Welcome to the blog of the International Fathers and Children Coalition. We take pride in thoroughly researching our articles, checking our sources, and covering news that traditional media deliberately ignores or would not touch. For a full list of published articles see the "Table of Contents" page on the right, under "Pages."

Friday, October 26, 2012

Have Sex With Obama – The Most Tasteless Political Ad Ever

 by Eric Ross, PhD

When it comes to politicians shamelessly using our young, the na├»ve and inexperienced, they will hear their fathers voice loud and clear. 


On October 25, 2012, the Obama campaign released its latest ad, featuring another celebrity of sorts,  

Lena Dunham, a 26-year-old star on the  HBO’s raunchy series Girls, sort of a sequel to Sex In the City, but for twenty-somethings. It is a shockingly crass, tasteless ad, addressed to young girls and comparing voting for the first time to losing virginity. In a cutesy confidential manner Lena Dunham tells your daughters that if they are going to have sex – er, vote – for the first time, they should really do it with President Barack Hussein Obama. It is uncouth flimsily disguised as cute.

 

Apparently, the Obama’s campaign sank to these new lows not without a “scientific” basis: Sociology “researchers”, such as Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio, found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama. Committed women (lest we use the unfashionable term “married”) with the same levels of estrogen, appeared more likely to vote for Romney by a margin of at least 20%.  This seems to be the driver behind the researchers' overall observation, that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

 

Hence, the Democrat Party’s election year’s stratagem to woo single women by accusing Republicans of waging the mythological “War on Women”, while Joe Biden comes to their rescue with loads of free contraceptives, calling on them to have a big O voting for O.

 

No wonder President Obama was busily campaigning on air with the Florida’s Radio DJ Pimp with the Limp, while American diplomats were attacked with RPG, Mortar and automatic fire for eight hours in Benghazi, Libya, leaving four of them dead.


 


Here’s the full transcript:

Your first time shouldn’t be with just anybody. You want to do it with a great guy. It should be with a guy with beautiful … somebody who really cares about and understands women.
A guy who cares about whether you get health insurance, and specifically whether you get birth control. The consequences are huge. You want to do it with a guy who brought the troops out of Iraq. You don’t want a guy who says, “Oh hey, I’m at the library studying,” when he’s really out not signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
Or who thinks that gay people should never have beautiful, complicated weddings of the kind we see on Bravo or TLC all the time. It’s a fun game to say, “Who are you voting for?” and they say “I don’t want to tell you,” and you say, “No, who are you voting for,” and they go, “Guess!”
Think about how you want to spend those four years. In college age time, that’s 150 years. Also, it’s super uncool to be out and about and someone says, “Did you vote,” and “No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.”
My first time voting was amazing. It was this line in the sand. Before I was a girl. Now I was a woman. I went to the polling station and pulled back the curtain. I voted for Barack Obama.
Yes, she just compared loosing virginity with voting for Obama, the right guy to loose it to. In her cutesy commercial, she mocks virgins – “No, I didn’t vote, I wasn’t ready.” She goes on a windy explanation as to why Barack Obama is the "right guy" she is ready to have have sex – er, vote – with.

She chose “to do it” for the first time with Barack Hussein Obama, since he “cares about and understands women.” In fact, all he understands is that certain women can be exploited with idiotic, tasteless commercials comparing losing virginity “to the right guy” with voting for him.  Have a big O with O! It is so-o-o exciting, so-o-o cool! Do not do it with anyone else, girls. They are limp flip-floppers. Barack is the ticket. Give it all to O and have a big O!

Apparently, having two young daughters did not stop the campaigner-in-chief:  he released this unsavory commercial (I am Barack Obama and I approve this message) because this is what Barack Hussein thinks of your daughters and all young women.  Apparently, the Demagogue-in-Chief thinks young American women are gullible, stupid, tasteless bitches, controlled by hormones and swooning at the mere mention of his name.  Can it be more demeaning to women? – Perhaps only if it featured Bill “I did not have sex with that woman” Clinton. And this pompous, crass ass dares to call himself a father, let alone President of the United States!
I do not think any slimy politician has ever gone this low before. Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks he is so-o-o “cool”, that young women have a collective orgasm at his mere appearance on stage, sort of like German girls did at the sight of Adolf Hitler.
His campaign has gone to the unprecedented extremes of low taste: from mocking the opponent with Big Bird, to the “binders full of women”, to lecturing him on the “horses and bayonets” and “these things that go under water”, to calling him publicly at a rally “a bullshitter”, in an apparent fit of projection… Any wonder then that the level of public respect for the Office of the US President is at an all time low?

Barack Obama cannot run on his record. He admitted that he does not even dig the 7th grade math to help his daughter, so how can he comprehend balancing a budget?  His campaign is not about the economy or the permanent job destruction that removed 23 million Americans from the labor force, nor is it about trillions of dollars in debt his administration created, while permitting companies like General Motors multi-billion dollar tax refunds. Nor is it about foreign policy.  Barack Hussein was too busy chatting up the Pimp With the Limp on the morning of the 9/11/12 attack and campaigning in Las Vegas.  The Campaigner-in-Chief  skipped that day’s and most other of the security briefings, which prior presidents religiously attended.
Barack Obama’s campaign has become all about free birth control, advocated by filthy-rich millionaire celebrities, and insults hurled at his stoically poised opponent, refusing to stoop to Obama’s level.

I strongly doubt that any self-respecting young women would want to have anything to do with a presidential candidate who presumes they vote with their “lady parts” and hormone levels.  In fact, American women just might prefer a Presidential candidate who creates well-paying jobs here in America, instead of distributing free condoms in designer colors. They may just opt for someone with  a real plan to take the economy out of the absolute disaster zone of 16 trillion debt that Obama built, where our children are already saddled with over $50,000 of debt before they are even born. 

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Precise Timeline of Obama's Failure to Protect U.S. Embassy Personnel



The credit for marshaling  much of the information below goes to the Heritage Foundation. We verified, and expanded it.
______________________________________________
When our sons and daughters risk their lives in service of the United States, we fully expect the Commander-in-Chief and senior US officials to be true to their duty to provide for our children's security. Instead  it appears  they sacrificed the lives of some of our finest citizens for the sake of creating an appearance of a "winning foreign policy" under president Obama, who replaced the term "Islamic terrorist" with "workplace violence." To add insult to injury, their "apology tour" in the UN and on the international television channels, encourage further acts of terrorism against the U.S.

The latest incriminating information on the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya indicates that the State Department turned down a request for additional security from concerned U.S. embassy staff, the White House ignored advanced warnings of the impending attack, then engaged in a protracted effort to cover up its failures.

Evidence clearly shows there were security threats in Libya in the months prior to the deadly September 11 attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Despite these threats, the State Department left its personnel there to fend for themselves.

There is undeniable evidence the senior Libyan officials warned the U.S. officials of an impending attack three days before 9/11/12, but neither the State Department, nor the White House ultimately responsible for the ambassadors' security, took heed.

And when the terrorist attack did take place, the Obama Administration peddled the ridiculous story that an offensive, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube video was to blame. The administration's effort to avoid characterizing the murders of four Americans as terrorism was all too apparent, especially as evidenced by the president's own speech in the U.N., his many TV appearances and those by the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. 

On October 2, a letter [1] was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R–CA) and Jason Chaffetz (R–UT), Chairman of the National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations Subcommittee. The letter detailed 13 known security threats against U.S. facilities in Libya in the six months prior to September 11.


On October 10, the committee held a hearing on events in Libya, seeking answers from the State Department.  Rather than admitting at least the terrorist nature of the attack, Obama continued to blame the "offensive" video-clip titled Innocence of MuslimsIt appears that the blood of Ambassador Stevens, his aide, and the two private citizens who rushed to Ambassador's rescue, is on the hands of Obama, not the producer of Innocence of Muslims.  The Egyptian copt who directed the video is a scapegoat. 

To help our readers follow the path to tragedy on September 11 and its aftermath, below is a chronology of key events:

Events Leading On to the Fatal Attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi

April 6: IED thrown over the fence of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.
April 11: Gun battle erupts between armed groups two-and-a-half miles from the U.S. Consulate, including rocket-propelled grenades.
April 27: Two South African contractors are kidnapped by armed men, released unharmed.
May 1: Deputy Commander of U.S. Embassy Tripoli’s Local Guard Force is carjacked, beaten, and detained by armed youth.
May 1: British Embassy in Tripoli is attacked by a violent mob and set on fire. Other NATO embassies attacked as well.
May 3: The State Department declines a request [3] from personnel concerned about security at the U.S. Embassy in Libya for a DC-3 plane to take them around the country.
May 22: Two rocket-propelled grenades are fired at the Benghazi office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, less than 1 mile from the U.S. Consulate.
June 6: A large IED destroys part of the security perimeter of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Creates hole “big enough for 40 men to go through.”
June 10: A car carrying the British ambassador is attacked in Tripoli. Two bodyguards injured.
Late June: The building of the International Red Cross attacked again and closed down, leaving the U.S. flag as the only international one still flying in Benghazi, an obvious target.
August 6: Armed assailants carjack a vehicle with diplomatic plates operated by U.S. personnel.
September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials [4] about deteriorating security. (LIBYAN SECURITY OFFICIALS: WE WARNED U.S. THREE DAYS BEFORE BENGHAZI ATTACK) [4a].

September 11, 2012 Attacks and their Aftermath


September 11: Protesters attack the U.S. Cairo embassy [5]. U.S. Embassy releases statement and tweets sympathizing with Muslim protesters/attackers.

September 11: U.S. Consulate in BenghaziLibya is attacked [6], Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are killed, eight Americans are wounded (the fact still concealed by the U.S. media to this day.) 

September 11: Despite the reports of massive attacks on the U.S. Embassies in the Middle east, President Barack Hussein Obama skips his morning security briefing to chat with the "Pimp With a Limp" Florida's radio station's DJ. [5a]
September 12: Secretary Clinton and President Obama issue statements [5] condemning both the video and the attacks.
September 12: U.S. intelligence agencies have enough evidence to conclude a terrorist attack [7] was involved.
September 13: Press Secretary Jay Carney condemns video and violence [5] at a news conference.
September 14: Carney denies [8] Administration had “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”
September 14: The bodies of slain Americans return to Andrews Air Force Base. President Obama again blames [9] the YouTube video.
September 16: U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appears on Sunday talk shows and says authoritatively the attacks were provoked by the video, exclusively [5] that the attacks were “spontaneous — not premeditated” and “in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.” The White House sticks to this "narration" of events, despite mounting overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

September 16: Libyan President Mohamed Magarief says [5], “no doubt that this [attack] was preplanned, predetermined.”
September 17: State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland refuses to call attacks an act of terror [10].
September 19: CNN reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary [11], which indicates concern about security threats in Benghazi. For many more weeks the U.S. does not secure the compound under various excuses, so many top secret and confidential documents strewn on the floor go missing in the aftermath of the attack. 
September 19: Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matthew Olsen tells Congress [12] the attack in Libya was “terrorism.”
September 20: Carney, the White House spokesman, tries to back up [13] Olsen, says it was “self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack.” He still dug in his heels, saying the Benghazi tragedy was “an opportunistic attack” that grew from alleged video-based unrest.
September 20: Obama refuses to call attack terrorism [14], citing insufficient information.
September 21: Secretary of State Clinton, at meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister, says, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack [15].”
September 25: On ABC’s “The View,” Obama says [16], “we don’t have all of the information yet so we are still gathering.”

September 25: In his speech at the U.N. , Obama blames [17] “A crude and disgusting video [which] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.” Mr. Barack Hussein Obama referred to the "offensive" video six times but not once did he describe the events as terrorism.  The now famous quotation by Mr. Obama in his speech at the U.N. was his denouncement of the Freedom of Speech: "The Future Must Not Belong to Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam." [17a] , [17b]  The events in the Middle East did not fit the White House’s rosy election-year story of Obama's "achievements."  Instead, Obama and his officials tried to make the tragedy into a "teachable moment", lecturing Americans on tolerance for Islam and laying a foundation for further encroachment on the Freedom of Speech.

September 26: Libya’s Magarief on the “Today” show says [16], “It was a preplanned act of terrorism directed against American citizens.”
September 26: Published reports show [7] U.S. Intel agencies and the Obama Administration knew within 24 hours that al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist were involved.
September 27: Innocence of Muslims filmmaker Mark Basseley Youseff (aka Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) is arrested and denied bail [18] on the charges of “probation violation.”
September 28: Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., issues a statement backing [19] the Obama Administration’s changing story about the Libyan attack. Says facts are evolving.
September 28: Administration's Agency for International Development notified Congress of the cash infusion of $450 million to Egypt's Government, dominated  by the Muslim Brotherhood. Practically all of the $2 billion / year of the U.S. "aide" goes to the Egyptian military.
October 2: Carney declines to comment [20] on reported requests from diplomats in Libya for additional security, citing the State Department’s internal investigation.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org
URLs in this post:
[2] Intelligence and Security Failure: Attacks in Benghazi and Across the Middle East Reveal Ongoing 
Threat of Terrorism: http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/10/benghazi
[5a] Obama Chat with ‘Pimp with the Limp’ DJ Laz Airs on 9/11 Morning : http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/obama-chats-with-pimp-the-limp-dj-laz-on-911-morn/
[10] refuses to call attacks an act of terror: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/09/197821.htm
[11] reports having found Ambassador Stevens’s diary: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/22/world/africa/libya-ambassador-journal/index.html

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

criminal charges in family cases on the rise



LAW TIMES: Lawyers alarmed at the rise of false criminal charges in family cases

Trend on the rise as Ontario’s courts struggle to identify legitimate complaints


During his 20 years as a criminal defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger has defended more than 400 cases involving charges arising from domestic relationships. Many, he says, relate to separation and bitter family court battles.

‘The sad reality is that legitimate cases of abuse get tainted with the same incredulous brush,’ says Roots Gadhia. Photo: Robin Kuniski
“Over the past 10 years, I have noticed an increase in the prevalence of these types of offences with a disturbing trend to use the criminal process as a quick means to obtain exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and thwart custody and access to the children of the relationships,” says Neuberger.

“I have successfully established fabrication in at least 15 per cent of the cases with very clear contradictions in evidence, including differences in affidavit evidence tendered in the family court proceedings.

Yet not one case resulted in charges being laid against the complainant.”

The absence of witnesses makes prosecution of false allegations difficult. While Neuberger emphasizes the need to take legitimate cases seriously, he worries there isn’t much in place to prevent a spouse from fabricating an allegation.

It’s a trend Murray Maltz, who has been practising family law for 27 years, has also noticed. But there are no studies, no way to quantify the problem, and, most troubling, no solutions at hand.
When someone makes a complaint, police must lay charges.

In family litigation, a criminal charge is like a red flag even when the case is still before the court. Additionally, the introduction of the criminal process can throw a wrench into any friendly resolution of the matter.

“So if you want to play the game, ‘I want custody, I want to control the situation,’ often people will take the position, ‘I’m going to call the police,’” says Maltz.

Immediately, the accused leaves the home and can’t communicate with the spouse and the children or come within a certain distance of the house. That makes the issues of custody and access more difficult.

As a result, according to lawyers, the spouse making the allegation has an edge in the case. With exclusive access, the children themselves could become pawns in the case.

Delays in the criminal system complicate the situation as the charge can easily loom for a year. By the time it’s over, says Maltz, the damage is done.
“How do you combat that?” he asks.

Domestic violence continues to be a concern in Canada. Statistics Canada reported last week that about 99,000 Canadians were victims of police-reported domestic violence in 2010. It also noted that more children reported witnessing domestic violence in 2009 than in 2004.

Clearly, the issue of domestic violence continues to be a serious societal concern. But complications arise from false allegations.

“The sad reality is that legitimate cases of abuse get tainted with the same incredulous brush,” says criminal defence lawyer Roots Gadhia.

Ontario introduced a new integrated domestic violence court last June to deal with people who had cases before both the family and criminal justice systems.

The pilot project is running in one Toronto location. Gadhia is hopeful this new court will be able to deal with the inconsistencies that she says are sometimes very apparent in the family and criminal court files.

The aim of the integrated domestic violence court is to improve the communication and co-ordination between the criminal and family courts, said Jason Gennaro, spokesman for the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General.

“The court provides a single judge to hear criminal and family law cases relating to one family where domestic violence is an issue,” he says. “This will support the judge in more fully understanding the family and its ongoing needs.”

In 2009 and 2010, the government introduced legislative reforms to strengthen the family justice system and make judges more aware of violence that may have occurred in the family. Anyone applying for child custody or access must now complete a sworn statement.

Lawyer Esther Daniel points out that Form 35.1, an affidavit required for custody or access applications, requires those seeking custody to indicate if the applicant faces any criminal charges.

As a result, the family and criminal matters intersect when it comes to disputes over custody of the children and the matrimonial home.

As both a criminal and family law practitioner, Daniel worries the situation could lead to further abuse of the criminal justice system.

“It usually comes about when there’s a matrimonial breakdown and then police are called,” she says. “I’ve had a lot of criminal clients that have had proceedings against them . . . and family court proceedings follow.”

It’s difficult, she adds, to discern fact from fiction. Clearly, the issue of abuse between couples is one the courts take very seriously. But it’s also clear to many lawyers that some people use the process to further their own family law case.

“Unless you personally are witness to what the situation was . . . you don’t know 100 per cent,” says Daniel. “However, you can assess the situation and have a good judgment.”

At the end of the day, it’s the subjects of many of those disputes who suffer the greatest impacts, says family lawyer Kristy Maurina.

“We are dealing with real lives and the interests of children,” she says. “It can have a detrimental impact on the children who are already dealing with the pain of separation and are now faced with a loving and involved parent who is suddenly not allowed to see them anymore.”

For those involved in a marital dispute, the damage is immediate once someone levies a criminal charge.

“All the stakeholders in the justice system . . . need to use their discretion,” said Daniel.
“Domestic violence is something that needs to be taken seriously. But at the same time, you do have to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The persons in the justice system should be
supported when they use their discretion not to lay a charge or not to proceed with a matter and should do so free from the pressure that there may be professional consequences when doing so.”

Maltz foresees some practical approaches to the issue. Expediting the criminal matters, for example, is important, he notes.

The family courts, according to Maltz, have made great strides and become much less combative over the years while the criminal courts remain adversarial. In situations where there’s overlap or crossover between the two, they should work on the same level, he suggests.

“I’d like to see the courts somehow combine themselves and actually deal with the charges together."

Monday, October 15, 2012

Movement to Media: “You are Rigging this Election”


Media Research Center President: Media Rigging 2012 Election, Worst Liberal Bias In 25 years

NOTE: As we noted in our articles, the main media has engaged in concealment and distortion of important news, acting in gross violation of the Code of Journalistic Ethics and demonstrating extreme bias, dishonesty and lack of integrity. See for example, these three (and many more) well-researched articles on this blog.
ALEXANDRIA, VA – Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, along with over 20 conservative leaders and media personalities, has publicly called out the liberal media for their deliberate and calculated attempts to rig the 2012 presidential election in favor of Barack Obama. 
“We have never witnessed a more brazen and complete attempt by the media to decide the outcome of a presidential election.  For 25 years, the Media Research Center has been documenting liberal media bias daily.  During that time, we have covered seven presidential elections including this one.  We have never seen it this bad.  The media have decided to re-elect Barack Obama and have employed countless distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies as their means to that end.” 
Here is the full text of The Letter to the Media:

Movement to Media: “You are Rigging this Election”.

Over 20 Conservative Leaders including Rush Limbaugh, Ed Meese, Mark Levin and Tony Perkins Call on Public to Tune out the Liberal Media!

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts, and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda. To put it bluntly: you are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome. In the quarter century since the Media Research Center was established to document liberal media bias, there has never been a more brazen and complete attempt by the liberal so-called “news” media to decide the outcome of an election.

A free and balanced media are crucial to the health of this country. It is your duty as journalists – as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics – to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” while simultaneously “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

There is a reason why the media are viewed with such disdain by the American public, as evidenced by every recent poll on the issue.
You have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government’s public policy failures, both domestic and foreign, while openly and shamefully smearing Gov. Mitt Romney. You are:

  • Painting conservative ideas as extreme, while refusing to report the disastrous consequences of liberal programs enacted since 2008. 

  • Submerging the truly horrendous economic conditions America is facing and focusing only on minor political issues. 

  • Characterizing conservatives as cruel budget “slashers” instead of responsible officials trying to avoid a debt catastrophe. 

  • Focusing on alleged shortcomings in Romney’s business record instead of Obama’s record as the chief executive, whose policies contributed to a failed economy. 

  • Deliberately covering up embarrassing government failures and scandals, including the Solyndra debacle, Fast & Furious, and national security leaks which have put American lives in jeopardy. 

  • Pouncing on real and perceived missteps by conservatives, portraying them as bumbling incompetents, while suppressing embarrassing and incendiary remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden to prevent him from becoming a liability.

  • Portraying conservative opposition to tax hikes as an impediment to deficit reduction while failing to highlight how liberal tax increase policies will cause massive damage to the economy and cause the deficit to explode. 

  • “Fact-checking” conservatives in order to discredit their arguments while regularly refusing to "fact-check" liberals who are distorting the truth.

We the undersigned – representing millions of Americans from our respective organizations – are now publicly urging our members to seek out alternative sources of political news in order to make an intelligent, well-informed decision on November 6.

It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust.


Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell, III 
President Media Research Center

Co-Signed:

Gary Bauer
President
Campaign for American Values

Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell
Former U.S. ambassador,
U.N. Human Rights Commission

Morton Blackwell,
Chairman, The Weyrich Lunch

David Bozell,
Executive Director For America

Brian Brown,
President National
Organization for Marriage

Al Cardenas,
Chairman, American Conservative Union

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President
Susan B. Anthony List

Becky Norton Dunlop
Former Reagan Official

Colin Hanna
President
Let Freedom Ring

Laura Ingraham
National Radio Host

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks

Amy Kremer
Chairman
Tea Party Express

Curt Levey
Committee for Justice

Mark Levin
Author and National Radio Host

Rush Limbaugh
National Radio Host

Jenny Beth Martin
Co-Founder
Tea Party Patriots

Ed Meese III
Ronald Reagan 
Distinguished Fellow 
in Public Policy,
Chairman of the Center for Legal 
and Judicial Studies

Heritage Foundation
Mike Needham
Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action

Karl Otteson
U. S. Federation of Small Businesses Inc

William Pascoe
Executive Vice President
Citizens for the Republic

Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council

Alfred S. Regnery
Paul Revere Project

Mathew D. Staver
Founder and Chairman 
Liberty Counsel

Richard Viguerie
Chairman
Conservative HQ.com

The Honorable Louie Gohmert 
Texas 1st Congressional District

Lars Larson
National Radio Host

Source:  Media Research Center

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Gitmo at Home: DV Courts in America

  by David Heleniak, a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic violence is a very real and significant problem in America. This month would be a good time to address the attempt of state governments to combat domestic violence through the issuance of temporary and permanent restraining orders.

In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center and our nation's response to terrorism domestically and abroad, there has been a flurry of negative reaction in the press to the subjecting of suspected terrorists to trial by military tribunal without the constitutional protections afforded other criminals. As John F. Kearney, III, put it in the March 24, 2003 issue of the New Jersey Lawyer, "All of us want as much done by government as possible to protect us from more Sept. 11 attacks or worse. None of us wants to be nuked, poisoned or fall victim to a suicide bomber. But none of us should want, either, to give away our hard-won liberties." While the legitimacy of using military tribunals to try accused terrorists is getting well-deserved attention, the media has been largely silent on a related topic, the legitimacy of trying defendants accused of a crime, domestic violence, in brief restraining order hearings in the family court, where defendants are denied virtually all of the due process protections afforded defendants in the criminal court. These systems have been in effect much longer than the anti-terrorism measures, and affect many more people, yet one hears very little about them.
Under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, for example, ten days or less following the entering of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a final restraining order (FRO) hearing is held. At the hearing, required by the Act to be a summary proceeding, a Chancery Division judge is authorized to make a finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act of domestic violence, defined as one of fourteen enumerated crimes that include assault, burglary, rape and even murder. Having made such a finding, the judge may bar the defendant from seeing his kids and from ever setting foot in a particular house again, yet can make him pay the mortgage; make him provide monetary support to the plaintiff; force him to see a psychologist or psychiatrist at his own expense, who can in effect interrogate him and then write a report to the judge that can be used against him in a subsequent proceeding, such as a child visitation hearing; temporarily give the plaintiff exclusive possession of the defendant's car, checkbook, and other personal effects (which could include a beloved pet); bar the defendant from ever speaking to any individual that the plaintiff does not want him to speak to (which could include a beloved friend or relative); force him to turn any firearms he has into the hands of the proper authorities and bar him from ever possessing another firearm in his life; and make the defendant pay a "civil penalty" of $500.00. If the defendant does not comply with any aspect of the judge's order, he can be tried for contempt and imprisoned. Lastly, his name is put on a list of domestic abusers known as the New Jersey Judiciary's Domestic Violence Central Registry.
The potential for abuse of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is tremendous. A spouse willing to commit perjury can spend months or even years with his or her lawyer planning to file a domestic violence complaint at an opportune moment in order to gain the upper hand in a divorce proceeding and preparing the presentation of his or her case, while an accused spouse is given ten days or less to prepare a defense. Ten days is not nearly enough time to prepare for an FRO hearing. It is not even enough time for most defendants to fully understand the gravity of the situation they're in. The lack of time is compounded by the stress, alarm, and confusion caused by suddenly and without warning being thrown out of their homes by armed law enforcement officers.
Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Upon the initial enforcement of a TRO, which was based on an allegation of physical abuse, a husband/defendant is thrown out of his house without so much as a toothbrush. He is allowed to take his wallet with him but is prohibited from taking his checkbook because the police officers fear that he might maliciously exhaust the marital assets. He isn't given a place to shower or sleep, and only has enough money in his wallet for a few meager meals. During this period, when his main concerns are about his physical survival, he is told that there will be an FRO hearing ten days from the filing of the complaint. Having no legal background, he has no inkling of the consequences of this hearing or of the goings on of a courtroom. He has not been advised he has the right to have an attorney represent him, and doesn't realize he needs one. He couldn't afford one if he did, but he has no right, unlike a criminal defendant, to be provided with free counsel. He arrives at court on the hearing day woefully unprepared, tired, unshowered, unkempt, and disheveled.
During the hearing, our hypothetical plaintiff introduces hearsay and alleges prior bad acts. Unfamiliar with the law, the defendant does not object to the judge's consideration of the improper evidence, but simply insists that it's untrue. He is surprised when she brings up events that were not alleged in the complaint, and taken out of context and twisted so as to only be partially true, the introduction of this evidence hurts his defense. He hasn't thought of these events for years and, caught off-guard, cannot articulate to the judge what really happened.
After a few short hours of testimony, the judge declares that the defendant committed the acts charged in the complaint, effectively labeling the defendant a wife beater. He is forbidden from returning to the marital home and from seeing his children, and is ordered to pay large sums of money periodically to his wife. Since he could not afford an attorney for the FRO hearing, he certainly cannot afford one for an appeal, and, not knowing the first thing about the appellate process, does not appeal the ruling. He wants desperately to see his children but he is baffled by the procedural labyrinth facing him and doesn't know what steps to take. At a subsequent proceeding regarding visitation, he is instructed to attend and participate in counseling. The court-appointed psychologist, having pre-judged him to be an abuser, continually advises the court not to grant visitation. He does not know when he will ever see his children again.
In ten days, the hypothetical husband has gone from having a normal life with a wife, children and home to being a social pariah, homeless, poor, and alone, trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

A report put out by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) entitled "An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States' Domestic Violence Laws" (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Ranking-of-States-DV-Laws.pdf) ranks New Jersey's domestic violence statute as one of the laws "most likely to violate the civil rights of persons accused of domestic violence." Nevertheless, New Jersey's statute is not an anomaly, as a review of the report and another RADAR report, "Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children" (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Perverse-Incentives.pdf), reveals. Political scientist Stephen Baskerville's online report "Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse" (http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/familyviolence.pdf?docID=641) makes it clear that false allegations of domestic violence and the legal system that rewards them is not only a national problem, but an international one as well. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, confirms this. Just released by Cumberland House, it cites as an example of the national problem a shocking statistic put out by the Department of Justice: "a restraining order is issued every two minutes in Massachusetts."
Big Media probably won't report on the problem anytime soon. It's therefore up to bloggers, podcasters, and You Tubers to expose the due process fiasco that media silence has allowed to persist.
Note: This article is an adaptation of David Heleniak's Rutgers Law Review article "The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act."

First published 10/12/2007
David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.  View profile

Saturday, October 6, 2012

From Father to Sons: False Complaints of Domestic Violence




Written by: Brian Richard Dinday, Criminal Defense Attorney, who died at age 62 in an abalone diving accident off the coast of Sonoma, California in November of 2009. He went diving with his son, age 30. A careful diver and a strong swimmer, he was swept away from the shore in rough surf and heavy waves, as 4 other men who died there that year.  He left behind four grown children and wife.


1

How can anyone be "presumed guilty" in American Courts?

The authorities do not call it that, of course. But here is what happens in some jurisdictions when a 911 call is made reporting domestic violence. The police arrive and will only talk to the person who made the complaint. Even if the investigation shows that the complaint was clearly false, some police departments have a policy that they must make an arrest on every D.V. house call. The intent is to prevent further and worse violence after they leave. The reality is that even where they can clearly see that the D.V. report was a lie, they still have to arrest him. ie, "presumed guilty". Then the Court will automatically issue a "stay away" order, barring the arrestee from going near the complaining party, but also barring him from his home, if she lives with him. Then when the complainant tells police and prosecutors that she or he fabricated the alleged assault, police and prosecutors decide that the renunciation of the complaint is the lie, not the original report. Presumed guilty.

2

Police wouldn't actually arrest someone they KNOW is innocent, would they?

I can only tell you that in San Francisco, it is police department policy that an arrest has to be made every time they respond to a domestic violence call. Though police spokesmen were reluctant to go on the record when I canvassed San Francisco Bay Area Police Agencies, I believe this policy I believe this policy is widespread. I personally had a case where a woman called 911 to report that her husband hit her in the face with a length of steel pipe, knocking her to the floor. The police truthfully noted in their report that she had no mark whatever on her face, but arrested him and put him in jail anyway.

3

But after the couple cool down, they will drop the false charges, won't they?

Nope. Because it is well known that battered women will defend their abusers, prosecutors have a wide-spread policy of not dropping D.V. charges no matter what the "victim" says. If she or he confesses that the D.V. report was a lie born of anger and rage, they assume otherwise and continue prosecuting. The "victim" does not have the right to drop charges. In fact, once the 911 call is made, the couple has lost control over their relationship for awhile. It's in the hands of the police, prosecutors and judges.

4

If someone is proved to have made a false D.V. charge, they'll be prosecuted for THAT, won't they?

Again, no. Here is why. Prosecutors will tell you that if they ever prosecuted a woman for making a false report of D.V. and having someone falsely arrested, it would discourage other battered women from ever calling 911. In 32 years of criminal defense law practice, I have neither seen nor heard of even one person prosecuted for making a false D.V. complaint. People who like to use false D.V. complaints as "payback" for some grievance, grudge or emotional hurt, have total functional immunity for doing so. The domestic violence justice system in my opinion is seriously distorted from normal justice enforcement. We really can protect women from real violence without encouraging all this gamesmanship.

5

Don't police and prosecutors understand that people will say things they regret during an argument with a lover?

Apparently not. But that is not the only reason for the growth of false D.V. complaints. There is also profit. If the accused is wealthy, good money can be made on the civil lawsuit after he or she is convicted. Then there is vengeance, as when a lover is caught cheating on the other. Then there is the "Hell hath no fury..." situation, and let's not forget that some people are just insane and/or vindictive.

6

Is all this the necessary price of protecting women from brutality?

I'm not so sure that this blind prosecution of all complaints, no matter how obviously frivolous, is protecting anyone. I am convinced that you can protect women from real violence without giving the mean-spirited or crazy ones absolute power to persecute others. However, my fear is this: it is fairly common knowledge now that no matter what the victim says, the police and prosecutor won't drop the charges, and he will go to jail. Please understand that this can be true even if the alleged "assault" was just a push that resulted in no injury. There goes the bread winner, the lover, the spouse, the father. So I suspect many women who might benefit from a police visit to separate the couple and restore peace, will be afraid to call them at all, because they don't WANT him arrested or jailed, just removed for an hour. The situation has gotten way out of hand. I have been told by women that they would not call police again, because the police jailed their men against their wishes.

7

What should I do if my lover is screaming and threatening to call police even though I have not touched him/her?

Leave immediately and go sleep somewhere else that night. When he/she cools down, insist on going to joint counseling.

8

What should I do if I my lover calls 911 or threatens to?

Never attempt to stop the complaining party from calling 911. That's an additional crime. Remain very calm. Point out to the police any physical evidence that contradicts the report that was made to the police, and politely, earnestly ask them to make note of that evidence, or seize it and keep it in the police evidence locker. Telling your side of the story is unlikely to do any good, and they may not listen anyway. Do not express any anger at the complaining party in front of the police. If YOU have any marks from the dispute, be sure and show them to the police and ask them to photograph them. You would not believe how many D.V. cases I have litigated where the wife was the one calling 911, and she had no marks at all, but the husband DID. Call an experienced Domestic Violence lawyer ASAP. As slanted as the legal system is on these cases, much can be done to defend you on a false complaint. Though prosecutors resist mightily, I sometimes get dismissals eventually.

9

Do women ever get prosecuted for domestic violence?

Yes. My cases have run about 5 male to every 1 female client. Interestingly, when the man is arrested, it is usually the complaining female who calls me to hire me to defend him. Please understand that most domestic violence cases are legitimate ones, where the arrestee DID commit a battery, but it is becoming more and more common for people to use false D.V. complaints as control games. How hard is it to report "He pushed me." and how hard is it to prove that he didn't? There usually are no marks with a push, so It can't be disproved. I have one client whose wife admitted that she often threatens to call police to report him for D.V. just to win a dispute, even though he never touched her.

10

My boyfriend and I have had several fights where the police got involved.

You BOTH need to go to counseling to figure out how to break that cycle. It is NOT a totally one sided problem, even though the Courts treat it as one.