mkg4583

Posts Tagged ‘Feminist Myths’

Austrailian Women Set Up WebSite to Promote More False Allegations in Family Court

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, False Allegations of Domestic Violence, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, judicial corruption, kidnapped children, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Protective Dads, Single Moms, Sociopath on November 24, 2009 at 1:34 am

After carefully going through this website, I saw this was not about fairness in family court and protecting children’s right to have both parents in their lives.  Australian mums are not into co-parenting.

They believe they own their children and will stop at nothing to steal children.

This website is almost as disgusting as StopFamilyViolence.Org, another waste of tax dollars.

Nope, this is a full out effort to show women, how to lie cheat and steal children through allegations of domestic violence.  They even went so far as to bring out women in bandages and bruises.

The point of this website is to make it appear that the only reason for divorce is because of domestic violence.  We all know this is more of the same nonsense that goes on here in the U.S.

What a load of crock.  Australian mummies.  Guess which one is Annabelle?  She is the one that looks like a pig!

 

22 June 2009 – Canberra – Bandage Parade Protest at Parliament House makes an impact

Safer Family Law Canberra Bandage Parade Rally Concerned parents and professionals gathered in Canberra on Monday June 22, 2009, to protest current family laws.

Sprawling across the lawns of Parliament House, wrapped in bloodied bandages, arm slings seated in wheelchairs, some pushing injured dolls in strollers, the shock-value message was loud and clear – children are suffering at the hands of abusive parents, due to the Family Law Act…more

Family Court Youtube Campaign

Childrens Stories Australian Journalists National Professionals Parents Stories – VIC Parents Stories – SA
Parents Stories – NSW Parents Stories – WA Parents Stories – QLD Childrens Drawings

Safer Family Law | Home.

Laughing At Restraining Orders

In Alienation of Affection, Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Child Support, child trafficking, children criminals, children's behaviour, Childrens Rights, Civil Rights, Department of Social Servies, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Domestic Violence, due process rights, family court, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, fatherlessness, fathers rights, federal crimes, Foster CAre Abuse, Freedom, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Marriage, Non-custodial fathers, Non-custodial mothers, parental alienation, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Kidnapping, Parental Relocation, parental rights, Parental Rights Amendment, Parentectomy, Parents rights, Restraining Orders, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, state crimes on June 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm

by Phyllis Schlafly, September 13, 2006


Borrowing the title of a famous George Gershwin ditty, “they all laughed” when a Santa Fe, New Mexico family court judge granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against TV talk show host David Letterman to protect a woman he had never met, never heard of, and lived 2,000 miles away from. Colleen Nestler claimed that Letterman had caused her “mental cruelty” and “sleep deprivation” for over a decade by using code words and gestures during his network TV broadcasts.That ridiculous TRO was dismissed last December, but according to a new report released this week by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting), the case was not a judicial anomaly but “the logical culmination of years of ever-expanding definitions of domestic violence.” RADAR is a Maryland-based think tank that specializes in exposing the excesses of the domestic violence bureaucracy.

The New Mexico statute defines domestic violence as causing “severe emotional distress.” That definition was met when Ms. Nestler claimed she suffered from exhaustion and had gone bankrupt because of Letterman’s actions.

The New Mexico statute appears to limit domestic violence to “any incident by a household member,” and Letterman, who lives in Connecticut and works in New York, had never been in Ms. Nestler’s household. But New Mexico law defines household member to include “a person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship,” and Ms. Nestler’s charge that Letterman’s broadcast of television messages for eleven years qualified as a “continuing” relationship and thereby turned him into a “household member.”

The family court judge who issued the TRO, Daniel Sanchez, may have been predisposed to believe any allegation presented to him by a complaining woman even though she had no evidence. His own biography lists him as chairman of the Northern New Mexico Domestic Violence Task Force.

RADAR reports that only five states define domestic violence in terms of overt actions that can be objectively proven or refuted in a court of law. The rest of the states have broadened their definition to include fear, emotional distress, and psychological feelings.

The use of the word “harassment” in domestic violence definitions is borrowed from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s definition, which is based on the “effect” of an action rather than the action itself. In Oklahoma, a man can be charged with harassment if he seriously “annoys” a woman.

The 1999 book by University of Massachusetts Professor Daphne Patai, “Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism,” powerfully indicts what she labels the “Sexual Harassment Industry.” The feminists have created a judicial world in which accusation equals guilt, and the distinction between severe offenses and trivial annoyances is erased.

RADAR’s report explains that the definition of domestic has also been expanded. Originally, domestic meant a household member, but now it means a person with whom the woman “has been involved in an intimate relationship” (Colorado), persons who are in a “dating or engagement relationship” (Rhode Island), or “any other person . . . as determined by the court” (North Dakota).

How did it happen that state laws against domestic violence are written so broadly as to produce such absurdities? Family court judges issue two million TROs every year, half are routinely extended, 85 percent are against men, and half do not include any allegation of violence but rely on vague complaints made without evidence.

Follow the money, both at the supply and the demand ends of the economic trail. The supply of 1,500 new domestic violence laws enacted by states from 1997 to 2005 is largely the handiwork of targeted lobbying by feminists funded by the multi-million-dollar federal boondoggle called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

VAWA is blatantly gender discriminatory; as its title proclaims, it is designed to address only complaints by women. VAWA provides taxpayer funding to feminists to teach legislators, judges and prosecutors the stereotypes that men are batterers and women are victims.

The demand end of the economic chain is the fact that women know (and their lawyers advise them) that making allegations of domestic violence (even without proof or evidence) is the fastest and cheapest way to win child custody plus generous financial support. The financial incentives to lie or exaggerate are powerful.

Due process violations in the issuing of TROs include lack of notice, no presumption of innocence, denial of poor defendants to free counsel while women are given taxpayer-funded support, denial of the right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary hearings, improper standard of proof, no need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, denial of the right to confront accusers, and denial of trial by jury.

Assault and battery are already crimes in every state without any need of VAWA. TROs empower activist family court judges to criminalize a vast range of otherwise legal behavior (usually a father’s contact with his own children and entry into his own home) which are crimes only for the recipient of the order, who can then be arrested and jailed without trial for doing what no statute prohibits and what anyone else may lawfully do.
Laughing At Restraining Orders.

Google Ads are provided by Google and are not selected or endorsed by Eagle Forum

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers