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
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
	http://cnj.digex.net/~rballard


On Tue, 14 May 1996, Fathers' Manifesto wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 May 1996, R.L. Cheney Jr. wrote:
> 
> > Dear People,
> > 
> > Please read my responses to the gentleman, inbetween the lines.RLCII
> > 
> > 
> > At 03:47 PM 5/13/96 -0700, Fathers' Manifesto wrote:
> > >
> > >Thank you Richard for your insights.
> > >
> > >On Sun, 12 May 1996, Richard Hague wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello John,
> > >> 
> > >> I see fragmentation hard at work here.  I think it has been demonstrated
> > >> that any unenforced custody/visitation/support arrangement is useless. 
> > >> Most of us seem to believe that the present legal system is little more
> > >> than a money factory for others at the expense of OUR CHILDREN while the
> > >> slimeballs hide behind OUR CHILDREN in order to bill us.

The current system is nothing more or less than a system for the wholesale
promotion of fraud, extortion, blackmail, and kidnapping.  Under this
system, the perpetrator is rewarded and the victim is prosecuted,
persecuted, even arrested and incarcerated without the benifit of due
process of law guaranteed by the constitution.

In any other crime, the mechanism for determining the validity of charges,
the rules of evidence, and the requirements for conviction are structured
in support of the accused.  There is always the possibility that the
accused has been improperly charged, has been denied constitutional
rights, has been tricked, or forced into self incrimination, or has been
falsely accused by a vindictive "victim".

In family law, the constitution is suspended.  In the interest of the
children, men are falsely accused, forced to submit to self-incriminating
"therapy" designed to bait the man into admitting something which in any
other context would be nothing extraordinary, but in the hands of a
trained social worker (often a victim of incest, rape, wife-beating,
and/or abandonment) can be used to justify the most inhumane act committed
against a human being.  To take a man's wife and children, to put him into
slavery, and to force him to support his wife as she lives with another
man, to promote contact with the children in such a way that it can only
harm both the children and the father, to force him to be legally and
financially responsible for a choice which was made by others against his
will.  This has driven many men to suicide, murder, acts of violence, and
sociopathic behavior.

> > >> I would venture to say that the jokers debating for joint custody are
> > >> male feminists at best or part of the perpetration at worst.  I say this

In theory, "Joint Custody" seems like a good idea.  The reality is that
the courts set it up to be a lose-lose situation.  The mother generally
has to make the expedient decisions, makes life-style choices (because she
has primary physical custody), and has to deal with the primary
obligations (rent, food, housing...).  The father's "role" only manifests
itself in matters such as private schools, orthodontists, and colleges.
In other words, the "Catch 22" choices which require financial support
beyond the standard support order.  If the father refuses, the mother can
use that against the father in court to get full custody and revoke
visitation.  If the father accepts, he only increases his obligations even
further.

It will be interesting to see what this country looks like in about 20
years when the divorce fathers - milked of their equity, financial
reserves, pension funds, IRA's and 401Ks and divorced mothers - no longer
eligible for the financial benefits of child-support, are too old to work
and too young for the nursing homes.  Will they be left on the streets to
beg?  Will they be subsidized by the government?  Perhaps they will be
left to die of diseases, starvation, or exposure.

Why any feminist would want to promote a system which creates a structure
of dependency and long-term financial insecurity is beyond me.  Why any
"Family Values" advocate would want to promote a system that will make
poverty among the elderly a certainty is unknown.  Perhaps these fanatics
have not thought through the consequences of a system that promotes
dependency on DHHS, government routed "welfare", and economic ruin.

To support the flotsam that is a predictible consequence of the current
family law structure, the equity reserves of thousands of hard working
citizens would have to be seized, causing a collapse in the equity and
bond markets.  Ultimately, the entiry "Baby Boom" generation will end up
in poverty.

The economics is simple.  A broken home means 2 households.  Two rent
payments, two meals to cook, two heating bills, and two telephones.  In
most places it means at least two cars.  When this is provided through the
fruit of one person's labor, the result is a drain against reserves needed
in the future.

When the mother doesn't work, or is allowed to remain dependent on the
child support, she will have neither the child-support, nor the skills to
support herself, nor the reserves she needs for her old age.  When she
chooses another man as a "house-mate" based on his skills as a
baby-sitter, there is no contribution to the economy.  The estranged
father his no burdened with the support of his ex-wife, his children, AND
his wife's lover.  He is forced to request more and more money from
employers, changing jobs if necessary.  Alternatively, he becomes
overwhelmed by the demands and becomes part of the "Underground Economy",
working as a "Contractor" or "Consultant" for hard cash.  Often, mom and
boyfriend also join the underground economy.  Too often, these trips
"underground" ends up crossing paths with organized crime.  Drug dealers
and prostitutes usually pay cash for everything from lunch to sports cars.

> > RLCII
> > 
> > Correct.  We see money and power as the real issues here, and "Joint
> > Custody" is only window dressing, a slight of hand move by Government and
> > the Feminists and the Lawyers to keep this present system ALIVE.

This plan sucks the resources out of nearly anyone who earns an honest
income.  The estranged father pays double, but so do the tax-payers who
pay for the administration costs, the family court systems, the
"disability" and all the other expenses of "two home families".

> > FACTUALLY, it has bred this nation an underclass of children.  It has been a
> > HUGE economic drain to this nations productivity.  It has placed power into
> > the hands of the Government, over that of the Family (father/individual
> > rights).  It has effectively drainded this nations wealth...

In addition, it has created a strange value system.  Responsible,
productive single men with income become "Marks" (potential victims of the
family court system), while the most irresponsible elements (druggies,
pushers, pimps, bikers, "disabled" contractors, and child molestors)
become the most desirable "live-in".  Worse yet, responsible fathers who
do remarry usually end up marrying women whose husbands are NOT willing or
able to pay support, living these "Two Time Losers" with as many as 8
mouths to feed (him, his wife, his ex, his ex's lover, his ex's kids, and
his wife's kids).

> > All this, while placing children into a risk that they have NEVER been in
> > before.

Children of broken homes are fodder for the pushers, prostitutes, pimps,
druggies, perverts, and other criminal elements.  They don't believe in
love (it's just a fairy tale), they don't believe in good (good men are
"suckers"), and they have role models whose very existence is based on
selfishness and ruthlessness.

> > Take the money issue out of this.  Make women rededicate themselves to the
> > family and STOP the career path of women from going to Government to raise
> > children, and this system will vaporize overnight.

> > RLCII
> > ===============================================================================
> > 
> > >
> > >Agreed!  There is only the slightest possibility that they are motivated 
> > >by a perverse form of "equality", but want US and not them to live with it.
> > ===============================================================================
> > RLCII
> > 
> > Not only is it an 'equality' it is an equality gained by that of indentured
> > servitude.  This is the equality that is now weilded: Do what I (the woman)
> > wants in this matter--and suffer economic ruination, sequestration of
> > licenses and monies, and then; imprisonment.
> > 
> > All this for the woman getting SUPERRIGHTS.
> > 
> > The fathers get conscription, tyranny, and slavery.
> > 
> > RLCII
> > ===============================================================================
> > 
> > >> 
> > >> I will reiterate my Cheney-influenced idea that as long as we feed this
> > >> system, it will eat.  I strongly believe that if we were to come up with a
> > >> free (volunteer-based), fair, accessible, common-sense based system of
> > >> arbitration that operated in the open in a cooperative and professional
> > >> manner that the current system would quickly lose its legitimacy, its
> > >> power, and would probably dry up and go away.
> > ===============================================================================
> > RLCII
> > 
> > I would go beyond this.  I would suggest we could place this whole custody
> > issue into a computer, and factually have it spit out the delination of support.
> 
> Who needs a computer?  Koko the Gorilla would have done a better job than 
> the entire team of legal beagles.  At least Koko would have understood 
> the law he was supposed to follow.
> 
> > 
> > This may seem radical, but think about it.  How many Judges do we REALLY
> > need to pay for when, all they are going to do is give 92% of mothers the
> > children all the time?
> 
> Excellent point.  The legisature passes a law which says "joint 
> custody".  The fathers believe this is what they will get, and don't 
> fight divorce.  The mothers think some idyllic single-mother household 
> supported by half the fathers' income interspersed with a little 
> visitation will take care of the kids.  But the courts ignore the 
> parents' and the children and place the children in the custody of the 
> mother 92% of the time.
> 
> Who needs the judges to make that kind of a decision?  
> 
> 
> > 
> > With figures such as this, I think we can all see, that we really don't need
> > Judges, Lawyers, Arbitrators, Psychologists, etc., etc., etc., etc.  For the
> > same EXACT thing (per 1000 people) would extrapolate from a computer
> > controlled slot machine!  Sure, there might be one case in 10,000 where
> > injustice would be applied, but still; per statistical analysis, it is worse
> > in todays Judge/Lawyer/ABA/Feminist/Government based system!
> 
> Well -- statistically, the current system applies "injustice" 92% of the 
> time, so one out of 10,000 would be a vast improvement.  Do the judges 
> know that the single-mother households are the source of the vast 
> majority of our social problems?  Yes.  Do they care?  Yes -- this is 
> their future job security.  The more single-mother households they 
> create, the more the legal fees today (which pay judges' campaign 
> contributions) and the more criminals tomorrow, which pay future legal fees.
> 
> 
> > 
> > But, the key is, that turning this whole system over to slot machines or
> > computers, gets rid of all those $105,000 dollar a year jobs!  Think of the
> > savigns alone!!!
> > 
> > The point is, that SOMETHING MUST BE INSTITUTED TO DRIVE MONEY OUT FROM THIS
> > PRESENT INDUSTRY.  For factually, it is making much too much money from this
> > system.  (Governments are now addictied to these monies, and depend upon
> > enslavement of fathers...)
> > 
> > RLCII
> > ================================================================================
> 
> Agreed.  All child custody decisions in the country should be decided by 
> Koko the Gorilla.
> 
> This would improve society 1,000%.
> 
> 
> > 
> >  
> > >> As a case in point, a big company (don't quote me, but I think it was
> > >> Pizza Hut) recently required new hires to waive any right to filing
> > >> lawsuits for certain cases in a court of law and to agree to some sort of
> > >> arbitration to settle differences.  A contract I signed with a company is
> > >> similar.  Just think if something like this were incorporated into a
> > >> prenuptial agreement.  Could a court of law rule in its' own favor to
> > >> declare one of these contracts invalid?  Probably not.  That would make
> > >> their whole intention of self preservation obvious.  There is no debating
> > >> fairness to all parties involved.  Not wanting fairness sucks.
> > >> 
> > >> Enough said.
> > ===============================================================================
> > RLCII
> > 
> > We again concur, however; we truly see that courts do not even obey those
> > contracts!  As in several cases in Massachussets whom invalidated
> > Pre-Nuptuals to the wifes favor, and in the frozen sperm case, where a
> > gentleman was forced to pay child support, even though when he donated, the
> > forms he filled out said he would not be legally bound by future use of his
> > sperm.
> > 
> > So, I would say an firm yes to this suggestion, except for the fact, as in
> > most things--the courts are not obeying law any longer and are just doing
> > whatever the hell they please.
> > 
> > And that fact alone, PROVES how much money they are making from this system!
> > 
> > RLCII
> > =============================================================================== 
> > >> 
> > >
> > >You have more confidence in the courts ability to change stripes than
> > >anybody I know in California.  These were called prenuptial agreements,
> > >and they are even worse in implementation than no agreement at all.
> > >
> > >ANY policy which gets fathers hauled before a judge is a bad policy, and 
> > >trying to establish "equality" requires a judge.  That leaves the 
> > >children high and dry with the existing pathology.
> > ===============================================================================
> > RLCII
> > 
> > Any policy that would conscript, enslave and imprison the father of a child,
> > is NOT in that childs best interests...
> > 
> > Not only for denying the father to them, and also stigmatizing the father,
> > but also because that same exact system now hunts the child, and will depend
> > upon their consummation to this SUPERSTRUCTURE at the time the child enters
> > into adulthood.
> > 
> > And that is the ultimate reason for eradicating this system from the face of
> > the planet--because it is now hunting our children for inclusion into its ranks.
> > 
> > RLCII
> > SPG
> > ===============================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > >How do we get family affairs REMOVED from the courts ("from government 
> > >involvement")?
> > ===============================================================================
> > We suggest the enforcement of our present Constitutional system which
> > provides for the Common Law as the law of the land.  In the common law, the
> > FATHER is the head of the family, and the Government cannot intrude upon his
> > LAW.
> > 
> > Do that, and you kill this whole system.
> > 
> > Period.
> > 
> > And, the beauty is, that it is already provided for.  We just have to remove
> > Government's hands from hindering the law.
> 
> 
> Hear!  Hear!  Mr. Cheney!!!
> 
> "All" we have to do is get men to insist that their government follow the 
> law.
> 
> 
> > 
> > RLCII
> > The Sovereign Patriot Group
> > ===============================================================================
> > 
> > 
> > >> Rich
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> --
> > >> Richard Hague
> > >> 
> > >> "It doesn't get any better than this!"      - Al Bundy
> > >> 
> > >
> > >
> > 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> John Knight
> 
> 


From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sat May 18 06:40:26 1996