Quote From: no_justiceCan you explain what VAWA and Title IVD are? Are these organizations in Chicago, Illinois? I have never heard of either. I would like to know if they can assist me. I do not receive child support. I want my children to receive their child support money or the biological father should give up all of his legal rights. I am raising my children by myself.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed into law in 1994 during the Bill Clinton administration. As seasoned lawyers, Bill and Hillary Clinton knew and understood that VAWA violates the Constitutional guarantee of “equal protection under the law” because VAWA provides a financial incentive to target and prosecute men - just as in the Duke lacrosse case. Bill Clinton signed the Act into law knowing full well that it is an unconstitutional law. VAWA provides billions of dollars of financial boon to the legal industry to which he and Hillary have an allegiance. And, false prosecutions provide a “legal tool” to be used to destroy men and families - or for women to gain the upper hand in acrimonious divorces.
Various groups have voiced concern that VAWA violates due process, equal protection and other civil rights. The American Civil Liberties Union described VAWA as "troubling" and declared that the penalties were rash and the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the US Constitution. The lacrosse players were paraded in front of the media as rapists when Michael Nifong’s prosecutors knew they were innocent.
Dr. Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College states that false prosecutions are “the greatest and most destructive civil rights abuse in America today.”
District Attorney Nifong belongs to a legal profession where government lawyers across the country plunder the Violence Against Women Act by treating every allegation of rape or abuse made by women seriously, no matter how weak or absurd the allegation may be.
Since 1994, police departments have trained their officers to arrest the man whenever there is a domestic violence call – because there is a financial incentive to arrest the man and no financial incentive to arrest the woman. Now, no matter who started the domestic dispute, the man will be arrested because the arrest generates federal VAWA money for the police department. Fathers Rights Organizations across the country have been complaining about this for years.
The states train their judges as well as their prosecutors to also discriminate against and prosecute innocent men. If you think District Attorney Nifong was overly enthusiastic to prosecute, consider the fact that when a woman shows at court to accuse her husband or lover of abuse, the court holds a secret hearing in which a restraining order is almost automatically issued against the man. These secret hearings are sometimes called ex-parte hearings. The judge issues the restraining order even though the “accused” wasn’t informed that the hearing was taking place, and was provided no opportunity to confront his accuser or defend against the [false] allegations in any way.
Social workers such as Lisa Tsiesen Gary of Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, regularly submitted “clinical evaluations” condemning men as abusers after Ms. Gary interview only the woman. Ms. Gary admitted she “almost never interviews the abuser,” as she refers to the male subjects of her “clinical evaluations.” The evaluations of social workers such as Ms. Gary that contain only information presented by the woman are considered “clinical” evaluations by judges and prosecutors across America.
David Douglas, a social worker who boasts he “trains Massachusetts judges, court personnel, police and social workers” also submitted “clinical evaluations” to the court that condemn men as abusers without ever having interviewed them. Mr. Douglas repeated the woman’s statements in his evaluations as fact, without asking the man for any statements.
“They’ve created a new set of crimes,” says Massachusetts Judge Milton Raphaelson. The “new” crimes the judge pointed to are non-crimes such as unintentionally violating a (false) restraining order. Judge Raphaelson explained that men are arrested because they were in a mall or supermarket when their estranged wives who had a restraining order against them showed up. She called the police and the man was arrested even though the police understood that the man was in the supermarket only to shop and had no idea his estranged wife would show up. The police arrest him because his ”crime” is an opportunity for the police to “earn” VAWA money.
“Men such as these are regularly imprisoned,” said Judge Raphaelson “not because they committed a crime,” but as a result of judges and police trained to “create” violence against women to tap into the billions of dollars in VAWA money.
As an example, Massachusetts Judge Beverly Boorstein issued a restraining order against Mr. Daniel Iagatta, a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair or hospital bed, because Mr.. Iagatta’s wife, who is divorcing him, requested a restraining order saying she was “afraid” of him. Mr. Iagatta cannot sit upright without being helped to do so. The legally defined standard for issuing a restraining order is “the threat of imminent serious physical harm.” But, Judge Boorstein issued the restraining order against Mr. Iagatta and “created” another instance of violence against women. Judge Boorstein is typical of state judges across the land who ignore the law that restraining orders be issued only when there is a threat of “imminent serious physical harm” and issue restraining orders based on a woman’s claim of “fear.”
Judge Beverly Boorstein, like Michael Nifong, was caught illegally altering evidence to “find” men guilty of abuse. Judge Boorstein had court hearing tapes edited, the docket doctored and she refused to allow Mr. Iagatta tapes or transcripts of secret hearings she held in his case. Massachusetts Superior Court and Appeals Court have also been caught altering public records. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office chose not to defend against these very allegations in federal court.
Superior Court Judge Hiller B. Zobel was caught threatening a father and his attorney for submitting court-certified documents that had been illegally altered to “create” abuse.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a lawyer, has been given forensic reports containing affidavits of three eyewitnesses and the reports of three audio engineers who found Judge Boorstein’s hearing tapes were altered to remove testimony the three eyewitnesses stated under oath occurred at trial.
To date, Governor Patrick has done nothing regarding the crimes of prosecutors and judges in Massachusetts because these false prosecutions bring hundreds of millions of dollars to Massachusetts and the legal industry to which he belongs each year. Quadriplegic, Dan Iagatta, lost his wheelchair-equipped house via an order issued by Judge Boorstein to pay for expenses such as a court-appointed Guardian ad Litum, which is mandated by law to be paid for by the court.
Lawyers and judges are manipulating evidence not only to destroy well-to-do families such as the Duke lacrosse players’ families, it is well documented they manipulate evidence to destroy a quadriplegic’s life and end his relationship with his children.
The financial incentive of VAWA is clearly being plundered. Judge Milton Raphaelson sat on the Worcester District Court bench for ten years and stated that he experienced, “about 60% of all restraining order violations were based on false allegations of abuse.” The Duke lacrosse prosecutions and Mr. Iagatta’s case illustrate Judge Raphaelson’s experience that “most allegations” of violence against women are based on false allegations.
What happens to the women who are caught bringing false allegations to prosecutors and to the courts? The same thing that happened to the stripper who falsely accused the Duke lacrosse players – absolutely nothing. What happens to prosecutors such as Michael Nifong and judges who are caught plundering federal funds with cases they know are fraudulent?
Michael Nifong was temporarily disbarred and imprisoned for one day for falsely prosecuting the Duke lacrosse payers. But, asks legal scholars “why isn’t he being prosecuted for plundering federal VAWA money?” The U.S. Attorney’s Office understands Nifong prosecuted the Duke players to plunder federal funds, but why isn’t the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuting Nifong, Judge Beverly Boorstein or social workers, Lisa Gary or David Douglas? They are all part of a legal industry that clearly plunders billions of dollars of taxpayer money each year under the guise of protecting women. When 60% of the cases are based on false allegations, society is asking if VAWA was ever about protecting women or merely a boon for the legal industry?
“Government officials who exercise virtually absolute control over the private lives of Americans have never been held accountable to anyone,” reveals Dr. Baskerville. They represent “the most destructive and dangerous abuse of power in America today.”
The Legislative branch of government that passed VAWA in 1994 knew - as lawmakers - that the Act was unconstitutional when they voted to pass the law. The founders of this country warned against electing lawyers to the Legislature as they were afraid of the innate conflict of interest of legal professionals “making laws” that would benefit themselves. VAWA is an example of this conflict of interest of which the founders of the Constitution warned.
Since 1994, the Judicial branch of government has known that VAWA violates “equal protection under the law” but has refused to strike it down as unconstitutional because it provides billions of dollars a year to the legal profession to which they belong and have ultimate allegiance.
Since 1994, millions of families such as the three Duke players’ families have been destroyed by legal professionals such as Nifong solely to plunder federal funds without any thought whatever to the men and families that they destroy. Statistics reveal that more American families will be destroyed by law enforcement such as in the Duke lacrosse case than Al Qaeda ever could.
District Attorneys, judges, social workers “don’t want to know” that the allegations are false because then they would lose the funding from the VAWA. The lacrosse players told the media that if they “didn’t come from well-off families, they wouldn’t have won.” This statement sheds light on a major problem facing our country.
“Committees were formed, jobs were created, and money generated by creating a new set of crimes,” said Judge Raphaelson. The Duke lacrosse players know what it is like to be the “new” criminal. One of the “new crimes” is to be falsely accused of rape or abuse by a woman.
Think about how much money is transferred to the legal industry from the Duke rape case alone. We have District Attorney Nifong bringing in large amounts of VAWA federal funding into his department to prosecute the Duke students. Secondly, there’s the examination and physical and mental care of the “rape victim.” This is performed by social workers and women’s programs caseworkers. All of these people operate under the presumption that the “victim” is telling the truth to the point that everyone noted during the media sensationalism during the case.
Then, there are the three defense teams for the Duke students. They took one million dollars collectively from the three Duke athletes’ families to defend against the false prosecution. None seem to talk about the plundering of federal funds by Nifong and his counterparts across the country - as they and the rest of the legal industry benefit from the false allegations also.
How much of these millions of dollars went to the “rape victim?” None. All of it went to prosecutors, case-workers, courts and the state – all of whom have a vested interest in the “rape victims” false allegations.
The legal industry to which both the prosecution and defendants’ legal teams belong is thriving while knowingly destroying and/or allowing the innocent defendants to be destroyed – along with their entire families.
Dr. Stephen Baskerville describes prosecutors and judges that allow false allegations of abuse as “a government-run system that tears apart families, confiscates the wealth of families, and turns law-abiding citizens into criminals in ways they are powerless to avoid.”
“What we have in this country is a situation where the judiciary and the Bar (attorneys) run a racketeering scheme where they extort money from people under color of law,” says former lawyer Else Baumgartner. “The legal industry has ‘created crimes’ before. Prohibition and the War Against Drugs just to name a few,” stated Baumgartner.
“They’ve created an industry out of nothing,” revealed Judge Milton Raphaelson. “They set up committees, wrote laws, created jobs,” he explained. “It’s a trick they’ve played on all of us.”
(Original Air Date: 10/29/07) Fraud. lies. conspiracy. They may sound like the latest Washington scandal, but these are allegations of exes at war over child support. Dr. Phil's guests claim they became victims of the perfect crime when they were led to believe they fathered a child that was not biologically their own and were forced to pay. First up, Enrique says he was shocked and angered to discover he was not the father of his youngest daughter, Selina, and that she was conceived during his ex-wife, Maria's, adulterous affair. Maria says he raised Selina but then abandoned her to save money. Why does Maria say Enrique's current wife is to blame for the fractured relationship? Next, 13-year-old Selina speaks one on one with Dr. Phil. Will she decide to let the man she once called Daddy back in her life? Then, Carnell Smith, who uses the online moniker, "Man4Justice," suffered a similar fate to Enrique, and but he fought and won. He says he's tired of seeing women trap men and get away with it. A heated debate ensues between him and feminist attorney, Gloria Allred, who argues that men like Enrique should continue to act as the father ... and continue paying! Talk about the show here.
