September 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

My SA News
2008 09 20

Justice questioned in salt-poisoning case

John MacCormack - Express-News

CORPUS CHRISTI — Early on Oct. 3, 2006, the morning after her neighbor Hannah Overton had rushed a dying 4-year-old boy to a nearby urgent care clinic, Kathi Haller got a visit from police.

Haller, 30, who took notes of the encounter and later testified about it under oath, said Detective Michael Hess arrived already convinced that Overton poisoned her foster son Andrew Burd with salt….(Full Story)
_____________
Comments by Fathers for Life: It appears that the truth in this case is hidden and at best convoluted, but it also seems that the article, a very long one, looks like a trial by media.

As to salt poisoning being rare, a claim that is being made by one of the experts in the case, that is not so.  It is not that uncommommon to use salt poisoning to murder children.

Not only that, but it seems to be a fairly safe method for those to who use it.  It is hard to prove that it was done deliberately.  The question is whether it is more likely that someone was unjustly accused of doing the poisoning or that someone is more likely to get away with murder if using salt as a weapon to murder a child.

Mind you, salt poisoning is not being mentioned much at all when it is being used by third parties in the killing of a child, such as in an abortion, which are frequently induced by poisoning an unborn child with salt.

Posted in Media Bias, Child Murder, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

September 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Mike McIntyre ,  Winnipeg Free Press
Published: Friday, September 19, 2008

WINNIPEG - A man charged with a vicious rape has been released from jail and cleared of wrongdoing after his alleged victim got caught lying to Manitoba justice officials about her relationship with the accused.

Veteran defence lawyer Sheldon Pinx says he’s never seen such a case during his many years of practice. He said the woman should now be charged for what she put his client through, including nearly seven months behind bars….(Full Story)

______________
Comments by Fathers for Life:  Obviously, the lying woman used the full power of the State to persecute the man she had had voluntary sex with.  The story says nothing about why she did so, but she could have done it for the most inane reasons.  After all, she has got all of the power and a crown prosecutor who is eager to believe her lies but who is reluctant to accept the possibility that the accuser’s assertions and allegations could be fabricated.

The story mentions that the real victim in the case, the man who served seven months in jail on account of a wrongful allegation that carried not an ounce of truth, feels vindicated.  How can that be?  Seven months served for a wrongful allegation and no complaint about loss freedom, wages and reputation?  There is something seriously wrong with either the reporting of his sentiments or with the man or both, even though the story reports that the man is angry.

“Veteran defence lawyer Sheldon Pinx says he’s never seen such a case during his many years of practice.”  Right, he may never have seen such a case, but is he ignorant of them and of the fact that lying by women is endemic in Canadian jurisprudence?

Pinx can hardly be ignorant of the fact that a large number of Canadian men served many years in prison and were then exonerated, under very similar circumstances and for very similar reasons: lying accusers and a system out to get those falsely accused men, including making all possible efforts to deny the existence of exonerating evidence.

Many of those men were then released and compensated with millions of dollars for having had their lives destroyed.  Many of them proved, after having been indoctrinated through the prison culture, that their lives had been destroyed permanently, and that compensation for time wrongfully served in prison hardly is a remedy for what was done to those men.

“Pinx said his client feels vindicated…” He said the woman should now be charged for what she put his client through…

That most likely means that no charges of perjury will be filed, and that the man will not be compensated for the ordeal he was put through.

One would expect that the woman should be held responsible for all legal expenses, even for the cost for incarcerating the man whom she had falsely accused, but so what?  It’s all paid for already anyway, through the magnificent benevolence of the Canadian taxpayers.  It would never do to hold such a woman responsible for the consequences of her actions.

The general sentiments are that such women (as do all women) belong on pedestals and must never be made to foot the bill for what they cause through lying.  That is what is wrong with the system.  It enables women to lie with impunity, to be violent with impunity, and to impose violence by proxy, with the State serving as proxy to inflict great harm on men with very little effort by women.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The election of Maurice Vellacott, incumbent MP for electoral district Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, for a new term in the House of Parliament appears to be a given.  He won his seat with substantial majorities of the votes in four previous terms.

Maurice Vellacott recently tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483)  which  proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal Parenting during and after divorce (see Maurice Vellacott (MP) on F4J Crusade for Equal Parenting).  It was fairly safe to do so.  There was little chance for that bill to pass and that it would raise any controversy before the Parliament was dissolved for the current election.

Still Maurice Vellacott’s stance on the rights of fathers during and after divorce received attention in a newspaper article from Saskatchewan.

The StarPhoenix

Sep. 17, 2008

Challengers not deterred by long odds

By David Hutton

….Taking out incumbent Conservative Maurice Vellacott in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin is going to be a formidable task….

In the past, those opposing Vellacott have run on the notion he has done little for the riding since he’s been in office other than promote his socially conservative views. In the last election, the campaign became heated after a Liberal campaign worker phoned a call-in show on cable television and made accusations of Vellacott that prompted a lawsuit.

This time, though, his opposition seems less willing to resort to personal barbs and name-calling. “I won’t attack Mr. Vellacott,” Zipchen said. “There are a lot of other issues.”

That suits Vellacott just fine, he says. He hopes to shift the focus to promote his campaign to change divorce laws to enshrine the principle of equal parenting. Currently, divorce laws are stacked against fathers, Vellacott said. “Every candidate for every election I’ve ever had has crabbed about Vellacott didn’t do this or that, it’s stock and trade. … But that hasn’t worked. Everyone has tried to use it and it’s time to try something else.”….(Full Story)

The odds of Maurice Vellacott being elected again will quite likely not be harmed by his pro-father stance, that is even though the Canadian Conservative Party proved itself, at best, to be apathetic to fathers and family rights, and to the rights of “fetuses”, that is, children waiting to be born, in what once was the safest place to be for them, their mothers’ wombs. The CPC’s election platform, as was apparent even as some of its members gained their seats in the House of Commons when neither the CPC nor the Canadian Alliance Party were yet in existence, varies very little from that of the Liberals in many of the major issues that matter most.

Stephen Harper quite clearly and intensively engaged on the path of political expediency.  That leaves little room for the promotion of the restoration of the rights of the traditional nuclear family that had made Canada as great as we had once become accustomed to, before the dismantling of such rights was begun in earnest by Liberals as well as by Conservatives, in the 1960s.

No, I am afraid that there are now few reasons why one should choose between one or the other of the two leading political parties in Canada.  As I wrote a few elections ago to the Reform Party of Canada, by the time Conservatives gain a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, their trend towards populism will have molded their election platform so much that most differences between the declared intentions of the two leading parties will have disappeared.  The two parties will then be distinguishable only by their respective party colours and spelling of their names.

Being for fathers rights will not hurt Maurice Vellacott, other than to make fathers expunged from their families to be more likely to vote for him.  However, his Private Member’s bill to that extent appears to have little chance of being put into law.  It quite simply does not fit his Party’s agenda.

As Ralph Klein, former long-standing premier of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta indicated a couple of elections ago, when he explained the secret of his success in his speech to the National Convention of the CPC, “That is not rocket science.  One does not have to lead the parade.  The people know where they want to go.  All it takes is to put oneself at the front of the parade.” (Quoted from memory)

Now, in a nutshell, that is populism, and Stephen Harper learned his lessons well.

The problem with that is, of course, that what passes for public opinion are the sentiments of vocal minorities but not the sentiments of the masses.  The masses do not have a voice in the media, but the vocal minorities do, and many journalists are merely the spokesmen for the latter. That is what drives Canadian politics and those in all developed nations.

As to Ralph Klein’s opinions on expediencies in politics, at the beginning of his political career, a reporter once asked him, as they were walking across the parking lot of Ralph Klein’s favorite watering hole: “What made you choose a career in politics?” to which Ralph Klein replied: “You slide farther on B.S. than on gravel.”

Not that I am a friend of the Liberals, I cannot ever forgive them for the social and economic destruction they wrought on Canada, in their all-out drive to turn it into a socialist nation in which half of ever dollar spent goes to pay for government “services” (i. e.: government-funded abortions in excess of 100,000 a year, while Canada manages to compensate for its shrinking population only through massive immigration from underdeveloped nations) and diktats of one sort or another, the vast majority of whom I neither want, need nor receive, and for whom I have to pay anyway and must live by, but Stephen Harper and those under his direction are sliding a long way.  They do much of what the Liberals did, only more so and more oppressively, but ostensibly for different reasons.

As to what our options are in this election, David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best.  See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).

David Warren figures that only Stephen Harper and the CPC are able to form a functioning government, but he provides no answer to the question of whom one should vote for: “But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?”

That leaves the dilemma unsolved, but does it?  I cannot vote for either party.  One of them legalized not only the whole-sale “terminating” of unborn children but even made it the law to have the taxpayers fund it.  The other condoned that crime against Humanity by not only doing nothing but by nodding its approval of that ghastly government-sponsored practice through bestowing Canada’s highest award, the Order of Canada, on the main promoter and performer of government-funded abortions: Henry Morgentaler.

Yes, I know, our governor general is politically independent and merely the representative of the Queen, but you don’t seriously believe that the Queen told her representative to Canada to honour Henry Morgentaler, do you?  But this I firmly believe: Canada’s ship of state has a figure head for a captain who actively averts his eyes so as not to find what he needs to avert looming disaster: a moral compass.  To find and use one of those would hurt political expediency.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Family, Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

In the best interest of the child

From the mail box of Fathers for Life:

To the judge in my latest child-custody and -access hearing:

Sir(s)

This past week I have had to attend court for the CSA [the UK Child Support Agency] and Family Court for redefined contact and, I might add, for the last time! You can only push someone so far.  So, congratulations, the system has rendered me bankrupt, insists I still pay and pay, but “Too bad Mr. Farmer you are not to see your children who tantalizingly pass your door each day on their way to school.”

Far from being a poor, violent or uncaring father I have done all in my power to offer my children a seamless path from broken family to the security of a second family home and the stability of this being located close to the former family home and at an equal distance to both schools; this at great personal difficulty to me at the age of 50, to have to start again from scratch and thankfully with the support of my wife and family.

Yet the same family courts who granted access to me in 2004 will still allow the mother with her sickly smug smile to wield the big stick and say NO to contact.  Are the children’s interests being served?

It is the courts not being able to enforce the perfectly good order designed to offer the same level of stability whilst the children are so young, and until they reach an age when they could decide which parent to be with.

For me, my children have reached that age, but the controlling mother will not release them from her shackles and not even allow them to call on the phone or call in for tea on the occasional evening after school for a few hours, just to mend the bridges the mother has broken.

That is the fundamental flaw with this law that allows the mother to abuse it, yet not to be reprimanded.  In fact, it empowers the mother to do just as she wishes, whilst ‘cocking a snoot’ at the judge, at the social workers, but above all at the children she is meant to be acting as responsible carer for.

Consider the next time you ridicule a ‘Batman’ Character that he is taking his plight out of the family environment, that what the mother does is from within and what long term effect that might have on vulnerable children.

If my children return to me in a few years, when in their late teens and say, look Dad, I have been stealing or have been involved in drugs or violence, would it not have been better for me to be there for them now, to prevent them from getting into trouble in the first place and to be there to answer any query my children have, no matter how trivial it may seem — just to show there is someone with an answer?

My own father never said ‘I don’t know’, if he could not answer my worries immediately.  He would not stop till he could, and that kind of reassurance means a lot when you are young and especially today, with all the peer and media pressure the kids are under on a day to day basis.

If this appalling law was reviewed and put right today, it will still take a generation to put right the social ills the law fosters right now. Given that the family-law courts’ decisions are made inviolable, there is no point in having a judge sitting in court in the first place!

The reality is, there are some who have to live with the heartache, knowing there is nothing more to be done, the children are lost, the home is lost, the childhood is lost, you will never reclaim those lost years, and the memories will not be made.

The pain of that will be with you evermore, and any future contact will be a grim reminder of what was lost at a time you could have saved it.

Now is that time, but I cannot stop the passage of time, and the happy memories I have of the time with my father will not be continued on in my own children. I have done nothing wrong.  I am not a monster but a loving caring Dad, and the system has stolen the opportunity to help my children through their formative years into adulthood.

Dave Farmer

170 Winford Drive Broxbourne Herts EN10 6PN England

Posted in Health, Divorce, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Child Abduction, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Faded, but not forgotten

The slayings of four boys by their mother left a community in shock more than a decade ago. Those who remember say the boys ‘deserve recognition for their lives and the lives they touched.’

By Linda Lou
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

September 14, 2008

The graves of the three Eubanks boys, shot to death by their mother in 1997 in San Marcos, rest under a thin camphor tree near concrete stairs.

Instead of headstones, concrete blocks slightly larger than bricks display the initial of each boy’s first name, their last name and the year they died. The gray blocks, surrounded by trimmed grass at the San Marcos Cemetery, appear well-maintained, but the letters are fading. The plain markers reveal little about the victims.

“A Eubanks” is on the left, “B Eubanks” rests in the middle, then “M Eubanks.” Austin was 7, Brigham, 6, and Matthew, 4.

Their half brother, Brandon Armstrong, 14, also killed by their mother, is buried in Texas and memorialized with a headstone there.

Online: Brandon Armstrong’s father has created a Web site to shine a light on this kind of tragedy. For the story, go to uniontrib.com/more/eubanks.
The slayings of the four brothers are arguably one of the darkest moments in San Marcos history. Like the letters on the grave markers, however, what happened to the boys has faded from many residents’ memories. The house where the murders happened was torched by firefighters in a training exercise. Some might not know the murders ever happened – more than 10,000 people have moved to the city since 1997….(Full Story)

Posted in Child Murder, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From the mail box of Fathers for Life:

I live in the U.S. But I’m hoping that you might know where I can get some help. Last year my son was fondled by another boy. This year he yelled at the boy, calling him gay, and pushed him. The supervisor saw it and now my son is in BIG trouble, probably a hate “crime.” The assistant principal and I had agreed that my son was honest and well-raised. He implied that he’d have done the same thing. I thought I was done with this and was surprised when the school sent me a letter outlining my son’s unacceptable behavior without acknowledging what led up to it. This is a “politically correct” situation and my son’s caught in the middle.

Do you have any information or experiences that can help guide me? Is there an organization in the States that can help?

[The father of a sexually assaulted boy]

Does anyone have advice for the father of the sexually assaulted boy?

Posted in Civil Rights, Gay issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Many of you probably know about that already, but it is always good to have a reminder, as familiarity breeds, if not contempt, then at least apathy.

From the Internet:

The Sad Passing of Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of an old friend - Common Sense - who has been with us for many years.

No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn’t always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don’t spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place.

Reports of a six year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate [upon her urging him to do so - see footnote 1], teens suspended from school using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Paracetamol, sun lotion, or a sticky plaster to a student - but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn’t defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in his death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife Discretion, his daughter Responsibility, and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I’m a Victim.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

P.S. And to top it all off, as one final insult to the passing of Common Sense, we now give compensation to drug addicts for having to go cold turkey when we put them in jail!!!

___________________
Notes:

1. ….One of my school buddies received a public ridiculing and castigation.  It came about because he was [partly] Jewish.  I did not know he was that, nor would I have cared if I would have known.  He was my friend.  His mother had asked my closest friend Willi and me to come and pick him up on the way to school and to drop him off afterwards, because some older boys were bullying him.
   The Hitler Youth marched into our class one day, with drums, fifes and flags.  The school principal and a few party officials showed up with them.  They singled out my friend who sat towards the back of the class.  He was asked to come to the front and was used as an exhibit to illustrate what an enemy of the Fatherland looked like: curly brown hair, brown beady eyes, budding hooked nose, etc..
   Does anyone think that what was done to my friend was that much different from putting Jonathan Prevette^* in isolation for giving his friend a peck on the cheek on her request?  My friend was castigated because he was [partly] Jewish.  Jonathan Prevette had to spend time in isolation instead of at the scheduled ice-cream party, because he was male.

   Jonathan came out of his ordeal intact, because his mother could put up a fight for his rights.  My school buddy was dead the morning after the public ridiculing.There was no answer at the door when we went to pick him up to give him protection on the way to school, as his mother had asked us to.  His mother had taken her own and his life overnight.  She had preferred a gas chamber of her own making over that which awaited them.  She had turned on the oven without lighting it.  I found out when the teacher, Fraulein Krappot, who had started it all, sent me to my friend’s house to find out why he wasn’t at school.  My seven-year-old friend died because he was considered to be an enemy of the state.

   Nine-year-old Sean Pelletier (page down to “Oral Questions, SEAN PELLETIER CASE at that URL) in Chilliwack, B.C., Canada, hanged himself because he could not tolerate a life without his beloved father — to whom his mother denied him access.  He is now no better off than my school buddy.  He also was a direct victim of discrimination gone wild.  So are the teen-aged sons (three in total) of my neighbours’ families who committed suicide within the last few years.The [now more than] 300 boys and 3,000 men in all of Canada who kill themselves each year are victims of gender discrimination and gender hatred just the same.  Many of them die simply because nobody cares or has any compassion for them.  They die because they have given up hope in a society that is anti-male and appears to offer no promise of a better future for them.  In February, 1997, we heard on the news that within the preceding month five teenagers took their lives in a single town in central Canada.  The announcer kept it gender-neutral.  He said they were teenagers.
   We supposed then that we would see more details about that epidemic of suicides in a single town when the papers would publish more about it, that we would then know which gender it is that is represented by these teens.  It should not have come as a surprise to anyone if they were all male.  On average, the chances are 5:1 that they would be.  It seemed to me that the fact that the announcer did not mention their gender is a give-away.  The gender is not important when men or boys are involved.  The gender is then hidden, because to mention it might create concern for the male sex (as it turned out later, all were boys)…. (Full story)

_______
* Jonathan Prevette is a boy in South Carolina who as a first grader violated his teacher’s interpretation of his school’s sexual harassment rules.

–Walter

Posted in Health, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

September 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Investigative journalism that can expose the secrecy of the US Federal Judiciary as a cover for coordinated wrongdoing among its judges

Reporters’ opportunity to test judges’ unaccountability at the US Judicial Conference on September 15-17

Call for action by reporters

By Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Sep. 15, 2008

Dear Reporter and Judicial Reform Advocate,

Kindly find below an article submitted for publication that deals with the annual meeting of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and the other top federal judges of the Judicial Conference in Washington, DC, Tuesday-Wednesday, September 16-17, 2008.

The Conference Committees are scheduled to meet on Monday, September 15, at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (see below).

The Conference will afford reporters, investigative journalists, and bloggers the opportunity to confront the judges of the Judiciary’s governing body with, in general, the facts discussed below of their unaccountability for the totality of their conduct of judicial and non-judicial acts and, in particular, the referenced evidence of bankruptcy, district, and circuit judges who are abusing such unaccountability to support and cover up a bankruptcy fraud scheme driven by a most insidious corruptor: Money!

In addition, given the enormous power that judges wield over people’s property, liberty, and even lives, and the fact that however they exercise it, they can get away with it, they have turned their judicial power into absolute power. Such is the power that corrupts absolutely.

For those media people who seize the opportunity of the Conference to set in motion an investigation into how unaccountable judges have used the Money and Power corruptors to operate a scheme and who ultimately bring judges down from their “Above the law” position to account for their coordination of wrongdoing, the rewards can be high:

1. to win a Pulitzer Prize, as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post did for their exposé of Watergate;
2. to be portrayed in a movie, as they were in “All the President’s Men”, staring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman; and
3. to earn the higher moral reward of the recognition of a grateful nation for their contribution to bringing our judicial system closer to the lofty goal of “Equal Justice Under Law” in a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.

I respectfully invite you to forward the Newsrelease below to your contacts in the news media and to encourage them to cover the Conference and interview its members (see Service List at http://Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org/JNinfo/DrCordero_JNinfo_6jun8.pdf ).

I would appreciate your letting me know at your earliest convenience whether you will publish the article.

Sincerely,

Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq

Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

Dr.Richard.Cordero.Esq@Judicial-Discipline-Reform.org

59 Crescent Street
Brooklyn, NY 11208
tel. (718)827-9521

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Investigative reporting of US judiciary, investigative reporting of ground-shaking importance, at least as important as that of the Watergate investigation.

Call to action for investigative reporters

Reporters’ Opportunity to Test
Judges’ Unaccountability at the U.S. Judicial Conference
on September 15-17

Dear Reporter,

Kindly find below an article submitted for publication that deals with the annual meeting of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and the other top federal judges of the Judicial Conference in Washington, DC, next Tuesday-Wednesday, September 16-17.

The Conference Committees are scheduled to meet on Monday, September 15, at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (see below).

The Conference will afford reporters, investigative journalists, and bloggers the opportunity to confront the judges of the Judiciary’s governing body with, in general, the facts discussed below of their unaccountability for the totality of their conduct of judicial and non-judicial acts and, in particular, the referenced evidence of bankruptcy, district, and circuit judges who are abusing such unaccountability to support and cover up a bankruptcy fraud scheme driven by a most insidious corruptor: Money!

In addition, given the enormous power that judges wield over people’s property, liberty, and even lives, and the fact that however they exercise it, they can get away with it, they have turned their judicial power into absolute power. Such is the power that corrupts absolutely.

For those media people who seize the opportunity of the Conference to set in motion an investigation into how unaccountable judges have used the Money and Power corruptors to operate a scheme and who ultimately bring judges down from their “Above the law” position to account for their coordination of wrongdoing, the rewards can be high:

1) to win a Pulitzer Prize, as Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post did for their exposé of Watergate;

2) to be portrayed in a movie, as they were in “All the President’s Men”, staring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman; and

3) to earn the higher moral reward of the recognition of a grateful nation for their contribution to bringing our judicial system closer to the lofty goal of “Equal Justice Under Law” in a nation where nobody is supposed to be above the law.

I would appreciate your letting me know at your earliest convenience whether you will publish the article. I also encourage you to cover the Conference and interview its members (see the link to their list below).

Sincerely,

(Signed: Dr. Richard Cordero, Esq.)

That link, the text of the preceding call to action by Dr. Richard Cordero, as well as the full text of a news release that explains the salient points of the circumstances of the unaccountability of US judges in relation to jurisprudence and the upcoming judicial conference are contained in this document (458kB PDF file)

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

September 13, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

You just broke up with your wife or girlfriend (or, more likely, she broke up with you - no difference);   have one or more children, don’t know what to do and can’t afford the retaining fee your lawyer wants before she or he starts to work for you.

I received requests for help and advice in so many cases like that over the years, that I began to type up what are in effect generic answers to generic questions.  Here is a typical case from the mail box of Fathers for Life.

Kevin Jamieson [not his real name] wrote:

Hi my name is Kevin Jamieson, I’m emailing you because I need some advice/help. I am 23 years old, I have  son that’s 2 1/2. His mother and I are no longer together and my name isn’t on his birth certificate, giving me no rights. I have sought counsel, and she needs a $2000 retainer fee to get started which I do not have. However, she did refer me to Father’s For Life through a man in my community. I have been waiting for a while for there to be a meeting but there hasn’t been one for sometime. In the meantime I had been able to see my son whenever because my ex and I were trying to work things out. This all changed when she physically assaulted me in my home. She is facing three charges and I can have no contact with her. Now the only way I see my son is by setting up visits with her brother. I am confused and hurt. I would like advice on how to do the process of getting my name on the birth certificate on my own, as well as getting regular visits where I can have my own time with him. Please let me know if you can help me.

Sincerely

Kevin

I would need your location to be able to refer you to a fathers rights organizations close to your home.

Usually I provide generic advice, such as this, to someone in your circumstances.

I will address a few issues that appear in your message.

1. How do you know he is your son?  The only way you can be sure of that is to have a DNA test done.  Don’t be fooled by what you see in your boy.  People have a tendency of seeing what they wish to see.  The fact is that in your circumstances the chance that the boy is yours is on average only about two against one. (Check some of the articles at Paternity Fraud)
2. “…my name isn’t on his birth certificate, giving me no rights.”  That is generally but not absolutely true.  Even fathers who do have their name on a birth certificate find that, upon separation, when she doesn’t want the man who is alleged to have fathered her child to have any rights, the father will find that he has no rights.
   There is very little remedy in the law.  What little there is varies from location to location, that is, from state to state, from province to province and from country to country.
   In general, if you assumed the boy to be your son, and if that can be shown to have been the case (even if you know that you are not the biological father), you will be held to be responsible and accountable for the child(ren).  Even though you may not be allowed to see the child, you will still have to pay for him.  The courts hold that to be in the best interest of the child.  In reality, it is not you, as a father, that matters but the taxes you will be forced to pay for having dared to want to be a father.  The legal principle behind that is called estoppel. Fathers for Life contains a few articles describing the circumstances of estoppel in more detail.
3. “I have sought counsel, and she needs a $2000 retainer fee to get started which I do not have.”
   Without paying a retainer you are not likely to be able to hire that lawyer.  Still, if you cannot afford a retainer, how can you afford to pay for what else she would have to do?  Costs are on average in the order of about $10,000.  If the separation and custody fight becomes bitter, you can easily face upwards from $30,000 in lawyer fees (and you will quite possibly have to pay her legal and layer fees as well).
   It is not likely that you can find a lawyer who will work for you for nothing.  Divorce and custody fights are their bread and butter.  There is an exception.  If you cannot afford a $2,000 retainer, you may qualify for a Legal Aid lawyer.  If so, make sure to get one before your ex does.  Only one Legal Aid lawyer will work on a given case.
4. “However, she did refer me to Father’s For Life through a man in my community.”
   I don’t know why she did so.  At first glance it would seem that she did because she is honest.  If so, she deserves credit for that.  At any rate, look up the articles identified through the first link in my response.
   It is not very likely that you can determine all by yourself what the names of the best lawyers are in your area that deal with such issues.  You need to do as I said.  Get in touch with one or more local fathers rights organizations, talk to their members and find out through them which lawyers would be best.  Then you will have to apply the evaluation and selection procedures I described in those two articles.
5. “She is facing three charges and I can have no contact with her.”
   Facing charges?  Have charges been filed against her?  Make sure that is the case.  However, don’t be surprised to find that your ex will allege that she acted in self-defence and that the judge is more likely to believe her than you.
   Lawyers call false abuse allegations (especially false sexual abuse allegations) “The silver bullet.”  That is because those allegations never fail to get their man.  Never forget that judges are lawyers, too.
6. “…the only way I see my son is by setting up visits with her brother.”
   Does the restraining order specify “no contact” only with her, or does it include the boy?  If the latter is the case, you are breaking the law with such “visits”.  If she finds out, she will surely have the courts hold that against you.
   The consequence of that will be that you lose your chance of getting even minimal visitation rights (at best one weekend ever two weeks).  You will most likely be ordered to have supervised visitations of once or twice each month, one or two hours each (at a cost of from about $125 to $200 an hour), during which you will not even be allowed to hug your son.
7. “…how to do the process of getting my name on the birth certificate on my own…”
   For that you must make the arrangements through a lawyer.  The circumstances vary enormously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  You may be able to accelerate that through refusing to accept paternity.  She will then have to prove that you are the father.  That may help a bit, but that strategy must be discussed with your lawyer.
8. “…getting regular visits where I can have my own time with him.”
   Be careful that those regular visits won’t take the form of supervised visitations.
   If she is reasonable, she will just let you pick up the boy whenever you are supposed to.  If she does not want that, and if she is a physical danger to you, you can make arrangements to have her drop off the boy at a relative’s or trusted friend’s place. Still, that, too, requires her to be reasonable.
   The best plans for such child exchanges or any other visitation arrangements are not worth anything if she doesn’t want to play along.  If she doesn’t play along, there is no recourse for you but to take her to court, time and again.
   Much of that can be avoided if the child-exchange or visitation procedures are spelled out in the court order, but even then she will be able to ignore that with impunity.  It is extremely unlikely that she will be punished for violating the provisions of the court order for visitation, with one exception.  The court order for visitation must contain an order to the local police to assist you in getting your visitation rights enforced if that is necessary.  The police are likely to do nothing for you, unless the visitation orders specifically instruct them to do so if necessary.

There is one more thing I must mention.  You must without delay file an injunction against her that will order her not to move out of the state or province you are located in.  Such injunctions are usually only temporary and should be renewed until you have a court order in hand that spells out to her that she is not permitted to move away.  I know a few North American fathers whose children were abducted to Europe and even to Australia.  The advantage of having such an injunction, or to have a paragraph in the child custody and visitation order that specifies that she cannot move away is that if she does so, she can be charged with kidnapping and you can have the child returned to you.

The trouble with all of the advice I gave you is that if you use any of it, you are bound to make her very angry.  The worst enemy is an angry one.  However, she declared her war against you, and you need to defend yourself, unless you change your name, get false papers and move to another country that does not have a reciprocal agreement with yours to deport you if you are sought for child support obligations.

I strongly suggest that you learn how to navigate the website of Fathers for Life.  The home page contains some instructions on that: How to navigate that website.

Whatever thoughts come to your mind that you wish to find more information on in connection with your  paternal rights or relationship with your ex, chances are good that you will find something on it at Fathers for Life.

I hope that all will work out well for you,

Walter Schneider

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Women's Violence, The New World Order, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »