In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:

> Dear Rex,
> 
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
> 
> You made an important point here which I would like to get clrified first 
> -- regarding members the list "advocating felonies".  Can you provide 
> specifics?  Were they the feminists or the 'fathers'?

There have been a very limited number of suggestions on what amounts to
massive contempt of court violations.  The court system is designed to 
implement any laws passed by their legislative branches and ratified by
the executive.  The goal is "due process", not "Justice".  As Lenny Bruce
once said - "The halls of justice, where the only place you will find 
justice, is in the halls".

Those who advocate pushing as many appeals as possible through the appellate
system, who advocate influencing the legislatures through lobby efforts, who
advocate Arbitration and mediation, deserve support.

There have been 2 postings (I deleted them weeks ago) that suggested methods
of gaining custody that would lead to kidnapping charges.  This might be
within one's constitutional rights, but one should be prepared to face 
the consequences (arrest, conviction, imprisonment) and be willing and 
able to appeal to the the Supreme Court - and be willing to loose.

> Do you have a legal background, or can you recommend someone who we 
> should dicuss this with?

I have 15 years experience as an active participant of the internet
and usenet.  This includes many discussions on groups such as net.legal
and soc.legal.

I spent 3 years reviewing in detail the UDM of Colorado, and 2 weeks 
reviewing the UDM of New York and New Jersey.  Something I should have 
done while I was still married.  In New York, I would have been able to
divorce her for cause (refusal to have sex for over 24 months), would
have been able to pay less than $200/month (If she left the state my
support would have been reduced to compensate for cost of visitation).

Under Colorado's No-Fault/ERA laws.  I couldn't even tell the Judge that 
she was engaged to be married within 7 days of the divorce.  Eventually,
she had to declare it, or face bigomy charges.  We are divorced under a
minute order.  The divorce decree has not been finalized (my lawyer died
before completing the paper-work).  She has stipulated in her will that
Jerry is to get the kids, but Jerry will not adopt them legally.

> Thanks,
> 
> John Knight
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Rex Ballard wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:
> > 
> > Starting a fight (at whatever level) does not advance our goals, or theirs.
> 
> We do not want to advance their goals.  Their goals must be countermanded 
> with as much effort as we can garner.

FEMISA is focused on dealing with women who find themselves enmeshed in 
relationships with abusive men (alcoholics, drug addicts, violent,...),
men who have brought the "rules of the street" into the bedroom.

FATHERS is focused on dealing with men who find themselves enmeshed in 
relationships with abusive women (...) who manipulate the system selfishly
in hopes of extorting substantial child-support and maintenence.

Recognition that intervention must often be swift, but that ejudication
or settlements should be managed responsibly and carefully is the common
ground.

I haven't heard anyone on the FATHERS list saying "sure, I beat her up,
f***ed her every night whether she wanted it or not, drank a quart of
booze every day, and partied with my mistress every sa

> > Identifying areas where there is a common ground (redefinition of male 
> > role models, differentiating between abusive drunken husbands and 
> > responsible, productive husbands - encouraging the responsible men and
> > taking appropriate action against the abusive ones....
> > 
> > Such "common ground" discussions will yield results, including revisions
> > to existing marital law.  Finger pointing and trying to shut down each 
> > others's lists will only result in censorship of the entire internet.
> > 
> > > -Robert
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 	Rex Ballard
> > 	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
> > 	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
> > 	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
> > 
> > 
> 

	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.





From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu Dec 21 00:30:10 1995
Status: O
X-Status: