Message Boards
Messages By: ncdad54
|
February 4, 2007, 7:00 am PST
 If you're like most men, you're married or you hope to marry some day. You think you deserve to live happily ever after but, if things don't work out that way, you'll get a civilized divorce and move on. You'll stay pals with your ex-wife and you'll see your kids as often as you want.
You have no idea what you're getting into.
The odds are 40 to 50 percent that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are 70 percent that your divorce will be filed by your wife. The odds are 80 percent that your wife will get custody of your children - plus child support, alimony and/or a hefty chunk of your property.
From the moment your wife files for divorce, the state, acting through the court, will assert authority over everything you own. The court then can give a major share to your wife by applying the law of "equitable distribution."
The law of equitable distribution is based on the "partnership theory of marriage." This theory holds that your marriage is a business partnership. Everything you earned during marriage you earned for the partnership. Therefore, upon divorce, all your accumulated assets must be split "equitably" between you and your "partner."
The theory also holds that if the property your ex is awarded at divorce doesn't yield enough to support her at the standard of living you established during the marriage, then you should "equitably" pay her the difference in alimony until she becomes self-supporting - in most states, even if the breakdown of the marriage was her fault.
The partnership theory of marriage doesn't quite cover everything you made during marriage: It doesn't cover your children.
Even though you and your ex were partners in the creation of your children, and even though you each contributed "equitably" to their upbringing, these considerations will carry little weight in court. Yielding to precedent and preconception, the court commonly will decide that it is in the "best interest" of your children to be in the sole custody of their mother.
As sole custodian, your ex will acquire primary parental authority to live with your children and to determine their general development, including their health care, education and religious training.
You may "visit" with them on scheduled weekends.
After the court awards your ex the sole custody of your children, it will award you something very special also: the obligation to pay child support.
Your child-support obligation will not be determined by your children's basic needs. The court first will calculate your income, which it then will proceed to tax at a predetermined "guideline" rate set by law. The guideline rate will vary according to the number of your children. It also may vary according to your income level and that of your ex.
At your child-support hearing, you'll be permitted to introduce evidence that the guideline rate is too high - that it will generate more money than is needed by your children or that it will leave you with too little to live on. But the law strongly presumes that the guideline rate produces the correct minimum amount of child support. The burden of proof will be on you to overcome this presumption. The court won't reduce your guideline rate, except in extreme circumstances.
a. If you are a wage-earner, the child support you owe will be withheld from your wages and paid directly to your ex without your ever having to write her a check.
b. Once in the clutches of the child-support system, you'll be systematically shorn of your economic autonomy.
c. If you lose your job, you must continue to pay the court-ordered amount. To get relief, you must file a petition with the court. You also may have to hire a lawyer to argue the petition -which, if unemployed, you would be hard-pressed to do.
d. In court, you won't get complete relief. Initially, the court will expect you to pay a large part of the ordered amount out of savings. It will expect you to reduce your own standard of living before it reduces your child-support obligation. You'll also have to pay - in full - any amounts you failed to pay from the day you lost your job until the day you filed your petition.
e. If you find a new job which pays less than your old one, the court needn't reduce your child-support obligation correspondingly. The court may suspect that you took the lower-paying job to reduce your child-support payments. The burden will be on you to prove you didn't.
f. If you leave your job to start your own business, and you pay yourself a minimal salary until the business prospers, the court needn't grant you child-support relief. It may lecture you about "putting your children first."
g. If you remarry and have children with your new wife, the court needn't grant you child-support relief. It may lecture you again, this time about not bringing more children into the world when you already have children enough to support. And if your new wife works, the court may look at her income as an indirect source of more child support.
h. In the meantime, your ex may claim that your children's needs have increased significantly, and she'll seek to increase your payments. You will have to prove that you can't afford the increase, and it won't be enough to show that your income hasn't increased significantly. If it has, your ex needn't show that the children's needs have increased correspondingly.
i. If your wages are not withheld and you fail to pay your child support, the state will garnish your pay, slap liens on your property, intercept your tax refunds, report you to credit agencies, suspend your driver's, professional and business licenses, hold you in contempt of court, put your face on a wanted poster, throw you in jail and deny you food stamps. But if your ex doesn't spend that very same support on the children, the state will do . nothing.
j. Your child-support obligation doesn't necessarily end when your children grow up, leave home and become legal adults. In many states, you may be ordered to contribute to their college tuition, room and board and their travel expenses, even though married parents can't be ordered to pay for these things.
You also may owe your ex one further payment: part or all of her "reasonable" attorney's fees.
The court will try to eliminate any financial advantage you have in selecting a lawyer. It will not make her fritter away her equitable share of your property on something so inequitable as her attorney's fees. It will make you fritter away your share. Equitable distribution, alimony and child-support law produce a net transfer of assets from you to your ex. Child-custody law produces a net transfer of custody from you to your ex.
From an economic point of view, divorce is a wealth-redistribution racket that forces fathers to make payments to mothers. From a social point of view, it is a family resocialization scheme that turns mothers into state-sponsored single parents and fathers into infrequent visitors of their estranged children.
When the economic and the social aspects of divorce law are netted, fathers are two-time losers. They must pay for the maintenance of women to whom they no longer are married and for the support of children to whom they no longer are full-time parents - all the while having to carry the costs of their own new households.
This skewed regime spawns strong reactionary forces. The strife which the divorce should have ended indeed has only just begun. Your ex will warm to calling all the shots. She may cancel your visitation now and then. If she's truly mean-spirited, she'll go much further. Under the cover of her court-appointed role as sole custodian, she'll systematically sever your relationship with the children: she'll badmouth you to them; she'll schedule their extracurricular activities during your visitation time; she even may accuse you of domestic violence and child abuse.
The authorities will act quickly to "protect" your children from you: They'll curtail your visitation during their investigation, you'll be restricted to being with your children only in the presence of a supervisor, and you'll be ordered to pay the supervisor's fees.
In the end, your children themselves will refuse to spend any time with you. Their brainwashing will be complete and irreversible. They will be alienated from you - forever.
More efficiently, your ex may simply move with the children to a distant community, with the law's acquiescence.
As the struggle wears on, your frustrations will deepen. You'll pass up overtime work rather than earn extra income for your ex. You'll be tempted to "do a fade": to flee the jurisdiction and disappear.
Your health will deteriorate. Your sleep will be disturbed. You'll feel fatigued and distracted. You'll sweat a lot. You'll develop elusive internal pain. The tests will rule out a tumor. The pills will help a little, but the pain won't go away.
While the law pits your ex against you, its ultimate victims will be your children. Your sons will be battered by the absence of their most important role model. Your daughters will be gutted by the loss of their primary standard for opposite-sex comportment. They'll seek compensation elsewhere - in aggressive, seductive or rebellious behavior. They'll develop deep-seated psychological problems. They'll drop out of school, lose their jobs and get into trouble with the police.
You'll know no peace for a generation.
The odds are high that your marriage will end in divorce. The odds are daunting that your divorce will disrupt your well-being. You'll lose your children and your property. You'll pay alimony, child support and attorney's fees. You'll be subject to state scrutiny over employment and spending decisions. You'll have chronic health problems. You'll watch helplessly as your children carry deep emotional scars into adulthood.
The odds are it doesn't pay for you to marry and have kids.
And the odds are that you will.
|
|
|
October 27, 2007, 2:50 pm PDT
The women of the world know that they can trick men into getting them pregnant so they can have a decade of easy money. There is an epidemic in this country of women coming from other countries to marry American men, have a child and then divorce and on to the next man. Wash, rince, repeat into financial secuirty.
With VAWA and the domestic violence laws in America, men are now nothing more than wild game for women. They know how profitable it is to have children in America. With the advent of Title IVD programs and VAWA, the government encourages divorce and custody battles.
Just read Dr Stephen Baskerville's latest book "Taken Into Custody" and you will see how the American Bar Association built the Divorce Industry for their profits and the destruction of American Families.
|
|
|
October 27, 2007, 3:00 pm PDT
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.” |
|
|
October 29, 2007, 6:38 pm PDT
Quote From: ksicheneder I do believe the heart of the issue is being completely ignored. My biological father walked out on me and chose to disown me for reasons unknown to me. I have never been more hurt in my entire life and it affects every facet of my life. Enrique raised a child that he called his own. Whether or not blood was shared, the father/daughter bond was shared. THAT is the issue. Whether she has his blood or not, Selena IS his daughter and the fact that money is even an issue, in my opinion, is criminal. WHO CARES WHO LIED! A child, a young girl, is being hurt over the whole ordeal. A young girl is going to have psychological issues for the rest of her life. For that, Enrique should be compensating the child. He should pay forever for the damage he is causing to the child. And the fact that he is content to only point fingers at the mother shows that he has no idea what it means to be a man. Pointing fingers is the action of an irresponsible teenager, not an adult. If anyone understands what this child is going through, it's me. The truth is that people make mistakes, but what Enrique did was purposefully and consciously done. And unforgivable. Is there any way you could reach out to your father and try and get him to explain his actions?
It may go along way in helping you with your anger with your situation.
I know for a fact that many men are forced to abandon their children by the courts.
Just read "Taken Into Custody" by Dr. Stephen Baskerville and you will see what is rally destroying the father/child relationships in this ocuntry. |
|
|
October 29, 2007, 7:13 pm PDT
Quote From: myvoicenow What are you talking about? You sound like a racist person... why are you saying that women from OTHER countries come here to have children with americans for the money? That is sooo wrong... I want to know where are you getting the information from... I am not saying it doesn't happen at all but you can't say it is an epidemic... American women actually do that, why blame the rest of the world. Please! There are plenty of AMERICAN single moms with 2, 3, 4 children from different fathers collecting child support and living under government assistance. For bringing these facts out! I know this all too well but, women from other countries have picked up on the profitability factor of divorce in America as well. |
|
|
October 30, 2007, 2:48 am PDT
Quote From: no_justice Can 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.” |
|
