Posts with the tag civil

How long will I continue to remain in this fantasy world?

ellend20 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:55:45 EDT

This is a world where no one is smart enough to say "hello" to me without directions. (All interactions with me - not involving unpaid work, are set up by the U.S. government).

This is a world where sex is a prerequisite for employment (as determined by the men in charge) and all phones are wiretapped.

This is a world where E.N.D.A.(even if it is passed) will never be enforced.

This is a world where a suit is more important than a brain.

Obama: Gay and Civil Rights; The State shouldn't discriminate,,u r free to choose your religion

Unknown user — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:51:40 EDT

Maybe Obama will win another Nobel Prize based on Civil Rights too.

Gay and Civil Rights; The State shouldn't discriminate and as for religion, you're free to choose your religion.

...a world without Islam...

The Ranting Dream — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:57:46 EST

…quoting Graham Fuller’s thought provoking article which asserts that the ’terrorism’ that our corrupt goons in politics so desperately want us to believe as being at the ‘root’ of Islam, isn’t about Islam at all - it is about Western imperialism and oppression, and had Islam never existed, the world would look about the same as it does today…

...is peace out of reach???...

The Ranting Dream — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:30:17 EST

From CBS' 60 Minutes:...has peace in the Middle East become nothing more than a pipe dream? As Bob Simon reports, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians feel that a two-state solution is no longer possible...

…a letter to the official opposition party of Canada…

The Ranting Dream — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:09:52 EST

...I have yet to see a single politician muster the courage to do the right thing and to 'tell the "TRUTH" like it is' - they've chosen to silently side with the 'spin' and let the status-quo be - either they're afraid of consequences to their political careers, or they're simply corrupt, or they're just plain stupid - or all of the above (and beyond) - whatever the reason, while I'm not shocked or surprised at the behavior of the puppet morons in politics, I'm disgusted at their complete lack of integrity and conscience...and to not have a SINGLE one of them telling the 'real' story behind this attack on humanity is just ticking me off...

The Somali Pirates Rant

The Ranting Dream — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:28:19 EST

I’ve also posted this blog entry on my blog: http://www.theparadigmshiftshere.com

I'm sure you're all familiar with the sensational 'war' declared by the wealthy and the mighty on the pirates (mostly) from 'Somalia'...if you're not, view THIS article for the big 'spin' served to you courtesy of massive sponsorship by some very wealthy 'special-interest' groups...

Now for 'a' truth about the matter...

...the 'German's point of view on Islam' rant...

The Ranting Dream — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:54:03 EST

I’ve also posted this blog entry on my blog: http://www.theparadigmshiftshere.com

...we all need to dig much deeper - in unity, compassion, tolerance, forbearance, understanding, generosity, and respect - to first understand one another and then to realize and accept that we are essentially from the same 'mold' - if we are divided today, it isn't because of anything other than our own ignorance and choosing...

...it's very easy to point fingers and lay blame, but extremely difficult to take ownership...

...I am very tempted to rant on this in my trademark 'tongue-in-cheek' style, but in re-reading Barack Obama's 'Audacity of Hope', I'm beginning to resonate with his wise choice of speaking the language of inclusion, of conversation rather than confrontation...so, here's my humble attempt...

...as The Aga Khan eloquently pointed out in an interview: "...Rather than shouting at each other, we should be learning to listen to each other..."

American Novelist Talia Carner: "The Scandal In Our Own Backyard"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:41:27 EST

The Scandal in Our Own Backyard http://www.vibrantn ation.com/ interviews/ 2008/08/26/ the-scandal- in-our-own- backyard/ The scandal in our own backyard by Talia Carner Talia Carner, a novelist and an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Learn more by visiting her website, www.TaliaCarner. com. “There is something bad happening to our children in family courts today that is causing them more harm than drugs, more harm than crime and even more harm than child molestation,” said Judge Watson L. White from Cobb County, Georgia, Superior Court. In researching for my book, Puppet Child, I discovered that “something bad” to be the judges, especially when it comes to adjudicating allegations of child sexual abuse. In Clarke v. Cowles in California, eight-year-old Loren (not her real name) told her caseworker and later her psychological evaluator in graphic detail how her father had sexually molested her. The first report was suppressed by the judge, the latter was never presented at the trial. The father was awarded full custody while the mother received supervised visitations on the unproven assumption that she had brainwashed her daughter. Years later, after the girl wrote repeatedly to her caseworker about molestation, a judge refused to hear the evidence because the question of sexual abuse had been decided five years before. Loren is only one child out of thousands being handed to their abusers. According to The American Judges Foundation, in 70 percent of cases in which abusive men ask for custody, they succeed in gaining full or joint custody. This national scandal is made possible by the secrecy within the Family Court System and by public disbelief in the scope of the problem. The very system designed to safeguard helpless children has become a national disgrace as injustice has reached epidemic proportions. Whatever you have ever known about democracy becomes irrelevant at the gate to family court. There, one person is judge, jury and executioner. Paradoxically, a family court judge is the one professional in the courtroom who is not required to be trained in domestic violence and child abuse. As a result, wrapped in their own mix of prejudices, religious beliefs, or misguided assumptions, all too many judges are ignorant about the dynamics of family abuse, ignorant about the nature of child molestation, and ignorant about the ways in which an abuser manipulates the courtroom as the arena where he can hand a woman the final blow by taking her children away. Although studies such as the one by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Research in Denver—an organization which mothers’ groups claim is biased against women—shows that at least two thirds of sexual abuse allegations made by a child were proven to be substantiated (the one third unsubstantiated are not necessarily false.) Yet a study by the California Protective Parents Association found that 91 percent of fathers identified by their children as sexual predators received full or partial unsupervised custody—while in 54 percent of these same cases the non-abusing mother was placed on supervised visitations. How is that possible? Here are some of the more glaring errors the courts perpetuate: * Viewing children as property. When the crime of sexual abuse is committed upon a child who lives next door, the perpetrator is subject to harsh jail punishment. The same abuse committed upon one's own child is likely to result in a father getting sole custody. Behind this unfair ruling is the lingering feudal tradition that regards children as the property of their fathers. * Mistaking controlling men for loving fathers. Used to getting their way and given to expressions of anger, controlling men fight hard in the court they regard as a boxing ring. Having seen too many men walk away from their children, judges often mistake for love a father’s unwillingness to let go of the child who has become both a sexual object and a weapon against a mother trying to get away from her husband’s control. * Favoring the Parental Alienation Syndrome theory. PAS maintains that a child has been brainwashed to give false testimony. Not listed in the American Psychiatric Association manual, PAS is refuted and considered bogus theory by nationally recognized academic and clinical institutions— and by a 1999 Congressional act (VAWA). In fact, the lone advocate who coined the term, Richard Gardner, has also written that “pedophilia is natural.” Nevertheless, increasingly, legions of children are removed from their mothers’ care under the PAS theory. * Tolerance of child sexual abuse. A Tennessee judge granted visitation rights to Ralph Gonnella two weeks after he had been arrested for taking sexually explicit photographs of his seven-year-old son. In California, Manuel Saavedra, a convicted sex offender who had pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a child was awarded custody of his two daughters. All across America, convicted pedophiles—a crime known for its high rate of recidivism —are given access to their children. * Refusing to stigmatize a man as a pedophile. A 1996 report by The American Psychological Association states, “women seldom make false reports of child abuse or battering.” Yet in case after case, when a father is found to be sexually abusive, judges suppress evidence. While many judges, many of whom are fathers, do not truly believe that sexual abuse exists, they also do not wish to venture into the criminal arena of pedophilia due to overlapping jurisdiction between civil and criminal courts. * Not following the law. In demanding burden of proof of sexual molestation that supercedes the required “preponderance of evidence” and instead seeking the criminal definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” judges often demand dates, times or witnesses that are impossible for a child to provide. Interestingly, the same judges demand no proof when speculating that at the roots of the sexual abuse complaint is the mother’s coaching the child. * Misogyny. In Virginia, Kathy Wade was told by the judge handing Kathy’s two-year-old daughter to the sexually abusive father, “This is what you get when you don’t have a lawyer.” In Florida, Judge Paul Marko told Marianne Price: "The singles' bars are full of guys… you go and find one.” In Michigan, Judge Gregory Pittman ordered a couple shackled together after the woman complained that her former husband had violated the order of protection. Routinely, American women are denied the right to due process, are subject to ex parte hearings, and are victims of perjury or illegal out-of-state jurisdictions. Through it all, children are at a disadvantage because they are dependent upon mothers with no or poor legal representation and who are short on financial resources to wage protracted legal battles and appeals. (Professionals in the field report increasing support for men from well-financed fathers’ groups.) Moreover, men, poised and collected and surrounded by a legal team, “look good” in court when compared with frightened, distraught mothers, whom judges often view as hysterical, paranoid and vindictive. Yet all across the nation, behind every case in which a woman’s constitutional rights are being ignored in family court there are children needing protection. Instead, they receive a life sentence without parole. Public disbelief guards the system from exposure. There are child services, therapists, and legal guardians who commit atrocious mistakes. But ultimately, the untrained judges are the ones responsible for saving the children. While I met compassionate family court judges, the shocking overall picture of injustice indicates that they are in the minority. Until the public grasps the scope of the scandal in our own backyard and holds judges accountable for the grand scale in which children are being removed from the custody of good mothers to be placed with pedophiles, we are facing a national shame of catastrophic proportions. Talia Carner, an advocate for child victims of the legal system, is the author of Puppet Child, a legal drama about a mother trying to save her daughter from the legal system’s justice. Visit Talia's site,www.TaliaCarne r.com. Learn more about child abuse issues on Talia's website Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

American U.S. Justice Department files 40 page brief Against American Murdered Abused Children Of American Battered Mother In International Human Rights Court...

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:33:58 EST

Human Rights Court Say US Didn’t help Battered Mother & Murdered Abused Current mood: forgotten ..> IACHR-update; Jessica Gonzales v. U.S. - Favorable Admissibility Decision Below is an email from Carrie Bettinger-Lopez, our co-counsel on Jessica Gonzales' case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with an update about recent developments. Sandra Park, Staff Attorney Women's Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10004 T: 212.519.7871 | F: 212.549.2580 | spark@aclu.org ________________________________ For those of you who have been following the case of Jessica Gonzales v. ..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1>United States, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I am pleased to inform you that we received a favorable decision on Friday, October 5 declaring Jessica Lenahan's (formerly Gonzales) case admissible. This is the best decision we could have hoped for. The decision says that Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales) exhausted all domestic remedies (i.e. that she pursued every potential legal avenue available to her but had those doors closed to her). The decision also indicates that countries in the Americas, including the U.S., are responsible under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man for protecting victims of domestic violence from private acts of violence. This is the first time that the Commission has ever made such a pronouncement. This admissibility decision is the first phase of a two-step process before the Commission. The next step is the merits phase, where the Commission will decide whether the US and the Castle Rock Police Department/Colorado violated Ms. Lenahan (Gonzales') and her children's human rights. (Specifically, the rights to life, non-discrimination, family life/unity, due process, petition the government, and the rights of domestic violence victims and their children to special protections ). For more information on the Gonzales case, and to view the Commission's admissibility decision, go to http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm (Spanish version forthcoming). The decision is also available at https://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/32105lgl20071005.html . To view Ms. Gonzales' testimony before the Inter-American Commission in March 2007, see http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html. Below is an article that came out today in the National Law Journal about the decision. Also, here is a link to a Channel 4 newscast from last night featuring Jessica. http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_281095916.html Several amicus briefs are currently being drafted on the following topics: the children's rights dimension of the case; the protections and limitations of VAWA and obstacles that DV survivors still face in obtaining government assistance and support; framing domestic violence as a form of torture. Please contact me and Araceli Martínez-Olguín (amartinez-olguin@aclu.org) if you or your organization are interested in signing on to those briefs. Further information on the case is below. Thanks for all your support. Apologies for cross-postings. All best, Carrie (on behalf of Jessica's legal team) Caroline Bettinger-López | Human Rights Fellow & Attorney Columbia Law School | Human Rights Institute & Human Rights Clinic 435 W. 116th Street, Box C-16 | New York, NY 10027 Phone: (212) 854-8364 | Fax: (212) 854-3554 | Email: c.lopez@law.columbia.edu Further information on the case is below. Rights panel to hear U.S. domestic violence case Marcia Coyle / Staff reporter October 15, 2007 .. Jessica Gonzales poses with a portrait of her three daughters, from left, Katheryn, Rebecca and Leslie. Image: Craig F. Walker / The Denver Post WASHINGTON - The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has agreed to decide whether the United States violated the rights of a domestic violence victim whose three children were killed when local police failed to enforce a restraining order against her former husband. The complaint by Jessica Lenahan (formerly Jessica Gonzales) is the first brought by a domestic violence victim against the United States for international human rights violations. On Oct. 4, the commission ruled her complaint "admissible," which is akin to finding jurisdiction, after rejecting arguments by the U.S. Department of State, including that Lenahan had not exhausted available remedies, and, significantly, that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes no affirmative duty on states to actually prevent the crimes committed by Lenahan's former husband. Officials at the State Department were unavailable to comment because of the Oct. 8 federal holiday. Lenahan's legal odyssey began in 1999 when she filed a lawsuit against the Castle Rock, Colo., police department seeking to hold it liable for failing to respond to her repeated calls and appearances for help after her husband abducted her children. Her daughters were found dead in their father's pickup truck after he was killed in a shootout with police at police headquarters hours after their mother sought police assistance. A landmark case Her lawsuit attracted national and international attention when it was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in June 2005 that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. That December, Lenahan filed her petition with the Inter-American Commission, charging that police inaction and the Supreme Court decision violated her human rights. "This case is not just about Jessica Gonzales, although it clearly is very important for her," said Caroline Bettinger-Lopez of Columbia Law School's Human Rights Clinic, who, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, represents Lenahan. It is important for victims of domestic violence and intimate-partner violence in the United States and throughout the world, she said, adding, "We've gotten calls from the United Nations and organizations around world who see this case as a landmark one on the duty of states to protect victims of domestic violence." The admissibility decision itself has "immediate importance," according to Bettinger-Lopez, because it is the first time the commission has recognized that the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man imposes affirmative obligations by countries in the Americas to protect individuals from private acts of violence. The commission was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to investigate allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States (OAS), which includes the United States. 'Compulsory jurisdiction' The commission has jurisdiction to receive complaints against any OAS member state where it is upholding the rights set forth in the 1948 American declaration, said international law scholar Robert Goldman of American University Washington College of Law. "The commission is the only organization in the world that has compulsory jurisdiction over the United States," he said. "The only way to escape jurisdiction is to denounce the OAS charter." Having survived the "admissibility" phase, Lenahan's case moves into the merits phase, in which there will be additional briefing and possibly another hearing. The commission may attempt a "friendly settlement," noted Goldman, a former commission member. The United States does not have a good record of compliance with commission recommendations, said Goldman. But if Lenahan prevails, he added, it will not be a Pyrrhic victory. "The commission articulates standards with respect to very important rights," Goldman said. "What you'll find is a state that can't comply for a variety of reasons now might comply in the future." It also puts the United States, he added, in a very uncomfortable position. Congress mandates an annual human rights report that often points the finger at other countries' practices. "To the extent an authoritative body finds violations by the United States and it does not comply, it resonates," Goldman said. But for now, Bettinger-Lopez said, a "new legal avenue" has been established. "It opens a door for domestic violence victims in search of vindication, whose legal options have recently been limited by harsh court rulings in the United States." http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1191834195781 CASE SUMMARY In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales' estranged husband abducted her three daughters, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Ms. Gonzales called and met with the police repeatedly to report the abduction and restraining order violation. Unfortunately, her calls went unheeded. Ten hours after her first call to the police, Ms. Gonzales' estranged husband arrived at the police station and opened fire. The police immediately shot and killed Mr. Gonzales, and then discovered the bodies of the Gonzales children - Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 8, and Rebecca, 10 - in the back of his pickup truck. Ms. Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the police, but in June 2005, the Supreme Court found that she had no constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. In December 2005, Ms. Gonzales filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that the police's actions and the Supreme Court's decision violated her human rights. This was the first individual complaint brought by a victim of domestic violence against the United States for human rights violations. On March 2, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights heard the case of Jessica Gonzales v. United States . Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) provided testimony. This was the first time that she was afforded an opportunity to tell her story to a tribunal. Ms. Lenahan is represented by the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The Commission is expected to issue a decision before the year's end. To view or listen to the hearing, download the video or audio webcast at: http://www.oas.org/OASpage/videosondemand/home_eng/videos_query.asp?sCodigo=07-0041 (video) or http://www.cidh.org/Audiencias/Audios%20hearings%20127%20PS.htm (audio, 4th entry under March 2). Jessica Lenahan's statement (which she read at the hearing) can be found at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/Jessica+Statement+-+IACHR+hrg?exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=1391&showthumb=0 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/29338res20070302.html. More information on the Gonzales case (including the Petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission and additional briefing and exhibits) can be found at: http://www.law.columbia.edu/focusareas/clinics/humanrights97614 or http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/violence/gonzalesvusa.html..:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O>

For Sale: American Murdered, Abused Children Of American Battered Mother In America

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:31:56 EST

Internanational Human Rights Court Affirms A Failure TO Protect

Mother’s File International Complaint Against United States, violation human rights of abused www.StopFamilyViolence.org MOTHERS FILE INTERNATIONAL COMPLAINT AGAINST UNITED STATES Mother's day complaint claims United States courts violate human rights of abused women and children. NEW YORK, On May 11, just before Mother's Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. The case claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children. "For more than 30 years U.S. judges have given custody or unsupervised visitation of children to abusers and molesters putting the children directly at risk," says Dianne Post, an international attorney who authored the petition. "These horrendous human rights violations have been brought to the attention of family court systems, and state and federal governments, to no avail. We turn now to international courts to protect the rights and safety of US children." The complaint details several cases with ..ed medical evidence of child sexual abuse, yet in each instance the abusing father was given full custody of the children he abused. Several of the mothers were jailed by the courts because of their persistent efforts to protect their children from abuse, several were ordered not to speak of the abuse and not to report abuse to authorities. Every mother was denied contact with her child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them. "My life was completely shattered apart on that day and my childhood was destroyed," said Jeff Hoverson, the adult child petitioner, about the day a family court judge ordered sheriff deputies to deliver him into the custody of his abuser. "It was as if I was just kidnapped. I was torn from everything I knew....I was made into a possession rather than a child." Hoverson endured years of trauma and fear living in his father's home before escaping and returning to his mother at age 17. He is haunted by years of feeling helpless to prevent his father's night-time visits to his sisters' bedrooms. "The cases in this petition represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg," says Irene Weiser, executive director of the online organization Stop Family Violence. "We are contacted by an average of three protective mothers each week who have lost custody to child abusing fathers. This is a nationwide crisis of enormous proportion." "The lives of thousands of children and mothers have been irreparably harmed by family courts across our nation," says Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., executive vice-president of The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, another national organizations supporting the petition. "The years of trauma and psychological abuse because of the courts' failings result in lasting emotional damage to the children they are supposed to protect." Studies of gender bias in the courts, conducted in the 1980's and 90's, found disturbing trends of courts minimizing or excusing men's violence against women, and favoring the abusers. In 1990 the United States Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. Seventeen years later, the practice continues unabated. Ten years ago today, leading national organizations were joined by members of Congress in a protest in Washington D.C. to again raise awareness about the problems in family courts. Today, petitioners say, the problem is systemic and widespread in family law courts across the nation. The petition seeks a finding from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S. has violated the Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man and the Charter of the Organization of American States and a statement of the steps that the U.S. must take to comply with its human rights obligations in regards to battered women and children in child custody cases. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. It also carries out on-site visits to observe the general human rights situations in all 35 member states of the Organization of American States and to investigate specific allegations of violations of Inter-American human rights treaties. Its charge is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas. Dianne Post, a 1980 graduate of the University of Wisconsin law school, has worked on issues of gender based violence since 1976. In addition to private practice and legal aid, she has taught legal classes and been a consultant working or living in Russia, Cambodia, Hungary and some dozen other countries. She is currently in Vladivostok, Russia. In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include: National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice For Children, National Family Court Watch Project, Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence Report, Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence. The petition is supported by many state organizations as well. In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales' three children from their abusive father, who murdered them. Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abusers. For additional information, contact: Irene Weiser, Stop Family Violence iw@stopfamilyviolence.org 607-539-6856 The petition and supporting ..action is available on the Stop Family Violence website on: www.StopFamilyViolence.org View the petition at: http://www.StopFamilyViolence.org/468

American National Organization OF Women "Disorder In The Courts I"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:29:12 EST

Admin Options

F m i l y L a w : D is o r d e r i n t h e C o u r t s

Introduction
By Helen Grieco, Rachel Allen and Jennifer Friedlin

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the country's largest and longest running women's rights organization. NOW is committed to fighting discrimination against women and girls, and ensuring their equality in every aspect of society. NOW is structured in chapters, and California NOW (CA NOW) is the largest chapter in the country, with 100,000 members and donors. Imagine this: A mother endures years ofabuse at the hands of her husband. One day, her husband strikes the children or gets caught in the act of sexually abusing one of the kids, and she decides she has got to break free. She files for custody, assuming she's got an open and shut custody case. But the family court judge fails to look at all the evidence and the professionals who are supposed to evaluate the family ignore all the signposts of abuse. Eventually, the mother loses custody. In order to see her children, the mother may have to pay for supervised visits or she may lose all rights to her kids. No, you say, this can't be. Well, think again. In the 1990s, CA NOW started getting call after call that fit this pattern. In fact, as then president of CA NOW, Helen Grieco received so many calls from desperate mothers that sheformed a statewide task force to strategize how to best address the startling trend. Under Grieco's leadership, CA NOW proposed legislation, lobbiedfor statewide reform, called for investigations of court funding and worked to get public attention on the injustices women faced in family courts. In an effort for CA NOW to ascertain how widespread the problems were, Grieco createdand posted a questionnaire on the CA NOW website to collect information on individual cases. Rachel Allen joined CA NOW as public relations director in 2001, and had worked on the family law issue as president of the Marin County NOW chapter for several years. In 2002, Allen and Grieco (along with Sue DiPaolo and Elena Perez) analyzed the findings of the hundreds of questionnaires submitted, and tried to answer the question of how and why so many women were being victimized by the courts. The end product was the "CA NOW Family Court Report, 2002,"which presented findings from analysis of over 300 mothers' cases. The report showed that perfectly fit mothers were regularly losing custody of their children to less-than-fit fathers, and put forth an explanation for why it was happening. Analysis of the data rendered stunning statistics. We found that 76 percent of respondents' cases involved allegations of some kind of abuse by the father and that in 69 percent of those cases the offender was given unsupervised contact or custody. Although conservative commentators and right-wing fathers' rights groups tried to discredit the research by saying that the sample was not representative of a larger problem, we knewthat the 300 cases we studied and their staggering similarities exposed trends that were impossible to ignore. This study and the calls we have continued to receive over the years from flabbergasted mothers have revealed that the courts are regularly ignoring evidence of child abuse and domestic violence when deciding contested custody cases. In addition, we have documented a common pattern of gender bias, denial of due process, corruption, fraud and reliance on unscientific labels to pathologize normal mothers. These women speak of judges who beratethem in court and dismiss crucial evidence; attorneys who bail on them midway through their case or who side with the father instead of representing the interests of the children; andevaluators who decide they are unfit parents for a whole slew of often contradictory reasons. Evaluators have been known to support denying awoman custody because she: is "too close" to her children; breastfed her children for too long; did not cooperate in giving unsupervised access to an abusive father; works outside the home; doesn't work outside the home. We hear from motherswho walked into the court as the primary caregiver and protector of their children and walked out unable to even send the kids a birthday cardor talk to them on the phone. These mothers often lose custody to men who have criminal records, histories of domestic violence and/or child abuse and substance abuse problems. Some of the men have never even met their children. How can this happen? One of the roots of the problem, we believe, stems from the activities and advocacy efforts of so-called Fathers' Rights groups. Connected to a larger right-wing ideology, the movement for "fathers' rights" rests on a belief in unquestioned patriarchy – some have even called for the overturning of the 19th amendment! They seek to abolish child support and to instate automatic joint custody. Although fathers' rights advocates refer to "equality," "equal access" and "shared parenting," they are not fighting for joint childcare responsibilities inside of marriage. Instead, the call from fathers' rights groups for equal parenting turns up only after divorce, a transparentploy to use rhetoric to reduce men's financial obligations to their children and their ex-wives and tomaintain control over their families, even after the marriage is legally dissolved.These groups have helped propagate bunk psychological syndromes like Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), which is based on the unfounded"theory" that mothers regularly brainwash their children to say that they have been abused by their fathers. PAS is then used as a legal strategy tojustify taking children from their mothers, while subverting evidence of abuse by fathers. Fathers' Rights groups claim that fathers are discriminated against in family courts, receiving custody of children only a small percentage of the time. The truth is, however, that when fathers fight for custody, they get it 50 to 70 percent of the time. Sadly, all too often they get custody even when it is not inthe best interest of the child. Meanwhile, the fathers' rights movement has been gaining strength and legitimacy. Fatherhood groups are well funded, well organized and publicly supported through conservative mouthpieces in the media. In addition, the Bush Administration supports the so-called "responsible fatherhood" agenda. Some organizations, such as the National Fatherhood Initiative receive millions of dollars from the federal government, much of which is not accounted for in direct programming. Some people suspect that a portion of the money may even be used to litigate custody cases on behalf of fathers. (For more about the history and activity of the fathers' rights movement, see the CA NOW Family Court Report at http://canow.org/famlaw_report/famlawreport.php.)

Lest anyone reading this should draw the conclusion that we are simply interested in bashing men, we are not. We are well aware that thereare many loving, caring fathers who are deeply concerned about doing right by their children. We are also aware that these men rarely demand sole custody and the removal of the mother from the child's life. We have heard from many decentmen who are just as disturbed by the family court's treatment of women and children as we are. And, as you will see on the pages of this book, some of these men have become our allies in the fight for justice in the legal system. Theproblem we have been struggling with does not have to do with these men; it has to do with the abusive men who use the court system to continue terrorizing their families. After all, what better way to further abuse a mother than by taking her children from her? As CA NOW took up this issue, we found allies around the country who were just as concerned as we were. Although many media outlets shied away from this complicated topic, media stars like Dr. Phil were brave enough to speak out against what he called "America's silent epidemic."Feminist icons like Gloria Steinem have weighed in, too, calling the crisis in the family law courts an issue that "the women's movement,which provided leadership in past reforms and crucial struggles to make law more gender free, supportive of children and families, and economically just, must lead on." One of the most amazing outcomes of this horrific situation is the steely determination of the women who have been through the system to change it. After losing their children, women from Delaware to Alaska have fought back in an effort to change the system and to prevent the same thing from happening to other women. These women have written legislation, formed organizations,started court watch programs, built websites, held conferences, organized demonstrations and protests and worked to get media exposure. A couple of years ago, after researching an article about moms who turned their personal tragedies into political crusades, freelance journalist Jennifer Friedlin suggested a project that would highlight the work being done across the countryto change the way custody decisions involving allegations of abuse are made. This book is borne of our mutual desire to underscore and applaudthe achievements of the mothers and the various professionals who are working for justice. In this collection of essays, you will hear from experts – from psychologists and legal experts to journalists and moms – who have been fighting on the frontlines for mothers' rights. Karen Andersonturned her own personal struggle to protect her children from sexual abuse into a crusade onbehalf of all mothers. Dr. Lundy Bancroft has been a fierce supporter of battered moms and now calls on these women to spearhead a mothers' rightsmovement. Sharon Bass shares her insights on the issue of court appointed evaluators and their far reaching influence. Dr. Robert Geffner lends his expertise on child sexual abuse and the ways it is treated in the family law arena. Retired judge Sol Gothard gives his perspective on the family courts based on nearly fifty years of experience. Professor Mo Hannah explains her motivation for organizing the country's leading conference on the issue of battered women and custody. Karen Hartley-Nagle tells the story of her family law case andhow it inspired her to run for office on a family law platform. Paige Hodson turned her experience in the courtroom into a battle for protective legislation– and won! The legal team of Kristen, Diane and Charles Hofheimer offer advice to motherson how to present their cases in court. Filmmaker Dominique Lasseur explains his motivation for making the groundbreaking film, "Breaking theSilence." Professor Garland Waller advises people on ways to get media attention, and journalist Kristen Lombardi explains the difficulties of reporting onthese issues. Professor Geraldine Stahly allowed us to print her research on domestic violence and custody, and blogger Trish Wilson makes a powerful argument against assumed joint custody.This book will help explain how the courts work and give any mother going through thefamily court system some of the tools she will need to protect herself and her children. And,for mothers who may have lost their children, we hope these essays will provide you links toresources that may assist you in your effort to regain custody of your kids. This book will not replace good counsel and a strong support system,but we hope it will provide you a greater understanding the issues, and that is may inspire you to help join the movement for change. We have found that lawyers and domestic violence agencies are always looking for more information that can help them serve their clients,and we trust that this book will meet this need. We believe that this book will also inspire other women's rights organizations to take up this issue, and that it will give them the tools and information they need to get started. Mostly, we hope that this book will generate greater activism among people interested in righting the numerous wrongs of the family court system.We know that this book is just one step in the battle to reform the family court system. But CA NOW is committed to fighting for change until we win. Whether you are a parent, a psychologist, a lawyer, a judge, a journalist, an activist or a concerned citizen, we encourage you to get involved and to fight along side us aswe work to ensure that our family court system never again strips a fit parent of her parental rights in favor of an abuser.

American College California State University, The Book "Disorder In The Courts II",A Study of Judicial Abuse

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:27:50 EST

Disoder In the Courts II

Protective Mothers in Child Custody
Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse

By Geraldine Butts Stahly, PH.D., Linda Krajewski, Bianca Loya, Linda Krajewski, Bianca

Loya, Kyra Dotter, Kimberly Evans, Wesley Farris, Felicia Frias, Grace German, Nancy Stuebner,

Kiranjeet Uppal, And Jenna Valentine

California State University, San Bernardino

Abstract

This project is a pilot study of a national survey undertaken to examine the experiences of protective mothers. One hundred fifty-seven self-identified protective mothers, completed a 101-item questionnaire describing aspects oftheir custody dispute. The pilot data includes demographic factors, economic impact, and a full variety of protection issues, including the range of allegations, the role of psychological expert examinations, diagnosis and testimony, family court response and outcomes for children. Findings to date suggest that protective mothers are likely to be mothers who have been victims of domesticviolence, and are likely to be labeled "alienators." Mothers were also likely to be advised by their attorneys and other professionals not to report abuse of their child during custody proceedings. Mothers who support their children's allegations of physical or sexual abuse were overwhelmingly denied custody and sometimes denied visitation with their children. Introduction Empirical studies have established an increase in child abuse in families in which there is domestic violence, and an increase in custody challenges by fathers who have a history of battering (Stahly,1999). There is evidence of an increase in the negative labeling of mothers who report child abuse or domestic violence during custody disputes. Several high profile cases have led to increased public attention, and fractious public debates have erupted between groups supporting the alleged perpetrators of abuse as victims of malicious accusation on the one hand, and groups supporting the reporting parent as the victim of malicious psychiatric labeling on the other (Dallam, 1998). For example, in spite of thelack of empirical support and peer review, Richard Gardner's (1985) theory of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) continues to influence judges,court appointed evaluators and mediators and other court personnel with adverse consequences for the protection of children in custody disputes. There have been no studies to date on the extent of the overall phenomenon of protective mothers, the psychiatric labeling of protective behavior or the extent to which protective behavior appears to be justified by the circumstances and evidence in custody cases. The current study was undertaken to study the experiences of protective mothers. Methods The study utilized a 101-item self-report questionnaire which was distributed to a sample of convenience that included individuals who self-identified as protective mothers contacting the California Protective Parents Association and California NOW, as well as individuals visiting the California NOW website. Questionnaires were available for completion through the website and were also distributed at conferencesregarding child abuse and domestic violence held in California. Data collected from the questionnaires included demographics, legal history of thecustody case, allegations of abuse, criminal conduct, substance abuse and results of psychological Mother Father Child

*92% of the Protective Mothers made allegations of child abuse.

*56% of the allegations were supported by medical/physical evidence.

80% had some other corroborating evidence.

*75% reported fathers as the perpetrator.

ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE

TYPES OF ABUSE REPORTED evaluations, including the role of the allegation ofparental alienation in custody case outcomes. One hundred fifty-seven completed surveys from protective mothers were collected and enteredinto SPSS. Descriptive statistics were run on the data from this initial sample. A majority of the respondents were from California (89). Atotal of 271 children were involved in the study (157 girls and 114 boys); 65 percent of the childrenwere age five or under.

In America 75% Rates At Which Batterers Get Custody Of The Children

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:26:34 EST

Rates At Which Batterers Recieve Custody
by Joan Meier, Esq.

One statement in Breaking the Silence: Children's Voices that has provoked controversy was my statement that "the studies are showing" that up to 2/3 of accused or adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody in court. While no empirical study can definitively determine a universal statistical rate, the key point is that the research consistently shows that accused and adjudicated batterers receive joint or sole custody disturbingly often. This confirms the anecdotal experience of domestic violence attorneys and victims around the country. The following research supports this perspective.

I. A History of Domestic Violence is Common among Contested Custody Cases.

The remarkably consistent research on this issue is compiled in my previously-issued statement , Research Indicating that the majority of cases that go to court as 'high conflict' contested custody cases have a history of domestic violence (Nov. 9, 2005).

One good example is a study cited by Janet Johnston, a leading researcher of parental alienation, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, "[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated. . . [for an average of 30-42 months]". Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon."
- Janet R. Johnston, "High-Conflict Divorce," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182) citing Depner et al., "Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services," Family and ConciliationCourts Review (1992) 30: 185-206

II. Domestic Violence Perpetrators are More Likely to Contest Custody than Non- Abusers.

The American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family, the leading review of the research as of 1996, found that men who abuse their partners contest custody at least twice as often as non-abusing fathers. They are even more likely to contest custody if the children are boys.
- American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence in the Family (1996) at p. 40.

III. Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receive Joint or Sole Custody Surprisingly Often.

The research on this has only emerged in the past few years and most studies have been small and local. Nonetheless, they document disturbing trends, which surprised even me when I first discovered them.

A. Multiple studies have documented gender bias against women in custody litigation.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom that women are favored in custody litigation, both the experiences of battered women and the empirical research are showing that women who allege abuse are deeply disfavored in custody courts.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force was one of the first states to document the gender bias against women in family courts. This court-initiated study expressly found that "our research contradicted [the] perception" that "there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions." Moreover, it found that "in determining custody and visitation, many judges and family service officers do not consider violence toward women relevant." The Court's study further found that "the courts are demanding more of mothers than fathers in custody disputes" and that "many courts put the needs of noncustodial fathers above those of custodial mothers and children."
- Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts, 24 New Eng.L.Rev. 745, 747, 825, 846 (1990)

More recently, and since the evolution and widespread adoption of "parental alienation syndrome," a multi-year, four-phase study using qualitative and quantitative social science research methodologies by the Wellesley Centers for Women found "a consistent pattern of human rights abuses" by family courts, including failure to protect battered women and children from abuse, discriminating against and inflicting degrading treatment on battered women, and denying battered women due process. Histories of abuse of mother and children were routinely ignored or discounted.
- Wellesley Centers for Women Battered Mothers' Testimony Project, Battered Mothers Speak Out: A Human Rights Report on Domestic Violence and Child Custody in the Massachusetts Family Courts (Nov. 2002)(hereafter "BMTP"), Executive Summary at 2.

A comparable study by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that most of the women surveyed felt the history of abuse was not taken seriously and that they were ignored, disrespected and discriminated against by court personnel.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 47, 49, 6.

A study of the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court conducted by the Philadephia Women's Law Project in cooperation with the court, found that litigants are often denied due process, and that applicable legal standards are "not always observed, particularly in the consideration of abuse in custody proceedings, leaving families at risk."
- Tracy, Fromson & Miller, Justice in the Domestic Relations Division of Philadelphia Family Court: A Report to the Community, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT, Vol. 8, No. 6 (Aug/Sept. 2003), p. 94.

B. Studies show Accused and Adjudicated Batterers Receiving Sole or Joint Custody Surprisingly Often.

My own survey of the case law in 2001 identified 38 appellate state court decisions concerning custody and domestic violence. To my astonishment, 36 of the 38 trial courts had awarded joint or sole custody to alleged and adjudicated batterers. Two-thirds of these decisions were reversed on appeal.
- Meier, Domestic Violence, Child Custody, and Child Protection: Understanding Judicial Resistance and Imagining the Solutions, A.U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol. & the Law, 11:2 (2003), 657-731, p. 662, n. 19, and Appendix.

These cases included a case in which the perpetrator had been repeatedly convicted of domestic assault; in which a father was given sole custody of a16-month old despite his undisputed choking of the mother resulting in her hospitalization and his arrest; in which the father had broken the mother's collarbone; had committed "occasional incidents of violence"; and had committed two admitted assaults. More such instances can be found in Meier, supra.

The American Judges Association has found that approximately 70% of batterers succeed in convincing authorities that the victim is unfit for or undeserving of sole custody. Another way of saying this is that 70% of batterers obtain sole or joint custody.
- American Judges Association, "Domestic Violence and the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem . . . Knowing the Victim" http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/page5.html (at "Forms of Emotional Battering. . . Threats to Harm or Take Away Children")

A survey of battered women by the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence found that courts awarded joint or sole custody to the alleged batterers 56-74% of the time (depending on the county). Many of these cases involved documented child abuse or adult abuse.
- Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Battered Mothers' Testimony Project: A Human Rights Approach to Child Custody and Domestic Violence (June 2003), pp. 33-34, 47-49

A study of 300 cases over a 10-year period in which the mother sought to protect the child from sexual abuse, found that 70% resulted in unsupervised visitation or shared custody; in 20% of the cases the mothers completely lost custody, and many of these lost all visitation rights.
- Neustein & Goetting (1999), "Judicial Responses to the Protective Parent's Complaint of Child Sexual Abuse," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 8 (4): 103-122.

The Wellesley Battered Mothers' Testimony Project found that 15 out of 40 cases resulted in sole or joint physical custody to the fathers, all of whom had abused both the mother and the children.
- BMTP, supra at Appendix A.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Task Force found that 94% of fathers who actively sought custody received sole or joint custody, regardless of whether there was a history of abuse. While fathers received primary physical custody 29% of the time, mothers received primary physical custody in only 7% of the contested cases. The Study also cited other research which similarly found that fathers who sought custody received primary physical custody 2/3 of the time, with mothers receiving it less than ¼ of the time; and another study which found that fathers seeking custody received joint or sole custody 79% of the time, with mothers receiving sole custody in only 15% of those cases (compared to fathers' sole custody in 41% of the cases).
- Gender Bias Study at 831-832 and citing Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study and Phear et al., 1983.

While the Massachusetts study and those it cited were not able to identify what proportion of the contesting fathers were batterers, the studies cited in my other Statement indicate consistently that 75% of cases have a history of domestic violence, with a substantial proportion of severe violence. Hence, it is likely that a substantial proportion of the fathers receiving joint or primary physical custody in this study had committed domestic violence.
- Meier Statement, Research Indicating that the Majority of Cases that go to Court as 'High Conflict' Contested Custody Cases have a History of Domestic Violence (Nov. 9, 2005).
violence

American College Northeastern University Press The Book "From Madness To Mutiny"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:25:05 EST

From Madness to Mutiny
Why Mothers Are Running from the Family Courts -- and What Can Be Done about It
Amy Neustein, Michael Lesher

Northeastern Series on Gender, Crime, and Law
Northeastern University Press
University Press of New England
2005 • 316 pp. 6 x 9"
Gender Studies / Law

"This book is essential reading for any health or mental health professional or legal advocate for children."—Family Violence and Sexual Assault Bulletin

A powerful exposé of the family court system's prejudice against mothers trying to protect their sexually abused children.

In this astonishing book, sociologist Amy Neustein and attorney Michael Lesher examine the serious dysfunction of the nation's family courts -- a dysfunction that too often results in the courts' failure to protect the people they were designed to help. Specifically, the authors chronicle cases in which mothers who believe their children have been sexually abused by their fathers are disbelieved, ridiculed or punished for trying to protect them. All too often the mother, in such a case, is deemed the unstable parent, and her children are removed from her care, to be placed in foster care or even with the father credibly accused of abusing them.

Employing a special form of sociological inquiry known as ethnomethodology, they show how judges, private attorneys, law guardians, child protective service caseworkers and court-appointed mental health experts on a day-to-day basis collaboratively produce a closed and claustrophobic family court setting that makes practical sense to the system's practitioners -- but looks like madness to everyone else. They also describe the social interactive work of mothers trapped inside the system. Faced with judicial rulings that seem to violate their most basic parental values, these mothers litigate furiously, take their stories to the press, go on hunger strikes, or turn fugitive with their children through a modern-day "underground railroad."

From Madness to Mutiny offers an overview of family court malfunction and the parental mutiny that results from it. The authors outline the new legal landscape that makes the madness possible and show how the system has failed to react to severe criticism from media and legislators. And they discuss ways to reform the family courts, with the goal of transforming them from instruments of punishment to true institutions of justice.

"There is extraordinary merit in the claims the authors make… [and] many of the reforms, suggested in the concluding three chapters, are worth consideration."—Law and Politics Book Review

".. [Y]ou will find this a hard book to put down, because it is a book that matters."—The Residential (Edgewater, NJ)

"Unusually rich and detailed documentation . . . Amy Neustein and Michael Lesher have produced a searing and profoundly disturbing indictment of family courts in the United States . . . I commend Neustein and Lesher for their major contribution to this struggle."
—Violence Against Women

"This book is a must read for every feminist, especially mothers." —Helen Grieco, Executive Director, California National Organization of Women

"A groundbreaking new book that is perhaps the most highly readable scholarly work I've encountered in my 14 years in academia . . . The very first to provide the historical and contextual chronology of this system's steady decline into chaos and corruption over the past two decades. It is eminently accurate and rigorously documented -- a book that will hit scholars, professionals, and lay persons right between their eyes. This is the book that mothers have been waiting for . . . I consider this book among the most important of the decade."—Maureen Therese Hannah, Siena College

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword - Raoul Felder • Acknowledgments • Part I. Family Courts: The Problem • An Oveview of Family Court Madness - and Mother's Mutiny • The New Legal Landscape • Part II. Observations in Depth • Research Methods • Robed Rage • Lawless Law Guardians • Anti-Social Services • Mental Health Quackery • Mothers and Madness: The "Aftershocks" of the System • Part III. Changes • "Rebirthing" the Family Court System • Reforming the Courts • Reforming the Court Auxiliaries • Notes • References • Index

AMY NEUSTEIN, Ph.D., is a sociologist, author, and lecturer. In 1986 she founded a legal research and advocacy center in New York City, Help Us Regain the Children, to study the plight of mothers who lost custody of children. The findings of her study were published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, and have frequently been cited in the published work and lecture material of other researchers. In 1996, she received a Humanitarian Award from Mothers Against Sexual Abuse. Dr. Neustein has also published in a number of national journals, magazines, and newspapers, and has made appearances on radio and television.

MICHAEL LESHER is a lawyer and writer who has published in The Village Voice, The Jewish Week, Forward, Canadian Jewish News, and North Jersey Herald & News. He has contributed to legal publications such as Moore's Federal Practice, Weinstein's Evidence, and The Federal Litigation Guide

The American Documentary "Small Justice"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:22:32 EST

The Making of the Documentary Small Justice
By Garland Waller

Diane Hofheimer, a paralegal and child advocate, handed me the VHS tape with a warning: The video would chill me to the bone. She told me itshowed a three-year-old girl clinging to a banister, begging not to be sent to live with her father.As Diane explained, a family court judge had awarded custody of this little girl to her dad despite evidence that he had sexually abused her. The thought of this made my skin crawl and part of me refused to believe that our court system would do this to a child. So I did what many people in my situation would do: I put the tape on top of my "to do"file. And there it sat, staring me in the face, for six months. About once a week, Diane would call tocheck in and see if I had watched the tape and each time I had to tell her, "No, not yet." She was patient. A little background. Diane is a childhoodfriend. She and I grew up in the same Quaker meeting in Virginia. She and her husband, Charlie Hofheimer, had created a law office in Virginia Beach, Va., that represented women in custody and divorce cases. Together they had learned that the courts often ignored evidence of sexual abuse and awarded custody to the abusive parent, typically the father. Diane was alarmed that no one in the media was telling this story. And that was why she had turned to me. She was hoping that I would use my skills as a TV producer to get the word out about this issue.Eventually, I mustered up the courage and put the tape in the VCR. As promised, the videotape showed a towheaded girl, clinging to a banister,screaming, in a aunting, horrifying cry, "Please, Mommy, please don't make me go to my daddy's house." It was a singular moment in space and time for me; it was the moment that changed my life. If, as Diane said, this child was not a loneexception but part of a trend that extended across America then this amounted to a national scandal that needed to be exposed. I began to research custody and divorce cases in which violence or abuse was a component. Ihad always expected that parents going through a divorce would put the needs of their kids first. But, as the research unfolded I began to see that violent men tended to be the ones who demanded custody. And when they did, they had a good shot at receiving it. During the course of my research, I read things like:"Fathers who battered the mother are twice as likely to seek sole custodyof their children as non-violent fathers."– American Psychological Association's Presidential Task Force, Violence and the Family. (2000) and:"Abusers/batterers who are crimi nally liable for their violence nonethelessare getting sole or joint custody in approximately 70 percent of challenged child custody cases." – The American Judges Foundation, Domestic Violence in the Courtroom: Understanding the Problem,Knowing the Victim. (1996) "Between 50-75 percent of themen who batter their wives or female partners also abuse their children. "– Lenore E. Walker et al, "Beyond the Juror's Ken: Battered Women." 7 Vermont Law Review 1, (1982) I was growing increasingly convinced about the extent of this scandal and its potential as the subject of a documentary. But despite my background producing well-funded syndicated documentaries on such topics as the fear of nuclear war, rape, child abuse and drug addiction, I had a feeling no network would back me on this project until I could show them the finished goods. So, I decided to make my first independent, low budget documentary using $20,000 of my own money and one of my graduate students at Boston University who generously agreed to work for free. In 1998, I began shooting "Small Justice:

Little Justice in America's Family Courts." I spent months gathering information, and fully immersing myself in this issue. Given the complexity of the family court system and the intricacies of abusive relationships, I was lucky that I had DianeHofheimer to guide me. Diane explained legal theories and the intricacies of the family court system and she gave me boxes of legal research. She also introduced me to mothers who had lost custody of their kids to abusers. To document the abuse of justice being perpetrated by the family courts, I decided to follow Diane and Charlie Hofheimer as they worked with three mothers who were losing or had lost custody of their kids in family courts. I never doubted these women or their stories because they were so open, so desperate for help, so determined to protect their children. But I could see how they could lose in court, not because there wasn't evidence, but because they presented themselves poorly. They were overwrought and angry, and their emotions often affected their composure.I can't imagine any loving mother, frankly any loving father, acting differently. Sometimes, after a day of shooting, I would lie in bed at night, unable to sleep because of what I had seen. I wondered what I would do if the court ignored me and my efforts to protect my child. Would I run away with my child? How would I live? Where on the planet could I go without being caught? I saw the underbelly of American justice and I wondered what options these protective mothers had. In addition to the mothers, my crew and I also interviewed leading experts like attorney Richard Ducote, Dr. Carolyn Newberger of Children's Hospital in Boston and Karen Winner, author of "Divorced from Justice," one of the few books on this issue. These interviews further convinced me that the system was deeply flawed. Unfortunately, all of the dads involved in the cases I featured refused to speak with me, as did their lawyers. But I did manage to get an interview with Dr. Richard Gardner, the man who devised Parental Alienation Syndrome, the debunked theory behind many of the most egregious decisions handed down by family court judges. According to Dr. Gardner, alienating parents, typically the mothers, use accusations of abuse in order to alienate their children from their fathers. During my interview with Dr. Gardner, one of the last he gave before he committed suicide in 2003, I asked him what a mother should do if her child revealed that his or her father had abused them sexually. Gardner said she would respond by saying, "I don't believe you. I am going to beat you for saying that. Don't ever talk that way about you father.'" Although Gardner's theory has been widely discredited by the psychological establishment, the fact is that many members of the judicial system have bought into PAS. Now, when a mother brings allegations of sexual abuse before the court she is often accused of PAS. Unfortunately, many judges find PAS more credible than a hospital record of vaginal tearing or unexplained blood in the anus of a child. As I wrapped up production of "Small Justice"in 2001, I thought I would have no problemselling the show. After all, I had uncovered a national scandal and I had extensive testimony from three protective mothers and a litany of experts from across the spectrum. I was wrong. I took the show to all the news magazines at CBS, ABC and NBC, but no one wanted it. HBO and CNN also said no. I heard these responses over and over again: "What's wrong with the mother?""Give me something that is more clear cut.""It's her word against his." "He looks pretty normal to me." "Guys don't do this to their kids." "I thought all mothers got custody unless they were, like, nuts." "We can't air that. We could get sued." "It looks like 'He said-She said" to me." "This is way too complicated to explain to folks."

It is probably hard for anyone involved in this awful situation to understand why the media will not touch this issue. After all, these stories are filled with injustice and human drama. Unfortunately, television stations fear lawsuits and that fear hinders their willingness to uncover important stories and stand up for what is right. Although the large broadcasters rejected "Small Justice", the good news is that the documentary received some acclaim. It garnered the award for "Best Social Documentary" at the NY International 2001 and was honored with theAward for Media Excellence from the 8th International Conference on Family Violence, which was presented in California at the International Conference on Family and Domestic Violence. I showed clips of "Small Justice" and spoke at two conferences hosted by the National Organization for Women. "Small Justice" was also shown at The Museum of Fine Arts in Boston and the Key West Indie Film Fest gave it an award. I like to believe that "Small Justice" contributed to the growing interest in this area. Over the past couple of years, conferences like the Battered Mothers Custody Conference have been dedi cated to the issue, books have been written and recently Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories aired on PBS. These are big accomplishments and eachone helps to call attention to the heartbreaking injustices in the system. There are still nights when I cannot sleep because I hear Suzi begging not to be sent to her father's house. Every day, I get at least one letter from a terrified mother or worried grandfather, someone trying to protect a child from a family court system that is at best woefully misguided and, at worst, dangerous. And so, I believe that those of us who are able to fight the system, must continue the uphill battle to get the courts and the media to listen to a disturbing truth.

The American PBS Documentary "Breaking The Silence The Childrens Stories"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:21:19 EST

Admin Options

What Breaking the Silence Means

By Dominique Lasseur

Documentary film producer Dominique Lasseur set out to explore the failures of the family court system in "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories." But when public television broadcast the program in the fall of 2005, the father's rightsmovement was quick to react with scathing criticism and a deluge of viewer complaints. What compelled you to take on this issue? We didn't set out to produce a piece about custody issues. We had planned to make a documentaryabout the impact of domestic violence on children. We really wanted to show stories of what was being done to help children who wereraised in domestic violence environments. What we found was one story after another of protective mothers having their children taken away from them and given in sole or partial custody to the very man who terrorized the mother and the children. It was so outrageous, that when we heard the first stories we thought they were aberrations, but then we found that this was in fact happening often and everywhere. We knew at that point that this was the story to concentrate on. When did you become convinced that there was a systemic problem within the family court system? I met a woman in New Jersey and I spent an afternoon listening to her story. She had been divorced for two to three years and had lost custody of her kids. Her ex-husband was making her life a total prison by dragging her into court every month. She was a professional, intelligent woman, and I thought this can't be happening. This is clearly a horrible story, but it has to be one case in a million. But looking further we found the same story everywhere, in Florida, New Orleans, Ohio,California, etc.I spoke with dozens of women who were very candid about what they had endured. After listening to one story after another, there was no way to ignore the extent of the problem. We chose to feature the stories where there were extensive court proceedings so that we could verify that what the women was telling us was what she had testified in court as well. So there was a clear history of allegations of domestic violence and/or child physical or psychological abuse. All the women we interviewed went to court believing the system was fair, not thinking for a moment their kids could be taken from them. It seems that we are now on this issue where we were 20-25 years ago on domestic violence. I would assume that it was as difficult at that time to talk about domestic violence, as it is to talk about this particular issue now. People don't want to believe it. They don't want to know about it. To tell you the truth, many in my interviews I said to the woman I was interviewing, "It would be easier to believe that you were fabricating all this because what you're telling me is so horrendous. It feels like you're telling me a story about some remote country where there is no notion of justice." And the fact that it's happening here in America was unbelievable, is unbelievable. In your opinion what is the underlying problem? In my view, the problem is that while criminal courts have made tremendous progress in dealingwith domestic violence, family courts are not as informed about the dynamics of family violence. Why hasn't the family court system progressed in the same way as the criminal court system? On the record family court judges say to women, "You're an intelligent, professional woman, so I don't believe you've been abused." You would not hear a judge in criminal court saythat because people know that domestic violence is not just happening in inner city, poor neighborhoods. That's one example. The other example is people who are aware of the dynamic of domestic violence know what an abuser looks like and behaves like, they know that someone who is professional looking can be behind closed doors someone who has terrorized his wife and family. In fact, you have doctors, attorneys, actors who all look fabulous to the community but who are violent abusers. I think it comes down to a lack of training, lack of accountability.

What is the long-term impact of this problem? As long as this situation continues we will undo years of progress on domestic violence because women are put in a Catch-22. If they don't report child abuse or domestic violence, they stand the risk of losing their kids because they failed to protect them. But if they do disclose domestic violence or sexual abuse then the kids are at riskof being taken away because the mothers will be blamed for alienating them or fabricating charges. Was it difficult to find a network to back your show? No, I can't say it was hard. We've been producing programs for Public Television for more than 20 years. I'm glad and proud that they are broadcasting our programs. We co-produced Breaking the Silence with Connecticut Public Television and it was aired nationally by PBS.

But the backlash has been pretty strong.There's been an organized campaign mostly by father's rights groups to demand that PBS stop distributing the program. They characterized the as an attack on fathers. This is akin tosaying because you're doing a documentary on the Holocaust you're accusing all Germans. It makes no sense. But it has given them a forum and they have jumped on it. Our point was not to deny that some men are victims of domestic violence. We did not seek to portray all men as rabid violent abusers. What we wanted to say is simple: children should not be put in the custody of a parent who is endangering them. In reviewing the show, ombudsmen for boththe Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS criticized Breaking the Silence forlacking balance. How do you respond? The CPB Ombudsman, Ken Bode, clearly had some personal axe to grind. He did not bother to contact us before writing his "report" and simply regurgitated the fathers' rights arguments. He went on to write two more "updates" without any indication that he was interested in the fairness and balance he claimed our documentary was lacking. The PBS Ombudsman did a more honest job even if we disagreed with his conclusions. And unlike Ken Bode, he published letters he received from people who disagreed with his report. PBS's official statement on the film indicated that, "The producers approached the topic with the open mindedness and commitment to fairness that we require of our journalists. Their research was extensive and supports the conclusions drawn in the program. Funding from the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation met PBS's underwriting guidelines; the Foundation had no editorial influence on program content. However, the program would have benefited from more indepth treatment of the complex issues surrounding child custody and the role of family courts and most specifically the provocative topic of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS).

Additionally,the documentary's 'first-person story telling approach' did not allow the depth of the producers' research to be as evident to the viewer as it could have been." Did you look for a father who had a similar experience to some of the mothers featured in your show? Yes, I spoke with a father's organization and it was clear that that they had a specific political agenda that they wanted to bring to this. The women we interviewed were simply mothers who were trying to protect their kids. Your main source of funding for Breaking the Silence, the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation, has also distanced itself from the program. you surprised by this? The Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation did not distance itself from the program. There are very strict guidelines for PBS underwriters who are not to exercise any control over the editorial content of the programs they support. Mary Kay simply made it clear that these rules had been respected and that we the filmmakers had full editorial control. The work of the foundation and of Mary Kay Corporation on the issue of domestic violence is remarkable and will continue to affect positively the lives of thousand of women across the country.

It seems that the discussion about Breaking the Silence has turned into a debate over style rather than substance. Would you agree?

If the documentary helps in any way to open a dialogue about how family courts are victimizing very families they are supposed to protect, then any debate will have been positive.

Has there been any positive outcome?

Yesterday, I was in Westchester County where I showed an eight-minute excerpt of Breaking the Silence to family court judges and personnel. Some were aware of the issues we presented and others were surprised. But it was very positive to see this information being used. You are not the first journalist to get into hot water after reporting on this topic. Kristen Lombardi, another contributor to this book, was sued and lost after writing an expose in the Boston Phoenix.

Why do you think these stories generate so much of a backlash?

These are complex stories filled with pain and extreme passions. There are strong vested interests that want to keep the public from knowing what is going on in family courts. I believe we're approaching a tipping point when people will demand more accountability from our courts.

What advice do you give to other journalists who want to cover this issue?

My only advice is, get your facts straight, get good insurance and get a good attorney.

Are you planning to do a follow up to Breaking the Silence?

While our next project will not be on domestic violence, we are committed to do more on this issue and to follow up on what we have learned with Breaking the Silence.

American Journalist Kristen Lombardi Phoenix Globe Article The "Custodians of Abuse"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:19:54 EST

Custodians of Abuse
by Kristen Lombardi

IF YOU'RE A PARENT, it's your worst nightmare: finding out that your child is being molested — by your spouse. If you seek a divorce as a result, or are already going through one when you make the discovery, you hope that family court will do the right thing: grant you sole legal and physical custody of your child. In fact, you can't even imagine that there could be any other outcome in the custody judgment. But for many parents — in nearly every instance, mothers — just the opposite occurs: the alleged abusers don't just get unsupervised visitation rights, they get full custody. How can this happen?

Easy, say family-law attorneys, child-abuse advocates, and child-law specialists. Family courts aren't equipped to adjudicate criminal matters. They exist to settle divorces, wills, adoptions, guardianships, and other matters related to litigation between family members.

Three recent studies that looked at the outcomes of custody disputes involving child-abuse claims — one study surveyed California courts, one surveyed Massachusetts courts, and a third tracked 300 cases over a 10-year period in courts throughout the country — all came to the same conclusion: the nation's family courts are failing to protect children from abuse.

"Family courts are not in a position to litigate the complexities of child sexual abuse," explains Seth Goldstein, a Napa, California–based attorney who represents men and women in custody disputes involving child-sex-abuse charges. Goldstein, who also founded the Child Abuse Forensic Institute, in Napa, says that most family courts are "overburdened" with cases and don't have time for the lengthy trials and investigations that child-abuse allegations demand. "In many family courts," he says, "you often have only one sitting judge to hear hundreds of matters that have to do with many, many things, so the courts are compelled to move things along as quickly as possible. The system is just not conducive to [dealing with] child abuse."

Colorado attorney Alan Rosenfeld, who specializes in representing parents in custody disputes involving child-abuse allegations and has counseled approximately 1000 mothers trying to protect their children from abusive ex-husbands, is blunt: "If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today."

Nearly 25 experts in custody litigation involving child-abuse claims were interviewed for this article. All had the same three complaints about family court — regardless of which state's court system they were familiar with:

Family courts do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims. They rely on family advocates called guardians ad litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys. They may be highly trained in their own areas of expertise, but that doesn't qualify them to evaluate physical evidence of abuse and to interview victims and alleged abusers. Yet in contested custody battles, they are frequently called upon to do just that. Their recommendations carry significant weight in judicial decisions that set the course of a child's life.

Normal courtroom checks and balances don't exist in family court. Unlike in criminal and civil court, there are no juries. And family courts do not mandate legal representation. Therefore, the only litigants with attorneys are those who can afford them. In this atmosphere, judges have extraordinary powers and can work with near-complete impunity. It is not uncommon, for example, for judges to hold hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings can violate basic constitutional rights of due process.

Gender bias and traditional stereotypes of how women and men parent children continue to prevail in family court. As a result, while conventional wisdom has it that mothers almost always fare well in family court, statistics show otherwise. In 1996, the Williamsburg, Virginia–based American Judges Association released a report, "Domestic Violence and the Courtroom," in which it noted that wife batterers and child abusers convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are "unfit" or "undeserving" of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles. A 1989 Massachusetts study commissioned by the state's Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) showed that gender bias often hampers the administration of justice for women in custody decisions. It's true that mothers are almost always awarded full or joint custody of their children in divorce cases where custody isn't disputed. Yet the study found that when there was a fight over the children, fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse. (See "Changes in Massachusetts Family Courts Since 1989," this page.) Although the study is 13 years old and a number of things have changed since it was first published, at least 23 states have conducted gender-bias studies since — and all have made similar findings.

AMERICA'S DARKEST SECRET

IT'S HARD TO say how many children are affected in these cases. Massachusetts family courts mediated approximately 9450 custody cases in 2001; multiply that by 50 and you get an extremely rough estimate of how many such cases are heard nationwide every year 472,500. Of these, it's impossible to say how many involve charges of child abuse. Massachusetts family courts, for instance, do not keep statistics on the types of custody cases litigated. To date, the most reliable and largest national study of the incidence of child sexual abuse in contested custody cases occurred in 1990, when the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver, surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Fewer than two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges.

The number is small. But the implications for the children concerned are staggering. Take, for instance, Idelle Clarke's 16-year-old daughter, who is now living with her father, a man twice found by Los Angeles child-protection workers to have sexually assaulted her.

"This is one of America's darkest, most shameful secrets," says Clarke, a 54-year-old Southern California mother whose case has become something of a cause célèbre among the burgeoning community of women and advocates seeking reform of the nation's family courts. (See "Five Steps Toward Family-Court Reform," page 3.) After a nine-year custody battle that began in Los Angeles County Family Courts in 1993 and ended in California Supreme Court last October, Clarke not only lost custody of her daughter, but cannot have any contact with the girl. No phone calls. No visits. Nothing. Family-court judges simply didn't believe that the girl had been sexually assaulted by Clarke's ex-husband, Ovando Cowles, even though two separate, exhaustive sex-abuse investigations by LA child-protection workers found that she had been. Instead, judges maintained that Clarke had brainwashed her daughter into making up bogus charges about her father. So now, even though her daughter lives just minutes away from Clarke's Sierra Madre home, she hasn't been able to see the girl in the two years since the initial family-court judgment, which prohibited Clarke from going within 100 yards of her daughter. "It's a punishment greater than those given to serial rapists," says Clarke, who is now preparing to file a January 14 petition asking the United States Supreme Court to hear her case. Meanwhile, Clarke's daughter doesn't just live with the man who's sexually abused her on at least two occasions. The teenager, who is developmentally delayed, lives with her abuser not understanding that the people who want to protect her, can't. And that those who can protect her, won't.

In the small world of contested custody cases in which child-abuse claims arise, Clarke's situation isn't an exception. It's more the rule. Colorado attorney Rosenfeld has seen mothers lose custody of children who've contracted sexually transmitted diseases from their fathers or who've made graphic disclosures such as "Daddy took Mr. Cocky and I played with him and took a tissue and cleaned it up." Nevertheless, for years, parents who've lost their children to abusers have believed their cases were exceptions. Until Clarke went public with her story.

In 1999, the now-defunct Los Angeles New Times published a detailed account of the prolonged custody battle. (See "Additional Reading," page 4.) Since then, Clarke has fielded countless phone calls from women
across the country who, like her, expected to find justice in the family courts, but found something quite different instead. "Rarely a day goes by where I don't get a call from a mother," she says. The outpouring inspired her, along with four mothers from California, Alaska, Michigan, and New Jersey, to organize the grassroots group United for Justice, whose members include hundreds of women in 49 states caught in Kafkaesque nightmares in the nation's family courts. Says Clarke, "Women are being routinely punished and abused if they bring up child-sexual-abuse allegations in the family courts." And it's not just Clarke and other mothers who've lost custody of their children who make this claim.

New York area sociologist Amy Neustein, along with two co-authors, is writing a critique of the family-court system for Northeastern University Press. In 1988, she established the Help Us Regain the Children Legal Research Center, which tracks custody battles involving child-sexual-abuse claims. Over the past 14 years, she has compiled a database with nearly 1000 cases, and has identified a frequent and disturbing pattern: "the penalization of mothers for bringing these allegations to the court's attention in the first place."

In a 1999 study on judicial responses to mothers' child-abuse complaints, Neustein and a colleague followed 300 cases through the family courts in places across the country for a 10-year period, from 1988 to 1998. Only 10 percent of the 300 cases resulted in what Neustein termed "a positive outcome" — meaning that the mother had won primary custody of her children and the alleged abuser had gotten supervised visits. In 70 percent of the cases, the mothers had to send their children on unsupervised visits and share custody with the alleged abusers. More than 20 percent of the cases led to what Neustein referred to as "a negative outcome" i.e., the mother lost visitation rights altogether. Too often, she concludes, "The system retaliates against mothers with such ferocity that they lose their rights."

Her research, which entails combing through court transcripts, depositions, sex-abuse evaluations, GAL reports, and judicial findings from the 1000 child-custody cases in her database, has exposed punitive measures commonly issued by judges against mothers who continue to charge child sexual abuse. Family-court judges, for example, hold women in contempt, throw them in jail, scale back their visitation privileges, and even forbid them to seek psychological care for their children. In some instances, judges have gone to the extreme of ordering women not to have any contact — no letters, no phone calls — with their children.

"What I have seen in the family courts goes beyond the maltreatment of any other afflicted class in the history of this country," Neustein maintains. She ticks off a shocking number of injustices committed against mothers. Family judges routinely refuse to hear evidence of child sexual abuse; fail to give mothers a chance to testify in court on critical matters concerning abuse; hand down judgments against mothers in ex parte hearings without giving them prior notice; and evade the rules that guide courtroom conduct. She says, "People would be flabbergasted by what I have found in the family courts.... It's as if you're looking into a world that's completely outside the normal range of legal conduct."

DOCUMENTING THE ABUSE

NOT LONG AFTER Clarke's story was published, the California National Organization for Women (NOW) drafted a friend-of-the-court brief urging California appellate judges to review Clarke's case, as did the Washington, DC–based legal-watchdog group Judicial Watch. (Her case has attracted an impressive list of notables from the mental-health and legal fields. Among the dozens who submitted letters this year urging the California Supreme Court to review the custody dispute were University of Southern California law professor Susan Estrich, National NOW president Kim Gandy, and former American Psychiatric Association president Paul Fink.) After NOW's brief was reported in the press, the organization, like Clarke, began receiving e-mails and phone calls from women nationwide describing similar problems. The vast majority of these women, says Rachel Allan of California NOW, had lost custody to husbands or boyfriends believed to be sexually abusing their children. In response to the stories, the group launched a three-year effort to examine the problems women face in California's family courts. In 2001, the organization posted a 21-page questionnaire on its Web page. Feedback was overwhelming, Allan says; the group received detailed responses from women in every region in the country, including Massachusetts. "Women had expected to find a family-friendly venue [in family court] to make arrangements on divorce and custody," she explains, "but they found something quite different."

Last June, after surveying 300 California mothers who had participated in the questionnaire and conducting follow-up interviews, NOW released a 134-page report on the state of the family courts in California. Not intended as a neutral analysis, the document portrays a system that's "crippled, incompetent, and corrupt" and riddled with abuses against women. Women reported being openly insulted and called "sexist names" by judges, GALs, and court evaluators. Some complained that judges silenced them during hearings while allowing their estranged partners to speak. Others complained that judges refused to let them call their own expert witnesses who'd analyzed forensic evidence in their cases or even to let women testify in custody disputes that would affect their own children. Evaluators and GALs often sided with the fathers and their attorneys, especially when spousal or child abuse arose.

The NOW report found that the most serious problems occurred in custody litigation involving allegations of domestic violence; in 76 percent of the cases surveyed, the fathers were accused of having physically or sexually abused their children. In 50 percent of these cases, the abuse was substantiated with police reports. In 30 percent, court-issued restraining orders had been directed against the fathers. Yet when mothers raised allegations of child abuse in disputes, fathers won sole or joint custody 69 percent of the time. Family-court judges did not permit evidence of the father's child abuse to be heard in 73 percent of these cases, even though blocking such evidence from court proceedings violates due-process rights. Allan and her colleagues repeatedly found that judges had disregarded compelling evidence of child sexual abuse. Some judges deemed such material irrelevant because of earlier rulings or similar technicalities. Others flouted the rules altogether. "I've been in a family court where the judge openly proclaimed, 'I don't care what the law says. This is my courtroom,'" Allan says. "In so many cases, judges just ignored the evidence of abuse and the word of children themselves."

Massachusetts hasn't escaped these problems. Last November, the Wellesley Centers for Women, at Wellesley College, issued a sharp critique of the Massachusetts family-court system as part of a three-year research effort known as the Battered Women's Testimony Project (BWTP). The November 25 report, "Battered Mothers Speak Out," stems from interviews with 40 women from across the state — all of whom had suffered physical, emotional, or psychological abuse during their marriages — and 45 victims' advocates, judges, and other courtroom personnel. The study found that officials who work at nearly every family court in the Commonwealth regularly commit what the report described as "human-rights violations" against battered mothers. Women complained about a host of offenses: how court personnel labeled them hysterical and unreasonable; treated them with scorn, condescension, and disrespect; failed to give them a chance to be heard in court; and denied them access to sensitive investigations and documents pertinent to their custody disputes.

Fifteen of the 40 women interviewed said their ex-partners retained sole or joint custody of the children — even though all 15 men reportedly abused both their ex-wives and their children. Eighteen complained that judges or family-service officers granted or recommended that abusive fathers get unsupervised visitation with their children. When it came to allegations of spousal or child abuse, 38 women said judges, family-service officers, and GALs had ignored or minimized their claims. Nine of the 40 women said judges and GALs failed to investigate allegations of physical and sexual abuse. And six of the 40 women said that judges and GALs refused to take into account documented evidence of child abuse when deciding their custody disputes. The Wellesley report concluded that family courts across Massachusetts are systematically failing to protect battered women and their children from further harm. As Carrie Cuthbert, one of the report's five authors and co-director of the Wellesley Centers' Women's Rights Network, explains, "Not only is the safety and well-being of mothers and children at stake, but so is battered mothers' trust
in our family courts." Within the community of battered women and their advocates, she continues, "the family courts have gained a reputation as a place where women don't find justice."

Not surprisingly, Massachusetts family-court judges disagree. They condemn the 106-page Wellesley report as skewed because it relies solely on testimony from women with complaints about custody decisions, not those satisfied with their rulings. "It is incomplete and flawed in its methodology," states Sean Dunphy, the chief justice of the Massachusetts family and probate courts. He maintains that the report's approach, which frames the 40 women's accounts in the context of human-rights violations, "may work well for systems in Third World countries, but not for a court in the United States." He and other judges argue that the women's testimony would have been strengthened if it had been verified by a review of court transcripts and by interviews with lawyers in the cases. (In fact, the Wellesley report's authors fact-checked 10 of the 40 stories with court records and other documentation. "In every one, we found the documents thoroughly supported the women's statements," says Lundy Bancroft, a report author.)

Nevertheless, Dunphy finds the claim that the state's family courts aren't working to be a "broad-brushed statement." It concerns him, however, "that individuals would have such perceptions and beliefs." Jeremy Stahlin, associate justice at the Suffolk County Probate and Family Court, concedes that if the complaints outlined in the report were true, "then, yes, it's a problem." But he also concludes: "I don't think the court is predominantly favoring one side or the other in these custody cases, and I find that hard to accept as a premise."

Complaints about faulty methodology strike advocates as a convenient way to deflect attention from the issues laid out in the controversial reports. That so many women across the state reported strikingly similar accounts should, in and of itself, be cause for alarm, Bancroft says, noting, "It's shocking that 40 women who don't know each other would offer the same complaints about the family courts." He adds, "The family court's current response to custody disputes, particularly those that involve child-abuse allegations, is repeatedly failing to protect children."

Losing custody to a child molester

[note: a portion of this article has been deleted]

THE NOTORIOUS Fells Acres day-care and McMartin preschool child-sexual-abuse cases have left behind a terrible legacy: That same year, Karen Henderson of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on problems in her diocese and beyond. Yet it wasn't until 2002, when the details of sexual abuse by scores of clergy within the Boston archdiocese were made public, that enough people believed the charges, victims could credibly demand their abusers be held accountable, and law-enforcement and court authorities would finally listen.

So it should come as no surprise that family-court officials often disbelieve charges of child sex abuse — even though few sex-abuse allegations ever turn out to be patently false. Kathleen Coulborn Faller, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, has done extensive research into child-sex-abuse allegations in custody cases and has found that 70 percent of these allegations were indeed true. Of the other 30 percent, she reports, very few involved parents maliciously conjuring up bogus charges — only 10 out of 215 cases fit that description. Even that number seems inflated, given that four of the 10 cases involved one father who Faller says "admitted that he had filed false child-abuse reports ... to obtain greater access to his daughter." Thus, the data, she says, "thoroughly debunks the myth that false allegations are rampant in custody disputes."

Even so, the myth persists. Combine that with gender bias — after all, most claims of abuse are made by women against their ex-husbands or former boyfriends — and you have situations in which mothers find it very difficult to get their claims taken seriously. Eileen King, director of the Washington, DC, office of Justice for Children, a national child-advocacy group, has worked on roughly 100 custody cases involving child-abuse allegations in many states over the past two years, and has seen how gender discrimination comes into play. If a mother who suspects molestation appears distraught in the courtroom (which seems only natural when dealing with the horror of hearing a child say, "Daddy puts his pee-pee in my pee-pee") she often gets slapped with the "hysterical" label. If she appears composed, the label is "cold and calculated." Mothers, King observes, "are often put into no-win situations."

Gender bias against mothers, combined with a culture resistant to believing fathers molest their children, has made for a potent mix, giving rise to a bogus mental disorder called "parental-alienation syndrome" (PAS) that is frequently employed by alleged sex abusers in their custody battles. Essentially, PAS involves brainwashing a child to allege molestation. The syndrome, according to the theory, afflicts mostly "vindictive mothers" who "program" their kids to fabricate claims so they'll have an advantage in litigation. The brainchild of Richard Gardner, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University (who believes that up to 90 percent of all child-sex-abuse allegations are false), PAS has been referenced in courtrooms in Massachusetts and across the country, even though it's widely discredited by mainstream mental-health professionals.

Since 1987, when Gardner first coined the phrase "parental-alienation syndrome," he has provided no scientific data to support it. Most of his 140 or so articles on the subject have not appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, which require evaluation of articles by fellow professionals before publication. The American Psychiatric Association has not included PAS in its diagnostic manual of certifiable disorders. "It is a non-syndrome," explains Robert Geffner, a psychologist who has evaluated child-sex-abuse allegations in family-court litigation for 20 years and who established the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute, in San Diego. "PAS [is] no medical diagnosis whatsoever. You cannot confirm a syndrome simply by stating that it exists."

Nevertheless, Gardner's PAS theory is widely accepted in a legal system seeking neat, convenient ways to get rid of time-consuming custody battles. A prolific writer, Gardner has self-published hundreds of books, audiotapes, and videotapes and has lugged them across the globe to train family-court judges, GALs, and psychologists on how to recognize PAS. "People believe him," Faller says. "The idea of an alienating parent has taken on a life of its own." His teachings have become so thoroughly integrated into the language of family law that mothers almost always face a variation on them in court: a mother who alleges abuse is crazy, for instance; or she coaches the kids; or she is crazy and coaches the kids. As King, of Justice for Children, explains, "No one has to cite 'PAS' anymore. They say the mother is 'delusional,' or that she is 'destroying the relationship' with the father. It's the most common defense in these cases." Or, as Suffolk family judge Stahlin says, "It's very common for one parent to say the other is 'alienating' or 'coaching' the child. Often, it's the only explanation that the accused can come up with for why the child is saying what he's saying." Indeed, Gardner's influence has become so entrenched nowadays that the Massachusetts Citizens for Children, a statewide child-advocacy group based in Waltham, organized an October 2002 conference — attended by just six family-court judges, including Dunphy and Stahlin — meant to counteract the negative impact of PAS-like defenses.

For all too often, the language of PAS works. Kelly Fink, one of the 40 women who participated in the recent Wellesley report, knows firsthand the shame and humiliation of being labeled crazy and a brainwasher by family-court officials. The 39-year-old nurse and Natick resident comes across as a formidable personality — she's smart, articulate, and persuasive. Yet her five-year custody battle at Middlesex Probate and Family Court — during which she criticized judges, GALs, and doctors for how they handled her allegations — ended last August when she lost custody of her school-aged daughter to the man whom she has repeatedly accused of child molestation. The experience has left Fink convinced that, in her words, "the family courts aren't at all interested in protecting innocent children."

Fink's custody battle dates back to summer 1997, when she filed to divorce her then-husband, Jonathan Meier, a 37-year-old engineer and Massachusetts resident. Their marriage, Fink says, was an unhappy, abusive relationship that deteriorated for good soon after the birth of the couple's daughter, Melissa (not her real name). After a bitter divorce trial in January 1999, Fink was awarded full custody of Melissa. And due to allegations of emotional and physical abuse that Fink lodged against her ex-husband — including charges that he had bruised Melissa's leg as a baby — Meier got only supervised visitation. Gradually, though, as he received positive marks from a supervisor who monitored visits, Meier was allowed to spend unsupervised time with his daughter.

It wasn't long after the court loosened the stringent visitation provisions that Fink began to suspect Meier was abusing Melissa. In October 1999, Melissa, then two, returned from a visit with her father and, several days later, complained that, as Fink recalls, "her bottom hurt her." Fink took her daughter to a doctor, who diagnosed the little girl with bloody, superficial cuts and tears around the vulva. The doctor didn't consider the injuries particularly revealing, though child-abuse experts like Children's Hospital's Newberger say such physical injuries on a toddler "exclude any benign or accidental cause." Yet something the girl said gave the doctor pause. During the genital examination, according to court records, the toddler told the doctor, "Don't put your fingers inside."

Taken aback, the doctor asked Melissa if anyone else ever did such a thing.

Melissa, court records show, replied, "Dad did, I do."

Concerned, the doctor filed a report of suspected child abuse with the state DSS. When the agency receives these reports, known as "51-As," says DSS spokesperson Michael MacCormack, it "screens" them to see if they warrant investigation. In this case, the DSS called the GAL assigned to represent Melissa at the time. But the agency then screened out the doctor's report according to department regulations — something that happens more often than you might think. In 2001, for example, DSS received 64,304 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect. Of those, it instantly threw out 21,828 because, MacCormack explains, "They did not meet our criteria." Either the child wasn't in immediate danger, he says, or the alleged abuser wasn't a primary caretaker. In the courtroom, the agency's unwillingness to investigate child sexual abuse helped cement the idea that Fink's allegations were nothing but "distortions" and possible "delusions." A court-ordered evaluation into the claims concluded that, according to documents, "There is no data ... to indicate that [the child] has been sexually abused by anyone." And so, the unsupervised visits were allowed to continue.

More than a year later, Fink voiced concerns about abuse again. This time, in April 2001, Melissa, who was now four years old, returned from a visit with her father appearing upset. When Fink asked what was wrong, her daughter told her that "her bottom hurt." The girl's genitals, Fink says, looked red and raw. So Fink called the girl's GAL, who reminded Fink about "problems with past allegations," as stated in court records. Fink did the only thing she could think to do: she brought her daughter to Children's Hospital. Melissa's diagnosis of a "perineal rash" does not specify abuse. But while the doctor was examining Melissa, court records (and an audiotape of the examination provided to the Phoenix) reveal she blurted out to her mother: "That's where Daddy touches me."

Melissa's comment set off a chain reaction. The hospital performed a rape-kit exam and filed a 51-A report with the DSS. The department, in turn, performed a two-month investigation, interviewing Melissa, her parents, and others. In the end, however, the department did not support a finding of sexual abuse — because, as court documents show, Melissa did not make "specific definitive disclosures" about being abused. It was one of 16,637 cases in 2001 where DSS did not substantiate suspected abuse or neglect. In accordance with agency guidelines, the DSS referred the case to the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office, which opened a criminal investigation. State prosecutors discovered that Melissa's rape-kit exam had yielded traces of DNA from "saliva" on swabs taken from the girl's genital area. The presence of saliva doesn't prove molestation; indeed, it could have come from Melissa's own fingers. Court records show that prosecutors convened a November 2001 grand jury and issued a subpoena ordering Meier to provide a DNA sample, which he did in February 2002. But they've since told Fink that the DNA from the rape kit turned out to be too small for testing. In other words, it's still not known whose DNA matches the rape-kit sample. The Middlesex DA, through its spokesperson Seth Horowitz, declined to comment on the specifics of the criminal investigation except to say that the office "had no positive forensic evidence" at this time.

Her daughter's disclosures prompted Fink to ask Middlesex family court to issue a no-contact order against her ex-husband and to review the visitation set-up. She filed the motion on April 27, 2001. On July 12, 2001, Meier filed a counter-motion seeking full custody of Melissa. Meier did not return a phone call from the Phoenix seeking comment. Through his Newton attorney, Lisa Marino, he declined to comment on the case. Marino offered this statement: "My client understands the importance of abuse allegations and has always taken them seriously. However, in this case, the allegations are not true." In court records, Meier has repeatedly denied that he's ever harmed his daughter. He has claimed that his ex-wife has made "false allegations" against him and has "physically and emotionally" harmed his daughter by subjecting her to repeated sex-abuse investigations that fail to yield any evidence.

In February 2002, Middlesex Probate and Family Court associate justice Beverly Weinger Boorstein presided over the couple's second custody trial on the new appeals. During the three-day trial, as many as 14 witnesses were called to testify. Yet according to trial transcripts, the court heard far more testimony about the mother's mental health and parental fitness than about physical evidence of child sexual abuse. At the end of trial, Fink says, Boorstein requested that she bring her daughter to court so the judge could meet her. When Fink showed up at the courthouse on February 27, 2002, she says, the judge offered her an ultimatum. "She said if I voluntarily gave up my no-contact order, she'd allow me to retain full custody," Fink recalls. "I told her I wouldn't do that." Fink's comments are echoed by her partner, Jason Morse, who accompanied Fink into the judge's chambers that day. (Fink filed a February 28, 2002, complaint about Boorstein with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, whose investigation confirmed the events at the February 27 meeting yet absolved Boorstein of misconduct.) On March 5, 2002, Boorstein awarded joint physical custody to Fink and Meier. But five months later, she reversed her order and stripped Fink of custody. Fink, the judge ruled, could only see her daughter twice a week, under strict supervision. In the August 5, 2002, ruling — an exhaustive, 28-page summary of the case — Boorstein casts Fink, who suffers from post-traumatic-stress disorder, as a delusional woman whose sex-abuse allegations are false beliefs unsupported by the evidence. Boorstein declined to comment on the case for this article. In her ruling, she states that the "mother's mental state and her resulting actions will destroy [Melissa's] relationship with her father and continue to have a negative effect on [Melissa's] emotional and mental development."

Fink, who's appealing Boorstein's decision, holds a different view: "I feel like she reversed custody just to punish me" for filing a complaint against her with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Though Fink acknowledges that the judge's findings deal a severe blow to her credibility, she attributes the punitive judgment to "an effort to psychologically slam me and debilitate me so that I will shut up." Fink — who attended a battered women's testimonial at the State House in May 2002, at which dozens of mothers spoke out about problems in Massachusetts family courts — says her experience fits a shockingly similar pattern in custody cases involving child sexual abuse. As she describes it: "It's [to] pathologize the moms and turn attention away from the kids."

A threat from the judge

PARENTAL-ALIENATION syndrome also popped up in Jean Johnson's battle with her ex-husband for custody of their daughter. Johnson (who asked that her real name and other names associated with the case not be used for fear of retaliation by the judge who presided over her custody litigation) believes that recognition of the syndrome pervaded her three-year battle in Plymouth Probate and Family Court for custody of her daughter Julia. Unlike Fink, Johnson, a 40-year-old attorney and Plymouth resident, won custody of her child. But her ex-husband, a man who the Massachusetts DSS insists assaulted the couple's six-year-old daughter, was awarded unsupervised visitation rights. And the March 2002 decision makes it clear that this arrangement will end if Johnson tries "to alienate the child from the Father" again. In other words, as she says, "I could lose my daughter at any time." Throughout these cases, Johnson adds, family-court personnel try to reason "around the abuse and turn it against you."

Johnson filed for divorce in fall of 1999. Within months of the filing, she says, her daughter seemed strange after visits with her father. One time, Julia, who was just three years old, asked her mother if she knew about the "woo-woo game" that she played with her father. When Johnson asked what the game entailed, her daughter explained that "you take off your clothes" and "Daddy sticks them up my bum," according to court records. Another time, Johnson walked into Julia's bedroom to find the little girl standing before a mirror squeezing her nipples. Julia's vagina and anus, Johnson noticed, looked swollen. Johnson took her daughter to a doctor, who chalked up the physical symptoms to stress. The doctor nevertheless filed a 51-A report with the state DSS, which didn't make much of the sex-abuse allegations. After a 10-day investigation, during which Julia didn't offer any incriminating details, the agency failed to substantiate abuse. Such a conclusion, explains DSS spokesperson Michael MacCormack, "means that we couldn't find credible evidence to support allegations, such as a disclosure from the child." He then adds, "It may be more difficult than you'd expect to find credible evidence of child sexual abuse."

While the divorce and custody trial proceeded, however, the DSS was again pulled into the case. In April 2000, Julia's therapist called the department to report that during a therapy session, the little girl had discussed the "woo-woo game" she had played with her father. This time, another 10-day investigation found Julia to be a telling witness. Her descriptions of the "woo-woo game," as well as the "beatle-bug game" and the "pajama game," are documented in court records as played when "taking off your clothes" and then "Daddy sticks them up my bum." As a result, the DSS concluded that Julia's father was molesting her. Johnson's ex-husband, a middle-aged scientist, has repeatedly denied the sex-abuse charges in court records.

By the time the couple's divorce went to trial at Plymouth family court, in October 2001, the evidence against Johnson's ex-husband seemed so credible that Johnson assumed that his attempt to gain custody "would go nowhere." The court, however, proved her wrong. According to court documents in the case, the Plymouth County judge issued a seemingly illogical ruling in March 2002 that shocks Johnson to this day. Not only did the judge downplay the DSS's conclusions, but he assailed Julia's therapist as "questionable." Thus the judge ruled that Johnson's ex had not actually molested his daughter, and that Johnson had pushed the bogus charges "solely [in an] attempt to get back at the Father." The judge also warned that if Johnson "alienate[s]" Julia from her father, "a change in custody may be the only remaining action that can be taken by this Court to protect the child."

The decision has left Johnson, who's filing an appeal, in disbelief. "I'm just devastated," she says. "I've been made to look like Mommy Dearest. I made up the allegations, and I harassed these professionals into investigating" the sex-abuse claims. She then offers, "All these social workers and therapists put their [professional] lives on the line just to make me happy? I don't think so."

'Which would you rather believe?'

ACCORDING TO a well-known 1994 national study of the incidence of child sexual abuse, one in five girls and one in 10 boys are molested before the age of 18 — and 70 percent of them are assaulted by their own fathers. These figures paint an ugly, uncomfortable picture. At the end of the day, it's probably far easier for people — including judges, GALs, attorneys, and evaluators — to believe that spiteful women will fabricate child-sex-abuse allegations just to gain the upper hand in court.

"Which would you rather believe?" asks Elizabeth Clague, the Brockton attorney who is also representing Fink and Johnson in their appeals. When handling these custody disputes, she has heard family-court officers, judges, and her own colleagues dismiss sex-abuse charges as cases of "he said, she said." Clinging to this stalemate, Clague theorizes, makes their lives less painful, less complicated. "If you think all these women are sitting on their front stoops and conjuring up lies," she explains, "you can go home, flip on the television, and not have to worry about child sexual abuse."

As the studies by California NOW, Wellesley Centers for Women, and Neustein show, what happened to Clarke, [name deleted], Fink, and Johnson occurs more often than you'd think. As Johnson notes, she simply assumed the courts would rule against someone the DSS had found to be a child molester. "I believed the family courts would listen to the facts and do the right thing because I had truth on my side," she says. "Who'd have thought that court [officials] would not acknowledge abuse and protect children?"

http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org

Tags: abuse, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

The American Center For Judicial Excellence Video "Our Children At Risk"

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:18:04 EST

The American Center For Judicial Excellence Video "Our Children At Risk"

CJE Family Law Documentary
Family Court Crisis: Our Children at Risk
12-Minute Documentary Trailer Video

http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cjefldocumentaryvnr.htm

The American Stockhom Syndrom (abused children(victoms))

Indianashame Teardropsforkatelynn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:16:15 EST

The Stockhom Syndrom (abused children(victoms))

People are often amazed at their own psychological conditions and reactions. Those with depression are stunned when they remember they've thought of killing themselves. Patients recovering from severe psychiatric disturbances are often shocked as they remember their symptoms and behavior during the episode. A patient with Bipolar Disorder recently told me "I can't believe I thought I could change the weather through mental telepathy!" A common reaction is "I can't believe I did that!"

In clinical practice, some of the most surprised and shocked individuals are those who have been involved in controlling and abusive relationships. When the relationship ends, they offer comments such as "I know what he's done to me, but I still love him", "I don't know why, but I want him back", or "I know it sounds crazy, but I miss her". Recently I've heard "This doesn't make sense. He's got a new girlfriend and he's abusing her too…but I'm jealous!" Friends and relatives are even more amazed and shocked when they hear these comments or witness their loved one returning to an abusive relationship. While the situation doesn't make sense from a social standpoint, does it make sense from a psychological viewpoint? The answer is -- Yes!

On ..:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />August 23rd, 1973 two machine-gun carrying criminals entered a bank in Stockholm, Sweden. Blasting their guns, one prison escapee named Jan-Erik Olsson announced to the terrified bank employees "The party has just begun!" The two bank robbers held four hostages, three women and one man, for the next 131 hours. The hostages were strapped with dynamite and held in a bank vault until finally rescued on August 28th.

After their rescue, the hostages exhibited a shocking attitude considering they were threatened, abused, and feared for their lives for over five days. In their media interviews, it was clear that they supported their captors and actually feared law enforcement personnel who came to their rescue. The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had "bonded" emotionally with their captors.

While the psychological condition in hostage situations became known as "Stockholm Syndrome" due to the publicity, the emotional "bonding" with captors was a familiar story in psychology. It had been recognized many years before and was found in studies of other hostage, prisoner, or abusive situations such as:

.. Abused Children
.. Battered/Abused Women
.. Prisoners of War
.. Cult Members
.. Incest Victims
.. Criminal Hostage Situations
.. Concentration Camp Prisoners
.. Controlling/Intimidating Relationships

In the final analysis, emotionally bonding with an abuser is actually a strategy for survival for victims of abuse and intimidation. The "Stockholm Syndrome" reaction in hostage and/or abuse situations is so well recognized at this time that police hostage negotiators no longer view it as unusual. In fact, it is often encouraged in crime situations as it improves the chances for survival of the hostages. On the down side, it also assures that the hostages experiencing "Stockholm Syndrome" will not be very cooperative during rescue or criminal prosecution. Local law enforcement personnel have long recognized this syndrome with battered women who fail to press charges, bail their battering husband/boyfriend out of jail, and even physically attack police officers when they arrive to rescue them from a violent assault.

Stockholm Syndrome (SS) can also be found in family, romantic, and interpersonal relationships. The abuser may be a husband or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, father or mother, or any other role in which the abuser is in a position of control or authority.

It's important to understand the components of Stockholm Syndrome as they relate to abusive and controlling relationships. Once the syndrome is understood, it's easier to understand why victims support, love, and even defend their abusers and controllers.

Every syndrome has symptoms or behaviors, and Stockholm Syndrome is no exception. While a clear-cut list has not been established due to varying opinions by researchers and experts, several of these features will be present:

.. Positive feelings by the victim toward the abuser/controller
.. Negative feelings by the victim toward family, friends, or authorities trying to rescue/support them or win their release
.. Support of the abuser's reasons and behaviors
.. Positive feelings by the abuser toward the victim
.. Supportive behaviors by the victim, at times helping the abuser
.. Inability to engage in behaviors that may assist in their release or detachment

Stockholm Syndrome doesn't occur in every hostage or abusive situation. In another bank robbery involving hostages, after terrorizing patrons and employees for many hours, a police sharpshooter shot and wounded the terrorizing bank robber. After he hit the floor, two women picked him up and physically held him up to the window for another shot. As you can see, the length of time one is exposed to abuse/control and other factors are certainly involved.

It has been found that four situations or conditions are present that serve as a foundation for the development of Stockholm Syndrome. These four situations can be found in hostage, severe abuse, and abusive relationships:

.. The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat.
.. The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
.. Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser The perceived inability to escape the situation

By considering each situation we can understand how Stockholm Syndrome develops in romantic relationships as well as criminal/hostage situations. Looking at each situation:

Perceived Threat to One's Physical/Psychological Survival

The perception of threat can be formed by direct, indirect, or witnessed methods. Criminal or antisocial partners can directly threaten your life or the life of friends and family. Their history of violence leads us to believe that the captor/controller will carry out the threat in a direct manner if we fail to comply with their demands. The abuser assures us that only our cooperation keeps our loved ones safe.

Indirectly, the abuser/controller offers subtle threats that you will never leave them or have another partner, reminding you that people in the past have paid dearly for not following their wishes. Hints are often offered such as "I know people who can make others disappear". Indirect threats also come from the stories told by the abuser or controller -- how they obtained revenge on those who have crossed them in the past. These stories of revenge are told to remind the victim that revenge is possible if they leave.

Witnessing violence or aggression is also a perceived threat. Witnessing a violent temper directed at a television set, others on the highway, or a third party clearly sends us the message that we could be the next target for violence. Witnessing the thoughts and attitudes of the abuser/controller is threatening and intimidating, knowing that we will be the target of those thoughts in the future.

The "Small Kindness" Perception

In threatening and survival situations, we look for evidence of hope -- a small sign that the situation may improve. When an abuser/controller shows the victim some small kindness, even though it is to the abuser's benefit as well, the victim interprets that small kindness as a positive trait of the captor. In criminal/war hostage situations, letting the victim live is often enough. Small behaviors, such as allowing a bathroom visit or providing food/water, are enough to strengthen the Stockholm Syndrome in criminal hostage events.

In relationships with abusers, a birthday card, a gift (usually provided after a period of abuse), or a special treat are interpreted as not only positive, but evidence that the abuser is not "all bad" and may at some time correct his/her behavior. Abusers and controllers are often given positive credit for not abusing their partner, when the partner would have normally been subjected to verbal or physical abuse in a certain situation. An aggressive and jealous partner may normally become intimidating or abusive in certain social situations, as when an opposite-sex coworker waves in a crowd. After seeing the wave, the victim expects to be verbally battered and when it doesn't happen, that "small kindness" is interpreted as a positive sign.

Similar to the small kindness perception is the perception of a "soft side". During the relationship, the abuser/controller may share information about their past -- how they were mistreated, abused, neglected, or wronged. The victim begins to feel the abuser/controller may be capable of fixing their behavior or worse yet, that they (abuser) may also be a "victim". Sympathy may develop toward the abuser and we often hear the victim of Stockholm Syndrome defending their abuser with "I know he fractured my jaw and ribs…but he's troubled. He had a rough childhood!" Losers and abusers may admit they need psychiatric help or acknowledge they are mentally disturbed; however, it's almost always after they have already abused or intimidated the victim. The admission is a way of denying responsibility for the abuse. In truth, personality disorders and criminals have learned over the years that personal responsibility for their violent/abusive behaviors can be minimized and even denied by blaming their bad upbringing, abuse as a child, and now even video games. One murderer blamed his crime on eating too much junk food -- now known as the "Twinkie Defense". While it may be true that the abuser/controller had a difficult upbringing, showing sympathy for his/her history produces no change in their behavior and in fact, prolongs the length of time you will be abused. While "sad stories" are always included in their apologies -- after the abusive/controlling event -- their behavior never changes! Keep in mind: once you become hardened to the "sad stories", they will simply try another approach. I know of no victim of abuse or crime who has heard their abuser say "I'm beating (robbing, mugging, etc.) you because my Mom hated me!"

Isolation from Perspectives Other than those of the Captor

In abusive and controlling relationships, the victim has the sense they are always "walking on eggshells" -- fearful of saying or doing anything that might prompt a violent/intimidating outburst. For their survival, they begin to see the world through the abuser's perspective. They begin to fix things that might prompt an outburst, act in ways they know makes the abuser happy, or avoid aspects of their own life that may prompt a problem. If we only have a dollar in our pocket, then most of our decisions become financial decisions. If our partner is an abuser or controller, then the majority of our decisions are based on our perception of the abuser's potential reaction. We become preoccupied with the needs, desires, and habits of the abuser/controller.

Taking the abuser's perspective as a survival technique can become so intense that the victim actually develops anger toward those trying to help them. The abuser is already angry and resentful toward anyone who would provide the victim support, typically using multiple methods and manipulations to isolate the victim from others. Any contact the victim has with supportive people in the community is met with accusations, threats, and/or violent outbursts. Victims then turn on their family -- fearing family contact will cause additional violence and abuse in the home. At this point, victims curse their parents and friends, tell them not to call and to stop interfering, and break off communication with others. Agreeing with the abuser/controller, supportive others are now viewed as "causing trouble" and must be avoided. Many victims threaten their family and friends with restraining orders if they continue to "interfere" or try to help the victim in their situation. On the surface it would appear that they have sided with the abuser/controller. In truth, they are trying to minimize contact with situations that might make them a target of additional verbal abuse or intimidation. If a casual phone call from Mom prompts a two-hour temper outburst with threats and accusations -- the victim quickly realizes it's safer if Mom stops calling. If simply telling Mom to stop calling doesn't work, for his or her own safety the victim may accuse Mom of attempting to ruin the relationship and demand that she stop calling.

In severe cases of Stockholm Syndrome in relationships, the victim may have difficulty leaving the abuser and may actually feel the abusive situation is their fault. In law enforcement situations, the victim may actually feel the arrest of their partner for physical abuse or battering is their fault. Some women will allow their children to be removed by child protective agencies rather than give up the relationship with their abuser. As they take the perspective of the abuser, the children are at fault -- they complained about the situation, they brought the attention of authorities to the home, and they put the adult relationship at risk. Sadly, the children have now become a danger to the victim's safety. For those with Stockholm Syndrome, allowing the children to be removed from the home decreases their victim stress while providing an emotionally and physically safer environment for the children.

Perceived Inability to Escape

As a hostage in a bank robbery, threatened by criminals with guns, it's easy to understand the perceived inability to escape. In romantic relationships, the belief that one can't escape is also very common. Many abusive/controlling relationships feel like till-death-do-us-part relationships -- locked together by mutual financial issues/assets, mutual intimate knowledge, or legal situations. Here are some common situations:

..p://blog.myspace.com/PicExportError" width=11> Controlling partners have increased the financial obligations/debt in the relationship to the point that neither partner can financially survive on their own. Controllers who sense their partner may be leaving will often purchase a new automobile, later claiming they can't pay alimony or child support due to their large car payments.

.. The legal ending of a relationship, especially a marital relationship, often creates significant problems. A Controller who has an income that is "under the table" or maintained through legally questionable situations runs the risk of those sources of income being investigated or made public by the divorce/separation. The Controller then becomes more agitated about the possible public exposure of their business arrangements than the loss of the relationship.

.. The Controller often uses extreme threats including threatening to take the children out of state, threatening to quit their job/business rather than pay alimony/support, threatening public exposure of the victim's personal issues, or assuring the victim they will never have a peaceful life due to nonstop harassment. In severe cases, the Controller may threaten an action that will undercut the victim's support such as "I'll see that you lose your job" or "I'll have your automobile burned".

.. Controllers often keep the victim locked into the relationship with severe guilt -- threatening suicide if the victim leaves. The victim hears "I'll kill myself in front of the children", "I'll set myself on fire in the front yard", or "Our children won't have a father/mother if you leave me!"

.. In relationships with an abuser or controller, the victim has also experienced a loss of self-esteem, self-confidence, and psychological energy. The victim may feel "burned out" and too depressed to leave. Additionally, abusers and controllers often create a type of dependency by controlling the finances, placing automobiles/homes in their name, and eliminating any assets or resources the victim may use to leave. In clinical practice I've heard "I'd leave but I can't even get money out of the savings account! I don't know the PIN number."

.. In teens and young adults, victims may be attracted to a controlling individual when they feel inexperienced, insecure, and overwhelmed by a change in their life situation. When parents are going through a divorce, a teen may attach to a controlling individual, feeling the controller may stabilize their life. Freshmen in college may be attracted to controlling individuals who promise to help them survive living away from home on a college campus.

In unhealthy relationships and definitely in Stockholm Syndrome there is a daily preoccupation with "trouble". Trouble is any individual, group, situation, comment, casual glance, or cold meal that may produce a temper tantrum or verbal abuse from the controller or abuser. To survive, "trouble" is to be avoided at all costs. The victim must control situations that produce trouble. That may include avoiding family, friends, co-workers, and anyone who may create "trouble" in the abusive relationship. The victim does not hate family and friends; they are only avoiding "trouble"! The victim also cleans the house, calms the children, scans the mail, avoids certain topics, and anticipates every issue of the controller or abuse in an effort to avoid "trouble". In this situation, children who are noisy become "trouble". Loved ones and friends are sources of "trouble" for the victim who is attempting to avoid verbal or physical aggression.

Stockholm Syndrome in relationships is not uncommon. Law enforcement professionals are painfully aware of the situation -- making a domestic dispute one of the high-risk calls during work hours. Called by neighbors during a spousal abuse incident, the abuser is passive upon arrival of the police, only to find the abused spouse upset and threatening the officers if their abusive partner is arrested for domestic violence. In truth, the victim knows the abuser/controller will retaliate against him/her if 1) they encourage an arrest, 2) they offer statements about the abuse/fight that are deemed disloyal by the abuser, 3) they don't bail them out of jail as quickly as possible, and 4) they don't personally apologize for the situation -- as though it was their fault.

Stockholm Syndrome produces an unhealthy bond with the controller and abuser. It is the reason many victims continue to support an abuser after the relationship is over. It's also the reason they continue to see "the good side" of an abusive individual and appear sympathetic to someone who has mentally and sometimes physically abused them.

From- http://counsellingresource.com/quizzes/stockholm/index.html

Tags: abuse, abuses, child, civil, constitutional, discrimination, domestic, human, rights, violence

Have ovaries, will vote

Theresa — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:06:43 EDT

Since the appointment of Ms. Palin as the Republican Candidate for Vice President Women’s issues have been brought to the forefront of the race.

As many of you are probably aware, the NOW (National Organization for Women) have decided to support Obama/Biden for president.

http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

Although this may seem contrary to a female rights organization to NOT back the ticket with a female candidate, they made the decision to back the ticket with the history of consistently advocating women’s rights. I think that this is a very important time for Gender Egalitarians. It shows that women are capable of seeing past gender in order to further equal rights and that men can be, and ARE, proponents of women’s rights.

As the web cast with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton highlighted, Biden has a long history of civil and women’s’ rights behind his belt.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid900881681/bclid900480414/bctid1801254871

Many worried that he was "old government" but the truth is, even though he has been in politics since the 1970s he has consistently shown compassion for his fellow Americans by supporting and writing laws that focused on equality. A particular act that speaks very dearly to my heart is his writing of and continual support of the VAWA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

It is important to note that this act helps fund domestic violence shelters and create an environment where victims feel safe to turn to and to escape the trappings of abuse. As a survivor of such instances, and a witness to my own mother’s entrapment for years, this strikes a chord within me.

In the same vein, I am also struck by a news article I read on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html

I am so sickened by this article. This coupled with her staunch stance against abortion in rape and incest cases disturb me to the very core.

How can I, a young mother, a survivor of domestic and sexual abuse stand by and let Senator Palin become the voice and face of American women? I can’t.

I want everyone to know. Senator Palin does not represent me. She may be an impressive woman with the strength to raise a large family and hold a high profile job, but she does not have the love and respect for women that is needed to claim to be our voice.

THE SADDLEBACK FORUM DISCUSSIONS: BARACK OBAMA, JOHN MCCAIN & RICK WARREN

Friends of President Barack Obama — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:04:18 EDT

PLEASE SEE ASAP. . .

CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

MontgomeryCountyMDforBarackObama

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MontgomeryCountyMDforBarackObama

EDUCATORS FOR BARACK OBAMA

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/EducatorsforObama

MOMS FOR OBAMA

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/MomsforObama

THE DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6652270

THE HUFFINGTON POST:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Motivational Note

Friends of President Barack Obama — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:19:02 EDT

Even though it may not look like it or feel like it, you are making progress.

Continue working towards progress instead of perfection.

Nothing or no no one is perfect.

Just keep taking steps.

Keep making those phone calls.

Continue following your plan.

Remain focused on your goal.

Do what you have to do right now to get to the next level.

Complete every task.

Keep every promise and commitment.

Don't look back.

Stay on track.

Let no one weaken your walk of faith and determination.

Remain teachable.

Place yourself in a blessing position by associating with people on-the-grow.

Talk with teachers.

Walk with winners.

Climb with champions.

Study successful people.

Something great is about to happen for you!

Start giving thanks right now before you can even see the outward manisfestation of your prayers and desires.

Everything you do from this day forward will take you further away or closer to your potential for successful living.

-by Dr. Jewel Diamond Taylor, Motivational Speaker & Author

On the dark side, oh yeah...

Boothe Davis — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:32:00 EDT

Terror, Torture, and the Dark Side
Jane Mayer's Inside Account of the White House's Post- 9/11 Policy Battles

One of the more infamous adages to come from the Vietnam War said that, in waging counterinsurgency in the Vietnamese brush, American policy was to "burn the village to save the village," from communism. This sentiment did not die with Vietnam, however, and has found a clear place in the Bush administration's regard to traditional civil liberties, as described by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer at the New America Foundation on July 15.

An MP3 audio recording or YouTube video is available below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4K73J7exXI
http://www.newamerica.net/files/naf071508a.mp3

Speaking with American Strategy Program director Steve Clemons about her disturbing, impeccably-researched new book, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, Mayer detailed an administration run by the obscure office of the Vice President, one with unlimited power and little concern for the law.

The New Christianity... Christianity for the 21st Century

Wain — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:07:00 EDT

Alma 5:27

Have ye walked, keeping yourselves “blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye

were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble?

Behold, are ye stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God.

For behold, the time is at hand that whosoever bringeth forth good fruit, or whosoever doeth the works of righteousness, the same shall have cause to rejoice.

Now is a time of sowing new seeds of government based on the people. Our government has been overtaken by corporations. This corporationalized democracy has been here since the time of J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Thomas A. Edison, Henry Ford, et al.

The rapid change from an agrarian society to an industrial society has been completed in great haste. I see how this has accelerated a planetary cycle. This warming of the Earth is nothing new. I believe I was here the last time there were no polar ice caps. The Earth was 9/10s water and 1/10 land. Much different then.

This rapid change began around the middle of the 19th century, the commencement of the Industrial Age. We can change our future by re-entering the past. Come with me as we walk down the walkway of destiny. Come, let us open the door to the past and see into our future.

Back to the Basics:

Food, Clothing, and Shelter:

There are people in this area that will go to bed hungry tonight. I feel for them. If I were president, I would us part of the Defense budget to train these people to build houses and give them tools to earn their own living, the American Way.

If I were a standard issue candidate, I would say: “Give, the American Way”. But, I am not. I have no party affiliation, no staff, no publications save this one.

I am merely an observer of the play of life. Long may life live. Long live life.

To be alert, alive, and awake are goals of mine. I want to be alert, alive, and awake anywhere and everywhere I am.

Letter to Obama - We Welcome Change

atomicblast2000 — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 16:08:12 EDT

Senator Obama,

To be honest, I am still a staunch supporter of Ron Paul, but feel I cannot for McCain, sure there are some things both republicans have in common such as upholding our second amendment rights – but other than that not much. And as I see it you Senator Obama will be the next president of the Unites States, and I applaud you campaign of change. And feel there is so much you can do to help bring the country back on track, I can only hope that you bring good change to America, and serve the people not corporate interests.

I know you are very busy but wanted to say that I’m tired of out legislators passing bills without fully understanding them (or even reading them first), I'm also tired of all the wasteful spending, and non sequitur amendments that are added to non related bills in the house and senate - sometimes pork sometimes just other non-related issues. We really need to get back to what’s real and need to tackle one issue at a time where all people address that issue only. And they actually read the bills they vote on. We need to return to sound economic policy as Dr. Ron Paul has advocated. Paul seems to have faith in you that you will do the right thing and so do I, we need to keep America free, and stop pushing fear mongering tactics to get bad bills like the 'patriot act' and ‘fisa’ passed. We need to preserve all of our civil liberties at all costs, that’s why IMHO you should oppose and defeat the "FISA Amendments Act". I know you are an advocate for civil rights but urge you not to neglect other rights outlined in our precious but quickly deteriorating constitution and bill of rights.

We need real leadership, which shows in you – but sometimes we need to think outside the box – we really need new ideas, more nuclear power plants, less coal plants to not only address issues related to now-proven global warming; as well as to make our country less energy dependant. True these are hard decisions but we must act, and set aside the here and now else face the horror that the future holds for our children should we not take steps to protect America from ourselves and corporate greed.

I hope you will read this letter and perhaps do some research on a gentleman named Michael Strizki from New Jersey – who has a very interesting house and zero-emission carbon footprint energy system that could free all Americans from oil. There are a number of people in the alternative energy sector and I do know you’re busy but you might want to look into its work this guy is a real genius just like Stan Meyer. On other fronts I also hope you perhaps tread a bit more lightly on individuals like myself who are not part, and want nothing of the Christian / Religious Right, and believe we are a nation of many, and shouldn’t mix religion and politics.

Personally, I believe that nobody has the right to tell another what he or she cant do to his/her own body. As far as abortion goes I'm pro-choice. I also support the death penalty, as a concept but in reality it’s not practical too bad we don't impose punishments relative to the crime. I have no problem with gay marriage - don't see the problem or even the controversy here - people should be free to live their own lives as they see fit.

On the gun control issue - I'm opposed to gun control, as today's laws don't do anything to keep guns out of the hands of kids and criminals - only the law abiding citizen who now is no longer able to protect himself and his family from fear and harm.

I’m sure that on many issues we have a lot of things in common; I just hope that you do bring change to a quickly eroding country. This letter has gotten longer than I intended, guess I just wanted to point out that there are many true republicans like myself that welcome change and hope that as a nation we can work together to address the pressing issues that we face as a nation, and as human beings on this planet. I do wish you the best, and hope we all can come together to make this country a better place.

A Legal Aberration Called "At Will Statute"

Richard Charman — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:43:13 EDT

I have a profile at www.myspace.com/net_tronic and I was writing about my intention of asking Senator Obama to add, as part of his campaign on behalf of the American workers, the abolishment of the “At Will Statute”, a legal aberration that has no place in a country that is facing the challenge of competing on a global economy against other countries with more advanced legislation on labor law matters and which, at the beginning of the 21rst century is positioned as a world potency.

I understand that this would be a revolutionary CHANGE that would provide Job Security to million of American Workers and that could enhance the employer/employee relationship. As I decided to take a break by looking at some of the most popular blogs on myspace I posted a comment on one of the blogs that called my attention. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=20117338&blogid=409528738&page=5

Later on, I got some replies showing interest on my writing and I decided to send a friend request to them, to make sure that I could reply to them, since I have the bad habit of losing track of my comments on others blogs (not a problem on mine since only a few souls bother to comment on it randomly).

The following is one of the most remarkable, as it is related to the issue that I am focused on.

----------------- Original Message ----------------- From: Paul says you just don't get it! Date: Jun 29, 2008 2:51 AM Thank you! I have accepted. I am interested in the display name you have chosen, can you tell more? Btw, wifey, and I, have sat here for a couple of hours digging the music on your player, a nice rounded choice of music....

Down in Ohio

JIm from Middletown, OH — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:26:03 EDT

Barack Obama's unlikely rise as the Democratic Candidate for President was created through a melding of grassroots fire, desire for change, and overarching vision for a prosperous America. Yet, despite this Mr. Obama has switched, stepping aside from his successful rise and starting anew. No longer is the inspiring optimistic, young, and a charismatic leader he was in the primary season (okay he's still pretty young). Instead he is willing to cave to the pressures of the Administration now, and according to his own words continue to do so when he is President.

What we are seeing is that Democrats voted in the Primary for Barack Obama and got John McCain, and Republicans voted for John McCain and got George Bush. Mr. Obama has shifted dramatically to the right. In fact far enough that the differences between himself and the Republican Party are beginning to become hazy.

This is one vote that Mr. Obama lost today. Because I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. Two poor options does not make the choice worthwhile. Indeed with the continuation of abusive policies in regards to civil liberties, a continuation of the war, and the continued erosion of the wall between church and state this is no choice. It is the option of picking the red cyanide or the blue cyanide.

FISA vote was heartbreaking; must be redeemed

Dianne — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:06:42 EDT

I am so disheartened by Sen. Obama's unnecessary vote to grant the telcoms and their co-conspirators civil immunity today. The only decent thing to do now is for President Obama to have his Attorney General's FIRST act be to criminally indict those rascals and whoever in the current administration purported to authorize their illegal acts. So many people I've spoken to today feel so disillusioned; criminal prosecution would show that the Constitution really matters in an Obama administration.

Civil Liberties: Why We Need Barack Obama

Carly — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:34:37 EDT

The current administration has us waving 'goodbye!' to Civil Liberties.
Barack Obama's respect for Civil Liberties will restore the rights of Americans!

When a Presidential administration is sued (or any sort of law suit is filed against them), the courts have the option of dismissing facts or cases on the basis of national security. The primary purpose for this privilege of the courts is to protect sensitive information from being disclosed during civil proceedings. However, the current administration has taken this concept too far by purporting that judges should dismiss entire cases in order to cover up unconstitutional activity such as wiretapping and extraordinary rendition. This is an incredible abuse of the courts and demonstrates the corruption that exists in the Bush administration.

For the sake of understanding (because the meaning of 'wiretapping' is fairly self-evident) we will first address extraordinary rendition.

1. What is extraordinary rendition?

Extraordinary rendition is a program that allows U.S. government agencies to transfer foreign nationals (foreign-born individuals residing in the United States) suspected of terrorist activity to detainment facilities outside the United States. At these detainment facilities, individuals are interrogated in ways that do not comply with either the United States Federal rules or International treaties. In fact, that is the pure purpose of extraordinary rendition - to transfer individuals off of American soil, so that American Civil Liberty restrictions do not apply and that individual can be tortured in any desired fashion. However, despite the belief of the current administration, United States restrictions do apply, even outside the United States borders.

2. Is extraordinary rendition legal?

Extraordinary rendition violates numerous United States amendments, acts, and treaties, including the following...

The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment (ratified by the United States in 1992), which forbids states to transfer a person to another country in which the person is likely to be tortured.
The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (FARFA, 1998), in which Congress affirmed that it is the policy of the United States not to:
"expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States."
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for the Iraq War and Tsunami Relief (2005), in which Congress yet again reaffirmed that it refuses to authorize the funding of any program that:
"subject[s] any person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

3. What are Barack Obama's views on extraordinary rendition?

Barack Obama has stated that he intends to support Civil Liberties by banning torture, extraordinary rendition, and closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
We need Barack Obama's compassion for Civil Liberties if we expect to regain any of them. If we, as Americans, elect a President who will not protect the liberties of foreign-nationals, we are putting all of our liberties at risk, whether we are a foreign-national or not. When we allow a single person's rights to be infringed upon, it diminishes the rights of the collective group of citizens we comprise.

Obama Campaign Apologizes for Muslim Snub

funkfresh01 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 19:07:58 EDT

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-campaign-apologizes-for-snub-of-muslim-women/80282/

Source: New York Sun

Senator Obama's campaign is apologizing after campaign volunteers reportedly kept two Muslim women from appearing behind the senator at a Detroit rally on Monday because they were wearing headscarves.

One witness, Ali Koussan, told the Politico that one volunteer cited "the political climate," "what's going on in the world," and "what's going on with Muslim Americans" before stating that it wouldn't be helpful for one of the hijab-wearing women to appear in television pictures with Mr. Obama.

"I was like, 'You've got to be kidding me? Are you serious?" Mr. Koussan said.

"This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama's commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run," a spokesman for the campaign, William Burton, told the political news outlet. "We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers."

The Council on American-Islamic Relations called on Mr. Obama to invite the two women who were snubbed to appear with him at a future event.

Senator Obama apologizes to 2 local Muslim women

funkfresh01 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:59:16 EDT

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/NEWS15/80619066&GID=rXlakoBVcc8WumLcjE0kGJ6K56ieqk8CejNNX5IUZw0%3D

By NIRAJ WARIKOO • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER • June 19, 2008

Barack Obama personally called to apologize Thursday to the two Muslim women from Michigan barred from sitting next to him during a campaign rally Monday because they wore Islamic head scarves.

One of the women, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, told the Free Press that Obama called her "to personally convey his deepest apologies and acknowledge that this was inexcusable."

Obama also left a voice mail for the other woman, Hebba Aref, 25, of Bloomfield Hills, according to Abdelfadeel.

Obama volunteers didn't allow the two women to sit behind Obama at a Detroit rally on Monday out of fear their Muslim headscarves, known as hijab, would create a negative impression.

"We both immensely appreciate the Senator's phone call and his commitment to remedy this issue," Abdelfadeel said. "We commend him for displaying qualities befitting an effective President."

Speaking about the incident, Abdelfadeel said that on Monday, “two volunteers denied us seating behind the stage the Senator would soon take.”

Racist Anti-Obama Pin Sold at GOP Convention

funkfresh01 — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:46:48 EDT

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/stick-a-pin-in-it.html

Posted 6/18/2008 4:11:00 PM

Source: Dallas Morning News

Author: Christy Hoppe

While a number of speakers -- such as Railroad Commission chairman Michael Williams and Mike Huckabee -- have praised the advance of Barack Obama and what it means towards a colorblind society, at least one vendor hasn't gotten the message.

At the Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House.

There were other pins that weren't necessarily conveying the positive, inclusive, united front that has been portrayed during the convention. One said, "Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation" and another, "I will hold my nose when I vote for McCain"

Screaming Banshees

Pyrrho — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:33:13 EDT

I just viewed the Rules Committee Meeting in DC. The Rules Committee behaved appropriately. The "audience", unfortunately, did not. The audience added nothing to the discourse and actually impeded it.

Although Republicans usually behave with civil decoruml, Democrats again and again prove in public fora that they are not civil, that they cannot abide by civil respect, that they think that outcomes are determined by who shouts or claps or boos the loudest.

I was much saddened by the spectacle. They are not helping the democratic cause. They represent mob behavior. If democracy is to be the result of mob behavior, I want nothing of it and will not favor those who encourage it.

When politics degenerates into rival teams and fans, I am reminded of Jefferson's saying that the success of democracy will always depend on an educated electorate. I assume he was excluding the shouters, clappers, and booers from that educated electorate.

Pyrrho

"When it's time to Quit" It's time for us to make a Civil Society.

Liz from Brooklyn, NY — Sat, 24 May 2008 18:44:31 EDT

Greetings,

I'm a Declarationist. I believe that we are all created equal, and are entitled to the unalienable rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Based on that, I also believe that Barack Obama is the best person for the job of getting our country back to what our founding fathers dreamed of.

I would like to share with you all some of the reasons why I believe this. A lot of them can best be summed up with little bits of my mom's book about what makes a happy human and a civil society.

"When it's time to quit, Confessions of a Supermom" by Cynthia Morse

from chapter 14 - Society:

Society has always been a part of human civilization. A civil society is a group of people working and living together for the benefit of all the people. A non-civil society is a group of people working and living together for the benefit of only some of the people. Examples are dictatorships, oppressive regimes, and slave states. Only civil societies are acceptable to me. I believe none of us are truly free until we’re all free. I’ve never understood the fear people have of letting everyone reach their potential. I think peace will never come until all humans are treated with equal respect regardless of circumstance.

A true civil society has responsibilities. The first is to respect the rights of individuals equally. Equality requires individuals must have opportunity for education, food, shelter, employment, water, and consequences for their choices. People who consistently make choices benefiting themselves and society should be rewarded. People who choose to do harm to the society should be held responsible for their actions. Society should understand individuals make mistakes but can learn therefore it should be compassionate.

Civil society has a responsibility to never reward or overlook certain behaviors or they will always be part of the human experience. Violent crime is one. There should be no violent crime. We should continue to find ways to identify how society has failed to the point where one individual would so disrespect another they would choose to cause physical harm.

Another behavior society should never condone is intimidation. Society must not submit to bully tactics. If they never worked they wouldn’t be prevalent. Until we consistently support those individuals who are being forced to do things they would not choose on their own we will live in fear.

Every time society does not recognize acts of cruelty and deceit as unacceptable they continue the current problem we face in this world and we all lose. Hate is unacceptable. Children should not be taught or encouraged to hate. Instead they should be taught that all people are unique. Some they will like, others they won’t. That’s normal. Spending most of their time with the ones they like will make them happy. Understanding they will not like everyone will teach tolerance.

Unless society stops ignoring or condoning inequality, deceit, violent crime, intimidation, cruelty, and hate they will always be a part of life and we will not be civil.

Abolish All Marriage - Gay or Straight

Ali A. Rizvi — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:31:36 EDT

On June 14 this year, California will become the second state after Massachusetts to start issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. The state's Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage last week, reigniting the same old nationwide debate (distraction?) that (not so) mysteriously surfaces every election year and arguably cost John Kerry the 2004 presidency, which came down to Ohio's electors and a little over 3 million votes. This year, though, the differences between the candidates aren't as stark as those between Kerry and Bush in 2004, and the issue may not have the impact it did then.

Nonetheless, the position supporting all-out, across-the-board abolition of marriage, once thought to be extreme, is beginning to gain momentum, and seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

It states that the government should stop recognizing marriage in any form and acknowledge civil unions only, leaving marriage to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious authorities.

Clintons on Trial

Chris Donnangelo — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:28:09 EDT

I'm (not) surprised the MSM hasn't picked up this story yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

(The second part is where the meat is, the first is just setup.) I did some research, and this is real. She's required to go to a hearing on April 25th!! Type in Case #BC304174 at this website:

http://lasuperiorcourt.org/civilCaseSummary/index.asp?CaseType=Civil

Do the people of Pennsylvania know that besides a penchant for exaggeration and 'misspeakings', she is also involved in an election fraud case?

reaction to advocate article: obama dominating LGBT endorsements

jonathan | cvg — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:12:01 EDT

there is not doubt that obama offers the honest, CONSISTENT, more progressive record of leadership as well as policy toward LGBT issues. in fact, i have three blogs saying so!

what i doubt is no targeted activity or reinforcement of prior messaging to capture LGBT votes in ohio, considering the dense population in franklin county. clinton, technically weaker on the issues, acted quickly in a targeted message which is one of the stark differences in support of obama. (point #2 of my last blog)

late january, clinton distributed an open letter and it was quickly disseminated among individual voters via social networks and email distribution lists.

lead like sheep into the slaughter house. in turn, i published my rebuttal in blog form on february 6, and then scripted an abridged version which i sent to my personal contacts and OHIO HQ.

however, i did not see an open letter from OBAMA FOR AMERICA until just before the ohio/texas primaries. yes, obama has given many speeches and made better proposals... but this time, somehow, clinton was beating obama via peer contact and new media. how can this be... or more importantly, why are lesbians and homos quick to fall in line under clinton? it's a misitake by gays, and i am only human to speculate that a significant percentage of lesbians are also feminists and that a significant percentage of homos are associate with a mother-figure.

holy freudian slip-up batman! but, before anyone sends me hate mail, let it be known i've heard many rebuttals in favor of clinton resorting to her gender and the idea of wanting a woman in office... all logic be damned.

fortunately, obama won franklin county... home of columbus (dense LGBT population). yet, i am not convinced he won the gay vote. obama faired well in each metropolitan area, winning three of ohio's largest counties such as franklin.

furthermore, i'm pretty disappointed in the official obama LGBT myspace. there's been no activity since before super tuesday. no one has approved comments or circulated the open letter among the thousands of people listed with the site. tragic oversight. that's how clinton set off a domino effect among gay-friendly ears.

i get it. bigger fish to fry? but alas, perhaps this advocate article signifies better targeting in the future.

~ j

OBAMA is stronger on LGBT issues

jonathan | cvg — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:57:48 EDT

i sent this summary of my earlier blog to OHIO HQ and my contacts in february:

CLINTON = political calculation to meet the popular opinion
OBAMA = moral calculation to meet the consistent greater good

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

presumably, you sympathize with equal rights, punishable hate crimes, and no discrimination.

barack obama is your candidate!

1 . . . Defense of Marriage Act was signed by bill clinton and supported by the first lady. today, obama and clinton oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing identical rights. in fact, only obama attends a christian denomination that recognizes gay marriages!

DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality. hillary still defends most of DOMA with a "states' rights" argument, allowing state discrimination.

hillary clinton is on record for only supporting repeal of section 3 of DOMA. however, barack obama has been a leader in civil rights and fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA.

2 . . . obama speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community in many highly visible speeches. these include obama's first presidential speech as well as the eloquent speech to thousands at ebenezer church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

hillary has not brought LGBT issues to the forefront, waiting for gay-friendly ears.

3 . . . it's true clinton co-sponsored bills like Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that obama lead on these and many others hillary could list.

4 . . . hillary counts 8yrs as first lady towards "experience." she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. they leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support.

5 . . . obama wants to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." while clinton now agrees with obama, she supported it when her husband signed the law.

hillary still asserts it was progress. bill clinton sanctioned as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. thus, bill and hillary's promises proved empty during the 90s.

like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.

6 . . . when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, let's remember that obama has marched in his fair share also. after all, his state is home of "boys town."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

barack obama is clearly honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday!

* Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California)
* David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York)
* Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus
* Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona)
* Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif.
* David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member
* Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado)
* Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia)
* Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California)
* Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats
* David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland)
* Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats
* Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president
* Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance
* Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif. )
* Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee)
* Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas)
* Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group
* Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts)
* Michael Shannon, national security expert (D. C. )
* Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats
* Robert D. Horvath Jr. , member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D. C. )
* Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D. C. )
* Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council
* Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors
* Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans
* Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc. , and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund
* Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee
* Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council
* Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
* Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats
* Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats.
* Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Urgent, Clear Choice For Gay Voters: Obama
Andrew Sullivan
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBT
rights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner,
listing the various attributes -- race, gender, etc. -- that shouldn't
trigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to saying
that gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fell
silent."

So he took a different tack: "Now I'm a Christian, and I praise Jesus
every Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers.

"I hear people saying things that I don't think are very Christian
with respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and the
crowd seemed to come along with him this time.

To hear someone defend gay and lesbian dignity and equality from a
Christian perspective and to do so in the context of a largely
African-American crowd, is much, much more than any candidate for the
presidency has ever done. It's a break through. If it were just words,
it would be one thing. But he has now done this repeatedly in front of
black crowds, when he didn't have to. And he has put his specific
commitments in writing in an open letter.

It's time to be candid about this - because gay voters, in my
judgment, could make the difference in Ohio and Texas and Vermont and
Rhode Island. There are very large gay communities in Texas' cities,
and Ohio has the sixth largest gay community in the country. A plea:
Do not sleep-walk into that voting booth with vague good feelings
about the Clintons. Walk into that booth with eyes open and see what
gay people have in front of them.

Now you may have many reasons not to vote for Obama, and no gay voter
should vote on one issue. But solely with respect to gay matters,
there is simply no choice here. Obama's positions, candor, courage,
generation and religious embrace of us are dispositive.

What Obama is doing on the gay issue has the potential transform it
and help us as a society to move past it. No, he's not a savior. No,
we shouldn't expect miracles. No, we should never delegate the work of
our equality to anyone else. We, after all, are the ones we've been
waiting for. But within the Democratic contest, the case for backing
Obama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic.

Gay Americans must not throw this chance away.

The Bilerico Project

mikeinME — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:18:11 EST

I have cut and pasted the following from The Bilerico Project. It was from reading the blog entry that was the pivital point that convinced me that Barack Obama was the candidate that I will trust to produce the changes to bring integrity back to government. Peace

Open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT Community

Filed by Guest Blogger

February 28, 2008 9:30 AM [Editor's note:] The following letter was released by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to GLBT Americans. This letter follows the announcement that the Obama campaign will be taking out full page ads in GLBT newspapers in Ohio and Texas beginning Friday. Read Obama's previous Bilerico guest post A Call for Full Equality.

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans.

Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation. In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin
Luther King once preached.

Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.

Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country. To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

What we hope for...what change Barack Obama brings to America

Patty in Colorado — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:42:45 EST

People ask what are Obama supporters hoping for? What kind of change do we want?

We are hoping for no more liars in the White House. We are hoping for criminals, such as Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush himself, to be held accountable for the things they've chosen to do outside of the law and in blatant violation of the Constitution.

We want Guantanamo Bay Detention Center to be closed down, the prisoners to be moved to decent facilities, and to get legal representation, be able to exercise the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be treated humanely.

We want Obama to appoint people who are qualified for government office.

We want a definite change in the way law-breaking is handled by government officials: evidence not destroyed, no more illegal wiretapping, invasions, wars, occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

We hope that Obama will end the war in Iraq, stop the killing over there, negotiate equitable oil contracts with Middle East and Venezuela, and restore the United States as a peaceful nation. We hope for the repeal of the Patriot Act, Military Tribunals Act, Defense of Marriage Act, and the Protect America Act, to name a few of the obliterations of our civil rights.

Obama will not be a "unitary executive", and this will be a huge change from Bush. We have hope that Obama won't expand the powers of the president beyond what is guaranteed by the Constitution.

We have much evidence that Barack Obama will live up to our hopes and change America in major, positive ways.

As a Political Science and Economics student at Metro State College of Denver, with my sights set on practicing Constitutional Law, this 56 year old white woman is more enthusiastic about Barack Obama than anything else I've experienced. Barack Obama is clearly the most amazing leader to come along in my lifetime.

bah humbug on petitions; win on today's rules

jonathan | cvg — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:20:46 EST

i've read two petitions geared at upsetting the current results for the democratic nominee. one petition favors hillary clinton by recognizing the original primaries in maverick states michigan and florida. the second petition, in opposition to the first, requests a re-vote... a new primary. i say bah humbug to both. let's just win on today's rules.

i vehemently oppose the democratic party seating the delegates voted in favor of hillary clinton in michigan and florida. i agree with al sharpton that howard dean must oppose the movement to reverse the party's original decision/punishment.

the candidates' campaign efforts and voter turnout were, without question, vastly impacted. the former florida congresswoman that spoke on national television in support of recognizing the primaries in michigan and florida must be nuts. anyone who distributes the first petition or supports seating delegates based on the original primaries in michigan and florida is ravaging what is left of our democratic process. while the primary process is not perfect, we must play by the same rules by which we started.

in no way is it fair to seat the delegates based on the original primary results. this former florida congresswoman rebuts al sharpton's violation of civil rights argument by very cavalierly pointing out that every voter had the opportunity show up. duh. you and i both know that fewer voted because their states' presidential primaries would not impact the final nomination. only desperate clinton supporters would want the decision reversed now that obama is the official front-runner.

the truth is that both states knew the consequences for moving up primaries and violating party rules. voters knew that their delegates would not be seated at this year's convention. if the race was not close, this argument would not have resurfaced.

however, i do not think we should support the petition for a re-vote in either state nor the one that hillary clinton's supporters are signing to seat the delegates based on january. for jesus sakes, edwards and obama were not even on the ballot in michigan. of course, people selected the name they recognized, i.e. clinton. i, for one, would not have thought to vote "uncomitted" in favor of obama or edwards.

when someone sees a petition to uphold the original decision to punish michigan and florida by not seating the delegates in this year's convention, let me know. post it below.

why bother with a re-vote? let's win ohio and texas. afterwards, let's call for clinton to suspend her campaign for the nomination. if hillary clinton loves america, then she will acknowledge something greater than her self-ambition is afoot. she should no longer stand in the way of our next great american president.

~ j

regarding 2 issues gays hold against barack

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:32:04 EST

someone sent me a message regarding my previous blog, "voters who support LGBT equality should vote OBAMA."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

"I am kind of leaning toward Obama. But I'm disturbed by the Gavin Newsom thing and by Obama's previous reaching out for support from some very anti-gay evangelicals.

Have you addressed those things directly? Other gay men I know tend to lean toward Hillary because she is perceived as more gay friendly, DOMA or not."

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

dimwits, they are. oops... did i go on the record with that?

as far i know, there has only been one "evangelist" figure who in addition to being a well-known award-winning gospel singer popular in the religious black south... he is also a reformed homosexual and is active in one of the organizations that try to reform homos. obama's camp asked him to entertain and assure fans that obama was a man of faith last year when there were rumors thanks to racism and narrow minds... and fox news... that obama was not christian and went to a muslim school.

the "reformed homo" was not there to talk about gays, but before the rally LGBT activists made obama's camp aware of this man's past and present anti-gay rhetoric. yet, the decision was not to divide based on opposing paradigms. and, as a man who enjoys laying with other men, i admire obama for his courageous stance. you don't have to agree with everything i believe, as long as you support obama and his platform, given that his platform is progressively in support of civil equality of LGBT people in comparison to clinton who has a history of comprising on matters specifically impacting us... in spite of the successes she might point to in funding research and prevention.

so yes, obama discovered that the guest speaker/entertainer was also one of the guys that reforms homos. however, i stand behind obama in his decision. yes, his organizers made an error by not thoroughly conducting a background check. you wouldn't think you would need a background check on an evangelist or popular gospel singer.. right?

again for anyone living under a rock: obama's movement is about bringing together people of all backgrounds and beliefs to unite for positive change based on the platform obama has outlined. obama's platform is more progressive on behalf of LGBT equality than clinton. i am more than happy to work along side the KKK or a homophobe if it means that the platform obama has outlined will finally change our country on civil equality, health care, the environment, foreign diplomacy, etc.

keep in mind, homos are just as guilty when they ask for obama to exclude a homophobe who speaks in his area of expertise and offers necessary credibility to obama's religion. in fact, not only is obama and his family christian and have attended the same church for (i think) for more than a decade... unlike clinton's denomination, obama's church does recognize gay marriage. if the homophobe will speak in favor of my candidate knowing that my candidate is the most progressive on LGBT civil rights... i welcome him.

if you would like to fact check me, refer to the advocate issue from early fall.

your friends are wrong to think clinton is more progressive or has a record that suggests she will fight harder for them without compromising her convictions... only one candidate has a track record of leadership like that...

and obama brings us to the forefront in his speeches in front of all listeners... not only those with a gay-friendly ear.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

REGARDING GARY NEWSOM: newsom numbnutts story is nothing more than a community rumor given that the story is circumstantial and NOT collaborated by obama or his spokespeople. the articles printed in the alternative press and mainstream media in california are editorially-written and quote people whom "think" they know what obama was thinking. most dub that unsubstantiated opinion and hearsay.

shame on any "news" organization that would put paper sales or internet hits above our community and its best chance for uncompromising change.

the articles i have seen each point to an alleged snub and the only credibility they offer are interviews with people connected to the mayor's office who think they know what obama was thinking... notice those articles do not interview or quote obama's team in the matter.

remember when obama supposedly snubbed clinton after the state of the union? she reached out, but he had his back turned to her because he was talking to someone on the other side of ted kennedy. not a snub. but fun to talk about for a week.

newsom numbnutts is nothing more. if it were a snub, which i allege is unlikely, we can rest assured the reaction has nothing to do with sexual preference. obama is too progressive and outspoken on our behalf to decide to disrespect or hate one homo based on the homo liking cock.

i'm not connected to obama's camp, but i would like to suggest that perhaps the lack of picture has something to do with newsom numbnutts having bad B-O. it could be that simple.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

i guess your friends believe "don't ask, don't tell" was progress as hillary still asserts. the truth is that bill clinton sanctioned something that was already happening. as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. with that and things like the DOMA, bill and hillary clinton's promises proved empty.

sure, bill and hillary have been great advocates for things like AIDS... etc... but let's be mindful that AIDS is not a "gay-problem" and, while an issue that does impact the LGBT community, AIDS also impacts communities around the world.

~ j

voters who support LGBT equality should vote OBAMA

jonathan | cvg — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:11:24 EST

we are the ones we've been waiting for:
this campaign for presidency of the united states of america is different

presumably, many of my friends are concerned with LGBT civil rights or sympathize with the idea that homosexuals are owed equal rights, hate crimes should be punished, and discrimination should come to an end.

if that describes you, then please research the candidates accurately. barack obama is your candidate. please read hillary clinton and barack obama's seemingly identical responses to the human rights campaign questionnaire for LGBT issues.

ultimately, it comes down to a single issue and the dedication to bring these rights to the forefront. the Defense of Marriage Act signed by bill clinton and supported by then first lady, hillary clinton. both candidates oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both candidates do support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing the identical rights.

DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality in the future. hillary's argument is essentially a "states' rights" argument, allowing states to discriminate on what the supreme court said 40 years ago is a basic civil right.

hillary clinton is on record for only supporting the repeal of section 3 of the DOMA. however, the candidate that has been a leader in civil rights, barack obama, fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA because it discriminates against our community not just in section 3.

i suspect this comes a suprise to many gay/lesbian clinton supporters who tend to rally behind the clinton dynasty mainly based on name recognition or nostalgia. what may also surprise you is that from obama's first presidential speech to the eloquent speech made in front of thousands at ebenezer church on martin luther king jr. day and many speeches in between and since then, obama is the only candidate left in this race that regulary speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community.

hillary shares many of obama's views, but she only shows support when directly asked or speaking in front of gay-friendly crowds. she does just enough to get by "for the record" and maintain the undeserving support of many of my friends and many gays/lesbians elsewhere. she manages this allusion based on her experience in "fighting" for LGBT rights.

it's true that she has co-sponsored many bills such as the Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for the Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that barack obama has equally shown leadership on the same acts and many others that hillary could speak in favor.

rememeber the "2 for the price of 1" campaign taglines from bill and hillary that helped them win the whitehouse originally? hillary wants us to count the eight years as first lady as "experience," then it is important for voters to understand what type of experience she has offered like i state in my blog "i'll vote republican before i'll vote clinton."

both clintons made hefty progressive promises, and among the compromises of their administration, one could assert that the LGBT community was betrayed first. as senator clinton has done on many of the issues, she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. the LGBT community should remain cognizant that the clinton administration, being politically calculating, leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support in the 90s. hillary could alledge that she secretly opposed "her husband's" questionable judgment, but then is it, in the same breadth, fair to lay claim to what we still view favorably?

at least some of the gay-related mud of the clinton years has to stick to her, too. in fact, hillary was the first lady when her husband signed the discriminating DOMA which even today she only wants to partly repeal. clinton was very outspoken in favor of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a "necessary transitional measure," although she now favors its repeal. obama has long supported it's repeal citing evidence and testimony proving his judgment is right on this matter like in many others.

like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.

oh, and when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, don't you think obama has marched in his fair share as a proven leader on these issues and community organizer? after all, his state is home of "boy's town."

so why would anyone in favor of equality for the LGBT community vote for hillary clinton when barack obama is clearly the candidate who is honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us?

if you don't trust me... trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday!

~ j

Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California)

David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York)

Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus

Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona)

Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif.

David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member

Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado)

Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia)

Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California)

Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland)

Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats

Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president

Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance

Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif.)

Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee)

Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas)

Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group

Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts)

Michael Shannon, national security expert (D.C.)

Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats

Robert D. Horvath Jr., member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D.C.)

Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D.C.)

Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council

Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors

Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans

Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc., and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund

Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee

Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council

Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats

Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats.

Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work

Does U.S. Tolerate Anti-Muslim Speech?

funkfresh01 — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:12:21 EST

Author: Omar Sacirbey

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1204/p02s02-usgn.html?page=1

Lu Gronseth listens regularly to WWTC, a conservative talk-radio station in Minneapolis, and even advertises his mortgage-loan business on the station. But when he learned that a nationally syndicated radio show host had told WWTC listeners that Muslims should be deported and made rude comments about what they could do with their religion, Mr. Gronseth pulled his ads from the station.

So have at least two other Minnesota businesses, at the urging of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington, D.C., as have a handful of national companies, including OfficeMax, JCPenney, Wal-Mart, and AT&T. But the comments by host Michael Savage in October – and previous anti-Muslim speech – have not created the furor that knocked radio icon Don Imus off of MSNBC and CBS Radio after he denigrated a black women's basketball team. That leaves many Muslims-Americans – and non-Muslims like Mr. Gronseth – suspicious that Americans have a double standard when it comes to Islam.

Help to stop an endless occupation in Iraq

funkfresh01 — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:21:42 EST

Have you seen the news? President Bush is negotiating a deal with Iraq to keep our troops there indefinitely--it could include permanent bases and a massive military presence for years! Bush is trying to tie the hands of the next president.

Congress can stop him from setting up permanent bases in Iraq and block an indefinite occupation--but they need to hear a groundswell of pressure from us immediately and loudly so they act on this quickly.

I just signed a petition demanding that Congress stop the president from committing to a massive military presence in Iraq for decades. Can you join me?

http://pol.moveon.org/endless/?r_by=11723-5077189-Cf.Eao&rc=comment_paste

Thanks!

Barack's support for ending medical raids

Derek — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:30:54 EDT

I think that his stated support for ending the horrible raids in states with medical marijuana laws on the books is only the beginning. I have deep suspicions that he is already very pro-reform on the subject of drugs. It's imperative that we show Obama that he has a very large number of supporters who also want pot to be legalized and regulated, like alcohol. If we do, he might start to make it more a part of his campaign, at least after the primaries.

This campaign is about us. We have a constitutional right, meaning that it's our right to pursue happiness in responsibly recreationally (or medically) smoking marijuana. Right now a lot of pot users are flocking to people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, for the simple reason that they've stated publicly that they'd legalize marijuana. Personally, I think the rest of the Democrats are waiting for someone else on their side to do it first, like little kids scared to jump into a pool until one just does it and says, "oh it's not so bad, come on in!"

We all know that he did drugs when he was younger, so he has real life experience with it. I just hope those experiences taught him the lessons of prohibition that our current and past leaders seem to have never learned.

Which LGBT campaign issue is most important to you? http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/ and a QUESTION ON THE DEBATES

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:02:48 EDT

Which LGBT campaign issue
is most important to you?

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Gay Marriage
Hate Crime Protection Laws
Health Care/Partner Benefits
HIV/AIDS Prevention/Funding
Transgender Rights

http://visiblevote08.logoonline.com/

Which LGBT campaign issue
is most important to you?

35% Gay Marriage

20% Employment Non-
Discrimination Act (ENDA)

15% Health Care/Partner Benefits

9% Hate Crime Protection Laws

5% Transgender Rights

4% HIV/AIDS Prevention/Funding

past LGBT + LOGOONLINE INFO use READ MORE

Clinton bringing out the BIG GUN this weekend (in Selma)

'Wale — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 07:58:38 EST

Hehehehe, so are they this scared? Hillary Clinton is bringing Bill Clinton down to Selma, Alabama this weekend to counter Sen. Obama for the "Black" vote. wow. How is this going to play out? Bill's prob. the most talented politician in modern history, Obama's no slouch either though.

Hillary might be making a mistake bringing Bill out because he's going to over-shadow her as he always does. But this show's that Barack is instilling real fear into the Clinton's. I bet she never planned to bring Bill out this early. In fact she wasn't even meant to attend initially. It wasnt' until she learned that Barack was attending that she agreed to also attend.

Link