Courts playing fast and loose with the lives of children

[dani]

www.ANCPR.org
One-Click-Link for Unsubscribing at bottom.

Hello,

Thanks to Daniel Lee for the following.

ACFC and ANCPR

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Today we had an article published in Tennessee's largest paper. The main
points are:

1. There are no constitutional rulings if in a parent v. parent custody
case, fit moms and dads can have custody taken from them.

2. When such a ruling is issued, we believe it will result in each parent
being designated as custodial, in an equal and alternating schedule.

3. Judges, attorneys, and law school professors have known about this for
years, and continue to churn out suspect orders by the tens of thousands.

4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the legislative
branch (representatives of the people) and becoming lawmakers. One way
they shape the law, is by not issuing constitutional rulings.

5. Parenthood is being separated from biology, which results in judges now
being able to assign third parties as the parent, even if that results in
children having two moms and no dad, or other bizarre outcomes such as
three or more "parents".

Daniel Lee
President, Childs Best Interest
ACFC Associate Director
CRC Member
http://childsbestinterest.org
===
http://tennessean.com/opinion/nashville-eye/archives/03/08/38376215.shtml

The Tennessean
Thursday, August 28, 2003

Courts playing fast and loose with the lives of children by JANET WEBB and
DANIEL LEE

In the last legislative session, about 70 bills were filed regarding child
custody and support, alimony, and judicial procedures. This unusually high
number offers a glimpse into a revolution occurring in family law and
government and the increasing numbers of citizens contacting their
legislators about the problems.

One serious issue is children being kept apart from loved ones. For
decades, family courts have routinely limited good dads to a few days a
month with their kids and denied them any decision-making role. That
creates fatherless children, the detrimental effects of which are widely
documented and understood.

This practice continues as shown by a study being done by the citizen's
organization Child's Best Interest. Respondents indicate less than one dad
in 10 is awarded custody in Tennessee courts.

Also the relationship between children and other family members, including
mothers and grandparents, are increasingly being limited. More than half
of the moms and dads in the CBI study indicate they have six days a month
or less visitation, and shockingly more than 20% say they have 1.5 days or
less.

This is part of a legal trend to separate parenting from biology and
attach it to whomever the government designates as the parent. In a recent
California case, their state supreme court affirmed an order giving a
child two mothers. That case mentioned an Alaska judge who gave a child
three parents and opened the door to any number of persons being
designated as a parent.

A child's best interests are served by being raised by his or her natural
mother and father as long as they are not unfit. Boys and girls each
benefit from a male and female authority figure, and lacking that, their
social and psychological development is incomplete. If there's more than
one mom or dad, the child will be confused about who is their model for
behavior, and an arrangement with more than two parents creates
uncertainty as to who's responsible for the child. The legal community,
primarily the judiciary, is performing social engineering against
children's best interests.

The context these legal and social changes are occurring in is the
judicial branch transitioning from a body that interprets law, to
replacing the legislative branch and making law. One way they do this is
by not applying constitutional guarantees.

Long ago, the U.S. and state supreme courts acknowledged parents have
fundamental rights to raise their children. This set the standard that
intrusions into the parent-child relationship would only occur if abuse or
neglect was present. With fundamental rights at stake, a legal test called
''strict scrutiny'' is applied. Over the last few years, it has been
brought to the attention of all Tennessee appeal justices, and many trial
judges and law school professors, that there are no rulings applying
strict scrutiny to divorcing parent or paternity child custody cases.

Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing today.
Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit parents from their
child's life, all were issued under an incorrect legal standard and thus
are subject to being overturned. This is a continuing social and legal
crisis and represents the judicial branch destroying its credibility.

There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a ruling
in accordance with established constitutional law, or the legislature
enact an appropriate child custody statute.

Janet Webb is a nurse and is undergoing judge advocate training in the
Child's Best Interest Nashville chapter. Daniel Lee is the president of
Child's Best Interest. They can be contacted at
.

© Copyright 2003 The Tennessean / A Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper. The
Tennessean Home: http://tennessean.com/

[The Dave©]

> dani wrot
>
> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the legislative
> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming lawmakers. One
> way they shape the law, is by not issuing constitutional rulings.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing today.
> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit parents from
> their child's life, all were issued under an incorrect legal standard
> and thus are subject to being overturned. This is a continuing social
> and legal crisis and represents the judicial branch destroying its
> credibility.
>
> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.

Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are
they saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that they
are "legally" skirting constitutional protections?

[The Dave©]

> dani wrot
>
> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the legislative
> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming lawmakers. One
> way they shape the law, is by not issuing constitutional rulings.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing today.
> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit parents from
> their child's life, all were issued under an incorrect legal standard
> and thus are subject to being overturned. This is a continuing social
> and legal crisis and represents the judicial branch destroying its
> credibility.
>
> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.

Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are
they saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that they
are "legally" skirting constitutional protections?

[dani]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote
>>
>> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the legislative
>> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming lawmakers. One way
>> they shape the law, is by not issuing constitutional rulings.
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
>> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing today.
>> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit parents from their
>> child's life, all were issued under an incorrect legal standard and thus
>> are subject to being overturned. This is a continuing social and legal
>> crisis and represents the judicial branch destroying its credibility.
>>
>> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
>> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
>> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.
>
> Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
> decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are they
> saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that they are
> "legally" skirting constitutional protections?

IMO, I believe what they are stating is the fact that the highest Court in
our land has made several very clear rulings that a fit parent cannot
and should not be denied equal custody and than be forced to pay a penalty
for the priveledge.

"The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children
is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those
fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all
our civil and political institutions, and such a right is a fundamental
right protected by [the first] amendment and Amendments 5, 9, and 14."
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

"The interest of parents in their relationship with their children has
been deemed fundamental, and is constituionally protected." Quillon v.
Wallcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).

"Before the State "deprive(s) a ligitimate (sic) parent of all that
parenthood implies," the requirements of due process must be met."
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965).

The Court has held that the deprivation of a fundamental liberty right
"for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute, irreparable
injury." Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).

I could cite more to this effect, but you get the general idea. Right? Are
they legally skirting the protection of the Constitution. I think not. The
Constitution is the law. It is the document on which all our laws are
based. It is bieng ignored, shredded and trashed everyday in the Courts.

I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on fathers.
Why? You tell me?

[dani]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote
>>
>> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the legislative
>> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming lawmakers. One way
>> they shape the law, is by not issuing constitutional rulings.
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
>> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing today.
>> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit parents from their
>> child's life, all were issued under an incorrect legal standard and thus
>> are subject to being overturned. This is a continuing social and legal
>> crisis and represents the judicial branch destroying its credibility.
>>
>> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
>> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
>> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.
>
> Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
> decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are they
> saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that they are
> "legally" skirting constitutional protections?

IMO, I believe what they are stating is the fact that the highest Court in
our land has made several very clear rulings that a fit parent cannot
and should not be denied equal custody and than be forced to pay a penalty
for the priveledge.

"The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children
is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those
fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all
our civil and political institutions, and such a right is a fundamental
right protected by [the first] amendment and Amendments 5, 9, and 14."
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

"The interest of parents in their relationship with their children has
been deemed fundamental, and is constituionally protected." Quillon v.
Wallcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).

"Before the State "deprive(s) a ligitimate (sic) parent of all that
parenthood implies," the requirements of due process must be met."
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965).

The Court has held that the deprivation of a fundamental liberty right
"for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute, irreparable
injury." Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 427 U.S. 347 (1976).

I could cite more to this effect, but you get the general idea. Right? Are
they legally skirting the protection of the Constitution. I think not. The
Constitution is the law. It is the document on which all our laws are
based. It is bieng ignored, shredded and trashed everyday in the Courts.

I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on fathers.
Why? You tell me?

[Tracy]

"dani" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave© wrote:
>
> I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on fathers.
> Why? You tell me?

Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"dani" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave© wrote:
>
> I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on fathers.
> Why? You tell me?

Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[The Dave©]

> Tracy wrote:
> > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > fathers. Why? You tell me?
>
> Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.

Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
cliche.

[The Dave©]

> dani wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>
> >> dani wrote
> >>
> >> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the
> legislative >> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming
> lawmakers. One way >> they shape the law, is by not issuing
> constitutional rulings. >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
> >> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing
> today. >> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit
> parents from their >> child's life, all were issued under an
> incorrect legal standard and thus >> are subject to being overturned.
> This is a continuing social and legal >> crisis and represents the
> judicial branch destroying its credibility. >>
> >> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
> >> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
> >> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.
> >
> > Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
> > decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are
> > they saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that
> > they are "legally" skirting constitutional protections?
>
> IMO, I believe what they are stating is the fact that the highest
> Court in our land has made several very clear rulings that a fit
> parent cannot and should not be denied equal custody and than be
> forced to pay a penalty for the priveledge.
>
> "The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their
> children is of such character that it cannot be denied without
> violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which
> lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such
> a right is a fundamental right protected by [the first] amendment and
> Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
> (1965).
>
> "The interest of parents in their relationship with their children has
> been deemed fundamental, and is constituionally protected." Quillon v.
> Wallcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).
>
> "Before the State "deprive(s) a ligitimate (sic) parent of all that
> parenthood implies," the requirements of due process must be met."
> Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965).
>
> The Court has held that the deprivation of a fundamental liberty right
> "for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute,
> irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 427 U.S. 347
> (1976).
>
> I could cite more to this effect, but you get the general idea.
> Right? Are they legally skirting the protection of the Constitution.
> I think not. The Constitution is the law. It is the document on which
> all our laws are based. It is bieng ignored, shredded and trashed
> everyday in the Courts.

I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we dare
you to do anything about it."

> I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> fathers. Why? You tell me?

[The Dave©]

> Tracy wrote:
> > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > fathers. Why? You tell me?
>
> Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.

Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
cliche.

[The Dave©]

> dani wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>
> >> dani wrote
> >>
> >> 4. The judicial branch is in the process of replacing the
> legislative >> branch (representatives of the people) and becoming
> lawmakers. One way >> they shape the law, is by not issuing
> constitutional rulings. >>
> >> <snipped>
> >>
> >> Rather than act, legal practitioners continue to churn out
> >> constitutionally suspect orders, adding to the 300,000 existing
> today. >> Many include the forcible removal of one or both fit
> parents from their >> child's life, all were issued under an
> incorrect legal standard and thus >> are subject to being overturned.
> This is a continuing social and legal >> crisis and represents the
> judicial branch destroying its credibility. >>
> >> There are two simple ways to solve this. The judiciary can issue a
> >> ruling in accordance with established constitutional law, or the
> >> legislature enact an appropriate child custody statute.
> >
> > Explain this one to me. Are they saying that, if reviewed, these
> > decisions should/could be struck down as unconstitutional? Or, are
> > they saying that these decisions are being done in such a way that
> > they are "legally" skirting constitutional protections?
>
> IMO, I believe what they are stating is the fact that the highest
> Court in our land has made several very clear rulings that a fit
> parent cannot and should not be denied equal custody and than be
> forced to pay a penalty for the priveledge.
>
> "The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their
> children is of such character that it cannot be denied without
> violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which
> lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such
> a right is a fundamental right protected by [the first] amendment and
> Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
> (1965).
>
> "The interest of parents in their relationship with their children has
> been deemed fundamental, and is constituionally protected." Quillon v.
> Wallcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255 (1978).
>
> "Before the State "deprive(s) a ligitimate (sic) parent of all that
> parenthood implies," the requirements of due process must be met."
> Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550 (1965).
>
> The Court has held that the deprivation of a fundamental liberty right
> "for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitute,
> irreparable injury." Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 427 U.S. 347
> (1976).
>
> I could cite more to this effect, but you get the general idea.
> Right? Are they legally skirting the protection of the Constitution.
> I think not. The Constitution is the law. It is the document on which
> all our laws are based. It is bieng ignored, shredded and trashed
> everyday in the Courts.

I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we dare
you to do anything about it."

> I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> fathers. Why? You tell me?

[gini52]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> >
> > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
>
> Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> cliche.
==
So, who among us is *not* voting?
==

[gini52]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> >
> > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
>
> Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> cliche.
==
So, who among us is *not* voting?
==

[Tracy]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> >
> > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
>
> Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> cliche.

yes, and the quiet wheel just gets screwed. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> >
> > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
>
> Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> cliche.

yes, and the quiet wheel just gets screwed. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?


I think I've missed one or two small measure-elections since I turned 18. I
know my oldest two sons couldn't wait to start voting when they turned 18.
My middle son filled out that card the day he turned 18, and we mailed it
the next day. :)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?


I think I've missed one or two small measure-elections since I turned 18. I
know my oldest two sons couldn't wait to start voting when they turned 18.
My middle son filled out that card the day he turned 18, and we mailed it
the next day. :)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?
> ==

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be gender
neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not just
mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been put in
place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws have
been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders have
been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse.
Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several putative
fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to politicians?
(Sarcasm off.)

[Bob Whiteside]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?
> ==

I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be gender
neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not just
mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been put in
place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws have
been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders have
been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse.
Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several putative
fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to politicians?
(Sarcasm off.)

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > ==
>
> I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
gender
> neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
just
> mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been put
in
> place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws have
> been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
have
> been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse.
> Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
DNA
> testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several putative
> fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
politicians?
> (Sarcasm off.)
==
OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to Clark
Simmons,"
haven't you?
==
>
>

[gini52]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > ==
>
> I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
gender
> neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
just
> mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been put
in
> place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws have
> been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
have
> been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse.
> Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
DNA
> testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several putative
> fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
politicians?
> (Sarcasm off.)
==
OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to Clark
Simmons,"
haven't you?
==
>
>

[The Dave©]

> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40 years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to
> be gender neutral. Child Support services have been extended to
> fathers and not just mothers and children. Men have been allowed to
> use the no-fault divorce laws with the same ease as women. Child
> Support Guidelines have been put in place to ensure all children are
> supported by both parents. New laws have been created to enforce CS
> orders for the children. Restraining Orders have been issued with
> far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse. Fathers
> obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
> testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> putative fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about
> to politicians? (Sarcasm off.)

I love good sarcasm, but I'll answer seriously. Yes, many so-called
"neutral" laws have been passed, etc., just like you say. Now, ignored
groups still need to squeak until they are actually enforced.

[The Dave©]

> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40 years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to
> be gender neutral. Child Support services have been extended to
> fathers and not just mothers and children. Men have been allowed to
> use the no-fault divorce laws with the same ease as women. Child
> Support Guidelines have been put in place to ensure all children are
> supported by both parents. New laws have been created to enforce CS
> orders for the children. Restraining Orders have been issued with
> far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse. Fathers
> obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
> testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> putative fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about
> to politicians? (Sarcasm off.)

I love good sarcasm, but I'll answer seriously. Yes, many so-called
"neutral" laws have been passed, etc., just like you say. Now, ignored
groups still need to squeak until they are actually enforced.

[The Dave©]

> Tracy wrote:
> > > some idle cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is not voting?
>
> I think I've missed one or two small measure-elections since I turned
> 18. I know my oldest two sons couldn't wait to start voting when
> they turned 18. My middle son filled out that card the day he turned
> 18, and we mailed it the next day. :)

Same here. I think I missed a minor election in the mid-80s. Even
when in the Army (Germany, east coast, etc.) in the early and mid-80s I
voted absentee.

[The Dave©]

> Tracy wrote:
> > > some idle cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is not voting?
>
> I think I've missed one or two small measure-elections since I turned
> 18. I know my oldest two sons couldn't wait to start voting when
> they turned 18. My middle son filled out that card the day he turned
> 18, and we mailed it the next day. :)

Same here. I think I missed a minor election in the mid-80s. Even
when in the Army (Germany, east coast, etc.) in the early and mid-80s I
voted absentee.

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> > 40 years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to
> > be gender neutral. Child Support services have been extended to
> > fathers and not just mothers and children. Men have been allowed to
> > use the no-fault divorce laws with the same ease as women. Child
> > Support Guidelines have been put in place to ensure all children are
> > supported by both parents. New laws have been created to enforce CS
> > orders for the children. Restraining Orders have been issued with
> > far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse. Fathers
> > obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about
> > to politicians? (Sarcasm off.)
>
> I love good sarcasm, but I'll answer seriously. Yes, many so-called
> "neutral" laws have been passed, etc., just like you say. Now, ignored
> groups still need to squeak until they are actually enforced.

Thanks for getting it! The problem isn't the legislatures or the way the
laws are crafted. The issues occur when the bureaucrats and judges start
interpreting the laws and placing their own version of "legislative intent"
on how they apply the laws.

The trend we are seeing in the U.S. is the judicial branch moving out of the
realm of interpreting the laws and actively creating new laws through
judicial fiat. The special interests get liberal judges, who have no
problem veering from the Constitution and the letter of the law, to overturn
the will of the majority and replace it with the agenda of the minority.
That is why a fairly minor group like NOW has had success. They press the
judges to over-reach their authority and accept theories of law that are
invented, i.e. the hostile work environment concept, abortion rights,
privacy rights, etc.

At the same time we have the administrative branch using their own
interpretations of legislative intent and writing administrative rules to
implement their version of how the laws are supposed to be used. But these
bureaucrats are not bound by their own rules and many times they write
internal operating procedures and business processes that do not comply with
the laws or the administrative rules. I'm sure everyone here has heard a CS
case worker tell them, "That's just the way we do it."

Both of those activities are very prevalent in CS law applications. In some
of my testimony before the state house judiciary committee I have pointed
out the legislature's stated intent for CS laws, the Justice Department's
interpretation of legislative intent, and the judiciaries interpretation of
legislative intent are three different points of view. And that is why
fathers get frustrated with the system. Fathers get caught in the crossfire
between the competing interpretations of legislative intent and the total
lack of consistency ion how CS law is applied.

[Bob Whiteside]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> > 40 years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to
> > be gender neutral. Child Support services have been extended to
> > fathers and not just mothers and children. Men have been allowed to
> > use the no-fault divorce laws with the same ease as women. Child
> > Support Guidelines have been put in place to ensure all children are
> > supported by both parents. New laws have been created to enforce CS
> > orders for the children. Restraining Orders have been issued with
> > far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic abuse. Fathers
> > obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws. DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about
> > to politicians? (Sarcasm off.)
>
> I love good sarcasm, but I'll answer seriously. Yes, many so-called
> "neutral" laws have been passed, etc., just like you say. Now, ignored
> groups still need to squeak until they are actually enforced.

Thanks for getting it! The problem isn't the legislatures or the way the
laws are crafted. The issues occur when the bureaucrats and judges start
interpreting the laws and placing their own version of "legislative intent"
on how they apply the laws.

The trend we are seeing in the U.S. is the judicial branch moving out of the
realm of interpreting the laws and actively creating new laws through
judicial fiat. The special interests get liberal judges, who have no
problem veering from the Constitution and the letter of the law, to overturn
the will of the majority and replace it with the agenda of the minority.
That is why a fairly minor group like NOW has had success. They press the
judges to over-reach their authority and accept theories of law that are
invented, i.e. the hostile work environment concept, abortion rights,
privacy rights, etc.

At the same time we have the administrative branch using their own
interpretations of legislative intent and writing administrative rules to
implement their version of how the laws are supposed to be used. But these
bureaucrats are not bound by their own rules and many times they write
internal operating procedures and business processes that do not comply with
the laws or the administrative rules. I'm sure everyone here has heard a CS
case worker tell them, "That's just the way we do it."

Both of those activities are very prevalent in CS law applications. In some
of my testimony before the state house judiciary committee I have pointed
out the legislature's stated intent for CS laws, the Justice Department's
interpretation of legislative intent, and the judiciaries interpretation of
legislative intent are three different points of view. And that is why
fathers get frustrated with the system. Fathers get caught in the crossfire
between the competing interpretations of legislative intent and the total
lack of consistency ion how CS law is applied.

[Tracy]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> >
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> gender
> > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> just
> > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
put
> in
> > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
have
> > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
> have
> > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
abuse.
> > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
putative
> > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> politicians?
> > (Sarcasm off.)
> ==
> OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
Clark
> Simmons,"
> haven't you?


Gini - you owe me a new monitor for that one! ROLF


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> >
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> gender
> > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> just
> > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
put
> in
> > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
have
> > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
> have
> > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
abuse.
> > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
putative
> > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> politicians?
> > (Sarcasm off.)
> ==
> OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
Clark
> Simmons,"
> haven't you?


Gini - you owe me a new monitor for that one! ROLF


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > > idle cliche.
> >
> > yes, and the quiet wheel just gets screwed. ;-)
>
> I've always viewed these things as sort of a pendulum. It swings back
> and forth. Things were slanted very much against women in so many
> areas for so long that they finally got fed up and organized to change
> things. That in itself it a good thing. BUT!!!, we as humans don't
> seem to have the ability to make the pendulum stop in the middle. True
> fairness isn't enough. We get greedy. We keep pushing too far in the
> other direction and over time the other side gets the short end if the
> stick and begins to fight back, as is happening now with men's groups,
> etc. Unfortunately, it takes a damn long time (in individual people's
> lives) and too many people get screwed in the meantime.

and that is why true peace will probably never happen. The solution is
simple. Applying the solution is what is the real challenge, because
everyone has their own ideas on how to apply it - not to mention greed gets
in the way. It is like two parents disagreeing on how to raise their child.

An instructor for a class I'm currently taking just gave his conscience has
a name. He is naming it after me. Today he proceeded to tell us a story on
how he use to adjust his check book by $200 down after each paycheck as a
way to hide money from his wife. He did that because she wouldn't think
twice when purchasing cookies, or other items, for her co-workers. I looked
at him and asked "you lied to your wife?" I thought the man was going to
die... there he was with this red face laughing. He didn't continue with
his story, but his bottom-line - they got their own checking accounts. In
my opinion, it didn't solve their real issue, because he admitted her
spending habits still bug him.

btw - I just read about Johnny Cash and John Ritter. :(
I've always liked listening to Johnny's voice, and I've enjoyed watching
Ritter. Kind of scary to think a tear in your aorta can take you so
suddenly and without much warning.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[Tracy]

"The Dave©" > wrote in message
...
> > Tracy wrote:
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > > idle cliche.
> >
> > yes, and the quiet wheel just gets screwed. ;-)
>
> I've always viewed these things as sort of a pendulum. It swings back
> and forth. Things were slanted very much against women in so many
> areas for so long that they finally got fed up and organized to change
> things. That in itself it a good thing. BUT!!!, we as humans don't
> seem to have the ability to make the pendulum stop in the middle. True
> fairness isn't enough. We get greedy. We keep pushing too far in the
> other direction and over time the other side gets the short end if the
> stick and begins to fight back, as is happening now with men's groups,
> etc. Unfortunately, it takes a damn long time (in individual people's
> lives) and too many people get screwed in the meantime.

and that is why true peace will probably never happen. The solution is
simple. Applying the solution is what is the real challenge, because
everyone has their own ideas on how to apply it - not to mention greed gets
in the way. It is like two parents disagreeing on how to raise their child.

An instructor for a class I'm currently taking just gave his conscience has
a name. He is naming it after me. Today he proceeded to tell us a story on
how he use to adjust his check book by $200 down after each paycheck as a
way to hide money from his wife. He did that because she wouldn't think
twice when purchasing cookies, or other items, for her co-workers. I looked
at him and asked "you lied to your wife?" I thought the man was going to
die... there he was with this red face laughing. He didn't continue with
his story, but his bottom-line - they got their own checking accounts. In
my opinion, it didn't solve their real issue, because he admitted her
spending habits still bug him.

btw - I just read about Johnny Cash and John Ritter. :(
I've always liked listening to Johnny's voice, and I've enjoyed watching
Ritter. Kind of scary to think a tear in your aorta can take you so
suddenly and without much warning.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> >
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> gender
> > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> just
> > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
put
> in
> > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
have
> > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
> have
> > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
abuse.
> > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
putative
> > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> politicians?
> > (Sarcasm off.)
> ==
> OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
Clark
> Simmons,"
> haven't you?

<snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> >
> > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past 40
> > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> gender
> > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> just
> > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault divorce
> > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
put
> in
> > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
have
> > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining Orders
> have
> > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
abuse.
> > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> DNA
> > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
putative
> > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> politicians?
> > (Sarcasm off.)
> ==
> OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
Clark
> Simmons,"
> haven't you?

<snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
on
> > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
women.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
much
> > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> idle
> > > > > cliche.
> > > > ==
> > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
40
> > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > gender
> > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > just
> > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
divorce
> > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> put
> > in
> > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> have
> > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
Orders
> > have
> > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> abuse.
> > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > DNA
> > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> putative
> > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > politicians?
> > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > ==
> > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> Clark
> > Simmons,"
> > haven't you?
>
> <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?

Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
on
> > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
women.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
much
> > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> idle
> > > > > cliche.
> > > > ==
> > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
40
> > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > gender
> > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > just
> > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
divorce
> > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> put
> > in
> > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> have
> > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
Orders
> > have
> > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> abuse.
> > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > DNA
> > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> putative
> > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > politicians?
> > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > ==
> > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> Clark
> > Simmons,"
> > haven't you?
>
> <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?

Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

[Kenneth S.]

gini52 wrote:
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?
> ==
The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[Kenneth S.]

gini52 wrote:
>
> "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > >
> > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> >
> > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > cliche.
> ==
> So, who among us is *not* voting?
> ==
The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> on
> > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> much
> > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > idle
> > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40
> > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > gender
> > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > just
> > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> divorce
> > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > put
> > > in
> > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > have
> > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> Orders
> > > have
> > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > abuse.
> > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > DNA
> > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative
> > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > politicians?
> > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > ==
> > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > Clark
> > > Simmons,"
> > > haven't you?
> >
> > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
>
> Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

Clark's trying to create a movement? Could Ex-Lax help?

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> on
> > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> much
> > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > idle
> > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40
> > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > gender
> > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > just
> > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> divorce
> > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > put
> > > in
> > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > have
> > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> Orders
> > > have
> > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > abuse.
> > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > DNA
> > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative
> > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > politicians?
> > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > ==
> > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > Clark
> > > Simmons,"
> > > haven't you?
> >
> > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
>
> Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

Clark's trying to create a movement? Could Ex-Lax help?

[Melvin Gamble]

The only ...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> on
> > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> much
> > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > idle
> > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40
> > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > gender
> > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > just
> > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> divorce
> > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > put
> > > in
> > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > have
> > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> Orders
> > > have
> > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > abuse.
> > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > DNA
> > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative
> > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > politicians?
> > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > ==
> > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > Clark
> > > Simmons,"
> > > haven't you?
> >
> > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
>
> Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

"movement" clark is going to have anything to do with he has already had
and smeared all over usenet...

Mel Gamble

[Melvin Gamble]

The only ...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> on
> > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> much
> > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > idle
> > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> 40
> > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > gender
> > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > just
> > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> divorce
> > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > put
> > > in
> > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > have
> > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> Orders
> > > have
> > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > abuse.
> > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > DNA
> > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > putative
> > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > politicians?
> > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > ==
> > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > Clark
> > > Simmons,"
> > > haven't you?
> >
> > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
>
> Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.

"movement" clark is going to have anything to do with he has already had
and smeared all over usenet...

Mel Gamble

[Melvin Gamble]

Hadn't read yours ...

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > k.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> > on
> > > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> > women.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> > much
> > > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > > idle
> > > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > > ==
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> > 40
> > > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > > gender
> > > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > > just
> > > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> > divorce
> > > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > > put
> > > > in
> > > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > > have
> > > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> > Orders
> > > > have
> > > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > > abuse.
> > > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > > DNA
> > > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > > putative
> > > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > > politicians?
> > > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > > ==
> > > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > > Clark
> > > > Simmons,"
> > > > haven't you?
> > >
> > > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
> >
> > Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> > laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> > create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.
>
> Clark's trying to create a movement? Could Ex-Lax help?

.... before I posted mine. Guess that's proof that great minds think in
the same dark places : )

Mel Gamble

[Melvin Gamble]

Hadn't read yours ...

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > k.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war
> > on
> > > > > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been
> > women.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty
> > much
> > > > > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some
> > > idle
> > > > > > > cliche.
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > > > > ==
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand what everyone is complaining about. Over the past
> > 40
> > > > > years child support and child custody laws have been re-written to be
> > > > gender
> > > > > neutral. Child Support services have been extended to fathers and not
> > > > just
> > > > > mothers and children. Men have been allowed to use the no-fault
> > divorce
> > > > > laws with the same ease as women. Child Support Guidelines have been
> > > put
> > > > in
> > > > > place to ensure all children are supported by both parents. New laws
> > > have
> > > > > been created to enforce CS orders for the children. Restraining
> > Orders
> > > > have
> > > > > been issued with far less scrutiny to protect parties from domestic
> > > abuse.
> > > > > Fathers obtaining custody has risen because of new joint custody laws.
> > > > DNA
> > > > > testing has been recognized as a way to identify which of several
> > > putative
> > > > > fathers is the bio-father. What is there to complain about to
> > > > politicians?
> > > > > (Sarcasm off.)
> > > > ==
> > > > OK, fess up. You been takin' night classes at "Family Law According to
> > > Clark
> > > > Simmons,"
> > > > haven't you?
> > >
> > > <snicker> Where is old Clark, anyway? And Papa Polar Bear, too?
> >
> > Papa is in Canada slinking back to his native Ontario to try to fix U.S. CS
> > laws in Canadian Parliament, and Clark is off working on how to get ideas to
> > create a movement from his home in Texas since he has none of his own.
>
> Clark's trying to create a movement? Could Ex-Lax help?

.... before I posted mine. Guess that's proof that great minds think in
the same dark places : )

Mel Gamble

[Melvin Gamble]

Hell, Kenneth, the politicians in oregun NEVER pay attention to the
voters. I'm beginning to think we should all vote OPPOSITE of what we
think is right...that way they might override our vote and give us what
we want....

Mel Gamble

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> gini52 wrote:
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > ==
> The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
> politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
> generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
> particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[Melvin Gamble]

Hell, Kenneth, the politicians in oregun NEVER pay attention to the
voters. I'm beginning to think we should all vote OPPOSITE of what we
think is right...that way they might override our vote and give us what
we want....

Mel Gamble

"Kenneth S." wrote:
>
> gini52 wrote:
> >
> > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > >
> > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > >
> > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > cliche.
> > ==
> > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > ==
> The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
> politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
> generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
> particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[dani]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>>
> I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
> increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
> clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
> they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we dare
> you to do anything about it."
>

I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law, i.e.
precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems to be well
reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as to why something
always seems to get lost in the translation from the appellate to the
lower courts.

What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes allowing
judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial appointments
with no accountability. A bad combination all the way around.

Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works in
government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?

Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before we
vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe, this
could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How many single
Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and bounds in this
direction. i.e. a potent voting block.

[dani]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>>
> I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
> increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
> clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
> they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we dare
> you to do anything about it."
>

I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law, i.e.
precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems to be well
reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as to why something
always seems to get lost in the translation from the appellate to the
lower courts.

What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes allowing
judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial appointments
with no accountability. A bad combination all the way around.

Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works in
government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?

Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before we
vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe, this
could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How many single
Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and bounds in this
direction. i.e. a potent voting block.

[Kenneth S.]

Mel:

I know little or nothing about Oregon. However, I'll tell you one
thing for sure. Pick one issue where the politicians (or the juddges)
in the state overrode the views of the population at large. Then
analyze the background to that decision in detail. I can guarantee that
you will find that the reason why the decision was made was that there
was some special interest group vigorously promoting their own goals at
the expense of the majority of the people, and using money and
intimidation to get what they wanted.

Politicians (and judges, who in the U.S. today are little more than a
subcategory of politicians) aren't just being contrary when they make
these decisions. They are favoring the people who are nearby, with wads
of cash and the potential to make big trouble if they don't get what
they want. The vast majority of the electorate are NOT nearby, and in
most cases (particularly in regard to fathers' issues) will do
absolutely nothing even if the most outrageous and undemocratic
decisions are made.


Melvin Gamble wrote:
>
> Hell, Kenneth, the politicians in oregun NEVER pay attention to the
> voters. I'm beginning to think we should all vote OPPOSITE of what we
> think is right...that way they might override our vote and give us what
> we want....
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> "Kenneth S." wrote:
> >
> > gini52 wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> > The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
> > politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
> > generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
> > particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[Kenneth S.]

Mel:

I know little or nothing about Oregon. However, I'll tell you one
thing for sure. Pick one issue where the politicians (or the juddges)
in the state overrode the views of the population at large. Then
analyze the background to that decision in detail. I can guarantee that
you will find that the reason why the decision was made was that there
was some special interest group vigorously promoting their own goals at
the expense of the majority of the people, and using money and
intimidation to get what they wanted.

Politicians (and judges, who in the U.S. today are little more than a
subcategory of politicians) aren't just being contrary when they make
these decisions. They are favoring the people who are nearby, with wads
of cash and the potential to make big trouble if they don't get what
they want. The vast majority of the electorate are NOT nearby, and in
most cases (particularly in regard to fathers' issues) will do
absolutely nothing even if the most outrageous and undemocratic
decisions are made.


Melvin Gamble wrote:
>
> Hell, Kenneth, the politicians in oregun NEVER pay attention to the
> voters. I'm beginning to think we should all vote OPPOSITE of what we
> think is right...that way they might override our vote and give us what
> we want....
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> "Kenneth S." wrote:
> >
> > gini52 wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Dave©" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Tracy wrote:
> > > > > > I would go as far to say that our legal system is waging war on
> > > > > > fathers. Why? You tell me?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because for the last 40+ years the squeaky wheel have been women.
> > > >
> > > > Ya know, that's a very simple statement, but I think it pretty much
> > > > sums it all up. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is not some idle
> > > > cliche.
> > > ==
> > > So, who among us is *not* voting?
> > > ==
> > The issue isn't as simple as voting or not voting. In the U.S. today,
> > politicians and bureaucrats respond -- not primarily to the views of the
> > generality of voters -- but to organized special interest groups,
> > particularly if they have money that they can direct at decision-makers.

[The Dave©]

> dani wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>
> >> dani wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
> >>
> > I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
> > increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law
> > is clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent.
> > Basically, what they're saying is "We're going to do what we think
> > is best, and we dare you to do anything about it."
> >
>
> I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law,
> i.e. precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems
> to be well reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as
> to why something always seems to get lost in the translation from the
> appellate to the lower courts.
>
> What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes
> allowing judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial
> appointments with no accountability. A bad combination all the way
> around.
>
> Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
> immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works
> in government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?
>
> Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before
> we vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe,
> this could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How
> many single Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and
> bounds in this direction. i.e. a potent voting block.

We whine about politicians and judges being beholden to special
interests, etc., yet in truth, we get what we deserve. Yes, they cater
to special interests, then they throw us some bones in the form of
"entitlements", etc., and we think they're great and forget all the
other **** they do to us. We have allowed ourselves to become nothing
more than a special interest sideshow that can be bought and pandered
to. How often does an incumbant get voted out? Seldom. We (I'm
speaking about society in general) have short attention spans and even
shorter memories. If we would pay attention, and vote accordingly, the
results would be different.

[The Dave©]

> dani wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>
> >> dani wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
> >>
> > I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
> > increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law
> > is clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent.
> > Basically, what they're saying is "We're going to do what we think
> > is best, and we dare you to do anything about it."
> >
>
> I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law,
> i.e. precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems
> to be well reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as
> to why something always seems to get lost in the translation from the
> appellate to the lower courts.
>
> What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes
> allowing judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial
> appointments with no accountability. A bad combination all the way
> around.
>
> Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
> immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works
> in government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?
>
> Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before
> we vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe,
> this could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How
> many single Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and
> bounds in this direction. i.e. a potent voting block.

We whine about politicians and judges being beholden to special
interests, etc., yet in truth, we get what we deserve. Yes, they cater
to special interests, then they throw us some bones in the form of
"entitlements", etc., and we think they're great and forget all the
other **** they do to us. We have allowed ourselves to become nothing
more than a special interest sideshow that can be bought and pandered
to. How often does an incumbant get voted out? Seldom. We (I'm
speaking about society in general) have short attention spans and even
shorter memories. If we would pay attention, and vote accordingly, the
results would be different.

[dani]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 04:28:00 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>>
>> >> dani wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>> >>
>> > I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
>> > increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
>> > clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
>> > they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we
>> > dare you to do anything about it."
>> >
>> >
>> I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law, i.e.
>> precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems to be
>> well reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as to why
>> something always seems to get lost in the translation from the appellate
>> to the lower courts.
>>
>> What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes allowing
>> judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial
>> appointments with no accountability. A bad combination all the way
>> around.
>>
>> Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
>> immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works in
>> government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?
>>
>> Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before we
>> vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe, this
>> could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How many single
>> Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and bounds in this
>> direction. i.e. a potent voting block.
>
> We whine about politicians and judges being beholden to special interests,
> etc., yet in truth, we get what we deserve. Yes, they cater to special
> interests, then they throw us some bones in the form of "entitlements",
> etc., and we think they're great and forget all the other **** they do to
> us. We have allowed ourselves to become nothing more than a special
> interest sideshow that can be bought and pandered to. How often does an
> incumbant get voted out? Seldom. We (I'm speaking about society in
> general) have short attention spans and even shorter memories. If we
> would pay attention, and vote accordingly, the results would be different.

Good point. And that's whats cool about the internet. It allows people to
get informed and make decisions accordingly. I think the big push ought to
be in getting the disparate FR groups to come together with one voice.
Than and only than will we be heard. Kind of like an umbrella
organization, such as the NAACP in the 60's or NOW.

[dani]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 04:28:00 +0000, The Dave© wrote:

>> dani wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 16:25:08 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>>
>> >> dani wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:00:17 +0000, The Dave) wrote:
>> >>
>> > I tend to agree with you, what they're doing is not legal. The
>> > increasining use of case law has me greatly concerned. If the law is
>> > clear, there should be no such thing as a precendent. Basically, what
>> > they're saying is "We're going to do what we think is best, and we
>> > dare you to do anything about it."
>> >
>> >
>> I wouldn't necessarily say precedent is the problem. Most case law, i.e.
>> precedent, at least here in CA. (I'm familiar with this) seems to be
>> well reasoned and intelligently thought out. I have no clue as to why
>> something always seems to get lost in the translation from the appellate
>> to the lower courts.
>>
>> What I think is the problem is that there are to many statutes allowing
>> judicial discretion, combined with too many liberal Judicial
>> appointments with no accountability. A bad combination all the way
>> around.
>>
>> Impose stricter limits on judicial discretion and take away judicial
>> immunity. Matter of fact take away all immunity from anyone who works in
>> government, period. Are we the servants, or do they work for us?
>>
>> Lastly, as was said earlier, we need to know more about judges before we
>> vote for them. Like what they stand for on fathers rights. Maybe, this
>> could be a good weapon. How many divorces are there now? How many single
>> Dad's? I'd say the population is growing by leaps and bounds in this
>> direction. i.e. a potent voting block.
>
> We whine about politicians and judges being beholden to special interests,
> etc., yet in truth, we get what we deserve. Yes, they cater to special
> interests, then they throw us some bones in the form of "entitlements",
> etc., and we think they're great and forget all the other **** they do to
> us. We have allowed ourselves to become nothing more than a special
> interest sideshow that can be bought and pandered to. How often does an
> incumbant get voted out? Seldom. We (I'm speaking about society in
> general) have short attention spans and even shorter memories. If we
> would pay attention, and vote accordingly, the results would be different.

Good point. And that's whats cool about the internet. It allows people to
get informed and make decisions accordingly. I think the big push ought to
be in getting the disparate FR groups to come together with one voice.
Than and only than will we be heard. Kind of like an umbrella
organization, such as the NAACP in the 60's or NOW.

[Chris Owens]

Tracy wrote:
>
> An instructor for a class I'm currently taking just gave his conscience has
> a name. He is naming it after me. Today he proceeded to tell us a story on
> how he use to adjust his check book by $200 down after each paycheck as a
> way to hide money from his wife. He did that because she wouldn't think
> twice when purchasing cookies, or other items, for her co-workers. I looked
> at him and asked "you lied to your wife?" I thought the man was going to
> die... there he was with this red face laughing. He didn't continue with
> his story, but his bottom-line - they got their own checking accounts. In
> my opinion, it didn't solve their real issue, because he admitted her
> spending habits still bug him.

But, Tracy, part of a successful marriage is sometimes just
setting aside issues as not resolveable. Now, if your spending
habits are getting you into financial trouble, that's one thing.
But, if it's just different styles, you have to come to some
accomodation. It sounds as if they did. He's never going to be
happy with her's, and she's not likely to be thrilled by his;
but, as long as they don't find it a source of conflict, that's a
just-fine resolution. A good marriage is hard work; but, there's
no need to make it harder than it has to be.

Chris Owens




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Chris Owens]

Tracy wrote:
>
> An instructor for a class I'm currently taking just gave his conscience has
> a name. He is naming it after me. Today he proceeded to tell us a story on
> how he use to adjust his check book by $200 down after each paycheck as a
> way to hide money from his wife. He did that because she wouldn't think
> twice when purchasing cookies, or other items, for her co-workers. I looked
> at him and asked "you lied to your wife?" I thought the man was going to
> die... there he was with this red face laughing. He didn't continue with
> his story, but his bottom-line - they got their own checking accounts. In
> my opinion, it didn't solve their real issue, because he admitted her
> spending habits still bug him.

But, Tracy, part of a successful marriage is sometimes just
setting aside issues as not resolveable. Now, if your spending
habits are getting you into financial trouble, that's one thing.
But, if it's just different styles, you have to come to some
accomodation. It sounds as if they did. He's never going to be
happy with her's, and she's not likely to be thrilled by his;
but, as long as they don't find it a source of conflict, that's a
just-fine resolution. A good marriage is hard work; but, there's
no need to make it harder than it has to be.

Chris Owens




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----