May 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Mar
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Archive for the Paternity Fraud Category

Why we need a men’s movement

September 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Angry Harry put up links to excellent videos at his website. You need to see those. (The first items listed at the top of the home page.)

The first video, “Why we need a men’s movement”, and its related short video clips, address the consequences of years and decades of discrimination against men.
The second set of videos is about the causes of discrimination against men. Those are ten free segments of a full documentary (available for sale on a CD by indoctrinate-u.com) that relate to the abrogation of academic freedom, but also illuminate many other issues, such as the lack of men’s studies programs, while women’s studies programs abound.

Both sets of videos are specific to the US. However, anyone who has been following the evolution of feminist social engineering can affirm that the all-out promotion of women’s programs only and the loss of academic freedom are generic and universal problems that affect primarily all developed nations.

Posted in Organizational News, Suicides, Men's Issues, Feminism, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

How to select a lawyer

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.

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)
“…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.
“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.
“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.
“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.
“…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.
“…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.
“…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 »

8 years in prison for plot to steal baby (and for kidnapping)

August 28, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Missouri woman gets 8 years in prison for plot to steal baby

Yahoo News
Wed Aug 27, 2:53 PM

By The Associated Press

INDEPENDENCE, Mo. - A 20-year-old woman who kidnapped a pregnant teenager she met online in a foiled plot steal her unborn baby has been sentenced to eight years in prison.

Lauren Gash, of Odessa, pleaded guilty last month to kidnapping, assault and felonious restraint in the July 2007 attack on Amanda Howard, then 18, inside a Blue Springs motel room. Gash was sentenced Tuesday to eight years each on the first two counts and seven years on the third. The sentences will run concurrently….(Full Story)

Posted in Child Abduction, Women's Violence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

The Virtual Child

August 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The last article identified here states that “Viola Trevino’s plea bargain begins the final chapter of a case that made national headlines.” That statement is most likely not true, because Shelly and Steve Barreras have not yet and most likely never will be reimbursed for the $20,000 in child support they paid for a child that never was. Yet, that is not on account of inability to pay by the major culprit in the case of one of the worst cases of known paternity fraud ever aided and abetted by a criminal, in this case the State of New Mexico.

The information on this page was copied from the website of Fathers for Life, from the web page that contains advice to men.

…The lesson to be learned from these stories is that if you are in Court to dispute child support obligations or custody issues, first of all make sure that the children are yours; and ideally make sure of that long before the case winds up in court. Do it right after the birth of the child. Still, that won’t help much in a case like the following one.

Woman created a “virtual child”, a child that never existed in reality but did exist on forged documents, still, the alleged father had to pay

…first wife Viola Trevino gave new meaning to Paternity Fraud when she created a “virtual daughter” based on a DNA sample from her ex-husband’s adult daughter. With the help of accomplices, she created a Child that Never Existed but that came complete with a Birth Certificate, a Social Security Card, a Medicare Card, and a judicial claim for child support that reached the sum of $20,000.

MAKING A DIFFERENCE - ONE BILLBOARD AT A TIME
By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
November 16, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
Full Story

See also an earlier related story:

Agency culpable in child-support scam

by Wendy McElroy, Dec. !7, 2004

Last week, Viola Trevino carried her 5-year-old “daughter” into an Albuquerque (search) court to satisfy a judge’s demand to produce the child.

Complications arose.

One: Trevino had kidnapped the child moments before to pass off as her daughter.

Two: the “real” daughter never existed.

Three: the “father” and ex-husband Steve Barreras had paid $20,000 in child support.

Four: the system finally noticed Trevino was lying. (Full Story at foxnew.com)

Update 2008 08 01:

KOAT.com

Woman Accused Of Creating Fake Child Makes Plea Deal

Viola Trevino Enters Pleas For 13 Of 24 Felony Counts

August 1, 2008

The Albuquerque woman accused of creating a fictitious child to obtain government benefits and child support appeared in court Friday.

Viola Trevino’s plea bargain begins the final chapter of a case that made national headlines.

Trevino is accused of faking the existence of a child, then bilking the government out of thousands in benefits and her former husband out of tens of thousands in child support….

The plot included fictitious DNA tests and even a baby taken off the street for an appearance in family court….(Full Story)

Note: It will be interesting to see whether Steve Barreras and his wife Shelly will be getting the $20,000 back (with interest, of course) from the State of New Mexico that the State extorted from them for a child that Steve and Shelly [and the State of New Mexico] knew right from the start he could not have fathered. Steve had undergone a vasectomy before he could possibly have fathered the child he was supposed to have fathered. — WHS

Posted in Child Abduction, Women's Violence, Paternity Fraud | Print | 2 Comments »

UK: 1 in 5 fathers wrongly identified as the father

August 3, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

guardian.co.uk

DNA testing: One in five fathers wrongly identified by mothers in Child Support Agency Claims

No prosecutions made for false identifications

Almost £4bn uncollected from non-resident parents

[From the figures provided in the article it can be calculated that in the 2007-2008 interval the taxpayers paid £53.62 for every £100.00 collected in child support.]

Patrick Wintour, political editor
The Guardian,
Friday August 1 2008

Nearly one in five paternity claims [19%] handled by the Child Support Agency end up showing the mother has deliberately or inadvertently misidentified the father, figures show….

Under child support legislation it is a criminal offence to make a false statement or representation, and to provide false documents or information.

However, according to the CSA, there has not been a single prosecution of a woman for making a false claim. The figures showing the number of false paternity claims have been compiled using freedom of information legislation….

The CSA does not have figures for whether any women have named the wrong father on more than one occasion. They also appear to have no information as to why women named the wrong father.

CSA rules state that if the DNA test establishes that the named father is the actual father, then he must pay for the cost of the test. If the DNA establishes he is not the father then the taxpayer pays, so there is no consquence for the mother in making a false claim….(Full Story)
__________________
Comment by Fathers for Life: The article identifies the horrific extent of paternity fraud. Paternity fraud is a crime. Not only is that crime directed against a large number of men but also against an even larger number of children.

Women must not be permitted to get away with those crimes!

The solution is simple. There must be mandatory paternity testing with the birth of every child.

However, it is not unusual that feminists and feminist sympathizers in DNA testing labs falsify DNA test results. Therefore DNA testing upon the birth of a child must be performed by two independent DNA testing labs.

Posted in Women's Violence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Tennessee: Mandatory paternity testing at birth

July 22, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Tennesee Paternity Bill HB2964 - SB3717

Gerard Levesque pointed out this bill. The bill has the potential to increase identification of natural fathers of children. It has another potential, to reduce paternity fraud, as it provides that no man’s name can be put on a birth certificate unless it has first been established through a DNA test that a given man is the natural child of whom the man is to be identified as the father. Adoptive parents are to be an exception to that rule.

The bill is scheduled to become law on January 1, 2009, but it seems that as of now it has not yet passed through all stages of the legislative approval process. (Someone from Tennessee may be able to shed more light on why not. If you know why not, please respond to this blog entry.)

For more detailed information on the Tennesee Paternity Bill HB2964 - SB3717 check the menu options at the website of the Tennessee General Assembly.

Feminists heatedly object to mandatory paternity testing. For example:

Mandatory Paternity Testing in TN, Because, You Know, Women Are Sluts

Posted on February 17, 2008 by archcrone

Via my weekly legislative updates from the Tennessee Women’s Political Caucus, (Senator Tate) SB3717HB2964 (Rep. Hardaway) has been placed on the House subcommittee calendar Public Health and Family Assistance of Health and Human Resources for Wednesday Feb. 20, 2008.

Basically, this bill provides that each child born in the state of Tennessee will be tested for paternity before the father’s name can be placed on the birth certificate. The state will take up the cost of paternity testing when parent’s are unable to afford the test. Oh, and married couples are not excluded, making the overt presumption that women are “unfaithful.”

If your husband died in Iraq, Afghanistan, or was killed in anyway after conception but before birth, too damn bad. Your child would be a bastard, should this be enacted, simply because the father is no longer available for that mandatory paternity test. Your word that you have not had sex with anyone else is not enough. Thus, your bastard would NOT be entitled to your now dead husband’s Social Security benefits.

How the hell this measure got this far is beyond me. Well, I shouldn’t say that, since too many not-so-bright-stars, that are so absolutely anti-woman, seem to get elected to the state legislature over and over here.

Contact your legislators. Let them know just how heinous this measure is. A woman’s assertion of who her child’s father is, can be trusted.

Comments are closed.

Archcrone is wrong, not the least because her assertion that “Comments are closed” is most certainly false. Mind you, it is obvious that her mind is closed to the truth. Archcrone will maintain her lies as to women’s faithfulness at all and any costs. Nevertheless, the truth proves her to be wrong, and the truth is a strong ally of any man falsely alleged to be the natural father of a given child.

DNA-paternity-test results by the American Association of Blood Banks from more than 300,000 paternity tests, annually, show that “a woman’s assertion as to who her child’s father is” cannot on average be trusted, as the chances are on average almost one in three that a child is not the genetic offspring of a given man fingered as the father of that child.

Here are more details on paternity-fraud issues and statistics.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | 2 Comments »

Feminist hijackers

July 21, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

By Gerard Levesque

I just came across a fascinating article published, a little while ago, in a newspaper from my (almost) hometown: the Ottawa Citizen: “We can’t help the victims of violence if hatemongers hijack the agenda.” (Published: Sunday, May 25, 2008)

The author, Janice Kennedy, informs her readers that an American study, from the Group Health Center for Health Studies, dealing with the “discomforting issue of domestic violence”, is, get this, “breaking new grounds”.

There would be a bizarre thing, “a strikingly less familiar notion” are the words she uses, such as men … “VICTIM” of domestic violence.

Hold the presses!

LIFE DISCOVERED ON PLANET VENUS!

(life of intellectual kind)

Ms Kennedy must inhabit a parallel universe. The wonderful world of left-wing “progressive” journalism, perhaps? The Canadian feminized media? The Venusian feminist society?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have known, in a science based way, for at least THIRTY years now that men are victim of Domestic Violence at the hands of their womenfolk. Even worse, they are MORE victimized than their women.

In practical life, we have “always” known that women beat their men. The angry wife wielding a rolling pin as a weapon to keep her husband in line is a perennial icon of the “battle so the sexes”. In the Middle Ages, a man who let himself ruled by his wife ran the risk of being paraded in the street, riding backwards on an ass, as an object of public ridicule.

In a feminist state, such as Canada, the relentless propaganda instructs people to deny their own common sense. “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” (George Orwell)

As regards science, according to Murray Strauss, the “primus inter pares” of the authorities on DV in the world,

By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners.

By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming.

There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of Partner Violence perpetration (Fiebert, 2004).

In fact, it is Suzanne Steinmetz who first suggested that women were as equally violent as men in “The battered husband syndrome”. She published it in 1977: THIRTY ONE years ago.

According to Fiebert’s meta-analysis of DV studies:

This bibliography examines 219 scholarly investigations: 170 empirical studies and 49 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 221,300

Strauss, along with Suzanne Steinmentz and Richard Gelles had, in 1980, already informed anybody willing to listen in their “Behind Closed Doors”:

There are as many, and possible more, couples where the female partner is the only one to use physical violence as there are couples where the male partner is the only one to use violence.

Women initiate acts of intimate violence as often as men.

In fact, as Straus readily admits, there is evidence than women initiate MORE than half of the domestic violence:

The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.

Or in the words of J. Archer:

Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression to heterosexual partners and in its physical consequences are reported. Women were slightly more likely (d = -.05) than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.

The evidence has been so overwhelming that even the feminist researchers at Statistics Canada cannot block the publication of the evidence anymore:

One–year rates of spousal violence from the 1999 General Social Survey indicate that an estimated 220,000 women (3%) and about 177,000 men (2%) with a current spouse or ex-spouse had been the victim of some form of spousal violence in the past twelve months. Men and women are exposed to this risk in almost the same proportions.

That men are victimized by their women folk has, for decades, become so clear, that some honest feminists (there are a few), noticed.

Cathy Young (a Canadian, by the way) tells us, in “Ceasefire” (1999) that

The 1975 National Family Violence Survey, concluded that by both men’s and women’s report, women hit their mates as often as did men. Half the violence was reciprocal … Similar surveys in 1985 and 1992 … found just as many men assaulted by wives and girlfriends.

Confronted with these figures, women’s advocates typically cry “backlash”.

Here is another honest feminist, Patricia Pearson (also a Canadian?) in “When she was bad”, a book published, IN Canada, in 1997:

… research began to reveal that violence in the home actually claimed victims of both sexes. The most significant data came from a survey published in 1980 by three highly respected family violence scholars in New Hampshire, Murray Strauss, Richard Gelles and Suzanne Steinmentz.

… violence was also on a par, with 11.6% of women and 12% of men reporting that they hit, slapped or kicked their partners.

At this point, people working on the subject of family violence had a choice. They could expand the field to include male victims … or they could do what they did: devote an extraordinary amount of energy to shouting male victims down.

SHOUTING down the male victims is what Ms Kennedy is, hypocritically, doing.

Because it has become impossible to deny that women beat men, Ms Kennedy sheds a few crocodile tears on the male victims of female DV. Nevertheless, she stills attempts to minimize the extent of DV against men: women, she claims, would still be MORE victim than men:

“figures (would not be) on the same scale as the ones that tell us about female victims of domestic violence — in cases of spousal homicide, for example, women are victims 84 per cent of the time”

Ms Kennedy attempts to occupy the moral high grounds: these numbers’ games would be “beside the point” as we are supposed to be living in a “civilization where all violence is unacceptable”. “This should not be about comparative figures. Nor should it be about gender gamesmanship.”

Of course not … now that the feminists are starting to lose the game … let’s move the goalpost.

The reader will notice than Ms Kennedy does NOT call for the equal repression or punishment of DV. She knows full well that women are the “favourites of the law” and are literally “getting away with murder”: angry young men’s rightists call this, rather crudely but adequately, the “p—-y pass”.

Ms Kennedy then launches onto her real objective: vilifying the men who have been, for at least two decades now, snapping at the heels of the feminist Leviathan. Such men, she claims, will be “manipulating” the report (the American one she has “just” discovered)

These men, the usual suspects, would be (shudder) vile misogynistic … “hate mongers”.

… that male subspecies — a minority, but a noisy one — that preaches hatred from some deep inner anger that fuels a messianic misogyny.

One would think that Ms Kennedy only interacts with another kind of male sub-species: the neutered Canadian male journalist. Among the “many public purveyors of misogyny”, she says, there would be “one colourfully venomous Canadian example (that) sums them up. Kirby Inwood (who) operates a website ostensibly offering a lawyer-referral service”.

Well thank you Ms Kennedy for letting me, and the rest of us, discover a fellow MRA. That is the ONE useful thing you have done for men. Mr. Inwood’s site can (I think) be found here: http://www.canlaw.com/

Ms Kennedy continues: Inwood, the “hatemonger”, would have observed that he “…consistently found women lawyers to generally be the scum of the earth”.

Let me see.

Most female lawyers are feminists making a “killing” in the corrupt Divorce Industry. In his latest book “Taken Into Custody”, Stephen Baskerville describes

“… its destruction of families, its violations of the Constitution, its disregard for due process of law, its voracious appetite for children, parents, and families. This … a thoroughly documented study of the most repressive government machine ever created in …” (western societies).

Baskerville tells us that the corrupt Divorce Industry has become a

“… a multibillion-dollar industry … (composed of) … judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, mediators, counselors, social workers, and bureaucratic police. All these people have a professional and financial stake in divorce. In fact… public officials at all levels of government—including elected leaders in both parties—now have a vested interest in increasing the number of single-parent homes.”

The Divorce Industry’s view of men is, well … feminist:

“Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” New Jersey Judge Richard Russell told his colleagues at a training seminar in 1994. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around…. We don’t have to worry about the rights.”

Most female lawyers are feminists, a misandrist ideology based on the hatred of men. The feminist view of men has been codified decades ago:

The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.

The above is from the SCUM Manifesto which has been for decades a basic “reading in colleges and universities for women’s studies courses.”

Thus, that Inwood has found that feminist lawyers are SCUM should surprise no one. Neither am surprised to read that Inwood “has long been a favourite target of Militant Feminists who work very hard to suppress him and his views”.

This is dear reader, what Ms Kennedy is shamelessly attempting to do by shouting “hatemonger”. She is attempting to supress and censure and, more importantly, scare away her readers by claiming that “Inwood was convicted nearly 20 years ago of assault on his wife and infant son.”

Really? That may be true, or untrue, but…

Ms Kennedy is a nimble feminist demagogue. She knows that fear works. Indeed the whole feminist ideology is based on creating fear. She also knows that false accusations of assault are THE prime weapon women use when they want to rid themselves of their husband AND keep his money. This is the first advice they get from their feminist lawyers.

Their lies and perjuries are then accepted by the corrupt legal system. Ms Kennedy has, no doubt, turned a blind eye to the endless stories of men, exonerated by DNA analysis, only now being released, after spending decades behind bars. They were condemned and jailed solely on the basis of false accusations of rape by a WOMAN. Nothing is happening to the lying and perjuring females who put them in jail, and destroyed their lives.

NO THING! See “p—y pass”, above.

Ms Kennedy tells us that “ordinary people of good will, men and women alike” (she means those of her readers still hoodwinked by feminism) will “

“… just dread how the Kirby Inwoods of the world, the “men’s rights” activists, are going to gobble it up and spit it out again in a malignancy of poisonous deceit. They know how the researchers’ findings and recommendations will be drowned out by a cacophony of cries about how this proves bad things happen to men at the hands of Militant Feminists, who conspire in covens to spread their misandry.”

Poisonous deceit, he? Well Ms Kennedy engages in some of her own.

She tells her reader that the “respectable study that should open new eyes to a serious issue, one that has not been discussed nearly enough. “

Ms Kennedy seems to be “truth challenged”!

Feminists have shouted down this topic for decades. It has just, recently, become too obvious for them to deny it.

She also says that

“As a society, we can look at the nature of violence within homes and start addressing some of its broader causes. We can speak up for the principle of equality before the law (which, yup, even Militant Feminists cherish), insisting on zero-tolerance around domestic violence, no matter who the perpetrator.”

Ms Kennedy seems to be suffering from a “veracity handicap”.

She is NOT demanding a stop to the “arrest the man” policies, punishment for female perjuries and equality in punishment of women guilty of DV.

Ms Kennedy then sheds a few more crocodile tears on male victims of DV:

“… cultural norms … have… added an extra layer of shame and difficulty to male victimhood. … (with) increased awareness, we can introduce increased supports — counselling, programs, avenues of escape — for men caught in what has to be a version of hell.”

But she then goes for her real objective: DON’T YOU DARE TOUCH OUR BOOTY!

The new programs should NOT

“happen at the expense of the well-developed awareness and programs that already respond, albeit inadequately, to the tragedy of domestic violence against women. It should happen alongside them.”

Of course. Money will come out of thin air … like it did for the feminists.

Better still, let’s tax the males some more; they only pay 70-80% of the taxes. God, what I am saying, this is ALREADY a feminist proposal.

All the feminist programs finance the lives of the multitudes of feminists who toil (sic) in “women’s shelters” and other parasitic women’s groups, which have covered the West like a plague of locusts for the last three decades.

Ms Kennedy does not want the “latest thoughtful exploration of domestic violence as a piece of gender politics.”

Of course not.

When men were portrayed as the only culprit, there was no problem of describing this as gender politics. Now that women find it difficult to lie their way out of DV, Ms Kennedy wants to move the goalpost.

Of course! Of course!

Ms Kennedy tells her readers that if we don’t do as she says, we “will have missed its point entirely”. It will “become a marginalized rallying cry for rancorous misogynists.” Thus we will “have failed those in the shadows who are finally asking for help.”

Wow!

What Ms Kennedy really wants is for men demanding that their rights be respected, those she deems “hatemongers” and “misogynists”, to stay marginalized, to stay in the shadow, to stay quiet, to remain deferential to their feminist rulers. She wants men to be content, and grateful, for the crumbs that, perhaps, may fall off from the public-financed table where the feminists have been feasting all those years.

Fat chance of these happening!

Gerard Levesque

____________________
Janice Kennedy’s has a column in the Ottawa Citizen

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/janice_kennedy.html

Various emails to the Ottawa Citizen can be found here: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/info/contactlist.html

Posted in Organizational News, Suicides, Health, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Protecting yourself from paternity fraud

July 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The News & Observer
July 14, 2008

Ask Mr. Dad: Protecting yourself from paternity fraud

By ARMIN BROTT, McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Dear Mr. Dad: My wife and I are about to get a divorce. We have a 1-year-old boy and she’s pregnant with our second. Here’s the problem: She’s been having an affair for the last two years and I’m concerned that the children aren’t actually mine. What can I do to protect myself?…
___________
Update 2008 08 03: The link to the location of the article at The News & Observer no longer functions. However, Armin Brott’s article is accessible at his website.

Posted in Child-Custody Awards, Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Victims won in 23 US cases of paternity fraud

July 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

In the US alone, paternity fraud involves hundreds of thousands of cases each year where paternity is assigned to men who are not the natural fathers of the children they are alleged to have caused to be conceived.

Yet, once a given man has been designated as the father of a child of which he is not the natural father, he is with virtual certainty that child’s father in the eyes of the law. There is virtually no recourse for him.

Whether the man so designated is married to the mother of the child or not, whether he gets to see the child that he is alleged to have fathered but that is not his, or whether he even plays a meaningful role in the life of that child, he will with almost absolute certainty then be punished for being fingered as the father of that child, fined to pay child support for a child that that is not his, even if he can present irrefutable proof that the child is not his — with payments that can reach thousands of dollar per month until the child reaches majority or finishes his education, whichever comes later.

As per US-CAPF (US Citizens Against Paternity Fraud), there have over the years been three cases in the State of Georgia in which unjustly fingered fathers managed, at a cost of years of litigation and many thousands of dollars in each case, to have the courts absolve them from their financial responsibilities for children that were not fathered by them. US-CAPF identifies another 20 such cases in all of the US. Let there be no mistake: that is the extent of American justice out of possibly hundreds of thousands of cases of paternity fraud.

Paternity fraud: With respect to disputes over paternal rights and responsibilities, paternity fraud results in illegally obtained but court-sanctioned child-support benefits resulting from an allegation by a woman in collaboration with the legal system, supported by the courts and given the force of law through a court order, whereby a given man (often without him having been legally informed of the alleged paternity) is assigned the duties and responsibilities that come with paternity, even though he can prove through DNA paternity tests that he is not the natural father of the child or children he is alleged to have fathered.

It goes without saying that the preceding definition applies not only in cases of divorce and separation but also in practical but less adversarial ways to paternity within intact marriages or other relationships that don’t go or have not yet gone through child-support, child-custody and child-visitation litigation. In California, for example,

In Los Angeles County, eighty percent of paternity establishments are entered by default judgment, whereas for the State of California as a whole, the number is sixty-eight percent. California is not alone. The United States Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS/IG report) reported that “seven states’ child support agencies report half or more of paternities established in their states occur through defaults.” The inspector general further reported that “[t]wentyfour percent of local offices in focus states report half or more of paternities in their caseloads are established by default.” (The Innocent Third Party: Victims of Paternity Fraud (110 kB PDF file), BY RONALD K. HENRY; Family Law Quarterly, Volume 40, Number 1, Spring 2006)

What that means is that in such cases the mother of a child “determined” by various methods (e. g.: through picking a name out of a phone book) who is the father of her child.

Paternity fraud is an age-old problem: “Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own.” — Aristotle

Paternity fraud is rampant throughout the world.

In the US, The Association of American Blood Banks reports that for 310,490 DNA tests made for paternity in 2001, “of the cases reported 90,227 were reported as exclusions or a rate of 29.06% exclusions [i.e.: paternity was proven to be falsely alleged].” (Source: Annual Report Summary for Testing in 2001, prepared by the Parentage Testing Program Unit, October 2002, Association of American Blood Banks, footnote to Table 2 — PDF file, 129kB)

Parentage exclusion rates per AABB Annual Reports:

Of 310,490 cases, 90,227 (29.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 2 of 12)

Of 340,798 cases, 97,681 (28.7%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 51)

Of 353,387 cases, 99,174 (28.06%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 3 of 53)

Of 374,171 cases, 100,588 (26.68%) were reported as exclusions (Source, p. 6 of 62)

Consider the following:

The practice of attributing fatherhood to the wrong man—for a variety of reasons—is not uncommon. The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth. In contested paternity cases, where the alleged father wants to be sure of his paternity before allowing himself to be committed to a life-time of supporting a child to whom he may never have access, the rate of wrongful paternity is one in three in Texas and 36% of all cases in Florida.

An article in the March 27 [2000] issue of the Melbourne, Australia, daily, the Age, claims, “About 3,000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20% of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10% in the general community.” The article continues, “The New South Wales privacy commissioner, Mr. Chris Puplick, said the practice [of DNA testing children without the mother’s permission] was unethical and an illustration of the need for formal guidelines about genetic testing and access to genetic material. The consequence for a man of finding out he was not the father could be devastating, he said.” (Pregnant on the sly : The practice of falsely attributing fatherhood is rising among women, by Walter H. Schneider and Candis McLean; The REPORT Newsmagazine, United Western Communications, April 24, 2000)

Man who is not the father cannot deny legal paternity

January 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Court denies father’s motion in child custody case

Marianas Variety; Jan.4, 2008

By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Superior Court has denied a man’s motion to set aside a judgment stating he is the biological father of a minor child.

The court said it is statutorily prohibited from declaring the nonexistence of a father-child relationship and finds that such declaration would not be in the best interest of the child….(Full Story)
__________________
The ruling is ludicrous. No one is asking for a declaration of the non-existence of a father-child relationship. The request is to identify that the fingered man is not the the real father.

Posted in Family, Paternity Fraud | Print | 1 Comment »

Blogroll

Help Lines for Men

Men's and Family Rights Organizations