How do you say “female sentencing discount” in Swedish?

October 19, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Sweden: 23 women convicted of child pornography – Yahoo! News

“Even though they (the women) … obviously must take full responsibility for their actions, nothing else can be said than that he has abused their weak psychological state and longing for human contact. This has been systematical,” the court said.

This was the court’s statement regarding the conviction of 23 women of possession of child pornography, something that Interpol has even commented on as the largest ring of women ever caught for child porn. The women were convicted of receiving child porn and a man was convicted of sending it to them. So, what does full responsibility entail for the women and the man?

For the women: conditional sentences and fines ranging from 2,500 to 18,000 Swedish kronor ($380 to $2,700).

For the man: one year in prison for aggravated child pornography.

Oh yeah, the man was named (Lars Skoglund). So far, the women have not been named. I’m not protesting the naming of the man, by the way; he’s been tried and convicted. What I am pointing out is that these women are being handled with kid gloves.

and the court also seems to be talking out of both sides of its. . .err, mouth. On one hand, it’s saying that these women were lured into the chat because they had had family tragedies and were mentally exhausted and had been manipulated by Skoglund. But at the same time, the picture the court puts out there seems to be the exact opposite:

The court said the women received scores of sexually explicit video clips and photographs of children from the man and discussed them online with him. Some said they liked the images or shared sexual fantasies about the children, and one woman sent pornographic images of children to the man, the court said.

Now why that one woman isn’t serving a year with Skoglund is beyond me. She may be beyond the reach of the court, in which case I would hope the Swedes would forward the information to the country in which she resides. But even beyond that this indicates a picture far more dynamic than the light sentences would suggest. Basically, the court is saying that they were active participants, and is excusing that behavior based upon misogynist views of women as helpless victims.

I’ve known people go through family tragedies (I’ve gone through a couple myself), and people have done all sorts of things to cope, both positive and negative. Some have gone to therapy, some have taken medications, some have even over-drank or taken illegal drugs. But not one of them has said, “you know what, I’ll go get some child porn to cope”. At what point do we hold people accountable regardless of gender? At what point do we say what is between your legs has nothing to do with your level of responsibility in engaging in a crime that harms innocents?

Category: child pornography, female sentencing discount / Tags:

And so it goes. . .

September 12, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed – US news – Crime & courts – msnbc.com

We’ve been covering this for years now and it’s heartening to see MSNBC bring the issue to light of the state of Georgia creating debtors prisons (and let’s cut this de facto crap out: they are debtors prisons, no matter how they phrase it or mince words).  However, this article does bring some of the realities to light, even if I can take issue with a couple of parts of this article.
Most notably, the article covers the Turner v. Rogers decision, which gutted the right of indigent parents to have an attorney appointed to them  Though the court case made some possible exceptions for later on (such as in cases where the state is prosecuting), in large part it boiled down due process to “fill out this form and we’ll decide if you’re guilty”.  That makes action on the state level even more important.
The article also notes the racial disparity in several areas where African American defendants are paraded before white judges and attorneys, given their “15 seconds” of due process, and summarily jailed.  Race does play a huge role in several of these cases, but I think class also pays a larger role.  We’ve seen the “deadbeat lists”: Day laborer, day laborer, construction (seasonal) worker, etc. And that’s even assuming that they are employed, which in this economy is not certain.  Not exactly a Forbes 500 list.
The point is that the people who are being jailed without due process are at the lower end of the economic (and often educational) spectrum.  They have no concept of their rights or how they can explain their cases to the judges and prosecuting attorneys hellbent on running an assembly line conviction system.  Throwing a man with both hands tied behind his back into a shark tank seems a fair fight in comparison.
And the results are there, if not exactly clear thanks to the lack of bookkeeping by states: 10,000 parents, or about 1,7 percent of the US jail population.  That’s 1.7 percent of the population jailed for non-violent activity: namely, being poor.  Are some in there because they are deliberately hiding their income?  Absolutely, but I would suspect that number gets less and less the longer the person is incarcerated.
Of course, the system has its defenders, and MSNBC put one of those in the article (Georgia’s CSE wisely declined to put their foot in their mouth). 

But Seth Harp, a retired Georgia state senator and former member of the state’s Child Support Guidelines Commission, said the state’s judges use incarceration sparingly.

“The methodology to put someone in jail requires that the person be taken to court before a judge and there they have to be found in willful contempt — someone who actively refuses to seek work or is hiding assets, something like that,” he said. “Judges don’t want to put people in jail. … The whole purpose is to get these people to support their children.”

Harp said he’s seen the tactic work repeatedly in his long career as a family law attorney.

“You can’t get blood out of a turnip, but you can put the turnip in the cooler,” he said. “And in 34 years of doing this, it’s amazing, you put someone in the cooler and the money seems to come.”

Oh, we’ve seen the amazing collection rates put up by putting the turnips in the cooler.  Why, with that much, you can actually think about getting the kid a Wii for Christmas.  And Mr. Harp doesn’t get into where they get the money, more than likely cause he knows that they aren’t getting it by selling Ferraris and Mansions but by getting friends and family to loan them some money.

Category: child support, media / Tags: , ,

Better to keep your blog shut and let the world think you a fool. . .

July 13, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Then to confirm the fact for everybody to see as Jeff Pearlman has in his retort to Robert Franklin’s response.

Of course, the whole thing started with Pearlman’s own disgraceful Father’s Day column in which he reinfored every stereotype about bad dads with. . .well, he didn’t provide statistics or anything, but he talked to a couple of his friends who were mothers and developed ten commandments as though he was walking down Mount Sinai or something, which included gems such as "don’t golf on the weekends", "wake the hell up", and paint toenails.

Surprisingly the real fathers (who were probably just lazily browsing CNN on their jobs while fapping to Lindsay Lohan or something, according to Jeff) took offense to Jeff’s stereotypes, and another writer took him to task with statistics and actual, you know, research that proved that dads were far more involved in their kids lives than Mr. Pearlman would let on with his grab-ass column. Even Robert Franklin, Esq. (I love writing that, considering Pearlman’s response), chimed in on his blog, which leads us to Mr. Pearlman’s response, and his litany of ad hominem attacks.

First off, he dismisses the complaints he received as "maybe 20" fathers and a writer (who included more about 4 more facts and one more official cite than he did) as small compared to the number of compliments and slaps on the back he received from his friends and supporters. And I won’t doubt he did get those from his own circle. I wouldn’t doubt, however, that if he got beyond his circle, he might receive a few more kicks to the rear than the 20 plus one he notes.

But then he takes after Robert Franklin, Esq. in a fit of title rage, particularly for having the audacity to use the title "Esq." after his name.

I don’t know Robert Franklin, Esq. I’ve never heard of Robert Franklin, Esq. I’m generally suspicious of people who attach “Esq.” to the end of their names … in the same way people insist—at all times—being called doctor. I digress: Early today Robert Franklin, Esq. wrote a column for Fathers and Families about why I’m an idiot and he’s right and dads rules and I clearly have no idea what I’m talking about. To prove his point, Robert whipped out a bunch of statistics about fathers, and how they’re constrained for time and devote X to this and … blah … blah.

Nice grammar and run-on sentences for somebody who is supposed to be a professional writer, by the way. But I digress. How dare a lawyer attach a title to his name? It’s not as if he’s attained any special education beyond that of a normal person or been required to pass a rigorous test and maintain continued education to renew that license or anything. Clearly he has no right to a title on his name over a hack columnist who’s only requirement is writing in English (and not even particularly well, if his blog post is any example).

But then, Mr. Pearlman makes it personal with this ad hominem attack:

I could be wrong, but I’m guessing Robert Franklin, Esq. hasn’t spent too much time of late hangin’ around the ol’ schoolyard. Which sorta renders his argument, well, void.

In short, he ends his argument with an ad hominem attack against a man he’s never met solely based on his perceived looks. And by the way, what does hanging around the schoolyard have to do with what fathers and mothers do during the school day? I invite you to read the entire blog, because it’s basically an admission that he screwed up and based a dad-bashing column on anecdotes rather than actual facts.

 

Update:  I did some speed reading and mistook the last cited quote from Mr. Pearlman’s blog for an accusation of unsavory interest in children against Mr. Franklin, for which I apologized both on this blog and to Mr. Pearlman via e-mail.  I still stand by the argument that the article was poorly written.

 

Category: male bashing, media / Tags: , , , ,

If you want to know why the Father’s rights movement flounders for support. . .

July 12, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Check out this e-mail I received from Ray Brew on the Fathers-4-Justice e-mail group:

Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2011 12:26 AM
Subject: FW: Bankruptcy 101

To: All others please pass this around to your friends and especially your US Congress Representative, Enough is Enough
 
Hayworth is a lower NY congress person
Dear Congresswoman Nan Hayworth,

I suggest you yourself and then your staff read this forwarded information about illegal aliens
Second understand it totally.
VERIFY its contents.
Get this around to the other “do nothings” in governemnt including the commie president
Do something about it immediately (get them out of this country NOW)
If you cannot or will not correct this NOW then get out of the job you have taken with Congress because WE THE PEOPLE DO NOT want you to be on the taxpayer payrole. We have had enough contempt from both republicans and democrats.
WE want our AMERICA BACK and it to happen NOW.
IMPEACH OBAMA and END the fraudulent OBAMACARE NOW

Russell Brust

——– Begin forwarded message ——–
Subject: FW: Bankruptcy 101
Date: 7/2/11 9:24:17 PM
From: “Gary Manigian”
To: garyrm2@verizon.net

 

 
 
We are dying the death of a thousand cuts as a nation.
Read on.
Happy 4th.
Spence
 
 
 
 
Bankruptcy  101…why Arizona did the right
thing!!


It’s easy to dismiss individual programs that
benefit non-citizens until they’re put together
and this picture emerges. Someone did a lot
of research to put together all of this data.
Often these programs are buried within other
programs making them difficult to find.  



A Real Eye Opener  
WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?


Informative,   and mind
boggling!  



You think the war in Iraq    was costing
us too much?  Read this :


We have been hammered with the
propaganda that it was the Iraq war and
the war on terror that is bankrupting us.



I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.



I hope the following  14  reasons are
forwarded over and over again until
they are read so many times that the
reader gets sick of reading them. I also
have included the URL’s for verification
of all the following  facts…



1.  
$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare
to illegal aliens each year by state governments.


Verify 



2.  
$22 Billion dollars a year is spent on food
assistance programs such as food stamps,
WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.


Verify 



3.
$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on
Medicaid for illegal aliens. 


Verify at: 



4.  
$12 Billion dollars a year is spent    on
primary and secondary school education
for children here illegally and they
cannot speak a word of English!


Verify 



5.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as
anchor babies.


Verify



6.  
$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to
incarcerate illegal aliens. 


Verify at:  





7. 
30% percent of all Federal Prison
inmates are illegal aliens.



< http://transcripts/ < http://transcripts/>  .. ” href=”" >
<” href=”


8.  
$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on
illegal aliens for Welfare & social
services by the American taxpayers.



Verify 



9.
$200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed
American wages are caused by the illegal
aliens.



Verify




13.  
In 2006, illegal aliens sent home
$45 BILLION in remittances to their
countries of origin.



Verify 


; ” href=;!
 


14.  
The Dark Side  of Illegal Immigration:
Nearly One million sex crimes committed
by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .


Verify 
” href=”"; 


The total cost is a whopping  ” href=; 
$ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS
A YEAR AND IF YOU’RE LIKE ME,
HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS
$ 338,300,000,000.00  WHICH
WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE
THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF
THIS COUNTRY.


Are  we THAT Stupid?  
YES, FOR LETTING THOSE
IN THE U.S. CONGRESS
GET AWAY WITH LETTING
THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER
YEAR!!!!!  



If this doesn’t bother you, then just
delete the message.  If, on the other
hand, it does raise the hair on the back
of your neck, I hope you forward it to every
legal resident in the United States ..

Wow, aside from the racial overtones of the e-mail and the questionable statistics, the biggest problem with this e-mail is that it has not one goddamned thing to do with Father’s rights. Nada. Zip, zilch. But this type of crap seems to continually be forwarded on father’s rights e-mail lists by people like Mr. Brew, who seem to think that the conservatives in this country have always been friends of fathers *cough*Greg Abbott*cough*Mike Cox*cough*. Father’s Rights is an issue that spans ALL of the political spectrum, and crap like this does little to expand the base of the movement and more to splinter us along political and racial divides.

But even better was Mr. Brew’s response when I corrected him on his e-mail and told him I didn’t think it belonged. Here’s the response (my original response is on the bottom):

Please take me off your website, you are not a leader or even worth listening to. Your comment about Illegal Alien babies  being “American citizens” is surely what the dumb ass liberals have constitutionally made them because they were born on our soil but they are pure Mexicans that should sent back to mexico with their parents or jailed for their crimes in our country (these are people that are DEGRADEING what America stands for and even refusing as children to even abide by our Constritution and laws) You are supporting these non-Americans by verbally abusing me. May you  a pure liberal and the many you lead that are also perhaps liberals………..!!!!!! You are simply not worth the premise that you claim you represent and without a doubt someone that should not claim to be an American.

From: John Meyer <john.l.meyer@gmail.com>
To: Fathers-4-Justice@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2011 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Fathers-4-Justice] Fw: Bankruptcy 101

On 7/2/2011 10:41 PM, Ray Brew wrote:

5.
$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for
education for the American-born
children of illegal aliens, known as
anchor babies. American Citizens

FTFY.

Could we keep this type of crap off the list and focus on Father’s Rights.

 
Sorry, Mr. Brew, your racism and name-calling is now documented on this blog and on the e-mail group.

Category: fathers' rights / Tags:

Village Voice punks Ashton Kutcher

June 30, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Note: I know I have been slacking on some very important things that I hope to get back on this week, including the Turner decision and a few very scary false accusation charges.

Real Men Get Their Facts Straight – Page 1 – News – New York – Village Voice

Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore have been doing PSA’s with the theme “Real Men Don’t Buy Girls”, trying to draw attention to child prostitution with the claim that “100,000 to 300,000 children are sex slaves in the United States today” (according to an interview Ashton Kutcher gave to Piers Morgan). Now that’s the type of figure that draws you out of your seat. That’s the type of figure that opens wallets and budget accounts.

And, of course, that’s the type of figure that is heavily overblown at best and a lie at worst.

But not all the blame is on Ashton & Demi, of course. This figure has been run with by several reputable media outlets, such as the New York Times, CNN, and C-SPAN. And so it falls to that bastion of journalism, Village Voice (which, like the last story we covered, ethically disclosed its conflict of interest) to take the figure out behind the woodshed and beat it to sheds.

The figure of 100,000 to 300,000 is the product of Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, two University of Pennsylvania. Where did they come up with that many “prosti-tots”? Actually they technically didn’t (well, at least in the final form of the report, The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico ). What they came up with was the number of children “at risk” for sexual exploitation. And the children “at risk”? Runaways. Every single one of them, no matter how long they were gone (Federal studies indicate most runaways were gone less than a week, hardly enough time to become the Hollywood Madam of the Pedobear set).

But that wasn’t all. Transgender kids, female gang members, and kids who live near the Mexican or Canadian borders and have their own transportation”. So if you live up in Seattle and have a car, you are at risk of becoming a whore. The researcher’s explanation of why they included these doesn’t hold much water, but I’ll let you read the article.

Yet in spite of the exaggerated number, that’s nothing compared to what Mr. and Mrs. Kutcher do with the study (even though technically that was what the researchers wanted to do; it took a hell of a lot of pressure to yield to where they were). 100,000 to 300,000 prostitutes per year is a hell of a lot and nowhere near supported by the evidence. So where is the real number? Nobody knows, but Village Voice spent two months analyzing law enforcement data among the nation’s 37 largest cities during a 10 year period. Their finding: 8,263 arrests for that period. 827 arrests per year. Not quite what you expected with 100,000 to 300,000 “at risk” every year.

Of course, arrests are not equal to actual incidents. But when those figures were run by people who actually spend time around actual underage prostitutes, they ring true. And that gives you an idea that the number of actual child and/or underage prostitutes is far, far, lower than the trumped up figures. So why the disconnect? Why are these figures being blown up?

We all know the answer: dollar-dolla, money-money. People up and down the aisle, from Trevor and Maggie Neilson (the couple in charge of Global Philanthropy Group who Ashton and Demi initially contacted when they wanted to help), to some of the very same people who cashed in on the Craigslist rake in money from both private and governmental organizations.

And they don’t seem to give a damn if their facts are off, either:

Accuracy is not a major concern for Maggie Neilson.

“All of the core data we use gets attacked all the time,” she says. “The challenge is, it’s that or nothing, right? And I don’t frankly care if the number is 200,000, 500,000, or a million, or 100,000—it needs to be addressed. While I absolutely agree there’s a need for better data, the people who want to spend all day bitching about the methodologies used I’m not very interested in.”

Who cares about accurate data and methodologies, anyway? Think of the children (or at least the ones that we’re imagining being pimped in our minds). That is the psychology of cons and frauds. Use the most innocent among you to commit the most brazen of crimes.

But what seems to be worse is the fact that people are defending them using that “all or nothing” argument. If you dispute their numbers, suddenly you believe that no child prostitution is going on. This, is ridiculous. If I somebody tells me that my roof, that has a few loose shingles, needs to be entirely replaced and I dispute him, all of a sudden I’m not claiming that the roof is perfect.

But that’s the argument of that group, along with the “1 child being molested is one too many”. The sad part is, they have a leg up on Ashton, Demi, and others pushing the 6-figures: at least they’re not over estimating the problem.

BTW, if you want to see how effective Village Voice’s article was, check out Ashton’s Twitter feed. Ad hominem attacks galore.

Category: celebrities, child abuse, media / Tags: , , , ,

So funny I forgot to laugh

May 17, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Teacher’s Life Upended By False Molestation Accusation – Jezebel

But in court, his accuser admitted that the molestation never happened. She said that she had always disliked Lanigan, and that the accusation was "a joke."

That was the reasoning behind why an 11-year-old girl claimed that Sean Lanigan had lain on top of her and promised to "treat her like a queen". The result? He was charged with abduction and aggrivated battery, with a potential term of 40-years in prison. Or rather, I should say that was the start of his problems. The school board acted with predictable zero-tolerance reasoning and transferred him to another school, even after it took a jury less than an hour to unanimously acquit him. On top of that, he was faced with a $120,000 bill which the school board agreed to pay only half of.

And to some extent, I think they’re right. They should only pay half. The rest should be paid by the state of Virginia for what appears to be some heavy-handed police work at the hands of Detective Nicole Christian.

Nicole Christian, according to the second article linked is apparently an experienced child sex abuse offender and is well respected by the Fairfax County police detective bureau I’ll throw a questioning glance at the bloggers claim that if she wasn’t they’d call her out on it, but that’s neither here nor there. What is here is that as any well-indoctrinated sex offender investigator knows "always believe the ‘victim’". Even if the story doesn’t add up, even if other school officials and parents dispute the charges, even if the victim comes up and recants, "always believe the victim" (except when the victim admits she never was a victim).

Det. Christian seem to have an answer for everything. If Lanigan denied it, well, all of the scumbags deny it and it’s just a matter of getting them into a broom closet and getting a confession, or having the pieces fall into place. If other parents or staff members say he couldn’t have done it, threaten them with obstruction of justice (nice one there, Christian: I don’t even think Mike Nifong went that far, though I could be wrong). If the victim’s mother said that she lied, well, that’s just somebody "pressuring" her into changing her story. And if the "victim" admits that she lied on a badly spelled facebook post and in court and the accused is exonerated, well, that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

Not once in that story did any of the police or prosecutors seem to give a single thought to the idea of, "you know, maybe this victim did lie." if they were so quick to believe her when she claimed to be a victim, why were they not as quick to believe when she recanted? Oh yeah, because she wasn’t a victim then anymore. Joseph Heller would have a field day with that one.

The press is not naming the girl, and I have no problem with that in this case. She’s 11-years-old and a juvenile. But at least the judge sentencing her for lying in court will give her something that will show her lying about somebody is hardly a "joke". Oh, what’s that? She isn’t going to be charged? Ha, ha, ha. Good one there.

 

Category: false accusation / Tags: , ,

Dumbing down the law 101

May 16, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

North Carolina Mom Loses Custody Because of Advanced Breast Cancer – News – ABA Journal

Legal cases rarely make good news stories without at least a modicum of shoe horning. A good example of this is the famous Stella “McCoffee” case. A case about a woman who was stupid enough to spill hot coffee all over herself and sue the company who sold it is a lot more compelling than a case involving painful skin grafts and a company serving coffee at temperatures that they knew was risky that decided to roll the dice in court rather than settle for reasonable medical bills. Guess which one gets reported as fact, and which one is closer to the facts? Hint, they’re not one in the same.

And now we have this case. Alaina Giordano, a 37-year-old mother, has lost custody of her children? Why? Well, if you read this, and other articles, the answer is that a heartless, childless female judge (more on that later) has decided that because this mother has breast cancer, she should lose her kids to her abusive, unfaithful husband. Oh, the inhumanity. I only wonder if the judge rubbed her hands together wickedly and laughed while twirling her greased up mustache (okay, maybe not that).

Well, they did actually have a trial, and a court-appointed psychologist said that the kids should be in the custody of their father because of her deteriorating health. Keep in mind this isn’t like she has a small lump and there is a great chance of survival. She has stage 4 breast cancer (meaning that it has spread to her bones). Oh, and she’s also unemployed. There is her side to this case, true, but that doesn’t mean that this case is cut and dry.

But none of that has stopped the press and her supporters from lashing out at both the husband (who she describes–without evidence–as being both abusive and unfaithful) and the judge with twisted logic like this:

Mrs Giordano has questioned the way that the decision was made by the female family court judge.

‘How does a woman with no kids and who has never been married become a judge in family court?’ she wrote on her blog.

‘From some of the things that she wrote in the order, it is clear that she has no insight into motherhood, marriage or an intimate partner relationship.

‘This judge is trying to use theory to make decisions upon which she has no practical experience. This is very dangerous.

‘A mother would know better than to rip happy, well-adjusted children from their mother who has been their primary caregiver since conception and send them to a father who was a weekend dad at best.

Every child deserves better than a judge with no parenting experience.’

By this twisted logic, the only people qualified to sit on family court hearings are married mothers and fathers. I suppose that also means the only people qualified to sit on discrimination cases are minorities, and nobody should hear an insider trading case that hasn’t made at least a million on Wall Street. This logic has been trotted out time and time again and been shot down. Judges are supposed to be chosen for their impartiality, not for “practical experience”.

I’m not saying that the mother has no case at all. This brings up troubling issues about parenting,long distances, income, and life threatening diseases. She may very well be right when she says she could live another 20 years. But she certainly should realize that the other possibility, that she could die and soon, is more likely.

However this case resolves itself, the father should be the bigger person and make sure that the children have a good relationship with their mother for however long she has.

Category: child custody / Tags:

Well, that depends upon the actual intelligence of the. . .awwscrewit

May 4, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Texas DNA child support exoneration bill – KFDA – NewsChannel 10 / Amarillo News, Weather, Sports

It’s similar to the way people are exonerated from prison, but unlike released prisoners, there is no restitution or compensation for an exonerated parent.

And now for the other side of Texas, one that is seemingly so logical it’s a wonder why Texas, or any other state, wouldn’t already have the law on the books. The law would allow parents who are paying for children that are not theirs to end that relationship. And it passed both chambers of the Texas Assembly–unanimously.

The story does not note which way Texas Gov. Rick Perry will go. I’m assuming that if a bill has that much support it would be suicide to oppose it. We’ll have to see.

And I’m sure we’ll get the same old, tired arguments: “being a father is about more than genes” (apparently, in the man profiled in the show’s case; it is more than genes: it’s the wallet in those jeans). “These fathers are just doing this to get out of child support” (Wanting to get out of paying for a child you didn’t father and is not your responsibility. Yeah, that is so full of outrage right there). But I think that the majority of people out there would agree: if the child is not theirs biologically or if they did not enter a parental relationship knowing that fact (i.e. adoption) they should not be required to pay.

As the lawyer in the piece explains, this isn’t justice. This doesn’t compensate the men for what they’ve spent, nor does it punish the mother for lying. But what it does do is prevent further injustice. And that’s a big step forward.

Category: child support, paternity fraud / Tags:

Anthony Graves: Still a target of Greg Abbot’s spite

May 4, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

Anthony Graves Says He is Still Being Wronged by the State

When a $250 honorarium was withheld for a presentation to
students at Prairie View A&M University, Graves said it was just
too much.

Note, this is the first of two stories I’m going to write about regarding Texas, and believe me, they are on opposite sides of the logic spectrum.

Anthony Graves spent 18 years in prison and on death row for a crime that he did not commit. Now that’s bad enough. Most of us would have a rather huge chip on our shoulders–about the size of, say, the Rock of Gibraltar–if we spent nearly two decades awaiting a hot shot for something we didn’t do. It was only through the intervention of some very dedicated attorneys and a special prosecutor who found that prosecutors in the original case elicited false testimony.

The result was so overwhelmingly in favor of Graves that District Attorney Bill Parham told reporters that he was absolutely convinced of Graves’ innocence. Think about that. You have a prosecutor saying that he’s absolutely convinced that a person is innocent. I know we were shocked by the events in the Duke Lacrosse case, but those types of pronunciations from prosecutors are rare. Prosecutors are like the rest of us: they want to win. Owning up to when they screwed the pooch is a bit hard, but Parham did it.

So now Graves is a free man and, under Texas law, entitled to compensation for the years he spent in prison. It won’t give him back his life, of course, but it may help. Actually, it wouldn’t? Why? Because the comptroller of the state is refusing to sign off on it because the decree didn’t contain the words “actual innocence” (I guess according to this logic we shouldn’t accept Susan Combs’ diploma since it doesn’t contain the words “actual intelligence”).

But hey, at least he’s free from the state, right? Well, no. It seems that Anthony Graves’ has children and the state determined that despite the fact that he was on death row for a crime he didn’t commit, he still owes child support. And as such, ol’ Greggie Poo has been garnishing his checks, including taking all of a $250 honorarium Graves got from speaking at a college. Really? $250 over a $5,000 debt which he might have been able to pay off within a minute if you hadn’t screwed up the order? What’s wrong: was holding him up for his lunch money a little bit too hands on for you?

A lot of people may read this and think: what’s $250? It’s a big tempest over a little amount. Maybe. But when piled up with the state’s refusal to pay the man what he is owed for his time and charging him for not supporting his children because he was on death row at the time, this is more like the straw that broke the camels back.

Greg Abbott is trotting out his ol “I vaz just vollowing orderz” defense while claiming he has nothing but sympathy for Mr. Graves. Yeah, sure. Considering the fact that Mr. Abbot’s office is waging a war against lower income fathers who he labels as deadbeats and his office also tried to get two lawyers to perjure themselves to take down Judge David Henschen, I’m sure Mr. Graves could wipe his ass with Mr. Abbot’s sympathy (assuming he could stand the rash).

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (not somebody who I support in most cases) is taking up for Mr. Graves, and the students at the college that Mr. Graves spoke are trying to raise the funds. I would have a piece of advice for them: try not to do it at mid-day. Most bandit’s prefer to do their dirty work at night, but Mr. Abbott is of the type with no fear–when it comes to exonerated men who can’t fight back, that is.

Category: child support, wrongful conviction / Tags: , ,

Now here’s a new excuse for you (and a rich one at that!)

April 26, 2011 / John Meyer / No comments

‘Steven Watkins’ bill passed by Illinois House committee – Springfield, IL – The State Journal-Register

For those of you who are not quite up to speed, the Stephen Watkins memorial bill would bring penalties for violating parenting time into line with those for not paying child support, including revoking drivers’ licenses. It’s namesake, Mr. Watkins, was gunned down by his kids maternal grandmother, who is now serving 55 years in prison for murder. Since that time, the paternal grandparents have gotten an order for visitation. But as you know, that often is not worth the paper its printed on.

Needless to say, the typical opponents of this bill are out in force by claiming that this would put battered mothers at risk

“What happens more often than not is that battered women in particular get charged with and accused of visitation abuse when they’re really trying to protect their child,” said Vickie Smith, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “We fully understand all of the dynamics in the Watkins case …, but we don’t think criminalizing visitation is the answer.”

Sure you understand. Never mind the fact that victims of domestic violence can very easily and quickly get TROs, often in an ex parte manner. And I especially like her slime job of noncustodial men as “more often than not” being batterers and abusers and all around thugs when they are denied visitation. It never occurs to them that women can be just as petty as men at times and see the child as a lever over the other parent. That’s to be expected. What isn’t to be expected is the complaint from the Secretary of State’s office.

A spokesman for the Secretary of State’s Office opposed enforcing visitation orders by revoking drivers’ licenses.

The bill “would set a precedent to expanding our office to becoming an arm of the court to enforce any type of civil ruling.” said Nathan Maddox, inspector general with the Secretary of State.

Yeah, because the Secretary of State has never enforced civil rulings (by the way, did you see the contradiction between his quote and that of Ms. Smith, who claimed this would “criminalize” contempt charges). Oh wait, they already do: it’s called child support. You can’t call it a precedent if you do it already.

Category: parenting time / Tags: , ,
« Older Entries  
Wordpress Theme by ThemeZee