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

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

Posts Tagged ‘England

“Strong Field Project” caters to DV industry’s networks, enabled by ?? “Three Cities that Rule the World”

leave a comment »

This post to be read alongside a page added to the other blog, which explains the “Strong Field Project” reference.

Strengthening leaders, organizations, and networks to build a stronger domestic violence field“*

*What does doing THAT have to do with ending domestic violence, pray tell?

Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field

(How interesting that a visitor today from “City of London” showed on Feedjit….)

That article was posted at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.0 by user  May 21, 2009.

chrsswtzr

Member
*****
Offline OfflinePosts: 1,704

We think in terms of within our state (or perhaps as far as the federal level) when seeking justice from the bottom up.  However, the top down doesn’t think that way at all — and from what I can see these days, it doesn’t think in terms of the US Constitution either.  Consider nonprofit associations that help run our justice system, including particularly the one I blog on….

  • The AFCC is definitely international (Australia, Canada, UK, . . . . . .), as is the associated CRC (Children’s Rights Council).  Well custody disputes sometimes are international; sh*t happens.
  • International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution > Home

    http://www.cpradr.org/  The CPR Institute is an independent, nonprofit think tank that promotes innovation in commercial dispute prevention and resolution. By harnessing the collective 

this nonprofit (founded 1979) is also listed on the New York State

International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution

Founded in 1979, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution—an alliance of global corporations, law firms, legal academics and selected public institutions—serves as a multinational resource for avoidance, management and resolution of business-related and other disputes. Its site offers, among other things, project descriptions, publications, videotapes and training materials, and also discusses alternative dispute resolution in a variety of industry and practice areas.

I don’t have a problem with this, except when it comes to the family law courts handling criminal behavior involving physical assault and battery, or child molestation.  That’s where the line should’ve been drawn, yet intentionally wasn’t.  This crowd continues to promote dispute resolution for almost everyone, and the profession, including those that go on (as retired judges, as psychologists, or as attorneys, presumably).  I am working on a separate post (other blog), and have, yes, found it sponsoring work with AFCC, among plenty of other places; it has plenty of funding to go around for these grants, too.   The board members of this represent a host of major (multinational) corporations, and its chair (a Judge, or retired judge) formerly worked for the FBI and the CIA, which I think at least should catch someone’s attention.
Then Thomas J. Stipanovich stepped down from this nonprofit to run the Straus Institute of Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine, in Malibu, California.  In looking at this, and the related school of law, I couldn’t help but notice the close connection to London, and after this, conferences involving THE top justice of England and Wales in concert with a justice at the Supreme level in Belgium as well.
How in the world could we expect such globetrotters to see the safety element when it comes to dispute resolution in the family law arena?  Is that an unreasonable mountain to scale, or train to (somehow) hop — catching up with this global elite and saying STOP IT, DAMNIT!

. . .

The “Strong Field Project” is just another sapling off the DV as industry Tree, and not the main point here (see first link, above).  My point is, were it not for centralized wealth — and alongside that wealth, centralized decision-making (taxation without representation)  these things would not exist.  And so long as our medium of exchange is “fiat money” owned by private bankers, who lend to the U.S. Treasury at interest dumped upon the entire US Population, while talks about “stimulating the economy” “balancing the budget” etc. continue to roil the electorate — they rule that world, and it’s true — they do.

Maybe Jesus was right, in the wilderness -it takes one to know one and maybe whoever wrote the gospels of Matthew and Luke, describing his temptation, were absolutely correct (Mark, probably earlier than either, skims over the time in the wilderness).  As it goes in Matthew 4 (KJV), three temptations, which I’ll summarize as:  Do Magic Tricks (Stones into bread) to satisfy his empty stomach; Suicide (jump off the temple to test God’s safety net), and finally, Sellout (bow down, and be receive the kingdoms (plural) of the world, with their glory).


1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.

Luke 4 has it in a different order (suicide last, after getting Jesus’ worship fails), and adds detail on how the devil got the power over the entire world:

5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. 7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

“Power and Glory are mine,” boasts the devil.  “I have the kingdoms of this world.”  Well, were kingdoms around when this was written?  “And I say who gets them, and who does not get them; I am the boss.”  

It seems to hold true today, doesn’t it?  Only different terminology is used.  For example, the word “GRANT.”  A grant is a gift, but with the gift goes a little piece of the recipient’s independence in the form of strings attached — does it serve a particular agenda set by the grantOR?  Absolutely!  This is basically the buying and selling of kingdoms, power, and etc.   Whatever happens within them, that’s the umbrella over them.

Characterizing this as coming from “the devil” (invisible spiritual influence), i.e. bad — well, is this type of influence bad, and is it often exercised in hidden (invisible) ways?  I’d say, yes…..

Looking at these “kingdoms of the world” (as opposed to looking at, for example, “Nature” and things that grow, against the zoology, biology, anatomy, astromony,etc. that show more and more amazing details) I have to agree, that the greater the power, the greater the damage.  And that the lifeblood/energy is being sucked out of the some sectors of the world, along with money, and being centralized into who says who lives and dies; and who says who gets to keep their earnings and who doesn’t, however paltry they may beand for what social good?  For doing good?

No, not really — only good within limits of “I get to control what’s done with the world,” the song of the tax-exempt foundation run (or funded) by some great philanthropists, whose names are usally put on it too (good for PR), and in accompaniment with the corporations (businesses) that helped make that wealth.  The tax-exempt foundation, by being tax-exempt, serves as a drainage ditch to reduce the taxes that would otherwise be paid on the FOR-profit.

Why else do we think so many of them are running around all over (look at the civic works, PBS shows, “Models for Change” programs calculating how to mobilize swift transformation of chosen areas of reform, such as “Juvenile Justice” or other areas.  Go review MDRC again (I’ve blogged it) for an example of how inbred US Gov’t and Corporate wealth/tax-exempt foundations really are.  Even AFCC is getting some help these days.

RATHER THAN WORK TO ELIMINATE THE VERY TAXATION SYSTEM WHICH PRODUCE THIS LEVEL OF WEALTH TO START WITH (ALONG WITH THE WISDOM TO KNOW HOW TO UTILIZE THAT LEVERAGE), INSTEAD, THE OWNERS OF THIS WEALTH FLY AROUND AND COLLABORATE ON A BETTER JUSTICE SYSTEM THAN THEIR LOWER COUNTERPARTS – WHO HAPPEN TO BE IN POSITIONS LIKE GOVERNORS, OF STATES, JUDGESHIPS, ATTORNEY GENERALS, ETC. — THE TRULY ALTRUISTIC BENEFICIAL COLLABORATION WOULD BE TO UNDO THIS INCOME TAX, SWITCH OFF THE “FIAT CURRENCY” AND DEFANG THE FEDERAL RESERVE.  BUT HOW LIKELY IS THAT TO HAPPEN?

We’ve been hooked on it for 100 years next year (1913 – 2013) think about it.  What an addiction.

The greatest goods would be protecting unalienable rights is LIFE, and LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, and having enough self-respect and self-restraint to allow others to do the same — how many golden yachts does one really need? You can’t take it with you, even if you have a golden voice (like Whitney Houston, recently:  global success, gone age 48, leaving one motherless child.  Well, young adult.  A wealthy one for sure, but one absent her mother).

So, here’s the Biblical worldview, at least in the book of Revelation. Followers are encouraged to keep it in mind that this kingdom is temporal and is going to be judged (by fire) — so choose your allegiances well.  Without my interpreting whether that’s smart or not to endorse, here’s the description of that buying and selling of kingdoms, Revelations 18.  As before, spiritual agents (angels, this time) are involved and judgment is swift, expressing indignation and vindication:

The kingdom that rules the world is characterized as “Babylon,” which was a kingdom, earlier.  And, naturally, as a woman:

REVELATION 18:

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

That is indeed what the traffic is in.   It pretty much describes most areas of commerce, including transport of goods:

(Addressed to the CITY): 14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

So many enterprises were hooked into the sales that took place in “the city;” but (she) was hell on the apostles and prophets, who were typically exiled, or killed in various gruesome ways, etc. ….there message wasn’t good for business.   (Quite a contrast from some of today’s “apostles and prophets” –see recent post on the bankruptcy of the Crystal Cathedral (Garden Grove, CA) and its founding family’s squabbles with the board, i.e., Robert Schuller et al.  I blogged it over at thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com

. . .

 for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

It takes a caste of slaves to produce certain levels of wealth, and even the best of major constructions (The Hoover Dam, the Brooklyn Bridge, Grand Central Station in NY) have been associated with human deaths of workers.  What about the pyramids?   What about the former practice of burying concubines and wives with the death of a ruler?

The lines have to be drawn and crowds have to be kept within their kind, and within their places.  “The great men of the earth” are actually merchants, and there’s no question — is there? — that with slavery and slavehood comes untimely death, too often.  So, look around — where are the deaths happening, where is the blood flowing, and then track the trail of money.  Religion WILL be associated, and it’s not too hard to locate –except perhaps at the very top levels.

Whoever gave what to whom, and how (Adam, Eve, Israel in the Promised Land, whoever ….)   there is no question that there is desire still circulating to rule the world, and that there are layers of collaborators — and the closer to the grants, and wealth (to fly, conference, buy and sell real estate under nonprofit umbrella, even “front groups” to launder the money at times) — the closer to the power, and the deafer the ears become to the cries of those they took the power to (allegedly) help, save, or whatever.

Anyone who’s lived with a certain level of abuse (and knew, by contrast, freedom) knows about this.  Many times, supposedly there is some purpose to all the tyranny — but there never is.  It’s just enforced because they can get away with doing this, and get off on it.  Anything else is pretty much a lie.

WELL, let’s get down to the main show here:

I have been talking, briefly, about the analogy of “The Matrix’ (picked up from someone else who wrote about this) as an artificially created reality which, once you become aware of it, you have to either deal with (mentally, emotionally, psychologically) and determine where to stand regarding it — or take another sedative and go back to sleep.

The Internet is a great, addicting perhaps, but effective way to spread that net; it fishes and sets out bait both.  But, it’s here, and must be dealt with, as a whole lotta money is traveling along that net (being tracked as it goes), and this technology, this tool — like many technological advances — is often used for warfare, to kill.  The question is just, who.

To be read alongside a page added to the other blog:

Three Cities that Rule the World,” Including the Ever-expanding but Centralized DV Field

I’m usually up for concise summaries that make some sense with the reality I’ve been observing.
Regular visitors (there are a few here) know how I feel about the profit/nonprofit caste system — which is a statement on, The Income Tax.
My feelings came in part from watching the nonprofits HHS is funding, from having actually sought help from some of the local ones, and then (later) seen their multi-million funding (their doctrines were a spit in the wind when applied to a single family law judge.  If true, they held no sway in that forum, which is where all souls go (for the most part) who have had both DV AND sons or daughters with the same person.
I’m putting this in to remind us about the medium of exchange we call “money” and how fiat money  and “bona fide” money cannot exist alongside each other, really — because the owners of the fiat money (private bankers) depend on an addicted population for their business.  Free, choice-driven populations and those informed on the situation, would never choose the one that kept their country free over the one that enslaved it, would they?
So lies (deceit, as in ‘Deceived the nations” of Rev. 18) also has to be involved in the “sale” of this solution.   I do look forward to the day when this type of deceit, as well as (while we’re here) I hope the extreme deceit of the people I share DNA with, who have for years been selling abusive “solutions” to the problem of my intent to remain free of them, by working, legally, as I CHOOSE to – also comes out in the wash.  If the Bible is the word of God, it will.  Other than this resurrection and day of judgment thing, I figure it’s a toss-up, but am intending to balance the odds in the favor of the basic truth, while I can.
The book of James also (chapter 5) talks about the behavior of the rich (it’s pretty much throughout the scriptures) and warns the readers about “respect of persons.”  In this worldview, a future Judge is definitely coming; be patient and endure, is the mentality:  Remember Job:  God is just in the long-run.

<< James 5 >>
King James Version

1Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten. 3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. 4Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth5Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in a day of slaughter. 6Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you.7Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. 8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. 9Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door. 10Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. 11Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

I realize i’ve quoted from two books (James, Revelation) not among the earlier ones; apparently James wasn’t quoted til around 225.A.D.

More references for the curious, here (I haven’t reviewed, just put up one or two):http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm and (better narration here)  http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html

At the close of the second century ((ca. 300 A.D. in other words)) the Christian world was divided into a hundred different sects. Irenaeus and others conceived the plan of uniting these sects, or the more orthodox of them, into one great Catholic church, with Rome at the head; for Rome was at this time the largest and most intluential of all the Christian churches. “It is a matter of necessity,” says Irenaeus, “that every church should agree with this church on account of its preeminent authority.” (Heresies, Book 3).

Don’t forget my recent favorite book “A.D. 381
I should pick on Protestants too — at least the link “freethought” brings up the topics.  Atheists know this, but perhaps don’t think about it too much.  They are surrounded by attending Christians who, if they thought too deeply about the canon of the scriptures, would stop attending, I imagine….  And they vote too, so might as well all of us get some concept of it in operation:  The mainstream religions as we see them nowadays are basically spinoffs of empires and workign alongside them.  Before a certain piont in time, they were only “sects” and followers, many of who were persecuted.  Now adays when we see this type of centralization then called “empire” — we could as easily call it empire, or simply, fascism.

Martin Luther

The greatest name in the records of the Protestant church is Martin Luther. He is generally recognized as its founder; he is considered one of the highest authorities on the Bible; he devoted a large portion of his life to its study; he made a translation of it for his people, a work which is accepted as one of the classics of German literature. With Luther the Bible superseded the church as a divine authority.
And yet this greatest of Protestants rejected no less than six of the sixty-six books composing the Protestant Bible.  Luther rejected the book of Esther. He says: “I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist.” In his “Bondage of the Will,” he severely criticises the book.He rejected the book of Jonah. He says: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous as to be absolutely incredible.” (Colloquia, Chap. LX., Sec. 10).He rejected Hebrews: “The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul; nor, indeed, by any apostle.” (Standing Preface to Luther’s New Testament).He rejected the Epistle of James: “St. James’ Epistle is truly an epistle of straw.” (Preface to Edition of 1524).  He rejected Jude. “The Epistle of Jude,” he says, “allegeth stories and sayings which have no place in Scripture.” (Standing Preface).  He rejected Revelation. He says: “I can discover no trace that it is established by the Holy Spirit.” (Preface to Edition of 1622).
In the gospels, the books Jesus quoted the most were Deuteronomy (the law), Psalms, and Isaiah.  On the day of Pentecost, per Acts, Peter quoted two only psalms and one prophet (?), and then got right onto explaining what they’d just seen and witnessed in that context, and exhorting people to “repent.” No “theology’ was apparently involved at the time.   It was also prophesied (according to John) that the disciples/apostles would be hauled in front of the authorities to give their answer, and to not pre-meditate what they’d be saying, it would be given to them in their hour.
What then, we might legitimately ask, is going on every Sunday morning (and/or evening, or Wednesday evenings) when people congregate to hear someone’s homily or sermon, or inspired display, of what the scriptures mean, that they couldn’t themselves read, deduce, and act on, assuming they were walking in the same spirit?  At least Catholics seem to keep it mass these days short, and give one time to think during the liturgy!!!  One’s eardrums aren’t assaulted…
Or, for a more secular viewpoint yet, how about from Infidels.org on the canon, making reference to Thomas Jefferson (who didn’t believe in the miracles of Jesus and produced a skinny version, “The Jefferson Bible”, I gather):
The Secular Web
Who says “a mature Christian must ask the question that skeptics ask…” (not a short read, but several good questions and points, for example, about “magic books” and who gets to decide which ones they are:

We’d like to hear directly from God about which books constitute his message. As Paul wrote, “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Rom. 3:4) But God has not spoken in this way. Instead, is there some special list, authorized by Jesus, or the original apostles, of books that are specially approved? “God says that these books are the Bible,” we’d like to hear. There is no such list.[4] Who, then, decided what books would be in our Bible?

Back in the fourth century, some bishops took a vote on it. Rather, several church councils voted for conflicting lists, the contradictions of which took centuries more to resolve. These votes came after a long period of sorting and choosing by the churches at large, so that the choice was not haphazard; it was, however, arbitrary in many respects. Because of differences over the Apocrypha, there remains no agreement about which books are in the Christian Old Testament.

It’s kind of a moot point, anyhow, when one can simply dial a preacher or (til the Crystal Cathedral had to change its stripes) pull up to a drive in and watch the show.  The more I think about these things, and connect them to lived experience(s), the more I do see the influence of the remains of the Roman empire, working through highly visible buildings and structures in this world.  It’s obviously (though more obviously than actual scripture, Old or New, seems to justify) a male-dominated, heirarchical religion — that’s hardly debatable now, is it?  (or, are ordained priests marrying with the blessing of the Pope since I last tuned in?)
Here are three photos from an article on “The Three Cities” found on the same forum — what do you think they typify?  The female reality, or the male?
Think about it:

Another thing these three city-states have in common are their own obelisks. Obelisks are tall, four-sided shafts of stone which taper at the top in a pyramidal fashion. The obelisk is phallic in its appearance and represents the male penis. It is symbolic of the Egyptian sun god, Ra, and is an ancient symbol of male energy and generation (G) in Freemasonry.

Vatican obelisk: Located in St. Peter’s Square, the Vatican obelisk was moved from Egypt to its current location in 1586. The circle at the base on the obelisk represents the female vagina and thus male/female duality. Also notice the lines extending from the circle, forming a Union Jack as seen on the British flag.

London obelisk (aka Cleopatra’s Needle): Located on the banks of the River Thames, this obelisk was transported to London and erected in 1878 under the reign of Queen Victoria. The obelisk originally stood in the Egyptian city of On, or Heliopolis (the City of the Sun). The Knights Templars’ land extended to this area of the Thames, where the Templars had their own docks. Either side of the obelisk is surrounded by a sphinx, also symbolism dating back to the ancient world.

Washington Obelisk (aka Washington Monument): Standing at 555 feet, the Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world and also the tallest standing structure in Washington DC. The monument’s cornerstone, a 12-ton slab of marble, was donated by the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. Like the Vatican obelisk, the Washington monument too is surrounded by a circle denoting the female. The reflecting pool in front of the monument signifies the ancient Masonic/Kabbalistic dictum, as above/so below.

~ ~ ~ back to that prophecy (statement, anyhow) in the Bible:

 for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

LONDON — financial empire
VATICAN — religious empire
D.C.           —  military empire.
(see “pentagon-vatican connection” also).
Revelation 18, above, cursed and looked forward to the fall of the city of Babylon, because of its deception, and its bloodshed involved in the merchandising of all kinds of delicacies, including slaves.  I don’t know when this book was written, but it scarcely seems to be coming from the point of view of a triumphant Christian empire, with real estate, monuments, a well-clothed priesthood, etc., nor does James.  So modern readers (i.e., agnostics, atheists) are hardly neutral, or fair, to place on its author the same hypocrisy we see everywhere today.
Now, we call this “human trafficking” or “child trafficking,”  and my country, this country, the USA, is governmentally involved in two kinds:  Over the counter (that’s CPS and pharmaceutical friends whether Texan or Wolverine (Michigan, both pushing Risperdal) and under the radar, possibly deliberately, for which you can go read about the Jaycee Dugard situation; in fact, she has begun to speak out on television now; the settlement she was paid for California law enforcement screwup was, as I remember, around $29 million.  WHOSE funds paid that?  Because it was “only” around $14 million that Los Angeles was withholding (collected child support, Silva v. Garcetti) from actually reaching intended customers back in the late 1990s.
Texan:

The New Freedom Commission was established by executive order on April 29, 2002.  At a speech in New Mexico that day, Bush said mental health centers and hospitals, homeless shelters, the justice and school systems have contact with individuals suffering from mental disorders but that too many Americans fall through the cracks of the current system and so he created the Commission to ensure “that the cracks are closed.”

On July 22, 2003 the NFC recommended redesigning the mental health system in all fifty states and said in a press release, “Achieving this goal will require … a greater focus on mental health care in institutions such as schools, child welfare programs, and the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The goal is integrated care that can screen, identify, and respond to problems early.”

Despite a nearly 500% increase in mental health drugs being prescribed to children in the previous six years, the NFC recommended a plan of mandatory mental health screening for all public school students and follow-up treatment with drugs when needed.

Wolverine/Michigan-ian:

Those who fight back — confronting illegal home invasions  fraudulently ordered (NOT even legitimately court-ordered) for purposes of kidnapping, for purpose of institutionalizing, for the purpose of then administering dangerous drugs to minor children — can, and will, be treated as felons and stripped of their kids, and months/years of their lives in the fight.  That’s the Michigan reference, above.  Testimony (at the rally) of those on Risperdal:

Posted on 04/08/2011 by Diane Bukowski

Godboldo faces eight felony charges for standing off police armored vehicles, helicopters, and SWAT team members brandishing assault weapons on March 24.  She and her supporters say she was only trying to keep Child Protective Services from forcing a dangerous drug, Risperdal, on her child.

Charges have been dropped, she has her daughter back, but they are considering re-instating.  This story deserves follow-up:  Voice of Detroit did good investigative reporting.  The same CPS worker that did this in 2011 was, in 2010, facing a civil lawsuit for pulling a similar stunt to a related (married) couple, only five (5) children were nabbed and put into three different foster homes for 4o months; the amount of deceit involved is simply stunning.  (Brent family, look it up at “justice4maryanne” site).

>“I want my daughter back TODAY,” Godboldo said from the church’s pulpit. “I’m terrified; I don’t know what is happening to her. If we don’t stand up for our children, we have no future. I am so filled with joy and thankful for your support, Detroit. The only reason I came out of my home was not all those guns out there, not the threats they brought against me, but because of YOU!”

Godboldo’s daughter is currently incarcerated at the Hawthorn Family Center at Northville, despite efforts by other family members to have her released to their custody. Attorneys Allison Folmar and Wanda Evans earlier obtained a temporary restraining order preventing doctors there from putting Arianna back on Risperdal.

Despite a large turn-out of supporters at a Wayne County Juvenile Court custody hearing April 6, and evidence that Arianna may have contracted a sexually-transmitted disease while at Hawthorn, Referee Leslie Graves ruled that the child would remain in state custody

The community rallied, and it seems the family was targeted from a number of angles:  single mother, intelligent and insisting on choice (not “the program”), she homeschooled, she was also African-American and in (I remember seeing, can’t find link) the community was poor.  How dare this community not fork over their kids to the Title IV-driven systems for Rx profits?

One woman [that this mother met in jail for defending her kid] told me what Risperdal did to her. She was kidnapped at 17 and forced into prostitution in Chicago. When she got free and came back home, they put her on that drug. She said she felt dizzy, was hallucinating, and couldn’t function on a day-to-day basis.”

Barbara Ann Polizzi, a critical care nurse from New York, drove 13 hours to the rally with her 17-year-old son Michael to tell a story almost identical to that of Arianna’s. Michael too was forced to take Risperdal.    …

“I felt scared and fearful,” he said. “The medicine gave me shortness of breath and made my heart race. I had to get an inhaler and started on heart medication on top of it. I was not Michael anymore.

He said he was she never never gave up on me.”  (It took 6.5 years, she said):

Godboldo’s niece Ambyr Brooks said that the family has been contacted by people from Australia to Canada, many of whom have been similarly subjected to state abductions of their children and forced medications.

Mother (left), Father (middle),  Michael and mother (far right)

While people like these have to fight — with whatever they got — to keep their kids, another one DID fall between the cracks, in N. California (I also have a page on this — to right), and at least one post; an alert UC Berkeley campus security guard (mother) was alert, and followed up, leading to the YOUNG mother below’s release, along with the two kids.  After 18 years in captivity!

Jaycee Dugard Files Lawsuit Against U.S. Government

PHOTO: After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC's Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed.
After being held captive for 18 years, Jaycee Dugard talks to ABC’s Diane Sawyer in her first interview since being discovered and freed. (ABC News)
By   Sept. 22, 2011

Jaycee Dugard is suing the federal government because it twice rejected her requests for private mediation over its alleged failure to properly monitor Phillip Garrido, the man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 18 years.

. . .In an exclusive interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyerearlier this year, Dugard recounted how she overcame the horror of her kidnapping in 1991, her nearly two decade imprisonment in which she gave birth to two children fathered by Garrido, and her healing process since being rescued in 2009.

“There’s a switch that I had to shut off,”

. . . .I said, the US Gov’t was trafficking in children under the radar.  Here’s one:

Garrido was already a convicted kidnapper when he and his wife, Nancy, abducted 11-year-old Dugard as she walked to school from her family’s Tahoe, Calif., home.  He had been sentenced to 50 years in federal prison for kidnapping a woman in 1977. He was released in 1988 and placed on federal parole. In 1999, eight years into his kidnapping and torture of Dugard, he was released from federal parole and thanked by an agent for his “cooperation.

From 1999 to 2009, the state of California was charged with supervising him. At least 60 times, officials from the California Department of Corrections visited the Garrido home and never noticed anything amiss. On at least one visit, an official actually talked to Dugard.

Dugard and her children have already received a settlement from the state of California. Dugard’s attorneys attempted to reach a settlement with the U.S. government through private mediation twice but were denied.

 She said:
Of telling her story, Dugard told Sawyer, “Why not look at it? You know, stare it down until it can’t scare you anymore…I didn’t want there to be any more secrets?I hadn’t done anything wrong. It wasn’t something I did that caused this to happen. And I feel that by putting it all out there, it’s very freeing.”
  (I’m sorry to see that this foundation has taken up with a PAS specialist, in “Transitioning Families”

Rebecca Bailey, PhD – Psy 18732

Transitioning families encompasses the family and individual counseling practice of Rebecca Bailey, Ph.D. as well as her reunification programs, parenting classes and supervised visitation services. Dr. Bailey incorporated her clinical experience with her long-standing interest in animal therapy and the equine-assisted growth and learning programs

Dr. Bailey received her doctoral degree from The Wright Institute in Berkeley, CA. Since 1995 she has focused on high conflict familial situations and parent coordination from a developmental perspective. She is former director of the Sonoma Police Departments Youth and family services program and was a therapist educator for programs such as Marin County’s DUI Program. She continues to work with a variety of state and national organizations such as The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

She has served as a Special master and expert witness in cases were parental alienation or estrangement is an issue.

I’m sure that Jaycee Dugard and her mother do not know what this represents, links found on the TF site, and that (as a victim of stranger kidnapping and rape), she wouldn’t approve of the use this theory has been put to, to keep children who have been, at times, raped by their relatives/Dads, back in their custody, and how it FAILS to account for abductions of children by such men, from their mothers, or provide any sort of reunification services for them, either.    I know too many of these situations.    I do not believe that Jaycee and her mother would approve of funding such situations.  I speak as a mother to whom this happened, illegally, permanently (to date) and without real remedy (to date).  My kids’ still don’t know all the truths of their situation, and they most especially don’t know that the stage was set by the works of groups like AFCC and Warshak (and the federal funding, etc.) to make sure this can and does happen.
Men & Dads that need bribes (carrots and sticks) to do the right thing, won’t do the right thing with the bribes anyhow.  They’ll take the bribe (whether it be elimination or reduction of child support arrears, or other rewards, including a sense of control regained over their “ex” // “revenge”) and dump the kids afterwards anyhow — either off with the next wife/woman, or somewhere else.  I know woman who grew up, that experienced this.  Child is sold or farmed out to foster care anyhow, too many times.

“USEFUL LINKS”  (useful for WHAT?)

  • AFCC AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.
  • Dave Ziegler, Ph.D.Beyond Healing, The path to personal contentment after trauma
  • Dr. Richard A. WarshakDr. Warshak is a psychologist and author of Divorce Poison: How To Protect Your Family From Bad-mouthing and Brainwashing, now in its 24th printing, and co-author of the critically acclaimed DVD for children and parents…
  • Parental Alienation Awareness OrganizationBecause most people do not know about PA & HAP until they experience it, the idea of Parental Alienation Awareness Organization was put forth to help raise awareness and provide education about this growing problem of mental and emotional child abuse.
If this person Dr. Bailey wanted to be logical, HONEST & consistent, with her “Transitioning Families” team — she’d treat Mr. Garrido and Nancy Garrido and Jaycee’s daughters (after all, biologically, they were Phil Garrido’s offspring) as the family and get a court order (being a recommending evaluator or parent coordinator and force reunification services on the Garrido/Jaycee’s two daughters — and put Jaycee, the biological and falsely imprisoned, severely abused & sexually assaulted mother on supervised visitation, at her expense until she could learn that “families are forever” meaning, “fathers are forever,” even if they’re temporarily in jail (again) for kidnapping and rape of minors.  This especially seems to apply if one’s family was poor, or one’s skin is a little darker, i.e., Title IV.
But that’s not the way the cookie crumbles while there’s still money in the system — any system —  to be extracted.  Meanwhile, honest people, who helped me during certain years — are paying taxes on the US Debt which is to allegedly provide social services.  I wonder where the millions came from to settle this case — there must have been millions sitting around somewhere.  Interesting.
I wish someone had been around for me to do “reunification services” after the father abandoned OUR kids, failing to tell me when he did so (after having made sure it was a no-contact situation for a long time), and I attempted to regain contact properly and legally.  Instead, I was treated abominably by a local D.A. (though I had written evidence of the abandonment which, like child-stealing, is also a crime) who used sarcasm, ridicule and an attempt to extort more services out of the system — for me.   The man was middle-aged, white, and obviously male, and not on tape.  I left there (another back-burner project) realizing that NO female should ever walk into a room with an investigator, police officer, or district attorney — at least in this area — without the tape recorder on, to keep him or as it may be, them,  in check.  I was foolish to walk in with “only” evidence, and without an advocate — but after xxyy years in the system, there sometimes are no advocates!
Dr. Bailey’s site has rules for Supervised Visitations posted — you should read it.  RULE #1:  “No inappropriate physical contact. Hugging and kissing are okay upon greeting and parting only. This must be acceptable to all parties. No lap sitting.”   RULE #2:  No discussion of molestation allegations, custody or legal situation with the child. If the child brings it us, the parent may acknowledge the topic, but may not respond to the allegation unless the parent wishes to make amends for said action.
ASIDE on seeing the form for Supervised Visitation in association with the JAYC Foundation! 
Reminds me of why Jack Stratton, Ph.D. wrote (1992/1993) is supervised visitation FAIR for children of abusive men?  What does it teach the kids?  (Click on my gravatar logo to read it).     Consider Rule 1 — if the supervised visitation was being applied for the purposes it was sold us under — to prevent molestation ONLY — then that would be one thing.  But, if a child HAS been molested, allegedly, to fail to be allowed to (if young and this would otherwise be appropriate) simply see and hug his or her Mama — if SHE is the one on supervision due to having allowed the child to report, or see a mandatory reporter, or even if the child simply bumped into a mandatory reporter at school or elsewhere — (all situations that have indeed led to mothers being supervised at times, in state after state) — then that’s simply wrong.   I can understand Rule 2, part 1 — but look at the second part of the topic.  This literally means that contact with the non-molesting parent will be closely monitored to make sure a child does NOT report further abuse if it happened.  Both the nonmolesting parent AND the child(ren) must be trained — by this “reunification specialist and via supervised visitation) that any further mention of current abuse, or distress from it (i.e., comfort-seeking with a familiar parent) — will be punished.  The most logical form of punishment would be (for that nonmolesting parent / mother) to have NO visitation whatsoever.
And, here, the fee is $150 per hour.  Remind me to make sure this is no access/visitation subgrantee also …..
They are hurting around this issue over in Scranton, PA.  “Kids for Cash” in neighboring Luzerne is already history . . . Remember Viola Stroud case! (Dutchess County, NY)  Remember Helen O. Page case (Amador County, California).  Now there’s another high-profile case in Connecticut, too; the mother’s parents have put up so far $1 MILLION to help in the case — and are living with THEIR parents, I heard, having mortgaged their own property to help protect their grandson.    It does seem to be a pattern.

ANYHOW . . .  The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .

And one of the most important things in life is to know when someone else is, habitually, lying, and cease doing any kind of business with them until they stop, and permanently, if they cannot stop broadcasting their own lifes based on own perceptions and intent to dominate another person against his or her will, illegally and by fraud.
 This person also posted the article I put on the other post, at link http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.msg648631#msg648631, thread “Empire of the Cities – The Three Cities that Rule The World.”  this is the entire post, dated 5/21/2009….
It has some details about “tallies” and “stocks” you may not know.  Italics (or other font changes) are mine.  I haven’t fact-checked (you can).  But does it start to make some sense, yet?  I’m talking, income tax, federal reserve, for-profit not-for profit distinction (which only the income tax makes possible, really).

The Moneylenders Take Over England

In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family’s Nathan Rothchild said it well:

“I care not what puppet (sits on) the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British empire, and I (when he ran the Bank of England) control the British money supply.”

{{2012 is an election year.  Americans (USA) would do well to keep this in mind also.}}

Centuries early, moneylender power was absent. But after the 1666 Coinage Act, money-issuing authority, once the sole right of kings, was transferred into private hands. “Bankers now had the power to cause inflations and depressions at will by issuing or withholding their gold coins.”

King William III (1672 – 1702), a Dutch aristocrat, financed his war against France by borrowing 1.2 million pounds in gold in a secret transaction with moneylenders, the arrangement being a permanent loan on which debt would be serviced and its principle [“principal”]  never repaid. It came with other strings as well:

— lenders got a charter to establish the Bank of England (in 1694) with monopoly power to issue banknotes as national paper currency;

— it created them out of nothing, with only a fraction of them as reserves;

— loans to the government were to be backed by government IOUs to serve as reserves for creating additional loans to private borrowers; and

— lenders could consolidate the national debt on their government loan to secure payment through people-extracted taxes.

{{sound familiar yet?}}

It was a prescription for huge profits and “substantial political leverage. The Bank’s charter gave the force of law to the ‘fractional reserve’ banking scheme that put control of the country’s money” in private hands. It let the Bank of England create money out of nothing and charge interest for loans to the government and others – the same practice central banks now employ.

{{{“TALLIES”}}

For the next century, banknotes and tallies circulated interchangeably even though they weren’t a compatible means of exchange. Banker money expanded when “credit expanded and contracted when loans were canceled or ‘called,’ producing cycles of ‘tight’ money and depression alternating with ‘easy’ money and inflation.” In contrast, tallies were permanent, stable, fixed money, making banknotes look bad so they had to go.

For another reason as well – because of King William’s disputed throne and fear if he were deposed, moneylenders again might be banned. They used their influence to legalize banknotes as the money of the realm called “funded” debt with tallies referred to as “unfunded,” what historians see as the beginning of a “Financial Revolution.” In the end, “tallies met the same fate as witches – death by fire.”

{{ACTUALLY– SOUNDS LIKE THE REVERSE WAS TRUE.  TALLIES WERE FUNDED, AND THE BANKNOTES, WERE NOT}}

They were money of the people competing with moneylending bankers. After 1834 monetary reform, “tally sticks went up in flames in a huge bonfire started in a House of Lords stove.” Ironically, it got out of control and burned down Westminster Palace and both Houses of Parliament, symbolically ending “an equitable era of trade (by transferring power) from the government to the” central bank.

{{simple explanation:on the terms, and this burning:  terms “tally” “stocks” “broker” (Stockade) and “Exchequer”, Charles Dickens quoted}}

(MY INSERT — more on TALLY STICKS:

Original Wooden Tally Sticks (2)
[England, Westminster, c. 1250-1275]

hickory wood, the larger end cut diagonally, edges roughly squared off leaving traces of bark, each inscribed along one side with the name of the payer and the upper and lower edges cut with notches (“v”-shaped for pounds, broad grooves for shillings, sharp cuts for pence), each piece then split with a knife by cutting diagonally across the thicker end of the reverse side and pulling away a length which would be retained separately by the payer as proof of payment, written in thirteenth-century charter hands. c. 175-200 mm. long (each).

Rare survival of a medieval form of financial record-keeping, the tally stick provides the origin of many words used in modern money markets: stock, foil, stockholder, bank stock, and check. The vast majority were destroyed in the nineteenth century in the fire of the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

INTERESTING:

Tallies provide the earliest form of bookkeeping. They were used in England by the Royal Exchequer from about the twelfth century onward. Since the notches for the sums were cut right through both pieces and since no stick splits in an even manner, the method was virtually foolproof against forgery. They were used by the sheriff to collect taxes and to remit them to the king. They were also used by private individuals and institutions, to register debts, record fines, collect rents, enter payments for services rendered, and so forth. By the thirteenth century, the financial market for tallies was sufficiently sophisticated that they could be bought, sold, or discounted. 

“Tallies were … a sophisticated and practical record of numbers. They were more convenient to keep and store than parchments, less complex to make, and no easier to forge…. Of the millions of medieval tallies made, only a few hundred survive.” (Clanchy, p. 96; see also p. 95, n. 28, pl. VIII). In 1724, treasury officials commanded that tallies no longer be used, but it was not until 1834, with the reform acts and the abolition of the office of the Receipt of the Exchequer, that a huge bonfire of the then-obsolete medieval tally sticks was held. Started in a stove stuffed full of sticks in the House of Lords, the fire quickly got out of control, spreading to the paneling, and burning down both the Palace of Westminster and the Houses of Parliament.

In 1911, Sir Hilary Jenkinson knew of only three Exchequer tally sticks in private hands (pp. 292-3, 330, and 350).

The evolution of money technologies originates with the tally stick. From tally stick comes the modern word “stock,” meaning a financial certificate and deriving from the use of the Middle English for the stick. The piece retained by the bank was called the “foil.” The holder of the stock was said to be the “stockholder” and owned “bank stock.” A written certificate presented for remittance and checked against its security later became a “check.”

According to legend, Wall Street was founded in its present location because of the presence there of an enormous chestnut tree, said to be plentiful enough to supply enough tally sticks for the emerging American stock market.

LITERATURE 
Clanchy, M. T. From Memory to Written Record, England 1066-1307, Cambridge, Mass., 1979.

Jenkinson, Hilary C. “Exchequer Tallies,” Archaeologia, second series, 12 (1911), pp. 292 ff.

ONLINE RESOURCES 
Tallies and Technologies, by Dave Birch, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce
http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/9811-11.htm

The Origins of Mathematics
http://www.math.tamu.edu~don.allen/history/origins/origins.html

[[The other source cited is the link, above to definitions]]

forum.prisonplanet. . . cont’d….

Henceforth {{1834ff?}}, private bankers kept government in debt, never demanding the return of principle [“principal”], and profiting by extracting interest, a very lucrative system always paying off “like a slot machine” rigged to benefit its operators. It became the basis for modern central banking, lending its “own notes (printed paper money), which the government swaps for bonds (its promises to pay) and circulates as a national currency.

{{BONDS — hold that thought}}

Government debt is never repaid. It’s continually rolled over and serviced, today with no gold in reserve to back it. Though gone, tallies left their mark. The word “stock” comes from the tally stick. Much of the original Bank of England stock was bought with these sticks. In addition, stock issuance began during the Middle Ages as a way to finance businesses when no interest-bearing loans were allowed.

This is not “archaic” information and irrelevant — it’s VERY current.  I am still digesting — but it makes sense.  Here’s a Brit (I gather) relating the Monarchy’s relationship to the Corporation of London (which holds the crown — the one you’ve seen on TV perhaps, loaned out for state occasions) and correlating to a May, 2011 meeting with the British Prime Minister Cameron with Eurozone personnel, re: ESM (Hey, it’s new term to me….).  I just saw Cameron sitting next to President Obama watching a basketball game, on TV….

He is thinking in terms of the Corporation that holds the (moulah) versus the “State” which is subject to it.  It’s a BIG deal!

That meeting, the ESM and the Crown – why Cameron said NO

( Dec. 2011)

I know that many of you who visit this site have looked deeply into our constitution, and are already aware that our State, the Crown, is not the Monarchy, but the Corporation of London.

The ‘Crown’ is in trust to the Corporation of London, it owns it and has done since Cromwell hocked it in return for unrepayable loans from Dutch Bankers, loans that are still being repaid today, to finance a bankrupt England after the Civil War.
In order that the Crown never left these shores and the transaction remained unknown to a largely starving and extremely volatile population it was to be held in trust in perpetuity by a new body, which eventually became The Corporation of London .

It is this Crown that all State employees swear allegiance to, with the exception of the Royal Navy who give their allegiance to the Queen directly. It is why the Crown is housed in the Tower of London, within the bounds of the City, and only loaned to the Monarch for State occasions.

What these charlies across the Channel are trying to do is the same thing, and largely for the same reasons. The new revised ESM that was suggested on Friday would become thenew State of Europa.

In the same way that the State sits above the British Government, this planned ESM Treaty would be a level oState above the EU and its institutions.

Can we call it a day on these “Days” ?? What are they worth, to you?

leave a comment »

Hey, people – – can we talk?  

You can see from the gadgets to the right (Feedjit, Statcounter, etc.)

some people are at least zipping through the site.  Let’s talk, or load page-views and just snatch data from each other

June 21st was Father’s Day.  In May was Mothers’ day.  In April, it was the next two holidays, and the other ones below

are of older origins.

 

  • Father’s Day,
  • Mother’s Day,
  • Domestic Violence Awareness Month,
  • Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Month, 
  • Ramadan,
  • Yom Kippur,
  • Christmas,
  • New Year’s,
  • Easter
  • “9/11”
  • If it saved even TWO lives, would you give up the “Days”?

    Even if you worked at Hallmark cards, a flower shop, or a newspaper?

    Now, I realize that all religions require sacrifice, sometimes (often?) entailing blood, sometimes human, often children.

    But perhaps we could simplify, and get it down, nationally at least (or internationally?) to the long-standing world religions, and for good measure, “Bill of Rights” Day in the U.S., with particular emphasis on Amendments I and II, which entails that the Government shall protect our right not to believe in any god, or as a nation worship one, or have our money  — our offspring– poured out at its altar.

    Bill of Rights

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I am beginning to think that part of every young person’s education should be memorization, by rote, of these amendments, and training in self-defense, by arms, not just karate.  A karate kick doesn’t stop a bullet.  

    (RECOMMENDED:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute //American Civic Literacy Program)

    Discussion continued, AFTER you take a good look at two children murdered by their father (along with himself, a.k.a. suicide) last year for this reason:  His (younger) wife dared to leave him, in May, and he wasn’t going to have them on Father’s Day, in June:

     

    Gallery image 2

     

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/09/wife-tells-of-ex-husban-s-sick-plan-to-murder-kids-then-blow-her-up-after-father-s-day-115875-21109000/

    Twisted dad Brian Philcox – who murdered his two young children because he couldn’t see them on Father’s Day – planned a “spectacular few days of destruction” from beyond the grave.

    He drove Amy, seven, and three-year-old Owen to a country lane, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust, fed it through the window and left the engine on.

    All three died huddled in the back of his Land Rover at a North Wales beauty spot last June. 

    It was just the start of a day of horror that evil 52-year-old Philcox had carefully planned.

    He had booby-trapped his home in Runcorn, Cheshire, in an attempt to kill his estranged wife Lyn McAuliffe.

    And he sent a parcel bomb to her son Ryan, 18. Fortunately, none of the devices exploded.

    Speaking for the first time since the tragedy, Lyn, 37, said: “He had planned the whole thing for a spectacular few days of destruction. He wanted to blow me up in his house  before murdering his own children.

    “He also sent a bomb in the post to my son Ryan. He planned for it to arrive the day after Father’s Day, when me, the kids and Brian should already have been dead.

    And in another article:

    Gassed children unlawfully killed

    Those are the children above.  I’m a little unclear on when it might be “lawful” to kill children — on what grounds, self-defense?

        

     Mr Philcox had collected the children from their home in Runcorn, Cheshire in an arranged access visit last June {{2008}} the inquest heard.  // But after drugging them with chloroform from a padded envelope, he attached a vacuum cleaner pipe to the exhaust of his Land Rover in an isolated spot near Llanrwst in north Wale. // 
    The trio were found dead, poisoned by carbon monoxide fumes, sitting next to each other on the back seat of Mr Philcox’s car on Father’s Day.

    The 52-year-old karate expert had separated from his wife in May 2008 after eight years of marriage.

    The children’s mother, Lyn McAuliffe, 38, from Runcorn, Cheshire, wept as details of the deaths were read.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

     

     

     

    A typical court order, at least over here (US), will say:  Children to be with their Father on Father’s Day, Mother on Mother’s Day, and then will specify the usual holidays — geared typically to the school year, which itself is generally arranged around (oddly enough) major Christian holidays, although Christianity, if not talk of “God” (as if real)  is out of favor in many educational systems these days.

    In my case, zero of these were enforced for the past almost 3 full years.  The last time I attempted to stick up for this, there was retaliation.  NONE of the “Shared Parenting” advocates seem too bothered when mothers, as opposed to fathers, are not seeing their children — sometimes removed on grounds of “Parental Alienation” (a.k.a., reporting child sexual abuse, or some other criminal behavior.  In my case the criminal offence, I gather, was expecting, and saying openly, to everyone involved (including agencies) that I expected my ex- to be held accountable to obey all court orders, like I was.  And to work, like I was…..”

     

    WHY I DIDN”T POST ON FATHER’S DAY:

    For one, grief.  This news article came across my inbox, and others.

    I am a mother.  I was unable to see my own daughters on Mother’s Day in:  2005, 2006, and 2007.  I did not make plans to blow anyone up or get vengeance.  I had a hard time, I’ll admit this Father’s Day  — especially that now I’ve done some research on the state of “Der Vaterland” religion in my country here — and did not post.  It was a hard day for many noncustodial mothers worldwide, which I know because we talk with each other sometimes.

     I also received another no-answer call, from a cell phone, from the same geographic vicinity as my ex, who has recently (though having won in court and happily ensconced with a new woman, and who would think in need of yet another “victory” or some sort) been both texting, calling, and at least once, showing up at my doorstep unannounced and unwanted.  This, in this context, is called Stalking. If it was not him, still, the fact that I should have to do a reverse phone lookup, because it was so disturbing and part of an unbroken pattern is significant.

    Here’s what the holidays meant for our family  — and I know many others who have divorced, not amicably — occasions for incidents.

    The national religion is, we are supposed to be happy, rejoicing, and ensconced in a family or extended family setting at these times.  Or in a soup line for the homeless, being charitable (or, eating).  

    Add to this, I’m a musician, and major music events occurred around them, they were also financial fiascos.  What should then, have been a joyful occasion became for me, a cause for anxiety and trigger to post-traumatic stress.   With good cause, too.  This was true BEFORE we separated, as well.  We  had to perform as a family.  My ex apparently had performance stress, and one of my most major, earliest (though not THE earliest) memories of an outrageous physical (assault & battery, now that I know the proper term) of me, while pregnant, happened seconds after a nice family dinner event around Christmas, with my relatives.  He had been embarrassed, somehow, and I was going to pay.  One kid was dashed into the bedroom and dumped into a crib so two hands would be free to punish me properly.  The other one had no choice, not having been born yet. 

     

    Let’s reduce the occasions for violent incidents!

    Let’s move away from nationalized, attention-deficit-friendly, polytheism and ADD closer to either monotheism, or atheism?

    It might give us more time to breathe, reflect, THINK, and memorize our national constitutions.

    Here — this is only >>one<< instance of incidents planned for Father’s Day.  There were others for Mother’s Day, for example, major political leaders in the US gearing up for the 10th Anniversary of Father’s Day (right around Mother’s Day), and (lying) to the public about how neglected and underfunded the concept of fatherhood was, and how we need to pass more laws, and send more money, of course, hire more experts, to protect the concept.

    Included in such proclamations are the usual (gag….) statistics on how female-headed (formerly called “single-mother” only we are now carefully avoiding the use of this word “mother” in public arenas, except YOUNG ones that might generate home nurse visitation programs, also part of the agenda under Health and Human Services, USA).  It’s no longer MOTHERS, it’s Children and Families.  And, of course Fathers.

    Absent from those statistics would be, for example, children such as Amy & Owen above.  They are no longer “at risk” for anything at all, except, depending on your version of reality and the universe, possible resurrection, or is it fossilization.  Their long-term futures are not going to be part of any Head Start, Healthy Families, or Low-Income Maternal/Parental bonding studies.  So if you are reading any of these studies, generally footnoted by a number of Ph.D.’s, LCSW’s, MFTs, etc. (as are some of the contrary studies), just remember — the statistics are skewed.  SOME kids never make it this far, and THAT is one reason why “FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” can — yes indeed — be dangerous to children.

    Especially as mediated by  a court system that doesn’t take this possibility into account.

    Incidents like this arouse emotions in the rest of us — of course.   When people’s emotions are at high pitch is not always a great time to make major decisions, and it is DEFINITELY not a great time to analyze government spending.  SOMEONE’s money is going to transfer hands, on the basis of these things.  Some grants are going to get funded, adn for sure a few print newspapers were sold on the backs of those two kids, as well as the on-line search ratings.    

    Since I began this blog, I noticed that by the time I had one incident up, or narrated/commented on, another one had hit the news.  It was impossible to intelligently keep up commentary with all of them, let alone analysis:

    Search Results

    1. Brian Philcox Inquest: Killed Children Amy And Owen In Llanryst 

      Feb 20, 2009  A father “unlawfully killed” his two young children and rigged up a makeshift bomb at his house before committing suicide, an inquest has 
      news.sky.com/…/BrianPhilcoxLynMcAuliffe/…/200902315226750 – Similar – 
    2. Man who killed himself and his two children left ‘Bitch’ note 

      Feb 21, 2009  Lyn McAuliffe is helped into the inquest into the deaths of her two  Mr Gittins told Miss McAuliffe: ‘When Brian Philcox took Amy and 
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-children-left-Bitch-note-rigged- homemade-bomb-wife.html – Similar – 
    3. Lyn McAuliffe: Birthday visit for tragic mum – Liverpool Echo.co.uk

      Feb 10, 2009  Brian Philcox 320. A WOMAN whose two children were gassed to death by her  Lyn McAuliffe, 38, said she would go to the graveside of her 
      http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/…/lynmcauliffe-birthday-visit-for-tragic-mum- 100252-22893336/ –Similar – 
    4. Daily Post North Wales – News – North Wales News – Mum of children 

      Feb 21, 2009  Karate expert Brian Philcox drugged his two children, Amy, seven, Philcox’s then wife Lyn McAuliffe had begun divorce proceedings 
      http://www.dailypost.co.uk/…/mum-of-children-killed-in-north-wales-will-not- forgive-dad-55578-22975841/ – Cached – Similar – 
    5. Brian Philcox: Philox killed kids and planned to kill 2 more 

      Brian Philcox, 53, of UK, devised a homemade bomb to kill his wife and mother of his 2 children.  Philcox later called McAuliffe to ask her to enter his home.  India News, Jade Goody, Jamie Hince, Jamie Lynn Spears, Janet Jackson 
      celebgalz.com/brianphilcox-philox-killed-kids-and-planned-to-kill-2-more- photos/ –Cached – Similar – 
    6. Mama Liberty

      Security guard Brian Philcox drugged his two children before killing them and himself on After the hearing, the children’s mother Lyn McAuliffe, 38, 
      rights4mothers.blogspot.com/ – Cached – Similar – 
    7. 26 February 2009 – Local Runcorn & Widnes news 

      Feb 26, 2009  Lyn McAuliffe describes Amy and Owen Philcox’s killer as evil and  Child killer Brian Philcox had glittering career in world of karate 
      http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn…/26/ 

     

    Now, the United States, and I believe other countries, are in the grip of a nationalized religion, but one that still hasn’t — other major world ones, stood the test of time — I mean, thousands, or at least hundreds, of years.  

    We have a nationalized public educational system, and it has to get organized around SOMETHING, as far as schedule.  Ironically –according to at least one of my readings on the history of this system — it was pushed and promoted in part as a RE-action by Protestant Christians against an influx of Catholic immigrants from Southern Europe, and/or Ireland.  I don’t think Jews or Muslims made honorable mention in this, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else.  There were also the Harvard Unitarians versus the mainline Trinitarians.  It was basically fear-mongering about the incoming religions (plus economic and sometimes military, force) backing it up.  A land grab was involved of church properties.  If you’re really interested, submit a comment, and I’ll submit some bibliography.

    So what do we have now, in the school schedules, and reflected in the family court visitation orders (schedules) as well?  Ironically, we have some of the most Catholic in origin holiday schedules:  Christmas, Easter, Halloween.  Google these, and you’ll get somewhere back to the time of Constantine, Rome, and recognize that they, too, had a national religion, and had to sort of, er, do a melting pot.  Polytheism was patriotic, monotheism was, well, unnatural.

    Jews, and later, Christians, protested, refusing to sacrifice and well, this was entertainment and gladiator fodder.  They were made examples of, and you can read history on your own times for a better version of the word “holiday.”

    I’m working on this theme, but it seems to me that any national religion pushed down the national throat — is going to produce a reaction, and reactionary elements, and they will kill.  There will be war.

    What I see right now is Male Supremacists versus “Ms.” and I see LGBT vs. Healthy Marriage enshrined, and I do mean that.

    I also see — and if you follow my blog, or others linked to it (see the buttons), or if you simply are motivated enough — how with ONE side of the mouth, our government is taking advice from “faith-based initiatives” on how marriage is ALWAYS just so wonderful, that we should play matchmaker, federally speaking.  What do do about cases like the young man in Tennessee, who had 21 children by 5 (or was it 15?) different women is a little unclear.  And a moot point — he wasn’t earning much.  A

    And from another Department (of Education), same Branch (Executive) — there’s a battleground for conttrol of our children in the K-12 school system, i.e., “It’s Elementary” and “Days of Silence,” spawning all kinds of nonprofits justice groups to track this, and defend that.  Generally speaking, the ACLU is probably going to come up the other side of, say, Pacific Justice Institute, who tend to defend the conservative Christian groups.  WHICH (in case you wondered), I’m not.  Primarly because they won’t stick up for women when their own are being beaten, nor was I raised thus anyhow.

    So what we have here is:


  • SYSTEMIC PROBLEM #1 (for sake of numbering them somehow)
  • Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage is, essentially, conservative — and has a religious base  They RULE in the courts (or will soon, if not yet).
  • Practically the entire public school educational system is quite progressive.
  • So you have a built-in war between the EDUCATION system (if you’re rusty, EXECUTIVE Branch) and the COURT  system (JUDICIAL BRANCH). One way to also conceptually phrase THAT war could be on the basis of sexuality (LGBT vs. Hetero, plus Dads Rule), OR, it could also be considered, Religion versus no religion.

  • APPARENT SYSTEMIC PROBLEM #2  – within the Health and Human Services alone (Executive Branch)

  • I want to know more about the origins of this department, currently our country’s largest.  This is the topic for a different post. My study (since my schedule was vacated, rudely, by certain governmental institutions, which cast me upon the (still incoherent, best I can interpret) mercies of other ones, I have both been highly motivated to find out HOW they got away with this, and how to stop the process.
  • I could readily, and competently, navigate the familiar waters of:  housing, working, parenting, and alongside that, negotiating for the best education of the dollar possible given our family history.  I also competently negotiated a household move with my work schedule, and even a moderate compromise within the family lines (I compromised school choice for my kids, believing at face value, this to have been a temporary situation, so long as I could thereafter make ends meet, only to find it had instead been a land mine….. a sacred cow . )
  • I could not, nor do I feel responsible for not having been able to, engage meanwhile in mind-reading of either people who had no business running MY business, nor institutions who also thought it was there privilege to do so.  As we had homeschooled (while I taught for public schools, private nonprofits, and among other homeschooling families), I had not yet been indoctrinated into the concept of “YOUR children are OUR property” mentality, nor the unbelievably condescending and negative attitude some schools hold towards parents who are neither on the PTA, the School Board, or the class volunteer list.
  • ANY family (I’ll be neutral and not say the more accurate, “WOMAN” or “MOTHER”) leaving an abusive situation has done so by virtue of some help from somewhere.  She is NOT in a position to understand, generally, that other than her most IMMEDIATE abusers, which may or may not include family of origin, faith community, or other immediate circles who didn’t report — as some of them are mandated by law to, in the US — that she should no more trust intervening outsiders saying “let me help you” than she did the person assaulting her “for her own good.”  
  • No woman, or kid, becomes independent and self-sufficient by having theorists and philosophers tell them how to live, OR, how to leave.  In retrospect, my / our civil rights were compromised every single step of the way — and I can identify this in my case, and in others.  As I protested, the resistance — not just individual (ex), and his new associates, but also corporate and governmental entities — to the concept that I was intelligent enough to make a choice, and that one of those choices was that any governmental intrusion into OUR life should begin with equal treatment under the law, and addressing violations of court orders.  Such violations are indicators.  Perhaps if women ran government, as we run the raising of lots of little kids (I mean, til they go to preschool, or such), we’d drop the massmanagement theory, and go to the, knowing individuals, and CALLING them on whether an infraction was intentional (i.e., testing the limits) or harassing/distracting/destructive, or simply unintentional and a mistake.
  • At every step of the way, as I began calling attention to these repeated infractions of my personal boundaries, the court orders, my home space, decision-making, and much, much more, the reactions escalated.  Hmm. . . . . . real indignation at the concept that a woman should NOT be passive, malleable, and dependent, in every way.  That she should deserve some privacy — for REAL — or that she might have a clue what’s good for her kids.  That she might not to choose to re-engage sexually right away, given the last man was dangerous.  And that, possibly if she DID, such might bring on further aggressions from the deposed male.  
  • Defending one’s borders, and boundaries, takes effort and time, and energy.  RIGHT, border patrol?  This is also true personally.
  • I personally think that the US Government has other business to do than transgressing mine, particularly because I happened to have shown up as female, and fertile.  It is not my patriotic duty to fork over children for categorization, education, indoctrination, or demonstration grants in Responsible Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage, or anything else that is not necessary for US to pursue:  Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Now, when the government DID catch me briefly, and say, We will Enforce a Child Support Order, which I did not ask them to do, then it has a duty to behave honestly towards my children in that activity.  And failing to inform us about all the other initiatives (in place, as I have said repeatedly on here, since at least the 1990s, and many sources say, 1980s) is “Irresponsible Governmenthood.”

  • It is not my civic duty to fork over my time, life, or children to jump onto the petri dish to be examined and become fodder for the mental health industry if we resist, being either literate, or old enough to remember memorizing the Declaration of Independence in a public school.

  • My last few months of studying the Health and Human Services Department (a.k.a., following the trail of bread crumbs from when contact with my kids — and their child support — got lost in the bureaucratic woods of “help, stop!, protect! enforce! Beware! Advocate!” red tape in two (California) counties) — has shown clearly that in this last point, I and they differ.  180 degrees.  100%.  I have a high-conflict relationship with that philosophy, one that no amount of “in loco parenting” classes is likely to correct.  I value my sanity, and I tried the placate, duck, and appease method for a long time in my marriage before we got to Call it by the right name, Restrain, Protect, (“CPR”) philosophy.

  • THIS CREATES BUILT-IN CONFLICT AND POVERT – for some, and professions — for to.  

    See my (hopefully) upcoming post(s) on Responsible Citizenhood (Parts III, IV and V) and

    “Survival of the Fittest:  Study and Prosper, or Be Broke and Be Studied” a.k.a.,

    “Multiple (Life) Choices in a New Brave World:   (1) Etymologist or (2) the Bug on the Plate”

     

     

     

     

    NOW – I have a recommendation (See top of post):

     

    Can we reduce our specialty days, in the courts, and in the educational systems to perhaps FIVE? or SEVEN?

     

    And no two in the same month:

     

    • One for atheism.
    • One (or you say how many) for polytheism.
    • One, or at most 3, for each of the three monotheistic religions:  Judaism, Christianity, Islam (In chrono order).  Or, Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in alpha order).  Or . . . . . 

     

    (Kind of like mono and poly unsaturated fats, right?)  

     

     

    Or, extend the school year, and shorten the work week, as Friday, Saturday and Sunday characterize these weekly holy days, right?

     

    (The naming, versus numbering, of the days of the week is itself a pagan concept.)

     

    And teachers, you will have to find some other “themes” (such as skills development?) around which to build the school year, not, respectively, (Sept.-June):

    Labor, Halloween (DV awareness), Thanksgiving, Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Christmas, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Patrick, Easter (SA/CA/PAS awareness), Veterans & Mothers ((although the parallel seems appropriate in some contexts…), Fathers, and Hallelujah, summer vacation — or school, depending on how well your children concentrated the above in one piece).

     

    No WONDER pharmaceuticals are needed to keep kids focused.  

     

    Independence Day (July 4th, US), is coming up.  Now, I know the above is ludicrous — but I hope I showed at least that these federally-sponsored (that’s your tax dollars, USA) institutions:

     

    • National Holidays
    • PUBLIC School
    • Courts
    • Government Institutions (at least a few of them)
    • Religions

     

    are all intertwined.  These institutions also affect the workforce.  

     

     

    WHAT LEVEL OF ATTRITION (translation:  Crime, death, waste) IS ACCEPTABLE? IN ORDER TO JAM A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO SEVERAL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, CAUSING “WARS” AMONG THEM, AND WITHIN SOME OF THEM, MEANWHILE PROCLAIMING THAT CONGRESS IS NOT, IN FACT, MAKING A LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION?

     

    Let’s talk profession — remember the  joke:  What is the “oldest profession in the world”?  (Put one of two possible answers).  Now you just saw the oldest religion too.

     

    Sex, for money.  So who is being sold what?

     

    I note that Mr. Philcox, having been booted out of the house (guess that was HIS religion) opted –quickly– to kill his entire family and himself, and partially succeeded.  Guess we know what religion THAT was.  He picked up a single mother (who had a son at around age 20), about 15 years his junior, and quickly made some babies, was aggressive towards the son NOT of his gene pool, and when  those who WERE of his gene pool were not allowed to live with him, apparently, he wiped them out.  Possibly Darwinist?

     

    Would you give up at LEAST:  Mother’s and Father’s Day to save a few children’s lives? 

     

    Note:  This might affect which Congressperson you elect next term.  There is no “motherhood” initiative, but there sure as hell– and it’s been hell on Moms, and kids — a “Fatherhood” one!  And I already posted who voted for it, in both Houses of the Legislature.

     

    Or do you believe that female-headed households are dangerous and should be eliminated, by hook or by crook, or by pipe bomb?  

     

    You know, some prophesies are self-fulfilling, and at this rate, unless some major institutions are somewhat re-arranged (NO, I am NOT advocating the overthrow of anything United States — particularly not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and due process in all 3 branches of government), it looks to be heading towards Armageddon.

     

    PERHAPS — just PERHAPS — if we could dissolve some of the more monolithic aspects here, and allow a bit more fluidity and dynamic response to actual situations (within the scope of, of course, law), there would be fewer reactionary fundamentalist factions proclaiming, pronouncing, warring, and killing — or stealing.  Kids, and dollars.

     

  • USA: “Fathers, Return!” UK: “Mothers, Give us your Children!”

    leave a comment »

     

    Some posts virtually write themselves from the news articles.  These two from the TIMES UK reflect the current dismissive attitude towards women in particular, and non-court-experts in general.

     

    Another insane event in the serial, unfortunately NON-fiction, documentary of

    Designer-Families by Family Court Fiat:

     

    What are we human beings, giving birth, being biologically related to each other, an affront to the state on that basis?  Are we clay to be manipulated emotionally, psychologically, and geographically  — particularly if we don’t fit a certain IQ limit, household construction, or actually, as MOMs, want to see & hug our own children, and not get governmental permission to do so after producing them through  conception, 9 months or so gestation, labor (which IS work!), and delivery?

    There was an  older book in the US for women called “Our Bodies, Our Selves”

    It must be obsolete, I guess.  Now, ladies, you are channels for the adoption industry, your religion (or his), you are surrogate mothers, and fatherhood enablers.  Unless you maintain rigorous adherence to stipulations that are, well, not exactly published openly, by your local government, apparently whatever your country of origin.  Or, remain off the radar by staying married (no matter what the cost), and not complaining if your offspring is strip-searched at the local school (Samantha Redding), and not getting cancer and hoping for an alternative treatment (many parents), by not openly declining a public education system known to be inferior (me), and not reporting domestic violence, child abuse, or attempting to collect child support when Dad don’t want to pay.  In short, if we lay down FLAT after giving birth to children, perhaps no one will notice, and our maternal bond may survive — however, this may not be the best role model for sons or daughters.

    These articles would be entertaining if they were, in fact, fictional. Allegedly, they are not.

     

    “Mother too “stupid” to keep child” and “Court takes child of “stupid” mother, were mis-filed under women & families in the Times, and should be, I believe either under politics or under:

    Totalitarianism:  A User’s Manual”

     

    How to Promote Responsible Fatherhood?

    The man in Tennessee (last night’s post) has 21 children to choose from, none of which he plans to support, and he will be hard put to comply with “national fathers’ return” policy without violating other laws against polygamy.  As a low-income father, he would be for whom the child-support arrears abatement programs (as run through the family law system via the US Dept. of Health & Human Services), he would be a prime candidate.

     

    How to Eliminate Loving Motherhood:

    This 24-year-old woman in England was stamped, judged, labeled, and ordered to give up a 3- year old daughter she loves because she’s not “smart” enough, despite having been found smart enough to understand the court process!

    (note:  When I first heard the article, I thought I might have found a legal standing for getting my kids back, until I remembered which genders were involved….)

    Apparently the adoption market is slow?, and so this woman was simply declared unable, and thus, forbidden to represent herself (with her choice of solicitor) in court in this matter,  given a government solicitor who then ignored her instructions to protest the forced adoption.  

    Later, a psychiatrist declared her competent enough, but the (family) court still replied “we are not impressed.”

    She couldn’t be too stupid, because this case is going up a notch to the international level.

    Nor were her parents (too old) or her 27 year old brother allowed to assist her with her own daughter, on which he comments:

     

    Rachel’s brother Andrew and their parents all offered their services but were rejected for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant from school.

    Andrew, an articulate 27-year-old, said: “The guardian that the court appointed for K even said that I have learning difficulties, although she had never met me. These people are ridiculous. What’s worse, the judges overlook it and still think they are credible professionals.”

     

    I am concerned about copyright compliance and hope readers will themselves check out these two articles.

     

    The Sunday Times
    May 31, 2009

    Mother ‘too stupid’ to keep child

     Daniel Foggo

    A MOTHER is taking her fight to the European Court of Human Rights after she was forbidden from seeing her three-year-old daughter because she is not “clever enough” to look after her.

    The woman, who for legal reasons can be identified only by her first name, Rachel, has been told by a family court that her daughter will be placed with adoptive parents within the next three months, and she will then be barred from further contact.

    The adoption is going ahead despite the declaration by a psychiatrist that Rachel, 24, has no learning difficulties and “good literacy and numeracy and [that] her general intellectual abilities appear to be within the normal range”.

    > > > > >. . . . .

    After the psychiatrist’s assessment of Rachel, the court has now acknowledged that she does have the mental capacity to keep up with the legal aspects of her situation. It has nevertheless refused her attempts to halt the adoption process.

    John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who is campaigning on Rachel’s behalf, said: “The way Rachel has been treated is appalling. She has been swept aside by a system that seems more interested in securing a child for adoption than preserving a natural family unit.”

     

     

    And in the related article:

    Court takes child of “stupid” mother

    Rachel protested and secured a solicitor to give her a voice in the family court. But by the time of the crucial placement hearing her pleas had been silenced. This was because her “stupidity” had been used as a means to deny her something else: the right to instruct a lawyer.

    Instead, the official solicitor was brought in to speak for Rachel. Alastair Pitblado, the government-funded official, is appointed by the courts to represent the interests of those who cannot make their own case, such as mentally incapacitated people.

    . . . .

    Rachel’s protests over her treatment were dismissed. The official solicitor had acted “entirely properly” in capitulating to the council since Rachel’s case was “unarguable”, the Court of Appeal ruled.

    The decisions of the family court and the appeal court relied upon reports drawn up by a psychologist 

    However, according to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had “demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings”.

    “She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range,” he wrote in a report.

    “She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.

    “Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.”

     

    Actions Concerned Women (potential mothers) might take:

     

    I have been considering this for a while, as a woman who did education and professional work first, and had something to offer our children as well as husband, I had children around 40 years old.  The abuse began almost immediately, and lasted about 10 years, til I finally figured out where was the legal advocate to help it stop.  Apart from two daughters, intentional, not accidental, those years were a nightmare, a danger, and an eye-opener.  They also just about trashed my ability to work in this profession, and DID close down my credit.  I kept, energetically, reforming and resourcefully creating myself in work to survive — while negotiating down and working off arts and other classes for growing daughters, keeping at least THEM in music, languages, art, etc., and from this point, meeting a variety of interesting professionals and other intact families, including some professional women, some stay-at-home Moms, and others.  I was allowed to do this “for the children,” but attempts to engage myself were strongly resisted, and sometimes punished for, or threatened out of.  

    Two years off Food Stamps post-marriage, the case was re-directed into Family Court.  Not knowing, I didn’t protest and seek how to get it back into the point at hand:  Renewing a standing restraining order.

    After Five Years of that, and escalations, I have become unemployed, lost both kids, dis-illusioned, alienated, still without credit (and now, car) and back on Food Stamps — I again, hope, temporarily.  My attempt to separate from abuse (without separating the children from my abuser, who was their father) in effect separated me 100% from my family of origin, profession, faith communities (for the most part) and very much alienated from the institutions I formerly took for granted.  

    I encouraged the non-alienated mainstream to also no longer take these for granted in ANY aspect.

    I became more and more radical feminist in views, understanding more fully now how this was simply a response to insulting degradation of women throughout the world. ln the USA, women went to work to replace men who went to war. Then they came back and we were to go back also and become the idealized “nuclear” family, warm, fuzzy, nostalgic, and prosperous (see Norman Rockwell).  The GI Bill and other government initiativesi (plus some of our parents’ hard work) made possible college educations.


    We got our college educations and did the logical thing with them — went to work.  Some of us also sought meaning in other communities, including religion (propserity is not a ‘religion’) and/or service within our fields of study.  Others I know did Peace Corps.  I conversed regularly and on many topics and in many venues, with men and women from other continents, and who had been raised in them.  Zaire, Ethiopia, Belize, Nigeria, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Kenya.  USA:  East Coast, Midwest, Southerners, West Coast.  Educational levels:  GED through Ph.D.  Faiths:  Christian (several brands), Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, undeclared.  For the most part, these were not problematic.  We worked or studied and hung out, period.  

    Then I married someone who looked like me and whose family appeared to have a similar background.  I loved him and married in good faith and with honest intents, expecting that our marriage would be a mutual work in progress, not that I would become this person’s “project” as soon as vows were exchanged.  I did not do a criminal background check, and probably might have explored medical family history as well.  No one was mentoring or watching in these matters.  I married someone who came from similar religious background, and seemed articulate.  My family of origin were not Christians or significant points of reference, and never really had been, the majority of my life.  We all just went and did what we did, period, in different parts of the country and for different reasons.  Asking advice and sharing insight was never really on the family menu, and communication was scant in general.

    And shortly after marriage, all hell broke loose.  The main theme of the marriage became “domination,” “reformation” and “assume the position!, (doormat)” particularly after I was pregnant with second daughter.  This theme was carried out in front of many of the similar types of associates, as I was able to reach them by either employment, or daughters’ school contacts, or within reason family.  

    We spiraled through a series of pastors and churches,  most if not all of who knew that physical abuse was happening in the home, and did not know or refer me to law, and did not intervene, though plenty of strong young men were associated and, had that been in their vocabulary, certainly could’ve.   It was also commonly known that my husband was attempting to keep me without transportation or access to a bank account, that I had to beg for necessities and struggle at times for clothes.  No one felt it appropriate to transgress the castle in the home as to, how we were doing things within it.  

    It was known that we were often uninsured by choice, after which an accident happened at his work, requiring surgery.  I dashed from my home job (a rare music lesson) at his phone call, to help, literally, pick up the pieces, followed him to the hospital (DNR exact location) to have a slice of his bone put into another place for health. For a month, I helped this injured man use the restroom and dress [[wrists being hurt]] after this accident, and thereafter, when the people that had operated on him called, wanting their cash, I negotiated with them a reduction in the bills, which was accepted, and but not respected by the same father who had at this time control of our cash flow.  . . . .  As I had small children, and other responsibilities at home, it was becoming irritating interrupting my business to handle his, but without follow-through, and in the context when I’d already urged that actual health/accident insurance be gotten for him, AND us, an idea rejected like many others. An expensive “cost-savings” it turned out to be, too.

    I helped him through tax season and we all helped with tools, sometimes the extensive laundry, and occasionally on the job (construction). 

    I also worked, trying not to provoke anger by being too highly recognized at any particular type of work, and for several years sought permission (!) to enroll in a University extension to learn a different skill, as mine was “tabu.”  Finally, I asked a relative to provide the first tuition, took the emotional retaliation for this, and proceded to complete three courses in this field, with a good grade average, and get job referrals from the professor.  Attempts were made to sabotage my participation (through withholding transportation, or delaying child care even in the home).  The same techniques that worked earlier getting me out of my chosen profession worked also in jeopardizing other types of work.  Mail was intercepted and some of it tossed; I got a private PO box:  not acceptable.  I started a business from home on a dime:  not acceptable.  Finally I was ordered to work FT nights, and write in my salary on his applicatino for credit (not to be shared).  By this time, I was in compliance mode, and thereafter attempted to separately contact the credit company as to the “coercion” factor in my signaure they’d just seen.  It was too late, and one of the major mistakes of this marriage.

    Things continued to escalate, including weapons, physical injury and in general, I was getting more and more frightened, and the house more and more dysfunctional (utilities-wise).  The safest place for my children and me to be appeared to be NOT at home, which is a crazy half-lifestyle.  I couldn’t fully “exhale” at home, for the most part, except while engaged in acivities with the girls.  Routines were not respected, or schedules, and the constant interruptions kept one off-balance.

    Due to attempts to keep me carless we spent lots of time on public transportation, which is great for teaching children to read (so many signs with large letters, all CAPS:  Stop, Door, Exit, Open, and so forth), but lousy for efficiency, and very frustrating.  Little distances, such as even as few as 3-4 miles, sometimes took hours to go, with stroller and bags and two toddlers.   

    After such difficulty for those years, it was important and unbelievably empowering to have operational control over my own life.  Results began to be tied again to effort, and not consistently sabotaged to create failures.  Even moderate successes provided their own incentive and energies.  Some momentum was built up during these years while the restraining order was on.

    To be institutionally forced and emotionally blackmailed into a state of taking arbitrary orders again grates on the soul.  The concept of moving forward in life and expecting to take 5 steps in a row has basically left my thinking — at some point, the psyche won’t stick its neck out again.  I am currently working on this, and on ways to remove my exposure to sudden sabotage again, because by now the stakes (and debt) seem higher, there is less reservoir of good will in the general community (based on work performed for them) and there is this energy/age factor.  

    It’s been a good exercise, but my brain is tired indeed, and what I had been working for — children, and profession – are out of the picture for now, and I can’t see yet that progress or results even happened.  This is how it goes trying to leave a controlling personality who is able to locate other controlling personalities to work with him, and find institutions to support the same premise.   Many things get sloughed off in the process, and lots of “idols” bite the dust (which is good, obviously).  Hope gets detached from the immediate and hinged onto the more philosophical.   If that explanation is helpful. 

     

    Trying to put some themes to all of this, and in the larger historical (last few decades in my country) context, the clearest one I can see is male backlash to feminism, as expressed through a variety of male-designed institutions.  Women are quite as much involved in hating and oppressing themselves, or others, and this is hard to take and see.


    We get this situation where a woman is too “stupid,” supposedly, to raise her own child that she loves, and where family members who also love her and would like to support the situation (handling the “safety” concern) were automatically discredited.  However, in cases (USA, Sheila Riggs) where a separating mother seeks to protect her four children from TWO generations of abusers who ARE relatives, she is jailed, and an inter-state battle develops (California/Texas) on the issue.  Another woman has to flee the U.S. to protect her children.  Yet in the UK, a woman with supportive family is still going to have her daughter forced out for adoption, unless she can win in court.

    It appears, on networking and reading, that my situation is common after abuse in marriage:

    IN the marriage, we were suddenly hated for being too independent, too educated, and too “uppity.”  Our bodies, including sensitive parts of them, including neck, nipples, womb, face, teeth, buttocks, are targeted for assault as well as many times personal property (symbolic destruction of valued things), relationships with outsiders, and engagement with the world outside the home.  If we try to lie down flat enough, we are hated for being too passive.  If we stand up tall, we are hated for standing up tall.  Finding no safe way to “be,” let alone be ourSELVES, fully human, we then get help and evict the batterer to protect our bodies and (many women, this becomes  the thing that saved THEM, because after a point, they don’t care about themselves so much), we wanted to protect our CHILDREN.


    So we go to court, becoming single, and separate, getting a restraining order.

    For a while, this functions, sort of, and lives are stabilized and rebuilt.  Perhaps we seek child support, perhaps we seek a 2nd relationship, perhaps we simply seek to grow more independent — and we are then in family court fighting AGAIN for independence.  We again seek help and sanctuary elsewhere.


    In many faith communities, we are again hated or treated suspiciously for being SINGLE, having divorced our man.  Sometimes the families that didn’t protect (or teach boundaries to start with) dismiss us again for being single (this was my case), which is translated in the communal mind as “reverting to infantile,” when the fact of th ematter is, we had a fast course in growing up, and wise to the evils and dangers in this world, AND doing something mature — fight back, seek protection, or flee.  Those are adult-level survival skills, and no sign of being infantile.

    Nonprofits direct such women here, there, and so and so.  Not knowing the full scope of the politics, the courts, or our legal rights yet, we sometimes sign away portions of them.  We compromise the Full Stop NO!! unintentionally.  We still thing that the basic institutions represent us and will help, and, mentally, do not suspect THEM of being as dishonest, volatile, and abusive as our ex (or, extended family, Or, extended community) was.  Surely he was the abnormality and the exception.

    We go instead of to nonprofits, to law, to law enforcement, and to refusing to bargain away any more rights, and find THAT system hostile to women.


    Researching, in stunned distress (and many years later), WHY, we (I speak for myself and others I have dealt with), manage to get infrastructure enough going, process a LOT of dialogue, and find out that it’s coming from our FEderal government, and has been going on for over a decade, Presidents Republican and Democrat alike and fueled in great part by some of our own religions.


    We follow the news, noticing what indicators preceded the latest family wipeout, foster care disgrace, or failed situation.  We follow (I have) research institutes dedicated to “violence against women” and absorb adn believe their statistics, only to learn that equally powerful and widespread associations, well-positioned, are spreading doctrines, year after year, and with far more funding than we have, that DIRECTLY oppose what we just read in a reputable source  (I refer to NCJRS justice database in the US, and other sites listed on my blogroll).  The truth is out, but few are interested.


    I also strategically examined WHY is it that each time I go to court, I lose something significant, no matter how ridiculous the accusation, and how easily available evidence to the contrary is. I learned a strategic principle:  It seems the courts / judges don’t like women who appear to be informed; and they DO apparently sense a kinship with men who commit crimes.  They do not respect compliance with their own court orders, or see it as a character indicator, although disobedience by a woman can be severely and quickly punished.


    I analyze the fact that I have been in analysis mode too much, although that happens to be still safer for me than in action mode, which typically provokes a retaliation.  In this Dizzy DMZ manner of life, time moves on.

    I hope that that “stupid” British woman can outsmart the court that labeled her, hire a psychologist to evaluate their behavior(s), and get them to give up more kids trapped in spheres of influence.  A spiderweb comes to mind.

     

    Other means I have considered:  A female moratorium of about six months (worldwide if possible) not just on sex, but also on child-bearing.  It’s clear that to enforce the moratorium on sex, we’d have to find a safe place for all the minor children, boys and girls.  We would inform the gentlemen that (for a change) if THEY would be good boys, they will be rewarded, physically and emotionally.

    That is, of course, the message women have been given, century after century.

    This of course is impossible, but it would seem that if auto workers can strike, or other laborers, well, why not US?  Why should we as a gender be colonized?  That “sucks,” if you pardon the colloquialism.

    I’m sure this would be gladly espoused by the healthy marriage folks (like the pun?), and probably resisted with open “arms.”  Yes, this is obviously hypothetical, temporary in nature, and probably not possible.  

    But at least it might be a break from Designer Family by Court Decree, which is a recipe for women, as well as now men, becoming emotionally detached from the “Fruit of the Womb”

    With the word “Islam” meaning submission, and the other religions placing a premium on this, and with the federal governments, courts, schools, etc., across the world also demanding submission in the name of (whatever the current greater good is), I am not hopeful for any worldwide solution.

    It’s not the pay, it’s the ability to retain a relationship with the fruits of our labor, that is at stake here.


    Let ~Behavior~ not ~Gender~, Determine Custody once Crime has Occurred. FYI, Law, not Psychology, Defines Crime.

    leave a comment »

    “Peace” without “justice” is not peace.

     

    Any child’s and any woman’s right to physical life and freedom from molestation and abuse ALWAYS should prevail over the child’s purported need to access to both parents, when one is abusive.  

    One wants to ask why, in the domain of “Family Law” that “family” should always prevail over “Safety” when kids are involved.  Suppose there were no children?  Would someone dare to tell an adult woman, she has a “right” to the man she just left, and is incomplete without him?  Or some other man..  Or cannot earn a living without him? 

    One woman without an in-home abuser, or without one stalking her after being evicted, is ALWAYS more competent, and her children in better hands,  than that same women with no exit from the abusive relationship.  The fact that so far all are alive should be enough testimony to networking and someone’s bravery.  MOST communities to NOT confront a man that is paying some of their bills.  The fact she got out probably relates to initiative and resourcefulness, which are transferable skills.

    FYI, Domestic Violence, and its response, The Fatherhood Movement, are industries like any other.  Solve the main problem — put an IN-HOME deterrent to men beating their women, or thinking this is acceptable,  – – – and 9 times out of 10, she’ll probably stay.  IF she leaves, then she gets the children, and too bad, sir — abuse was a choice.  These two industries are then out of commission and will have to go find something else to fight about that does not have human casualties, preferably.   And the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services will have to go find someone else to study, and then administrate and “serve.”  They can keep their essential departments, and delete those millions going towards grants to “promote responsible fatherhood” and “collect child support” and going into prisons to find men to seek increased access to their children in exchange for lowered child support arrears, which is simply a way to pass the “buck” off to a different set of professionals that come into play when the mothers, naturally, resist and protest this insult.  ONce they find out about it….

    IS it better for the greater good that families continue to be wiped out (fewer mouths to feed?) than that we stop this insanity?  These family wipeouts, or woman-wipeouts, accompanied at times by kid- or father-wipeouts (or, the intergenerational perpetuation of PTSD, the trauma that accompanies war, which FYI, this is…) will not stop until the myth that ALL the people operating under EITHER DV initiatives OR Fatherhood Initiatives are doing so out of pure motives and the wish to save individual families, or families as a whole.  

    They aren’t.  They are busily either bouncing angrily off each other, and frequently interbreeding, endlessly, draining the lower ends of society and enriching the upper (Harvard, Yale, Indiana, George Washington, other institutions that receive grants to study these problems).   Middle classes continue to muddle along, thinking mindlessly that those experts have it all under control, to this day.

    The last incidents I heard/read of were yesterday — a 15 year old girl reported missing 2006 shows up — buried — in her father’s back yard.  He was already in prison on some other charge, and supposedly methamphetamine was involved.  I didn’t finish reading about it.  “National Father’s Return.”  He was a biological father and a father figure.  Not too bright, apparently.

    And a friend of mine, who had to (first time in her life) preside over a memorial service and subsequent cremation for a youngish- (45 yr old) male who had thrown his 70 year old female mother across the room in retaliation for her having tried to surreptitiously call 911.  She managed to flee (NB:  her own home where her son was living) to a neighbor, 911 DID eventually come, along with a SWAT team, and after the man, having realized I gather he had crossed the Rubicon, shot up the place (including several windows, and a few cats, as it was a cat rescue place), and eventually himself.  My friend, whose husband was ordained but out of town, stepped in and presided over the thing, as well as helped participate in cleaning up the mess.  That was less than 24 hours ago, and only a sampling.  We cannot keep up with the atrocioties.  That was not a custody case, but it WAS a male adult who somehow felt like a failure, and spread some of this around the neighborhood.  

    This same state just received (I also read yesterday), $2.8 Million to prevent “Violence Against Women” as its own Senator promotes a yet larger, more ambitious Fatherhood Initiative, press says.  WELL, make up your mind — which do we want?  Nationalized Fatherhood with ongoing fatalities, or a balanced budget without them?  

    More likely, a perpetual cash flow in the direction of mental health professionals is the end game.  I will bite my tongue and stay on topic here.

    Regarding my last post, about a young woman who fled to Australia from England (from her Serbian husband), and was ordered BACK there to determine custody, whereupon she was shortly after asking police to drive her to a “safe house, ” dragged from between her two sons, in the back seat of a car her mother was driving to flee for safety, and (by this same man) stabbed to death in front of them all — there is a simpler answer which was proposed in at least 1992, and has been systematically fought in Family Law courts throughout the U.S., as well as in others.  

    It is a rare woman who can afford to fly to another continent for safety as fast an effectively as these dangerous & deadly ideas, applied in the context of previous domestic violence, are flying around the internet, and their proponents around the globe promoting them.

    This simple, sane answer ALSO has been written into laws in most (U.S.) states, containing the words  “rebuttable presumption against custody being granted to a batterer…

    What’s a good upstanding batterer to DO?  The women are getting uppity?  Easy – retreat to certain venues (where those feminazi radical _ itches are not welcome, — and the existence of which women fleeing violence are not informed.  If such a woman WAS informed, the average one can’t afford to attend anyhow…) and focus on other, nonjudicial processes, are ignoring, at least until said laws can be diluted, and overturned, and stomped on, and out of the public conscience — kind of like some people are, in this form of violence.

    Folks, the protective laws are already on the books — they are just not being enforced! Initially, this confuses people coming to court for that purpose — the legal process, and contempt for its violation.  BUT, I say, Family Court ITSELF exists as a practice and as a venue, to overturn those laws.  It, like them, has a history.  I didn’t know til I studied, nor will most.  Here’s part of it:

     

    http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf

    From their Intro:

    By the mid 1990s California NOW began receiving an increase in letters and phone calls from 

    mothers throughout the state who were being victimized by judges,lawyers,mediators,evaluators 

    and attorneys for children in the Family Court system. Some women were being cheated in the 

    process of dividing marital property and assets,while other women were unable to get the court’s 

    assistance with child support collection.{{THIS IS KEY AND A PART OF THE PROCESS}}

    The vast majority of communication,however,came from 

    women who were fit mothers and the primary caretakers of their children who had custody 

    revoked from them and given to the father.Decent fathers did not take wrongful advantage of the 

    courts situation; it was the abusers who did. Too often the communications came from citizens 

    whose children had made allegations of abuse against their fathers, although a smaller number 

    came from those experiencing domestic violence and those for whom joint custody was simply 

    unworkable. It appeared from the volume of communications that the problems, loss of custody 

    through gender bias, denial of due process, fraud and corruption and alleged syndromes such as 

    parental alienation,were occurring throughout the state,and that it was not being addressed effec- 

    tively,if at all,by any branch of government.More recently,women who have experienced this have 

    become organized at the grassroots level for the purpose of shedding light on this growing prob- 

    lem.These groups turned to CA NOW for assistance.The increasing communications from these 

    individuals and groups have demanded action from CA NOW to address the lack of governmen- 

    tal response and initiate reform in the Family Court system.

     

     

    I would never have called CA NOW if I had not tried other arenas without success first.  As a “woman of faith” (sic), this organization as a whole did not speak for my interests and beliefs.  Yet, no faith community or government agency was.  The nonprofits had played into the hands of my abuser (see above description), nor could I get law enforcement to enforce what I had, by now, learned the laws were — or even an existing custody order.  Increasingly frustrated and indignant at the ongoing, perpetual interruption of my life, and resumption of my rightful, nontraumatized, contributing place in a new community I’d moved to (for some — but not too far from their father — distance), I had already learned from national organizations, such as “NCFJCJ” that mediation was inadvisable for people in my situation, yet it was being rammed down my throat every time an incident was created that brought us to court.  I had also, as my manner is, studied this topic of domestic violence (I study things that affect my family!), and found more than one author who directly spoke to my situation, including Lundy Bancroft’s cogent analsyses, “Why does he DO that? ” and “The Batterer As Parent.”  I had experientially determined that the local DV supportt group could provide moral support to endure abuse, but at this point, my concern was to STOP it, not endure it more graciously — and this is where I returned tos etting firm boundarie,s in my situation, and saying “NO” or “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS ON YOUR OWN TIME” more often.

      It is devilishly hard to analyze a situation as it enfolds, and when survival is an issue, but between my background as a musician, and in diverse places adn fields within music, plus my 10 years with an abuser, I had some skillsets.  

     

    The further afield (wider and wider spheres of influence I investigated), the more shocking — and chronically common — is the situation.  

    Nothing, really, could prepare a person who has been a lifelong citizen of one country for such widespread and uniform betrayal by this country of people of my profile, that profile being (1) FEMALE, and (2) additionally — and let’s face it, many females share this other trait — MOTHER. People who have already been betrayed and oppressed or diminished on some other additional characteristic — such as skin color or ethnic background, accent (i.e., national oriogins or familys’ national origins) or religion, have been better prepared.

     

    Nothing in my personal experience, which was not exactly that narrow, in the standard sense, prepared me for an assortment of the acts of (1) marriage and (2) giving birth to children — having, in others’ minds, suddenly, and permamently, infantilized this 40- year old woman with a diverse background, and some sigifnicant educational experience.  

     

    In other words, I took foir granted things other women had fought hard for in decades past, and (being busy working, and otherwise engaged in life), had not been privy to what the U.S. Congress, prompted by initiatives prompted by religious world views (in great part), also prompted by fear of loss of power and control of money, was itself engaged in.  I am posting some of it on this site.

     

    Civil rights, like legal rights, don’t just show up on the landscape and continue of their own accord, like a perpetual motion machine.  They were fought for to start with — any independence is — and need continued “fights” for their maintenance, even as I, as a musician often in charge of choirs, “fight” to maintain a certain standard of excellence (and progress towards it, or, if one level is achieved, progress towards the NEXT (higher, not lower), standard — as a lifestyle.

     

     

    FOR READERS WHO ARE SHORT ON TIME, YET STILL INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC, SCROLL DOWN TO THE RED-INK PORTIONS, AND BELOW THAT, THE fine-print green centered quotes..!  

     

    TYPICALLY, I GET TO THE MAIN POINT TOWARDS THE END OF THE POST, AND REFLECT ON & SUPPLEMENT IT IN THE TOP PART.

    MY THINKING IS MORE OF A TAPESTRY, AND I ENJOY WEAVING THE THREADS, THAN AN OPAQUE STATEMENT.  PROBABLY IN PART BECAUSE OF HOW HARD IT HAS BEEN TO RECONCILE SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND IN PART BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A READER, AND NETWORKER.  SOMETIMES I OVERESTIMATE OTHERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PROCESS ALL THE DATA.  OR MAYBE IT WAS A FACTOR OF CHILDHOOD (LOTS OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS) OR WHO KNOWS — I HAVE THE GENES OF, OR ADOPTED THE HABIT OF, ASKING “WHY?” OR “SAYS WHO??” EARLY ON  — I REALLY DON’T KNOW WHY.  I DO KNOW THIS IS HOW IT GOES.  

     

    Inherent in the processes  of growth is conflict and overcoming of gravity, need for nutrients, and conditions required for life.  Even physical human life requires assimilation, digestion, absorbtion, and excretion.  It requires water, and it requires activity.

    So does any good marriage or relationship.

    When a law system, or government, comes in and says “conflict is bad, only total peace is good,” for one, it is lying.  Governments PROSPER (and grow, oppressively so) the more conflict and chaos exist, because it is human tendency to delegate out authority & responsibility when stressed.  In other words, to hire shepherds, policemen, farmers, lifeguards — and doctors, gravediggers, and ambulances — to assume the problems of life.

    But, we need to be watchful, when government encourages us to hire out (1) thinking and (2) the education of our (respective, not “communal”) young.  These skills and life activities, like others, will go stagnant — and the populace become passive, fleeceable sheep — when un-used.  Few things that have kept me sharper in life (other than learning to survive abuse) than working for years with children who challenged authority, including existing educational theory (read “limitations”) on how children learn, or what they can do.  Poverty also is a teacher, up to a certain point, to value one’s time and bottom line.   In music these were not typically age-sorted, or easily intimidated.  When I began, I was not much older than, and certainly not stronger or taller than, the teenagers I was working with (or faster than the little ones).  Obviously, we had to work things out.  And not in a manner that regimented & squelched the energy level, which making music requires.

    No Conflict?  There are many situations in life in which “peace” exists, at least temporarily.  One of them is tyranny.  One of them is death.  Another is stagnation – there is little conflict or dialogue because nothing of substance is being done; routines are settled, status is “quo,” and flab of some sort is being accumulated.  This may not be the best for intimacy, or the sex life, FYI.  Like TiDES, ALL of life has some ebb and flow.

    For an institution to come in and label the degree of conflict a marriage can have (while ignoring when blows have already been delivered) is an insult.  The thing is, to strive “lawfully” to work it out.  When the mediators and evaluators are themselves conflicted over the existing laws, their usefulness is dubious.  Whatever the intent, the EFFECT is to further reframe and confuse a situation, not DE-fuse it.


    As usual, this post covers several topics, but related to the post title.  I have an integrative, symbolic mind, and enjoy viewing common topics in a less common light.  Turning ideas – not just physical objects — upside down, or inside out in this manner, can show what makes them tick, or lets the reflect diffferent light — particularly puzzling topics like, why when a young mother reports that her husband threatened to dismember her, and flees to the otherside of the world, “POLICY” brings her back to be dragged out of a car and murdered by this same person.  

    The role of the police, in their capacity to protect, was to give her a “panic” alarm, not a self-defense class or even a knife, pepper spray, or Taser (stun-gun).  WHY?  Because a woman defending herself in this society is an anomaly — and would upset the status quo of who women ARE.

    This thinking habit may relate to my music background (which is the language of expression, itself a symbol for emotion, carried in  visual symbols translated into real human b ehavior).  It may be due to the multiple perspective changes that a home not being a safe place, or a (religious) sanctuary, actual sanctuary, or having had family flip viewpoints on me for the smallest acts of independence after abuse.  I don’t really know why, but it does make life more interesting. 

    That that woman died, needlessly, was a top-down, institutional factor of failure to respect her boundary or give her permission to FIGHT BACK AND, IF NECESSARY, WIN!

    If women were taught to actually defend themselves from their partners, physically, society at large would probably descend into chaos.  Well, it already IS there, but this would give it at leat a different flavor. Don’t worry — I do not think this is about to happen.  

    Think about it — how many industries are based on and sustained by the fact that women do not have equal rights, “unalienable” or otherwise?   The existence of  “Fatherhood” resolutions being passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress testifies to the fact that some are running scared.  But consider:  would it not improve sexual excitement overall, as rather than seeking more and more younger and younger partners, men would have an in-home challenge, knowing that this act was not a power play, but an communion thing.  IS quantity really better than quality?  I don’t think so.   In other fields (food, music, art), discretion and quality should prevail  AND then these non-co-dependent partners in relationship and lifell could then go about separated lives as well, exist as individuals, and not as functions in life, and a gender caricature in their communities, too.  They would cover each other’s back, rather than one constantly putting the other one on (hers), and not just for sex.  Vive la difference, avec dynamic balance – individual, and as to gender only.  Fluidity and grace/strength.  Not one blustering male and one overworked passive female — OR vice versa.

     

    I don’t know where it would go from there, but I STILL think self-defense training (before marriage?) is a good idea that hasn’t been tried yet.  

    As verbal many times precedes physical, we’d have to also take a stand on demeaning, derogatory talk.   I believe this would also elevate men, as well, from beyond their figurative role, to actually interacting with their partner as the full-scale human beings they are.  One person who agrees with me has actually been honored by the “fatherhood community,” and that’s (Rabbi) Schmuley Boteach, whose book “Hating Women” (the title is misleading), I read, and approve of.  He is the one that said, women with out men can and do live clean and orderly lives, with no dead bodies around at the end off the day, but there is excitement in the relationship.

    The same would go for LGBT relationships — the domination paradigm would need to GO!  As men and women no longer existed as caricatures of how “male” and “female” really show up in human beings, I suspect that the need to rebel against that also might.   The entire pornography industry would likely take a hit, as there is absolutely that sex + violence (as a combo) does have an audience, avid consumers.  And possibly, young men might stop showing up in schools with guns to get attention.

    THAT stance would probably require dismantling not the educational system, but just the compulsory, mind-numbing, child-leaving-behind government sponsored and funded one as well as not a few religious institutions.

    When an entire system is based on threat — of withdrawing funding, of police hunting down if a someone fails to attend (but it STILL fails in cases of foster children, and others, as we have already seen, and it CONSISTENTLY underperforms other, existing systems based on the free-market system, some of which can also be done by poorer families) —  it is itself disrespectful, personally insulting, and a violation of boundaries, and those who prosper in that system are going to breathe in and exhale the same negative attitudes.  I say this after decades of perspectives on this at all levels, and am not alone in this statement.  

    In fact, in viewing the womb-to-tomb institutions of my country, the teacher/student, expert/plebian, priest/proselyte, guard/prisoner, controller/controlled viewpoint is VERY common.  This is not obscured by the fact that great and inspired people exist in many of the middle layers.  The bottom layers are being squished and punished, usually arbitrarily, and have been squirting back in rebellious forms in direct proportion to their need to recover a sense of humanity, dignity, and to have their voices be HEARD.  

    And the less noble among the men, take this out on the women closest to them, punishing and killing as they too were punished and felt something important in themselves killed.  Sometimes, and unfortunately, the women too, take this out on the children.  How can that sense be transformed into something better, eh?

    Why are the arts historically the LEAST valued aspects of our public school system, when in fact they are closest to the most important, along with sports, debate, and mastery of foreign languages?  The medium of this large mess is the MESS-age.  It’s too large, too bulky, and too inefficient, and too impersonal.  Then people wonder why the prisons are crowded.

    ANYHOW, I have often in hindsight thought back as to what would happen if we were taught to do fight back, and that at times it’s good to break some rules.  Not in the girl-gang manner, but individually.  

    When I taught people to sing, together, in ensembles:

    As a teacher, and whose job used to be helping groups of diverse ability sing complex and scintillating music, which ALWAYS included skill-building and endeavoring to communicate the vision of how it would sound, and the enjoyment of their personal voices and their personal voices in balance with each other (and what the music required, to come to life) — it was VERY helpful to simply teach the difference between right & wrong, or Good and Better, in specific situations.  This is NOT so hard as it sounds, when participants are a little willing (which, FYI, is KEY).  MOST kids like a challenge, within range, and in general many adults don’t have the free-flowing physical energy after work to do this — BUT THEY CAN, AND MANY TIMES DO.  No matter the size of the group, I would seek to show and offer individuals for examples, and let those examples then also, themselves, practice feedback, leading, and commentary so that we all would understand what the principles were (this, moreso with children then with adults).

    Once the difference between “Good” and “Better” has been taught and recognized, it is only necessary to consistently remind people, if they do not recognize, which way Better is in, and movc on to another skill.  IT is the consistency which gives them and me feedback, and keeps us on track towards excellence, which is the goal.  YES, it’s interactive and dynamic, but once the direction is positive, and understood, the hope of getting and the joy of the process, picks up momentum.  

    You cannot have a successful singing group if they are never told the difference between off-key and on, or better and best.

    In every singing group, there are more and less highly motivated people.  The thing is, the overall concensus, and whether the conductor can live with the level involved (i.e., his/her musical conscience), and to the singers, whether they can live with the concept that singing does entail expenditure of physical and mental energy, and will they engage in the process, and also continue to enjoy it.  Any conductor knows that permanent plateau doesn’t exist — no growth = erosion.  That’s how the human psyche works.  Boredom = sloppiness increases.  

    Now think about abuse — does this person want to learn?

    YES we adjust for times of tiredness, or illness, but the overall thing is continuing to keep the standards improving; MOST PEOPLE like to do well.  If I find a choir is in a status quo mode, a social group only, and there is no potential or interest for much more, I do not stick around for long.  Typically, this is rare, as choirs tend to be volunteer situations.  I am amazed at how well a smaller unit of nonprofessionals can do, with time, and some love and positive direction.

     

    When I filed a domestic violence restraining order

    The question of INTENT to abuse had already been established, and the thing was to establish a boundary, now, limits.

    Now that I had experienced a little life with a little more boundary, there was extensive cleanup and repair to be done in all categories.  The immense energy from having the threat of immediate physical harm at unpredictable times REMOVED, allowed me to have a joy and concentration in my work that was sporadic and rare previously.  Even before we were completely on the road, healed, restored, there was  such an exhilaration in the sense that I could GET there.  The person who had viciously and intentionally been sabotaging my work and endeavors, in front of our kids, was out of the house.  I remember at one time regretting that he could not share the sense of peace — until I remembered why it wasn’t there when he was!  

    AFTER THAT:

    It was possible to actually reap rewards from initiative/effort that were more commensurate with the effort.  But I needed boundaries respected, and it took time to start to develop the vigilant patrolling of them, which no abuser likes.

    The Family Law Venue — and in cases (as mine) where biological family ALSO failed to report and stop the violence — tends to then defines success in such cases in terms of ability to moderate and get along peacefully with someone who had formerly been beating the crap out of one parent, or threatening to do so.  This breaks down her boundaries, making it harder for her to sustain work, and repair momentum.

    A woman who has successfully experienced the difference between in-home violence (and all that goes with it), and NO in-home violence, who has been interrogated and derided, etc. for eyars — and NOT having to be pulled out of a sound sleep for this, or stopped leaving the home  for work for this, and whose pets, and personal property is not being broken and hurt to make a point — will NOT readily go for more of it from another source.  

    She might come off as somewhat “thorny.”  This is because there is work to do!

     She may not waste as much time explaining to the next few people who wish to violate her boundaries, and interrupt her work, or taking care of her children, that this is inappropriate.  I didn’t.  When my family came after me (having failed to label the DV to start with) and began “advising,” I did not waste AS MUCH (though still TOO MUCH) time saying, “Get a life.  I have one already.”  

    The struggle moved to the only times and means available this man had to then sabotage, interrupt, and harass me with – my relatives, exchanges with my children, any point in the custody/visitation order which lacked clarity (and ours was POORLY written, in violation of standards I later learned the mediator was responsible to know and address), and so forth.  I was advised to GIVE him joint legal custody by the family violence law center, and on an irrational basis.  I did so, and this was a huge chink in the door, larger even than the poorly written custody order.  

    An abuser has failed to learn some very basic lessons in life, and unless there is some strict accountability, the lesson will not be learned.

    BOUNDARIES:  

     N THE CASE OF ABUSE, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO BE CONSISTENT IN MINOR DETAILS.

    ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A CAPTOR DOMINATING A POW.  ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE IS THE OBJECT, INCONSISTENCY IS THE TECHNIQUE, AND NO INSUBORDINATION GOES UNPUNISHED — BUT THE CAPTOR IS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHEN.  THEY ARE CONSTANTLY SET OFF BALANCE UNTIL THEY (HOPEFULLY) COWER.

    I have heard of similar, but not so violent, methods being used in training a dog.

    In order to “TEACH” the abuser that boundary violations and attempts to revert to the former “ordering” her around behavior is unacceptable, SHE NEEDS to protect the boundaries, and have some means to say NO! available when they are violated.

    There should be a consequence for domestic violence, and that is simple.

    No contact, for a significant time, with minor children until the father (or mother) has figured out that this was an unacceptable role model, example, and way of interacting with other people, including little ones.  

     

    Jack Straton, Ph.D., (NOMAS) Said it Straight in 1992, 2 years before

    • The 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Acts (“VAWA”)
    • The 1994 formation of the National Fatherhood Initiative (“NFI”)

    First of all, who IS the guy?  Well, I didn’t know this til recently, but among other things, hover cursor over the link for a short description — he has worked in two different fields, Photography & Physics.  

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_general_education/v048/48.2george.html

    He co-authored with “Linda George” the following article, which makes a lot of sense to me:

    Approaching Critical Thinking Through Science

     

    In that it talks about Viewpoints (natural, in a photographer, one would think), Process, Values, Perspectives, including this segment:

     ((Please note:  The PROCESS is explained in the article))

    How Do Scientists Make Truth Claims?

    Before beginning to work with issues in science, we find it useful to discuss what science is and is not. As a starting point, Steven Lower’s computer-aided activity “Science, Non-science and Pseudoscience” (1998) provides some good working definitions of the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific fact. In addition, the interactive program guides students through issues that attempt to frame the domain of science: what kinds of questions science can and cannot address, what kinds of practices distinguish science from other types of knowledge, and so on.


     OR. . . . 


    Knowledge and Uncertainty

    Students tend to have polar views on the nature of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, there is a sense that knowledge that has been derived scientifically is “factual” and is closer to “Truth” than other ways of knowing; on the other hand, once students have been exposed to the notion that knowledge is mediated by one’s perspective (Tompkins, 1986), this is often misunderstood to mean that there is no “real” knowledge since “everything is biased.” [End Page 113] These epistemological issues are ones that scientists tend to ignore, but we bring them into the course because they connect directly to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. For example, students read essays about scientists who are not white or male and discover that, throughout the history of science, the fact that science is done by human beings who have socially constructed “perspectives” has a significant influence on what kinds of science get done and what kinds of conclusions are arrived at.

    We unpack the subject of “knowability” by exploring wave-particle duality in the quantum world. We first demonstrate “conclusively” that light is made of waves and then provide “proof-positive” that light is made of particles. We next show photographic evidence that matter, too, has both particle- and wave-like properties, so that wavicle might be a better descriptor. Next, we discuss the social controversy over welfare and take students through a parallel series of steps that reveal a paradox like the wavicle: the rich are often in favor of cutting welfare, but if welfare is cut, starving people will turn to crime or revolution, neither of which is in the interests of the rich. The ultimate lesson is that if we get stuck on any particular perspective in science or society, we are likely to be missing much of what we can know.

     OR. . . . 

    Science in Society

    One unfortunate development in our educational system is that science usually is thought of and taught as a discipline different from every other. The result is that science does not usually appear in “nonscience” courses. 


    Someone who can talk sense in one category, can often talk sense in another.  
    Common sense says there might be more than one perspective in life on a problem.  
    Now, that 1999 Resolution of Congress (2 posts ago) is not drenched with common SENSE, 
    just common ASSERTIONS.  
    As such, I claim that MY assertion that IT constitutes a prophetic utterance, and 
    attempt to establish a religion. I observe that its assortment of facts in support of a theory
    came from its own hired experts that already believe such theory, and many of them, on the basis
    of a commonly-held religion that has been wont (see "Genesis 3") to blame women when held to task
    for its own failures (a.k.a. disobediences).

    Anyhow, here is what Jack wrote in 1992 as to:

     

    What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?

    Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues 

    of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism 

    Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001) 

    C/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751 

    503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX), straton@pdx.edu 

             

    What About the Kids? 

    Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence 

    National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project 

    Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota 


    This is 9 pages only, and has 59 detailed cites.  I recommend reading it ALL.  However, here is the conclusion:

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Let me sum up what I have shared 

    with you.  I have criticized the “Best 

    interests of the child” criterion as 

    being so vague that it requires us to 

    rely upon the opinions of adults as 

    to what “best interest” means.  And 

    the norms behind these opinions 

    are seldom acknowledged, and thus 

    not refutable.


    I then showed that 

    courts who apply this criterion have 

    disregarded the severe effects of 

    domestic violence on children, even 

    to the extent of saying that killing a 

    child’s mother is not a sufficiently 

    depraved act so as to deny a man 

    custody.  If it is possible for a cus- 

    todial criterion to allow such twisted 

    result to result from a jurists value 

    system, that criterion itself is se- 

    verely flawed. 


    We then looked at the flaws inher- 

    ent in presuming joint custody to 

    be in children’s best interests.  I 

    then described the primary care- 

    taker criterion and showed that for 

    violent families it will almost auto- 

    matically remove a child from 

    harm’s wayorder. 


    We found that children who wit- 

    ness wife beating have difficulty in 

    school and are much more prone to 

    juvenile delinquency and, ulti- 

    mately, violent crime than children 

    from non-abusive families. 

     

     

    FATHERS’ GROUPS, WHO DID NOT ORIGINATE

    IN LOWER-INCOME OR POORLY EDUCATED CIRCLES

    ALTHOUGH THEY SEEK MEMBERSHIP AMONG SUCH,

    WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE

    THIS IS DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A MAN

    OR FATHER FIGURE IN THE  HOME.

     

    TO ACHIEVE THIS, IT SEEMS NO HOLDS ARE

    BARRED AND NO PROCESS ILLEGAL

    IN HARASSING AND PURSUING

    CHILDREN THROUGH OTHER MEANS

    WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES TO LEAVE,

    WITH KIDS


    They 

    have poor relationships with peers 

    and siblings, learn to despise their 

    mother for her abuse, and learn to 

    emulate their father in his expres- 

    sions of aggression. 


    We found that the longer the abuse 

    witnessed, the more severe the re- 

    sultant disorder. 

     

    A decade-long study between Kaiser and the CDC (Center for Disease Control)

    on the topic of, initially, OBESITY, concurs.

    It too, has largely been ignored in family law circles,

    which prefer their own experts.  

    Yet no feminists, anti-violence people, or father’s rights groups

    initiated this study.  Two (male) doctors did, in the context of an obesity clinic.

    {{“The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study: “Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma

    and negative consequences later in life” 


    What is the ACE Study? (please hover cursor, for more detail)

    The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and 
    Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.  Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD, 
    MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study 
    of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma 
    (ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in lif
    e.}}

    How much trauma, substance addiction (driving an escalating prison population in the US),

    disease and eventual “leading causes of death” might have been avoided,

    had someone listened more to “Dr. Jack” (below)

    than “Dr. Phil” (TV personality) when it comes to Custody After Abuse?

     

    Given that assaults 

    on women actually increase after 

    separation and divorce, we would 

    expect that children have more trau- 

    mas associated with this phase.  I 

    was able to find only one rational 

    conclusion from this cascade of phe- 

    nomena; that a cessation of contact 

    with the abuser is the only way to 

    minimize demonstrable and fore- 

    seeable harm to these children. 



    How can we 

    face future generations of our kind (FYI — that’s HUMANITY)

    and say that we knew about the 

    abuse and did nothing to help? 


    Join 

    with me; take your place at the front 

    of our march toward freedom; let it 

    never be said that our generation 

    was too afraid of male violence to 

    stand up for the lives and hearts of 

    children. 

     

    • Written by a Photographer (skillset — observing, choosing subject matter, different light, framing, focus, development (pre-digital), exposure, and all sorts of variables are required for a BFA in this field).  
    • Written by a Ph.D. Physicist who teaches.  Skillsets — knowing and communicating concepts and process to a variety of students.  (I also recommend reading the first link– it’s interesting!).

    The scientifically-inclined mind will question why such reasoning is absent in Family Law arenas, and WHY.  

    Only taking out a personal mirror, and examining one’s own preconceptions about others’ viewpoints, will a rational explanation be found as to WHY?   this paradigm will not rule.

    I have a link on the blogroll showing what it takes to become a Certified Family Law Specialist in ONE of the 50 United States.  Even a cursory reading of this shows that the focus is NOT on safety for one of a couple (Domestic Violence) or protecting children from abuse (Child Abuse), physical or sexual, but on other fields.  No matter how frequently such specialists and their associated professionals convene and publish to “explicate” domestic violence in the context of divorce, the fact is that such violence, once it occurs IS the prevailing context of that divorce, and has to be handled.  

    As such, mediation (at least as practiced in court venues, and as this tool is used), is NOT advisable where violence has already occurred.  Undeterred, these associations, of which “AFCC” is primary, push, publish, and promote mediation as THE standard, and the parent who (for safety, for boundaries) who refuses, as uncooperative.  

    That is, I believe, why this field of family law exists.  I have believed this for a long time, and this is why I am not interested in attempts from bottom up to “reform” the field.  It exists to “reform” (reduce, dilute, and eliminate) certain rights that laws that exist to protect women from being battered in a relationship, and their children from witnessing it by virtue of simply being around it.

    Jack’s recommendation, and those laws, settle the question.  Continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered (“Prop 8” In California comes to mind) reveals an intent to undermine those laws.  Don’t be silent, and don’t assume the experts have it all under control.  Stay home from something and read up.  Don’t go just to newspaper to find out about the fiscal budget — go to governmental websites.  MUCH of this information is already on-line.  More of it is available (USA) under the FOIA (freedom of Information Act).  

     

    Thank you.

    A Toxic Mixture – Survival Instinct diluted by Submission to Custody Orders (UK/Australia)

    with one comment

    Cassandra Hasonovic...convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.          

    Cassandra Hasonovic…convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.

    WHAT FATHERS’ RIGHTS PEOPLE DON’T TELL ABOUT WHY “MOTHER-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” CAN BE SUCH A RISKY BUSINESS. . .

    AND IT’S NOT THE MOTHERS…. 

     

    I pause from mocking  the “Fatherhood” resolutions of the US Congress to demonstrate that while they are laughable in premises, these resolutions are no laughing matter; to demonstrate again that  men in positions of power worshipping abstract theories/myths/idols (or their images of themselves as a class) can put a woman face down dead and bloody on a slab of concrete, and just  did.  Again.

    Another myth is that deadly consequences like this will cause  deter the same men in power (I’m talking governmental representatives) from initiating, more, similar, and more costly mythology at a governmental level from continuing along the same path, gaining momentum and funding as they go:

    What Policy Makers are Saying

    NFI asked some** of our nation’s elected leaders about their views on the future of fatherhood in public policy.

    (**more specificaly, The National Fatherhood Instititute (ca. 1994) chose to interview select policy makers who just happened also to be members of the “National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood” (origins at least pre-1998) what they thought of Fatherhood.  Calling this “policymakers” is both true — they are PUSHing this policy through — and deceptive, as though it was representative of the entire Congress, prior to being pushed by these folks on this initiative.  At least I HOPE there are some in Congress still that can see that this is costing women’s lives, and children’s in the long run….)  Perhaps these fathers are upstanding in their own marriages and have a family life to be envied (although it could hardly be called a representative lifestyle, being a Congressperson).  

    What about the carte blanche, the clear endorsement such proclamations are giving men at the bottom of the economic spectrum, or of the behavioral spectrum, who may already have a chip on their shoulders and be looking for an excuse to dominate another woman?

    We already have religions that do this.  There are already honor killings, beheadings, in our country (USA).  There are already family wipeouts in this country.  There are horrific practices upon women in certain countries, still — stonings, genital circumcison, retaliation for attending school, rapes as a form of warfare, or when leaving a refugee camp to seek firewood.  I am sorry to say this, but do we REALLY need a Congress of primarily (but not only) white men to say, with other (primarily) men of other color, and a woman or two, that it’s time to go back and reclaim your biological property, eradicate single motherhood that happened because a woman chose to leave abuse, or, you failed to use a condom or proper protection?   

    I would love to see a survey of every Congressperson, and see which marriage they are on, and how faithful they have been to their wives or, as it may be, husbands.  If women, I would like to see how their grown children are behaving in THEIR marriages.  When they divorce, do they pay child support?  Do they engage in bankrupting and badmouthing a former partner?

    To me, this is nothing less than Congress choosing to violate the First Amendment, in the U.S.  It is the establishment of a state religion. How it relates to other continents and cultures?  Similar doctrines, similar family law theories and practice.  

    Here is what some policymakers** are saying:

    Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

    “The American family is the foundation of our society, and we must do all we can to help fathers do the right thing for their children. Today, too many men leave mothers to bear the brunt of being both mom and dad**, forcing them to face the challenges of raising a child and providing for the family on their own. I know President Obama shares my commitment to helping fathers become the best dads they can be; we worked together on these initiatives in the Senate. With the new administration on our side, we can make healthy families and responsible fatherhood a priority together.”

    – Senator Evan Bayh*** (D-IN); co-chair of National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood

     

    **Hypocrite!! The entire thrust of this movement (pun intended), as far as I can see in hindsight, was to prevent women from throwing abusive men (not ALL men) out on their asses for their abuse.  The premise behind it, and the practices, and some of the groups, show the reality — allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are false, mostly, and highly exaggerated.  Women do not have a right to leave with their children, and so must be re-programmed how to get along with fathers.  The organizations funded, and subsidized (federally / state/ local) then go into prisons and other places where substantially suspect fathers may be found, and — in order to reduce the welfare tax load, and by reducing child support arrears in exchange for more contact with their kids, thereby burden the rest of society with the results.    The  NFI (this initiative) almost exactly coincides with the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was heavily funded from the start.

    Did I know this before working closely a few years with the local child support agency and finding out how “opaque” they truly were?  No.  Not til I started actually reading the programs, and comparing the programs with the rhetoric.

    ***Of note:  Senator Bayh’s personal acquaintance with fatherhood includes having a father who was a U.S. Senator

    From the time he was about 8 through majority, his Dad was a Senator.  

    Evan Bayh graduated with honors in business, economics and public policy from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in 1978, where he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. After clerking for a federal court judge and entering private law practice in Indianapolis, he was elected Indiana’s Secretary of State in 1986.

    Bayh was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history

    While this stellar college performance and work history is commendable, I do not think it provides an experiential understanding of the situations that lower-income brackets face in their families.  I think that a little failure would have perhaps been helpful (Lincoln had some, right?) along the way, perhaps. 

    As Such, What THESE Policy Makers are Saying. . . 

    . . . is kind of like the Foxes quoting other Foxes (from the Fox Initiative) on how “difficult’ the Hens must find life without a resident Fox in the house.   I am not referring to all men — I personally like men, and am heterosexual, and don’t think they all think like this.  At least, I know at least one or two who do not, and hope to find more, as they are good company.  

    FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A FAMILY IS ONE OF THE LEAST WORRIES TO SOME SINGLE MOTHERS…

     

    Here’s the summary, and the story is below:

    Despite History and Threats of Further Domestic Violence, British Wife Who Fled to Australia Seeking Safety is Ordered to Return Children to England for Custody Determination

    (NOTE:  This is why I like Jack Straton’s article on Custody Rights to Men Who Batter).

    Posted by Janet Langjahr. Filed under Domestic Violence & AbuseChild Custody,Hague Convention Kidnapping International Child Custody.
    • Husband is convicted of sexually assaulting Wife.
    • Wife is terrified that Husband will kill her.
    • Husband allegedly threatens to dismember her.
    • Wife flees to Australia with their two Children.
    • But the Australian courts rule that England has child custody jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
    • Wife returns to England with Children.
    • Police are summoned to intervene in domestic clashes several times.
    • Police give Wife a “panic alarm”. {{SHE’s ALREADY Panicked & Alarmed?  How about Pepper Spray?  A self-defense course?  A “right to carry?” (I guess UK doesn’t do that).  Or a KNIFE , and training in how to use it?– he killed her with a knife…}}{{So much for “panic alarms.”  Oh, she was just exaggerating, the police will protect her.  TELL ME — has practice changed since THIS murder?}}
    • About a year after Wife’s return, Husband allegedly drags her from a car and stabs her to death … in front of her own mother and their Children.
    • Just a few hours after she begged British police for protection.
    • While she was in the midst of trying to flee from Husband again.
    • Husband is convicted of murder.
    • He will serve at least eighteen years in confinement.
    • (I add:  Her sons will serve a lifetime, with this memory, plus their grandmother, plus all acquaintances.)

    Read more in this Brisbane [Australia] Times article: Young mother fled to Sydney to save her life.

     WHATEVER PRINCIPLES AND PREMISES LED TO THESE COURT DECISIONS — FOR WHOSE GOOD?

    THEY WERE Speculation.  That’s a Risky Business, and I feel that the indicators that this is straight mythology, at some level.  This type of decision is driven by “fatherhood” as an ideal, and premises that a man without his children is a man without an identity, as is a woman telling the truth — this is a dangerous situation.  A man’s rights, even if he’s already been proven criminal, are more important than a woman’s rights — to self-defense by fleeing.  A mother’s words are less valid than a father’s.  Women as a class are to obey.  Men as a class, if forced to subject themselves to the same laws, are prone to killing for the humiliation, and yet still, the NEXT set of women (with kids) are also told, they must obey or go to jail.

    In the last post (U.S. Congress Resolution of 1999, a National Fathers Return Day) it was said that “mother-headed-households” fare worse, as a class.  Whether or not the data was true, THIS is partly why, and was not reported.  Because they are taking heat already for being single.  Perhaps a second husband (Women, would YOU remarry quickly after her experience? Men, would YOU marry a woman with kids who was in the process of fleeing her first one?  Unless this answer is YES, and some man is brave enough to step in the gap (and being armed, probably), that is going to be a mother-headed household.  Put this in your pipe and smoke it when you read the NEXT proclamation I post, US House of Reps, saying the same thing, and voting unanimously as to its truth.  Yeah, well, some truths are created, others are self-evident without that extra self-propagating “creation” of a risky, dangerous situation, that of being a single mother when the climate is globally cooling towards permission of this state of affairs.  And in ONE country from which some of the laws in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. 

    That’s ridiculous.  I am so at a loss for words, I would like to quote some scripture here, but I’m talking about Family Law, if you will bear with me:


    (Bible:  Eccles. 3, ERV)

    This, from the same guy that said, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity…, and the same one who, one time, when judging between two women who argued over one baby, after one had just been rolled over and smothered to death, was able to discern by a simple test – and his test, though with a sword, has some resemblances to the co-parenting, 50/50 talk of today. The woman who did NOT want her kid chopped in half (this time, physically) was the true one.  Nowadays, this dude (who went down the tube, eventually, the record states) ain’t around, or anyone with close to the amount of discernment shown below:

    1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

    2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;  {{like a dangerous marriage…}}

    3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down{{ibid}}, and a time to build up;

    4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

    5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

    6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

    7.  a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

    {{This woman saw fit to “rend” her marriage.  She was not permitted to.  Why??}}

    8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

    Human sacrifice has ALWAYS been the trademark of religion.  Some faiths would say, a false religion.  True adherents of any religion are typically willing to kill others, not just themselves, for its sake.
     

    It is right to hate placing onesself and one’s offspring (and others) in the path of danger.  That’s a “time to hate.”  Not people, but the situation.  Sacrificing others may come easily, but sacrificing one’s own offspring is NOT a natural act.  Forcing someone to do this is to do violence against her integrity, and one of the primary functions of “MOTHERHOOD” in the name of  “FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”  – — yes they do, but this one, in particular, should not have.  You will say, but what about due process?

    What about due haste when life is at risk?

    Young Mother Fled to Sydney to Save Her Life.  UK forces her back, where she is stabbed to death in front of her two boys, and mother, by the man she fled.
    Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London

    Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

    May 2, 2009

     

    CASSANDRA HASANOVIC was convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband but her pleas for help – in Australia and Britain – fell on deaf ears.

    He said he was going to chop me up in little pieces and post me piece by piece to my family,” she told police more than a year before her death.

    The nightmare tale of the mother, 24, who was dragged out of a car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and two young sons in July, neared its climax in a British court yesterday.

    Mrs Hasanovic died hours after begging British police to drive her to a safe house: “I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him.”

    {{THERE IS A MORAL TO THIS STORY, IN ASKING POLICE FOR PROTECTION….}}

    Her story was recounted this week during the trial of Hajrudin Hasanovic, 33, who was last night found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail.

    The jury learned how he was to have been deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children, following his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.

    They heard a damning story of a woman whose fears were ignored by authorities in two hemispheres for more than 12 months.

    The five-year marriage ended in May 2007 after the sexual assault and Mrs Hasanovic fled to Australia, where she had relatives. She lived in the safety of Sydney’s western suburbs in the fervent hope of seeking custody of her sons.

    But Lewes Crown Court, in West Sussex, heard that Australian authorities insisted she return to Britain, arguing the case had to be pursued there.

    Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution, told the court that she returned to Britain at the cost of her life.

    In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple, and officers equipped the young mother with a panic alarm.

    {{Why didn’t they arrest and incarcerate the attacker?? ???   ????  She was already panicked and had already sounded the alarm, by fleeing the continent — but was not heard…..}}

    Mrs Hasanovic’s mother, Sharon De Souza, broke down as she described the terror inside the car on July 29, when her son-in-law appeared from nowhere and lunged at the car as she prepared to drive her daughter and grandsons to a refuge.

    {{WHEN WILL WE — WORLDWIDE  – – STOP FOCUSING ON REFORMING BATTERERS (WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS — AND TEACH WOMEN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, FOR A DETERRENT?  IT TAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COWARDICE TO ATTACK AN UNARMED WOMEN, WITH KIDS NEARBY.  PERHAPS THESE COWARDS HOW PICK ON THEIR WIVES, IN FRONT OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, CAN BE DETERRED WHEN THEY REALIZE, THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH EVEN THE 2ND SUCH ASSAULT. THERE IS NOTHING UN-FEMININE, REALLY, ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE.  WE HAVE TO TEACH WOMEN THIS.  NOT GANG-STYLE, BUT INDIVIDUALLY, TEACHING US TO DEFEND OUR PERSONAL BOUNDARIES, PHYSICALLY IF NECESSARY.}}

    In the panic, the car’s central locking was de-activated, allowing Hasanovic to reach into the back seat, where his wife was sitting between the boys.

    “I just remember trying to start the car and the alarm went off and I could not get the car started … I could see a figure coming towards me in the shade …” Mrs De Souza said.

    “I looked up again and he was staring towards me. … I just thought: ‘Oh, my God.”‘

    She then saw Hasanovic drag her daughter from the car, leaving her face down on the pavement.

    “She was lying on the ground. Her eyes were open and she was not moving at all.

    “I didn’t realise she was dead. I said: ‘Come on, hold on, you’re going to be OK.’ I could see the blood [but] I could not take it in and I remember hearing the boys screaming.”

    “Cassie was devastated when under the Hague convention she was ordered to return the boys to England,” Mrs De Souza said.

    “This brutal, cruel and senseless act has torn our lives apart”.

       

    AND — IT WAS NEEDLESS.

    I hope, pray, blog, and ask people who are in “intact” marriages (not marked by violence, or even bitter divorce) to wake up and participate, not in indignation that women are indignant, or fleeing, but in studying WHAT your governments are doing (worldwide) and the NGOs that are running the place.  Thank you.  Take time off from barbecuing, or soccer teams for a month, or a season.  I’m talking to what remains of “middle class” people, who perhaps are employed and housed, and panicked about losing work or housing.  How does that compare with women like this one, above?  Your governments, at least I can speak for mine, ARE wasting money and time in policies that kill.
    IN HER PURSUIT OF LIFE (LET ALONE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS), THIS WOMAN FLED TO AUSTRALIA, LISTENING TO THE OBVIOUS, AND HER INSTINCTS.  BEING A MOTHER, AND HAVING HAD CHILDREN (a.k.a. property), SHE WAS SPIT OUT FROM AUSTRALIA BACK TO UK, AND THERE MURDERED.  IN FRONT OF HER SONS, AND HER MOTHER, WHILE FLEEING.

    More Sardonic Commentary

    Meanwhile, in family courts around the world, women (and some men) are told that expressing outrage at indignation and crime is itself a crime, and should be punished by paying for “parenting classes” until they (as adults) realize that the police, the judge, the psychologist, the evaluator, the Guardian at Litem, the Child Protective Services worker, the District Attorney, the Mediators, the educators, and the government know more ab out their own lives, and what’s best for them, than they themselves do.  

    This is called the Artificial Womb.

    (GOOD GRIEF — I just Googled that term, and found this:

    Why Not Artificial Wombs? 

    Christine Rosen

    In 1924, the British scientist {{PROBABLY MALE!!}} J. B. S. Haldane coined the term “ectogenesis” to describe how human pregnancy would one day give way to artificial wombs. “It was in 1951 that Dupont and Schwarz produced the first ectogenic child,” Haldane wrote, imagining how an earnest college student of the future would describe the phenomenon. “Now that the technique is fully developed, we can take an ovary from a woman, and keep it growing in a suitable fluid for as long as twenty years, producing a fresh ovum each month, of which 90 percent can be fertilized, and the embryos grown successfully for nine months, and then brought out into the air.”

    I mean this METAPHORICALLY, and I guess now have another post….THIS one is about how worshipping fatherhood has cost real mothers their lives.  I had not realized (yet) how long ago it entered into men’s imagination to eliminate pregnancy and childbirth, which I suppose interrupts for nine months some of their other wished-for biological functions, that is in men not mature enough to understand what the whole wonder, relationship, and process is actually about.   I predict, that if this becomes successful — that motherhood as a relationship reality is eradicated, AND as a biological one — that the entirety of the human race will become so theoretically smart, and practially stupid, that we (so to speak — count me out!) will destroy ALL of each other, sooner, rather than later.  Which of course, some of the human race is currently engaged in, and at least two world religions I am aware of predict.  That’s probably less “myth” than an accurate reading of human nature, which this “fatherhood” stuff is not.  It’s an “ism” not a reality.  The REALITY is that men and women vary in behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and levels of responsibility to which they have risen.

     BACK TO THIS POST:

    Good “parenting” teaches one’s children’ how to recognize danger (and when to flee it), that it’s OK to express indignation and anger in order to protect personal boundaries (i.e., send a warning message to whoever is violating them), and if necessary after that, fight back.

    Parenting classes, as I understand them, exist to prevent fathers and mothers from doing this, and to create a numbed down (or, bipolar) set of behaviors — one for the teachers, and one when the teachers are not watching.  This is a recipe for destruction.

    Men around the world are whining, publically and in on-line groups, and promoting studies, that women are just as violent and dangerous as they are.  Well, if that WERE so, it appears to me that nonviolent self-preservation techniques (like FLIGHT) aren’t working, so what shall we then do?
    Where are all the men killed by angry ex-wives?  They aren’t there because our cultures (exception:  TV media, popular films), and primary institutions coach women to be passive and submissive — or they will be punished.  We are told to obey rules, and we do. 

    Perhaps it would be better if it was understood that it IS dangerous to confront a woman physically.  Perhaps this might be a deterrent.  If men are going to reject, as partners, women who stand up to them, then let them propagate with the passive ones, and perhaps — just perhaps, some of the non-passive surviving women may be a role model, should this get to the point of violence.

    The last time I had personal contact with a woman who lost a child to a man she’d divorced who had already been convicted of molesting her other child, was only yesterday.   This is distressing.  As is typical, she has to pay for supervised visitation to see the pre-adolescent son that was removed from her custody for reporting child abuse.  

    It’s also an unfair choice to any woman –become a criminal and fugitive, or risk your life,

    and your children’s lives and sense of sanity and safety in this world, til they mature.

     

     

     

     

    %d bloggers like this: