Update on Rene Netherton and her actions

Well censorship is the name of the game today. First Huffington Post and now Facebook. They will allow abusers free reign, they post ads from pedophile loving Amazon, but when a lawyer threatens to expose a victim of violence, how does Facebook respond? Well I will tell you how. They shut the page down tighter than a drum. They do not even allow anyone to save the information, just BAM! Don't believe Petunia? Well "R" sent me this screen shot from when she signed in today.



I suggested to "R" that she contact the Kansas State Bar and file a complaint as a concerned citizen (Petunia would but sadly I am of the porkine variety and not homo sapien variety so they would not take my complaint). I suggest that my readers do the same. Print out all the screen shots available here, write a very simple letter saying how disgusted you are that a lawyer can create the filth that has been created by this "woman" (and I use that term VERY loosely) and let them know you want to file a complaint.

I caution you however, if you are a battered or formerly battered mother and are not in a safe place to be able to do this, then please consider your own safety first. I am sure Claudine would much rather you be safe than have this lawyer disbarred. There are plenty of us out there. We should be able to get enough to file complaints. If you can do this though, I urge you to act quickly!

Rene Netherton and her blatant hatred of Claudine Dombrowski

Rene you can shut down the blog all you want. We took screen shots of everything that was out there and I am now publishing it for all to see.

Now for everyone to understand we must post the screen shots so they can see for themselves. So we will start with your blogger profile:



Next we move in to your question in blogger/google help files:



Now we have established that you are Rene we can move on to the blog posts (which sorry folks are no longer available but here are the screen shots of the alleged blog posts. This is the first one but it is extremely shrunk so hard to make out. I also zoomed in and took a second screen shot of the same post in order to show the actual wording:





Now we have the second blog post made by Rene:



And the third post:



I am not sure which of these posts is more disturbing. You have here a woman who is a lawyer. But in the first post she publishes information about Claudine which should (whether true or not) be protected under medical confidentiality.

The second post contains more information about Claudine's alleged mental disorder (keep in mind folks that an abuser's biggest tool in his toolbox is to claim the mother is mentally ill or promiscuous or both).

The third post then contains the statement that the blogger is going to reveal Claudine's address to "both of her supporters". Claudine is and has been a participant in the safe at home address program. This is for victims of violence to be able to live in safety and not worry about future violence. Why on earth would a program administered by the state allow Claudine to be a participant if she is indeed lying about the abuse that happened?

There is a Facebook page created in Rene's honor. We ask on behalf of the creator that you join and help Claudine start the complaint process which will ultimately strip Rene Netherton of the privilege to practice law anywhere.

Hat Tip to "R" and thank you for your part in keeping the world safe from abusers and those who would support them.

The daughter did not steal the Mary Jane, but I know who did....

Robert Franklin writes of ONE woman (yes you read that right - just ONE woman) who abused her children. We protective mothers do not say that NO mother has ever abused her children. We simlpy say that when a moher who is protective like we are, and has an abusive ex partner (or ex husband) like we do, who have been abused, like we were and are - the courts should listen and should not force shared parenting down our children's throats. That is what we are saying.

So you want to know where the "abusers getting custody" group is - Robert Franlklin king high ass kisser of glenn cult fame? Right here. We NEVER say that women do not abuse. We do however say that when women bring in stories of abuse, your groups have screamed from the rooftops for so long that it takes an act of God for the courts to believe a woman has been abused. Look at Wyatt.... Look at Darcy Freeman.... Look at Jean Paul Lacombe.... How many more do I need to put out here. Found another blog today. Two children mentioned in that one. I wish the blogger would come back and post soon. I am starting to get a little worried because there have been no posts. Lets add her Emily and John to this mix too..... Anyone else want to join ranks?

So who is stealing the Mary Jane now? I have my own opinion about that one and it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this one out now should it?

Oh and Robert Franklin should you care to do so, you can go look at Dastardly Dads and see literally hundreds of stories of dads killing their children every day. Last count in just this last year we were up to over 80 fathers who killed their chidlren de to custody disputes with the mother - the old if I can't have them nobody will adage.

Why don't you write about that one RF? Or are you like we are - we miss many of these stories due to the sheer volume of men killing their children, men killing their wives, men killing their girlfriends, men killing just about anyone who stands in the way of his property (children, wife, girlfriend). Now when you get this through your thick skulls over there at glenn sucks (oppps glennsacks) dot com, the world might be a better place. Shared parenting does not work with an abuser. And trotting out the occasional story of the bad mom will not make up for the sheer volume of dastardly dads out there who are intent on hurting and even killing everyone who ever cared about him.

So put that in the Mary Jane pipe and smoke it.....

Every year it's an unfortunate reality that we can't include everybody - Academy logic to follow

Another big question revolved around Farrah Fawcett's non-appearance in the "In Memoriam" tribute. The easy answer: There wasn't room. The academy limits the tribute to 30 names, and producers decided Fawcett primarily contributed to television. Of course, this doesn't explain why Michael Jackson was featured and not Fawcett. Leslie Unger, a spokesperson for the academy, explained, "Every year it's an unfortunate reality that we can't include everybody."

Or could it be that Michael Jackson's family in an attempt to keep that money rolling in would much rather play up a noted abuser (settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of cash and had gone through not one, not two, but at least three seperate court incidents regarding abuse of young boys) rather than play up a woman who died a horrific pain filled death - a woman whose work catapulted domestic violence into the forefront - into our living rooms with her excellent portrayal of the victim on "The Burning Bed"? Shame on the Academy for ignoring a true advocate in place of a victimizer.