You are here:   Forums
Register   |  Login

Welcome to the Crimes Against Fathers Forums

ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...23 July 2011 23:38 RE: [AusFamilyCourt] Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child23 July 2011 23:38 RE: [AusFamilyCourt] Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child
Previous Previous
Next Next
New Post
 7/26/2011 3:09 AM

Hi All

I do not have much time for lethargy and ‘tire kickers’ because they are the biggest part of the problem whey men have been manipulates to where they are so unless your are really Fair Dinkum to learn how to recover democracy for blokes don’t bother sending me excuses and diversions from the cure.

I have been fighting this for the past decade or more from when the feminist introduced the Duluth Model of solely male blame policing into Australia and had all states and territories police ignore their police oaths and duties to the law and The Legislature.  To instead make an undertaking to feminists out of Office Status of Women they would not charge female perpetrators.  Then and now no one is with me or doing anything about restoring the laws and presumption of innocence.  By too many blokes doing nothing they have ‘surrendered’ to an insurgent governing on gender by proxy instead of case fact and law.


Blokes still have not got it yet because they have not conduct4ed so many cases as me nor lobbied so many so long as me to be forced to the reality women and men as their ‘white knights’ have as ‘employees’ of Government and Politicians colluded against men.  Blokes mainly with good intentions about ‘womanhood’ will not allow themselves so honestly and critically the deceit and self interest in ‘feminists’ once in a job dealing with families to stereotype and alienate the bloke.

On one hand out of sheer frustration I say serve the stupid brassards right for being to small minded blaming ‘the ex’ and trying to shoe he is a ‘good bloke’ not to see the feminist sisterhood has infiltrated the whole system as a sisterhood from service delivery to legislation as an unlawful insurgent and ignore all lama and case facts to gift decision to the female.  See attachments of agenda and who of the base organisation - what chance do idle blokes have against this massive network?

On the other hand I cannot accept it because by constitution and legislation is should not be happening.  But there again blokes are stupidly besotted one eye about ‘wrong’ decisions in their own case and still argue or worse still pay solicitors to argue the unarguable

Learn to step outside of the ‘family’ case and prosecute by complaint or court THE WAYWARD OFFICERS under other legislation who ‘sabotaged’ your case by not complying with other legislation setting out the ‘due process’ they are to do their work under. Public Servants and solicitors all work under a myriad of legislation as employees.  Solicitors can be prosecuted for ‘legal negligence’ and other things under the Legal Practitioners Act and the aggrieved person does not need a solicitor to take such a matter to court or make a complaint to a department or lobby politicians.  But bloke do have to learn to stop telling their story by telling the kitchen and family dynamics of  how bad the family dynamics they have to identify the ‘administrative’ failures behind their ‘unlawful treatment and ‘report’ them.  Blokes have to look beyond the EX who was only carried along by the sisterhood getting the best for ‘her’ and not ‘the family’.

I deal with many blokes but few will lift their game to where it is required to be.  As an ex country boy sheep and goats are easier to deal with.  But I do see and understand how being victimised ruins blokes for the rest of their lives.  I meet some up to 20 years beyond still ‘train smashed’.  But they just have for the sake of fatherhood and manhood get over it and get wise and get active like I have had to.  I meet far too many fathers who still want to play the ‘son’ role and find a ‘daddy’ who will fix it for them.  Well I try but most then are still too gutless to face up ‘prosecuting’ a FORMAL AND DEMOCRATIC complaint against the bastard officers who ‘UNLAWFULLY’ sabotaged their case and victimised them.  I have to often conclude blokes are now too ‘Metrosexual’ and feminised themselves they wand to be dominated and victimised now matter how painful it is - masochists female dominated men who have surrendered their manhood as young men in feminist dominated schools and marriages and family administrations.

EMILY’s List is the base organisation behind it and is the ‘feminist wing’ of the Australian Labor party driving legislative changes and ‘blind eying’ the sisterhood in the service delivery and legal profession.  I think is why Commonwealth AG Robert McClelland abused me for being a male child support representative and lobbyist for ‘families’ and not ’women and children’.  Any father who votes Labor is extreme dill.

Take a look at EMILY’s List agenda and the number of them as politicians working against fatherhood with no resistance from ‘surrendering’ fathers.

In this perverse ‘administrative’ reversal of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ but only for males one Chief Minister “married to a feminist ex family lawyer} said to me “Blokes have to get off their arses and lobby like the women did”.   Not so the lobbyist got the legislation up but then ‘everyone’ {qualifying} is as equally entitled to it.  It is only a corrupt administration under the insurgent sisterhood who unlawfully picks and chooses on gender to deliver or deny.

While blokes Rip Van Winkled for the past 20 years the feminist stole the show.  No matter what amount of lobbying to change the law and how many times it is changed each week or day the sisterhood are still going to deliver ‘women win’.  BLOKES MUST ACCEPT IT OCCURS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF YOUR CASE AND STOP ASKING FOR LAW CHANGES.  INSTEAD MAKE COMPLAINTS AND PROSECTIONS IN THE ADMINISTATIVE SYSTEMS OF ‘PERSON’S. WHO ARE ‘OFFICERS’ FOR WHAT THEY DO WRONG ACCORDING TO LAW AND DUE PROCESS.

Regards Robert Kennedy

Good Men Project (USA)
20 July 2011

Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child
By David Pisarra

David Pisarra, a Men's Rights lawyer, discusses 'the new type of abuse -
the marginalization of fathers.'

"He raised his voice at me, and I was frightened he was going to hurt me
and the kids."

That's it. That's all it takes for a man to lose his children in today's
hyper-sensitive landscape of domestic violence prevention.

This sea change can be traced to the days and months following the tragic
death of Nicole Brown Simpson (USA), when the public outcry by the domestic
violence lobby moved beyond confronting actual physical altercations and
began focusing on the perceived threat of violence. By casting such a wide
net, centered almost entirely on male against female domestic violence,
there have been unintended consequences that play themselves out in Family
Court every day.

With nothing more than a woman stating, "I was frightened he might hurt
us," a court can remove a man from his home and prevent him from seeing his
children for a minimum of three weeks. Often the court will also order
either an anger management or a batterer's intervention class and generally
grant the demand by his ex-spouse that he have supervised visitation.

The intrusion by the courts into family dynamics has become so extreme that
the domestic violence laws are no longer being used to protect potential
victims, but rather to victimize potential abusers.

Let me be clear about this: in the eyes of the court, all men are
considered to be potential abusers. No matter his history, if there was any
provocation, or if he was in fact the abused victim. This last point is
made even more interesting when considering that female-on-male domestic
violence make up 50-percent of all cases, yet it is the man who is singled
out as being potentially dangerous. And while as an attorney, my
professional life is predicated on "innocent until proven guilty," and
"all" is a word to be carefully considered before using, I will say that
due to O.J. Simpson's horrific, inexcusable, and deadly behavior, a shadow
has been cast on all men in all cases.

The courts no longer believe there is any appropriate expression of anger
and, in essence, have outlawed the emotion. We have made it strategically
impossible for a person to display anger in any form, whether a mental
health professional would label it a "healthy expression" or not, without
the line being automatically drawn to an actual act of physical violence.

But the fact is that humans have a full range of emotions. We get happy, we
get sad, and yes, we get angry. And while it is absurd to think that our
judicial system could legislate our happiness or sadness, it appears to
gladly accept the notion that expressing anger in any fashion should have
legal consequences.

In states across the country, if one parent is determined to be an "abuser"
- and in California that means a raised voice - that person is no longer
presumed to be a fit parent. The "victim parent" is now presumed to be a
better parent and has an advantage when the court makes final
determinations of child custody, visitation, and move-away plans to new
cities, states, or countries.

This has created the unintended consequence of the strategic domestic
violence restraining order. When one parent wants to take unfair advantage
in a divorce or paternity case, all that is needed is the granting of
domestic violence restraining order and the court will automatically
suspend the other parent's parental rights - usually for a short period.
But to the cut-off parent, that brief time can seem like an eternity.

If the court determines that there are grounds for a permanent order, the
cut-off parent may be forced to endure a 52-week batterer's intervention
course. The problem with this is that in the flimsy guidelines of what
defines domestic violence these days, almost any fact pattern can be
twisted to create "violence."

For fathers who are required to have a monitor to see their children, which
is becoming a more common occurrence as a requirement due to the domestic
violence allegations, they may be unable to see their children. The costs
of a paid monitor can quickly become prohibitive since the man will also be
ordered to pay child support, often spousal support, the cost of the
batterer's intervention or anger management classes, and he has to find his
own apartment since he's been evicted from his home.

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders originally were meant to be a
protective measure by the courts. But they have become a fast track process
by which unscrupulous parties gain sole legal and sole physical custody of
the children.

And, as is typical in "win at all cost" child custody cases, it is often
the child that suffers the most. The "victim parent" strategy may yield
short-term results for the accusing spouse, but the bad lessons learned by
the child may last a lifetime.

Fathers who are truly guilty of domestic violence or child abuse should be
viewed as criminals and treated as such. But in our rush to avoid these
types of tragedies through a "zero tolerance policy," we have gone against
the most important tenet of the law: Innocent Until Proven Guilty. And the
result is that we are creating and perpetuating a new type of abuse - the
marginalization of fathers.

Previous Previous
Next Next
ForumForumNews from Freed...News from Freed...News Parent ForumNews Parent ForumNews From Rober...News From Rober...23 July 2011 23:38 RE: [AusFamilyCourt] Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child23 July 2011 23:38 RE: [AusFamilyCourt] Raise Your Voice, Lose Your Child