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



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


On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, fathers wrote:

> 
> Gentlemen,
> 
> The following data is not presented as fact.  This is an inquiry to
> determine if anyone knows who or how or where any of it can be either 
> confirmed or discredited.
> 
> Needless to say, confirmation is crucial to our mutual efforts, and your
> serious consideration to provide assistance would be greatly appreciated. 
> 
I can't confirm the numbers/degree of increase, but I can give the cause.
> 
> 1) The number of false sexual abuse allegations has multiplied by 28 
> times since the Mondale Act of 1973.

Prior to 1973, police and tharapists estimated that less than 5% of all 
rapes were reported.  Since the Mondale Act, and subsequent Supreme Court 
rulings, women have been more willing to come forward.  The law now 
limits the ability to research a victim's private life.

The prosecution must still be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, 
that there was no consent, that the defendent knew there was no consent, 
and that he used fear, violence, or the threat of violence to force the
victim.

Because, especially in date-rape cases, it is very difficult to prove 
non-consent to a jury's satisfaction, the primary sexual abuse (rape)
allegation is usually dismissed or aquitted.  In many states such as New 
York and Massachusetts, the state uses sodomy laws (Sex other than 
vaginal coitus) which are easier to prove and carry similar penalties.

Still, there are a substantially higher number of unsubtantiated cases 
and cases where the woman later admits either consent or that she lied.
In some states, the victim can be prosecuted for purgery if she recants
any time after filing charges (she isn't told this until after the 
charges are filed).

> 2) The total number of child abuse allegations last year was 3,219,000, 
> which is a 5 fold increase since 1976.

Similar to above.  More important, single mothers are under higher stress 
than ever.  Many single mothers are resorting to men who are unemployed, 
disabled, drug addicted, alcholic, or just "slightly psychotic" as 
live-in day-care providers.  Few women are willing to fork over 
$400-$600/month to licensed day-care providers when they can get the same 
thing for "a home-cooked meal, a quickie, and a shared bed".

> 3) The average cost to US taxpayers of EACH of those allegations was 
> $100,000, or $321.9 Billion per year, with an estimated $285 Billion 
> known to be fraudulent.

This actually seems a bit low.  This would indicate that most of the 
charges were dropped or plea-bargained by public defenders.  A 
full-fledged trial costs between $300,000 and $1 Million.  A judge in 
Texas made the Wall Street Journal several times because he chose public 
defenders for capital crimes - based on that they wouldn't impede the 
prosecution with a bunch of silly objections and cross-examination (one 
lawyer repeatedly fell asleep during several capital cases, so did the 
Judge).

> 4) Of the 3,219,000 allegations, 2,685,107 were false, and only 533,893, 
> or 16.% of them, were allegedly true.

There are so many shades of grey here.  of the 3 million allegations, it 
may be that only 534,000 resulted in convictions.  Many may have been 
aquitted by juries who didn't see coercion (no proof of non-consent), or 
the jury wasn't sure the right man was charged, or there may have been 
alterior motives.  Many may have been plea-bargained to Misdemeanor Sodomy
charges (Parole).  Many may have been reduced to prostitution or minor 
assault charges.  Many may have been dismissed due to lack of evidence 
(no witnesses, no lab reports,= no rape).  In many cases, the victim's 
assistance councillor determines that the victim would be better off just
"getting on with her life".  The records are retained in case of future 
incidents.  A relatively small percentage are "emaculate conception" 
charges - the woman filing charges to hurt the man or extract financial 
gain.

> 5) The child abuse "industry" in the US is so strong that through 
> intimidation by social workers, politicians won't touch it.

The child abuse "industry" is actually more like a hydra.  It includes:

Liberals, feminists, and social workers who want to protect innocent 
children from machismo/alcoholic/drug-addict/violent white patriarchs.

Conservatives, White Supremecists, and Reactionaries who want to protect 
innocent children from machismo/alcoholic/drug-addict/violent minority
men and "poor white trash".

Christians, Moralists, and Religious Fundamentalists (including Islam, 
Christian, Morman, and Hindu) who want to protect children from 
irresponsible machisomo/alcoholic/drug-addict adulterers, philanderers, 
and perverts.  Men of course.

The hydra does go after women as well, especially if they might be 
adulterous alcoholic/drug-addicted perverts.  This is especially true
if the male involved is well-connected politically.

The hydra can be pointed at the target/victim and will not let go until 
it's prey is utterly distroyed.

What politician seeking anything other than immediate retirement at the 
end of his current term would ever consider going against this strange 
alliance.

> 6) "Abuse" of some forms is now officially defined as "giving the silent 
> treatment".

If this is so, almost every man in the U.S. could file abuse charges.  
The fact is that many men have been abused by their wives long before the 
accusations of abuse are made by the wife.  Men are just much less 
willing to talk about it.  If they are married to an attractive women, 
they would rather let everyone thing he's a "hot stud" than admit to 
anyone that she is abusing him physically, verbally, emotionally, and 
sexually.

If every man brought into court for non-payment of child-support were 
required to detail the history of his marriage in terms of abuse, some 
very interesting patterns would emerge.

Officer: "You've been married to him for ten years, why are you reporting 
	  him now?"
Wife:	  "He always 'gave in' before".

> 7) 90% of social workers in this "industry" would be laid off if they 
> were forced to "tell the truth".

When it comes to the "Truth", most social workers don't know their ass 
from a hole in the ground, and they know it.  The average social worker 
has to determine, in less than two hours, whether they should reccomend 
or sanction a parent who has been with this child for several years.  The
social worker uses a series of "Stress tests".  In effect she tries to 
create as much stress as humanly possible in the shortest possible amount 
of time.  They threaten, they lie, they make false accusations, and 
generally do everything they can to get the subject so agitated that they 
react inappropriately.  If all he does is walk her to the door, and 
invite her to talk to his lawyer, he has a chance.  If he starts 
screaming and yelling, it's doubtful.  If he actually threatens, or 
actually touches her, he's a beater and an abuser.

If the social worker involved has a real hate of men and a real sympatico 
for women, she is likely to be very effective at triggering him and very 
likely to see mother as "The Madonna" (not the singer).  The whole thing 
is so subjective it's unreal.  She can remind him of some woman he dated 
in college who stole his watch and wallet and he's fried for life.

The social worker who works for the state doesn't have the time or the 
resources to be patient and compassionate.  The social worker who 
consults privately becomes too compassionate.  He sympathises with BOTH 
parents.  He can see BOTH sides, and ends up soaking up thousands of 
dollars in "evaluations" that end up being inconclusive.

Some of the most substantial and relevant information is often never 
reviewed by anybody.  The man may have 5 DWIs, the mother may have hit 
her child in front of the his teacher, the father may have been arrested 
on a drunk and disorderly, the mother may have spent 3 years in a psych 
ward before the marriage.  We are so oriented toward "expert opinion" 
that we overlook the obvious.

There are hundreds of clues into the persona that speak volumes.  School 
records often include the most trivial episodes of violence or 
victimization.  School grades and report cards can give an indication of 
levels of responsibilities.

So much of family law practice is based on subjective opinions.  The 
woman who gets divorced to marry hubby #3 is admirable because she's 
assuring the children of a two-parent home (and a 3 parent income).  The 
man who has wife #2 lined up is an aldulterer/philanderer and should be 
castrated and never allowed to see his children again.  The father who 
even APPEARS too effeminiate, should be forced into exhile as a pervert
and a degenerate.

> Thank you in advance for your reasoned response.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> John Knight
> 
> 

From rballard@cnj.digex.net Mon Mar 18 00:51:47 1996