Taken into custody, tortured and outraged

From the Equal Justice Foundation newsletters by Dr. Charles E. Corry comes the following excerpt of a very telling newsletter of what we're up against that is entitled "Taken into custody, tortured and outraged". I would have included the whole newsletter herein except it ran over meetup.com's limit on the size of "About Us" pages. To read this newsletter in its entirety, see it in our Files section under EJFNewsletterTakenIntoCustodyTorturedAndOutraged:

Into the realm of the surreal

Though many other evils exist, it is the wholesale destruction of children, families, and marriage by a false ideology that looms largest. Clearly the basic building blocks of our civilization are families and millennia of experience has taught us that children learn best, and accomplish most when raised by their father and mother in a patriarchal family. But the rise of radical feminism in the 1960's merged with the implementation of "no fault" divorce to begin destruction of children, families, and marriage on a previously unimaginable scale. As we move into the Third Millennia of the Christian Era approximately one-half of all marriages end in divorce and, as this is written, 38% of all children are born out-of-wedlock.

Unquestionably the future is grim for most of our children as currently only about 15 out of 100 are born into and reach age 18 in an intact family.

Since incorporating in 2001 the Equal Justice Foundation has repeatedly stated that under current laws a man has to be functionally insane to marry and a drooling idiot to sire a child. In his popular FredOnEverything column, Fred Reed made the same point in July 2003. In a November 11, 2007, newsletter, Dr. Stephen Baskerville, author of Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, again called attention to the problem, a situation our society cannot long sustain and survive.

No-fault divorce, or how to make lawyers rich and destroy civilization

The best history of how "no fault" divorce evolved that I'm familiar with is Judy Parejko's book Stolen Vows. She traces the corruption of the current law to the venal behavior of California Assemblyman James A. Hayes, who was appointed chairman of the Assembly Judiciary Committee in 1969 while undergoing a high-conflict divorce. Hayes used his position to advantage in his divorce but began the destruction of marriage in general. Dr. Baskerville gives credit for this evil to the National Assoc. of Women Lawyers (NAWL) and those redfems also certainly played a starring role in the destruction of marriage we are now witnessing. However, the origin of this societal disease can be traced to Marx and Engels who declared that 'The class struggle begins in the family." Lenin furthered this Marxist ideology when he grabbed power in Russia and attempted to abolish marriage. But we certainly failed to learn from this historical failure in the Soviet Union.

Damn the patriarchy, full speed to destruction in the wake of "domestic violence"

It is no secret that radical feminism blames all the ills and misfortunes of women on the patriarchy. Because of this belief, in their ideology all women are victims and all men are batterers, which is a requirement in order for men to maintain their patriarchal privileges. Also, their dogma claims that all "domestic violence" results from "power and control" actions taken by males in order to preserve the patriarchy. Thus, based on feminist ideology, in order to gain equality for women it is necessary to eliminate the patriarchy and "restore" a more primitive matriarchal society.

This nonsense was sinking into well deserved oblivion until Erin Pizzey founded the first shelter for battered women in Chiswick, London, England in 1971, followed by the publication of her book, Scream Quietly Or The Neighbors Will Hear. As no civilized society tolerates violence against women within its midst, Pizzey's pioneering work gained worldwide support, including Queen Elizabeth II in England.

Unfortunately, radical, leftwing feminists (redfems) quickly seized the issue of violence against women for their own nefarious goals. When Erin Pizzey pointed out that women were at least as violent as men in intimate relationships, she was hounded into exile by the redfems leaving them in clear possession of the now well-known and publicized "domestic violence" issue. Hardly the first time a legitimate social issue has been usurped by demagogues for their own purposes.

An unholy alliance

By the 1980s redfems had begun to form an unholy alliance with lawyers (always an easily corruptible class), legislative bodies (largely made up of lawyers), and the judiciary (more lawyers who are ready to eat their own if they don't conform) in the name of stopping "domestic violence."

The resultant destruction of families created employment for lawyers as guardian ad litems (GALs) and special masters to protect "the best interest of the child," "family" lawyers whose actual objective is to destroy families with maximum conflict and, hence, billable hours.

This despicable alliance also drew in, and financed an army of parasites: psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists, and similar ilk by the tens of thousands. These bottom feeders came in the guise of "chid protective services" (legalized kidnapping), "child support enforcement" (uses police to force fathers to pay for children stolen from them, or who might not even be their child), foster homes that have the humanity of puppy mills, child and family evaluators to ensure a family only behaves in a socialistically-acceptable manner, and administrators and teachers in politically-correct schools where children are routinely drugged and criminally charged at ages as young as 5 or 6 for innocent games children have played since time immemorial.

While this alliance has proven to be a financial bonanza for all players, criminal domestic violence (DV), exclusive of the normal disagreements many couples have, is quite rare, occurring in only about 4 out of 1,000 households (0.4%) in a given year, and there is no evidence that the draconian DV laws have had any effect on this problem. Note that I use Prof. Don Dutton's definition of a "batterer" as someone who repeatedly strikes or kicks an unresisting victim when speaking about "domestic violence." I have discussed in detail when interactions between a couple is not domestic violence, and when violence against a woman is justified and even required by law. But today every loud argument between a couple is classified as a criminal case of "domestic violence" or abuse.

Conversely, it is clear the laws intended to control "domestic violence" make the problem worse. There is no evidence to suggest any domestic abuse restraining order ever protected any woman. Research has shown that "... Increases in willingness of prosecutors to take on protection order violations associated with increases in homicides of white married intimates, black unmarried intimates, and white unmarried females."

VAWA promoted mandatory arrest in DV cases and research now shows that in the 23 states that adopted this draconian policy, DV homicides are 60% higher than in the other 27 states.

As noted above, half of all marriages now end in "no fault" divorce. New York Supreme Court Judge Brian Lindsay stated, "There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System." But this well suits redfem ideology whose objective is to destroy the patriarchy. Certainly if marriage is destroyed the patriarchy will fall.

Further, actual family violence is commonly associated with mental and medical problems, the cure for which are of little value to the DV industry and the "legal" system. Worse, the partner suffering the mental or medical problem is commonly the female. To circumvent these inconvenient facts, redfems and their allies have put forth an ever expanding definition of "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" to keep their feeding at the public trough alive.

As the definition of domestic violence and abuse expanded, and ever more draconian laws were passed circumventing even the most basic protections of English law and the U.S. Constitution, it became convenient to use DV charges and restraining orders in divorce cases. By the 1990's the DV and divorce industry that burgeoned under "no fault" laws had effectively merged. That merger was of great financial benefit to both groups and, conveniently, acts to destroy the patriarchy.

Domestic violence by the numbers: The basic script

After the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 a clear pattern of legal abuse emerged so that today there is a standard script used to destroy children, families, and marriage. With variations we see the following pattern on a daily basis, and about 2 million men (and some women) in the United States go through some version of this nightmare every year:

  • Woman is tired of her marriage or boyfriend, or is having an affair and wants man gone, but doesn't want to lose the kids, the house, the car, the bank account, credit cards, etc. that she enjoys as a result of the marriage or shacking up.
  • She talks with an attorney, shelter worker, victim's advocate, or similar parasite, who advise her to take out a restraining order of file DV charges against her husband or boyfriend. They also tell her what to say, e.g., she is in "fear for her life," he is a "trained killer' due to his military service, he abuses her, she is suffering emotional harm, etc. Since perjury and subornation of perjury are virtually never punished, any lies will do and hearsay is admissible.
  • Man is then arrested or thrown out of his home, preferably without hearing or notice, never to return.
  • Since, by decree, he is branded as dangerous and violent, it is in "the best interests of his children" that he he have no, or very limited contact and visitation with them. He certainly must not have primary custody of them.
  • Man naively thinks he has some rights and civil liberties and that if he tells the truth the judge will listen and things will get straightened out. Wrong again.
  • His path will fork here. Most men will believe the lies the DA tells them about DV, or the restraining order violation, being simply a misdemeanor and take a plea bargain. Wrong again, and he surrenders all rights to appeal, to civil liberties, to professional licenses, security clearances, to even rent an apartment. The outcome is the same if he takes a bench trial before a judge, which is simply a long, slow way of pleading guilty.
  • A few will take the very wise course of pleading not guilty and demanding a jury trial. While this almost guarantees charges against him will eventually be dropped or he will be acquitted, he is going to have to spend a lot of money on an attorney. And finding a competent attorney is searching for a needle in a haystack. His hiring an attorney escalates the conflict and she is likely to get free legal assistance, particularly if criminal charges are brought against him. Nothing excites and enriches the "legal" profession more than two feuding attorneys.
  • He almost certainly loses his job (~80% chance) due to the DV conviction, all the time he has to spend in court, mental strain (PTSD is a given), loss of security clearance, loss of license, etc.
  • Any assets either he or she have probably go to legal fees or survival. He lives in his car or with relatives, or becomes homeless. He can't pay child support because he is unemployed but that doesn't stop the court from "imputing" an income based on what the judge thinks he should be earning. When he can't pay he is placed in debtor's prison as a "deadbeat dad." Many times his only way out is suicide.
  • After taking everything she can from him, she shacks up with other men, who may really be abusive either to her or any children she has. In the meantime any medical or mental problems she has go untreated as, obviously, everything is the fault of her ex and she is fine.
  • The kids want Dad and become rebellious. She can't handle them and child abuse or neglect begins because there isn't any money. "Child Protective Service (CPS)" becomes involved. Of course no redfem CPS agent in her left mind would ever consider letting Dad take the kids. So, all too often, the kids end up in foster care, often a recipe for even more abuse and neglect. Don't look for many future scientists and engineers to emerge from kids who've been through this.
  • With 50% of all marriages ending in divorce, the only defense an intelligent man currently has is to not marry or sire any children.


Probably half the people who read this script will react with something like: "Been there, done that!" But despite the incredible number of men and women who go through this nightmare every year we have found it virtually impossible to get citizens or legislators to believe how debased, dysfunctional, and evil our "legal" system has become unless, and until they or someone close to them becomes involved in one of these nightmares. And I have been astounded to find that even men caught up in such a legal nightmare are still denying its existence. Their reaction, though they are destitute and convicted by their own plea bargain, is a specious claim that they are going to sue. It is no wonder the courts mock them.

For skeptics, Dr. Stephen Baskerville has extensively documented this corruption in his recent book, Taken Into Custody. In it Baskerville considers Freud and his theory of patricide, but ignores the much greater influence of Freud's cousin, Edward Bernays, who created the field of public relations and its offshoot, the marketing of lifestyle and consumerism. Bernay's work, and that of his colleagues and disciples, provided means for crowd control and manipulation that have been successfully used by governments, redfems, and the divorce industry. One finds clear evidence of such manipulation in terms such as "deadbeat dads" and the government bureaucracy that is built around child support enforcement.

Unfortunately, those who work to preserve children, families, and marriage have not mastered the art of public relations or evolved the necessary catch phrases. "Shared parenting," often heard from father's rights groups, for example, contains the death of a marriage within it and inherently accepts defeat. And there is certainly no bureaucracy to carry the burden of family preservation, only to collect child support.

The "legal" profession doesn't grow rich, nor government expand if a marriage endures and children are raised by mom and dad.

From prosecution to persecution
...

Table of Contents

Page title Most recent update Last edited by
A Child's Right To A Father And Mother January 8, 2008 1:06 AM anonymous
TOTALITARIANISM IN AMERICA January 4, 2008 4:55 PM anonymous
From Welfare State to Police State December 23, 2007 8:56 AM anonymous
Taken into custody, tortured and outraged December 15, 2007 7:10 AM anonymous
Ron Paul on Child Support Act of 2000 November 30, 2007 6:16 PM anonymous
Phyllis Schlafly and New Politics of Family November 24, 2007 11:54 AM anonymous
Shouldn't the Bill of Rights Apply... November 21, 2007 9:43 AM anonymous
APA Recognized, Candidate Backed October 2, 2007 7:55 AM anonymous
Romero and Fowlke Say No Sexism In Courts October 13, 2007 11:21 AM anonymous
Utah Fathers' Rights Group - for men and women! October 1, 2007 9:37 AM anonymous
Child Support; Best Interest for who?... October 1, 2007 9:32 AM anonymous
Carol Rhodes reveals systemic government horrors October 1, 2007 9:27 AM anonymous
Utah Fathers' Rights Meetup Group

Salt Lake City, UT

Founded Aug 2, 2006

About us…

Organizer:

Louis "Luigi­" Langholtz

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy