Posts Tagged ‘retaliation for reporting’
For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]
Why?
Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue. Ditto with CPS. But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest. If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.
WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES
Santa Rosa, California
(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:
I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.
My opinion: these feminist law professors and women, in many respects, have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth. And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.
In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her. And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow. That’s My take on it. So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal. And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area). However, this writer has a point:
The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.
As such, the laws are meaningless to us. However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.
. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.
Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.
We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead
Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.” It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop. To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is. As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:
We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.
Why NOT? Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place. Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now. Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with. But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!
But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.
As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.
Thank you for your concern.
Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres
mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org
We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).
BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise. (See this blog. See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.
For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re: Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers” Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise! Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know. The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county. That alone should have caught our attention. Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).
I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in. It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants. In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow. And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.” As the site says:
We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!
Key in this EIN#
|
||||||||||||||||||
to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS? Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what? Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):
Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation
The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2583174 | 05/17/2004* | ACTIVE | RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE | DAVID B WEXLER |
Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.
On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above. It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3284403 | 03/09/2010 | ACTIVE | CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN | CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE |
I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it. However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do. In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too. Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status. Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”
So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.” And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too. If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.
RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years
So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration. A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!
(the logos of approving organizations).
Approving Organizations
By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:
| David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP | |
| Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California | |
International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719. Usually it’s 9 or 12):
| Name | Taxpayer ID# | Zip |
|---|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS | 17523304719 | 75225 |
The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..” It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.
| 2010 | 751726710 | International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother | CO | 1980 | 06 | 31,455 | 1,402 | 990 |
Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…
I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly… But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill. The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves? Reading on:
August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.
These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.
They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.
Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.
The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.
Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.
How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.
So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today? Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…
I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent asks them to!
You might want to look at this article:
VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain
I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA. WHY? I thought. I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts. Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:
Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.
“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”
(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming. )
In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .
VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence
The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.
If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘
Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes
This site writes their rationale:
And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.
The Tie that Binds
VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.
Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com
rdjustice@monitor.net
VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994. By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention areas of goverment. While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.
Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse. And etc.
The DOJ Defending Children Initiative: even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:
The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous. That’s not what they’re there for, apparently. Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.
I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):
Hearsay #1:
There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent. Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).
The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser. The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.
Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father. There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept). Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently. It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too. After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right? How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?
Hearsay #2:
Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court. Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.
This mother says she saw it on their report. I’d like to see that report. Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.
Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):
When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged! When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.
In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).
Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case. The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.” The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad. The ransom process is simply this: the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit. That’s the plan. That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.
We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing. (“Computerized or Con-puterized?” Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting. One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held). We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine). Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party. It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down. (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too. Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang. Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)
Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept. One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it. The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.
Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life. Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!
I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out. The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session. Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day. While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.
Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours. Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.
So here we go:
Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too. This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.
One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial” which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.
However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit. However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert. Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts. It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.
At the bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know. The ones I don’t, I’ll look up. Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).
And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.
NB: I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference. That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general. You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.
The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?
HUH?
-
We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)
-
Working for whom?*
-
Define “working” — what’s the goal here? (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)
Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer. Act on those answers and you become a fool. A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.
That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones. Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.
The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant. They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients. Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.
Seriously — that’s how it goes. And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running. We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.
So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”
Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material? Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely? How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser? Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?
Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?
This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress. It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case. That I can tell.
*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children. (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women: Here — serve some cookies, greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister). . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places. Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.
You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field. This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.
Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!
Ay, there’s the rub. It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years. No one has done this much to date because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.
RE: “IS What We’re Doing Working”
Here’s a short answer: “ExcUUse me? You * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”
Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster? relatives?) this week in California. The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.
Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing
BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON
STAFF WRITERS
kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com
Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM
A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police
. . . .
Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.
The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales: However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage: 2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years. Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.
‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’
Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.
Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.
. . . She moved out, not him….
Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.
“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”
The age difference: Him vs. Her — was 17 years. We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable. Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?). Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?
Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?
I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking. So much for public oversight from a safe distance!
Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.
Why did she leave? Who knows? Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what? Where are the children going to live now? Who HAS them now?
This was a TANF case. She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father. The county wants its programs funded. If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support. This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation. This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of. Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.
Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day? Who else might have died?
Hence, we have to re-think this phrase: “Clear and Present Danger.” It has 3 usages.
1. In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.” If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.
2. In Usage by AFCC, “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”
3. I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”
So much for the domestic violence industry. It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.” They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.
I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either. I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”
People want to “reform” Family Court. That’s crazy thinking. It doesn’t account for the roadkill.
Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more. When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4. Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.? That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?
Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:
Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”
I posted this on August 17, 2009
| 2012 PRESENTERS Bios to be added shortly
Jennifer Collins Carly Singer Michael Bassett, J.D. Carol Pennington Liora Farkovitz Lundy Bancroft- author Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney Joan Zorza – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters Kathleen Russell* — *of Center for Judicial Excellence. Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles. Not a mother. Connie Valentine (CPPA) Karen Anderson (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.) Phyllis Chesler (if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her) Gabby Davis Loretta Fredericks Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present. She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her. Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding. She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit? Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa. This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers. They lend legitimacy where there is non. Michele Jeker Maralee Mclean Angela Shelton Wendy Murphy Jennifer Hoult Sandy Bromley Renee Beeker (advocates court watch) Joshua Pampreen Nancy Erickson Karin Huffer Jason Huffer Crystal Huffer* *Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome). Holly Collins Jennifer Collins Zachary Collins Garland Waller **Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.
Dara Carlin* *Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her. Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?). This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually. She didn’t “Get” it. Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc. Toby Kleinman Linda Marie Sacks (mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright. Seriously!) Rita Smith* (NCADV Leadership. NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding. It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..) Eileen King (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear). Mo Therese Hannah (self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller. I don’t recoqnize the other names). Liliane Miller Raquel Singh Tammy Gagnon Louise Monroe Chrys Ballerano |
SHARE THIS POST on...
Alienation Ain’t Going Anywhere —
NOTE: This continues my last post. Curious about Lauren v. Ted, I went and fetched it.
The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.
To review, the reporter, reviewing the ruling:
Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
I SAID, INCREDULOUS:
Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:
Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).
What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?
Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.
I wanted to know, was “not alienating” built into the court order (incredible as it seems, the answer is YES, this time. I say, “Houston, we have a problem!”)
Seeing this ruling, I felt readers should see how this is done, and who the judge quoted, and in general pick up on the practice of (OPINION ALERT. The rest of this paragraph is my feelings. Of course, much of this blog is — excepting the data research, charts, dockets posted, and news articles, etc…. But especially this next “rant” is a sound-off)
making custodial mothers (physical custodial/joint-legal) — apparently because they are women — responsible for relationship, even if they’re in a new one. This means, that somehow, any new man in the life, can’t “father” a children if it would, say, jeopardize their previous father. Put this in the pot and see how this blends with the fatherhood crisis. The biological Dad (presumably) is out of the home, and a remarriage has taken place. The systems of laws clearly influential in this ruling, were originally (Or, as slid through Congress) aimed at low-income fathers (which the “access/Visitation” policy literature, not to mention the “fatherhood” literature, assures us is the real problem. If it’s not the REAL Dad in the home, (even if there’s another father figure), those kids are screwed for life. Also, it’s important to encourage LOW-income fathers to be persuaded to pay their child support; and the way to do this has been declared, in policy brief after policy brief, is to use the children as a carrot, removing the child support enforcement as a stick, but keeping it there just in case. Theoretically.
This example is “replete with” language and references exhibiting this policy. While Lauren R. may or may not be a nice person — for all we know, she’s a B _ _ _ ch — the practices stand, and she has been threatened with weekends in jail for her behavior.
My CMA:
LINKING, COPYRIGHTs, Etc. – — the link to this opinion is on yesterday’s post, and here is:
Lauren R. v. Ted R.
NASSAU COUNTY
Family LawNew York Law Journal
June 07, 2010
Copyright © 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
ALM = “American Lawyer Media”
Let me COMPLETELY CMA (that’s CYA with a pronoun change) on posting so much of this opinion here:
Disclaimers: I believe that posting this is legal and within the copyright use (general, limited) as my link on this blog states. My purpose in posting here is to illustrate, for general purposes and information:
- HOW this judge reasoned,
- how the stipulation was written, and
- who this judge cited, in jailing [or threatening to] an alienating EX, which court personnel were called in — and for how much*** — to get their piece of the action BEFORE she was threatened with jail and/or custody switch (?) (the ultimate threat) and
- What “remedies” are considered available (in NY, here) for Bad Moms (and presumably Bad Dads) in violation of DIVORCE-RELATED CIVIL DECREES
- how GENDER-NEUTRAL, mostly, the “parental alienation” is in theory, but gender-specific, in practice, it seems (my challenge to readers yesterday stands — find me a man treated this way by any court for the same reasons) — and in short,
- HOW our country moved from the “rule of thumb” (diameter of switch with which one could beat one’s wife, hear tell) to the Judiciary rules and case precedents, etc. (remedies for, rather than beating, just emotionally terrorizing into compliance, or making it clear that the authority of the bench could indeed throw more weight around if compliance isn’t good enough for any woman/slut who remarries (or, doesn’t) with kids and doesn’t do it well, etc. . . . . to demonstrate, and set an example (per HIS attorney) of how very few inches forward we have moved in the past century, vis-a-vis mothers who don’t retain their men… . .
(pause to remember the originally intended VERB of this supremely compound subject sentence…..)(oh yeah, it’s coming…)
ARE RELEVANT TO OTHER PARENTS. IT IS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC… As such, I hope I don’t get put in jail for putting this information up.
***“defendant’s counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children’s fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees,”
To obtain the access so as to answer my initial questions (how could “not alienating” be in a court order?? and why wasn’t the custody interference sufficient?), I had to subscribe to this New York Law Journal. So will you, for pay, or as I did “Free Limited Access,” which means that in exchange for free, they collect data from me and can potential send me marketing material. Being in a good mood, I allowed this. “Free” anything, on-line,” is kind of like a FREE lunch, Food Stamps, Free Legal Services, or Free Restraining Order Clinics. Either you pay, or, you fork over some of your data for the privilege of accessing these things. So, I’m not linking the title today — see yesterday’s post — ,because who knows if my particular link leads to my particular self, which I don’t feel like putting on-line today, particularly after some commentary on the judge’s commentary that reading it inspires (like, “causes to well up”) within my soul.
My CMA, ct’d.
From what I can tell on the Permissions page, my purpose here is not any of those listed: I am not republishing it in a book/ebook for educational or promotional use. I am not republishing it in a print or electronic PUBLICATION for informational or promotional use. I am obviously not photocopying it (don’t you, either!) I am not sending it in an email. I am not republishing it in a marketing MATERIAL because I am not marketing anything. I am advised to click HERE for any other potential use, and that “HERE” says that about 3 different entitites (Rightslink(r), Incisive Media, and Copyright Clearance Center.com) are all in on the action of protecting Judicial opinions from being too widespread without someone being paid for this, and able to trace it.
Speaking of DIGITAL CLEARANCE ISSUES . . . Consider this an ALERT. I make it maroon, as it’s a “parenthetical” to this post.
While I am on this topic of DIGITAL CASE INFORMATION (although this is an ALM publication, and the New York Law Journal, something else — opinions are published in it, I gather — and case dockets, caes information totally another category, today, I ran across THIS concern, expressed by a man in Los Angeles. The fine print here is supplemented from some REAL detailed research, related, on the Justice System [All of it, including enforcement Sheriffs, etc.] in Los Angeles County, which he has called an “Extra Constitutional Zone,” while wryly commenting that the similar behavior is found in courts across the country. However, this article is about digital storage of case information, and compromises in the system as a human rights crisis. Read the fine print, he’s right, I bet:
THIS is a VERY brief, readable summary of the situation, which I am still mentally processing, of automated court systems, beginning in the 1980s, 1990s: “COMPUTERIZED or CON-PUTERIZED” (8/18/2010) — thank you, Janet Phelan, and Dr. Zernik. This is momentous — and a separate post…Here’s a clue to the extent of the problem:
Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.
By the way, this is the kind of background — more than social scientists and psychologists (or attorneys) that is likely — when attention is given to the legal processes — and systems — in the courts — that can help us. The analytic and systems expertise (logic, in other words) beats rhetoric and reframing every time. I feel… Marshall McLuhan {1911-1980…hover cursor for descr.}warned us that the MEDIUM was the MASSAGE {hover cursor for descr.}(long ago) — this talks about the impact of the MEDIUM (of digital case records) on our legal process.
Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.
Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.
In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.
Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. . .
BACK TO NASSAU COUNTY, NY a.k.a.,
How an ANTI-ALIENATION DIVORCE STIPULATION led to a Mom ordered to jail for violating it.
Justice Robert A. Ross
Decided: May 25; 203699-02
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the “best interest of the child,” when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Roughly translated, these two courts’ authority to mess with (alter) either parent’s life continues until all children reach majority, or some other worse event intervenes, which we hope it doesn’t. Think about this when conceiving children. Er– guess that advice is not too practical, how about BEFORE conceiving children.
Parental access, commonly referred to as “visitation,” is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170.
Roughly translated — the word “parent” and “noncustodial parent” obscures the purpose of these rights (rights?) — as seen by why women like me have to write blogs like this. The switch from mother and father to “parent” is not straightforward — it’s obscuring gender bias. Even the Wikipedia definiton of “noncustodial parent” forwards reader to the US Dept. of HHS site, “Fatherhood.hhs.gov” where, after the TOP left square, which reads
2006 Initiative / TANF Reauthorization
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 {{See 1996 for where this originated}} provides funding of $150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood. Up to $50 million each year may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.
{{well, treating ex-wives like this may send a message to women not to, ever, become an ex-wife. Your life may not survive marriage, but it’s equally unlikely to survive leaving a marriage, at least emotionally intact. So in SOME sense, pushing this, nationwide, can — like threat therapy — warn married women not to mess up..This policy, essentially, is the welfare state mentality’s answer to the welfare state mentality, if you can follow the logic there.}}
one can scroll down to
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support
About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but
Yeah, a BIG BUTT…
(Bighorn sheep charging) . . . The LAWS. . .. BUT . . . . (in contrast with the LAWS, we have a new concept, FEDERAL FUNDING to STATES to help them develop PROGRAMS….to “help.” They just want to “help”….
the Federal Government does provide states with fundingto assist in the development ofprograms that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.
{{note — though found on “fatherrhood.hhs.gov” this refers to funding to help noncustodial PARENTS. See Dombrowski. See “rightsformothers.com.”. . . I never did see why so many people (women, in particular) fail to acknowledge that these A/V programs are related to the child support system. The federal government says they are….
OK, one more grammar review before i move back to this ruling: This program, the ACCESS VISITATIOn NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and CHILD language, as cited (years ago) on FATHERHOOD.HHS. GOV says it this way. The STATES’ LAWS . . . . BUT the Federal Funding to STates to develop programs. Laws – – — BUT, . . . . Federal Funding. Laws — BUT — Federal Funding (to counteract the laws, to “help” the laws. Well, if the Feds are helping with existing Laws, why then is the word “BUT-T-T-T-T needed to describe the system?? . . . Also, (convenientlly for this end), motherhood.gov doesn’t mention to mothers going into the courts to look here for the 2nd half of the States Laws (which they focus on), BUT > T > T > T…
I’m driving this in, because what follows here is full of legal cites, and precedent, to justify the situation. But his language will soon reveal, alienation, alienation, alienation . . . .
In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
Note. I’m not checking the cites. Any attorney should. What the heck is “Judiciary law?” (above). And I’ve never heard of a TORT for custodial interference, I thought family law was out of the realm of torts. Maybe NY is different than the other coast, where I live. But, if it was the same, it would still take an indignant judge to sign an order.
I love the ‘While . . . . physical danger [See, “Girl, Interrupted” Kristin Stillman] [“phsyical danger might cause a child to die, or suffer injury, (by contrast, this language says, a far , far worse) ALIENATING A CHILD is NEFARIOUS!! and requires immediate, comprehensive remediation. {{see “DastardlyDads.blogspot.com” for what is NOT “nefarious conduct,” per judges}} I also have to “love” the judge’s dismissal of “most factually apparent ground” in favor of “punishing a recalcitrant parent.” So much for “best interests of the child” — the motived is to punish a recalcitrant parent…. I’ve never heard “recalcitrant” used of an adult before. It means, literally, to “kick back.” Merriam-Webster definition give an Antonym (opposite) as the desirable state of women in this culture, this world, and with the help of judges, precedents, Federal programs, and rulings like this, surely they will return to this Edenic state:
Good grief!!! Recalcitrant has been used (in this example) of an employee, and a youth. Well, welcome, parents, to that category! The problem with recalcitrance is, a parent becomes:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
Any sentence starting with “While” followed by data, or a statement of a situation, etc., is setting up the reader to consider that data LESS important than what follows, while declaring to the reader that this author at least weighed the pros and cons, but feels that the “while” side is less important than what’s upcoming. For a great example of this, look above, and the 2006 Access Visitation program blurb doing essentiall the same thing, only in a “This BUT that format.” “access/visitation is a matter of State & family law, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funds programs. . . . . etc.” Here, since the part in the while section is going to be overcome, it is vaguely worded and only gets one cite, prob ably someone suing the City of NY over a disastrous custody situation result. Maybe I’ll look it up. If this was a death, and this judge referred to that death as “the consequential future effect of this determination,” what does that say about this judge’s decision-making process?
Check out this case — and how UNrelated it is , on the surface, to the divorce case here: My cites (I’m not an attorney) are not 95 NY2d 95,100 (which sounds like an opinion), but show which case was cited. The divorce here resulted from a NY Medical Examiner’s initial diagnosis as an infant death as homicide by blunt instrument head trauma. At the time, the couple was married, and put through hell, particularly the father, who was fingered for this. Later, a re-examination of the child’s brain showed a brain aneurysm. Lauer v. City of NY sued over this. At the very high risk of losing reader’s attention here, I’m going to cite the (UNpublished) opinion on-line, so we see what the 10 words preceding a Supreme Court judge’s proclamation that willful interference with a custody order raises a strong probablility of parental unfitness:
2 No. 59
Edward G. Lauer,
Respondent,
v.
City of New York, et al.,
Appellants.
2000 NY Int. 62
May 16, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
Peter James Johnson, Jr., for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
On this appeal we revisit a familiar subject: whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality for its employee’s negligence. Here we answer that question in the negative.
The Facts
Three-year-old Andrew Lauer died on August 7, 1993. That same day, Dr. Eddy Lilavois, a New York City Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and prepared a report stating that the child’s death was a homicide caused by “blunt injuries” to the neck and brain. Although the report indicated that the brain was being preserved for further examination, the following day a death certificate was issued stating that Andrew’s death was a homicide. Based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusion, the police began investigating what they thought was a homicide, focusing primarily on plaintiff, Andrew’s father. Weeks later, on August 31, 1993, the Medical Examiner and a neuropathologist conducted a more detailed study of Andrew’s brain. The report, prepared in October 1993, indicated that a ruptured brain aneurysm caused the child’s death, thus contradicting the earlier conclusion. The Medical Examiner, however, failed to correct the autopsy report or death certificate, and failed to notify law enforcement authorities.
Meanwhile, the police department’s investigation into Andrew’s death continued. Some 17 months later, in March 1995, after a newspaper exposé, the autopsy findings were revised, the police investigation ceased and an amended death certificate was prepared. As a result of this incident, the City Medical Examiner who had conducted the examination resigned.
Plaintiff and his estranged wife subsequently commenced separate actions. Lisa Lauer’s action against the City of New York and Dr. Lilavois, seeking damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed. In affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division held that her allegations failed to establish “that she fell within any recognized orbit of duty upon which liability may be based” (see, Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544, lv denied , 91 NY2d 807). {{ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT “ORBIT OF DUTY ON WHICH LIBABILITY MAY BE BASED.”}}
In the present action seeking $10 million in damages against the City of New York, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lilavois and the Police Department, plaintiff alleges defamation, violation of his civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants’ conduct–including the Medical Examiner’s negligent performance of the autopsy, failure to correct the erroneous report and death certificate, and failure to disclose that Andrew’s death was not a homicide–“precipitated the destruction of [his] marriage * * * forced him to sell his home and leave his neighborhood, and caused him to become the object of public scorn, humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, harassment and contempt throughout the City of New York.” He further alleges that he “sustained severe and debilitating emotional distress, emotional anguish, anxiety and mental suffering.”
On defendants’ motion, Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and civil rights causes of action, but allowed plaintiff to pursue his emotional distress claims. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order (see, 258 AD2d 92). All of the Justices agreed that the defamation and civil rights claims were properly dismissed. They also unanimously concluded that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim warranted dismissal; that any causes of action based on performance of the initial autopsy were immunized as a governmental exercise of discretion; and that the Medical Examiner’s failure to correct the reports and accurately inform the authorities were “ministerial” acts. The Appellate Division divided, however, as to whether plaintiff could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on those ministerial acts, a majority concluding that he could.
I don’t know if this was a custodial-father case, but the judge citing it here is TWO parents suing the city for damages on the basis of a Medical Examiner’s mistake, and failure to inform them of it. Wife was estranged at the time her appeal was she in 1993? Certainly there are more relevant cases in NY since then, however this judge cites one referring to an infant’s death, bad enough, being deemed a homicide, and tearing up the family’s subsequent decade as “consequential effect” before getting down to business, which is going to be ordering a recalcitrant, alienating ex-wife to jail. Here’s the sentence, again:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
inasmuch as a Court’s finding of willful interference “per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit” (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), whena pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conductmust [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
Apparently 4 cites re: alienation are given. 4 to 1, weighing in on the nefariousness of alienation, and it as a basis for action in subsequent custody/parent access proceedings. Wonder if any of those involved a woman as the injured party..
I too think that parents unable to comply with custody orders EXCEPT for good cause (like, death threats — google “Judge Lemkau,” in California, or similar cases in almost any of the 50 states). However, in my case, it meant nothing, even though I’d been repeatedly bringing this up, and myself as a custodial parent (sole physical only) was fit, and never deemed unfit, til — when complying with a court order, my kids disappeared — overnight. And no court or law enforcement (or anyone else) did anything about it. That principle haveing been now thoroughly established, no subsequent court orders were obeyed more than coincidentally, including custody/visitation. At this time, I knew nothing of these programs to help with “Access/visitation” although I specifically (a year before kids were taken) asked a judge for a safer exchange alternative. . . .. However LAUREN & TED’s court order/Stip. is so vague and overbroad as to be ridiculous. At least the part cited here.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O’ bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. {{HOWEVER}} Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be “an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding – – the “strong likelihood of unfitness” becomes a “factor” that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Parental alienation is tied with UNFITNESS as a factor, although res judicata on alienation cannot be an issue in this custody change (as I get it). I tried to llok up “Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d (etc.) but so far, it’s mostly this case, a slap in the face that lists the wife as the “Ex-Wife from hell” and is featured on “Parental Alienation Canada.” Father’s Rights groups are rejoicing, and someone even took out a “laurenlippe.com” website where you can see the collateral press damage. Maybe I jumped on the wrong bandwagon here, but I am reading that divorce stipulation, and it just doesn’t look fair.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006;
{{At least this is honest, and says “Father” and not just “parent”}}
Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court’s finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
J.R. Johnston is probably Janet Johnston. I have a post (older) of Lundy Bancroft debating some of her assessments as failing to identify potential abuse — on this blog.
So much to say, so little time. Well, I told you, “Alienation” ain’t going anywhere!
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties’ children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. {{Parts A 7 Parts B}} The Court granted defendant’s motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
If she dished out hell, surely this scheduled was some of it back. How could a single hearing occupy so many days? Because someone can pay an attorney to be there, constantly? or two attorneys? And they put the rest of us through hell/mediation because the courts are clogged? 12 hearings in 4 months, summer 2008, then a year break (no summer vacation for THIS custodial mother with her kids), a ruling Sept. 2008 ordering a hearing and a year break. A hearing Sept. 2009, a season off court and 10 hearings in TWO months…Poor people don’t get this, but this is affecting poor people.
The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from “alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant,” or to “hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so.” Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children’s education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to “exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact,” “to foster a feeling of affection,” and not to “do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children’s opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children’s love and affection for the [Defendant].”
I think most cases are set up for failure from the start. Mine was. Domestic violence precipitated the separation (no divorce action even involved. Despite this, frequent visitation (more than frequent), and so vaguely written a visitation order as to guarantee difficulties around exchanges. Joint legal custody — one cannot do “joint legal custody” with an abuser; there is no “we” anywhere in there. Case in point, the DV. Even before divorce was ever initiated we were handled as though it was just a family squabble, even though a restraining order AND kickout was granted.
Here, Ted apparently was fore-armed to protect any “emotional abuse” by how it was worded. Her own divorce stipulation had a strict prohibition on it, worded in very similar terms to a restraining order; in fact, it in effect was one. The phrase “or cause otehrs to do so,” is in protective orders. If we were a fly on the wall, and read the whole stipulation, would there be ANY prohibitions on the father? The admonition to “both” parents not to estrange the children’s opinion of the Father” is a contradiction. Why would the Father estrange his own children? That makes no sense. The stipulation “not to do ANYTHING which MAY estrange the children from (Dad) or injure their opinion of the Fatehr” — good grief. A woman is to predict their possible response to anything she does or says, at all? How can a court order a party to “foster a feeling of affection.” Define, please !!!
To sustain the defendant’s application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party’s rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.
In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties’ stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
. . . .
THE COURT’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing “alienation” theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent’s relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a “parent’s ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child,” a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the “interference with the non-custodial parent and child’s relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.
Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent’s right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
. . .
“In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007”
This is approximately one month and some weeks. It is NOTHING compared to what mothers have suffered, often for years, and often without remedy. While it’s wrong, I note that the father filed an OSC by December 14th, and got action on it quickly. I wonder, in those many, many hearings, whether Mom got to testify at all.
Here’s a paragraph of the judge judging her by her emotional affect in the courtroom, and interpreting it:
Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant’s role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant – – notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance – – hesitating and defensive – – with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. ***The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant’s joint custodial arrangement into farce.<+> The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.<*>
She is wrong for being off-balance, hesitating, defensive (this is a hearing of a contempt, and protesting it is her proper stance as a litigant! Being “defensive” isn’t wrong in this situation! And anyone might hesitate in giving an answer in court! Particularly a mother being grilled…
However, a judge throwing around psychological interpretations and language, as if they were FACT (“answers that dovetailed to narcissism or a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct.”) — this is testimony outside his expertise. (Unless he switched “effects” to “affects”). He’s trying to sound psychological, and misused the words: “Affects” characterize people, not conduct. He’s over-reaching, and over-interpreting. Here’s yet another evidence of “interpretation” of effect (results) as per se being evidence of a single cause, when most effects of any sort can have more than one, or multiple contributing causes:
The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet “their” demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother’s therapist
Is it possible that they were angry because they could not attend F.A. or wanted to participate in therapy? While as minors, they do not get to “demand” anything of their father as a condition of visitation, this judge states that their anger is evidence per se of efforts to alienate.
I’d be sullen too, in any such hearing. But this judge holds it against her. The sentence between *** and <+> makes no sense. The litany was from the father. So, if the “litany” turned (repression of joint custody) into something, then the “litany” was the agent of making a farce. A litany is a religious term, and involves recitation.
“The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein was daunting” — i.e., Poor, brave, Dad, enduring severe emotional pain by having to recount how many times his rights were disregarded.
Poor brave Dad brought the custody action; someone helped this hearing on — and on, but recounting facts is innate to bringing any action. Also, I wonder why these facts weren’t simply written out in a Declaration supporting the OSC. Why the courtroom drama? No kudos to him for having to recount his own emotional pain. The grammar goes like this, of that sentence: “The endurance . . . . . was indefensible.” Endurance is good. The situation requiring this endurance is what the judge considers indefensible. ENDURANCE — good. INDEFENSIBLE — bad. Basically, the judge is offended.
In this paragraph “reading” the mother, the judge has mis-used “affects” and “litany,” diagnosed “narcissism” (without quoting the counselors in the case, assuming one was actually qualified to diagnose, and had done so, but based on HIS reading of it) and is starting to get his words mixed up. Maybe that’s one of his “affects.” Selfishness is a character trait. “Narcissism” is a different, more extreme term so over-used, it’s almost become meaningless except to reveal a speaker who thinks him- or herself a psychiatrist. DSM has become mainstreamed in MSM (mainstream media) and shows up in legal opinions. to lend an air of expertise or authority.
These kids will probably do OK, relative to others in similar predicaments. I bet they are fed, and they are well-educated. Consider (evidence of a contempt):
Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that “it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.”
Daughter “D.” is in a youth orchestra which performed in Alice Tulley Hall/Lincoln Center. Whatever else goes on between her parents (and stepdad) she has exposure to some other youth musicians, concertizing, and probably is able to talk with these kids as well. She will likely go to college and have a good shot at life as an adult. The “parental alienation” promotion was (ostensibly!) not aimed at families of this income level, though clearly emotional abuse affects everyone. I have seen worse behavior among rich people than poor, it seems, and the specialty can be forms of emotional abuse. . . . . In this particular incident, it seems to me that as a joint legal custodial parent, the father, being aware of this concert, might have texted the Mom — I’d like to see her afterwards, rather than just assumed he would, although certainly that was a reasonable assumption, that kids would stay. However, as these are elementary aged kids (or were, at some point in time, there may have been any number of reasons for leaving before it was out, even despite staff instructions.).
I omitted the central narrative, including accusations of breast-fondling and CPS involvement, which was met with retaliation for reporting by CPS.
From “Parental Alienation Canada” – the ex-wife from hell
Lippe [ALLEGEDLY] often went nuclear,
launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls
— calling him a “deadbeat,” “loser,” “scumbag” and “f – – – ing asshole.”
Just wanted to note: what was the standard of proof in these hearings? Because when facts are quoted minus the attribution, by a judge (i.e., who said them) they become facts, in effect. Interpreting the word “deadbeat” was brought up — who paid for music lessons? Was this a stay-at-home Mom, or a working one?
In the relationships between people to psychologize without reference to what actually happened, in its larger context, is definitely tricky ground. In a custody switch to this Dad, is he working FT and remarried? Who would care for them during the week if not? Would they then lose any child support he was paying, or is she capable of putting in for it? Did any of this make the hearing (I’d bet not).
AGAIN, my blogging here is not to say this was a nice Mom or he was a bad Dad. She has plenty of hate mail, all over the internet, and I haven’t actually found a single positive word anywhere. So, I took the opposing side, and wanted to know how the jail thing happened to this women, but men who do worse, and go on to murder, are sprung from jail. Let’s get real about this system. The reality of their initial stipulation is, it was outrageous. that’s where the damage occurred.
Well, this is a 7,000 word post, and that’s enough for one post. Again — plenty of mothers are no longer seeing their kids, court order or no court order. What are our bankrupt options?
SHARE THIS POST on...
NY, Nassau County: (another) Alienating Ex-Wife gets Jail-Threat Therapy; sounds like forgotten “Unalienable Rights” need a Resurrection?
Wonder when this was re-written as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all MEN ~ at least ~ are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights. . .. that among these are ETERNALLY UNALIENATED RELATIONSHIPS,** LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS . . . . .
**with the “fruit of the womb” of alienated relationships with (adult) ex-wives, i.e., namely, their kids.
THIS PROMPTED MY POST:
“Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
THIS JUNE 2010 ARTICLE FROM the NY LAW JOURNAL IS BELOW, BUT WHILE READING IT, CONSIDER:
I lay THREE challenges before readers:
- (1) Find me ONE remarried FATHER who was jailed, or threatened with it — and lectured — for doing the exact same thing to his wife, and for the same reason. And where a judge cited in the reasons for his/her opinion, that the father “smirked in the courtroom.” I open up the contest nationwide, not just NY, although how’s about in this same county?
- (2) Find me how this same judge ruled on other similar cases.
- (3) Understanding that these policies supporting and promoting fatherhood, of which mandated shared-parenting policies(etc.) are but one arm — were pushed through Congress as a solution to the LOW-income father issue, the female-headed (poor) household, PWORA WELFARE REFORM (and I’ve posted some of the Congressional transcripts surrounding it on my blog, too) — and is obviously affecting some very NOT-POOR households (except to the extent they are drained of finances through legal fees or child support rulings) why should this case, here in Nassau County, profit from that philosophy, and WHEN will these policies, based on the erroneous target population (expanded to everyone with a Y chromosome and offspring under 18 years old) be retracted?
- The father here spent over $100K on legal fees, and won, to express how hurt he was from being deprived of a relationship with his kids for (was it, a period of six WEEKS?) ? Or was that just the exception to the rule? Because the policy IS part of welfare reform, child support collection, and based on the theory that Dads who have more contact with their kids will do better at paying child support.
- NOTE; “3” is an essay question and rhetorical, obviously…
- The father here spent over $100K on legal fees, and won, to express how hurt he was from being deprived of a relationship with his kids for (was it, a period of six WEEKS?) ? Or was that just the exception to the rule? Because the policy IS part of welfare reform, child support collection, and based on the theory that Dads who have more contact with their kids will do better at paying child support.
(“EXTRA CREDIT” — since our whole nation, almost, is either being taught, or teaching, or setting the national educational curriculum womb to tomb and how to marry, not have sex before it, divorce, co-parent, stop violence against women, intervene with batterers, supervise visitation, facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to their kids, support children, coordinate parents, counsel parents, manage high-conflict parents, promote mental health and evaluate the psychological health of everyone who is NOT a psychologist — I figured I’d get in there too…And put readers back to school ‘Extra Credit’ if someone is motivated to do the background on THIS case (i can’t..).
You can’t afford the time either? Got Job? OK, then (if you’re not in a job in one of the above professions), then you are paying for the rest of us to be threatened by judges for our bad attitudes towards our exes — OR, to utilize judges to communicate this threat to ex-wives, or ex-girlfriends. (For a great role model, take Mel Gibson…)… Seriously — if you have a “job” (i.e., pay taxes) you ARE funding these theories, and the courts. JUDGES are public employees, right? As are everyone it takes to run the family court business revolving door. But, ab ove and beyond that obvious function, and ALL the functions of running courthouses, there is ALSO a stream of federal funding to the Judicial Council of California to push policies that this is a prime example of. Anyone tracking those funds? Doubt it. (See bottom of my last post — it’s primarily what this blog is about, too…) OK, so EXTRA CREDIT would be:
- Find how the ex-wife’ attorney’s track record goes. . . The wussy (?)(or — sensible; after all, he may have to stand in front of same judge in other cases?) (or, threw the case?) mother’s attorney didn’t dare express indignation and outrage before a judge, but just, in the press, said:
-
Ms. R.’s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to last week’s missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a perfect game.
“I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he’s just made a good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case,” Rieger said. “That’s why there’s an Appellate Division. I think he just did not accurately assess my client.
-
- Find how the father’s attorney’s track record goes. Too. I comment on the both of them in the body of the article, below. But attorneys have clients. Clients have case histories. Case histories have a custody-switch factor, a case docket, at times.
REALLY UNALIENABLE RIGHTS — BUT
(don’t smirk) ONLY IF ASSERTED:
Here’s part of the original, the wording of which has been forgotten. Or, which, the inclusion of men of color and women of all colors, in this, never was meant to happen . . . .
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security
Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
New Version:
A father’s, at least, UNALIENABLE RIGHT NOT TO BE ALIENATED
(and, don’t smirk in court, or else…)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
Mark Fass
New York Law Journal
June 08, 2010
A Long Island, N.Y., judge has sentenced a woman to six weekends in jail for repeatedly undermining her ex-husband’s relationship with their two daughters.
Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.
Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:
Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).
What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?
Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.
Ross held Ms. R. in civil contempt and ordered her to report to the Nassau County Correctional Facility every other weekend this summer.
Her term was to have begun on Friday, but was temporarily stayed pending appeal by a judge from the Appellate Division, 2nd Department, on Thursday.
FIRST OF ALL — that’s shock therapy, and a trait in bringing P.O.W. into compliance. You can find this treatment listed in places where a batterer is compared to a POW captor. One reason women coming out of that (I’m not saying that the woman in this case was…) have PTSD like veterans have PTSD. And why going through the courts exacerbates this — same treatement. Repeated, chronic threats to one’s integrity, and safety, every time one goes into court.
Comments: Penal law (criminal) has sentencing guidelines and limits. Civil law (torts, breaches of contract) have specific remedies. But, not well-known by the laypeople, FAMILY LAW is a different beast, and the contempts are to bring a party into compliance with a desired condition, and can persist until the desired (by individual judge) state is obtained. So, see the problem with that? Suppose the desired state is a state of mind? Now, that’s trouble, spelled out. . .. (I think the post I discussed this, with my non-legally-trained, but trying to grasp concepts-brain, was the one about an alarm system that failed, burning down a warehouse. The alarm system company was fined to the full amount (million$$) — because the civil law provides for this, and a contract was involved. When will we learn that marriage is not a real CONTRACT like that, with spelled out terms? (Enlighten me legally, if I’m missing something — such as options — in this statement).
“, The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.
“The extensive record is replete with instances of attempts to undermine the relationship between the children and their father and replace him with her new husband, manipulation of defendant’s parenting access, utter and unfettered vilification of the defendant to the children, false reporting of sexual misconduct without any semblance of ‘good faith,’ and her imposition upon the children to fear her tirades and punishment if they embrace the relationship they want to have with their father.”
This judge is indignant, and has the flourish (the first one being “replete with..”) to express it. HE TOO assigns motive. Of course, judges are supposed to have some judgement, but this is certainly an interpretation, and throughout, states, and restates, her intents. Mind-readers!
I wonder — do criminals at their sentencing for other than thought- or intent- or visitation-crimes, get the extra lectures to go with it?
The extraordinary hearing to determine whether Ms. R. should be held in contempt for violating the couple’s stipulation of settlement began in May 2009 and stretched over 23 days of hearings over the next nine months.
During the hearing, Mr. R. testified** to dozens of occasions in which his ex-wife either interfered with his visitation rights or purposefully alienated the children from him
“The hearing” ?? Which of the above 23 days? Was any of her testimony heard during this time, or was she able to rebutt any of it? Wouldn’t THAT be a set of transcripts . . . . . I know how family law hearings go; I was accused of this also, but did not interfere ONCE with custody by even a few hours — I wasn’t born yesterday. …. If an adjustment was made up an hour, I was requested to extend the pickup an hour. Then I was ordered to switch days of pickup, or had them cancelled on short notice, while children lived with me, and this many times compromised work, as moms can testify. This case, however, already had a stipulation.
“purposefully” entails assigning motive. Was wife allowed to cross-examine him on any of this? Was the interference documented and evidence for it found? Where is her testimony — was hits a hearing, or an interrogation?
“Interfering with his visitation rights OR purposefully alienated the children.” It is clear to me that the real indignation is over the alienation, not the cutting off of visitation. And again (readers), (assuming some are left!), I CHALLENGE you to find one MAN lectured like this for doing the EXACT same thing to a noncustodial Mom. While you’re looking, go to http://www.rightsformothers.com and scroll down far enough to get her story (hasn’t seen the son for YEARS, wages garnished to below housing, while working FT). Where is HER indignant judge?
The judge described about a dozen such incidents or patterns in his eight-page decision.
In the winter of 2007, for example, Ms. R. prevented Mr. R. from seeing his daughters for six weeks, Ross wrote.
“I observed the plaintiff smirk in the courtroom as defendant >>emotionally<< related how he was deprived of spending Hanukkah with his children, and was relegated to lighting a menorah and watching his daughters open their grandparents’ presents in the back of his truck at the base of plaintiff’s driveway,” the judge wrote.
Perhaps she’d seen his emotional performances before, including in a courtroom, and wasn’t as impressed as the judge. MORAL? Men can be soulful in court — it indicates sincerity, because we all “know” men are rational and logical, and when they truly DO emote, then what they are emoting about must be genuine, or why would their pain so move them to be soulful (in court)? Women, however, if remembering a different version of events, are warned that smirking at it could cost them custody — THEIR emotion must be in synche with the court’s emotions, or they’re screwed.
If true (presumably it is), that was sure mean. But, the point should the contempt of court orders re visitation, and should’ve been left at that. He is getting even now, more than, so far. And while I’m sure the pain (including humiliation, probably with another man inside, another factor, I bet) at this event was likely genuine, Mr. R. — UNlike many others, who will be affected by this decision, and the message it sends, I bet — many of us do not have $134,000 to lose, or at all, with which to console ourselves. With that amount of cash, he could I bet find another woman, maybe even make some more babies. There’s lots of them (count me out) around . . ..
MY point is — does this ever go the same way, with a different gender? Consider Joyce Murphy, who went to jail for interfering with custody when the courts wouldn’t do anything a bout her daughter being molested. She lost custody (threat therapy carried out). later, the same dude, not confronted and in fact one the first time, went on to molest some other children, whose parents DID report, and eventually she got her daughter back, though I bet not with an “oops” or apology from the court.
We DO have internet, and we ARE aware of other court cases around the country. I believe it’s time to shelve some of these theories– but since the courts don’t, I will again (below) review the Declaration of Independence. Certain rights are UNALIENABLE — and when a pattern of tyranny rules in one area of government, or throughout it, we have a right to change it, though not for a light reason. . . . Just a little reminder: The signers of that declaration pledged their honor, their fortunes, and their lives to this cause, and many of them lost all three. Well, maybe not the first one, in the long run.
Mr. R. also testified that Ms. R. consistently scheduled theater outings and social activities with her children so that they would conflict with his visitation, thereby putting him in the position of either consenting to a missed visit or risking disappointing his daughters.
Sounds like a play-book for many mothers I know who haven’t seen their kids in MONTHS, or YEARS.
The “crescendo” of Ms. R.’s contempt involved false accusations of sexual abuse against Mr. R., the judge wrote.
“Allegations that defendant had injured the child were found to be baseless and, by making such allegations, plaintiff needlessly subjected the child to an investigation by Child Protective Services, placing her own interests above those of the child,” Ross wrote. “This report was not made in ‘good faith’ — rather, the investigating agency warned the mother not to re-utilize the allegations and her children in her custodial litigation with the defendant.”
In addition to the contempt finding and the temporarily stayed jail sentence, Ross ordered a hearing to consider a change of custody and to hear Mr. R.’s application for more than $134,000 in attorney fees. Those hearings were postponed pending Ms. R.’s appeal.
Ms. R.’s attorney, Kieth I. Rieger of Barrocas & Rieger in Garden City, N.Y., praised Ross, but criticized the decision, likening it to last week’s missed umpire call that cost a Detroit Tigers pitcher a perfect game.
Maybe this (male) attorney didn’t pick up on the emotional overtones?? . . . . .
This judge has threatened this woman, and made an example of her, and lectured her in court; presuming the sexual abuse allegations to be false, and intended to make an example of her. Her attorney, seeing this — that comment is called Damage Control. He’s on the losing side and didn’t even support her in print, morally, at all.
“I think all of us make mistakes, and I think he’s just made a good-faith, honest mistake in his assessment of this case,” Rieger said. “That’s why there’s an Appellate Division. I think he just did not accurately assess my client.”
Stanley Hirsch, also of Garden City, represented Mr. R.
“I’m very hopeful that this case will be some type of warning to those who don’t have the children’s best interests at heart when they conduct themselves with their spouses,” Hirsch said. “It has great significance to my client, but I think it has a terrific overall impact on people who are going through a divorce and not getting along and involving the children in their disputes.”
Well, either the judge missed a pitch, or he sent a message. I’m going with the latter. Of course, the winning attorney was smart enough to put this in the plural, and keeping up the pretense that this is really a gender-neutral issue. That’s why the same people pushing “fatherhood” push this. (See my last post, the bottom section)
So, Yeah, we (noncustodial, now, mothers) got that. Loud and clear. Take your kids OUT of acttivities developing them personally, and don’t smirk in the courtroom, particularly in response to any lies. [FYI, that’s good advice].
Now get this — we haven’t forgotten the Declaration of Independence, or men, women and children who DIED ~ ~ and lives squandered ~ because of this pushing “parental alienation” and yet not enforcing this equally. And family law is NOT working for women attempting to protect themselves and their children from danger, which they have a right to — it’s under UNALIENABLE . . .
You want to go the “how dare you alienate a man from his “seed” theme (that’s the Biblical terminology for children)? And get the whole society and relatives wrapped up in it? Because while there are throwaway spouses, but having impregnated a woman puts a permanent bond between the man and his kids — and NOT the mother and his kids? We could just go back to sharia law and cut the facade of the Constitution, and all that.
HERE IT IS, AGAIN:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
- He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:(NOTE: those who take time to review the material, and supporting systems to this FAMILY LAW system (as well as its history) will soon acknowledge that it is NOT based on LAW, but on PSYCHOLOGY, and it doesn’t protect rights of individuals when they conflict with an amorphous definition called “FAMILY.” Moreover, the funding of grants to the courts to sway custody decisions is indeed foreign to the (myth?) many American women believed, that they had some semblance of equality under the law, or some access to it, and did not become second class citizens on reporting abuse or leaving it.
There are others. (sorry about that print) — BUT, it should be acknowledged that whiel we don’t have a single “HE” as a king, or prince, it’s quite possible for an oligarchy, or a ruling “elite” to make the primary decisions far from those affected by them, jsut as King George had an army, courtiers, and messengers. . . . When the US Government is tarting to operate like this, we are simply colonized and cannibalized by our own. …
- He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
- For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
THIS IS HOW IT CONCLUDES:
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
Ah well, another noble idea defeated by a dysfunctional formatting.
SHARE THIS POST on...
2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America
Bifurcating Parenthood (Georgetown), 2-Pronged Fatherhood (Progressive Policythink), Ridiculous Rulings (in Kansas) and Who Rules America (UC sociologist)
Today’s post (extended and updated from yesterdays, which I published in short form) has 4 (FOUR) parts:
1,
2,
3,
4.
As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle. So we have:
1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)
2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)
3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)
4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).
As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.
4 was simply me mentioning the theme of “income v. wealth” that I know by now is critical in the social engine called these courts. It’s basically workforce development, and US/Them paradigm. There are several links and quotes. I could’ve chosen any. But it will hold together, I trust. At the top, I’m going to post a QUOTE from a Professor Dumoff, a sociologist at UC Santa Cruz. It’s from his site “WHO RULES AMERICA?” which is a good question. More below, at the banner.
In my last year of research and reflection (including on my own experience) of who’s doing WHAT in the courts an WHY those dang nonprofits have been useless, basically, I had to get to foundations, who support the nonprofits doing nothing. Then I began to understand the forces that are driving America into materialistic chaos, to sustain a global economy based on permanent debt. I feel this ain’t too bad work, considering what have also been through in the “decade of the courts” in my adult life.
I suggest we read this site THROUGH.
I am burnt out on reporting on outrageous family law cases, also beseeching noncustodial parents I know to take a little more critical look at organizations — not just good/cop bad/cop individuals. I have . . . . . I also have repeatedly encouraged people to take a very illuminating glance at some of the IRS 990s on some of the “helkping” organizations who continue to pay CEOs over $100,000 year to report on the carnage or insults to personhood.
Losers in the family law situation who don’t end up physically and emotionally dysfunctional might definitely end up homeless may definitely end up homeless, male or female. Yet there’s a real reluctance among litigants to not just look at the role of the child support system (federal) as a planned move to socialism for most of us based on policies set by the foundations hiring the nonprofits selecting what will (and will not) get talked about in the arena. They may blog or acknowledge it briefly, then go back to collaborating with the closest nonprofit that makes a big noise.
Battered women who’ve gone into the family law court after leaving the relationship are in a UNIQUE position to understand and speak to the power structure from underneath, analytically and as to attitude.
Once I began looking at organizational structures (it helps to have a model of a virtual “gang” in one’s own family for reference) I never stopped looking. Here’s a diagram for the more visually organized:
This is how such an inane policy as “fatherhood” could actually go through Congress, and get enacted. It’s a form of psychological warfare, basically, to frame the conversation nationally, yet fail to inform have the litigants in court that the conversation is taking place.
ANYHOW, this represents my post for today, and welcome to it. Do your own homework!
Here’s from Part 4, to think about in 1, 2, and 3:
- “The rich” coalesce into a social upper class that has developed institutions by which the children of its members are socialized into an upper-class worldview, and newly wealthy people are assimilated.
- Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been the primary mechanisms for generating and holding wealth in the United States for upwards of 150 years now.
- There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which members of the upper class and hired corporate leaders not yet in the upper class shape policy debates in the United States.
This I can attest to. See (for a starter) “shady shaky foundations of family law” and some of the organizational geneaology. IN good part, that’s what this blog is for — to show the connections. This tells me also why the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” simply “cannot” hear our truths.
- Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level employees in profit and nonprofit institutions, are able to dominate the federal government in Washington.
- The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.
- Working people have less power than in many other democratic countries.
1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)
If I don’t post something more “detached” today, I’m going to post the entire docket for Hal Richardson v. Claudine Dombrowski in the “Third Judicial Court of Public Access,” Kansas. Claudine has been in this system for 14 + years, and isn’t broken yet, though it’s making a good effort to do so to her. Her case also illustrates the cognitive dissonance between criminal and family law, and between family law as stated and as practiced. Not to mention what the U.S. is doing to the half of parenthood in the United States who are female. We are still fighting for recognition as human beings and thus covered under civil rights, due process, etc.
Even though I know so much about this case, it’s still possible to be entirely shocked at the behavior of the court and court personnel in it.
As summarized in a blog, August 1, this year
Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their “co-parenting.” WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele’s previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine’s being able to call the police.As reported in Manhattan (KS) Free press, July 9 years ago (also see blog):
The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.
The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.
At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that “Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson.”
In other words, were she not a mother, she would have the right to flee to protect her unalienable right to LIFE. However, unknown to her, other things had already been cooking in Congress around this time, which are mentioned below. In 1994 a little National Fatherhood Initiative had been formed. In 1995, then-President Clinton had issued his (in)famous Executive Order about Fathers. In 1996, we have Welfare Reform, some of the Congressional Testimony of which I posted recently and which is summarized below on a site calling itself “Progressive Policy.” I call it Regressive, because it results in cases like this. You can track the REgression in individual cases, and how it happened, through adding personnel besides the judge.
Hal was given supervised visitation
Why this Supervision shouldn’t have been done with him inside a jail cell, I just don’t “get.” Rikki must’ve seen her mother’s stitches — what message does that send to a young girl? It’s OK for fathers to beat up mothers, right? A family court judge will sweep up the evidence . Whistleblowers will be punished.
Reading on in the case, he WILL get even for even that restriction. A GAL will help, Scott MacKenzie (if I can keep the narrative straight who did what when….) In time — that’s how these things go — Supervised visitation will be switched to the mother. Then, her fight will be to get that UNsupervised. She will win that “privilege,” but apparently wasn’t docile enough, because she then loses all contact entirely for a while. It’s all in the record. Meanwhile, the various parties are REAL serious about getting the money she owes absolutely everyone for these types of “services.”
In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: “Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age.”
And THERE, “in a nutshell,” you have how a family law judge skillfully Re-frames the conversation and Re-Prioritizes it from safety to reconciliation. Better Claudine maybe die the next time than a father’s rights be conditioned upon not abusing them — or her. Sounds “squirrelly” to me. A woman gets temporary reprieve and safety, then this is reversed, and made worse. The decisions become more and more authoritative.
He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.
And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: “Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager.”
On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.
In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there.
RIGHT THERE — is a typical “between a rock and a hard place” situation. I have experienced a modified situation, where I was so frightened, I drove, fast, to a police station in another city. They told me to go back to practically the scene of a stalking incident that had terrified me. There, I was treated abominably by officers, who refused to report, though dispatched to do so by the intake person who heard my voice; the incident was also witnessed by others, and signed letters are in the file.
Claudine had a choice of, NOT REPORTING, saving her own skin (to hell with her daughter) and just dealing with it. Supposed the injuries had been different and the bleeding faster, and she didn’t TRY to appease an outright vicious court order, but reported right in Topeka at first, and going straight from having wounds tended to, to jail (or soon thereafter) in contempt. She did what any mother would in a crisis — stop the bleeding, let the mandatory reporters (probably ) report, and go save her daughter.
Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her.
Now, does that “revise” your opinion of what Sherriff’s Departments are in the business of?
The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.
As it stands now, [2001] Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week
Here is a link to that ex parte, JUDGE-initiated order (Neither party initiated it. The judge in this matter totally redefined his own role in the courtroom. This judge ain’t the only one around doing this.). Can you read it? The link is “scribd” and take a while to load. My computer is too slow today to load its 11 pp. Also, I’m curtailing my own commentary because even keystrokes are coming out one at a time, slowly. I can only fill up a short “buffer” zone, about 4 words, and then have to just wait for it to catch up.
Shawnee County District Court– Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 – Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350
Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own
Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST
Fast-forward 9 years or so. ..
By way of a 2007 Petition before the “Inter American Commission on HUMAN Rights” On Item 17 Courageous Kids personal stories, please read “Letter to IACHR by siblings” (#3 )here. These are 4 siblings now aged out of the system, detailing what happened when they called the cops, or ran away, what happened to their mother; how one girl was thrown out by her father and forced to live in a car for a while in retaliation. It’s only 3 pages. These are the types of fathers getting custody in this system.
THIS site has links to more details:
People are outraged everywhere. The last time 15 year old Rikki called to cancel her two hour Sunday visit she is allowed each week with her mother, she was crying on the phone and said she couldn’t come. Abuser WOS (waste of skin) Hal Richardson was yelling in the background, and Rikki cried more. Dear Claudine told her daughter it was okay, that everything would be okay. That was it. After that, not even a phone call to cancel, Hal Richardson failed to produce Rikki at the Topeka Police Station as he was ordered to do. Nothing. And the court let him get away with all 67 violations of this court order on August 20th when they went to court.
(the woman who writes this, above, herself lost contact with her own mother, a generation earlier).
(Compare, above, when Claudine “messed up” by going to a hospital, even though she attempted to go to the politically correct one, in 2000. I believe this was when she was punished for bleeding and trying to regain her child, by losing custody of her child then about-5-year-old daughter.)
Contrast this case history and pattern of bad ethics and decision-making with the more detached narratives, below.
2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)
I decided to post two pieces (first — long / second – short) that talk openly about the social agenda in the family court/ family law arena. That SOCIAL AGENDA is what most offends me about the Family Law Process. Not its equally destructive consequences. What’s most offensive is how the process eradicates precious civil rights, that are encased in the documents foundational to our country. An elitist attitude and practice, that disdains these, needs to be dismantled. Instead, they have become increasingly blatant and oppressive (similar case, CA 2000/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).
[Criminal jury exonerates mother, after she was jailed, fleeing to protect her children. Ignoring this family law judge STILL leaves custody with the abusers, and mother has to pay to see her own children. This is how “supervised visitation” — marketed and sold to the public as protecting children from violent FATHERS, is being used to punish protective MOTHERS),]
even after people are dying as a consequence of bad custody calls (2 women and a man dead, Maricopa Co., AZ, 2009/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).
I hope the people I network with as well as visitors will download and read these. The first one may explain why so many of us are being treated dismissively and as silly putty to be stretched, bounced, and reformed in amusing or comical distortions that please the manipulators rather than acknowledging that they are of the same substance as us, as human beings, just occupying different seats in the room.
(1) BIFURCATION
in the Legal Regulation of Parenthood
This is 44+ screens long and from GeorgetownLaw; popped up under a search for “The Origin of Family Law.”
I look forward to reading the rest of it. The “bifurcation” around gender. You will see…
There are some misspellings on the website. Font changes are (most likely) mine. I am not indenting for the quote, and will put any comments in bullet form
Parenthood divided: A legal history of the bifurcated law of parental relations
INTRODUCTION
The American law of parent and child is conventionally understood to be extremely deferential to parental prerogatives and highly reluctant to intervene.1 But this picture, endorsed by legal authorities and popular commentators from the nineteenth century to the present day, reflects only one tradition in the law’s regulation of parenthood. Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, {{1875-1900}}there has also been massive legal intervention into the parental relation. This second legal tradition, moreover, has been guided by norms wholly different from those conventionally associated with family law, often evincing a radical suspicion of parental autonomy and an eager willingness to reshape family relations.
.
A STARK DIVIDE IN THE LEGAL REGUALTION OF PARENTHOOD EMERGES IN LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA
The founding of the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children marks a pivotal moment in the bifurcation of the law’s treatment of parental relations. The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was established in New York City in 1874 by two elite reformers, Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, who used the occasion of a celebrated case of physical violence against a child to create the first organization designed to combat “child cruelty” in the United States.7 Common law courts of the period staunchly protected the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised over the custody and control of their children.
- SPCC formed by two elite reformers
- “the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised. . . .”
8 But the New York society accorded almost no weight to the prerogatives of the parents it was concerned about, characterizing their connection to their children as little stronger than the ties of happenstance. Gerry explained at an organizational meeting in December 1874, for instance, that the society would “seek out and rescue from the dens and slums of the City the little unfortunates whose lives were rendered miserable by the system of cruelty and abuse which was constantly practiced upon them by the human brutes [their parents] who happened to possess the custody or control of them.”9 Describing the homes of cruel parents as “dens and slums” offered a key clue, of course, to the limits the New York society placed on its jurisdiction. From the start, it focused on families that had not been successful in the wage labor economy, operating on the principle that this economic failure had been caused by some crucial moral or character flaw.10
3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)
(2) COMPLETION
of the Critical Job of Welfare Reform
And — what else — “promoting responsible fatherhood“
AND THIS from Progressive Policy Institute. BOTH of them let us know clearly that family law is a social engineering project. Too bad it says “law” on the outside which has other connotations to the unwary.
PPI | Policy Report | March 19, 2002
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
Some Promising Strategies
By Megan Burns
One of the key successes of welfare reform has been in the increase of low-income single mothers in the labor force. Due in part to a strong economy and the 1996 welfare reform law, 16 percent more poor moms entered the labor force over the past six years. However, evidence suggests poor men did not fare as well. Because the first round of welfare reform required mothers to work, this next round should issue a similar challenge to fathers in order to help them become current and continue to pay child support.According to the Urban Institute, about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million American fathers who do not live with their children fail to pay child support.1 Therefore it is no surprise that children who grow up fatherless are five times more likely to be poor.2
This reasoning assumes that women who have left an abuser (which are among those numbers) cannot do better financially afterwards, or that women in general cannot do well alone — in short, it assumes a stable working wage. In 2002, I had tripled my working wage, and was doing better. But I had to use a nontraditional model of employment. This was not the model that welfare funnels women onto.
This 2002 report was also six years into welfare reform, and fails to account for cases like Dombrowski/Richardson, above, where (thanks go fathers’ rights movements and encouragements) cases STAY in the family law venue for years, impoverishing the family through ongoing litigation, and removing protection for the protective parents.
Social researchers also note that while women flooded the labor market, poor men did not. For example, during the 1990s, the labor force participation of young black women rose 18 percent, whereas the participation rate among low-income, non-college-educated black men actually fell by almost 10 percent.3
Well, now we have it clearly who welfare policies affecting all populations are aimed at. Supposedly.
In recent months, policymakers have increasingly begun to recognize that bringing fathers into the work-based system created by the 1996 law will be the next critical step in finishing the job of welfare reform. While “responsible fatherhood” programs have sprouted across the country, fatherhood and family formation promise to be central issues in the reauthorization of welfare reform legislation this year.
This type of discussion defines where income comes from — labor. However, that’s not at all where it comes from all the time. People who set policies KNOW this and they are not the chief laborers in question.
4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).
MOST people can find out the difference between wealth and income, or understand it (I believe) if someone engages in a discussion of it. The policymakers and the child support enforcement system are here to make sure that discussion never happens in any significant way. Here are a few links:
2003
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
May 2003 – VOLUME 24 – NUMBER 5
The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest
An Interview with Edward Wolff
Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.
In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.
2005
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html
Wealth, Income, and Power
by G. William Domhoff
September 2005 (updated July 2010)
This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.
This sociologist actually quotes Wolff, above.
The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html
May 17, 2005
Class vs. income vs. wealth
Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.
People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.
If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.
2008
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9611
Confusing Wealth and Income
by Richard W. Rahn
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Added to cato.org on August 27, 2008
This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 27, 2008.
Which of the following families is “richer”? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.
The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items
SHARE THIS POST on...
Luzerne County, PA: “Doctrine of absolute judicial immunity” vs “Racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations,” and more…
In Lovely Luzerne, PA, two judges were, ah, moonlighting? (maybe their salaries didn’t support their lifestyles?) — well, you can google the background story, of judges indulging themselves in the Kids for Cash business. Several parallels apply to the family law arena
For Kids Caught in PA Scandal, Trials not Over
It is slow going for about 4,500 juvenile defendants who were caught up in the Luzerne County, Pa. “cash-for-kids” scandal and who want to get their records cleared.
It has been more than a year since state courts first ordered that verdicts handed down by Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. be thrown out. But the price of judicial misconduct has been steep, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer article:
“[F]ewer than 10 percent of the records have been expunged. Luzerne County is hiring staff to finish the job. But even then, thanks to the mounds of paperwork and multiple agencies involved, officials say it will take another year to erase all the records.
“That leaves young people who are trying to enlist in the military, obtain student loans, win teacher certification, or apply for certain jobs entangled in red tape.”
A panel that investigated the scandal listed 43 reform recommendations in May. Its report (see Gavel Grab) detailed a scandal that involved two judges who later were charged with receiving more than $2.8 million in payoffs; they were accused of taking kickbacks to send juveniles to private detention centers
{“Gavel Grab” leads to the “Justice at Stake” campaign & its partners}
About this post:
In the Law.com report on a defendant’s attempt to receive damages under the RICO charges, we learn about judicial immunity, standing, causes of action in these cases (emotional trauma doesn’t count / financial loss does).
When I looked up a single point raised therein, “11th Amendment,” a riveting, mind-numbing PA case, from the late 1990s surfaced — the wife of an abusive police officer repeatedly seeks intervention. I narrate and discuss it, too.
- As the situation escalates (starting with a suicide attempt, threats to kill (mostly her, but once, their son], private & public assaults [not of her only] and beatings, stalkings, and useless 911 calls, the husband/officer, who was never (that I can see) locked up once, finally is served a restraining order. Actually, 3 (all of which he basically ignores, and its witnessed violating by officers), after which he (predictably) finally succeeds in killing himself — after he shoots his wife point-blank in the chest.
- In the same timeframe, in PA, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (or at least Barbara J. Hart) has been publishing lethality assessments, lists of warning signs, and indicators, ALL of which this man met, plus-some. One begins to wonder where the communication gap was, between the DV people and the officers, although certainly it’s a tough situation for them also.
- Finally, the wife attempts to regroup damages, to sue for negligence by the officers. does so on the wrong basis, and a Court of Appeals overturns this. That section is in mostly green font.
I inserted this account, which illustrates the parallel worlds of DV literature and street reality, the graphic reality of living with an abuser (and regretfully, that no one apparently insisted on utter and complete separation when these things began; she almost was killed, was seriously injured, and for years the children and others associated with her were at risk from this father/husband/police officer who never received whatever help or intervention might have put a stop to his behaviors.) AND I include it for us to understand that being assaulted, injured, or feeling betrayed, and having sought and failed to find help doesn’t always qualify a person for compensation for losses, however much common “logic” may feel it is due, when public servants are negligent.
The Jessica Gonzales case in Colorado, in which this also mother-of-three warned the officers, who didn’t take her seriously, and her children were murdered. This is where a case could go AFTER they separated because of violence — it could get worse. In 2005, Chicago attorney/professor Joan Meier, Washington Post/published in StopFamilyViolence.org, summarizes the critical issue in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, itslef a response to Ms. (then) Gonzales’ suit against the town. My post is getting long, but I suggest reading a few paragraphs of this one. Her incident was in 1999 (Ms. Burella’s, 1996-1998). Years later, after the deaths, the cases are still in the courts. My take on the issues at this point — issuing restraining orders has become in too many cases, “certifiably insane.” Why not make self-defense training a marriage requirement? Or, incorporate it into high school curricula, as a requirement, along with learning some basics of our legal system? They become simply red flags, whether the initial violence was from psychiatric disorder, or a simply overentitled person, or some of both. If police canNOT be held to enforce them (and after the police, a judge has to sentence; if the judges repeatedly release criminals, and so forth) — we need to find another way.
Published March 19, 2005 by The Washington Post
Battered Justice For Battered Women
by Joan Meier [Prof. of Clinical Law, George Washington Univ, Washington, D.C.,1983 U. Chicago Law School, cum laude, Exec. Dir. of DVLEAP]
It is common for the public and the courts to criticize women who are victims of domestic abuse for staying in an abusive relationship and tolerating it. But what happens when women do try to end the abuse? Jessica Gonzales’s story provides one horrifying answer.
In May 1999 Gonzales received a protection order from her suicidal and frightening husband, Simon Gonzales, whom she was divorcing. The order limited his access to the home and the children. On June 22 the three girls disappeared near their house. But when Jessica Gonzales called the Castle Rock, Colo., police department, she received no assistance. Over a period of eight hours, the police refused to take action, repeatedly telling her that there was nothing they could do and that she should call back later — even after she had located her husband and daughters by cell phone. The three young girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were not to survive the night. At 3 a.m. on June 23, Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station in his truck, opened fire and was killed by return fire. The bodies of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca were found in the back of his truck.
Perhaps his life might have been saved also. “serve and protect” I guess.
Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, which stems from Gonzales’s lawsuit against the police. The question before the court is whether the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process was violated by the police department’s dismissal of the protection order, in clear violation of the state statute, which required them to use “every reasonable means” to enforce it. If procedural due process — required by the 14th Amendment — means anything, then it must be found that it was violated here, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has so ruled
While no justice for this mother or her three daughters, there’s a diligent pursuit of justice to prevent any consequences for the prior injustice. To the Supreme Court.
The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way. In this case, the state established a benefit of mandated police enforcement of protection orders. Aware that police discretion too often fails, the Colorado legislation required the police to make arrests or otherwise to enforce domestic violence restraining orders of the sort issued to Jessica Gonzales. Police discretion was limited to determining whether a violation of an order had occurred. Yet in this case the police did nothing; they simply ignored the complaint, a clear example of “arbitrary” conduct
(Joan S. Meier)
Luzerne County Judges Racketeering and
“Julie Burella (et al.) v. City of Philadelphia” [Court of Appeals]
What these two cases taught me:
Individuals and relatives/friends of women targeted by these kinds of beatings assaults, making life hell situations — as well as the improperly locked up juveniles in Luzerne County — need to understand some legal basic, including <>standing (jurisdiction), <>legitimate causes of action, <> what is or is not a legitmate tort, or breach of contract (etc.) and<> who is and is not going to be immune from damages. These are often forgotten in the emotional drama of survival, and dealing with the emotions around the case. This kind of understanding is not generally handed to one by one’s attorney, and I guarantee you it’s not by most “justice centers.” It needs to be sought and obtained.
Rights cannot be protected if one doesn’t know what they are. Moreover, the credibility gap between mainstream domestic violence law, and applied practice, remain. Women need to protect themselves adn their children, when possible (if intervention fails and the situation continues to escalate) by leaving.
Permanently. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and President Obama’s policies aside, our right to LIFE is unalienable. hence, women must be able to act on that. The parent who has engaged in threatening or trying to eradicate that right in others, based on wife as property, husband as property, or children as property, and has repeatedly demonstrated this in private OR public, should lose subsidiary rights, such as contact with their children. The family law arena appears to exist in order to subvert that principle. Though I am no attorney, I can read, and have. The no-fault divorce situation creates a different kind of court as to divorce, and limits remedies in some sense, just as a “civil” restraining order implies that the violence, or causes of action justifying it, were not criminal in nature, which quite often they are.
(from the FBI Philadelphia Sept. 2009 bulletin:)
(the youth/juveniles that came in front of these judges didn’t have that standard applied…)
That these two got caught doesn’t mean there were no others…
and here’s LAW.Com’s comments that, at least THIS time, sometimes, ya’ get caught… whether or not this indicates compensation for the problems caused
For any future youngsters, or their parents, hoping that a RICO suit might help compensate for years lost, or other damages — emotional trauma ain’t enough. I’ll bold the wording here. As posted in “Law.com” (link included):
Disgraced Former Judges Lose Immunity Battle in ‘Kids for Cash’ Scandal
Ruling also includes some setbacks for the plaintiff, who claims he was one of the victims of the alleged kickback scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005
The Legal Intelligencer
August 11, 2010
Even the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity proved to be too weak a defense for the two disgraced former Luzerne County judges who are the leading figures in Pennsylvania’s “kids-for-cash” scandal.
A federal judge has ruled that the pair — Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. — are immune only for actions they took in court or while ruling on cases, but that they can still be sued for their roles in an alleged conspiracy to take kickbacks from the owner and builder of a privately run juvenile prison. Conahan had also asserted a defense of legislative immunity, arguing that some of the allegations lodged against him stemmed from the funding decisions he made in his role as president judge.
But U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo rejected that argument, saying: “It does not appear that Conahan had the type of general policy-making power that would cloak his actions with legislative immunity.“
Meaning, if he HAD been a general policy-maker, he would have legislative immunity, I guess….
The ruling means that Conahan and Ciavarella face possible liability for their roles as the alleged architects of the larger alleged conspiracy to cut off all funding for the then-existing county-owned juvenile facility and to take kickbacks in return for ensuring a steady stream of incarcerated youths so that the new, privately run facility would be profitable.
I am not blogging about juvenile justice systems. This blog is about FAMILY court matters, more dealing with parental relationships, which, unfortunately brings us into the realms of violence, kidnapping, child abusee, child molestation, and the fathers-rights-womens-rights-childrens-rights debate. The Pennsylvania case is different in application (violating kids’ due process in order to provide warm bodies for supposed crimes they had committed), as opposed to violating one set of parents’ due process in order to provide referral business for the court professionals and the professions flocking around the courts. It’s somewhat of a technicality, when you grasp “steady stream of .(warm bodies) . . . so that . . . would be profitable.” and the criminal nature of a business racket. And what kind of personalities would choose judgeships to engage in them. What an ethical violation — to go to a judge fo justice, and that judge is himself a criminal, with cohorts.
The two former judges were hit by federal prosecutors in September 2009 with a 48-count indictment containing charges of racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations in connection with allegedly accepting more that $2.8 million from the builder and former co-owner of a private juvenile detention facility. Conahan agreed in April to plead guilty to one RICO count.
Caputo’s 12-page opinion in Dawn v. Ciavarella, handed down on Monday, also included a few setbacks for the plaintiff, Wayne Dawn, who claims he was one of the victims of the scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005.
First, Caputo found that Dawn’s RICO claims must be dismissed because he lacks standing to pursue such a claim.
Any Plaintiff’s comPlaint should establish standing up front. The fact that in the family law business, it’s not unusual for judges to issues orders where they have no standing doesn’t change the fact that individual FAMILIES or PARENTS had better make sure they do!
Under RICO, a plaintiff must plead an injury to “business or property,” Caputo noted, and the courts have consistently rejected the notion that personal injury or mental distress can satisfy that requirement.
“Injury for RICO purposes requires proof of concrete financial loss, not mere injury to an intangible property interest,” Caputo wrote.
From what I now understand of the court process, I’m of the opinion that parents might as well face that reforming these courts stands a better chance in pointing out the fraud, racketeering type activity within them (and sometimes involving other parts of the system, i.e., the criminal law elements) than running the conferences about how it’s hurting our kids. On what basis do we think the people involved actually care?
Dawn’s claim fell short of that test, Caputo found, because he “has not alleged sufficient injury to business or property to confer standing to bring a claim pursuant to RICO. Plaintiff’s claims for loss of sense of well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are not the type of concrete financial loss that is envisioned by the phrase ‘injury to business or property.'”
If Dawn was the youth (I didn’t read this complaint, am just familiar with the case generally), probably that well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are going to hurt him/her very badly — in fact we know from acestudy.org and common sense that this would. However, RICO is a business-type charge involving cheating, stealing, and financial loss or damages. Many people caught up in the drama and passion of this, offended by the betrayal, forget the context in trying to get heard (I know I did and have).
Caputo also ruled that Dawn cannot pursue any claims against the Luzerne County Juvenile Probation Department or Sandra Brulo, the probation department’s former deputy director of forensic programs.
“Because Juvenile Probation is an arm of the state that is immune to suit pursuant to the 11th Amendment and Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity to suit, its motion to dismiss will be granted,” Caputo wrote.
I searched for 11th amendment, this county and found several cases (in PA, different counties):
Debra Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole,e t al. State governments and their subsidiary units are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. AND:
Date: 09-24-2007
Case Number: 04-1157/2495
Judge: Fuentes
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County).
Here’s a REAL egregious case, a living nightmare where a police officer’s wife tries, repeatedly and HARD, to get the 911 calls, help for her husband through his employers, the police department, and finally /too late, that “certifiably insane restraining order” system to work — against her police officer husband, who is off the chart dangerous, and eventually seriously injured her (shot her in the chest) and killed himself. She tries to sue, among others, the officers who kept releasing the guy or refusing to arrest him, even when they witnessed the violations immediately. Multiple threats to kill, beating her at home, she calls repeatedly, etc. The officers, responded, we have immunity. The District court ruled — no you don’t. THIS is the Appeals court ruling, well, actually, yes they did.
This BURELLA case is late 1990s, (somewhat off the post’s RICO topic but ON the blog’s topic) and 34pages long.
Please READ parts of it if you are among the innocent (or ignorant/apathetic/too busy to process til it hits you, or your family) who doesn’t yet grasp “why don’t she leave?,” or that a restraining order ain’t the end of the process and may increase the risk for many of us! What about the enforcement that backs it up? What about if the attacker KNOWS enforcement is lax?
Well, then logically, she’d better get the heck out of there…. But – – — what about their kids? But — joint shared parenting presumptions and court orders make that nigh impossible! Ask Dawn Axsom, from Arizona, and her mother, Oct. 2009.
Oh, I forgot — you can’t — they’re dead. Fox news blamed it on “the Custody Battle” and calls them ALL (3) victims, not the man who shot his wife, mother in law and then himself, orphaning their baby. My blog was only one of many on this incident. There are so many such incidents, I even forgot I blogged that one…
That, in a nutshell, seems to be how our country STILL views Fathers killing Mothers (and/or others, and/or themselves). Being a mother and a woman, this woman (like Burella, below) knew danger whne she experienced or sensed it, and tried to reconcile being a law-abiding citizen with being a LIVING citizen. She went to her death complying with a court order, apparently. How was the judicial immunity in that case? (As it’s in Maricopa County, I recommend reviewing the top page in this blog, and “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” nonprofit, based in Phoenix and possibly also having its contract steered to it in ia not-quite-above-the-board manner. NAME started (as I recall) in 2006. Axsom’s case relates to this refusal to allow women to leave violent relationships because there is a crisis in fatherlessness in this country, which is detrimental to the health of the children. That policy was in full effect also during the Burella years, per 1995 Executive Order from then-President Bill Clinton, to re-arrange and review HIS branch of government, at least, to accommodate “fatherhood” and address the nation’s crisis in kids not waking up in homes with their biological fathers.
At what point does the law of reverse efforts set in, and the failure of ROI cause a policy change?
JILL BURELLA – US COURT OF APPEALS 04-1157/2495
Description:
In January 1999, George Burella, a ten-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, shot and seriously injured his wife, Jill Burella, and then shot and killed himself.1 George Burella had emotionally and physically abused Jill Burella for years prior to the shooting. Although she reported numerous incidents of abuse to the police over the years, obtained several restraining orders just days before the shooting, and told police that her husband continued threatening her despite the orders, police failed to arrest him. This appeal concerns whether the police officers had a constitutional obligation to protect Jill Burella from her husband’s abuse. {(make that “violence” please!)} Despite our grave concerns about the Philadelphia Police Department’s alleged conduct in this case, we hold that the officers did not have such an obligation. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background
We set forth in some detail the long and protracted history of physical and emotional abuse in this case because it is central to Jill Burella’s claim that Philadelphia police officers knew about the abuse, but nevertheless failed to act, thereby violating her due process and equal protection rights.
. . .
The abuse began around February 1996, when George Burella was convicted of disorderly conduct for stalking his wife at her workplace and assaulting her male co-worker who he suspected was having an affair with her. One month later, in the face of marital troubles and a severe gambling problem, George Burella attempted suicide. He survived and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital where he was diagnosed with depression.
After her husband was released from the hospital, Jill Burella contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Employee Assistance Program (“EAP“), which is designed to assist officers in obtaining help with personal problems. The EAP notified the City Medical Department, which placed George Burella on restricted duty and referred him to City doctors for psychological treatment.
There’s an old movie, a comic parody of Robin Hood, called “Men in Tights.” What follows here (in green) describes what surely was HELL, in living with this “Man with Gun.” His wife and mother tries to get them help, sounds like every way possible. Who knows if or what threats she might’ve received about trying to leave, or if she tried to. It’s hard enough to get away from abusers when you are in their social/personal networks sometimes — can you imagine that when the personal/social network includes fellow officers? ONLOOKERS should notice — what she did, the police and EAP responses. This man was a problem waiting to happen, and happening. Suicide attempts, stalking, depression, assaulting others (jealousy), threatening to kill her, beating her, using his official privilege to defuse an incident, and he had 3 children… I’ll color-code the red flag incidents RED, her or others’ attempts to help or stop it bold and the responses, BLUE. Then you can ask, what century , and country, do we live in? Is this a 3rd world country? In certain ways, USA-style, for women, YES.
George Burella’s violence towards his wife continued over the next several years and, in early June 1998, she contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division to report the abuse. Internal Affairs referred the matter to the EAP, which assigned George Burella a peer counselor.
Later that month, on June 26, 1998, George Burella assaulted his wife and another man at a local bar. Witnesses called 911, but George Burella left the bar before police officers arrived. When he got home, he phoned his wife and threatened to shoot their son Nicholas if she did not immediately return to the house. After calling 911, Jill Burella rushed home, where her husband, who was armed with a gun, threatened to shoot her. Before the matter worsened, police officers arrived. George Burella initially refused the officers’ order to surrender, but did so after the officer in charge agreed to report the incident as a domestic disturbance, rather than a more serious offense. {{bargaining it down is common}} Officer Robert Reamer, who is named as a defendant in this lawsuit, was one of the officers who arrived at the scene.
They could probably throw a person in jail for being drunk and disorderly in public, or resisting arrest after being confronted with jaywalking. Or for too many parking tickets (?).
This man had already — on this night alone, and after some years of assault & battery: assaulted his wife AND another man in public, threatened to kill their SON by phone, threatened her, with a gun, in person, and resisted arrest. And that was a “domestic disturbance” ??? Even the part in public and involving a non-relative being assaulted? Sounds to me like her reporting and seeking help had made the situation worse; jealousy plus maybe his perceived public humiliation (i.e. some witnesses called 911) followed by public retaliation…
After the police officers left, George Burella began beating his wife on their front lawn. Her parents arrived and took her to their house, but George Burella followed them there. Once at her parents’ house, she tried to call 911, but her husband wrestled the phone from her and told the operator that he was a police officer and that everything was under control. As a result, the operator did not instruct police to respond to the situation. Three days later, Jill Burella contacted the EAP to report the incident, but because the EAP failed to notify Internal Affairs, the incident was never investigated.
I’m going to speculate that her life at this point was a combination of walking on eggshells and trying to consider her options, plus work, plus being a Mom. I can only imagine what it might be like after years of assaults by an officer who knew he could bargain down and schmooze off some of his violence under the authority of his uniform. Some men are maybe attracted to that uniform to serve & protect, but some also for the authority. That one night, the first 911 hadn’t helped. At her parents, now they AND her kids were at risk. Again, 911 was called. What were her genuine options and wishes here? (I’m not going to continue with the font changes — but can readers mentally separate, 1, 2, 3: 1. Incident, 2. attempts to call for help or get safe, 3. system responses.)
In July 1998, George Burella called his wife at work in Upper Southampton Township and threatened to kill her. After Upper Southampton police officers arrived at her workplace, she received several more threatening phone calls from her husband. The officers called Captain Charles Bloom, George Burella’s commanding officer, and a defendant in this lawsuit, to inform him about the incident.
I’m starting to wonder about any meds for depression from that 1996 hospital visit….READ THIS, a report about possible links to “atypical anti-psychotics” being pushed, since 1999, in a Tacoma Mental Hospital…
Captain Bloom became directly involved in the situation on August 13, 1998, when Northampton police officers arrested George Burella for assaulting Jill Burella in Bucks County. The officers released George Burella into the custody of Captain Bloom, who escorted him home. {{What, the jails were full near home? Didn’t want to embarass the guy?}}
Three days later, on August 16, George Burella called his wife while she was visiting his parents with the children and again threatened to kill her. When he went to his parents’ house, Northampton police officers responding to an emergency call escorted him to his car, unloaded his firearm, and placed it in the trunk of the car.{{did not lock him up, maybe following Cap. Bloom’s lead?}} Shortly thereafter, officers found him driving in the vicinity of the house with his gun re-loaded and placed on the backseat of his car. Officers took him to a local hospital, but he was released shortly thereafter.3 After being notified of the incident, Captain Bloom ordered George Burella to submit to a psychiatric evaluation.
Later that month, George Burella admitted himself to a psychiatric hospital, but left after four days of treatment. {{one wonders, of what sort? How could he just “leave”?}} Several days later, City psychologists examined him and concluded that he should be monitored for the next two years. After one follow-up appointment with City doctors in September 1998, he did not return for treatment.
Without consequences, apparently, for this. Was it a city order, or a personal recommendation from Capt. Bloom?
On December 24, 1998, George Burella again assaulted his wife, this time while she was visiting a friend. (CHRISTMAS EVE….)
Philadelphia really isn’t that far from Washington, D.C. In 1994, VAWA passed. News travels slowly, it seems. From my perspective (I was being assaulted in those years, and didn’t know about VAWA, or my options, either) it’s now clear that this woman is being punished for engaging in normal activities outside home & work. He is also sending a clear message to anyone in her social support system that they, too, might be at risk, at the least being affected by witnessing the violence to her.
Mothers caught in the court system after abuse also experience the escalation. Even well-meaning people have their own lives to live. It becomes nearly impossible to be a staunch supporter and ally, because the trauma is ongoing and repetitive, and never fully resolved — court orders aren’t enforced, crises can be generated by any accusation, practically IN the courts, plus the incidents outside of them also. That’s why I often liken the family law system to the abuse I knew, in these 1990s (another part of the country…). Same effects, same system deafness to the dangers.
When Philadelphia police officers arrived, they allowed him to leave with the couple’s youngest daughter (a twin, if I recall), and then took Jill Burella and her two other children home, where her husband resumed beating her. {{HOW does one spell “insane”??}}
Jill Burella — she’s been beaten, with kids watching it, for years now, threatened with guns, assaulted/stalked, and/or threatened to kill her (or her son): at her workplace, at a bar, at her parent’s house, at a friend’s house, on her front lawn, at home, at her work place, in Bucks County. IHe has (1996) actually attempted to commit suicide. The man, a cop, and the situation, is a walking /stalking time bomb in need of some serious intervention.
In response, he has NOT been locked up once, but HAS been:
- (1996) Admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with depression
- place on restricted duty and referred to City doctors (?) for psychological treatment (was it received?)
- (1998) Assigned a peer counselor
- After a night of multiple incidents and threats to kill (including his son), the responding officer downgrades this to “domestic disturbance” and does not arrest.
- The same night, he simply resumes beating her. Her PARENTS try to rescue her (evidently no policeman is going to) by taking her away. He follows them there. She tries to call 911, he interferes with the phone and talks the situation down — and so far that dispatch operator was not brought up to speed on the evenings’ developments. Perhaps nothing further happened that night because all parties were just exhausted…
- 3 days later, she calls EAP again, who does not notify Internal Affairs, and nothing is investigated. (Way to go!)
- July, 1998, more threats to kill (at her workplace). The responding officers tell his commanding officer, Captain Bloom. No record of anything being done.
- August, 1998 more assaults and/or threats. Captain Bloom drives him home…Tells him to go to a psychiatric hospital . . He goes, but quits. City psychologist then say he needs 2 years of monitoring (not exactly a sensible decisions, in light of the past). He goes once, and no mention of follow up by them. I think we get the picture that Mr. B. doesn’t appreciate that he is breaking the law, nor has anyone to date apparently attempted to communicate this to him by locking him up even overnight!
So now, she is going to try a restraining order. I wonder how well THAT is going to work after all this. Is the guy showing restraint? Is any part of this system going to back her up if he violates it? Because if not, then (I now ssay) they shouldn’t issue it. Better to give her and the kids some self-defense training, or another place to live, like witness protection. 1998, people….
Over the course of the next few weeks, Jill Burella obtained the three protection from abuse orders relevant to this lawsuit. On January 2, 1999, {{NB: last recorded assault — and Philadelphia police officers blowing it off — Dec. 24, 1998 in Philadelphia}} she obtained an emergency ex parte protection from abuse order from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that prohibited her husband from “abusing, harassing, stalking and/or threatening” her, and from “living at, entering, attempting to enter or visiting” the couple’s home. {{the KICKOUT}} The order further provided that officers “shall . . . arrest the defendant if he/she fails to comply with this Order.” (App. at 110-11.) The next day, Officer Reamer served the order on George Burella, who, according to Jill Burella, immediately violated it by shouting at and threatening her. Despite witnessing the alleged violation, Officer Reamer permitted George Burella to enter the house.
These officers have forgotten their responsibilities and become a public health hazard. THEY don’t respect protection from abuse (say what? in PA they don’t call it “VIOLENCE”? Did they ever?). Obviously neither does the husband in question. If they refuse to enforce the law (is a court order an order? or a suggestion? If they refused to arrest without an order, now, they had an order and it even specified they SHALL arrest if he fails to comply. So THEY are in contempt of that order, as I see it.) So, what are they doing in office and pulling a salary? Directing traffic? CYA-ing? Whom are they serving and what are they protecting?
There’s a site for law enforcement called “behind the blue line.” There’s also a blog for officer-involved violence, called, “Behind the Blue WALL.”
Not all officers try to “blow off” domestic violence.
In 1999, an officer sued his bosses, the mayor, and others in federal court over retaliation against him for his trying to do his job!, also involving an officer and domestic violence against his wife (also an officer):
Same dynamics, same timeframe (1996-1999), same state – Pittsburgh, PA area
Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 4, 1999
A Pittsburgh police officer has sued his bosses in federal court, charging that they have retaliated against him for doing his job, which he said has included filing complaints against other officers. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Edmond N. Gaudelli Jr. names as defendants Mayor Murphy, Deputy Mayor Sal Sirabella, police Chief Robert McNeilly, Deputy Chief Charles Moffatt, several assistant chiefs, commanders and sergeants, a doctor at the training academy and an internal investigator, among others. Gaudelli, 32, a police officer since 1990, says in the suit the defendants had conspired to retaliate against him since 1996, when he filed a grievance against several officers, including a complaint that opposed the appointment of McNeilly as police chief… The marks against Gaudelli began to mount when, as an officer at the West End station, he said he responded to a domestic violence call at the home of McNeilly and his wife, police Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly. Gaudelli said in the complaint that McNeilly had told him to phone his supervisor and have records of the call removed from the running sheet…On assignment at a store in Waterworks Mall, Gaudelli said, he was disciplined again because he tried to arrest Officer Cindy Harper for shoplifting. Gaudelli said Harper’s husband, Assistant Chief Nate Harper, intervened and then was part of a conspiracy to have him fired…
McNeilly was the George Burella (at least in that incident), and Gaudelli was the responding Captain Bloom. But Gaudelli tried to file the repoet. McNeilly pulled a “Burella” and said, basically, to clear his name, pulling rank to do so. Domestic violence victims should be aware this can happen. Officer Gaudelli, assigned to a mall to stop troublemakers (including presumably shoplifting), couldn’t even do that, when the person doing it was an officer. And the US doesn’t have a caste system or grant titles of nobility? ?? Sounds like some public servants aren’t aware of this.
So, back to the Burella situation —
The next day, Jill Burella obtained {where? Criminal or Civil? HOW?} another temporary protection from abuse order, which essentially repeated the terms set forth in the January 2 order. In addition, the court awarded her temporary custody of the couple’s three children, prohibited George Burella from having “any contact” with her, and ordered him to relinquish all guns other than his service weapon, which he was required to turn over to his commanding officer at the end of every shift. The order also stated that “[t]his Order shall be enforced by any law enforcement agency in a county where a violation of this Order occurs.” (App. at 121-22.) {{either that was standard, or it was accommodating all the other places he followed his wife and assaulted or threatened her)}}.
Later that day, Jill Burella called 911 after she received threatening phone calls from her husband. After officers arrived, and while in their presence, she received several more calls from her husband. The officers told her they could not do anything unless her husband was physically present {is that word “threatening” in the RO too vague to comprehened?} .4 When Jill Burella called the police the next day, again they told her that nothing could be done unless her husband was physically present at her house.
On January 8, 1999, Jill Burella obtained a final order of protection.5 Four days later, following an appointment with a psychiatrist at the City Medical Department, George Burella went to the house he formerly shared with his wife and shot her in the chest. He then immediately shot and killed himself. Although she suffered serious injuries, Jill Burella survived the shooting.
I cannot help noticing (2nd or 3rd reading of this case) that troubles escalated after visits to a psychiatric hospital.
OR, another article on schizophrenia, violence, with substance abuse (which Burella had) and atypical antipsychotis — if the guys take ’em:
Management of Violence in Schizophrenia The public perception of people with schizophrenia often is, unfortunately, of uncontrollable–possibly murderous–criminals. While mental health providers know this stereotype is almost always wrong, they do have real concerns about controlling violent tendencies in some patients with schizophrenia–especially people with co-occurring substance abuse disorders. Treatment of schizophrenia has become more effective with the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, but getting patients to take their medications still proves to be a problem and is related to their potential for violence.
Before I comment on the LEGAL issues of this, let’s look at a document from Pennsylvania dating to 1990, which is why I include its contents here. Lethality Assessment by Barbara J. Hart is well-known in this field of DV. I wonder what happened that — same State — the message didn’t get through, somehow, that this guy was going to shoot somebody, possibly her. Nowadays, they are still selling “risk assessments” to the courts, as similar incidents continue.
The dispatcher and responding officer can utilize the indicators described below in making an assessment of the batterer’s potential to kill. Considering these factors may or may not reveal actual potential for homicidal assault. But, the likelihood of a homicide is greater when these factors are present. The greater the number of indicators that the batterer demonstrates or the greater the intensity of indicators, the greater the likelihood of a life-threatening attack.
Use all of the information you have about the batterer, current as well as past incident information. A thorough investigation at the scene will provide much of the information necessary to make this assessment. However, law enforcement will not obtain reliable information from an interview conducted with the victim and perpetrator together or from the batterer alone.
- Threats of homicide or suicide.The batterer who has threatened to kill himself, his partner, the children or her relatives must be considered extremely dangerous.
- Fantasies of homicide or suicide.The more the batterer has developed a fantasy about who, how, when, and/or where to kill, the more dangerous he may be. The batterer who has previously acted out part of a homicide or suicide fantasy may be invested in killing as a viable “solution” to his problems. As in suicide assessment, the more detailed the plan and the more available the method, the greater the risk.
- Weapons.Where a batterer possesses weapons and has used them or has threatened to use them in the past in his assaults on the battered woman, the children or himself, his access to those weapons increases his potential for lethal assault. The use of guns is a strong predictor of homicide. If a batterer has a history of arson or the threat of arson, fire should be considered a weapon.
- “Ownership” of the battered partner. The batterer who says “Death before Divorce!” or “You belong to me and will never belong to another!” may be stating his fundamental belief that the woman has no right to life separate from him. A batterer who believes he is absolutely entitled to his female partner, her services, her obedience and her loyalty, no matter what, is likely to be life-endangering.
- Centrality of the partner.A man who idolizes his female partner, or who depends heavily on her to organize and sustain his life, or who has isolated himself from all other community, may retaliate against a partner who decides to end the relationship. He rationalizes that her “betrayal” justifies his lethal retaliation.
- Separation Violence. When a batterer believes that he is about to lose his partner, if he can’t envision life without her or if the separation causes him great despair or rage, he may choose to kill.
- Depression.Where a batterer has been acutely depressed and sees little hope for moving beyond the depression, he may be a candidate for homicide and suicide. Research shows that many men who are hospitalized for depression have homicidal fantasies directed at family members.
- Access to the battered woman and/or to family members.If the batterer cannot find her, he cannot kill her. If he does not have access to the children, he cannot use them as a means of access to the battered woman. Careful safety planning and police assistance are required for those times when contact is required, e.g. court appearances and custody exchanges.
- Repeated outreach to law enforcement.Partner or spousal homicide almost always occurs in a context of historical violence. Prior calls to the police indicate elevated risk of life-threatening conduct. The more calls, the greater the potential danger.
- Escalation of batterer risk.A less obvious indicator of increasing danger may be the sharp escalation of personal risk undertaken by a batterer; when a batterer begins to act without regard to the legal or social consequences that previously constrained his violence, chances of lethal assault increase significantly.
- Hostage-taking. A hostage-taker is at high risk of inflicting homicide. Between 75% and 90% of all hostage takings in the US are related to domestic violence situations.
If an intervention worker concludes that a batterer is likely to kill or commit life-endangering violence, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the victim and her children. This may include notifying the victim and law enforcement of risk, as well as seeking a mental health commitment, where appropriate. The victim should be advised that the presence of these indicators may mean that the batterer is contemplating homicide and that she should immediately take action to protect herself and should contact the local battered woman’s program to further assess lethality and develop safety plans.
Hart, B.“Assessing Whether Batters Will Kill” PCADV, 1990.
In February 2000, Jill Burella filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court against Officer Reamer, Captain Bloom, and Captain Bloom’s successor, Francis Gramlich, along with the City of Philadelphia and Dr. Warren Zalut, the City psychiatrist who saw George Burella on the day of the shooting. After the case was removed to federal district court, she filed an eight-count amended complaint asserting various federal constitutional and state law claims. The officers and the City moved for summary judgment on all counts asserted against them.6 This appeal concerns solely the District Court’s summary judgment ruling that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Jill Burella’s due process (Count I) and equal protection (Count IV) claims.
This case cites the Castle Rock case. The opinion is worth understanding. People receiving restraining orders need to understand what they are and what they are not. As residents of a rain forest understand the rain forest, or those who live in monsoon territory have to understand the ramifications of the deluge, residents of the United States, though a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and legal systems exist, they exist in a context — on paper and arguments about them have created a deluge of paperwork over the 2+centuries since we started. They are only as good as interpreted by those who read act on this paperwork.
So, the deluge of paperwork can lead to life, IF one is prepared to understand its contexts, and shifting contexts, too., or death if one places false or misguided hope in them alone. Whether to stake one’s life on the force of that paperwork is personal, like a decision to stake one’s life on a God, or sacred writings describing that God. Whatever one chooses, chances are that sooner or later and like it or not, one is going to come face to face with someone who reads it differently, or thinks it’s a joke, and be forced to deal with him or her. This could include one’s own marriage certificate, obviously.
This is what Judge Fuentes, in the Burella appeal, wrote (any emphases are mine…):
[as above…United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)]
As discussed above, however, the Court in Castle Rock
unambiguously stated that absent a “clear indication” of legislative
intent, a statute’s mandatory arrest language should not be read to
strip law enforcement of the discretion they have traditionally had
in deciding whether to make an arrest. 545 U.S. at 761. Although
the Supreme Court did not specify what language would suffice to
strip the police of such discretion, it is clear after Castle Rock that
the phrase “shall arrest” is insufficient. As previously noted, the
Supreme Court explicitly stated that “a true mandate of police
action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado
Legislature than . . . �shall arrest.'” Id.
To the average person, “shall arrest” means “shall arrest.” But, the Supreme Court kept in mind that police discretion (discussed in more detail in the document). The word “shall” means “shall,” or at least we hope so, in something as official as a court order signed by a judge. GOOD, we think, NOW I finally have some protection. But the law doesn’t always think like that (logically), nor courts, and obviously not police. So, the safe understanding would be to understand the bottom line. It doesn’t mean ‘squat,’ really. Maybe to you, but not to others.
Thus, a restraining order is only as good as SOMEONE has respect for it and will act on it as if it were unilaterally true.
In addition, we note that Jill Burella’s argument fails to
address the Supreme Court’s observation in Castle Rock that even
if the Colorado domestic violence statute mandated an arrest, it
would not necessarily mean the victim would have an “entitlement”
to an arrest. That is, although the Pennsylvania statute allows a
victim of domestic violence to “file a private criminal complaint
against a defendant, alleging indirect criminal contempt” for
violation of a protective order, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. � 6113.1(a), or
“petition for civil contempt” against the violator, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat.
� 6114.1(a), like the Colorado statute, it is silent as to whether a
victim can request, much less demand, an arrest.14 See 23 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. � 6113:1(a). In fact, “[w]hen an individual files
a private criminal complaint [under � 6113.1], the district attorney
has the discretion to refrain from proceeding for policy reasons.”
Starr v. Price, 385 F. Supp. 2d 502, 511 (M.D. Pa. 2005); Pa. R.
Crim. P. 506.
. . .
Finally, we cannot ignore that despite framing the issue as
one of procedural due process, what Jill Burella appears to seek is
a substantive due process remedy: that is, the right to an arrest
itself, and not the pre-deprivation notice and hearing that are the
hallmarks of a procedural due process claim.
In short, whether framed as a substantive due process right
under DeShaney, or a procedural due process right under Roth, Jill
Burella does not have a cognizable claim that the officers’ failure
to enforce the orders of protection violated her due process rights.15
Therefore, we need not determine whether her entitlement to police
protection was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged
violation before concluding that the officers are entitled to
qualified immunity.
* * *
Outcome: The facts Jill Burella alleges, if true, reveal a terrible
deficiency on the part of the Philadelphia Police Department in
responding to her complaints of domestic abuse. Binding precedent
nevertheless compels our conclusion that the officers� failure to
arrest her husband, or to handle her complaints more competently,
did not violate her constitutional right to due process or equal
protection of the law. Accordingly, we hold that the officers are
entitled to qualified immunity on her constitutional claims.
We will reverse and remand to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACK TO THE LUZERNE COUNTY CASE,
Juvenile WAYNE DAWN’s COMPLAINT and CAPUTO’s ruling
As for Brulo, the judge concluded that the allegations in Dawn’s lawsuit were too thin to justify allowing the claims to proceed to the discovery stage. “There are no specific factual allegations made against Brulo. Instead, there are blanket assertions about what all defendants did collectively, many of them consisting of legal conclusions, such as defendants aiding and abetting each other in this conspiracy,” Caputo wrote.
Sounds like a poorly-written high school composition, starting with the conclusion, rather than starting with a thesis and systematically showing the reader the process and facts that led to it. In other words, sloppy writing.
(Again, I didn’t read Dawn, just the comments on it here).
Dawn’s complaint, Caputo said, “is littered with the type of bald assertions and legal conclusions warned against by the Supreme Court” in its recent decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
“Plaintiff has not alleged any actions taken by Brulo specifically and, therefore, has failed to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence that Brulo violated plaintiff’s rights,” Caputo wrote.
The main focus of Caputo’s opinion was tackling the arguments lodged by Conahan and Ciavarella, both of whom are acting as their own lawyers and had sought a dismissal of all claims.
Caputo concluded that while the former judges are entitled to assert absolute judicial immunity, it was not enough to end the case because Dawn’s suit accuses the judges of taking steps in the alleged conspiracy that went beyond their roles as judges.
According to the suit, Conahan and Ciavarella struck an agreement with attorney Robert Powell and Robert K. Mericle, the owner of a local construction company, to build a new, privately owned juvenile detention center in Luzerne County as a replacement for the adequate, publicly owned juvenile detention center already in existence.
For the new facility to be financially viable, the suit alleges, it would require a regular stream of juvenile defendants, and Conahan and Ciavarella agreed to divert large numbers of juveniles into the new facility in order to gain more than $2.8 million in kickbacks.
To hide these ill-gotten proceeds, the suit alleges, Conahan and Ciavarella transferred the money via wire transfer to various corporations controlled by them. Their cooperation in the conspiracy allegedly included removing all funding from the publicly run detention center, having juveniles moved to the new privately owned facilities built by Mericle and operated by Powell, agreeing to guarantee placement of juvenile defendants in the new facilities, ordering juveniles to be placed at the private facilities and assisting the new juvenile detention centers in securing agreements with Luzerne County.
Caputo ruled that, under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, Dawn cannot pursue any claim that is premised on a theory that Conahan and Ciavarella did not act as impartial judges, failed to advise juveniles of their right to counsel or failed to determine whether guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. But Caputo also found that “many of the actions taken by Conahan were not of a judicial nature.”
The alleged agreements entered into by Conahan with Mericle and Powell, as well as any budget decisions make by Conahan as president judge, or any advocacy for building a new detention center are “non-judicial acts that are not subject to absolute judicial immunity,” Caputo wrote.
Likewise, Caputo found that “some of Ciavarella’s alleged actions are covered by judicial immunity, while others are not.”
Ciavarella’s courtroom actions in sentencing juveniles, including his sentencing of Dawn, are protected by judicial immunity, Caputo found.
“As for to the other allegations,” Caputo wrote, “such as Ciavarella’s role in the conspiracy to build the juvenile detention centers and receive kickbacks, those allegations are extra-judicial activity that is not protected by absolute judicial immunity.”
Dawn’s lawyer, Timothy R. Hough of Jaffe & Hough in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment. Brulo’s lawyer, Scott D. McCarroll of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Harrisburg, also could not be reached.
I have lost some editing in the last few “saves” and am for now “abandoning ship” on this post which began to usurp my free time for the last two days. My equipment has a (vey) slow processor, which challenges my ability to retain the train of thought while it is completing a save (or even dribbling out keystrokes several seconds after input — I’m a fast typist), and I have miles to go before I sleep. Hopefully this post was not a “sleeper” and may have awakened us out of some rhetoric-induced slumber in these matters. If you hang around some circles too long, you begging to believe and accept their theories, without critical analysis and distancing, as a lifestyle, too. It’s laborious, but better.
JESSICA (GONZALES) LENAHAN’S STATEMENT
FOR THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
MARCH 2007
ACLU WEBSITE — SHE HAS NOT GIVEN UP SEEKING ANSWERS
- Hello, my name is Jessica Lenahan. My former married name was Jessica Gonzales. I am grateful to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for allowing me this opportunity to tell my story. It is a courtesy I was not granted by the judicial system of my home country, the United States. I brought this petition because I want to prevent the kind of tragedy my little girls and my entire family suffered from happening to other families.
Let me start from the beginning. I am a Latina and Native American woman from Pueblo, Colorado. I met my previous husband, Simon Gonzales, while still in high school. I married Simon in 1990 and we moved to Castle Rock, Colorado in 1998. We lived together with our three children – Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie – and my son Jessie, from a previous relationship.
- Throughout our relationship, Simon was erratic and abusive toward me and our children. By 1994, he was distancing himself from us and becoming more and more controlling, unpredictable, and violent. He would break the children’s toys and other belongings, harshly discipline the children, threaten to kidnap them, drive recklessly, exhibit suicidal behavior, and verbally, physically, and sexually abuse me. He was heavily involved with drugs.
Simon’s frightening and destructive behavior got worse and worse as the years went by. One time I walked into the garage, and he was hanging there with a noose around his neck, with the children watching. I had to hold the rope away from his neck while my daughter Leslie called the police.
Simon and I separated in 1999 when my daughters were 9, 8, and 6. But he continued scaring us. He would stalk me inside and outside my house, at my job, and on the phone at all hours of the day and night.
On May 21, 1999, a Colorado court granted me a temporary restraining order that required Simon to stay at least 100 yards away from me, my home, and the children. The judge told me to keep the order with me at all times, and that the order and Colorado law required the police to arrest Simon if he violated the order. Having this court order relieved some of my anxiety.
- But Simon continued to terrorize me and the children even after I got the restraining order. He broke into my house, stole my jewelry, changed the locks on my doors, and loosened my house’s water valves, flooding the entire street. I called the Castle Rock Police Department to report these and other violations of the restraining order. The police ignored most of my calls. And when they did respond, they were dismissive of me, and even scolded me for calling them. This concerned me and made me wonder how the police might respond if I had an emergency in the future.
- Simon had at least seven run-ins with the police between March and June of 1999. He was ticketed for “road rage” while the girls were in the truck and for trespassing in a private section of the Castle Rock police station and then trying to flee after officers served him with the restraining order.On June 4, Simon and I appeared in court, and the judge made the restraining order permanent. The new order granted me full custody of Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie, and said that Simon could only be with our daughters on alternate weekends and one prearranged dinner visit during the week.
File under “split personality court orders” THANK you, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Pres. Barack Obama (not much changed), formerly and til now, Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, Jessica Pearson (Center Policy Research, AFCC founder, I heard, Gardner fan), and anyone and everyone who really can say with a straight face that the nation’s true crisis is when children do NOT wake up with their biodad in the home. Thank you, multi-million$$ Healthy marriage/REsponsible Fatherhood funding, and any legislator with ties to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, but not open about it. Thank you, for your overt subversion of the United States of America founding principles and documents, and being AWARE of this enough to be secretive about it, as evidenced by failing to tell protective MOTHERS (like this one) while recruiting Dads behind our backs, to give them advice adn sometimes free legal help to get our kids away from us.
Thank you about 3 major organizations in the Denver area driving this policy, and thank you for being smart enough to know that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” really wouldn’t hold sway legally, so it had to be practiced through another Branch of Government, voila, (1991) Health and Human Services department, and the things I’ve been blogging about.
Thank you for police officers that back each other up, but not women seeking protection via the restraining order system. I also know of officers that gave their lives to save others, in domestic violence incidents. I’m not talking about them, but the others. You know which you are.. Some men wear the uniform, and others live it — just like some men fit the fatherhood shoes, and others need to put theirs on and just keep walking…..
Yeah, I’m moved . . . Was Jessica a real Mom? Was she a person? Were her daughters?
The father had attempted suicide, and he gets a typical custody situation, alternate weekends. What’s THAT? an attempt to use the kids to make him a better man?
- (her children are kidnapped. She repeatedly asks the police to help… Here are some of the responses):
- Less than 3 weeks later, Simon violated the restraining order by kidnapping my three daughters from our yard on a day that he wasn’t supposed to see the girls. When I discovered they were missing, I immediately called the police, told them that the girls were missing and that I thought Simon had abducted them in violation of a restraining order, and asked them to find my daughters. The dispatcher told me she would send an officer to my house, but no one came.
I waited almost two hours for the police, and then called the station again. Finally two officers came to my house. I showed them the restraining order and explained that it was not Simon’s night to see the girls, but that I suspected he had taken them. The officers said, “Well he’s their father, it’s okay for them to be with him.” And I said, “No, it’s not okay. There was no prearranged visit for him to have the children tonight.” The officers said there was nothing they could do, and told me to call back at 10pm if the children were still not home. I was flustered and scared. Unsure of what else I could say or do to make the officers take me seriously, I agreed to do what they suggested.
- THAT JUDGE’S STANDARDIZED ORDER SET HER UP FOR THIS. THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD’VE DONE, WITHOUT HERSELF BREAKING IT, TO CHANGE THE SITUATION.
-
Soon afterwards, Simon’s girlfriend called me and told me that Simon called her and was threatening to drive off a cliff. She asked me if he had a gun and whether or not he would hurt the children. I began to panic.
I finally reached Simon on his cell phone around 8:30 pm. He told me he was with the girls at an amusement park in Denver, 40 minutes from Castle Rock. I immediately communicated this information to the police. I was shocked when they responded that there was nothing they could do, because Denver was outside of their jurisdiction. I called back and begged them to put out a missing child alert or contact the Denver police, but they refused. The officer told me I needed to take this matter to divorce court, and told me to call back if the children were not home in a few hours. The officer said to me, “At least you know the children are with their father.” I felt totally confused and humiliated.
- {{My children did not die. But, despite any court order (and there’s one to this date ordering weekly contact — with me — it’s not safely enforceable. I haven’t seen either one in a long time. Prior to that situation, I was in this situation with officers, and got a similar response, in a context of escalating threats to take them, and troubles. AFTER they were taken, I was given the same line, even though at this time their address was unknown and they weren’t attending school. The story almost never changes, much….}}
- I called the police again and again that night. When I called at 10pm, the dispatcher said to me that I was being “a little ridiculous making us freak out and thinking the kids are gone.” Even at that late hour, the police were still scolding me and not acknowledging that three children were missing, not recognizing my repeated descriptions of the girls and the truck.
- NOW, her children are dead — through their negligence and ignoring her pleas — and here is how she is treated:
- After hearing about the shooting, I drove to the police station. As I attempted to approach Simon’s truck, I was taken away by the police and then to the local sheriff’s office. Officials refused to give me any information about whether the girls were alive. They ignored my pleas to see my girls. {{I have been in this situation, very similar, requests ignored}} The experience revictimized me all over again. They detained me in a room for 12 hours and interrogated me throughout the early morning hours, as if I had a role in the children’s deaths. They refused to let me see or call my family. It was absolutely the most traumatic, horrific, and exhausting experience of my life!
- I have noticed over time, that if a woman is persistent in reporting violations of court orders, stalking, threats, or missing children in particular, the anger will be turned on her; she will not be heard. We might as well accept and prepare ourselves for this emotionally, though it’s wrong. Police officers’ roles includes dominating others, and situations. They’re REAL good at dominating traumatized women….This includes verbal abuse as well, mocking, sarcasm, belittling, questioning, interrupting when one is asking legitimate questions, — in fact, practically everything an abusive partner might do, with this kicker: they are authorized to use force in certain situations, and they carry sidearms.
-
The media knew my girls were dead before my family or I did. I was finally told by state officials around 8am that Simon had murdered the girls before he arrived at the police station. However, I never learned any other details about how, when, and where the girls died. I continue to seek this information to this day. I need to know the truth.
Several family members and I asked the authorities to identify the girls’ bodies, but we were not permitted to view their bodies until six days later – when they lay in their caskets. My daughters’ death certificates and the coroners’ reports state no place, date, or time of death. It saddened me not to be able to put this information on their gravestones.
- Today, nearly eight years after my tragedy, I continue to seek a thorough investigation into my babies’ deaths. I see nothing being done in Castle Rock or nationwide to make police accountable to domestic violence victims. It’s like rubbing salt in my wounds.
So why did the police ignore my calls for help? Was it because I was a woman? A victim of domestic violence? A Latina? Because the police were just plain lazy? I continue to seek answers to these questions.
We rely on the courts and the police for protection against violence. But I learned from my tragedy that the police have no accountability. The safety of my children was of such little consequence that the police took no action to protect my babies. If our government won’t protect us, we should know that. We should know that we are on our own when our lives are at risk.
Had I known that the police would do nothing to locate Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie or enforce my restraining order, I would have taken the situation into my own hands by looking for my children with my family and friends. I might have even bought a gun to protect us from Simon’s terror. Perhaps if I had taken these measures, I would have averted this tragedy. But then I might be imprisoned right now. That is the dilemma for abused women in the United States.
- I am blogging. I am telling people. This woman has told people. You read it in the late 1990s and you’ve now read two statements from the year 2007 (Burella’s appeal, denied, citing Gonzales’s failed Castle Rock case). Remember what I said about the ‘deluge” of paperwork. If we are going to go the “paperwork” route, the due diligence is necessary to understand the REAL contexts of it. The REAL context of it is that one cannot count on enforcement.
- Moreover, I also assert (and have discussed this more among my friends than on the blog) that the fatherhood and the domestic violence advocates are in bed together, and care more about their conferences and grants than our lives, and probably always have. I don’t say this with anger (well, not TOO much anger), but so we who don’t have another year to waste won’t waste anther year looking for help, rather than helping ourselves in the most moral, legal, and humane way possible.
There are consequences to the U.S. when women have to go to the international level to ask for protection. I’ve read about globalism and am aware of NGOs, and so forth, but the gol-dang Tea Party folk, and libertarians, if they will not recognize woman’s humanity as equal to theirs, even when not bound to a husband, they are going to cost us this country. Show me an honest faith-based organization that’s involved in government, and I’ll work with it. Til then, no thank you! Where are woman who have some faith to hang out? In some mega church that has less respect for women than the Castle Rock police Dept? ???
This IACHR link will be put on the front page.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Read my page “READ THIS FIRST” — Really!
I just published a page to look at ROOTS and FRUIT
of a large, and widely spreading tree, the Family Law system, not to mention some of the birds that come to roost there, and how it eliminates other native vegetation,crowding out sunlight and choking other growth near it, permanently altering previous eco-(nomic) systems and the balance of relationships that once were possible, but now no longer are.
How could this be, and who planted it? All destructive ~ or creative ~ ideas originate somewhere. (I heard) “There’s nothing [qualitatively] new under the sun,” so what is this tree’s genealogy?
SO . . . .
To understand why this blog, read the page “READ THIS FIRST” — first.
Do not pass Go, start there, scroll down and scroll down and reflect on, “how’s come it’s a madhouse in the family law system, and more and more criminal behavior seems to surround it?”
That’s an important question, and not a hard one to answer. It’s just hard to get people to accept it, and act accordingly. It gets more press to complain, report, comment, and in the process
develop another market niche. PR Professionals are great at this. I’m not a PR professional,
but a “family law vet” — that means, have taken the hits — and have developed some survival skills. The FIRST survival skill is understanding the landscape and how the natives act, and have been acting. I even have a post somewhere on here relating to S.U.R.V.I.V.A.L. training.
WELL, READ THAT PAGE FIRST, even if you’re a family law attorney or social worker, or any other AFCC member.
My PAGES, currently, can be found with a little scrolling.
A look at “Feedjit” to the right shows that, formatting and failure to proofread apart, this blog may have some information worth looking at. It’s wide-ranging, but I analyze from a less traditional angle. I try to combine my academic ~ OK, and natural temperament ~ longsuits crossing different genres to make sense of research. And I do this with varying degrees of PTSD generated by over a decade of dealing with abuse and legal abuse afterwards. {{By the way, there’s a body of literature on comparing the battering relationship to stalking through the courts. I will say, it feels the same, and the same principles are at work. It also is akin to P.O.W., although a different war. You can hear BOTH men and women talk about this feeling; it’s a matter of perspective. My personal “take” on the issue is that these courts were designed (upfront) as a place for batterers [or, spouses, specifically men, who fear abandonment, to get even. They are, of themselves, in many was, a cult. Biderman’s chart of coercion describes tactics.“Dependency, Debility & Dread.”}}
I sort through themes, and follow the hot leads, and try to avoid the dead ends. The sarcastic commentary on the ridiculous propositions & assumptions found are incidental, and don’t cost extra. Like many (mothers who became noncustodial mothers through family law after leaving violent relationships) by blogging, I in general find some redemption in what has been the longest nightmare (and fastest learning curve) I’ve known to date.
BUT, I also know, certain themes are unique and underreported, and my angle, which began when I reviewed http://nacfj.net after losing it “all” (there’s always more which can be lost, I’ve learned, but I refer to expectation of justice in this system, and any hope to restore what was formerly a reasonable life or any innocence attached to it. This system “slimes” you — you come out different. Yeech!)
The people attracted to family law are, variously:
- naively hoping to fix families, reconcile people who don’t want to be reconciled, and shouldn’t (that, my READ THIS FIRST page talks about),
- distressed (and so, vulnerable),
- ambulance-chasers, particularly where money and [power over] distressed CHILDREn are potentially available,
- too impatient for the accident to happen and so setting the brakes on off, the steering wheel crooked, or hiring (or schmoozing with) others to jump in front of the speeding (away from dangerous relationships) cars, then blame the cars for running into the lampposts or other pedestrians, and stick taxpayers, and the car’s driver that couldn’t avoid the “accident,” with the bill, both in the form of lost income, actual fees, and — which is what I most object to — lost freedoms…..[I warned you I was rather jaundiced, or at least sarcastic. But this IS narrative characterizations, the parallels I believe apply!]
- mercenary soldiers in search of a cause….
- and there are also megalomaniacs, whose behavior (not always PUBLIC behavior) indicates they believe in an archaic religion and the divine right of kings — and NOT the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, separation of powers, anything implicit or explicit in the Declaration of Independence, or other things involving, say, humility.
Speaking of which, the divine right of kings, . . . . .
Here’s a picture of a world-renowned “monarch.” Surely this must be a joke, right?
Look closely at the banner in the photo, bottom line . . . . This was in a U.S. Senate Building, in 2004
Are we a monarchy? Well, that depends on how you look at it, and how many more years of this goes on.
Arizona legislator/Unification Church member’s peculiar mix of religion/politics
06/26/2008
Arizona State Representitive Mark Anderson, a Republican from Mesa, has a long history of loyal and devoted service to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the self-proclaimed “messiah” (photo below right) and leader of the Unification Church.
Rev. Moon teaches his disciples that singles should not expect a happy hereafter and that marriage is a requirement for salvation and entering heaven.
Matrimony also plays a pivotal role in Moon’s theology. He calls himself the “Lord of the Second Advent” who provides a “physical salvation,” which Jesus was unable to accomplish, because he was executed and didn’t marry.
It is largely because of these beliefs that Moon has presided over mass weddings, often marrying thousands of his followers simultaneously.
Mark Anderson appears to be dutifully following Moon’s dogma as a state legislator.
In the Spring of 2000 he sponsored a bill that successfully passed and created a “Marriage and Communication Skills Commission.”
Funded by Arizona’s taxpayers, the purpose of the Commission is to recognize “the importance of marriage.”
Beyond this the Commission also doles out funding for “workshops” and “programs,” which are provided through contractors.
And guess who is co-chairman of the Arizona marriage commission?
(etc.) . . . .
Enter Pastor Leo Godzich, President of the “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” (NAME), a close associate and long-time friend of Mark Anderson.
NAME has been and continues to be the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in state contracts.
Actually, make that a million, so far (to 2009). Enter another tool from this site: “http://Taggs.hhs.gov”
|
Results 1 to 4 of 4 matches.
|
 |
|
Page 1 of 1
|
1 |
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | Award Title | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | ACF | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 | $ 250,000 |
Actually, for those who stay up late, unable to sleep over some of these serious issues, the term “marriage enhancement” might convey a late-night TV ad to help “inspire” some overworked couples to have better, er, relations. Where some see simple problems, others see a GREAT market niche, whether the above version, or the late-night TV ad version.
To grasp the scope of this movement — in just one program code alone – 93086, Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood — I picked Colorado. I notice the database has changed, and only shows back to 2006 (it actually goes back to mid-1990s). This is just a tip of the iceberg (that’s about to sink the Titanic ship of state, if we don’t divert, stop, or reverse engines)(and don’t count on any Unification church legislators to do this!):
TAGGS Advanced Search Results
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | County | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2009 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD BATTEN | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2009 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 422,972 |
| 2009 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 203,603 |
| 2009 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JON MERRITT | $ 249,552 |
| 2009 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 525,000 |
| 2009 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2009 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 889,201 |
| 2009 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ANN BRUCE | $ 974,358 |
| 2008 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2008 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD BATTEN | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2008 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 482,687 |
| 2008 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 198,280 |
| 2008 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JON MERRITT | $ 249,552 |
| 2008 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 525,000 |
| 2008 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 1,010,330 |
| 2008 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PAULE S BROWN | $ 974,358 |
| 2007 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2007 | CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY E ROBERTO | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2007 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 383,090 |
| 2007 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 209,308 |
| 2007 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PEG MEWES | $ 249,552 |
| 2007 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ELIZABETH M PACE | $ 345,000 |
| 2007 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DOUG WITTENBERG | $ 935,330 |
| 2007 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PAULE S BROWN | $ 974,358 |
| 2006 | Archuleta County Department of Human Services | CO | ARCHULETA | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | ERLINDA B GONZALEZ | $ 200,000 |
| 2006 | CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION | CO | DENVER | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | 93086 | COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY RIOTTE | $ 2,000,000 |
| 2006 | COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY | CO | LARIMER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORTY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JANET O BENAVENTE | $ 488,067 |
| 2006 | Denver Indian Family Resource Center | CO | JEFFERSON | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | OTHER | NEW | ISABELLE MEDCHILL | $ 209,308 |
| 2006 | Montrose County Health and Human Services | CO | MONTROSE | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PEG MEWES | $ 249,552 |
| 2006 | PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BERT E SINGLETON | $ 525,000 |
| 2006 | THERAPY HELP, INC | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | ABIGAIL HIRSCH,PH.D | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | WAIT Training | CO | DENVER | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JONEEN KRAUTH-MACKENZIE | $ 1,010,330 |
| 2006 | WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT | CO | WELD | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2 | 93086 | DISCRETIONARY | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | PAULE S BROWN | $ 907,655 |
|
Results 1 to 36 of 36 matches.
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
Of note are the words “Demonstration” (DEMONSTRATIONS ON PEOPLE?) Discretionary, New, and (not shown), kind of grant application often reads “Non-Competing.” What about “informed consent”? Is this information posted, in the self-help section of the local courthouse, or the child support agencies, or any welfare office? Not exactly. Nor will one find there, say, information about who is “AFCC” (see my READ THIS FIRST page for more on them), although they do publish most of the pamphlets on display in the local counties I have access to. AFCC is very closely linked to “who IS this family law system, anyhow?”
Also, who is getting the highest funding? Hmm . . . .
Dept. of Human Services, Commission on Higher Education (it takes academics to run some kinds of human demonstration projects nationwide. Specialized language is involved, and some of it I’ve read, and wouldn’t be acceptable in circles not trained (yet) to take words like “fatherhood practitioner” (does that mean, a Dad? ??) seriously. This has to be inculcated. Also, as million$$ are involved, a university setting does lend more credibility, as well as other resources, like graduate student assistants and institutes of various sorts). And WAIT Training.
What’s that — like muscle-building, kick-boxing, or aerobics?
No, not per who its executive director is (see chart):
>
Joneen Krauth-Mackenzie is a graduate of the University of Texas School of Nursing, a former Air Force ICU nurse and is currently applying to be reactivated in the United States Air Force Reserves. She is the Executive Director of the Abstinence and Relationship Training Center and is the author of the national and international curriculum, WAIT Training, Teaching Teens How to Have the BEST sex…by waiting until marriage. Joneen is a national speaker speaking to thousands of teens over the past 10 years. She is also contracted as a teacher trainer, training over 6000 teachers and youth serving professionals nationally and internationally. Mrs. Mackenzie serves on the Title V Abstinence Education Steering Committee at the Colorado State Health Department. She is currently the president of the Colorado Coalition for Abstinence and Relationship Education.
“WAIT” stands for “Why Am I Tempted” – i.e., some nice abstinence education training. (how NOT to have sex, yet…) and besides the $1,000,000+ in 2006 (for starters) it sells for only $299.
Joneen McKenzie
Learning to have the BEST sex by waiting until, and in preparation for, marriage.
Not sex education, it’s love education and includes: Character and Relationship Education,
Positive Youth Developments and Assets, Marriage Preparation Education; Life Skills,
Refusal Skills and Conflict Resolution (Teen PREP) Skills. It’s positive, fun and interactive
and gives teen reasons, skills and support to delay sex and learn about the value of marriage.
Available in Spanish. Target audience: middle and high school students. Two-day training
and certification with materials: $299.
Schedule
Presenting at the annual Smart Marriages Conference.
Abstinence Education, at least as it affects the practice of increasing Abstinence (i.e., reducing sex outside marriage) is probably a lost cause. If it WERE to be directed somewhere, I believe a more appropriate target might be several of the U.S. Presidents, Governors, or Senators. Starting with Former President Bill Clinton, who actually signed the infamous (to me!) Executive Order of 1995 regarding Fatherhood. He should know about it, and/or preventing it outside marriage:
Washington Post / Paula Jones Bill’s Escapes will sink Hillary (2007)
On the other hand, even the Gores finally separated:
Throughout the 1990s, as Bill and Hillary Clinton became the most dysfunctional couple in American politics, Al and Tipper Gore served as the counterbalance. The Gores played the ever-wholesome Mike and Carol Brady of the “Brady Bunch” to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Homer and Marge Simpson—a battling, mismatched duo who nevertheless stayed together. During the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, the Gores appeared ever more self-righteous and stable as the Clintons appeared ever more estranged. Al Gore even chose to telegraph to the American people that he was a passionate politician by giving Tipper a famously long smooch after his nomination.
The Gores’ obvious distaste for Bill Clinton’s extramarital escapades strained relations among the four. During the 2000 campaign, Vice President Gore distanced himself so much from President Clinton that many observers believed he sacrificed his shot at the White House on the altar of his marital morality.
How about Ted Kennedy, other Kennedys?
Reckless Sex and Power III: The Top Seven Kennedy Sex Scandals …
May 21, 2008 … Serving in the Senate since 1962, Ted Kennedy has been one of our most … Both President Jack Kennedy – whose sexual escapades were …Governors, Assemblymen, Presidents, can’t keep it Zipped (except for their wives) AFTER marriage, why are they taxing US, especially teens, to lecture US, especially teens, on keeping it zipped ?:Former Orange County Assemblyman Michael Duvall, who resigned after inadvertently broadcasting explicit remarks about his sexual conquests over an open microphone, this morning said that his resignation was not an admission that he had an affair.
As described, in some detail, in RIPOFF REPORT,
Besides the misappropriation of funds by Why Am I Tempted training coordinator (above), it also appears that her own marriage wasn’t successful. Many people’s aren’t. WHen it comes to this issue, I find that people who have NOT divorced or been through breakups, find some things hard to understand, and those who have, generally lack partiality. If you toss a coin, chances are, someone who is a stepfather, stepmother, father having wages garnished for child support, MOTHER having wages garnished for child support, domestic violence survivor or in jail and having issues contacting offspring, which is where the fatherhood programs go get them out and back with their kids.
While going through the LEGAL aspects of courts, and custody, it’s good to remember that many of the major influences don’t go near a courtroom; they are in conference rooms and in Senate Buildings. While not all participate in crowning a “Moonie” leader, some of the behaviors have an uncomfortable resemblance to the same behaviors.
FYI, PTSD or not (some days are better than others), I try to get some information out. I felt that the grants connection is consistently overlooked, and the Unification Church one is recently very disturbing, but definite.
The overall picture is of a more and more managed economy and society. My advice regarding family law is, stay away from it. However, if one must enter, attempt to avoid the child support system, which promises more than it can deliver, and becomes a third party that could turn the case, easily.
It’s challenging to experience, narrate, analyze, network , and simply survive this system while still in it. I add a research background, a scent like a bloodhound on the money trail, which is driving this system (not “law” in case you were interested), and gets its funding from Joe Bloe and Jane Doe taxpayers who thought someone else should be handling these problems — hence, taxes, right?
Oh yes, and major foundations, many of them conservative. And latest trail shows a VERY uncomfortable connection with the Unification Church (can you spell Rev. Sun Myun Moon — avowed
2nd Messiah and major contributor to the ultra-conservative right-wingers. The political / legislative/religious/economic ramifications are truly frightening, almost more so than any “lethality assessment” from a domestic violence situation might indicate, or than the breakup of the nuclear family — or (conversely) “same-sex marriage.”
Suppose we all DID survive, and then this is to what world?
Kind gives another flavor to the word “Healthy Marriage” when one considers a coronation of this billionaire in a U.S. Senate building, of a man who claims to have heard from deceased Presidents and the news is, theocracy is in, republic is out. And/or, he and his wife are the true parents to the world.
I’m not kidding, I was just looking at Phoenix, Arizona, National Association of Marriage Enhancement, the Godzich family, and the GOP/Unification Church/Assembly of God churches/ Christian Dominionism/Anti-gay political contributions, and the Uganda connection.
One thing you won’t be on this blog (I hope) is
(a) bored or
(b) less informed than when you began looking or, most importantly
(c) noncommital on this institution as a sinkhole of money and corruption, that isn’t getting to those who need it much more than some food aid consistently gets to the hungry people in the Southern hemisphere, or
(d) underestimating the contribution of your local faith-based institution not to solving, but rather, helping create, the major social problems we are experiencing. (FYI, I identify as Christian, but not possible to go through this system and come out the same kind of one!). (Did I mention domestic violence, and women as inferior, at least after saying “I do,” yet?)
For PARENTS, the timeframe is VERY short — about a generation.
For professionals, it’s the curve of the career, after which they can easily publish and conference on their prior experience.
The litigants in the family law system usually include one side more powerful than the others, and, to be frank, often one side with possibly some criminal behavior, if not a record. The metaphor here that applies is the myth of Procrustes — the innkeeper whose bed fit “everyone.” However, Secretly, Procrustes had two beds. If a short person came in, out came the long bed, and the customer was stretched to fit. If a tall person came in, out came the short bed, and I won’t describe that process.
Finally some hero came and applied some of this medicine to the innkeeper. I think it’s about time to do that, however, firmly, and without violence. The only way I know to do that is to cut off the supply line:
Families — warn each other to stay away.
General public — research where your money is going, and demand an accounting of what good it’s doing. Since thats a lot harder than actually giving the government less to waste, both of which will require creativity, insight, information, and possibly make us better people.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Wykenna Watson challenges a plea-bargain on restraining order violation. Her criminal contempt IS upheld. But Supreme Court Justices: C.J. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy & Sotomayor “Strongly Dissent..”
This just in. . . . .
These notable Honoraries, from the Highest Court in our nation, which court’s Chief Justice gets to swear in the President of the United States in an oath to protect & defend the Constitution, . . . . . are objecting to her actually expecting the violation of a RECENT restraining order to be taken seriously, for once, and not plea-bargained. This may go a ways towards making such restraining orders less “certifiably insane.”
This Washington Post article tells how a woman challenged a DISMISSAL of charges on a 2nd assault by her boyfriend, which assault was also a violation of a restraining order (probably of the criminal one…)
She is saying “NO!” to those who plea-bargained him OUT of an assault AFTER a civil restraining order was in place. The U.S. Attorney’s Office let him off easier, and she said NO by filing for criminal contempt.
She can’t exactly go after those who plea-bargained him quite so easily. For one, they are armed…..So she went to uphold the concept of “ORDER” meaning “ORDER” and violating it intentionally as SERIOUS.
By Josh White | May 24, 2010; 2:30 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed a case originating out of the District that challenged the ability of a private citizen to bring criminal contempt charges against someone else in a domestic violence case.
Split 5-4, with a strongly worded dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court declined to interfere with a lower court decision that upheld guilty findings on criminal contempt charges against John Robertson, who was convicted in the District of violating a restraining order against him.
But as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Robertson agreed to plead guilty to the first attack if prosecutors were willing to dimiss charges for the second attack, which they did.
Watson, dissatisfied with the outcome, later that year herself filed criminal contempt charges against Robertson. After a two-day trial, Robertson was convicted, sentenced to an additional year in jail and ordered to pay Watson $10,000 in restitution.
Ms. Watson showed some real courage & savvy in doing this, as the 2nd assault itself represented (in context) a form of retaliation for saying no the first time.
Speaking for myself, and many other women, we have been discouraged by repeated failures of the CRIMINAL section of government (D.A. on down)’s failures to arrest, prosecute, and keep in jail, batterers who escalate their actions after being confronted.
This article doesn’t say (upfront) whether mutual children were involved, which adds another layer of possible intimidation and threat to the woman confronting abuse.
I have found it very frustrating to experience all the results of crime, including trauma, job loss, and curtailed social connections, and repeatedly return to “family court” and have our case funneled through mediation as if it was still a personal squabble. SPeaking for myself only, I have been treated with disdain and disrespect (repeatedly) in seeking this.
Failing to prosecute or show consequences for assault & battery, whether misdemeanor (THIS time) or felony-level, sends a clear message to the perpetrator: “no holds barred, go ahead, we won’t really punish you….” and it also sends a message to people who support the woman in noncriminal ways. It taxes their resources also. I believe this is WHY California law had this clause, even though it’s largely ignored in practice:
Google search of “clear and present danger” only pulled up references to spousal abuse on the 2nd page of searches. That the first one was from my blog! tells me it’s not a common topic of conversation these days….
Search Results
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC « Let’sGetHonestBlog
Dec 1, 2009 … The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens …
familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/…/clear-and-present–danger-fuzzy-usage-by-afcc/ – Cached- [DOC]
Domestic Violence, by its Nature, Frequently Results in Forfeiture …
– 3 visits – 10/15/09
File Format: Microsoft Word – View as HTML
Domestic violence victims frequently fail to assist in their batterer’s prosecutions. ….. “[Since] spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental … Code § 273.81 (West 2005) (establishing Spousal Abuser Prosecution …
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/GilesAmicusBrief.doc – SimilarCHAPTER 2.5. SPOUSAL ABUSERS – Sections 273.8-273.88 – California …
The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of …
law.justia.com › … › California Code › California Penal Code – CachedA Critical Look at Janet Johnston’s Typology of Batterers by Lundy …
Janet Johnston’s work attempts to make this sort of clear demarcation, ….. A new, negative image of the other spouse is crystallized out of this desperate … how batterers present in public, including some of the most dangerous. … Johnston’s work may, in the aggregate, be contributing to the danger of the …
www.lundybancroft.com/art_johnston.html
The fact that sometimes people die, or suffer serious injuries, or kids are kidnapped and cut off with contact from the other parent, bypassers sometimes are hurt, and property (houses, businesses) may get trashed in the process — is, I’d say, an “indicator” of “clear and present danger” to more than just those “intimate partners.”
But in Family Law and Civil Law La-La-Land, you couldn’t tell, in practice.
I keep general tabs on the local courtrooms or “family court services” areas in at least two counties in California. Well, I’ve been in the system for years, also. And I have noticed that the material even “Saying” the words “Domestic Violence” are becoming rarer and rarer. They are replaced — even when distributed right next to a window whose title is “restraining orders,” with brochures published, for the most part (in one county) by the ubiquitous “AFCC” (see my blog, search term, or search the web) and/or Child Support Brochures, all aspects of parenting. I.e., a marketing plug for the professionals in memberships of AFCC.
In the other county, there were multiple brochures put out by the local State Bar. The ONLY one (of same format) put out which said “Domestic Violence” on it was put out by a family-law section of this state bar. By now, most of us should know that to become a certified (even) family law specialist doesn’t require much training at all in domestic violence, and less in child abuse issues, which overlap. ….
In the social services office, at another address, again, a large (and well-populated!) room, as I usually do, I looked for materials on domestic violence. There was ONE brochure, and the word is (FYI no longer “violence” but “Abuse.” However the same group that put this very small brochure about “abuse” out (even though the nonprofit’s name contained the word “violence”) had a duplicate one more about parenting issues.
We have become a nation of family counselors and psychologists, judging by the courtrooms, and where the public funding is going. Forget crminal prosecution for criminal acts — the line has blurred.
Into this, walks a woman whose case hit the Supreme Court, AND I notice that there was “STRONG DISSENT” that private citizens should actually take action to treat contempt of a court order as serious, in addition to an assault on a woman by a man after he’d already been reserved a restraining order.
Well, she’s right, and I think we just see where the Supreme Court considers the government/private citizen divide.
We might well wonder who switched the priorities from government — for whom citizens pay — serving the citizens, to the citizens serving the government. Anyhow, continuing with this article……
Robertson appealed, arguing that any such charges against him were in violation of his plea agreement with the government, and could not be initiated by a private citizen. The Court of Appeals rejected that arguments, finding that the criminal contempt prosecution was brought as a private action and not in the “name and interest of the United States or any other governmental entity.”
In a case that garnered great interest from defense attorneys and those who work to fight domestic violence alike, the Supreme Court ultimately opted not to get involved, with a one-sentence opinion letting Watson’s victory stand and appearing to validate D.C. laws that allow victims to initiate such prosecutions regardless of plea agreements with the government.
In other words, there’s hope for actual consequences for violating court orders saying “Don’t Tread On Me!” Good.
(please read rest of article, link above).
NOW, let’s take a look at that dissent, and WHY the Supreme Court doesn’t want to let go some of the power of the criminal sector to actually go towards its designated end, stopping crime, if a lowly WOMAN, and a Private Citizen, takes action to defend her rights to expect the courts and police and prisons (etc.) to defend her physical person…
Remember, “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Which one of those comes first, and which one of those should we really leave up to a distant politician, legislator, or US Attorney’s Office to plea-bargain out?
I read on-line often enough of criminal sector complaints that women sometimes drop charges. A lot of conferences and discussions takes place on those bad women for not participating in the prosecution. There have been discussions on whether it’s appropriate to hold a WOMAN in contempt for NOT participating in being a witness, or in the prosecution of criminal level domestic violence. In some of these cases, she is weighing what the system will (or in too many cases, WON’T) do against the safety of herself, and/or, her family members (kids or parents). To fail to weigh this is to be flippant with human sacrifice — it bears weighing, this “life” thing….
Now a woman IS participating in the prosecution, and here’s the “STRONG DISSENT” from the highest court in the land:
Roberts’ 12-page dissent, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Sotomayor, strongly argues for the issue to be revisited.
“The terrifying force of the criminal justice system may only be brought to bear against an individual by society as a whole, through a prosecution brought on behalf of the government,” Roberts wrote, arguing that changing that concept gives rise to “unsettling questions” about defendant rights. “Our entire criminal justice system is premised on the notion that a criminal prosecution pits the government against the governed, not one private citizen against another. The ruling below is a startling repudiation of that basic understanding.”
Here is the dissent:
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08–6261
v. UNITED STATES EX REL. WYKENNA WATSON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
[May 24, 2010]
P
ER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
I
In March 1999, Wykenna Watson was assaulted by her then-boyfriend, John Robertson. App. 40. Watson soughtand secured a civil protective order against Robertson, prohibiting him from approaching within 100 feet of her and from assaulting, threatening, harassing, physically abusing, or contacting her.
Id., at 20. At the same time, the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) was independently pursuing criminal charges against Robertson arising from the assault.
This puts her case in a situation that not all women get to — some of them (us, in my case) don’t even get the police, or DA’s office to start the criminal charges. I wonder if this had been a family law case if it wouldn’t have been shunted to the local Family Law Facilitator’s Office before she knew what happened to her. Did it involve a kickout, or was it closer to what society actually recognizes as wrong — assaulting a woman in public or about her business, rather than “behind closed doors.”??? In which case it’s easier to discredit.
On June 26, Robertson violated the protective order by again violently assaulting Watson. On July 8, he was indicted for the previous March incident; shortly thereafter, the USAO offered, and Robertson accepted, a plea agreement resolving those charges. Id., at 26–30. At the top of the boilerplate plea form, the Assistant U. S. Attorney added in longhand: “In exchange for Mr. Robertson’s plea of guilty to attempt[ed] aggravated assault, the gov’t agrees to: DISMISS the [remaining] charges[,] [and] [n]ot pursue any charges concerning an incident on 6-26-99.” Id., at 28.
i.e., Are such plea forms so common, there is a “boiler plate” for them. But this Assistant U.S. Attorney went one farther and said, he’s not really a bad guy, he just was disturbed by the breakup of the relationship, and if he’ll make OUR job (if not her life) easier, we’ll let him off without the full punishment.
The Superior Court accepted Robertson’s plea and sentenced him to 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment.
That there’s a lot. Wonder what the quality of the first assault was.
Id., at 30, 46, 53. A few months later, Watson filed a motion to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Robertson forviolating the civil protective order, based on the June 26 assault. See D. C. Code §16–1005(f) (2009 Supp.); D. C.Super. Ct. Domestic Violence Rule 12(d) (Lexis 2010); In re Robertson, 940 A. 2d 1050, 1053 (D. C. 2008). After a 2day bench trial, the court found Robertson guilty on three counts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to three consecutive 180-day terms of imprisonment, suspending execution of the last in favor of five years’ probation. The court also ordered Robertson to pay Watson roughly $10,000 in restitution. App. 2, 63–64. Robertson filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the court denied. Id., at 1059–1060.
He said, “I don’t want to take responsibility for the assault.”
Robertson appealed. Criminal contempt prosecutions,he argued, “are between the public and the defendant,” and thus could “only be brought in the name of the relevant sovereign, . . . the United States.” Brief for Petitioner 8, 10 (quoting Brief for Appellant in No. 00–FM–1269 etc.
(D. C.), pp. 20–21, and 940 A. 2d, at 1057; internal quotation marks omitted). So viewed, the prosecution based on the June 26 incident could not be brought, because the plea agreement barred the “gov[ernment” from pursuingany charges arising from that incident.
The Court of Appeals rejected Robertson’s arguments, in a two-step holding. Step one: “the criminal contempt prosecution in this case was conducted as a private action brought in the name and interest of Ms. Watson, not as a public action brought in the name and interest of theUnited States or any other governmental entity.” 940
A. 2d, at 1057–1058 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Step two: because the criminal contempt prosecution was brought as an exercise of private power,that prosecution did not implicate a plea agreement that bound only the government.
And so forth. This next paste is from the end of the dissent:
Allegorical depictions of the law frequently show a figure wielding a sword—the sword of justice, to be used to smite those who violate the criminal laws. Indeed, outside our own courthouse you will find a statue of more than 30 tons, Authority of Law, which portrays a male figure with such a sword.
{{para. added by blogger}} According to the sculptor, James Earle Fraser (who also designed the buffalo nickel), the figure sits “wait[ing] with concentrated attention, holding in his left hand the tablet of laws, backed by the sheathed sword, symbolic of enforcement through law.” Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Curator, Contemplation of Justice and Authority of Law Information Sheet 2 (2009) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
A basic step in organizing a civilized society is to take that sword out of private hands and turn it over to an organized government, acting on behalf of all the people.
Indeed, “[t]he . . . power a man has in the state of nature is the power topunish the crimes committed against that law. [But this]he gives up when he joins [a] . . . political society, and incorporates into [a] commonwealth.” Locke, Second Treatise, §128, at 64.The ruling below contravenes that fundamental proposition, and should not be allowed to stand. At the very least,we should do what we decided to do when we granted certiorari, and took the unusual step of rephrasing thequestion presented: answer it.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s belated determination not to answer that question
As to that, I refer to the Declaration of Independence…. when highest officials in a state, or country, violate its own laws (with impunity) and retaliate against those who protest, we in a different context than the actual separation of either CHURCH & STATE, or — and I have done some homework on this — “PRIVATE MONEY” and the state.
I’d have given a lot for any male figure with a weapon in his hand and the laws in the other hand. But in the past 20 years, I’ve yet to find one willing to intervene between me and the male figure I married, who at times had weapons in his hands, and I assure you, there was no consideration of the laws, or upholding them, in context. To this day, I wonder how life might’ve been different had I been “woman enough” to “man up” and fight back. But as I was pregnant and a mother at the time, I had other considerations. . .
So, I have not examined this in detail, but am posting it as recent, and relevant. I hope readership will consider it the article & the dissent, and those issues in more detail.
When it’s “blown off” as a misdemeanor, or not take seriously, the overall standard of what’s acceptable — in our country (or locality) goes downhill. It sends a message that this WILL be tolerated. It’s OK to assault your girlfriend.
I’m a woman, and I’m a mom. I had daughters, not sons. I do NOT think it’s OK to assault one’s girlfriend, or boyfriend, and I know how hard it is to breakup from a “committed” relationship, although I must say, from the start, my own was a nightmare.
I also know where support is, and isn’t (mostly isn’t) in these matters. DOn’t ask your pastor to stick up for you, or priest, in most cases. Maybe on a short-term, but when it gets stuck in the courts? Who’s going to help then?
(dates to 1987, but old doctrines — especially Calvinist — die hard….)
///
Sexual and Family Violence: A Growing Issue for the Churches
by Lois Gehr Livezey
Dr. Livezey is assistant professor of Christian social ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. This article appeared in the Christian Century, October 28, 1987, p. 938. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at
www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock
. . .
John Calvin wrote the following words to a battered woman seeking his counsel:
We have a special sympathy for poor women who are evilly and roughly treated by their husbands, because of the roughness and cruelty of the tyranny and captivity which is their lot. We do not find ourselves permitted by the Word of God, however, to advise a woman to leave her husband, except by force of necessity; and we do not understand this force to be operative when a husband behaves roughly and uses threats to his wife, nor even when he beats her, but when there is imminent peril to her life . . . [W]e . . . exhort her to bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens [“Letter From Calvin to an Unknown Woman,” June 4, 1559, Calvini Opera, XVII, col. 539, in P. E. Hughes, editor, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin (Eerdmans, 1966) , pp. 344-345].
{{Let’s Get Honest comments: That’s all of this post for today, I provided the links, you do the legwork!}}
SHARE THIS POST on...
(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation
You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?” Whether granted, or NOT granted? Here’s why.
-
Local News in Victorville, CA
Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook
Comments 55 | Recommend 8
February 01, 2010 11:19 PMIn a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.
…..
Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws. Instead, make a safety plan.
However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.
“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”
In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family. However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it. She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given: Seek a restraining order.
She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record.. Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger. Sure…
The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.
Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.
Here’s the SFGate Report on this:
SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.
The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.
Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.
Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).
He did it for “love.” Some kind of love….
Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction.
And a site worth spending time on. . . .
See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder. This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them. Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously. Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue. Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not. It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.
We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die. But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children? If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children. And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.
THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25. Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state. Did he do college too? If so, to what point? Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem. I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched. This guy was narcissistic, period. And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this. It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.
I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies. Makes you think, right?
BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous. Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies. Excuse me, colleagues.
Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe. They just don’t care! Why? What’s at stake if they do? . . . . An entire system.
A bribe perverts justice. I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders. That’s how it goes.
And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary).
It was just business as usual. And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers. The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict. And that “required outcome” model of the court process.
The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder. With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern. The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also.
However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them…
HERE’s the Docket:
12/11/2009 – She requests ex parte DV restraining order.
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction. This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle. In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.
Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:
1. Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).
2. Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged. THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else.
Here: 2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….
Action: (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ |
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE |
| – |
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT |
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED. |
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. |
| CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729 |
| – |
| {{NOTE: THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional. It happened to me. … This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS: |
| CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3. |
| – |
| TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO |
| SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING |
| BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL |
| FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA |
| IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL |
| 04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT |
| IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK. |
| THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER |
| OF THE COURT. THINK: IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent. |
| – |
| THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION {{Do you GET this yet? The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling. Yes, I said “racket.” See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children. I have blogged on this earlier..} |
| PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR. |
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON |
| 04/09/07 AT 3PM. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
| ==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION == |
It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV. I don’t know without further research.
Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day. As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”
Here it is. We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. | |||||||||||||||||
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ | |||||||||||||||||
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PROCEEDINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. | |||||||||||||||||
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
|
|||||||||||||||||
| COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL | |||||||||||||||||
| CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY. | |||||||||||||||||
| THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: | |||||||||||||||||
| HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING | |||||||||||||||||
| FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| HEARINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT | |||||||||||||||||
| PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING. | |||||||||||||||||
| ACTION – COMPLETE | |||||||||||||||||
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation. A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:
(see original link, above for visuals. This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice. The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done. …. No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)
The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.
SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.
| Goal / Mission | The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization. |
| Results / Accomplishments | SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.
SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results. |
| Categories | Social Environment / Family Structure Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment |
WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH. YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory.
in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost. Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle. Possibly, possibly not. Different man, though. Last names not changed. Was this a rebound relationship?
Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order. No dissolution in this one:
- Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable
Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action: (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING. CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE – PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT. – PROCEEDINGS: OSC/MOTION HELD. BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED. EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED. – HEARINGS: OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3. ACTION – COMPLETE === MINUTE ORDER END ===
For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:
- She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does. The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
- 12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10. NOTE: Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
- On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM… ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
- The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
- On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
- On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS. (not enough money in it for him? Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
- On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:
OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3
| J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH |
| COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND |
| – |
| PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| OSC/MOTION HELD. |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN |
| THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY |
| AND VISITATION ORDERS. |
| – |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER |
| OR THE MINOR CHILD. |
| THE OSC IS DENIED. |
| – |
| ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS |
| DENIED. |
| – |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR |
| FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR |
| VICTORVILLE CASE. |
| COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED.. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
- This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
- 01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
- 01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself. (NOT ON DOCKET).
- 01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):
01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide. A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself. The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.” The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.
- 02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.
I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies. If not a child also. I can’t keep up.
But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan. Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety. Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.
And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.
AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing. Sorry, but you are.
AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system. The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month. Do research, people! It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!
I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships. Good grief!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff. A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….
Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Here Come da Judge!”
Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…
This is from Womenslaw.org about Custody, and a good question, plus a sidelong plug for (what else) supervised visitation. . . . And no absolute commitment either way on this topic:
Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?
Maybe. It is possible that a parent who has committed violence will get custody or visitation if the court determines that it is in the “best interest of the child” to do so. Generally, judges beleve it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent contact with both parents.*1
{{so, the “court” kind of being the “judge” who signs the order, we get back to what judges generally believe… For more of that, see the AFCC conference as to what’s being promoted among many of them…}}
Conservatorship / Custody:
If a person is filing for sole or joint managing conservatorship, the court will consider whether the person has been abusive toward his/her spouse, the parent of the child and any person under 18 years old within the 2 years before filing for conservatorship or during the proceeding. A judge may deny joint managing conservatorship if s/he finds that there is a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse of a parent, spouse or child.*2
{{then, again, they also may not. Sounds like a toss-up to me…}}
The judge may not {{OR, may…}} appoint joint managing conservators if reliable evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *3
Likewise, the court [[as opposed to “the judge?”] will consider {{but will it act on?}} any incident of family violence in deciding whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator.*4
Possession and Access / Visitation:
If a parent has been violent within the last two years before filing or during the court proceedings, a judge may {{or may not, we have no committed policy here, right?}} deny that parent possession of or access to the child unless:
the judge decides that allowing the parent access is not a danger to the child and is in the best interest of the child; and
the judge approves a possession order that will protect the child and any other victim from the abusive parent. The order may require:
- supervised access; {{Here’s the Business Model…}}
exchange of the child in a protective setting (see note below);
that the parent not drink alcohol and not use any drugs within 12 hours before or during the time the child is with him/her; or {{See my comments on Oconto, Wisconsin, where the father was caught DUI with the daughter in the car, but still it was the MOTHER who was jailed for failing to force the daughter back into that situation.}}
that the parent attend a batterer’s prevention program or any program the judge finds appropriate. *5
Tell the judge if you have gotten a protective order within the last 2 years against the parent seeking possession of and access to your child. The judge will consider this when determining whether there is a history of family violence.*6
{{Note: Some women get SMART after the first several violent incidents, and survive more than 2 years in a relationship before someone shows them how to get out. In this case, asking what happened in the last 2 years may not indicate that the father/husband/partner has reformed or settled down, or repented, but simply that the mother/wife/partner simply got cagier and smarter in how to avoid them. As many abusers also are control freaks, as toa ccess to transportation and ways to escape their abuse, this may involve shutting down emotionally, and teaching the kids to also, i.e., “walking on eggshells.” how many judges take the time to tell the difference?}}
Note: If the abuser is granted possession and access to your child, ask the court or a local domestic violence program for information about visitation centers or visitation exchange facilities in your county if you think that is a good option for you.
GOT THIS? The judge MAY respect the danger of domestic violence, or the judge MAY instead choose to drop-kick the problem to some cronies in the supervised visitation field.
{{Which of course they will prime you to. . . .. . I asked for this, and was of course, not told that there is federal funding for this, but not available so readily for MOMS… Not being incarcerated, an abuser, or behind on my child support (as the custodial mother), there was no outreach program to help me. And as I wasn’t preventing access, that wasn’t an issue. Thanks, dudes for rewarding me for compliance and good-faith allowing regular access to my growing (and healing) children by totally removing them from me, failing to enforce child support — at all, practically — and allowing him after custody switch to totally cut off contact, failing to report felony child-stealing (meaning, no Victims of Crime compensation), and no help after this event trashed my jobs. Thanks. Merry Christmas to all, and let’ em eat cake…}}
It is assumed by the court that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *7
*1 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131
*2 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a)
*3 Tex. Fam. Code §153.004(b)
*4 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c)
*5 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)
*6 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004
*7 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e)
======================
(Since I’ve already dated, if not geographically marked (as to California) myself, I’ll go one step further and admit, this “well, it depends. . . .. ” approach to whether an abuser (or “a parent who has committed violence”) can get custody of a child approach reminded me (see highlit words, above) on the old comedy routine:
“Here Comes Da Judge!”
A little more judicial humor, even more dated (i.e., not my own…):
“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“
My last blog{{whoever this is...}}, on the rather bland exchanges between lawyers and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, gave me a craving for red meat. So I pulled out my copy of Winston Churchill's marvelous little book, Great Contemporaries, and I turned to the essay on F.E. Smith, a lawyer who later became the first Earl of Birkenhead. Smith was famous for his stilletto wit, which once drew a pompous rebuke from a presiding judge: "Mr. Smith, have you ever heard a saying by Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?" "Yes I have," came the instant repartee. "And have you ever heard a saying of Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?" Taken aback, the judge resorted to scolding, "You are extremely offensive, young man," "As a matter of fact," said Smith, "we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it." The judge, who apparently had never heard of citing a lawyer for contempt, came back for another drubbing: ""What do you suppose I am on the bench for, Mr. Smith?" "It is not for me, your honor, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence." That kind of exchange is something we we will never hear in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Americans are much too dignified for any such thing. Posted on January 9, 2006 10:40 PM | PermalinkOR:If I want to quote a Supreme Court justice who was genuinely funny, I usually turn to Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935).Among my favorite Holmes stories is the one concerning how he was supposed to lecture at a college, and discovered that he had arrived at an insane asylum by mistake. The justice was philosophical. “Oh well,” he said to the guard, “I don’t suppose that there is a great deal of difference.” For once, the legal eagle was topped. “With great respect, Mr. Justice,” the guard replied, “there is. Before they let you out of this place, you have to show some improvement.” Posted on January 2, 2006 7:53 PM | Permalink
More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:
Here comes the Judge!
Here comes the judge!
The court's in session!
The Funky Judge! Updated 8.28.02
That’s right. 1968 was the year of the funky craze (see last issue’s Soul With An African Twist). It may not have showed up on the Chinese astrological calendar, but ’68 was definitely the year of the Judge. Dewey ‘Pigmeat’ Markham trod the boards of the ‘Chitlin’ circuit for decades as well as appearing in many of the ‘sepia’ films aimed at forcibly segregated black audiences. In 1968 a routine of his about an angry, obstreperous judge broke into the mainstream of America’s pop consciousness. Pigmeat, a big guy with a loud, extremely gravelly voice would enter with a chant of: ‘Here come da judge, here come da judge! The court’s in session, the court’s in session!’ and then would launch into a hysterical tirade. In early 1968 Pigmeat and his rap found their way onto Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-in, and rapidly became a favorite, eventually becoming a regular on the show. It wasn’t long before ‘Judge’ records started to appear on the scene. Ironically, the first hit (chronologically) was not by Markham but Motown mainstay Shorty Long. Long, who had hit before with the original versions of ‘Devil With the Blue Dress On’ and ‘Function at the Junction’, made it (in June of ’68) to #4 on the R&B charts and #8 on the pop charts with his very funky ‘Here Comes The Judge’. In Long’s record, the Judge is sentencing the defendant to various amounts of time for the boogaloo, the four corners and the Afro-twist. The judge on the record even sounds like Pigmeat. Markham charted with his own version a few weeks later, on Chess (Chess2049). His tune ( a different song entirely) starts out with a long proto-rap speech, with exclamations from the gallery. The tune breaks into a deep, rough funk. In fact, despite the fact that he was an old fella, Pigmeat laid down the funkiest records in the entire ‘Judge’ genre (though it’s fair to mention that he had the mighty talents of the Chess house band backing him up).
I’m not really “playing around” so much as it might appear. Did you do your homework last few posts, and look up the L.A. County Judges Slush fund (at least acc. to Marv Bryer et al.), how it started out of the county court house, not paying taxes for years (til basically forced to), morphed into CCC then somehow AFCC, and now we have these tremendous professionals, and social scientists figuring out our problems for us…..?
ETHICS, TRANSFORMATIONS, and Dr. JUDITH REISMAN, Kinsey, etc….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CaliforniaCripplesWomen.pdf
I cannot find the exact article where Dr. Reisman was talking about the importance of ETHICS in public servants, and referring to a certain (old) law that was being undermined. She is a controversial figure for sure, but I responded to her personal story, which you might also, and how her own world got rocked when it was discovered a relative had been molested. …. I’d also like to note: articles are published onto “WND” (World Net Daily) which I do NOT espouse overall….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#journey
Summary:
Dr. Judith Reisman is sought worldwide to speak, lecture, testify, and counsel individuals, organizations, professionals and governments in Media Forensics, the scientific analysis of images, pictures, cartoons, illustrations, pornography and text in sexual harassment of women and children in the workplace, schools, and homes. Her Media Forensic expertise has been successful in child custody cases, examining “pseudo-child” and “virtual-child” pornography, as well as in judicial and legislative decisions about a) fraudulent sex science, sex education and b) the way in which media images restructure human brain, mind, memory, and conduct by hijacking rationality. The special emphasis of her Media Forensic research has been and continues to be the scientific documentation of the difference between public and private space human erotic displays, and the subversion of informed consent via exposure to supranormal visual stimuli.
Dr. Reisman is a consultant and former president of The Institute for Media Education and is the scientific adviser for the California Protective Parents Association. She was Principal Investigator and author of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice study, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1989), Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman, et al., 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991), Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation (w/Johnson, 1995), and Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000) and is a news commentator for WorldNetDaily.com. She has been a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, The U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Reisman is listed in numerous Who’s Who biographies such as: Who’s Who in Science & Engineering, International Who’s Who in Sexology, International Who’s Who in Education, Who’s Who of American Women and The World’s Who’s Who of Women. Her scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, while The German Medical Tribune and the British medical journal, The Lancet demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, saying:
The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life…. and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, “Anything goes”. In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports … Kinsey et al … questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles–or so it must be hoped. Kinsey…. has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547).
Tim Tate, UNESCO and Amnesty International Award-winning Producer-Director of “Kinsey’s Paedophiles,” Yorkshire Television, Great Britain, 1998: “In the course of producing my documentary-Kinsey’s Paedophiles–it became clear that every substantive allegation Reisman made was not only true but thoroughly sourced with documentary evidence–despite the Kinsey Institute’s reluctance to open its files.”
HER STORY:
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
I have been asked to introduce myself so that you know something of my life and how I came to discover Kinsey’s child molestation protocol, his false data, his molding of modern sex education and of western sexual culture and conduct, as well as how I came be involved in international governmental hearings on science fraud, child sexual abuse, pornography, drugs and the other critical issues of our time. I will try to touch on the points in my life which may be of most use to readers of this Kinsey expose.
I was born, Judith Ann Gelernter, in 1935 in Newark, New Jersey. Mine was a large and thriving second-generation Jewish-American family, Russian on my maternal side, German on my parental side. Both sets of grandparents had fled persecution in Europe, and upon landing at Ellis Island in New York, they thankfully embraced their adopted country, immediately took up menial labor, and raised large families of achievers.
My father Matthew was born in Massachusetts and my mother Ada in New Jersey. They eventually owned “Matthew’s Sea Food,” which they developed into a prosperous fish business in Irvington, New Jersey. The Gelernter’s held family meetings every few months at Aunt Laura’s large home in South Orange, New Jersey. More than forty adults and dozens of children sat down to dinners tastefully arranged and served, table manners always impeccable. After dinner, without the modern invention of television, political debates raged between my parents and the family. My parents were the radicals of the family. They believed the widely publicized propaganda of a perfect new world order under socialism or communism. None of our mainstream newspapers had ever revealed the multiple millions of Russians murdered by “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Still, all was mended when cousin Ruth sat down at the piano to accompany my father and three aunts, Laura, Shirley and Mary, as they sang old Yiddish and American folk songs in four-part harmony. I was mesmerized.
For me, they were musical giants, singing, swaying, smiling and beckoning. My dad, looked, I thought, movie-star handsome alongside my favorite Aunt Mary, a beautiful red-haired, green-eyed soprano who had rejected an offer from the Metropolitan Opera in order to marry and raise a family.
. . .
I lived at a wonderful time. My mother welcomed me home every day and my father supported anything I did. I was safe among neighbors, uncles or cousins due to the delightfully repressive influence of the time. I married, and the hedge of protection about my life was not breached until 1966 when my 10-year-old daughter was molested by a 13-year-old adored and trusted family friend. She told him to stop, but he persisted. He knew she would like it, he said, he knew from his father’s magazines, Playboy, the only “acceptable” pornography of the time. The boy left the country a few weeks later, after it came to light that my daughter was but one of several neighborhood children he had raped, including his own little brother. My heart was broken for all the families involved.
This appalling event in our lives, I would learn later, was a pattern with juvenile sex offenders, as they are known in law enforcement circles.
I might never have known anything about her violation, except that my daughter slipped into a deep depression. Only after I promised not to call the police would she talk about what happened. After assuring her this was not her fault, I called my dependable, staid aunt who listened sympathetically and declared, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. Children are sexual from birth.” Stunned, I replied that my child was not seeking sex, and called my Berkeley school chum, Carole, who counseled, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. You know children are sexual from birth.” I wondered at this same locution from two such different people so separated geographically. I recognized an ideological “party line.” I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey. I would hear and read that “children are sexual from birth” often again. But finaly I would uncover the hidden circumstances surrounding its source.
What will your judge believe? Suppose it was your daughter? As a mother — like the Berkeley (female) officer who finally noticed something was “off” regarding Phillip Garrido’s twoa ccomplices, will “da judge?” be receptive to your story, your kid’s story, or your partner’s story? Will all of them be considered “stories” and then business farmed out to a mediator, because the story now, is, equal parenting, pretty much no matter what….. And we MUST resolve our (irreconciliable?) differences in Conciliation, excuse me, Family Court, because it’s emotionally damaging to have irreconciliable differences with real damages.
I really believe the only way out is to find out who is paying these pipers. My research, to date, shows that it’s NOT just the litigating parents, but the entire taxable workforce. And the organization spouting all this stuff began by dodging taxes itself, allegedly. Go figure!
(THESE few from NAFCJ.net, home page — links may or may not be current, but are searchable):
“Protective Mom Accused of Witchhunt”, 11/23/1999, By Cheryl Romo, LA Daily Journal — Karen Anderson, one of the retaliated protective mothers mentioned in the Insight story, has since obtained hard evidence (cancelled checks) that federal money from fatherhood programs was used without her knowledge to pay-off all court officials in her case. Anderson along with Connie Valentine are heading up NAFCJ’s reform action in California.
A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, 2002, still slushing funds
and not paying taxes…
Insight Magazine “Is Justice for Sale in LA?”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara – Marv Bryer fights against corruption in Los Angeles County Court – the original AFCC court judges’ association, and promoters of Dr. Richard Gardner’s discredited pedophile theory, “PAS” Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Insight Magazine “New Scandals in LA Courts”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara — Continuation with more of Marv Bryer’s evidence details on an alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association (AFCC judges) and the possible extortion of civil litigants by some officers of the court.”
Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child Abuse, By Katherine Hine, J.D., Exposé The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes, A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals.
I’m still looking at the googled “Marv Bryer” myself: here’s a sample of printouts:
Videos: Interview with Marvin Bryer – Naples, Fl | Naples Daily News
Marvin Bryer talks about getting to see Obama – Video taken in or around Naples, Florida.
http://www.naplesnews.com/videos/detail/interview-marvin–bryer/ – Cached – SimilarHave you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer
3 posts – 3 authors – Last post: Dec 28, 2008Have you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer. … It starts at about Minute 50 about Marvin Bryer. The below document indicates some of the stuff …
forum.prisonplanet.com › … › General Discussion – Cached – SimilarIRS Non-Profit Organization
Dec 21, 1998 … A letter has been sent by Marvin Bryer to the IRS alerting them of this scam; the attendant mis-use of government facilities; …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/irscpa.htm – Cached – SimilarBryer Tort Claim of 9/10/98
May 8, 1999 … Enter Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif. . . . . Bryer became ensnared with the family-court system after his …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm – Cached – Similar
You know what? Maybe the love of money IS the root of all evil. Not using it, not having it, but loving it more than, say, children. Or oaths of office, etc.
Exposing & Prosecuting
Judicial Corruption thru
Common Law Discovery
by Marvin Bryer [1997]
DISCLAIMER: Note, this seems to be a survivalist, gun-toting, all-American (you get the picture), I’d say for sure conservative site. I am just curious to read the Marv Bryer article, and don’t know if this represents his philosophy either. Sort through it, though.
THE THING IS:
If you are going to the fruit stand in a store, are you going to sort and pick through apples for the good ones? Or pick a pre-bagged, inspected, certified organic (etc.) one, whose packaging you trust? Or, alternately, skip apples for today.
They say one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. When you get divorced and can’t figure it out OUTside court, you must go INSIDE, and in this case, you can’t forum-shop or judge shop. Remember, if there is conflict within a family, the parents just lost jurisdiction, acc. to that old law (see last few posts). Your kids and your life are no longer your own.
Therefore it’s IMPERATIVE that ALL financial incentives to defraud the public be removed for ALL judges. This ain’t going to be a walk in the park, and I wish that the Moms and Dads both (the honest ones) would quit yakking about social science studies and do their math homework.
Hope you appreciate this sacrifice of my own internet time just made to day. Have a nice day… and Let’s Get HONEST! And make sure our public officials do also!
Thanks.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
“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.
*What does doing THAT have to do with ending domestic violence, pray tell?
That article was posted at http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=106799.0 by user May 21, 2009.
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….
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
. . .
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).
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:
“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 be – and 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:
That is indeed what the traffic is in. It pretty much describes most areas of commerce, including transport of goods:
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
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:
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
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
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).
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?
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
Rebecca Bailey, PhD – Psy 18732
ANYHOW . . . The Three Cities and Fiat Currency . . . .
The Moneylenders Take Over England
In the 19th century, the Rothchild banking family’s Nathan Rothchild said it well:
{{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
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
March 14, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Posted in Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parenting Coordination promotion, PhDs in Psychology-Psychiatry etc (& AFCC), Vocabulary Lessons, warfare: strategic
Tagged with "Bush 2002 Exec Order -New Freedom Commission", "Strong Field Project", 3 Cities That Rule the World, Brave Young Adults, Child Molestation, CPRADR, CPS Child-stealing, DV, DV industry, England, Evolving Canon of Bible, fatherhood, fighting back, Godboldo case, Handwriting On the Wall from Bible-Read it Now, Humantrafficking, incest, Intimate partner violence, JAYC, Jaycee Dugard, London, mediation, men's rights, Motherhood, obelisk, Parenting Coordination, Pharma, Phil Garrido, Rebecca Bailey PhD, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, State vs Corporation, Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution, Supervised Visitation, the Secular Web, Thomas J Stipanovich, TMAP/PennMAP, Transitioning Families, trauma, Vatican, VOD, WDC, Who Owns America?