A MOTHER found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for the psychological and emotional abuse of her children has been given custody of them.

How about some training or education on how to treat and care for the children before returning the children back to her? There is money for drug and alcohol testing for father that have never been drunk or used drugs. Why not use that money for the mothers since they are going to have the custody anyways.

Only in extreme cases of abuse or neglect should parents lose custody of their children. However, if they can't act like adults then maybe you're right. Hey, that might force some of these parents to "gasp" grow the fuck up.

I disagree here, I think it should go to the parent who can support and take care of them. Why should I take care of somebody else children? Why did they have it in the first place? Let then take care of their own problem.

I didn't say put the child in foster care or in a "warehouse" the states call a group home -- in which case then yes it would be your tax dollars that were being used to take care of someone else children --just as your tax dollars are being used to pay this idiot judges salary that said the children should stay with their mother and visit with a father who hasn't seen them in several years -- then of course your tax dollars are also used to send police officers out to arrest men who don't pay their child support and pay for social workers to continually keep checking in with this mother to make sure she is caring for her children -- and it will be your tax dollars that pay for child protective to hire a new social worker and not bother to actually change the system when the mother kills or seriously injures her children thanks again to this idiot judges ruling. And at the end of all that your tax dollars will pay for the mother (and boyfriend or father) to sit in jail and for the surviving children to grow up in foster care anyway because their "parents" are now in jail

What I said that instead of going round and round with this obviously broken and flawed family court system is that children in these situations should be allowed to be adopted while they are still children-- it would be in the best interest of the children to let them be placed up for adoption with a family who was going to step up and support and take care of them -- thus your tax dollars are not involved and you aren't bothered to care for somebody else children. It's a win-win.

And to address your question of why they had "it" in the first place -- because our society is overly obsessed with the notion of abortion because yeah every child is a wanted child--and no nobody says exactly what you did about why should they support an unwanted child once they go home from picketing the abortion clinic-- and of course abstinence only programs work great and presenting any kind of sex education must automatically mean we are teaching our kids the graphic details of how two homosexual men have sex.

From the evidence in the article, can you defend your statement and explain why the father, was described "by a Family Court judge as no threat to his daughters, a successful parent who is 'courteous' and 'intelligent'", should lose custody, while the mother "abandoned her first daughter at two and spurned the child's subsequent attempts at reconciliation, had displayed 'dreadful', 'cruel' and 'malicious' behaviour", would be given rights?

On what grounds do you think a successful, courteous and intelligent father lose his custody?

That's yet another totally bogus conclusion, "It's a win-win". How in the HELL is it a "win-win" to take children from their responsible, caring and successful parent to give to God-knows-who?

You also assume that these children will be adopted, when most adoptions are of younger infants, and most of the older children end up "warehoused" as mentioned before.

And EVEN if they get adopted, what's to guarantee they will be properly cared for?

You repeatedly slander MotherforTruth for her "agenda", but if you'd stop to read what she's posted, you would realize that she has found MULTIPLE cases where adopted children were abused, even killed, by their new "parents", who are using the system to make money, not care for children.

Your suggestion is not just irresponsible, it's INSANE. You are out of your bloody mind.

I agree with Curtisreed. There is not winning solution every time a child is taken from their blood relative. I once called up the CPS because the mother was in a drinking party with my son and their response was that when she got the custody was because she was the good parent and that I was just trying to make trouble for her. Your common sense is one that I would not truth even thou you sound very clever.

WTF?? YOU go out of your way to ALWAYS make personal attacks against me for anything I say and ALWAYS call me an idiot or crazy -- and you slander me on a regular basis--but somehow you think my comments -- which I might add are very rarely in response to ANYTHING you have to say or directed to you personally -- are slanderous or evidence of some type of agenda? Seriously?

Because ACTUALLY I agree with Mother of Truth for the most part--and I was defending Mother against Uni's comment that Mother stood up for abusive men because I don't think that is an accurate representation of Mother's posts. But it is accurate to say that Mother's posts use strong rhetoric that tends to attack women or at least uses language in the titles of the post and in the opinion/commentary section that labels them as liars or deviants or immoral or responsible for putting some innocent man in jail -- and if you actually bothered to read my responses to Mother --YOU would know that for the most part I tend to agree with her that sometimes women are all of those things -- its just that in my opinion, lately Mother's posts have all started sounding the same and raising the same issues--so now it has gotten past the wow that's an interesting way to look at things and become wow Mother doesn't appear to like women very much.

Notice that I did not feel the need to call Mother insane or crazy or go out of my way to mention that the thought of agreeing with him or her made me gag or resort to using any other theatrical and personal attacks on Mother to make myself look important...because I tend to actually enjoy a spirited on topic discussion and seeing a variety of opinions be posted. My problem is now I have to censure myself or be fearful that I will be attacked or slandered by some person I don't know (or really want to know) who thinks likes to throw their weight around and act like a Jr. high school bully.

Also as a side note: I have read Mother's posts and I don't remember ANY of them EVER being about "adopted children(who) were abused, even killed, by their new "parents", who are using the system to make money, not care for children."

So AGAIN I suggest it is YOU who needs to chill out and back up and look at YOUR agenda and rather irrational need to personally attack me (and any other posters YOU disagree with) for trying to have a discussion and present varying viewpoints. That and unless I missed it most of the other posters don't have a problem with telling me if my comments directed toward them offended them so it's not your job--nor is it relevant-- for you to tell me off in their defense.

I don't think adoption is the solution to EVERY child protective situation...but I do think that sometimes it would be a better choice than allowing children to continue to be used as pawns by the family court system and/or it is a better choice than taking them out of their home because it was considered too abusive for them and then throwing them into the mess that is the current foster care system which can be equally as chaotic and abusive.

Also for the most part by the time a family gets through all the bureaucracy and red tape and to actually adopt the child -- it it because they wanted the child and were willing to fight for them to become a part of their family. And its generally (so the stereotype goes anyway) the biological parents or the foster families or those who run "group homes" that are only in it for the money and the extended welfare credits or whatever.

Greetings!

I sense that you feel you are not being treated fairly with your presentation of ideas. Sorry about that.

I really agree that Mom's posts are NOT fair and balanced. Far from it, they are cherry-picked to shine a light on some nasty abuses. But that's her point (if, in fact mom IS a woman: Gender on the internet is simply a convenient aspect of our on-line personas)

She is not slamming women in general (at least I don't get that vibe) but her venom is directed at specific individuals that are the focus of these stories.

I know really great women! But those women are NOT going to be the ones (like a very specific woman I know) who would want to see me behind bars for any cooked-up reason. Years ago, that specific woman, who will remain nameless, actually once called my niece and asked for legal advice to do exactly that.

So do these postings resonate with me? YOU BET. But do I hate women? Never. But I do know that I'm not rich enough to BEGIN to have legal protection if that specific woman thought she could bend the court system to her confabulated views. (For example, she claims that her hands glow in the dark)

Some of these stories that Mom posts give me the willies! I would love to be able to trust the court system, but alas, I feel like a target.

So, thanks for your views, thanks for your rational thought, and don't think for a minute that I disrespect any poster for having an opinion.

RIP Katanajon

I can not enhance the answer of Mr. Jahbini or Mr. Curtisreed but I agree with them both. Children are a gift for us and they should be treated as such. We are frustrated and angered by the court system and do not really know to whom direct that anger and frustration. This forum let us dissipate some of that energy and is better here with words than with unthinkable action in other places. I personally thank MFT for the reason that her selected posts let us know that our cases are not the only one and that make us feel us a lot better because we do not feel so alienated. I read the Mr. Allfazeman story and it makes us feel better because it give us hope. Do not take it as personal attack I would say interchange of ideas which make us more conscious on how we treat each others, Sometime, I am unable to express my ideas or even comment for insufficient vocabulary. Thank to Mr. Curtisreed for answering it better than I can. MFT is bringing us real emotions, experiences of our lives and my respect and admiration is for her.

Actually I agree children are a gift and should be treated well. But unfortunately the foster care system and the child protective/family court system in this country is in a bigger shambles than the adult justice system.

But that aside your comment made me think. I believe the problem was we all got side tracked over a few phrases in each others comments and missed the bigger issue.

I just think it is rather illogical to argue that anyone who disagrees with Mother's tendency to focus in on a narrow gender specific interpretations of the law or very specific cases where the woman is the bad or evil person and presented as the cause of all the man's legal woes (because logic dictates it was a failing on the part of the police to investigate the story they were being told, the defense to ask questions, the prosecutor to go forward even in the face of little or no physical evidence, and the judge being an idiot and protecting his own job rather than ruling in favor of justice--that caused the man's legal woes)--is suddenly a complete imbecile (or worse--a feminist) who doesn't understand the concept being presented.

Yes, that is my experience. That the courts are not fair when it comes to interpreting the (not really fair) law in this regard.

So, I find Mom's postings to be valid.

It's best to avoid the courts or agencies if you can. They are real steam-rollers with agendas that are as quirky as you can imagine.

Yes, there are stories where the man is the culprit, by fact and intent, really and truly. But those are simply dog-bites-man stories. The system "kind of works" for that purpose.

It's the man-bites-dog stories that illuminate the problem. In other words, we need to FOCUS on the injustice in the system to get it working better.

The social forces that help battered women are doing a pretty good job. But there is nothing to help when the abuse is crafted by the lady of the house.

exactly

Please don't have children until you see men in a little better light. The courts set up the time allocations upon separation. Being that men WERE the customary bread winners they were seen as unable to be an adequate parent five days a week. Children really need both parents. Abusive parenting should never be tolerated. All separations should start at fifty/fifty with each parent being 100% responsible.

I knew you were dangerous, lol.

Au contraire. It's not that I have a problem with men, it's just that if I'm going to go through all that trouble, carrying a parasite (taking my energy/food and causing me all sorts of physical discomfort, I think it could be called a parasite) for nine months, if I'm going to create a whole new being in my uterus and go through all the afore-mentioned trauma of birthing the little bastard, I'm not going to give it up just because you had an orgasm!
Vaginal issues aside, only an idiot wouldn't fight tooth and nail for their kids, and I, personally, would resent sharing, but I would try my best to hide the fact from my (imaginary) children, especially if the dad was a good one and I couldn't kill him.

50/50 yes
unable to be an adequate parent five days a week. No kiding!?
If she can not support herself, Why she should take care of somebody else?

I would point out that some women welcome pregnancy. When my EX was two or three months pregnant she got angry with me and threatened abortion. We had planned a child together. This pregnancy was no accident. Her statement forever changed me and ruined any chance of a future together. My point is that I already loved my unborn child and had arranged my life to support and protect both mother and child.

Most standard jobs are five days a week maybe six. Making money is not parenting. For my child I make sure she has my time three days a week. This cuts into my income but life is short. I do not pay support. My child's mother works when I have the kid.

I do not want a kid. I do not want to be pregnant. I'd be a horrible mother, expecting my kids to respond to the same training techniques I use on dogs, and it sounds like your baby's mama is a real cunt. That's low, threatening to have an abortion.

Dogs and kids are a lot alike. I call my daughters mom my "Dark Buddha". Sometimes our greatest teachers are the people we can't stand. She taught me that you can't judge a book by its cover.

"possession is 9/10ths of the law" does not or should not apply to children. That may be fine regarding a television set or a car, but NOT a child.

"Most of the separated couples I know are pretty consistent when it comes to who is actually taking care of the kids 7 days a week and that would be the mother."
First, "most" does not equal "all". Secondly, I've known MANY fathers who wanted equal custody and got it, and quite a few who wanted it and were NOT giving it for reasons that were based upon gender bias and NOT any other qualifications.

And there are cases where the father has valid reasons for not being ABLE--not willing, but not ABLE--to have the kids 7 days per week, often career related (for example, they are salemen and travel too much), so they are willing to give more custody to the mother out of a pramatic realization that Mom's job as a teacher affords her more time with the kids than his job does, but his income disparity allows him to provide more financially.

This does NOT mean, however, that he is unable or unwilling to be an emotionally attached father who plays an important role in their upbringing.

But this case is very different, from what we can gather. Here you have a woman who is emotionally abusive, cruel and is just a regular BITCH on wheels, while the father is devoting a great deal of time and resources to get care for the kids--something that should indicate that he really loves them and wants to care for them. PLUS his good character has been noted and contrasted to her poor character.

Like many women, you appear to be juding every case based upon your knowledge of YOUR character (which may be excellent) and your second-hand knowledge of a FEW other cases, and so you have immediately sided with the woman because you both share a few anatomical traits and therefore you ASSUME that she is like you.

Let me remind you of the cases of women who have killed their own children out of neglect and spite, so that you consider the possibility that not all women are kind, sweet and loving parents.

Therefore, neither you nor the judge should jump to the conclusion that the parent with the breasts and vagina is automatically the better parent.

If you can't grasp that, then perhaps as a society we should just go back to accept many other presumptions, such as the one with the penis will make a better soldier, lawyer, doctor, scientist, mathematician, politician, police officer, etc.

Now you have totally revealed the depth of liberal indoctrination to which you have been subjected and you have accepted without thought.
"if I'm going to go through all that trouble, carrying a parasite (taking my energy/food and causing me all sorts of physical discomfort, I think it could be called a parasite) for nine months, if I'm going to create a whole new being in my uterus and go through all the afore-mentioned trauma of birthing the little bastard"

To call a child a "parasite" (not to mention "bastard") is DISPICABLE. Absolutely disgusting. It reveals a contempt for human life, and a disparagement of the important role women play--to consider a woman as a kind of "victim" or "host" to a parasitic infection is about as distorted and perverted an opinion as I can possibly imagine.

Let me remind you that in MOST cases, while the woman takes an extended leave from her career--if she has one--it is the father's role to support the family. Your diatribe suggests that you see NO value in that support, perhaps you think of the man as a kind of indentured servant or your own personal slave.

You further reveal your deep-seated bigotry and hatred in your conclusion:
"I would try my best to hide the fact from my (imaginary) children, especially if the dad was a good one and I couldn't kill him." If the dad was a good one and you couldn't "kill him"?!

You have a LOT of growing up to do, little girl.

The curiosity makes me jump off truck here but those dogs must be very happy obedient dogs doing what they are train to do.

Yes, after reading through your post, and "translating" some wording to reach my age-addled brain, I agree.

Divorce and separation and sharing, or not sharing of the children sux. Big time. It sux for one, and possibly all. It sux for mom or dad, the grandparents, the friends, and the children.

Yeah, life sux -- But I sure aint' giving up on it yet!

RIP Katanajon

I was hoping that by putting "possession is 9/10ths of the law" in quotation marks you would see it's a saying, not an actual law and regardless of how you feel about it, it is likely that whoever is already looking after the children will be given preference, but hey, I'm not a lawyer, are you? And just to be honest, ALL of the separated couples I know have the mother taking care of the children, I was being generous when I said most because I've heard of fathers who care and I knew if I said all, it would be argued, but you've got your definitions right: most and all do not mean the same thing. Congratulations. Go ahead and pat those daddies you know of on the back. A lot of the single mothers I know would love to share the custody of their children with the fathers but the majority (I'd guess 45%) of the fathers are MIA, the rest are total dicks and the family of the mothers won't let them near for reasons that I frankly don't need to tell you. Only 2 fathers I know of have expressed any interest in seeing/sharing custody of their kids, but neither one pays child support, one has no job, the other is in jail. Like many men, you assumed I was automatically siding with the woman when you would have seen, had you been paying attention, I was only talking about my own desire to raise my kids myself, regardless of who the father is. Unless I was married to him, I wouldn't want them to spend time over at his house where they could be exposed to anything. I said I would hide my resentment for the babies daddy from my (non-existent) children, and I figured you would know I really don't feel like killing people. I mean, c'mon. If I liked someone enough to let him put it in me, it's going to take something pretty dramatic to make me want to kill him. As for the possibility of me considering the fact that not all women would be kind and loving parents, did you miss the part where I said I would be a horrible mother? Dummy?
And you have the nerve to call me bigoted then say "If you can't grasp that, then perhaps as a society we should just go back to accept many other presumptions, such as the one with the penis will make a better soldier, lawyer, doctor, scientist, mathematician, politician, police officer, etc....Let me remind you that in MOST cases, while the woman takes an extended leave from her career--IF SHE HAS ONE (emphasis mine)--it is the father's role to support the family. Your diatribe suggests that you see NO value in that support, perhaps you think of the man as a kind of indentured servant or your own personal slave." All I have to say about that is you're an ass. I'm glad I'm not married to you because you're damn straight I'd expect my partner to be a partner in every sense of the word, and that includes doing his share of the housework. I take it you don't have a vagina, because if you ever really thought about it, you would see that my description of a parasite is not far off. Actually, it's spot on, here's the definition of parasite:

par·a·site
   /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled[par-uh-sahyt] -noun
2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

That's OK that you didn't know though, it's a much more complicated word than most/all (parasite has 3 syllables, not your fault).
And have you ever considered that fact that the species as a whole would be much better off without men? There is no solid evidence pointing to any major difference in brain function between genders aside from the fact that women are less violent, and mature faster, so we'll be fine with female doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, politicians, and police officers. We probably won't need soldiers, I mean, can you honestly imagine an army of female soldiers raping and pillaging entire villages outside of your wildest dreams? We wouldn't even need you for reproduction considering the fact that we already have your sperm. We could probably keep future generations of men for breeding purposes, but keep them strictly separated from society. Do you really, honestly think guys would have a problem with that, assuming we gave them video games and hot pockets? Hell, the timing would come out just about perfect, female reach sexual maturity at 35, males at 18, so I have just enough time to get started on my project and raise the first group of re-programmed males for my enjoyment when I reach my sexual peak.

Glad you could figure it out. Some people don't have your powers of perception.

And if I were to have a baby outside of marriage, bastard would be an accurate term.

yes, I agree.

motherfortruth has a hatred for mothers and a passion for defending abusive men - if you look at her/his posts there is a clear and rather warped bias

Agreed . There is rarely a pretense of getting all the story ( both sides ) . Still these stories are a repository for those with a bone to pick at some female who they resent in some way . Anger like that hates to be questioned and wants all to AGREE with them , that this world view is truly so . Kinda like religion . I am amazed there isn't a ' lets gawk at the crazy , evil women ' group , as the followers seem to be growing .

Do you have to find fault with everyone? You are constantly attacking other commenters and NOT their comments. If you are allowed to post YOUR comments, then so are we. Don't like what we have to say? Don't fucking read it but stop your bitching about us. It's getting old and boring. I can always count on you to find fault with somebody.

I agree that mom has a flag to wave. And very consistent. All crusaders do that.

However, I seem to have missed that part where she 'defends abusive men' -- I can not remember a posting mom has put up that has an 'abusive man' in it at all.

I'm sure I may have missed one or two, but remind me again, Uni, where are those abusive men that mom is covering up? Are "we," assuming that the lack of evidence for these men as abusers shows a conspiracy on mom's part?

Motheroftruth is not covering up for abusive men. That's ludicrous and flawed. What she's pointing out...and I agree with...is our society is very sex-oriented as far as DV is concerned. Women are the victims even if they went after the man with a knife first. A man is simply not allowed under our system of justice to protect himself from a woman. If he does, even if she outweighs him, he's bigger/stronger and should have walked away. Women back men into corners all the time. Nobody has the right to physically abuse another person and get away with it in court just by virtue of their sex. When is the last time you heard of a woman going away for hitting a man? If she IS convicted, she might get community service and probation but that's about it. A man gets jail time. Where is the fairness in that? Abuse is wrong no matter who the abuser is or what sex they are. But to say someone covers or advocates a man abusing a woman is way off base here. I've been abused by a man, both physically and emotionally. I got out of the situation but others aren't so lucky. There has to be better protection for anyone who is physically assaulted. It's as simple as that. Sex should not even be an issue. Justice is supposed to be blind.

I hate to split hairs :P because I agree Mother does definitely have serious anger/hatred issues with regard to women. -- but I don't agree that he/she defends abusive men -- I tend to think heart of the issue is more along the lines of what jahbini posted in that Mother does strive to make a consistent point and it has become a bit of a crusade with him/her -- therefore in his/her desire to come out so strongly against women he/she tends to pick articles that make the men either come across as perfect and blameless individuals who did absolutely nothing wrong or as wusses or imbeciles who can't or won't stand up for themselves in court or even as neutral bystanders in the story -- and what I find really frustrating is that because of Mother's strong feelings the true message he/she is trying to get across -- that the justice system is flawed and that the actual criminals are the lawyers and judges who follow the money (or flat out refuse to do their jobs) rather than showing compassion for or actually advocating for the victims (regardless of gender) is lost in the rhetoric.

Perhaps 'defends' or 'glosses over' potential abusiveness and or responsibility for being in that situation . I recall a post about a 13 year old British girl who no longer wished to see her mom , because her dad had a pony , an ATV ect .. while she and her mom , who had not been given support , lived in relative poverty . Parental alienation syndrome ? I think Mother posted that one . Not sure though . I will try to find it .

what an ignoramus.

Mother for Truth does NOT have a hatred for mothers, that's just STUPID. MfT DOES have an agenda though, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Her agenda has been VERY consistent in her "series" of articles; sharing stories that highlight the common assumption that women should always be given the "benefit of the doubt", that they are weak, harmless, loving souls who are innately good parents, and by contrast, the assumption that men should always and automatically be assumed to be mean, abusive, assholes who are innately bad parents.

She has consistently found articles that show that there are women who are abusive, cruel, neglectful, even vindictive, cruel and at times even murderous.

And yet, as we see here, even when a court recognizes that the father is a good person, responsible, successful, and caring, and when the woman is cruel, vindictive, and abusive, the court will all too often tend to give the children to that dispicable woman simply because she has breasts and a vagina!

I challenge you to find ANY evidence in the comments made by MfT that implies there is any HATRED toward women. I've followed her posts almost religiously becuase they are interesting, and I have YET to see one hatefilled comment--a sharp contrast with those by your pal unimatrix.

I believe, to the contrary, that MfT is the MOST consistent feminist on this board. She seems to be a feminist along the lines of Camille Paglia, someone who speaks the truth even when it flies in the face of current "feminist" dogma.

Why? Because the assumption that women are automatically better moms, that men should be assumed to be the aggressor and the woman the victim, is a legacy of misogynistic beliefs that women are less intelligent, the unwilling victims of a weak anatomy and subject to the oppressive shackles of hormones and reproductive instincts.

The presumption that even a woman who attacks her mate or her children and inflicts harm on them could ONLY have done so because she was a VICTIM first is nothing more than a continuation of those ancient stereotypes.

"A woman would not lie about rape." How many times in college did I hear that from the feminists who automatically responded to rape allegations against ANY man by immediately believing the woman's testimony.

We've seen how false that truly is.

"A woman would never harm her own children." Again, sheer bullshit. Most won't, but some are quite capable of disgusting and dispicable abuse, even murder. Whether that means driving a car into a pond to drown her children, or drowning them in a bathtub, or aborting her baby out of anger at her husband, we've seen that women--just like men--are capable of terrible and evil crimes.

And likewise, the inverse is true: there are MANY men who are loving and devoted fathers who are presumed by sexist ideologues to be guilty not because of anything they've done, but simply by virtue of their bearing balls and a dick.

If you can't understand that, then it is YOU who has issues, and not MfT

Stupidity and selfishness on the part of the child is not the same as stupidity and arrogance on the part of the court.

Gawking at failed justice is not a thrill-seeking adventure.

It's more of an attempt to level a very skewed legal playing field.

BRAVO, well said!

here here. the voice of wisdom--gained through direct experience.

You make a good point. As for your statement "Anyone who falsely accuses another person of sexual abuse against a child needs to go to jail for a very long time" I don't think the kids should be held accountable or sent to jail, because they're kids and there are already penalties for them, but there should be some punishment for the parents who convince their kids to falsely accuse another parent so kids who do decide to come forward with true stories of abuse aren't treated like liars.

I meant the adults should go to jail, not the children. They do what they're told. My only fear with this is that then mothers and fathers would be afraid to come forward for fear if the offending parent was found innocent that they'd be charged with filing a false allegation. There has to be some safe-guards in place here. Those who truly believe that another adult is abusing their children should be able to come forward without fear. I'm just really tired of people being falsely accused of abuse and neglect of any type.

"I don't think the kids should be held accountable or sent to jail, because they're kids and there are already penalties for them"

So let's say a 16 year old girl is a hateful, spiteful little bitch who wants her daddy to buy her a lexus. He says NO, he can't afford it, she's not doing well in school or has other problems such as a drug addiction, whatever the reason.

And so SHE decides to punish him with a vindictive accusation of sexual abuse.

She "should not be held accountable"? Seriously? She KNEW she could get her father sent to jail and yet made false accusations in a power grab, but there shouldn't be any consequences for that?

What about the girl who murdered her mother's boyfriend with a knife--another story posted by MfT the other day--that story yet again PROVES the point, that women and even young women/girls are quite capable of committing evil acts and we should look at the facts and apply the law evenly. If it was a teenage son who killed his father's girlfriend, how much "pity" would the courts take on him? NONE.

But if a murdering teen girl kills a woman, then all of a sudden there is compassionate outcry "she must have been a victim".

It's interesting how you can pick and choose which part of my sentence you want to focus on, I said there were already repercussions for them, maybe I should have kept it simple for you and said "I don't think they should go to jail". You seem to consistently have a problem understanding simple things. It's just amazing that you would quote the whole sentence and miss half of it still. You silly boy. Pay attention.

Wow. I hope that didn't work.

No, actually, I am pairing my City Council run with a 30 million dollar lawsuit against the city, county attorney, prosecutor, and the officers. Additionally, officers from 2 neighboring counties 'helped' out their buddies so we are going to file against them too. Doing both at the same time will ensure plenty of free media attention for both issues.

The campaign gives me tons of opportunities to talk about the murder and ensuing harassment while keeping me out in the 'public' for my safety. During the beginning of the child support case I gave depositions of all branches of the local government and police and got them, for their own safety, to say that they no longer have any files on me at all anywhere. Of course they do but didn't want certain evidence to hurt the CPS case. However, now that they claim that, they will not be able to defend themselves in my civil action, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO FILES ON ME! LMAO! So they have hung themselves.

I have planned this whole thing for seven years while defending any new attempts they made at setups. I went undercover as a photographer for local government after completely cutting off my long hair. I bought video, audio and other high tech equipment. I have undercover recordings of cops thinking that they have me under surveillance. lmao. I have recordings of attorneys, judges, cops and more while I played the 'nobody' photographer. I even dressed in cheap shoes and suits that I got from Goodwill to complete the image of the harmless 'hired help'. I dropped my last name and went by Christopher Alan, my first and middle name. I was even able to convince the 'genius' ladies in records to let me come back and copy my files so I wouldn't have to verify each one individually to them. Lots of files. Well, let's just say there was muuuuuch in there that was for CORRUPT EYES ONLY. Throughout this I have always had somebody accompany me everywhere I go with a small audio recorder and a video camera at the ready. This has come in very handy. They have even broken into my office and tried to destroy my tapes. Second and third copies were always made and stored at two other locations. LMAO!

I know! You're impressed! I'm pretty proud of my work against them and now it is coming to a climax. I'll be exhausted while they'll be left, like a wife with a 4 minute man, without, incomplete, denied and all wet.

This is the origins of my tendency towards activism.

Modesty. I like that in a fellow.

The video bristled the hair on my neck. It would seem that there is no lack of corruption coast to coast. Did you fire your lawyer?

Hell, did you beat him?

Yes, I did, I have another to add that is even worse.

Haven't beat him yet, but I'm waiting for my chance. Snicker, snicker, snicker

I wanna see that one too. Don't you just LOVE our corrupt family courts and our "injustice" system?