Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site
Freewayblogger Campaign to Inform the Public and Build Support For Divorce Reform
Lots of parents supporting shared parenting have begun making large highway signs to expose the problems in family court that are damaging children. This is the beginning of the end of the current system and will build into additional efforts and likely civil disobedience.

Courts are doing EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what is best for children by awarding sole custody to one parent and visitation to the other. Scientific research from over 200 different studies has proven that children do much better with near equal time with both parents. Yet the band plays on for profits of lawyers and the state from BILLIONS child support kickbacks from the federal government.

Effectively this system is intentionally damaging families and children for profit and this must be exposed.

Here are a few pictures of signed posted by the "headless freeway blogger" who seems to have a team of at least 30 people and is now placing over 20 signs per week in Eastern Massachusetts.


See Twenty large signs made in a few hours by four
people at a sign party


Signs are now up on 213 in Methuen, over 93 N and S in Methuen, and over 495 S in Andover just before the 93 exit. Attached are pictures of the sign that is now up over 495 S (Stop War on Dads) and the sign that is currently on 213. Actually there are two signs there. The one you can see in the picture says, "Courts Abuse Dads for $." The one that you can barely see says, "Full Story @ FathersUnite.org." I took the picture while driving. The sign over 93 S is the mass produced "Stop the War on Fatherhood" sign. It is very clear from the highway. I don't have a picture of it because it is too dangerous to pull over and stop there.

- Kevin




519 U.S. 357 (1997)

Leafletting and commenting on matters of public concern are classic forms of speech that lie at the heart of the First Amendment, and speech in public areas is at its most protected on public sidewalks, a prototypical example of a traditional public forum. See, e.g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988); United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 180 (1983). On the other hand, we have before us a record that shows physically abusive conduct, harassment of the police that hampered law enforcement, and the tendency of even peaceful conversations to devolve into aggressive and sometimes violent conduct. In some situations, a record of abusive conduct makes a prohibition on classic speech in limited parts of a public sidewalk permissible.

See, e.g., Part II-D infra; Madsen, 512 U. S. at 769-770.

We uphold the fixed buffer zones around the doorways, driveways, and driveway entrances. These buffer zones are necessary to ensure that people and vehicles trying to enter or exit the clinic property or clinic parking lots can do so. As in Madsen, the record shows that protest- ers purposefully or effectively blocked or hindered people from entering and exiting the clinic doorways, from driving up to and away from clinic entrances, and from driving in and out of clinic parking lots. Based on this conduct-both before and after the TRO issued-the District Court was entitled to conclude that the only way to ensure access was to move back the demonstrations away from the driveways and parking lot entrances.