Domestic Violence Fairytales Threaten Constitutional Protections
Kristin Ruggiero of New Hampshire figured it would be a slam dunk. The gambit worked like a charm during the divorce hearing; now she would bring the case to criminal court.
Her husband Jeffrey, an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, was an incorrigible batterer, at least that’s what she led to the judge to believe. That got him convicted of criminal threatening, and she won custody of their 7-year-old daughter.
But Kristin Ruggiero wasn’t finished.
One day, the woman bragged to her startled ex, “I took all your money, I took your daughter, and now I’m going to take your career.” She went out and purchased a disposable cell phone and registered it in Jeffrey’s name. Then she sent herself a passel of threatening text messages.
Apparently Kristin didn’t realize that in criminal court, allegations are subjected to a higher standard of proof. And all of a sudden the nefarious scheme to frame her ex-husband came crashing down.
Last week Kristin Ruggiero was convicted on 12 counts of falsifying physical evidence and sentenced to 7-14 years in prison.
This tale is not so much about a distraught woman sorely in need of psychological help. Rather, it’s a story of a police department, a prosecutor, and a judge that allowed themselves to be duped by a conniving perjurer. And it’s about a criminal justice system that has all but abandoned due process in a frenzied attempt to curb domestic violence.
Like everything in the law, the problem begins with definitions. The Violence Against Women Act, passed during the first term of the Clinton administration, includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.
States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) likewise followed suit. The CDC’s Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements declares that partner violence includes “getting annoyed if the victim disagrees,” “withholding information from the victim,” and even “disregarding what the victim wants.”
Note the CDC’s repeated use of the word “victim.” In VAWA-speak, a victim does not need to be a prostrate body lying in a pool of blood. Rather, a mere accusation elevates you to the status of victim. No proof of violence is necessary. Recall the Queen of Hearts’ disdainful remark, “Sentence first, verdict afterwards.”
It’s a criminal action to annoy your spouse? I think this makes each and every husband and wife in the country criminals.
But it’s OK to give governments this kind of power because, as Elena Kagan said when discussing government power to censor political expression, the government probably wouldn’t use it, at least not too often.
Not just spouse, partner!
That means everyone who has ever dated is guilty! The problem goes beyond domestic violence. The current legal regime in this country guarantees that everyone is guilty of some jailable offense always. Which means that everyone can be arrested and have their life destroyed should some prosecutor decide he wants to take somebody out (for whatever reason he deems good enough).
You misread that. It’s a crime to be annoyed by your partner.
Please explain the difference, because I’m not seeing it.
Well, it’s a crime to do something that makes your partner annoyed, you can do that without actively annoying her (these cases ALWAYS favour the female partner…).
For example, my mother used to be highly annoyed when my father got held up at work. Under current US law that would make my father a criminal despite him not doing anything to cause her annoyance (rather his job was too busy, and then there were the traffic jams).
.. this makes each and every husband and wife in the country criminals.
Nah, just every husband and boyfriend. These “abuse” laws are never used against women. It’s the “Violence Against Women Act”, remember?
Solution? Use hookers only. Remember, you are not paying for sex, you are paying them to leave when finished.
LOLOLOL!
I’ve always wondered what the difference was between spending $300 for a few dinners and then sex versus spending the $300 and skipping the dinners.
I think this makes each and every husband and wife in the country criminals.
No, no, just every HUSBAND.
alex – yes, but only if you are male. “There’s NO Excuse for Abuse!” nless..l; your are either female or especially part of the domestic violence organized scam industry.
Our Constituion prohibits special treament of sepcial classes or royalty (princesses…)and gaurantees the preservation of true due process which shelters, DV coalitions and VAWA prohibit in favor of Global Marxism.
This article tells only half the story.
Just check out the grounds of issuing a restraining order — essentially, if you tell your wife to give you the remote control, you’re now engaging in “power and control” — and that’ll get you kicked out of the house!
… as is taking the remote from her or stopping her from abusing you or when you take her car keys when she threatens to take it and crash it into others to kill them and herself… None of it, even serious abuse, applies the other way around.
No matter what either of you do, it’s the man’s fault…
All of the wonderful legislation we HAVE gotten passed in recent years is not applied for the equality of men, fathers or their children. Baby steps and diplomacy with gang mollesters and pillagers is killing us slowly.
Several blocks from where I live there is a street corner where an acquaintance of mine was shot and killed by a man who then proceeded to turn the gun on himself.
An order of protection was filed against this man and there is ample evidence that for various reasons the police did not react accordingly in this situation.
She herself did not take the claim seriously she was not physically abused, but was baffled by his behavior and frustrated that he would not leave her alone.
Given your position, I can see how you, much like the police would not have raised a finger to protect her or taken her case seriously. After all, there was no proof of violence.
In my mind, your sob stories of false charges have less weight than the bodies of the dead.
How do you stop anybody who goes from relative calm straight to murder-suicide?
You seem to be asking for the impossible…
How are the police supposed to react “accordingly” when all that was in evidence was ‘baffling’ behavior?
Please explain how police are supposed to present ‘baffling’ evidence to a Judge as proof that an individual should be locked up… And I suppose you would want life for ‘baffling’ evidence….
If someone is ‘dead set’ on killing another, nothing will stop that nut…
Please explain how curtailing all male freedom does anything to stop the suicidal murderers out there?
I think frustrating men with law tools of persecution may actually drive more men into desperate acts… Unintended consequences it would seem…
“How do you stop anybody who goes from relative calm straight to murder-suicide?”
Well, people are supposed to read minds, duh. It’s easy to do in hindsight, so it should be just as easy to predict the future to prevent the tragedy.
No mind-reading needed. Clearly the solution is to just lock up everybody and that way you’ll be sure to get the guilty party.
(Insert “Make assurance double sure” allusion here.)
I’m starting to picture “Minority Report” here. “I’m from the Bureau of Future Crime and you’re under arrest for a murder you have not committed yet and, since we’re arresting and incarcerating you, you will never actually commit. Hey, I know it doesn’t make sense, but at least everyone is safe, right? Enjoy the rest of your life in a 3 by 6 foot cell.”
The murderer was a member of law enforcement. He should have been relieved of his service weapon (the one he used in the murder) when the charges were filed.
The charges were not investigated and followed up properly. Months went by while the harassment escalated from phone calls to stalking and confrontations.
Again, my point is that Richards doesn’t feel that domestic violence accusations without evidence of physical violence is a reasonable grounds for investigating someone. Hence the Queen of Hearts remark. I find that less than convincing. I would say that had author had been asked whether to follow up on such a harassment case he would say no and a life would be lost.
As for those who advocate firearms for personal safety, I have no problem with that, but she was murdered in broad daylight on a public street while on a payphone. I’m sorry, but guns don’t magically allow you to see who is behind you even with a conceal carry permit.
You just mentioned why the police did nothing. The perp was a FELLOW police officer. Enough said.
IF she had defended herself with a gun, she would have been charged with killing a cop. She was in a catch 22 situation with no way out.
If she had owned a gun, with a concealed carry permit, and the man knew it, there is a chance that he would have thought twice about attacking her. Interviews with criminals show that they are much less likely to attack or rob someone who might be carrying a gun. Of course, we will never know what was going through his mind – he may have been so deranged that nothing would have stopped him. But if I was afraid of being attacked like she was, I would immediately start the process of getting a CCP. Unfortunately, that can take several weeks.
How quick we forget; was it not even 6 months ago a laid off Domestic Violence lobbyist in Virginia gunned down her younger husband as he was trying to leave the marital home following intense verbal abuse(from what I recall from the article she was verbally abusing him so he tried to leave)?
I see so many attempts by man-hating, boy-hating bigots to derail the fact that the majority of women who claim to be victims are really the abusers. And the fact that us males are human beings too. What a bunch of pathetic bigots.
“I can see how you, much like the police would not have raised a finger to protect her or taken her case seriously.”
-you said yourself, “she herself did not take the claim seriously”. why didnt YOU help your friend?
Lefty: Sorry for the death of your acquaintance.
However, I do not see the connection to see this article. There is no way the police is going to provide 24/7 protection to an average citizen. The best protection for your acquaintance was self-defense through the purchase of a gun.
This article was about the excesses of the current domestic abuse laws and regulations. Can’t you see that?
Had she herself been armed, and knowledgeable in the safe use of firearms, it never would have gotten as far as it did. Unbalanced personalities have a tendency to get balanced quickly, when their own threats are answered with equal or greater threats.
Her uncritical thinking, “But guns are WRONG! He WOULDN’T have a gun! Would he?” made her one more sacrificial lamb on the statists’ altar.
Our societal fear of self-defense, and insistence that the police do it for us, is killing us, one by one.
When seconds count, the Police are only minutes away.
It is easier to carry a gun than carry a cop everywhere you go!
Lefty, for every body you produce, I can produce two of men driven to suicide because of false accusations. Not to mention all the years spent in prison. Physical evidence is the only standard, and it’s the only one I use in the Jury box.
Interesting counterpoint, because men are still the ones who decide who lives and who dies. The dead women never seem to get that choice.
Then you obviously didn’t know my ex-wife who made up all sorts of wild stories to get a restraining order against me because I didn’t want her hanging out with the friends that enabled her to start smoking again, skip out on college classes, and ignore our infant daughter, and I shudder to think where my life would be now if she had been allowed to get away with her lies.
I do not know you, nor do I know your ex-wife. Nor do I understand how your reply is relevant to the question of who is doing the killing in these marriages. Your wife was not killing you when she spent time with friends you didn’t approve of. She was not killing you when she missed classes, or when she didn’t spend as much time with your daughter as you thought she should. She was not being responsible, but she was not murdering you. Please try to understand the difference.
Four simple words: Shall Issue Concealed Carry.
Certainly, in a perfect world, we would all be armed. It is just as certain that a woman is not to blame for being murdered because she was unarmed. Her murderer is to blame for murdering her.
What Peter the Bubblehead said (here and @37). Do not get me started about the domestic violence planned and perpetrated by women against men (some of them family members of ours)…and the men were absolute sitting ducks for it, because they had been trained to “always be nice to the girls” for starters.
Look at every domestic violence PR effort and tell me how many of them allow for any interpretation other than “It’s always the man.” It is not always the man. Whenever I see the do-gooders at the grocery store collecting stuff for the local domestic violence shelter (sheltering only female victims), I always talk nicely with them. I always ask them what kind of help they extent to men who are abused. The do-gooder group usually includes some good-looking young men who are trying to get their leftist street cred by acknowledging that they are, indeed, an abuser-in-waiting and they sure want to pay it forward by gathering stuff to give to the shelter. Sickening. Anyway, when I talk with them, initially they wonder if I’m going to “cause trouble.” When they realize I’m not going to cause trouble, but am seriously making a point, they inevitably do two things, in this order: quote statistics (I couldn’t care less about the statistics about “that never happens in our town” if my cousin just got murdered for a pack of cigarettes) and then they get very quiet.
And then, I always ask the young man, “Were you always taught by your mother and dad never to hit the girl?” Eyes widen a bit–”oh, yeah!” Then I ask, “How are you supposed to physically defend yourself if a girl hits you??” Very quiet. Then, having their attention, I look the male full in the eye and say, “Never, never, NEVER allow any woman to push you or hit you. The first time they do, you have GOT to get out, walk away and NEVER look back. If they are willing to hit you, they are willing to escalate if they don’t get their way. You can’t fix it. GET AWAY.” And I leave them looking very, very sober and trying to act like they’re just counting how many tubes of toothpaste the guilt-ridden public has thrown in their box.
And then I walk away, shaking a little because I’ve been reminded again of what was done to our 6 foot “once a Marine, always a Marine” son who had also been trained to never, never hit a girl.
This is such good advice. A man can NEVER be “nice enough” to appease a woman that has resorted to violence. Logic will not work either. Get away.
At the first instance, even if married, get a separate bank account and have your paycheck deposited there. Reduce joint expenditures. Make sure you have a few thousand dollars in cash for the REAL possibility that you will be thrown out of your home by a contrived allegation and the certainty of a restraining order that will follow.
Preparation reduces the chance of this happening. Lack of preparation makes you an easy target.
Guess she should have had her own gun, and then she would have had a chance.
Better than than a cell phone to call and wait. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Your preferred alternative: LOCK UP ALL THE MEN JUST IN CASE! is not an acceptable alternative, just as lock up all the women is not an acceptable alternative.
So better a thousand loose their possessions, rights and access to their children than one nut commit a murder that was unpredictable by any reasonable standard. Yes, you named yourself well.
Your story highlights the very real dangers of the current system. By making everything abuse, you make the entire thing a joke used for selective prosecution (and/or lawsuits) and cases of genuine abuse are lost in the mess.
I can understand your anguish and guilt at your failure to protect your friend, but don’t put that burden on us, pall. Somebody’s dead and YOU did nothing to prevent it.
Nice going, wienie. And good transition to demanding a police state because of it.
Yes.
There are so many inconsistencies in your story, it’s difficult to give it any credibility at all.
Do yourself a favor and eschew the histrionics.
Some experts studying DV (not the feminist in the DV Industry) believe that automatically arresting lower class males when the violence may be mutual or perpetuated mostly by the female partner – when she gets the kids, cash and home, may lead to her death.
Intervention with counseling for both may save those women’s lives – or even his. Far more men are killed than you would seem to know. DV is more complicated than what feminist teach and a one size fits all from the cops and courts may not be the best way to save any lives, male or female.
This article is so off-base I can hardly believe you don’t know the way legitimate cases of domestic violence against women are ignored and undermined. But then again, the media picks and chooses what cses to highlight, conveniently enough. What really goes on would appall you.
MMS, you raise an important issue, but it is a separate issue. It’s unfortunate that you, like Lefty, try to conflate the two so that sexes are set against each other and protecting one requires ignoring an injustice against the other.
That’s the end-of-road of non-objective law, unmoored by principle: injustice goes both ways.
You’d be better off with no law at all — the results would be about the same, but far simpler and cheaper to administer.
I have seen what you have seen and probably more in my line of work. Taking of American citzens constitutional rights to try to do the impossible is as heinious as those crimes. I have seen terrible abuse. I have seen false accusations for spite or monatary gains. Saddest is probably the woman who is regularly abused who comes to the police station to beg that her dirt bag spouse be released because he needs to go to work the next day and she has done the same thing multilple times.
If someone abuses you then charge him/her with abuse and prosecute. If someone annoyes you then leave. If that someone follows you to do you harm them kill them.
We don’t need a thousand laws added to do what is right. Enforce the basic laws and all else will fall in to place.
hear, hear!!
“The media picks and chooses what cases to cover”???
This was a vindictive woman who tried to steal a man’s daughter, throw him in jail, and destroy his career — and you’re talking about media bias?
Yes. They covered the case for years as a woman being the victim of a man.
Now, when the reverse is revealed, they’re mostly silent. I doubt even one of the outlets who for years villified the man (and still villify men in general) posted a retraction or apology for example.
And yet you offer no evidence.
As others have pointe dout, you raise a legitimate concern, but I think you fail to see how the very problems addressed in the article serve to exascerbate those you mention. Subsuming all undesirable behavior under the most stringent criminal heading only serves to cast aspersions on any accusation. The more often a case of bad judgement (“I wish I hadn’t gotten drunk and done him”) gets turned into a rape accusation (“I didn’t actually say ‘no,’ but I did feel pressured to do it”), the greater the chance that actual criminal conduct will be ignored as “just another false charge.” Likewise, the easier it is for an unscrupulous woman to use domestic abuse laws punitively the less weight many give to any claim of abuse of danger absent physical injury.
When my daughter was very little, the worst crime you could commit was “You hurt my FEELINGS!”. She was a wonderful kid growing up, and never got into trouble for anything, ever. No time-outs at school, no adolescent temper tantrums, straight A’s, summa cum laude, top graduate school. The only time she ever complained was if she thought her feelings were hurt, and then you’d hear about it. She was usually right when she said so, too, God bless her.
Little did I realize then that hurting somebody’s feelings would become a violent crime.
Lefty, if the woman in question didn’t take the threat seriously, then why did she obtain a protective order?
And you might want to check, your straw man is burning.
The presumption of innocence is a key part of the judicial system. Even for men.
The duty to protect oneself is a key duty for citizens. Even for women.
When women refuse to protect themselves, they demand that others do their work for them, with bad results. No woman needs a domestic restraining order as much as she needs a .38 Special revolver. Such a piece of equipment would encourage good manners in others. A deranged person with a .38 Special would quickly be removed from society, and provide a warning to others.
With a crazy person randomly shooting a .38 Special, there would be no need for prosecutors to feel compelled abandon the presumption of innocence.
Win Win!
The author’s credentials are probing and lampooning political correctness?
One can only assume this article is lampooning actual journalism.
As somebody who practices family law in Appalachia, a part of the country where domestic violence is part of the culture, I can assure you the practices described in this ridiculous article are the least of our worries. VAWA continues to be an invaluable, albeit slightly flawed, tool.
The lack of details in your post makes me wonder if you are making this up. Why not post a couple URLs of actual cases in your neck of the woods, if what you’re saying is true?
I don’t see many links in this comments section, period. And people can spin any detailed story to support their position… details mean nothing in terms of veracity.
The presumption of innocence is a key part of the justice system.
The duty to defend oneself is a key responsibility of every citizen. When a woman refuses this duty, she tries to force the government to do it for her, with bad results. Rather than a restraining order, a woman needs a .38 Special. This item of equipment (costing less than a few hours of lawyer time) encourages good manners on all who meet her. Further, it serves to detect derangement. Deranged people shooting at random in inappropriate situations are easily detected.
“Rather than a restraining order, a woman needs a .38 Special. ”
How thick is a restraining order?
I am a surety agent, bail bondsman and bounty hunter, in Michigan. My company does between 5 and 10 Domestics a week and about a 1000 bonds a year. My best estimate of Domestics is that roughly 95% are a shouting match with no physical contact (how do I know this, I get to see virtually all of the VICTIMS and they tell me so). A neighbor, in-law, child, spouse calls 911 and someone IS going to jail. Almost always the male.
Out of 10 Domestics we see repeats ALL THE TIME. I would estimate 1 out of three will have a repeat within two weeks. Often it is a disgruntled neighbor, in-law, child or spouse trying to get back at the defendant and they see them and call and the police go pick them up, no questions asked. Don’t even need to be near the ‘Victim’ and the victim may not even agree with the re-arrest, BUT that doesn’t matter. It’s the law
Currently I have a client who is at level 4 which is where the charge changes to aggravated stalking. He is in a divorce situation and to say his wife is angry would be putting it lightly. He has not seen his soon to be ex-wife since February or talked to her, but she has been doing things like setting up emails for him and sending herself nasty statements. Or she saw him walking down the street or driving his car somewhere and felt threatened and yes he gets re-arrested.
The Prosecutor is well known in this county for being a horror show when it comes to Domestic and this judge is sort of an odd duck. In any event the defendant is now sitting on a $125,000 bond (I have never seen a bond this big on a domestic) and the prosecutor is trying to put him away in the Big House in Jackson with a plea bargain. Plea bargains are the norm and their are a zillion ways for a prosecutor to use this tool to twist the arm of guilty and not guilty individuals into taking a plea.
From a guy in the trenches, trust me on this one, you are guily until proven innocent in the this country. Furthermore prosecutors have more power than God or judges and the system often doesn’t work as intended (good law gone bad). At least that’s what I see all the time. There are bad people and guilty ones at that, not saying there aren’t, but there is a healthy small percentage of people in jail that were railroaded.
From my vantage point in order to be a prosecutor you either have to have to be born without a heart or have it cut out before you can become one. They are ruthless as a group in my view.
Thanks
Oh the stories I could tell you.
Tell us what you know about Dearborn…
That would be interesting…
Let me be clear, I AM NOT AN ISLAMAPHOB, although I will be called that. Dearborn, home Of Henry ford, is the largest muslim community in the U.S. Michigan has the largest population of muslims in the U.S. from what I understand. Mostly ex-Iranian. It is from what I understand peaceful and all American and no muslim to my knowledge has ever been accosted in the state of Michigan. Hope it stays that way. Not sure what the question is but why not build the Cordoba Mosque…. errrrr scratch that….Park 51 Mosque here or we could call it the Dearborn Mosque. That would be fine with us and a long way from ground zero.
Just another racist, Islamaphob, homophob, nativist, opinion from that wacked out right side of the aisle.
Ahhh Dearborn…. reminds me of the Edsel Ford High graduation I attended a couple years back… 90 freakin’ degrees out, sitting in the bleachers on the football feild and my daughter nudges me…”Pssst Dad, why is that girl dressed up like a ninja?!”
Uh correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Dearborn already have a ginormous mosque right there on Ford and Evergreen? Why would you want another one?
And why would anyone here assume you had an unreasonable fear of Islamists? After all that’s what a phobia is…an UNREASONABLE fear. Nope..plenty of reason for any fear, I’d say!
Any tips on avoiding such women in the first place? Some telling signs?
This is not going to be a very satisfying answer to your request, I don’t think, but since no one has put anything else on the table, I will just make a general observation: it has seemed to us (as parents watching our son be the “rescuer” for a series of violent women) that our common sense radar picked up trouble immediately from the personalities of these women. The alarm bells went off. He accepted responsibility for their messes, which of course was their goal. So I guess I mention two things: 1) common sense: if you feel or hear alarm bells, PAY ATTENTION TO THEM and 2) pay attention to what the people who know YOU best are saying. If trusted friends or trusted family are trying to warn you, PAY ATTENTION.
It’s not rocket science, but there’s obviously so much of our own stuff involved in the judgments we make about people, it’s not always so simple either. Be careful.
BTW, our son got “blown clear” (long story) and escaped with his life 3 years ago. He is now engaged to lovely and secure woman (who also wasted 14 years of her life in an abusive marriage). They both have “figured themselves out” and at the moment, he and she are having more fun, I believe, than either of them have ever had in a relationship. They’ve paid a price, but there are good things ahead of them.
Thanks. In addition, I found this page today:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/09/01/5-ways-to-avoid-becoming-involved-with-another-crazy-emotionally-abusive-borderline-or-narcissistic-woman/
Our ex-dil made false reports to both police and our son’s employer, claiming that he was using drugs on the job. His job depends on his CDL, driving seriously huge tire repair and transport trucks in the mountains of Colorado.
For what it’s worth to the men posting here about their own experiences with vicious women….I believe you. We’ve lived it and paid the price. The laws and the PR are all slanted toward the old belief that it’s always the men. It is NOT always the men. Assault should be seen as assault. Period.
MMS:
This article is not about domestic violence, or how bad it can be, or how often it occurs.
The article properly notes and laments that the mere charge of “Domestic Violence” against a person voids most process protections of civil rights.
I thank God that I was divorced in New Hampshire. My ex-wife tried many of the same things and was slapped down by the court there. She had told me flat out that she was going to destroy my and that I was never going to see my kids again. She had me arrested for domestic Violence and I ended up spending well over 50 K clearing my name. It all backfired on her and now (5 years later) I have sole custody of the children.
This is not to say that spousal battery does not exist. It does. But it is a telling indicator that there are unintended consequences to any over broad law, and that far too many people use the family court system as a bat tool to destroy their ex-partners.
Unintended consequences indeed! After my exes little tantrum, it only took 88 days in jail for the state (okla) to dismiss all charges. She, in fact, was assigned anger mgmt when the truth prevailed. The immediate issues of recovering my apartment, car, and job have long since been rectified, still, 7 yrs later, this incident still appears in my background check. Although clearly dismissed, it will still raise questions for potential financial and employment opportunities.
Zealous prosecutors willing to ignore the whole of law to pursue a part that will add to their fame and career operate successfully only because our modern uniformed police willingly go along with them.
It is yet another example of why “cops cause crime”. The very idea that there are cops who will come a protect a victim being stalked results in the false protection of “restraining orders”. Better a public notice — a bill — posted in the neighborhood and workplace that ex-spouse so-and-so is forbidden by Judge So-and-So from being within 300 feet of victim so-and-so.
That is far more protective, and engages the whole community into SELF-RESPONSIBLE acts.
So you go with this dranatic headline and subheading and then the only example you provide is one woman who deliberately falsified evidence against her husband? I think we can all agree that’s wrong but what does it have to do with whether or not current legislation about domestic violence is too strong or too weak? I can only assume that you had difficulty finding any actual examples of someone getting a conviction for a parter that “annoyed” or “distressed” them but somehow that didn’t stop you from publishing an article implying that’s something that actually occurs.
False allegations of domestic “violence” are the norm, not the exception. See posting #8.
Try reading some of the responses to this article. There are examples by half the posters, particularly Bond, showing what the author has written about is all too common in our current society. Just because you refuse to read about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
My ex made false allegations against all 4 of her husbands, any boyfriend she was pissed at, including 2 fiances, a doctor, her brothers, and her father. She’s impersonated a US Marshall and was indicted on a felony, only to be let go by a (woman) prosecutor that thinks “it’s not a real crime” to identify one’s self as a law enforcement officer and threaten to arrest someone. (This same prosecutor is in the running to be a judge, now, so imagine how impartial she’ll be when she’s on the bench.) She’s been caught fabricating evidence of abuse and harassment by the police, has over 80 police calls in 4 years, and nothing is done about it. Well, to her, anyway. They’ll do plenty to people she’s mad at.
The first time your partner/spouse hits you, get out. Don’t screw around, don’t go back and forth, and don’t threaten a divorce. Just do it. Warning her will only get her in touch with a lawyer, who WILL advise her to get you arrested to improve her outcome. If she’s abusive, crazy, controlling, get the hell out. Unless you’re bleeding, or have an unimpeachable witness, don’t call the cops, because they’ll be happy to stuff you in the car the moment she sheds a tear. They will NOT ask your side of the story, and will happily put in the police report that “defendant admitted that he assaulted the complaintant”, just to make the arraignment process go smoother. If they do take you seriously, they don’t want to do the paperwork, and will spend the rest of the evening trying to humiliate you and provoking you into doing something they CAN arrest you for, because you’re wasting their time. The city and the county receive federal money to lock men up and prosecute them. It’s a huge conflict of interest, but have fun proving it.
On the odd chance that she is arrested and charged, don’t back down. When Victims’ Services does contact you, and they resolve their confusion about you being the victim, don’t let them get off the phone without getting a protective order, or you’ll have you-know-who on your porch begging to make up. The “make up” will last long enough for you to drop the charges, and then you’ll find yourself with the title of “defendant” when she decides to “show YOU what it’s like”.
Domestic violence is a cash cow, and YOU are the bogey man that politicians of all stripes love to slay for their admiring public. No politician wants to be seen as “soft” on domestic violence, so trust me, they all have a hard-on for putting men in jail, facts be damned.
Our goverment and justice system is becoming a Tyranny in too many ways. The redefining of “spousal abuse” to include definitions like “annoying” is outrageous. How can this criminalizing normal human behavior be STOPPED?
That line would have been so much more effective if you had used Peterbilt.
Here in NYC if you are arrested for assaulting your spouse the judge can issue an order of protection barring you from the home. You can only enter the home accompanied by a police escort to remove personal clothing, so prior to any trial you are made homeless and your spouse has control of all possessions. Orders of Protection are useless. They are abused constantly and yet offer no real protection to those who are truly threatened.
Same in WA. And *only* if the cops feel like it. and if cops says 10 minutes, that’s it. And if the PD says no one is availble, well tough beans. And NO ONE else is allowed to get your things out of your house for you – that’s harrassment of the “abused spouse” and will get the “husband” rearrested.
Bond in post #10 proves far more credible to me than Lawdog in post 8. Bond will make less money if he is taken seriously, while Lawdog just wants his gravy train to stay on the track, IMO. YMMV.
Thanks Tom.
You are absolutely correct if this law were changed it would cost me a lot of money. And by the way there are battered women, men and children, that is not my point. But this Domestic law is way over board and I am not convinced that it does that much to stop battering. Perhaps you and Grungy and I could sit down and come up with something that actually attacks the core of the problem. And while we are at it why not work on the Health Care bill and other issues as well. I think we mere mortals are capable of many things even if we did not graduate from Harvard.
Thanks
PaulM
Can we assume you didn’t read past the first page?
“Earlier this year, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a Washington, D.C.-based victim advocacy organization, released a report titled “How Domestic Violence Laws Curtail our Fundamental Freedoms.” The report concludes that each year, over two million Americans have their fundamental civil liberties overruled by the Violence Against Women Act.”
Atleast in the SW, the biggest problem is women using VAWA to stop ICE proceedings against them. All it requires is a community advocate or shady immigration lawyer to help them file a court order against a real or imagined boyfriend and you are free and clear. The judges are instructed in AZ to side with petitioner. It’s a racket.
Roberts wrote about an egregious example to point out what is possible in this system. Who can dispute his basic point, that vicious people use the legal system for personal revenge all the time in Family Court, but we do nothing systematically about it.
Anyone who argues that this is just one case–and the bulk of Family Court actions are fair–is an ideologue or a nitwit. Sanford Braver’s huge statistically significant study of divorce cases in Arizona found that 95 per cent of the women in the couples he studied said the courts were fair, and that 5 per cent of the men did. He had a large sample, his studies were published, he’s an unbiased social scientist of serious reputation, and that’s what he found. (Braver has a book out you can get on amazon.com–very clear and readable.)
And that pretty much proves the case. If the family courts were even-handed, you would expect women to be complaining about outcomes as much as men. But they do not, do they? QED.
“The tall irony is that Vice President Joe Biden, who proudly championed VAWA when he was a senator in the early 1990s, is a former professor of constitutional law.”
Is it really irony if people like Biden and Obama become Constitutional law scholars, not for the purpose of learning how to uphold and protect the Constitution, but rather for the purpose of learning how to pervert it?
My friends wife was on anti anxiety medication. They were having a drink at home on Friday night (should have known better), the wife had a reaction that resulted in a shouting match. She called the police. In the state of Washington domestic violence allegations REQUIRE an arrest. Ironically, the woman was the one arrested.
The husband goes to bail her out and is told he can’t do it himself because of an automatic 2 weeks restraining order. And she can’t go home. Conveniently, there is a bail bondsman and and a hotel near the courthouse. Naively thinking this is all a misunderstanding, he goes to the prosecutor’s office to try and drop the charges. Prosecutor’s assistant is all smiles and warmth until she learns what he wants. Drop the charges? Can’t do that, it’s a crime against the state. The reasoning goes along the lines that the “victims” are too distressed to act in their own self interest (which is always be removed from the dangerous proximity to the “batterer”). The absurdity of it is so evident at the arraignment (6 foot tall husband and his petite wife) that the judge lifts the restraining order.
But the prosecutor won’t drop the case. Eventually they find themselves in a courtroom filled with other violent domestic violence offenders: an elderly man with Alzheimer’s, an immigrant family with poor English, several couples
in similar situations. None of the circumstances are fitting the excuse for the draconian law. In every case the spouse is pleading for the “batterer”, but not a single case is dismissed. Some have lawyers, some can’t afford them, everyone gets a 2 year deferral and a substantial fine. In the end it’s all about revenue and prosecutor’s career. Next time someone “tough on domestic violence” is running for office, think what it actually means.
“partner violence includes … even “disregarding what the victim wants.””
So buying a fishing boat can now qualify as partner violence?
Wouldn’t that also cover your spouse not letting you get a fishing boat?
So a girlfriend not getting the 2 carat diamond ring she expected for Christmas now has the recourse of sending her boyfriend to jail because he refuses to commit?
My reply to Lefty didn’t work, so I’ll repeat it here more generally: the problem with over expansive laws is that they leave genuine victims as a small percentage of the larger group and trivialize the plight of the genuine victims. If spousal abuse is seen as a joke, those who genuinely suffer from it are dismissed. Too many and over expansive laws also allow great mischief by the state which WILL engage in selective prosecution. (I dare say that an aggressive prosecutor could find grounds to put every person in this country in jail–you may not stay there, but it would cause a lot of pain, embarrassment and money.
“the problem with over expansive laws is that they leave genuine victims as a small percentage of the larger group and trivialize the plight of the genuine victims.”
In the meanwhile, it does little to deter actual violence. If everything is a crime, then nothing is – it’s all luck. I may as well beat spit out of my wife. Going to jail is nothing more than bad luck.
well, yeah. Just like feminists love to scream “rape” whenever a woman decides she didn’t like her date. They jumped to defend the whack job in the Duke case, even though she had a history of lying, and there was early proof she was lying again. (honestly, she should have been charged with false report). It completely destroys credibility for every woman including those who really were raped as they get tied in with the frauds. Then the feminists wonder why women are treated with so little respect on the stand? (could that be why the left talks about rape, and rape-rape? as though there is a difference? it’s rape or it ISN’T. It’s battery or it ISN’T. And a guy defending himself and his child, from his wife hitting him while screaming in his face in front of their child, isn’t committing battery!)
I had a little bit of experience with this topic while working at a pro bono clinic during law school. In BC, Canada, all spousal/domestic complaints were REQUIRED to go to court – neither the cops nor the crown counsel (prosecutors) had any discretion to make them go away. The whole thing was a huge burden on the courts and the crown, and neither appreciated the deluge of cases. As a law student I was assigned the most minor/ludicrous cases, as anyone facing serious jail time needed the services of a real lawyer. I was also fortunate in that most of the crown counsel I dealt with were pretty reasonable and although they had to take it to court, they would often agree to an aggressive restraining order in lieu of a criminal conviction. So while I was generally able to obtain a pretty decent outcome for my clients, the process of getting there was completely unfair to the “accused”, and was also a nasty burden on the prosecutors, the courts, the taxpayers and sometimes the “victim” who just wanted to move on with their lives. Also, as noted above, all the time wasted on these idiotic cases made it much more likely that a serious case could get missed or not receive all the attention it deserved.
The article includes:
Earlier this year, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a Washington, D.C.-based victim advocacy organization, released a report titled “How Domestic Violence Laws Curtail our Fundamental Freedoms.” The report concludes that each year, over two million Americans have their fundamental civil liberties overruled by the Violence Against Women Act.
This part “over two million Americans have their fundamental civil liberties overruled” should really say “men” not “Americans”. How many women are wrongly affected by these laws? It sure isn’t even close to 50-50.
An experience I had was sorting through the psych eval of a couple (the man was my client).
He broke up a flimsy magazine table in his garage one day when he was frustrated with his wife. She was not home. SEVENTEEN years later she used that to illustrate why she was afraid of him. The psych evaluator (a PhD) included that as a valid reason for the wife to be afraid for her safety. In the report she neglected to put the experience on a time line, so it appeared to be a current event. He had never touched her aggressively nor did he bully ber verbally. (She was the verbal bully.)
His attorney was able to bring these things up to the judge so in a remarkable way the guy was spared the fate worse than death. (He still got divorced.) The basic facts of the psych eval were flawed for what reason I do not know.
I read with skeptical eyes these days.
Accusations [not commission, accusations] of domestic violence are weapons, and in 21st century America are far more effective weapons than firearms. Judges rule on the basis of accusations without any other “evidence”. Why these gelded men choose to disregard all safeguards that they afford to murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc., is a mystery to me. Party “A” [almost inevitably a woman] accuses party “B” [a man] of making a “threatening” phone call in violation of a restraint order issued by a gelded judge, and said gelded judge brings down the force of “law” on party “B”.
When VAWA was originally before the Congress, a cursory reading of it prompted “interested” parties to pronounce “this is an attempt to put massive numbers of black men in jail”. VAWA was then “revised” to include definitions of “violence” that, IMHO, amounted to morning after remorse.
Like Hyman Roth said so unforgettably, “this, snort, is the business, snort, that we have chosen”.
Party “A” [almost inevitably a woman] accuses party “B” [a man] of making a “threatening” phone call in violation of a restraint order
Are you complaining about the way the law is applied (ie, that an individual judge may not require enough evidence of the threatening phone call when it’s allegedly from a man to a woman), or the law itself? Your post isn’t clear, and I don’t see the problem in insisting that people comply with a restraining order, or in forbidding people from making harassing and threatening phone calls.
Ali -
The problem is BOTH the law itself, and the way it is applied. For example, the language of VAWA repeatedly uses the word “victim” and “abuser,” not once including the key word “alleged.”
VAWA also pays for the re-education, oops training, of judges and prosecutors. The gist of the training is, “Regardless of who struck the first blow, it’s always the man’s fault.”
Another point you did not pick up on is, the victim “accused” the ‘abuser’ of making a harrassing phone call. There is no evidence the call actually occurred, only the accusation seems enough to get a guy thrown in jail.
While I was in the Navy I heard of an incident where one sailor’s wife took up with another guy while her husband was at sea. When he came home, all the wife did was make the accusation that her husband hit her when he found out about the other guy. CT had one of those “If the police are called, someone is going to jail” policies, and the sailor, who did nothing, was arrested, then served with a restraining order preventing him from going near the Navy-provided house that his estranged wife and her new boyfriend happily lived in for months together before the case was finally brought to trial and the sailor cleared, though the accusation itself nearly ruined his career.
This is a pendulum that can swing both ways. The crazy, out-control side of any equation is the one which the law protects most from false accusations. Another problem is it is nothing but a headache to law enforcement and the legal system. It produces to no revenue for the system. Traffic violations or drug and alcohol violations are more of a focus in this day and age because they generate revenue. I have been informed by those in uniform in my local area that the dictate comes from the top to not waste too much time unless a violation is absolutely cut and dry. Pursuit and persecution of violent crimes are being short-sheeted based on the desire by the system to insure revenue generation to sustain the hiring numbers and wages. Focus must be changed and funding separated from what offense are prosecuted. Offenses against women and children should be the priority. Then violent crimes and property offenses. The shooting fish in the barrel offenses of traffic and drugs need to be low priority. Proper focus and priority is the true answer.
I believe it really would be just this simple: Change the “Violence Against Women Act” to be the “Violence Against PEOPLE Act”, and allow men the exact same credibility in court now afforded women. If a MAN calls the cops and says “she’s beating me”, with VAWA, he gets arrested. Surprise, surprise, men don’t call the cops.
If we had a VAPA, then equal money could go to MEN’s shelters, so they would have someplace to go (and take their children) when they are being abused.
And one more thing: require evidence.
In his book, “Taken Into Custody” (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family), Stephen Baskerville has detailed the growth of the divorce industry and the many parasites that feed off of it:
What we are describing here is the divorce industry, a massive and largely hidden governmental and quasi-governmental machine consisting of judges, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, social workers, child protective services, child-support enforcement agents, mediators, counselors, and feminist groups, plus an extensive host of economic interests, such as divorce planners, forensic accountants, real estate appraisers, and many others. These officials and professionals invariably profess to be motivated by concern for the “best interest” of the other people’s children. Yet their services are activated only with the dissolution of families and the removal of parents. Whatever pieties they may proclaim therefore, the hard reality is that they have a concrete interest in encouraging family break-up, and virtually all their power and earnings derive from the harm that divorce inflicts on children. “Fights over control of the children,” reports one former divorce insider, “are where most of the billable hours in family court are consumed.”
… Put simply, the first principle of the divorce industry, the basic premise without which it has no reason to exist, is the removal of the father from the family. Once this is accomplished, the state is free to assume control over mothers and children as well.
Buy Stephen Baskerville’s book or simply google the author’s name for his website, with a myriad of writings that should horrify you…
More excerpts of the book here:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
Plus this:
“Women are lone parents in 84 percent of cases not because men abandon their children,” writes columnist John Waters [in the Irish Times on October 6, 1998], “but because … the fathers have been constructively banished, with the collusion of the state, which encourages women to abuse the grotesque power we have conferred on them.”
… The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose.
More posts on related subjects here:
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/search?q=baskerville
marx didn’t like families either – it was much easier for government to step in and get control of society if the families were disparate.
it’s all part and parcel of the socialist agenda.
Some years ago I guy a knew was getting divorced from his 2nd wife and had just come back from deposing his wife’s “expert” on domestic abuse. (This guy was not Mr. Sweetness and Light and enoyed getting a rise out of people whenever he could.) But the expert claimed that abuse occurred when the guy grabbed his wife’s hand to keep her from clobbering him with the lamp she was swinging at his head! Why? Because, according to this expert, abuse occurs any time a man interferes with the exercise of a woman’s will.
These sort of laws are partially a result of the O.J. Simpson case. Police were called on him numerous times,with no substantial consequence. After that situation, laws were changed to require an arrest.
States picked up on the loophole, and now most states include within their definitions of abuse, actions like making your partner “annoyed” or “distressed.”
Only if “you” are male and “your partner” is female.
I attended a (very) liberal state university in Oregon in the mid 90s. One Spring, a campus feminist group and their faculty enablers produced a list of all the male students attending school, printed the list with the title: “Rapists?”, and posted them all over public areas on campus. Because they used the “?” in the title, they were somehow immune to slander lawsuits. Fortunately, the Oregonian picked up the story and it went nationwide, including Paul Harvey, and the posters were removed. If it hadn’t been for the attention, who knows how long the lists would have stayed up.
I understand the plague that is violence, domestic and otherwise. I don’t understand the mentality that leads to this world view though. There must be some very screwed-up folks out there.
In response to Ali posted at September 2, 2010 – 4:26 pm.
What my response to you was pointing out is what you and many on your side of the arguement always sem to fail to see. You said, “…because men are still the ones who decide who lives and who dies. The dead women never seem to get that choice.” According to your definition, men are always in the wrong and women are always the ‘victim.’
What I was pointing out is, in my own particular case, my ex-wife was the one making all the decisions. She made the decision to accuse me of physical abuse by telling the judge who issued the restraining order against me I kicked her, when in reality she was citing an instance when I suffered a leg cramp in the middle of the night. She made the decision to cite an instance when I ‘abused’ our daughter by ‘flinging her around a room’ when in reality I was playing with my daughter, in front of five witnesses, like almost every parent does with their child playing Superman. She made the decision to cite an instance when I ‘beat her with a magazine’ when in reality I tossed a magazine she asked for that slipped through her hands and hit her, mildly, in the chest.
What few men have the power to do, or are denied the power to do, is play the same game. I immediately filed a restraining order right back against her, citing the ‘numerous times she beat me with a book.’ My level of evidence was just as real as hers, and the judge had no choice but to grant my request. But I consider myself one of the lucky ones. How many men are beat down by the judge before they even get a chance to mount a defense of their own.
I work for the welfare department in a large California county. Due to the VAWA law, we are required to give cash welfare for YEARS to women who have used their federal TANF benefits with NO verification at all other than a “sworn statement” that means nothing. Children are removed from homes of sound parents because the “mother” has filed a VAWA report on her guy with no proof whatsoever. This makes the guy unemployable anywhere as he is now a “abuser” or “child abuser”…with no proof.
The guy’s life is ruined and he has not had a day in court.
Joe Biden …. is a former “professor” of “Constitutional Law” ….
Nuff sedd.
And, may Almighty God save our beloved fraternal republic from such “professors!”
The legal industry’s pandering around the domestic violence issue is just one more example of the problem of granting “special rights” to protected classes.
Often sold under the guise of “equal rights,” most rights legislation is more accurately described as special rights legislation.
Take for example the push for gay “equality” with regard to “marriage.” This isn’t about equality, it’s about extending the already dubious special partnership rights granted to straight married couples, to a subset of the gay community that wants be out and married. If they were pursuing “equal” rights, perhaps there would be at least a little bit of discussion of other groups that need access to or the protection of partnership rights, like for instance those in a sole caregiver/patient relationship. Virtually every legal concept that has been brought up by those lobbying to extend special partnership rights to gay married couples, applies not only to those in a caregiver/patient relationship, but in other platonic and non-platonic civil partnerships as well.
Same goes for hate-crime and voter intimidation legislation. If you’re a member of a protected class, your special rights make crimes against you more important than the same crimes against others who are not part of a protected class.
To be certain, 50 years ago, there was some institutional bias in favor of men in the legal system. Just as “affirmative action” was not the correct solution for racial bias, the legal system’s bias in favor of women over the last 40 years was also the wrong solution.
Equal protection under the law, and equal rights means equal for all. It’s a concept that most five-year-olds can grasp, why is it so foreign to our Ivy League trained judges and lawmakers?
Sorry, guys. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
We have domestic violence laws because the person most likely to do grievous harm to a woman or a child is the woman’s husband or boyfriend. Every big city has files that are so awful they’ll make you cry. Getting the laws right is not easy, because 1) good men do not seem to be able to comprehend what bad men can and will do, given the opportunity to get away with it and 2) there are some women who are just as awful as those bad men.
The whole problem with a requirement for “proof” is that providing “proof” requires a hearing (delay and money) in a life-and-death situation, and women have been known to die before their hearings and after a restraining order has been issued. A man who has been falsely accused can speak up for himself later at the hearing, so erring on the side of caution is the more favored course.
Sorry, Valerie, but it has been my own personal experience that I have encountered more men abused by women than women abused by men.
I’m not saying voilence against women doesn’t happen, but it seems to me violence against men is either less publicized or literally swept under the rug.
And you say a man who has been falsely accused can simply get the matter cleared up in court. Another falsehood. I have known guys who suffered at the hands of abusive FEMALE spouses who then pinned false charges on the guy, and years later those guys are trying to restore their once immaculate reputations. Police arrest records and court accusations follow guys for YEARS, sometime for a lifetime, when they did nothing at all to deserve their fate other than date and/or marry a real wacko.
As has been suggested further up the thread, the laws should be amended to protect both male and female equally. It should be the Violence Against Persons Act, not just WOMEN, because from where I’m standing, the women are doing most of the abusing.
In a very perverse and ugly way, laws such as VAWA and the misapplication of justice practiced in most Family Courts is actually doing a favor to men and creating a hardship for women. For the period of time during which these laws enter the home and marital relationship the pain of the injustice weighs heavily on the man. But a few years later, when the pain begins to wear off, a new reality emerges. These laws lift the burden of the cost of childrearing from the shoulders of men and places these costs on the shoulders of women.
If a man is accused and has a “record” and cannot get a high-paying job he cannot pay alimony (for college tuition, for example) and such. If he cannot pay, who pays for what the child/ren want? Maybe Mom pays. Maybe the state pays. Maybe some charity. Whoever. Not the man.
Men put through these injustices are relieved of the burden of being the prime earner of the fsmily. Even juicier, one form of revenge a man has after VAWA injustice is to become a burden on the state.
It is the man who thinks he MUST be the big eaarner who is harmed. If the man relaxes and adjusts life so he no longer feels obligated to work hard to support the wife who accused him, the VAWA-like experience becomes a ticket out of the rat race.
Relax, guys. The last laugh is on you.
Oh Sydney — have you never heard of “imputed income”? It’s almost NEVER a man’s choice if he will drop out of the rat race. Onerous child support burdens will demand that he continue to work, work hard, work overtime… and in many cases, live in poverty himself. Judges don’t seem to care whether this man is now unable to work due to the lies his ex-wife told (they also don’t seem to care a whole lot whether men are able to clear their names after being wrongfully accused). That same judge is going to throw that same man into jail for not paying child support.
Men cannot relax. They are targets. At any moment, they can have their lives up-ended by a woman who wakes up the next morning and decides she really didn’t “want to” after all. They can have their lives up-ended by a woman who claims that the baby is theirs, simply because they have the deepest baby-daddy pockets. They can have their lives up-ended by a woman who decides — after it’s too late to change anything — to cruelly tell them that the child isn’t theirs after all. They can have their lives up-ended by a woman who claims he hit her, when he didn’t; worse, that he “frightens” her, or even “annoys” her. They can have all that they have worked for all their lives swept away in a moment, by a woman in collusion with the Legal System of this country. That is the reality for these men that you so casually admonish to “relax”.
Nobody’s laughing.
‘Imputed income’ is a legal concept used in a few states, like CA, but not all states. It’s not used where I am, so I haven’t thought it through.
In any case, how much income can be imputed to a man who’s too sick to work? Or a man who’s been to jail and is ineligible for high-paying jobs?
As to poverty: yes, by all means. A poor man is not an ‘attractive nuisance.’ The poorer the man is, the less he will be hounded for more money. In fact, the poorer he is, the more eligible he becomes for public assistance himself. It’s really amazing the number of public assistance programs there are for poor people.
Don’t forget: the period of enforced poverty lasts only until the kids grow up. Once the kids are grown, a man’s income is beyond the reach of Family Court.
Tell that to the men recently profiled in the Boston Globe (about 6 weeks ago if I remember correctly) who are still paying alimony to ex-wives for 20, 30, in one case over 40 years!
In one case, when one ex-wife demanded a raise in her support after being on alimony for more than 20 years because her live-in boyfriend (she refused to get married because she would have lost alimony) lost his job, and the ex-husband told the judge he could not afford any higher payment, the judge told him, “Get another job.”
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/family/articles/2010/07/18/years_and_marriages_later_former_spouses_still_owe_alimony/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/11/sjc_retirement.html
Good for them if they stretched out payment for 30 years. I don’t know the specifics of the cases and I don’t expect the MSM to report accurately. I suspect the reason the payments have stretched out to 30 years is that the men have been earning the minimum. There is very little left over after minimal earnings to pay alimony etc. Every federal law on the issue specifies minimal income which the gummint cannot touch and from which alimony etc cannot be extracted. Alimony can be extracted only from earnings above the minimum. Keep your earning at or below the minimum so wifey gets zip.
The laws usually have specific definitions of what income can be used for alimony purposes. Income from jobs is usually assumed. But there are many, many other ways to earn money which never come to the attention of the court (legally in many cases). Get out of the mode of thinking which dictates that you should work, work, work at conventional employment. A guy who flips hamburgers during the day from which the gummint seeks to extract alimony payments can earn money many, many ways after hours which the gummint cannot touch.
I don’t know if you’re old enuf to remember that old 60s singer Bob Dylan. Among his most quotable song lyrics: ‘To live outside the law you must be honest’ True.
Women who file for no fault divorce without evidence of abuse or crime that would stand up in criminal court should not get alimony. Period. It is beyond ridiculous for men to be forced to support women who have thrown them out. Financially stability is one of the benefits of marriage. If the man files no fault, and the woman has given up career opportunites to raise their children/follow his career, then sure, some alimony may be appropriate. Other than that, if you want to dissolve a marriage, make a clean break. And give parents 50-50 custody by default.
As a gun-owner and a strong-willed, able bodied woman, I find it insulting that some commenters here suggest that just ‘bringing out a gun’ during a domestic violence incident will ‘solve’ all problems. Really? I should shoot my drunk/drugged out husband in the face? The father of my only child?
Men who use their brute in a violent way towards the women they [normally] love are often on drugs + alcohol (it’s a rarity that men are violent towards women completely ‘sober’). Bringing out gunz-a-blazin’ is a retarded suggestion and could inflame ‘worse’ from a man who is intoxicated and in a ‘violent’ mood already.
As someone who comes from a long line of dysfunction and a family of domestic violence counting back to my mother’s own mother and father up to my own marriage (present day) where my husband (in the span of a 24 year marriage) jacked up on coke and booze tried to strangle me once (and the judge slapped a year restraining order once he had my daughter’s witness account in his hands) and ten years later (when I thought all was good and he’d learned) he got drugged up and drunk again and broke two of my ribs by sitting his fat @ss on me to keep me from leaving our home when he was in a drugged out rage. He’s also shoved me down a short flight of stairs and bruised me up as a result because of it. So, all I can say is, you don’t know it until you have LIVED it.
I personally hope nobody ever has to experience the crap sammich that so many women do suffer at the hands of the person who is supposed to love/honor/obey.
Am I repulsed by women who ‘fake’ domestic violence to get the ‘upper hand’ in a divorce or to destroy their ex? Hell yes. It’s disgusting and repugnant beyond belief and chips away at the legitimacy of REAL domestic abuse for women who truly HAVE experienced it.
I’m still in pain to this day because of my broken ribs that healed the wonky way they did (the doctor told me my broken ribs weren’t pushing into any major organs, so they had to just heal the way they were). Do I hate my husband for it? No. Why? Because I have forgiveness in my heart and he was a good father to our daughter besides some of his ugly crap and he never laid a hand on her (because if he had of, I’d have killed him without compunction).
So, there ya have it.
Life is complicated and you can’t just ‘box’ people up into ‘categories’.
FYI: I’m leaving him this fall/winter for good. I’ve had enough and he needs to clean up his life.
Not to rain on your already relatively soaked life, but while you stayed with him, he may have been a “good” father, but what were you teaching your daughter about how a man should treat his woman? I hope that you have imparted to your daughter that she should choose a man who will cherish her, and that she should cherish him as well. If they practice selfless love (redundant), the chance of one of them being a whackjob will be significantly reduced. It sounds like your soon-to-be ex was very selfish with his “love”, and you were selfless to a fault.
My brother is going through the same thing right now. His wife has alreay destroyed his career by inflamatory statements, lying to the court, and behavior that ended with him losing his security clearance. He’s an electrical engineer, was layed off over a year ago, and the one job he got, they let him go because he no longer had a security clearance. (among other things that all go back to her.) She’s gone into his computer and deleted files that would prove her culpability. she has deleted messages on HIS cell phone that she left him. She is a whack job – and feminazi’s protect her type. And she’s a teacher – who has had such questionable psych profile results from her school district, it kept her from being hired permanently.
Many women that do this have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). This is more common in women than men, but Narcssistic Personality Disorder (NPD). When dealing with someone with these disorders, common sense not possible and avoiding conflict is not possible. This will be the most difficult thing a “nice guy” will ever encounter in his life. Few people can understand or advice him during this process except a “former nice guy” that has been thru this and come out the other side as a STRONG masculine man. The recovery process requires introspection and self-honesty.
I recommend the books “HIGH CONFLICT PEOPLE in legal disputes” by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. and “No More Mr. Nice Guy” by Dr. Robert Glover.
We can argue about what is right or wrong, or how the VAWA is abused, till we get blue in the face. However, several things stand out.
1. Muslims have an exemption, for PC/Multicultural reasons, that have the force of law. An allegation of abuse by a woman against a Muslim boyfriend or husband or father or mother for that matter, will not be investigated, because under our system of law, codified by the Supremes, some folks are more equal than others. Muslims, and to a lesser extent Blacks and Hispanics are exempt from the VAWA laws. White and Asian men are not.
2. As a natural reaction, White and Asian men will simply abandon relationships. One night stands are going to become, fairly rapidly, the standard in which men operate. The power shifting all to women, who can make with impunity, allegations that are untrue of abuse, with “mandatory prosecution” WILL DRIVE WHITE/ASIAN Male behavior.
That’s just the way it is. Women can’t force a guy to get married, or even live with her. Or even date her for more than a couple of times.
If the law was deliberately set up to make single motherhood and a nation of cad men, pursuing the maximum amount of women, it could not have done a better job.
It will NEVER be repealed, either. Feminists, established precedent, law school deans, victim advocates, and the like have too much at stake. Society only goes one way, to the hard left. It never returns culturally, socially, or politically to the right.
So, welcome to single motherhood and a nation of Levi Johnstons. No, it won’t happen all at once, but like an ice dam holding back a glacial lake, a slow and steady erosion will be followed by a flood.
“The tall irony is that Vice President Joe Biden, who proudly championed VAWA when he was a senator in the early 1990s, is a former professor of constitutional law.”
There is no “tall irony” here at all. Joe Biden knew exactly what he was doing championing that bill, and he has been in law long enough to know how a law like VAWA will work after it get passed. Biden wanted this to happen.
What often happens to men in these circumstances, particularly men who are unsophisticated, is that they are advised to plead guilty quickly to avoid jail time and therefore losing their jobs. Someone I know was accused by his (now ex) wife of threatening to kill her. No evidence was required, no witnesses examined. He was advised by his lawyer to plead guilty immediately – the wife actually said in open court that she didn’t want him jailed because she wanted him to keep his job in order to pay child support. He pled guilty and was allowed to serve his 90 day sentence on weekends.
Move to 13 years later. Wife tells him she lied in order to get custody, but will not recant in court because then she would be liable for perjury. Wife during the thirteen years convicted of drug abuse and check kiting. Husband advised not to go to court to regain custody, that the courts would put the daughter in foster care rather than return her to him.
Husband faithfully paid support and visited the daughter and she is now over 21. Now he wants his gun rights back so he can hunt. There is really no method for regaining them – there is an established process for felons to regain their civil rights, but apparently not midemeanants “convicted” of domestic violence.
Carey Roberts is right on target again. I agree with him whole heartedly. When is America going to wake up and realized that the radical feminist controlled, taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry is just one more thug arm of the corrupt, Marx-o-centric, family destroying nanny state? “Los Misandry” is a Youtube video about any city USA, operating under the corrupt influence of the radical feminist controlled, taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAmOxvudpF8
Shame on America’s law enforcement, judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are trained under, and follow, the dictates of America’s Violence Against Women Act. At Nuremberg, National Socialist, war criminals who used the excuse, “I was just following orders like a good German soldier,” were convicted of their heinous, criminal behavior, committed under color of law, and they were told, “There is a law above the law,” That law above the law is one’s own conscience, telling a person the difference between right and wrong, between corrupt, evil laws like VAWA and just laws. When will the scam artists in America’s legal system today, who support and defend the Violence Against Women Act over constitutional law, be convicted and sentenced for their criminal behavior? They too know better than to enforce and/or commit such corruption under color of law. We need VAWA, war crime trials today for any of the hateful bigots in America’s legal system who in anyway offer support to VAWA.
The definition of “domestic violence” in the Violence Against Women Act appears in the US Code at 42 U.S.C. 13925(a)(6). Here’s what it says:
(6) Domestic violence
The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor
crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the
victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common,
by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the
victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of
the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the
jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against
an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts
under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
That’s all it says. Not “annoyed” Not “distressed.”
You cite U.S.C., but I’ve only been prosecuted under state laws… never in a federal court.
Fortunately I had all charges dismissed with prejudice. (due to gross perjury by my ex) But it still cost me more than a years pay and more than a few grey hairs.
Unfortunately this was only one of the episodes in over 14 years of chronic unresolved legal disputes. Last time I was in court a judge actually told me it wasn’t his job to enforce my visitation rights.
“Consider the constitutional guarantees of due process, probable cause for arrest, right to a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law — all are cast aside by get-tough-on-crime domestic violence laws.”
The Violence Against Women Act says this about due process at 18 U.S.C. 2265(b):
(b) Protection Order.–A protection order issued by a State, tribal, or territorial court is consistent with this subsection if–
(1) such court has jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of such State, Indian tribe, or territory; and
(2) REASONABLE NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE ORDER IS SOUGHT SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THAT PERSON’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. In the case of ex parte orders, NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD MUST BE PROVIDED WITHIN THE TIME REQUIRED BY STATE, TRIBAL, OR TERRITORIAL LAW, AND IN ANY EVENT, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE ORDER IS ISSUED, SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE RESPONDENT’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
“The tall irony is that Vice President Joe Biden, who proudly championed VAWA when he was a senator in the early 1990s, is a former professor of constitutional law.”
Vice President Joe Biden is not a former professor of constitutional law. He has served as a criminal law attorney and he has served in elected office since 1970.
@just facts
1. Did you read what you put in caps? It passes the buck, AND it plays on nomenclature. First, by definition ex parte is lacking due process, in a strict sense. “reasonable” is intangible, and, whats the process anyway….the guy wants the order dropped? Finally, that the person is afforded some appearance, its rote, formality….these things are not unwound.
2. You really do yourself no good there, I have no idea what he was….and its a cool little correction…hat tip to your Biden knowledge….but whats it have to do with the overarching theme here?
3. The definition of domestic violence refers to other laws and statutes. See that?
Now….google just one example, Oklahoma family law…there you will find “annoying”
Check the CDC facts as well….I really dont know if what you are saying is complete or not, i will take your word for now….however I reserve the right to say it may include other sections that mention “annoying”, if not, by refering to applicable laws, which refer to annoying, though a bit stretched…..it does get there, and your attempt to discredit this via literalism is weak.
C-, points off for incompleteness, and for irrelevance
The tall irony is that Vice President Joe Biden, who proudly championed VAWA when he was a senator in the early 1990s, is a former professor of constitutional law.
As was his current boss. What a travesty. In the Clarence Thomas hearings, Biden was puzzled about “this Natural Law thing” Thomas championed. What an ignorant dolt. And the current President just gave us a new Supreme Court justice who 1) also has no use for “Natural Law” (enshrined in the Declaration of Independence), but while Dean at Harvard Law, eliminated the graduation requirement of Constitutional law courses.
So, what sort of congressman should I be writing to in order to ditch this VAWA? Conservative Republicans like John Thune, and Orin Hatch, or a liberal African American like Jessie Jackson Jr? Perhaps a Southerner–Jeff Sessions, and Jim DeMint? Or maybe some woman–Olympia Snowe, Sarah Palin, and Maxine Waters. All in all seems an easy coalition to build on.
I never before knew the details of VAWA; only knew that in general men get the shaft in the courtrooms of America, and that only the UK is as oppressive a country as these United States. Reading this article and the string of letters that followed left a real impression, and suggests that Sharia law may be the way for out. Muslin theology however has too many shortcomings for me to become a member of a mosque.
@chris
“whats the process anyway….the guy wants the order dropped? Finally, that the person is afforded some appearance, its rote”
Spelling errors: “what’s” and “it’s”
@chris
ex parte [Latin, On one side only.] Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone.
An ex parte judicial proceeding is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex parte may also describe contact with a person represented by an attorney, outside the presence of the attorney. The term ex parte is used in a case name to signify that the suit was brought by the person whose name follows the term.
Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” A bedrock feature of due process is fair notice to parties who may be affected by legal proceedings. An ex parte judicial proceeding, conducted without notice to, and outside the presence of, affected parties, would appear to violate the Constitution. However, adequate notice of judicial proceedings to concerned parties may at times work irreparable harm to one or more of those parties. In such a case, the threatened party or parties may receive an ex parte court hearing to request temporary judicial relief without notice to, and outside the presence of, other persons affected by the hearing.
Ex parte judicial proceedings are usually reserved for urgent matters where requiring notice would subject one party to irreparable harm. For example, a person suffering abuse at the hands of a spouse or significant other may seek ex parte a Temporary Restraining Order from a court, directing the alleged abuser to stay away from him or her. Ex parte judicial proceedings are also used to stop irreparable injury to property. For example, if two neighbors, Reggie and Veronica, disagree over whose property a tree stands on, and Reggie wants to cut down the tree whereas Veronica wants to save it, Veronica can seek an ex parte hearing before a judge. At the hearing, she will ask the judge for a temporary Restraining Order preventing Reggie from felling the tree. She will have to show the judge that she had no reasonable opportunity to provide Reggie with formal notice of the hearing, and that she might win the case. The court will then balance the potential hardships to Reggie and Veronica, in considering whether to grant Veronica’s request.
A court order from an ex parte hearing is swiftly followed by a full hearing between the interested parties to the dispute. State and federal legislatures maintain laws allowing ex parte proceedings because such hearings balance the right to notice against the right to use the legal system to avert imminent and irreparable harm. Far from violating the Constitution, the ex parte proceeding is a lasting illustration of the elasticity of due process.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+parte
@chris “Annoying” not here:
OKLAHOMA STATUTES
TITLE 22.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Added by Laws 2005, c. 53, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2005.
§2260. Short title.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Protection from Domestic Abuse Act”.
Added by Laws 1982, c. 255, § 1.
§22-60.1. Definitions.
As used in the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act and in the Domestic Abuse Reporting Act, Sections 40.5 through 40.7 of this title and Section 150.12B of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes:
1. “Domestic abuse” means any act of physical harm, or the threat of imminent physical harm which is committed by an adult, emancipated minor, or minor child thirteen (13) years of age or older against another adult, emancipated minor or minor child who are family or household members or who are or were in a dating relationship;
Added by Laws 1982, c. 255, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1982. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 197, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 1991, c. 112, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1992, c. 42, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 1994, c. 290, § 54, eff. July 1, 1994; Laws 1995, c. 297, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1996, c. 247, § 29, eff. July 1, 1996; Laws 2000, c. 85, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2000, c. 370, § 5, eff. July 1, 2000; Laws 2001, c. 279, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2001; Laws 2003, c. 407, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2003; Laws 2005, c. 348, § 14, eff. July 1, 2005.
@chris “Annoying” not here:
OKLAHOMA STATUTES
TITLE 22.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Added by Laws 2005, c. 53, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2005.
§2260. Short title.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Protection from Domestic Abuse Act”.
Added by Laws 1982, c. 255, § 1.
§22-60.1. Definitions.
As used in the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act and in the Domestic Abuse Reporting Act, Sections 40.5 through 40.7 of this title and Section 150.12B of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes:
1. “Domestic abuse” means any act of physical harm, or the threat of imminent physical harm which is committed by an adult, emancipated minor, or minor child thirteen (13) years of age or older against another adult, emancipated minor or minor child who are family or household members or who are or were in a dating relationship;
Added by Laws 1982, c. 255, § 2, eff. Oct. 1, 1982. Amended by Laws 1986, c. 197, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1986; Laws 1991, c. 112, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Laws 1992, c. 42, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1992; Laws 1994, c. 290, § 54, eff. July 1, 1994; Laws 1995, c. 297, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1995; Laws 1996, c. 247, § 29, eff. July 1, 1996; Laws 2000, c. 85, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2000; Laws 2000, c. 370, § 5, eff. July 1, 2000; Laws 2001, c. 279, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2001; Laws 2003, c. 407, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2003; Laws 2005, c. 348, § 14, eff. July 1, 2005.
That’s what happen when feel good laws are passed. To enable chauvinistic female species to make accusations out of spite and hate. That’s how mean these women, all women are mean hateful creatures.
Personally I like the big government to butt out of the affairs of the family. And stay out.
I can guarantee you, if more misandry laws will be passed. Soon, you can dragged to court for holding out a two dollar coin.
As a former police officer, I think I’ve seen enough to reach some conclusions.
Is there domestic violence? There’s an amazing amount of domestic violence that occurs in all communities.
As a new police officer, I expected to see men abuse their girlfriends, wives & families. The signs are easy to find once you know what to look for.
My biggest surprise is that women are every bit as abusive as men; possibly even more so. In my community of 300, I saw men beaten, poisoned, stabbed, burned, strangled, and subjected to just about any form of mayhem imaginable but few men will admit this until the EMTs are there. Women often lie about crimes committed against themselves in an attempt to take revenge on the men in their life. I’ve seen accusations of rape against a live-in boyfriend suddenly evaporate when we explained we had to take the victim to the emergency room to document the assault. I’ve seen men prosecuted where the evidence just didn’t fit the allegations but, a woman testified against him or cried in court.
I’m not saying that men do not abuse women and the shelters do wonderful work with the few resources they have but I’ve also come to view the domestic violence activists as shilling to fill their own pockets rather than providing anything meaningful to the community.
Most police departments have programs where civilians can volunteer to help in some capacity and I recommend the experience highly. Besides helping the community, it is a marvelous method for quickly disabusing yourself of starry-eyed notions.
In my psychology classes in college it was pointed out that men and women “initiate violence” equally.
I also need to get this off of my chest:
Some ‘women’ who cry ‘abuse’ are also ‘abusers’ of their own children like MY MOTHER was. She beat the crap out of us and we were wayyyyyyyy smaller than her and had NO rights AT ALL.
If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
@sevenships – yes still wrong….
Please take a look at the blog “The Unknown History of MISANDRY.” One of my current projects is to overturn the myth that before the rise of the (Marxist) domestic violence industry police and “society” ignored, tolerated and accepted violence against women. Many authoritative sources make this demonstrably false claim. Unfortunately many MRAs do not like to discuss the punishment of male abusers in the past because they wrongly feel it makes ALL men look bad. But we need to overturn the lie, so we can show that the policies of VAWA are a failure. Awareness of actual DV has not increased at all; nor has actual DV diminished. Here is an extensive post on this particular issue — http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Domestic%20Violence
Also the “Greatest Hits” post — http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search/label/Domestic%20Violence
— will serve to introduce many other relevant facts which contradict misandric ideology.