Topics

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/usher/2004/usher110604.htm

Who's Who in the Counterfeit Marriage Movement

November 6, 2004

by David R. Usher

A watershed report titled "Families First" was issued by the National
Commission on America's Urban Families, chaired by then-Missouri-Governor
John Ashcroft, in the closing days of the H.W. Bush administration. (1) The
report contained the brilliant family-values language Republicans applied in
the "Contract for America", which ultimately gave Republicans control of
Congress in 1992. Dave Blankenhorn served on the Commission and did much of
the report preparation in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Dave Blankenhorn's book "Fatherless America" was published in 1995, to an
astonished America and horrified husbands. After shaking the nation awake to
the widespread problem of father-absence (read: divorce and illegitimacy),
Blankenhorn made an incredible claim: "Never before in this country have so
many children been voluntarily abandoned by their fathers" .... "Today, the
principal cause of fatherlessness is paternal choice.... the rising rate of
paternal abandonment" .... "For the first time in history, millions of men
today are voluntarily abdicating their fatherhood." (2)

Most men were shocked. Most everyone who can read this piece witnessed the
feminist cultural and legal war on marriage, husbandry, and family.

I attempted to initiate a debate on the cause of father-absence with a fax to
the Institute for American Values on the day "Fatherless America" hit the
bookstores. My request was simple: "Please provide a citation of authorities
for your position that men caused the father-absence problem". Blankenhorn
never responded.

A decade later, Blankenhorn has not provided any citation, despite requests
from hundreds of men's activists organized over the years to pursue the
issue. My favorite Blankenhorn response was blurted out in a restaurant in
San Diego shortly after a lecture. A few men's advocates who were brushed off
at the lecture followed him to the restaurant. Blankenhorn's response: "Leave
me alone!"

Blankenhorn's latest evasion to Dr. Stephen Baskerville request for a citation
was met with Kerry-esque four-facing. Dave tried to suggest that we were
merely taking him out of context.

But Blankenhorn 'splains himself anyway. His teaser about "Fatherless
America", located on the IAV website cries out the same neanderthal
conclusion – premised by classic feminist anthropological theory at that:
"Because men do not volunteer for fatherhood as much as they are conscripted
into it by the surrounding culture, only an authoritative cultural story of
fatherhood can fuse biological and social paternity into a coherent male
identity." ... "I see the Good Family Man as the principal casualty of today's
weakening fatherhood scripts."

Mr. Blankenhorn, understand this: Feminism has spent forty years throwing good
husbands out of the family. The problem is one of discrimination, not a lack
of conscription. In fact, when fathers can have a stake in family and the
ownership society, and are held in high esteem because they do so, most of
them do so with gusto. But feminism has made this a dangerous upstream swim.
When men are raised as feminists, believing that all other men are
irresponsible wife-abusing loose-zippered louts, they don't trust other men.
When you don't trust other men, you are helpless when feminists decide to
clean your whistle. After watching your father, and half the fathers of your
friends get thrown out of their families for no reason whatsoever, and
charged at least 1/3 of their pretax income for the luxury of being thrown
overboard the ship of society, you might have doubts about what it means to
be a man in America today. And if you dare to try it, your chances of being
tossed overboard are one in two, no matter how good a husband you are.

Dave Blankenhorn is the lead counterfeiter in the Marriage Movement. He is the
Godfatherlessness. And he retains this position because he is
quintessentially adept at making feminist policy and policy sound really
conservative. In our play (as Blankenhorn loves to paint things) he is the
"Godfatherlessness", because he is the man generating all those federal
dollars funding much of the Marriage Movement propping up more
fatherlessness. This is no accident: feminists have studied Marxist political
subterfuge harder than anybody except perhaps Marx himself.

He is accompanied to the trough by plenty of other liberal
Godfatherlessnesses, to name a few:

Tom Sylvester is a former NFI and ACF worker. His vitriolic attacks on Steve
Baskerville and other credible marriage reformers suggest he is in the wrong
movement – and is most likely a feminist plant He voted for Kerry and doesn't
understand why so many Bushies cited "Moral Values" supporting the
President's opposition to gay marriage. He doesn't understand that the only
difference between "civil unions" and "marriage" is what you call it. In
fact, Sylvester admits his lack of values – degrading the work of those
protecting marriage to the status of "hype": "All this hype about "moral
values" makes the name "Institute for American Values" either more relevant,
or more misleading."

Speaking of NFI: Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary for Family Support in the Bush
Administration and former President of the National Fatherhood Initiative is
another Trojan Marriage Movement political foil. After writing elegantly for
years about the problem of father absence, he introduced a bill in Congress
designed solely to coax poor fathers into getting jobs and paying child
support on the theory that they might get to be fathers. The funding bill
gave millions to NFI for this purpose. He was very upset with me and other
leaders of the shared parenting movement who refused to endorse his
legislation because it would not allow even a nickel to be spent helping men
get access to be the fathers that feminists won't let them be. He also
refused my request for federal legislation to protect military reservists
called into active duty to guarantee a modification of child support to match
military pay.

Elizabeth Marquardt is another Blankenhornian mainstay in the marriage
movement. She voted for Kerry and Gore. Her take proves that the Institute
for American Values knows that Dave Blankenhorn lied when he blamed
father-absence on men: "I understand why father's are angry that moms so
often get custody, especially when two-thirds of divorces involving young
children are initiated by the mother. But mandating joint physical custody is
one of the worst things we can do for children of divorce." Here is what she
means: the marriage movement isn't about to do anything to increase shared
parenting in divorce. Marriage is still "not necessary", and its too bad that
men don't like it.

Elizabeth admits her roots openly ... "marriage education is a liberal idea.
Like drug or sex education, marriage education teaches couples communication
and behavioral techniques that promote healthy marriages".. What she forgot
to say is that liberals are also blocking real reform of divorce laws, which
is the root cause of the father absence problem they are supposedly funded to
address. The idea that a little marriage education can reverse an entire
upbringing in feminism (an "attitude" in street parlance) is a weak premise,
at best. The maturity level necessary for marriage is something one either
has or does not have.

This is not to say that encouraging people to marry could not be useful.
However, if not accompanied by reform of divorce revolution, the Trojan
Marriage Movement is only pushing good men into marriages half of which will
be served up on the platter of liberal radical feminism. Certainly, youth
drug education programs would be a downhill battle if liberals were also
selling drugs on every streetcorner. So goes the marriage movement.

Sara Butler, a wide-eyed trainee in the Trojan Marriage Movement, believes we
can solve the problem by making it harder to get married. Go figure. Folks
have been getting married on a moment's notice for centuries. It was not
until the feminist movement inflicted the divorce revolution that marriage
fell apart. She believes civil unions are a "winner".

Sara adamantly rejects the notion that feminist culture discrminates against
men in the family. In response to Cathy Young's article "You'd be Wrong", she
writes: "...I definitely don't like Ms. Young's argument here. Throughout the
piece, she focuses on how fathers are discriminated against by the legal
system..", and goes on to change the subject to more comfortable illusions.
She does not take a position on gay marriage, but rather finds queer
relationships a rather fascinating thing to behold.

This brings us back to "culture". Dave Blankenhorn waxes deeply on culture,
but points the finger at everything except "the culture". Read our lips Dave:
"It's the feminist culture, stupid".

There are many other Trojan conservatives in the Marriage Movement – a large
book full of them in fact. Dave Blankenhorn, the Institute for American
Values, Americanvalues.org, and FamilyScholars.org are a few of the ranking
perches from which liberals anesthetize core conservatives by singing
nostalgic lullabies in their ears. We know who these implants are -- because
they always denigrate positive reforms of family law suggested by the
true-blue shared parenting advocates now entering the marriage movement.

The real marriage movement has much to offer this nation. It is inevitable
that liberals in the Marriage Movement will be pushed aside – hopefully
before public outrage over social problems propels liberals back into the
White House.

The first step is for Conservatives to realize that allowing liberals to run
the marriage movement only guarantees that we will spend a lot of money
pumping more humans into the divorce system. Federal expenditures for social
problems caused by the divorce revolution are now larger than the federal
deficit itself. (3) Abatement of this humongous expense would permit
aggressive Reagonomics while we continue to fight an aggressive war on
terrorism – all on a nearly balanced budget.

The second step is for Wall Street to recognize the costs of husband-absence
that it gets tagged with. Corporate America has a tremendous stake in real
pro-marriage reforms. When marriage is important, employee productivity is
higher. The vast array of social problems that lead to corporate taxes will
abate substantially. When marriage is important, government will not try to
move the living room into the board room. When marriage is important, health
care for single mothers will no longer be an issue, and Corporate America
will not become the imputed "big daddy". When marriage is important, the most
crucial social security reform will be accomplished: Married retirees need
less money to stay out of poverty than do their single counterparts.

Wall Street must oppose both civil unions and gay marriage: If any two Murphy
Browns can marry each other (under whatever arrangement you want to call it),
there will be a lot of socially-disenfranchised men dropping out of society
and the workplace in record numbers – only adding to the known problems of
crime and violence. When a man has no place in home or society, he is quite
unlikely to be interested in working to support that society.

Christian Conservatives have a tremendous stake. When marriage is important,
abortion is not necessary. When marriage is important, the concept of gay
marriage falls apart.

The evidence that the Trojan Marriage Movement has failed is self-evident.
Eight years after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Act of 1996
[H.R. 3734], we have not seen reduced divorce (4), illegitimacy (5), or
improved marriage rates (6). There is no evidence that the Marriage Movement
has accomplished much of anything.

George Bush has four years to straighten this mess out so that liberals cannot
capitalize on it in 2008. This brings us to the third step.

The third and most important step is for someone to have a serious tactical
and strategic chat with El Hefe. Once the President understands that the
Marriage Movement is riddled with liberals undercutting the Marriage
Movement, and that this is undercutting all his other major initiatives, he
will make major changes in staffing and funding priorities.

It is my promise to deliver pro-marriage policy directly to the President's
desk that are truly compassionate, beneficial to all, and politically and
morally sound; policies that will quietly and productively unwind the divorce
revolution in a profound manner. It is indeed unfortunate that policy can't
find its way to the President's desk the customary way. But there really
isn't anybody I can find in the present marriage movement that isn't
effectively working for the National Organization of Women.

I have the policy framework drafted. I am not stupid enough to put it on the
internet where the Godfatherlessnesses can steal the words and do a Kerry
dance with them. When that day comes, a new and effective policy initiative
consistent with the directives called for in "Families First", will finally
be on President Bush's desk. Let the second Republican revolution begin.

David R. Usher

1 Governor John Ashcroft and Honorable Annette Straus, Co-Chairs; National
Commission on America's Urban Families; "Families First" (GPO, January 1993
[ISBN 0-16-041600-0] ).
2 David A. Blankenhorn, "Fatherless America" (Basic Books, 1995) pp 22-23.
3 Robert Rector, "Welfare: Broadening the Reform" (Heritage Foundation, 2000)
p 287. Total cost of welfare is since 1960 is estimated to be $7.9 trillion.
This does not include related fallout costs of husband-absence such as
illegitimacy, crime, drug abuse, personal bankruptcy, child abuse, suicide,
and educational and disciplinary problems.
4 U.S. Census Bureau, "Statistical Abstract of the United States 2002", p 59.
5 National Center for Health Statistics, "Health, 2003", Table 9, p. 107.
6 U.S. Census Bureau, "Statistical Abstract of the United States 2002", p 8.

Also see FamilyScholars.org, MarriageMovement.org, and AmericanValues.org.
David R. Usher is a Legislative Analyst for the American Coalition for Fathers
and Children, Missouri Coalition.

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2004/October/Opinions/Html/97059.htm

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0410310255oct31,1,1724351.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Child's dad says he was coerced
Sheriff denies cop wrongdoing in slaying probe
 Advertisement
   
 
By Hal Dardick
Tribune staff reporter

October 31, 2004

A father charged in the death of his 3-year-old Wilmington daughter, Riley Fox, alleged Saturday that Will County sheriff's deputies told him he would be repeatedly raped in jail unless he confessed.

And Kevin E. Fox's lawyer said charges were brought against Fox before test results were back on DNA the man had voluntarily submitted to investigators.

Sheriff Paul Kaupas declined to comment on the specifics of a written statement from Fox released by his lawyer Saturday, citing Illinois Supreme Court rules. But he said his deputies acted appropriately in extracting Fox's videotaped statement, which authorities say implicates him in the crime.

"I was told by the investigators that if I did not give a statement saying I was involved in my daughter's death that they `knew inmates at the jail' that would make sure that I was [sexually assaulted] every day I was there," Fox said.

Sheriff's deputies turned on him, becoming "very abusive, yelling and screaming at me that I had killed her" after he went to the Sheriff's Department to cooperate, he said.

Fox, 27, of Wilmington, who Thursday was charged with first-degree murder and predatory sexual assault in the death of Riley, also claimed deputies fed him details about the murder he did not know--details authorities later said were in his videotaped statement to police.

He was being held at the Will County Jail in lieu of $25 million bail. He issued the written 456-word statement through his attorney, Kathleen Zellner.

"I cannot comment on any statement issued by Mr. Fox in reference to his interview after the court proceedings have begun," Kaupas said. "I've basically got full confidence in the detectives and other people who were involved in this investigation, that they used proper procedure and protocol.

"I'm not going to try this case in the media," he added. "She's trying to try the case in the news media."

Zellner, however, said Kaupas gave case details to the media. "The only reason we are responding now is because of all the statements he has made from the arrest forward," she said. "He has put all of these statements into the record. I am just trying to defend my client."

Fox cooperative, lawyer says

She said Fox was cooperative and even voluntarily submitted DNA. "He readily gave his DNA, and the arrest occurred before they got the DNA results back," she said.

"We're not going to comment on that," sheriff's spokesman Pat Barry responded. "I don't know how she knows whether it has come back or not."

Will County State's Atty. Jeff Tomczak, who has said he will seek the death penalty in the case, declined to comment through his spokesman, Brian McDaniel.

Tomczak--locked in a tough election battle against Democrat James Glasgow that will be decided Tuesday--last week denied the charges against Fox were brought for political reasons after Zellner suggested the timing of her client's arrest was suspicious.

Kaupas said last week that Fox told his deputies that he "somehow" hit Riley in the head with the bathroom door and thought she was dead.

In his videotaped statement to police, Fox said he panicked and, in an attempt to make it look like Riley was kidnapped and murdered, bound her hands and mouth with duct tape before dumping her in a creek, Kaupas said.

Tomczak suggested last week that Fox bound, gagged and drowned Riley to cover up a sexual assault. He said evidence indicates Riley was "alive and struggling" when she was placed in Forked Creek, about 4 miles from her home, where she was found during an hours-long search by hundreds of emergency workers.

Fox initially told police he returned from a concert June 5, picked up Riley and her brother Tyler, now 7, from a relative's house and put the children to sleep on a couch. He said that when he woke up on June 6, Riley was missing.

Kaupas said Fox went to the Sheriff's Department voluntarily between 7 and 8 p.m. Tuesday. His videotaped statement to police came before 9 a.m. Wednesday, when police concluded their interrogation.

In addition to the videotaped statement, there is physical evidence in the case, Kaupas said, declining to be specific.

During the interrogation, Fox's wife sat with him during four or five breaks, but not during questioning, Kaupas said. Fox also took a short nap, he said.

Fox was not under arrest, never asked for an attorney and signed a waiver allowing deputies to videotape his statement, Kaupas said.

"[If] the guy asks for an attorney, that's it. The interview is over with," Kaupas said. "This isn't the 1930s."

But the version Fox details in his written statement differs substantially. "I asked them repeatedly to call my father so that he could get me a lawyer," Fox said in the written statement, alleging he was kept in a locked area for about 14 1/2 hours. "I was told I did not need to speak to my father or a lawyer."

Deputy threats alleged

After deputies told him he would be repeatedly raped in jail, "one of the investigators actually straddled my leg, pushing his testicles into my knee to try to scare me about the sexual attack," Fox said.

He also said deputies threw a picture of his dead daughter on a table in front of him and screamed that he duct taped her mouth and hands. "This was the first time that I learned she had been bound," he said.

"They wanted me to say that there had been an accident at home and that she had hit her head," he added. "That was the first time I learned that she had lumps on her head."

Deputies also told him that if he panicked and tried to cover up an accident, he could only be charged with involuntary manslaughter, would immediately go home on bond and face no more than five years in prison, Fox alleged. They also told him to say he tried to make it look like a sexual assault, he said.

"I was isolated, alone and terrified," he added. "I trusted the authorities and they betrayed me and my family. I can only hope the truth will come out."

http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0410/31/a01-320553.htm

The Detroit News
Sunday, October 31, 2004

[Chart: Child custody awards in divorce]

Divorced Mich. fathers sue for equity in child custody
Class-action lawsuit seeks to make joint custody the first option judges consider
by Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News

TROY - Michigan fathers seeking to make joint custody the norm in divorce
cases are suing the state in a class-action lawsuit they hope will stop the
courts from marginalizing their role in their children's lives.

The suit claims the state's family courts have violated fathers' civil
rights by awarding mothers custody and reducing them to visitors. The suit
was filed when noncustodial parents in 43 other states filed similar suits,
and when fathers are seeking similar parental equity in Europe and Canada.

"What I wanted was for my kids to have as normal of a life as possible,"
said Troy resident Michael Ross, the primary litigant, whose court order
grants him parenting time with his three children every other weekend and
a few hours during the week.

"This lawsuit is not about me but what is best for them: substantial time
with their mother and substantial time with their dad."

The lawsuit is the latest attempt by Michigan's noncustodial parents, who
are overwhelmingly fathers, to force courts to presume that joint custody
is in a child's best interest at the outset of a divorce. Judges still would
have the authority to decide what's best for the child, but it would reduce
some of their discretion. Currently, judges base their decision on what they
consider to be best for the children, but fathers argue that those decisions
are rooted in cultural stereotypes that mothers are better parents.

Physical custody has long been disproportionately awarded to mothers. Out
of the state's 19,108 divorce cases involving children in 2002, mothers were
given physical custody in 64 percent of the cases and fathers in 10 percent,
according to the Michigan Department of Community Health. Joint custody
was awarded in 23 percent.

Additionally, for couples who never marry, Michigan law grants custody to
mothers, bolstering fathers' argument that the system is unfair.

Experts say the reason mothers are more often awarded custody of children
is because of the cultural history of women being the primary caretakers,
said Leighton Stamps, a University of New Orleans professor who has studied
the decision-making of judges in child custody cases.

"A lot of the judges' attitudes depend on their age," Stamps said. "Older
judges tend to be more traditional. Younger judges tend to be more
egalitarian."

However, custody laws like Michigan's, which rest on the best interest of
the child, give judges a lot of latitude, Stamps added.

"A judge can pretty much pick out any aspect of the family situation in
making these rulings," Stamps said.

Fathers have lobbied the Michigan Legislature twice in the past eight years
and have launched a petition drive to get equal parenting rights, efforts
that have been largely unsuccessful.

However, some observers argue that joint custody is not a viable option in
many cases because there are some fathers unable to accommodate the
arrangement either because of their job or because they live in another
state.

There are other fathers, too, who don't want to be a part of their
children's life. And there are situations when the mother and father just
can't get along.

"You can't force a joint custody situation on two people who are not capable
of getting along, because what will happen to the child?" said Debbie Kline,
executive director of Association for Children for the Enforcement of
Support. "It takes a lot more cooperation between the two adults, and many
divorcing parents can't get along."

Dads demand equal time

Often the animosity of a divorce fuels disagreement between moms and dads
when it comes to the children, especially when they are trying to split
parenting time. When parents can't agree, the court steps in and typically
defaults to a parenting plan that involves every other weekend and some time
during the week.

But fathers say that's not enough time to raise their children.

"Just because a family dissolves doesn't mean that it's no longer a family,"
said Michael Lane of Farmington Hills, who had monthly visits with his
now-adult son.

"It's just a family of a different nature. Both parents have responsibilities
toward the children and toward one another."

Though the number of joint custody awards has been slowly increasing, which
some observers believe is a sign that times are changing, some fathers say
they are not being awarded enough. They also say it doesn't always mean
they will have equal time with their kids.

Joint legal custody allows parents to play equal roles in making decisions
for their child's upbringing such as education, religion and health care.
But for some fathers, it doesn't always mean equal time to raise the child.

"It's just unbearable," said Daniel Gee of Novi, who has custody of his
16-year-old son but not his 12-year-old son, whom he sees every other
weekend. "This stuff is emotionally devastating, and you go to the courts
and they are callous. It's an unacceptable way to treat a parent."

Father's role is vital

Psychologists say children who don't spend enough time with their fathers
can develop emotional problems such as low self-esteem, depression and
feelings of abandonment. Fatherless children are more likely to act out at
school, develop truancy problems and develop unhealthy perceptions about
relationships, said Michael Brooks, a Kalamazoo psychologist.

"Both parents bring unique characteristics and aspects to parenting the
children," said Brooks, who is a member of the state's Friend of the Court
Advisory Board. "But it's difficult to be a parent two days out of 15."

Brooks said a court-ordered parenting plan that only includes every other
weekend and a few nights a week could be construed as a situation that
creates a fatherless child. This is why he supports the movement that courts
should initially presume joint custody for divorcing couples, unless one of
them is shown to be unfit.

John Mills, chairman of the family law section of the Michigan State Bar,
said mandating a presumption of joint custody would take away the discretion
of judges, who are considering each individual case.

"They make the decision on what is best for the children," said Mills, who
opposes presumed joint legal custody.

Lawsuit marks new approach

The move for equal parenting time has been under way for some time. In 1996
and 2001, fathers' rights groups got parity bills introduced into the state
Legislature, but neither went very far.

Earlier this year, Dads of Michigan sponsored a petition drive to get the
issue onto the ballot, but the group couldn't get enough signatures. The
class-action lawsuit, filed last month, is attempting to seek change through
another avenue that so far has not been explored.

Attorney General Mike Cox, who has earned a reputation for cracking down on
parents who don't pay child support, is seeking to dismiss Ross' case on
grounds that the state can't be sued in federal court, where the case was filed.

Since the suit claims Michigan has broken laws by violating its citizens'
rights, the state is not immune from being sued, said Torm Howse, president
of Indiana Civil Rights Council, which is coordinating the lawsuits in all
the states, including Michigan.

"This is not about trying to help abusive parents," Howse said. "It's about
restoring the equal right of every fit and equal parent to joint or shared
parenting."

Ross, the Troy father who filed the lawsuit, says it goes beyond that.

"This," Ross said, "is about a force that is taking place in our culture
that is very bad for our society overall."
 
You can reach Kim Kozlowski at (313) 222-2024 or [email protected].

Copyright © 2004 The Detroit News.
Detroit News Home:  http://www.detnews.com/index.htm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AG Mike Cox Sir, What does this mean?

Here is the press release claimed to have been published on September
23,2004. This release as of October 28, 2004 is now part of the Attorney
General Mike Cox's web site under "Press Releases"

http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-17345_18167-101121--M_2004_9,00.html

-----------?????????????????????????????????----------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the actual Press release Mr. Cox's office sent to the media on
that same day. September 23, 2004

http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040923/23sep2004171907.html

If you compare the two press releases side-by-side does it raise the
question, "What happened to all the contest information that was in the
orginal press release, but now missing on the press release currently on
your State Attorney General Mike Cox's web site under "Press Releases"?


Can we have a Comment Mr. Cox?



"Children learn what they live"

It has just been confirmed that Michael Badnarik will be on MSNBC tomorrow, October 28 between 2:00-2:30pm . Details are still being confirmed. Tune in to your local MSNBC station to catch Michael Badnarik live.

Network: MSNBC
Date: Thursday, Oct. 28
Time: 2:00pm ET (3-4 minute live interview.)
Host: Lisa Daniels or Natalie Morales

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, the following announcement is provided from the Robert Scott Bell Show:

Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik on the Robert Scott Bell Show on Talk Radio Network from 3 PM to 4 PM EST, Sunday, October 31, 2004. Click http://rsbell.com/radio/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=96 for the latest affiliate list.

Healthy Politics -- Live from the campaign trail, Constitutional scholar and presidential candidate Michael Badnarik makes one last stop on the Robert Scott Bell Show before the election. This is your chance to make your voice heard and ask a real American patriot about the genuine issues of freedom on the line this election. The only "spin" here is from the vortex of freedom that rocks the heartland on the united States of Health Talk Radio. Solutions that you will not hear anywhere else on radio... What else is in the news? Hey, this IS the news! Your calls this hour at 1-800-449-8255. (SHOW TOPICS SUBJECT TO CHANGE THIS WEEK DEPENDING UPON BREAKING HEALTH NEWS AND THE WHIMS OF THE HOST)

Michael Badnarik will be live in studio on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN this Friday, October 29 @ 9:00-10:00am . Your phone calls are welcome on the show. Find out more information at the C-SPAN website.

Call-In Numbers
Support Pres. Bush:
(202) 628-0205
Support Sen. Kerry:
(202) 737-0002
Support Others:
(202) 628-0184
Email:
[email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THOSE IN THE CHICAGOLAND AREA THIS IS Q101FM

This just confirmed: Michael Badnarik will be on "Mancow" once again, this time for a full hour! Michael Badnarik will be in studio tomorrow, October 28 @ 7:00-8:00am . Check out Mancow's website (http://www.mancow.com/) and on the right column near the bottom there is a poll that might be of interest to you. You can also tune in live via the website.

"Kerry or Bush? Do you really think either will change your life. None of these people are looking out for the regular guy. God Bless you all" - Mancow

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Network: Genesis Communications Network

Show: Free Talk Live

Location: 3 Terrestrial Stations, 4 Satellite Channels, 7 Internet Feeds
(details at freetalklive.com)

Time: 8:00-9:00pm

Date: 10/30/04

Length: 60 minutes

Host: Ian, Mike, and Manwich

WWW: http://freetalklive.com



"Children learn what they live"

My Endorsement for President
 
October 25, 2004
 

The archive of yesterday's show Libertarian Presidential Candidate Defends
Noncustodial Parents' Rights can be heard here.

Many of you have written to me asking me who I think deserves the vote of those of us concerned about boys', men's and fathers' issues in the upcoming presidential election. As you know, in my newspaper columns and on the air I avoid political partisanship and do not endorse any political party. My feeling has always been that I'm happy to work with whichever party is willing to promote our issues and help keep fathers and children together.

My father is concerned about the war in Iraq and has urged me to vote for one of the  major party presidential candidates. I had told him that I was taking a serious look at Badnarik because of his NCP rights platform. My father, like most, tends to see this as a relatively minor issue in comparison to much of what is being debated by the major candidates. My reply is that nothing is more important than your children, and I reminded my father that he was the one who long ago taught me that.

Below is my endorsement for president. Please note that it is based specifically on the very important issue of fatherhood and noncustodial parents' rights, and is in no way shape or form a comment on the various candidates' policies on the war in Iraq, the economy, or any other issue.

Within the fatherhood movement opinions seem to differ concerning Michael Badnarik's Parents' Rights (or more accurately, noncustodial parents' rights) platform. Some have portrayed Badnarik as a dedicated Fathers'/NCP rights advocate. Others have speculated that his parents' rights platform is not seriously held. One of the things I sought to do in my interview with him yesterday was to try to gauge the seriousness of his commitment to and the breadth of his knowledge of NCP issues. Both I and my listeners raised various related issues. I gave Badnarik wide latitude to answer, and I avoided beating him over the head with fathers' concerns. My conclusions are as follows:

Badnarik is a politician, and like any politician he knows that divorce and gender issues can be a political minefield.

Badnarik has principles and is willing to take heat in defense of them

It would be erroneous to view Badnarik as the "Fathers' Rights candidate" or as someone with a particular focus on fathers' issues.

Badnarik is clearly aware of and sensitive to the basic problems fathers today face, particularly the sole custody norm and the denigration of noncustodial parents to "second class parent" status.

Badnarik is also aware of and concerned about civil rights violations by child support enforcement agencies, the rights of unwed fathers, widespread abuses by Child Protective Services, abuses of judicial discretion and the excessive power of family courts.

This awareness places Badnarik miles ahead of all other presidential candidates.

In summation, I'm voting for Michael Badnarik.

I also strongly urge all of our Massachusetts listeners to vote in favor of the Massachusetts Shared Custody Ballot Question. To learn more about the ballot question, listen to Feminist Ex-ABA Leader Slams Shared Custody, Fathers' Movement.

Family law attorney Mike Varble helps parents fight visitation interference and gain equal access to their children. Mike Varble offers free consultations and has offices in New York City, Westchester and Long Island. Mike also does legal malpractice work, because he believes it can be a valuable check on family law abuses. Call Michael at (914) 528-1282 or e-mail him at [email protected].

Many of you have asked me how you can help the show expand and progress. One of the ways you can do this is to become a His Side supporter by clicking here. Also, if you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact [email protected].

I would like to thank our many wonderful new advertisers--it is in part because of their support that we were able to bring the show to these new markets. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers.

As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

 

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Defends Noncustodial Parents' Rights

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik has taken a strong stand in defense of parents and noncustodial fathers--the only 2004 presidential candidate to do so. According to Badnarik:

"in divorce proceedings, the states routinely award custody of minor children to one parent...relegating the other parent to the status of 'second-class citizen'--not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of....the best 'single' parent.

"The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

"...The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude...the attachment of criminal liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court, often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track 'deadbeat parents' across state lines in order to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional laws."

Michael Badnarik joined Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, October 24. To listen to the archive of the show, go here and click on "Listen to the Show.".

To learn more about gender issues in the presidential election, see:

Michael Badnarik's Parents' Rights Platform

John Kerry's appeal to women voters at Equal Opportunity for Women

George W. Bush's "'W' is for Women"

Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka's Defend the Family


His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE. All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com

 
 

"Children learn what they live"

From the New York Times
October 23, 2004

//www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/nyregion/23custody.html?ex=1099195200&en=e927c537
19657bd9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

Lawyer Who Fought Pledge Assails Courts on Custody
By LESLIE EATON

Keith Bedford for The New York Times

Michael A. Newdow spoke at New York Law School yesterday.  
 
He became famous this year for arguing his own case before the
United States Supreme Court, in what onlookers described as a
spellbinding (though ultimately unsuccessful) challenge to the
reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

Now Michael A. Newdow is taking on a new target: family law and the
way it handles child custody. "It's outrageous, it's inane," he
said. "It ruins lives." And, he argued, it tramples on basic
constitutional rights.

Dr. Newdow, a lawyer and emergency-room physician, made his first
public presentation on this topic yesterday at New York Law School.
He spoke to a group of law professors and students invited by Nadine
Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a passionate, rapid-fire speech that lasted more than an hour,
Dr. Newdow described problems with the family-law system, which
makes custody decisions based on the "best interests of the child."

But that is "a meaningless standard which you can't fight," Dr.
Newdow said. Which is best for children, he asked, to teach them to
be generous or to teach them to be stingy? To spend time on
Shakespeare or on baseball?

"Which is better? We don't know," he said. And there are no valid
studies that answer the question of what is best for children, he
said. Instead, judges simply impose their own biases about what they
think is best, with no checks or balances.

In addition to being unconstitutionally vague, Dr. Newdow said, the
best-interests focus puts the rights of children above the rights of
parents, which is inequitable.

Courts say they are not concerned with parents, only with what
happens to children - but that does not square with rights to due
process, he said. "Judges actually verbalize this: 'I'm not going to
be fair to you.' " And the legal system does not treat parenthood as
a fundamental constitutional right, even though the Supreme Court
has described it as "perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty
interests we have," Dr. Newdow said.

For many parents, he said repeatedly, being separated from their
children is "worse than rape."

Dr. Newdow stressed that he believes the government has the
obligation to protect children from harm. But absent abuse or harm,
he argued, the government should not impose conditions on parents
who are before the court that it would not impose on intact
families, like telling parents where to live or how to behave.

The solution Dr. Newdow proposes for many of these problems is a
presumption that parents should share custody evenly.

That proposal is popular with fathers' rights groups, which are
trying to have it adopted by courts and legislatures around the
country, arguing in part that it is better for children to have both
parents involved in their lives.

Psychologists generally agree in cases where the parents can
cooperate, but raise concerns about joint custody's effect on
children where the parents are engaged in constant strife. And some
experts warn that parents who insist on a strict division of
custodial time are less interested in what is good for children and
more interested in lowering child support payments or in controlling
their former spouses.

In New York, court decisions have held that joint custody is
inappropriate in so-called high-conflict cases.

But Dr. Newdow argued that the fundamental unfairness of current
custody law increased the conflict.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that because Dr. Newdow did not
have legal custody of his daughter, he did not have the standing to
challenge the constitutionality of the daily recitation of the
Pledge of Allegiance at her school. An atheist, Dr. Newdow had
argued that the "under God" phrase in the pledge violated the
separation of church and state.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

"Children learn what they live"

You had signed the non-custodial parental rights petition a while back. I would like to bring some great news to you regarding that.
 
We have filed a Federal Class-action Lawsuit and, to date we have over 40 states that have filed and are actively involved.
 
I would encourage you to go to  http://www.indianacrc.org/classaction.html find your State and your States coordinator and join in on the class-action lawsuit. You will be amazed at how far we've come.
 
We still need your help in passing the word on to any supporters you may think of such as Mother; Father, Sister and Brother, etc... The more people we have involved the better our entity and the stronger the unit we become.
 
Should you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me or your states coordinator.
 
Best regards,
 
Dee Fiedler
Wisconsin residents go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wisconsinncpclassaction

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?usncpr&1

"Children learn what they live"

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/mock04.php

"Children learn what they live"

"LCCR/LCCREF Online Voting Resources"

>From the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
http://www.civilrights.org:

LCCR and LCCREF Offer Online Compendium of Voter
Resources

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and
the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund
(LCCREF) are pleased to announce a new online resource
for
voters. The One-Stop Shop for Voters is a compendium
of
online resources, including many resources developed
by
LCCR member organizations, that help voters to:

  * verify voter registration status;
  * understand voting rights;
  * find polling place and hours of operation;
  * request an absentee ballot;
  * research what candidates and issues will be on
their
    ballot;
  * find which voting system will be used to record
votes;
    and
  * know what to do if facing difficulty in voting.

The website also offers a list of actions that voters
can
take to help protect voting rights this November 2,
and
encourages concerned voters to volunteer as a poll
monitor
with the non-partisan Election Protection Coalition.

Please consider distributing this helpful One-Stop
Shop
for Voters to your members and linking to it from your
own
webpage.

Visit the website at:
https://secure2.convio.net/lccr/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr006=nfw457a7e2.app6a&id=219

If you have a resource that you would like us to
consider
adding to the webpage, please contact Erica Swanson at

[email protected] or 202-263-2859.

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Badnarik
to Appear on His Side
 
October 20, 2004
 

The promo for this week's His Side--Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Defends Noncustodial Parents' Rights--is below.

I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state). The show can be heard at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST on Sunday (10/24)--to listen, click here.

If you would like to ask Michael Badnarik a question live on the air or by e-mail, email your first name and phone number to [email protected].

Several of you have written to me looking for an online link to the section of  Tolstoy's Anna Karenina which Ned Holstein read during his debate over the Massachusetts Shared Custody Ballot Question with Lynne Gold-Bikin (see "Feminist Ex-ABA Leader Slams Shared Custody, Fathers' Movement," 10/17/04).

As Ned noted, in imperial Russia fathers received custody of children in separations. The quotation concerns a boy's sadness and longing over the loss of his mother. It is in the beginning of chapter 27, and can be seen here.

The quotation is extremely powerful, and on the air I admitted that I am embarrassed that, having read both Anna Karenina and War and Peace while in college, I failed to recall this section at all. This is probably attributable both to my immaturity at the time and the fact that, unlike so many children today, I and most of my friends had the privilege of growing up in a stable, two parent family, and the loss of a parent was out of my realm of experience. The Tolstoy quotation reads in part:

"Among Seryozha's favorite occupations was searching for his mother during his
walks....Every woman of full, graceful figure with dark hair was his mother. At the sight of such a woman such a feeling of tenderness was stirred within him that his breath failed him, and tears came into his eyes. And he was on the tiptoe of expectation that she would come up to him, would lift her veil. All her face would be visible, she would smile, she would hug him, he would sniff her fragrance, feel the softness of her arms, and cry with happiness, just as he had one evening lain on her lap while she tickled him, and he laughed and bit her white, ring-covered fingers...."

Many of you have heard of the Indiana Civil Rights Council's Federal Class Action lawsuit on behalf of noncustodial parents which we discussed on the show on Sunday (see Parents seek custody law reform, Associated Press, 10/8/04). Torm L. Howse, the Council's president, has informed me that there are still several states where they do not yet have a noncustodial parent as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Since this e-list has become so large and has people from all over the United States on it, I thought perhaps some of you might be interested in joining the suit. The states Torm still needs are: Arkansas; Hawaii; Idaho; Wyoming; the District of Columbia; Colorado; and Iowa. Those interested should contact Torm at [email protected].
The archives of last Sunday's double His Side--Feminist Ex-ABA Leader Slams Shared Custody, Fathers' Movement and Fathers Targeted by Cox Speak Out can be heard here.

For those facing a divorce or separation or who have a personal injury or workers' comp case, the law firm of Pitman, Pitman, Mindas, Grossman & Lee handles a broad range of litigation. With offices in Springfield and West Orange, they have operated in Union County for over thirty years and serve clients throughout New Jersey. Pitman, Pitman, Mindas, Grossman & Lee can be reached at 973 467 5100, or //www.pitmanlaw.com.  

Many of you have asked me how you can help the show expand and progress. One of the ways you can do this is to become a His Side supporter by clicking here. Also, if you own a business or professional practice and are interested in advertising on the show, please contact [email protected].

I would like to thank our many wonderful new advertisers--it is in part because of their support that we were able to bring the show to these new markets. To support the advertisers who support His Side, go to His Side Advertisers.

As always, all information about the show can be found at HisSide.com. I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Best Wishes,
Glenn Sacks
Listen to His Side with Glenn Sacks
GlennSacks.com

 

Libertarian Presidential Candidate Defends Noncustodial Parents' Rights

Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik has taken a strong stand in defense of parents and noncustodial fathers--the only 2004 presidential candidate to do so. According to Badnarik:

"in divorce proceedings, the states routinely award custody of minor children to one parent...relegating the other parent to the status of 'second-class citizen'--not because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit, but because of a prejudice in favor of....the best 'single' parent.

"The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

"...The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude...the attachment of criminal liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court, often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track 'deadbeat parents' across state lines in order to enforce these draconian and unconstitutional laws."

Michael Badnarik  will join Glenn on His Side with Glenn Sacks on Sunday, October 24 at 5 PM PST/8 PM EST.  I invite you to call the show and join the discussion in progress at 1-877-590-KTIE (in California) or 1-800-439-4805 (out of state).

If you would like to ask Michael Badnarik a question live on the air or by e-mail, email your first name and phone number to [email protected].

For those who are outside of our radio stations' coverage ranges, you can listen to the show live via our station's excellent Internet stream at Listen Live.  

To learn more about gender issues in the presidential election, see:

Michael Badnarik's Parents' Rights Platform

John Kerry's appeal to women voters at Equal Opportunity for Women

George W. Bush's "'W' is for Women"

Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka's Defend the Family

His Side with Glenn Sacks can be heard on WSNR AM 620 in New York City and North-Eastern New Jersey, and on WWZN AM 1510 in Boston on Sundays at 10 PM EST. The show can also be heard in Southern California on KTIE AM 590 at 5 PM PST. To listen live via the Internet from anywhere in the world, go to Listen Live. Both radio and Internet listeners are encouraged to call and participate in the show live and on the air at 1-877-590-KTIE. All callers will be mailed a free CD of the show in which they appeared at their request.

GlennSacks.com / HisSide.com


 
 

Alphabetical List of Online Non Custodial Parents State Class Action
Lawsuit Websites

Alabama:  Dr. Richard Weiss
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alabamacrc

Alaska: Kevin Francis Ramey
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlaskaClassAction

Arizona: Scott Leska
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arizonacivilrightscouncil

Arkansas:  Kinley Hardin
http://www.stewart-house.com/arkansas.htm

California: Pete Clark
http://www.livebeatdads.us

Colorado: Troy Kramer
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/coloradocivilrightscouncil

Connecticut: Chris Kennedy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/connecticutcivilrightscouncil

Delaware: Russell P. Smith, Sr.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/delawarecivilrightscouncil

District of Columbia: Maurice King
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NonCustodialParentsforChange

Florida: Miguel Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/floridacivilrightscouncil

Georgia: Richard Stewart
http://www.stewart-house.com/classaction.htm

Illinois: Robert G. Lasheff
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ILLINOISFAMILYADVOCACY

Indiana: Torm Howse
http://www.indianacrc.org

Iowa: Robert G. Lisk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Equal_Iowa_Parents

Kansas: Thomas Lessman & John Schmeidler
http://www.acfc-ks.org/KS_Class_Action.htm

Kentucky: Wes Collins
http://groups.msn.com/KentuckyFamilyOrganization

Louisiana: Clarence Edward "Ed" Ward, III
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/louisianacivilrightscouncil

Maine: Eric Ericson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mainecivilrightscouncil

Maryland: Christopher Yavelow
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mdcrc

Massachusetts: Joe Schebel
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/massachusettscivilrightscouncil

Michigan: Michael T. Ross
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michparentsclassactionsuit

Minnesota: Dave Witte
http://www.legalactioncommittee.org

Mississippi: Angel Robinson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NCPrights

Missouri: Jon Klement
http://www.demandthefacts.net

Montana: Deanna Prouty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/speakmt

Nebraska: Curt Morehouse
http://www.fathersrightsne.org

Nevada: Alan DiCicco
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cfcr1997

New Hampshire: Rachel Forrest
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhclassaction

New Jersey: Vincent Urbank
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newjerseycivilrightscouncil

New Mexico: Michael J. Pettit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newmexicocivilrightscouncil

New York: Randall L. Dickinson & Debby Fellows
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newyorkcivilrightscouncil

North Carolina: Lenny McAllister
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/northcarolinacivilrightscouncil

North Dakota: Roland Riemers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/northdakotacivilrightscouncil

Ohio: Scott Strohm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OhioClassAction

Oklahoma: Greg Chapman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklahomacivilrightscouncil

Oregon: Susan Detlefsen
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OregonNonCustodialClass

Pennsylvania: Curtis Patton
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pancp

Rhode Island: Seth I. Donohue
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rhodeislandcivilrightscouncil

South Carolina: Nikki Fitzgerald
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCCRC

South Dakota: Randy Haack
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southdakotacivilrightscouncil

Tennessee: Tony Gottlieb
http://www.tndads.org

Texas: Mark Bitara
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/USA-Noncustodials

Utah: Eric Clarke
http://www.utahparentsundersiege.com

Vermont: David Donley
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vermontcivilrightscouncil

Virginia: Harold Leist
http://www.leist.us

Washington: Perry Manley
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/washingtoncivilrightscouncil

West Virginia: Tim Fittro
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvmad

Wisconsin: Dan Creed
http://www.wiparents.org

If your state is not listed and you would like it to be, go to:
http://www.indianacrc.org
If you would like to see the class action documents:
http://www.leist.us  The Virginia version. The only differences are
the
individuals, individual states names.  Everything else is the same
for
all states.


"Children learn what they live"

An assistant attorney general and a noted legal specialist acknowlege that
the income tax system is based on fraud. And the below story was reported on
FINDLAW, a heavily-used MAINSTREAM legal resource website. Is our message
finally going mainstream? This could be the HUGE.

This article can be found at:

http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20040930/30sep2004142057.html

Of course this guy is only saying what Irwin's said all along.

Noted Tax Historian´s Book Declares U.S. Income Tax as Direct Tax is in
Violation of Long-established U.S. Supreme Court Mandates
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Sep. 30 /PRNewswire/ --

TALLAHASSEE, Fla., Sept. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- John Garrison, prominent tax law
historian and legal specialist at Florida's Office of the Attorney General,
today announced that the income tax is being erroneously enforced on
employees as a direct tax rather than as the excise mandated by the
Sixteenth Constitutional Amendment. The current enforcement as a direct tax
is costing working Americans thousands of improperly collected tax dollars
over the course of their lifetime. Garrison is currently writing about his
findings in his book "The New Income Tax Scandal" which he is co-authoring
with Brian Stabley, J.D., an Assistant Attorney General at Florida's Office
of the Attorney General.

"'The New Income Tax Scandal' is about the corruption that lies at the heart
of the tax system," said Garrison. "As a result of my legal case against the
IRS in 2000, the IRS now privately concedes that, in 1915, after the
ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the
case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific that an income tax is an excise tax, and
that it is to be enforced as such. An excise is not a direct tax on
property, but an indirect tax. The critical difference is that a collection
of income tax as an excise allows for the deduction of all living expenses
since they are seen as necessary for the maintenance and conservation of
one's income producing property, one's labor. With a direct tax, this is not
possible. Given this, it appears that up to my legal case, the IRS had been
operating as if it had no awareness of the Sixteenth Amendment's intent.
Clearly, this revelation has enormous political and economic implications
for every American employee and it is my hope that my book will compel
policy makers to right this obvious injury to American workers."

John Garrison has been engaged in tax law research and tax reform activism
for over two decades. He currently serves as a legal specialist at Florida's
Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Administrative Law.

Brian Stabley is an Assistant Attorney General at Florida's Office of the
Attorney General, Bureau of Administrative Law.

This release was issued on behalf of the above organization by
Send2Press(TM), a unit of Neotrope(R). http://www.send2press.com/

John C. Garrison
CONTACT: John C. Garrison, +1-850-414-3706, [email protected]

Web site: http://www.send2press.com/

Chul-Mo Sohn is a single father who was  raising his
two daughters until the Department of Children and
Family services interfered and destroyed his life, as
well as  the lives of his daughters. Chul-Mo is now on
a hunger strike to his death to protest the
destruction of his family by this corrupted agency
that strip searched and handcuffed his twelve year old
daughter for protesting against the removal of her
little sister, Yih.



When Chul-Mo intervened to protect his children from
physical and sexual abuse, and took custody of the
children to remove them to safety, he was arrested and
jailed for many months on a charge of kidnapping. His
appeal to present extraordinary circumstance was
denied and he was not allowed to present the evidence
that caused him to go to his children and protect them
from the abuse they were suffering from.



Dec. 1st, Rosa Parks Day, we will protest Nation wide
for Chul-Mo and thousands of other American families
against the tyranny and retaliation of the Department
of Children and Family Services. Chul-Mo was a decent,
hard working father and provider for his children. He
has never abused them or harmed them in any way. He,
like hundreds of others involved with DCFS, has lost
all hope and is prepared to martyr himself for his
children. The suicide rate among families dealing with
this agency is appalling, and the obstructions the
families face are often impossible for any human to
overcome.



No agency in the United States should be unaccountable
, or police itself. There should be no immunity for
willful wrongdoing (malfeasance) and the Department of
Children and Family Services is the only agency that
has this unchecked power. Families have the Inherent
right to remain united whenever it is safe for the
children to do so, and in the case of Chul-Mo it is
not only safe, it is loving and nurturing. These
children and their father have been robbed of each
others company and comfort, and it is time to re-unite
this family before another tragedy occurs.



When the State removes a child it is like a death
sentence for the entire family. It is a living death
for those who remain, and a literal death for those
who cannot bear the horror of never seeing a beloved
child again...for no reason other than the  malicious
discretion of an agency that is funded by removing
children, not re-uniting them with their families as
mandated by law.



The death of Chul-Mo will be a needless tragedy, and a
tragedy his children will have to live with the rest
of their lives. The true criminals hide behind  their
immunity and continue to destroy families as they are
well paid to do. It is their job, and they relish in
it. We must stop this abomination or our family trees
will soon be stumps....in fact, they already are.

Please come to assistance of Chul-Mo and help re-unite
his family. He can explain his circumstances to you in
complete detail, and his story is horrifying. Please
contact him at [email protected] and please
consider telling his story to the public. His children
need him alive, and he has lost the will to live
without them. Something can be done if the public is
aware of his situation.

Thank you for your consideration


Kelly Vick, Vice President
Suzy Nickel, Director
American Family Rights Association
Washington Chapter
1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 212 Olympia, Wa 98501
360-864-2709 Toledo
509-217-7710 Spokane
http://www.washingtonafra.com/
http://familyrightsassociation.com/
[email protected]
[email protected]

I have reservations about this...

Amnesty for back child support
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/9903396.htm


Even nonpayment warrants can be settled


Columbus area parents who are behind in court-ordered
child support payments can take advantage of an
amnesty program in the coming weeks.

The Georgia Department of Human Resources' Office of
Child Support Enforcement will offer amnesty to anyone
who settles their accounts during Oct. 18-21 or Oct.
25-28. Even those with outstanding arrest warrants for
nonpayment can settle up without fear of prosecution
during the amnesty days, office manager Jacqueline
Jennings said.

Parents who don't resolve their cases during the
amnesty period will be subject to aggressive
enforcement measures, Jennings said.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement at 1327 Third
St., Columbus, will remain open until 6 p.m. during
the amnesty period, with office hours starting at 9
a.m.

The office serves the counties of Muscogee, Harris,
Taylor, Talbot, Marion and Chattahoochee.

Subject: U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report on Bush
Record

   
"U.S. Civil Rights Commission Report on Bush Record"

[Following are an AP story on the U.S. Civil Rights
Commission's report on Bush's civil rights record, and
a
press release about the report from the commission.]

Bush's Civil Rights Record Is Criticized, Silently

October 10, 2004
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 (AP) - The United States Commission
on
Civil Rights voted on Friday to wait until after next
month's election to discuss a report critical of the
Bush
administration's civil rights record. Republican
members
had objected to the report's timing.

The report remains posted on the commission's Web site

(http://www.usccr.gov/), despite objections from
Republican
commissioners.

The report says Mr. Bush "has neither exhibited
leadership
on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions
that
matched his words" on the subject. It finds fault with
Mr.
Bush's funding requests for civil rights enforcement;
his
positions on voting rights, educational opportunity
and
affirmative action; and his actions against hate
crimes.

The report said, however, that Mr. Bush is committed
to
help people with disabilities and praised him for "a
commendably diverse cabinet and moderately diverse
judiciary."

A White House spokesman, Ken Lisaius, said, "President
Bush
is fully committed to making a real difference in the
lives
of all Americans, and his record reflects that goal."

The commission chairwoman, Mary Frances Berry, who
lists
her political affiliation as independent, said that
the
report's timing had nothing to do with the election, a
view
disputed by a Republican commissioner, Jennifer C.
Braceras.

========================

A press release from the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights,
http://www.usccr.gov:

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS ASSAILS BUSH
ADMINISTRATION
RECORD ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Washington, DC - In an assessment of the civil rights
record of the Bush administration, the U.S. Commission
on
Civil Rights released a draft report that concludes
the
administration has failed to exhibit leadership or
define a
clear focus, relegating civil rights to a low
priority.

The report, Redefining Rights in America-The Civil
Rights
Record of the George W. Bush Administration,
2001-2004,
analyzes scores of policy reports, scholarly papers,
briefs
and executive orders to chart the administration's
responses to a broad spectrum of civil rights issues.
Similar criteria have guided evaluations of previous
administrations, including the civil rights review on
former President Clinton released in 2000.

Some highlights of the report include:

* Voting Rights: The Bush administration did not
provide
leadership to ensure timely passage and swift
implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of
2002.
As a result, Congress did not appropriate funds for
election reform until almost two years into the
administration.

* Equal Educational Opportunity: The No Child Left
Behind
Act (NCLB) does not sufficiently address unequal
education,
a major barrier to closing the achievement gap between

minority and white students.

* Affirmative Action: Instead of promoting affirmative

action in federal contracting and education, the
administration promotes "race neutral alternatives,"
in
many instances not applicable and in others not overly

effective at maintaining diversity.

* Environmental Justice: EPA has taken few actions to
ensure disparate impact of minority communities to
environmental contamination.

* Racial Profiling: The administration responded to
the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by instituting
regulations that facilitate profiling rather than
prevent
it. Immigrants and visitors from Arab and Middle
Eastern
countries were subjected to increased scrutiny,
including
interviews, registration, and in some cases removal.

For a full draft of the report titled Redefining
Rights in
America - The Civil Rights Record of the George W.
Bush
Administration, 2001-2004, visit //www.usccr.gov.

CONTACT: LAURA HART 202.833.9771

10/05/04



"Children learn what they live"

recently found Gov. Blagojevich listed on the NOW pac list, hmmm!

This is why we have a problem....
 
 
Top federal child support official certifies that Illinois' child support database meets federal standards
says award signals Illinois child support enforcement is on the upswing

 
 SPRINGFIELD  - The top U.S. Child Support official in the nation visited Illinois today to deliver the official federal seal of approval for the computer database maintained by the Department of Public Aid (IDPA)'s Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE).
 
Dr. Sherri Heller, Commissioner of  the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), presented the certification for the KIDS (Key Information Delivery System) system and said it paves the way to greater automation and efficiency in Illinois' child support enforcement process.
 
Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich pointed to the certification as an affirmation that Illinois' child support  system is moving in the right direction as it strives to upgrade its performance and harness high technology to the task of delivering vital financial support to children and struggling parents.
 
"Helping children and families is one of the priorities for my administration," the Governor said. "This certification by the federal government sends a clear signal that we have put ourselves in position to deliver on our obligation."
 
"This is a program that - bottom line results -  is on the move and it shows in the data I see in Washington," Commissioner Heller said during a ceremony at IDPA headquarters in Springfield.  "I commend the child support professionals here in Illinois on this achievement. Effective automation is a key element of a child support enforcement program which is successful in collecting child support and provides good customer service.  This certification demonstrates that Illinois is committed and working hard to provide both to children and families."  
 
The KIDS database is the high tech engine which drives every facet of the child support  enforcement process. The database keeps track of all relevant information for 730,000 child support cases in Illinois, from the amount owed in each case to scheduling and court docket details.
 
Illinois is the 28th state in the nation to achieve federal certification for its child support data base. Heller said that a number of states face severe financial penalties, through the withholding of millions of dollars in TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) block grant funds, for their failure to meet the federal certification requirements.
 
"It's really important to remember that this is not just a bureaucratic achievement we are talking about, but an important milestone in our efforts to strengthen the Division of Child Support Enforcement," said Director of Public Aid Barry S. Maram. "The KIDS system is the database that contains all the vital information that we need to function as a child support agency. It is a tool that makes it easier for all of us to do our jobs – that is helping children and struggling single parents -- more effectively and more efficiently."
 
"It's taken a lot of hard work from a lot of people to get to this point," said Lonnie Nasatir, Administrator of the Division of Child Support. "The future of Child Support Enforcement is all about automation. And what this certification means is that we can move forward with our plans to automate enforcement actions with a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of our data."
 
Gov. Blagojevich has made strengthening of the Child Support Enforcement system one of the priorities for his administration.
 
The Department estimates it will take in a record $922 million in total child support payments in the current fiscal year ending June 30, and projects $989 million in payments for fiscal year 2005.
 
The agency's core functions include establishing paternity and child support income withholding orders and enforcing those orders. DCSE uses a number of tools to recover unpaid child support, including: intercepting state and federal tax refunds; suspending Illinois professional licenses; placing liens on real and personal property; collaborating with the Illinois Department of Revenue and private collection agencies; collaborating with the U.S. State Department to block passport renewals for those who owe more than $5,000 in past due child support; and reporting the debt to credit reporting agencies.
 
In addition, IDPA launched a Deadbeat parents Web site in November that features photos of parents who owe more than $5,000 in past due child support and have made no voluntary payments in 90 days. These cases are only publicized if the custodial parent grants authorization.
The federal government first outlined demanding child support system requirements fifteen years ago in the Family Support Act of 1988. The Welfare Reform Act, in 1996, then added more requirements for the already complex task.
Dr. Heller is a national leader on child support and social welfare issues. In October 2001, she was appointed Commissioner of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. In this position she is responsible for the overall development of policies and priorities guiding the nation's child support program. In FY 2002, the system provided services to 16 million families and collected $20.1 billion in child support payments.  
 
Prior to her appointment as OCSE Commissioner, Dr. Heller was the Deputy Secretary for Income Maintenance with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.  She led welfare reform efforts in Pennsylvania and was responsible for a wide range of public assistance programs, including Food Stamps, Medical Assistance eligibility, Cash Assistance, Employment and Training Programs, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and Child Support Enforcement.  


"Children learn what they live"

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/content/goodtobeindc/frameset.html

Long download, but cute


"Children learn what they live"

http://www.dontusekids.com/html/untitled3.html

"Children learn what they live"

"IT IS NOT TOO SOON FOR HONEST MEN TO REBEL ..."
Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested


October 8, 2004
For Immediate Release
Contact: Stephen P. Gordon
Office: (512) 637-6867
Cell: (256) 227-8360
[email protected]

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential nominee, will debate John Kerry and George W. Bush in St. Louis on Friday. Or he'll go to jail instead.

"A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates," says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. "And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities. Bi-partisan is not non-partisan.

"Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as Senator and President."

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Badnarik, along with the demonstrators expected to assemble in protest against his exclusion, will proceed to the police line erected to keep himself and the other legitimate candidates out during broadcast of the "bi-partisan campaign commercial."

And then he will cross it.

"We'd have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America," says Badnarik's communications director, Stephen Gordon. "However, they have interposed the machinery of government between the American people and the honest debate which must precede any honest election. Now it's up to patriots like Michael Badnarik to force the issue." In Arizona, the Libertarian Party is taking the state university to court to prevent the expenditure of state money on a similar event.

Badnarik has previously debated David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate; Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party; and Walt Brown of the Socialist Party. Kerry and Bush, as well as Independent Ralph Nader, declined to participate in those debates. Tomorrow morning, he will proceed from a New York taping with Bill Moyers to St. Louis, ready to take on the Republican and Democratic machines in defense of American democracy.

Voters in 48 states and the District of Columbia will be able to vote for Badnarik on November 2nd. More than 600 Libertarians currently serve in public office across the United States.
-30-

Additional press information:

- The protest will proceed from Northmoor Park on Big Bend Ave., just south of Washington University to the corner of Big Bend and Forsyth, where the police line is expected to be arrayed. Badnarik's crossing onto the Washington University campus will take place at that point, some time between 8 and 8:15 p.m.  Badnarik and Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plan to cross the police line together.

- The headline quote is from Thoreau, and intended to apply to the US occupation of Iraq:

"In other words, when ... a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army." -- Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience





"Children learn what they live"

http://washtimes.com/national/20041005-013052-2404r.htm

Dads 'by default' hail new law


By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Bert Riddick plans to go to a California court this year to try, once
again, to escape a child-support order for a girl he has never met and
says he has proof he didn't father.
     This time, the law likely will back him up.
     Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill to
allow men to challenge the paternity of children for whom they owe
support.
     "I don't feel there's any way for the system to fight it anymore,"
said Mr. Riddick of Carson, Calif., who has been protesting his
child-support order for more than a decade.
Tired of Tom?
     The new law, sponsored by California Assembly member Hannah-Beth
Jackson, a Democrat, was cheered by opponents of "paternity fraud."
     "It's well overdue," said Carnell Smith, founder of U.S. Citizens
Against Paternity Fraud in Decatur, Ga., who counts California as the 24th
state with a "paternity fraud" law.
     The California law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, will help thousands
of men who have been assigned child support orders "by default," said Mr.
Smith, referring to the common practice in which assumed fathers are
ordered to pay child-support even if they never appear in court.
     The law also will protect men who signed "confessions of paternity"
when they thought they were fathers but later discovered they were not,
said Mr. Smith, who successfully lobbied for a "paternity fraud" law in
Georgia after discovering he was paying for a child he did not father.
     Like many other states, California's new law sets time limits on
paternity challenges. Men can file protests within two years of being
ordered to pay child support or within two years of the child's birth.
     Men such as Mr. Riddick, who have known for years they are supporting
someone else's child, also will be allowed to challenge their
child-support orders under the law.
     The California law passed the Legislature with virtually unanimous
support because it was a compromise bill, advocates said.
     A stronger "paternity fraud" bill had been offered in the state
Senate, said Los Angeles lawyer Marc Angelucci, who is a leader of the
National Coalition of Free Men. The Senate bill, however, was opposed by
California child- support officials and feminist groups who viewed it as a
"get-out-of-jail-free card," he said.
     Feminist and child-support groups have become increasingly alarmed by
growing support for what they call paternity "disestablishment." They
argue that biology is not always paramount in family relationships, and
ending established support for a child is rarely in the child's best
interest.
     Financial considerations also play a part in ending established
child-support orders.
     In 2002, California Gov. Gray Davis vetoed a "paternity fraud" bill
that would have required men to be "personally" served with child-support
papers. Such a rule would prevent many men from being named fathers and
end up costing California as much as $40 million in federal child-support
funds, Mr. Davis said in his veto statement.
     Mr. Riddick said he was assigned a child support payment by default
after a woman he knew named him the father of her child. The 1994 payment
grew over time to $1,400 per month for the past four years.
     Mr. Riddick said he found out he wasn't the father in 1996 after he
was arrested as "a deadbeat dad." The criminal-court judge ordered DNA
testing for Mr. Riddick, the mother and the child. "It showed I had a 0
percent chance of being the father of this child," he said.
     The criminal-court judge threw out the charge, but when Mr. Riddick
tried to get his child- support order overturned in civil court, state
officials refused.
     "They said the criminal court case had nothing to do with the civil
case and I would still have to pay child support for 18 years," Mr.
Riddick said. "And I've never even seen this kid."
     The consequences have been severe.
     "Lost my home, ruined my marriage," he said, adding that the "real
victims" are his biological children, whom he has been hard-pressed to
support.
     When Mr. Riddick goes to court in December to get a January court
date, things should be different.
     "Now we finally have a law to cite rather than an argument to cite,"
he said.

Just found this website and thought it interesting enough to share...

http://www.allprodad.com/interview.asp

An excerpt:

"Though I'm not there to turn off the light,
To tuck you in and kiss you goodnight,
To read a book, or get you a drink,
It's you I love, and of you I think.
If you were here, I'd give you a squeeze,
And ask if you could give me one please.
So to the day we'd say our good-byes.
As we lay down and close our eyes."


 

Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

By Wendy McElroy

At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in
the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The
defendants are the individual states.

The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million
non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal
custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being
violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government
has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades.
Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme
Court precedent and acts of Congress "to vindicate and restore their
various inalienable rights."

In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in
custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be "willful,
reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of
powers" with a "systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or
otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process"
of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost
automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will
be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be
represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse —
president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the
suits — says that paperwork is under way for submission to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the
authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district
court.

If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be
represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a
lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire
class who shares a grievance.

What specific relief is being sought?

The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main
relief sought from federal court is the immediate
"restoration/elevation to equal custodial status" of all current
non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect
have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.

The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.

For example, the "prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor
children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences
with natural parents." Also, the "abolishment of forced/court-ordered
child support in most cases." Support of the child would be borne by
each parent during their own parenting time.

The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for
the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children's welfare. The
press release cites a much-touted study entitled "Child Adjustment in
Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements," which was published
in the APA's Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded,
"Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than
children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in
intact families."

In this sense, the suits also advocate children's rights.

Other reliefs being sought are financial in nature; some of them take
the suits into murky areas. For example, the suits ask for
"reimbursement" from custodial parents to non-custodial parents of any
state-ordered child support that exceeded the "maximum limits of
federal law." This ceases to be an appeal to constitutional or
parental rights and instead pits one set of civil law against another,
with retroactive penalties being imposed.

In addition, the suits ask for "various damages against the Defendant
[the state named] in the aggregate value of $1,000,000 payable per
Plaintiff." The court awards would be "executable upon all monies,
property, chattels, assets, goods, pecuniary interest and anything
whatsoever of any value" owned or controlled by the State. The suits
request that "an appropriate portion" of the award be provided by the
liquidation or direct transfer of title of "unused, abandoned, or
unnecessary state property and assets."

The number of non-custodial parent plaintiffs who sign on to a federal
class action cannot be predicted but it could run into millions; the
collective damages could run into billions or even trillions of
dollars. Unfortunately, this gives the appearance of pursuing profit
rather than justice.

When asked to elaborate on the amount of damages, Howse clarified, "We
are preparing, later this week, to offer proposed settlements that
will waive the vast majority of damages, among other things, in
exchange for a quick restoral of equal custody rights, a few forms of
tax abatements/credits to balance what custodial parents have enjoyed
for years and some other basic and related issues, like the setting up
of neutral visitation exchange centers, and the like."

He added, "It has never been about winning large amounts of money from
the states ... It's about restoring the lives of our children, and
restoring our own lives."

I genuinely hope the settlements come to pass. Stripped of their
financial demands, the suits could go a long way toward removing what
I believe to be the worst laws governing child custody in disputed
divorce.

At bare minimum, they are raising the profile of an issue that will
not go away: the crying need of non-custodial parents, especially
fathers, to know their children.

And the equal need of children to embrace both parents.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow
for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and
editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty
for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R.
Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer


"Children learn what they live"

Dear dads and moms who are victims of family court injustices:

It is now time to act to have our voices heard:

1. Sign a petition for NCP rights (there are currently 2303 signatures and we need all victims to sign): http://www.petitiononline.com/usncpr/petition.html

2. If you or people you know are victims and are from states that are not yet represented in this federal lawsuit, check this link out and contact Torm Howse (via that link): http://www.indianacrc.org/classaction.html#usamap

3. This coming election for US presidency, it's not just Bush and Kerry - there is also Badnarik of the Libertarian Party who is in the ballot in over 45 states. He may not win but as the only one brave enought to speak on behalf of NCPs and the injustice of designating a good parent an NCP, I encourage all who believe that reform is needed in family courts to please go to this presidential candidate's site (//www.Badnarik.org), specifically this page: http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/ParentsRights.php

PLEASE BROADCAST AND DISTRIBUTE THIS MESSAGE.

JOIN IN SENDING THE MESSAGE OF EQUAL PARENTS' WEEK!
September 27, 2003 - October 3, 2004

As International Sponsor, the Children's Rights Council ("CRC")
invites people around
the world to join in Equal Parents' Week ("EPW") and unite our
voices in making the
message "The Best Parent Is Both Parents" an international mandate.  
Last year,
people in 18 states throughout the United States and 12 countries
joined to send the
message of Equal Parents' Week throughout the world!

WHAT IS EQUAL PARENTS' WEEK?

EPW is a movement which sends the message that parental rights and
responsibilities
must be shared equally by both parents. The purple ribbon is the
symbol which sends
this message.

EPW advocates that the right of both parents to function equally as
a parent, the
right of children to be raised and nurtured by both parents, and the
right of familes
to exist and function as a family, are civil and human rights
inherent and
inalienable to all families. The EPW mandate for equal parent status
is a mandate for
the time it takes to love, nurture, and teach our children our
values the only way we
can...a mandate for the ability to be a parent...and a mandate for
justice.  EPW
advocates that a 2-parent focus be established as an international
priority,
maximizing the involvement that both parents are willing and able to
contribute in
raising their children, and promoting the ability of both parents to
meet all their
children's needs without compromising or imposing financial
impediments to
nonfinancial forms of child support.

This year, EPW takes place September 27, 2004 through October 4.  
The CRC is
soliciting participation in EPW to create an international movement
that will unite
the voices of people all over the world to raise public awareness
and achieve
legislative reform to promote joint custody and shared parenting,
and address
injustices that affect parents, children and family members
everywhere.  Although the
simple act of tying a purple ribbon may seem insignificant, the
power of our message
and the power of this message being sent by purple ribbons all over
the world will
reach people everywhere. If every family member throughout the world
who cherishes
their love for their family unites their voices in sending this
message, we will send
a message so powerful it cannot be ignored.

YOU CAN DO ANY OF THESE THINGS TO JOIN IN EQUAL PARENTS' WEEK:

-  Wear purple ribbons and tie them ANYWHERE they can be seen during
EPW.  Sign up
using the link http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile1.html
-  Hold or attend a public candlelight vigil, preferably on
Thursday, September 30 at
7:30 pm (or any other day during EPW).  Sign up using the link
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile1.html
- If you cannot attend or hold a public candlelight vigil, hold
a "Home Vigil" in
your home on Sept. 30 at 7:30 pm.  Sign up using the link
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile2.html
- Hold ANY ACTIVITY (i.e., picnics, gatherings, rallies, candlelight
vigils) on any
day(s) throughout the week, and include purple ribbons to send the
message!  Sign up
using the link http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile1.html

AN INTERNATIONAL EVENT OF SOLIDARITY TO SEND OUR MESSAGE.
"A Moment in our Hearts, A Moment of Solidarity."

As a international event, we are asking all organizations to hold
public candelight
vigils if possible. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, ALL CANDLELIGHT VIGILS
SHOULD BE HELD ON
THE SAME DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 7:30 p.m
(as this time
occurs in your time zone, not adjusted for any other time zone)  
Please view the
"Five Candles Reading" at  
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/candlevigil.html for use
at public candlelight vigils and "Home Vigils."  Sign up to hold a
public vigil using
the link http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile1.html

"HOME VIGILS"

We are urging all people who cannot attend a candlelight vigil or
who do not have one
taking place near them to share in "A Moment in our Hearts, A Moment
of Solidarity"
by holding their own "Home Vigil" and light a candle in their home
for at least 15
minutes, on Thursday, September 30, 2004 at 7:30 pm, the same date
and time as the
public candelight vigils will be taking place. A "Home Vigil" can be
held by anyone,
it can be held by a single person living alone, and include as many
people as you
wish, so invite your family and friends if you like.   Please use
the link
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile2.html to sign up to hold
a "Home Vigil".
NOTE:  Home Vigils are as important as public candlelight vigils,
because they are
very valuable in strengthening the message of EPW.  

SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 IS THE PRESS RELEASE CUTOFF.

Please contact the International Coordinator as soon as possible to
notify us of
participation in EPW, and by September 15, 2004 for inclusion in the
international
press release.  Please use the link in the EPW website
entitled "Sign Up:
Candlelight Vigils, Purple Ribbon Activities, etc."
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/profile1.html  to notify us of
participation.
Please provide ALL the information requested in the Sign Up Link
(this includes
identifying for each activity the complete address/location of the
activity; the date
and time it will be held; your organization's contact and media
contact; and the
names, addresses and phone numbers of persons holding Home Vigils).  

Please know that the voice of every person is very valuable in
strengthening the
message we want to join with you in sending all over the world, and
to help send the
most powerful message throughout each country and internationally.
Please feel free
to contact me if you should have any questions or want to discuss
anything regarding
EPW.  Please visit the Equal Parents' Week web page at
http://members.tripod.com/epweek  

On behalf of the Children's Rights Council, please accept my warmest
regards.  I look
forward to hearing from you.

Patti Diroff
International Coordinator, Equal Parents' Week
Children's Rights Council
http://www.gocrc.com/
http://members.tripod.com/epweek/
The message each purple ribbon sends is a message of
equality, responsibility, and values. The message behind
the message is one of civil rights, conscience and love.








"Children learn what they live"

And calls them what they are: VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!

The politician below is Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party Candidate for
President. And he's willing to use the power of the Justice Department's
division of civil rights to ENFORCE the rights of parents to actually BE
parents and to be free of criminal liability for "child" support.



http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/ParentsRights.php

Parents' Rights

     No issue is more sensitive -- and few issues are more troubling to
Libertarians -- than the role of government in family life. On the face of
things, the federal government has an even smaller role in that area than
it does in most, and I favor keeping Washington out of issues like
defining and licensing marriage, regulating homeschooling, mandating
childhood vaccinations or using tax policy for "socially engineering" the
makeup and function of the family.

     However, there are some areas of family life in which the federal
government arguably has a role to play. The Constitution ordains that all
Americans receive the equal protection of the law, and it prohibits
involuntary servitude.

     In both of these areas, the federal government has failed America's
families and, in particular, its parents.

     Equal protection of the law pre-supposes fairness for those coming
before the bar of justice. Yet in divorce proceedings, the states
routinely award custody of minor children to one parent or another,
relegating the other parent to the status of "second-class citizen" -- not
because the latter parent has been convicted of any crime, or found unfit,
but because of a prejudice in favor of father or mother as the best
"single" parent.

     This is a matter of federal interest under the 14th Amendment, even
intra-state. Once one parent or another, possibly with a child in tow,
moves to another state, any shadow of doubt is erased. It becomes an
interstate matter, and by definition therefore falls under federal
jurisdiction.

     As president, I will direct the Justice Department's civil rights
division to investigate state policies which violate the 14th Amendment
rights of parents and to pursue the elimination of those policies in
court. The default presumption in any divorce proceeding must be for joint
custody of minor children. Failing the waiver of that presumption by one
parent, or proof that one parent is unfit, to deny any parent equal access
to, and equal participation in the raising of, his or her children is
clearly an abuse of law and repugnant to the Constitution.

     Above and beyond the matter of custody comes child support. While it
is reasonable to assess support for a minor child when circumstances
dictate that he or she will be living exclusively with one parent, the
matter has been inflated into, literally, a federal case.

     The 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude. In the
Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court clearly and unambiguously ruled
that this prohibition applies to "peonage" -- the attachment of criminal
liability to failure to pay, or work off, debt. Yet, across the nation,
hundreds of thousands of non-custodial parents find themselves in court,
often charged with felonies and facing prison, for their failure or
inability to pay child support. Further, the federal government has
intervened to the extent of maintaining a special database to track
"deadbeat parents" across state lines in order to enforce these draconian
and unconstitutional laws.

     As president, I will direct the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice to sue states which attach criminal liability to
child support obligations and, if necessary, to charge government
officials who administer that unconstitutional criminal liability with
violations of the civil rights of non-custodial parents.

     I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough
questions?to give you answers that really work!

-------------

Do you share Michael Badnarik's position on this issue? Help us spread the
word through press releases and advertising.

"Children learn what they live"

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0909CPStrial09.html

Jury holds CPS staff, state liable for death

Special report: CPS under fire >>
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special46/



"Children learn what they live"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy35.html

Grandparents Can't Trump Parental Rights
by Wendy McElroy    

On Sept. 12, National Grandparents Day, many grandfathers and grandmothers
will stare at photographs of grandchildren they cannot see or hug or
contact. Too often, grandparents of non-custodial parents are erased from
the family tree after divorce.

Largely because of such wrenching situations, the idea of "grandparent
rights" has gained traction.

But what of parental rights? And should another layer of law be added to
family relationships?

As the definition of family has changed, the role of grandparents has
shifted with it. Sometimes grandparents are excluded from children's lives,
as frequently occurs in contested divorces.

At other times, however, grandparents are forced to assume uninvited
responsibility, such as the surrogate parenting of grandchildren whose
natural parents are absent due to drug use, imprisonment or abandonment.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census data, 933,408 grandparents had been
responsible for the basic needs of their grandchildren for at least five
years.

Whether the issues of custody and visitation arise due to exclusion or to
increased responsibility, it is only natural for grandparents to want to
define their status in relation to grandchildren.

All 50 states have attempted such a definition, with significant variations
in the law. For example, in Colorado, the legal rights of natural
grandparents terminate when a child is adopted by a non-relative. In
California, natural grandparents may still claim visitation rights.

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court added its prevailing opinion in the landmark
case of Troxel v. Granville, which concerned grandparent rights in
Washington State. The Supreme Court concluded that parents who provide
adequate care have a Constitutional right to decide with whom their children
associate.

The decision seems to cancel out grandparent rights in the presence of
objections from a responsible parent.

In the aftermath of Troxel and with wide disagreement between state laws,
the issue of grandparent rights is currently in flux with no clear outcome.
For example, on Aug. 23, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a
grandparent's right to seek court-ordered visitation over a parent's
objections. The Court found that Troxel did not apply to the wording of its
state law on the matter.

With another appeal to U.S. Supreme Court possible, this is the moment to
ask, "What rights should grandparents possess?"

The cases in which grandparents have assumed custody for an extended period
are the easiest to address. Often, the court recognizes -- and reasonably so
-- that they have become "psychological parents." That is, they are
recognized as now playing a significant role in a child's "best interest,"
even if they have no legal standing. Such grandparents are often accorded
legal rights with regard to the child. With responsibilities come rights.

But what rights do non-custodial grandparents have when a parent objects?

With no pleasure, I conclude that such rights do not exist. Ask yourself: If
grandparents cannot claim the legal right to be included in the life of a
son or daughter, how can they claim a right to be included in the life of
that son or daughter's offspring?

Fortunately, grandparent rights are not a necessary or even the most
productive method by which grandparents can remain involved in their
grandchildren's lives. Indeed, those of us who believe that the legal system
usually exacerbates family problems would argue that layering new law on top
of the old only creates conflict. No law, no court, only privately agreed
upon arrangements: That's the ideal manner in which to resolve family
disputes.

Nevertheless, many disputes will go to family court. And when they do, the
laws and proceedings that offer a solution should be as simple and
straightforward as possible. Rather than complicating the law, alienated
grandparents should aim at simplifying it.

One measure in particular would constitute a large step in that direction:
the rebuttable presumption of joint custody. Most grandparents are alienated
from their grandchildren because the custodial parent, who is not their son
or daughter, refuses contact. Since mothers usually receive custody,
paternal grandparents are most vulnerable by far.

The best way for paternal grandparents to protect themselves in a divorce is
to fight for the establishment of a simple standard for custody.

The "rebuttable presumption of joint custody" means family courts should
presume that divorcing parents will share equally in the legal and physical
custody of children unless there is compelling reason to rule otherwise.
(The protest of a child or a history of parental abuse might constitute
compelling rebuttal.) Neither the mother nor the father would have a right
to unilaterally deny visitation to either set of grandparents.

The rebuttable presumption of joint custody would allow a child to enjoy an
extended family on both sides of parentage: grandparents, aunts, uncles, and
cousins. Just as a child should not lose a parent through divorce, neither
should a child lose half of his or her own history.

Indeed, as the nuclear family is redefined and placed under stress, the
extended family becomes more important as a safety net for children. By
fighting for equal custody rights for both responsible parents, grandparents
are fighting for themselves and for the children who both deserve and need
their love and protection.

My heart goes out to every loving grandparent who is cut off from knowing a
grandchild. For them, National Grandparents Day must bring a stab of pain
rather than joy.

September 9, 2004

Wendy McElroy [send her mail] is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research
fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author
and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, Liberty for
Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century (Ivan R. Dee/Independent
Institute, 2002).

Copyright C 2004 Wendy McElroy

For all the grandparents, I hope you at least have a chance to see yur grandchildren this Sunday...



"Children learn what they live"

http://www.petitiononline.com/usncpr/petition.html

http://www.petitiononline.com/60606mb/petition.html

"Children learn what they live"