Archive for the ‘Domestic Violence vs Family Law’ Category
From “No Excuse for Abuse” to “Truth is No Defense”: Terrorizing Terrorists with Civil Litigation
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. …
vladtepesblog.com/?p=2954 –
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
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. (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. |
THIS REMINDS ME OF HOW LITIGATION CAN BE DISABLING AND LIFE-THREATENING, IF IT NEVER STOPS! (STRESS, PRESSURE, ADDITIONAL PRESSURE FROM POVERTY, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN NOT IN A JUST CAUSE OF ACTION. THAT ALONE WELL DESCRIBES THE LITIGATION THAT IS PROMOTED AND PROLONGED ON OUR FAMILY LAW COURTS — THERE IS NO WIN/WIN IN SOME SITUATIONS, THOSE SITUATIONS BEING IN WHICH A WOMAN & MOTHER IS LEAVING FOR REASONS OF SAFETY FOR HERSELF, AND/OR THE CHILDREN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO…. THE FAMILY LAW SITUATION WAS ITSELF DESIGNED (I BELIEVE) AS A HYBRID TO MAKE THIS VERY ACCESSIBLE TO FATHERS ACROSS MANY LANDS. HERE, THE SIMILAR IDEA (ALTHOUGH I REALIZED FAMILY LAW IS NOT A “CIVIL” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE U.S.) IS BEING PROMOTED AS A WAY TO STOP TERRORISTS, A CATCH-22 ABOUT TESTIFYING! AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS HAVING BEEN USED BY THEM IN DENMARK.
The latest terrorist tactic: litigation
by Daniel Huff
The Daily Caller
January 11, 2011http://www.legal-project.org/1060/http-dailycallercom-2011-01-11-the-latest
Send
RSS
Share: 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.
PRECISELY WHAT ABUSERS (AND WAR STRATEGISTS) DO. WEAKEN THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS.
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
@My Comments, Your Blogs: Rights for Mothers, BMCC, 12/28/2010: Family Court Cover(up)s no Patchwork Quilt, but a near-Seamless System
(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:
- 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:
o
There Was a Little Girl,
Who Had a Little CurlThere 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.
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 News, April 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:
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #1.
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #2.
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #3.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Awareness Month — let’s boycott!
I’m short of time. Let’s keep this simple: STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN….
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. “
(notably absent — stoppING domestic violence.)
Excuse me, scratch that —
Ye shall know them by their “-INGS”,
—
WritINGS often have titles end in -ING and are (thus) UnendING, which tells you the process (and deaths/destructions from this) never stop…
One prime indicator you are in this industry is any word ending in “-ing” in the title. Last post, I gave you the newest, latest, “Defending Childhood” initiative. Other times, it’s Explicating Domestic Violence, and of course the latest is along the lines of “Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Even if ALl these systems fail, or if people die as a result, it’s still possible to write on
“UnderstandING System Failure” (see my post).
Apologies in advance to any expert, and diligent writer/researcher, possibly very nice individual I will insult in this post. I do mean this. Your writings are interesting, and some of them hold some water.
Please bear in mind, I looked for help the past 10 years, which was unwise. In that time, I could’ve passed the Bar, earned another degree, or probably passed three self-defense courses, which might have been a better use of my time than attending conferences on DV or reading the literature, or expecting anything funded by U.S. or (my state) taxpayer dollars — extracted on the premise that these taxes are for helping people to handle certain social ills, so the taxpayers wouldn’t have to, personally — and could continue working and paying more taxes…while organizations that DON’T (or, are funded by foundations that don’t) transform society and policy….
Here’s a sample of the “-INGS” that indicate participation in the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY, or in the backlash to it, the Fatherhood (i.e., “ParentING” literature, by its real name) Industry.
(I obviously don’t mean “parenting” literature by married or cohabiting parents, but in the context of family law — see blog title…)
My sarcasm about the industry (well-merited) doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the points raised by people in it (well, many of the points raised by people in it). What I protest is the SILENCE on the points rarely raised — which are the crux of the matter, and we poor slobs stuck in the system deserved to know earlier. Serves us right for following industry leaders before doing a background checks, or having ever become distressed — at all — in life… or having been raised in trusting nonviolent family environments, which fail to tell us how the world works, or at least the economy and the government. To this day, a real good (if uncomfortable) life consists of straining out myths. I hope my blog helps with some of the worst..
Redefining Harm, Reimagining Remedies and Reclaiming Domestic Violence Law
Margaret Ellen Johnson
University of Baltimore – School of Law
UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 42, 2009
University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-4
Abstract:
Civil domestic violence laws do not effectively address and redress the harms suffered by women subjected to domestic violence. The Civil Protective Order (“CPO”) laws should offer a remedy for all domestic abuse with an understanding that domestic violence subordinates women.{{WE WANT LAWS TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING? OR TO OFFER A REMEDY BASED ON SOMETHING?}}{{Rather, I suggest we start with an acknowledgment that they aren’t enforceable, anyhow, at leat not for long……As such, and per se, they endanger women unles respected by the person who got the civil PO. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — isn’t this a lawyer or law prof. writing??}}These laws should not remedy only physical violence or criminal acts.{{Well, as practiced now — they often don’t remedy anything, though initially they do save lives (case in point). They are also considered less severe than criminal when kids get involved, though family law judges are notrious for ignoring criminal pasts in custody cases anyhow…Lord help the [yeah, woman , and especially any mother,] who didn’t know this, and press charges from day 1….}}All forms of abuse — psychological, emotional, economic, and physical — are interrelated. Not only do these abuses cause severe emotional distress, physical harm, isolation, sustained fear, intimidation, poverty, degradation, humiliation, and coerced loss of autonomy, {{TRUE — in fact sounds like a good description of slavery, which supposedly was outlawed...}} but, as researchers have demonstrated, [***] most domestic violence is the fundamental operation of systemic oppression through the exertion of power and control. Because CPOs are effective in rebalancing the power in a relationship and decreasing abuse, this remedy should be available to all women subjected to all forms of domestic violence. This Article proposes recrafting the civil law to provide a remedy for all harms of domestic violence and its operation of systemic power and control over women. Re-centering the narrative of domestic violence on this oppression rather than merely physical violence and criminal acts underscores the critical role of women’s agency and autonomy in legally remedying domestic violence. Too often, outside actors choose to save women’s lives to the exclusion of effectuating women’s choices about their abusive relationships.Keywords: Domestic Violence, Civil Protective Order, Civil Law, Women and the Law, Feminist Legal Theory, Gender and the Law
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K40
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 19, 2008 ; Last revised: August 16, 2010
Suggested Citation
I’m not going to fully engage with this article sounds interesting, eh? See my What Decade Were These Stories post, though — civil or criminal, the duty to enforce does NOT create a right for the protected party to demand enforcement. Bet they didn’t tell you that one at the local Family Justice Center.
Speaking of which, for CreatING Family Justice Centers — see my post “District Attorney Dubious Doings”
Speaking of which — and this is timely — see JUSTICE WOMEN.ORG (N. CA. based — same as Dr. Kelly, below — although I doubt the nonprofit organization founders can afford to fly around the country conducting trainings, like those in the industry can. And do….
Research can “demonstrate” anything, which I’m about to demonstrate.
To make my point, I’ll source another nice seminar held at this same Univ. of Baltimore School of Law, recently ….
ParentING Coordination:
HelpING High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes**
{a word about those phrases, below….}
>December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
Key phrase: high-conflict (reframes DV/CA issues), “parenting Coordinatrion” and “HELPING parents.” Yeah, right…
<a href=”http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=1408” rel=”nofollow”>SOURCE: University of Baltimore Law School.</a>
That this is a marketING phrase can be seen by searching on the title — it shows up as a TrainING seminar out of — “suprise!” – afccnet.org, which I don’t feel like downloading here: (note: try search yourself, in quotes, if my link doesn’t work)
“Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes”
Or, I could search this by the Presenter, following the same Title, and trace it back to Northern California..She happened to also teach this at Baltimore School of Law.
FEE: $495 (Early Registration: $435 if paid by 10/21/10; $465 if paid by 11/4/10). MCLE & BBS (12 hrs.); MCEP (13 hrs – to be submitted for review to MCEPAA for approval, Provider #NOR045).
DESCRIPTION:
Parents with continuing disputes and litigation about their children following divorce present a difficult problem for courts, lawyers and mental health professionals, and increase their children’s risk of adjustment problems. For parenting coordinators, Special Masters, mediators, custody evaluators, lawyers, divorce counselors, therapists and other professionals who work with high-conflict families.Participants in this two-day workshop will:
- Understand the most recent empirical and clinical research on high conflict parents and their children and what makes these parents so difficult;
- Understand the hybrid nature of the parenting coordinator (Special Master) role that includes parent education, mediation, and where authorized, arbitration, and how the parenting coordinator process helps reduce parent conflict and address children’s needs;
THESE NEEDS WILL MOST DEFINITELY INCLUDE A NEED FOR TWO PARENTS — MOM AND DAD — IN THEIR LIVES, EVEN IF DAD WAS A BATTERER AND HAS A CHILD MOLESTATION RECORD. IF IT’S TOO OVERT, THEN THE SUPERVISED VISITATION PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT IN…
- Understand the distinctions between serving as a Special Master and therapy, custody evaluation, child representation or representing parents;
- Learn about parenting coordinator objectives, types of disputes settled, best practices, models, and critical elements in court orders or parent consent agreements;
- Understand the technical, ethical, clinical, and personal issues in serving as a parenting coordinator (Special Master);
- Learn from case examples, group exercises, and practice dispute analysis and decision-making.
About the Instructor:
Dr. Joan B. Kelly, a research, forensic, and clinical psychologist, was Director of the Northern California Mediation Center for 19 years. Her research, writing, and practice have focused on children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, using child development research in parenting plans, divorce mediation, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 85 publications, and a classic book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. Joan is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, was recently appointed to an APA ask Force to develop guidelines for Parenting Coordinator practice, and previously served on a similar AFCC task force. She is a frequent presenter and speaker in the United States, Canada, and abroad.
Co-presenter (at Baltimore School of Law training, anyhow)
Ms. Mindy Mitnick
Besides having a very unique name, especially preceded by “Ms.” —
which may (or may not) explain why she present with Ph.D. (just kids — but seriously, in the INDUSTRY, Ph.D.’s count. Being a street-savvy litigant, even with a Ph.D. in something else does NOT — as Dr. Amy Cabrillo (pediatrician) learned the hard way when she begged a judge to listen to her high-conflict, uncoordinated parent self in NOT letting her suicidal and already troubled “ex” take three children on a weekend visitation. As we know (and wasn’t THIS in maryland also??) her plea was ignored, and her three children were drowned in a bathtub. Apparently their father was indeed coordinated in some matters, such as drownING his kids. This FYI, is called a “dispute” and “high conflict,” squarely blaming Dr. Castillo 50% for not holdING her marriage together, although certainly she was complyING with court orders… …Street savvy, educated, observant, alert, honest, etc. or not — you will be cut down to size by these professionals….
(is on the Board of Directors of AFCC, who helps sponsor these trainINGs.)
Mindy F. Mitnick Ed.M.
Edina, MinnesotaMindy Mitnick is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in Minneapolis. She received a Master of Education from Harvard University and a Master of Arts from the University of Minnesota. She specializes in complex custody cases, working as an evaluator, therapist and parenting consultant. Ms. Mitnick has trained professionals throughout the country about developmental issues in parenting schedules, effective interventions in high-conflict divorce, assessing allegations of sexual abuse during divorce disputes, and the use of expert witnesses in divorce cases. She has been a speaker for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, National Association of Counsel for Children, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, the Ontario Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and numerous statewide training conferences. Ms. Mitnick served on the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Parental Cooperation and the American Bar Association working group to update guidelines for child witnesses in criminal cases. She currently serves on the AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy and is a board member of the Minnesota Chapter of AFCC.
In the training phrase above, from Univ of Baltimore School of Law:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
These are the key concepts to understande, as well as how the title itself is REPACKAGING and MARKETING CRIMINAL MATTERS {typically child molestation or battering, domestic violence, and/ or in some cases stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment and in general other pretty nasty stuff that society doesn’t like — or at least says it doesn’t} AS PARENTAL” DISPUTES”
:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
We have here a prominent psychologist and educationist trainING a host of others how to view parents with a dispute. Keep in mind that some of the leading bleeding headlines you see also characterize the problem as a “dispute.” Some dispute!
The chief thing to understand about BOTH parents in any of these matters is that they can’t walk and chew gum unless a psychologist and/or divorce expert tells them how to, for a fee (see above…). Pretty soon, from what I can tell, that definition is going to expand beyond the about 50% of couples that divorce, to most of the population — except thsoe in the business of supervising them, and training others how to do so, whether this supervision is at the K-12 level, pre-school, prison, batterers intervention, supervised vsitation, fatherhood practicing, marriage-promoting, ABSTINENCE-promoting or Restraining Order Issuing level — or simply being a working PERSON FUNDING THESE EFFORTS. ….
I know we can’t “walk and chew gum” without help (although some of us were formerly surgeons, teachers, factory workers, business owners, stay-at-home Moms, working Moms, or functional in many, many other areas of society outside this world of family law…….) – because we need COORDINATION — right?
THAT link is at the CFCC level. I keep tellING people, including women in my situation, that this is the key to the puzzle, at least a major key. ….
Take a look at the -INGS in this California Courtinfo site — linking to the CFCC
Their program page includes this:
The Center for Families, Children & the Courts is involved with many projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Click on the title below to find out about a particular program.
Access to Visitation Grant Program
The Access to Visitation Grant Program — I think it dates as far back as 1995 or 1996 at least — is a function of PWORA welfare reform, fatherhood promotion, and forced shared parenting concepts. It’s one of the best kept secrets around. I you read about it, you will see why there is an ongoING need for thes eprofessionals in the courts, and how YOU are (probably) paying for this, to the tune of (at one time) $10/million per YEAR, nationwide.
OK, OK, I’ll spell this out, right here now:
Overview
The Judicial Council is charged with administering and distributing California’s share of the federal Child Access and Visitation Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act—enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.” Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:
Supervised visitation and exchange services;
Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
Group counseling services for parents and children.
The primary goals of California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program are to enable parents and children to participate in supervised visitation, education, and group counseling programs—irrespective of marital status and of whether the parties are currently living separately permanently or temporarily—and to promote and encourage healthy relationships between noncustodial or joint custodial parents and their children while ensuring the children’s health, safety, and welfare. The overarching goal of the grant program is to increase noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children through accessible and available services statewide for low-income families who are now or have been in family courts.
Aimed at low-income families, ostensibly, it affects ALL families. particularly ones where some wealth exists are going to get soaked.
This is the best kept secret around and should be “outed” during Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Month — because the domestic violence INDUSTRY leaderes never talk about this, or a whole damn lot of other key factors at play in the c ourts.
Why should they — and ahve to go find another job? ?? What, you got to be KIDDING!
Yesterday’s post cited an article in a Northern California area (Marin County) that is getting high press, and some organizations around it (one called “Center for Judicial Excellence.”) and an upcoming audit of the family court system, supposedly. Who’s kidding whom? The eXISTENCE of this CFCC and its role in the courts, and the Access Visitation funding is not even mentioned (by name) in ALL of the comments below, which span many categories. Moreover, the ONLY reference to AFCC (and some indications a woman had actually read Marv Bryer,Idele Clark – one of the cases involved, I believe — and others) — she reads like a madwoman.
HEY — when you type on a computer, are you constantly aware if it’s DOS or WINDOWS or Apple based? (obviously that’s not my field of expertise)? Are you translating binary code? Probably not –right? But how would it work if someone hadn’t designed that to start with?
Now let’s talk about the INDUSTRY. It’s SELF-REPLICATING THROUGH UNENDING TRAINING, enabled in great part by this wonderful INTERNET.
Them that can, DO. Them that can’t, teach it’s said. Well, there’s SOME truth to that ..
Trust me (or don’t) — it’s important to understand this system — and it’s a model for other similar ones.
Remind me, some day, to publish my English to ING-lish guide to these marketING systems posing as “help” to uncoordinated parents in a dispute, or the restrainING order mills.
Don’t get me wrong — I wouldn’t be alive today without one. But it most certainly upset a LOT of people, and (except that I’m still alive typing) they have more than gotten even for the indignity…
EVERY balance sheet has a + and a -. But a business sense says, that in relationships, your – may very well be my (or my cronies’) +. Failure to realize this is setting onesself up. When it comes to altruism, it may be a factor, but I’d bet it’s generally not the primary one in most ongoing relationships. Self-interest is part of human nature. Most people, nowadays, in the US (probably safe to say) do not raise their own food or defend themselves. So, what fields is everyone going to?
And where are the intellectuals going to make an honest — scratch that — make A living?
We don’t have royalty over here, so one has to go somewhere… Social Sciences, Psychology, TeachING . . . .CoordinatING, managING, etc. Where is the endless supply of customers coming from?
What better database than people who get into troubled relationships (domestic violence) and try to get out (divorce) but have children before they do (parenting). It takes a global village, right?? ThinkING — now that’s got to be taught also…
Did I mention PublishING? that’s a prerequisite for Ph.D.s, isn’t it? At least to get started, and retain a reputation.
The question with any policy ending with the word ING is — who is between and among?
Uniformly, almost, I find it is between or among professionals in one field (or another) getting their act together about how to describe and deal with People who are Not Present. In otherwords, the US’es in any field discuss the THEMs. In this way, groups that were formerly an Us/Them dichotomy (the most obvious being the Fatherhood/Domestic Violence groupings) pat themselves on the back for collaborating — on how to scam the new “THEMS,” which is, as I again say, the poor slobs who still think that law means law, and not psychological therapeutic jurisprudence for fun (theirs) and profit.
And we indeed are a consumer society — or else the sky will fall. How can and who can be forced into consuming psychological, parenting, and other counseling they neither need, want, nor are going to follow? Only someone in severely compromised situations. Voila, Family Law System. ….
HENCE, the FINANCIAL balance sheet often reveals much more than any custody evaluation. I’m all in favor of it, when it comes to reform. Personally, though I’d favor boycott where possible, and watch out, where not. Women’s groups should learn from men (but not forget that gender issues remain, and always have been there) and men should learn from women when we’ve had enough; you are going to be out on your ass, and if these policies keep up, up until the invention of the artificial womb or human clone, we are going to recommend our daughters stop giving birth; except that we love them, some of us sometimes regret that we did, to spend an entire childhood like many of them have had to — half in abuse, and half (possibly still in abuse) in the income-draining court system.
(I love you, girls… . . . Love, your real Mom…and you are why I ever bothered with this blog. I wanted you to know what was, and what wasn’t certain people’s fault — and NONE of it was yours, ever. I also want to warn you what’s ahead if you don’t gain your own wisdom about your own past someday, I hope soon — or when you’re ready to. Sorry I can’t mention you by name, but I bet you’ll recognize my writing style….)
Lies are always wrong, and intentional deceit. The largest lies were not from either parent (though I DID NOT!) but from the policymakers in washington, D.c., and others who framed legislation to make a joke out of the court process, and for their own pocketbooks…If I had left earlier, given these policies, I likely would not have even seen you grow half up…
Make SURE you know your travelling companions in life, and choose the best ones you can in any situation. Never take things for granted, and try to study the wider systems you are in. Specializing is rewarding (and builds good discipline and attentiont o detail), but professions change rapidly. As women, you need to know some feminist roots, and where feminists have forgotten the “fundies,” and both, fighting, have forgotten the history of this country and the world.
ALWAYS, always, the love of money is the root of evil, and generally speaking, highest emotions in life are about that, and possibly social status and access to sex (which money, plenty of it represents). Remember that the net time some legislator or anyone else (such as a preacher) tries to lecture you about your personal habits. . .. Don’t go into marriage if you do, defanged. it’s just not wise! That man needs to know he respects you or you’re gone, kids or no kids. Respect comes first, and equal access to finances to take off if you need to (that was my mistake, daughters).
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Rethinking Domestic Violence” ~ “Understanding Women’s Responses to it” — the Dueling Dr. Duttons
Another half-baked (but also likely half-entertaining/informative) post from 08-21-2010.
These situations are so ridiculous, anything other than (a) mocking or (b) exposing the court dockets makes me feel like a collaborator. To be honest, part of my motivation is to simply not lose the time I put into this one, looking up data. Another part is to cover up the prior half-baked (Wacko in Wisconsin Part 2) post I just published.
One thing that’s NOT half-baked is the systems in place to justify trafficking in children, one way or another, at public expense, and then when this is brought to the public’s attention (or the public tries to bring it to the government’s attention) the same personnel (probably laughing and rejoicing among themselves) simply pick a “boilerplate” demonstration grant from one of the many already in place, change a few nouns and verbs, and apply for some more grants to study the problem they’ve created — one of which is, poverty.
This is NOT a half-baked system, but a fully-cooked business plan. More on that later…
Another which is, language is becoming meaningless, at some point. ….
HERE WE GO, AGAIN:
Which would you rather understand (or Rethink) —
- Domestic Violence? Or
- Women’s Responses to it? (1992-93, but quoted plenty, along with other publications) Or,
- Thinking Errors that Cause System Failure, * Or,
(*from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence recent conference in Anaheim, CA)?
- This Woman’s (my!) Response to the Thinking Error that Assumes the System actually IS Failing (I believe it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. The “failure” depends on one’s POV (point of view). For example, if I sell you some land under the Brooklyn Bridge, I profited and you didn’t. Long ago some people sold the Island of Manhattan. That was not profitable for them. Another flavor of what I think is on the link above advertising for the NCADV conference where this occurred. Scroll down to LetsGetHonest comment on the whole deal.
The two Doctor Duttons are not, in fact dueling, and may or may not even be dealing with each other. But their Research — and by now we should know our 3 Rs: Research comes with Rhetoric, Right?
One thing both of them are doing, as well as researching, is publishing (this IS what Ph.D.s do, right?), and unlike women and men stuck in the court system, or violent relationships (or poverty), not perishing. Even though, if YOUR life depended on knowing which was more correct thinking, they would stil probably continue to research, publish, and not perish. IN fact, both are prominent, and what they write is worth reading, probably. Anyone who has got to Ph.D. had better publish.
One thing EVERY woman in a battering relationship, especially with children, and about to go for help, ro to the courts, or a child support order, or to a nonprofit agency on one side or the other of rhetoric, is the difference of viewpoint. Women have been so socialized to go for help (particularly in certain religions), they just MISS this. Others are also socialized to be punished if they stand up and just demand it, i.e., Claudine Dombrowski et al.
Take, for example, Claudine Dombrowski.
If experts were selling books that comprised almost SOLELY of the case dockets of women’s lives after they reported abuse and actually had a child, probably the abuse would just dang STOP.
Here’s the court docket in Shawnee Kansas — it is fourteen and a half years long. The next hearing is set for october. The last hearing (yesterda [@Aug. 2010]y), she STOOD UP and reported 67 contempts of a recent court order (allowing her to see her daughter). While that contempt is not severe emotional cruelty bordering on the torture (beatings) that started the case (batter, parental alienation, interference with a custody order, or in short a pattern of simply bad behavior), Claudine’s actually going to court with the paperwork must be smacked down SOMEHOW. I”m not quite sure what bad behavior Claudine showed this time, but it seems they grabbed her cell phone. Being that she’s also been noncustodial most of the time (i gather) I’m sure her finances are being grabbed to pay child support for this circus.
It is possible to be punished for a sort of gag order that prohibits one from exercising one from exercising First Amendment Rights, to protest in justice. The place this is SO o o o . . . . easy is when a psychologist, or mental health professional, particularly anyone relating to a CHILD, is involved:
08/20/2010 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court’s order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony – matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD
Here’s one from April, 2009:
03/20/2009 – #86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT 03/20/2009 – Journal Entry filed. DBD 03/24/2009 – ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD. 04/06/2009 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD 04/24/2009 – REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
The Publishing and Not Perishing Perspective is very different from the others.
The Profiting or nonprofiting from being expert on these matters is very different from the others.
The topic of adjusting Thinking Errors (or understanding them) is very definitely swampland — and where the solid ground is very probably depends on IRrational belief systems. Do you want to correct thinking errors based on information from The Holy Spirit? Then go to Dr. Abshier, ND (Naturopathic doctor, Christian Counselor, Political Philosopher).
1) Thinking Errors: Processing Problems, Irrational Beliefs, Irrational Thinking, and Self-Defeating Beliefs: There are many nuances and variations of the various cognitive distortions. They all include some degree of error in perception, proportion, meaning, processing and judgment: The thinking errors include: irrational beliefs about cause and effect, erroneous attributions of meaning, and wrong philosophical connections about the larger play of life in history and politics.
I happen to think his fields are interrelated — a nice combo: Naturapath (do it how the Creator designed it, or as close as possible; Christian Counselor (do it how the Creator designed it, hmm… is he fundie, or fatherhood promoter? conservative or liberal?? Was Eve responsible? Was she inferior? Did Jesus change that? What’s the domination quotia in this one?) and Political Philosopher. – – I just hope he can keep them all straight and segregated during counseling.
Are you a “design, quality, or manufacturing engineer or manager,” who needs to understand why people, unlike materials, often screw up, causing system failure? Then take this 2 – 4-day organization/management course:
Eogogics.com (“the science of knowledge sharing”)
Root Cause Analysis of Component Failure: Understanding Human and Engineering Factors for Improved Product Performance.
Design, test, and maintenance engineers; failure analysts; technical purchasing agents and supplier quality engineers; and engineering managers looking to integrate the lessons of failure analysis into a more comprehensive design operation, and procurement process
The standard presentation of this course assumes background in mechanical or materials (metallurgical) engineering. However, with some tailoring, the course can be understood by an audience with a bachelor’s in any engineering discipline
Are you a Computer Software person who doesn’t want to see another Y2K bug scare? Or a plain old person who wants to know why we had to go through that? Then go to:
Systems Failure is a role-playing game written by Bill Coffin and published by Palladium Books in 1999. The fictional premise for the game is that during the “millennium bug” scare . . .
A report investigating the causes of system failure in a software context, and highlighting and classifying those causes.
The Google search of this shows a title remarkably similar to the NCADV conference title, above:
Understanding System Failure And The Thinking Errors Which Cause · International Space Station’s Cooling System Failure Raises Long …
scitechbox.com/topic/system–failure – Cached
Which I find interesting, and revealing. For one, how original is the thought coming out of it? For another, systems that systematically fail to do what they SAY they want to do may have had another intent to start with. Either that, or two types of systems may have merged, and the antibodies in the one rejected the other, causing “System failure.”
Actually, this is exactly what happened in the family law system. You cannot add JUSTICE based on PROCESS based on Constitution and Bill of Rights with Mental Health Practitioners (for one, it’s illegal to experiment on human beings, and abhorrent. For another, IS psychology a science? I say, no. It’s a language set and interpretation of reality….). The Family Law system is a merger of (at least) two systems — legal & mental health. That’s simple fact — see AFCC. The other “invisible agent” in the matter (unless one has eyes to see it) is the child support system, i.e., the financial factor. That’s another fact — see “Access Visitation Funding” and a site ending *.gov.
So this system is indeed a hybrid — like a mule. Mules are great for work, strong and stubborn, but they have to be bred — they are sterile and can’t reproduce. They get a lot of work done, though… Same deal with this system. It CANNOT reproduce justice with a bunch of immune-to-accountability and READILY subject to conflict of interest (or bribes) professionals, and private clubs and conferences where they meet and prepare a strategy to throw on the whole system.
Perhaps by now readers have figured out MY system, and that I am playing games with Google in order to show similar phrases in different contexts (applications). That happens to be MY response to a decade in this system. It’s part of my STOP, LOOK and MOCK policy (see above post responding to the Thinking Errors post). I really do hope some will STOP, LOOK , and THINK. It beats rocking back and forth in a chair with grief, or shaking with PTSD, or sitting within range of someone who has now determined that such behavior is a thinking error which needs an Rx — which one of their business allies has been marketing. It makes me happy, and with luck, will offend someone and cause a quick BLINK of THINKING about what such systems have done to our Constitution and Courts.
Here’s one that’s a little closer to the topic — someone analyzing PTSD patient’s / trauma survivors’ “Thinking Errors.”
[PDF]
THINKING ERRORS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ONE’S ROLE …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
We have identified fifteen thinking errors that can lead trauma survivors to draw faulty … Obliviousness to totality of forces that cause traumatic events. … Failure to recognize that different decision-making “rules” apply when time is …. have conscious control over their autonomic nervous system. …
This ARTICLE IS 1997, .
Handout 10.4: Thinking Errors, Faulty Conclusions, and
Cognitive Therapy for Trauma-Related Guilt by Edward S. Kubany, Ph.D., ABPP
Published in National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Quarterly (1997, 8, 6-8). Reprinted in Trauma Response (1998, 4, 20-21). This article is in the public domain.
THE FIRST PAGE IS INFORMATIVE:
“There is growing recognition that trauma survivors’ explanations of their involvement in trauma may contribute to posttrauma symptomatology and interfere with the process of recovery (1,2,3). These explanations often revolve around cognitive aspects of guilt, which is conceptualized as an unpleasant feeling accompanied by a set of interrelated beliefs about one’s role in a negative event (2,4,5). My colleagues and I have identified four cognitive dimensions or components of guilt, which include (a) perceived responsibility for causing a negative outcome, (b) perceived lack of justification for actions taken, (c) perceived violation of values, and (d) a belief that one knew what was going to happen before the outcome was observed.
Considering this Cognitive Therapy, which correlates trauma such as combat veterans, rape victims, battered women, and incest survivors, — the latter three which FREQUENTLY are in this system — addressing the trauma and helping them correct thinking errors saying they were responsible for it — and, on the other hand, the Family Law (and sometimes Family) systems which, quite literally, blame the woman for her abuse (or minimize it), blame her for not maintaining a child’s attachment to the other parent (but fail to do this the other way round when a noncustodial Dad has won a custody switch in court) can cause some real Cognitive Dissonance (and more business for other therapists). Let me express this as a formula:
TRAUMA-BASED HEALING APPROACH + FAMILY COURT PICK A PARENT TO BLAME approach = INCOMPATIBLE = CYCLE OF DISTRESS = GOOD FOR $OME BU$INESSE$.
Add to this:
This therapist just said, trauma victims can NOT predict outcomes (so much for instinct, let alone pure prophecy). I don’t agree – I accurately predicted my daughters were going to be snatched, based on instinctive and ongoing assessment of the patterns around me. They were. I couldn’t predict exactly when or how, and I didn’t have the wherewithal to stop this. I accurately understood before it happened that the officers were not going to enforce, stop, or help, but there comes a point of overload of situations when one cannot process them all and handle them all.
A major business to the courts these days IS in exactly the business of prediction. It’s called Lethality Assessment, and it’s been around a very long time. I don’t share that point of view, because it’s my life, and kids (and women like me) whose lives are being risk-assessed. I’d rather go with PROTECTION (WHICH A RESTRAINING ORDER, FYI, ISN’T, REALLY).
Imagine applying the “risk prediction” process to something as important as, say, getting (someone) pregnant.
Mary Ann Dutton
Professor, Department of PsychiatryPSYCHIATRY, RESEARCH DIVISION
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Grant
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Three Year Grant from National Institutes of Mental Health
Mary Ann Dutton, Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Director of the Center for Trauma and the Community, received an R34 grant entitled A First-Line Community-Based Mindfulness Trauma Intervention from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study, which will run for three years, addresses an important new area in trauma.
The overall goal is to address the huge mental health care disparity for low-income, minority women exposed to intimate partner violence by obtaining new knowledge and skills in order to develop and test an accessible, tailored, and culturally-appropriate mindfulness-based intervention sustainable as a first-line intervention or delivery in non-mental health community settings. To narrow the remarkable mental health disparities gap, three interrelated studies using different methodologies will be conducted to develop and pilot test an adapted mindfulness-based trauma intervention. The proposal has three specific aims 1) to develop a mindfulness-based trauma intervention for PTSD and other trauma-related psychological (depression, somatic symptoms, quality of life). Intervention development will include writing intervention and training manuals, developing measures of intervention fidelity, and pre-piloting the intervention for feasibility and accountability; 2) to pilot test the interventions with low-income, predominately African-American women exposed to intimate partner violence and to examine potential mediators (mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, social support) of improved outcomes, and 3) to pilot test measures of the cost of administering the intervention. This pilot study will provide preliminary data for a rigorous large scale clinical trial to examine both self-report and biological outcomes of the mindfulness-based trauma intervention.
/
OR, you could go with another “Dr. Dutton” — here:
http://www.drdondutton.com/books.htm
Rethinking Domestic Violence
“Dutton’s analysis of domestic violence research and discourse is comprehensive, refreshing, and enlightened. He has gathered the latest work from multiple disciplines to create a volume that will surely be a cornerstone of a radical, distinctly feminist rethinking of domestic violence practice.” More…
Printed in Canada
Cover design: David Drummond
GIVE ME A BREAK. If he was an imminent target of DV (or his kids were), there’d be less publishing and more protecting.
Both Duttons have valuable things to say — and when I feel truly safe, I’ll be sure to read them. Maybe.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (published 9/15/2010, updated 7/21/2017)
Nowadays (posts published = about 715 as of summer 2017), this is how I identify posts:
Types of updates: When you see quotes within solid borders (boxed), quotes with different background colors, the borders on the post itself, or comments with dates signed: “…//LGH 2017 (LGH= “Let’s Get Honest,” i.e., me). Also the added section in light-green showing several images for some of the links (I didn’t do screenprints, let alone annotated screenprints in 2010. In general, I’m trying to better distinguish actual quotes from my commentary on them, through formatting. Wordpress doesn’t naturally enable this, so each time you see it, I’m plowing through html “gibberish” for the specific codes, and tweaking them by “div” or “blockquote” or “span” or “Table.” This takes considerable time… For image display, the “WYSIWYG” (What You See is What You Get” function is imperfect, so there’s a lot of back and forth (edit, preview, adjust, preview again, etc.) on the layout.
There may be a more efficient way to do all this, but until then, and still being basically a self-taught amateur for blogging technology, and more to the point, still just one person (focused more on content than format), that’s how it works.)… I spent some time on this post also checking for and, where possible, replacing broken links. ….. some quotation / commentary notations towards the bottom are “best guess” where I no longer had valid links.
Why bother updating older posts? — Well, the other part of this one just got five more comments, so that’s why. The other reason is the types of people that are visiting the post, based on (html-based visitor ID software) some of the organization names. In 2016 and 2017 I’ve been hard-hitting at higher levels of organized networks (nonprofit and governmental as coordinated) on on following the money, and showing how to, also giving people again, permission to question any or all of the “experts” in any category, but with the platform and basis for doing so being objective, and on “operations” level. So, although they aren’t commenting much, visitors show up from various universities (incl. Harvard), or levels of government (esp. from California, where I live and on which blogs tend to focus), and overseas (London School of Economics at least a few times, Legislative Offices, President’s Offices at UC, and so forth). Sometimes these visitors seem to match what was being posted, sometimes, not.
And other times, I have to admit, it’s just to avoid humiliation in retrospect at the formatting/condition of the earlier posting.
There was a “Part 2” on this theme published 10/1/2010:
Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…
I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?
Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.
SO . .
If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.
THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL:, here.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Luzerne County, PA: “Doctrine of absolute judicial immunity” vs “Racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations,” and more…
In Lovely Luzerne, PA, two judges were, ah, moonlighting? (maybe their salaries didn’t support their lifestyles?) — well, you can google the background story, of judges indulging themselves in the Kids for Cash business. Several parallels apply to the family law arena
For Kids Caught in PA Scandal, Trials not Over
It is slow going for about 4,500 juvenile defendants who were caught up in the Luzerne County, Pa. “cash-for-kids” scandal and who want to get their records cleared.
It has been more than a year since state courts first ordered that verdicts handed down by Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. be thrown out. But the price of judicial misconduct has been steep, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer article:
“[F]ewer than 10 percent of the records have been expunged. Luzerne County is hiring staff to finish the job. But even then, thanks to the mounds of paperwork and multiple agencies involved, officials say it will take another year to erase all the records.
“That leaves young people who are trying to enlist in the military, obtain student loans, win teacher certification, or apply for certain jobs entangled in red tape.”
A panel that investigated the scandal listed 43 reform recommendations in May. Its report (see Gavel Grab) detailed a scandal that involved two judges who later were charged with receiving more than $2.8 million in payoffs; they were accused of taking kickbacks to send juveniles to private detention centers
{“Gavel Grab” leads to the “Justice at Stake” campaign & its partners}
About this post:
In the Law.com report on a defendant’s attempt to receive damages under the RICO charges, we learn about judicial immunity, standing, causes of action in these cases (emotional trauma doesn’t count / financial loss does).
When I looked up a single point raised therein, “11th Amendment,” a riveting, mind-numbing PA case, from the late 1990s surfaced — the wife of an abusive police officer repeatedly seeks intervention. I narrate and discuss it, too.
- As the situation escalates (starting with a suicide attempt, threats to kill (mostly her, but once, their son], private & public assaults [not of her only] and beatings, stalkings, and useless 911 calls, the husband/officer, who was never (that I can see) locked up once, finally is served a restraining order. Actually, 3 (all of which he basically ignores, and its witnessed violating by officers), after which he (predictably) finally succeeds in killing himself — after he shoots his wife point-blank in the chest.
- In the same timeframe, in PA, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (or at least Barbara J. Hart) has been publishing lethality assessments, lists of warning signs, and indicators, ALL of which this man met, plus-some. One begins to wonder where the communication gap was, between the DV people and the officers, although certainly it’s a tough situation for them also.
- Finally, the wife attempts to regroup damages, to sue for negligence by the officers. does so on the wrong basis, and a Court of Appeals overturns this. That section is in mostly green font.
I inserted this account, which illustrates the parallel worlds of DV literature and street reality, the graphic reality of living with an abuser (and regretfully, that no one apparently insisted on utter and complete separation when these things began; she almost was killed, was seriously injured, and for years the children and others associated with her were at risk from this father/husband/police officer who never received whatever help or intervention might have put a stop to his behaviors.) AND I include it for us to understand that being assaulted, injured, or feeling betrayed, and having sought and failed to find help doesn’t always qualify a person for compensation for losses, however much common “logic” may feel it is due, when public servants are negligent.
The Jessica Gonzales case in Colorado, in which this also mother-of-three warned the officers, who didn’t take her seriously, and her children were murdered. This is where a case could go AFTER they separated because of violence — it could get worse. In 2005, Chicago attorney/professor Joan Meier, Washington Post/published in StopFamilyViolence.org, summarizes the critical issue in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, itslef a response to Ms. (then) Gonzales’ suit against the town. My post is getting long, but I suggest reading a few paragraphs of this one. Her incident was in 1999 (Ms. Burella’s, 1996-1998). Years later, after the deaths, the cases are still in the courts. My take on the issues at this point — issuing restraining orders has become in too many cases, “certifiably insane.” Why not make self-defense training a marriage requirement? Or, incorporate it into high school curricula, as a requirement, along with learning some basics of our legal system? They become simply red flags, whether the initial violence was from psychiatric disorder, or a simply overentitled person, or some of both. If police canNOT be held to enforce them (and after the police, a judge has to sentence; if the judges repeatedly release criminals, and so forth) — we need to find another way.
Published March 19, 2005 by The Washington Post
Battered Justice For Battered Women
by Joan Meier [Prof. of Clinical Law, George Washington Univ, Washington, D.C.,1983 U. Chicago Law School, cum laude, Exec. Dir. of DVLEAP]
It is common for the public and the courts to criticize women who are victims of domestic abuse for staying in an abusive relationship and tolerating it. But what happens when women do try to end the abuse? Jessica Gonzales’s story provides one horrifying answer.
In May 1999 Gonzales received a protection order from her suicidal and frightening husband, Simon Gonzales, whom she was divorcing. The order limited his access to the home and the children. On June 22 the three girls disappeared near their house. But when Jessica Gonzales called the Castle Rock, Colo., police department, she received no assistance. Over a period of eight hours, the police refused to take action, repeatedly telling her that there was nothing they could do and that she should call back later — even after she had located her husband and daughters by cell phone. The three young girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were not to survive the night. At 3 a.m. on June 23, Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station in his truck, opened fire and was killed by return fire. The bodies of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca were found in the back of his truck.
Perhaps his life might have been saved also. “serve and protect” I guess.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, which stems from Gonzales’s lawsuit against the police. The question before the court is whether the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process was violated by the police department’s dismissal of the protection order, in clear violation of the state statute, which required them to use “every reasonable means” to enforce it. If procedural due process — required by the 14th Amendment — means anything, then it must be found that it was violated here, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has so ruled
While no justice for this mother or her three daughters, there’s a diligent pursuit of justice to prevent any consequences for the prior injustice. To the Supreme Court.
The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way. In this case, the state established a benefit of mandated police enforcement of protection orders. Aware that police discretion too often fails, the Colorado legislation required the police to make arrests or otherwise to enforce domestic violence restraining orders of the sort issued to Jessica Gonzales. Police discretion was limited to determining whether a violation of an order had occurred. Yet in this case the police did nothing; they simply ignored the complaint, a clear example of “arbitrary” conduct
(Joan S. Meier)
Luzerne County Judges Racketeering and
“Julie Burella (et al.) v. City of Philadelphia” [Court of Appeals]
What these two cases taught me:
Individuals and relatives/friends of women targeted by these kinds of beatings assaults, making life hell situations — as well as the improperly locked up juveniles in Luzerne County — need to understand some legal basic, including <>standing (jurisdiction), <>legitimate causes of action, <> what is or is not a legitmate tort, or breach of contract (etc.) and<> who is and is not going to be immune from damages. These are often forgotten in the emotional drama of survival, and dealing with the emotions around the case. This kind of understanding is not generally handed to one by one’s attorney, and I guarantee you it’s not by most “justice centers.” It needs to be sought and obtained.
Rights cannot be protected if one doesn’t know what they are. Moreover, the credibility gap between mainstream domestic violence law, and applied practice, remain. Women need to protect themselves adn their children, when possible (if intervention fails and the situation continues to escalate) by leaving.
Permanently. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and President Obama’s policies aside, our right to LIFE is unalienable. hence, women must be able to act on that. The parent who has engaged in threatening or trying to eradicate that right in others, based on wife as property, husband as property, or children as property, and has repeatedly demonstrated this in private OR public, should lose subsidiary rights, such as contact with their children. The family law arena appears to exist in order to subvert that principle. Though I am no attorney, I can read, and have. The no-fault divorce situation creates a different kind of court as to divorce, and limits remedies in some sense, just as a “civil” restraining order implies that the violence, or causes of action justifying it, were not criminal in nature, which quite often they are.
(from the FBI Philadelphia Sept. 2009 bulletin:)
(the youth/juveniles that came in front of these judges didn’t have that standard applied…)
That these two got caught doesn’t mean there were no others…
and here’s LAW.Com’s comments that, at least THIS time, sometimes, ya’ get caught… whether or not this indicates compensation for the problems caused
For any future youngsters, or their parents, hoping that a RICO suit might help compensate for years lost, or other damages — emotional trauma ain’t enough. I’ll bold the wording here. As posted in “Law.com” (link included):
Disgraced Former Judges Lose Immunity Battle in ‘Kids for Cash’ Scandal
Ruling also includes some setbacks for the plaintiff, who claims he was one of the victims of the alleged kickback scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005
The Legal Intelligencer
August 11, 2010
Even the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity proved to be too weak a defense for the two disgraced former Luzerne County judges who are the leading figures in Pennsylvania’s “kids-for-cash” scandal.
A federal judge has ruled that the pair — Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. — are immune only for actions they took in court or while ruling on cases, but that they can still be sued for their roles in an alleged conspiracy to take kickbacks from the owner and builder of a privately run juvenile prison. Conahan had also asserted a defense of legislative immunity, arguing that some of the allegations lodged against him stemmed from the funding decisions he made in his role as president judge.
But U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo rejected that argument, saying: “It does not appear that Conahan had the type of general policy-making power that would cloak his actions with legislative immunity.“
Meaning, if he HAD been a general policy-maker, he would have legislative immunity, I guess….
The ruling means that Conahan and Ciavarella face possible liability for their roles as the alleged architects of the larger alleged conspiracy to cut off all funding for the then-existing county-owned juvenile facility and to take kickbacks in return for ensuring a steady stream of incarcerated youths so that the new, privately run facility would be profitable.
I am not blogging about juvenile justice systems. This blog is about FAMILY court matters, more dealing with parental relationships, which, unfortunately brings us into the realms of violence, kidnapping, child abusee, child molestation, and the fathers-rights-womens-rights-childrens-rights debate. The Pennsylvania case is different in application (violating kids’ due process in order to provide warm bodies for supposed crimes they had committed), as opposed to violating one set of parents’ due process in order to provide referral business for the court professionals and the professions flocking around the courts. It’s somewhat of a technicality, when you grasp “steady stream of .(warm bodies) . . . so that . . . would be profitable.” and the criminal nature of a business racket. And what kind of personalities would choose judgeships to engage in them. What an ethical violation — to go to a judge fo justice, and that judge is himself a criminal, with cohorts.
The two former judges were hit by federal prosecutors in September 2009 with a 48-count indictment containing charges of racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations in connection with allegedly accepting more that $2.8 million from the builder and former co-owner of a private juvenile detention facility. Conahan agreed in April to plead guilty to one RICO count.
Caputo’s 12-page opinion in Dawn v. Ciavarella, handed down on Monday, also included a few setbacks for the plaintiff, Wayne Dawn, who claims he was one of the victims of the scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005.
First, Caputo found that Dawn’s RICO claims must be dismissed because he lacks standing to pursue such a claim.
Any Plaintiff’s comPlaint should establish standing up front. The fact that in the family law business, it’s not unusual for judges to issues orders where they have no standing doesn’t change the fact that individual FAMILIES or PARENTS had better make sure they do!
Under RICO, a plaintiff must plead an injury to “business or property,” Caputo noted, and the courts have consistently rejected the notion that personal injury or mental distress can satisfy that requirement.
“Injury for RICO purposes requires proof of concrete financial loss, not mere injury to an intangible property interest,” Caputo wrote.
From what I now understand of the court process, I’m of the opinion that parents might as well face that reforming these courts stands a better chance in pointing out the fraud, racketeering type activity within them (and sometimes involving other parts of the system, i.e., the criminal law elements) than running the conferences about how it’s hurting our kids. On what basis do we think the people involved actually care?
Dawn’s claim fell short of that test, Caputo found, because he “has not alleged sufficient injury to business or property to confer standing to bring a claim pursuant to RICO. Plaintiff’s claims for loss of sense of well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are not the type of concrete financial loss that is envisioned by the phrase ‘injury to business or property.'”
If Dawn was the youth (I didn’t read this complaint, am just familiar with the case generally), probably that well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are going to hurt him/her very badly — in fact we know from acestudy.org and common sense that this would. However, RICO is a business-type charge involving cheating, stealing, and financial loss or damages. Many people caught up in the drama and passion of this, offended by the betrayal, forget the context in trying to get heard (I know I did and have).
Caputo also ruled that Dawn cannot pursue any claims against the Luzerne County Juvenile Probation Department or Sandra Brulo, the probation department’s former deputy director of forensic programs.
“Because Juvenile Probation is an arm of the state that is immune to suit pursuant to the 11th Amendment and Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity to suit, its motion to dismiss will be granted,” Caputo wrote.
I searched for 11th amendment, this county and found several cases (in PA, different counties):
Debra Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole,e t al. State governments and their subsidiary units are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. AND:
Date: 09-24-2007
Case Number: 04-1157/2495
Judge: Fuentes
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County).
Here’s a REAL egregious case, a living nightmare where a police officer’s wife tries, repeatedly and HARD, to get the 911 calls, help for her husband through his employers, the police department, and finally /too late, that “certifiably insane restraining order” system to work — against her police officer husband, who is off the chart dangerous, and eventually seriously injured her (shot her in the chest) and killed himself. She tries to sue, among others, the officers who kept releasing the guy or refusing to arrest him, even when they witnessed the violations immediately. Multiple threats to kill, beating her at home, she calls repeatedly, etc. The officers, responded, we have immunity. The District court ruled — no you don’t. THIS is the Appeals court ruling, well, actually, yes they did.
This BURELLA case is late 1990s, (somewhat off the post’s RICO topic but ON the blog’s topic) and 34pages long.
Please READ parts of it if you are among the innocent (or ignorant/apathetic/too busy to process til it hits you, or your family) who doesn’t yet grasp “why don’t she leave?,” or that a restraining order ain’t the end of the process and may increase the risk for many of us! What about the enforcement that backs it up? What about if the attacker KNOWS enforcement is lax?
Well, then logically, she’d better get the heck out of there…. But – – — what about their kids? But — joint shared parenting presumptions and court orders make that nigh impossible! Ask Dawn Axsom, from Arizona, and her mother, Oct. 2009.
Oh, I forgot — you can’t — they’re dead. Fox news blamed it on “the Custody Battle” and calls them ALL (3) victims, not the man who shot his wife, mother in law and then himself, orphaning their baby. My blog was only one of many on this incident. There are so many such incidents, I even forgot I blogged that one…
That, in a nutshell, seems to be how our country STILL views Fathers killing Mothers (and/or others, and/or themselves). Being a mother and a woman, this woman (like Burella, below) knew danger whne she experienced or sensed it, and tried to reconcile being a law-abiding citizen with being a LIVING citizen. She went to her death complying with a court order, apparently. How was the judicial immunity in that case? (As it’s in Maricopa County, I recommend reviewing the top page in this blog, and “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” nonprofit, based in Phoenix and possibly also having its contract steered to it in ia not-quite-above-the-board manner. NAME started (as I recall) in 2006. Axsom’s case relates to this refusal to allow women to leave violent relationships because there is a crisis in fatherlessness in this country, which is detrimental to the health of the children. That policy was in full effect also during the Burella years, per 1995 Executive Order from then-President Bill Clinton, to re-arrange and review HIS branch of government, at least, to accommodate “fatherhood” and address the nation’s crisis in kids not waking up in homes with their biological fathers.
At what point does the law of reverse efforts set in, and the failure of ROI cause a policy change?
JILL BURELLA – US COURT OF APPEALS 04-1157/2495
Description:
In January 1999, George Burella, a ten-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, shot and seriously injured his wife, Jill Burella, and then shot and killed himself.1 George Burella had emotionally and physically abused Jill Burella for years prior to the shooting. Although she reported numerous incidents of abuse to the police over the years, obtained several restraining orders just days before the shooting, and told police that her husband continued threatening her despite the orders, police failed to arrest him. This appeal concerns whether the police officers had a constitutional obligation to protect Jill Burella from her husband’s abuse. {(make that “violence” please!)} Despite our grave concerns about the Philadelphia Police Department’s alleged conduct in this case, we hold that the officers did not have such an obligation. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background
We set forth in some detail the long and protracted history of physical and emotional abuse in this case because it is central to Jill Burella’s claim that Philadelphia police officers knew about the abuse, but nevertheless failed to act, thereby violating her due process and equal protection rights.
. . .
The abuse began around February 1996, when George Burella was convicted of disorderly conduct for stalking his wife at her workplace and assaulting her male co-worker who he suspected was having an affair with her. One month later, in the face of marital troubles and a severe gambling problem, George Burella attempted suicide. He survived and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital where he was diagnosed with depression.
After her husband was released from the hospital, Jill Burella contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Employee Assistance Program (“EAP“), which is designed to assist officers in obtaining help with personal problems. The EAP notified the City Medical Department, which placed George Burella on restricted duty and referred him to City doctors for psychological treatment.
There’s an old movie, a comic parody of Robin Hood, called “Men in Tights.” What follows here (in green) describes what surely was HELL, in living with this “Man with Gun.” His wife and mother tries to get them help, sounds like every way possible. Who knows if or what threats she might’ve received about trying to leave, or if she tried to. It’s hard enough to get away from abusers when you are in their social/personal networks sometimes — can you imagine that when the personal/social network includes fellow officers? ONLOOKERS should notice — what she did, the police and EAP responses. This man was a problem waiting to happen, and happening. Suicide attempts, stalking, depression, assaulting others (jealousy), threatening to kill her, beating her, using his official privilege to defuse an incident, and he had 3 children… I’ll color-code the red flag incidents RED, her or others’ attempts to help or stop it bold and the responses, BLUE. Then you can ask, what century , and country, do we live in? Is this a 3rd world country? In certain ways, USA-style, for women, YES.
George Burella’s violence towards his wife continued over the next several years and, in early June 1998, she contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division to report the abuse. Internal Affairs referred the matter to the EAP, which assigned George Burella a peer counselor.
Later that month, on June 26, 1998, George Burella assaulted his wife and another man at a local bar. Witnesses called 911, but George Burella left the bar before police officers arrived. When he got home, he phoned his wife and threatened to shoot their son Nicholas if she did not immediately return to the house. After calling 911, Jill Burella rushed home, where her husband, who was armed with a gun, threatened to shoot her. Before the matter worsened, police officers arrived. George Burella initially refused the officers’ order to surrender, but did so after the officer in charge agreed to report the incident as a domestic disturbance, rather than a more serious offense. {{bargaining it down is common}} Officer Robert Reamer, who is named as a defendant in this lawsuit, was one of the officers who arrived at the scene.
They could probably throw a person in jail for being drunk and disorderly in public, or resisting arrest after being confronted with jaywalking. Or for too many parking tickets (?).
This man had already — on this night alone, and after some years of assault & battery: assaulted his wife AND another man in public, threatened to kill their SON by phone, threatened her, with a gun, in person, and resisted arrest. And that was a “domestic disturbance” ??? Even the part in public and involving a non-relative being assaulted? Sounds to me like her reporting and seeking help had made the situation worse; jealousy plus maybe his perceived public humiliation (i.e. some witnesses called 911) followed by public retaliation…
After the police officers left, George Burella began beating his wife on their front lawn. Her parents arrived and took her to their house, but George Burella followed them there. Once at her parents’ house, she tried to call 911, but her husband wrestled the phone from her and told the operator that he was a police officer and that everything was under control. As a result, the operator did not instruct police to respond to the situation. Three days later, Jill Burella contacted the EAP to report the incident, but because the EAP failed to notify Internal Affairs, the incident was never investigated.
I’m going to speculate that her life at this point was a combination of walking on eggshells and trying to consider her options, plus work, plus being a Mom. I can only imagine what it might be like after years of assaults by an officer who knew he could bargain down and schmooze off some of his violence under the authority of his uniform. Some men are maybe attracted to that uniform to serve & protect, but some also for the authority. That one night, the first 911 hadn’t helped. At her parents, now they AND her kids were at risk. Again, 911 was called. What were her genuine options and wishes here? (I’m not going to continue with the font changes — but can readers mentally separate, 1, 2, 3: 1. Incident, 2. attempts to call for help or get safe, 3. system responses.)
In July 1998, George Burella called his wife at work in Upper Southampton Township and threatened to kill her. After Upper Southampton police officers arrived at her workplace, she received several more threatening phone calls from her husband. The officers called Captain Charles Bloom, George Burella’s commanding officer, and a defendant in this lawsuit, to inform him about the incident.
I’m starting to wonder about any meds for depression from that 1996 hospital visit….READ THIS, a report about possible links to “atypical anti-psychotics” being pushed, since 1999, in a Tacoma Mental Hospital…
Captain Bloom became directly involved in the situation on August 13, 1998, when Northampton police officers arrested George Burella for assaulting Jill Burella in Bucks County. The officers released George Burella into the custody of Captain Bloom, who escorted him home. {{What, the jails were full near home? Didn’t want to embarass the guy?}}
Three days later, on August 16, George Burella called his wife while she was visiting his parents with the children and again threatened to kill her. When he went to his parents’ house, Northampton police officers responding to an emergency call escorted him to his car, unloaded his firearm, and placed it in the trunk of the car.{{did not lock him up, maybe following Cap. Bloom’s lead?}} Shortly thereafter, officers found him driving in the vicinity of the house with his gun re-loaded and placed on the backseat of his car. Officers took him to a local hospital, but he was released shortly thereafter.3 After being notified of the incident, Captain Bloom ordered George Burella to submit to a psychiatric evaluation.
Later that month, George Burella admitted himself to a psychiatric hospital, but left after four days of treatment. {{one wonders, of what sort? How could he just “leave”?}} Several days later, City psychologists examined him and concluded that he should be monitored for the next two years. After one follow-up appointment with City doctors in September 1998, he did not return for treatment.
Without consequences, apparently, for this. Was it a city order, or a personal recommendation from Capt. Bloom?
On December 24, 1998, George Burella again assaulted his wife, this time while she was visiting a friend. (CHRISTMAS EVE….)
Philadelphia really isn’t that far from Washington, D.C. In 1994, VAWA passed. News travels slowly, it seems. From my perspective (I was being assaulted in those years, and didn’t know about VAWA, or my options, either) it’s now clear that this woman is being punished for engaging in normal activities outside home & work. He is also sending a clear message to anyone in her social support system that they, too, might be at risk, at the least being affected by witnessing the violence to her.
Mothers caught in the court system after abuse also experience the escalation. Even well-meaning people have their own lives to live. It becomes nearly impossible to be a staunch supporter and ally, because the trauma is ongoing and repetitive, and never fully resolved — court orders aren’t enforced, crises can be generated by any accusation, practically IN the courts, plus the incidents outside of them also. That’s why I often liken the family law system to the abuse I knew, in these 1990s (another part of the country…). Same effects, same system deafness to the dangers.
When Philadelphia police officers arrived, they allowed him to leave with the couple’s youngest daughter (a twin, if I recall), and then took Jill Burella and her two other children home, where her husband resumed beating her. {{HOW does one spell “insane”??}}
Jill Burella — she’s been beaten, with kids watching it, for years now, threatened with guns, assaulted/stalked, and/or threatened to kill her (or her son): at her workplace, at a bar, at her parent’s house, at a friend’s house, on her front lawn, at home, at her work place, in Bucks County. IHe has (1996) actually attempted to commit suicide. The man, a cop, and the situation, is a walking /stalking time bomb in need of some serious intervention.
In response, he has NOT been locked up once, but HAS been:
- (1996) Admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with depression
- place on restricted duty and referred to City doctors (?) for psychological treatment (was it received?)
- (1998) Assigned a peer counselor
- After a night of multiple incidents and threats to kill (including his son), the responding officer downgrades this to “domestic disturbance” and does not arrest.
- The same night, he simply resumes beating her. Her PARENTS try to rescue her (evidently no policeman is going to) by taking her away. He follows them there. She tries to call 911, he interferes with the phone and talks the situation down — and so far that dispatch operator was not brought up to speed on the evenings’ developments. Perhaps nothing further happened that night because all parties were just exhausted…
- 3 days later, she calls EAP again, who does not notify Internal Affairs, and nothing is investigated. (Way to go!)
- July, 1998, more threats to kill (at her workplace). The responding officers tell his commanding officer, Captain Bloom. No record of anything being done.
- August, 1998 more assaults and/or threats. Captain Bloom drives him home…Tells him to go to a psychiatric hospital . . He goes, but quits. City psychologist then say he needs 2 years of monitoring (not exactly a sensible decisions, in light of the past). He goes once, and no mention of follow up by them. I think we get the picture that Mr. B. doesn’t appreciate that he is breaking the law, nor has anyone to date apparently attempted to communicate this to him by locking him up even overnight!
So now, she is going to try a restraining order. I wonder how well THAT is going to work after all this. Is the guy showing restraint? Is any part of this system going to back her up if he violates it? Because if not, then (I now ssay) they shouldn’t issue it. Better to give her and the kids some self-defense training, or another place to live, like witness protection. 1998, people….
Over the course of the next few weeks, Jill Burella obtained the three protection from abuse orders relevant to this lawsuit. On January 2, 1999, {{NB: last recorded assault — and Philadelphia police officers blowing it off — Dec. 24, 1998 in Philadelphia}} she obtained an emergency ex parte protection from abuse order from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that prohibited her husband from “abusing, harassing, stalking and/or threatening” her, and from “living at, entering, attempting to enter or visiting” the couple’s home. {{the KICKOUT}} The order further provided that officers “shall . . . arrest the defendant if he/she fails to comply with this Order.” (App. at 110-11.) The next day, Officer Reamer served the order on George Burella, who, according to Jill Burella, immediately violated it by shouting at and threatening her. Despite witnessing the alleged violation, Officer Reamer permitted George Burella to enter the house.
These officers have forgotten their responsibilities and become a public health hazard. THEY don’t respect protection from abuse (say what? in PA they don’t call it “VIOLENCE”? Did they ever?). Obviously neither does the husband in question. If they refuse to enforce the law (is a court order an order? or a suggestion? If they refused to arrest without an order, now, they had an order and it even specified they SHALL arrest if he fails to comply. So THEY are in contempt of that order, as I see it.) So, what are they doing in office and pulling a salary? Directing traffic? CYA-ing? Whom are they serving and what are they protecting?
There’s a site for law enforcement called “behind the blue line.” There’s also a blog for officer-involved violence, called, “Behind the Blue WALL.”
Not all officers try to “blow off” domestic violence.
In 1999, an officer sued his bosses, the mayor, and others in federal court over retaliation against him for his trying to do his job!, also involving an officer and domestic violence against his wife (also an officer):
Same dynamics, same timeframe (1996-1999), same state – Pittsburgh, PA area
Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 4, 1999
A Pittsburgh police officer has sued his bosses in federal court, charging that they have retaliated against him for doing his job, which he said has included filing complaints against other officers. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Edmond N. Gaudelli Jr. names as defendants Mayor Murphy, Deputy Mayor Sal Sirabella, police Chief Robert McNeilly, Deputy Chief Charles Moffatt, several assistant chiefs, commanders and sergeants, a doctor at the training academy and an internal investigator, among others. Gaudelli, 32, a police officer since 1990, says in the suit the defendants had conspired to retaliate against him since 1996, when he filed a grievance against several officers, including a complaint that opposed the appointment of McNeilly as police chief… The marks against Gaudelli began to mount when, as an officer at the West End station, he said he responded to a domestic violence call at the home of McNeilly and his wife, police Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly. Gaudelli said in the complaint that McNeilly had told him to phone his supervisor and have records of the call removed from the running sheet…On assignment at a store in Waterworks Mall, Gaudelli said, he was disciplined again because he tried to arrest Officer Cindy Harper for shoplifting. Gaudelli said Harper’s husband, Assistant Chief Nate Harper, intervened and then was part of a conspiracy to have him fired…
McNeilly was the George Burella (at least in that incident), and Gaudelli was the responding Captain Bloom. But Gaudelli tried to file the repoet. McNeilly pulled a “Burella” and said, basically, to clear his name, pulling rank to do so. Domestic violence victims should be aware this can happen. Officer Gaudelli, assigned to a mall to stop troublemakers (including presumably shoplifting), couldn’t even do that, when the person doing it was an officer. And the US doesn’t have a caste system or grant titles of nobility? ?? Sounds like some public servants aren’t aware of this.
So, back to the Burella situation —
The next day, Jill Burella obtained {where? Criminal or Civil? HOW?} another temporary protection from abuse order, which essentially repeated the terms set forth in the January 2 order. In addition, the court awarded her temporary custody of the couple’s three children, prohibited George Burella from having “any contact” with her, and ordered him to relinquish all guns other than his service weapon, which he was required to turn over to his commanding officer at the end of every shift. The order also stated that “[t]his Order shall be enforced by any law enforcement agency in a county where a violation of this Order occurs.” (App. at 121-22.) {{either that was standard, or it was accommodating all the other places he followed his wife and assaulted or threatened her)}}.
Later that day, Jill Burella called 911 after she received threatening phone calls from her husband. After officers arrived, and while in their presence, she received several more calls from her husband. The officers told her they could not do anything unless her husband was physically present {is that word “threatening” in the RO too vague to comprehened?} .4 When Jill Burella called the police the next day, again they told her that nothing could be done unless her husband was physically present at her house.
On January 8, 1999, Jill Burella obtained a final order of protection.5 Four days later, following an appointment with a psychiatrist at the City Medical Department, George Burella went to the house he formerly shared with his wife and shot her in the chest. He then immediately shot and killed himself. Although she suffered serious injuries, Jill Burella survived the shooting.
I cannot help noticing (2nd or 3rd reading of this case) that troubles escalated after visits to a psychiatric hospital.
OR, another article on schizophrenia, violence, with substance abuse (which Burella had) and atypical antipsychotis — if the guys take ’em:
Management of Violence in Schizophrenia The public perception of people with schizophrenia often is, unfortunately, of uncontrollable–possibly murderous–criminals. While mental health providers know this stereotype is almost always wrong, they do have real concerns about controlling violent tendencies in some patients with schizophrenia–especially people with co-occurring substance abuse disorders. Treatment of schizophrenia has become more effective with the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, but getting patients to take their medications still proves to be a problem and is related to their potential for violence.
Before I comment on the LEGAL issues of this, let’s look at a document from Pennsylvania dating to 1990, which is why I include its contents here. Lethality Assessment by Barbara J. Hart is well-known in this field of DV. I wonder what happened that — same State — the message didn’t get through, somehow, that this guy was going to shoot somebody, possibly her. Nowadays, they are still selling “risk assessments” to the courts, as similar incidents continue.
The dispatcher and responding officer can utilize the indicators described below in making an assessment of the batterer’s potential to kill. Considering these factors may or may not reveal actual potential for homicidal assault. But, the likelihood of a homicide is greater when these factors are present. The greater the number of indicators that the batterer demonstrates or the greater the intensity of indicators, the greater the likelihood of a life-threatening attack.
Use all of the information you have about the batterer, current as well as past incident information. A thorough investigation at the scene will provide much of the information necessary to make this assessment. However, law enforcement will not obtain reliable information from an interview conducted with the victim and perpetrator together or from the batterer alone.
- Threats of homicide or suicide.The batterer who has threatened to kill himself, his partner, the children or her relatives must be considered extremely dangerous.
- Fantasies of homicide or suicide.The more the batterer has developed a fantasy about who, how, when, and/or where to kill, the more dangerous he may be. The batterer who has previously acted out part of a homicide or suicide fantasy may be invested in killing as a viable “solution” to his problems. As in suicide assessment, the more detailed the plan and the more available the method, the greater the risk.
- Weapons.Where a batterer possesses weapons and has used them or has threatened to use them in the past in his assaults on the battered woman, the children or himself, his access to those weapons increases his potential for lethal assault. The use of guns is a strong predictor of homicide. If a batterer has a history of arson or the threat of arson, fire should be considered a weapon.
- “Ownership” of the battered partner. The batterer who says “Death before Divorce!” or “You belong to me and will never belong to another!” may be stating his fundamental belief that the woman has no right to life separate from him. A batterer who believes he is absolutely entitled to his female partner, her services, her obedience and her loyalty, no matter what, is likely to be life-endangering.
- Centrality of the partner.A man who idolizes his female partner, or who depends heavily on her to organize and sustain his life, or who has isolated himself from all other community, may retaliate against a partner who decides to end the relationship. He rationalizes that her “betrayal” justifies his lethal retaliation.
- Separation Violence. When a batterer believes that he is about to lose his partner, if he can’t envision life without her or if the separation causes him great despair or rage, he may choose to kill.
- Depression.Where a batterer has been acutely depressed and sees little hope for moving beyond the depression, he may be a candidate for homicide and suicide. Research shows that many men who are hospitalized for depression have homicidal fantasies directed at family members.
- Access to the battered woman and/or to family members.If the batterer cannot find her, he cannot kill her. If he does not have access to the children, he cannot use them as a means of access to the battered woman. Careful safety planning and police assistance are required for those times when contact is required, e.g. court appearances and custody exchanges.
- Repeated outreach to law enforcement.Partner or spousal homicide almost always occurs in a context of historical violence. Prior calls to the police indicate elevated risk of life-threatening conduct. The more calls, the greater the potential danger.
- Escalation of batterer risk.A less obvious indicator of increasing danger may be the sharp escalation of personal risk undertaken by a batterer; when a batterer begins to act without regard to the legal or social consequences that previously constrained his violence, chances of lethal assault increase significantly.
- Hostage-taking. A hostage-taker is at high risk of inflicting homicide. Between 75% and 90% of all hostage takings in the US are related to domestic violence situations.
If an intervention worker concludes that a batterer is likely to kill or commit life-endangering violence, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the victim and her children. This may include notifying the victim and law enforcement of risk, as well as seeking a mental health commitment, where appropriate. The victim should be advised that the presence of these indicators may mean that the batterer is contemplating homicide and that she should immediately take action to protect herself and should contact the local battered woman’s program to further assess lethality and develop safety plans.
Hart, B.“Assessing Whether Batters Will Kill” PCADV, 1990.
In February 2000, Jill Burella filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court against Officer Reamer, Captain Bloom, and Captain Bloom’s successor, Francis Gramlich, along with the City of Philadelphia and Dr. Warren Zalut, the City psychiatrist who saw George Burella on the day of the shooting. After the case was removed to federal district court, she filed an eight-count amended complaint asserting various federal constitutional and state law claims. The officers and the City moved for summary judgment on all counts asserted against them.6 This appeal concerns solely the District Court’s summary judgment ruling that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Jill Burella’s due process (Count I) and equal protection (Count IV) claims.
This case cites the Castle Rock case. The opinion is worth understanding. People receiving restraining orders need to understand what they are and what they are not. As residents of a rain forest understand the rain forest, or those who live in monsoon territory have to understand the ramifications of the deluge, residents of the United States, though a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and legal systems exist, they exist in a context — on paper and arguments about them have created a deluge of paperwork over the 2+centuries since we started. They are only as good as interpreted by those who read act on this paperwork.
So, the deluge of paperwork can lead to life, IF one is prepared to understand its contexts, and shifting contexts, too., or death if one places false or misguided hope in them alone. Whether to stake one’s life on the force of that paperwork is personal, like a decision to stake one’s life on a God, or sacred writings describing that God. Whatever one chooses, chances are that sooner or later and like it or not, one is going to come face to face with someone who reads it differently, or thinks it’s a joke, and be forced to deal with him or her. This could include one’s own marriage certificate, obviously.
This is what Judge Fuentes, in the Burella appeal, wrote (any emphases are mine…):
[as above…United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)]
As discussed above, however, the Court in Castle Rock
unambiguously stated that absent a “clear indication” of legislative
intent, a statute’s mandatory arrest language should not be read to
strip law enforcement of the discretion they have traditionally had
in deciding whether to make an arrest. 545 U.S. at 761. Although
the Supreme Court did not specify what language would suffice to
strip the police of such discretion, it is clear after Castle Rock that
the phrase “shall arrest” is insufficient. As previously noted, the
Supreme Court explicitly stated that “a true mandate of police
action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado
Legislature than . . . �shall arrest.'” Id.
To the average person, “shall arrest” means “shall arrest.” But, the Supreme Court kept in mind that police discretion (discussed in more detail in the document). The word “shall” means “shall,” or at least we hope so, in something as official as a court order signed by a judge. GOOD, we think, NOW I finally have some protection. But the law doesn’t always think like that (logically), nor courts, and obviously not police. So, the safe understanding would be to understand the bottom line. It doesn’t mean ‘squat,’ really. Maybe to you, but not to others.
Thus, a restraining order is only as good as SOMEONE has respect for it and will act on it as if it were unilaterally true.
In addition, we note that Jill Burella’s argument fails to
address the Supreme Court’s observation in Castle Rock that even
if the Colorado domestic violence statute mandated an arrest, it
would not necessarily mean the victim would have an “entitlement”
to an arrest. That is, although the Pennsylvania statute allows a
victim of domestic violence to “file a private criminal complaint
against a defendant, alleging indirect criminal contempt” for
violation of a protective order, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. � 6113.1(a), or
“petition for civil contempt” against the violator, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat.
� 6114.1(a), like the Colorado statute, it is silent as to whether a
victim can request, much less demand, an arrest.14 See 23 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. � 6113:1(a). In fact, “[w]hen an individual files
a private criminal complaint [under � 6113.1], the district attorney
has the discretion to refrain from proceeding for policy reasons.”
Starr v. Price, 385 F. Supp. 2d 502, 511 (M.D. Pa. 2005); Pa. R.
Crim. P. 506.
. . .
Finally, we cannot ignore that despite framing the issue as
one of procedural due process, what Jill Burella appears to seek is
a substantive due process remedy: that is, the right to an arrest
itself, and not the pre-deprivation notice and hearing that are the
hallmarks of a procedural due process claim.
In short, whether framed as a substantive due process right
under DeShaney, or a procedural due process right under Roth, Jill
Burella does not have a cognizable claim that the officers’ failure
to enforce the orders of protection violated her due process rights.15
Therefore, we need not determine whether her entitlement to police
protection was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged
violation before concluding that the officers are entitled to
qualified immunity.
* * *
Outcome: The facts Jill Burella alleges, if true, reveal a terrible
deficiency on the part of the Philadelphia Police Department in
responding to her complaints of domestic abuse. Binding precedent
nevertheless compels our conclusion that the officers� failure to
arrest her husband, or to handle her complaints more competently,
did not violate her constitutional right to due process or equal
protection of the law. Accordingly, we hold that the officers are
entitled to qualified immunity on her constitutional claims.
We will reverse and remand to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACK TO THE LUZERNE COUNTY CASE,
Juvenile WAYNE DAWN’s COMPLAINT and CAPUTO’s ruling
As for Brulo, the judge concluded that the allegations in Dawn’s lawsuit were too thin to justify allowing the claims to proceed to the discovery stage. “There are no specific factual allegations made against Brulo. Instead, there are blanket assertions about what all defendants did collectively, many of them consisting of legal conclusions, such as defendants aiding and abetting each other in this conspiracy,” Caputo wrote.
Sounds like a poorly-written high school composition, starting with the conclusion, rather than starting with a thesis and systematically showing the reader the process and facts that led to it. In other words, sloppy writing.
(Again, I didn’t read Dawn, just the comments on it here).
Dawn’s complaint, Caputo said, “is littered with the type of bald assertions and legal conclusions warned against by the Supreme Court” in its recent decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
“Plaintiff has not alleged any actions taken by Brulo specifically and, therefore, has failed to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence that Brulo violated plaintiff’s rights,” Caputo wrote.
The main focus of Caputo’s opinion was tackling the arguments lodged by Conahan and Ciavarella, both of whom are acting as their own lawyers and had sought a dismissal of all claims.
Caputo concluded that while the former judges are entitled to assert absolute judicial immunity, it was not enough to end the case because Dawn’s suit accuses the judges of taking steps in the alleged conspiracy that went beyond their roles as judges.
According to the suit, Conahan and Ciavarella struck an agreement with attorney Robert Powell and Robert K. Mericle, the owner of a local construction company, to build a new, privately owned juvenile detention center in Luzerne County as a replacement for the adequate, publicly owned juvenile detention center already in existence.
For the new facility to be financially viable, the suit alleges, it would require a regular stream of juvenile defendants, and Conahan and Ciavarella agreed to divert large numbers of juveniles into the new facility in order to gain more than $2.8 million in kickbacks.
To hide these ill-gotten proceeds, the suit alleges, Conahan and Ciavarella transferred the money via wire transfer to various corporations controlled by them. Their cooperation in the conspiracy allegedly included removing all funding from the publicly run detention center, having juveniles moved to the new privately owned facilities built by Mericle and operated by Powell, agreeing to guarantee placement of juvenile defendants in the new facilities, ordering juveniles to be placed at the private facilities and assisting the new juvenile detention centers in securing agreements with Luzerne County.
Caputo ruled that, under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, Dawn cannot pursue any claim that is premised on a theory that Conahan and Ciavarella did not act as impartial judges, failed to advise juveniles of their right to counsel or failed to determine whether guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. But Caputo also found that “many of the actions taken by Conahan were not of a judicial nature.”
The alleged agreements entered into by Conahan with Mericle and Powell, as well as any budget decisions make by Conahan as president judge, or any advocacy for building a new detention center are “non-judicial acts that are not subject to absolute judicial immunity,” Caputo wrote.
Likewise, Caputo found that “some of Ciavarella’s alleged actions are covered by judicial immunity, while others are not.”
Ciavarella’s courtroom actions in sentencing juveniles, including his sentencing of Dawn, are protected by judicial immunity, Caputo found.
“As for to the other allegations,” Caputo wrote, “such as Ciavarella’s role in the conspiracy to build the juvenile detention centers and receive kickbacks, those allegations are extra-judicial activity that is not protected by absolute judicial immunity.”
Dawn’s lawyer, Timothy R. Hough of Jaffe & Hough in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment. Brulo’s lawyer, Scott D. McCarroll of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Harrisburg, also could not be reached.
I have lost some editing in the last few “saves” and am for now “abandoning ship” on this post which began to usurp my free time for the last two days. My equipment has a (vey) slow processor, which challenges my ability to retain the train of thought while it is completing a save (or even dribbling out keystrokes several seconds after input — I’m a fast typist), and I have miles to go before I sleep. Hopefully this post was not a “sleeper” and may have awakened us out of some rhetoric-induced slumber in these matters. If you hang around some circles too long, you begging to believe and accept their theories, without critical analysis and distancing, as a lifestyle, too. It’s laborious, but better.
JESSICA (GONZALES) LENAHAN’S STATEMENT
FOR THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
MARCH 2007
ACLU WEBSITE — SHE HAS NOT GIVEN UP SEEKING ANSWERS
- Hello, my name is Jessica Lenahan. My former married name was Jessica Gonzales. I am grateful to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for allowing me this opportunity to tell my story. It is a courtesy I was not granted by the judicial system of my home country, the United States. I brought this petition because I want to prevent the kind of tragedy my little girls and my entire family suffered from happening to other families.
Let me start from the beginning. I am a Latina and Native American woman from Pueblo, Colorado. I met my previous husband, Simon Gonzales, while still in high school. I married Simon in 1990 and we moved to Castle Rock, Colorado in 1998. We lived together with our three children – Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie – and my son Jessie, from a previous relationship.
- Throughout our relationship, Simon was erratic and abusive toward me and our children. By 1994, he was distancing himself from us and becoming more and more controlling, unpredictable, and violent. He would break the children’s toys and other belongings, harshly discipline the children, threaten to kidnap them, drive recklessly, exhibit suicidal behavior, and verbally, physically, and sexually abuse me. He was heavily involved with drugs.
Simon’s frightening and destructive behavior got worse and worse as the years went by. One time I walked into the garage, and he was hanging there with a noose around his neck, with the children watching. I had to hold the rope away from his neck while my daughter Leslie called the police.
Simon and I separated in 1999 when my daughters were 9, 8, and 6. But he continued scaring us. He would stalk me inside and outside my house, at my job, and on the phone at all hours of the day and night.
On May 21, 1999, a Colorado court granted me a temporary restraining order that required Simon to stay at least 100 yards away from me, my home, and the children. The judge told me to keep the order with me at all times, and that the order and Colorado law required the police to arrest Simon if he violated the order. Having this court order relieved some of my anxiety.
- But Simon continued to terrorize me and the children even after I got the restraining order. He broke into my house, stole my jewelry, changed the locks on my doors, and loosened my house’s water valves, flooding the entire street. I called the Castle Rock Police Department to report these and other violations of the restraining order. The police ignored most of my calls. And when they did respond, they were dismissive of me, and even scolded me for calling them. This concerned me and made me wonder how the police might respond if I had an emergency in the future.
- Simon had at least seven run-ins with the police between March and June of 1999. He was ticketed for “road rage” while the girls were in the truck and for trespassing in a private section of the Castle Rock police station and then trying to flee after officers served him with the restraining order.On June 4, Simon and I appeared in court, and the judge made the restraining order permanent. The new order granted me full custody of Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie, and said that Simon could only be with our daughters on alternate weekends and one prearranged dinner visit during the week.
File under “split personality court orders” THANK you, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Pres. Barack Obama (not much changed), formerly and til now, Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, Jessica Pearson (Center Policy Research, AFCC founder, I heard, Gardner fan), and anyone and everyone who really can say with a straight face that the nation’s true crisis is when children do NOT wake up with their biodad in the home. Thank you, multi-million$$ Healthy marriage/REsponsible Fatherhood funding, and any legislator with ties to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, but not open about it. Thank you, for your overt subversion of the United States of America founding principles and documents, and being AWARE of this enough to be secretive about it, as evidenced by failing to tell protective MOTHERS (like this one) while recruiting Dads behind our backs, to give them advice adn sometimes free legal help to get our kids away from us.
Thank you about 3 major organizations in the Denver area driving this policy, and thank you for being smart enough to know that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” really wouldn’t hold sway legally, so it had to be practiced through another Branch of Government, voila, (1991) Health and Human Services department, and the things I’ve been blogging about.
Thank you for police officers that back each other up, but not women seeking protection via the restraining order system. I also know of officers that gave their lives to save others, in domestic violence incidents. I’m not talking about them, but the others. You know which you are.. Some men wear the uniform, and others live it — just like some men fit the fatherhood shoes, and others need to put theirs on and just keep walking…..
Yeah, I’m moved . . . Was Jessica a real Mom? Was she a person? Were her daughters?
The father had attempted suicide, and he gets a typical custody situation, alternate weekends. What’s THAT? an attempt to use the kids to make him a better man?
- (her children are kidnapped. She repeatedly asks the police to help… Here are some of the responses):
- Less than 3 weeks later, Simon violated the restraining order by kidnapping my three daughters from our yard on a day that he wasn’t supposed to see the girls. When I discovered they were missing, I immediately called the police, told them that the girls were missing and that I thought Simon had abducted them in violation of a restraining order, and asked them to find my daughters. The dispatcher told me she would send an officer to my house, but no one came.
I waited almost two hours for the police, and then called the station again. Finally two officers came to my house. I showed them the restraining order and explained that it was not Simon’s night to see the girls, but that I suspected he had taken them. The officers said, “Well he’s their father, it’s okay for them to be with him.” And I said, “No, it’s not okay. There was no prearranged visit for him to have the children tonight.” The officers said there was nothing they could do, and told me to call back at 10pm if the children were still not home. I was flustered and scared. Unsure of what else I could say or do to make the officers take me seriously, I agreed to do what they suggested.
- THAT JUDGE’S STANDARDIZED ORDER SET HER UP FOR THIS. THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD’VE DONE, WITHOUT HERSELF BREAKING IT, TO CHANGE THE SITUATION.
-
Soon afterwards, Simon’s girlfriend called me and told me that Simon called her and was threatening to drive off a cliff. She asked me if he had a gun and whether or not he would hurt the children. I began to panic.
I finally reached Simon on his cell phone around 8:30 pm. He told me he was with the girls at an amusement park in Denver, 40 minutes from Castle Rock. I immediately communicated this information to the police. I was shocked when they responded that there was nothing they could do, because Denver was outside of their jurisdiction. I called back and begged them to put out a missing child alert or contact the Denver police, but they refused. The officer told me I needed to take this matter to divorce court, and told me to call back if the children were not home in a few hours. The officer said to me, “At least you know the children are with their father.” I felt totally confused and humiliated.
- {{My children did not die. But, despite any court order (and there’s one to this date ordering weekly contact — with me — it’s not safely enforceable. I haven’t seen either one in a long time. Prior to that situation, I was in this situation with officers, and got a similar response, in a context of escalating threats to take them, and troubles. AFTER they were taken, I was given the same line, even though at this time their address was unknown and they weren’t attending school. The story almost never changes, much….}}
- I called the police again and again that night. When I called at 10pm, the dispatcher said to me that I was being “a little ridiculous making us freak out and thinking the kids are gone.” Even at that late hour, the police were still scolding me and not acknowledging that three children were missing, not recognizing my repeated descriptions of the girls and the truck.
- NOW, her children are dead — through their negligence and ignoring her pleas — and here is how she is treated:
- After hearing about the shooting, I drove to the police station. As I attempted to approach Simon’s truck, I was taken away by the police and then to the local sheriff’s office. Officials refused to give me any information about whether the girls were alive. They ignored my pleas to see my girls. {{I have been in this situation, very similar, requests ignored}} The experience revictimized me all over again. They detained me in a room for 12 hours and interrogated me throughout the early morning hours, as if I had a role in the children’s deaths. They refused to let me see or call my family. It was absolutely the most traumatic, horrific, and exhausting experience of my life!
- I have noticed over time, that if a woman is persistent in reporting violations of court orders, stalking, threats, or missing children in particular, the anger will be turned on her; she will not be heard. We might as well accept and prepare ourselves for this emotionally, though it’s wrong. Police officers’ roles includes dominating others, and situations. They’re REAL good at dominating traumatized women….This includes verbal abuse as well, mocking, sarcasm, belittling, questioning, interrupting when one is asking legitimate questions, — in fact, practically everything an abusive partner might do, with this kicker: they are authorized to use force in certain situations, and they carry sidearms.
-
The media knew my girls were dead before my family or I did. I was finally told by state officials around 8am that Simon had murdered the girls before he arrived at the police station. However, I never learned any other details about how, when, and where the girls died. I continue to seek this information to this day. I need to know the truth.
Several family members and I asked the authorities to identify the girls’ bodies, but we were not permitted to view their bodies until six days later – when they lay in their caskets. My daughters’ death certificates and the coroners’ reports state no place, date, or time of death. It saddened me not to be able to put this information on their gravestones.
- Today, nearly eight years after my tragedy, I continue to seek a thorough investigation into my babies’ deaths. I see nothing being done in Castle Rock or nationwide to make police accountable to domestic violence victims. It’s like rubbing salt in my wounds.
So why did the police ignore my calls for help? Was it because I was a woman? A victim of domestic violence? A Latina? Because the police were just plain lazy? I continue to seek answers to these questions.
We rely on the courts and the police for protection against violence. But I learned from my tragedy that the police have no accountability. The safety of my children was of such little consequence that the police took no action to protect my babies. If our government won’t protect us, we should know that. We should know that we are on our own when our lives are at risk.
Had I known that the police would do nothing to locate Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie or enforce my restraining order, I would have taken the situation into my own hands by looking for my children with my family and friends. I might have even bought a gun to protect us from Simon’s terror. Perhaps if I had taken these measures, I would have averted this tragedy. But then I might be imprisoned right now. That is the dilemma for abused women in the United States.
- I am blogging. I am telling people. This woman has told people. You read it in the late 1990s and you’ve now read two statements from the year 2007 (Burella’s appeal, denied, citing Gonzales’s failed Castle Rock case). Remember what I said about the ‘deluge” of paperwork. If we are going to go the “paperwork” route, the due diligence is necessary to understand the REAL contexts of it. The REAL context of it is that one cannot count on enforcement.
- Moreover, I also assert (and have discussed this more among my friends than on the blog) that the fatherhood and the domestic violence advocates are in bed together, and care more about their conferences and grants than our lives, and probably always have. I don’t say this with anger (well, not TOO much anger), but so we who don’t have another year to waste won’t waste anther year looking for help, rather than helping ourselves in the most moral, legal, and humane way possible.
There are consequences to the U.S. when women have to go to the international level to ask for protection. I’ve read about globalism and am aware of NGOs, and so forth, but the gol-dang Tea Party folk, and libertarians, if they will not recognize woman’s humanity as equal to theirs, even when not bound to a husband, they are going to cost us this country. Show me an honest faith-based organization that’s involved in government, and I’ll work with it. Til then, no thank you! Where are woman who have some faith to hang out? In some mega church that has less respect for women than the Castle Rock police Dept? ???
This IACHR link will be put on the front page.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Read my page “READ THIS FIRST” — Really!
I just published a page to look at ROOTS and FRUIT
of a large, and widely spreading tree, the Family Law system, not to mention some of the birds that come to roost there, and how it eliminates other native vegetation,crowding out sunlight and choking other growth near it, permanently altering previous eco-(nomic) systems and the balance of relationships that once were possible, but now no longer are.
How could this be, and who planted it? All destructive ~ or creative ~ ideas originate somewhere. (I heard) “There’s nothing [qualitatively] new under the sun,” so what is this tree’s genealogy?
SO . . . .
To understand why this blog, read the page “READ THIS FIRST” — first.
Do not pass Go, start there, scroll down and scroll down and reflect on, “how’s come it’s a madhouse in the family law system, and more and more criminal behavior seems to surround it?”
That’s an important question, and not a hard one to answer. It’s just hard to get people to accept it, and act accordingly. It gets more press to complain, report, comment, and in the process
develop another market niche. PR Professionals are great at this. I’m not a PR professional,
but a “family law vet” — that means, have taken the hits — and have developed some survival skills. The FIRST survival skill is understanding the landscape and how the natives act, and have been acting. I even have a post somewhere on here relating to S.U.R.V.I.V.A.L. training.
WELL, READ THAT PAGE FIRST, even if you’re a family law attorney or social worker, or any other AFCC member.
My PAGES, currently, can be found with a little scrolling.
A look at “Feedjit” to the right shows that, formatting and failure to proofread apart, this blog may have some information worth looking at. It’s wide-ranging, but I analyze from a less traditional angle. I try to combine my academic ~ OK, and natural temperament ~ longsuits crossing different genres to make sense of research. And I do this with varying degrees of PTSD generated by over a decade of dealing with abuse and legal abuse afterwards. {{By the way, there’s a body of literature on comparing the battering relationship to stalking through the courts. I will say, it feels the same, and the same principles are at work. It also is akin to P.O.W., although a different war. You can hear BOTH men and women talk about this feeling; it’s a matter of perspective. My personal “take” on the issue is that these courts were designed (upfront) as a place for batterers [or, spouses, specifically men, who fear abandonment, to get even. They are, of themselves, in many was, a cult. Biderman’s chart of coercion describes tactics.“Dependency, Debility & Dread.”}}
I sort through themes, and follow the hot leads, and try to avoid the dead ends. The sarcastic commentary on the ridiculous propositions & assumptions found are incidental, and don’t cost extra. Like many (mothers who became noncustodial mothers through family law after leaving violent relationships) by blogging, I in general find some redemption in what has been the longest nightmare (and fastest learning curve) I’ve known to date.
BUT, I also know, certain themes are unique and underreported, and my angle, which began when I reviewed http://nacfj.net after losing it “all” (there’s always more which can be lost, I’ve learned, but I refer to expectation of justice in this system, and any hope to restore what was formerly a reasonable life or any innocence attached to it. This system “slimes” you — you come out different. Yeech!)
The people attracted to family law are, variously:
- naively hoping to fix families, reconcile people who don’t want to be reconciled, and shouldn’t (that, my READ THIS FIRST page talks about),
- distressed (and so, vulnerable),
- ambulance-chasers, particularly where money and [power over] distressed CHILDREn are potentially available,
- too impatient for the accident to happen and so setting the brakes on off, the steering wheel crooked, or hiring (or schmoozing with) others to jump in front of the speeding (away from dangerous relationships) cars, then blame the cars for running into the lampposts or other pedestrians, and stick taxpayers, and the car’s driver that couldn’t avoid the “accident,” with the bill, both in the form of lost income, actual fees, and — which is what I most object to — lost freedoms…..[I warned you I was rather jaundiced, or at least sarcastic. But this IS narrative characterizations, the parallels I believe apply!]
- mercenary soldiers in search of a cause….
- and there are also megalomaniacs, whose behavior (not always PUBLIC behavior) indicates they believe in an archaic religion and the divine right of kings — and NOT the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, separation of powers, anything implicit or explicit in the Declaration of Independence, or other things involving, say, humility.
Speaking of which, the divine right of kings, . . . . .
Here’s a picture of a world-renowned “monarch.” Surely this must be a joke, right?
Look closely at the banner in the photo, bottom line . . . . This was in a U.S. Senate Building, in 2004
Are we a monarchy? Well, that depends on how you look at it, and how many more years of this goes on.
Arizona legislator/Unification Church member’s peculiar mix of religion/politics
06/26/2008
Arizona State Representitive Mark Anderson, a Republican from Mesa, has a long history of loyal and devoted service to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed “messiah” (photo below right) and leader of the Unification Church.
Rev. Moon teaches his disciples that singles should not expect a happy hereafter and that marriage is a requirement for salvation and entering heaven.
Matrimony also plays a pivotal role in Moon’s theology. He calls himself the “Lord of the Second Advent” who provides a “physical salvation,” which Jesus was unable to accomplish, because he was executed and didn’t marry.
It is largely because of these beliefs that Moon has presided over mass weddings, often marrying thousands of his followers simultaneously.
Mark Anderson appears to be dutifully following Moon’s dogma as a state legislator.
In the Spring of 2000 he sponsored a bill that successfully passed and created a “Marriage and Communication Skills Commission.”
Funded by Arizona’s taxpayers, the purpose of the Commission is to recognize “the importance of marriage.”
Beyond this the Commission also doles out funding for “workshops” and “programs,” which are provided through contractors.
And guess who is co-chairman of the Arizona marriage commission?
(etc.) . . . .
Enter Pastor Leo Godzich, President of the “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” (NAME), a close associate and long-time friend of Mark Anderson.
NAME has been and continues to be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in state contracts.
Actually, make that a million, so far (to 2009). Enter another tool from this site: “http://Taggs.hhs.gov”
|
Results 1 to 4 of 4 matches.
|
 |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
1 |
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | Award Title | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
Actually, for those who stay up late, unable to sleep over some of these serious issues, the term “marriage enhancement” might convey a late-night TV ad to help “inspire” some overworked couples to have better, er, relations. Where some see simple problems, others see a GREAT market niche, whether the above version, or the late-night TV ad version.
To grasp the scope of this movement — in just one program code alone – 93086, Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood — I picked Colorado. I notice the database has changed, and only shows back to 2006 (it actually goes back to mid-1990s). This is just a tip of the iceberg (that’s about to sink the Titanic ship of state, if we don’t divert, stop, or reverse engines)(and don’t count on any Unification church legislators to do this!):
TAGGS Advanced Search Results
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | County | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2009 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD BATTEN | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2009 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 422,972 |
| 2009 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 203,603 |
| 2009 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JON MERRITT | $ 249,552 |
| 2009 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 525,000 |
| 2009 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2009 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 889,201 |
| 2009 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ANN BRUCE | $ 974,358 |
| 2008 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2008 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD BATTEN | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2008 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 482,687 |
| 2008 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 198,280 |
| 2008 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JON MERRITT | $ 249,552 |
| 2008 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 525,000 |
| 2008 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 1,010,330 |
| 2008 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PAULE S BROWN | $ 974,358 |
| 2007 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2007 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY E ROBERTO | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2007 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 383,090 |
| 2007 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 209,308 |
| 2007 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PEG MEWES | $ 249,552 |
| 2007 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 345,000 |
| 2007 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 935,330 |
| 2007 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PAULE S BROWN | $ 974,358 |
| 2006 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2006 | CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY RIOTTE | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2006 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 488,067 |
| 2006 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NEW | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 209,308 |
| 2006 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PEG MEWES | $ 249,552 |
| 2006 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BERT E SINGLETON | $ 525,000 |
| 2006 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JONEEN KRAUTH-MACKENZIE | $ 1,010,330 |
| 2006 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULE S BROWN | $ 907,655 |
|
Results 1 to 36 of 36 matches.
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
Of note are the words “Demonstration” (DEMONSTRATIONS ON PEOPLE?) Discretionary, New, and (not shown), kind of grant application often reads “Non-Competing.” What about “informed consent”? Is this information posted, in the self-help section of the local courthouse, or the child support agencies, or any welfare office? Not exactly. Nor will one find there, say, information about who is “AFCC” (see my READ THIS FIRST page for more on them), although they do publish most of the pamphlets on display in the local counties I have access to. AFCC is very closely linked to “who IS this family law system, anyhow?”
Also, who is getting the highest funding? Hmm . . . .
Dept. of Human Services, Commission on Higher Education (it takes academics to run some kinds of human demonstration projects nationwide. Specialized language is involved, and some of it I’ve read, and wouldn’t be acceptable in circles not trained (yet) to take words like “fatherhood practitioner” (does that mean, a Dad? ??) seriously. This has to be inculcated. Also, as million$$ are involved, a university setting does lend more credibility, as well as other resources, like graduate student assistants and institutes of various sorts). And WAIT Training.
What’s that — like muscle-building, kick-boxing, or aerobics?
No, not per who its executive director is (see chart):
>
Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Nursing, a former Air Force ICU nurse and is currently applying to be reactivated in the United States Air Force Reserves. She is the Executive Director of the Abstinence and Relationship Training Center and is the author of the national and international curriculum, WAIT Training, Teaching Teens How to Have the BEST sex…by waiting until marriage. Joneen is a national speaker speaking to thousands of teens over the past 10 years. She is also contracted as a teacher trainer, training over 6000 teachers and youth serving professionals nationally and internationally. Mrs. Mackenzie serves on the Title V Abstinence Education Steering Committee at the Colorado State Health Department. She is currently the president of the Colorado Coalition for Abstinence and Relationship Education.
“WAIT” stands for “Why Am I Tempted” – i.e., some nice abstinence education training. (how NOT to have sex, yet…) and besides the $1,000,000+ in 2006 (for starters) it sells for only $299.
Joneen McKenzie
Learning to have the BEST sex by waiting until, and in preparation for, marriage.
Not sex education, it’s love education and includes: Character and Relationship Education,
Positive Youth Developments and Assets, Marriage Preparation Education; Life Skills,
Refusal Skills and Conflict Resolution (Teen PREP) Skills. It’s positive, fun and interactive
and gives teen reasons, skills and support to delay sex and learn about the value of marriage.
Available in Spanish. Target audience: middle and high school students. Two-day training
and certification with materials: $299.
Schedule
Presenting at the annual Smart Marriages Conference.
Abstinence Education, at least as it affects the practice of increasing Abstinence (i.e., reducing sex outside marriage) is probably a lost cause. If it WERE to be directed somewhere, I believe a more appropriate target might be several of the U.S. Presidents, Governors, or Senators. Starting with Former President Bill Clinton, who actually signed the infamous (to me!) Executive Order of 1995 regarding Fatherhood. He should know about it, and/or preventing it outside marriage:
Washington Post / Paula Jones Bill’s Escapes will sink Hillary (2007)
On the other hand, even the Gores finally separated:
Throughout the 1990s, as Bill and Hillary Clinton became the most dysfunctional couple in American politics, Al and Tipper Gore served as the counterbalance. The Gores played the ever-wholesome Mike and Carol Brady of the “Brady Bunch” to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Homer and Marge Simpson—a battling, mismatched duo who nevertheless stayed together. During the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, the Gores appeared ever more self-righteous and stable as the Clintons appeared ever more estranged. Al Gore even chose to telegraph to the American people that he was a passionate politician by giving Tipper a famously long smooch after his nomination.
The Gores’ obvious distaste for Bill Clinton’s extramarital escapades strained relations among the four. During the 2000 campaign, Vice President Gore distanced himself so much from President Clinton that many observers believed he sacrificed his shot at the White House on the altar of his marital morality.
How about Ted Kennedy, other Kennedys?
Reckless Sex and Power III: The Top Seven Kennedy Sex Scandals …
May 21, 2008 … Serving in the Senate since 1962, Ted Kennedy has been one of our most … Both President Jack Kennedy – whose sexual escapades were …Governors, Assemblymen, Presidents, can’t keep it Zipped (except for their wives) AFTER marriage, why are they taxing US, especially teens, to lecture US, especially teens, on keeping it zipped ?:Former Orange County Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned after inadvertently broadcasting explicit remarks about his sexual conquests over an open microphone, this morning said that his resignation was not an admission that he had an affair.
As described, in some detail, in RIPOFF REPORT,
Besides the misappropriation of funds by Why Am I Tempted training coordinator (above), it also appears that her own marriage wasn’t successful. Many people’s aren’t. WHen it comes to this issue, I find that people who have NOT divorced or been through breakups, find some things hard to understand, and those who have, generally lack partiality. If you toss a coin, chances are, someone who is a stepfather, stepmother, father having wages garnished for child support, MOTHER having wages garnished for child support, domestic violence survivor or in jail and having issues contacting offspring, which is where the fatherhood programs go get them out and back with their kids.
While going through the LEGAL aspects of courts, and custody, it’s good to remember that many of the major influences don’t go near a courtroom; they are in conference rooms and in Senate Buildings. While not all participate in crowning a “Moonie” leader, some of the behaviors have an uncomfortable resemblance to the same behaviors.
FYI, PTSD or not (some days are better than others), I try to get some information out. I felt that the grants connection is consistently overlooked, and the Unification Church one is recently very disturbing, but definite.
The overall picture is of a more and more managed economy and society. My advice regarding family law is, stay away from it. However, if one must enter, attempt to avoid the child support system, which promises more than it can deliver, and becomes a third party that could turn the case, easily.
It’s challenging to experience, narrate, analyze, network , and simply survive this system while still in it. I add a research background, a scent like a bloodhound on the money trail, which is driving this system (not “law” in case you were interested), and gets its funding from Joe Bloe and Jane Doe taxpayers who thought someone else should be handling these problems — hence, taxes, right?
Oh yes, and major foundations, many of them conservative. And latest trail shows a VERY uncomfortable connection with the Unification Church (can you spell Rev. Sun Myun Moon — avowed
2nd Messiah and major contributor to the ultra-conservative right-wingers. The political / legislative/religious/economic ramifications are truly frightening, almost more so than any “lethality assessment” from a domestic violence situation might indicate, or than the breakup of the nuclear family — or (conversely) “same-sex marriage.”
Suppose we all DID survive, and then this is to what world?
Kind gives another flavor to the word “Healthy Marriage” when one considers a coronation of this billionaire in a U.S. Senate building, of a man who claims to have heard from deceased Presidents and the news is, theocracy is in, republic is out. And/or, he and his wife are the true parents to the world.
I’m not kidding, I was just looking at Phoenix, Arizona, National Association of Marriage Enhancement, the Godzich family, and the GOP/Unification Church/Assembly of God churches/ Christian Dominionism/Anti-gay political contributions, and the Uganda connection.
One thing you won’t be on this blog (I hope) is
(a) bored or
(b) less informed than when you began looking or, most importantly
(c) noncommital on this institution as a sinkhole of money and corruption, that isn’t getting to those who need it much more than some food aid consistently gets to the hungry people in the Southern hemisphere, or
(d) underestimating the contribution of your local faith-based institution not to solving, but rather, helping create, the major social problems we are experiencing. (FYI, I identify as Christian, but not possible to go through this system and come out the same kind of one!). (Did I mention domestic violence, and women as inferior, at least after saying “I do,” yet?)
For PARENTS, the timeframe is VERY short — about a generation.
For professionals, it’s the curve of the career, after which they can easily publish and conference on their prior experience.
The litigants in the family law system usually include one side more powerful than the others, and, to be frank, often one side with possibly some criminal behavior, if not a record. The metaphor here that applies is the myth of Procrustes — the innkeeper whose bed fit “everyone.” However, Secretly, Procrustes had two beds. If a short person came in, out came the long bed, and the customer was stretched to fit. If a tall person came in, out came the short bed, and I won’t describe that process.
Finally some hero came and applied some of this medicine to the innkeeper. I think it’s about time to do that, however, firmly, and without violence. The only way I know to do that is to cut off the supply line:
Families — warn each other to stay away.
General public — research where your money is going, and demand an accounting of what good it’s doing. Since thats a lot harder than actually giving the government less to waste, both of which will require creativity, insight, information, and possibly make us better people.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Afghanistan // Egypt — The Art of Suppression (2 from MidEast Forum/Pajamas Media)
My connection with this is (obviously) through the writings of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, but the relationship of suppression of women to suppression of the “wrong” religion (according to who’s in power) is universally important.
Here’s the “about” page on “meforum However my main hope in posting these two articles is that visitors to THIS blog about familycourtmatters will consider these topics.
I consider the family law system symbolically an “archipelago,” and I also see it as Sharia in the making. Most men are not really ready for women to be free from their domination throughout society. The risks that we might just :
1. Say No and stop providing services, including supporting oppressive systems, breeding more young, nubile females to satisfy infantile fantasies, and stop rebuilding what wars have destroyed, AND (as to middle aged males), after by doing this, have restored some possible equilibrium,
2. Seek mates closer to our own age, and stop standing by while our neighbor females lose their lives, and children, through a court system, because we have been socially groomed that, by paying taxes (i.e., being employees, not employERs), someone else is responsible for it.
3. In general set higher standards of behavior for interaction with us and our kids.
To be fair, though this is “MEFORUM” opening description:
The Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank, works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East and protect the Constitutional order from Middle Eastern threats. It does this in three main ways:
- Intellectually: Through the Middle East Quarterly, staff writings, lectures and conference calls, the Forum provides context, insights, and policy recommendations.
- Operationally: The Forum exerts an active influence through its projects, including Campus Watch, Islamist Watch, the Legal Project, and the Washington Project.
- Philanthropically: The Forum distributes nearly $2 million annually through its Education Fund, helping researchers, writers, investigators, and activists around the world.
Now about 2006, and how Phyllis almost got stuck overseas, and came back more feminist than before. Many parallels exist with USA (from where I, obviously, blog)…
(1) of (3)
How Afghan Captivity Shaped My Feminism
by Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2006, pp. 3-10
. . .
/// My life was akin to that of an upper class Afghan woman. My experience was similar to—but hardly as constrained as—that which an increasing number of Arab and Muslim women face today.
In this first decade of the twenty-first century, women living in Islamic societies are being forced back into time, re-veiled, more closely monitored, and more savagely punished than they were in the 1960s.
That said, I had never expected my freedom and privacy to be so curtailed. In Afghanistan, a few hundred wealthy families lived by European standards. Everyone else lived in a premodern style. And that’s the way the king, his government, and the mullahs wanted it to remain. Western diplomats did not peg their foreign policies to how Afghanistan treated its women.
Even before multicultural relativism kicked in, Western diplomats did not believe in “interfering.”
My comment: This attitude prevails in the family-worshipping environment of white (and black, and other colors, from what I can tell) Protestant non-mainstream AND mainstream churches. At least that has been my consistent experience over more than a decade, both married with violence, and single supposedly without it….
I am now (of recently) re-evaluating this concept of the ramifications Monotheism (as well as Atheism) according to its practice. If you think THAT ain’t challenging … it is ….. But an honest person will do this. More in other posts.
The Afghanistan I knew was a prison, a feudal monarchy, and rank with fear, paranoia, and slavery. Individual Afghans were charming, funny, humane, tender, enchantingly courteous, and sometimes breathtakingly honest. Yet, their country was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, and preventable disease. Women were subjected to domestic and psychological misery in the form of arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, the chadari, domestic slavery and, of course, purdah (seclusion of women).
Women led indoor lives and socialized only with other women. If they needed to see a doctor, their husband consulted one for them in their place. Most women were barely educated. In Kabul, I met other foreign wives who loved having servants but whose own freedom had been constrained. Some European wives, who had come in the late 1940s and early 1950s had converted to Islam and wore The Thing, as we called the cloaking chadari.
Each had been warned, as had I, that whatever they did would become known, that there were eyes everywhere, and that their actions could endanger their families and themselves. Afghans mistrusted foreign wives.
I have a post, a while back, including the “Seven-lesson Schoolteacher” (from “Dumbing Us Down” by John Taylor Gatto (1990), a homeschool favorite. ONE of the lessons is, “there is no privacy.” This concept is echoed in the Decalaration of Independence of the United States, as follows:
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
[[As contrasted to “no-fault divorce.” hmmm..]]
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
[[Again, read this with the concept of men governing women within their marriages, and society — and think about it!]]
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–
And some of them are listed in this document:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States…
- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. {{or custody dependent on the will of a capricious judge..}}
- He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
These are the court paraprofessionals I keep blogging about….
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
- He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
The family courts exist in ORDER to do this; it is therapeutic jurisprudence, and mediation, evaluation, supervised visitation IN ORDER to produce a desired outcome, which I have been posting about (see also NAFCJ.net). When you have the words “required outcome” in a court case, as opposed to “required PROCESS,” you no longer have justice. Period.
Back to Phyllis’ Feminism formed, or re-inforced, in Afghanistan
Once, I saw an Afghan husband fly into a rage when his foreign wife not only wore a Western swimsuit to a swimming party—but actually plunged into the pool. The men expected to be the only ones who would swim; their wives were meant to chat and sip drinks. The concept of privacy is a Western one. When I would leave the common sitting room in order to read quietly in my own bedroom, all the women and children would follow me. They’d ask: “Are you unhappy?” No one spent any time alone. To do so was an insult to the family. The idea that a woman might be an avid reader of books and a thinker was too foreign to comprehend. Like everyone else, Ali was under permanent surveillance. His career and livelihood depended upon being an obedient Afghan son and subject. How he treated me was crucial. He had to prove that his relationship to women was every bit as Afghan as any other man’s; perhaps more so, since he had arranged his own marriage to a foreigner. ///
In Western terms, he had to prove his “masculinity.”
NOTE: I haven’t fully processed this next article but (as typically) put it out here for public consumption and digestion. I do note that in our area (which has a prospering MidEastern population from a number of countries) I recently met a (professor/doctor) man, a Christian, who said that the U.S. has strongly underestimated the danger of Islam, and spoke of how Egypt (from where he was) persecutes Christians. I remembered “Now They Call Me Infidel” for sure.
(2) of (3)
Unprecedented: Egyptian Government Suppresses Christian Doctrine
by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
June 16, 2010
It is not enough that the Egyptian government facilitates persecution of the Copts, Egypt’s indigenous Christian minority. Now the government is interfering directly with the church’s autonomy concerning doctrine. According to the Assyrian International News Agency:
The head of the Coptic Church in Egypt has rejected a court ruling that orders the church to allow divorced Copts to remarry in the church. In a press conference held on Tuesday June 8, Pope Shenouda [III], reading from the statement issued by the Holy Synod’s 91 Bishops, including himself, said: “The Coptic Church respects the law, but does not accept rulings which are against the Bible and against its religious freedom which is guaranteed by the Constitution.” He went on to say “the recent ruling is not acceptable to our conscience, and we cannot implement it.” He also said that marriage is a holy sacrament of a purely religious nature and not merely an “administrative act.”
Though little reported in the West, this issue is rapidly boiling over. There is even talk that, if he does not submit to the court’s ruling, the pope will (once again) be imprisoned. What is behind such unprecedented governmental interference with the Coptic Church’s autonomy?
Reading Egypt’s national newspaper, Al Ahram, one gets the impression that, by trying to make divorce and remarriage easier for Copts, the Egyptian government is attempting to “liberalize” Coptic society—only to be challenged by an antiquated pope not open to “reform.” It quotes one Copt saying that the “Pope’s limiting divorce and remarriage to cases of adultery is unfair. It is against human nature.” Even the manager of the Centre for Egyptian Women’s Legal Assistance claims that his position “exposes Pope Shenouda’s desire to impose his will over the Christian community” (a curious statement, considering that some 10,000 Copts recently demonstrated in support of the pope, and that the Catholic and Orthodox churches—which guide some 1.5 billion Christians—hold similar views on divorce and remarriage).
At any rate, lest the reader truly think that the Egyptian government is becoming more “liberal,” there are a few important facts to remember:
First, according to the Second Article of the Egyptian Constitution, Sharia law—one of, if not the most draconian law codes to survive the Medieval period—is “the principal source of legislation.” This means that any number of measures contrary to basic human rights are either explicitly or implicitly supported by the Egyptian government, including polygamy, the obstruction of churches, and institutionalized discrimination against non-Muslims and females in general. Put differently, Sharia law can be liberal—but only to male Muslims, who (speaking of marriage and divorce) can have up to four wives, and divorce them by simply uttering “I divorce you” thrice (even via “text messaging“).
Moreover, the Egyptian government—again, in accordance to Sharia law—prevents Muslims from converting to Christianity. Mohammad Hegazy, for instance, tried formally to change his religion from Muslim to Christian on his I.D. card—yes, in Egypt, people are Gestapo-like categorized by their religion—only to be denied by the Egyptian court. (Many other such anecdotes abound). In other words, while the Egyptian government portrays itself as “modernizing” the church’s “archaic” position on divorce and remarriage, it—the government, not Al Azhar, nor some radical sheikhs, nor yet the Muslim mob—prevents (including by imprisonment and torture) Muslims from converting to Christianity.
As for those who accuse Pope Shenouda of behaving no better than “closed-minded” radicals, consider: he is not forcing a law on individual Copts; he is simply saying that, in accordance to the Bible (e.g., Matt 5:32), and except in certain justifiable circumstances (e.g., adultery) Copts cannot remarry in the church: “Let whoever wants to remarry to do it away from us. There are many ways and churches to marry in. Whoever wants to remain within the church has to abide by its laws.”
If this still sounds a tad “non-pluralistic,” know that at least Copts have a way out: quit the church. No such way out for Muslims: Sharia law—Egypt’s “primal source of legislation”—mandates death for Muslims who wish to quit Islam.
Nor has the inherent hypocrisy of the government’s position been missed by Egyptians: “The Pope evaded answering a question presented by a reporter in the press conference on whether the court would dare order Al Azhar [Egypt’s highest Islamic authority] to agree to a Muslim marrying a fifth wife and not only four, comparing it to the interference of the Court in the Bible teachings through its recent ruling.” A good question, indeed.
Finally, the grandest oddity of this situation is the fact that, for all its inhumane practices, Sharia law does, in fact, permit dhimmis to govern their communities according to their own creeds, a fact not missed by the pope himself, who “pointed to Islamic Law, which allows religious minorities to follow their own rules and customs.”
In short, the Egyptian government is behaving even more intolerantly than its medieval Muslim predecessors who, while openly oppressive of Christians, at least allowed the latter to govern their own, personal affairs according to Christian doctrine. As Pope Shenouda declared at the emergency Holy Synod, “the ruling must be reconsidered, otherwise this will mean that the Copts are suffering and that they are religiously oppressed.”
Indeed, when Copts are violently persecuted by Muslims, the government claims that it cannot control the actions of a minority of “extremists.” However, now that the Egyptian government is personally tampering with the church’s ability to live according to Christian doctrine, what more proof is needed that it seeks to subvert Coptic society and is therefore an enabler of Coptic persecution?
Raymond Ibrahim is associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of The Al Qaeda Reader, and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College.
Related Topics: Anti-Christianism, Egypt | Raymond Ibrahim
AND, all to common these days, a woman imprisoned, baited by her own child’s voice, til she agrees to NOT divorce him….
(3) of (3)
Man allegedly imprisoned estranged wife
Sheboygan Press staff • June 19, 2010
This is the day before father’s day. The man was a father. THe word “father” should’ve been in the headline. AND, how come SHE is a “wife” but HE is a “man.” If she’s his WIFE, he’s a “husband.” If a SWAT team had been called in, he might’ve ended up dead, as did a young man who held a cousin/baby hostage (though unharmed) in our area not long ago, after a hole was blown through a wall).
A 29-year-old rural Sheboygan Falls man allegedly lured his estranged wife into his basement with their child’s voice and locked her in a room until she promised to reconcile, according to a criminal complaint filed Friday.
Benjamin C. Riemer, of N4395 Van Treeck Trail, is charged with felony false imprisonment and misdemeanor counts of battery and disorderly conduct.He faces up to four years in prison, if convicted on all counts.
According to the complaint:
Riemer’s wife, 29, came to his house about noon Thursday to pick up their 2-year-old daughter.
{{FOLKS NOTE: they were separated, and had obviously visitation or some form of shared parenting or joint custody… I recommend a DETOX period for men when they separate. This is a DANGEROUS time for a woman, even if no prior DV was alleged, and can be for the children, too. Traumatized threatened Moms are challenged in their parenting, if this goes on too long, as it does in custody “battles.” (a male phraseology, not a female one, by the way)}}
As she looked for the child outside, Riemer came outside with a “crazy look” in his eyes and told her to get in the house.
The woman said allowed Riemer to herd her inside,
WOMEN, be forewarned. Perhaps he’d been herding her a lot during marriage; perHAPS this relates to why they were divorcing…How old was she? The baby has an age, and he does, but she doesn’t?
but she resisted when he told her to go to the basement. She relented when he told her their daughter was downstairs and she heard the girl’s voice.
When they reached the basement, she discovered the voice was coming through a baby monitor. Riemer then told her, “Oh yeah, you knew you shouldn’t have come down here.”
Riemer pushed the woman into a bedroom and locked the door, taking her phone and throwing it away.
Riemer then told his wife he had been planning this day for weeks and she was not leaving until she agreed to give him another chance. Riemer said he had a loaded gun ready to kill himself if she said no, and he also referenced shooting her.
The wife said Riemer kept her in the room for about an hour, repeatedly pushing and screaming at her as she began to panic and hyperventilate. When she tried to run out, Riemer slammed her into a desk chair and moved a sofa in front of the door.
{{Readers: Re-read that above paragraph, and the below one, and then consider whether that wasn’t a LIGHT sentence, if he is even convicted… Will his behavior be excused because he was “distraught” ?? I suspect there was probably more shoving and such behavior in the marriage BEFORE separating….}}
Riemer let the woman go when she promised not to go through with the divorce. Court records show the couple filed jointly for divorce in March.
I rest my case that we are heading towards Sharia Law in the U.S. Watch Out!
======
Regarding “Not Without My Daughters” (Beth Mamoody), Yes, there was protest about this version of events; even Wikipedia acknowledges. Here’s a link from the “Iran Times,” last August stating so:
‘Not Without My Daughter’ dad dies0 Comments | Iran Times International (Washington, DC), August 28, 2009
Bozorg Mahmoody, the medical doctor who became internationally famous, even infamous, as the man described as a wife-beater in the book and film “Not Without My Daughter,” died Saturday. He was 70 years old.
The state news agency quoted his nephew, Majid Ghodsi, as reporting Mahmoody died in a Tehran hospital of kidney problems and other complications.Ghodsi said, “He thought of his daughter until the end and passed away without seeing Mahtob.”
Mahtob, who will turn 30 next month, has said publicly that she refused to have anything to do with her father and has lived for years in an undisclosed city in North America under an assumed name so that he could not find her.
The book, written by Mahtob’s mother, Betty Mahmoody, and especially the 1991 movie adaptation, starring Sally Field as Betty and Alfred Molina as Bozorg, enflamed the Iranian-American community for depicting Iranians and Iranian culture negatively.Betty Mahmoody responded that the heroes of the story were the Iranians who went to great lengths to help Betty and Mahtob flee Iran in 1986. Bozorg had refused to allow his wife to leave the country with their daughter, hence the title of the book and film.
Bozorg Mahmoody fought back in 2003 by cooperating in a French-German film financed by Finnish television that gave his side of the story.
Bozorg Mahmoody was defiant that his ex-wife invented much of the story and in the process defamed him and prevented him and his daughter from having a normal father-child relationship. And because of her book and the Hollywood film it spawned, he said he was “a victim of international politics.”
Wife-beaters are always “victims” … Even the CONCEPT that a man might beat his wife for religious, or other reasons, is a vicious feminist lie striking at the heart of the family, which of course is with Apple Pie, what America is really about, as well as most religions . . . .
The MSM news are NOT majority feminist owned. Nor are the churches, nor is Washington. There is plenty of fatherhood & marriage funding making the rounds, still. The richest church around (Roman Catholic, Vatican) has a real love/hate relationship with females, while promoting the breeding of more church members to dedicate their lives and services (and tithes, including help settling abuse complaints) to this organization. It’s not owned by feminazis. Nor are the Mormons, nor are other major churches that consider the family more important than individual rights.
And the news I’m reading, as hard as it tries to “equalize” the situation, still reports rapes, beatings, murders, etc. by women attempting to leave men as primarily BY men. Maybe they did it for “real” good reasons, but the facts are, if the papers are not outright lying when they say what’s on the police blotter, there’s a lot of violence going around. …
I think it’s time we searched for a BALANCED set of social paradigms, and seek to limit the power of government in our lives. I do understand, from one perspective, how the feds have to step in at times and have in the past. However, the creators of the poverty and the creators of the DOMINATE mentality should not be entirely trusted to set the social standards of an entire nation. And for this — face it — until CONGRESS is more diverse, which takes independent money most of us don’t have — we are going to have to think more cooperative locally.
Someday the middle-class will figure out what’s going on at the top and at the bottom of society, and I hope that there will be a track record of some truths (I don’t say ALL truth, which is an egotisticals tatement, but SOME relevant truths) to the cause and effect of all this — well, for an analogy to BP fiasco — spillage and spouting out of what’s in the innards of the earth into the more visible and more sensitive ecology of the ocean (of humanity….). We are up to our necks in it.
Don’t blame the oil! ……
And one response to PRESSURE is PRESSING BACK. And the natural Re-action to PRESSING BACK AGAINST PRESSURE.
Adding the weight of “God” (and being His (or Her, or Their) “sole interpreter” in this is simply not really playing fair.
SHARE THIS POST on...
CFFPP and FVPF, where the word “families” really means “fathers..” [First publ. March 3, 2010 with July 27, 2016 update, and Nov., 2017 related posts referencing this one].
Post title (updated to identify later posts referencing this one):CFFPP and FVPF, where the word “families” really means “fathers..” [First publ. March 3, 2010 with July 27, 2016 update, and Nov., 2017 related posts referencing this one]. ( With case-sensitive, word-press generated shortlink ends “-pG”).
This background-color and box (text inside borders) is a 7/27/2016 Update
(see related post “SFFI- CFFPP – JustGive...” Published 7/26/2016; see also, same day, “Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak?”
Both those posts have details on CFFPP (the second, more where it fits in the larger picture), but the “SFFI” one is more focused one of its listed “Funders” — “JustGive.org” as a substantial ($32M or so) on-line funding platform — and who THEY are related to.
FORMATTING: This short statement (post) I wrote March 3, 2010, a VERY tough time in my life personally. I see I was not too “html-competent” at the time (it may have to do with input equipment also, which wasn’t a laptop as I recall). Apart from that, CFFPP is a LITTLE (size-wise) nonprofit with famous people on its board (mostly unpaid) but somehow two pages of famous foundation funders also. The corporation/tax return history of this organization reveals some oddball (although not for the field of “fatherhood practitioner” sponsoring 501©3s, I’ve learned since). Also, several of the links to documents quoted on this page are, as happens, “Page Not Found” over at the CFFPP.org website. Here in this update are some similar, if not necessarily, identical links:
In the “Technical Assistance Series” — on Fatherhood Promotion: {{2017 update: both these next two links became broken sometimes between it seems July 26-27, 2016 (my posting this) and late Nov., 2017 (my revisiting this for follow-up information.) lhe website has been updated, so that’s not too surprising. Large portions of them are quoted below, however.}}
- http://cffpp.org/publications/TA_Father_PubPolicy.pdf co. 2003, Technical Assistance Series Author Jacquelyn Boggess:
- Please notice Esta Soler and Tangir Mangat, as well as Board of Directors CFFPP — and their organizational or university affiliations — as well as Staff. Which (unformatted) for this document is:
- Board of Directors Esta Soler • Interim Chairperson, Family Violence Prevention Fund /Tanvir Mangat • Treasurer, Private Consultant /Margaret Stapleton, J.D. • Secretary, National Center on Poverty Law /Adrienne Brooks • Private Consultant /Carole Doeppers • Consumer and Health Privacy Consultant /Earl S. Johnson, Ph.D. • California Health and Human Services Agency / John Rich, M.D., M.P.H. • Boston Public Health Commission / Beth Richie, Ph.D. • University of Illinois at Chicago /Gerald A. Smith • IBM /Oliver Williams, Ph.D. • University of Minnesota {{See “IDVAAC.org”}}
- CFFPP Staff Jacquelyn Boggess, J.D. • Senior Policy Analyst / Rebecca May • Policy Analyst /Louisa Medaris • Office Manager /David Pate, Ph.D. • Executive Director / Marguerite Roulet, Ph.D. • Research Associate Scott Sussman, J.D. • Legal Analyst
- http://cffpp.org/publications/TA_Fthd_DomViol.pdf by Marguerite Roulet, also C. 2003, and about “two meetings held in Madison 2001 and 2002.” Slightly different Board of Directors lineup, starting with “Wendell Primus, Ph.D.” of Center on Budget and Policy Priorities listed first, and Esta Soler, J.D. of FVPF second.
THIS report is based on two meetings held in Madison, Wisconsin in May 2001 and July 2002. The Center would like to thank the Public Welfare Foundation, the Hill-Snowdon Fund of the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, whose generous support made these meetings possible. We would also like to thank the many individuals who contributed their time and expertise to the meetings and whose on-going work to fight poverty and racism in the U.S. inspires. Thank you Abdillahi Alawy (Public Welfare Foundation), David Arizmendi (Iniciativa Frontera), Adeyemi Bandele (Men on the Move), …
“Sentence” highlit in yellow above is an incomplete sentence, missing a final word (probably direct object) after the word “inspires”. My posts also have long but grammatically incomplete sentences — on the other hand, I don’t do this with help from major tax-exempt foundations and a significant staff including at least two people with advanced degrees (I see (Jacquelyn Boggess — J.D. and David Pate, a Ph.D.) or even a budget for the writing.
Because now I know how to show the images, I’m going to add two pages here — the CFFPP people (first image) and the EXTENSIVE “Acknowledgements” page — both the organizations that funded the meetings, and lots of other people…//LGH:
click image to enlarge as needed
click image to enlarge as needed
page 2, left, has figures in background, page 3, right is the plain text one.
CFFPP (“Fathers” in its name, co2003) Fatherhd & DV TA, Page 2 CFFPP personnel ONLY viewed Jul2016
CFFPP (‘Fathers’ in org. name|co2003) Fatherhd & DV TA, Page 3|Acknowledgmts| ONLY viewed Jul2016
[the pdf links above produce same result as clicking on the image. Technological tweak (setting adjustment) on the image upload menu I hadn’t noticed yet, but now use regularly, making the extra “pdfs” unnecessary except where they are for files more than a page (i.e., one image) long].
Next quote (inside this 2016 update) shows Resources and References from this CFFPP “Fatherhood and DV” Document make NO reference to the multi-million-dollar HHS-backed “responsible fatherhood/ healthymarriage” grants stream which — trust me — plenty of the participating groups knew about (see http://TAGGS.hhs.gov to compare which of them may have been recipients).
I notice heavy references to “Oliver Williams” including the “IDAAV” under “resources” which (in this part) doesn’t specifically mention his name, but which he’s basically (with steering committee) been leading — for years… and probably back then, too. NOTE: the “IDVAAC” does NOT appear to be an independent 501©3 or registered business entity– at least not in Minnesota, where it’s been operating from:
References
Carrillo, Ricardo and Jerry Tello, eds. 1998. Family Violence and Men of Color: Healing the Wounded Male Spirit. New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.
Raphael, Jody. 2000. Saving Bernice: Battered Women, Welfare, and Poverty. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Williams, Oliver, Jacquelyn Boggess, and Janet Carter. 2001. “Fatherhood and Domestic Violence: Exploring the Role of Men Who Batter in the Lives of Their Children” in Sandra A. Graham-Bermann and Jeffrey L. Edleson, eds. Domestic Violence in the Lives of Children: The Future of Research, Intervention, and Social Policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 157—187.
Williams, Oliver. 1999. “Working in Groups with African American Men Who Batter” in Larry E. Davis, ed. Working With African American Males: A Guide to Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 229-242.
Williams, Oliver. 1999. “African American Men Who Batter: Treatment Considerations and Community Response” in Robert Staples, ed. The Black Family: Essays and Studies, 6th edi- tion. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp. 265-279.
Resources
• Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence: a Collaborative Project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, University of Iowa School of Social Work, and Greater Hartford {{CT}} Legal Assistance—a series of policy and practice papers
• Connecticut’s Evolve Program: a 26 and 52 week culturally competent, broad based, skill building, psycho-educational curriculum for male domestic violence offenders with female victims, by Denise Donnelly, Fernando Mederos, David Nyquist, Oliver Williams, and Sarah Wilson. State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, June 2000
• Men of Color Fatherhood Education and Violence Prevention Project, a joint project of the Domestic Violence Program and the Father-Friendly Initiative of the Boston Public Health Commission
• National Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community ((Not mentioned — Oliver Williams’ involvement in this..I don’t know also whether the word “National” was ever in its name. See idvaac.org website))
• National Latino Family and Fatherhood Institute (not mentioned — See Jerry Tello)
Basically, they (participants/conference leadership) are referring to themselves and their own work. Re: references to states of Connecticut and Massachusetts: AFCC has had a strong presence in both states for years (see my Jun/July 2016 posts for more; not necessarily legally incorporated the whole time) and Connecticut also had — starting about this time — a significant “Fatherhood Initiative of Connecticut” (i.e., statewide)
Shortly after this (and after having corporate status suspended in Illinois) CFFPP underwent a corporate name change — and address change. This was, however, recorded on an improper EIN#, using “39” where the correct number was “36.”
p17 ONLY, IL (Form NFP112.45:113.60) Appl for Reinstatemt (not stamped “Rec’d”) @CFFPP’s Amended FY2003 Return as EIN#394038873 (2nd digit should be “6”) showing Req for Namchange Signed 2-24-2005 in WI (Certific of Diss: Revoc Dec1, 20014 (19pp)
(End of 2016 Update Section);
March 3, 2010, post (vs. its update, above) Begins Here.
In the last post, a FVPF (Family Violence Prevention Fund) Program targeting fathers was supported by several groups, one of them “CFFP,” a name I recognized (along with most of the others). Which prompts me to finish this draft, a few days old, which began…
“I am tired and ornery today, and instead of blogging current news, I’m going to blog “vocabulary news.” Because I believe the gap between theory and practice in the courts is a vocabulary problem. Yes, you heard me right.”
There’s an established group (since 1995) called “CFFP.” For what that acronym stood for (originally) and stands for (now), read on. It doesn’t take much scrutiny to figure out that what originally said “fathers” now says “family.” On their home page, currently, is a 40 page pdf summarizing the marriage/fatherhood movement in lay terms.
Those at sea in terminology might wish to read this:
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
“Parental Alienation” is Sign Language….Like “Domestic Violence”
leave a comment »
Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. Hope never dies that exposing verbal idiocy might result in a net reduction of it.
At least on the part of the consumers — the marketers, well, this language use is wise.
PART 1:
PARENTAL ALIENATION
The words “Parental Alienation” signify that somewhere on this earth, a certain business sector, playing on human emotions, is prospering. As does “domestic violence” “child abuse” “Children and Families” and “Fatherhood” (enough syllables, seems to roll well off the tongue), and “false allegations,” “resource center” and “batterers’ intervention,” “supervised visitation,” and the like. These noun phrases are now just part of the landscape, and have developed their own specialized biosphere, with flora and fauna.
If you were a fine-feathered, raptor, and could soar with piercing vision, specialized hearing (and feathers) and incredible adaptations for dive-bombing your prey from on high in spirals, like the peregrin falcon, or hearing it underneath the snow, like certain owls (obviously I’ve been watching PBS here), and your prey were compromised populations, you JUST might be an initiative, a conference, a collaboration, a task force, a commission, or a nonprofit organization part of one of the above.
RAPTOR FORCE: Eagles, Falcons, Hawks, and Owls
I already brought up the concept of the Family Law System as a Giant Squid, fearsome tentacles lurking in the dar, able to tear apart ships, the stuff of mythology. Now it’s time to get the view from on high, the “Task Force” viewpoint, the elite, all-seeing, dive-bombing, never-see-it-coming social policy collaboratives (etc.).
Well, like raptors, they come in different flavors, and target different prey. But they’re all aerial artists. Some are solo, some fly in woods, some even work in teams, I learned through this show.
The owl uses sound — its ears are uneven. Its specialized facial feathers help with that.
The peregrin falcon is a dive-bomber. Specialized eye covering deflects flying sand particles, which at high speed, could sure hurt.
With birds, you can see this by their shapes, although closer look gets a finer appreciation. With humans, one has to be more sensitive to language and behaviors to figure out whether they are distressed prey, congregants meeting to figure out what to do about distressed prey, or raptors coming in for those lower on the food chain.
Some go for distressed Dads. Some go for distressed Moms. So long as the conciliation code (at least in my state) rules that ANY couple having a squabble about custody, that squabble per se gives jurisdiction of their young to the raptors. Excuse me, Conciliation Courts, a.k.a., later, Family Courts. Now, what typically distresses said Dads, or Moms, is generally the other Parent. Which brings us to “Parental Alienation.”
(1)
“Parental:”
Define “Parental.” Go ahead — I dare you.
For that matter, define “Parent.” Go ahead. I dare you, find an all-purpose word that fits all definitions, starting with the noun, before it became verbified (to parent) and adjectified (“Parental”), specified as to who has the kids (Custodial/noncustodial — a term also associated with prison, i.e., “taken into custody” as well as with winning a court debate, i.e., “custody granted.”), and finally market-niched (“Parenting classes”).
The word is already de-gendered, as if the world were not, or any of its 3 Abrahamic world religions were not.
(meaning includes “obeying.” This can get complicated in practice, as in:
In this case, the parent is childified…. and the prosecutor, in behalf of the education establishment, is parentified. Ironically, the word “educare” has a root meaning of Lead Out, not Box In (or, Stuff in, as in knowledge into people’s heads).
PARENT:
Now, like they say Eskimos have different words for snow, we have diversified words for “parent” — step-, bio-, surrogate- foster- adoptive- in addition to the older “grand-” (indicating biological). Whoever the kids in custody are living with at the time, they had better obey the Residential Parent, or the court may just switch them to the other one, or to another type of breeding ground called Juvenile Hall.
Such a diversity of language indicates a thriving business, and that obviously some parents are absent, or incompetent, or need supervision, etc. Which just goes to show who the “real” parent is as to assigning custody, but the real “parents” are as to assigning responsibility for any screwups.
Occasionally the word “father” or “mother” will show up in a new sarticle, or in a grants application, but generally, to say it’s neutral, it’s about custody rights, which means “PARENTAL.” Glad I established that. This word does NOT stand on its own when challenged — by anyone, almost — but it does mean, someone is open for business.
(2)
Alien-ation
Alien-Nation, etc.
Let’s keep this one short. I keep thinking about Arizona, where “aliens” are bad and you can be arrested for being alien improperly. So, I’d have to say that “alien” is bad in connotation, even though much business is done by resident “illegal aliens,” and in fact, some business would close were it not. Now, apart from UFO space-ship variety (promoting a different set of businesses, much of it digital, but also involving conferences…)
“Parental Alienation” is bad if a parent does it, but good if you’re in the business of protesting it, or running seminars for judges about it. The call “Parental Alienation” indicates a resonance to the AFCCNET.org philosophy that the goal is to reconcile marriages for the good of the nation. So the net value is neutral (one group of parents and affiliated associations use this term, an opposing group opposes the use of this term. This extends up into the stratosphere, where raptors flying around the Federal Aeyrie (?) can snag some grants to handle the problem, and plummet to street level with demonstration projects and initiatives. So, it’s good for them. Bad for taxpayers, I’d have to say.
============
WHO SETS THE DEBATE? The debate is not “PARENTAL ALIENATION” v . “CHILD ABUSE” any more than it is, categorically, Fathers v. Mothers, or Conservatives v. Liberals.
I see it as “teachers” vs. “taught.” My point in that last post is that I am no longer interested in the verbiage (pro/con) surrounding “alienation.” I am more interested in dishonest usage of the word “Parent” to obscure gender bias, but beyond that, I think it’s time to figure out the profit motive, and think seriously about the role of wealth (as opposed to jobs) in the larger picture. Then the networks become a little more plain to understand, beyond the rhetoric. ALthough I may not communicate it too well, an attempt is at the bottom of today’s post.
Meanwhile . . . .
Words are understood in their usage and in context, including who is speaking.
Parental Alienation is essentially a term coined to get certain things done, including therapists into the legal process, and conferences training judges (etc.) about it, into certain people’s resumes. Perfectly reasonable and pre-existing terms to describe the same thing aren’t as good a market niche. For one, “Stockholm Syndrome” or “traumatic bonding” or “custodial interference” in context might do as well. Or “brainwashing” or “child abuse.”
The debate about “Parental Alienation” is at a stalemate, but the field is full-throttle ahead, regardless of what any organization pronounces about it. It’s derailing the more important questions, and the distraction is intentional, I”m sure of it.
PART 2:
“Domestic Violence”
Domestic Violence Industry Awareness Month – My Comments on this site, responding to another Press Article, by DV Nonprofit responding to a family (he killed his kids) fatality surrounding Battered Shelter & “Unsupervised Visitation” and judge “just not understanding.”
After writing that comment (post-length, actually), I went back to TAGGS.hhs.gov and looked at how many (millions$) were going to Family Violence Prevention and Marriage/Fatherhood Promotion — in the same state. What a shocker. The real question is who is tracking BOTH sets of funding, and why not shut BOTH of them off, leaving some more funds at the local level, and perhaps some marriages might be less economically stressed, which might save lives (though poverty is no excuse for murder, nor is family “honor” !)
This blogger “gets” the grants racket. Needless to say, this POV is not circulated prominently by the DV experts.
Suggest just read the page. In case anyone wonders, I have never spoken to that blog author, I just happen to share many of the Points of View she reports (not all — for example, I’m not in favor of GPS ankle bracelets…). I suspect this will make sense to someone who has experienced some of the types of events she reports on.
It’s a long page, worth scrolling all the way through (and reading).
“Www.FamilyLawCourts.com/Domestic.”
or
To Discipline an Unethical Judge, Just Establish a Commission to Consider Whether To..
“Parental Alienation” & “Domestic Violence”
Street Level — this shows which infantry you are in.
Strategic Level – either way, it’s profit, but this is how task forces are delegate to one area or the other.
Another blogger gets this — same as above, on the business of DV — now she weighs in on “Parental Alienation” (although, the Lauren & Ted case, last 2 posts, she took the opposite side I did), it just might be worth a read.
A Nation of Stockholm Children (Aug. 2009, on Open Salon):
. . .(KEEP READING . .. . )
I’m not sure media blackout is the issue, but media spin, and a public so overwhelmed with info, they cannot process it. We do not know how the critical “operating systems” of the country actually work, including courts, law enforcement, government, and the role of religion in all this, child support systems, and the increasingly tightening of networks through the Internet.
Note: I cannot continue “teaching” (publicizing) through posts until my Internet access is up to speed (i.e., MHz very slow!). Just continue to keep in mind: The U.S.A. is the world’s largest per capita jailor, and captive audiences are captive for demonstrations of the latest theories, behavioral management techniques, or justification for (yet more) grants.
I saw a poster on a blog that says what to do, well enough:
It’s time to remember what this man did, and how he did it.
Also, to understand the INNATE characteristics of money — which is to congregate at centers of wealth, and drain from the extremities. That’s the kind of money the U.S. (at least) has, i.e., that which we BUY at interest, which will never be paid off, from the Federal Reserve. There are reasons we “have” to become a nation of consumers, and that failing to consume enough of what we really don’t need (and makes us sick, in some cases) has become an indication of “treason.” In examining the courts from the roots up, it does go to Washington, D.C., and to understand the monetary setting of policy by super-wealthy foundations and families (through government, through universities, etc.), it’s also necessary to grasp, even if dimly, that the North/South (?) division of the globe into countries forced to become export economies, rather than self-sufficient, to pay off THEIR debt — means that those products have to come back to the more industrialized countries. Yeah, I”m an armchair economist, but search “Susan George” on this blog (or just get the book) for a clue.
The Internet flattens, but access (or restricted access) to it also further segments society. The section in Maroon in yesterday’s post bears follow-up (if you can).
Here, is a description of what centrally based (and non-bona fide) money does to communities:
Now let’s think a little bit about TIME. If a person is earning an hourly wage, then TIME in court is wages lost, to say the least. What about their “psychic” emotional and other energy. including creative and thought energies, which would otherwise be put into taking care of their own basic needs, and their family’s (such as it may be, if in a divorce or custody situation). It’s GONE from the mix. In waltzes in (federally, state, then “local” meaning, a child support agency at the county level) – and says we are going to transfer income from A to B. Consider the bureaurcarcy in that, and the antagonism it creates. Families have died over this. Let me repeat. I have yet to hear of a mother murdering over child support, but their is no lack of newsprint on fathers, in this context. His basic authority and social credibility — income producing — has been challenged by the government. Meanwhile, this same Child Support agency waltzes into the newly single mother’s life, perhaps (and if abuse was involved, likely newly poor single) and says, we will interface for you. And yet, this entire system, it later develops, has been co-opted as a custody-switching agency. A federalization of basic life processes. So I say, boycott it. It’s got the power to incarcerate — or not. At will, if a mother has signed over her rights as a result off initially going on welfare. (A fact not typically made much of — but in years to come, will figure highly in any contested case…).
So, here are all these taxes going to socially engineer the country, and causing a lot of strife, and competition for working in the fields supported by this social engineering. How many of the services provided are the most basic ones that we couldn’t do without, and how many of the infrastructures and institutions created are transparent enough for the average participant to actually comprehend
I am certainly not a go-back-to-the-farm proponent, but the codependency here is too much, upon JOBS. The key difference between “job” and “business” is who keeps the profits, and who gets to deduct expenses before taxes.
People who were raised to just love what they do, and specialize in it, are called “professionals,” often, which brings up — who is going to pay for them to do what they love doing, and market it, contract it, do administration, etc. (unless people wish to “do it all” and “keep it small”?) One of the safest places to be a professional in a field that will rarely go away, is to do it for the US Government (I think). And in the courts, too.
Well, there’s a lot more to all this, but the key in the courts is where is the money moving around to, whether through professional referrals, trainings, or simply directly from litigants to fees. Multiply that to all contested custody cases involving children, per state, be aware there are 50 states (and US territories), and think about it.
There is, FYI, a two-tier court track:
1. Can afford fees. They will be “soaked;” one party may be bankrupted later, or up front, to inspire more fights.
1a. Then the therapists can come in and counsel how to reduce conflicts.
2. Can’t afford fees. These will be the revolving door cases, but because there’s such an easy way to get INTO court again, any old OSC almost will do it, and most litigant’s aren’t smart enough to move to dismiss up front (on any of a variety of grounds), these will repeatedly be brought back to court — and possibly produce a candidate for food stamps, SSI, or some other part of the welfare system to continue justifying its existence. Their data will be mined for further studies by social scientists (etc.) in remote locations.
2a. Occasionally a 1a or a 2a may result in someone going off the deep end, with a weapon. However, as this eventually causes social and economic deterioration, over a period of decades, no lack of new, fresh faces for the family law system (and associated professions).
Just a little more on “interest”:
Basically this site is reminding us that, compounding interest or not, what about taxes?
(co. 2004-2008, Evans Financial Group)
My point being, OK, OK,
be aware of the rhetoric,
but pay attention to common “cents” on where the “dollars” are going.
In some respects, could any ex be worse than this system long-term? The answer in many cases is, yes. But, maybe a civic duty is to get the field reports out, for posterity.
What are ALL the relevant elements of any situation — as best you can ascertain them.
Which of those are actionable — now, and in the long run.
What can you do not to overwhelm your personal comprehension system into “Paralysis”?
The human psyche can absorb a LOT of information (varies with individuals), but to act on it is natural. I think that overload jsut builds up tension and frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. To know what to act on, with purpose towards a certain goal, is critical to humanity. Being in systems of such chaos (and corruption) as these family law systems, is dangerous to the health. It tests character to handle it.
To give this post a semblance of structure, I’d like to conclude the way I started:
“Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. “
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
October 21, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Posted in AFCC, Biosphere, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, etc., Giant Squid, in Studies, Metaphors for Family Law, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Raptors, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with "Parent" explained- perhaps, AFCC, Alienation, Education, Jaycee Dugard, Linguistic Dissonance, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..