The divorce regime is responsible for much more than "ugly divorces," "nasty custody battles


Click on the link to email, your city or town rep.


When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326.


Family court injustices to men
By Phyllis Schlafly
Posted: July 22, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled "child support," that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn't pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor's prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?
Did you know that debtor's prisons (putting men in prison because they can't pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called "child support"?

Did you know that when corporations can't pay their debts, they can take bankruptcy, which means they pay off their debts for pennies on the dollar, but a man can never get an alleged "child support" debt forgiven or reduced, even if he is out of a job, penniless and homeless, medically incapacitated, incarcerated (justly or unjustly) or serving in our Armed Forces overseas, can't afford a lawyer, or never owed the money in the first place?

Did you know that when a woman applying for welfare handouts lies about who the father of her child is, she is never prosecuted for perjury? Did you know that judges can refuse to accept DNA evidence showing that the man she accuses is not the father?

Did you know that alleged "child support" has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the "support" money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

These are among the injustices the feminists, and their docile liberal male allies, have inflicted on men. The sponsor was former Democratic senator from New Jersey and presidential candidate Bill Bradley.

His name is affixed to the Bradley Amendment, a 1986 federal law that prohibits retroactive reduction of alleged "child support" even in any of the circumstances listed above. The Bradley law denies bankruptcy protections, overrides all statutes of limitation and forbids judicial consideration of obvious inability to pay.

Most Bradley-law victims never come to national attention because, as "Bias" author Bernard Goldberg said, mainstream media toe the feminist propaganda line, among which is the epithet "deadbeat dads." But one egregious case did make the news this summer.

Frank Hatley was in a Georgia jail for more than a year for failure to pay alleged "child support" even though a DNA test nine years ago plus a second one this year proved that he is not the father. The Aug. 21, 2001, court order, signed by Judge Dane Perkins, acknowledged that Hatley is not the father but nevertheless ordered him to continue paying and never told him he could have a court-appointed lawyer if he could not afford one.

Hatley subsequently paid the government (not the mom or child) thousands of dollars in "child support," and after he was laid off from his job unloading charcoal grills from shipping containers and reduced to living in his car, he continued making payments out of his unemployment benefits.

But he didn't pay enough to satisfy the avaricious child-support bureaucrats, so Perkins ruled Hatley in contempt and sent him to jail without any jury trial. With the help of a Legal Services lawyer, he has now been relieved from future assessments and released from jail, but (because of the Bradley Amendment) the government is demanding that Hatley continue paying at the rate of $250 a month until he pays off the $16,398 debt the government claims he accumulated earlier (even though the court then knew he was not the father).

This system is morally and constitutionally wrong, yet all the authorities say the court orders were lawful.

Another type of feminist indignity is the use in divorce cases of false allegations of child sexual abuse in order to gain child custody and the financial windfall that goes with it. Former Vancouver, Wash., police officer Ray Spencer has spent nearly 20 years in prison after being convicted of molesting his two children who are now adults and say it never happened.

The son, who was 9 years old at the time, was questioned, alone for months until he said he had been abused in order to get the detective to leave him alone. The daughter, who was then age 5, said she talked to the detective after he gave her ice cream.

There were many other violations of due process in Spencer's trial, such as prosecutors withholding medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse and his court-appointed lawyer failing to prepare a defense, but the judge nevertheless sentenced Spencer to two life terms in prison plus 14 years. Spencer was five times denied parole because he refused to admit guilt, a customary parole practice that is maliciously designed to save face for prosecutors who prosecute innocent men.

Phyllis Schlafly is a lawyer, conservative political analyst and the author of the newly revised and expanded "Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It." Schlafly also is founder and president of Eagle Forum. 

A Caller in mass

7/22/2009 08:09:56



Glenn Beck has on-air meltdown while discussing Massachusetts health care


I don't disagree with this at all. However, MA statute has specifically attempted to dissuade this type of activity.   CHAPTER 268. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
Chapter 268: Section 13A. Picketing court, judge, juror, witness or court officer
Section 13A. Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the commonwealth, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the commonwealth of its power to punish for contempt.


Notice that the wording is vague enough that it can be applied to any picketing activity involving court workers.


With that said, one of my favorite memories of the fathers rights movement was one day in January when we maintained a presence outside and inside the Canton probate and family court, with a multitude of signs, purple flags hanging from every surface we could attach them too, and judges arriving for "work" that morning hiding their faces as they drove by us. I remember looking into Boorsteins eyes as she drove by and I held a sign in her face stating she belonged behind bars, not the bench.


None of us were arrested, or even spoken to, about this activity despite the ease they would have had in applying this statute against us.


A pleade for Help

7/15/2009 12:40:51



This story came in a form of a email. Please read her story.

Atty Lewin says paternity is sealed, Eric does not have much of a chance with the jury as a jury would see him like they see a child molester. Atty Lewin believes she cannot help him with child support and from the beginning tried to get other atty to take his case because she can’t represent him with child support. She believes Eric’s only chance is to take the plea and if he can give 5,000. dollars he can possibly get 1 year. She told Eric if he asks for another atty he may be indicted with federal charges. He is scared and confused he says she reads cases to him that has nothing to do with his predicament. He does not understand his charges and his lawyer gave him the motion documents for him to file his own child support motion to reduce child support.

She has requested many documents she says and I have given her stuff. Eric was working in NH Dunkin Donuts for approx. a year and paying almost all his check to child support in NH. Mass tried to tap in but the limit was already taken from his checks.


Eric is a contractor by trade but has not worked in that field due to loss of his license in 2002. He has not had an appt of his own since 2000. He has lived with family here and there and lived mostly on the street and with people who took him in.

Our family has suffered tremendous losses in the pass few years, In 2003 Eric’s son Tyler was lost during a divorce from his wife of 2 years. Her name was Leah and they divorced in a NH court (Judge allowed mother to take Tyler to Florida And stripped Eric of his parental rights).

Then my husband Dan, of 3 years, died of cancer in 2005, (Eric was very close to Dan, first true father figure).

2 months later my son Carl’s daughter was murdered by her step-father in Puerto Rico. Devastating to all of us!!

Her name is Chelsea Vilkisius she was10 years old. Jose her (step-father) MURDERED Amy his wife and tortured my granddaughter whom he left to die, August 9, 2005 in a Villa in the mountains of PR where he took them on Vacation and he planned to kill them all. He was charged with 5 attempts to murder her and then murder. She died bleeding to death after almost 8 hours. The family was from Methuen Mass. Jose was a felon who had robbed his company of thousands of dollars and was on strict probation. He went to court and asked the judge to take his family on vacation but forgot to mention he planned to kill them all.

Eric was very close to Chelsea as he lost his son Tyler and became very close to her. Chelsea was a wonderful little girl and if the Judge did not allow Jose to go to Puerto Rico this would have never happened. In court my son Carl had no say about his daughter going to PR because he and Amy never married.

Eric could never hold on to anything, home, his children, his life and/or his job. Emotionally he was completely unable to fight for anything and most of all he feared jail. Without a vehicle and a license could not work construction. When he called DOR to speak to someone they told him get a lawyer because there is a great chance he would go to jail if he did not have the money to pay. Eric had his children in NH and thought about going to jail but then no-one would get support.

Eric has suffered with depression, suicidal tendencies where he was hospitalized and many years of homelessness.

We all know including him that he did not make the best choices but what should the punishment be for his inability to deal with this appropriately and who should decide what is inappropriate? Are the courts fair in their charging him with a criminal act? The inability to pay due to having no ability to earn money is not a reason for the court to set child support at a unreasonable amount which he can’t afford. NH is taking way more out of his check than is allowed by federal law code 15 US 1673 for garnishment and allowed amounts. This catch 22 will never end!

Eric had never even had a speeding ticket. He was brought up with a large French family and two brothers. My son’s went to parochial schools, they were in sports and were never in trouble with the law.

************Eric meets Tara Joey’s mother: This relationship occurred @ the age of 22

Eric was 22 when he met Tara, he had a great job and was working for Dana wallboard in Tyngsboro Mass. Tara had left her high school sweetheart (JAY) and began dating Eric. About a year later Tara was pregnant. They were not getting along and Tara had shared she still loved Jay. Shortly after Joey was born Tara went back to Jay. Eric liked Jay he seemed to be a nice guy. Family was sad because we all loved Tara and her family. At one point Tara told Eric if he went for the paternity test, he would never see his son again.(embarrassment to her) Eric had been told that a paternity was necessary but Tara was very much against it. Eric believed her that Joey was his son and he loved him very much, did not want to loose him. Eric would never cause Tara any heartache or embarrassment either. So he never had the paternity test done.

Shortly after this Eric got into an accident were his leg was crushed from a motor cycle hitting him. He had major surgery on his leg. 3 surgeries in 4 months. During his last surgery, where they removed the pins I received a notice at my house for Eric to go to Court in Salem MASS. Eric left the hospital and drove to Salem mass to meet with a women who said she was from the welfare dept. and had papers for him to sign. He told her he just got out of the hospital and would not be returning to work until his leg was healed. She filed out a financial affidavit with the info from his last job, and told him he had to sign that. Eric did not know where she got the info from his job. She said he may go in front of the judge but the outcome would be the same he would have to sign this.

This is where the order comes from. Years later Eric began getting letters saying he owes thousands. The interest and the penalties were outrageous.

Tara was in school, she eventually married her high school sweetheart Jay who seems to be a very nice guy. They had a gorgeous little daughter. They have done a great job with my grandson Joey he is a wonderful intelligent compassionate human being. I am very proud of Joey as he suffered a lot himself when that happened to Chelsea because they were very close and spent much of their family visits together. They grew up together and truly loved each other. We have many pictures and great memories.

The family has always had Joey for family events, Christmas Eve every year of his life. Eric has been at Christmas every year because it is very special time for both of them. Joey is very close to all of us and has grown up to be a wonderful young man. Every time we see him he asks how his father is doing. Eric calls him on occasion and see’s him every Christmas Eve at my sisters in Nashua. My sister AnnMarie and my niece Jenifa often pick up Joey. Eric told me he called Joey on his birthday in January to wish him happy birthday. Prior to Eric loosing his right to drive he would pick up Joey every weekend. Then it became difficult as Eric would have to depend on others to pick him up and drop him off. Tara brought Joey to the Manchester mall once for Eric and Joey to spend time together. Tara and Jay have been invited at Christmas to my sisters and when we pick up Joey I talk to Tara, her daughter and her husband. I have gone into her house and I never felt that Tara wanted to put Eric in Jail . After Eric was arrested, my sister AnnMarie had picked up Joey for a visit and Tara asked Ann if the family was angry with her for doing this to Eric. At that time we thought it was to collect child support not abandonment of Joey. Ann told her she had to do what she had to do. Tara always tells me how Joey looks forward to the visits with his family. He gets very exited and can’t wait…….He will not visit his Father in jail as I’m sure Tara won’t allow it and I don’t believe my grandson knows what is really going on.

The last time I say Joey he told me he went on line to find out why the state does this to fathers. He has a cousin who is going through the same thing with child support and custody. Joey said if a father does not have the money how could they expect him to pay. Also he read online that fathers who are in construction are more likely NOT to get it reduced as the court will not reduce because they believe these guys work under the table. Joey asked why the state can do that if his father owes his mother the money?




News broken by Ken Allen and Robert Hefner


ORLY, Congrats! Congrats! Congrats! Thanks one and all!


Monday, July 13, 2009

Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits!! GREAT NEWS ALERT!!Obama eligibility case will be heard on merits !!Please distribute everywhere.Just got off the phone with Orly Taitz, the attorney in Keyes v. Obama.At the hearing today at the Federal Court building in Santa Ana, Judge Carter said the following:1. There will be a trial.2. It will be heard on the merits.3. Nothing will be dismissed on proceedural issues.4. The trial will be expeditious, and the judge pledged to give case priority.5. Being a former Marine he realizes the importance of having a Constitutionally qualified POTUS/CINC.6. Judge stated that if Obama isn't Constitutionally qualifed he needs to leave the White House.The DOJ will be involved with the case also.... I wasn't clear if they would be trying to get to the truth or they would just be blindly representing Obama.Orly will be adding members of the military from California as plaintiffs also.This is from what my interpretation of our conversation.Orly, asked me to disseminate this information out for her, she will be doing a posting later after she gets some sleep.Please say a prayer of protection for Orly, her family, and Judge Carter. Please also pray that the truth will come to light regarding Obama and justice will be done.Dr Orly Taitz, Esq site here!WOOHOO!!!


Read what many are saying, and make your own comment