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



	Rex Ballard - Director of Electronic Distribution
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Mon, 19 Feb 1996, fathers wrote:

> 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:47:12 -0500 (CDT)
> From: jerry.lester@utmb.edu
> To: fathers 
> Subject: Re: Fraud by DHHS and Elaine Sorensen!! (fwd)
> 
> Rex,
>   Before I get into an unnecessary dispute, do you really believe that in 
> 51% of divorces today the husband deserves to go to jail?

Often, in the course of debate, it is effective to concede what would 
otherwise appear to be a sticking point.  If one claimed, in open debate, 
that the father was wrong only 10% of the time, the entire argument would 
be nullified.

By conceding 51% (probably equally absurd), it still leave us the 
confrontation of the foundation of our constitution.  "Better a thousand 
innocent men go free, than one innocent man be convicted".

Our entire justice system has been established from this premise.  Bill 
Clinton, in the last 3 years, has used negotiated settlements to convict 
men of criminal charges.  He did it as Governer of Arkansas, he'll do it 
as a second-term president.

Pat Buchanan is equally frightening.  Here is a man with a history of 
being tough on NCPs (more motivated by racism than feminism).

Bob Dole presided over the senate when it passed some of these draconian 
laws in the first place.

The family court system doesn't.

>   Second, since we don't expect video cameras in our bedrooms at least 
> until the next session of congress, why would a judge act in ignorance 
> against one party of the divorce?

The judge has a series of guidelines.  He must start with the assumption 
that (based on a prepoderance of the evidence) the primary custody is the 
mother's.

> Is it because of his gender?

Because the infant is delivered, usually in the presence of a significant 
staff of medical personell, from the mother's womb.  In a court of law, 
it would be nearly impossible to prove that she was not the mother of the 
child (there are precedents).  Even if you could prove that they were 
actually "switched babies", that would not validate the father's claim.

If the mother chose, she could say it isn't your child.  You would then 
have to prove, without the benefit of her blood, that you were the only 
possible candidate to be the father.

Given that, you must now convince the court that the mother is "Unfit" to 
be a mother.  This goes beyond turning tricks in the back bedroom.  You 
have to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the kids.  If 
she's a drug addict and has been in detox a few times, your'e home free, 
ON this point.

If you are able to prove this point, you can then provide evidence that 
you are the best likely custodian.  At this point, you could bring prior 
proof of paternity (if it were contested).  You could declare what 
commitments you would be willing to make.  You could still be challenged 
by her mother, her family, and by your family.  The mother could testify 
that you are a danger to the kids - that you work too much, that you are 
a drug addict, alchoholic, or just generally negligent.  She probably 
would, and you would have to be able to prove in court that this was not 
the case.

> Don't we  call that sex discrimination and official oppression?

Call it what you want.  Until you can convince 290 members of the house 
of representatives and 121 members of the senate that it is politically 
safe to pass a law which would allow a husband to take posession and 
custody of a baby within seconds of being pulled from it's mother's womb, 
it is what is so.

I am realistic enough to realise that women will have an inherant right 
to their children, that men do not have.  It would require due process of 
law to force a woman to give up her baby.  Men do not have that inherant 
right.

I am also realistic enough to believe that we can persuade 5 justices of 
the Supreme Court that depriving a man of life (many men die because of 
the injustice), liberty (men are being sent to jail for non-support), and 
property, without due process is unconstitutional.

If this were done, every divorce decree would now be contestable under 
full jury trial.  Any breach of contract (including refusal of 
visitation) would now become grounds to nullify the entire agreement.

The feminists would be much better off supporting a structure which 
supports both maternal and paternal interests.  The father would be more 
inclined to voluntarily pay a smaller amount.

Both sides should be advocating either "Flat Tax", or full deductability 
of all child-support.  Both sides should be advocating terms and 
reductions which provide incentives for both mother and father to remarry 
responsibly.  When husband #2 says "I Do", he is saying yes to 2/3 of the 
child support and the children.

The courts should take reproductive status into consideration as well.  
If the man points out that the only children he can ever have have been 
taken from him, the judge should seriously consider that level of 
commitment - in both child support AND custody determination.

> Jerry
> 
Rex


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Tue Feb 20 00:25:43 1996