December 31, 2008

Patriotdad@xxxxx.com times one thousand

"LBN-QUOTE: "We used to fight about who gets to keep the house. Now we fight about who gets stuck with the dead cow."GARY NICKELSON, president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, on the effect of the recession on divorce settlements. "
This is just one step in the de-funding of feminism. If a recession has hit the divorce industry hard and killed the profit potential, just think how many children a depression will help because they will not have to go through the terrible pain of their parents' divorce for the fun and profit of judges and attorneys like Gary Nikelson.



More Santa stuff

pclem@xxxx.com writes:

Folks,
The Santa Shootings were a terrible tragedy, but we have to capitalize on the notoriety to publicize our concerns with the family courts. We certainly do NOT approve of Bruce Pardo's actions, but we have to make people recognize the extent of emotional, psychological havoc wrought by unjust court decisions.
Paul Clements




Letter from an MRA about 'Santa Shooting'

pclem@xxxx.com writes

To the editors,
Christmas time can be very emotional for many people. Suicides are extremely common at this time. However, when you provoke a person with injustice, tyranny, and oppression, cutting to the very heart of his life by taking away his children, his home, and his reputation, you can create a scene such as occured in Covina, CA Christmas Eve.
Bruce Pardo, obviously overwhelmed by the injustice heaped on him by the divorce courts, shot and killed his ex-wife, and seven other people, then set fire to the house. Three additional persons are still missing and presumed dead. Several more were injured, including at least two children.

Pardo was described as quiet and friendly by neighbors and co-workers. An all-around nice guy, the last person they would suspect of a rampage like this. Unfortunately, the injustices of the family courts, heaped upon most men in courts across the country, is more than sufficient to trigger such an explosive, emotional reaction. Our courts and legislatures really need to examine the facts, to see the persecution of men, and to make changes to alleviate the volatile emotional impact on them.

Paul M. Clements
DADD-SC



And more mole-ganda

Harry,
I like the way you put things. And,for the most part, I agree.
However, this guy appears to be actively recruiting fathers and groups for his own nefarious purposes. I thought it wise to expose him, to prevent further infiltrations. God knows, we have enough moles among us as it is. Furthermore, having a supposed anti-violence advocate threatening physical assaults was too good to pass up. Note that we filed a complaint with the chief of police. Maybe put Mr. Harrell on the other side for a change, and see how he likes it. At the least, the cops may pay him a visit, and embarrass him in front of his feminist friends.
Paul




More mole-ganda

Replying in-kind to people like Mr. Harrell, industry mole or not, is not
good. If he is a mole then he'll take any aggressive emails, rearrange them,
misconstrue them, and put them out as hateful misogynistic examples of the
men's or father's rights movement. This is a good time to remember the turn
the other cheek. I sent his friend Felicia a non abusive note with a couple
of links to two really good articles about false rape accusations. No reason
to give such people ammunition to prove the point they may wish to make
about us. Aside from which they are not worth the trouble. There's bigger
fish to fry. Best to leave the minnows swimming in circles by themselves,
besides they are fun to watch and play with, one just has to be smarter than
they are and have a bit of patience to scup them up. Or, chill, no reason to
get all excited about someone passing some gas.

Harry
California Men's Centers
National Coalition of For Men




Mole?

Folks,
Jeremy Swanson, our friend in Canada, caught a mole forwarding messages to a feminist agency. See below for the full story.
Paul Clements

Re: Why Women Lie About Rape...Thanks, Felicia!
This post signed by the above person was received on a well-known Canadian FR discussion board forum in Toronto and by investigating the trail it was soon realized that this discussion board was being monitored by at least one feminist-influenced Alpha Male type noted hereunder. This troll passed on the post about the Air Force study to a radical feminist group in Florida where the troll is resident and the following reply was received. Fortunately the Radfem forgot to remove the 'trail' and we have been able to uncover the 'Mole' on the listserve. This post is a way to illustrate what we are up against and what the 'other side' is prepared to do in order to discredit and manipulate the truth. Even our own Gender -the very men we fight for-are not averse to betraying their own it seems. At the present time, this mole is actively trying to recruit fathers and groups to allign with his feminazi group. All group leaders are urged to purge their membership lists of his name and email address.
JS
The message below was sent to our Canadian brother, who had distributed a message entitled "Why Women Lie About Rape". Please note that the writer is a domestic violence industry insider. Funny, what? An anti domestic violence advocate threatening violence. Note that the email he is responding to was factual, and not at all threatening. A complaint (two actually) has been sent to Fort Lauderdale police chief, Frank Adderly. If you care to support those complaints the email address is: franka@fortlauderdale.gov

From: Teddy Harrell, Jr [mailto:ggcp2003@xxxxx.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 1:14 PM
To: Jeremy Swanson
Cc: Felicia Mayer; Fathers Are Capable Too
Subject: Re: Offlist-RE: [fathers_are_capable_too] Why Women Lie About Rape...Thanks, Felicia!


Uh, Brother Jeremy? Are your insulting me? Are you insulting my intelligence?
I am a real brother and if you need to say something like this to me, to my face, Let's meet, mano-to mano. Don't use the barrier of the internet.
Let us meet face to face and really introduce ourselves to one another, like real (men?) do.
As far as what Felicia wrote. Facts are facts and before we place things out there, we should ensure the credibility of it all. My long-time friend Felicia surely did. I commend her and respect her research.
Sounds like you have a lot of hate for women, Jeremy and if that is the case, I (don't?) want any association with you, other than to ram those words down your throat, like a real man would.
Here I am, Jeremy, let me know.
Teddy




Child support blog post - great one!!!

Click Petunia's picture to see a great blog post about child support.... Don't forget to scroll to the comments section either. Quite a few "angry" men......



And more from Delanddale@XXX.com

This person must be an idiot and here is why. In order to be a US
citizen you must be born in the United States. Just look at one of our
provinces, Puerto Rico.The people born there are not US citizens,
though they can vote, because Puerto Rico, is not A STATE. So somebody
had better do their research because no matter where a US citizen
gives birth, if it is not in this country, they are not US citizens at
all.

Butch




patriotdad@XXXXX.com AGAIN (boy he sure does like to email!!!)

My Dearest x77054@XXXXX. com , As I will explain latter, sweetie, I believe you are a female. I have good cause to say this. You will have no one to blame, but yourself for the type of answer I provide you. If you want to insult a man for taking a legitimate stand and to demean other fathers with real concerns about the Biden-Obama ticket (VAWA-galore) then expect insult in return. If you were not afraid of real discussion and exchange of ideas you would not have begun tossing insults. That is a very female trait to toss an insult and then take offense when someone responds in kind. So, in the vein of your own presentation, I respond in kind. Are you an absolute idiot?Or What? You sound like the damn feminists who always say to ignore the Constitutional rights of men so they can steal our children, money, futures, and all too often even lives. You use misstatement, undeserved insult, ridicule, and demeaning behavior with all the skill of a dysfunctional and sociopathic Women's Shelter Director making $165,000 + a year in Dallas, Texas. I normally do not 'flame' people, but when someone misquotes the established facts (Obama has dual citizenship, Yes, Kenyan and Indonesian but not American) and then calls a man with a legitimate and patriotic stance requesting that our President, Commander in Chief, our Senior Governmental Executive Officer provide simple proof of citizenship, a moron, I step in to defend. Are you an absolute idiot? If the U.S. hires Obama and he does not provide proof of citizenship, who gets the fine and jail sentence? Are you an absolute idiot? Obama could at anytime have become an American citizen to add to his passport portfolio by merely performing a few simple administrative steps. He, nor his mother, nor the grandparents who raised him ever did this. He still would not have been a "naturalized citizen" born in America, as our former movie star, California Governor found out. The information is readily available at any postoffice or federal building for the asking. Are you an absolute idiot? And as for as taking care of the economy? Obama, who has less experience than Pallin, can always point to one of his mentors in economic policy, THE GOOD GOVERNOR OF HIS HOME STATE or, he can point to THE CONVICT WHO GAVE HIM HIS HOUSE. Are you an absolute idiot? You want to put a man in charge of Homeland Security, which will not let American Citizens travel freely in and out of our own country because of what illegal aliens did,who is himself an illegal alien until he can provide the basic documentation showing he is a natural born American citizen. Are you an absolute idiot? Are you one of the female, feminazi plants who occasionally get involved in certain discussion groups to fragment, misdirect, and generally cause harm? Or, are you just a stupid illegal alien s***, yourself? Or, Are you an absolute idiot? If you are a father then you are an absolute idiot, but if you are a woman, you are just an everyday garden variety of child murdering, man killing feminist sociopath. And, I am being kind to you in not fully addressing exactly who and what you are, especially when you snipe from behind the cloak of anonymity with provably false statements. Have a nice day, ma'am. By the way, profiling is not 100% accurate, but it does provide more info than tossing a coin. And you did profile yourself for all of us to see. Stan



More vermin from patriotdad@XXXXX.com

In a recent article below, one writer bemoans the fact that non-profits are going to be shutting their doors left and right when it is really good news for millions of families. This means that Women's shelters are going to have to start cutting back on those $150K to $350K salaried directors. As audits have repeatedly shown very few of the women who live in the shelters really fit the model that the shelter workers like to claim to donors and supporters. Fraud in and fraud out. We are going to have to begin to prioritize and review much more carefully who gets our community service money and what bogus, sociopathic, emotional plea, scam gets whacked in the wallet. I can think of nothing better to bring legitimacy to the Domestic Violence For Profit Industry than to get rid of the big money. Then only the altruists will be left. When we quit destroying our families and their assets with Feminist policies and no fault divorce we will have less need in our communities and more wealth to help those who really need it. We can save literally tens of millions of fathers, children, and even mothers by getting rid of the false advocacies of many in the DV industry who like to make such false claims as 70% of male batterers get custody; the greatest danger to pregnant women is the child's father; and women go to the ER more for Domestic Violence injuries than any other reason. In the past when unchallenged by the media, these types of false pleas would have brought in a treasure trove of wealth as a result of these shocking, but knowingly very false claims. The director of a Dallas Womens Shelter very recently admitted to using shelter funds to present shocking but completely misrepresentative statements about DV. She said she did it to raise awareness (and to collect more money from donors?) This director, who makes over $150,000/year admitted these claims were knowingly false in an interview with a liberal journalist. Excerpts of this transcript can be found at www.glennsacks. com . Now the public has began to be aware of the DV industry scams and falsehoods. The recent Dallas Bus Signs, as exposed at www.glennsacks. com are a prime example of an out of control non-profit defrauding their donors. Many have pulled their support as a result of those horrendously false ads.



More Yahoo hatred...........

privateeye4justice@XXXXX.com writes:

Stan...Shame On You...I pay you the utmost respect, a man of your intelligence having no clue why the e-mail is signed "Barf". I am much less intelligent than you, having much less experience and successes as you, but I clearly see the relationship between "Barf" and the message that "Pugbubbe" addressed to you. I see barf all over the message, and quite frankly, her message caused me to barf all over her message as well. I think "Barf" describes perfectly the content of the message that was sent to you and describes perfectly the person who authored the message! What you should be asking "Barf", is to produce and keep you updated with a list of the "women by the thousands in the United States today who are losing their children to abusive, molesting, battering fathers" Why do you not ask your friend to provide you with a complete list upon which she is relying for her statistics? Ask your friend to provide you a complete list of those who are attempting to get together to solve " these problems", and ask her to define what problem, she is referring to, and who declared it a problem. Can you not ask your friend to identify those fathers she is referring to and from what source she is referring, that keeps records on "infamous fathers who prefer pedophelia as a way of life and are upset", and against which "protective mothers" she is referring? Stan why do you seem to have such an attraction to this narrow minded feminist? Haven't you reminded her that it is "protective fathers" who battle against criminal minded and cold hearted females that fight for and promote abortion. A million murdered fetuses have been murdered not by protective mothers, but rather, it was protective fathers that led the challenges for a fetus not to be aborted without the father's consent. Did your good friend "Barf" ever hear of a father drowning his (5) children in a bathtub? Did your friend ever hear of a father strap his (2) children in a car seat in the back of the car and push the car into the lake and blame a black women with committing the crime? Did your friend ever hear of a father cutting the arms off of his small children and kill them? Well, I haven't either, but I have heard of female mothers doing this? Is this what your friend means when she uses the term protective? Stan, you should try choosing your friends more carefully



I can name hundreds of women who have been victimized in this very fashion. As a fact I and the chidl produced through my marriage are two of these very victims.

More Yahoo vermin spewed hatred

From Delanddale@XXX.com:

What I hate !!!

I hate the unaccountability that is allowed towards women in
general. Not only that, but the irresponsibility that is allowed by
mostly everyone when it concerns women and their children. For no
matter what there is always some stupid sympathizer that equates being
stupid and dumb w/ being a typical woman who has been abused. These
woman are not dumb. They are high profile manipulators and nothing
other than that.



Attention California (San Diego) battered moms and their supporters

Please contact Inside San Diego and let them know what PAS truly is about (the abuser removing the mother from her child's life). Do not let BR get away with this spew of vermin filled hate speech.





Attention Battered Moms in Southern NJ!!!!!!

There will be several rallies planned in NJ (southern portion from my sources) Dates and locations below. Get out there if you can and make it known that battered moms and abused children are truly the losers in court, that fathers get the world when they ask for it!!!!

Rally dates below:
Friday January 2, 2009
8:30 to 3:00
Cape May County Court
9 North Main St
Cape May Court House, NJ

Wednesday January 7, 2009
8:30 to 3:00
Salem County Court
92 Market St.
Salem, NJ

Friday January 16, 2009
8:30 to 3:00
Burlington County Court
49 Rancocas Rd.
Mount Holly, NJ




December 29, 2008

porky...........keep the day job................

Porky's "attempt" at humor leaves a little (no actually QUITE A LOT) to be desired. My advice? Keep your day job porky (aka Nelson).



Bernie, bernie, bernie..........

I never saw these words said - not even one single time during this commercial.... bernie bernie bernie bernie.........



Bernie Misiura Says:

December 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
Kurt Says:

December 21st, 2008 at 12:13 am

Lighten up guys, it really didn't bash anyone. I thought it was kind of funny too.

========

Um, it stated that you cannot expect anything out of your husband except a beer guzzling couch potato.

b

Honorable mention for the here's yer sign award........





Derek Says:

December 21st, 2008 at 1:54 am
Marcy Ganz,

..............It's makes men feel good to have what we do recognized in reverse by showing a women doing the tasks we never see them doing. And it gives us hope that women might notice all the things they would have to do with out guys around.

I know plenty of women who do "outside" chores. My sister is one. She has a garden outside which she cares for, she also mows the grass when needed (1.5 acres with a push mower). Oh but she is a rare bird. Okay I did it as well before I dovorced and most definitely after I dovorced. more denial and hatred.....

This whole post and nearly all of the comments are meant for a home here...

I just suggest you go read this one yourself. They complain on ad nauseum about how this is wayyyyyyyyy too much money for a man to pay to a woman for child support. I recall one K Fed who is sitting high on the hog accepting tens of thousands of dollars from Spears and no mention is made of this - oh wait, this is so the chidlren can have the same lifestyle they would have had if they remained with the mother. Well then why is the situation the same in reverse?



Here's yer sign award for the night

Actually state are allowed to set standard interest and it changes on a regular basis - usually yearly. Florida for example has set as standard interest right now of 10 or 11 percent. learn dude before ya post - here's yer sign!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Harrison Says:

December 22nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
12% is double that of what the federial law allows!!! States are to set an interest rate with a min. 3% and max. 6%!!!!!

Geesh I am having a hard time keeping track of all the honorees now! Is this a new one or old one?

As a full fledged member of a twelve step program I can tell you this is NOT how AA or any twelve step program based upon AA functions. AA (NA, OA, SA, CA, etc) so not TELL anyone coming into the doors they are an addict or alcoholic. They simply suggest that a person refrain from whatever "possibly" addictive behavior led them to the rooms to attend 30 meetings in 30 days and listen at each meeting - never sharing. If they do indeed determine they are an addict or alcoholic, then they have a head start on a solid program of recovery. If they find AA is not for them, then the door opens in the opposite direction. bernie bernie bernie..... Shame shame shame.............



Bernie Misiura Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm
“I left him because he’s an alcoholic, he drank beer at night after work and my group said he’s an alcoholic. It’s only a matter of time before he becomes physical, the people in my group said so.”

This reminds me sooo much of the circular reasoning of AA. "Are you an alcoholic?"

Answer no and you are an alcoholic because you are in denial.
Answer yes and again you are an alcoholic

You can not win.

b

Like the filth and vermin the FRs spew is rational? Feed me another line





pawn on line Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Anyone not yet convinced that there are deliberate efforts to displace men from industrialized societies?
If you don't see it, then you haven't been reading enough men's issue blogs.
I just wanted to make that point before tuning back into the sports channel and starting on my six pack and bags of potato chips. Researching batting averages for the year 1964 is so much more rewarding than knowing what is going on in the real world. You wimps writing on this blog are a bunch of whining losers.



ManCan Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Ok. That was rational.


sonja Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
pawn on line: O-Kay then...

pawn on line who are you? I rolled on the floor reading your comments even if you might be one of them!!!!

More from Mancan

I knew he would not stay gone for long and was I ever right!!!!



ManCan Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Is there anything stopping women from working in construction jobs, other than not wanting to break a nail? They are equal to men in all ways, right?

The dishonesty of these feminists will never cease to amaze me.

Another inductee into the hall of shame

No commentary needed - simply look for the bolded words.



TF Says:

December 23rd, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Let there be equality in the infrastructure jobs. Hand the 80lb. bag of cement to your female coworker to carry up the ramp. Make sure there is a woman out on the steel superstructure. If it's really cold, let your female coworker handle the outside part of the job because of her higher fat level. Shorter women will feel less cramped in the underground mine. Let the placement of persons in the underground mine correspond to their size. Make sure that 50% of the stay at home custodians are men and that the corresponding working women provide equal child support as required of men. They can see the kids every other weekend, so the stay att home fathers can get some time off.

Ooops I lied - I started bolding all the woman hating remarks and realized I would have to BOLD the entire paragraph!!!!!

A brand new honoree for our site!!!!





Stan Says:

December 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
QUOTE........Think about this sad fact; EVERYTHING YOU SAY TO YOUR WIFE OR DO IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR WIFE even in the most intimate moments MAY BE USED AGAINST YOU IN COURT........

Yes this is true. Additionally note that in many or most areas spouses cannot be called as witnesses against the other spouse who is a defendant of some sort. This is called SPOUSAL PRIVELGE.

Yet in family court a remarkably unreliable witness with huge conflicts of interests (especially if female) is the norm. And things that person insisted you do for them are later held against the other person.

I recall reading a story in Alec Baldwin's book where the wife pleaded with her husband to deal with a guy who kept bothering her at a restaurant. He did and there were words. But the wife was happy that the other guy was gone. Come the divorce and suddenly this event became an example of the man's out of control temper.


Notice how he alleges that Basinger "demanded" Baldwin "go after" this guy who was "bothering" her. I believe through my own experience dealing with a man similar to Baldwin (in psychological behavior - definitely not intelligence level - which is not saying much for either party), I can surmise what exactly took place on this fateful night. Basinger and Baldwin were quite probably enjoying an evening out, and a fan wanted Basinger's attention. basinger quite probably would have signed an outograph or posed for a picture to appease the fan, but Baldwin would have no part of this. How dare anyone speak to "his" woman, no matter that she was and is in the public eye? So he "chose" to stand up to this man and get "mouthy". We have yet to hear Basinger's side to this issue. And quite probably never will, since she is a lady in all ways and would much rather protect the child and "move on". Oink Stan..............soooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyy

porky sighting two?





Nelson Says:

December 24th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Holy crap, it's a Christmas miracle!

While we are on the subject of which proky? is speaking on, let me add my own two cents (for what it is worth):

Children do better in a two parent NON-ABUSIVE household. When there is abuse from either parent towards either the children or the non-abusive parent, the child will fare better ina single parent household. And that single parent household should be a sole custody household led by the non-offending parent.

Possible porky sighting..........





Nelson Says:

December 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
"Dear Mr. Sacks,

I say it so it must be the truth, so there!"

E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, madam, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

There is evidence - several people testified to the abuse of the mother and the father admitted to this abuse - in the court files.

Collins case and Glenn's "veiled" attempt to engage someone to stalk her and her family





Sister Charity Says:

December 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
This family is suffering and Jennifer has obviously been abused by one of her parents, but I am not sure that it is her father that was abusive to her. She sounds very much like other adults that I have spoken to when they are still under the control of an alienator. I pray that she is able to move on to have a healthy and truthful relationship with both of her parents.

Jennifer DID try to have a healthy relationship with her father. She asked for what MOST abuse victims ask for - an acknowledgement of what the abuser did as well as ammends for those actions. What did Collins' dad do? He basically hung up on her. Realllllllllllll healthy dad...................

December 26, 2008

Porky's Identity?





It seems we might have stumbled on porky's true identity. I figured it must be a regular "fan" of Sacks. Have fun porky.............ble ble ble that's all folks............

Theme song :-)

My new theme song...

this sums it all up.





December 23, 2008

One last email from patriotdad (long but worth - gag - the read)

I have only one thing to point out that is blatant in his description of Marks and the ensuing custody battle. She had on her side one of the most vocal of the false abuse excuse advocates, Dean Tong himself. If Dean Tong believes this woman (and he is agod-like character in the little minds of the MRAs), then should she not be believed? My answer to that: No because she is a woman and any time a woman opens her mouth (according to MRAs) they are obviously lying...... Yeah okay (more beach houses in Arizona for you here)

How many more tragedies like the death of David Eisenhauer will have to be played out before we get off our butts and address those who sell their male hate to the media, courts, police, etc... We have an opportunity to fight back. The Battered Mothers Sixth Annual Conference is coming up. We have an opportunity to legitimately discredit one of the larger perpetrators of the myths and lies that are used to destroy men like David and their children. A speaker at the upcoming “Battered Mothers” Conference is Wendy Murphy the self-proclaimed feminist and a Harvard Law Professor. The below excerpt was written by Michael P. Tremoglie in an article published in Mens News Daily describing some of Wendy‘s propensity for myth, lies, and falsehoods. “However, the most egregious example of anti-fatherhood bias was the statement of Wendy Murphy. She went so far to say she knows personally that men who abuse or rape their kids get custody of them in divorce cases because she tracks such cases. Of course, she did not cite any specific evidence. This is the same Wendy Murphy who filed a complaint against Harvard University alleging that the sexual assault policy violated Title IX. Why? Because the policy required students to provide evidence of sexual misconduct before administrators will investigate it. The US Department of Education dismissed the suit stating, “Harvard's new procedures cannot be unlawful, since the law does not prohibit the use of due process." Obviously, Murphy believes that men should not be permitted due process. One can only speculate the kind of “evidence” Murphy has concerning her claim. A Google search of the “abusive father’s obtaining custody claim” referred to a pilot study done by some organization called California Protective Parents Association and Mothers of Lost Children. A visit to these websites revealed only a self-selected survey as their research. Self-selected surveys are not very credible.

The lies told by the feminists about custody cases are similar to the feminist lies exposed by Christina Hoff Somers and others. If it were not for their willing accomplices in the liberal media these lies would be totally dismissed. However, the liberal media proves Orwell’s point that only educated people could believe a lie so stupid.

The fact is the former Playmate, Marks, had a four year affair with a wealthy married guy, became pregnant by him, and wanted him to divorce his wife and marry her. When he refused and terminated the affair, she refused to let him see his kids. It was only then he filed for custody.

Ayslworth is not a model father or husband – although he is certainly no worse than Jesse Jackson. However, Marks was and is manipulating her kids. She wanted a wealthy husband and went nuclear when she did not get one. She has demonstrated there is nothing she will not say or do to get what she wants from Aylsworth – her kids be damned. Why the Daily News, O’Reilly, and Wendy Murphy are advocating returning the kids to her is incomprehensible.

However, the bias against divorced fathers obtaining custody of their kids is nothing new. I recall twenty years ago being told by my attorney that even if my wife were a heroin addicted prostitute, she would still obtain custody of my two pre-school age children in court. He told me that fathers are never required to prove that they are better parents during custody cases, they are required to prove that the mother is unfit.

Although this has evolved somewhat during the years, nonetheless the presumption of custody is still with the mother. The case of Bridget Marks and the reaction by the media validates this.

If what Bridget Marks claims is true then fathers would be the first to help her get the kids. However, a female Family Court judge and several nonpartisan experts believe she is not telling the truth. Few believe Marx credible. Among them are liberal feminist, and conservative “pro-motherhood” journalists. “ Wouldn’t you expect more due diligence from a law professor before making a public spectacle of herself? And then there is Wendy Murphy’s entry into the Duke False Rape scandal. You guessed it, Wendy was not on the side of due process, facts, or law. She was out to lynch men. Does this sound like a conference to address DV or is it a female sociapath rally to promote man hate for career and profit and to heck with all the innocent children, men, and women destroyed for a little more profit and prestige? I am familiar with the consistent works and publications of most of the speakers at the BM Conference who have any list of credentials whatsoever. It looks more like a lynch mob than a group attempting any constructive effort to move the ball forward to reduce DV and protect our children and families. I can provide that info quite quickly and readily. Most of the speakers at the conference have already so badly and publicly damaged their own reputations in their own fields by their own writings and statements as to endanger the credibility of anyone else listed on the same agenda. Another example of the typical speaker at this event is Garland Waller. She has made a name for herself in the extreme feminist movement by continuing to spout a well disproven myth “male batterers who seek custody of their children succeed in getting it in 70% of contested cases. In addition, approximately 50% of men who abuse their female partners also abuse their children”. Battered Mothers even has this same well and repeatedly disproven falsehood about “male batterers” presented on at least one of its sign-up pages for this conference. If that is not a ‘red flag’ then nothing is. Stan




BMCC - Are they scared?

Read below and you decide:

Once again the Battered Mothers (BM) Conference is being held with its usual agenda of misinformation and hate. The importance of this event is that the individuals in that group send out disinformation to various police departments, judicial organization, legislative bodies, etc... and use the conference to validate their promoting of hate toward men. This is one of the groups that has harmed so many families (men, children, and women) with their "MAN BAD" propoganda. You may recall their very aggressive misinformation efforts in the very biased PBS movie "Breaking the Silence". Well they are at it again. They are shameless. A quick review of their speaker list will show it is devoid of any who may question their motives, agenda, or methods. A similarly quick review of the presentation topics makes it clear what the agenda is, attack men. The speakers are mainly those with a financial stake in the divorce industry maintaining the status quo. They run the gamut from shelter workers to attorneys and judges. I see no one on the speaker list who has done any significant peer reviewed research or paper on the issues of DV. I recognize several who spout well disproven hate. We need to begin to ask why there is no balance of presentation. We need to begin to address the many agencies that hear from this group to counter the propoganda with what our own government and university researchers know about DV. And, it is clearly not what the government and university researchers have concluded. BM has pushed the established Feminist Agenda in family policy that has nearly destroyed our culture, our families and even our country. They need to be called to task each time they try to present fiction as fact and hate as reason. BM's announcement on their conference can be found at http://www.battered motherscustodyco nference. org/ We need to begin to question them as to why they are not allowing a free exchange of facts, research and approaches to controlling DV. The group claims on its home page
"The Conference is neither financially supported by,
nor officially affiliated with,
any particular group, organization,

gender-based ideology,

he Conference is neither financially supported by,
nor officially affiliated with,
any particular group,

organization,

gender-based ideology,

or political agenda."



One quick look at the speakers list and their topics will tell you otherwise. A verbal disclaimer does not turn a skunk into a rose.



There is no button or address that I have found that will allow online contact or response to these individuals. However I did find a page of interest that will allow Exhibitors to display at the conference. I would hope that someone in that region could attend and possibly provide free material, such as one of Media RADAR's free brochures.



The sign up page for Exhibitors gives NOW chapters a discount. This clearly argues against the "not biased" statements on their main page.



We have another effort to paint good fathers bad and the worst of mothers as good. We need to begin to address this as firmly as we can.




More "drivel" :-)

I can't believe it. You won't let a guy revel in the afterglow of a really good first hate-letter. Man give me a break, I was a virgin and now you embarass me. I will never be able to enjoy a good hate letter again. I think you may have just committed an actionable tort. Or is she the actionable old Tart? Oh well, either way, I'm shutting down for the night on this one. I think she is all upset about my addressing the upcoming Battered Mothers conference that has done so much harm to men and children. If so, I hope she begins to look a little closer at the BM movement. Later, Drive Safe


(another email from patriotdad2004@XXXXX.com)

and in response to this (notice the mention of the Battered Mothers Conference)

I am sure the BM movement refers to Bowel Movement right?


(posted again by another of our "friends" privateeye4justice@XXXXX.com)

and the response back from patriotdad2004@XXXXX.com:

Yes, the Battered Mothers Movement, Bowel Movement Movement, all the same ole, same ole. At least I think so, I seem to be having a little mental constipation for the moment.


In closing one must wonder why the mental constipation? Too busy drumming up ideas on how to further traumatize his ex?

And yet another one (this one desperately needs to return to elementary school to learn some proper grammar)

have been appalled to learn that in more than half of the cases where an abuser wants custody--he gets it.I was wondering if you have stats on Paper of this.And do know planed parenthood are condoners of Sexaul Abuse?Look Mam not saying bad things don't Happen Because they do.I know I seen Hundereds Men here in Colorado get shafted bye wrong and misleading infomation And Some Women as well.Realy I feel if you are going to spew this stuff please have facts to back it up.Because we can facts that conderdect everything you are saying.


(Emailed by:outlet110volts@XXXXX.com



More father's rights - this time from Tulsa

I am privvy to emails being sent in a yahoo group for "wonderful" (NOT!!!) dads in Tulsa. Here is a real winner:

Men really are the protectors of the family and especially of children. Those cases of men involved in violence against their children, excluding any sick mental cases, have been so mostly out of provocation from being driven to the injustice edge. (Emailed from privateeye4justice@XXXXX.com




December 22, 2008

Deadbeat parent Bill of NO Rights





I was sent this from a friend of a friend of a friend. I happen to agree with it and I know it will make livid those who wish this site would just disappear so here ya go!!!!

Deadbeat Parent Bill of NO Rights!
We, the sensible and responsible people of the United States, in an
attempt to ensure that all children receive every possible opportunity
available to them, and to promote positive behavior as examples for
all children, hereby establish some common sense guideline for
non-custodial parents and liberal policy makers within the government
who appear to be confused by the belief that non-custodial parents are
entitled to rights and privileges, and that excuses should be made for
irresponsible people who, in virtually every aspect of their lives
refuse to accept any responsibility for any of their actions. We hold
these truths to be self-evident:
That the rights of children are more important than the rights of
irresponsible non-custodial parents and that non-custodial parents
liberal policy makers require a common sense "Bill of NO Rights."

ARTICLE I:
You do not have the right to start a new family if you are unable to
financially afford the family that you already have. If you did start
a new family, and now argue that paying child support
will hurt you current family, then you need to start making sacrifices
for both of your families. Get another job. Reduce your standard of
living. Stop being selfish and thinking only of yourself.

ARTICLE II:
You do not have a right to an easy life. Non of us has it easy and
responsible people are willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure
that their children have everything that they need-even if it means
working two jobs.

ARTICLE III:
You do not have a right to expect the American taxpayer to provide
your children with free health care or to provide you with educational
programs or job training. That would be nice- but the rest of us have
made sacrifices to obtain insurance for our families and to learn the
skills that are needed to survive in today's world and there is
absolutely no reason why you shouldn't make those sacrifices too.

ARTICLE IV:
You do not have a right to a reduction in your child support
obligation just because you exercise your visitation rights. The
emotional well being of your children and your ability to develop a
relationship with your children should be your highest priority in
life and is worth any financial sacrifices that you will have to make.


ARTICLE V:
You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that
you have the right to pursue happiness as long as your pursuit of
happiness is not detrimental to others. Your children should not
suffer emotionally or financially because of your pursuit of your own
individual happiness. If they do, then you should be entitled to
absolutely no happiness in your life at all.

ARTICLE VI:
You do not have the right to blame your inability to get a job or pay
child support upon your environment; the failure of your own father to
be involved in your life; your race or religion; your lack of
education or anything else that you may dream up. You are the master
of your own destiny and if you can't motivate yourself to learn the
lessons to be successful in life, then you have no right to complain
when the judge sentences you to jail for contempt of court.

ARTICLE VII:
You do not have the right to withhold the payment of any portion of
your child support when you have other bills that need paying. Your
children are more important than any other financial obligation that
you may have. The only financial right that you have is the right to
reduce your standard of living so that all of the needs of your
children can be bet. You also have the right to get a second job so
that you can meet all of the obligations that you have created for
yourself.


ARTICLE VIII:
You do not have the right to demand visitation rights if you do not
exercise those rights responsibly and fully. If you have not seen or
talked to your children for a number of years, and then demand to see
them now that you are having to pay child support, the rights of the
children to feel secure with you take precedence over any visitation
rights you may believe that you have.
If you have repeatedly failed to visit the children after promising
them that you would. You have no right to insist that when and if you
do show up that you be allowed to exercise the
visitation rights that are contained in the court order.

ARTICLE IX:
You do not have the right to complain about the amount of child
support that you are required to pay. When you complain, you are
putting a dollar value on the lives and well being of your children
and demonstrates to everyone that you are self-centered and shallow
and do not have the best interests of your children as your top
priority in life.


ARTICLE X:
You do not have the right to demand that the custodial parent provide
a financial accounting to you for the child support that you are
either paying, have paid or are required to pay. No matter what amount
you are paying or are required to pay, you are getting an exception
value for your expenditures. The amount of support that you are paying
does not come anywhere near the costs of raising a child. The
custodial parent is making far greater financial sacrifices-and
devoting his/her entire life to the children and doing the best that
he/she knows how to.


ARTICLE XI:
You do not have the right to have the child support obligation reduced
because you buy school clothes for your children or have the children
for a few weeks during the summer or over the holidays. The costs of
maintaining a home for the children continues whether they are there
or not.


ARTICLE XII:
You do not have the right to relinquish your parental rights just
because you do not want to pay child support. If you do not have a
relationship with your children, it is solely and 100% your fault. If
you claim that you don't have that relationship because the custodial
parent denied you visitation you are living in a fantasy world.

ARTICLE XIII:
You do not have the right to complain about the manner in which the
custodial parent is raising the children. If you do not like what is
being done with the children, you do have the right to get involved
and help the custodial parent by spending more time with your
children. If you do not exercise that singular right, then you are
entitled to no other rights at all.

ARTICLE XIV:
You do not have the right to expect some other man or woman that is
involved in the lives of your children to provide full financial
support for them. That man/woman is not there to replace you, the
biological parent and that person will never be able to take your
place in the lives of your children unless you, by virtue of your own
actions, allow that to happen. If you allow the "step-parent" to
replace you in the lives of your children, then the "step-parent" has
every right in the world to insist that you act responsible for once
in your life and insist-and demand- that you contribute financially to
the well being of your children.

ARTICLE XV:
You do not have the right to expect-or to ask-the courts to grant you
leniency when you have failed to pay the child support that has been
ordered. You acted irresponsibly, and as
compensation to the custodial parent who had to make sacrifice after
sacrifice while your were not paying child support, you now should be
required to make sacrifices as well. Life is not a one way street. You
should be held fully and completely accountable for your actions and
are entitled to no considerations or concessions. You are not a victim
of the judicial system-or what it may do to you as a result of your
irresponsible actions. You put yourself in that position. At that
point, you are no different than any other criminal who has
demonstrated that he/she is unable to live by the rules of society.

I should also add that when one parent makes considerably less than the other, then the higher wage earner should not seek out exorbitant amounts of child support just to punish the low wage earner. This generally applies in cases with non-custodial moms dealing with abusive ex-husbands. Listen guys, you make 100,000 a year or more and your ex-wife only makes 15,000 - you can support the child. Don't make her homeless just because "you can."

December 20, 2008

Not reading again...............



"There's no question that his violence preceded any of his out-of-the-mainstream sexual activities. But these activities seem to have exacerbated to some degree what was going on. They seemed to increase and send him into a rage."


and

A private investigator found the transvestite whom Sheehan visited upstate, shortly after pushing his wife out of the car and disappearing from a football game they were supposed to attend, Dowd said.


and lastly

"What we do care about is if you're doing this and coming back in a rage and taking it out on my client. Then it becomes material. We want that evidence."


I guess these commenters (and possibly even the man himself) cannot read the article which is linked from Sacks' website. THREE (3) mentions of extreme physical abuse are mentioned in the article which is linked from Sacks' website.
  • First reference: They sent him into a rage - a rage against whom?
  • Pushing his wife out of the car? Pushing and out of car in ONE sentence....
  • Coming back in a rage and taking it out on client.

    LINK TO ACTUAL ARTICLE

    The whole point here is that nearly every single commenter on this post is not seeing what is being stated. The defense attorney is saying that this man was extremely phsyically abusive to his wife because of these sexual deviances. Not just forcing her to particpate, in fact I do NOT see particpation mentioned but once in the original article. I do however see mentioned three times that this man was abusive PHYSICALLY towards her. Is any further comment necessary? Not from me but my readers please share..........
  • Glenn Getting pleasure?





    Danny Says:

    December 20th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
    ...and for being rapists (remember, all men are)
    Oh no Glenn that's not ambiguous enough. These days the phrase is "all men are potential rapists". That way when men say something they can point to the "potential" as proof they don't mean all men actually are rapists.

    GG:
    He raped 3 women, and walked 3 times. Course, we never hear about those cases here.
    While you busy "calling Glenn out" do me a favor. Go find this story or something similar to it on 3 feminist sites and find any post on here in which Glenn has expressed pleasure in a man getting away with hurting/killing a woman. And besides feminist sites give plenty of coverage about stories of men getting away with such crimes.


    I have a link for you:

    LINK or read below:

    Several of The Family Place's financial contributors withdrew or reduced the financial gifts they planned for the end-of-the-year giving season. I don't say this with pleasure--I would have preferred that The Family Place do the right thing from the beginning rather than lose the funding they did.


    Sacks had to know that if he pushed the right buttons and pushed hard enough he could create havoc. At a time when the economy is failing, people are being laid off and domestic violence is on a rise, he decides to take this action. And adds in there he does not say this with pleasure. Oh and btw I have some ocean front property in Arizona for ya too ;-)

    Perjury????????



    This comment deserves it's own post because it is so insane. I have my own ex committing perjury (written and verbal) suborning perjury by getting his friends to lie, and I of course also have the refusal of the state attorney to prosecute. But I forget one fact. I am female and my ex is the one lying and he is male, so of course I am the one lying - not him. So of course there will be no perjury charge.

    Mister-M Says:

    December 20th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
    My ex perjured/perjures herself on a regular basis, and it's been easily and repeatedly PROVEN in "family court." She has never been sanctioned for her pathological lying on petition after petition after petition nor for any of her testimony.

    News!!!!

    I will be changing how I post to this blog. From this post forward click the piggy to see the story that is referenced by this post. The piggy will be on top after this point and all "opinions" will follow. I hope this will make it easy for everyone as it seems a few of my links get lost.

    To those wrongfully convicted of crimes........







    ....my heart and prayers go out to you. Our system of CRIMINAL justice is not foolproof and there will be some who go to jail that should not. There should be compensation and these situations should be looked at thoroughly. This however, DOES NOT equate to ALL men are punished ALL OF THE TIME. Men in prison/jail are notorious for saying they are innocent. This does NOT equate to all being wrongly convicted. And as I explain in my opinions below over and over, men and women should have to support thier children. However, the commenter on Sacks' website does not seem to fell this way. Post below and you may draw your own conclusion based on his opinions:

    Kelly M. Bray Says:

    December 20th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
    "Society demands someone pay for this crime." Change that to.... "Society demands someone pay for this kid." To society as long as some man fills the role...it doesn't matter which one, any one will do.


    Now how one goes from someone must pay for this crime to someone must pay for this kid is beyond me. This also goes to show that MRAs are against child support and will use any means necessary to end all child support.

    Then you have this:

    TF Says:

    December 20th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
    MC, It is isn't the jurors; it's the DA and the judge, who both prefer a plea bargain. The scum wouldn't give a plea bargain; what a disgusting man; he deserves punishment for not accepting a plea bargain; he certainly won't receive proper treatment from either of us.


    Prosecutors and judges must give a fair trial in criminal court. To do otherwise means an eventual appeal, whether by the convicted person or by an agency. There are many of these agencies available to criminals who have been wrongly convicted, especially those convicted of heinous crimes.

    I might also add that the wrongful convictions are not as widespread as led to believe. We SEE these cases more often simply because they are SENSATIONAL. The media loves SENSATIONAL. One need only look at Britney Spears, Casey Anthony, Susan Smith to see this fact. These are mothers who are not acting like mothers. Why do we not see the likes of Cosimo Capitiano or Ying Moua or even Darren Mack in the same light as the women above? The answer is simple. Women are not expected to do bad things to their children. So when one does something bad or it is alleged that she has done something bad (as is the case in Casey Anthony - as she has not been found guilty of anything yet except in the press) we are horrified, shocked. It is SENSATIONAL!!!!! We want to hear more even as we sit and continue to be more horrified. But why does this not happen when men do something like this? Why is it that men are given front page status for a day or so and then they are relegated to page B status after it wears off? Because MEN do these things much more often than women and we are immune to this fact. It is no longer SENSATIONAL to see a man kill his wife, his children or himself in this context.

    This is why we have the issues with domestic violence, child sexual abuse, and child abuse in our lives. This is why we see children, women and yes sometimes even men being killed or hurt daily. because we are immune when a man commits these acts. We need to lose this immunity and start becoming SHOCKED when we see this. We need to stand up and SHOUt - THIS IS WRONG!!!! We need to help the victims. And sadly the victims are mostly women and children.

    December 19, 2008

    Beauty without Brains? (or should be called) Let's poke some fun at women

    As a blond myself I must say that Sacks' diatribe is offensive. Rather than say this is quite funny, you should be appalled at this. Not all blonds are stupid. (here ya go porky - I am giving you a freebie here lol - watch folks he will take it and run lmao)



    Sacks must really want women to not like him. Read his post here and you decide.

    We've done several protests over anti-male advertising, and when we do them I inevitably get letters from a few people who say "Commercials aren't making only men look stupid--what about the 'dumb blond' commercials"?

    As a whole I don't buy this argument--women are portrayed far better than men in advertising in general--but on occasion these people have a point. The Mercedes ad above, which is quite funny, is one example.(LINK - published 12/18/08 @ www.glennsacks.com)


    Luckily, there is one woman who I must say is a hero to all feminists. Lisa KS posts this:

    Lisa KS Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
    Spoken by someone whose entire interaction with young attractive blonds in any number has obviously consisted solely of drooling over them from a distance. Eye. Roll. :)


    And this:

    Lisa KS Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
    Jeez, Glenn. Do you ever describe your posted man-bashing commercials as "quite funny?"



    And this:

    Lisa KS Says:

    December 19th, 2008 at 12:13 am
    I assure you that my idea of the lives pretty much any subsection of men lead is a lot more accurate than the idea that young, attractive blond women get through their lives without really having to apply themselves. :)


    And lastly this:

    Lisa KS Says:

    December 19th, 2008 at 12:14 am
    Glenn--so are you putting up the above commercial as an example of there being nothing wrong with poking good-natured fun at women, or are you putting it up as an example of woman-bashing? I thought you meant it as the latter, but if you meant it as the former, sorry I got you wrong!


    Well she gave him an out anyway. She has more patience with him (and his followers) than I do.

    Link to Lisa KS blog - enjoy reading she is very edgy :-) She is also one of Glenn's Dissident article wroters and she makes some excellent points on both sites as well as has some fun along the way. Of course she seems to obviously not be one of those who stands to lose should one of the more psycho of Glenn's followers discover her location.

    Even more and this gets even more disgusting.....

    Anonymous Woman Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
    Eric,
    I work for one of your competitors, so I understand how difficult and soul-crushing your job alone can be, let alone the abuse you have to deal with when you get home.
    If you're strong enough to still be alive after all of that, then you are strong enough to leave that woman and have a chance at enjoying the rest of your life.
    I agree with the other posters. Be sneaky about it. Your wife violated your marital contract as soon as she became an abuser. You owe her nothing. Catch her off guard to maximize any chances of getting custody of your daughters.


    Now we have women advocating this man spy on (and worse) his wife in order to "take" the children.

    Norman L Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
    I think this cartoon caption is being misunderstood. What it means is that the husband was sexually abusing the kids all this time, so did not have time or need for sex with his wife (thus also victimizing her, of course - "Underutilization of Sexual Assets Syndrome".)

    Norman L Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
    oops..shoudn't use the word "assets"!


    And another man speaking of women in terms of property (assets). He then corrects himself (I buy that one - NOT!)



    December 18, 2008

    I would call the shots.........

    Ahhh more from mancan :-)

    ManCan Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 2:27 am
    I couldn't live like that. I would end that situation no matter what it took. YOU should be calling the shots, not that witch.


    This is in response to this post:

    Unwilling celibate Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 2:23 am
    I've been married fourteen years, and have three girls, aged 12, 9 and 6. I haven't been allowed to even sleep in the same bed with my wife in......six years and about nine months. After she became pregnant with out third daughter, she asked me to leave the bedroom, and never invited me back. I've complained, she doesn't care. I threatened to divorce, and she countered with threats of unimaginable magnitude. I was told I would be accused of molesting our daughters.

    So, here I sit at age 39 and my life is essentially over. I'm a literal prisoner, and I don't dare question my wife on any issue. I'm terrified and miserable every day.

    Oh, yes, She's a very devout Baptist.

    No wonder I no longer believe in a God.

    Eric


    Again we have only this uncorroborated testimonial from this one man, which is then taken as gospel by mancan.

    Even more from mancan (and others):
    ManCan Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 2:59 am
    I hate to have to suggest this, but is there any way you can get some dirt on her? Has she done anything criminal that you can prove?

    ManCan Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 3:14 am
    Another thing: if you are going to divorce her, give her NO ADVANCE WARNING. This is important! Pretend that everything is fine, you're happy with your life as the court eunach, hire a damned good lawyer and then hit her with those papers when she least expects it.

    In the legal system striking first is a huge advantage, and any false allegations she makes in retaliation will be weaker since they will look like what they are: revenge.

    Still, you need to prepare for the worst, so start building a case against her NOW. Be careful not to violate any laws, however.

    Bill Christen Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 7:49 am
    Eric,

    Man, I would document every aspect of your life. I would keep a journal, and check your State Laws on recording other people. If lawful, I would record any conversations that you have with your wife, or children. If what you are saying is true, you are in a bad spot. If you are being threatened with false allegations, I would pack up and leave. First I would contact a lawyer and advise them that you could be falsly accused, and see what they say. Once again it will come down to documentation, even if you have to have your daughters examined by a Doctor for proof. Sounds like your wife needs some counselling. But cover your butt.

    Bill C

    Chris_C Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
    12 years until your youngest is 18, Eric. 144 months left. It's a ways off, but you can see that far. Start setting cash aside somewhere your wife doesn't know about, you'll need it when you divorce her.

    Rev. Richard Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
    Eric, I would do what was suggested, take notes on everything, time, date incident etc. Without letting her in on it, also share that information with someone you trust, so those dates can be verified and won't look as if they are constructed to mislead the court.

    Definitely check the laws in your state. Loss of contortion is reason for divorce in "show for cause" states. I don't know if she realizes with having your three kids, her poor behavior is teaching the children what's proper and what is not. I do believe in marriage, but I don't agree with raising kids in a unstable environment with a bad marriage as their outline to use when their in a relationship.

    Andrew Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 10:51 am
    Eric,

    Do you currently work full time? Does your wife work full time? If at all possible, try to find some way to get your wife to obtain a full time job. You should also quit your job and become a stay at home dad. Cleaning and cooking for the family will be hard at first, but once you get used to it, it will not be bad at all. You just need to set a schedule for the household chores (also, play music while doing the household chores). Then, when you divorce her (or she divorces you) you will get custody of your children and she will have to pay you alimony and child support. Every day that you go to work and earn money is just another day that you dig yourself into a deeper hole.

    This post is way too long but again filled with ways for men to spy on and collect information about their wives activities (or lack of). Read Here

    Wayne Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
    Eric

    just to add a few points:

    Learn the rules of court, this is to protect yourself from the Lawyers who end up being your biggest enemy in the end
    Take a class on how to be pro-se

    If you are going to divorce start preparing, try to get the equity out of the house and hide what ever cash you can because the lawyers will look at that as a revenue stream for them.

    Do not voluntarily leave
    Do not pay for the GAL the State should have to pay for that
    Try mediation
    She will become the victim and she will become your worst nightmare do not feel back for her. The kids are what is most important.

    Jim Says:

    December 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
    ".... she asked me to leave the bedroom..."

    Why was it up to you to move out of the bedroom? Why didn't she move, since it was her idea? I know the reason =- the man is the one to sleep on the couch, but until guys stop complying, it won't stop.

    There had to be room for her in the garage or somewhere.


    Now I will say this to "unwilling celibate: If you are indeed suffering through this and do work at the Post Office, I know they have available Employee Assistance Programs which offer counseling. I also know that you have very good health insurance through the PO. I would suggest to you that you get some form of counseling. IMO you are severely depressed by reading what you have written. You CANNOT change someone else's behavior and if she is indeed acting like this, get help for yourself.

    Now to the "others" who have posted these disgusting messages. Rather than help this man you are telling him to point fingers, get that evil woman in trouble, seek out circumstances in which she was wrong, record her, spy on her and much much worse.

    When I was abused and living with my ex, I sought assistance at the local shelter (counseling). I was told above all else that I needed to change ME. I learned why I did the things I did and did not point fingers at my ex. In fact I even took the high road when our divorce/custody trial came around. My lawyer told me not to go in full blazes with why he was so bad, I needed balance. I needed to show more than he was bad, that I was good. So this is what I did. I did show some blatant questionable judgements on his part, but I showed more of why I should be the primary parent. I did not "change" anything after the filing or even before the filing so I would look better to the courts for the placement of our child. Some of these posters are suggesting this very thing - change yourself - quit work, cut your hours, get her to work if she does not, and more. This is absoultely appalling. Rather than help this man through a depressive state, you are egging it along. Eric, please contact your health insurance provider and get into counseling. At the appropriate time, you can seek to have your wife join in as well, if she will. If not then you must make some choices. And I do not suggest going the low road as far as it comes to custody/divorce/child support/alimony. Take the high road even if it means you struggling because you will be the better person.

    To the others giving him ideas about what to do, jump off a bridge. You are all so freaking insane, is it any wonder you have no contact with your children? I am even more appalled at Rev. Rather than see this man's state for what it truly is, he suggests the same path to travel as some of the fringe. Pretty dam sad.



    More on Porky

    Porky ASS U MEs here that I have no readers because there are only three commenters. There have been actually more than three people commenting. Andddddddddd, my blog is here in order to give those who are against the questionable actions of the fringe MRAs to come to and read and say yep yep yep I agree, OMG she hit the nail on the head!, or wow someone is standing up to them. I welcome any comments, but they are not required. I do not profess to have the largest vocabulary around, nor will I waste time using a thesaurus in order to use different words when I type. I say what I feel like saying and in the manner I feel like saying it. I challenge "porky" to open up his blog to comments. It is my firm opinion that he will not do so, because to do so would open himself up to the women who read my blog to comment on his. And why must he hide behind his current alias of "porky", leaving the reader to wonder - which one of Sacks' regular followers is this? Or is it the incredible Mr. Sacks himself?

    He also makes note of my "comment to myself". Rather than post an update on an already busy posting day, I simply put my remarks in the comments section (as anyone who cares to view will see it is indeed an update).

    So my challenge to you porky - open your site up to comments. Ahhh but I know how this goes. You will simply delete any comments which do not praise your work. Hmmmm reminiscent of anyone we know?

    I should also mention that some of my posts have been covered by other blogs. Not that I have to report to you dimwit. Oh here we go, I called him/her a dimwit so now I will have to answer for a defamation lawsuit. Ummm last I looked (and studied in school) defense of truth against a defamation suit is still a defense against a defamation suit.

    One last thing..... He mentions he hopes to get quite a bit of traffic. How does he plan on doing that? Unless he plans to invest a small fortune in gaining links etc, or plans to spend quite a bit of time going to other blogs etc, how does he plan to "get traffic?" His site was created because of my site. Therefore his traffic would mainly come from my site (which it likely won't due to his own transparency).



    South Park?



    Are we 14 again? A little info about SP:

    South Park is an animated American television comedy series created and written by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The series has been distributed and aired by Comedy Central since 1997. The show revolves around the adventures of four boys and their friends living in the small town of South Park, Colorado. The show is well-known for its pop culture parody, scatological humor, and satirical handling of current events. Since its debut on August 13, 1997, the show has aired 181 episodes over 12 seasons.

    South Park is often credited with putting Comedy Central "on the map". The show has won three Primetime Emmy Awards for Outstanding Animated Program, two for programming less than one hour and one for programming more than one hour. In 1999, a feature-length film titled South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was made. Three episodes, called Imaginationland, were put together with additional unseen footage and rendered completely uncensored to create a second (straight-to-DVD) South Park movie.

    The twelfth season began airing on March 12, 2008, and the second half of season 12 premiered on October 8, 2008. The show is contracted to produce new episodes through a fifteenth season, until late 2011.


    South Park was basically created by two bored "STUDENTS" with nothing else to do. They were able to cash in a huge "comedic" success.

    With that said, who really takes SP seriously? As a parent with a child it is up to me to ensure that my child does not view these types of shows, because while funny (hence being aired on Comedy Central), they are annoying. IMO, SP is similar to The Simpsons on speed. More annoying in a politically incorrect fashion. Bart is just an annoying little boy on the verge of the PIC. I however do not let my child watch either of these shows, either on TV or online.

    Is it any wonder then that this comment should appear on Sacks' newest blog post?
    Stan Says:

    December 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
    BTW, unfortunately my son watches South Park and I can do nothing about it. Like most kids he just watches it online at their web site. All of the episodes are there. Ugh.

    Welllllllll.............As a parent, I would set up parental controls on the computer through using Windows and purchasing third party software that will do so. Seperate user accounts can be set up in order to keep the child from viewing objectionable material (step one). A child should never be left alone to be on the Internet due to predators abundant seeking young boys and girls surfing unsupervised (step two).

    Is this meant to be a diatribe against "Stan?" Of course not, there are steps he can take in order to ensure the child does not access objectionable material. I do the same with my own child. She has her own user name with her own password (which I know). I have my own username with my own passowrd (which she does NOT know). I (or another responsible adult) is always present in the room when she is surfing the Internet. I have opened a running dialogue with her in order to insure that she does not go to sites which contain "bad" material. When something is seen, we discuss it and I get her to determine why this material is "bad." There are more comments on this post that are almost as insane, however this one jumped out at me. One must wonder if this is another dad who "fought" for custody to get the child from his mother? One must also wonder how this mother feels about unsupervised Internet surfing by this child? But we all know that once a child has been given to the dad, standards for custodial dads is much lower than those for custodial mothers.



    December 16, 2008

    Take the time to actually click links and investigate further please

    AnonymousPamphleteer Says:

    December 15th, 2008 at 1:01 am
    Why should his ex-wife be required to stay with a man who is obviously defective? Spinal injuries, MS -- how can he be of any value to her?


    I clicked the links offered and determined that the divorce preceeded the diagnosis of MS by at least 6-8 months. We do not know the grounds for divorce, we are not in this household and we are being given one side of the story. We have not heard from this woman, and we have only heard from the man. If this did indeed happen it is disgusting. However knowing about the criminal process as I do, medications are never allowed to be brought into the jails, and the pharmacy in the jail only has standard medications. Specialized meds (such as those for MS) might not have been available. I know this about meds and jails because I had a very close family friend who was jailed for a few days due of course to bad decisions on his part. He was on medication due to spinal injuries and other issues and he was not allowed to bring his medications to the jail, and while he was able to get some of the meds while incarcerated, he had to wiat until he could speak to a jail doctor which was the next day after being arrested. This is simply procedure because there is no way to determine if meds brought into the jail are being used for the intnded purpose. Jailers are not educated and cannot determine if drug a is actually drug a and not drug b. This is done to protect the jail population, the jailers, and the system. Otherwise people would be rbinging any nature of illegal substance into the jails, claiming it is for health issues. Anarchy will rule. Sadly this is how things work when someone is jailed.



    Another one wants "accounting" of every cent of child support money

    John D Says:

    December 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
    The fact that there are all these draconian jack-booted laws to squeeze every ounce of blood out of law-abiding fathers is a slap in the face if family courts/laws aren't going to go the extra step and mandate that custodial mothers are actually spending the money on the children.

    Obviously when it comes to custodial mothers, the only detriment to not meeting their obligations (of spending CHILD support on the child, and obeying court-ordered visitation/access) is finger wagging, but when it comes to fathers not meeting their obligations (even when set artificially high) it's the lockup (and no meds too). This blows the theory out of the water that courts impose these strictures "for the children". Obviously it's "for the mom".


    May I ask how a child support recipient is supposed to "show" taht every penny of support money is going to the child(ren)? Is she to set up seperate accounts with child support going in one and all other money going in another? Is she to divide down all bills in order to determine the child's portion? Is she to go so far as to figure out portions of each meal for the child and then figure out how much of the food bill is actually the child's portion? How far must the accounting go to satisfy father's need for power and control? How far must we go in order to satisfy his sense of entitlement?



    enter