Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:25:11 -0500
In-Reply-To:
Message-ID:
References: <4d7lgt$c08@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4eamum$2g1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4ec9sj$d74@ixnews6.ix.netcom.com> <4eimvd$9sp@byatt.alaska.net> <4er6ff$ssi@news.vanderbilt.edu> <4er7uf$4r8@cloner4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO
X-Status:
The following excerpt, taken from the fathers mailing list, may provide a
clue to this phenominea.
Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard
Subject: Re: Fraud by DHHS and Elaine Sorensen!! From: Rex Ballard Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:25:11 -0500
How the Web Was Won
Subject: Re: Fraud by DHHS and Elaine Sorensen!!
From: Rex Ballard
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 00:25:11 -0500
On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, fathers wrote:
> From: Seeking Equality for All
>
> Why should the (do called) child-suport orders be based on
> 'ability to pay', what is more properly called extorsion ?
>
> ABILITY TO PAY should not arise until after the complete fair
> impartial and unbiased assessment of both parents "ABILTY TO PARENT".
Do you really want to try and answer questions like:
What did you do during the gestation period?
How often did you nurse the infant (unless you had some major
hormones, you only bottle-fed the child - you are an inferior parent).
How many hours were spent with you? How many with the mother?
How many times did you babysit when you were a teenager?
Describe your child-related volunteer activities.
Have you ever assisted in a public nursery.
(it is illegal for a man to change a baby's diapers in New York State
day-care centers. It is defined as sexual abuse and child molesting)
Based on what I've heard so far I can see that your wife has clearly
demonstrated that she is a superior parent. As for you, I should
have you thrown in jail for child-molesting.
Can you provide any substantive evidence that would indicate that
your wife is unfit to be a mother?
The judge isn't going to ask you how many times you took your son to a
ball-game. The judge isn't going to ask how many times you helped him
with your homework. The judge isn't going to ask you if you taught him
how to box, recite the Lord's Prayer, or even fix the car.
How many men can say that they actually nursed their own children, Cared
for the children for 20 hours/day, did their laundry, gave them their
baths, and prepared two meals for them, every day.
How many Middle Class Men (successful in the business world) can say that
they spent even 15-18 hours/day with the children, actively participating
in their care.
Even if you could answer most of those in the affirmative, it's a no-win
question like "Yes or No, have you stopped beating your wife yet?". If
you say you did change their diapers, give them baths, slept with them in
their beds, or helped them go to the potty, you could be jailed as a
child-molester and a sex-offender. All of these activities are illegal
in most states. If you actually told him you did these things every day,
he could sentence you to 500 years (10 years/offense).
> Assuming that it is legal to violate a persons INALIENABLE RIGHTS, that
> is.
At this time, there is no inalienable right to bear or raise children.
Not for the Mother, not for the Father. DHHS could legally take custody
of almost any child, at any time, with no legal grounds - and put the
baby into a foster home. This happens frequently to the single mothers
of healthy white infants with previous felony or misdemanor
(prostitution) convictions - especially if they can't accurately name the
father and can't financially support themselves.
If the mother, who carried the baby for 9 months, risked her life to bear the
child, and nursed it for 2-4 months (sufficient to ensure that the baby has
antibodies and activated autoimmune system) doesn't even have the fundamental
right to a jury trial and a court appointed lawyer. What kind of "Right" do
you - whose involvment could range from ejaculating into a condom (sperm
banks) all the way to evening and week-end babysitter - have?
> As there is usually biase partiality and discrimination, in most cases,
There is bias and discrimination when determining the the "Best Parent".
> the presumptions and payments are done under threat duress and coercion.
Judges LOVE custody battles. To make his case, the father will attempt
to demonstrate what a great provider he his, how many assets and material
benefits he can provide. He will often trot out the entire bank-book, to
prove he is a better father. Since he is unable to prove that the mother
is unfit to be a mother (you were married for N years weren't you?), the
judge not only awards custody to the mother, but uses everything that was
"offered" on the children's behalf - as a legally binding contract and
the foundation of the final decree. The kids get all the material stuff
dad offered in the Custody hearing, but they get their mom too. The
fact that she will be living in the house and he won't is a secondary
side-effect.
> Note: this is done in fear of the color-of-law otherwise known as TYRANNY.
> WHEN THE COURT ALLOWS OR AIDS IN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS OF
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, their actions are not proper.
There is a specific procedure by which laws are passed. There is a
specific procedure by which laws are enforced. There is a specific
procedure by which laws are ejudicated. There is a specific procedure by
which laws are determined to be unconstitutional.
Laws such as "The Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act" are passed by a
majority vote of elected legislators. The executive branch may provide
"lobbyists", cabinet advisors, and panels of experts employed by DHHS.
The religeous right may provide an array of experts to testify to the
necessity of marriage the "crime" of divorce. The feminists may bring in
a multitude of therapists and psychologists from all over the country.
The legislators will listen, and perhaps even be pursuaded by the
abundance of information, that this law is worthy of passage. Each
assembly, house, senate, or legislative body will vote. Finally, the
executive will sign the order.
At this point, law enforcement officers are empowered to enforce the law and
must assume that it IS constitutional. Many times officers enforce laws they
don't like, that they don't agree with, or that they feel is inappropriate
for a specific situation. Many soldiers died in Viet Nam executing a law
which they did not like, or agree with. They did it because it was their
duty. Many police officers are divorced and paying extortion money.
They don't like the law, but they must enforce it, without prejudice and
without malice. They have to treat the white-collar-wimp exactly the
same way they would treat the wife-beating child-abuser.
The family court judge is not empowered to rule on the constitutionality
of the law. He is only empowered to rule on the law itself. He can
accept settlements ONLY if they conform to the requirements of the LAW.
At each point of law - including constitutionality, the attorneys can
object. The judge will sustain or overrule those objections.
> THERE is no child support. Not one single court has ever ordereds a
> person to pay a child, they always order the money go to an adult, with
> no requirementts that any of the so-called child support be spent on the
> child.
With the exception of emancipated minors, children are not considered
capable of making responsible decisions on their own behalf. The
custodian('s) are given the power to act on the child's best interest.
If the custodian or primary custodian is not willing, able, or trusted to
spend the money in the child's best interest, the court can appoint a
guardian-ad-leidum. This is usually a lawyer, who (for a subtantial fee)
will monitor and make payments to the mother on the child's behalf.
Sometimes the guardian ad-lidum is a worse crook than the custodial
parent.
Finally, the money can be paid directly to the custodial parent, through
an officer of the court, or through an agency of the executive branch
(DHHS, DYFFS, CFE...). When it comes to rip-offs, these are the worst.
They will garnish wages for the maximum legal amount, except no
comprimises or delays, and pay out to the mother with delays of up to 6
months. I knew one broken couple who were really getting squeezed. He
was paying in $1000/month for over 6 months before she started receiving
her checks of $400/month. The remainder was put in "Trust" in case the
father died, lost his job, or became disabled.
> A Child was given 2 parent's by G-d, Isin'tit a violation of the child's
> Human Rights to steal one of his parents from his life?
Get REAL! The "2 parent family" is a fantasy created in the 1950's by
television producers who wanted to have lot's of cute kids but couldn't
afford adults to go with them. Prior to 1950, "families" consisted of
several generations, tightly networked together through the local church,
and supported by a complex organization of women and elderly who cared
for the children while the fathers went to work, fought in wars, or
labored in the field. The typical family was more like "The Walton's"
than like "Leave it to Beaver".
By 1950, the men had returned from the war, most had purchased houses
under the G.I. Bill, and the parents were living elsewhere on generous
pensions supplimented with Social Security payments. The suburban
tract-houses were "self-contained-castles" complete with moat (gutter),
greens (lawn) and draw-bridge (garage doors and automobiles). Many
suburbs had no provision for community centers. Even the local
elementary school was closed evenings, weekends, and summers.
The women networked, with without worthy goals like raising money for
missionaries or making sweaters for the poor, their conversations
devolved into petty gossip about the life they had available. They
couldn't risk talking about each other (the network was too small), or
their children (who wanted to admit they hated their kids). The only
safe topic was - their husbands. Over coffee and doughnuts, and later
wine and cheese, and later vodkas and canape's, they would complain about
their husbands. It was a game you had to play. If you didn't, women
would start flirting with your husband. Before long, they began to
believe the propaganda.
By the mid 1960's, women were seducing each other's husbands and then
"turning them in" to their girl-friends. A movie "Bob and Carol and Ted
and Alice" sort of parodied real-life. Once the woman knew her man was
philandering, it was only a matter of time before she nailed him with the
goods. I know some women who actually conspired as a team to be "living
on the alimony" within two years. They weren't evil, they were BORED!
It was a romantic gesture to put the house in the wife's name. It was a
practical matter to put the cars in both names (for insurance reasons).
And Joint Savings accounts and checking accounts were expected. Women,
who had often coached each other through divorces, were planning their
moves years in advance. When the time came, they could drain the
accounts into their private accounts, pay the lawyer $500 for a
restraining order and a summons, and have the papers served when he came
home from a hard day at the office. When he reacted to "instant
homelessness with threats of violence" the sherrif would serve the
restraining order.
By the 1970's, women weren't waiting until the kids graduated. They
would plan their move for shortly after the youngest started school.
There were sufficient precedents based on 25-30 year marriages to have
the courts insist that the man support his wife "in the manner in which
she had become accustomed".
By the late 1970's, women were firmly entrenched in the workplace. They
didn't make as much as men, but they didn't have to wait until the kids
started school either. Judges were finding it hard to award a woman the
house, car, subtantial income, and legal protection - for a marriage that
may have lasted less than 3 years. On the other hand, they couldn't
expect the mother to pay rent, raise the children, and maintain a job
while earning minimum wage at 7-11.
By the early 1980s, nearly every state had restructured the support laws and
shifted the emphasis from alimony (euphemistically called maintenence) to
"child support". The premise was that the mother could do what she did best
(take care of the children), and the father could do what he did best (make
lots of money), and the Kids wouldn't suffer. Unfortunately, the reality was
that after doubling the husband's taxes (paying single instead of married
filing jointly), there wasn't enough left over to pay the rent on 2
apartments, pay 2 car payments, pay 2 utility/phone bills, and pay for 2
wardrobes - in addition to paying for 2 meal preparations/day (with a
somewhat larger portion for the family with children), on a single income.
The net result was that by the late 1980's single mothers often ended up
living in poverty and single fathers ended up like the "Odd Couple", sharing
minimal space or living in minimal apartments within easy commute of work.
In many areas the entire city split. One example of this extreme was Duchess
County New York (mostly women and single mothers, very low rent and very low
income), and Ulster County New York (mostly men, working for IBM, living in
high-rent small-space apartments, making substantial income, but with little
left over due to high expenses, taxes, and child-support. The courts
also instituted "No Fault Divorce", which meant a woman could just file
papers.
By 1990, the divorce rate had reached the point where women were getting
divorced within as little as 1 year of having their babies. They would
file their papers as soon as they could find a big-hearted man or woman
who would "put them up" for a few months. The best "daddies" were guys
just out of college or in their senior year. They were young enough to
fall for the "Short Skirt and Long Flirt" routine, could often be led to
the bedroom within a matter of hours, and could get married if she could
just pay her share of the rent for a few more months. All she had to do
next was get pregnant. Most women learned that antibiotics could render
a birth-control-pill completely ineffective (their doctors even warned
them). She could make a big show about taking her Ortho-Novum while
taking the Amoxycillion or Pen-V-K she had received for a "sore throat"
earlier that week. In a matter of a few weeks, she'd be pregnant, even
if she had to get another man to actually do the job (wanna take bets how
many guys would get "off the hook" if they demanded a simple blood test?)
Now this under-employed "college-boy" was going to be a papa. He would
get some substantial employment and start playing husband and father.
Often, because he came from a home that was broken before he reached
puberty, he had no idea how to sustain a relationship. She'd start
fights and humiliate him, especially when he had been drinking. It
didn't take much to get him to swing. She might try to find out some of
those "dirty little secrets" that men don't even want to tell their own
wives - the sexual fantasies they're ashamed of, the business practices
that he isn't proud of, and the previous relationships he feels guilty
about. A little cooperation and a little blackmail is all it takes to
get him to put the entire paycheck into the joint account and turn the
checkbook over to her. It might even get her a few credit cards.
By the time she is showing and the back is hurting, he's in so deep he
can't even squirm. He can't say a word, he has to accept her terms and
ultimatums, including absolute chastity and daily verbal abuse. This
isn't some D&S fantasy, it's the ultimate S&M experience, where she asks
if he would like to be tied, teased, and pleased. When he says yes, she
tells him what a sick pervert he is and that she wouldn't have sex with
him if he were the last man on earth.
When the baby comes, she focuses entirely on the baby. She treats the
husband like an unwelcome bum. When she's really tired and needs sleep,
she'll hand him the baby and say "he's your baby, you take care of him
for a while". He might even be good at the "Diaper Derby". For him,
it's fun, a great game for a man who can't have sex any more. He may
find himself in a chaotic mix of jealosy over losing his lover to the
baby, fear of losing the baby in a divorce, and guilt for thinking
anything is less than perfect.
As the abuse increases, the husband may start working late to avoid the
pain of daily abuse. He will be rewarded for his commitment, and she
will reap the benefits of those rewards. She'll send him to work with
the left-overs in a sack marked "doggy bag" so that he won't need so much
money. He'll start taking the bus to work so that they don't have that
extra car expense, she even sends him with Iced Tea mix so he doesn't
have to spend so much on soft drinks. When he comes home, he'll cook
dinner, do the dishes, and give the kid a bath.
She'll want to go to a counciller and discuss how much she hates the
marriage. The tharapist will point out to him how much the courts will
force him to pay (around 25-30%) if he doesn't please his wife. He's
already quit drinking, smoking, and has lost 100 lbs, but that isn't
enough. He spends 3-4 hours talking with her (about how much she loathes
him) every night and doesn't get upset. He wakes up with bruises all
over his body and can't understand why they are there. He eventually
realizes she's hitting him while he's asleep. She has nightmeres,
flashbacks of other times, other men, and other times of hate.
The demands never end. She wants a brand-new car, she wants to relocate,
she wants to go home, she wants to join a church, she wants you to tithe,
she wants wants a dog, she wants a nice guy to talk to when you're not
around, she wants a lover, she wants to get married, she wants a divorce,
and she only wants $400/month in child-support.
The more you resist, the more abusive she becomes. She tells all her
friends your little secrets. Then she tells your boss. Finally, she
wears that beautiful outfit that you bought her for valentine's day,
several years ago, that she never even wore once (she started a fight
that night) and she takes her car to meet her fiance' for "bowling".
She uses your credit card to pay for his Lobster Dinner, champaign, and
the stereo she couldn't wait to give him. She's even gotten an appraisal
on her rings - and yours, and paid a little extra for a new wedding set.
Finally, she takes the kids and moves out. You are in such deep shock
you can't concentrate. You fight with everyone. You can't seem to make
a simple decision. You are trying to please everybody. You work until
3:00 in the morning. Eventually, you lose your job. You move out of
town and get a new job. Women see that you've removed your ring and start
to flirt with you, and tell you about their money problems.
One day, right before lunch, you get the phone call. She has set a
wedding date for 4 months from today and sent out 200 invitations. You
call a lawyer you know. He goes through the guidelines and discoveres
that you MUST pay $560/month. You also have to pay for day-care and
health insurance. He gives you a copy of the laws and asks you to write
a "settlement". She was willing to settle for $400/month but the law
socks you with a bill of double that. You add a paragraph that says you
get the kids if she can't take care of them (you don't want her new
husband to get them too). The judge tries to nullify your paragraph.
The Judge tries to get you to agree to pay more. Then he asks if you
find the terms unconcionable (GET REAL!). You state that you have tried
to comply with the law. The Judge wants to increase your payments and
wants a rewrite next month. At that moment your wife points out that
that will interfere with her wedding plans.
It is only at this moment that the Judge has even the slightest hint at
the injustice he is about to perpetrate. He signs a "minute order",
accepts the settlement as it stands, and asks if your wife wants to keep
her name - to which she replies; "Why not, it's changing in two weeks
anyway". The entire event is transcribed for posterity. All you want to
do is forget everything you did since the day you met her.
You see your kids for "vistation". There are no restrictions, you take
them home Saturday morning. They are happy, talkative, and excited.
They love seeing you. They tell you all the things they did with their
daddy and you try not to look upset. At least he isn't one of those guys
who beats them (months later you find out that he does beat them with a
belt). They seem to want to talk incessantly. It's like they haven't
been able to speak to a listening adult for a month (they haven't).
You try to make the time together as enjoyable as possible. You go the
museum, to an arcade, and to a pizza/party place. You laugh and talk.
You even seen and act silly. They spend the night sleeping on your
sofabed (you can't afford a larger apartment). They wake you up for
breakfast and sunday morning cartoons. You take them to church, and then
to lunch. They look beautiful in their "Sunday Clothes". You take them
out to a shopping mall and buy them each a toy.
Finally, it's time to go home. They suddenly become very quiet. These
two happy, beautiful kids suddenly start acting like they are going to
your funeral. They ARE going to your funeral. You spend 2 hours in
driving in excruciating silence. You try to get them to talk. You ask
them questions and they give the shortest possible answers. Finally, you
get to the house.
You walk them to the door and see your ex-wife wearing a beautiful dress.
This is the woman who wore a dress 4 times during the entire relationship -
once for the wedding, twice for the company banquet, and once for her third
date with the man who is now her husband.
You say goodbye and you know you won't see them for at least a month.
On the way home, you cry. When you go to work the next morning, your ex
tells you that your son is being so insobordinate to her ex that she may
have to take drastic action. She asks that you not see them for a while.
Over the next few years, you will make certain discoveries. You will
discover that he was dismissed as a teacher for child molesting. You
will discover that he has had 3 strokes. You will discover that he has
multiple sclerosis. You will discover that they are both on disability
and collecting a total package worth over $2000/month including your
child-support. You will discover that you paid his tuition to college.
You will discover that he has been beating your children with a belt or a
wooden spoon (while you were married, corporal punishment was forbidden.
You will find out that they are forced to watch preachers on television
as punishment for breaking rules like "No talking until after dinner".
You will get the letter theatening to put one of them in a foster home.
You go to church to do some volunteer work. One of the beautiful women,
about your age, compliments you on your appearance, and says she'd like
to get to know you better. The next sentance out of her mouth is "I'm in
a tight bind, I need $300 because my housemate didn't come up with his
share of the rent. In 3 seconds this beautiful women grows horns, tail
and fangs (but you're the only one who can see them). You wonder if you
will ever be able to love again.
> Seeking Justice FOr ALL
>
Everybody has a different Idea of Justice.
This is my story. I tell it with you as the husband in the hope that
those who have never been through this experience can know what it is.
Copyright February 16, 1996
(Permission to reproduce this posting - as written - is granted)
From rballard@cnj.digex.net Wed Feb 21 01:33:01 1996