My ex claimed desperation and poverty drove her back to family court to ask for more child support.
No, she claims, actually, that it was a sudden increase in my son's school tuition that made her do it.
What is his tuition you ask?
$700/month.
What do I pay in support?
$800/month.
Yeah. That's right. She wasn't paying ANYTHING for her own son's school.
Then she shows up in court pleading poor, helpless little woman is she.
But it gets better. She was making $53k/year as a marketing coordinator. Then she quit (she claims she was laid off. Right. She was laid off after being promoted to marketing coordinator. So either she's lying or she fucked up BIG TIME. Either way, its her fault and responsibility.)
So I complained to the judge about this. What does he say?
I'll estimate that she did make 53k, now, today and "plug that into the guideline."
The result? Support fell 30 dollars per week.
WHOA. HARSH, JUDGE!
The "guideline" is nothing more than the a way for the state to pump up divorce lawyer fees, collect money from the Feds for the Child Support Enforcement program (in the hundreds of millions) and steal from a widely hated political class: divorced men. That's all it is. Period.
TO EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS EVER QUIT HER JOB AND PLAYED THIS GAME:
FUCK YOU.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Men... Quit Your Jobs! You've Been Liberated!
Yet another academic trying to 1. Claim the fact that women's ascendancy in the workplace is somehow due to their natural superiority over men (uhh, if technology is leading the economy, doesn't that argue for demands for math and science skills? Areas typically strongest for men?) and 2. Claim that the dropout of men and the replacement of them with women, in the workforce, is somehow good for us.
HAHAHAHHAHA.
Right. Go ask all the young women that can't find a man who makes EVEN CLOSE to what she makes how wonderful this is. I'm sure those young girls are just DYING to make all her families' money and support not just her children, but her husband, whom she will consider to be JUST ANOTHER FINANCIAL DEPENDENT.
The rise of women in the workforce has been the subject of endless discussion in recent years, most of it accompanied by hand wringing over the demise of the "traditional" family and the emasculation of American men.
In her new book, The Richer Sex, Washington Post reporter Liza Mundy takes a completely different view, arguing that women's increased economic clout "will bring about a new liberation for women but also for men."Mundy explains her thesis in the accompanying video, as well as the reasons why the "big flip" toward women being the primary breadwinner is an inevitable outcome of trends already in motion.
While male-dominated industries like construction were hardest hit by the bursting of the housing bubble, Mundy notes the trend of women being primary breadwinners started in the 1980s. Since then, the percentage of women who earn more than their husbands has risen steadily before accelerating in the early 2000s, well before the Great Recession.
Today, the percentage of women who out-earn their husbands currently hovers near 40%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Mundy believes that percentage will continue to rise because women currently earn 57% of undergraduate degrees and 60% of graduate students in American colleges and universities are females.
With the globe shifting rapidly toward a "knowledge economy," education is often the big determinant of an individual's income potential. "College-educated workers are the only sector where wages are rising," Mundy notes. "The high-paying industrial job for a male high school graduate is the job that's waning."
Furthermore, women dominate some of the fastest-growing industries, such as marketing and human relations.
In other words, the increase in women's earnings potential is another fundamental change brought about from the shift from an economy based on manufacturing to one dominated by services and technology.
It's pretty impossible to argue against these macro trends. What's more controversial, and subject to much debate, is Mundy's argument about them being good for both sexes.
Much of the literature to date has focused on the negative implications of men losing their place as the family's main provider. In addition, some sociologists argue that as women become more economically empowered, they will seek to delay or avoid marriage and will become more promiscuous because they won't need to seek a mate who can provide for them. In other words, they will act more like the stereotypically "confirmed" male bachelor, putting further pressure on the traditional family model.
Mundy doesn't deny there are risks to women's economic rise but believes they're overstated or, at least, don't tell the whole picture.
As women's earnings power rises, men will feel "less pressure to be to the sole breadwinner," she argues. This will give men more time to pursue their passions, rather than just a paycheck, as well as spend more time raising children if they choose.
"As women become more economically empowered, they'll be more likely to have a spouse supportive of their career," Mundy predicts. That "will help propel women through the glass ceiling - to have a partner at home who will make sacrifices for her career."
This may sound unrealistic or even heretical to some. But basically, Mundy is arguing couples will make choices based on economic incentives (and realities) rather than traditional gender roles, i.e. they'll do what families have always done and are already doing in America today.
Aaron Task is the host of The Daily Ticker. You can follow him on Twitter at @aarontask or email him at altask@yahoo.com
I Hate Bill O'Reily
I hate Bill O'Reilly. He has some solid conservative points, I'm sure, but he makes nearly ALL his points in the most ASNINE way possible. I don't see how anyone has any respect for the guy. AT ALL.
That said, Bill might've bumped up against the truth here.
I don't watch Glee. I don't care about it either.
But kids watch it and so we all better pay attention to it. Kids take messages away from these shows whether we like it or not and kids grow up to become adults and either healthy tax-paying citizens or else trashy, unemployed, uneducated bums that we" must" support - like my ex.
Some of the show contents discussed below do get my attention.
Yes, its nice the show stays well-rounded, BUT, let's be honest here. What is "well-rounded?"
Cross-dressing, lesbians, and two students making a sex tape.
Not your mother's teen show, is it? Hell, its not even my older sister's!
Yes, some people cross-dress. I don't get it. But its a free country. Do what you like. Cross-dressing hurts no one. Who cares, honestly. However, the lesbianism, I may take a shade of exception to. Are both girls REALLY, pure, born, straight-up lesbians? If so, that's fine. But I have to wonder.... do either have SERIOUS problems with a parent, a mom, perhaps? I've never met a lesbian who didn't have a SERIOUS problem with mom as well as some seriously bad relationships with boyfriends in the past. The only point being, are the girls being given ALL the options they need? Are they getting counseling? Are their parents aware of their problems? Are people in the family openly discussing the girls feelings at all? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing the family is a total mess; maybe this isn't the best thing to show, FROM A SINGLE SIDE, at least.
As for making a sex tape? Uhhhh..... I dreamed of making one of me and a super model once, when I was a teenager, sure. I was full of hormones. Should that be made into a t.v. show? I don't think so, no. I hate the "you'll give them ideas" excuse for not doing things, but this one counts. Kids are having sex at absurdly young ages as well as having babies out of wedlock in likewise ABSURD numbers. This not good for anyone, including the kids themselves or society as a whole. We used to stick kids in church and at least scare them with God. Now they get handed a box of condoms.
We could do without the goddamn teens-making-sex-tape episode of our favorite teen comedy on t.v., couldn't we?
And another thing, a little class wouldn't kill us, or the kids. I'm not saying we have to go back to Leave It to Beaver, but could we at least DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH?!?!?! When I hear how many men the average 18 year old girl has slept with these days, I get sick to my stomach. The rates of every "ugly thing" from teenage pregnancy to suicide to abortion to eating disorders have been too high for too long. Give the kids a break.
I remember teachers and counselors telling my friends and I in High School: you all have to worry about entering college and moving on with your lives. Buying your first car, living away from home, a serious boyfriend or girlfriend, making new friends in college, maybe working while studying as well; you have a ton of responsibilities and worries coming up; give yourself a break and skip the STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, drug abuse and all the rest. Just skip it. Trust us. You really don't need any of those headaches.
They were right.
The Fox News host was discussing the show's message with guests
Gretchen Carlson and Jeanine Pirro. He began by saying that "Glee" was a
"good show" with "lots of talent" and "positive messages." However, he
took issue with what he said was the program's "recurring theme that
alternative lifestyles may be a big positive."
After watching a clip of one character cross-dressing, guest Gretchen Carlson heaved a huge sigh. "Here we go again, pandering to .3% of the American population that considers themselves transgender," she said. "Now I get to explain this to my 8-year-old, if i want her to see a nice family show with some nice music."
She also took issue with a storyline about two cheerleaders who are lesbians, and two seniors who are engaged to be married. "[The show seems] to have a positive message about hopes and dreams and taking risks," Carlson opined. "But why do they have to come up with these wild story lines to prove their point? I don’t get it."
O'Reilly said that the problem was that the storylines, like the one featuring two students making a sex tape, were unrealistic. Kids "might go out and experiment with this stuff," he warned.
Pirro was extremely skeptical. "Do you really think this kind of thing is contagious?" she asked incredulously.
Carlson interjected, saying that watching "Glee" wouldn't change someone's sexuality, but would encourage experimentation.
"I wholeheartedly believe in today's society that kids are experimenting with homosexuality," she stressed. "We see it in celebrities who maybe just do it on the side, and it may be drug-fueled."
Speaking to Pirro, O'Reilly maintained that "Glee" — which he said was "undeniably a good program" — made the issues dealt with on the show "glamorous."
That said, Bill might've bumped up against the truth here.
I don't watch Glee. I don't care about it either.
But kids watch it and so we all better pay attention to it. Kids take messages away from these shows whether we like it or not and kids grow up to become adults and either healthy tax-paying citizens or else trashy, unemployed, uneducated bums that we" must" support - like my ex.
Some of the show contents discussed below do get my attention.
Yes, its nice the show stays well-rounded, BUT, let's be honest here. What is "well-rounded?"
Cross-dressing, lesbians, and two students making a sex tape.
Not your mother's teen show, is it? Hell, its not even my older sister's!
Yes, some people cross-dress. I don't get it. But its a free country. Do what you like. Cross-dressing hurts no one. Who cares, honestly. However, the lesbianism, I may take a shade of exception to. Are both girls REALLY, pure, born, straight-up lesbians? If so, that's fine. But I have to wonder.... do either have SERIOUS problems with a parent, a mom, perhaps? I've never met a lesbian who didn't have a SERIOUS problem with mom as well as some seriously bad relationships with boyfriends in the past. The only point being, are the girls being given ALL the options they need? Are they getting counseling? Are their parents aware of their problems? Are people in the family openly discussing the girls feelings at all? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing the family is a total mess; maybe this isn't the best thing to show, FROM A SINGLE SIDE, at least.
As for making a sex tape? Uhhhh..... I dreamed of making one of me and a super model once, when I was a teenager, sure. I was full of hormones. Should that be made into a t.v. show? I don't think so, no. I hate the "you'll give them ideas" excuse for not doing things, but this one counts. Kids are having sex at absurdly young ages as well as having babies out of wedlock in likewise ABSURD numbers. This not good for anyone, including the kids themselves or society as a whole. We used to stick kids in church and at least scare them with God. Now they get handed a box of condoms.
We could do without the goddamn teens-making-sex-tape episode of our favorite teen comedy on t.v., couldn't we?
And another thing, a little class wouldn't kill us, or the kids. I'm not saying we have to go back to Leave It to Beaver, but could we at least DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH?!?!?! When I hear how many men the average 18 year old girl has slept with these days, I get sick to my stomach. The rates of every "ugly thing" from teenage pregnancy to suicide to abortion to eating disorders have been too high for too long. Give the kids a break.
I remember teachers and counselors telling my friends and I in High School: you all have to worry about entering college and moving on with your lives. Buying your first car, living away from home, a serious boyfriend or girlfriend, making new friends in college, maybe working while studying as well; you have a ton of responsibilities and worries coming up; give yourself a break and skip the STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, drug abuse and all the rest. Just skip it. Trust us. You really don't need any of those headaches.
They were right.
Bill O'Reilly: 'Glee' Might Encourage Kids To Experiment With 'Alternative Lifestyles'
After watching a clip of one character cross-dressing, guest Gretchen Carlson heaved a huge sigh. "Here we go again, pandering to .3% of the American population that considers themselves transgender," she said. "Now I get to explain this to my 8-year-old, if i want her to see a nice family show with some nice music."
She also took issue with a storyline about two cheerleaders who are lesbians, and two seniors who are engaged to be married. "[The show seems] to have a positive message about hopes and dreams and taking risks," Carlson opined. "But why do they have to come up with these wild story lines to prove their point? I don’t get it."
O'Reilly said that the problem was that the storylines, like the one featuring two students making a sex tape, were unrealistic. Kids "might go out and experiment with this stuff," he warned.
Pirro was extremely skeptical. "Do you really think this kind of thing is contagious?" she asked incredulously.
Carlson interjected, saying that watching "Glee" wouldn't change someone's sexuality, but would encourage experimentation.
"I wholeheartedly believe in today's society that kids are experimenting with homosexuality," she stressed. "We see it in celebrities who maybe just do it on the side, and it may be drug-fueled."
Speaking to Pirro, O'Reilly maintained that "Glee" — which he said was "undeniably a good program" — made the issues dealt with on the show "glamorous."
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Lies - Coming a College Near You
MIT, Boston University, Boston Magazine Promote Holly Collins Child Custody Hoax
October 26th, 2011 by Glenn Sacks
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston University, and Boston Magazine are unwittingly promoting the Holly Collins child custody hoax via their glowing coverage of the new documentary film No Way Out But One. The Boston Magazine piece ‘No Way Out But One’ to Unveil at MIT says the film “will open your eyes to a stunning injustice.”
In Professor Takes a Stand Against Domestic Violence, the film’s director, Boston University professor Garland Waller, claims “[I]f you beat your wife and abuse your children in America you are more likely to get custody than not. This is a shocking fact that most people have no idea about.” Advocates of this view, including Kathleen Russell, Executive Director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and numerous others, hold up the Collins case as one of their prime examples.
In reality, courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding child custody, and the Collins case is a discredited hoax. In January of 2009, Fathers and Families released an exhaustive, 11,000 word analysis of the court records and documents in the case. This analysis, which can be seen here, exposed the Holly Collins case as a complete fabrication. Our Report enumerated dozens of falsehoods in Holly Collins’ version of events.
Holly Collins’ claims about her high-profile custody case are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, stepfather, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife, the father of her third child and his wife, numerous doctors, Guardians ad Litem, social workers, mental health professionals, and all seven judges who have heard this case.
Collins kidnapped her three young children after she lost custody of two of them in 1992 when Minnesota Family Court Judge Michael J. Davis found “the evidence is overwhelming that the children are at great physical and emotional risk if the children remained in Holly Collins’ care.”
For decades Holly Collins has made false accusations of abuse against a wide variety of people, including her mother, stepfather, both of the fathers of her children, both of the subsequent wives of the fathers of her children, as well as former landlords and neighbors.
To comment on the piece at the Boston Magazine website, click here. Fathers and Families has written to Boston Magazine about their Collins piece–others can write them at editor@bostonmagazine.com.
The MIT screening is on Thursday evening (10/27) but I can’t say I recommend you go, since if you do you’ll probably be accused of abuse. In fact, after Collins spoke at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York in January of this year, she invented a completely mythical incident, writing that, apparently organized by me from Los Angeles, “Father Supremacists forced their way into a New York hotel where vulnerable battered women were staying for the conference. They cornered, scared and re-traumatized women in the hallways and their hotel rooms, sending them terrified, crying and running for help.” I wrote about the Conference after it took place–to read, see Misguided DV Groups Back Discredited Battered Mothers Custody Conference.
October 26th, 2011 by Glenn Sacks
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston University, and Boston Magazine are unwittingly promoting the Holly Collins child custody hoax via their glowing coverage of the new documentary film No Way Out But One. The Boston Magazine piece ‘No Way Out But One’ to Unveil at MIT says the film “will open your eyes to a stunning injustice.”
In Professor Takes a Stand Against Domestic Violence, the film’s director, Boston University professor Garland Waller, claims “[I]f you beat your wife and abuse your children in America you are more likely to get custody than not. This is a shocking fact that most people have no idea about.” Advocates of this view, including Kathleen Russell, Executive Director of the Center for Judicial Excellence, Rita Smith, Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and numerous others, hold up the Collins case as one of their prime examples.
In reality, courts tilt heavily towards mothers in awarding child custody, and the Collins case is a discredited hoax. In January of 2009, Fathers and Families released an exhaustive, 11,000 word analysis of the court records and documents in the case. This analysis, which can be seen here, exposed the Holly Collins case as a complete fabrication. Our Report enumerated dozens of falsehoods in Holly Collins’ version of events.
Holly Collins’ claims about her high-profile custody case are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, stepfather, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife, the father of her third child and his wife, numerous doctors, Guardians ad Litem, social workers, mental health professionals, and all seven judges who have heard this case.
Collins kidnapped her three young children after she lost custody of two of them in 1992 when Minnesota Family Court Judge Michael J. Davis found “the evidence is overwhelming that the children are at great physical and emotional risk if the children remained in Holly Collins’ care.”
For decades Holly Collins has made false accusations of abuse against a wide variety of people, including her mother, stepfather, both of the fathers of her children, both of the subsequent wives of the fathers of her children, as well as former landlords and neighbors.
To comment on the piece at the Boston Magazine website, click here. Fathers and Families has written to Boston Magazine about their Collins piece–others can write them at editor@bostonmagazine.com.
The MIT screening is on Thursday evening (10/27) but I can’t say I recommend you go, since if you do you’ll probably be accused of abuse. In fact, after Collins spoke at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in Albany, New York in January of this year, she invented a completely mythical incident, writing that, apparently organized by me from Los Angeles, “Father Supremacists forced their way into a New York hotel where vulnerable battered women were staying for the conference. They cornered, scared and re-traumatized women in the hallways and their hotel rooms, sending them terrified, crying and running for help.” I wrote about the Conference after it took place–to read, see Misguided DV Groups Back Discredited Battered Mothers Custody Conference.
Monday, April 02, 2012
Police Kill an Old Grandfather in Cold Blood
"Most men can withstand adversity. If you want to judge a man's character, give him power."
-A. Lincoln
I generally support police officers. But I also KNOW that power corrupts. And I think the GENERAL, ALL-AROUND standard for police has fallen significantly in the past decade. Lots of would-be factory workers (in a regular, correctly-functioning economy), and those with social-disorders, have gone into police work instead - this is a fact, look it up. A inordinate amount of policemen CLEARLY have difficulties with managing power.
This case below appeared in the NYT recently. Its disgusting from top to bottom. From a complete LACK of professionalism on the part of the officers to a power-struggle with a 68-year old man who simply didn't want to open the door (like many stodgy, stubborn 68-year old won't).
The official version of events?
My friend is a cop. He has been tased. He is not a pussy. He is a pretty tough guy. He said it hurt. A LOT. Your muscles constrict and you are in extreme pain. See for yourself. Other officers gather around when they do it to laugh at you, because YOU GO DOWN. But this 68 year old didn't? BE VERY SUSPICIOUS, DEAR READER. My 30 year-old, 200 pound buddy can't take the charge, but the old man WITH A HEART CONDITION CAN!?!?
Fuck you police officers. You are lying through your teeth.
Furthermore, officers are told NOT to tase anyone with a heart condition as THE TASER COULD KILL THEM. A piece of info you get WHEN YOU PERSONALLY KNOW A COP. So first off, the fact he was tased, IS OVERTLY AGAINST POLICE POLICY. And yes, they knew he had a heart condition, they followed a bloody ambulance to his house; an ambulance responding to a medical alert system.
Their next BS line? He grabbed a butcher knife. OH no. The big, mean, nasty, wheezing 68 year old had a knife. First off, I think that's fabricated by these clearly low-standard cops, who neighbors reported TAUNTING the old man.
Secondly, a butcher knife is heavy. If an old man attacked me with one, I would back up and move around. He would literally get tired before I got hurt. Thirdly, a few routine martial arts lessons in knife disarming WOULD ENSURE YOU HAVE NO FEAR AROUND A KNIFE-WIELDING 68 YEAR OLD. Its easy. You grab the knife, pull it toward you twist with your hips - I do it every weekend; after a few tries, even a strong knife-wielder goes flying - a 68 year old? Give me a break.
Fourth: HOW MANY COPS WERE THERE?!?! Sounds like 3-5 or more. AND THEY CAN'T DISARM A 68 YEAR OLD MAN who only has a knife while they have guns and batons? I CAN DISARM SOMEONE BY MYSELF FOR CHRISSAKE WITHOUT THE USE OF A WEAPON.
WHAT TOTAL COWARDLY SISSIES! Come at me with a knife. And tell me what you'll do when I KICK YOU IN THE STOMACH. Its a knife, NOT A SWORD. Trust me, I (anyone) can kick you before you get to them with the knife. HE WAS 68 YEARS OLD! I bet you anything, he picked up the knife out of fear and they shot him dead where he stood. The man didn't open up the door - THEY KICKED IT DOWN. Isn't this a form of BREAKING AND ENTERING? This is a citizen's PRIVATE RESIDENCE. The PUBLIC police officers HAVE NO RIGHT ENTERING.
ITS HIS HOUSE. HE CAN CARRY 50 KNIVES AROUND IF HE WANTS. If the cops want to be safe from him, THEY SHOULD STAY OUT OF HIS HOUSE! All they should've done is send him a bill for the ambulance that was accidentally called. That's it.
So let's review what is not in question. Several men - who happened to be bearing badges - wearing kevlar vests, armed and aggressive, broke into an innocent, 68 year old, taxpaying citizen's house and shot him because he supposedly attacked the people who just broke into his house - after he was tased with enough volts to bring down a cow.
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?!?!
The officer who shot him has been "reassigned." WELL THAT PUNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME, EH?!?!?!
p.s. When cops act like idiots - as they did here - the Dept. is sued for huge money by the victim's family and the Dept. must settle for huge money - WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?
FROM THE GODDAMN TAXPAYERS!
And lastly, three cheers for the NEW YORK TIMES! I mean they went so far as to suggest that QUESTIONS BE ASKED DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS INCIDENT.
NO KIDDING, NEW YORK TIMES. QUESTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ASKED..... BY YOU - THE GODDAMN NEWSPAPER!!! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW TO DO YOUR JOB!?!?!
HERE ARE SOME FOR YOU:
1 - Did the cop doing the shooting have a record of this behavior? Why was he cleared?
2 - Why wasn't non-lethal force effective?
3 - Did the officers MISS when they fired bean bags and tasers?
4 - Do most 70 year old assailants withstand such attacks?
5 - How on EARTH did a 70 year old withstand attacks that bring down young, strong men?
6 - How did MULTIPLE OFFICERS FAIL to subdue an old man?
7 - Why did officers ESCALATE the situation and break in?
8 - Do officers typically FEAR a 70 YEAR OLD WITH HEART TROUBLE?
9 - The cops knew, or knew of this man. They shot him twice in the chest. Doesn't that suggest they did not like him, or else had a personal problem with him and could not maintain their professionalism around him?
10 - Suppose this superhuman 70 year old did charge them with a knife after being tased. Why can't these blind cops shoot an old man in the shoulder or leg, from CLOSE RANGE?!?!? Take off your vest and throw it over his face - think the old man can stab you now?
11 - Why was the old man shot twice IN THE CHEST, as if they were TRYING TO KILL HIM OUT OF MALICE??? Do they expect us to believe getting shot in the chest at that range is AN ACCIDENT? Because we're not that stupid.
Not one of these cops will lose his job, be suspended without pay or FACE CHARGES OF MURDER.
When someone goes to a house, kicks in the door and shoots the occupant in the chest, WHAT PRECISELY WOULD YOU CALL THAT?
Fatal Shooting of Ex-Marine by White Plains Police Officers Raises Questions
Full NYT article:
The niece stood in the darkened stairwell of the Winbrook Houses, listening, as 20 feet away five police officers yelled at her uncle, who had locked himself in his apartment.
It was 5:25 AM on a chill November morning. The officers banged loud and hard, demanding that her 68-year-old uncle open his door.
“He was begging them to leave him alone,” she recalls. “He sounded scared.” She pulls her shawl about her shoulders and her voice cracks; she is speaking for the first time about what she saw. “I heard my uncle yelling, ‘Officers, officers, why do you have your guns out?’ ”
The string of events that night sounds prosaic, a who-cares accumulation of little mistakes and misapprehensions. Cumulatively, though, it is like tumbling down the stairs. Somehow the uncle, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a former Marine who had heart problems and wheezed if he walked more than 40 feet, triggered his medical alert system pendant. The system operator came on the loudspeaker in his one-bedroom apartment, asking: “Mr. Chamberlain, are you O.K.?” All of this is recorded.
Mr. Chamberlain didn’t respond. So the operator signaled for an ambulance. Police patrol cars fell in behind — standard operating procedure in towns across America. Except an hour later, even as Mr. Chamberlain insisted he was in good health, the police had snapped the locks on the apartment door.
They fired electric charges from Tasers, and beanbags from shotguns. Then they said they saw Mr. Chamberlain grab a knife, and an officer fired his handgun.
Boom! Boom! Mr. Chamberlain’s niece Tonyia Greenhill, who lives upstairs, recalls the echoes ricocheting about the hall. She pushed out a back door and ran into the darkness beneath overarching oaks. He lay on the floor near his kitchen, two bullet holes in his chest, blood pooling thick, dying.
It makes sense to be humble in the presence of conflicting accounts. The White Plains public safety commissioner declared this a “warranted use of deadly force”; the shooter was later put on modified assignment. Mr. Chamberlain, in the commissioner’s telling, had withstood electric charges, grabbed a butcher knife and charged the officers.
The alert system phone in Mr. Chamberlain’s apartment recorded most of the standoff, as did a security camera in the hall. And the officers’ Tasers carried video recorders.
Last month, the Westchester County district attorney played these for the dead man’s son, Kenneth Chamberlain Jr., who teaches martial arts for a local nonprofit organization and intends to file a lawsuit. He is lithe, with a shaved head, and takes pride in a reasoned manner. “My family, we’re not into histrionics,” he says. “We don’t run down the street inciting riot.”
His voice cracks, though, as he describes the tapes. “I heard fear,” he says. “In my 45 years on this earth, I never heard my father sound like that.”
The district attorney will present the case to a grand jury and has not released transcripts. But the family’s recollection matches that of neighbors who listened through closed doors.
They say officers taunted Mr. Chamberlain. He shouted: “Semper fi,” the Marine Corps motto. The police answered with loud shouts of “Hoo-rah!” Another officer, the niece says, said he wanted to pee in Mr. Chamberlain’s bathroom.
Someone, the niece and neighbors say, yelled a racial epithet at the door. Black and white officers were present.
Kenny Randolph listened from his apartment across the hall. “They put fear in his heart,” he says. “It wasn’t a crime scene until they made it one.”
The police say Mr. Chamberlain was “known” to them, although it appears he had not been convicted of a crime. There are intimations that he wrestled with emotional issues. Sometimes, neighbors say, he talked to himself. Who’s to say? As often, life’s default position is set to “complicated.”
Many police departments have trained corps of officers expert in talking with the emotionally upset. Their rule of thumb: talk quietly and de-escalate. That night in White Plains, no one appeared to have de-escalated anything.
Mr. Chamberlain sounded spooked. His son recalls hearing his father say on tape: “This is my sworn testimony. White Plains officers are coming in here to kill me.” A few minutes later, a bullet tore through his rib and heart. The ambulance took him to White Plains Hospital, where he soon died.
His son lives five minutes away. He says he could have talked his father down. Standing in the office of his lawyer Randolph M. McLaughlin, he mimes knocking on his dad’s door. “Dad, it’s me, Ken, I’m here.” His eyes are bloodshot and brimming. “I always said, ‘I’m the protector now.’ But I wasn’t there when he needed me.”
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com
Twitter: @powellnyt
-A. Lincoln
I generally support police officers. But I also KNOW that power corrupts. And I think the GENERAL, ALL-AROUND standard for police has fallen significantly in the past decade. Lots of would-be factory workers (in a regular, correctly-functioning economy), and those with social-disorders, have gone into police work instead - this is a fact, look it up. A inordinate amount of policemen CLEARLY have difficulties with managing power.
This case below appeared in the NYT recently. Its disgusting from top to bottom. From a complete LACK of professionalism on the part of the officers to a power-struggle with a 68-year old man who simply didn't want to open the door (like many stodgy, stubborn 68-year old won't).
The official version of events?
The Gotham column on March 6 about a man in White Plains who was killed by a police officer when a confrontation ensued after the authorities had responded to the man’s medical alert system referred incorrectly to that system.Confrontation? What kind?
Mr. Chamberlain, in the commissioner’s telling, had withstood electric charges, grabbed a butcher knife and charged the officers.
My friend is a cop. He has been tased. He is not a pussy. He is a pretty tough guy. He said it hurt. A LOT. Your muscles constrict and you are in extreme pain. See for yourself. Other officers gather around when they do it to laugh at you, because YOU GO DOWN. But this 68 year old didn't? BE VERY SUSPICIOUS, DEAR READER. My 30 year-old, 200 pound buddy can't take the charge, but the old man WITH A HEART CONDITION CAN!?!?
Fuck you police officers. You are lying through your teeth.
Furthermore, officers are told NOT to tase anyone with a heart condition as THE TASER COULD KILL THEM. A piece of info you get WHEN YOU PERSONALLY KNOW A COP. So first off, the fact he was tased, IS OVERTLY AGAINST POLICE POLICY. And yes, they knew he had a heart condition, they followed a bloody ambulance to his house; an ambulance responding to a medical alert system.
Their next BS line? He grabbed a butcher knife. OH no. The big, mean, nasty, wheezing 68 year old had a knife. First off, I think that's fabricated by these clearly low-standard cops, who neighbors reported TAUNTING the old man.
Secondly, a butcher knife is heavy. If an old man attacked me with one, I would back up and move around. He would literally get tired before I got hurt. Thirdly, a few routine martial arts lessons in knife disarming WOULD ENSURE YOU HAVE NO FEAR AROUND A KNIFE-WIELDING 68 YEAR OLD. Its easy. You grab the knife, pull it toward you twist with your hips - I do it every weekend; after a few tries, even a strong knife-wielder goes flying - a 68 year old? Give me a break.
Fourth: HOW MANY COPS WERE THERE?!?! Sounds like 3-5 or more. AND THEY CAN'T DISARM A 68 YEAR OLD MAN who only has a knife while they have guns and batons? I CAN DISARM SOMEONE BY MYSELF FOR CHRISSAKE WITHOUT THE USE OF A WEAPON.
WHAT TOTAL COWARDLY SISSIES! Come at me with a knife. And tell me what you'll do when I KICK YOU IN THE STOMACH. Its a knife, NOT A SWORD. Trust me, I (anyone) can kick you before you get to them with the knife. HE WAS 68 YEARS OLD! I bet you anything, he picked up the knife out of fear and they shot him dead where he stood. The man didn't open up the door - THEY KICKED IT DOWN. Isn't this a form of BREAKING AND ENTERING? This is a citizen's PRIVATE RESIDENCE. The PUBLIC police officers HAVE NO RIGHT ENTERING.
ITS HIS HOUSE. HE CAN CARRY 50 KNIVES AROUND IF HE WANTS. If the cops want to be safe from him, THEY SHOULD STAY OUT OF HIS HOUSE! All they should've done is send him a bill for the ambulance that was accidentally called. That's it.
So let's review what is not in question. Several men - who happened to be bearing badges - wearing kevlar vests, armed and aggressive, broke into an innocent, 68 year old, taxpaying citizen's house and shot him because he supposedly attacked the people who just broke into his house - after he was tased with enough volts to bring down a cow.
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY FUCKING KIDDING ME!?!?!?!
The officer who shot him has been "reassigned." WELL THAT PUNISHMENT FITS THE CRIME, EH?!?!?!
p.s. When cops act like idiots - as they did here - the Dept. is sued for huge money by the victim's family and the Dept. must settle for huge money - WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM?
FROM THE GODDAMN TAXPAYERS!
And lastly, three cheers for the NEW YORK TIMES! I mean they went so far as to suggest that QUESTIONS BE ASKED DUE TO THE NATURE OF THIS INCIDENT.
NO KIDDING, NEW YORK TIMES. QUESTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ASKED..... BY YOU - THE GODDAMN NEWSPAPER!!! HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN HOW TO DO YOUR JOB!?!?!
HERE ARE SOME FOR YOU:
1 - Did the cop doing the shooting have a record of this behavior? Why was he cleared?
2 - Why wasn't non-lethal force effective?
3 - Did the officers MISS when they fired bean bags and tasers?
4 - Do most 70 year old assailants withstand such attacks?
5 - How on EARTH did a 70 year old withstand attacks that bring down young, strong men?
6 - How did MULTIPLE OFFICERS FAIL to subdue an old man?
7 - Why did officers ESCALATE the situation and break in?
8 - Do officers typically FEAR a 70 YEAR OLD WITH HEART TROUBLE?
9 - The cops knew, or knew of this man. They shot him twice in the chest. Doesn't that suggest they did not like him, or else had a personal problem with him and could not maintain their professionalism around him?
10 - Suppose this superhuman 70 year old did charge them with a knife after being tased. Why can't these blind cops shoot an old man in the shoulder or leg, from CLOSE RANGE?!?!? Take off your vest and throw it over his face - think the old man can stab you now?
11 - Why was the old man shot twice IN THE CHEST, as if they were TRYING TO KILL HIM OUT OF MALICE??? Do they expect us to believe getting shot in the chest at that range is AN ACCIDENT? Because we're not that stupid.
Not one of these cops will lose his job, be suspended without pay or FACE CHARGES OF MURDER.
When someone goes to a house, kicks in the door and shoots the occupant in the chest, WHAT PRECISELY WOULD YOU CALL THAT?
Fatal Shooting of Ex-Marine by White Plains Police Officers Raises Questions
Full NYT article:
The niece stood in the darkened stairwell of the Winbrook Houses, listening, as 20 feet away five police officers yelled at her uncle, who had locked himself in his apartment.
It was 5:25 AM on a chill November morning. The officers banged loud and hard, demanding that her 68-year-old uncle open his door.
“He was begging them to leave him alone,” she recalls. “He sounded scared.” She pulls her shawl about her shoulders and her voice cracks; she is speaking for the first time about what she saw. “I heard my uncle yelling, ‘Officers, officers, why do you have your guns out?’ ”
The string of events that night sounds prosaic, a who-cares accumulation of little mistakes and misapprehensions. Cumulatively, though, it is like tumbling down the stairs. Somehow the uncle, Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., a former Marine who had heart problems and wheezed if he walked more than 40 feet, triggered his medical alert system pendant. The system operator came on the loudspeaker in his one-bedroom apartment, asking: “Mr. Chamberlain, are you O.K.?” All of this is recorded.
Mr. Chamberlain didn’t respond. So the operator signaled for an ambulance. Police patrol cars fell in behind — standard operating procedure in towns across America. Except an hour later, even as Mr. Chamberlain insisted he was in good health, the police had snapped the locks on the apartment door.
They fired electric charges from Tasers, and beanbags from shotguns. Then they said they saw Mr. Chamberlain grab a knife, and an officer fired his handgun.
Boom! Boom! Mr. Chamberlain’s niece Tonyia Greenhill, who lives upstairs, recalls the echoes ricocheting about the hall. She pushed out a back door and ran into the darkness beneath overarching oaks. He lay on the floor near his kitchen, two bullet holes in his chest, blood pooling thick, dying.
It makes sense to be humble in the presence of conflicting accounts. The White Plains public safety commissioner declared this a “warranted use of deadly force”; the shooter was later put on modified assignment. Mr. Chamberlain, in the commissioner’s telling, had withstood electric charges, grabbed a butcher knife and charged the officers.
The alert system phone in Mr. Chamberlain’s apartment recorded most of the standoff, as did a security camera in the hall. And the officers’ Tasers carried video recorders.
Last month, the Westchester County district attorney played these for the dead man’s son, Kenneth Chamberlain Jr., who teaches martial arts for a local nonprofit organization and intends to file a lawsuit. He is lithe, with a shaved head, and takes pride in a reasoned manner. “My family, we’re not into histrionics,” he says. “We don’t run down the street inciting riot.”
His voice cracks, though, as he describes the tapes. “I heard fear,” he says. “In my 45 years on this earth, I never heard my father sound like that.”
The district attorney will present the case to a grand jury and has not released transcripts. But the family’s recollection matches that of neighbors who listened through closed doors.
They say officers taunted Mr. Chamberlain. He shouted: “Semper fi,” the Marine Corps motto. The police answered with loud shouts of “Hoo-rah!” Another officer, the niece says, said he wanted to pee in Mr. Chamberlain’s bathroom.
Someone, the niece and neighbors say, yelled a racial epithet at the door. Black and white officers were present.
Kenny Randolph listened from his apartment across the hall. “They put fear in his heart,” he says. “It wasn’t a crime scene until they made it one.”
The police say Mr. Chamberlain was “known” to them, although it appears he had not been convicted of a crime. There are intimations that he wrestled with emotional issues. Sometimes, neighbors say, he talked to himself. Who’s to say? As often, life’s default position is set to “complicated.”
Many police departments have trained corps of officers expert in talking with the emotionally upset. Their rule of thumb: talk quietly and de-escalate. That night in White Plains, no one appeared to have de-escalated anything.
Mr. Chamberlain sounded spooked. His son recalls hearing his father say on tape: “This is my sworn testimony. White Plains officers are coming in here to kill me.” A few minutes later, a bullet tore through his rib and heart. The ambulance took him to White Plains Hospital, where he soon died.
His son lives five minutes away. He says he could have talked his father down. Standing in the office of his lawyer Randolph M. McLaughlin, he mimes knocking on his dad’s door. “Dad, it’s me, Ken, I’m here.” His eyes are bloodshot and brimming. “I always said, ‘I’m the protector now.’ But I wasn’t there when he needed me.”
E-mail: powellm@nytimes.com
Twitter: @powellnyt
Its Called Prosecutorial Misconduct
And its a crime.
WA Dad Separated From Children via ‘Invented’ Abuse Allegations
March 29th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Bryce Lemmons, of Kelso, Washington, is suing the county he lives in for false arrest and possibly malicious prosecution. It all stems from an acrimonious divorce and custody case in which his ex-wife levelled charges at him of sexual abuse and rape of their four-year-old daughter. Read about it here (The Daily News, 3/22/12).
That all happened back in October, 2010. Nine months later, prosecutors dropped all charges due to the fact that, as Lemmons’ lawyer says, “they didn’t have anything.” Indeed, Lemmons voluntarily took and passed two separate lie detector tests administered by two separate polygraph examiners.
In what by now is a familiar pattern, the child’s mother, Jessica Lemmons, claimed the daughter said her father had touched her inappropriately. The child was then taken to a forensic examiner who questioned her for 55 minutes.
During the interview, the girl “was extremely reluctant to implicate (her father), but the interviewer was relentless and succeeded in producing a series of improbable and almost magical statements of abuse at the hands of (Lemmons),” according to the suit.
I wasn’t there, but that’s an altogether too familiar description of how not to question a child. It’s a good description of how those who want to get a child to accuse an adult go about obtaining that result. But of course, since the scandalous abuses of children and adults in the “child sexual abuse” witch hunts of the 80s, we’ve developed protocols for questioning children, so wasn’t that done here? At this point, we don’t know, but we’ll soon find out.
What we do know is the dubious nature of the organization that did the questioning of Lemmons’ daughter. It’s something called the Children’s Justice and Advocacy Center. Strangely, it has no website and, according to one source, is not a member of the state’s network of child advocates. Although its Facebook page calls it a non-profit organization, Guidestar, the organization with more information about non-profits than any other I know of, has no record of it.
That’s all backed up by Lemmons’ lawyer who originally sued the CJAC only to find that, for legal purposes, the organization didn’t exist.
[Attorney Duane] Crandall said his client initially sued CJAC, but dropped the complaint because the group amounts to an “amorphous” non-entity that proved impossible to sue.
“It’s a ghost,” Crandall said.
Whatever CJAC is, was or claims to be, it’s the brainchild, not of some disinterested third party, but of Sue Baur who just happens to be the county prosecutor who brought charges against Lemmons. Internet searches of Sue Baur and CJAC’s child forensic interviewer, Kristen Mendez, suggest the two work hand-in-glove on a number of cases in the past. Oddly, information about Mendez comes from a web address for the Kelso, Washington Housing Authority.
So what we seem to have is a prosecutor who set up her own organization, raised money, hired a forensic investigator who may have violated the protocols for questioning children and then attempted to channel the phony interview into criminal charges against the child’s father.
You may ask, “why not just let the county interview the girl and take it from there?” There are two possible answers. The first is that the county may well take the protocols for questioning children seriously, and my guess is that, in Sue Baur’s opinion, that approach results in too few charges against too few men. Her solution to that nagging little matter of due process of law was to simply open her own shop and hire a like-minded forensic examiner and, presto!, you have more men charged with more offenses. I don’t know for certain that’s true, but my intuition tells me it is.
The second answer is “the Duke Lacrosse frame-up.” What does that have to do with this? Possibly a lot. If you remember, one of (now disgraced and disbarred) prosecutor Mike Nifong’s many unethical acts in the Duke case was to refuse to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense as required by law. Of course there was plenty of evidence proving that the three accused had done nothing wrong, principally the entire absence of their DNA. So why didn’t Nifong turn over the results of the state’s DNA tests? For one thing, the state hadn’t officially performed any such tests. That’s because Nifong had gotten a private laboratory to do the testing. Not surprisingly, Nifong knew the guy who owned the lab. So when the results came back negative, the private lab avoided turning over the evidence to Nifong who could then say “I don’t have any exculpatory evidence.” Of course, if the results had suggested guilt, I’m sure Nifong would have gotten possession of them and gladly shown same to the defense.
My guess is that’s what’s at work in Lemmons’ case. To the extent that it’s anything, CJAC is a private entity that can give or withhold evidence as it chooses. I’d say that’s one of its main purposes. CJAC has so far not responded to my multiple efforts to contact it by telephone and email.
Now, although the criminal charges against Lemmons were dropped almost a year ago, he still doesn’t get to see either his daughter or his infant son about whom there have never been allegations of abuse. That’s because there, as in so many other cases, family courts play by different rules than do criminal courts. Is there no evidence of abuse or violence against a father? Too bad for him, mere allegations will do for a restraining order to be issued.
And that’s just what happened to Lemmons. Mom said it happened and so, despite the evidence that he’s entirely innocent, despite the fact that it all happened in the context of a custody case, despite the actions of CJAC that Crandall characterizes as displaying “a stunning level of incompetence,” Lemmons will remain separated from his children indefinitely.
So far, much of this consists of allegations only; Lemmons has yet to prove anything in court and CJAC denies wrongdoing. But if my nose is any guide, this is another case in which a family court believes the mother with little or no evidence and removes the father from his childrens’ lives. Into the bargain, it’s all done with the aid of a public employee and her front organization. Put simply, this one stinks.
We’ll see what happens.
This Just Learned
A REALLY GOOD SCAM REQUIRES LOTS OF SECRECY AND LOTS OF HUSH MONEY.
UK: 40% of Family Court ‘Experts’ Not Qualified
March 23rd, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.Britain’s Family Justice Council has found that 40% of the “experts” who give opinions in family cases were either entirely unqualified to do so or were giving opinions in matters outside their expertise. Read about it here (Daily Mail, 3/12/12). The Council’s report further found that 90% of the experts rendering opinions did nothing else to earn a living. That is, they no longer practiced in the field about which they gave opinions, beyond their appearances in family law cases.
The Family Justice Council is an independent body funded by the Ministry of Justice.
The report is the result of an analysis of 100 opinions rendered by experts, mostly psychologists and psychiatrists in family courts.
[I]n a unique study for the Family Justice Council, Professor Jane Ireland – a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness – examined over 100 expert witness reports used in family court cases.
Incredibly, she found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified AT ALL.
A further fifth had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.
In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’.
Often, these professional experts – who rake in thousands of pounds in fees from the chaotic family courts system – have not practised for years, leaving them out of touch with developments in their field.
These “experts” are usually used in custody cases, access cases and child welfare cases to assess the suitability of parents.
Up to now, their behavior has been unknown to the press and the public at large due to Britain’s insistence on keeping secret virtually all the proceedings of family courts. As such, the “experts” behaved with almost complete impunity. In a case cited in the article, one such professional expert witness wrote an entire 14-page report about a mother and her family without ever meeting or talking to any of them. Worse, the very day he signed his report, he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offense, but the family court used his report anyway.
As I’ve said several times before, the secrecy of family courts in the U.K. is more about hiding the behavior of the judges than it is about protecting the privacy of children. The latter is the excuse, but the former is the reason. ‘Twas ever thus. When governmental agencies act behind closed doors, they abuse their power. In this case, it’s their wholesale use of incompetent experts to guide judges in vital matters like child custody and whether children should be taken from parents into care.
I’ve argued the same thing about child welfare agencies in this country, and sure enough, when their behavior becomes public, all too often it’s proven to be lacking. Again, the excuse given is that children need protection from publicity, but that secrecy serves to cover up the agency’s malpractice.
We see it time and again. Currently, child welfare agencies in states such as New York and Arizona, and Los Angeles County in California are openly violating state laws in order to keep their behavior out of public view. Count on it; when they’re finally forced to open their books, we’ll see incompetence that resulted in the deaths, injuries and neglect of many children. That the agencies want us to think that secracy is for the protection of children is almost beyond belief.
The family law system in the U.K. is virulently anti-father and I’d be astonished if the system of using unqualified experts hasn’t played a major role in perpetuating that bias. My guess is that the judges there have gotten used to appointing certain “experts” who reflect the judge’s own bias against fathers. They do so in order to have “plausible deniability” when issuing orders that separate fathers from their children. That is, the judges, if they’re ever taken to task for giving custody to mothers in 90% of cases can always point to the “experts” to “prove” their lack of bias. The fact that the expert is him/herself anti-father will go unnoticed.
Until now. With the rejection of the infamous Norgrove Report, the outrage of fathers’ rights advocates and ministers like Iain Duncan Smith, and now the Family Justice Council’s report, the earth has begun to move under the feet of family judges. The extent of the creative destruction won’t be known for some time, but with any luck it’ll be far-reaching. Family courts in the U.K. look far worse than their U.S. counterparts; wholesale changes need to be made.
After all, one mother was quoted in the Daily Mail article as saying,
‘The court system in England is barbaric,’ she said.
‘It does not allow parents to be given a voice, it doesn’t allow their children to be given a voice.
‘But what it does instead is it focuses on employing expert witnesses – at huge expense.’
Keep in mind, that’s a mother talking. They’re the ones who are favord above all others by the country’s family courts. If that’s the way she feels…
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Fathers Screwed Again; But Euros Have Nothing on U.S.!
IT COULD BE WORSE! YOU COULD LIVE IN AMERICA, WHERE TWO MEN ARE FORCED TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT FOR THE SAME CHILD! ONE THE REAL FATHER, THE OTHER, MOM'S LIVE-IN LOVER!
Read the following carefully. What it amounts to is women screwing one man, and then choosing a second to "act as day-to-day father." HOW QUAINT!
European Court Deals Blow to Fathers’ Rights
March 29th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.In Germany, and now in Europe generally, biological fathers have no parental rights as long as another man plays the role of father. That’s the ruling of the European Court for Human Rights. Read about it here (The Local, 3/22/12).
German courts had previously ruled the same way, and their decisions were upheld by the European court.
The rights of fathers to develop and continue relationships with their children do not grant them the right to challenge the position of the legal fathers, the court said.
A 41-year-old man from Berlin had a relationship with a woman who had been living with another man. When she had a baby, her live-in partner was registered as the father and the couple raised the child.
When her lover challenged this, he was recognised by a court expert as the biological father, but was denied legal paternity in the interests of the child.
The second case involved another 41-year-old man from Willich in North Rhine-Westphalia whose ex-wife had a baby four months after they divorced. She later declared a new partner to be the father and then married him.
A German court, now supported by the European one, ruled that the biological father had no right to legally-recognised paternity – the child already had a legal father.
Child Abduction: Could it be...shhhh... ILLEGAL?!?!?!
Want to know the really pathetic truth to this? The Feds and their child support money to the states for-deadbeat dad hunting, turning dad-killing into a FOR PROFIT BOUNTY, have created this. Now any parent who has lost custody will be BANKRUPTED AND ONLY BE ABLE TO "VISIT" THEIR OWN CHILDREN IF THEY'RE LUCKY. And snagging another mate!?!?! IMPOSSIBLE!
So what the F*CK DO YOU EXPECT!?!?!?!
Child custody fights could hurt US-Japan ties
TOKYO - Japan should work to solve problems in international custody cases so that children of broken marriages have access to both parents, a senior US official said yesterday, hinting that the issue could hurt bilateral relations.
Visiting US Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said Japan’s position has “raised very real concerns among senior and prominent Americans in Congress, on Capitol Hill, and elsewhere.’’
Japan has not signed an international convention on child abductions, and its domestic family law permits only one parent to have custody of children in cases of divorce, nearly always the mother. That leaves many fathers, including foreigners, unable to see their children in Japan until they are grown up.
There are about 70 cases of American parents who are kept from seeing their children in Japan, and Campbell met with several of them in a group earlier yesterday. He called their situations “heartbreaking.’’
Steve Christie, an American university instructor who lives in Japan and met with Campbell, said he has rarely seen his son the past four years ever since his wife, whom he has divorced, suddenly left with the boy.
“This is our life and blood, this is our offspring, and we’re being denied a chance to see them,’’ said Christie, 50. “It’s not right, it’s immoral, it’s unethical.’’
In some cases, Japanese mothers living overseas have fled to Japan with their children and kept the fathers from having any contact, even if court rulings abroad ordered joint custody.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Flash: Kids Don't Need Parents, Just Orphanages
The what? The "case for".... orphanages? Right. Is this an early April Fool's day joke? Ever ask a kid what he thought of an orphanage? Of course not. Because, you're an idiot, Mr. Harmon. Kids from orphanages report feeling desperately sad, mainly because they don't know why their parents gave them up. So would you, so would I. When one parent is crazy, you give the child to the other parent. Period. GENDER DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER.
At present, only moms get kids after marriage - about 90% of the time. In most states in the U.S., if a mom is crazy - like the one below - then dad is ignored and bypassed and the kids go into state care, and typically given to foster care homes run by psychos or scam artists, who get state aid for the kids and pump them full of anti-depressants to control them. Otherwise the kids go into an orphanage - which has no parents or surrogate parents, just EMPLOYEES. To run a proper orphanage, with full-time care for the kids, including health care, activities, etc., well, requires millions. Think of prisons or old-age homes. These are facilities that meet all the needs of a group of people with no serious neglect. ANY IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE THOSE PLACES ARE? They're comically expensive. And you would hope an orphanage is better run than a prison (realistically, the prison probably is).
Meanwhile the child(ren) could have a dad who wants to raise them but is disallowed by the Nazis, er, state, because he does not provide "the best available possible home environment for the child." To translate for you who haven't read what I've read, that means since dad is unmarried AND A MAN, he's considered to be a philandering asshole who neglects or abuses kids, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. The state labels him as "sub-optimum" and then RETAINS CONTROL over the children and puts them wherever they want, whenever they want. The child's natural parent IS REPLACED BY A BUREAUCRACY. Let me guess..... THE STATE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS IDEA? The same state who then demands INCREASING FUNDS for all of their "child welfare programs?!?!? Paint me shocked.
I literally have PHYSICAL, LEGAL DOCUMENTS of a father who's ex-girlfriend ABANDONED his son and after he ran to his son's aid, he was DENIED CUSTODY OF HIS OWN SON by the state who labeled him "sub-optimum." This, to a man who was from a large, Spanish, Catholic family where extended family lived in the same household and their entire way of life held family ties to be the most important thing in the world. If you don't believe me, go hang out with some moral, church-going Spanish folks and tell me what you find out.
Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America comes dead last and State Greed, Power, Lust, and Control comes FIRST, LAST, AND ALWAYS.
Intensive investigations are under way. But no one should be surprised to learn weeks from now that the caseworkers and courts did everything by the book. Child protection workers followed their ‘kin first’ mandate some seven years ago when Goodwin asked voluntarily for her cousin to take guardianship of Jamaal. And the system respected “the right of families to be free from unwarranted state intervention’’ when it returned Jamaal to Goodwin in 2010.
Then, in May, child protection workers received and responded to a report that Goodwin physically abused her son in the course of disciplining him. She cooperated with caseworkers, signed a safety plan, and accepted child care and after school services. Even marginal improvements on the part of an abusive parent count heavily toward retaining custody under the shaky family-preservation model.
Still, social workers in Massachusetts remove about 4,500 children from their homes for parental abuse or neglect each year and place them in the care of relatives, foster families, or small group homes. Within seven or eight months, about 90 percent of the children are back under the care of their parents, according to state officials. And within a year of their return, about 15 percent of those children must be removed from the home again.
It would be far kinder to “institutionalize’’ these returnees than to keep them in a years-long cycle of abuse and foster care placements. Especially given the modern incarnation of orphanages......
At present, only moms get kids after marriage - about 90% of the time. In most states in the U.S., if a mom is crazy - like the one below - then dad is ignored and bypassed and the kids go into state care, and typically given to foster care homes run by psychos or scam artists, who get state aid for the kids and pump them full of anti-depressants to control them. Otherwise the kids go into an orphanage - which has no parents or surrogate parents, just EMPLOYEES. To run a proper orphanage, with full-time care for the kids, including health care, activities, etc., well, requires millions. Think of prisons or old-age homes. These are facilities that meet all the needs of a group of people with no serious neglect. ANY IDEA HOW EXPENSIVE THOSE PLACES ARE? They're comically expensive. And you would hope an orphanage is better run than a prison (realistically, the prison probably is).
Meanwhile the child(ren) could have a dad who wants to raise them but is disallowed by the Nazis, er, state, because he does not provide "the best available possible home environment for the child." To translate for you who haven't read what I've read, that means since dad is unmarried AND A MAN, he's considered to be a philandering asshole who neglects or abuses kids, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. The state labels him as "sub-optimum" and then RETAINS CONTROL over the children and puts them wherever they want, whenever they want. The child's natural parent IS REPLACED BY A BUREAUCRACY. Let me guess..... THE STATE IS IN FAVOR OF THIS IDEA? The same state who then demands INCREASING FUNDS for all of their "child welfare programs?!?!? Paint me shocked.
I literally have PHYSICAL, LEGAL DOCUMENTS of a father who's ex-girlfriend ABANDONED his son and after he ran to his son's aid, he was DENIED CUSTODY OF HIS OWN SON by the state who labeled him "sub-optimum." This, to a man who was from a large, Spanish, Catholic family where extended family lived in the same household and their entire way of life held family ties to be the most important thing in the world. If you don't believe me, go hang out with some moral, church-going Spanish folks and tell me what you find out.
Once again, the Constitution of the United States of America comes dead last and State Greed, Power, Lust, and Control comes FIRST, LAST, AND ALWAYS.
The case for orphanages
LAWRENCE HARMON
(ARAM BOGHOSIAN FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE/MATTHEW CALLAHAN/GLOBE STAFF)
COULD ANYONE in their right mind deny that the 3-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son of Tanicia Goodwin would have been better off in an orphanage than at home with their mother or in a foster care placement that would eventually lead back to her?
This week, Salem police accused Goodwin, 25, of attempting to murder her children - Erica and Jamaal - by slashing their little throats. It’s an extreme case. But thousands of other Massachusetts children carry scars on their bodies and psyches from their biological parents.
Goodwin poses a severe test to the underlying family preservation philosophy of the state Department of Children and Families, the agency charged with protecting children from abuse and neglect. The agency sees its mission not only as physical protection but as making “every reasonable effort’’ to keep family units intact. That mission reflects, in part, the social work profession’s decades-long bias against long-term institutional care. But it also reflects a simplistic view of orphanages as some Dickensian throwback where little kids go begging for bowls of gruel. What social workers should fear instead is the isolation of the Salem public housing unit where, according to police, Goodwin tried to kill her children.
This week, Salem police accused Goodwin, 25, of attempting to murder her children - Erica and Jamaal - by slashing their little throats. It’s an extreme case. But thousands of other Massachusetts children carry scars on their bodies and psyches from their biological parents.
Goodwin poses a severe test to the underlying family preservation philosophy of the state Department of Children and Families, the agency charged with protecting children from abuse and neglect. The agency sees its mission not only as physical protection but as making “every reasonable effort’’ to keep family units intact. That mission reflects, in part, the social work profession’s decades-long bias against long-term institutional care. But it also reflects a simplistic view of orphanages as some Dickensian throwback where little kids go begging for bowls of gruel. What social workers should fear instead is the isolation of the Salem public housing unit where, according to police, Goodwin tried to kill her children.
Then, in May, child protection workers received and responded to a report that Goodwin physically abused her son in the course of disciplining him. She cooperated with caseworkers, signed a safety plan, and accepted child care and after school services. Even marginal improvements on the part of an abusive parent count heavily toward retaining custody under the shaky family-preservation model.
Still, social workers in Massachusetts remove about 4,500 children from their homes for parental abuse or neglect each year and place them in the care of relatives, foster families, or small group homes. Within seven or eight months, about 90 percent of the children are back under the care of their parents, according to state officials. And within a year of their return, about 15 percent of those children must be removed from the home again.
It would be far kinder to “institutionalize’’ these returnees than to keep them in a years-long cycle of abuse and foster care placements. Especially given the modern incarnation of orphanages......
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Janet Tavakoli: Dead Perfect, Again
Ms. Tavakoli has had an unsuccessful personal life. But God Bless the woman for having more courage than anyone else in calling a spade a spade regarding the financial crisis.
Monday, March 26, 2012
The Ultimate Buffoon: Allred
You may or may not have heard of Gloria Allred.
Hopefully, you haven't. She's a cold, cynical, bitter, aged scoundrel. An attorney, man-hater, and fame-seeker. Does it get any worse? Pretty much, no.
She claims to be gender neutral and she has represented men in gender discrimination suits, but its jut to make her look more rounded. Her success is in slandering men, especially high-profile playboys that in no way resemble the 99% of men out there trying to live and work and raise a family. Her worst argument is so pathetic it can only be the argument of someone who is wrong and reaching for anything to win the argument.
Lately she's been representing ex-girlfriends of playboys. Yeah. Like everyone didn't know this guy, who is an international golfer/soccer/basketball/finance billionaire is just out for sex and clearly not really in the market to marry her client - a porn star or hotel employee who willingly and freely had sex with said playboy. What this moron lawyer is trying to argue - in vain - is that the man made some kind of contract by having sex with her client and that this non-existent contract should be used to fleece him for money, emotions, an apology and a number of other absurdities. All because her client, was naive, stupid, horny at the time, or all of the above. There is a reason why mistresses are typically hot and dumb - smart women know when they're being used for sex (and some are game to use and be used if they are after the same thing), and they generally avoid it.
Gloia Allred tries to make money off of women who claim not to know what they were doing - even when they were sleeping with a married man. So she bandies about the worst examples of male playboys she can think of - mainly Tiger Woods.
Not being hurt is not a legal or moral right, crazy lady. She says, DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN!?!?! And then goes on to rail about how women are being mistreated. First off, and with apologies, fuck the rights of women. Seriously. Women have more rights than men in this country and that's a fact. Look up the "Violence Against Women Act" and tell me I'm wrong. Violence is illegal - PERIOD. Discrimination is illegal. Period. There is no reason to make a separate set of laws unless for women unless its for an ulterior motive.
Secondly, women hurt men all the time - and again, so what? Its not illegal to hurt someone! Its not nice! But its not fucking illegal! Nor should it be! GIVE ME A BREAK!
Secondly, men do not just "walk away" after a long-term relationship, #1. #2, her clients didn't even have long-term relationships, so what is she talking about? I know plenty of divorced men. They're a bucket of parts. They're devastated, half-human beings. They're shattered. They look at women and run the other way. If that wasn't bad enough, they're financially devastated by the woman who left them. The real problem is that so many women are so full of anxiety and fear of not being young and sexy enough that they leave "BEFORE they are left." (Husbands begging for explanations as to why THEY were left, receive none or are told "its obvious things aren't working out." This can be for anything from forgetting a holiday to being too tired to have sex - yeah, that's right. Women need sex and if they don't get it, most automatically figure its because they don't look good - as if the suddenly became ugly or something.) You would not BELIEVE how often that happens.
Strangely, Ms. Allred argues that these short-term sex pals that she represents - some of whom are literally porn stars - are best discussed by examining every woman in the United States of America who is being, or has been hurt by, a man - in any way, shape or form. Whether the American woman hurt this man first, cheated on him, abused him, left him, has severe emotional problems, etc., is all totally irrelevant to Ms. Allred. Women are being hurt and that is all you need care about, dear reader. As if we should burn the Constitution and start over because women experience emotional pain.
The ACTUAL TRUTH is irrelevant to this lawyer as it is to most lawyers. Unless you are savagely attacked by a stranger, which is very rare, you probably are involved in some way when you are hurt and chances are you did a little hurting to your mate, yourself. Ms. Allred dodges this question, repeatedly, as she's worried about her clients being seen as adults instead of grown children.
Furthermore, she acts as though her clients are CHAINED to the perpetrator. These are not CRIMINAL issues. She's trying to steal money on behalf of someone who had their FEELINGS HURT but are otherwise fine - someone who could've called their lover a louse and walked out the door WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO. Basically she represents people who take no personal responsibility for much of anything, including dating a jerk.
Men of course, and their feelings, are never discussed. Jerks are made, not born, Ms. Allred. Every good guy who has tried to act like a jerk to get a girl has failed; trust me, I've known plenty of good guys. Male jerks, I think you'll find were hurt quite badly at some point and simply never recovered; they hide their feelings away and keep women at an emotional distance - men DIVORCED by their wives are good examples of this. Of course, good looking women can have any sweet, nice guy they want. Many choose jerks instead. Don't believe me? Find the "nice" guys on a college campus and ask them who gets first shot at the pretty girls - trust me, they'll tell you its the pompous, arrogant athletes, not the nice boys you'd bring home to mom. When a good guy chooses a woman who is a jerk, he's laughed at, mocked, jeered, and generally treated like a fool who just bought a used car, unseen and undriven and discovered its a mess. What would Ms. Allred have women who choose a bad guy do? Sue him for being a jerk?
Now that's a real practical idea, isn't it?
Its an idea only a lawyer could come up with, because lawyers get rich off such drivel. This type of garbage philosophy was formerly kept to the fringes of society, but now its gone mainstream. If you are a student of societies as I am, THIS IS A VERY BAD SIGN.
p.s. Ms Allred has been married and divorced twice. I'm guessing she did nothing wrong in both marriages and the men were both to blame. Just ask her.
Whole Transcript:
MORGAN: Do you wake up and feel angry for the men? Or is it all women against men?
ALLRED: Well, we actually have had a number of cases, where we represent men who have been discriminated against in employment, on account of their gender.
But we've had those cases in the past. I objected many years ago -- and this was a well-known case -- for at the beginning of my career, when there was a commission on the status of women that was created, I believe in Santa Monica, and they excluded men from being able to participate.
And I went before the court, and I argued that that was discrimination against men, that men have a stake in the equality for women, and that men should not be excluded from that conversation, and especially not from a governmental entity that was going to opine about that.
MORGAN: Does it worry you that for all the very good cases you fight, where there's clear evidence of discrimination or harassment or whatever it may be -- does it worry you that you have almost single- handedly created an atmosphere, a culture, perhaps, where people who want to try it on, and who want to make a few quick bucks, like claiming discrimination and harassment, can now do that because of this atmosphere that you have helped propagate? Does that worry you?
ALLRED: No, not at all, because we are a plaintiff's law firm. We screen our cases very, very carefully. We make sure that we have the facts. We've investigated the facts. And you know, we can only take a small number of a little of the cases that people ask us to take. So, no, the weak cases, we are not taking.
But I'm happy when women who believe they have been discriminated against on account of their gender seek the advice of any attorney, whether it's myself or anyone else in the country, and say, I feel that I've been discriminated against on the job, or sexually harassed.
Is there something I can do about it? Do I have a strong enough case?
I don't want them to judge that themselves. We act like private attorney generals in enforcing the rights. And we look forward to women standing up and asserting their rights, and protecting their rights and vindicating their rights in a court of law. And we're very proud of those women who have the courage to do so.
MORGAN: And men.
ALLRED: And men as well, but --
MORGAN: Occasionally. Let's take a little break, come back and get into some of the more high-profile cases you've taken on.
ALLRED: Love it.
MORGAN: Because you seem to be popping up with almost all of them, Gloria, one of the more predictable elements of any scandal is you and that a little red top of yours.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALLRED: Mr. Polanski was able to victimize another child while he was a fugitive from justice.
I think we're beginning to unmask Scott Peterson. We'll find out who he really is.
It is time for Tiger Woods to take responsibility for the deep pain that he has inflicted on Veronica.
MORGAN: Just some of the high-profile cases that have had Gloria Allred all over our TV screens in the past few years, and she's back with me now.
I mean, you do pop up when you're -- I guess the people you're taking on least want you to. And for that reason, you've become the kind of legal agent provocateur, haven't you? Do you like that status?
ALLRED: Well, I like empowering my clients. I like providing them with a voice that they otherwise might not have, because I think they matter. The typical person matters, not just celebrities in our culture matter, and this is what we do.
We go up against the rich, the powerful, the famous, big corporations, government, celebrities, batterers, wrongdoers, killers, wrongdoers of all kinds, sexual harassers.
And we allow that individual person to fight that -- I'll call it a David and Goliath battle, or David and Goliath battle, and often win. And yes, people say, oh, my God, I mean, how could you go up against them?
I mean, these celebrities, often, they have their entourages. They have their PR people and an army of lawyers and their managers and everybody else. And who does that individual person have? They have us and they get to have a voice.
MORGAN: Roman Polanski, I totally get, because there you have very serious allegations of serious sexual misconduct.
Tiger Woods is an interesting case to me, because he's a golfer. What really is the public interest in exposing Tiger Woods when it comes down to -- yes, there's the role model argument and he's making money for whoever, Gillette or whoever it may be.
But actually, does it matter what Tiger Woods does in his private life? Why did you feel compelled to expose him?
ALLRED: Well, it matters if any man hurts any woman. And in the case of Joslyn James, whom I represented, she was hurt. She was deceived. She was lied to, and he never even offered an apology. They had a --
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: She was a porn, right?
ALLRED: They had -- she had -- she was an adult film star, yes.
MORGAN: And she went on to make an adult movie based on Tiger Woods' text messages.
ALLRED: Well, she, you know, she has a right to have a career. She gave it up for him.
MORGAN: Yes, but how's that --
ALLRED: Let me just say, he asked her to give up her career because he was jealous that she would be with anyone else. She did at great economic sacrifice to herself.
MORGAN: Yes.
ALLRED: And then --
MORGAN: But she doesn't seem to have been --
ALLRED: After the scandal -- yes, she had to go and make a living.
MORGAN: Yes, but I mean, go and make a living, she would have made a porn movie starring Tiger Woods' text message. I mean, how hurt could she have been if she felt able to do that? That's my point.
ALLRED: You know, those of us who are -- lead a more privileged life and are able to make a very nice living the way you are and the way I am, I don't think we should look down our nose at other people who have to make difficult choices about how they make a living. It's not for me to sit here --
MORGAN: No, no, don't get me wrong.
ALLRED: -- and judge or second-guess how anybody makes a living -- I'm so glad that anyone is able to work.
MORGAN: Rewind. I wasn't making any moral judgment about her career. She's perfectly entitled to be in the entertainment industry. My point is, how hurt could she have been by Tiger Woods if she then just, the moment it was over, went out and made loads of money making porn movies starring his text messages?
It seemed to me that she was one of the cases where you were at your weakest, and you've had so many where you've been very strong. And I just wonder sometimes, when you watch what she did afterwards, do you slightly sit back and go, maybe I should have left that one alone?
ALLRED: Not at all.
MORGAN: Really?
ALLRED: No. I'm --
MORGAN: (INAUDIBLE) for you.
ALLRED: No, I mean, you know, I'm not a politician that sits there and puts my finger in the wind, sees which way it's blowing.
I'm going to stand up for women. I've stood up for women who are adult film stars. I've stood up for women who are judges, secretaries, factory workers, farm workers -- you name it, we've had it, just about. And I --
MORGAN: Do you ever regret afterwards taking on cases, because of the way that perhaps the person you've been defending or prosecuting on behalf of, because of their behavior afterwards, you have moments of self-reflection afterwards?
ALLRED: No, I'm so proud of my clients and the courage they've shown. You have no idea.
We are living -- I feel I live in a war zone every day for women, where we are fighting for their rights against very powerful, very well-funded forces, and I'm just so proud of the courage of my clients, because they come in. They're often crying -- like at a glass table like this, tears all over the place.
And then I see them evolve into -- from victims to survivors to fighters for change and standing up and being empowered, and then going on and empowering their children and their coworkers and other people in their community.
MORGAN: Where does, for example, the rights of Tiger Woods' wife override the rights of the adult entertainment star who's been having an affair with him, who just feels a bit, you know, aggrieved by the fact he isn't actually going to stay with her? Where do the rights of his wife come into that, in terms of your moral compass?
ALLRED: I wouldn't characterize the fact that Ms. James was upset that he wouldn't stay with her, OK?
It was his lying, it was the deception, it was the way he treated her, after three years of an intimate relationship, over a thousand text messages, and flying her around and making her feel that she was the only one.
As to his wife, of course she has rights, and I assume that she asserted them, and I'm glad that she did so, because that would be her right. MORGAN: Yes, but you know the point I'm getting at, right, is that, you know, you sort of paint a very compelling picture, because you're very eloquent about this, of this poor, unsuspecting adult entertainment star who got duped by Tiger Woods --
ALLRED: Well, do you think it's OK, Piers, for men to lie to women and break their hearts? I don't. I make no apology for that.
MORGAN: No, what I wonder, though --
ALLRED: I don't think that men should be able to hurt women and then just walk away and throw them out like a piece of garbage.
MORGAN: But she knew that he was married.
ALLRED: Well, of course she knew that he was married, but --
MORGAN: Does she -- does she not care about Ms. Woods?
ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?
MORGAN: I get that.
ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.
MORGAN: I'm not condoning any of it. What I'm saying to you is, though, that if you're Ms. Woods, and you see this adult entertainment star claiming my life's been ruined, and then she just goes out and starts making movies --
ALLRED: She didn't say my life's been ruined, and, again, you know, again, those of us who have a lot of opportunities shouldn't look down on those who are trying to make a living.
MORGAN: No, no.
ALLRED: And I -- and you know what, I make --
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: -- trying to paint me as a --
ALLRED: I don't represent his wife. I don't know what her thoughts were, but I --
MORGAN: No, I'm not making any moral --
ALLRED: -- I'm glad that she stood up for herself.
MORGAN: I think it's interesting about -- I'm not making any moral position or argument about what she does for a living. What I'm saying is, if you go out after all this, after you've gone public and said, Tiger Woods treated me really badly, he lied to me, he broke promises and so on -- fine.
But if you then go and make these movies, based on his text messages, all that's going to do is really add to the hurt and humiliation and public shame of Tiger Woods' wife. And I'm curious as to where you representing that client would have a view about that kind of behavior and say maybe that's not a good idea.
ALLRED: You know, I just don't sit in judgment of my clients. If they have to --
MORGAN: Ever?
ALLRED: They have to survive. They have to make a living. I'm proud of her that, you know, she's trying to make a living. And, you know, not everybody has a lot of options to make a living like you do and like I do.
Let's come back after the break and talk about the political cases, because there I'll have a little bit more sympathy with your clients.
(LAUGHTER)
Hopefully, you haven't. She's a cold, cynical, bitter, aged scoundrel. An attorney, man-hater, and fame-seeker. Does it get any worse? Pretty much, no.
She claims to be gender neutral and she has represented men in gender discrimination suits, but its jut to make her look more rounded. Her success is in slandering men, especially high-profile playboys that in no way resemble the 99% of men out there trying to live and work and raise a family. Her worst argument is so pathetic it can only be the argument of someone who is wrong and reaching for anything to win the argument.
Lately she's been representing ex-girlfriends of playboys. Yeah. Like everyone didn't know this guy, who is an international golfer/soccer/basketball/finance billionaire is just out for sex and clearly not really in the market to marry her client - a porn star or hotel employee who willingly and freely had sex with said playboy. What this moron lawyer is trying to argue - in vain - is that the man made some kind of contract by having sex with her client and that this non-existent contract should be used to fleece him for money, emotions, an apology and a number of other absurdities. All because her client, was naive, stupid, horny at the time, or all of the above. There is a reason why mistresses are typically hot and dumb - smart women know when they're being used for sex (and some are game to use and be used if they are after the same thing), and they generally avoid it.
Gloia Allred tries to make money off of women who claim not to know what they were doing - even when they were sleeping with a married man. So she bandies about the worst examples of male playboys she can think of - mainly Tiger Woods.
ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?
MORGAN: I get that.
ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.
Not being hurt is not a legal or moral right, crazy lady. She says, DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN!?!?! And then goes on to rail about how women are being mistreated. First off, and with apologies, fuck the rights of women. Seriously. Women have more rights than men in this country and that's a fact. Look up the "Violence Against Women Act" and tell me I'm wrong. Violence is illegal - PERIOD. Discrimination is illegal. Period. There is no reason to make a separate set of laws unless for women unless its for an ulterior motive.
Secondly, women hurt men all the time - and again, so what? Its not illegal to hurt someone! Its not nice! But its not fucking illegal! Nor should it be! GIVE ME A BREAK!
Secondly, men do not just "walk away" after a long-term relationship, #1. #2, her clients didn't even have long-term relationships, so what is she talking about? I know plenty of divorced men. They're a bucket of parts. They're devastated, half-human beings. They're shattered. They look at women and run the other way. If that wasn't bad enough, they're financially devastated by the woman who left them. The real problem is that so many women are so full of anxiety and fear of not being young and sexy enough that they leave "BEFORE they are left." (Husbands begging for explanations as to why THEY were left, receive none or are told "its obvious things aren't working out." This can be for anything from forgetting a holiday to being too tired to have sex - yeah, that's right. Women need sex and if they don't get it, most automatically figure its because they don't look good - as if the suddenly became ugly or something.) You would not BELIEVE how often that happens.
Strangely, Ms. Allred argues that these short-term sex pals that she represents - some of whom are literally porn stars - are best discussed by examining every woman in the United States of America who is being, or has been hurt by, a man - in any way, shape or form. Whether the American woman hurt this man first, cheated on him, abused him, left him, has severe emotional problems, etc., is all totally irrelevant to Ms. Allred. Women are being hurt and that is all you need care about, dear reader. As if we should burn the Constitution and start over because women experience emotional pain.
The ACTUAL TRUTH is irrelevant to this lawyer as it is to most lawyers. Unless you are savagely attacked by a stranger, which is very rare, you probably are involved in some way when you are hurt and chances are you did a little hurting to your mate, yourself. Ms. Allred dodges this question, repeatedly, as she's worried about her clients being seen as adults instead of grown children.
Furthermore, she acts as though her clients are CHAINED to the perpetrator. These are not CRIMINAL issues. She's trying to steal money on behalf of someone who had their FEELINGS HURT but are otherwise fine - someone who could've called their lover a louse and walked out the door WHENEVER THEY WANTED TO. Basically she represents people who take no personal responsibility for much of anything, including dating a jerk.
Men of course, and their feelings, are never discussed. Jerks are made, not born, Ms. Allred. Every good guy who has tried to act like a jerk to get a girl has failed; trust me, I've known plenty of good guys. Male jerks, I think you'll find were hurt quite badly at some point and simply never recovered; they hide their feelings away and keep women at an emotional distance - men DIVORCED by their wives are good examples of this. Of course, good looking women can have any sweet, nice guy they want. Many choose jerks instead. Don't believe me? Find the "nice" guys on a college campus and ask them who gets first shot at the pretty girls - trust me, they'll tell you its the pompous, arrogant athletes, not the nice boys you'd bring home to mom. When a good guy chooses a woman who is a jerk, he's laughed at, mocked, jeered, and generally treated like a fool who just bought a used car, unseen and undriven and discovered its a mess. What would Ms. Allred have women who choose a bad guy do? Sue him for being a jerk?
Now that's a real practical idea, isn't it?
Its an idea only a lawyer could come up with, because lawyers get rich off such drivel. This type of garbage philosophy was formerly kept to the fringes of society, but now its gone mainstream. If you are a student of societies as I am, THIS IS A VERY BAD SIGN.
p.s. Ms Allred has been married and divorced twice. I'm guessing she did nothing wrong in both marriages and the men were both to blame. Just ask her.
Whole Transcript:
MORGAN: Do you wake up and feel angry for the men? Or is it all women against men?
ALLRED: Well, we actually have had a number of cases, where we represent men who have been discriminated against in employment, on account of their gender.
But we've had those cases in the past. I objected many years ago -- and this was a well-known case -- for at the beginning of my career, when there was a commission on the status of women that was created, I believe in Santa Monica, and they excluded men from being able to participate.
And I went before the court, and I argued that that was discrimination against men, that men have a stake in the equality for women, and that men should not be excluded from that conversation, and especially not from a governmental entity that was going to opine about that.
MORGAN: Does it worry you that for all the very good cases you fight, where there's clear evidence of discrimination or harassment or whatever it may be -- does it worry you that you have almost single- handedly created an atmosphere, a culture, perhaps, where people who want to try it on, and who want to make a few quick bucks, like claiming discrimination and harassment, can now do that because of this atmosphere that you have helped propagate? Does that worry you?
ALLRED: No, not at all, because we are a plaintiff's law firm. We screen our cases very, very carefully. We make sure that we have the facts. We've investigated the facts. And you know, we can only take a small number of a little of the cases that people ask us to take. So, no, the weak cases, we are not taking.
But I'm happy when women who believe they have been discriminated against on account of their gender seek the advice of any attorney, whether it's myself or anyone else in the country, and say, I feel that I've been discriminated against on the job, or sexually harassed.
Is there something I can do about it? Do I have a strong enough case?
I don't want them to judge that themselves. We act like private attorney generals in enforcing the rights. And we look forward to women standing up and asserting their rights, and protecting their rights and vindicating their rights in a court of law. And we're very proud of those women who have the courage to do so.
MORGAN: And men.
ALLRED: And men as well, but --
MORGAN: Occasionally. Let's take a little break, come back and get into some of the more high-profile cases you've taken on.
ALLRED: Love it.
MORGAN: Because you seem to be popping up with almost all of them, Gloria, one of the more predictable elements of any scandal is you and that a little red top of yours.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALLRED: Mr. Polanski was able to victimize another child while he was a fugitive from justice.
I think we're beginning to unmask Scott Peterson. We'll find out who he really is.
It is time for Tiger Woods to take responsibility for the deep pain that he has inflicted on Veronica.
MORGAN: Just some of the high-profile cases that have had Gloria Allred all over our TV screens in the past few years, and she's back with me now.
I mean, you do pop up when you're -- I guess the people you're taking on least want you to. And for that reason, you've become the kind of legal agent provocateur, haven't you? Do you like that status?
ALLRED: Well, I like empowering my clients. I like providing them with a voice that they otherwise might not have, because I think they matter. The typical person matters, not just celebrities in our culture matter, and this is what we do.
We go up against the rich, the powerful, the famous, big corporations, government, celebrities, batterers, wrongdoers, killers, wrongdoers of all kinds, sexual harassers.
And we allow that individual person to fight that -- I'll call it a David and Goliath battle, or David and Goliath battle, and often win. And yes, people say, oh, my God, I mean, how could you go up against them?
I mean, these celebrities, often, they have their entourages. They have their PR people and an army of lawyers and their managers and everybody else. And who does that individual person have? They have us and they get to have a voice.
MORGAN: Roman Polanski, I totally get, because there you have very serious allegations of serious sexual misconduct.
Tiger Woods is an interesting case to me, because he's a golfer. What really is the public interest in exposing Tiger Woods when it comes down to -- yes, there's the role model argument and he's making money for whoever, Gillette or whoever it may be.
But actually, does it matter what Tiger Woods does in his private life? Why did you feel compelled to expose him?
ALLRED: Well, it matters if any man hurts any woman. And in the case of Joslyn James, whom I represented, she was hurt. She was deceived. She was lied to, and he never even offered an apology. They had a --
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: She was a porn, right?
ALLRED: They had -- she had -- she was an adult film star, yes.
MORGAN: And she went on to make an adult movie based on Tiger Woods' text messages.
ALLRED: Well, she, you know, she has a right to have a career. She gave it up for him.
MORGAN: Yes, but how's that --
ALLRED: Let me just say, he asked her to give up her career because he was jealous that she would be with anyone else. She did at great economic sacrifice to herself.
MORGAN: Yes.
ALLRED: And then --
MORGAN: But she doesn't seem to have been --
ALLRED: After the scandal -- yes, she had to go and make a living.
MORGAN: Yes, but I mean, go and make a living, she would have made a porn movie starring Tiger Woods' text message. I mean, how hurt could she have been if she felt able to do that? That's my point.
ALLRED: You know, those of us who are -- lead a more privileged life and are able to make a very nice living the way you are and the way I am, I don't think we should look down our nose at other people who have to make difficult choices about how they make a living. It's not for me to sit here --
MORGAN: No, no, don't get me wrong.
ALLRED: -- and judge or second-guess how anybody makes a living -- I'm so glad that anyone is able to work.
MORGAN: Rewind. I wasn't making any moral judgment about her career. She's perfectly entitled to be in the entertainment industry. My point is, how hurt could she have been by Tiger Woods if she then just, the moment it was over, went out and made loads of money making porn movies starring his text messages?
It seemed to me that she was one of the cases where you were at your weakest, and you've had so many where you've been very strong. And I just wonder sometimes, when you watch what she did afterwards, do you slightly sit back and go, maybe I should have left that one alone?
ALLRED: Not at all.
MORGAN: Really?
ALLRED: No. I'm --
MORGAN: (INAUDIBLE) for you.
ALLRED: No, I mean, you know, I'm not a politician that sits there and puts my finger in the wind, sees which way it's blowing.
I'm going to stand up for women. I've stood up for women who are adult film stars. I've stood up for women who are judges, secretaries, factory workers, farm workers -- you name it, we've had it, just about. And I --
MORGAN: Do you ever regret afterwards taking on cases, because of the way that perhaps the person you've been defending or prosecuting on behalf of, because of their behavior afterwards, you have moments of self-reflection afterwards?
ALLRED: No, I'm so proud of my clients and the courage they've shown. You have no idea.
We are living -- I feel I live in a war zone every day for women, where we are fighting for their rights against very powerful, very well-funded forces, and I'm just so proud of the courage of my clients, because they come in. They're often crying -- like at a glass table like this, tears all over the place.
And then I see them evolve into -- from victims to survivors to fighters for change and standing up and being empowered, and then going on and empowering their children and their coworkers and other people in their community.
MORGAN: Where does, for example, the rights of Tiger Woods' wife override the rights of the adult entertainment star who's been having an affair with him, who just feels a bit, you know, aggrieved by the fact he isn't actually going to stay with her? Where do the rights of his wife come into that, in terms of your moral compass?
ALLRED: I wouldn't characterize the fact that Ms. James was upset that he wouldn't stay with her, OK?
It was his lying, it was the deception, it was the way he treated her, after three years of an intimate relationship, over a thousand text messages, and flying her around and making her feel that she was the only one.
As to his wife, of course she has rights, and I assume that she asserted them, and I'm glad that she did so, because that would be her right. MORGAN: Yes, but you know the point I'm getting at, right, is that, you know, you sort of paint a very compelling picture, because you're very eloquent about this, of this poor, unsuspecting adult entertainment star who got duped by Tiger Woods --
ALLRED: Well, do you think it's OK, Piers, for men to lie to women and break their hearts? I don't. I make no apology for that.
MORGAN: No, what I wonder, though --
ALLRED: I don't think that men should be able to hurt women and then just walk away and throw them out like a piece of garbage.
MORGAN: But she knew that he was married.
ALLRED: Well, of course she knew that he was married, but --
MORGAN: Does she -- does she not care about Ms. Woods?
ALLRED: Of course, she did. But do you care about women being hurt by men whom they trusted, whom they loved, who they had every reason to believe loved them?
MORGAN: I get that.
ALLRED: I mean, that's it. And do you care about the rights of women? Do you care about all those women across this country who are being hurt, and men treat them like, oh, well, they're just an afterthought. They're a footnote. They can walk away after being in a long-term relationship.
MORGAN: I'm not condoning any of it. What I'm saying to you is, though, that if you're Ms. Woods, and you see this adult entertainment star claiming my life's been ruined, and then she just goes out and starts making movies --
ALLRED: She didn't say my life's been ruined, and, again, you know, again, those of us who have a lot of opportunities shouldn't look down on those who are trying to make a living.
MORGAN: No, no.
ALLRED: And I -- and you know what, I make --
(CROSSTALK)
MORGAN: -- trying to paint me as a --
ALLRED: I don't represent his wife. I don't know what her thoughts were, but I --
MORGAN: No, I'm not making any moral --
ALLRED: -- I'm glad that she stood up for herself.
MORGAN: I think it's interesting about -- I'm not making any moral position or argument about what she does for a living. What I'm saying is, if you go out after all this, after you've gone public and said, Tiger Woods treated me really badly, he lied to me, he broke promises and so on -- fine.
But if you then go and make these movies, based on his text messages, all that's going to do is really add to the hurt and humiliation and public shame of Tiger Woods' wife. And I'm curious as to where you representing that client would have a view about that kind of behavior and say maybe that's not a good idea.
ALLRED: You know, I just don't sit in judgment of my clients. If they have to --
MORGAN: Ever?
ALLRED: They have to survive. They have to make a living. I'm proud of her that, you know, she's trying to make a living. And, you know, not everybody has a lot of options to make a living like you do and like I do.
Let's come back after the break and talk about the political cases, because there I'll have a little bit more sympathy with your clients.
(LAUGHTER)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
