dcf // Current

The father in one of the most litigated family law cases in America gets some comfort, but not much.

~y2009m11d7-Crystel-Strelioff-sentenced-to-12-years-for-abducting-children Crystel... more

Steward2
added this
25 days ago
|
8 comments

BREVARD COUNTY, Fla Mom Accused Of Trying To Sell Child For $10

woman in Brevard County was arrested for allegedly trying to sell her toddler son to a... more

Steward2
added this
2 months ago
|
3 comments

Book Trailer Dean Tong First Cut . 25 Years of blood, sweat, and tears

Steward2
added this
4 months ago
|
15 comments

U S A -UK citizen Dr. Amir H.Sanjari,Father Dying To See His Children,on hunger strike for over 70

Dr Sanjari is a destitute and in prison at Elkhart County Jail in Indiana, USA on... more

Steward2
added this
4 months ago
|
11 comments

Unhappy Feminist Whores

Many studies conclude modern western women are less happy than women of earlier generations, or in cultures with less feminist influence. hese analyses overlook the delicate topic that modern women are not happy being feminist whores. Gender equality aside, feminism is about portraying all women as the abused, trafficked, prostituted, exploited victems of all men. Under feminism, all married women are exploited whores, as are all single women in relationships with men regarded victemized whores being exploited and raped. Feminism causes women to go around competing with each other as to how abused and exploited they are.. bragging about domestic violence, and how many abusive husbands they have divorced. RadFem abuse and rape stories are about 95% FALSE, so anytime we hear a RadFem talking about domestic violence, abuse or rape, we can be pretty darn sure we are listening to a whore making up lies. It sucks for the 5% or so real victems of abuse or rape, because they have to carry around pictures and police reports to prove that thier story is true, and that they are not just a lying whore playing the feminist game.

In a feminist world all our wives, girlfreinds, mothers, daughters, sisters. etc.. are all abused, exploited, trafficked whores and prostitutes. Women with virtue or integrity or fidelity are irrelevant. A feminist whore that wants a divorce so her ex hubby will be forced to pay her so she can have multiple sex partners, has exactly the same legal standing in 'no fault' divorce as a wife of exacting fidelity or one that really was abused, mistreated or abandoned. No fault divorce takes no account of which party breaks the marriage contract nor which one is harmed by the breach.

Feminist whores could make a decent wife, if there were fewer incentives to divorce. A lowdown hooker whore leaves the john when he stops paying for sex or after she robs him. Feminist divorce courts are a scam with judges/lawyers as the 'pimps' who side with the whores to spit the cash. A decent whorehouse has some reputation not rob customers, but the divorce court whorehouse has the opposite reputation, and whores expect to be able to spit anytime with all hubby's money, and use the pimp/judges to strongarm style force him to subsidize her future whoredom with alimony and child support,

It pretty much sucks being a feminist whore, but not as bad as it sucks being a man who marries one..

.. lol ...
(this article is written for entertainment purposes, and any similarities with your reality are intentional)Many studies conclude modern western women are less happy than women of earlier... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
6 months ago
|
0 comments

Feminists should not be judges

The constitution and laws of the United States purportedly support marriage and parental rights, but in reality these precepts are undermined by whores of Radical Feminism that pervades our courts. "Whore" is a word that evolved from the prehistoric Germanic word 'hraz' meaning "one who desires" to the later christainized meaning "adulterer." The feminine of this, 'hrn', became 'hre' in Old English, the ancestor of Modern English word 'whore'. Modern meanings include: 1) A prostitute. 2) A person considered sexually promiscuous. 3) A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain. Promiscuous was long defined as lewd conduct or any sex outside of marriage, a similar meaning exists today for sex outside of a committed relationship. Whoredom was frequently the basis or grounds for a divorce, in accordance with biblical precepts. A very strict definintion of whore would be any sex outside of marriage, thus all prostitutes are whores, but not all whores prostitutes. An exceedingly strict view of prostitute would only exempt married persons who avail themselves to thier spouse with no conditions or restrictions, as many relationships exist where sex is often playfully bartered as a reward for something, such as a gift, cash, or mowing the lawn.. a practice even within marriage.

No fault divorce ignores grounds for divorce, so a woman seeking divorce for the desire to have sex outside of marriage (whoredom) has the same legal standing as an abandoned loyal, faithfu,l wife, or a woman who was abused, neglected or mistreated in a marriage. No fault divorce takes no account of which party violated the marriage contract, nor which party was injured by the breech of marriage contract. Radical feminism proclaims all women are the abused, exploited, coerced victims of all men, and in so doing has reduced all women to the status of trafficked whores and prostitutes, which is essentially the Radical Feminist definition of marriage. Radical Feminism diseminates propaganda to target and villify all men as abusers, with women a privildged victim class with special rights and benefits. This is exactly the same propaganda used by the Woman's Klan to justify slavery and often violent discrimination of blacks, who were portrayed as irresponsible, aggessive, hostile beasts, who basically needed to be beat down to protect 'white womanhood'.

The book Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, was written by MARGARET HAGEN, PhD. She is an expert in this field, and teaches Psychology, Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychology at Boston University. Her book provides an excellent analysis of venal ’whores’, usually feminists, who work for the courts and provide biased, fabricated, and false testimony.

Many family courts consist of layers of lawyers, judges, therapists, counseling, visit centers and other venal whores who's livihood is spewing radical feminist ideology that advocates divorce and single parent motherhood as preferable to marriage, paternity, shared parenting, or fatherhood as it is alleged by our laws. In effect, whoremongering courts may easily reverse the intent and meaning of laws purporting to support marriage and fatherhood, by merely trotting out their favored whores, who provide biased, lewd , vulgar or unsupported testimony in favor of maternal custody over shared parenting. Child Custody, is the main determinant to the distribution of marital assets, the house, and the future income of both parents. Feminist whores consistently advocate sole or majority of custody to women, because this outcome results in financial benefits to the mothers, and funding to the other whores, whoremongers and thier feminist programs.The constitution and laws of the United States purportedly support marriage and... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
6 months ago
|
0 comments

MANUFACTURING FATHERLESSNESS

Marriage represents a substantial risk to men. Investing in a family is likely the... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
6 months ago
|
4 comments

Why responsible parents oppose child support payments.

A rational analysis of the child support issue is more helpful in explaining the child support problem. Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the 'Deadbeat Dad' starting with the well known example of the 'baby momma' on welfare scenerio, showing that since dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother there simply is no incentives for fathers to pay support thru the system, because every $1 paid contributes $0 additional benefit to the child, and only payments 'under the table' directly to the mother or child have any real benefit to the child.

The growing popularity of the concept of 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' reaches a similar conclusion. Many NCP's argue that all parents should and do have a responsibility to care for thier child, but that making these payments thru the state is the least responsible course of action, because doing so funds a corrupt and evil machine that feeds off of the destruction of families, and keeping parents away from thier children. This argument further holds that the only 'real' support a NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and on a child. In other words, the forced 'child support payment' to the state is viewed as having no benefit to the child, while 'direct' payments such as time and money spent durring 'visits', going on outings, buying the child clothing, schools supplies, etc.. is viewed as the only 'real' means to satisify a parent's moral obligation to support thier child.

The book by Comanor explains the 'Child Support Civil Disobedience' phenomenon thru an analysis of the difference between individual and collective consumption preferences. In a marriage, many 'collective' economic decisions are made by parents, which reflect not only the individual preference of each parent, but each parents concern for the 'collective' preferences of the household. Likewise, the amount each parent allocates to spend on the child is likewise dependant upon collective resources. The problem with child support payments is that it raises the income of the custdial parent, thus raising the consumption preference of that parent, so that only a portion of the NCP's child support payment is now allocated to the child. So, like in the welfare 'baby momma' scenerio, each $1 dollar of NCP support payment is no longer $1 going to the child, but rather a fraction gets apportioned to the child, with the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due to the increase income caused by the support payment. So the NCP views 'off the books' support payments as a dollar for dollar contribution to the child, while forced state run 'child support payments' are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child.

In the case of a high conflict divorce, reasonable parents may conclude that none of thier 'child support payments' does anything at all to support thier child. The all Street Journal published a recent study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about $78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP to the CP would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed to 'win' the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus $1 of 'lawyer support' payment goes to creating the non-custodial parent = $0 benefit to the child. Considering these facts, the idea of 'Lawyer Support' civil disobedience has a much nicer ring to it.

The cost of typical custody dispute legal fees is also about the cost of sending a child to a decent college for 4 years, and for most parents it is not merely consumption 'preferences' but income restrictions that lead many parents to avoid making payments to the state or the CP. Legal fees change the consumption preferences and ability of parents and reduce expenditure on children accordingly.A rational analysis of the child support issue is more helpful in explaining the child... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
10 months ago
|
1 comment

Parents win mega lawsuit for children snatched due to false accusations

couple who had their children taken away from them for two years after falsely being... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
11 months ago
|
4 comments

666 BEAST revealed: 42 USC 666

Revelation 13 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
12 months ago
|
0 comments

Boston Tea Party, Parental Rights and Disobedience

On this 16th Day of December 1773, Patriots and rabble rousers in the New England Colonies stood together in disobedience that famously forced a reassessment of society's moral parameters that would spark the creation of this great nation, and change the course of world civiliization.

When we consider our duty to Civil Disobedience, it hinges on a distinction between an "unjust law" and an "illegitimate government." Plato suggested those who broke an unjust law had to accept punishment as part of the bargain. However, when an entire government is illegitimate and unjust, preserving public order, and acceptance of punishment, need not apply to civil disobedience.

John Locke, an elightened inspiration of the first American Revolution, said that force may be used to oppose even the highest magistrates if they themselves are lawbreakers:

"Wherever law ends, tyranny begins [...] and whoever in authority exceeds the power given to him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command [...] upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority, may be opposed as any other man who by force invades the right of another. And why this should not hold in the highest, as well as in the most inferior magistrate, I would gladly be informed." "May the commands then of a prince be opposed? [...] Force is to be opposed to nothing but to unjust and unlawful force.
"

"Revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs [...] many wrong and inconvenient laws will born by the people without mutiny [...] But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves.
"

Is this not the distinction between a lawful government having unjust laws and an illegitimate government? More recent scholarship has upheld this distinction between civil disobedience and what could be called "militant" action:

"Civil disobedience [...] is clearly distinct from militant action [...] the militant does not accept [the existing political system] as one which is nearly just or reasonably so, he believes [...] that it departs widely from its professed principles [...] While his action is conscientious in its own terms, he does not appeal to the sense of justice of the majority (or those having effective political power). Instead he seeks by well-framed militant acts of disruption or resistance [...] to force a movement in the desired direction. Thus the militant may try to avoid the penalty [...] [since this would] express a recognition of the legitimacy of the constitution to which he is opposed. [...] Now in certain circumstances militant action and other kinds of resistance are surely justified.
" [1] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice

Consider the government edict: "The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense" Supreme Court of Germany (1936), per Ernst Fraenkel, German legal scholar. Now consider how the family courts routinely and arbitrarily pick and chose one parent to have 'legal rights' as a parent. Hitler's rise to power was completely legal [2], but many consider the Nazi government illegitimate because the Nazi's denied legal protection to entire classes of human beings. In this regard there no moral distinction between their policies and our own government's policy toward non-custodial parents. Do parents engaging in civil disobedience owe a duty of self-surrender to such a government? The answer must be no.

If there be Patriots about, Please take time to comemorate the Boston Tea Party on this December 16.

Fred Schuler
www.f4jfl.comOn this 16th Day of December 1773, Patriots and rabble rousers in the New England... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
12 months ago
|
2 comments

Judicial and Political Corruption Resiliant in Chicago

There is no other field of law ridden with more corruption than Family court. Judicial... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
12 months ago
|
0 comments

Alienated Parents may Sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress

20-2-2275 Smith v. Smith, Law. Div.–Hudson Cy. (Gallipoli, A.J.S.C.) (13 pp.)... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
12 months ago
|
1 comment

WHY RESPONSIBLE FATHERS BOYCOT CHILD SUPPORT

Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor addresses the phenomenon of the 'Deadbeat Dad'; starting with a welfare scenerio, showing that since dads pay money to the state, and AFDC pays the mother there simply is no incentives for fathers to pay support thru the system, because $1 paid to the state provides $0 benefit to the child, and only payments under the table directly to the mother or child have any real benefit to the child.

Many non custodial parents [NCP] argue that all parents have a responsibility to care for thier child, but that making these payments thru the state is the least responsible course of action, because the only real support a NCP gives a child is the time and money actually spent with, and directly on a child.

The book by Comanor explains Child Support Civil Disobedience for higher income levels thru an analysis of the difference between individual and collective consumption preferences. Child support payments raises the income of the custodial [CP] parent thus raising the individual consumption preference of that parent, so that only a portion of the Non Custodial Parent's child support payment is now allocated to the child. So, like in the welfare baby moma scenerio, the $1 dollar of NCP pays in support payment is no longer $1 going to the child, but rather a fraction gets apportioned to the child, with the remainder enhancing the consumption of the CP due. The NCP views 'under the table' and 'off the books' support payments as a dollar for dollar contribution to the child, while forced state child support schemes are viewed as contributing little or nothing to the child.

Often a CP must enroll a child in daycare, hire a babysitter or other activity after divorce, to replace the child caring role of the NCP previosly held in the marriage. In this scenerio litigations ensue to minimize NCP contact in order to maximize the child support payments to the CP, which do nothing to benefit the child. but simply transfer both the income and the role of the NCP to a third party, often against the wishes and preferences of the NCP. When a NCP shares in the care of a child, he may have preferences to care for the child say 50 hours a month, and spend say $500 a month on the child, and the child directly benefits $500 and quality parent involvment. When forced out of the family by the state, the $500 a month support payment paid by the NCP may only pay for the 50 hours of supervision at say $10/hr, and while the NCP 'out of pocket' expense is still $500, the child recieves $0 benefit from this transfer and both the chilld and NCP are denied other benefits of care and companionship.

In the case of a high conflict divorce at higher income levels, reasonable parents may conclude that $0 of thier child support payments does anything to support thier child, and it is just another name for payment directly to the corrupt court that is paid to remove the NCP from thier children. The Wall Street Journal published a recent study showing the average legal fees for divorce to be about $78,000. In other words a $500/month child support payment by the NCP to the CP would take 13 years to payoff typical legal fees needed to win the custody battle and resulting child support payment. Thus, $0 dollar benefiting the child compared to an alternative resolution without legal fees leaves that amount to benefit the child. Parents may simply view the forced orders for custody payments as Lawyer Support; and Lawyer Support Civil Disobedience has a much nicer ring to it. Corruption across Family courts could be easily measured by comparing data on legal fees, child support amounts, and allocation of parenting time... if the courts were not so corrupt and made this information readily available for analysis.Page 40 of The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments By William S. Comanor... more

FRED4JUSTICE
added this
1 year ago
|
3 comments

FUNDING GRANTS TO PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 'RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD' BILL, is likely to be passed soon after inauguration. Father's rights advocates should take special note of the following aspects of this bill, and be professionally prepared to apply for funding for research and programs related to 'Responsible Fatherhood'.

Just as feminsts, NOW and 'women's studies' graduates have been well funded for decades to promote programs for women and mothers, we in the fathers rights movement must be prepared to step up to the plate to promote programs for men and fathers. It would be very sad if Obama's Fatherhood plan lacked any real substance and diversity but instead failed to include Father's Rights advocates at the table, and only continued the hollow male bashing of typical feminst demgoguery such as the bloated and over funded VAWA which may be one of the greatest causes of fatherless in our society today.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The most important factor in a child's upbringing is whether the child is brought up in a loving, healthy, supportive environment.

(2) Children who grow up with two parents are, on average, more likely than their peers in single-parent homes to finish high school and be economically self-sufficient.

(3) Father-child interaction, like mother-child interaction, has been shown to promote the positive physical, social, emotional, and mental development of children.

SEC. 107. STATE ASSESSMENTS OF BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CHILDREN.

(a) State Assessments and Reports- As a condition of the continued approval of a State plan under part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), each State with an approved such plan, acting through the appropriate State agencies, shall assess the State policies with respect to the issues described in subsection (b) and submit a report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the results of such assessment not later than March 15, 2008.

(b) (5) Identification of any other barriers to healthy family formation or sustainable economic opportunity for custodial and noncustodial parents that are created or exacerbated by Federal or State laws, policies, or procedures, including an examination of the rules of Federal and State means-tested programs, the operation of the State workforce system, the availability of financial education services...

(c) Grants to States for Commissions on State Law Improvements in the Best Interest of Children and Families- The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall award grants to States to establish or support commissions to review the State assessment conducted in accordance with subsection (a) and to make recommendations on ways to improve State law in the best interest of children and families.PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 'RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD' BILL, is likely to be passed soon after... more