eye.

Sincerely,

A mother who was labeled “paranoid” on several levels, and ignored when I told authorities the father was going to abduct, as well as after he did.

Fathers have religion AND government behind them.  Mothers are not even close, yet.  And we don’t start all those wars, either.




Written by Let's Get Honest

September 11, 2010 at 6:56 pm

Society’s Reasons to hunt down, strangle, flog and/or shoot/stone mothers:

with 4 comments

Let’s remember, sometimes female judges, psychiatrists, reporters and relatives participate in the hunt:

(#3: Taliban shoot pregnant widow, police report said:

The Taliban publicly flogged and then executed a pregnant Afghan widow by shooting her three times in the head for alleged adultery, police said

Bibi Sanubar, 35, was kept in captivity for three days before she was shot dead in a public trial on Sunday by a local Taliban commander in the Qadis district of the rural western province Badghis.

The Taliban accused Sanubar of having an “illicit affair” that left her pregnant. She was first punished with 200 lashes in public before being shot, deputy provincial police chief Ghulam Mohammad Sayeedi told AFP on Monday.

“She was shot in the head in public while she was still pregnant,” Sayeedi said.

The execution is a grim reminder of the Taliban’s harsh six-year rule from 1996 to 2001 in Afghanistan. The radical Islamists staged public stonings or lashings of those found to have committed adultery or sex outside marriage.

(#2: An Afghan man strangled a mother with her veil, she was becoming “too Australian”

AN Afghan man strangled his wife with her veil after complaining she was “becoming Australian”, a jury has heard.

Mother of five Marzieh Rahimi, who was said to be trying to escape a violent arranged marriage, was killed in front of her baby and toddler.

Soltan Ahmad Azizi, 45, has pleaded not guilty to her murder at their Hampton Park home in November 2007.

The Supreme Court heard yesterday that Ms Rahimi, 33, had told social workers her husband had branded her a slave with no rights.

Prosecutor Peter Rose, SC, told the jury Ms Rahimi had complained her husband punched her and said her only purpose was to have babies and raise children.

Ms Rahimi, who spoke little English and communicated through an interpreter, had told a family violence officer and a health worker that she wanted to leave the marriage, but that she felt powerless, unsupported and fearful

n his opening address, Mr Rose told jurors that when Mr Azizi learned she’d talked to outsiders he told her she was shaming him and must stop.”I’ll kill you because I can’t carry the shame,” he allegedly said when she spoke of separation or divorce.

The jury heard that about a week before his wife’s death, Mr Azizi complained to his sister-in-law that she was “becoming Australian and had changed her religion”.

The cousins wed in an arranged marriage and came to Australia as refugees in 2005. Their eldest children were aged 11, nine and six.

Mr Azizi told police he didn’t plan to kill Ms Rahimi. He said he punched her, then “choked her with her veil”; he then rang 000, telling the operator, “I killed my wife … come see. You come. My kids are only little.”

Police found Ms Rahimi on the floor with her baby, three months, and toddler, 22 months, nearby.

“I’m ready for the handcuffs,” he allegedly told them.

Defence lawyer Stratton Langslow urged the jury to consider whether Ms Rahimi’s claims of domestic violence were prompted by post-natal depression

[HE ADMITTED killing his wife, but did he MEAN to? is the defense, apparently]

#1A. Melinda Stratton, MBA — she was “paranoid

Missing Australian boy Andrew Thompson found after three years

missing son

HAPPIER TIMES: Ken Thompson with his wife Melina and son Andrew.**

Picture: Supplied Source: Supplied

**This is not a picture of two parents with THEIR son (note: she didn’t change her last name, so I didn’t say “Mr. & Mrs. Thompson and their…”). This is not a picture of a son, Andrew with HIS parents Ken Thompson and Melina/Melinda Stratton. This a picture of a man, and HIS (2nd) wife and HIS son. Her role is to give birth, smile, and have a photo caption giving ownership of her to him.

AN Australian boy who went missing almost three years ago has been found in Northern Europe, bringing an end to his father’s desperate search. [And to his mother’s desperate attempt to not be found]

Andrew Thompson was abducted in 2008 by his mother Melinda Stratton after she was diagnosed with a mental disorder. [next article shows a different CAUSAL relationship..]

Ms Stratton began showing the first signs of mental illness in 2006 according to Mr Thompson.

The symptoms were subtle at first, but they progressed, manifesting themselves in paranoia and false beliefs about various people, including Mr Thompson.

“I didn’t realise it at the time, but it started slowly and just escalated, it was terrible,” Mr Thompson said previously.

By December 2007, his wife had been diagnosed by one of Australia’s leading psychiatrists as having a paranoia disorder, and left their family home on January 1.

Under what circumstances? (such as a custody battle, and the father or his attorney, probably called that leading psychiatrist (WHO? Do we get to know? No hyperlink?) in. Or she was showing signs of discontent. Or, there were allegations of . . … …).

By the way, having false beliefs about various people could easily be applied by any religious (or political, or cultural, for that matter) group to members of another. To settle THOSE matters of false belief, however, psychiatrists in this context are not really authorized.

I’ve been at this a while, and pick up on news language. Also, FYI, women and men tend to think differently, have different perspectives and sometimes notice different things. Paranoia MAY be in the eye of the beholder, but if a leading psychiatrist said so — and of course this psychiatrist has no gender bias, and there is no conflict of interest, etc. — then paranoid she must be. About WHAT nothing specific: “false beliefs about various people, including Mr. Thompson.” OK, we’ll have to take that one on faith– this article is after all about him: his search, his emotions, his relief, his account (plus one quote from a friend) and his son, found again.

The drama of his quitting his job and bicycling through Europe is told in this article:

He has cycled through over half a dozen countries in his desperate mission to find his missing son.

A family Friend, Robin Bowles,** told the Sydney Morning Herald, “Ken’s ecstatic, emotional, relieved, overjoyed and still in a total state of shock,” Ms Bowles said.

In such cases, family friends tend to have to take sides. I’d say Robin Bowles was more like Mr. Thompson’s friend. Ms. Stratton’s emotional state was not recounted. Well, she’s paranoid, so her emotional state is not newsworthy.

“It is no secret there were fears for both Melinda’s and Andrew’s safety and the longer time went on, the fear grew deeper within Ken that maybe he’d never see his son again. He wants to see him. He can’t wait a moment longer.”

I can understand that fear. I know it, too.

And of course escalating fears that your wife is mentally ill, to the point of calling in a leading psychiatrist to diagnose one’s wife, doesn’t qualify as paranoia on the part of the husband. Was she cutting herself? Was she threatening suicide? Threatening anything? Neglecting a child? Showing up at work disheveled, or not at all? What, exactly were those symptoms?

Not mentioned in this story — it’ll show up in the next — there WAS a debate of custody, and family court was involved, or about to be. INTERESTING OMISSIONS for such a dramatic rescue.

Mr Thomson has spent every day of the last three and a half months cycling through Europe, looking for his son in a heroic search effort.

WELL, his tenacity, his publicity and cycling (and the fact that the Interpol system helped him) paid off, and he has his son, now. Now, the other side of the story. Well, the part of it that the papers were allowed to print:

#1B. Melinda Stratton — she was “defiant

Defiant: mother tells why she took her son and ran

Note: this 2009 story carries several links to the found boy. The one above carries no links to why she ran, from her account.

“Melinda Stratton is a woman on the run. In April last year (2008), she fled Australia with her four-year-old son, Andrew, to avoid a custody hearing in Family Court.

Maybe she was paranoid about the nice Family Court..

Ms Stratton – a professional woman from Sydney’s northern suburbs, who has an MBA, speaks French and German, and has lived and worked abroad – has so far managed to dodge the authorities, but yesterday emerged from seclusion to tell her side of the story.

A 10-page letter – the first contact between Ms Stratton and anyone outside her immediate family since last April – was provided to The Australian with no identifying marks. …

Ms Stratton says she had no choice other than to flee Australia, because she had lost faith in the Family Court.

She says the balance of the court – once firmly in favour of granting custody to mothers – had tipped dramatically towards fathers. The Howard government’s regime of “shared parenting” had given power to fathers at the expense of mothers.

I have lost all faith in any form of justice coming out of Australia,” Ms Stratton says.

By remaining silent, however, I ensure that they (the Family Court) can continue to treat other mothers and children this way.

I spent $30,000 on court proceedings. I have been told I will receive harsh penalties as ‘punishment’ for leaving from the Family Court.

“I am in my 40s. My son is only four. His welfare and future are my priority.

“The decision to break all contact with my family and friends, leave my job and our home was not taken lightly.

“I also understand that the Family Court could take my son away from me and give Ken full custody of him, again as punishment.

OK, let’s review the chaotic, surreal, disordered, selfish, thinking of a paranoid mother, who chose to get a 10-page letter to The Australian, and managed to do so without any identifying marks.

She appears to be educated, and was likely working — having spent already $30,000 on court hearings. (That’s a lot in any country). She is concerned for his son’s welfare, but ALSO for other mothers and children being mistreated by the same system. She has ordered her priorities and exhibited empathy for strangers. She, too, (not just her husband) left her job — and home — and family and friends, something he didn’t sacrifice in this.). She also understands the consequences of disobeying a court order, and once she left, knows that failing to STAY gone will mean full custody to the Dad as punishment. . . . . . She also relates a historical shift in the courts to a shift in government. That sounds like someone that’s aware of her surroundings, on several levels, reasons, weighs, and chooses. She has not specified WHAT about her son’s welfare she is concerned about, nor can she:

Ms Stratton has made more serious allegations against Mr Thompson but The Australian is constrained by law from publishing them. She made the allegations in December 2007, left the family home in January last year, and the country in April.

Well, the truth or falsehood of those allegations sure seems to be keey in the case. If true, she fled to prevent harm. If false, she’s paranoid and should be hunted down and locked up. You be the judge. Of course, you don’t have all the facts. Oh well…

You know, different degrees suggest different character traits or strengths. Sounds to me, being an MBA, she assessed the dynamics of the situation, made a strategic decision (although an illegal one) and acted swiftly. That’s a leadership quality. I’m not advocating felony behavior, but she just related her thinking. It does not sound like she is attempting to dodge child support or other criminal accusations against her, other than a belated being diagnosed paranoid by a man she was planning to leave. Judging by the ages, she probably was on her first, not second marriage; he was on his second marriage. Maybe there’s a reason , similar, between both divorces, though of course I wasn’t there. No mention of other children…

The battle between Ms Stratton and Mr Thompson for access to Andrew is complex and bitter.

?? Sounds fairly typical. She alleges something serious and relating to her son’s welfare. He retaliates “you’re paranoid” and gets a leading Australian psychiatrist to diagnose her. That’s as old as Freud. Or Dr. Phyllis Chesler’s “Women and Madness.” A very long time ago, slaves running away was diagnosed as a mental disorder, too. What’s complex is, it went international, and apparently she had enough resources to move fast.

She says he suffers from depression and anxiety. He says he suffered from “mild anxiety” when his first marriage ended 20 years ago.

Well, he’s a fireman, right? That can be challenging. Serious depression is one among several homicide indicators. Bitter is normal in contested divorces. Complex, well, how complex is that?

“It was nothing more than mild anxiety,” he says.

“It was a very difficult time, but it was also a very long time ago.”

I don’t see his age listed, but would say, a bit older, unless he had a VERY short marriage 20 yearsa ago. Also not shown is how long these two were married.

When he launched his campaign to find Andrew, Mr Thompson said that his former wife had a “mental condition”. On his blogs, he says she is “paranoid” and that she may harm Andrew rather than return him to Sydney.

Sorry, buddy, I don’t think the statistc bear out on that one. Dads are the more deadly in this context, than biomoms. Show me the headlines if they aren’t:

When did they divorce? The 2010 shows a happy family photo of all 4 and doesn’t mention “former.”

Ms Stratton says she has “no mental problems whatsoever”.

Mr Thompson strenuously denies his wife’s claims, saying she “made all kinds of allegations … the psychologists have said there is no reason to even investigate them.

WHICH psychologists is key. . IF abuse happened, long-term consequences can be severe:

What are the possible long-term effects of child sexual abuse?

If child sexual abuse is not effectively treated, long-term symptoms may persist into adulthood. These may include:

  • PTSD and/or anxiety
  • Sexual anxiety and disorders
  • Poor body image and low self-esteem
  • The use of unhealthy behaviors, such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, self-mutilation, or bingeing and purging, to help mask painful emotions related to the abuse

If you were abused as a child and suffer from any of these symptoms, it may help you to get help from a mental-health professional who has expertise in working with people who have been sexually abused.

AND, from a *.uk site, “The Royal College of Psychiatrists,” talking about, if it’s by a close caretaker, how it can be hard to detect:</spa

It can be hard to detect long-standing abuse by an adult the child is close to. It is often very difficult for the child to tell anyone about it, as the abuser may have threatened to hurt them if they tell anybody. A child may not say anything because they think it is their fault, that no one will believe them or that they will be teased or punished. The child may even love the abusing adult, they want the abuse to stop, but they don’t want the adult to go to prison or for the family to break up.
TO A 3-year old, this is the new “normal.” It’s the first time through life…
If you suspect that a child is being abused, you may be able to help them to talk about it. Your local Social Services Child Protection Adviser will be able to offer more detailed advice.

Where can I get help?

First and foremost, the child must be protected from further abuse. Social Services will need to be involved to find out:
  • what has happened
  • if it is likely to happen again
  • what steps are needed to protect the child
How the courts like to handle this: Feed your local supervised visitation center employee.
How Moms like to handle this: “No way, Jose!” But they can’t….
The psychologists, whoever they were (which we can’t find out) dismissed her concerns. Well, she’s a woman. Even after CPS many times validates concerns, Family Courts ignore them, basically. “NEXT Case…..”

Ms Stratton says the court psychologist is biased against mothers. She points to papers presented by Family Court practitioners in which they say that mothers can make up allegations of abuse and that children can be manipulated by their mothers to say they have been abused.

The identity of the psychologist is protected by the Family Law Act (1975).

Well, guess we’ll never know, at least for a while:

HERE’s a Supportive U.S. post (2009, before she was caught) from RandiJames.com, citing a press release from an Australian site:

Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

I fully support the following from Anonymums:

Press Release

RE: Melinda Stratton and other Mothers on the Run

As a spokesperson for Anonymums, we understand that the Family Court does not investigate child protection matters and during the proceedings if there is no history of child protection involvement, there are no investigations that are likely to ensure the protection of children involved in proceedings. The matters of Arthur Freeman, Robert Farquharson and Jayson Dalton are just a handful of reported cases that reveals the amounting negligence that the Family Court has in regards to children’s rights. The laws particularly the Shared parenting bill based on United States joint custody laws, prioritize parent’s rights above children’s rights. Children don’t have a say and are often punished by the court if they speak out against child abuse often portrayed as “alienated children”. We are aware that these measures are in violation of human rights and until the court adequately provides protection for child abuse victims and domestic violence victims, we fully support the plights of protective mothers who are often alone in gathering the evidence and ignored by the court. We believe Melinda Stratton based on her extraordinary lengths, the statements that support Melinda’s mothering concerns towards her child that despite the law that is against a higher law(human rights), she is doing the best she can for the child. We believe that the system is incorrect and abusive towards both the mother and the child by barring her from vital services to provide for the child(Article 14) and hunting her down like an animal. It is the system itself that is at fault for failing to protect children and women in the first place regardless of the institution or reason. There are more protections for murderers and pedophiles than there are for these children. We recommend that instead of Melinda coming forward to be jailed and barred from seeing her child that the system endeavors to investigate further into these allegations instead of laying the sole burden upon the mother. We recommend that the order that seeks her out be withdrawn until the system can adequately provide proper protections for Children. Until this takes place, we support the mother in obtaining alternative safety measures.

Related Posts :

asylum for domestic violence survivors

AND here, clocking in are: a South Australian Child Protection Expert (Freda Briggs) and input from the National Council on Children Post Separation (Charles Pragnell), in:

“Found, but will he be a little boy lost in the court system?”

Finding a lost boy should be an occasion for joy, but this was not necessarily the result that anyone wanted: not Ken Thompson, not his estranged wife Melinda, and certainly not their six-year-old boy Andrew. Since Melinda Stratton disappeared 2½ years ago and [father Ken] Thompson began a campaign to find her, the South Australian child protection expert Professor Freda Briggs has spoken to both parents about Andrew’s abduction, and how it might end.

Thompson, a former NSW deputy fire chief who has spent the entire time searching for his son, had assured her he did not want a climax involving foreign police, child protection officers and sudden, possibly violent, intervention.

As for Stratton, ”she rang me from Frankfurt and didn’t know anything about the Hague Convention and my advice to her was ‘come back because if you are caught the effect on your child will be devastating’,” Briggs said. ”But she obviously ignored me.

Melinda did not have to call this woman, but she was seeking information. She was already in a lose/lose situation: Lose her child or (if allegations were reasonable, or even true) deal with supervised visitation — for HER, if that, and probably not for free — until her son grows up. She had already crossed the Rubicon, and left a lot behind. IF the “serious allegations against” her former husband included violence against HER (not indicated, but it is clearr we don’t know what they were) this woman also might have understood a severe physical risk to her, or her son, in any intervention, or exchange scenario. Her calling Freda Briggs in professional capacity indicates seeking an alternate solution. Ms (or Dr.) Briggs works in child protective arena, meaning, this may have been a factor in their case already

In the past 48 hours, since a Dutch school principal noticed Andrew’s expired passport and reported it to police, Briggs has watched as the case unravelled in the dreaded fashion, with all parties powerless to prevent it.

{{??? In any scenario whatsoever, including things so severe as floods, earthquakes, or oil spills, there is power, and an opposing power somewhere historically, and in the present moment. RARELY are “all parties” powerless, and almost never “equally” powerless. }}

Andrew’s mother is now arrested and he is with foster carers who may not even speak his language. ”If it follows the usual pattern, he will be sent back here accompanied by strangers without a stopover. Previous children [in this situation] have reportedly cried all the way home. He will probably be placed in foster care here until the judge makes a decision about where he will live,” Briggs said.

The other article indicates Dad was on the way to reclaim — or at least SEE — his son.
(this next part is actually quotation/block indent not working):

Briggs believes that Andrew may never have been abducted if the Family Court did not have a history of declaring mothers to be ”mad or bad” when they made serious allegations against fathers.

It happens, she says, ”to the extent that solicitors now advise mothers not to mention abuse in the court because of the risk they will [lose contact] or at best have occasional contact that is supervised’‘.

Sounds like they took a cue from the US courts:

Charles Pragnell, from the National Council for Children Post Separation, said the Family Court lacks the expertise to investigate serious allegations.

”In our experience with many hundreds of similar cases, psychiatrists and psychologists merely label the mother as borderline personality disorder without conducting a professional assessment as they are required to do under their professional standards of practice,” he said.

Being IN this field and speaking out about fellow-professionals takes courage. He says, they lack expertise and may be right. I can’t speak for other countries, but if you kow this blog, I say, they lack the MOTIVATION to do so, in part because a series of grants called Access/Visitation aimed at fathers gives them a nice motivation to make MORE time with the Dads. We believe, based on an anecdotal AND policy, that the family courts not only do, but are designed, to make sure that child abusers and molesters do NOT lose contact with their target children. The mental health professionals come in to validate this policy, because this field is a LOT more nebulous than criminal law, and has fewer protections, and less “due process” requirements.

It is absolutely certain that if Melinda and Andrew are forced to return to Australia they will not receive justice in the Family Courts which operate according to the provisions of the Family Law Act 2006, which Family Courts interpret as giving inalienable paramountcy to the rights of fathers and little regard is given to the needs, wishes, and rights of children.”

That was a MAN speaking, not a woman…

Coral Slattery, of the Family Law Reform Association, said Australian and international laws do too little to prevent children being whisked away, which amounts to a severe form of child abuse.

The Hague Convention is little comfort for those who do not know where their child is, she said. Even if found in a Hague Convention country, abducters go before foreign courts first, which can refuse to send a child back to their ”habitual residence” or can do so only after years and thousands of dollars in legal and travel costs.

Let’s Get Honest commentary on the condition of this post:

3 is a Taliban situation, 2 is an Afghan in Australia situation, and #1 is how Aussie/Europeans like to persecute women perceived as uppity, immoral, or protesting something.

They represent, in order, #3 Taliban – Sharia, and no government intervention acknowledging. CONFLICT between this mentality, and #2 a Western Culture that starts to at least SAY, violence against women is wrong, and stop beating on your wife.

And #1 is how Caucasians do it. They can’t in this culture come out and admit, they basically side with examples 1 & 2, but can’t pull it off. In this culture, one engages “mental health professionals” and labels, which then allows the hunt down, incarcerate, and separate child from mother.

Examples 3 & 2 came to my attention from the same on-line press that reported the Thompson/Stratton case. I wish to cover them, but have already lost significant work on this post, through my own dysfunctional CPU and internet access, which results from my own having been stuck in this system for so long, affecting obviously income and resources.

For example, an organization at the bottom, NCCPS is fascinating (and my first awareness of it). I posted its list of experts and an excerpt from an article. At the top, I also had more commentary.

ALL of this was lost on the attempt to safe the wordpress document towards the end of my day (no internet at home). Formatting errors (multiple quotes) remain.

Other losses of research happened on a recent Arizona/Bahrain post, and to be honest, some day the processor works, other days it does not.

I AM posting this information, in moral support of Ms. Stratton because, based on the one (only) positive article about her, placed in the proper context of family courts overall, globally — I believe she is telling the truth.

Moreover, the religious domination from Islam is being imitated within fundamentalist/evangelical “dominionist” type Christianity in the U.S. I have personally experienced this, and know a LOT about how it behaves in practice, versus theory.

The sharia stoning DOES replicate the same standards (although not so vicious in execution, I think) in Old Testament Bible, i.e., Israel in the wilderness. A feminist book has referred to these mentalities as “nomad priest/warrior” tribes, as opposed to the more peaceful (?) agricultural ones.
The author indeed has a point.

In the New Testament, John 4, an account of Jesus Christ actually saving a woman (allegedly!) “caught” in the act of adultery, again — no male participant present and accounted for; it may even have been one of the accusers. She may have been raped, or set up, we don’t know. Jesus was caught “between a rock and a hard place” like many court professionals are today, if they are ethical — if He protested the law, he came out against what he declared himself to be the fulfilment of. If He didn’t say SOMETHING, the woman would die.

The answer was, “He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone,” and by this method, the situation was diffused.

The Westernized “family courts” TODAY are a version of the individual-discretion religious courts of these countries where religion and politics mix, if they are indeed distinguishable. I have experience with both, years of it, and no longer participate in “church” circles — they are morally erosive for women, MOST of them, and blow-off human rights issues. Helping homeless or poor, often created by these issues no longer counts for me. One reason I can say it no longer counts is I’ve done my homework on the grants and organizations (see this blog, and be assured that’s not the whole content of research), enough to get a PRETTY good sense of how they operate, the basic premises, and many of the interrelationships.

Concerned readers should look up the organization listed at the bottom, “National Council for Children Post Separation” and read the site. Much as I love to provide links and excerpts myself, using Google, hitting “Search” and reading are not exactly highly technical skills, and I suspect many readers have faster computers than I do. I simply continue the habit, and try to retain what I’ve read, comparing it with anecdotal, networked, but most of all, experienced reality in these systems (religion, courts, local culture).

GET OVER the “I don’t know — she says that, he says that” and take a position on the issue — or lose (US citizens!) what remains of your civil rights, and liberties, if those indeed existed in the past half-century or so.

And when international marriages (and economy) are involved, we have to DEAL with the issue of Sharia law influencing Christian Theocracy (cf. “Tea Party”) claiming to represent the “founding fathers” when it doesn’t. Which I know because, again, I’ve done some homework. There are different strands within “Christianity” as there are within Islam. I cannot speak for Judaism as experientially; but I do know that the offshoot/now mainstream religions perceive themselves as heroes and protecting the “good” values of past centuries, failing to distinguish the impact on their own lives, and husbands, wives, children, relatives, friends, and colleagues.

Written by Let's Get Honest

September 10, 2010 at 12:04 pm

(the Gulag, cont’d.) Politics,Policies,Prisons : The Business of Detention (Case study)

with 2 comments

I’ll be honest. I am VERY concerned about how far down the Road to Serfdom we already are.

Why spend all that energy on human rights, civil rights, legal rights, due process, when who one is dealing with is a calculating policymaker/investor (the door rotates in and out of private and public sectors) who knows a good — business- deal when he (or occasionally, she) sees one?

I found “Corrections Corporation of America” and the Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) connection. I retain a lot of information upstairs, even though words may come out crossed occasionally. I notice anomalies. Or just things that interest me. When I looked at the richest Congresspersons roll, long ago, and the Obamas came out 10th (probably 2008), counting assets, and spouses assets as well — Mr. Alexanders interest in a huge work-site Child Care provider made an impression (see comment to most recent post). OK, so why would someone so interested in child care also be interested in prisons?
The topic of lockup relates to family court matters because violation of law, or contempts, or crimes, obviously could lead there. My research process is real simple. I google, read, and pay attention. It’s not rocket science.

I recognize good reporting when I see it. (A few awards doesn’t hurt either). Too bad more court reform people wouldn’t form the investigative journalism, FOIA, and looking at the Financials habit that these Columbia University journalism grads did:

Business Of Detention Home

Washington, D.C. – CCA plays the game of politics like a pro. After all forty percent of its revenue comes from federal contracts.

The company backs key politicians who support an immigration crackdown, and has intensified its lobbying in order to influence those still on the fence. For good measure, it hires former prison and immigration officials to coordinate its federal relations.

(from interactive graph on site, slide 3 of 4). Notice, graph source is from “opensecrets.org”, another good resource.

“The rest of CCA’s political giving went directly to lawmakers who determine detention funding through their positions on the appropriations committee in the House and Senate. In 2008, the committees approved a $2.3 billion budget for ICE detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, including funds for an additional 4,870 new beds. More than half the senators backed by CCA’s PAC are on the appropriations committee, and four of them are on the subcommittee on Homeland Security.”

Maybe some mothers and fathers who want Family Court Reform ought to spend a little more browsing (and submitting testimony) time on the House Ways and Means Committee, where many programs affecting the courts are. (see some of my posts). CCA knew right where to go to get their policies through.

One CCA-backed appropriations committee member deserves special mention. Former Tennessee governor, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) received $31,200 from 2003-2008 from the Nashville-based company and its employees, spouses and their subsidiaries, according to Federal Election Commission documents. Alexander’s history of supporting CCA includes endorsing its failed bid in 1985 to take over the Tennessee prison system.

In the House, CCA’s PAC gave $5,000 to Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), who sits on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations. Another $2,500 went to fellow committee member John Carter (R-TX) who is also on the Committee on Homeland Security. Carter’s district is where CCA’s T. Don Hutto family residential center is located. He is a major advocate for “a system of 100 percent catch and return.”

Republican members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus reaped CCA’s support for backing the Secure America though Verification and Enforcement Act. The Act calls for expediting “the removal of illegal aliens by expanding detention capacity.

I have a question. Suppose, very hypothetically, all illegal aliens (that’s people…) WERE removed? Then what about all that prison capacity? Hmmm??? Maybe another Kids for Cash scenario? (As if aspects of the child protective services, and foster care incentives, and child support agency system(s) weren’t already this…)

WELL, some people – shareholders — wanted to know what was going on with all this money:

In 2007, the company fought a shareholder resolution that requested semi-annual reports on the company’s political contributions and expenditures.

“Absent a system of accountability, corporate executives are free to use company assets for political objectives that are not shared by and may be inimical to the interests of a company and its shareholders,” argued Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary Investment Program, who introduced the failed measure to force CCA to disclose payments it makes to trade associations, political recipients and soft money entities such as 527s.

To influence lawmakers who did not receive direct donations, CCA has spent millions on lobbyists. They got what they asked for.

And we even got a corporate (CCA) counsel taking a spin at a judgeship in Tennessee. That should help:

CCA’s general counsel, Gustavus Puryear IV, could give the revolving door another turn. Puryear made headlines this year when President Bush nominated him for a federal judge seat in the Middle District of Tennessee, where CCA is headquartered. Puryear has worked as a speech writer for Vice President Dick Cheney. He testified during a Senate hearing that he would recuse himself from cases involving the company.

WELL, this is just a flavor. Not only does this subject matter overlap with family court, but take note of these TWO students’ masters’ thesis project.  The same principles apply in organizations which are close to the federal faucet through HHS (see “What Decade Are These Stores?” post.). I notice that the Loop21.com article noticed a n Arizona connection. (bottom of last post)

from their ABOUT BD link — and I also added this link to my blogroll:

Our desire was to create an innovative way to present the business of privatized detention services — using solid reporting skills and pairing that up with video and interactive info graphics. This was also an experiment for us in creating a platform for a news product, that largely went under reported in mainstream news when we started the Corrections Corporation of America investigative project in late 2007. That project became the first investigative-new media project for the University and has since won the Melvin Mencher Award for Superior Reporting and James A. Wechsler Award for National Reporting, and a finalist at the 2009 SXSW Interactive Awards.

This link is to a “money.cnn” report focusing on Arizona, where a bid was made to privatize the entire state’s prisons.

According to research firm IBISWorld USA, private corrections is a $22.7 billion industry with an annual growth rate in the last half-decade of 4.7%. While growth slowed from 2009 to 2010, projections for the industry remain largely optimistic.

The prison population continues to grow regardless of what the economic conditions are,” says George Van Horn, senior analyst at IBISWorld.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of federal inmates housed in private facilities jumped nearly 14% between 2000 and 2007, and nearly 6% between 2007 and 2008.

Even so, the federal government nor any other state has gone as far as Arizona has in the march toward prison privatization. Last fall, Governor Brewer signed a law calling for the privatization of all the state’s prisons, should a private contractor offer an upfront bid of $100 million. This March, the law was repealed because no private company made a bid.

A prison too far?

But with the recent escapes, officials in Arizona and elsewhere have started to question the use of private correctional facilities. When Arizona’s privatization bill passed, the state’s director of corrections, Charles L. Ryan, took the unusual step of writing a letter to Governor Brewer expressing concern.

“[The bill] seeks to attempt something never experienced in the nation: Privatizing a state’s entire prison system. This is bad public policy,” the letter read.

“This escape has put everything in stark relief,” says Goddard. “A private company has an acceptable level of loss. In the case of violent offenders, I don’t believe the public does or should tolerate any incidence of failure.

%d bloggers like this: