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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Archive for January 2011

Thank You, and Pls. Hear Us, Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore…

leave a comment »

Parts of Wisconsin are less “wacko” than I realized…

Dear Rep. Moore of Wisconsin’s 4th District:

Don’t recognize the name?  Why not — you should!  Look (from Wiki, where else?)

Gwendolynne Sophia Moore (born April 18, 1951) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s 4th congressional district, serving since 2005. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

The district is based in Milwaukee and also includes South MilwaukeeCudahy and St. Francis, and part of West Allis. She is the first woman to represent the district. She is also the second woman and the firstAfrican-American elected to Congress from Wisconsin.

You REALLY  got my attention this morning.  Thank you!

Now, may we mothers get yours also?

How it happened:

On some early -morning channel posting House Debates, these were supposed to be about 2 minutes each, I watched while half awake as various people discussed the pros and cons of the Republican Defeat of the Single-Payer Healthcare what not.

Seriously, to me, that’s almost about how it goes.  Since I married decades ago, the primary time any health care was actually in process was when I managed to work FT, and sometimes for a short period after that.  This also applies to about the entire time I’ve been stuck in the family court system, which means for most of us, no job stability, and a lot more.  So while we are AWARE of other major political issues nationwide, there seems to be always some real pressing ones in our faces, year after year.  It really is an alternate lifestyle.

I was stunned!

So, I sat bolt upright with a true shock…

when an authoritative, black, woman elected U.S.Representative, even pronounced the word “WOMEN” in connection with HEALTHCARE.  And she knew what she was talking about, too…

I’d watched black and white, male and female, and most notably, Democrat and Republican, trade comments and soapbox (restrained at times, admirably by Madam Chairman).  I was more focused on the procedures than the contents.  I have long ago figured out that alternative health care is my route, and with the unbelievable chronic and longterm stress [can you say, “PTSD”) this cause has put upon (women like me, if I may, and our children), health care is secondary to staying alive, period, and housed.  Like so many other things (such as “Career development” and “long-term planning”) it rarely gets to the foreground.

Why I couldn’t sleep — I’d just uncovered more details in the extent, scope, (and how to track down) the financial fraud that goes along with the federal programs sent to the courts supposedly to help poor, single mothers, and poor low-income fathers, well, these are supposedly related to helping children through welfare reform.  YOu know the routine (or, should, by now…).  I literally, transfixed to the information, sat on my behind for 12 hours and fell asleep on the couch.  WIth the TV on for noise .  Noncustodial moms sometimes just need noise in the room, ya’ know…my brain had been taken to a new level of whassup, and somehow some mothers had contacted me for help.  Partly on the basis of information in this blog, which it’s known I developed from NAFCJ.net, and personally continuing to pay attention, look, and some other sources.  Geezh, imagine that.

Yesterday, I was all day writing, researching, and communicating with mothers in various states of noncustodial while feeling very homeless, and distressed about some friends of mine who are, and attempting to help another recent MidWestern Contact deal with loss children and having 100% (she claims) of her wages (which are nonexistent — she’s a full-time student) garnished to pay child support to her ex, who has full custody of three children.

Things appear to have changed since Rep. Moore (who is about my age, very close) was a young mother and university student, per her bio.

Path to Power (Whorunsgov.)

Moore, who was raised in Milwaukee, became an 18-year old single mother during her freshman year at Marquette University. She relied on welfare to complete her degree while raising her daughter.

(From her Congress website:)

Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1951, Congresswoman Moore was raised in Milwaukee. The eighth of nine children, Rep. Moore’s father was a factory worker and her mother was a public school teacher. Congresswoman Moore attended North Division High School in Milwaukee where she served as Student Council President. After graduation, Rep. Moore started college at Milwaukee’s Marquette University as a single, expectant mother on welfare who could only complete her education with the help of TRIO. Congresswoman Moore earned a B.A. in Political Science from Marquette, and went on to serve as a community leader, spearheading the start-up of a community credit union as a VISTA volunteer for which she earned the national “VISTA Volunteer of the Decade” award from 1976-1986.

Obviously, she hadn’t learned of the great risk that female-headed households pose to the nation….

Nowadays, Rep. Moore, alas, it would not play out like that, I fear. Feminism, feminist backlash, and what not has put the government into the Designer-Family mode.  Perhaps, with your solid family background you might have gotten away with this, On the other hand, depending on who the father was, and who he got in touch with, perhaps he might have ended up raising your child, and you paying him, and dropping out of school to do so. This, as I’m sure you know, is called “welfare reform” and came in around 1996, after the Fatherhood Executive Memo, and much more.

I have to THANK you for this.  Perhaps someone else mentioned the word “women” if not “mothers” — but no one could miss that you did, here:

Congresswoman Moore statement on Health Insurance Reform Repeal Vote

January 20th, 2011 by Robert Rosati

Congresswoman Gwen Moore made the following statement after the House voted to repeal the new health insurance reform law that will help more than 30 million Americans afford health insurance, give small businesses tax credits to help insure their employees and implement necessary consumer protections:

“Republicans have the chance to walk the walk, but they are walking away from it. All throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republicans said they supported consumer protections like the ban on pre-existing condition denials or charging women more than men for the same coverage. Where’d the support go over the past year?

“As chair of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, I led 45 of my colleagues in outlining to Speaker Boehner what’s at risk for women if this new law is repealed. Women were among those who gained the most, and now they’re among those with the most to lose. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’s been the victim of domestic violence. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’d been pregnant. If this law is repealed, once again, women could be charged more money for the same coverage as men.

“Just today, I met with a father who told me the story of his 25 year-old daughter who is going to school. She needed emergency gall bladder surgery. Without reform, they would have had to pay out of pocket. Repeal has real consequences.

“When Congress passed health insurance reform, I said that it wasn’t perfect, and that we’ll have to work to make it better. Recent polling shows that only 18 percent of Americans want the law completely repealed. Can we make this law even better? Yes. But should we take away the new protections? Should we repeal the security families now have — knowing that they aren’t one diagnosis away from bankruptcy? No way!”

Information used in this article was retrieved from a press release on Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s official website.


I know, I think, maybe why you are sensitive to the domestic violence issues and women’s issues to the point that you can get up there and even SAY “women” when (that I heard) it seems to have not even occurred as a category of people affected by, say, healthcare issues?  (can anyone say “maternal” “pregnancy” “birth” “Prenatal?”  Does anyone out there still remember that getting beat up might just occasion a trip to a hospital emergency room?  which is “healthcare”??? )  Rep. Moore remembered.  from “WHY SHE MATTERS” (and you do!) on “WhoRunsGov” page:

Why She Matters

Moore, a former community activist who served in Wisconsin’s state legislature for 16 years, now represents Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District, an urban area that covers all of Milwaukee.

A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Moore urges that more attention be spent on the needs of the lower class and of minority groups. Her political priorities – poverty issues, health care and civil rights – have been shaped by the hardships she encountered as an 18-year old single mother, as a welfare recipient and as a victim of sexual abuse.

Moore leans left on both domestic and foreign policy. In arguing that more attention be turned to poverty issues, she has proposed raising unemployment benefits, championed government-run health care and introduced legislation to help low-income workers acquire cars. A fierce opponent of picture-ID requirements, she joined the “Out of Iraq” caucus in support of a military withdrawal. In 2006, she was arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy during an anti-genocide protest.

And, on the page (same site), “The Path to Power”:

In 2003, after she faced criticism for the intensity with which she unsuccessfully defended an amendment requiring background checks for employees at private schools that participated in Milwaukee’s voucher program. Moore sought to explain herself through an emotional speech delivered on the state Senate’s floor. She revealed that she had been repeatedly molested as a child and had been raped twice as an adult.(3)

That’s an intense experience.  Why is it that people who have lived through it, women, are having to explain their own intensity, or passion, about certain causes?  is intensity and commitment inappropriate for women in too many places?  I have not been raped or molested as a child, I was battered as an adult, pregnant, woman.  It’s still a very intense experience.  Can we now understand why background checks at private schools might be relevant?  This shows how people who have been through a situation — and get to Congress, for Pete’s sake, may pay attention to aspects of it while they are still in office.  Thank you, Rep. Moore, for remembering o say “women” and “domestic Violence” in the same breath as “health care” instead of forgetting us.

I am so curious whether you went the way of Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau of Kansas, and voted to support Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage Promotion (and all that) and “bought” that the true purpose of this was to help po’ folk. Or, children.  If not (I haven’t checked yet), will you please have a word, someday with Ms. Faust-Goudeau.  I did, on-line, a while back. …

I am not sure (didn’t find out yet), if you, like Rep. Tammy Baldwin, voted apart from other members of the Black Caucus on the bold issues below, per “on the issues.org/Welfare and Poverty

Tammy Baldwin on Welfare & Poverty
Democratic Representative (WI-2): Click here for 8 full quotes OR click here for Tammy Baldwin on other issues. 

  • Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
  • Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)
  • Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
  • Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007)
  • Support school breakfast for low-income children. (Mar 2009)
  • Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)


Or, in more detail — YES, Rep. WI-2 “Tammy!”  These were the right votes.  And to make that vote in 1999, before the various states’ (United States’ individual state legislatures) got their copycat “fatherhood commissions” into law, took awareness and foresight.  I like to think.  (I was just about ready to break out of an abusive relationship around then.  AbusIVE was the weakest description of it, too — it was violent, dangerous, and injuries and destruction had occured, and were on the increase.  Why?  Because I was protesting it.  Few other people were – not my faith organization, family, pastors, employers, friends, colleagues.  Mostly they observed (the “Tsk., Tsk” factor).  It took something more to put a temporary (at least) stop to it:

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions. The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week. States would be required to increase the number of recipient families working from the current level of 50 percent to 70 percent or more in 2008. The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs.Reference: Bill sponsored by Pryce, R-OH; Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2003-30 on Feb 13, 2003

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations to compete equally with other non-governmental groups for federal funds to provide social service, and provide $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over 10 years.Bill HR 7 ; vote number 2001-254 on Jul 19, 2001


Contrast THAT with President Obama’s Administration’s current policy at fatherhood.gov and Office of Faith-based Whatnots.

Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations.

Vote to establish a program that would promote more responsible fatherhood by creating educational, economic and employment opportunities and give grants to state agencies and nonprofit groups, including faith-based institutions.Reference: Bill sponsored by Johnson, R-CT.; Bill HR 3073 ; vote number 1999-586 on Nov 10, 1999


While I may not have thought it through exactly like this, I’d have to think that it makes some real sense, and identifies a significant problem, and it’s absolutely clear that the above policies (the Marriage Promotion, and welfare structured as “hours per week” rather than seeking to work in some other non-hours-based manner are promoted and founded by major wealth that often does NOT work a per-hour salary, or apparently want certain populations to figure out that this is even an option.

Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality.

Baldwin adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities.

    The Progressive Caucus could take the lead in the formation of a national leadership steering committee to put this dramatic issue before the public through coordinated media campaigns and local education and action forums. The political program should be concerned with:

  • Reducing wage inequality: We are proposing initiatives to both raise the minimum wage floor and prevent the tax code from subsidizing excessive compensation.
  • Asset-building initiatives: The government has historically given land to citizens. Unfortunately, the programs were discriminatory toward people of color and kept a whole generation of people off the asset-building train. We are proposing a universal asset building approach that will dramatically reduce the number of “asset less” households and reduce the disparity of wealth for all Americans.
  • Addressing the over concentration of wealth and power: The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our at our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy.

After a decade of economic prosperity, the moral question remains: if we can’t address the persistent economic divide in our nation today, when can we?


Please go from this post, to fellow-blogger “www.Randi James” blog and look up OCSE, HHS, and, recently,

Marketing To Survivors of Domestic Violence,” an eloquent post.  She “gets it.”  I trust you, too, “Get it” regarding the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grants system agenda (it’s not about helping women, children, or families, though that’s the pretext).

Some people, when they get all progressive, or all conservative, or all successful in politics, forget who gave birth to them, apparently.  Single motherhood is NOT dishonorable, and it’s not a failure sentence on biological basis, or on financial basis, unless the math is based entirely and only on wage-earning -minus childcare, and don’t dare get more creative than that (in this internet business-based era, and it’s truly possible).


However, THIS post, “Marketing,” is about a certain pricey book marketed at the BMCC conference (see my previous post) and practically any other major DV organization these days.  Like Evan Stark’s “Coercive Control,” it’s supposedly new, innovative, and the latest thing in the field.  However, as mothers, custodial or non, we have in interest in eliminating that field as a viable industry, and as a practice upon other human beings.  And we are the majority of the population, at least in the United States.


I just wanted to say thank you for saying “Woman,” in 2011, and for saying with confidence and authority, the words “Domestic Violence” in the House of Representative (or wherever that was broadcast from) and I will find out another day if you vote with, or not with, Rep. Barbara Lee (from my state), and Rep. Danny K. Davis, or against in these matters.  I say, against is better.



Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 20, 2011 at 10:50 pm

More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011]

with one comment

(“Vomite” would be an imperative in Latin, if it were a real verb, so I adjusted the ending).

This post’s title and a case-sensitive short link to it: More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011].  The short-link ends “-Cy” and I added the “published” phrase later.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.” Minimal updating has kept this post at under 3,000 words, best read in conjunction with the one published the day before in 2011 where (alas?) it had more than minimal updating on one organization I was flagging at the time (which later went “underground” letting its IRS exemption file, while continuing “honorable mention” from some of the largest, mutually-coordinated networks around, Community and otherwise.  Both these post made it into my 2017 “retrospective” as significant.  This one I like because of its simplicity and empathy for the absurdity of the programming but for many years, the other one (“Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You?”) had been a favorite.//LGH @ 2-20-2017.


Read my most recent post for some background

That would be: Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator <=Title, post published 1/17/2011 with its case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-Cc”  This post has some updates but it still only 6,050 words.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.”

This morning, I noticed visitors from three universities (New York, Princeton & Berkeley) had been on my site very recently.  The Berkeley visitor was viewing a site featuring some work by Lundy Bancroft, a well-known author books such as “Why does he DO that?” or “The Batterer as Parent.”

I would like to comment upon “Why he (Bancroft, et al.) DOES that” and the concept of “The Batterer as Parent” in a wider perspective of this field of the family law system.

For the former perspective, the short answer is, a combination of from (I’ll still presume) residual good will towards suffering females and their children and, more to the point, for a living.

To recap that, the reasons appear to be:

  • He’s probably basically a good guy, which probably put him outside the mainstream (meaning, funding flow) of the family law court professionals, and
  • For a living.

See my post “Moms are Parents Too” and read the comment at the bottom, which is an update.

Now, as to the concept “The Batterer As Parent.”

Although assault and battery is a crime (or either one alone) as I understand it, either misdemeanor or felony level, in practice, the family law system acts as an opaque umbrella under which this terminology is really not taken seriously. Not really.

So mothers who take Bancroft & batterer language into a court hearing may be in for a real rude awakening — it’s not welcome overall.  Hence, a living has to be made elsewhere, and a name, as I mentioned.  Although Mr. Bancroft has in the past presented alongside what I’d call overt “fatherhood” presenters (yeah, I looked that up), I’d say he’s not on the same page, or in the forefront of THAT movement. He and this rhetoric is more like a gnat in its side — definitely not so much as a “thorn in the flesh.”

Obviously, it lands with something of a thud.  to solve this, we are encouraged to watch our demeanor more carefully, strategize just so, and not step on too many toes.  Don’t pick unnecessary battles, don’t rock the boat, etc.

I believe that anyone telling a mother who has been ass-whupped (or anything approaching it, including emotionally, financially, etc.) in front of her own kids, to advise, do it some more, and all will be well, or this is the ONLY way all will be better than it is now, has a lot of nerve. 
Read the rest of this entry »

Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator

with 5 comments

Happy New Year: What Rhetoric Are You? Father, Mother, or Mediator <=Title, post published 1/17/2011 with its case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-Cc”  This post has some updates but it still only 6,050 words.  “BMCC” in this context stands for Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference.”


  • Mothers, supposedly — go to A battered MOTHERS conference.  BMCC, New York, weekend of Jan. 6th-9th.

Look up “Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference” (8th year).


  • Fathers, supposedly — should go to a FATHERHOOD summit (conference) .  Minnesota, a Monday-Tuesday combo, January 24th-25th.

    Possibly because Family Law professional attendees, can get professional CLE credit for attending on a weekday, while some people, attending, might lose a job for absenteeism.  Pay close attention to the repetitive use of the word “father” throughout this conference, because in the 3rd one, some of the same characters are likely to be found at, or helping present at, or sponsor, etc.  a conference claiming Gender has nothing to do with all this. (See #3, below)

Read the rest of this entry »

From “No Excuse for Abuse” to “Truth is No Defense”: Terrorizing Terrorists with Civil Litigation

with one comment


Maybe “all roads lead to Rome” but it seems that religious conflagration is more Middle Eastern in origin.

Today’s article quote (the longer one)  is from the Middle East Forum (I finally figured out — I am on some legal mailing lists, including FindLaw.com, which publishes opinions and recent cases in specific fields). This email list I got from my interest in the feminist writings by the author of “Women & Madness” who also understands extra punch packed by a fist, or practices, incited by religious beliefs of women’s inferiority, or (at best) secondary place in society, or else.

Phyllis Chesler. ‘How Afghanistan shaped my feminism’

Nov 6, 2008 Phyllis Chesler. ‘How Afghanistan shaped my feminism’ …. marathon tea-drinking and pistachio-eating, my polite smile was stuck to my face. 
Well, marital violence in our “Christian” home, and non-responses in witnesses, shaped mine.  But, we have a great, and our first black, and possibly one of the healthiest, Presidents in history — on it, right?


Phyllis Chesler: Obama Throws Muslim Women Under the Bus

by an unrepentant kulak

Monday, June 8, 2009

Did President Obama sacrifice the interests of Muslim women in his Cairo speech? Phyllis Chesler thinks so, and says as much in a characteristically well-articulated piece at PJM:

It is a Catholic woman’s right to become a nun and shave or cover her hair; it is an Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish woman’s right to shave or cover her hair; and it is a Muslim woman’s right to cover her hair and her face–as long as those women who refuse to do so are not browbeaten, beaten, ostracized, stalked, stoned to death or honor-murdered. I have written about just such cases in the West right here, at this blog, cases in which young American- and Canadian-Muslim girls were tormented, then killed because they refused to wear hijab.

In Europe, where there are many more Muslims, there is a veritable epidemic of such exceedingly dishonorable and incredibly gruesome “honor” murders.

But there’s something more. Let’s face it: The Islamic face-veil and headscarf have become symbols of “jihad” and Islamic religious apartheid or intolerance in the West. And, it is spooky, even frightening to see women, (or are they men?), face-veiled or wearing full-body shrouds. Masked people, hooded people, have cut themselves off from human contact; they can see you, but you can’t see them. You cannot see their expressions in response to what you are saying. I would not want to appear before a masked judge, study with a masked teacher, hire a masked lawyer, etc. Would you?


Whether I approve of their clothing choices or not, Hasidic (ultra-orthodox or anti-modern) Jews and Catholics are not threatening western civilization and are not out there be-heading those who leave Judaism or Catholicism. Nor are they force-converting Muslims and Hindus. Muslims are doing just that at this very moment in history when America’s President has reached out to the entire Islamic world.

What’s more, Jews and Catholics are not honor-murdering their daughters and wives because they refuse to veil their faces, their hair, or their bodies. Mainly Muslims do that.


No, nothing like that.  By the way — did the readers not that the man in Buffalo who beheaded his wife claims she was abusing him?  Sound like a familiar theme?

ALthough “nothing like that,” it’s increasingly getting to be like that, as I sometimes email Dr. Chesler, while she still takes heat, I’m sure, for alliance with conservative Christian groups in some forums.  Someone will listen, one of these days, of where the THEORIES (if not the practices, including familicides) unite.  Can you say “faith-based collaborative” and “Fatherhood.gov”?  There are dramatic differences, but too many striking parallels, between these groups.  The atmosphere on the “family” issues is changing.  Can you say “Islamification” and “Islamophobia’ in the same breath?

So these topics, mine and hers, seem doomed to overlap, time and again.


Today being 01/11/11, and as I have recently posted on my feelings of the similarity between the family law system and Shari’a law system (keep it in the family, right?), one has to wonder whether this family law system is intended to overwhelm independent “parents” (Moms) such that they return to dependence on at least the state, or their extended support systems.  Leaving abuse amicably?  Hell, no!  What has this world come to?  How else are older immoral* men going to continue their unfettered access to young girls, and boys?

[(*I’m NOT talking about the decent ones)]

I’ll bold or change font color on a few key terms. Understand, I am not following this case, or theme, in detail — BUT, it’s getting to be a smaller and smaller world. As a “noncustodial mother” (I suppose the term ceases to have meaning when children have all turned 18, at which point it may mean that one regains contact with grown children, or one does not. If not, then does the word “mother” apply at all?  Historically, yes — but in present tense?  . . . . As the dear old AFCC decided long ago to find a newer, better language to describe criminal actions (battering, kidnapping, assault, stalking, and molesting minors, including but not limited to incest), it is gradually transforming society into generations of traumatized kids, and at public expense.

At the BMCC [“Battered Mothers Custody Conference” in Albany, New York] recently, the Holly Collins case was featured, and she spoke, and her son.  She fled to the Netherlands.  Another woman who also fled there, was outed (Melissa Stratton), particularly after the child’s father bicycled through Europe and broadcast his distress — and after a ruling by the court-appointed psychologist that she’d imagined it all.  She was an intelligent, educated woman who it seems to me considered the available options (grim, if one considers the situation) and chose a hard one.  When we talk, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Denmark, and indeed almost ANY country these days, it’s likely that some high-profile cxustody case is attached.  South Korea (NJ judge orders woman jailed on returning, although abuse charges were under way in Korea); Brazil, Canada, you name it, some Dad and friends has probably gone after some legislator to, gol, dang it — bring me back my kids!   A Rep. in N.J. wants India and Japan to sign the Hague convention to make this a little easier.

The article below deals with Denmark, among other places — well, you can see.

Meanwhile, nursing infants in the family court system are STILL subject to a judge’s court order about what nipple they get to suck it from, and whether that’s accompanied with Mom’s smells, voice, embrace, or arms, or some with a leaner muscle mass, most likely, AFTER a domestic violence court order has already been issued.  Kind of makes ya’ wonder….  Didn’t Germany try this kind of child-raising some generations ago?  Dads can be nurturers, too, right — but at  certain ages, an infant needs a reliable parent, a MOM, on-call. Her reassurances are a need, and a foundation for later independence.  When society can’t respect this, when men (SOME men) are so needy personally that a child is an interruption to the fulfilment of their own narcissism, or possibly an alteration in a sexual relationship, society is sunk.  When Moms, in a changing society are to be punished for adjusting to it in ways involving employment, or running a reasonable business while also being Mom — society is sunk.  We’re already beyond that through this system in the U.S, and hardly contained within it.

That system has a religious basis, on the rights of males (notice, I didn’t say “man,” generic) and females as lesser, which we know because “God said so.’  The consequence to a man of listening to a woman’s voice (Eve) is that the fall of the world, and a curse.  Talk about primal fears!  For any woman thereafter to trust her own inner voice without running it first by her man, or if she doesn’t have one, a local religious leader, is an outrage to the stability of the world, and we will fight a few wars to drive the point home.

This site says detached kids make for genocides.  Possibly true…. given the child-rearing practices.  USA isn’t far behind with early childhood education (universal, ideally), and getting MOm into those low-paying jobs and her kids to the local child center, and Dad back into the kids’ lives after abuse and incarceration.  She will be dependent to SOMEONE a lifetime — a man, an employer, a preschool being reliably available, etc.  Unless she is wealthy, and possibly even then, if dumped.

The Childhood Origins of the Holocaust

Lloyd deMause

The following speech was given on September 28, 2005 at Klagenfurt University, Austria.

Over thirty years ago, my book The History of Childhood was published, opening with the following words:

The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused.1

This is a disturbing read readers might do well to read, about what kids went through, previously, growing up.  Don’t mock it — the U.S. had Spock which said breastfeeding was not advised, and which many Moms listened to.  Now, I suppose, we have “Dr. Phil” and judges.

Here are the FOOTNOTES

(my commentary, not the quote)…

It is a very disturbing read, however, after two decades of incredible (in supposedly free U.S.A.) punishments for simply existing, and showing independence, or expecting input into family decisions based on mutual information — not dictatorship — one has to deal with what are the origins of this shock, and becomes more sensitive to boundaries, and to violations of personhood and exercise of one’s simple WILL, from totally unexpected sources.    I absolutely am witness (not here, in detail, obviously) to my own case that the underlying principle is that I must not make decisions, or even influence them, about my own basics of life, including work, sleep, come, go, finances/banking, transportation, education (i.e., continuing mine, or continuing in the field I had upon marriage), or budgeting, MAIL, and so forth.  This was promulgated to me on the basis of Christianity, and “unfortunately,” for the husband, I actually read the scriptures.  While they may be more restrictive than the wider society, nothing in them justified what he did to me, and what pastors witnessing it continued to allow.

As a participant, researcher (after my fashion) and narrator of what’s UP with these systems, I have come to the conclusion that while an enraged, or angry person is indeed dangerous, and can hurt, or kill, or destroy — it’s nothing so frightening to me personally as a cold, detached personality claiming in sanitized terms to analyze a volatile and flesh-and-blood situation.  Or, speaking in group terms, clinical terms about horrors, as if they were population research and functions in society, ONLY.  There is something particularly Nordic about this attitude, and I find the social scientists  — when placed near legislators — of far more concern than inflammatory rhetoric that shows its inflammation and anger, and is recognizable as emotionally based.

Feminists have been called “feminazis,” but it’s the very, very masculine “Nazi” that is the concern here.  This site talks about it better than I just did, below.  The social denigration of women, and girls — even down to baby girls — has hurt society badly.  Not the fact that now, they can work, or other civil rights!  It’s passed down through the generations.



The latest terrorist tactic: litigation

by Daniel Huff
The Daily Caller
January 11, 2011


Send RSS Share: FacebookTwitterGoogle BuzzDiggdel.icio.us
Be the first of your friends to like this.

On December 29, Scandinavian authorities arrested five terrorists planning an attack in Denmark. Almost as interesting as what they targeted is what they spared and the lessons it holds for future counterterrorism efforts.

The plot was to storm the Copenhagen newsroom of Jyllands Posten and murder its staff. It was the fourthattempt this year by Islamic extremists to punish the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons. But the terrorists are guilty of selective prosecution. They have yet to strike Politiken, which also published the cartoons, even though its offices are literally next door.

It is logical that Jyllands is the principal target because it sparked the controversy. It was Jylland’s editor, Flemming Rose, who originally commissioned the cartoons in 2005. A Danish comedian had told interviewers he would publicly urinate on the Bible, but would not dare do the same to the Koran. Rose’s message was that Islam should be treated equally, not specially.

Nevertheless, there is a second reason Politiken is not a target. It already surrendered, vanquished by the nonviolent instrument of a civil lawsuit.

In 2008, extremists nearly murdered Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the original cartoons. In response,Politiken reprinted the cartoons as part of a unified stand against intimidation of the press. The defiance didn’t last. A Saudi law firm claiming to represent 94,923 descendants of Mohammed threatened it with legal action and the paper caved. On February 26, 2010, it effectively apologized for defending free speech.

This is a textbook illustration of how litigation has become a complementary and sometimes superior strategy for Islamic extremists who traditionally relied on physical violence alone to intimidate their opponents.

In Europe especially, their cause is aided by vague hate speech laws that make it all too easy to punish legitimate discourse on Islam. Last month, a Danish Member of Parliament pleaded guilty to violating hate speech laws with comments he made on Islam’s treatment of women. He had agreed to forgo parliamentary immunity in order to fight the charges on the merits only to discover that truth is no defense.

[Paragraph by LGH blog] On January 24, another Danish politician, International Free Press Society president Lars Hedegaard, will stand trial forsimilarly speaking his mind. He also faces a potentially costly libel suit. There were reports last summer that Denmark’s hate speech laws would be reformed to prevent abuse, but this has yet to happen.

THIS author is saying, fight back, using the same weapon.  I wish battered mothers, protective mothers, and etc. would at least get smart about what weapons ARE being used against them in their War for Independence (meaning, the right to leave destructive relationships WITH their children, and without being held hostage a lifetime to suits for custody, and sometimes more suits).

In the meantime, authorities can borrow from the extremists and use civil litigation as a complementary strategy in counterterrorism operations, particularly in the US.

This tactic was used consistently on me since I left the abuser.  The battles were won OUTSIDE the courtroom, and it was made clear that any stand against other outrages would be met by escalation.  I was specifically told this while still married — “don’t ever oppose me, or I will escalate til I win.”  One of the few martial vows that has been kept, another one having been how to disappear, beat the system and not pay child support.  That, I could understand, however, forcing me out of jobs so that I can’t survive AFTEr leaving him is off the charts.  This was done by entering the family law venue.  How hard was that?  Not hard — the U.S. Government is all into “families” these days, and are sponsoring the concept, while the word “mother” is rapidly becoming an anachronism, when found in association with a backbone and in the face of danger to herself or her kids, including after damage has already occurred.

Forcing terrorists to fight simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings would make it difficult for them to focus their defense resources effectively. This has been the experience in white-collar cases when the Justice Department and a regulatory agency pursue parallel investigations against a target company.


While criminal defendants can get court-appointed lawyers, civil defendants pay out of pocket and the plaintiff’s burden of proof is typically lower. In addition, the broader scope of discovery [[Did you know that?  I didn’t!]]  in civil cases may produce information otherwise unavailable to prosecutors. Finally, parallel lawsuits can pin terrorists between remaining mum in the civil suit and likely losing, or fighting back and forfeiting their right to “plead the Fifth” in the criminal case. Defendants might dodge these difficulties by delaying the civil proceedings, but courts do not always permit that.

This plan presupposes a clear basis for civil suits. In 1994, Congress passed a bill making it illegal to use force against persons exercising abortion rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. With only minor modifications, this law could be expanded to cover threats against free speech rights as well.

For example, officials are investigating whether the recent plot is connected to the 2009 arrest of two Chicago men for conspiring to attack Jyllands Posten. According to the indictment, Tahawwur Rana and David Headley gained access to Jylland’s offices on the pretext of purchasing advertising for their immigration services company. Once inside, they conducted videotape surveillance of the premises which they provided to co-conspirators in Pakistan who recommended using a truck bomb.

Headley pleaded guilty in March, but Rana goes on trial in February. Were the proposed law on the books now,Jylland’s staff could sue for damages using information from the indictment and guilty plea. This would be particularly disruptive to Rana as he tries to focus on preparing for his criminal trial.

More broadly, a law along these lines would allow victims to go on the offensive against Islamic radicals who terrorize them instead of having to hope authorities continue catching these extremists in time.

Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

I realize that either this last conference, or the new year, or the Tuscon, Arizona mass-shooting is more timely blogging.  However horrible, SIX DEAD is not entirely unprecedented in the family law field, and if this is multiplied by how often — think about it.  it’s just how, and who died, that was the issue here.

Yet, today is January 11, 1/11/2011, and I still remember 09/11/2001, an event that while in the forefront of the nation, happened and was played out in my case when I was hard at work leaving an abuser who had himself threatened suicide, talked bout his fantasies of it, and whose own father had recently followed through with the deal.  I have yet to find a venue that took this seriously, as I still have to, given the entrenched position.  The intent to destroy me, along with himself, seems to be one thing he hangs onto.  Forget about the kids — they are already abandoned, and again, do the courts care about this, when it doesn’ produce income, or a warm body under 18 years old to attract income and justify the institution?

The answer is, no.


Truth is no defense in family law because it’s so nebulous, one cannot define it.

But, if one does, there exists within the system an easy out and a contradicting “truth,” and networks to disseminate it.  Truth, like beauty, is in the eye(s) of the beholders, who are often attracted by things that glitter and repulsed by women reporting abuse.  Nasty, filthy topic, you must be mad, have imagined it.

What we need instead to examine is the “ranking” of “truths.”  Why should PAS get more attention than “rebuttable presumption”  and why should “family” get more priority than “safety” and individual rights.

It’s no longer possible, Moms, to continue ignoring the delivery structure of what passes for justice.  And for this, the infrastructure and sponsoring organizations that foot the billl, have to be defined as a whole — just as you, individually, are going to have to look at your entire budget if you are wondering “what happened?”


There are some holes in the plumbing.  Like lead in plumbing in other famous civilizations, our asbestos, in our lifetimes, it will take its toll if things don’t change.  And as to that on/off breastfeeding schedule, kids need breast milk when growing to at least toddlerhood (ideally) unless she’s on drugs, alcohol, or so stressed by abuse that hormones, I’d suppose, flood that system, or improper nutrition.

You can’t get much more stressful than Dad throwing Mom around, or Dad who threw MOM around (which requires obvious strength), or assaulted her, now in possession regularly of a fragile infant who represents, to him, HER, possibly.  I mean think about it.  Either that judge is going to have to recommend she pump her own breast milk for Dad’s use on alternating days (have we gone that far in court orders invading a woman’s biology and self-care) to having baby just do one breast milk, and one formula.  Unless Dad has another willing and lactating female to draw from (pun unintentional).  There is no odditiy, no outrage, no contradiction of common sense I’d not put beyond this system, most have already occurred within it, I hope.

It did talk to a mother with children who was in this situation at the conference, and more outrageous.  I question whether women should “submit” to that at all, and should remember to warn others beforehand.


The healing from trauma is not likely to progress while while trauma is ongoing.  When trauma comes from being unable to help — or even know the condition of — an immediate relative –one that fights have been fought over — while the aftermath of the last few assaults remain — the issue is FIRST to rectify that situation, and then to deal with the trauma more seriously, I believe.  I’m saying this to explain the length of this post, and in deed many of mine.  It helps me to write, and there are other (non-offending) ways to manage, one of which is to focus on something else, and do so for a good while.  I’ve just attended a conference I’ve heard about for years, but couldn’t afford to get to (other side of the USA), and put face and voice, and observed in action, the professionals that are supposed to be stopping these outrages (in the courts) and assaults on free speech in the courts about important matters.

Mothers are getting gag orders, as well as thrown in jail.  I have not heard of a father getting a gag order about his case, to date — have you?  Although I’m years in the system, from what I can tell, things have n’t changed much.

And the “buy our book” people, I witnessed in action some attempts to handle reasonable questions from Moms lined up at microphones, and they had no answers, for the most part, to some very critical ones, namely, “what do you do if your judge is a crook?”  The entire business was based on the premise that they aren’t — they “just don’t understand — but we can train them, maybe, so they “know better.”

I find that sadly lacking in reason.  Writing, here, diverts some of the alarm about the situations.




Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 11, 2011 at 2:09 pm

Trickle-down Theory of Domestic Violence Coalitions is “all wet” for actual victims…

leave a comment »

As you may know, I’ve spent a lot of time around databases and looking up “Categories of Federal Domestic Spending” (CFDA’s) from the famous Health and Human Services department of the majestic U.S. Government.  Therefore, I’m well-aware of how many of the DV program grants are labeled “Discretionary” or lump in actual money to shelters with “capacity-building” or “technical assistance,” etc.  All in all it’s quite fascinating.

Recently, enough mothers have apparently gotten through to someone from on high (i.e., our prayers/letters worked?), that there are some serious problems within the domestic violence and custody fields.  This would seem obvious to newspaper readers, but is not to conferencers, thinking about the next curriculum, toolkit, or training seminar to market to categories of people who may, or may not, be entirely coachable.

For example, the words Violence against WOMEN would seem to indicate a problem with a gender basis.  Similarly the “Fatherhood initiatives” would, I’d just have to say, indeed entail a bit of gender focus.   However, undaunted, there are yet more conferencers ready to undo both of these, and say (in a sunny spot, of course, and likely at a nice hotel), “What’s Gender Got to Do With It?”  (AFCC conference end of january, 2011).

I understand that the NCADV (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which means a lot of people that are “against” domestic violence and think it is very bad…) and DVLEAP (see “Joan Meier,”) another professional well known in these fields (search my blog) have received another government grant to address the custody problem.

I wonder sometimes how many of these professionals (as, when it was a true grassroots, and not top-down operation) actually have experienced what they are professing?  I know many have, but it doesn’t seem the majority of the leadership does.
Meanwhile, here’s yet another newspaper in midAmerica saying there’s a crisis of actual money reaching the shelter.  More on the Community Crisis Center in Elgin, later — I’m on the way back from the Battered Mother’s Custody Conference (which IS gender-specific), and reflecting on what the heck it was actually about, and why the percentage of presenters who were actually the “target clientele” to those who were working in the field was a little skewed.  The heirarchy thing is a little disturbing..




Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 10, 2011 at 8:23 am

%d bloggers like this: