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 December 2010

“Why Shariah?” (Noah Feldman, quoted at CFR), “Islam’s Double Standard” (Arthur Frederick Ides) and {No Feminine Nouns at} the Michigan Family Forum’s home (Brian Snavely)

with 2 comments

The idea for this post began with the first and third posts, found recently.  To put a context, we needed to hear the women’s parts as well — as they are remarkably absent in the other ones.

The “But First, Four Women” post — well I just felt I needed to put their voices out in public before continuing with this one.

Because time is short now, I will post links and wish a happy new year, for those on this calendar, and don’t do anything foolish if you are on the “outs” with the family at this time of year.

Another inspiration for this post was watching a travelog by PBS’s Rick Steves, on the customs of Christmas (in Europe and elsewhere) combined with a trip to Iran, and watching the men walking around western style, and the women, with their hairs covered, plus his response to them.

We need to be more sensitive to other cultures and histories (MOST people have some “other” to relate to, even people with two or three or more backgrounds in their immediate parentage, I would bet (I wasn’t blessed with that…).  Because we live somewhere.  I have noted with distress that when too many cultures feel themselves “other” it’s easy enough to demonize women in their own, as we saw in the last post when a former Muslim tried to speak about human rights at some liberal — in fact, Ivy League– universities and a college.  I think “Now they call me Infidel” should be required reading:  a religious culture in reaction to perceived secularism and corruption (as if there were none within its ranks) is going to become more adamant, more stringent, and often more dangerous.  this is why we had checks and balances, and separation of powers.

With technology, these are easy to erase, and have been.  We need to address this.  Technology delivers ideas, and rhetoric.  The technical divide between rich and poor absolutely still exists, and affects the overall climate we live in.

Understand that I’m not too familiar with these sites myself, but believe they are worth posting.

OK:

Why Shariah?

Author:

March 17, 2008
New York Times Magazine

Last month, Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state. The archbishop noted that “the law of the Church of England is the law of the land” there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women,** it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

**This is kind of like the “fatherhood” groups giving a token nod towards “domestic violence” aspects — which I refuse to support any more.  It’s like scotch-taping a gaping crack in the wall, and sanitizes the situation.  This is where such DV agencies have sold women out, precisely, and particularly in allowing certain practices in the courts which have become the HOW of our losing custody.  Because due process, facts & evidence, were eliminated.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world’s second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognizing same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams’s mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word “Shariah” that was radioactive.

View full text of article.

ANOTHER ONE, same site, a “BACKGROUNDER article.” Recommended reading:

Islam: Governing Under Sharia
(aka shariah, shari’a)

Authors:
Toni Johnson, Senior Staff Writer
Lauren Vriens

Updated: November 10, 2010


Introduction

Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West. “There are so many varying interpretations of what sharia actually means that in some places it can be incorporated into political systems relatively easily,” says Steven A. Cook, CFR senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies. Sharia’s influence on both personal status law and criminal law is highly controversial, though. Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence. The debate is growing as to whether sharia can coexist with secularism, democracy, or even modernity.

What is Sharia?

Also meaning “path” in Arabic, sharia guides all aspects of Muslim life including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Quran and the Sunna–the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual.

Sharia developed several hundred years after the Prophet Mohammed’s death in 632 CE as the Islamic empire expanded to the edge of North Africa in the West and to China in the East. Since the Prophet Mohammed was considered the most pious of all believers, his life and ways became a model for all other Muslims and were collected by scholars into what is known as the hadith. As each locality tried to reconcile local customs and Islam, hadith literature grew and developed into distinct schools of Islamic thought: the Sunni schools, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanafi; and the Shiite school, Ja’fari. Named after the scholars that inspired them, they differ in the weight each applies to the sources from which sharia is derived, the Quran, hadith, Islamic scholars, and consensus of the community. The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy, is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi’i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja’fari school, most notably in Shia-dominant Iran. The distinctions have more impact on the legal systems in each country, however, than on individual Muslims, as many do not adhere to one school in their personal lives.

Controversy: Punishment and Equality under Sharia

Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge’s discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses–flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution–get a significant amount of media attention when they occur. These sentences are not often prescribed, however. “In reality, most Muslim countries do not use traditional classical Islamic punishments,” says Ali Mazrui of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies in a Voice of America interview. These punishments remain on the books in some countries but lesser penalties are often considered sufficient.

Despite official reluctance to use hadd punishments, vigilante justice still takes place. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one’s family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor (National Geographic). Other practices that are woven into the sharia debate, such as female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules, elicit as much controversy. There is significant debate over what the Quran sanctions and what practices were pulled from local customs and predate Islam. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. “With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people’s problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events,” says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.

Sharia vs. Secularism. . . .

Another article states how this just might work out in practice.  (Again, a google find).  Its dealing also with the intense anti-homosexuality laws reminds me of the Ugandan situation as sponsored by some right-wing evangelical organizations based in the US, which it seems I did blog on earlier (N.A.M.E., Rick Warren, WAIT, others), or perhaps I just read, and didn’t post.  these are the megachurch reform the country and get the grants-guys that have been practicing on populations overseas, and inappropriately so, it seems.  But (more on topic), whoever this man is, here is the anecdotal narrative of these theories in practice:

Islam’s Double Standard: the evil of Shari’a law

Islam has never believed in nor sanctioned equality, human rights, or civil rights from its inception in the seventh century to this day.

This is the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery, while her lover received twenty lashes.  Initially her sentence was commuted to hanging after international protests.  She awaited her fate, sharing cell number four with 25 other women–all awaiting execution.

Court records claim that her crime was adultery and merited the death penalty, but her testimony gives another reason. She claimed that she was attempting to find some happiness in a loveless marriage.

Initially, Sakineh was given 99 lashes for her so-called crime. The unmarried man, known as Nasser, was not treated as harshly, and the man who accompanied Sakineh was treated relatively lightly.    Nasser received 40 lashes. The second man, who had accompanied Sakineh for safety sake, received 20.    The Iranian theocracy was not satisfied.  They demanded blood.

When Sakineh’s husband was found dead, . . .

(obviously a chapter or two of the narrative missing here!)…

investigators responded to a complaint filed by his children. After haphazardly reviewing the evidence *** they concluded that Sakineh’s lover, Nasser, killed the father. Concluding that there was an illicit alliance between Sakineh and Nasser, the investigators attention was quickly redirected to the children’s mother.

**A phrase that reminds me of my own family law case, and others.  Except that in my case, I’m not sure if even a haphazard review took place.

It swiftly was the consensus of the investigators that Sakineh had aided and abetted her lover.  She supposedly had given her husband a sedative so that Nasser could inject him with poison.

When the children realized the gravity of the situation, they chose to protect their mother. Sajjad and Farideh forgave their mother for acting as an accessory to the murder, and forgave Nassar for murdering their father. Their forgiveness, according to Islamic law, reduced the crime’s sentence.

Nassar’s penalty was reduced from hanging to ten years imprisonment.  Although Sakineh was originally convicted only of being an accessory to murder, her sentence was also reduced to ten years–as if she had participated in the murder.

The reduced sentences enraged Iran’s clerical elite.  Zealous fundamentalist Shari’a judges presiding Iran pushed for a reevaluation of the extramarital relationship. Succeeding in obtaining a rehearing of the case, the theocrats accused Sakineh of “zena” — extramarital sex.

Extramarital sex carries the death penalty–by stoning–a verdict that they were determined to render when they passed judgment. All evidence points to the fact that the judges had already determined that the mother was guilty of the murder in order to have a lover (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,711975,00.html#ref=nlint).

Still a problem lingered. World opinion. The most troublesome point in this situation is that the accused was coerced into testifying against herself.   Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, told British reporters from the Guardian after the trial that she had been tortured for no less than two days and threatened repeatedly if she did not tell the court what it demanded it be told (http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article1807).

Since the fall of the shah and with it the end of democracy in Persia came a transmogrification of justice and law. With the return of the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, by referendum on April 1, 1979, and approved a new theocratic constitution whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country in December 1979. From that day on, the Iranian government intensified its campaign of torture, arbitrary arrests, and detentions against political critics since 2004 (Human Rights Watch (2004), Like the Dead in Their Coffins: Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran (73 page booklet); cf. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=5), increasing the number of  public executions (especially the hanging of teenage homosexuals; http://www.iranfocus.com/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=4403) to a near-daily routine, and enshrining torture as a commandment of their god in much the same way as the Roman Catholic church used the Spanish Inquisition to extract confessions and ultimate exterminate those opposed to its rule and officials.

One of the most unusual innovations installed by the theocracy of Iran, quite different from the more sane days of the Kingdom of Iran (Pahlavi dynasty) under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) came with the redefinition of social culture, customs, and tolerance.  Before the imams and ayatollahs took control, two members of the same gender commonly held hands or kissed as they had for centuries–it was seen as a greeting, not as a sexual exchange, but like Pope Pius IX, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was fixated on homosexuality, most likely to hide his own latent tendencies–for he forged out of redactions verses against homosexuality (citing Qur’an 4:16 and 27:55, which is contradicted by 52:24, 56:17, 76:19) and adultery (17:2-3, 32, and 25:63-71) but stoning is only found in the hadith. Both actions became capital offences and dealt with severely by the theocrats–without any justification for their decrees in the Qur’an, in the same barbaric manner as Pius IX attempted to justify his own phobias.

Today, in Iran, homosexuality is illegal, and those charged with making love (having homosexual sex) love-making

Irangay_teens_2 are given a choice of four death-styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch.

Here, the same author talks (pretty straightforward) — sorry to switch topics suddenly — about the history of Christmas.  Worth a little look:

Generally, I’ve gone with the flow, and adjusted, and with others — while realizing that Santa Claus isn’t real (nor, FYI, did we inflict that on our kids, although the presents sure showed up at the season, along with abuse right before or right after…).  But after four seasons of no chance of seeing my own kids — while I as a mother with full physical custody willingly shared even the alternating holidays we were given — I guess that meant nothing because of my gender? — the past oners, not a peep.  Financially devastated time and again, I can’t exactly go do the gifts, plus with contact already (and promptly) cut off, it was quite clear that this was a time of one-upmanship (we have your daughters — and you don’t!) related to some ritual hazing of a The Mom Who Said No! .  …

And I’m certainly not alone in that pain of not seeing my children in any major holiday.  U.S. Courts are creating this phemonenon.

Moreover, other times, families, or parts of them are wiped out by someone who was on the outs.

It’s our civic duty, however, to help jumpstart the ailing economy by shopping (what about ourselves, eh?).

No, thank, you I think that’s enough “Christmas” for my lifetime…  At least that’s how I feel for now…  SO I throw in that little link.  For anyone from these traditions we are discussing (I didn’t discuss Judaism, but you can see that it wouldn’t include this holiday), what we celebrate is basically described in the Old Testament as other gods.    No one likes to bring this out in the open too much, but maybe it’s time…..  It’s not exactly the liberalized separation of church and state (supposedly) time when atheism is celebrated; work schedules and the market revolve around this collated holiday that dates probably back to a Roman Emperor, Constantine.  So why not consider a bit?

hristmas: Origin and Development

Four thousand years ago or so, ancient Egyptians celebrated the rebirth of the sun in the twelfth month of each year. Devoted to the holiest of numbers, twelve, the Egyptians (like other people) reckoned most “happenings” in groups of twelve. To this send, the Egyptians set the length of the festival at 12 days, to reflect the 12 divisions in their sun calendar. To celebrate the rebirth of the sun, they used every possible existence of rebirth, and decorated with greenery that was common among them: using palms with 12 shoots as a symbol of the completed year, since a palm was thought to put forth a shoot each month. Sun-worshipping Egyptians had the idea, and having their sun-god ride a “beast” beneath waving palm branches, bearing on his head a laurel crown and even sleeping on a tree and resting and praying in a garden with a young boy to indicate the perpetual youthfulness of their savior sun-god.

Saturn and Ops at Saturnalia 

The Saturnalia, of course, celebrated Saturn—the fire god (represented, as expected, by fire—an element sacred to all gods and thus the source of heat and cooking—a source that the god Prometheus would steal to take to mortal kind), while his son would become in time represented by the sun when he took his place to the right hand of the Father (and ultimately replace him). Saturn’s primary duties, for which he was worshipped universally, was being the god of sowing (planting) because heat from the sun was required to allow for planting and growth of crops. He was also worshipped in this dead-of-winter festival so that he would come back (he was the “sun”) and warm the earth again so that spring planting could occur. The planet Saturn was later named after him because, among all of the planets, with its rings and bright red color, it best represented the god of fire.

….

These were all simply the various names for Nimrod. Nimrod was considered the father of all the Babylonian gods (who, by legend, dined on the flesh of newborn babies–but records suggest that it was a baptism similar to that experienced by Achilles). This horrible practice was associated with the worship of all fire gods, including Saturn, Kronos, Molech and Baal) and is the subject of the still-valid The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop, page 231:

(I heard this author later retracted a lot of what he wrote…)

This legend has a further and deeper meaning; but, as applied to Nimrod, or ‘The Horned One,’ (which found its ultimate fruition in the bad translation of the Bible in the sixteenth century

Moses with Horns by Michelangelo (yeah, I wondered about those marble horns, too…) 

as seen in Michelangelo’s portrayal of the mythological Moses with horns) it just refers to the fact, that, as the representative of Moloch or Baal, infants were the most acceptable offerings at his altar. We have ample and melancholy evidence on this subject from the records of antiquity. ‘ThePhoenicians,’ says Eusebius, ‘every year sacrificed their beloved and only-begotten children to Kronos or Saturn.

We find this same reference in both the Torah and the Christian Bible. For example, in Genesis 10:9 we read of Nimrod, “He was a mighty hunter before [in place of] the Lord.” He actually tried to replace God. The Jewish historian, Josephus, records in Josephus Antiquities important evidence of Nimrod’s role in the post-flood world: “He also gradually changed the government into tyranny…He [Nimrod] also said he would be revenged on God, if He should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach…Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God” (Bk. I, Ch. IV, sec. 2, 3).

Under many names, mankind’s earliest and perhaps greatest rebel has been worshipped throughout what rival theologies would libel as a “false religion.”

Yeah, it’s that tyranny thing that always gets us.  What religion, I wonder, does NOT dispense that?

Well, to keep my promise, here’s that MICHIGAN FAMILY FORUM site.  I post this because not one single hyperlink in it’s four main ones can say any word that could be identified with a woman!  The word “Family” doesn’t.  The word “Children” doesn’t.  The word “Parents” doesn’t.  The word “elders” doesn’t.  But there is a link for FATHERHOOD.  I suppose women make a guest appearance for the purpose of reproducing.  Elderly women (and we know women often live longer than men) are likely to be welcome if they are not too uppity or crotchedty, and particularly if they are widows (not “divorcees”).  I’m just speculating as to much of this paragraph, but take a look at the

  • the Language,
  • the Links,
  • and the photos.

 

 

In 1989, a board formed and recruited a probate Judge, who caught the vision.  And they were off and running — thank god, before that nasty VAWA legislation was passed….

(I’ve actually done more research than on the post about some of these liaisons in this Midwestern State.  They are concerned about “family.”  I as a woman who has no place (and no photo, to date, of anyone my age on the site) am concerned about them.).  Remember my post about Oregon Family Institute, and how well-networked they were.  You ain’t seen nothing yet when the network is majority conservative evangelical Christian.  I wish I could talk to both Ayaan Hirsi and Nonie Darwish about this, and I have already mentioned it to Phyllis Chesler.

Remember their stories…

Happy New Year, and may the next one not be “business as usual” for you!

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm

“Why Shariah?” (Noah Feldman, at CFR), “Islam’s Double Standard” (Arthur Frederick Ides) and {No Feminine Nouns at} the Michigan Family Forum’s home (Brian Snavely): But First, Four Women…

leave a comment »

This blog should be filed along with my ones about the Gulag Archipelago, and Bahrain Archipelago.

With respect and appreciation intended this season towards:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, Nonie Darwish, and Immaculee Iligibazi, who survived the Rwandan Holocaust in a cramped bathroom in a pastor’s house, although others who sometimes sought shelter in churches then, didn’t find it.  In their books (I haven’t met any of these women, all activist and all authors, and all who overcame many odds and losses), and in reverse order:

  • Immaculée

Immaculée Ilibagiza was born in Rwanda and studied Electronic and Mechanical Engineering at the National University of Rwanda. Her life transformed dramatically in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide when she and seven other women huddled silently together in a cramped bathroom of a local pastor’s house for 91 days! During this horrific ordeal, Immaculée lost most of her family, but she survived to share the story and her miraculous transition into forgiveness and a profound relationship with God.

(title of page also: “From a country she loved to the horrors of genocide:  A journey to understanding and forgiveness.”)

I love what I think this country stands for.  I understand we are in a period — perhaps we have always engaged in this – of  a different sort of “genocide” and the “genus” we are involved in eradicating is the word Mother and Woman as a functional reality in the major institutions of life — except we comply and fit in.  what we are expected to fit in with is becoming nonpersons, and religious and sectarian violence against us and our children because we spoke up against violence and weren’t aware ahead of the family law system that is designed to STOP such speaking up and leaving it.  As formerly it was “not without my children,”  Nowadays it has become, “OK, but ONLY without your children…”

I think that story needs to be heard, too, and how having children, then losing them to systems, transformed each of us personally, and our relationships with the rest of the world, particularly any religious segments of it.  If the U.S. is the BEST for women, then we are indeed in trouble throughout the world.

  • Nonie:

(Wikipedia entry).

Nonie Darwish (Arabic: نوني درويش‎) (born 1949[1][2]) is an Egyptian-American human rights activist, and founder of Arabs For Israel, and is Director of Former Muslims United. She is the author of two books: Now They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish’s speech topics cover human rights, with emphasis on women’s rights and minority rights in the Middle East. Born in Egypt, Darwish is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, who was called a “shahid” by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser,[3] after being killed in a targeted killing in 1956. Darwish blames “the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and the propaganda of hatred taught to children from birth” for his death. In 1978, she moved with her husband to the United States, and converted to Christianity there. After September 11, 2001 she has written on Islam-related topics.[3]

She was too outspoken.  Respectable organizations headed for the hills when

Shari’a in the Ivy League

By: Pratik Chougule
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Where are the moderates of the Islamic world? The question has befuddled Americans since the September 11 attacks. Indeed, while President Bush and other leaders of the West have fervently defended Islam as a “religion of peace,” there has been a conspicuous dearth of prominent Middle Eastern leaders openly willing to criticize radical Islam or defend the United States and Israel in the War on Terrorism. A recent incident at Brown University this past November sheds light on the perplexing issue.In late November, Hillel, Brown University’s prominent Jewish group on campus, invited Nonie Darwish to give a lecture in defense of Israel and its human rights record, relative to the Islamic world.  

Her father, Mustafa Hafez, founded the Fedayeen, which launched raids across Israel’s southern border. When Darwish was eight years old, her father became the first targeted assassination carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces in response to Fedayeen’s attacks, making him a martyr or “shahid.” During his speech nationalizing the Suez Canal, Nasser vowed Egypt would take revenge for Hafez’s death. Nasser asked Nonie and her siblings, “Which one of you will avenge your father’s death by killing Jews?”

After his death, Darwish’s family moved to Cairo, where she attended Catholic high school and then the American University in Cairo. She worked as an editor and translator for the Middle East News Agency, until emigrating to the United States in 1978, ultimately receiving United States citizenship. After arriving in the United States, she converted from Islam to evangelical Christianity based on her belief that even American mosques preach a radical, anti-peace message. Due to her decision to convert, Darwish instantly became branded as an “apostate” in several prominent Muslim circles. After 9/11, Darwish began writing columns critical of radical Islam, and authored a book Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. She is also the founder of the organization Arabs for Israel, which pledges, “respect and support the State of Israel,” welcome a “peaceful and diverse Middle East,” reject “suicide/homicide terrorism as a form of Jihad,” and promote “constructive self-criticism and reform” in the Islamic world.

When Hillel announced its decision to invite Darwish to speak, the Brown University Muslim Students’ Association promptly insisted that Hillel rescind the invitation. Their reasoning: Darwish is “too controversial.” Similarly, the Sarah Doyle’s Women’s Center, which Hillel had contacted to cosponsor the event given Darwish’s advocacy of women’s rights, refused to support the lecture.

After a brief period of internal debate, Hillel buckled to the pressure and withdrew its invitation. In an open letter explaining the decision, Hillel cited a “desire to maintain constructive relationships” with the Muslim Students Association. Inviting Darwish, they argue, “would not be a prudent method of Israel advocacy.” Defending the decision, one member of Hillel stated that Jews “should be especially sensitive about comments which criticize strict religious observance and deem it unacceptable in America.” This member was particularly concerned that his Muslim peers “were extremely offended by this characterization of them as ‘extremists.’”

Amidst a flurry of negative press, including stories in the New York Post,

National Review Online, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the University moved into damage-control mode.

A woman, presumably Brown student, responds in the Daily Herald (newsletter) “Nathalie Alyon ’06:  Nonie non grata?“:

The recent Nonie Darwish cancellation betrays Brunonian*  values

Published: Thursday, November 30, 2006

{**a.k.a. “Brown,” give me a break with the language, eh?}

I was shocked to read a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report that Nonie Darwish, a Palestinian peace activist, would not be speaking at Brown because the Muslim Student Association, the Muslim chaplain and the Office of the Chaplains and Religious Life are afraid what she has to say is controversial (“Free speech controversy builds as pro-Israel speech canceled at Brown,” Nov. 20). What happened to the Brown I know and love, the haven of liberal education that encourages free thought and debate? Apparently, we have turned into a university easily intimidated when the subject matter gets sensitive.

And, may I add, possibly when the speaker is also female… (and a mother at the time, I think)….

What about Darwish is so offensive to Muslims that Hillel students decided to cancel her appearance to avoid jeopardizing the wonderful relationship between Jewish and Muslim groups on campus? …

Are the Muslim Student Association and the Muslim chaplain not willing to face the reality that there are people using Islam to incite violence, promote terrorism and spread hate across the world? Would they rather keep things simple, inhale hookah smoke with a couple of Jews in the name of multiculturalism and call it a day?

I think the answer there is self-evident….

Now that we know who is not allowed to speak on campus, let’s take a look at some events that have taken place

Good.  This young woman (presumably) is on the right track to feminism {a.k.a. females speaking their minds} in the real world…

By the way, isn’t Nonie Darwish (along with President Obama) a PURRRfect example of what risk any fatherless child is of teen pregnancy, runaway, drug use, etc.  Look at her disgraceful track record, educationally, and as to contributions to this world.  What a burden on society.

(my point being — WARS, too, help make fatherlessness; don’t blame the Mamas!)

She also got silenced at Princeton and Columbia — so mothers silenced in the courts are perhaps in good company?  Granted, both quotes from known conservative ezines (exception the BrownDaily, which I don’t know about). But it kinda makes you wonder, eh?

Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.

Darwish, a soft-spoken ex-Muslim and daughter of an Islamic martyr, is a champion of the rights of women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, and leader of the group Arabs for Israel. She had been planning to speak on “Sharia Law and Perspectives on Israel.” She is one of the few courageous voices who speak out against Islamic anti-Semitism and the oppression of women under Sharia.

She is eminently qualified to speak about this, having lived it.  Her education is fine.  It’s the topic which is politically incorrect even in “liberal” circles..

At Princeton, she was invited three weeks ago and was scheduled to speak last Wednesday. But on Tuesday evening, Arab Society president Sami Yabroudi and former president Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: “Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned.”

??Character assassination, sounds like to me…  Good grief, here’s a Princeton Commentary on it:

Darwish herself, who has never advocated violence against anyone, pointed to this unfounded moral equivalence to neo-Nazism as “the worst kind of intimidation and character assassination aimed at those who dare to question, analyze, or criticize.” And she found it ironic that while her punishment for speaking out as an apostate against Islam’s worst practices was silence at Princeton, it would be death under Sharia law.

But more than the issue of free speech, the scandal has exposed in the religious community a problematic link between faith and politics, one that is the root of any inter-religious conflict. When asked if the religion of Islam were inseparable from politics, Imam Sultan explained, “There are a whole host of theories on how Islam can interact with politics, from the least imposing to the most imposing ways. I find myself agreeing more with the former, but I cannot deny that it is a source of great debate and difference of opinion among Muslims.”

(in “Censored:  The Politics behind silencing Nonie Darwish” (Dec. 09, in “THE PRINCETON TORY A JOURNAL OF CONSERVATIVE AND MODERATE THOUGHT)

While I have not met any of the above women (who are writer and speakers, I sometimes consider — of recent two years — my mentors, as I struggle to find a metaphor or “handle” to put the experience of the U.S. “FAMILY” court system (as well as my own particular extended family – actually a very small in number family, but intensely Western (so they think, I believe) and intensely “liberal”), I have read Chesler books since I was young (don’t think the age difference is that great) and I have written her often, with alarm, about my concerns how the family law system is moving towards shariah, as seen my Christian/NOT fundamentalist background.  I do not feel that some women who while understanding that certain more radical, secular views of domestic violence may not “get” this, they too, may not “get” how (relative to the rest of the US culture, overall) this evangelistic and highly patriarchal (or else) sector has sprung from the same roots.  So, I decided to post THIS 2009 article, which addresses it.

Yesterday, I completed a QNA with the National Review about honor killings/”honorcides” which appears there today and which you may readHERE. I also did a long interview with a major new service on the subject which is slated to appear tomorrow. Like many other wire services and like the mainstream media, ideas such as mine are usually sidelined, marginalized, attacked, or simply “disappeared.” I do not think this will happen tomorrow.

And now, I have a number of honorable allies. One surely is NOW-New York State President, Marcia Pappas who is now also being attacked for her having linked the Buffalo beheading with “honor killings,” with “Islam,” and even with “Islamic terrorism.” Indeed, she was attacked yesterday by a coalition of eight domestic violence victim advocacy providers in Erie County where the Buffalo beheading took place. I quickly posted a blog which dealt with this, (it deserves a longer piece), but I mainly praised the recent rally in London which was sponsored by One Law For All.

Lo and Behold: A second honorable ally wrote to me. I want to share what he said. His name is Khalim Massoud, and he is the President of Muslims Against Sharia Law, an international organization. After reading my most recent blog HERE, he wrote me as follows:

“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that (the) Buffalo beheading is a honorcide. We, Muslims Against Sharia, prefer this term to honor murder. Beheading is not just a murder, it’s a ritual. It’s a form of control and humiliating a family member who “stepped over the line,” in this case, wife taking out a TRO (order of protection) and planning to divorce her husband.

Ms. Pappas must be commended for her courage to call a spade a spade. (The) PC-climate presents considerable danger for future honorcide victims. Trying to sweep cultural/religious aspects of honorcide under the rug keeps the problem from being addressed. While most of the media wouldn’t touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, (for) fear they would be portrayed as Islamophobic, a few brave women, the true feminists, like Marcia Pappas and Phyllis Chesler are speaking out on the subject just to be slammed by so-called victim advocacy groups because they dare to expose Islamism’s dirty laundry. Muslim women in America are at great risk because Muslim establishment, with help of the media, wants to portray honorcide as fiction.

Honorcide has no place in the modern world, but especially in the West. It must be forcefully confronted; not written off as domestic violence. Almost a year ago, MASH started STOP HONORCIDE! initiative. The goal is to have honorcide classified as a hate crime. The Buffalo case is a perfect example why honorcide should be a hate crime. The suspect is being charged with the 2nd degree murder. If honorcide were classified as a hate crime, he’d be charged with the 1st degree murder.”

Khalim Massoud
President
Muslims Against Sharia

OK, now again briefly (since I mentioned above), Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Again, I find it a little disconcerting she is a scholar at a conservative think-tank also known to have “fatherhood” advocacy within its ranks… (AEI.org).

Biography

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken defender of women’s rights in Islamic societies, was born in Mogadishu, Somalia. She escaped an arranged marriage by immigrating to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. In parliament, she worked on furthering the integration of non-Western immigrants into Dutch society and defending the rights of women in Dutch Muslim society. In 2004, together with director Theo van Gogh, she made Submission, a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. The airing of the film on Dutch television resulted in the assassination of Mr. van Gogh by an Islamic extremist. At AEI, Ms. Hirsi Ali researches the relationship between the West and Islam, women’s rights in Islam, violence against women propagated by religious and cultural arguments, and Islam in Europe.
Here is a beautifully written article (on this ugly topic) and well-posed question. As I worry about the direction the courts are taking women, and religion is taking (or should I say, HAS taken) the U.S. Constitutional protections, I realize, yes I’m privileged, but feel also, we need to still wake up, HERE, and NOW, even though by comparison, other places are worse.  Women have physical lives and emotional lives and social lives.  We have come to demand meaning and purpose in our lives, here, and feel entitled to it.
However, if the whole social climate goes heirarchical (men, particularly pale ones, on top) and religious (Collaborations, faith-based initiatives and out-come based court processes…), we are in trouble.  And we are.  I wasn’t born in Egypt or Yemen.  I was born HERE, U.S.A.  What is it, if family law becomes shariah law in so many words, because men are afraid of empowered women?  Of non-dominated women?

We were on our front yard of white sand. It was a hot day, like almost all days in Mogadishu. There was nothing unusual about the flies that irritated us or the ants that I avoided for fear of their sharp, agonizing bites. If they happened to crawl under my dress or I sat on them accidentally they would punish me with a sting that made me shriek with pain. That shrieking and hopping about would earn disapproval and even a slap from Grandmother.

I think I was 6 or 7 on that day, maybe younger, but I know I was not 8 because my family had not yet left Somalia. Grandmother was moralizing as usual. On that day, like all other days, she was admonishing me to remember my place.

There was yet another thing I did wrong and I did not have the ability to set right. If only I wasn’t so dimwitted; if only I understood how I was to blame for the flaw that granny abhorred so much.

“Cross your legs,” she said, “lower your gaze. You must learn not to laugh, and if you must laugh then see to it that you don’t cackle like the neighbor’s hen.” We had no chickens but the noise of the neighbors’ hens screeching and hooting and trespassing was enough for me to get the message.

“If you must go outside make sure you are accompanied and that you and your company walk as far away from men as possible,” she said.

To my grandmother’s annoyance, I responded with the question: “But Grandmother, what about Mahad?” My brother Mahad never seemed to invite this kind of endless preaching from Grandmother. She answered me like the obtuse child she decided I was.

“Mahad is a man! Your misfortune is that you were born with a split between your legs. And now, we the family must cope with that reality!”

I thought: There was yet another thing I did wrong and I did not have the ability to set right. If only I wasn’t so dimwitted; if only I understood how I was to blame for the flaw that granny abhorred so much.

“Ayaan, you are stubborn, you are reckless and you ask too many questions. That is a fatal combination. Disobedience in women is crushed and you are disobedient. It is in you, it is in your bone marrow. I can only attempt to tell you what is right.”

Grandmother pointed to a piece of sheep fat on the ground. It was covered with ants, and flies were zooming above it, landing on it, sucking it. It was a vile piece of meat that was being warmed by the sun, and a trickle of fat seeped out of it. She said: “You are like that piece of sheep fat in the sun. If you transgress, I warn you men will be no more merciful to you than those flies and ants are to that piece of fat.”

A lot has changed in my life since those days in the sun with Grandmother. Today when I look back I see that I have proven her wrong. I disobeyed, true to my nature, I transgressed, but I avoided the destiny of the sheep fat.

Sitting in an airplane, I have on my lap the memoir of Nujood Ali. The title of the book is “I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced.” My reading list contains another book, by Elizabeth Gilbert. It is called “Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia.” The reason I associate the two books is because of their description of marriage and divorce, and particularly the word “painful.”

Nujood was 8 years old when a delivery man approached her father in Sana, Yemen. After the initial expression of hospitality, the delivery man stated his business: He was looking for a wife. Nujood’s two older sisters were already married, so she was the logical bride, regardless of her age. Her father accepted $750 in dowry money and gave away his 8-year-old daughter. When Nujood’s mother and sisters appealed to him, pleading that she was too young to get married, the father responded with the excuse used by all Muslim fathers who marry off their daughters before they come of age: “Too young? When the Prophet wed Aisha she was only 9.”

In fact, Muhammad wed Aisha when she was 6. According to Scripture, the Prophet waited for Aisha to begin menstruating before consummating the marriage. Nujood’s new husband, Faez, showed no such restraint.

In painful detail, Nujood describes a real nightmare on her wedding night: How she runs away, how she seeks help, how she struggles, how he touches her and she wriggles out of his arms, how she calls out to her mother- in-law. “Aunty,” she screams, “somebody help me!” But there was silence. She describes how he gets hold of her, his awful smell, a mixture of tobacco and onions. She recounts the childish threat she makes–“I will tell my father”–and the husband’s reply: “You can tell your father whatever you like. He signed the marriage contract, he gave me permission to marry you.”

From the time Nujood was able to gather her wits about her she set about planning her escape. The story is recommended reading for anyone who seriously wants to understand what Muslim women can be subjected to.

In Yemen, Nujood’s father, her husband, the judges, the policemen and the broader society–with the exception of a very few–view her situation as normal. And Yemen is by no means unique.

When I turn to Elizabeth Gilbert’s description of a painful divorce it becomes clear to me what feminism has accomplished in the West. Gilbert decides to divorce her husband not because he was forced upon her, but because there is something intangible that he cannot give her. She chose to marry him. Every decision she made was voluntary: to marry him, to buy property with him, even to try for a child. Yet still she felt unfulfilled.

The deep sense of dissatisfaction leads her to abandon her marriage, the life of a privileged woman. She goes to Italy to find a piece of herself, the pleasure of eating. She goes to India to find another piece of herself: the pleasure of devotion. In Indonesia she finds yet another piece of herself: the balance between the pleasures of eating and praying. In India she finds a guru who answers her spiritual needs.

Gilbert’s story shows what feminism can achieve elsewhere, especially in the Muslim world.

But her story also demonstrates something else. Those women in the West who, like Gilbert, have harvested what the early feminists fought for have almost no affinity for women like Nujood–and like me when I was a little girl.

This is not to pass judgment on Gilbert. On the contrary, I admire her intellectual honesty and her pursuit of self-knowledge. The woman I have become in the West now feels closer to the Gilberts of this world than the Nujoods. But I find myself asking as I read these two books: What can current Western feminism offer the Nujoods?

I often am asked by my Western audiences: “Where did feminism go wrong?” I think the answer is staring us in the face. Western feminism hasn’t gone wrong at all–it has accomplished its mission so completely that a woman like Elizabeth Gilbert can marry freely and then leave her husband equally freely, purely in order to pursue her own culinary and religious inclinations. The victory of feminism allows women like Gilbert to shape their own destinies.

But there is a price for this victory: The price is a solipsism so complete that a great many Western women have lost the ability to empathize with women not only in the Islamic world, but also in China, India and other countries; women whose suffering takes forms that are now largely unknown in the West, save in the ghettos of immigrants. They are too busy hunting for the perfect prayer mat or pasta to give two hoots about a case of child-rape in Yemen.

The best we can hope for is not for the West to invade other countries in the hope of emancipating their women. That is neither realistic nor desirable (and remains our least plausible war aim in Afghanistan).

The best we can hope for is a neo-feminism that reminds women in the West of the initial phases of their liberation movement.

“If you transgress, they will show no more mercy than flies on  sheep fat.”  This grandmother warned her little girl how to survive, grown up.
Here, women who grew up with some feminism (but didn’t pay for it), went to college maybe, and married, perhaps wrongly — they find out soon enough how society treats them after childbirth and exiting the marriage….
So, here we are on New Years’ Eve — and I’m quoting an article comparing a ittle girl, because she is female, to a piece of sheep fat with flies crawling on it, and writing about child rape, by older man, socially accepted (which, FYI, is some of the prime subject matter of the contested custody cases — basically they are gender issues, and treated as a problem by the social agencies addressing divorce as a crime, — although it’s supposedly “no fault.”)
Now I”m about ready to post 2 to 3  more brief articles or links to make my point:  The wide discretion given in the family law judges makes many laws meaningless.  REALLY meaningless.  A certain outcome is desired.
I’ve not done the right thing with the last day of the year, but I feel I have connected (virtually, here) with three real human beings, remarkable women who are aware of this issue and doing something to make their world better as they go through it.   There is always something “human” about “truth” and correspondingly unreal about this season of the year in the electronic-soaked West.
. . . .
We need to wake up, and I’m not talking Tea Party, who will make a brief appearance (but not the word “mother” or “women” in any prominent place, — like a subject heading!) in the next post.
. . .

“Asalaam Alaykum, Peace on Earth Good Will toward Men*, and Shalom Bayit”

with 2 comments

 

 

It’s time we talked about Shari’a Law, Family Law, and the Disappearance of the Feminine noun and pronoun in public policy. I am not in a “holiday” mood, nor is this my holiday….I stood up against abuse, told the truth in court, hoped to separate from violence, and I have no family as we speak.  I haven’t committed adultery either, and so far we don’t “stone” in the USA– but this venue does allow for “judicial discretion” which turns a blind eye (or reframes issues) when some husbands and fathers “take the law into their own hands” and sacrifice all for their disgraced honor.  It does excommunicate in a particularly vicious way when a Mother asserts herself as mother — but not to participate in an honor killing of her daughter, rather a protective action towards her children.  We know.

It’s probably time we also stopped playing with things that others consider god(s), while the real one is closer to the state, and money/sales/the economy, etc.

But I am going to talk about it in this blog, quickly assembled on the last day of 2010.  I’m learning as I go, too..  I learned that I’ve had it with this season, taken as a whole.  The workforce is organized around it — always good to keep the religions organized and in one place where they won’t get out of control, or will dilute their fiercer expressions by rubbing shoulders with each other in malls, or around family meals.  Or share the Season of Sharing in a Soup Kitchen, great if you eat there, and rewarding if you work there.

Of course, for those who have families….

But only after some politically correct greetings.  NB:  Is there an atheist greeting?  Like, ‘happy holidays.”   The word “holiday” is a version of “holiday” as surely as is Hallow’een.    So what’s appropriate?


How many greetings should we learn to get through the season without offending someone?


How many did you use?  How many New Year’s Traditions

are you going to observe today?

The TV says they have a specialty “Tipsy Tow” for people whose traditions

includes drinking and driving.  (probably appropriate right after the

Season of Saturnalia, etc.  )

 

Asalaam Alakam

(from “Muslim Voices”

By ROSEMARY PENNINGTON
Posted November 16, 2009)

Smiling man from Marrakech, Morocco

That’s beautiful….a beautiful photo.

The greeting at least means something, and isn’t seasonal…

 

Now the other one:

“Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men:”

The inane phrase (no subject, no verb, no “from whom” and thanks to English’s lack of case endings, a mangled translation out of context, and of course it’s commonly known that the birth celebrated at this time didn’t happen in this season) is repeated ad infitum, as sung for centuries too, although it’s meaning is mangled, not exactly a trade secret of the season.  But an easy springboard for a blog.  I give one woman’s, one PhD man’s, another man’s and a news commentary about how it ain’t exactly peaceful at this season!

From what I understand about Jesus (from the Bible), his birth was quickly followed with an attempt to eradicate him, his first sermon, likewise, and most of his short ministry was not well received, and for a period his family tried to have him “institutionalized” (saying, “he is beside himself,” i.e., a fanatic…).  Finally, his disciples deserted him, the religious leaders betrayed him (and broke some laws turning him over to the political authorities) and finally someone else did the dirty deed, despite a certain person’s wife warning against it.  He never had kids or owned a home, and assuming he perfectly kept the law, never had sex outside marriage, in fact, at all.

 

“Jeesus! — that’s a hard cross to bear.  Makes you wonder why so much hoopla at his season of supposed birth.”

 

 

Therefore it only

 

ONE WOMAN’s:

I include this sentiment and jpg because it’s a white-haired woman who maintains women’s blogs…  Why not?

And that’s a beautiful image of a Russian Icon, a single angel, with gold background.  Unlike me, the blog has fewer words and says more ….  Mine is about staying alive female in “the leader of the free world’s” country.

Even though she blogs about women, she seems comfortable with the phrase “good will toward men.”  Maybe after enough decades of life, it’s not worth fighting over grammar or individual discrepancies….

 

ONE MAN’s.

This one is from a guy, in fact a Ph.D. professor from — columbia seminary, I guess.  It’s also about 7 years (and nearly a month) old, and post 9/11 also:

 

Peace on Earth?
and
Good Will Between Men
?

What Christmas is All About

Well, it’s that time of year, once again, when we will hear people saying, “Peace on earth and good will between men.”

This constant refrain is uttered by all sorts of people from all quarters at this time of year.

However, what’s interesting is that many people don’t know that this mangled quotation is actually a passage from the Bible. And even many Christians, sad to say, don’t know what it really means.

People often chant this statement, “Peace on earth good will toward men” as a way of saying that we should have good will between our fellow humans during Christmas season. We should, so they imply, have “peace on earth” during this time.

Someone will robustly announce, “Peace on earth good will toward men,” and all those around will smile and hug one another or pat each other on the backs showing their “good will” toward one another, and their desire for “peace.”

However, this sort of fabricated, momentary “peace” is not what the Bible was talking about when it recorded the words of the angles who said,

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”—(Luke 2:14).

What was actually meant by the angels is obvious if one will take the time to see the context.

Their message was not “peace between men of good will” or even “peace and good will between men.”

Rather it was peace on earth and good will toward men from God for those who accept the babe in the manger.

This is a powerful statement about who Jesus Christ is. The passage shows that for all who accept this babe in the manger as God’s unique Son and as their Savior, there shall be peace on earth for them with God and there shall be good will toward them from God.

Note that it says, “Good will toward men” not “good will between men.” Actually, it is a peace between man and God, for it is through this babe in the manger that humans can have peace with God.


OR, if you would like the less esoteric evangelical version also from 2003, whoever THIS man is:

 

  • From “Tomorrow’s World:  Magazine and Television Program

(I gave home link so you can get a flavor of the topics; the quote is from the link “Peace on Earth?”)

 

Volume 5, Issue 6
Peace on Earth?
By Douglas S. Winnail
Is world peace really possible? The quest for peace seems endless. It is in the news almost every day, yet our world grows more brutal by the minute!
Share

Share

Is world peace really possible? The quest for peace seems endless. It is in the news almost every day, yet our world grows more brutal by the minute! The two world wars fought in the 20th century did not bring peace, nor did the end of the Cold War; they brought only a more divided and troubled planet. Every year at Christmas, religious leaders speak of the Christ-child and peace on earth, yet violence and war continue to escalate!
Religious people light candles and say prayers for peace. Idealists sign petitions, stage marches and organize conferences to seek peace. Pragmatists build bigger weapons to enforce peace. Yet all these efforts have failed to bring peace. Is peace a mirage, an unrealistic, unattainable goal, an impossible dream?Why is the peace process so frustrating and difficult?
Many in our modern world do not realize that Bible prophecies are coming alive in today’s news headlines. The Bible not only predicts the major challenges of our age, it also reveals whyhuman efforts have not produced peace. Scripture also explainsthe way to peace, and how peace on earth will ultimately come. Few today understand what the Bible says about peace.

What Jesus Really Said

Preachers often say that the message of Christmas is: “Peace on earth and good will toward men.” But this is a mistranslation of what the angel actually said. Properly translated, the angel’s announcement at Christ’s birth was: “Glory to God, and on earth peace, toward men of good will” (Luke 2:14). It could also be worded: “Glory to God, and on earth, peace among men who please God” or “among men with whom God is pleased“—which gives a very different meaning to the statement (see The New Testament in 26 Translations)

Well, now, that opens a WHOLE can of worms about which men please God and which don’t, obviously.  I’m sure that a subscription to this magazine would inform us properly.  That puts it in a whole different ballpark….  No Ph.D. stuff HERE….  and so far, no women either, even though ain’t it ironic, a birth took place at this season, supposedly….

Whoever he is, his website has at least some social networking going on, to spread the good news that SOME men are pleasing to God.

 

Then there’s the political springboard on the greeting.  My google search on the phrase put this one near the top, so we get a Chicago Conservative “Examiner” blogger.. (reporter?)….  He also happens to be a white male, guess they’re good with the SEOs…

Peace on Earth Good Will Toward Men:

December 23, 2010

Terror alerts are ramping up this week. It started on Fox, but has spilled over to CNN, MSNBC, and network news. There are something like 1.5 billion people of the Muslim faith. There are quite a few Americans who would like to believe that every one of them is a terrorist. You’ve seen me say, on this page, that there are about 1,500 terrorists on the planet, and when I say that, I am referring specifically to members of Al-Qaeda. We have more terrorists than that in Chicago; they are called gang members, and they are urban terrorists.

You may think that Osama Bin Laden is alive, you may think he is dead, but that is not really germane to what I am going to propose.http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/869.html

In the 1980’s, when the Soviet Union was waging an unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan, what we referred to here as their Vietnam, the CIA funded insurgents in that war, led by Osama Bin Laden. What if the most important thing that Bin Laden learned had nothing to do with guerilla, or terrorist, tactics . . . .

(WHATEVER . . . . )

OBVIOUSLY, I am forgetting “Shalom” — the oldest of the three Bible- based religions.

 

SHALOM.   in fact, Shalom Bayit.

 

 

Shalom Bayit
Ending Domestic Violence in Jewish Homes

P.O. Box 10102, Oakland CA 94610
A project of the Tides Center

Helpline: (866) 742-5667 (SHALOM-7) toll free within the Bay Area
(510) 451-7233 (SAFE) outside the Bay Area

(650) 574-7233 (SAFE) Peninsula office

Business office: (510) 451-8874

 

I doubt these address the impact of the family law system on the civil restraining order, or criminal restraining order system.  Maybe they do, but let’s not forget, OK?

 

Jesus’s announcement began at his ministry, see Luke 4:18, not LUke 2.

When He realized the time of crucifixion etc. was nearing, he said, MY peace I leave with you, to his disciples.  Other than that, it appears He took it with him….(John14)…

 

As I was walking out this morning, in the fresh air, I thought again about all the polemics about how “the basic economic unit of the country is the family.”

Well, no, it isn’t.  The family has now become mainstreamed big business.  I personally found the basic economic unit of the country (at least as to the court systems and social service networks — also most transportation AND many other forms of government leadership) are more united at the COUNTY level.

The word “County” stems from the previous word related to nobility, “Count.”  Having dealt for eyars with this systems (because once I became, as a mother, a NON-family member), it became crystal clear that I was not supposed to engage in life as an individual in regards the best interests of my children without the wider approval (rather than, say complying with the basic community standards, and laws, and functioning independently as  a worker, compliant co-parent, and person where I lived, and our daughters did) — of almost anyone who came by with a theory, an allegation, or a claim.  SOme people could accept I wasn’t married, but enough couldn’t that it became another prolonged version of a religious shunning procedure, and struggle for dominance.

 

While many are grazing peacefully these days, those who stepped on the landmine of the contested custody with an ex-batterer, or over-entitled and feeling underappreciated (male) nearby know there is no such peace to those who haven’t joined up with the right group in the pursuit of LIFE, LIBERTY, and (thereafter) HAPPINESS.

 

Sorry to put it that blunt, but I wanted to get these greetings in, and in the next blog (today) post a CFR summary next to a contrary opinion, about Shari’a law, and how it hits the female (and young) among us.  All.

Next month, January, is named after a two-headed God, which seems appropriate…

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 31, 2010 at 3:40 pm

“Fast-Food,” One-Stop Family Justice Centers hit San Diego 2002, Oakland, and London, in 2007 . . .

with 4 comments

Faster than the speed of light: one man’s retirement plan becomes the playground of agencies and nonprofits, dispensing, dispensing — say, What are they dispensing, again? Besides contracts to their Executive Directors:

Wow — why do bad ideas travel fastest? And don’t even bother mating before they replicate?

This is certainly one:

Unbelievable: I was looking up one San Diego organization’s name, & Casey Gwinn’s name, and found out that the UK has caught the Alliance Virus…

Family justice centre, Croydon: the first of its kind in Europe

Thursday 01 February 2007 00:00

It was a busy first 10 months for Europe’s first family justice centre where 32 agencies work together under one roof to help victims of domestic violence. Josephine Hocking looks at what makes it unique

It is difficult to imagine a place where domestic violence victims can seek help from 32 agencies under the same roof.
But such a service is running in the London Borough of Croydon where the family justice centre’s mission is to reduce violence and death.
~ ~ ~ ~

I guess dispensing “Justice” just pre-empted stopping wars.
~ ~ ~

It opened in December 2005 and helped 3,000 families in its first 10 months.
~ ~ ~
Define “helped.” Is this like the ones in San Diego helped their own employees? Or the one in Northern California helped a relative of some head honchos to the position of Executive Director, thereafter likely exaggerating figures of “People helped”??

~ ~ ~ ~

The stated aim is to assist 14,000 children and 7,000 adults each year.

Professionals at the family justice centre include an on-call duty and assessment social work service, advocates, police, solicitors, housing officers, Women’s Aid, Victim Support, debt and benefits advisers, and probation staff.

The number of agencies is set to rise to 40, boosting the number of staff from the current 112. All are employed and managed by their own organisations, using existing resources. Referrals come from professionals or direct from service users.

A partnership between Croydon’s council, police and primary care trust, the centre is the first of its kind in Europe and was inspired by a US project (see “In the Beginning”).

Croydon’s social services director, Hannah Miller, is enthusiastic about the centre and is pleased it is on her patch. Her department provides the duty and assessment social work service.

Miller says it would be a poor use of resources to base a qualified social worker full time at the centre, as many seeking help do not need social work input. So she has allocated dedicated social work time and management. Social workers visit the centre regularly and attend case conferences. More social workers can be called on when necessary, and promise to arrive at the centre within 20 minutes of being contacted. The arrangement works well.

The multi-agency working practised at the centre is an idea that many aspire to but clashing professional cultures often preclude this. One way to resolve this is to make them sit side by side.

Jill Maddison, the centre’s director, says: “When professionals really work together you appreciate and understand what others can and can’t do. Social workers might moan they can never get hold of the police and wonder why an officer isn’t answering his phone. But when you can walk over to his desk and see he’s busy in the interview room with a suspect, that’s helpful.”

Maddison’s advice to social workers supporting families experiencing domestic violence is “don’t work on your own”. More can be achieved with a multi-agency approach.

The idea originated in the US. Lawyer Casey Gwinn’s vision led to the opening of the world’s first family justice centre in San Diego, California. He says the reason it was never previously attempted is that “agencies couldn’t get along”.

“The biggest problem is one of power and control from those agencies that see us as a threat.”

Maddison is not surprised that agencies can obstruct each other: “The voluntary and community sector are encouraged to compete for funds and work. It is not in their best interests to co-operate.”

Commander Steve Allen of the Metropolitan Police is a vociferous backer of the centre, telling a recent conference: “The model produces a coherent response. Otherwise agencies do struggle with each other. I have seen a lack of action due to people arguing about whose name is on the poster and who will get the credit. People are dying while that goes on. It has to stop.”

Modest and intensely focused, Maddison is highly regarded by colleagues in the borough and beyond. She trained as a social worker but never worked as one. She has been in the domestic violence field, in the UK and the US for 18 years, in roles including family lawyer, therapist and policy adviser. At Croydon Council, she was asked to find solutions to tackle the borough’s domestic violence problem.

Five adults and three children were murdered in domestic violence-related incidents in the borough in 2004-5. The centre opened in December 2005 and there were no domestic violence-related murders or child deaths in 2006.

Maddison’s energy and commitment have kept the centre on course during an exhausting first year. Her persistence was exemplified by her policy on information-sharing. Conventional practice dictated that the centre’s 32 agencies could not easily share information. But Maddison saw that as a hindrance to successful outcomes.

She says: “I read many lengthy documents on information-sharing but the solution was simple. We ask our clients if they will agree to information-sharing. We explain that it will help us to help them. We’ve only had one refusal so far.” However, child protection concerns can override this freedom to exchange information.

But establishing the centre has been a slog. “The idea is simple. But setting up and running a family justice centre is not easy. The first year is the hardest,” she admits.

Then there is the constant proximity to intense suffering. “It affects me, yes,” she says, “no wonder, when I see children either rigid with fear or racing about knocking things over because of what they’ve been through.”

A highlight of the centre’s first year for staff and service users were lunches for survivors. “Seeing 120 happy families in one room, who are now safe, is amazing,” she says. “My staff benefited from seeing the good effect of their work. Before, we were patching up bad situations now we are stopping the violence. Our approach does not get quick results, but it works.”

In the beginning (back)
The world’s first family justice centre – “where families come first and professionals come together” – opened in San Diego, California, in 2002, under the leadership of lawyer Casey Gwinn. His vision was to be a one-stop shop so that people seeking help did not have to trek between agencies.

Today 27 organisations work out of the centre, and deal with 1,100 families each month.

“Previously, systems were designed for the benefit of service providers,” says Gwinn, volunteer chief executive at San Diego. “Now we run services to suit our clients. They ask what took us so long to do it that way.”

At San Diego none of the 23,000 clients seeking services since 2002 have died. Another important outcome is that more cases are going to court.

Family justice centres are big news in the US. The San Diego centre appeared twice on Oprah Winfrey’s TV show, a major boost in helping spread the word.

President Bush has backed the idea with an initiative that included funding. Today 20 family justice centres are open in the US, with more planned.

In the UK, many local authorities are pursuing the idea but Croydon is the only one running with it so far.

GOOD!

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA’S, SELF-DESCRIBED @ 2009:

When it was founded, the Alameda Family Justice Center was only the second such center in the nation, but within the last few years other counties have begun to copy this model. Funded by the District Attorney’s office, public grants and private gifts, the FJC has helped county attorneys prepare better domestic violence cases for trial. It has also eased social service providers’ efforts to help victims with psychological counseling, job training and onsite childcare. More than 7,000 people—a majority of whom are women with children—have used the center this year.

Define “used” — called for help? Stepped inside the doors? Accessed a website?

All in one place…

The Family Justice Center’s primary innovation has been bringing police, the District Attorney’s Office, and social service agencies all to an office on Oakland’s 27th Street between Broadway and Telegraph Avenue.

“Over the last year or so, we have seen an increase in clients’ repeated visits for varying services,” said Nadia Davis-Lockyer, the center’s executive director. “Not due to new incidents of family violence, but due to their realizing that additional services beyond immediate crisis intervention can help them achieve a happy and healthy home. Wherever you’re at, however you want to proceed, when you walk in our door, we can help you.

In addition, more than 3,000 restraining orders are issued in Alameda County every year, meaning that, on average, nine times every day the county determines someone can no longer be trusted to be in the same space as his or her former spouse or partner.

This implies civil restraining orders with kickout, not criminal with prosecution and serious incarceration JUST THINK! None of these can be required to get enforced (see my “What Decade Were These Stories? post). Then, the offended (kicked out) partner can go a few blocks away to a superior court and request immediate custody of any children, and thereafter it’s no longer this Justice Center’s problem, from what I can tell/have heard. This is called Justice ping pong.

Randy White, the Oakland police officer who serves as a subject matter expert for the domestic violence unit at the Family Justice Center, said these numbers translate into victims coming into the center on a regular basis. “Almost every few hours, every day, someone comes in here requesting services because they were a victim of a rape or domestic violence,” he said.

Which just goes to show you how well spent the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood funds have been, over the past FIVE Presidential administrations…

In the 1970s, the domestic violence movement started in garages and people’s homes,” said Raeanne Passantino, the center’s assistant director. “This new movement makes a huge difference for clients, who can get many services at one time.”

Oh, I thought they were into “Justice.” … Well, this “new” (it’s not a new idea, just a new application of an old– centralize & control) movement makes a huge difference for many service providers who can access several clients in one place.

Word of good business plans among politicians and public employees does indeed spread fast:

The model has worked well enough that other counties are following suit. Over the last few years, Family Justice Centers have started up in San Jose, Fresno, and other cities around the country. Officials from several California counties, including Contra Costa and Solano, have visited Alameda County’s center site in recent months with an eye toward creating their own centers. “It’s a model that is being reproduced all over,” Bates said.

Funny — were any clients interviewed in this piece? I cannot do it sufficient justice, although see my previous Dubious Doings By District Attorneys post, in which I quote a “Steve White” (never met the guy..), who I see is right on it here. … APpropriately so, too. This is MSM at its “best” — and if I had time, I’d look up the background of every single person interviewed here, above. Oakland has one of the highest homicide rates in the country (4th or 5th, last I heard) and I know that man of those include DV deaths, with or without “restraining orders” on.

The San Diego “Family Justice Center” appears to have been Casey Gwinn’s personal retirement plan. Others have quickly caught on — but then again, conflicts of interest in nonprofits getting referral business from the courts isn’t exactly a new concept. Nor is nepotism or cronyism, which to me, this sounds like more of. They issue restraining orders — which no woman can require to be enforced, nor is she guaranteed any remedies if failure to enforce results in death to children. Generally speaking. I doubt that this is on the FAQ sheet going in the front door. Despite the word “Family” all over the place, I saw no mention of the extensive “family law” system or “Family court Facilitator’s Offices” where clients with kids will likely end up sooner of later. Not their problem. …

Hmm

Why THINK when one can just LINK?

From the Partners & Sponsors website of the home Family Justice Center page:

Partners and Sponsors

 

PDFPrintE-mail

With almost 60 Centers in operation and over 100 Family Justice Centers in the planning stages in the United States and the around the world, the National Family Justice Center Alliance is honored to be working with the following agencies to identify topics and speakers for our annual Conference.

A Call to Men
American Domestic Violence Crisis Line
American Prosecutors Research Institute
AVON Foundation
Battered Women’s Justice Project
California Partnership To End Domestic Violence
The California Endowment
Chadwick Center for Children & Families, Rady Children’s Hospital
Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence

Dress For Success
European Union Family Justice Center Alliance
Family Violence Prevention Fund
Feminist Majority Foundation
FJC Legal Network
Forensic Healthcare Consulting
Gavin de Becker & Associates
Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community
Mental Health Systems, Inc.
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Criminal Justice Reference Service
National District Attorneys Association
National Network to End Domestic Violence
National University
Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice
Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice
Prosecutors’ Resource on Violence Against Women
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network
Relationship Training Institute
San Diego Domestic Violence Council
Sexual Assault Family Violence Investigator Course
Taiwan Association of Social Workers
The Verizon Foundation
Vital Voices
Wynn Consulting
YWCA San Diego

Working together, the International Family Justice Center conference is rapidly becoming:

  • The primary training venue and learning exchange opportunity for professionals working in Family Justice Centers
  • One of the best conferences for substantive training on domestic violence, sexual assault, children exposed to violence, and elder abuse.
  • The gathering place for academics, practitioners, policy makers, and national leaders to set the course for the future of the Family Justice Center Movement

And in fact, for just about anyone except those affected by these policies.

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 31, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Set Sail for New Horizons in Social Science — We Study the Social Scientists

leave a comment »

 

(I’m not on the usual holiday schedule, and so decided to post — not bail, but this older draft — on hearing that a certain business model from San Diego had made it to the UK.  Tone:  disgruntled — be forewarned).

The Ship of State supposedly lurched and changed course from Welfare State Democrat to Limited Government Republican this week. But up til the last moment before the election, our President was assuring Women that new initiatives to help Women were indeed being launched, and to defend children, also!

Throw the accolades and prepare cast your ballots, it was October 27th..

{as reported Here, with “Let’sGetHonest” comment below, and others’:}

As part of ongoing Administration efforts to reduce domestic and sexual abuse, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announce new initiatives to protect victims of abuse, provide resources to prevent abuse

Today, the Obama Administration is highlighting unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse. As part of this ongoing government-wide effort, HHS, HUD, DOJ, Treasury, Labor and FDIC today announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse.

WHY, ALWAYS, it’s the language of oceanic expeditions on uncharted waters: launching, pilots, initiatives; strong, thrusting aggressive moves to fix problems created by (the past 4 administrations and still in process as he speaks):

Today, the Department of Justice, with assistance from the White House, is launching Access to Justice for Domestic Violence Victims, a pilot project to encourage more commitment from the private bar to provide pro bono legal services to victims of domestic violence.

. . . Today, in partnership with the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the Office on Violence Against Women is launching a new virtual resource***

When announcing, and promoting, nowadays, these initiatives are presented in strong, masculine, almost swashbuckling, seafaring terms. A little different from Lincoln, who referred to the start of our nation in birth terms: “Our forefathers brought forth on this continent new nation.”…


Some thoughts (like, mine….) on “virtual resource.”

**”VIRTUAL resources” are infinitely expandable, and less messy than actual resources:

These unprofitable nonprofit virtual resources have such a (useless) reputation among certain people who’ve experienced (in real-time, and real life) the stalking, assaults, and devastation (etc.) of domestic violence (as defined in literature & law) and stalking (as defined in literature and law) that they have begun to form their own nonprofits and foundations to address the nonperformance of existing nonprofits and foundations.  If we all did this, then there would be fewer tax resources to compete for, which MIGHT make this world a better place, as we’d be cast on our OWN (real) resources and networking.  (see:  California’s “Survivors in Action” for an example of this.  Note:  I’m not endorsing, just commenting).    Or, the imminent Battered Women’s Custody Conference in upstate NY (about to meet this month) which is addressing the system failures in the “courts.”

So perhaps the REAL race in life is to join or form one of these virtual resource creation team, and continue to scam people who have (mixing in hope) confused hyperlink with actual help.

A VIRTUAL RESOURCE by definition exists on electronic chip & rhetoric, annotated by experts (“ours, not theirs”) and and, last I heard, are replacing the function if thinking, judgment, sensibility and awareness.  Virtual resource centers (websites) and Technical Assistance grants (or organizations)  are also easier to catalog, and measure downloads or page views, which I imagine can go in the final figure under “services provided” (click…)..They are all the rage and safer to do than, say standing inbetween a raging person and his or her intended target…I’d imagine also as no people are likely to REALLY hold the funders accountable, collectively (the funders are often the American public, other times private wealth etc. — you know the drill).  Hence, yeah, it’s a VIRTUAL resource.  I really appreciated those “VIRTUAL” (translation:  invisible) resources while I was in the relationship, being battered (and no internet access in the home also…).   that spoke to the real need…

These virtual resources virtually free up whoever compiled them (and that’s usually about the process -compiling previous literature, with a few personal stitches) to go around selling access to the website — or to a conference in which the website will be promoted.  It’s a virtually foolproof formula, and draws federal grants funding.   In this world of “services” anecdotal evidence appears to suffice to get the faucet open, then continue the flow in a certain direction (think about “irrigation ditches,” maybe?).  The mark of the expert is a host of virtual resources, conferences, and collaborations for those who haven’t joined those conferences, collaborations, etc. yet.

The chief characteristic of “VIRTUAL” resources is that they are not “REAL” resources.  They are typically information, or access to it.  Period.  There may or may not be a live person behind them; that person may or may not be more than a live outsourced receptionist or customer service individual.  Rarely is this what’s going to help a very real, human, and sometimes bloody situation.

 

However, once, in — and privately, when in planning stages, they are openly discussed as research and demonstration projects, i.e., “Social Science.” to wit, in almost any field, (Child Support Enforcement, Fatherhood, Marriage, etc.) there are such projects.  What starts out in PIONEERING verbiage ends up in detached data summary and sorting.  This is two different parts of the human brain — a) appeal to the reptilian brain to get the thing moving and b) maintain an aura of scientific detachment and objectivity (NOT “passion”) once it’s in motion.

 

In addition, there is even an entire federal grants CFDA Category specifically called “Social Science Research & Demonstration.”

Program

93.647 Social Services Research and Demonstration

Federal Agency

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services
Office: Administration for Children and Families

Authorization

Social Security Act, Title XI, Section 1110, 42 U.S.C 1310.

Program Number

93.647

Last Known Status

Active

Objectives

To promote research and demonstrations related to the prevention and reduction of dependency** or the administration and effectiveness of programs related to that purpose.

 

I have a question.  Research and demonstrate UPON WHOM?  Is this with informed consent?

 

For “dependency,” read “poverty” or “relying on welfare to survive.” Funny, our governments are broke, and the debt is skyrocketing, but there is always room for more ‘initiative” so long as human life and its trouble exist; solving them, is a definite market niche.

A real turnover in power, will Congress work with him? Will he work with Congress, mainstream media asks?

I have news: the (supposed) Captain of our salvation (if you’re Democrat & don’t realize the image is idolatrous) and the (supposed) evil pirate, Captain Cook (if you’re Republican) and simply by being Black, and elected President, a figment of your worst nightmare (if you’re a Conservative Tea Party Hoosier, and racial purity advocate: yes, these still exist, and are still racist, not just sexist) — and more business as usual, only moreso, (if you’re a woman and a mother stuck in the court system) launched more initiatives at which we’re supposed to “oooh” and “ahh.” Have the systems set in place changed?

As described by ADL: (hover)

Note: Apply Economic Pressure, and avoid appearance of endorsement of tactics such as the KKK.


Our President is not without precedent, or entirely a free agent. Today, I’m going to reference a document that declares the “logical” basis for certain policies going back through five (5) — count ’em (5) Presidential Administrations. These started ultra-conservative, and are part of our Heritage, as in “The Heritage Foundation,” and perhaps one reason that not only wealth and government is being centralized, and government is beginning to regulate faith may be because of the undue influence and sponsorship of a truly arrogant individual who openly declares intent to form a one-world (not just one-nation) theocracy — apart from the UN, if the UN won’t crown him — and no, that’s not a joke, and it’s not the Pope.

The connection between the master/slave mentality and the social scientists’ mentality is becoming clearer and clearer. And it’s a genuine war…and not really a laughing matter. Still …

√√Seriously, Veterans of the FC wars and subject matter of many studies – – – I’m launching an initiative too; who’s on board?

Let’s return the Us/Them perspective, start some institutions (maybe the taxpayers will kindly increase their %, and, on behalf of safety and sane fiscal programs, fund some mothers who, belatedly, that their lives were the subject matter of demonstration projects and experiments to make a kinder, gentler (that was Bush — which one, it’s kind of blurring), Great Society, which now, you know that dates me. if you have a Ph.D., work for a nonprofit, and are associated with any institute sponsored by wealthy families directly to a U.S. University, and if you have worked in the public sector before, you are automatically DISqualified. If you are a Veteran of Family Court Wars, and have lost custody in them after protesting violation of due process, perjury, gagged evidence, threats, or other corruptions, AND you can read, count (or even multiply and divide would be nice), WRITE without jargon and stick in one person for an entire paragraph (most bureaucratcs can’t), and to one topic ata time — if you can accurately report what you accurately observe, and have a nose for theology, crackpot pseudoscience and psychobabble posing as real science and intelligence, you are qualified. The Hippocratic oath is required. A sense of humor and occasional biting sarcasm is desired — you’ll need it, if nothing else to punctuate the arid flats of expensive, but senseless propositions with a momentum of their own, no matter who many figureheads declare they are new, unprecedented, represent “initative” and are being launched.


Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

That link, Sept. 2009, is to a blog characterizing 4 key philosophies in family courts; and to my comment, about Sept. 2010, agreeing, and asking why restraining orders are issued, ever:

SHE WROTE, comparing the system to build-ups to previous genocides

It is largely a case of organizational abuse where women and children in already vulnerable situations go to the family court believing wholeheartedly that these courts will provide orders to protect them.

The attempt to constantly focus on the batterer (if you’re a victim) or the false-alleger that she was battered (if you’re the one accused) clouds the larger issue of abusive institutions taking advantage to consolidate power. Still…

Of all the various lessons we may learn, differing from family to family, that’s one we FIRST unlearn; and the faster, the better…I was a slow learner, and kept trying to retain/regain that RO status, failing to learn which piece of the larger puzzle this represented.

The problem is that most of the key-stakeholders {{I believe author means judges, evaluators, and policy-setters}} are men that are fathers and some who have abused or are currently abusing. The best way to understand how these interests have dominated the family law practice is to look into previous cases of genocide and how large organizations aligned to commit it. One of the most well known cases is the holocaust, where thousands of members of the jewish community were murdered.

It all began with the gold star, documenting how many there were of them and then isolating them into an area where they were tortured, murdered or enslaved. The techniques that were used back then were primitive, but effective in carrying out their goals. Today, we have a more complex world with more of an ability to monitor the masses more effectively.

Most Family Courts have too much power to make decisions upon their own accord similar to the old, “at her majesties pleasure” which leaves a lot of room to instigate what some have considered an act of torture. Each case is often isolated to lead the victim to believe that they are the only one and that they will “help” protect the child. It is often too late before the victim discovers that the members worked together to not only diminish your ability to protect yourself and your child, but to ensure that either no one will know or that no one will believe you. That is why a majority of mothers that lost custody were for the reasons of mental illness and is not consistent with the average statistics of mental illness out side this organization.

I replied, from my recent understandings & research:

Read my Luzerne racketeering post (Twittered to your right) and understand, for real this time, that handing out restraining orders, like candy or panacea, has got to be irresponsible.

. . . {{after citing specific case outcome, see “Luzerne County, PA” post…}}

Something really doesn’t smell right here, though. We women have GOT to stop being so gullible, especially people who haven’t had street smarts yet, somehow, or those who have but still somewhere inside them believe that people in authority, and experts, go that way from some sort of ethical quality that the rest of us have less of.

The moral guys won’t succumb to beating up on their women and failing to pay child support, stealing their kids to get even or avoid a simple debt. Family court was designed for those who WILL, I’ve know that for years (it’s obvious, that’s why!)
~ ~ ~ ~
I’ve also known for some time now that the organizations promising women DV help are selling themselves and “collaborating” (supposedly this means, altruistically, ethically) to address the problem of poor black (that’s the terminology that sells the programs better) unable to connect with their children or pay their child support.

The springboard for this post, drafted August 2010, was a 38-page document from a “think tank” called Responsible Government. Reading it, I question the “responsible” (let alone “intelligible”) part, but I understand this in the larger frame of things, it’s like a yearly mating ritual, largely symbolic, and preparatory to requesting continuing and more marriage & fatherhood funding. While often attended, or assisted by females, it is largely by males, for males, and about males (mostly black & poor, at least theoretically) and ostensibly for the benefit of the entire nation.

This comprehensive, yea, “unprecedented” (?) ongoing nationwide project, draining the nation’s resources in million$$ increments, could only be justified as for the nation’s good. As defined by the few, and those employed by them, and as supported financially by (a) wealth and (b) the progressive income taxe

Before you judge my language, read the rhetoric. It demands SOME response!

There are a few scenarios in which that MIGHT be true, for example, if it’s for the good of the entire nation to continue to cannibalize itself through family wipeouts around the family law system, leaving more for the survivors, and survivor of the intelligent enough to avoid that trap.. or, to place bets on the winning parties, like a cock-fight. I do tend to question why cock-fighting and dog-fighting for gambling purposes is illegal, but the family court system remains with similar results; equally a circus and gathering place of spectators and speculators, and those who set the fight, etc. What’s more, this venue is supported by common funds from taxpaying public.

ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENTISTS — they come in PACKS, and are funded often by government, or universities, or nonprofits with significant wealth behind them. Their job is to study population and figure out how to control it, labeling it is part of this. This itself is largely immoral. I wonder how many actually realize this. The talk will not be of “right” except perhaps incidenttally. It will be in terms of “outcomes” and “results.” This is the language of experimentation, and the subject matter are other fellow-human beings. The history of this trend isi worse than the history of the family law system (see “Shady, Shaky Foundations” post, herein) — it’s in eugenics. If you think “Nazi,” you have the right idea. See site “http://www.sntp.net,” i.e. “Say No To Psychiatry” (same idea, different branch).

I’d said the social scientists that publish together, preach together, promote each other together, well, they are found collaborating on policy briefs about — well, those NOT making the policy briefs –they stay together.

Birds of a feather, flock together

 

Now, I can be anal-retentive with the best of them (despite not always spell-checking a post), particularly when that phrase doesn’t sound quite right. Flock is more noun than verb, usually. So, why not look it up? How old is it?

In nature, birds of a single species do in fact frequently form flocks. Ornithologists explain this behaviour as a ‘safety in numbers’ tactic to reduce their risk of predation. In language terms, it was previously more common to refer to birds flying together than flocking together and many early citations use that form, for example Philemon Holland’s translation of Livy’s Romane historie, 1600:

“As commonly birds of a feather will flye together.”

Just for fun (and not for the first time) I strung together about 3 of the names under Witness Panel #2 for the House Ways and Means yada yada (see about the last 4 posts herein [@ Aug. 14, 2010) on Julia Carson (who is ?? ??? . . . . . . did we need a token woman in the fatherhood funding bill?) to see what would come up. Think this one combined:

Ronald Mincy Kirk Harris Sara McLanahan [of fragile families collaboration]

Here we are:

[PDF]

Position Paper

42 Kirk E. Harris, “Public Housing and the Legacy of Segregation,” in M.A. Turner 53 Marcia Carlson, Irwin Garfinkel, Sara McLanahan, Ronald Mincy,
www.justpartners.org/JPI_PDFs/RESPONSIBLE_GOVT.pd

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT — (an oxymoron?)

This is 38 pp of pdf. Dated October 2009, it starts out
:

October, 2009

Responsible Government:

Investing in the Well‐being of Black Fathers, Families and Communities

African American fathers are a strong support to the health and well‐being of the family unit. Government should and must play an active role in supporting African American families.

This report shows that by investing in the well‐being of our Black fathers, we will strengthen the Black family and provide pathways out of poverty and greater opportunities for all.” – Rep. Barbara Lee, Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus

A nation’s wealth and thus its future can be measured by the well‐being of its children. If we measure the wealth of the United States by the well‐being of our children, the message is troubling. . .

(“We” who? ?? the phrase is troubling.. — measuring the wellbeing of “its” children [whose children??] that phrase is even more troubling! let alone the concept of measuring well-being, and doling different measures of it out.)


Well, first, let’s talk about our nation’s Grammar, which is an indicator. It starts out simple, yet grandiose: third person singular — “a nation’s wealth.”
(any nation in particular?)

“A nation’s wealth and thus its future . . . “

THAT’s a loaded statement. Is there some historical basis for it? For example, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Third Reich, a few more come to mind.. They were certainly wealthy. Then, there’s the Judaeo-Christian heritage, which US is supposedly based on, and several founding documents were consciously fashioned after, which says in Psalms

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” (i.e., a theocracy…) . . . .

OR, from the supposed wisest, richest king (i.e., Solomon) that ever lived:

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is
vanity. Eccles.
1:3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the
sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh:
but the earth abideth for ever.”

and, realizing that accumulating riches, or wisdom, doesn’t mean one can take them beyond the grave:

Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it
happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my
heart, that this also is vanity.” and:

3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even
one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea,
they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a
beast: for all is vanity.
All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit
of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

We are all, in other words, going to die — time to face that! Practically, then, and logically:

Wherefore I
perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice
in his own works.

Not about to happen in this climate — when we have to be taxed and let well-meaning benefactors figure out (privately) how to eradicate poverty for all time, and help families, restructure society, and do just about anything BUT rejoice in our own works, in peace!

Of course, in the process of acquiring this wealth & wisdom, said King Solomon allegedly bankrupted his kingdom, his son was worse after him, and the kingdom split, in the next generation.

Is this tradition irrelevant to present policymakers? No — because this US, which started (constitutionally, at least) as colonies, and with slaves, and wiping out native populations en route westward, protested being itself colonized by Great Britain, originally. Great Britain, saw itself as the ruler of the world, and it’s wealth, and the imagination had been captured as God’s “chosen,” with other Europeans, latching in art and literature onto the imagery of the people of the Book.

Here’s Rembrandt’s 1635 characterization of a lavish feast, with gold, silver, freely flowing wine, and a prophecy of doom: “The Handwriting on the wall” of Belshazzar’s Feast. Everyone in the painting looks basically Caucasian, but here’s the theme:

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn: Belshazzar's Feast

Image linked from artbible.info

(However, original is on display at the National Gallery in London). This Babylonian feast of a 1,000, a wealth indeed, was marred (acc. to the account in Daniel 5) because its wealth had been pilfered from the temple of the REAL God and was used to worship false gods. The moral being, don’t mess with the wrong God, and don’t worship money, or wealth, or God will get you, king or no king! :

Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein.

3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

In another day and time (though I suspect little has changed in humanity’s original tendency towards greed) the praise might be just towards one’s own wisdom, as seen in the philosophy of “Responsible Government” enabling Social Engineering of poor people without their input. It’s just so dang egotistical!

5 In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote.

6 Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

We can’t see “the handwriting on the wall,” too often, because some of us are oppressed and stuck in the institutions, and other times becuase there are few guideposts to the websites and boardrooms where policy is actually being made. We don’t recognize the footprints.

Anyone with the least, even casual acquaintance, know that empires come and empires go, and change. And that the true nature of empires generally entails both religious zeal, an exaggerated sense of destiny, plans for the empire to last forever, demonization of the “other” bad empires, and — always — rationalization of slavery. Rather than having to continually physically enforce this slavery and caste system, it has to be bred into the populace as dogma, doctrine, religion, social theory — almost anything will do. History has to be carefully monitored and censored, or (see “Tea Party”) retroactively revised. Typically, the ruling classes are not innately smarter about life, but innately smarter, and have grown to understand, collectively, certain skills about how to consolidate and perpetuate wealth, and restrict that knowledge from getting out. Hence control of educational access is key. Dual-track or triple-track (one for rulers, one for those who will be employed by them as administrators, overseers, and slave taskmasters [roughly speaking, the white-collar professionals of the world], and a third for those at the bottom, whose time will be least free, when it comes to obtaining food, housing, and clothing for themselves and their families. Speaking of families, there is also a dual-track as to who gets to keep their own offspring. Hence, “a nation and ITS children” language.

To me, this seems SO obvious — but, maybe in part after years of dealing personally with individuals who appear to have viewed me as a surrogate mother to my own children, and as a child among adults after I took a very adult stand on the concept of legal and civil rights, and self-determination. This is where I found out how torn the fabric of society is, even though had historically worked across a spectrum of populations in my field(s). Nothing like a personal lesson in how one or another profile characteristic can make one suddenly an “outsider” and second class.

Those who reject such labels have an uphill fight, but a real good one, and a vital one.

Women, mothers, per se, rarely make the political theory equation. They didn’t in the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence.

DOES wealth predict the future? Or does what one does with it, or how one acquires it, play a factor? That’s a ridiculous statement: “A nation’s wealth and thus its future” in the context of the USA. Look how the Declaration of Independence was signed!

For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Liberty first priority, wealth secondary. They declared independence, or life was not worth living: they refused to be colonized by a distant empire. (We should, too!). This is how it went for those signers, per this link:

What Happened to the Signersof the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British and brutally tortured as traitors. Nine fought in the War for Independence and died from wounds or from hardships they suffered. Two lost their sons in the Continental Army. Another two had sons captured. At least a dozen of the fifty-six had their homes pillaged and burned.

What kind of men were they? Twenty-five were lawyers or jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were farmers or large plantation owners. One was a teacher, one a musician, and one a printer. These were
men of means and education, yet they signed the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that
the penalty could be death if they were captured.

In the face of the advancing British Army, the Continental Congress fled from Philadelphia to Baltimore on December 12, 1776. It was an especially anxious time for John Hancock, the President, as his wife had just given birth to a baby girl. Due to the complications stemming from the trip to Baltimore, the child lived only a few months.

William Ellery’s signing at the risk of his fortune proved only too realistic. In December 1776, during three days of British occupation of Newport, Rhode Island, Ellery’s house was burned, and all his property destroyed.

Richard Stockton, a New Jersey State Supreme Court Justice, had rushed back to his estate near Princeton after signing the Declaration of Independence to find that his wife and children were living like refugees with friends. They had been betrayed by a Tory sympathizer who also revealed Stockton’s own whereabouts. British troops pulled him from his bed one night, beat him and threw him in jail where he almost starved to death. When he was finally released, he went home to find his estate had been looted,
his possessions burned, and his horses stolen. Judge Stockton had been so badly treated in prison that his health was ruined and he died before the war’s end. His surviving family had to live the remainder of their lives off charity.

Carter Braxton was a wealthy planter and trader. One by one his ships were captured by the British navy. He loaned a large sum of money to the American cause; it was never paid back. He was forced to sell his plantations and mortgage his other properties to pay his debts.

Thomas McKean was so hounded by the British that he had to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Continental Congress without pay, and kept his family in hiding.

Vandals or soldiers or both looted the properties of Clymer, Hall, Harrison, Hopkinson and Livingston. Seventeen lost everything they owned.

Thomas Heyward, Jr., Edward Rutledge and Arthur Middleton, all of South Carolina, were captured by the British during the Charleston Campaign in 1780. They were kept in dungeons at the St. Augustine Prison until exchanged a year later.

At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the family home for his headquarters. Nelson urged General George Washington to open fire on his own home. This was done, and the home was destroyed. Nelson later died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis also had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife for two months, and that and other hardships from the war so affected her health that she died only two years later.

“Honest John” Hart, a New Jersey farmer, was driven from his wife’s bedside when she was near death. Their thirteen children fled for their lives. Hart’s fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For over a year he eluded capture by hiding in nearby forests. He never knew where his bed would be the next night and often slept in caves.

When he finally returned home, he found that his wife had died, his children disappeared, and his farm and stock were completely destroyed. Hart himself died in 1779 without ever seeing any of his family again.

Such were the stories and sacrifices typical of those who risked everything to sign the Declaration of Independence. These men were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:

“For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Are there any among us who would do likewise?

Author Unknown

What a far cry, in ideas, we have come since then,and the critical questions of which men are fully human, and whether this includes women, are as relevant today. Now, as then, the intellectual and life continues in degradation of ideas, and principles. Wealth is something we give to a centralized government in hope it will give something of value — besides debt — back.

The full detachment from the institution of economic slavery hasn’t happened. The more I look at public institutions, whether fantastic museums, or depraved law enforcement, and repeatedly downgraded state-sponsored schooling, or those attempting to re-instate theocracy overtly (as opposed to “covertly” through the Executive Department Faith-based initiatives..) — the more I tend to go with it’s time to fast and pray for a slow-down of people’s lives to rediscover some common SENSE.

While in our Capitol, elected representatives watched a coronation and didn’t protest in principle, let alone after they realized that someone else was self-appointed the “true Messiah.” Now, as then, detached intellectual discussions of blacks, households, and poor people have one character in the back room, another in the “Town Halls,” and yet another in press releases shortly before elections. Or in polemics shortly before someone at the House Ways & Means Committee appropriates some more alms to the favored causes.

verbs

strong verbs are important, inspiring, they should conjure up images on which actors can act, which will sway the emotions and transform understanding of the hearers – — that is, IF the hearers (1) come from more than one persuasion and (2) are possibly thinking critically and logically about the presentation.

Given the oh-so-few-people who managed to get “opposed” testimony into the last fatherhood funding hearing, in the full week (nationwide) some of us were alerted to the thing, I’d have to say, probably not in this case. Anyhow, traditions are important, and it takes the tradition of explaining WHY millions of $$ are going to be expended (again, along the same or very similar lines) when the public might want to go back later and find out WHY. So here’s the strong, vivid, symbolic, and visual imagery VERB chosen. . .

“A nation’s wealth and thus its future can be measured.. . .”

 

WOW. what a passive nation, waiting to have its wealth measured, MAYBE. (See last post, about the National Debt clock posted — at least in 2006 — in Times Square).

At least, despite all that uncertainty (IS this un-named nation’s wealth going to be measured? Or not? Because last I heard, the DEBT already is measured, and increasing as we speak. Brace yourself for this link, which is rather more specific:

U.S.DEBT CLOCK.org

 

Thanks to computers, and high-speed statistical calculations, many things can be accurately measured nowadays. Also, thanks in part to this gentleman’s brilliant career:

 

 

One of these is the Internet. In today’s post, I’m going to “profile” one of the men who helped instigate “Silicon Valley” through creative brilliance — originally developed as military advances in World War II. that was the instigating motive for this research. Towards the end of his life, he “crashed and burned” taking profiling to an extreme case, probably for sensationalism. He appears to have been an entirely egotistical, arrogant, and obnoxious individual, driven, and treating people like subject matter to be manipulated and measured according anachronistic ideas. … At least, if these ideas were OPENLY shown, average, non-megalomaniac people would object and not be caught in public forum acknowledging them. Hence, the ideas, which never did completely “die” lie submerged, like abuse does if we are to continue pretending our social institutions protect us and are still worth propping up.
Welcome to William Bradford Shockley, creative whiz and descendant of the Mayflower colonists, it says:

William Bradford Shockley

Born: 13-Feb1910
Birthplace: London, England
Died: 12-Aug1989William Shockley
Location of death: Stanford, CA
Cause of death: Cancer – Prostate
Remains: Cremated, cashes in family’s possession

Gender: Male
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Physicist
Party Affiliation: Republican

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Co-Inventor of the transistor

Military service: Anti-submarine Warfare Operations Research Group (WWII)

American physicist William Shockley led the team of scientists that developed the first amplifying semiconductor, the transistor, on 23 December 1947. He shared the 1956 Nobel Prize for Physics with John Bardeen and Walter H. Brattain, two of his colleagues at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey. Though the device was largely conceived by Shockley, he was only peripherally involved in developing it, but as supervisor he was credited as co-inventor. Exactly one month after their accomplishment, however, Shockley alone developed the junction transistor, a three-layer sandwich-style miniature mechanism in which a small electrical charge signal on the inner layer modulates the current as it flows through. It was another important breakthrough in the developing electronics era, but after their transistor project Bardeen and Brattain, rankled at what they perceived as his hogging of the credit, both refused to work with him again.

On his father’s side he was proud to be directly descended from the Mayflower pioneers, and he was home educated until he was about ten years of age, factors which perhaps contributed to his difficulty getting along with supervisors and co-workers. Doubtless, though, much of Shockley’s frustration with others came from years of being the smartest person in the room, in whatever room he entered.

Being home-educated, and before the 7-Lesson Schoolteacher had been fully streamlined, it seems he hadn’t learned those 7 lessons: intellectual, emotional dependency, class rank, apathy (well, maybe), and in general, conditional self-assessment, conformity, etc. He wasn’t dumbed down, and as a result, we get technology like this. Ironically, the above entry is on a site called “NNDB” with the motto “Tracking Everybody in the World.” Shockley, here, seems to be person 000026028 of section 106.

If his spirit did go upward to God and is hovering around somewhere posthumously, it would realize that, despite the magnificent concept that led to Silicon Valley, and the flattening of this world through electronic chips, his life has indeed been weighed in the balance, and found sadly wanting: in later life, he descended (or turned) to overt racism, and eugenics. What’s worse, a group that funded him calls itself The Pioneer Fund, and he’s not the only one still in this business.

An acquaintance of mine said that this man was a racist. Not being originally from California, or in the social sciences in general, I just had no idea. I think a moral is in here somewhere, that expertise in minerals and hard physical sciences should NOT be turned to humanity. Remember, Fairchild SemiConductor wouldn’t have happened without this man and without him being impossible to get along with. Here’s the record. Warning: it’s offensive:

At Stanford he became intrigued by racial questions and population control, and began publicly claiming that blacks are less intelligent than whites, by genetics and heredity. When his comments were criticized as racist, Shockley doubled down and reveled in the controversy, stating that humanity’s future was threatened because people with low IQs were having more children than people with high IQs. He was basically espousing eugenics, an idea that had been routinely accepted by scientists in the early 20th century but was well debunked by Shockley’s time.

At least in Town Halls and general public discourse. Research likely has only slightly changed its language:

He sought expert status in genetics, a science far outside his training and experience, and soon became a pariah in the scientific community. In a 1980 interview, when asked if his views amounted to racism, he famously answered “If you found a breed of dog that was unreliable and temperamental, why shouldn’t you regard it in a less favorable light?” In 1982 he ran for the US Senate on a platform calling for sterilization of people with IQs lower than 100. In his latter years, at any event where Shockley spoke he was greeted by picketers.

His first marriage ended in divorce, with Shockley leaving his wife as she battled uterine cancer. Months later [!!!] he married his second wife, a psychiatric nurse, who became virtually his only friend in his later years. He was estranged from all three of his children, and died of prostate cancer in 1989. There was no funeral service, because his wife was certain that no-one but she would have come. His name remains controversial even in death — his wife died in 2007, leaving 28 acres of land for a park in Auburn, California, with the stipulation that it be named The Nobel Laureate William B. Shockley and his wife Emmy Shockley Memorial Park. Minority and civil rights groups have objected, and the city has not yet decided whether to accept the gift.

 

Yeah, it can be. How important is it, though to measure this exactly? And by what standard? By the Constitution vs. the quantity of jails full of people who, supposedly, don’t respect its laws voluntarily? (on that basis, we flunk). By its human rights record? (on that basis, there are already complaints to an international body on the basis of egregious human rights violations to women in the family law system. Among the people complaining is one mother who sought the police to listen when her three children were kidnapped; they didn’t, the kids died. The U.S. Supreme Court said, essentially (yawn), “So what? You thought the existence of police force to enforce laws meant you had some right to enforcement? Think again!

But then it switches from third person symbolic* singular to first person plural, “we.”

[*I think we’re supposed to deduce that by “a nation’s” is possibly meant coast-to-coast & Canada-to-Mexico North America, plus Alaska, plus Hawaii collectively, plus — Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. V.I. and apologies to any new acquisitions or deletions, including militarily, I may have unintentionally omitted. Minus of course any banks, land, properties, or people, or other investments owned by foreign corporations or countries. Unlike Lincoln’s specific references, this one is sort of noncommittal, “a nation’s wealth.”]

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 30, 2010 at 3:42 pm

@My Comments, Your Blogs: Rights for Mothers, BMCC, 12/28/2010: Family Court Cover(up)s no Patchwork Quilt, but a near-Seamless System

leave a comment »

(need to work on those snappy titles…)

Readers are advised that I rarely tag and categorize my posts any more.  If you want to find something, try the search function.

I’ve been blogging ( and commenting) long enough on certain topics (herein) that when I google, a site comes up which I know refers to my comment on the topic, not the blogger’s posts.  So I figure — give those guys a break, and start putting it here instead, keyword “@” in the title line.

Too few people are writing on the heart of these issues.  I think people reach their energy expiration dates on tackling the topic (or they are hurt or disappear somehow?). … One finds blogs that aren’t updated, and date from 5 to 10 years ago, are off the wall and telling the truth (not fluff and not rhetoric).  I find these are often the most accurate, straightforward, and easy enough for an eighth grader (who can read & do basic math, I should qualify) to understand.

Which is probably why those sites can’t be easily niche-marketed; and many times whoever wrote them doesn’t make the effort to get a high search ranking, either.  The authors probably weren’t paid, and to get paid in these fields, one has to repurpose, copyright and repackage the obvious.   So, how does one market and repackage:

 

“I believe and have concluded that  these people/organizations/associations/institutions/foundations and agencies are (or, were originated by and steered by, if not operated by,) criminals and engaging in legalized criminal rackets“?

 

a.k.a., the Sky is Falling or we’re headed for that fabled Armageddon, that “Valley of Decision,” and not because of religious fanatics (although they may relish and prepare for it a little better….).  As one site says (with whom I have no association!!:  I google, I cut, I paste, cogito (or so I like to think     🙂     ) ergo I am….OK?).  I hunt, and I gather:

Whereas Armageddon is actually a mountaintop, most references relative to it are concerned with the valley that lies below it. During the past 4000 years, at least 34 bloody conflicts have been fought at the ancient hilltop site of Megiddo and the adjacent areas below in the vast Jezreel Valley.  Throughout history Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley have been Ground Zero for battles that determined the very course of civilization.*** Megiddo is a fascinating site of twenty cities built directly on top of one another and inhabited continuously from 3000 to 300 BC. Megiddo lies at an ancient strategic junction of roads running north-south and east-west. Whoever held control of Megiddo held absolute control of one of the major trade routes of antiquity, the Via Maris. (the “Way of the Sea”)

***The internet has changed this, somewhat, and it seems that among other places the battle for control of civilization is being fought is, in these family court systems.  They run deep (pockets) and they run wide (Paraprofessionals)…..

Many Christians believe that the Last Judgment will be held in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, interpreting the passage in the book of Joel:

image

I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. (KJV)

 

Well, the gathering these days seems to be of power and influence, and wealth (in the form of ongoing very profitable business with very little accountability) and warm bodies often bring this.  So, they don’t gather “at the river” and they don’t gather in this valley (yet at least),but they do gather in the courts.  If you control the courts — or live off them (think, feudalism, which it essentially is), you control a good portion of the world, because these are life and death decisions.  There is transfer of time and assets and children, who of course are to be trained in a better way of thinking than their parents …


One could definitely divide the “theologies” into about three pieces, and practices to match:

  • There is a loving God, live moral and just, and you’ll be rewarded by harmonizing to this resonance of that loving God, NOW.
    • The universe is undergirded by justice, and if you don’t get this, you may come back reincarnated as something “lower” and have to work your way back up again (although it seems that humanity’s behavior qualifies as “lower-level” more often than not..)
  • There is a (pissed-off) God, therefore, live moral and just because if not, you’ll pay later, but if you do, oh boy, just you wait!  He’s been watching and waiting, and currently is pissed off..
    • And by the way, this invisible God has representatives on earth — which we are and you aren’t.  And chosen people (ditto).
  • There is a God, and it is US.  Accordingly, we will live moral and just insofar as it’s practical and no one is looking, because otherwise who will provide for us in old age? We are Gods by the divine right of innate superiority because — see, we are richer.  There’s the evidence.  Poor people are asking for it, might makes right and gain is godliness.
    • Besides, it’s more fun to stockpile and steal, manipulate, and obtain immortality by naming something after yourself, like a foundation, or a theory.

 

I really can’t pronounce on officially all that.  But, judging by Nature, if God created it, at times it, and hence in this worldview, its creator, God, is a great steward, and can handle droughts, it has a sense of humor for sure, and at times is extravagant beyond reason, and at times it seems to clear the plate and attempt to start all over from scratch.  Consider, for example, the food chain.

(One thing I don’t really see “Nature” doing a lot is what we do to the animals we eat, or to the children we raise.)

There are of course many other varieties of spirituality (or atheism), but I think I got the three ones that are causing the rest of us non-extremist plebes the most trouble here and now.

So, this is my morning’s work, as another year without my kids draws to a close and I’m through with celebrating this holiday season, no matter under which theological or family umbrella.  See graphic below:

There Was a Little Girl,  - Who Had a Little Curl - Mama Lisa's House of English Nursery Rhymes, Intro Imageo

Families are highly overrated, tO tell the truth.  When they are good, they can be very very good, but when they are bad, they are truly horrid.
This girl (above) looks like she feels the latter.  Or, she was on time-out for bad behavior.  We need to take a “Time-out” on these courts, too!
This is an Old English Nursery Rhyme, or maybe a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (or both):
There Was a Little Girl,
Who Had a Little Curl
There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad, she was horrid.
As I spent the time elsewhere on look-ups and cut & paste, I’m not spending more time on this post reformatting it for wordpress.  Aren’t I “horrid”?   I’m not going to even (re-) insert the paragraph breaks. which I notice were lost in the cut & paste operation of this morning’s work….
Not to mention all the (hand-stitched) HTML (such as “blockquote”) transferred as simple text here.
Maybe RFM will post this treatise, in which case it’ll display better.  Although, I could understand if she preferred comments that are comment-length!
Maybe the sky is green, and maybe the U.S. is going to have a woman president someday, who will understand women’s issues and poverty both (women stuck in this system forever generally get that way, eventually). I’m still trying to figure out how to retain my faith, I am heterosexual, and I am a feminine feminist (which shouldn’t have to be a oxymoron!), and a little intellectual integrity too.  It’s the 1st and the 3rd that are hard to combine (not the first and the last).  I don’t define “feminine” by the manner and the dress, but by how I experience the world (and what appears to be no Y chromosome)…and how the world sees someone who doesn’t conform to “Feminity” a.k.a. doormat.  Or Bitch/madonna/angel in fast sequence, but the older-aged version of this is not welcome on the planet in speaking (vs. rocking, or institutionalized/medicated/all-assets-appropriated) mode.
This block goes with the 3rd Quilt piece, below.  Love that Kelly O’Meara’s work:

Creative financing: dozens of municipal projects in Los Angeles County have been financed using bondlike instruments called COPs, which critics charge have allowed officials to enter into long-term financial obligations without voter approval

Insight on the NewsApril 15, 2002 by Kelly Patricia O’Meara

Since the downfall of Enron and the crippling of the former energy giant’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, a great deal of attention and concern has been focused on big business. To be more precise, the focus has been on whether the well-being of a corporation is real or imagined, and how one can get to the facts by running the maze of complicated financing packages and misleading accounting techniques set up by experts to confuse, obfuscate and obstruct.  While most of the hubbub is centered on the private sector, the public sector is by no means exempt from such shenanigans.

Incidentally, this author (never met him/her) has also uncovered quite a bit in the family court system….Attempting to track funding tends to do that….

For instance, one need take but the barest peek at the funding of municipal projects in Los Angeles County — a microcosm of the nation’s local funding policies — to see that accountancy in county and municipal governments can be just as opaque where there is a desire to deceive. Just as Enron shareholders blindly followed management’s hype, taxpayers in the County of Angels appear to have drifted into a trance when confronted with how their civic monies are handled. What is clear is that the taxpayers — call them shareholders in the county — pay their money into the system and then look the other way. Where the money goes, how it is used and who gets the equity it buys is anyone’s guess.

Nowhere is this more evident than with the increasingly used financial instruments known as certificates of participation (COPs). It’s fair to say that those who run Los Angeles County prefer COPs. Literally dozens of municipal projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars have been financed using these financial instruments, which for all intents and purposes are bonds or debentures backed by county or municipal credit.

Adding my Panels to that Quilt:

http://rightsformothers.com/2010/12/28/add-a-panel-to-the-children-taken-by-the-family-court-quilt-at-the-battered-mothers-custody-conference/#comment-3884
Our lives have become real patchworks trying to navigate life, and these systems.
This quilt is a great idea, although its contents will be distressing, and sad, I bet.
With the internet explosion, a real key is knowing how to organize & evaluate data we come across.  No human being could get through all the blogs on this topic — they are like exhaust fumes across the land:  evidence that some vehicle isn’t functioning right, and needs a tune-up:  either that, or we should walk, bike, or buy local.  I’d like to think this could be done of the family law system too.  JUST don’t GO there.  Of course, if you’re summoned, you have to.  But in retrospect — asking for help?  I just think it was a bad situation. We need to know how to protect and help ourselves and our children, as mothers.  This may or may not mesh well in marriage, which is to be interdependent; the whole greater than the parts.
===
Anyhow, RFM and others may be glad to know I’ve found a way to stop the post-long comments — I put a page on my blog (long overdue) to handle comments on others’.  I’ll put this on on there, too…
==
Meanwhile, I’d like to add a few of my own “Blocks,” a patchwork representation of what I know to be the SEAMLESS business referral organization that these courts are — with the families, and their assets, and taxpayers (who pay for public servants, public agencies, and so forth) — as the gas thread and the fabric.  The genius of this design is that very little of their own money actually went into setting it up.  It is on autopilot to bankruptcy (for others) and wealth (for those who don’t get caught, or spat out as “small fry” (fish, for the frying pan…) when an investigation gets too close to larger fry  and stay in the system’s operational sector.
In writing this comment — I found another one up in Oregon that, well, what fish do out of their element — it smells.  Rancid….
Meanwhile, what’s a good “thanks for the timeshare!” link?  I thought about JohnnyPumphandle (Marv Bryer, though I often wrongly call him “Byer”)’s older analysis of the court system.  Remember, this is the father of a daughter litigating in the courts who spent around $100,000 and finally demanded an audit.  What he found, he said he felt numb, and used — to realize about the L.A. COunty Judges Slush fund.
That “slush fund,” FYI is what appears to have morphed into the (in)famous AFCC, which I am (frankly) just dang tired of! !!!  Like with family law, there are probably some good family law attorneys around (as there may be some good AFCC leaders) but the system, the organization, the methods (behind closed doors conferences — or if you can afford to attend one…), and the rhetoric is just dissociated from the reality they are changing.  It’s surreal!
So, the patchwork quilt is a commemoration and an exhibit.  Where here are some of my block(quotes) –other’s material, my thread.  Of course, half the programs in the courts are re-purposed training information that anyone could obtain on their own but we are forced (by legislation) as parents to consume, at our expense, or else….

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #1.

Here’s a nonprofit in Oregon, called “<a  href=”http://www.oregonfamilyinstitute.org/oldsite/seminars/seminars.html“>Oregon Family Institute</a>” that just as well might be a mini-version of the AFCC (AFCC is, by the way, a nonprofit in a few different states).  It did what the founders of AFCC did (Meyer Elkin, Pfaff, et. al.) did a long time ago — get some bills passed that would favor their business proposition.  This site even says so – – OFI is running trainings for court-mandated, or court-recommended panels.  Smart, eh?
<blockquote>Conferences and Training
OFI provides a number of seminars and conferences teaching specific skills, such as “unbundling legal services,” non-adversarial parenting plan evaluations and mediation. Panels of evaluators have been trained for the Tillamook and Clatsop Circuit Courts. <strong>Other courts have asked</strong> OFI to train similar panels.</blockquote>
…I’m “sure” that OFI had no connections with any of the courts that “asked” them…
<blockquote>Recent Workshops: Eastern Oregon
The Union and Wallowa Circuit Courts are forming Collaborative Custody and Parenting Plan Evaluation Panels. A prerequisite for serving on these panels was to attend a two-weekend training offered by the Oregon Family Institute.</blockquote>
OFI wasn’t pushing their trainings (all for the good of their parents), they “were asked” and the county just happened to decide they’d be a good service provider.  Right….
<blockquote>The training was open to qualified individuals in other parts of Eastern Oregon. Qualifications generally included a Master’s Degree with a background in counseling or education, <strong>although it was ultimately the county’s decision as to who should be trained as outlined in SB 167. Sponsored by OFI and passed in 2001, SB 167 encourages courts</strong> to establish these panels, and trainings are now being scheduled for other courts.,,,</blockquote>
OK -it was the county’s idea in compliance with SB 167, which OFI sponsored.  This kind of reminds me of a line of bears in salmon season.  They just happened to be in the right place during the uphill swim to spawning grounds.
Although in the case of family law, I guess it’d be AFTER spawning, as children are involved.
<blockquote>The Oregon Family Institute has trained panels in Clatsop, Tillamook, Union, Wallowa, Umatilla, and Malheur Counties . . . .{{quite the going concern.  That’s 4 in the top portion of the state and Malheur, the largest (areawise) is the southeast corner.  <a href=”http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/oregon_map.html“>See?</a>  Oregon has 36 counties, so they’re up to about one-fifth of the way through, although connection with Malheur is a good start, and “malheur” in french is “misfortune…”
They are wise to name themselves after the state, not a measly county, or some vague term like “stopping family violence”  (and go for the entire state’s courts) as the nonprofit competition in Oregon includes several other institutes with the word “family” in the organization’s title.  <a href=”http://guidestar.org“>Guidestar.org (who is your FRIEND…)</a> lists OFI’s     EIN#, and its nonprofit mission is:  “DEVELOPING SERVICES FOR FAMILIES & COURTS”
The courts themselves have already switched from serving up justice to “serving families” and added “Family Court Services” within the courthouses, often enough.  Well, someone has to serve the servers who serve the family, and who better than a nonprofit?  And what better nonprofit than one whose officers include about two judges, a senator,  retired senator, an accountant (inactive as of 2009, though I don’t see much accounting on their form, at all), several attorneys, and a few individuals I don’t recognize, plus this guy <a  href’http://home.igc.org/~hmcisaac/hughmcisaacformayorofmanzanita/“”>Hugh McIsaacs– the Mayor (or running for it as of this website) of Manzanita, Oregon, with this BIO (look at the overlap — can you spell conflicts, plural, of interest?)</a>
<blockquote>Mayor 2004 to 2006
Manzanita Planning Commission since 2001
. . .
Mediator for the State Courts  in Tillamook and Clatsop Counties, since 1997
Director, Oregon Family Institute (5yrs), &
Director, Family Court Services – Portland (5yrs) and
Director, Los Angeles Conciliation Court(15yrs) (Ret.)
Oregon Task Force on Family Law, Secretary, 1993-2000
Editor of the Family Courts Review 1986-97
Fulbright lecturer-New Zealand, 1985
<strong>President, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, 1987-88</strong>
President, Family Service Council of California, 1982-84
AFCC Distinguished Service Award – 1998
Academy of Family Mediators, mediator of the year 1994.
Dartmouth College 1958
Masters Degree from USC 1963
Married 41 years to Chris McIsaac, former City Councilor for 7 years …</blockquote>
No wonder reading OFI website (cost to maintain per year:  $500+.  Website-based organizations sure are low-expense, high-profit!) I felt like I was reading an AFCC conference promo….
I’ll have to guess that at least one thread connecting Oregon with Los Angeles then is this guy, who used to work in there.  <a  href=”http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?scope=allContent&inTheLastList=6&queryStringEntered=false&searchRowCriteria[0].queryString=%22Hugh+McIsaac%22&searchRowCriteria[0].fieldName=author&searchRowCriteria[0].booleanConnector=and&searchRowCriteria[1].fieldName=all-fields&searchRowCriteria[1].booleanConnector=and&searchRowCriteria[2].fieldName=all-fields&searchRowCriteria[2].booleanConnector=and&start=21&resultsPerPage=20&ordering=relevancy“>Here’s a link to 28 abstracts</a> (Family Court Review mostly) from 1983 into the 2000s, including answering back an attorney who wrote “Getting it all Wrong:  PAS in Child Custody Decisions.”)  (I clicked on one article listed in “wiley on-line” and then on the author hyperlink at the bottom of the page).
.  None of these officers are earning almost anything basically, in a field where some Executive Director salaries are $170K or so.  They must just love children and families….(or, have some proprietary interest in the curricula marketed?)…
Hmmm.  I just looked at their “Guidestar” form.  You can too, for free.  It’s one of the most unusual (and sloppy) 990-EZ’s Ive seen yet — the front page contains no revenue data — at all.  The next page lists operating expenses appears to be $XX,xxx (I think there’s a privacy stip. as Guidestar, although it’s free to register to look), and another $XXX,xxx.    And then to develop their curriculum “Parents Beyond Conflict” (see below), it cost only “$X,xxx.”  In other words — not much.  Yet “Parents Beyond Conflict” is showing up in the Los Angeles Juvenile Court like this:
<blockquote>Parents Beyond Conflict is a juvenile dependency court program to assist parents and other significant caretakers in reducing their interpersonal conflict and poor communications with one another over custody and to prevent further harm to their children.
Judicial officers report observing immediate changes in the behavior of parents toward one another in their Courts after the parties participate in the Parents Beyond Conflict. Many attorneys representing the parents and children have made similar observations about parents attitudinal and behavior changes toward one another. The program protects children by empowering their parents and caretakers to act positively on behalf of the children.
For further information, contact:
201 Centre Plaza Drive, suite 2094
Monterey Park, CA 91754-2158
Phone: (323) 526-6671
NOTE: <strong>Parents Beyond Conflict is a unique program to Juvenile Dependency Court and no other program can be substituted.</strong
></blockquote>
Hmmm.   Sound like a court-based monopoly to you?  What is happening to all the profits from running these classes?  Because at a minimum, someone has to pay for rental, for electricity to run the projection screen, and for paper to print any handouts, or that matter if they are on CDs.  Moreover, certainly it’s “professionals” (who also probably paid to get trained as such) running or facilitating.  You qualify — you paid someone for the privilege, no doubt — so what are their hourly charges?  And, if they don’t charge (they’re doing it from altruism and love) then if someone was charged to take the class, who gets that dough? (That’s another block in this patchwork here…)
OFI and Los Angeles County Juvenile court in cahoots?  Or happened to come up with an identically -titled curriculum (mandated, no doubt) for use in the family AND juvenile courts?  ..  Suppose I have a “conflict” with that?  OFI paid taxes of $8.00 — for that year they filed, it seems — at least..  It incorporated in 1989!!!
OFI describes “parents beyond conflict” like this:
<blockquote> Services: Parents Beyond Conflict
<strong>This program is available by referral from the court or upon recommendation by attorneys.</strong> This program is for high-conflict families. It shows parents the negative effect of conflict upon their children and helps them learn more effective ways of resolving conflict.</blockquote>
Here it is as a handout at a 2002 “SFLAC” ({Statewide Family Law Advisory Committee” i.e., of the State Bar…}) conference held in OREGON, with lots of presenters from California.  The Family Law conference is subtitled:  <a href=”http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/docs/OSCA/cpsd/courtimprovement/familylaw/SFLACConference_April2002.pdf“>”BREAKING BARRIERS, BENDING BOUNDARIES, BUILDING BRIDGES</a>.   Yup, you got that right — like bending boundaries between the separation of powers intended by the writers of the U.S> Constitution, and building bridges between judges, attorneys, and professionals who market services to the courts, I’d say. ….
<strong>Funny language — I mean, molesting a child involves breaking barriers and bending boundaries too — in fact it IS a boundary violation.  Odd title,, that (Freudian slip by these mental health professionals and therapists and utopian reformers?)….   Bending the language of criminal law to say, you must ignore these protections (and rights) “for the family” is bending language into the point of meaninglessness, I think….</strong>
So, OFI, again, has no reported income on its 2002 990-EZ — the only one on Guidestar.  The first page is blank. Where are its operating expenses (of about $10K) coming from, then?
People can request information on nonprofits, and should..
The officers, an assortment of judges, attorneys, two senators (one retired), and a gentleman who I looked up and as of 2009 is an inactive CPA, per this site:
<blockquote><a href=”http://www.oregon.gov/BOA/docs/November2009.pdf?ga=t“>Approximately 1600 Oregon [CPA/ACCOUNTING] licensees</a> are inactive status. The following licensees changed from active to inactive with the 2009 renewal:</blockquote>
(the individual’s address is listed as ‘City of Hillsboro;” the address of record of OFI).  Of course the latest 990 form filed (on Guidestar, that is) — is only for the year 2002!  That’s quite unusual for what’s a going concern…
Another one, <a href=”http://www.oregon.gov/OBLPCT/pdf/December_14_2007.pdf?ga=t“>John Deihl, (per pipl.com)</a> conveniently appears to be on the Oregon Board of LIcensed Professional Counselors and Therapists.  Not just such a therapist bout on the licensing board, it seems, at least as of 2007 & 2008.  Or maybe he was just in attendance.  Here’s the <a href=
Created by ORS 675.775, the Board consists of eight members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Oregon Senate: three professional counselors; two marriage and family therapists; a member of faculty of a school that trains counselors or therapists; and two public members.
Members serve three year terms and may be reappointed for a second term. They may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the Governor re-appoints them or appoints their replacements. “”>Oregon.gov link</a> to this board.
Does it seem that this organization has all bases covered?  To be totally complete, I supposed they’d need a governor in there somewhere….
Next piece of the pattern:

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #2.

The older site, <a href=”http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/overview.htm“>”JohnnyPumphandle.com/cc”</a> summarizes Family Law well enough: (link is to a diff’t page on the website, though)…
<blockquote><strong>Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts<strong>
… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and <em>all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.</em>
{{He doesn’t write on this, but it happens to include the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Serivces, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, etc., themselves funded by most of the American public}}{{DId I mention Foundations?? — well, that’s another post or comment}
Here’s his list:
<blockquote> Site Overview
Legal & Professional Associations
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Visitation Supervisors/Monitors
Non-Profit Organizations
Psychological Evaluations (Calibrated Speculation)
Family Services<blockquote>
Which ones would You take on?  Or, the whole lot?  Is there a cornerstone anywhere in this system that could be removed, and it’d  crumble?  I doubt it.  I think, perhaps starve the thing by solving our own problems — and I mean, MOST of them.  YOu show up in front of the courts, you (two) are already considered incompetent.  Only the foolhardy (or well-connected) would go on that quest…
<em>Pumphandle (refers to sump pump?  Old fashioned well pump?) says:</em>
<strong>Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. </strong>Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below. </blockquote>
and…this is how it goes:
<blockquote>When dealing with Family Law Professionals keep this in mind …
These professionals are paid for the time they spend on your case. The more time they spend, the more they make. This works to your disadvantage, because <strong>the incentive is NOT to deliver results. Results are never defined in advance, and do not become part of your agreement with these professionals.</strong>
Custody Cases
<strong>The likely outcome of a custody dispute will be to take the child from the person that has been identified as the protective parent. This prolongs the custody dispute and extracts the most assets from the family.</strong>
Funds are exchanged through Professional Associations to which Judges, Lawyers, and connected Professionals meet and discuss strategy. In many states the Bar Associations have lobbied and received a charter to hold Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) which eases the legality of this exchange of funds.</blockquote>
Cobblers notice shoes. Protective parents notice there absent children. This guy is the father of a protective (or custody-battle) daughter, and paid for that battle, over $100K.  He also is an accountant.  So guess what he notices….  He might be (and I heard is), a curmudgeon, too.  DO I care?  No — because it’s valuable information.
Note, he doesn’t say ALL the professionals in the system, but the system itself.
I looked at a few of the links (again) and noticed one about who is paying for the buildings the courts do their business in.
To finish up BLOCK2 — take a look at this one, if you can.  We are worried about mere personal salaries and inheritances being squandered (plus lives lost).  We area thinking too small. Look at the scope, agenda, and size of the Court system itself, in Los Angeles here:
<blockquote>
<a href=”http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/LACCC/LACCC.htm“>Los Angeles County Corporations [“LACCC”]</a> – We have a Judge working also as President of a Corporation that is building Courthouses; there are secret bonds issued to ???; a Corporation handling $632 million dollars for the next 50 years yet has no employees; a non-profit corporation offering up to 6% return on your investment; millions of dollars in payments by the County, but no accounting.   </blockquote>
Seriously, this one beats even the pushing mandated curriculum in a monopoly format for profit (but producing the curriculum/training as a nonprofit to avoid being taxed on any profits — not that any visible reporting of any income, whether grants, donations, public support, or sales — seems to show up on the (one) tax form) that OFI, and AFCC, and I guarantee you, plenty of others also have.  No, for corporations associations and whatnots (run through the courts, especially) — a different set of (legal and accounting) standards apply.  After all, these institutions all exist supported by us to serve us (see U.S. Constitution) for the public welfare.  We are the public.  They are not.  Got it??
This will make the Liz Kates “conflict of interest” in family law experts seem puny by comparison, and goes to show a world that makes me wonder why Hollywood (an export from the same geographic area) is even needed for entertainment or the realms of fancy and science fiction horrors.  Who needs’ em?  Reading Southern California exposing their own politics, I get the sense that it’s become a separate (though unpaid) entertainment industry.  They seem to accept that this is simply how life is — just “deal with it.”  No amount of reporting — and there’s plenty — seems to indicate that life as we know it can be changed…
Public Benefit Corporations and “Certificates of Participation” in L.A.
<blockquote>The Scheme
Most of the land for these projects is acquired through eminent domain. Then the County hires a developer to build. It pays the developer to build it and then – amazing! – gives the developer the right to charge rent to the County for the next 50 years. But, it immediately assigns these rental rights to the LACCC which then directs its trustee (the bank) to collect rent from the County which then pays the LACCC which then directs its trustee to sent the rent money to the secret bondholders. (Prospectus for Certificates of Participation).
Where does the money come from? Well it comes from courthouse operations, you know – fines and sanctions and such.
Why does the County do this? We expect that it gets around the law that requires the voters to approve all new taxes.
Is this a tax? Heck no. Here is a charitable trust that is merely passing millions of bucks to its bondholders and showing that its net income is zero – every year – regular as clockwork.
Are the taxpayers getting their moneysworth? Good question. One that can only be answered if we knew how much money was coming in and going out. Since there are no expenses and no income, it is pretty tough to audit. The Crusaders are very concerned that these corporations are shoveling money to outsiders and bondholders with no ability for the taxpayer to see what is going on. One thing we do know – if you count the discounts given to underwriters and costs paid to law firms, like O’Melveny & Myers, the cost to the County was 2.4% of the $115 Million just to set up the Antelope Valley Courthouse deal. This is an exorbitant fee for such transactions.
We do know that Judge Michael J. Farrell is the President of the LACCC. He is a Superior Court Judge at the Van Nuys Courthouse when he is not acting as President of the LACCC. By the way, Judge Farrell was also working for the LACCC when it built the Van Nuys Courthouse. Nice to have a judge controlling what’s going on there. The Judge’s Corporation quit claimed (page1, page2) the Courthouse back to the County in 1997.</blockquote>
OK, that’s new to me also, but when the people we are going up in front of operate like this, I do question what we’re going there for.  Rather, why not just head for the hills, with or without the children?  (or a job…)
This guy writes:
<blockquote>taxpayers in the County of Angels appear to have drifted into a trance when confronted with how their civic monies are handled. </blockquote>
Well, what’s the time limit on that labyrinth, and is the Minotaur at the center of it?

~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #3.

Elizabeth J. Kates, Florida Family Law attorney, has written how the unethical impacts the ethical, and of the inherent ethical issues that professionals face, esp. when (on behalf of their current clients) tearing apart opposing expert testimony, which may later become their chosen expert witness in another case…in her article (against)
<blockquote>
<a  href=”http://www.florida-attorneys-at-law.com/therapeutic-jurisprudence.htm“>Why Therapeutic Jurisprudence Must Be Eliminated From Our Family Courts, by E. Kates</a>, an article about family lawyer ethics problems, published in 13 Dom. Violence Report 65 (2008)
It’s good enough to insert a large chunk of quote, right here:
<blockquote>One of the problems with the rise of therapeutic jurisprudence and the placement of non-legal systems and non-legal professionals into the courts has been the subtle denigration of long-established precepts of lawyer independence and due process. One of the many ways this happens in the family courts has been, ironically, through the introduction of subtle and often unrecognized conflicts of interest afflicting lawyers’ representations of their clients, created through the common development of multidisciplinary collegial relationships and business referrals, both informally and through the very multidisciplinary organizations which are promoting therapeutic jurisprudence ideas.
The conflicts of interest arise because most lawyers represent different kinds of clients on ideologically oppositional sides in different cases. The typical family lawyer sometimes represents the wife, sometimes the husband, sometimes the “good guy”, and sometimes the “bad guy”. If a lawyer coming into a case runs up against an expert with whom he has a referral or employment relationship in other cases, and that expert takes a position adverse to the lawyer’s client in the new case, the lawyer will have a very difficult time adequately representing his client. Appropriate representation may require the lawyer to strenuously object to the expert’s testimony — or even the expert himself. But if the lawyer needs the good will and cooperation of that same expert in connection with the lawyer’s other clients’ pending cases, he cannot do that because he may put those other cases at risk.
The legal community, even in urban areas, is limited and often close-knit. Lawyers in the same area of practice regularly encounter each other in different cases. The pool of forensic experts and guardians ad litem (GALs) tends to be even smaller. The repeated association time and again of these specialists in cases means that at any time and from time-to-time any given one of them may show up on the “wrong side” of a lawyer’s case — and simultaneously also be on the “right side” of other of the lawyer’s cases, whether as a hired expert or a court-appointed expert. This creates many of the same dilemmas that ordinary client conflict-of-interest issues do.
How the Conflicts of Interest Affect the Lawyers and Their Clients’ Cases
Lawyers in these positions will be tempted to rationalize to themselves, as well as maintain the posture in the community at large, that the expert’s opinions, even when they are adverse to his client, are scientifically valid — even when they may not be, even if they are deeply flawed or completely specious. …</blockquote>
Accordingly, a talented and informed “in pro per” mother or father may do better.  Of course, they may not, and few do that well under such duress as possibly losing everything, particularly things one most values…  But an in pro per will NOT have a built-in conflict of interest in wanting to get that case OUT of the court ASAP, and advocating to the fullest extent of ability for one’s rights.
Of course any “parent” that does that will immediately be labeled uncooperative, hostile, or “high-conflict.  That’s another built-in problem with this system.  In family law, a parent is usually a litigant.  The legal process IS an adversarial process, and desiged to be such.  Opposing sides are to present facts & evidence in accord with rules of the court, and judges are to litigate accordingly, again, in compliance with rules of the court.  Obviously, not a whole lto of fact-finding is going to take place right in a 20 minute hearing, which many family law cases can be.  This is blamed on “Case overload,” but in fact the cases re overloaded because the jurisdiction is so wide (any parents having any dispute over custody!) (Or visitation!) (or child support!) (or how to raise their children).  And who are separated, which pretty well indicates they don’t get along that well to start with. The jurisdiction is well over about half of the country, minus those who can figure things out on their own, and do.  Then, given that relevant facts aren’t necessarily the main idea, some pretty odd rulings results, after which the parent who is distressed over them, can come back to court.  THAT”s partly why the courts are so overloaded.  They don’t do the job right the first time.  Generally speaking, one parent is dragged in, the other one drags them in.  SO the dragged in one is going to be offended and upset somehow.  The dragging-in party (through any frivolous cause of action) one is “winning” by hurting the other parent.  Now, the case will be farmed out to professionals who have a vested interest in ongoing business (Business is business, and any successful business needs steady streams of clients, or repeat clients, or high-ticket clients on a regular enough basis — or it fails..) The sheer existence of the conciliation (now, “family”) code jurisdiction guarantees this until people return to their Edenic pre-quarrel state, or other character transformations…
OK, I’ve seamlessly wasted this morning (a half day) on this comment, so I hope it’s well-knit and makes some sense.  I do believe the thread connecting them all is the desire for unlimited, unmonitored, unaccountable and “behind closed doors” access to (a) money and (b) young boys and girls.
Or (a) and (b) could be reversed. Both are for sale in some venues…
Behind closed doors, in chambers, in conferences, in professional associations — and I thought outing a batterer would solve the problem!  That’s like pulling out what’s beneath some beds — dust bunnies, old sneakers, and a receipt or two.  …a toy, a dirty sock, and your fat cat stalking a rat.  Watch out if a clean financial house is the goal… or justice…

Is Family Court Reformable? a.k.a. “Woman punched unconscious at child custody exchange.”

with one comment

 

I doubt it . . . . . . .

This (red, italics, below) is my “over 1500 characters” response to an article at:

Our Seeds to Bear Fruit in 2010:  The Year of Court Reform — or Revolution.

by Laura Lynn, L.A. Family Court Examiner.

(other articles by her  HERE)

I came to that post via THIS post, under:

US (United Survivors) for Family Court Reform.” subtitled “Kiss Your Rights Goodbye”

which I came to under from Rightsformothers.com, responding to another statement that it’s “hoped” next year will be better.  I am not into the “hoping” scenario, rather advocate some “doing” . . . . .

Family Court is not reformable — its “form” is abominable.  It’s doing what it was formed for, as far as I can tell.

:

Please scroll through the  comments (most of them posted about 11 months ago) on it.  The times are so much farther along than those that are building castles on the sand (in the U.S.) realize, as more and more people’s homes, lives, and accumulated wealth is appropriated, while taxes are still being collected to sometimes go straight to racketeering, slush funds, and built-in systems of bribes & corruption (through the court system in particular, I’m thinking about), it’s similar to, I suppose “global warming.”  Talk is plenteous about icebergs melting and the coastal lands being flooded.  Well, this is  a flood of a different sort, that is eroding the island on which law-abiding, tax-paying, citizens live, and hope that the institutions their taxes support are ethical, and doing their appointed jobs.

They aren’t.  And it IS your business that they aren’t.  Not just mine, because of “no-fault divorce” + “Fatherlessness is a national crisis” dogma have done a head-on crash in the family law venue.

i KNOW I’ve done my utmost best in the situation.  At some point, people who are content to “support” and “empathize” with one side o the other strung out in this system, have to get good and mad and start not taking sides with one parent, or the other, but demanding to know what is being done with the part of their wages going to their (a) city, (b) county (c) state and (d) federal government.  Let alone (if the shoe fits, wear it) (e) local faith-based organization.

A man punched a woman unconscious during a custody exchange.  Reported as “Woman punched unconsious” or police tasered a man.  In fact, it sounds like a FATHER punching a MOTHER in the face, and probably with children witnessing their Mom get punched unconscious by their father in a public place.  But the headlines sanitized this (her “state” of being unconscious associated with “child custody exchange” as if it was that exchange’s fault, or hers.  The puncher (or alleged puncher) was removed from the headlines, just as the word “mother” is virtually removed from association with family and children in public policy these days.

However, when it comes to a disaster happening, then the word “woman” (was she a mother?) IS allowed to be associated with “Child custody exchange” as if as a (‘unconscious’ a.k.a. subliminal reportring) warning to other mothers not to confront a Dad during these situations….

Last night it made national news (not TV, though) that a man punched a woman unconscious in a “custody exchange.”  He was arrested and charged with a felony, but as far as I can tell, only because he also resisted arrest afterwards, AND happened to do this probably within walking distance of the local police station, AND several people called 911 , witnessing it.  The sanitized version of the “dispute” can be found in only a few places online– but here it is:

This is where blogging these things gets one sick in the stomach.  Gagging on Google, I guess:

The phrase “a man punched” brought these results:

Trying to get my actual article, I refined the search to:

a man punched a woman in the face during custody exchange

Readers may note, while I got the intended article, the leading phrase places the (grammatical) blame on the woman.  The man didn’t punch (direct action) but the woman “Was punched”) passive action:

Will someone please tell me why the main headlines to this search result are:

  • “Police tasered a man who ALLEGEDLY punched his ex-wife in the face…”
  • or
  • “Woman punched unconscious.”

I understand shorthand of “woman punched” for “woman WAS punched [causingher to become] unconscious.”  SORT of, that is.  Let’s talk about unconsciously reporting this with the two words “woman punched” as if she did it, or was responsible for having it done to her.

Here they are, copied:

Search Results

  1. News for a man punched woman in face during …

  2. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute
    2 days ago 

    By Roman Gokhman WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedlypunched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 

    San Jose Mercury News – 16 related articles

  3. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute 

    Dec 23, 2010  WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 
    http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16934218 – Cached
  4. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – Inside 

    Dec 23, 2010  WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 
    http://www.insidebayarea.com/bay-area-news/ci_16934218 – Cached
  5. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – The Truth 

    Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute  a man who allegedlypunched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then  CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face d. 
    thetruthaboutthefamilycourt.blogspot.com/…/womanpunched-unconscious- during-child.html
  6. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute @ pulpNews.Com

    Dec 25, 2010  WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 
    pulpnews.com/c/i.php?p=p&id=1294303966
  7. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – San Jose 

    Dec 23, 2010  WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 
    http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_16934218 – Cached
  8. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute « Battered 

    Dec 26, 2010  WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers 
    angelzfury.wordpress.com/…/womanpunched-unconscious-during-child- custody-dispute/?…
  9. Child Custody Issues Now

    Dec 25, 2010  Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – San Jose punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and 
    childcustodyissuesnow.com/ – Cached
  10. Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – Topix

    Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute  Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …. Pittsburg man, 21, dies after accidental Concor. 
    http://www.topix.com/…/womanpunched-unconscious-during-child-custody– dispute – Cached

The fact that (see my blog) about $one million of funding, per year, has been coming to this state precisely so that such things should NOT occur, ought to be questioned.  I have.  Now it’s your turn.

Here’s my NOT under 1,500 comment to an article almost a year old:

_______________

If my tone is too intense, then just remember — I don’t go around punching people in the face when upset with them.  This is First-Amendment expression.  You will not find a threat in here, or a recommendation to do anything illegal.  In fact, I think a passive approach to citizenship is immoral and unethical.  I truly believe (and was formerly of this category of working women, and men) that we cannot hand off to others the responsibility that accrues to being a human being and a citizen — we cannot farm our our consciences on the bases that we “gave at the office” in the form of wage-withholding.  That social contract was broken long, long ago.

This is just my response to reading these comments on the day after Christmas.  I have decided that “christmas” no longer exists for me, and shouldn’t.  It’s just a source of danger, and pain for people stuck in these systems, based on family (when half don’t have one anymore) and materialism (when the legal system has bankrupted, some, drained others, and no end in sight).  Also even thinking about it, seems to be a waste of time, at some level.  For a literary parallel, perhaps see Watership Down.  And think in terms of herds, and flocks.  The flocks and herds survive, domesticated, by sacrificing those on the outskirts, while they are fleeced, pruned, and used to support the managers of the herds and flocks.
In the US, we are, however, PEOPLE, and until we collectively start acting as such, (and insisting our children not be also treated in herds and flocks through the local school systems, as caste-sorters, while the teacher’s unions are among the most powerful entities  around) we are going to lose collectively the human spirit and what freedoms, if any, the last generation stood up for.
The commenter “Rebel” has a good question that I asked, too.  As I understand it, the Jeffrey Elkins of the “Elkins Task Force” was a disgruntled father. Trust it to this group of affiliations to take the father’s side, when it is in the middle of one of the wealthier areas of the United States, and there are still domestic violence femicides and family wipeouts going on, in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, in San Francisco, and San Mateo — it almost doesn’t seem to matter which county when it comes to some of these matters.
While many know and blog about the AFCC, I’m surprised so few people pick up on the series of federal grants to the states, dating back to 1996, that provide “Access/Visitation” to a single state agency (in California, it’s the Judicial Council; other places, the Attorney General’s office, or some single other agency) to “facilitate”  more noncustodial parents’ (translation:  Fathers’) access to their children, via mediation, supervised visitation, parenting education classes (limited in CA to these three).  This series of grants in effect set up a series of slush-fund receptacles and undermine the legal process, putting it centrally in the (distant) Secretary of HHS hands nationwide.  Among the nonprofits that various judges and/or family law attorneys have in place to “help” the rest of us incompetents and nincompoops (sic) live, after having produced offspring and separated, is one called “Kids’ Turn” that is itself a pretty good international marketing scheme.More on that by — well, look it up yourself, dang it! — or “familylawcourtscom” (Bonnie Russell blog).  Another set of schemes that are supposedly helping women such as myself include the Family Justice Center Alliance, starting in San Diego (Casey Gwinn), second, up here in Alameda County, and I read there’s now even some in the UK.
Simultaneous — and apparently at taxpayer expense — state after state has been (for years now), and following the Republican Contract with America, the Clinton Compromise (PWORA), and the Fatherhood Executive memo of 1995, and a whole lot more — doing state-based “fatherhood commissions.”  The one in Ohio I found recently actually targets counties with “female-headed households” and is so entwined with different branches of government, I’d have to say, safely that whether one is a good and upright Dad, or a good and upright Mom, you’re screwed…..  These favor the less than ethical….
What’s even more offensive, is the collaboration between DV agencies and the Family Law system (which I interpret basically as a mental health-based business racket); the local DV nonprofit does “triage” and shunts cases off to the family law venue, where they are dropped like a hot potato.  Meanwhile, a (mother, OK?) going into court self-help center will find lots of AFCC publications, and will most likely NOT get a call-back (I didn’t) even if trying to file a restraining order, again, from the agency who has it’s brochure out there.
I got curious about the history of the family law system, per se, when it began stripping me of my protection and my life through repeated OSC’s based on hearsay having real “strange” conclusions.  Even my own kids saw through it quickly, aged, middle-elementary, and reported this to me.  It was immediately apparent that facts were of no interest.  My entire life (over 40 years of it at the time) had been “deleted” and was irrelevant to the process.
……I believe the Elkins Task Force was a farce.  Only a token effort to allow public participation (though some was), took place, and after about a third of my adult life in this area, half fighting abuse in the home, the other half fighting legal abuse AND the other ways of attacking my life personally for the crime choosing to be single and alive rather than married and a statistic involving children, and ex, and who knows who else.  …  The question posed is good — is there a connection between that Elkins and another Elkins?
We have GOT to get back to the UNalienable rights (for men and women both) set forth in the Declaration of Independence.  We have a right to stay alive.  The Bill of Rights (also radically and repeatedly violated by these procedures) also affirms our right to self-defense.  But if we seek legal remedies to effect that self-defense, we’re screwed, financially, and as to our independence.
The Conciliation Code that automatically declares that ANY custody dispute between parents puts their kids under the jurisdiction of the courts (documented plenty of places:  Google “Cindy Ross,” NAFCJ.blogspot.net, or the graphics-low, data-rich site http://nafcj.net (who has been lobbying against organizational corruption through this system since 1993, in DC area and networked across the US) — is a power grab by institutions over growing children, in the name of some ethereal amorphous definition of “family.”  I even found a constitutional definition of “family” at one point.
There is no question about this:  Legislating family over individual rights, and among them the right to stay alive, is next step slavery/theocracy.  And, after studying many of the grants systems (and acknowledging many others have studied all different aspects of the courts), the only conclusion I can come to is that they are hazardous to he average person’s health, and all of our economic health.  These people do NOT uphold the Constitution or respect it, overall, or as a group.
One question I have to pose is whether the AFCC represents the majority of the judicial, family law, mediator, therapist, custody evaluator etc. (ad nauseam) employees/professionals — or is there a significant group of NON-AFCC members who have any clout in the courts?
One look at the origins of this racket (which I do on my blog, based on others’ work plus my own, under “Shady Shaky Foundations of Family Law” post….) shows it’s based in financial fraud of the IRS, and the taxpayers from the very beginning (as best I can see, I’ll qualify for my own protection).
There are now probate scams relating to judicial things, and affecting elders too.  THere seems to be no exit from this drain on the economy.
I have a family member in government down there, and if I wasn’t shocked enough at the family law system (going through it), I was moreso at the arrogance, attitude, and dishonesty from this particular member.  I take it as typical for the context, and necessary to survive in some circles.
I understand Yaffee has now retired…SickofCorruption, I want to know about the movement you are talking about — if it relates to a boycott, please try to contact me, as I think only this type of “I won’t sit in the back of the bus!” will work.  I have been driven out of my profession, out of my kids’ lives, and into dependency after getting OUT of my marriage, OFF welfare and back INTO my profession, close to solvency, before the 3 years of a restraining order had expired.
In the seven years since, things have continued to escalate the more I took any stand.  It has affected and reversed significant physical emotional health gains I made because I threw a battering husband out of the household, but not him, out of our children’s lives.  I cycled through phones and jobs since the day the restraining order renewal was consolidated with a divorce and custody action.  The ex didn’t want either custody (not being able to afford to house the kids, and he was dependent on my support during marriage also, for his own business, for bills, and for whatnot.  The guy was simply not self-sufficient as a person, although he had been prior to marriage, as far as I could tell.) and has made it clear since (after trying on at least another cohabiting relationship, and was kicked out of that, or left it — possibly because she, too, had some minimum standards — and wants me back, causing trouble all last year, on this end, and hazard.
I don’t give up easy, and researched, called, networked, WORKED, negotiated things on this end, and often enough had to repeatedly negotiate simple things like rides, when a car was down; keeping phone on, when credit had been ruined (in the marriage), and every time some utility went off, another major deposit was needed to turn it back on.  However one looks at these things, they have a real financial impact and diagnosis.
There is no question anymore in my mind that our U.S. Government is trafficking in what they call “our” children (eliminating parentage), and the courts are a real venue for separating them from one, or (ideally) both parents.  the parents, being so traumatized, are then mental-health diagnosed for actually responding to these outrages, and quarantined.  I literally twice had law enforcement trying to get my kids into a foster care of CPS situation while I had a standing court order as to custody, no crimes or violations of it on the record, and I was myself successfully teaching other people’s children with good recommendations from their parents, and still receiving a referral from time to time on that basis.
There’s a book (written a while back) called “Transforming Abuse” whose language speaks to me, and another one, written by a policeman (Christian) called “Refuge” and acknowledging some of the violations of personal rights, and resistance within law enforcement to acknowledging this crime.  Another one, don’t be mislead by the title, but by a Patricia Romano, “It’s Not Your Fault” talks about attuned relationships.
This type of abuse (either between spouses, OR of the government institutions to individuals) repeatedly disrupts relationships, including people to themselves, to their kids, to their work lives, to their landlords (if renting), to their banking institutions, and to their sense of any safety or place to function in our society without ongoing disruption and exposure to these things.  To watch an elderly parent be robbed of his or her land and assets in the meantime, as children also are no-contact, is severely traumatizing, and in a third world country would certainly be categorized as a human rights violation, or a form of torture — which it is.
After I got out of the dangerous relationship (FYI, my only one, too) I was very determined to have boundaries, and not compromise them.  Immediately, almost every entity I (or I and my daughters came from) pushed for more and more compromise, til the back was against the wall.  this includes policeman after I called 911 to get my ex away from the home on a non-visitation weekend.  This includes my refusing to take arbitrary orders about our daughters, or me, which had no legal basis in the court order (not to be confused with total inflexibility, but there are times you know it’s about giving orders, and not a real need).
Finally, over the edge, the guy simply grabbed our kids from my custody on an overnight, and with his girlfriend, falsely imprisoned them, holding them truant (while declaring in court they weren’t even enrolled in a school), and at a location he’d refused to reveal to me the prior year, even after I’d in court gotten a judge to require that I  be told where my kids were, on visitations, being their sole physical custodian.  At every point of this process, it was made clear that one side (litigant) was to be taken on hearsay, at face value, and that no evidence I provided (and I did) was relevant.  A minor’s counsel (I think that was the term) was brought in AFTER felony child-stealing (not prosecuted), and I swear this woman did not read the case file.  I was given a psychological diagnosis (by this attorney) before she met me, and after I had asked her (despite the trauma of a recent child-stealing event and work loss related) to define her scope of service — what WAS her role.  She refused to define, and didn’t respond when I forwarded to her (and called about) a minor daughter’s having suddenly forwarded me an Amber Alert about a young girl the same age as herself.
When this family law has a mediator’s form that reads “child-stealing” along with “domestic violence” along with “child abuse” as if it were “what color are your eyes, and what’s your date of birth?” on the intake form,  while the same state’s Penal Code calls child abuse, child-stealing, and domestic violence (at certain levels) crimes (felony or misdemeanor), we have an inherent conflict-of-interest between family law and criminal law.
These are not going to be resolved, because their vocabulary, their intents, and their guidelines are absolutely in conflict with each other — while the AFCC et al. state the “high-conflict” relationships are the real criminal.  Not people — “relationships.”
I hope readers will forgive the length of this comment, but I am really hurting at this time; what a challenge to live an ethical life in these situations, when most people’s lives require actual relationships — with community, with courts, with employers/clients, with the IRS, with so many entities that comprise how we live.
I think that if the judiciary are themselves operating as if on a black market (see Richard Fine, etc. exposes — also see, FYI, Joseph Zernik, DDS) — they are literally forcing the populace to do the same to handle them.  We cannot have a double standard of justice in this country — and THAT is the most important thing.  If elected officials are not ethical, but can’t be outed– then we are to do what our Declaration of Independence declares, and handle our own business independently of their “intrigues.”   Too many people are dependent on the myth that some integrity exists in these quarters.
I am at the point where I can’t stomach reading a lot more about all this corruption: I acknowledge it.  I believe that laweekly (referenced above) has a lot to say, there is a Ron Kaye in the L.A. area who has outed a lot of ethical irregularities in city finances/politics.  Plenty of people are.  the question is, what to do about it?
(sigh…).  Again, “Rebel” whoever you are, those are good questions.  I have no idea who Laura Lynn is, but thanks for blogging and good luck to you.  I’e also be interested to contact, as I have an ex on the loose (income unknown — because he has an outstanding child support arrears coming in, and he ssems to be alive, I gather he’s below the radar on his income, or soaking some other elderly woman somewhere of income, while pushing middle-aged envelope himself without having held a “real” job since I married him or a legal business as it turns out, in his trade (that i’ve been aware of).  I don’t want to live off this guy — I want him OUT of my life, and my life back, and until these boundaries are re-established, it’s been made clear to me that any more I take, in life or towards life, will be countered, and has been.
Written by someone who has been told to shut up, disappear, and drop off the face of the map, and recently so, by people who have committed crimes (as best I understand the word) against society (because they are violations of the Penal Code), my mother, myself, and my daughters, over a period of time.  This was supposedly for everyone’s benefit, but in the bottom line, it boils down to $$$ and not much else.  One reason I keep narrating is that at some level, I don’t know how safe I am, and I want a gol’ dang track record, even if I sound like an idiot in the process of it!

Here’s that article on “Woman Punched” — although she GOT punched in the face…allegedly..

inShare

Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute

Posted: 12/23/2010 09:53:33 PM PST

WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers who tried to arrest him.

Don West, 50, of Walnut Creek, was booked at the County Jail in Martinez on suspicion of domestic violence and making criminal threats after being evaluated at a hospital.

The assault took place at 5:50 p.m. in a municipal parking lot near a pub in the 1500 block of North Broadway, police Sgt. Lanny Edwards said.

Several people called 911 after seeing West argue with the victim over the custody exchange of two children, before knocking her unconscious with a punch.

West ran away, but returned later, police said. When officers tried to arrest him, he fought back and resisted arrest.

Here’s a yahoo link to 1550 North Broadway in Walnut Creek and the Walnut Creek Police station at 1660 North Main (just looked it up): the distance is .1 min by car or .15 miles:  Kudos to the police for coming quickly to the scene of the “alleged” crime — it was in their backyard…almost.

Distance
a.
1.
Start at 1550NBROADWAY,WALNUTCREEK going toward LINCOLNAVE
go 220 ft
2.
Turn  on LINCOLNAVE
go 292 ft
3.
Turn  on NMAINST
go 266 ft
b.
4.
Arrive at 1660NMAINST,WALNUTCREEK, on the 

Time: 1 mins, Distance: 0.15 mi

There are federal funds to the states to make sure that this thing does not happen.  I’ve not got time to track down Mr. Don West and his unnamed wife, but I wish HER well, and I wish men would figure out that punching a woman in the face, or a 14 yr old girl, is inappropriate.  Be thankful we don’t punch back so much, because we understand (if we have kids) that this family law system packs its own unique punch to us, as mothers.

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 26, 2010 at 7:42 pm

%d bloggers like this: