A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ABA's predatory feminist lawyers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th 08, 06:01 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 340
Default ABA's predatory feminist lawyers

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...w&pageId=66154

ABA's predatory feminist lawyers
June 04, 2008

By David R. Usher



Respecting Accuracy In Domestic Abuse Reporting, or RADAR, has released a
searing report titled "Myths of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence,"
revealing the American Bar Association's methods and practices applied in
cases of domestic violence nationally.

These reports demonstrate that core ABA thinking, standards of practice and
methodology for handling domestic violence cases is fraudulent, unethical
and strongly discriminates on the basis of sex.

The ABA Commission on Domestic Violence, or CODV, bases its approach to
domestic violence on a widely distributed document it created titled "10
Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them." RADAR's
careful scrutiny found that the "facts" propounded by the ABA to counter
alleged "myths" are myths themselves not backed by any credible science.

In the Executive Report, RADAR found that:

"10 Myths about Custody and Domestic Violence and How to Counter Them" is
inadequate, confusing and suggests policy directions contraindicated by
science. . Seven of the purported 10 myths are either misleading or found
not to be myths. Ten of the 19 claims are actually false. And the quality of
nine of the 20 cited documents is poor or very poor. In its quest to debunk
a series of custody and domestic violence misconceptions, the ABA Commission
on Domestic Violence ironically has ended up reinforcing old misconceptions.
The [ABA report] is profoundly and systematically biased. It is unworthy
to be used as a foundation for legal practice or public policy.

The ABA has systematically substituted symbolism for science in family law
for many years. With the passing of time, evanescent jurisprudence in the
courts, legislation and training has been replaced with increasingly risible
shibboleths invented by feminists strategically perched up and down the
legal profession.

Profoundly biased standards of practice

The ABA Domestic Violence Standards of Practice displays overt sex bias
obvious to even an untrained individual. The victim is repeatedly defined as
female. For example: "The lawyer should discuss with the client her wishes
regarding temporary custody and visitation, keeping in mind jurisdictional
issues."

The additional commentary attached to ABA Standards of Practice document
extends sex biases even further: "May a client flee for safety to another
state with her children without being charged criminally?"

Justice is not served by pre-defining victims as female. The wide body of
209 empirical reports measuring both female and male-perpetrated violence
indicate women are at least as likely as men to be perpetrators of serious
domestic violence. In cases of non-reciprocal IPV, women are the initiators
of 70.7 percent of domestic violence.

ABA Standards fail to assess whether the accuser may be the abuser. The
Standards requires no disclosure of evidence to opposing counsel when
self-nominating victims make false allegations of abuse. One credible study
of couples involved in adjudicated custody disputes found that DV
allegations were made in 55 percent of the cases studied. Of those
allegations, 59 percent could not be substantiated as true.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women's Bar
Association, writes that "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical
advantage" in divorce courts and that restraining orders are doled out "like
candy. . In virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial
weighing of evidence is to be had."

Despite the probability that over half of domestic violence allegations in
divorce and custody situations are not true, the ABA Standards of Practice
Document provides no guidance for attorneys about how to handle cases where
allegations are patently false. The results are astonishing: Mothers get
primary residential custody in 93.4 percent of divorces, men only 2.5
percent of divorces.

Children pay dearly for the ABA's mishandling of family law policy. Children
of single parents are 90 percent more likely to sustain moderate injury or
harm than children in married families, 120 percent more likely to
experience some type of child abuse or neglect, and 220 percent more likely
to be educationally neglected.

Is ABA culpable for commission's actions?

The members of the ABA Commission on Domestic Violence must be held
responsible for executing feminist policy while ignoring well-known
scientific fact and truths about human nature.

Framing the ABA Standards of Practice requires at least the same level of
thoroughness and balance as prosecution of any individual case. Prosecutor
Mike Nifong followed the CODV's recipe to the letter pursuing the Duke rape
case and was disbarred for it. Like the CODV, Nifong made wild public
accusations while concealing material facts and evidence to achieve a
slam-dunk. Like Nifong, the CODV made wild accusations while concealing
material facts and evidence to achieve its nationwide slam-dunk.

The president of the ABA recently endorsed the CODV legislative agenda that
would lead to billions in federal funding and much work for predatory
feminist lawyers.

WND columnist Phyllis Schlafly points out the obvious conflict of interest
involved: "Attorneys are a special-interest group just like any other group
that aggressively lobbies for the interests of its members."

Judge Robert H. Dierker points boldly to the larger core issue involved:
"The femifascist confluence with liberalism has spawned a truly horrible
jurisprudence. Concluding that the law should not treat men and women
equally, but should treat women better than men to 'compensate' women for
centuries of oppression, radical feminists exclude men from any reproductive
rights and attack traditional marriage, with its implied contractual rights
of both men and women."

When Richard B. Teitelman (now a Missouri Supreme Court judge) was executive
director of Legal Services of Eastern Missouri in the 1990s, he adamantly
refused requests to provide free legal services to poor men falsely accused
of domestic violence or child abuse.

Despite the fact that Legal Services Corporation aggressively prosecutes
allegations by women, and is not known to defend poor men falsely accused of
it, ABA President William H. Neukom recently urged the Senate Judiciary
Committee to increase LSC funding to enable even more false prosecutions.
Additional LSC funding will buy only two possible outcomes: more broken
families and a lot of self-aggrandizing work for attorneys.

The ABA strongly supports Sen. Joe Biden's plan to establish a volunteer
army of "100,000 Domestic Violence Lawyers" (S.1515). In a press release,
the ABA "applauded" the Senate Judiciary Committee for passing S.1515 out of
committee.

S.1515 would cost $55 million annually - partially for college loan
reimbursements for LSC lawyers. Since the Violence Against Women Act was
enacted in 1994, domestic violence rates (which declined steadily between
1974 and 1994) have flattened. VAWA-related cases are largely handed by
lawyers of LSC grantees.

Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh instinctively knew that the prosperous
legal profession does not need pork for feminist law school students.
Commented Limbaugh: "What a scam. So the hundred thousand lawyers are paid
off with a 20 percent reduction in their student loan outstanding balance.
Look, none of this surprises me. This is something that Democrats, people
like Joe Biden, are entirely capable of."

The absence of due diligence and consistent aggressive misrepresentation of
science and policy demonstrated by the ABA cannot be written off as mere
complaisance or oversight.

The ABA Code of Ethics Rule 8.4 states that "It is professional misconduct
for a lawyer to: ... (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit or misrepresentation. ..." The ABA, in its entirety, appears to have
violated this rule in its handling of domestic violence jurisprudence.

The public is becoming keenly aware about the ABA's mishandling of justice
in American family law. Respect for the rule of law is diminishing as we
speak. Only one question remains: Is the ABA willing to reform its practices
willingly or unwillingly?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Feminist Fantasies Dusty[_2_] Child Support 0 March 24th 08 11:12 AM
Web broadcast: Predatory behavior at AA meetings David[_3_] Solutions 0 April 26th 07 10:35 PM
Was my lawyer actually a feminist? R Child Support 9 December 6th 06 10:35 PM
The feminist view of breastfeeding Joe Gillis Breastfeeding 109 August 17th 06 09:31 AM
The Feminist Anti-Kid Crusade Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 05:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.