Note on display: Twice, I painstakingly went through and re-inserted the paragraph breaks in this post, and saved the revisions. I do not know why they aren’t all displaying anymore, so presume only the most curious readers will wade through the nonparagraphed texts. I did not (waders will find this quickly) correct all typos. I am talking about how to THINK about the issues in family court and deal with them. They become greater, often, than the issues which brought a family there to start with, and generally result in impoverishment of one or more spouses in the process, which then becomes an ongoing issue for the duration of the case.
Although the label on the door speaks ‘reconciliation” “mediation” “family” and “negotiation” “parenting” and all kinds of good fuzzy words, the fact is it is a form of warfare. First, between the parents, and second, upon the parents, and their rights and of course their wealth. I have been in this system many years as have other mothers I know. Stamina is always an issue, and attitude even more so. What I am interested most in, though, is angle of approach and reducing personal frustration by refusing to hold to myths which have proven to be myths, and arguing points that, though they shouldn’t be, are truly “moot.”
I finally got out of my abusive violent marriage, and good thing, when I found a place to stand and vocabulary to describe the situation. Then I had to experientially understand that something else was possible. I had to believe that other ways to exist would open up, even if I didn’t yet know what they were, but the one firm decision was, this was NOT the way I was going to spend XX more time, no matter how murky the exit seemed.
I would like to leave a bridge for others and tell them where the U-turns and dead ends are, like a scout. This would be best done before both my children have “aged out” of the system (one almost has). Part of that process is chosing the right place to stand in looking at it.
ALMOST NONE of the evaluations of the family law system, or recommendations to reform it, deal with the issue of child support, although certainly both mothers (and mothers’ groups) and fathers (and fathers’ groups) complain loudly about unfair support orders, or unpaid ones. That seems foolish to me. While many others talk about the professionals in the courts, and complaints and versions of them, very few talk about the entire SYSTEM of this, or the HISTORY of this. So in order to understand a thing, one must step OUTSIDE and look further, after the “full-immersion” version of what’s in there. I was shocked, and am shocked, to find a trail leading back to places like Washington, D.C., Denver Colorado (in an upcoming post) and places like Minnesota, or Texas, in explaing what the heck is going on in California. Or for that matter, on other continents. Failure to understand this is silly, given globalization and the internet, however typically this is about how it goes on the local level.
When I walked into some domestic violence family law places many years ago to try and get a handle on the violence that was ongoing and becoming more frequent, more frightening, more destructive (to work, relationships, income), and I was concerned also about whether it would turn deadly, the business of the day was bonding with other women, hearing their stories, learning I was NOT alone or without resources to change something, and learning the vocabulary. While this is normal (and part of abuse is generally being talked AT and down TO, not conversed WITH, so this experience was important and validating), what I did not do at that time was question what this center was doing, who was running it, who had conflict of interest with whom, and why we were headed into the family law system when I had felony level domestic violence going on at home? Why weren’t these people showing us how to deal with police?
One time during an incident, they even SENT police (when I called to try to avoid an attack that was building up and couldn’t get out), but why wasn’t the difference between criminal and civil explained, that I recall?
Now these organizations have “morphed” also, which is another topic.
Meanwhile, this post “morphed” into two topics, and then I started reflecting, which makes three:
So please bear with the initial posting, and then in a bit I will cut the pie into appropriate, more digestible pieces.
I used to, more often, wonder about what happened to this statement, in the family law system’s communal “head” and reasoning.
It’s already been voted into law I believe this statement to be true, experientially:
http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:
“The California State Legislature has declared that:
(1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
Penal Code section 273.8.)
(2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
13732(a)).
So the next question is, “What are YOU going to do about it?” (when in court).
Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my family?”
Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my friend, or my community, or . . . . . . “
Or, if one is exceptionally social-minded or moved by this: What can I do about this?” PERIOD.
My approach, until I learned, experientially, the next truth, was this(same document):
“The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
“prosecute” their batterers.
Ay, there’s the rub. So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected. Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc. Then they find out what their: family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about. And the years go by, the kids grow up. . . . . .
Ay, there’s the rub.** So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected. Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc. Then they find out what their: family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about. And the years go by, the kids grow up. . . . . .
**”To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub”
Origin From the celebrated ‘to be, or not to be‘ speech in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1603:
HAMLET:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;
When there is a clear and present danger, one (which one? ONE! We. I, you, the mother, the wife, the father, the neighbor, the society, although I’m not into communal society dreaming a single particular dream. . . . . It runs to abuse . . .. . Who interprets the dreams? WHo dreams them, the king? Do we have a king in this country? Ostensibly no, but our behaviors don’t always indicate this belief, no matter who’s currently in office), one cannot afford to dream.
But in “Family court matters” we are told to, as parents, or have our head examined by the local shrink more familiar with the dream.
I’m burnt out on all the propaganda in this field, let alone being preached AT from multiple quarters. The beginning of any school year, which for a former teacher, and former mother with kids in the house, and former musician/performer, is often a tough time emotionally.
So I’d say a WHOLE lot of this system is itself a “moot point” and intentionally so. It’s not what it pretends itself to be, and don’t you tell me this is because judges jsut don’t “understand” the domestics of domestic violence. They understand the power dynamic JUST FINE and are part of it.
Well, THIS post will have to be revamped for sure tomorrow morning! What a day!
1. Moot points and
2. Paradigms as tools to pry loose from a confining world view that leaves one trapped in useless dialogue.
And now here is
3. Reflections, descriptions.
Just to be ornery, let’s do this in reverse order:
3. How it feels (reflect, describe, (OK, complain)):
(I also have spliced in some reflection and reaction (personal). Well, I will sort this thought laundry after it’s been rinsed, spun and dried. The situation arises today because I’m simply tired of a lifestyle of seeking funding, seeking grants, seeking ways to make a dysfunctional system function (it’s not “dysfunctional from certain points of view) and weighing that alternative with the prospects of launching a proper civil suit to demand damages for torts, or access funds due people in my situation, it’s called “victims of crime” funding, but they are working on shuffling this into the domestic violence shelters, supposedly), OR simply getting through another day when life is racing by, with no way to access and have reasonable contact with either daughter? What would I do? Bring one of them along for a grants application, or have them sit by while I fill out legal paperwork against their current caretakers? Not hardly! I no longer associate with the former professionals, or have even funds for a museum trip. Show them how to ask a stranger for bus fare? This gets old after a while, particularly processing so many alternatives. I need to pray).
I have about five decades of life under my belt, and now two-fifths of these dealing with a singular issue — family violence, and leaving it. And approximately four and a half of these inhaling and exhaling music, for which I no longer even have an appetite, which is bothersome if you’ve lived and breathed this mode of living for such along time.
Of the approximately two-fifths of these decades dealing with the family violence issue, up until three years ago, my sole focus, intent, and drive was 3-fold:
1. set boundaries, and defend them so I could adequately
2. Get both daughters a reasonable education without so much stress and melodrama (because the fight was over this, within the family)i.e., get them back into the arts and off to colleges on scholarships. Literally the only way to do this as a single mother and with such limited funds, was homeschooling, which had just been stopped, or an alternate variety of the public school which gave them (and me) time to do the arts through independent study, or collaborative agreements with (by their ages now this was available) a local community college. We got 2 weeks only into this in summer 2006, anda the girls were literally stolen by his father and a girlfriend from my custody on an overnight visitation, sending into chaos 1, 2, and this:
3. Regaining financial self-sufficiency and some decent STABLE relationships (or, barring that, at least income) by engaging in: piano, choir and voice — which was what most of my life had been about, apart from being a mother and leaving abuse.
I believe it’s quite understandable why I don’t feel like taking up with a male for either sex, warmth, shared housing, or simple companionship before feeling literally, safe in my own skin, house, and profession. For one, it’s outside of my personal beliefs to sleep around, and part of this is practical. I do not want to engage in another relationship without the financial capacity to leave should it turn the same direction again. PERIOD. And, I don’t want to engage in a relationship with a needy male who can’t pull his own weight and needs a woman to do so, or to help punish and ex, which is the type of person my ex made a beeline for in his second live-in relationship.
The question, who ARE you continues to come up, when the usual definitions don’t do, and this is an issue women constantly face as they go through life. When the trip through family court adds to the turmoil with stigmatizing labeling, psychologizing and theologizing about who a woman is because she has personal limits on abuse and (________ deleted), it takes strength to redefine where one stands.
Which brings up the issue of, if you’re that strong, what does one “need” a partner for, as most of us do want to be wanted. Sex? Money/ Someone who knows you over time to eat a meal with on a regular basis, and some conversation (I’m strongly tending towards the latter)? Someone to have some fun (and intimacy) with? Yep. So, then which religion do we throw out, eh?
I have always known that I was able to relate solitary (as to the art and work, nature, writing, etc.) BUT also in social groupings and communities was necessary, including individual friendships and relationships. My family was nothing of this to me, they went through the routines, and in fact the only one whose conversations hold much weight with me at this point is actually my father, who has been gone 26 years. At least he had a sense of humor, all I get from the surviving relatives is dogma, and bitterness, now that I surfaced as individual AND mother, and serious about both. Like I said, i was tolerated to the extent I forked over the futures of two children I gave birth to, and the less complaint, the better. That concept was disgusting to start with, and how it happened, worse. How much more important values can a mother transmit to her daughters than that it’s unacceptable for any man to assault a woman, let alone a pregnant one, and that they are NOT commodities, but individuals? That the laws of this land exist to protect them (actually false at this point, they are “moot” in practice) and that RIGHT is in this direction and WRONG is in that direction. That true is true and false is false when it comes to certain facts, and that these matter? That the sky, not the gutter, is the limit for them in all categories of life, and this includes demanding no double standards in work, in marriage, in life, and in schooling. IN communication and anywhere else.
And that it is of CRITICAL importance to call that event what it was, several years ago, and a travesty and misfiring of the justice system, and a coverup of a felony action, covered up because it was committed against a female, not a male. In the long arch of life, these are important.
As is choice of college.
As I’m running out of years, and options (and have run out of funds) and have hammered away at the problem of ethics, illogic, and troubling immorality within, in order: marriage, family, faith institutions, and ever expanding circles, including legal, family court, child support, and finally (how much further up can one go?) the U.S. Federal Government, and how it’s put together, apparently, I struggle between investing in another income initiative (knowing what this brings on from the family) and going for legal enforcement of some right (knowing how corrupt THAT system is) and continually calculating the odds.
Over the years, and as a female, I was naturally taught to seek help, collaborate and cooperate in this matter of throwing out a man that was dangerous, and maintaining a safe, but kindly access to my kids’ father, and yet also asserting –and REbuilding, really — a personal integrity and identity as mother, and professional.
After multiple betrayals, and eventually, watching my non-immoral, non-narcissistic, employed, tax-paying, non-law-rejecting supportive friends and colleagues (many of them also parents) vicariously, through this support, worn out, drained, and finally need to distance themselves to protect their OWN livelihoods and personal time, what remains instead is the toxic relationship with the ex-parent, and a continual need to replenish income and social contacts, however there is little common experience on which to make them.
Meanwhile, whether with children or (criminally, was how this happened) absent children, I was seeking simple law enforcement, asserting a right to reach financial independence in any legal moral way I saw fit, not in the politically correct to relatives and ex manner. I wanted control of my own infrastructure, and I wanted EVERYONE out of my personal turf that had no legal business there and no right to be there. Boy, THAT was a war!
How suspicious this is to our society in general. Can’t a woman get a little peace? My “liberal” relatives had a snit fit over me, without a resident male in the household, even though the resident male was, literally tearing up the place, and at times, portions of my face. In front of our children, too. What’s liberal about THAT?
I have been literally ordered to give my relatives what they wanted, and shut up about it afterwards — make the court orders, ALL of them “moot points,” prostrate myself and fork over all major decisions about life income and their schooling. They wanted MY KIDS, through the father, who at one time tried to offer his custody rights to these people in order to follow through in a prior personal threat to do this, solitary confinement for the sin of standing up!
In that sense, yes, it was “about the kids,” but when it gets to suppressing facts, lying, and breaking laws, it’s not about any children but about ego. How dare these folks use me as a surrogate mother to compensate for a prior elective choice, irreversible past menopause, to not have children? And break laws, intentionally ignore and dismiss domestic violence, and felony child-stealing, all kinds of bribery, manipulation and extortion, and serious character defects in the father (such as failure to support even himself, let sufficient work to also help support them) in order to get their way?
How dare my daughters be used for social, emotional props from a religious group that tolerates wife abuse? But they are. How DARE their distress fund the legal systems in two counties — but it does.
2. Paradigms, Tools to Pry Loose, Places to stand and the Lever of Language
Well, there are a lot of fish in the sea, tne the ones that don’t travel in schools that dart too and fro as athey are told to, and with each changing current, are the somewhat smaller groups of predators with teeth. So, I guess the task at hand is to figure out where the “teeth” are in this life. And where is the MOST relevant truth at any individual point in time. Where is the place to stand to move the system, or at least pull up the heavy stage drapes revealing the scaffolding, the catwalks, the prompters, and the actors without their stage makeup on.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, the first rule in depth perception is using both eyes — 2 Points of View.
For someone totally immersed, the first key is another set of experiences, a paradigm or language tools with which to Uproot Abuse and expose its roots. Hint: If one way fails, perhaps you have the wrong tools, and/or are standing in the wrong place.
(Where I’m eventually going with this is the money trail in the courts. . . . .. we won’t get there today….)
The reason I KNOW this is both the man who knocked my teeth loose
(for adjusting the volume on the radio from earsplitting loud, at the wrong time)
AND
my family of origin
AND
it’s obvious by now the family law system (cf. grants to courts for “Access/Visitation” being administered by OCSE,
office of Child Support Enforcement. There’s not even an attempt to conceal this on the websites)
2A. Dude, it’s about the money. That’s the paradigm to understand in understanding the family law system. This means child support and federal grants have to be examined as well, as well as job referrals, and private conflicts of interest among professionals on the same case.
They all know it’s about the money. So why do we all go into court and pretend it’s about the laws, REALLY? It ain’t. What is that, a courtly dance? Pirouettes, music, and all? And to half the people involved, at least, who can REALLY believe any more it’s about the kids – good grief! (see my last post). They themselves are growing up and saying they’re TIRED of being used in this manner. They grow up suffering all kinds of problems later, and then support other underground economies, like DRUGS. Then the fatherhood groups say this is because there’s a lack of father involvement. The fact is, the converse might be true — abusive Dads were KEPT in relationships too long. And while aspects of the system might be responsible for excessive jailing of African-American men, and men more than women, that’s not the woman’s fault when a child is at stake!
You know what some women I’m aware of got jailed for? Primarily, failure to pay child support, and taking their kids to prevent child molestation after it’s already happened. There’s a woman in southern California without contact with her kid. She says she found him pimping himself on the internet and contacted him (with an RO in place) to say STOP DOING THAT! She was threatened with jail for breaking a no contact order. Was anyone else concerned about a young man pimping himself on the internet to get away from an abusive Dad? There are all kinds of horror stories, and they are not just stories, either.
2B. Anything that is obviously, over time, a moot point, then this is not the reigning paradigm, even if you wish it were or thought it should be. Another one is actually primary. is the goal to change the system or win your case
(and which first? Because one timeframe is shorter than the other. This is where many organizations, with a cash flow, employees, business offices, and a little momentum, have a different world view than mothers, who have fast-growing children and fast-changing situations personally.)
MOOT POINTS:
When I was married, pretty much every thing was a “moot point” but what “mood” someone was in. It didn’t take too long to figure this out, but what to do about it was definitely a work in progress, and required my adjusting my concepts of both marriage, self, relationships, and (most importantly) PRIORITIES until I came to the conclusion that OUT was BEST.
I have been questioning recently why I bother to blog. Will it change anything? Does it make someone feel better or give a person hope or more tools to make sense of their situation? Does it help record these “stolen” years? I blog, therefore I am? Is it as much a contribution to society as my former practice, teaching kids, youth, and adults to SING, which I know was empowering and helpful to society. It was another “paradigm” for many of them, to hear what they could do, especially ensemble. And there is some terrifically beautiful and inspiring choral music out there; one can draw from different centuries and DEFINITELy different cultures. ANd build a skill, some discipline, some good times in the process also. What a great profession!
On the other hand, in the years behind me is a trail of court actions pronouncing one thing or another, after which I’ve been dumped by the roadside of life, having fulfilled my civic duty: Surrogate mother (as to our family line) and Family Court Client (as to the last many years). Before then in life, tuition has been paid through two sets of bachelor’s degrees, and our difficult divorce has justified (supposedly) the existence of several court-related and many nonprofit institutions, none of which (from MY standpoint) have fulfilled their assigned purposes, as judged by what the titles proclaim they do. For example, “Child Support Enforcement” “Restraining Order” “Custody Order” and “visitatin/vacation” schedule. All became “moot points” in our case history. So as far as “giving at the office,” I’ve done my part in life.
The collateral of THESE becoming “moot points” is that my work history and efforts have become JUST as “moot.. I would get jobs, only to lose them around the above. And then be targeted for further ridicule from my own family who were both the source of many of the job losses and (my mother) of some of the help to recover from them, since my local government determined not to enforce its own laws when a mother & woman was concerned. Go figure THAT one out.
Now we are to start again, but the situation has not been closed, and moreover, more cooks are involved, within my own family. The second chapter of leaving abuse is leaving the family of origin, or the abuser’s associates’ influence.
So, I have been bounced out of the paradigm of getting and maintaining and income, and investing some planning in doing so, into the paradigm of navigating either the government bureaucracy of welfare, being insulted that the same government drove me and my kids back there, from a different segment, OR (as my ex either does, or simply exists under the radar; which isn’t clear yet) trying to go “off the grid,” OR, getting back into the arena.
What happens with wrong paradigm? You lose! A lot.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that, barring repentance, a new character implant, or true reformation, or actual, actual inner spiritual awakening (not just the kind that gets probation vs incarceration, or that wins the heart of a gullible vulnerable female), “conciliation” isn’t really the reigning paradigm in the family law courts. OSTENSIBLY it is, but in practice and practice shows intent, it ain’t.
While I was operating under the (illusion, I say) paradigm of LAW vs. Enforcement/compliance, etc., and with the vocabulary I learned post-separation to describe this abuse — because without a tool for the mind, the words, one is hard put to dig, pry, or loosen a situation, to objectify it and decide what to do with it, the people on the other side of the court motion, including one unrepentant woman-batterer, were using the pretense of negotiation to enforce ultimatums, point by point, on my life that no court order warranted. And while the courts and police exist to handle this, it was not practically possible once the downward slide got going with some speed. And the first thing that slid away was jobs. and with them relationships and sources of referral for more work (i was self-employed in the profession as many if not most classical/teaching musicians are)
So WORDS ARE CRUCIAL, just as words justified abuse and oppression in marriage — the wider picture was the rapids ahead — family law, instead used the exact opposite paradigm the paradigm of pathologizing conflict and reuniting family. The paradigm of Big Brother (and his other relatives) as “doctor” and anyone that comes through the doors as little children needing coaching for their “squabbles.” It was the paradigm of “Reunification” for the good of society. Only much, much later did I learn of the paradigm of the social crisis of “fatherlessness.”
Words alone are not indicators; when they are only as good as their context and who is speaking. So listening to content only is a literal, Western-minded, linear type of thinking that just don’t work in the jungle. One has to listen differently than one was taught to in school and in other areas where tuning out the static and background noise would actually be functional. Again, abusers and people whose intent is to dominate, not reason together, listen and observe in this manner also. This listening goes on outside the courtroom, and in fact outside the courtroom is often MORE relevant, and INSIDE, while the arena whre a judge signs and order, is a very, very small portion of time in the life of a lawsuit.
WORDS. So, enter “cognitive dissonance” the first time it hits you, and a lot of water (time) under the bridge dealing with it emotionally. THAT is the point of the game . . . . . like a spider injects toxin into its prey, to numb it, or a lion roars, or sometimes headlights can blind a deer. The point is the fascination that freezes the prey. The TALK is the toxin.
So for some years and months, and to different entitites, I kept talking law, rules, safety, and “get real!”, while this system kept talking different words, but they were only smokescreen words. I had already (the year prior) translated the family “talk” sufficiently to act on it. I deciphered that they rejected the analogy of domestic violence (not to mention the restraining order then in place, also) and I acted accordingly, and went about my won business. Problem? Hadn’t fully analyzed the situation yet, how adversarial indeed it was, and what was at stake, namely total control of my daughters.
To take the words coming through the family law system at face value is to deal with the pawns, not the bishops, knights, rooks, or kings and queens in the game, which have different powers, patterns of movement and move (except the king) further and faster, although if you get the ponderous king stuck between a pawn and a knight, it’s still check-mate.
So, there are two paradigms and two languages in effect; one is public (glitter and sham) and the other is private, and that IS the money and professional affiliations involved. That IS the business of the court, literally, and it is interlaced with the business of government, and the total transformation of society into basically, I’d summarize it, basically back to a feudal system. The Court, The Courtiers, the Courtesans (of course) and the subjects. Fealty counts. Betrayal of secrets is punished harshly, as individuals suffer when attempting to individually break a family code that tolerates almost anything WITHIN its ranks, but not disloyalty to “outsiders.” To them, this is “good.” TO those who disapprove of the family cult or clan, it is “bad.” There you have it.
2C. GENGHIS KHAN: Who was he? Who was his army? How did they conquer so much territory?
That’s a lot of territory. Now, it’s less geography, populations. Technology and using language to transform beliefs.
“The Devil’s Horsemen.”
The conquering Mongols were most feared by their victims as “the devil’s horsemen” who carried everything before them and left nothing behind.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 8]) The “invincible” Mongolian Army faced little opposition, physical, nor mental, until they began campaigning in areas outside of the steppe regions.
. . .
The first problem that the Mongols and their current leader Genghis Khan overcame, was the complex planning needed in order for them to defeat their more organized, and better equipped foes. “New military technologies therefore had to be learned and relearned
. . .
At Xiangyang in 1272 Khubilai Khan was forced to send to his kinsmen in the west for counterweight trebuchets, the latest thing in siege catapults, to breach its walls.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 9]) The need for a more strategic way of fighting allowed the Mongols to evolve. Without that evolution, the Mongols would never have been able to stand up to their well-trained, well-organized enemies. This extraordinary skill to adapt, and thus survive, helped the Mongols not only in the physical aspects of warfare, but the psychological. Becoming an enemy that has the ability to adapt and thrive in any situation and on any terrain earned the Mongols the title of “the Devil’s horsemen”.
Application:
When you begin studying grants, particularly as to “Domestic VIolence Coalitions” and “Healthy Marriage Coalitions” as I have, you’ll see the heavy upfront investments in INFORMATION DISSEMINATION and “Technical Support” infrastructures. Money to shelters may be cut back, but not discretionary grants to preventative organizations that confer, publish, conference, and advise — no sirree!
This is the “technology” of our age. Backed up, though is the reputation of terror. This system can literally terrorize, tear up, traumatize, and restructure a family at will. As Ghenghis Khan united warring tribes, after establishing his reputation, I can trace (and others have) how certain organizations (nonprofits / for-profits) have positioned themselves as “experts” in several fields and united, dominated the conversations in these fields for decades. As I like to say, “before you got up for breakfast.”
Whereas formerly these fields supposedly (and probably) were separated: “Father’s Rights’ (i.e., anti-feminist), Violence Against women (i.e., feminist, meaning, we’re human beings with equal rights, not baby-producers or upstart rebels), and Child Protection Services (I can’t say whether these groups ever performed the function, and I haven’t studied them as much) they now pride themselves on collaborating.
The “technology” of our time is the internet and information, but it is indeed backed up by police force to incarcerate — OR, to release from prison some thug that is GOING to kill or terrorize again. Toms River, Minnesota, California, Nevada, you name it, it happens.
by antonio2godoy</a>” href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/” mce_href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/”>antonio2godoy in History, March 29, 2009
This is an a little description of what the Mongols were like under Genghis Khan’s rule.
(I put it in very fine print, because it’s not central to this post, just related:)
The Mongols were amazing herders and horse back riders. Within time they dominated China and Eastern Europe. Who would have envisioned that these nomads, herders that relied on animal and natural resources for survival, would reign over a great deal of territory belonging to the Chinese and Eastern Europeans?! But with the leadership of Genghis Khan, the Mongols conquered all who opposed them and ruled with an iron fist earning a reputation for extreme cruelty. Then, after a hundred years the Mongol empire disappeared. After reading this you’ll learn how the Mongols put effective leadership first and then effectively manage it with discipline.
. . . Genghis Khan changed his name from Temujin after numerous victories. Temujin was born in 1162 and was part of the Kiyad tribe close to the Burhan Khaldun Mountains. He had three younger brothers and his father, Yesugei, was the tribe leader. Yesugei arranged Khan’s marriage to Borte at a young age. Yesugei was poisoned at a dinner of a neighboring tribe. Although Temujin was next in line, he still had to prove that he was the strongest to before he can lead over the tribe. At the young age of 13 he killed his brother while hunting. Age 17 Temujin married Borte and united two tribes. Borte was then kidnapped by an enemy tribe. Legend says that Timujin sent an army of 40,000 to rescue his wife which may have led him to his destiny. After Temujin conquered and united numerous tribes, as well Mongolia his name was well known throughout the land as Genghis Khan, Ruler of the world.
{{establish dominance. A “name” is very important to leadership}}
Many historians consider Khan ahead of his time because his army was well structured, trained and equipped. He organized his 80,000 soldiers into divisions of 10,000, with 1000 in each regiment, 100 in each company and 10 in a squad. In 1206 all of Mongolia was conquered. {{HE WAS 44 years old}}
Khan made all of his soldiers from different tribes pledge loyalty to him. He won his victories with his skilled horse warriors and archers. He required his soldiers to wear light leather and metal tunics with protective silk undergarments. Khan also made sure his soldiers had enough equipment like 2 bows, a quiver of 60 arrows, scimitar, and attached 5 horses. His soldiers also carried useful tools such as meat pots, needle and thread and objects to sharpen arrows.
Khan controlled his people by a code of law he created called the Yasa. These laws were extremely cruel and harsh. The death penalty was a sentence for many offenses including stealing, cheating on your spouse, {{interesting, eh?}} resigning from combat in the middle of a battle, not paying taxes three times and even peeing in public water routes.
Genghis never taxed the outside land he conquered. He let defeated kingdoms live as they liked, which gave people the choice of religion, and to live with their custom laws and celebrations.
((Therefore not provoking their rebellion.))
Another place to stand to move the world.
When I finally Decided to Leave / Moot Points.
The final decision to get OUT came when I experienced two full weeks (not just one, as I had an earlier time in the marriage) actually free from his abuse and threats, for the most part, and still fully functional in my beloved profession of music. This was WITH little girls (stilll, then) in attendance. I was amazed at the experience of being talked to, working, and interacting with people for several days in a row with no trauma, and no likelihood of imminent trauma, geographically near.
Then I returned, and experienced the response to my having been “allowed” out of this man’s control for the first 2 weeks (that I recall) in almost 10 years. Literally. There were no other such 2 weeks.
To “pay” for this, all my belongings were thrown out of the bedroom I was then living in, and my ex ensconced himself IN, putting locks on the door, and again, I was (since not working) reduced to hoping or asking for a $1.oo or perhaps $2.00 for the day, with small children to care for, and I do not recall if an operational car at this time. Yes, I did, but cars still need gas to go anywhere. I specifically remember shamelessly, if he forgot to close the door all the way, going through his pants pockets for spare change. This is a while back, but as I recall there was no bank account and no income — the last full-time apparently had so threatened the guy that another man was brought into the home to try & persuade me to turn all income over to my husband shut down my bank account. Alternately, I could quit my job.
This was discussed in front of me AND two growing daughters, as if I were not even there. We are talking a woman in her 40s, and in an urban California area.
Because I now had, experientially, not just theoretically (BIG difference!) 2 points of view, back to back, this highlit the situation. The guy was indeed right to be extremely threatened by letting us out from underneath his thumb for a few weeks, because witnessing his retaliation to this, DID indeed tip the scale between fear of action and inaction. I was disgusted enough and wanted the better way of living ENOUGh, to get out.
When others got out:
In another blog here, I mention a woman who was held captive to her father for many years, and had to bear children for him. She was able to report WHEN SHE KNEW HER KIDS WERE SAFE. “Alyssa” a.k.a. Jaycee Dugard, who also fathered two children for HER kidnapper/rapist (though not her own father) was also able to get free finally, when she was in one room, and her captor/father of her daughters (Phillip Garrido) in another room, both with law enforcement there. I don’t know all the details, but I bet that Mr. Phillip was NOT in the room during the conversations with Ms. Alyssa when the truth came out.
Another woman, that Phyllis Chesler connected with the Dugard case, and that I also mentioned on-line, had been kept captive in a BOX 23 hours a day for years, until she was allowed out and graduate to family slave. She’d been told that a group called ‘the Company” would come and cut off her fingers, or do horrible things to her family, if she rebelled or left. (Incidentally, I consider stalking and other threats, along these lines, basically, this is a form of control and intimidation to force compliance).
One day the other woman got tired of the same man’s betrayal and mistreatment, and she told the captive that there was no “Company.” The person then got on a bus and went home. She’d been captive for YEARS.
When an individual parent exhibits this amount of control over contact with the other parent, and child abuse or domestic violence has not been identified as a cause, the court would be RIGHT to switch custody. However, instead they tend to do it in the opposite situation after it HAS been identified, and sometimes even on the record, with evidence, etc..
What is happening in the court system, my friends (and enemies) is that mothers, morally, cannot get out, because their kids are going into unsafe situations. In this scenario, they have a choice of abandoning their own kids under basic threat to hurt them MORE to save themselves, or staying in the fight, and passing off the drama and drain to society.
Therefore, the family law forum, and the systems that resonate to its drumbeat (or vice versa, it’s a synergy!) is practically a foolproof business model. While there is SOME attrition — some people will escalate, and annihilate one or more family member, but even then the survivor and the paternal grandparents or maternal can duke it out around who gets the kids and how. Meanwhile, new kids and new divorces/separations are happening weekly, monthly, year after year.
Other “attrition” could be considered when parents actually do settle out of court and do NOT escalate to high-conflict (a misnomer) and/or violent custody battles. To the parents, this is good. To business, it’s not, really. Hence, putting a child into the hands of the wrong parent guarantees they will come back, and back, and back, until some or both are destitute or dead, or simply cannot handle it any more (my current situation is 2 out of 3, and you can figure out which one I’m not).
In this paradigm, the “business model” paradigm, a kidnapping – – though on the books, a felony — can be even better — someone can, but depending on which parent (male or female) may not get jail time.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA how many federal grants and studies are based on captive audiences, literally? Plus the professions staffing the jails, and the skillsets those professionals acquire? For example, the social worker from a corrections center, in Lodi, California — whose wife he imprisoned, starved, and humiliated for 22 months, until finally she called 911, and when the police cars approached, she RAN out and DOVE through an open patrol car window. They apprehended this man it says with $23,000 and NINE (count’em) (9) weapons. Her life musta been hell. The man doing this learned how to control people and play two-faced “let me fix you” (while I use my woman at home, that I imported for the purpose) and apparently how to use a gun also. (search my blog I blogged this article recently).
Generally, though, with a kidnapping, the left-behind traumatized parent is going to go to court again and again to try and get justice, just as the disgruntled ex did when the cause of separation was domestic violence or child abuse. Evaluators mediators and court-appointed attorneys are hopping for business, and I’d imagine have more caseloads than they can personally handle. The profession is certainly booming. Supervised visitation centers and professionals to go with them, and software to support these centers, is also BOOMING. It is a replicatable business model described and sold on the internet — see “The Duluth Model.” See Family Justice Center Alliance, st arted with a million ($1million) grant from Verizon (may blog this).
The presses (on-line and/or print) are churning, and periodicals addressing the problems in the family law venue area going full steam, and to publish in these is a notch in the career belt; to quote them lends a sense of authority, and along with these there are conferences on how to stop violence against women, help fathers become better parents (and gain access to their children) and of course how to stop children from experiencing abuse, trauma, molestation, kidnapping, or anything distressing. That IS, presumably, (??) what family law is all about.
And so, I was thinking about my situation here, where so many avenues already tried, and failed, failed, because the law is a “moot point” unless enforced, and the law enforced is also a moot point if the person held back by it gets pissed off and comes close to express this is in a nonverbal way, either stalking (itself an escalation), or the risk implicit behind the stalking, which I don’t want to name just now. All of the theory is moot point in certain circumstances.
I know that I need to stand a different way and in a different place, probably with a different TOOL, to do THIS:
???
The engraving is from
Mechanic’s Magazine
(cover of bound Volume II,
Knight & Lacey, London, 1824)
Courtesy of the
Annenberg Rare Book &
Manuscript Library
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, USA
“Give me somewhere to stand and I will move the earth.”
Greek Mathematical Works, by Ivor Thomas, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1941, vol. II, p. 35
First, analyze the situation accurately. Accurately, the chances of a court order being respected in my situation, or someone doing something about this (even if officially asked to in a motion) are nil. Most times, while I went about this, a guerrilla attack (and clearly purposed as such) came from another “gang” member offended by the principle that my motions should disrupt their equilibrium, the equilibrium of the self-anointed, self-evaluated, self-selected, with zero accountability. Point 1. The lever must be long enough and not break under the weight. The longer the lever, the less weight need be applied.
Where to stand? I say, look at the finances. Do not approach a crook and talk about ethics! Do not talk about someone drunk with power and talk about the immorality of using their power! Talk in terms they understand, not your own paradigm! How do you think we got into this place to start with?
WOMEN NEED A PLACE TO STAND IN THIS LIFE. WE NEED TO MAKE AND DEFINE THIS PLACE IN FAIR NEGOTIATION WITH MEN. WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED, THIS FAIR-NESS IS EVEN MORE CRUCIAL.
YOUNG WOMEN NEED TO BE TOLD SOME HARD TRUTHS — THERE ARE MEN THAT WILL GO FOR YOU TO PRODUCE A BABY (THIS CAN ALSO BE TRUE OF THE YOUNG MEN). PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE YOUNG AND FERTILE, AND HE’S ON A REBOUND. OR IF YOU ARE OLDER AND AFFLUENT, IN THIS CASE, YOUR HOME IS NEEDED FOR A NEW HOME FOR HIS KIDS FROM THE FIRST WOMAN. OR, ALTERNATELY, YOUR CHILDREN FROM A FORMER MARRIAGE MIGHT DO, TOO.
i feel this is just as applicable to professional women in their late mid to late 30s/early 40s as others. Until our society starts VALUING women as people and as women (including mothers!), the whole climate isn’t healthy enough all round, and people need to know in the river of life where the rapids and sharp rocks lie. This differs by culture and community, and it AIN’T up to Washington D.C. and a bunch of economists and human behavioralists drawing research from shelters, prisons, and head start outfits, to set the standards! (OR, churches, dammit! The average church these days, I’ll speak for Protestant, is basically a cult. In every sense of the word. Marketing spirituality and social connection and good feelings, for a price, allegiance. . . . And money, and services).
So now we get too MOOT POINT. This post is just about a moot point today: I’ll revisit it in a while.
If something’s a moot point, there’s some disagreement about it: a debatable point. In the U.S., this expression usually means that there is no point in debating something, because it just doesn’t matter. An example: If you are arguing over whether to go the beach or to the park, but you find out the car won’t start and you can’t go anywhere, then the destination is said to be a moot point.
Category: Law
View examples in Google: Moot point
Wiktionary:
- (US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.
- Until we rebuild downtown, whether we build more parking spaces is a moot
Meaning
An irrelevant argument.
Origin
Some may disagree with the above meaning and argue that it means ‘a point open to debate‘, rather than ‘a point not worth debating‘. That former meaning was certainly the correct one when the term was first coined, but that’s going back a while.
In this post, I refer to the second usage
Laurence Humphrey, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote Nobles or of Nobilitye, a manual of behaviour for the English nobility, in 1563. In that he wrote:
“That they be not forced to sue the lawe, wrapped with so infinite crickes and moot poyntes.”
In medieval England, moots, or meets, were assemblies or councils where points of government were debated. The country was split into juridicial areas called hundreds and administered via assemblies known as hundredmotes. The form of government has long since vanished but the term hundred is still in use as the name of the procedural device which gives consent to MPs’ resignation. British MPs aren’t allowed to resign and, when members wish to leave Parliament they may do so by applying for the notional position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. In such assemblies points which were put up for discussion were said to be mooted.
The change in meaning has come about following the introduction of ‘moot courts’, which are sessions where law students train for their profession by arguing hypothetical cases, i.e. ‘moot points’. The lack of any substantive outcome from these theoretical cases has led to the ‘unimportant/not worth discussing’ meaning of ‘moot point’, which is what many people accept today.
Here is one WHOPPER of a “moot point.” I used to think that bringing this one up would make a difference. I was so glad to see this written here. But, it’s a moot point — in practice no one actually believes this. If they did, too many programs would have to shut down.
Let’s go over this again:
http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:
“The California State Legislature has declared that:
(1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
Penal Code section 273.8.)
(2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
13732(a)). ”
Now, same document:
“The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
“prosecute” their batterers.
So, those offices bear looking at. When they don’t prosecute for any of those (or child-stealing, case in point).
Ay, there’s the rub.** So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected. Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc. Then they find out what their: family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about. And the years go by, the kids grow up. . . . . .
The database simplifies the logistical work of coordinating a Visitation Center and reduces the time to prepare quarterly reports for funders. 
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
““The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” **
leave a comment »
It’s DV Awareness Month. Are you aware? I’m not seeing much in the headlines this year. It’s more than just a label. . . .or an ideology. Here’s part of what it looks like, after reporting.
( ** quotation below….)
In the website “selfrepresentedfool.org” Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina both organizes & analyzes the non-obvious and expresses the very obvious impact of the family law system as only someone not yet? ground up by it can.
“Legal System in California Promotes Domestic Violence Against Women”
(copied in entirety, after I get through my intro — shorter than usual today….)
While some people are furthering their careers and researching, not suffering through “familycourtmatters,” I still stand amazed at the volume and breadth of information– legal, cognitive, financial, and social, AND philosophical — that some people can not only process, but interrelate, and still come out impassioned, expressive, but coherent and with detailed analysis — that women who have been through this basic tyranny through the courts, can. Perhaps these are survival skills. To sustain violence over many years is a motive driven by emotion, but enabled like any other war with strategy, foresight, diplomacy/deceit at times, and timing, and intimidation. It is a skilled mixture, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if those good at both the abuse and surviving it might make excellent chefs, or businessmen & women. For those who have been targeted, add stamina and a rock-solid motivation keeping “the pilot light lit,” year after year.
People, we are in trouble in this country, and that trouble as in any ages is, FIRST, unjust judges signing these orders, but they do not operate in a power vacuum at all — and ones that aren’t,also can take retaliation, as did Richard Fine, in L.A. County, even as we speak. Even as women reporting abuse take retaliation, sometimes in the form of taking their children, too. For “taken children” to be brave enough to speak up, or want to, is a whole other matter. I do believe that part of the reason their custody gets switched to the batterers/abusers/molesters (speaking, in cases where this has already happened, or after reporting it when it has) is to shut them up. The court just send a message — speak up, or if one parent speaks up, and you live with your abuser. Or strangers.
I have not met this woman, and was unaware of the site, that I recall, until yesterday. But it both summarizes, puts in philosophical framework, AND annotates, many issues — not all of them (child abuse, for example, doesn’t seem to be the primary feature in here), but what happens when a woman tries to report, or leave, abuse. If she is still alive, what kind of life can she have?
Are you are employed (or not), a parent (or not) married (or not), in addition to paying taxes, did you give to your neighbor, at your faith institution or progressive atheist organization, at the office, church, or local homeless shelter (or not)?
If so, still please dedicate one hour of your time to reading this site in its entirety, and thinking about its contents.
(You will notice I didn’t really appeal to people on the boards of organizations supposedly handling these problems in the court. There’s a reason I didn’t…..Nor did I appeal to religious leaders of any faith as a segment. There’s a reason I didn’t there, too. I’m appealing to people of average and relatively moral sensibility to not turn the other cheek to this type of system, because you’re not an expert in it. This is what too many of the experts in the family law system DO. The DOING of that is a drain on the economy, and your taxes (USA, I mean, and especially if California — featured here.)
http://selfrepresentedfool.org/
Pages include:
(etc.)
Complete with cites, neurological basis, and coherent explanation of the money issues in a divorce. This is written by a PhD/MBA, so don’t expect just a rant, or even that.
The woman who wrote this is no fool — at all. In addition to JusticeForWomen.org, which talks about the process we go through — this woman’s site hits almost every major facet, and I would add to a “should-read/must-read” status. It’s also current.
“Legal System in California Promotes Domestic Violence Against Women”
Copyright© 2008-2009 by Natalia A. Sidiakina for Self-Represented Fool®
All rights reserved.
Natalia A. Sidiakina permits unrestricted not-for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction of this article or any part thereof in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. See original citations in the articles on this web site and examples of citations below in this web page. For more information and permission for for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction please contact info@selfrepresentedfool.org.
”The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.”
– Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC)
“Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.”
– Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC)
**“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.”
– Marcus Aurelius (121-180)
“By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.”
– Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC)
The current legal system in California promotes domestic violence against women.
(main article was written in July of 2008)
{{Let’s Get Honest inserted comment: Two of these commas should be omitted, making the phrasee “who were abused as children” a limiting phrase (conditional) and a qualifier added, I think: “The suppressed anger of men [omit comma] who were abused as children [omit comma] [add SOMETIMES] gets expressed through domestic abuse and violence.” Obviously not ALL men were abused as children. Or let’s hope they weren’t…}}
{{My personal opinion. I don’t know that every man who commits domestic abuse (i.e., violence against an intimate partner or family member– see legal definitions) was abused as a child. Possibly, but that still excuses it, adn there IS no excuse. What about being egged on by others? What about simple entitlement, as accepted too often in at LEAST the 3 “Abrahamic” religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in chrono order) and/or because they — as the writer here expresses in another page — get a dopamine rush off it? Another potential source of significant stress for children can be the school situations. Either way, I noticed this statement as an assumption I don’t particularly agree with. There is STILL no excuse! On another page — the Neurological Basis of power, she compares the collective turnoff of the conscience preceding the Holocaust, the genocide — in short, the emotional DISTANCING of one population from another, turns of the morality. I have seen this within my own family, and I most definitely detect it in the “subject/object” pathologizing paradigm (to overuse a term, but it seems to work…) within the family law system, in which a crime is not a crime is not a crime, but is re-cast as a family conflict. }}
[1] Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., Anderson, C. (2003) Power, Approach and Inhibition. Psychological Review, Vol. 110, No. 2, 265-284 at p. 265, on the web athttp://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications/keltner.power.psychreview.2003.pdf
[2] Dr. Forward, S. (1990) Toxic Parents. Bantam Books, p.3, 120, 124, 137
[3] Dr. Forward, S. (1990) Toxic Parents. Bantam Books, p.3, 120, 124, 137.
[4] Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008, p.14.
[5] Kim, J.N. (2008) The Cubicle Bully. Scientific American Mind, July/July 2008, p.13.
[6] National Institute of Mental Health official web site; Andreasen, N.C., MD, PhD, (2004) Brave New Brain. Oxford University Press, at p. 237-238.
[7] Cal. Courts Rev., Spring 2008, p.8. At dismissal rate of 50%, DV arrests represent 60% of violent crimes.
Copyright© 2008-2009 by Natalia A. Sidiakina for Self-Represented Fool®
All rights reserved.
Natalia A. Sidiakina permits unrestricted not-for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction of this article or any part thereof in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. See original citations in the articles on this web site and examples of citations below in this web page. For more information and permission for for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction please contact info@selfrepresentedfool.org.
(END OF QUOTATION FROM THIS WEBSITE PAGE)…..
I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LINKS OR INACTIVE LINKS, AND HAVE PASTED & COPIED THIS SITE FROM BEGINNING OF TEXT TO BOTTOM OF FOOTNOTES…
CAL. PEN. CODE § 273.8 : California Code – Section 273.8
The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California. The Legislature further finds that the concept of vertical prosecution, in which a specially trained deputy district attorney, deputy city attorney, or prosecution unit is assigned to a case after arraignment and continuing to its completion, is a proven way of demonstrably increasing the likelihood of convicting spousal abusers and ensuring appropriate sentences for those offenders. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature intends to support increased efforts by district attorneys’ and city attorneys’ offices to prosecute spousal abusers through organizational and operational techniques that have already proven their effectiveness in selected cities and counties in this and other states.
I am going to bite my tongue about that training.
There’s more – read the fine print, and wonder.:
(a)There is hereby established in the Department of Justice (DOJ) a program of financial and technical assistance for district attorneys’ or city attorneys’ offices, designated the Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program. All funds appropriated to the Department of Justice for the purposes of this chapter shall be administered and disbursed by the Attorney General, and shall to the greatest extent feasible, be coordinated or consolidated with any federal or local funds that may be made available for these purposes.
The Department of Justice shall establish guidelines for the provision of grant awards to proposed and existing programs prior to the allocation of funds under this chapter. These guidelines shall contain the criteria for the selection of agencies to receive funding and the terms and conditions upon which the Department of Justice is prepared to offer grants pursuant to statutory authority. The guidelines shall not constitute rules, regulations, orders, or standards of general application. {{Then what DO they represent?}}
(b)The Attorney General may allocate and award funds to cities or counties, or both, in which spousal abuser prosecution units are established or are proposed to be established in substantial compliance with the policies and criteria set forth in this chapter.
(c)The allocation and award of funds shall be made upon application executed by the county’s district attorney or by the city’s attorney and approved by the county board of supervisors or by the city council. Funds disbursed under this chapter shall not supplant local funds that would, in the absence of the California Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program, be made available to support the prosecution of spousal abuser cases. Local grant awards made under this program shall not be subject to review as specified in Section 10295 of the Public Contract Code. {{gee. . . . . }}
(d)Local government recipients shall provide 20 percent matching funds for every grant awarded under this program.
In the next post, I am going to put the “
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent in People v. Giles”
This is a 25 -page brief (Dec. 2005) on behalf of several organizations, responding to< I THINK, an accused spousal murderer’s right to confront his accuser. (again, speculation from memory of this), part of his defense was, his right to confront his accuser was being compromised. Well, she was dead, dude! Unbelievably, this brief addresses that issue. However, I include it because it came up when I searched on “Clear and present Danger.” IF you can go to the subject sentences of each paragraph, it also will provide more insight on domestic violence as an issue. Also, given that it’s written by Nancy K.D. Lemon, Esq. — prominent in this field, and at UC Berkeley Boalt School of Law, I think it’s worth posting. . . . . On the NEXT post.
Here, though is the ending of this document, FYI. Again, consider what the woman above (one among how many?) went through. . . . .
<><><><><>
{{DO readers YET? understand why the family law venue, as populated by the noble “AFCC” with enablements by also the “OCSE” (search my blog on this) “MUST” exist if batterers are to get away with this, when there are children? Why there MUST be, despite these D.A. legislated efforts in the 2005s to STOp domestic violence, and stop it by characterizing and prosecuting it as the crime (it is indeed criminal in intent and effect, seeking to undermine the basis of principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. There is no happiness possible in abuse, because there is no liberty, and sometimes it stops life, too. Ka-thump, ka-thump, ka-thump..) – – there MUST be a contrary movement, a groundswell of indignant (primarily fathers) to RE-Characterize and DE-Criminalize the language and, with that, prosecution, of criminal behavior towards individuals, including children, and re-cast it as “parental rights” and “family conflict.” ??? These motions are essentially in DIRECT opposition to each other. . . . . . .
{{ NOW, friends, begin to understand – I feel I most certainly have experienced this, along with others — how the CRIMINAL PROSECUTION side, this law enforcement, indeed plays too often (they do!) “good cop/bad cop” with the family law venue, withholding prosecution sometimes, and purusing it other times — same law, same county, same personnel. I am in the middle of this struggle presently, where I have a total and clearly identified — but who can enforce? and at what risk to the parties involved, not just me? — legal right?}} However this document is dealing with the criminal prosecution side — not the family / custody issues side – apparently segmented in too many brains, but overlapped in experiences of families going through this, with kids.}}
{{You will notice “Cal. Evid. Code is being cited here. However, the family law SEPARATED the Evid. code from itself years ago, I heard (early 1990s?) per a CA NOW Family Law website description of the history of this system (the 2002 report). . . . . So it seems to me that this separation was intentional. THEN, a certain father got caught out with his representation, in essence “caught” by those local rules, and now we have — locally — an “Elkins Family Law Task Force” pulled together to rescue this Dad (whose name also happens to be Elkins, DNK if coincidence or related to the original Meyer Elkins. There are lots of Elkinses areound, so maybe not…) because and specifically because, family law is so different from civil procedure. Well, that was a built-in, intentional system bias! (From what I can read). Back to the text….}}
{{Apparently this relates to where the victim(s) are basically terrorized out of testifying, based on a very real belief that they (or loved ones) will be significantly hurt if they do, and that the system isn’t going to particularly protect them. ALthough I doubt readers are up to the reasoning yet, I feel this feeds significantly into the PAS debate (Parental Alienation Syndrome) which, while I know where it came from, I feel could be sprung in reverse on mothers who have lost their kids (possibly DUE to the use of this legal tactic) and those kids are smart enough to keep their mouths shut. In short, treating people who have been exposed to abuse, long-term and significant, whether by WITNESSING it to a parent, or sibling, or EXPERIENCING IT DIRECTLY (or both) — they have a right to self-protection, which may very well, their point of view, entail joining in on the abuse of the left-behind parent (or else), or simply clamming up. For more insight into this, read the journal (true story, written after he got out and became an adult), “The Boy Called It” and a secondary brother who became “it” after the original boy was rescued from the family. In this case, it was the mother abusing, horribly so. The name escapes me presently, but is searchable…. I had a hard time reading it, as it cut close to home..in the dynamics of being targeted, as a child, for the denigrating behavior, while siblings were not…OK, back to the GILES amicus….}}
{{COMMENT: search Case G. Gwinn on this blog, I believe I posted the article about his attempts to coverup DV of one of his employees, and a lawsuit by another one he assigned to the cover-up, step in the gap procedure. When threats came to the secondary employee (lawsuit said?) his response was to make sure she wasn’t on HIS floor, where he also might be targeted. Another “problem” I have with Casey J. Gwinn is the establishment of the replicating Family Justice Center Alliance, made possible by a $1 million grant from Verizon. This was happening at a time I myself was desperately seeking (yet did not get) help to obtain a cell phone for my own safety, from Verizon, or anyone else for that matter, being stalked and so forth. While they had their high-profile websites, we women were on our own, here, on the street level….I cannot tell you what I went through in the past 2 years alone just to keep a damn PHONE on! How’d you like to deal with that?}}
{{Violations of Sixth Amendment right to confront is flagrant and essential to the family law process, far’s I can tell. This is done when the accuser is no longer the individual himself alone, but a mediator’s or evaluator’s report obtained by separate meetings (if requested for DV) from the victim (no longer considered a victim in family law either — she is a person who has a “problem” called “conflict” within the family, and as such it is as much HER duty as HIS to make it stop — which is virtually impossible, many times, without prosecution or protection of some sort.. . . But notice how much more detailed and specific the conversation is when it is in the CRIMINAL side of prosecution here..}}
I simply consider the family law arena, and/or its collaboration with other arms of the system that SHOULD enable a citizen to live a normal life after separating from abuse / domestic violence — and WITH the children being PROTECTED from further, dangerous, or threatening, undermining interactions with the othe rparent. In short, when can we just take a stand and say NO! and mean it to this vice, abuse?
Only when it ceases to produce benefits for others.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
October 15, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Posted in After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law
Tagged with Conflicts of interest, Courtroom-triggered PTSD, custody, domestic violence, Due process, family law, Intimate partner violence, Legal abuse after wife abuse, Natalia A. Sidiakina, obfuscation, Ph.D., Recusal refusals -- when a judge refuses to recuse for conflict of interest or no jurisdiction, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights