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
.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, May 15, 2006

Lets Not Forget and Be Proud


Most MGL 209A restraining orders are granted to vindictive women or their attorneys to seek revenge or gain advantage in divorce or custody proceedings. MGL209A defies logic. They are a violation of the constitution of the United States. The fundamentalist treatment given MGL209A Restraining Orders by law enforcement and the judiciary reminds one of adherents of Islamic law who insist body parts must be amputated.

But never forget, these restraining orders are real. The reason that they still exist is we men are intimidated by the restraining orders. We should be very careful but we should not fear them. The purpose of the restraining order is the same as a police baton. Two smacks with a police baton and most people become compliant. The same is true with a restraining order. When a man is served a restraining order he is overwhelmed by emotional shock.

First he is fearful: A policeman comes to his door and hands him a restraining order and if he is living with the woman who applied for the restraining order there is a second policeman to help force him from his home.

Second he is embarrassed: Most men are innocent but don't feel that they can defend themselves. Remember the question that has no good answer "Mr. Senator when did you stop beating your wife?"

Third he is intimidated: For most men served restraining orders, this is his first trip to court, and since most men can't afford counsel and through some slight of hand by our judiciary and legislature he has no right to court appointed counsel, he faces the court proceedings alone. The man must come to court and sit amongst felons (who qualify for court appointed attorneys) as if he is a criminal and await the hearing of his MGL 209A restraining order. When he gets his hearing, there is no defense no matter how rational that a judge will accept.

Fourth he is helpless: Now the man is out of his house. The judge might grant him a few minutes to return home under police supervision to get some of his things, but he is on the street. He has been forced from his home, treated like a criminal, he is too embarrassed to talk about his condition and he can't see his children.

The biggest mistake that we innocent men make is we loose our pride and confidence. We need to be ever so careful but we need to be proud and we need to assert our unjust treatment. Never forget your restraining order and never forgive anyone from the woman who applied for it, the police officer that served you with it, the judge that upheld it and the legislators that passed the MGL 209A law. Every time you have a chance, you must press for a change of this ridiculous law.

Remember 40,000 innocent men are served restraining orders every year, if we were all activists, we would be a political force.


Sunday, April 23, 2006

Weak Excuses: Shedding Some Light on the Enforcement of MGL 209A


I have spoken to many District Attorneys and Police about the persecution of innocent men by malicious women using Massachusetts General Law 209A. They openly admit that often this is true. Despite this they show no leniency or mercy in enforcement against their brothers. And everyone forgives law enforcement, including the men who have been their victims. Why: "because they were only doing their jobs."

You will note opposite is the picture of Adolph Eichman, Sturmbannfuhrer during the German Third Reich who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people in concentration camps. When he was brought to justice, and tried in Nuremburg for crimes against humanity his defense was "he was only following orders." In essence, this is the same excuse we permit our law enforcement who persecute innocent men and fathers every time a malicious woman wants to use MGL 209A to seek revenge or gain advantage in child custody disputes and/or the division of divorce assets.

So, should we vindicate Eichman or hold or own law enforcement responsible for crimes against humanity?



Saturday, February 18, 2006

Sexual Offender? Massachusetts School Officials, Press and Politicians Completely Out of Control?


I am going to diverge a little bit from my usual topic to a related one that I have received a lot of email about.

In Brockton Massachusetts, school officials reported to police and the District Attorney that a 6 year old boy had sexually harassed a female classmate. They suspended him from school for 3 days.

If that does not incite you - you have died and just not noticed it.

This has all the same symptoms of the problem we have with domestic violence laws. Officials are so politically correct that they can no longer exercise good judgment. Our legislators have again passed defective legislation against sexual harassment and then funded training to brainwash businesses, schools and institutions to over react and criminalize the most innocent and usual human behavior.

Now I am not in anyway suggesting that we sexually harass women, but this case of the Brockton boy should tell us that Massachusetts has gone too far! The liberal implementers of this legislation have completely distorted the once noble intent of the legislation so that it is un-recognizable. Only adults can introduce sex to a class of six year olds, so there is no one to blame but adults who want to always talk to these kids about sex.

Sexual harassment and domestic violence "experts" quoted in the newspapers and on TV embarrassed themselves because they were not honest. Experts should have stated the obvious: "Brockton School Officials made a big mistake." Instead the experts said things like: "well technically this was not sexual harassment, but it could be and we have to thank the Brockton School Officials for being diligent." Why the press even sought out these sexual harassment "experts" is unexplainable.

What is the message that we men should take away from this? If women don't like "it", what ever "it" is, then "it" is domestic violence or "it" is sexual harassment, take your pick. We have to protect ourselves by all becoming activists. Join a fathers group, join a group that supports men's issues, donate money, talk to your legislators and join in political protests. They have gone too far!


Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Equal Protection under the Law

What Law would treat both women equally?
Massachusetts General Law 209A of course!
Neither woman will be denied a 209A restraining order. What is worse? Both women will get the same protection.

With domestic violence resources spread out over the 40,000 restraining orders issued annually, there is little help for the relatively small number of truly abused woman. The abused woman has a different problem. She is truly in danger of being severely injured or killed by a very bad person who is likely a substance abuser, under educated and under or unemployed. These women rarely seek help and rarely get restraining orders. Restraining orders are as likely to get a woman in this situation killed as help her.

Protecting the abused woman requires alert, responsible and accountable judicial, law enforcement and social services systems that can intervene and take these abused woman out of their environment and away from their abuser. Financial need, emotional bonds, children, fear of the unknown, mental illness and other conditions keep these women in abusive relationships. Oppressing 40,000 innocent men with frivolous restraining orders every year does nothing to help the abused woman and drains the State's budgets of precious resources that could be used to comnat abuse.

Unfortunately for the battered women in Massachusetts, we have a system that is effective in helping the bitch accomplish her goals such as gaining an unfair advantage in divorce litigation, separating a father from his children or in general acting out vindictively to make certain that the divorced family will not thrive. MGL 209A is also effective in protecting judges and police chiefs from a critical press but fails to protect the battered woman.


Thursday, January 05, 2006

Collateral Damage



Collateral Damage refers to the accidental killing of innocent people in war time. Its a lot easier for the public to accept when the dead are described as "collateral damage."

There is another kind of Collateral Damage. That Collateral Damage is the deliberate destruction of fatherhood due to the indiscriminate and arbitrary use of MGL 209A restraining orders. There is no "body count" kept by Massachusetts officials of their destruction of loving father - child relationships due to fallacious restraining orders. More insidious than the separation of father and child is fathers are falsely shamed in the eyes of their children because the police and court seem to side with their mother. Most vindictive women use these fallacious restraining orders to manipulate their children's perceptions of their fathers with the intent to alienate father from child.

There is no accounting by the Massachusetts legislature, judiciary, Department of Public Safety and Department of Social Services that even attempts to measure the collateral damage much less measure its impact on our children.

The consequence, children are denied the opportunity to mature with the love of and relationship with their father. Children raised in single family homes have significantly greater odds of performing poorly in school, taking drugs and becoming unwed mothers. This is truly the collateral damage of MGL 209A.

Why is there is no measure of the unintended consequences of MGL 209A. It is for the same reason that the Pentagon does not release the count of Iraqi citizens killed. Because it would lead to a debate on whether or not the collateral damage was acceptable or not.

In this great crusade against domestic violence, how much collateral damage is too much?



Tuesday, September 13, 2005

MC 209A


In the last 10 years about 400,000 MGL 209A restraining orders have been issued in Massachusetts. To put that in perspective: According to the 2000 US Census there were 1.9 Million men ages 15 - 60 living in Massachusetts. 400,000 restraining orders represent 1 restraining order per 5 Massachusetts men have been served a 209A restraining order. Are we that bad? Should men be outlawed?

We should call these restraining orders MC209A's. Like McDonald's hamburgers Massachusetts efficiently produces a socially un-nourishing mass solution to domestic violence. The sad thing is that these restraining orders are used to keep innocent loving fathers from seeing their children. As a result we are raising many Massachusetts children on a single parent diet, malnourished them, by denying them a staple of human development, Fatherhood.

Glen Sacks wrote a column where he quoted Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, stating that restraining orders are doled out "like candy" to “virtually all who apply," and that "in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had."

The epidemic of false allegations continues, and like the crisis in New Orleans the cries for help have fallen on the deaf ears of local, state and federal government, and our fatherless children are the refugees of the decade.


Sunday, September 11, 2005

90% of the Restraining Orders are Served on Innocent Men


So don't believe me. This fact is directly from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts study Restraining Order Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism.

Here are the facts from the study:

In 1997 there were 37,998 MGL 209A restraining orders issued in Massachusetts. 5,746 of those served with restraining orders were arraigned for violating the restraining orders. Based on a statistical analysis 62% or 3,574 individuals were either found guilty or plead to sufficient facts.

These 3,574 individuals are those people who were accurately served restraining orders because by violating the restraining orders and being adjudicated responsible, they demonstrated that they lacked the emotional self control to commit a violent act. That the others served with restraining orders did not violate them demonstrates emotional self control proving their innocence.

Doing the simple math 90.6% of the restraining orders were served on innocent men. They should never have been served a restraining order in the first place.

Keep in mind Harry Stewart which is a case in point about how a harmless act constitutes a violation. Harry's ex-wife had been granted a restraining order against him from the Quincy court. The restraining order allowed for Harry to have visitation with his 5 year old son but did not allow him to get out of his car when he picked up and dropped off his son. On one occasion when his ex-wife did not answer the door to her son's ring, Harry left his car to open the door that his son was to small to open. Harry was found guilty of violating the restraining order and spent 6 months in prison. Based on this incidental information, one would conclude that my estimate of 90% is conservative and number of false restraining orders is even greater than 90%.

What should you take away from this? Most restraining orders are based on false allegations and exaggerations. The minority of violent men that actually pose a risk to women are easily identifiable by law enforcement and the judiciary. The judiciary and law enforcement do not need to ensnare tens of thousands of innocent men in order to protect women from domestic violence. MGL 209A is a reactive, poorly crafted piece of legislation with massive unintended consequences. The two greatest consequences are the violation of men's civil rights and the breakdown of the relationship between children and their fathers.

We have to make MGL 209a reform a priority. The courts and law enforcement need to focus their attention on the tiny minority of violent men without oppressing the majority of non-violent men who by circumstance of divorce, custody or revenge become victims of MGL 209A.


Wednesday, September 07, 2005

Dogs and Men and the 209A Abuse Prevention Law

Let me explain the problem with the MGL 209A Abuse Prevention Law that has led to an epedimic of over 40,000 restraining orders per year based on false allegations.

Mayor Menino and the Boston City Council passed a law restricting the ownership of Pitbulls. You can read it here: Boston Globe Pitbull Article


So why did they not apply this law to Golden Retrievers, Beagles, Poodles etc.? Because only the Pitbulls are a problem not these other breeds.

The MGL 209A Abuse Prevention law is applied indiscriminately to both the tiny minority of violent men and to the majority of honest hard working non-violent men.

So when the Massachusetts Judiciary and Law Enforcement apply the MGL 209A Abuse Prevention Law to a violent man, it is just like applying Mayor Menino's Pitbull Law to the Pitbull and its owner.

When Massachusetts Judiciary and Law Enforcement apply the 209A Abuse Prevention Law to innocent* men who have been charged with abuse under 209A by an unscrupulous divorce attorney or vindictive ex-wife or girlfriend it is like applying the Pitbull law to a gentle Golden Retriever or a Toy Poodle. It is cruel and it makes lawmakers, judges and law enforcerment look like witless fools.


* Based on a study by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commissioner of Probation entitled Restraining Order Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism 90 - 95% of the MGL 209A restraining orders are served on innocent non-violent men.




Saturday, September 03, 2005

What to Do When You Have Been Served a 209A restraining Order

There is an epidemic of false allegations resulting in many men being served MGL 209A restraining orders. Based on a study by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commissioner of Probation entitled Restraining Order Violators, Corrective Programming and Recidivism 5 - 10% of the restraining orders issued are accurately served upon abusive men. The remaining 90 - 95% are served on innocent men by women who seek advantage in a divorce or custody dispute or who just want to use a willing judicial and police enforcement system to get revenge.

Assuming that you are an innocent man that has just been served with a restraining order, consider the following actions that you should take to protect yourself.

First and foremost - Now that you are served with a restraining order you are now a DEFENDANT and you have a police record. This has occurred without adjudication of your guilt or innocence. You now have a permanent criminal record based on only another person's word. You are in tremendous danger of now being falsely arrested. There are provisions in the restraining order that restrain your relationship with the woman plaintiff who has perjured herself to the court in order to obtain the restraining order against you. Read this restraining order carefully. Among the standard provisions, you are to stay a certain distance from the plaintiff. Do not take any risks, avoid this woman at all costs. If you don't you will be arrested and arraigned on criminal charges. Men have been arrested for driving past the home of the woman plaintiff. And do not communicate with this woman. Not by any means. The caller ID of your home, office or cell phone number on her phone is enough to get you arrested. And you can't ask someone to communicate for you, no matter how dire the need is to communicate. You will be arrested. The restraining orders typically expire in a year if they are not renewed. You might think that there are reasonable exceptions. Understand that the woman plaintiff, judges and police are not reasonable people. If you are not careful you will have a felony charge for violating a restraining order on your criminal record.

Often the restraining orders are modified to allow for visitation of children. These are often a trap. Thousands of men have been falsely arrested during the exchange of their children. My personal advice, don't see your children during the duration of the restraining order. I know that this sounds extreme, but when you have some experience you will understand that the Massachusetts judiciary and police are completely out of control on domestic violence matters. But if you must see your children, have the restraining order modified so that you exchange the children in a very public place such as the children's department of the library, or in the lobby of the police station. Take great care. A child repeating something you told him or her to your ex-wife can constitute a violation of the "do not communicate" provision of your restraining order and result in your arrest.

You should not underestimate how much danger you are in. There is precedent in the case of Commonwealth v. Andres Jacobsen 419 Mass. 269; 644 N.E.2d 213, that "due process" is not necessary prior to arresting you for violating the restraining order. To be specific this means that the police can arrest you for violating the restraining order, based only on the woman plaintiff's word without a judges warrant, evidence, witnesses or any other proof what so ever.

The Violence Against Women Act VAWA has provided billions of dollars to fund special police training, special police and special advocates for women. As a result, there is a whole system of government employees paid to take the woman's side in these matters. No one - including the judge is paid to protect you. Furthermore, organizations formed as 501C3 entities get VAWA grants to "educate" police, judges, politicians and the press about domestic violence. As a result of VAWA a huge domestic violence industry has been created that has produced defective legislation such as MGL 209A and the zealous application and enforcement of these laws without consideration of a man's guilt or innocence. If you want more background take a look at one of my other postings While We Were Sleeping You Won't Believe What They Did

Don't fall for the biggest trap. The woman plaintiff who has perjured herself to obtain a restraining order against you may invite you to meet with her and might even do so in a seductive manner. Do not accept this invitation. Only a judge can remove the restraining order. Don't set yourself up to be arrested. If she wants to see you she should go to court and tell the judge that she wants the restraining order vacated. Keep in mind, what you thought was a romantic evening could result in your rape conviction based on the genetic material that you left behind. A restraining order plus a positive DNA test of your sperm will result in your imprisonment no matter how romantic you thought the evening was.


Thursday, September 01, 2005

Massachusetts District Court Judge Aptitude Test


Finally, here it is! A definitive Aptitude Test to determine if you should be a Massachusetts District Court Judge

The test is simple. Just look at the pictures above of a Pitbull and a Toy Poodle and answer the question below.

Question: After looking at the two pictures above, pick the answer a, b or c that best describes how these pictures make you feel.

a.) I'm glad that the Pitbull has a muzzle because this breed is prone to violent behavior. But it is strange that the Toy Poodle has a muzzle on because it is a gentle breed and a very unlikely animal to exhibit violent behavior.

b.) I'll shoot either animal if someone in authority tells me to, though I will regret it.

c.) Either dog could do immeasurable harm which could result in my losing my cushy job, I should serve them both with Chapter 209A Restraining Orders right away.

Answers: If you answered a.) you are not qualified to be a Massachusetts District Court Judge, but you should congratulate youself with your balanced and perceptive approach to problem solving. If you answered b.) you are not qualified to be a judge but you are a very good candidate for the police force because you will not lose any sleep over the many unjust Chapter 209A restraining orders that you serve on innocent men and the many restraining order violations based on false allegations you enforce. If you answered c.) you should show up your nearest District Court immediatly, pick up your black robe and stack of Chapter 209A restraining orders and go to work.



Monday, July 25, 2005

While We Were Sleeping You Won't Believe What They Did


While all you men out there were working hard and sleeping fitfully the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law known as MGL 209A Abuse Prevention. It was a typical action by the "Boys and Girls" on Beacon Hill who will do anything to be elected. MGL 209A is supposed to protect women from domestic violence. It does not. MGL 209A has not prevented one crazy person from killing a woman.
  • Here is what MGL 209A is useful for:

    MGL 209A is very useful to the wife's divorce attorney to force the husband to vacate his home and prevent him from seeing his children.

    MGL 209A is very useful for vindictive ex-wives and ex-girl friends to use a willing court system and the police to harass innocent men.

    MGL 209A employs a huge payroll of politically active state employees and their relatives who would otherwise be unemployed.

    You can read the law in its entirety here:
    http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/MGL/gl-209A-toc.htm . I warn you though, reading this law may make you uncomfortable being alone with a woman.


The really scarey part is the legislature passed this law, and the courts and police enforce it. It is amazing what you can get people to do when they have fat stomachs and fat pensions.

I will try to cut to the chase about this inferior piece of legislation.

What the law says is a woman is being abused if any one of the following conditions is true: someone is physically harming her, she is forced to have involuntary sex or she is "afraid".

The gotcha is "afraid." If a woman you know goes before a judge or to the police station and says "I'm afraid" she is given a 209A restraining order against you. If you live with her you are forced to vacate your home. She does not have to prove a thing, in fact the judges guidelines specifically state that no one in the court system should " attempt to "screen out" complaints or investigate the accuracy of allegations. Nor should they challenge a plaintiff's motives or intent[.]"

A woman with a restraining order is a problem. First of all if she is one of the tiny minority that is at risk of being attacked by someone she knows, the courts and the police have set her up to believe that she is protected by the restraining order. This is a woman in real danger because a piece of paper signed by a judge does not protect a woman from a crazy person. What is more likely is that the basis for the restraining order is either in divorce or child-custody litigation or the desire for revenge.

Lets take a look at the divorce motivation. With this simple procedure, don't miss the magic of this guys, the woman goes to court and says "I'm afraid" to the judge. Now the judge is also "afraid." Please be sympathetic to the poor judges. They have cushy part time jobs that pay them about $120,000 per year plus benefits, plus a fat retirement. Now if they were to make a mistake and not issue a 209A retraining order to a woman who was later killed they could loose this cushy job. On the other hand, if the judge grants a 209A retraining order and the woman is killed, he gets to keep his cushy job. Needless to say, the fearful judge grants the restraining order to the fearful woman and the police come to your house and force you to leave. You of course have the right to a hearing before a judge, but of course, given how "fearful" the judge and the woman are you have no chance to fight this restraining order. In the best case, under police supervision, you will be allowed to return to your home to get your clothes.

Now the restraining order is only the first salvo in the divorce battle. Now you get to fight for the underlying economic value of you house and to see your children. Meanwhile you are paying for your and your significant other or wife's attorney at a minimum of $250 per hour per attorney. But no one is sympathetic because you are a violent person and after all who is going to complain about a couple of divorce attorneys taking advantage of the situation, the judge who is an attorney, the legislature comprised of mainly attorneys?

By the way did I mention, you are now on the violent offenders registry. When you get stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer is alerted that you are a violent person. Furthermore, with a 209A restraining order you are less likely to be meet the court's bail criteria should you be charged with a crime.

For completeness, lets take the case of the former significant other, wife or girlfriend who just wants to bust your balls. The courts and the police are there to help her. This 209A restraining order will have a number of provision such as "you are to stay 100 yards away", "you may not communicate", etc. If you violate these terms, you will be criminally charged and will face criminal prosecution. The really sick and sordid part of this is that the woman who possesses a 209A can claim that you violated the 209A and without evidence or due process the police will arrest you. This is very dangerous for you because the police get a natural adrenalin release when they arrest someone. The good cops get it because they are afraid, and the sick cops get it because they get off on dominating you. The cops who arrest you can misinterpret your abject fear while taking you into custody and hurt you.

You can read more about the injustice of these laws here in an article from Salon: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/index.html

Well boys, this is it for your introduction to MGL209A. You should be afraid, very very afraid. No one will hear your scream.



Monday, July 18, 2005

What do Judges Want from MGL 209A: Its not what you think


We don't listen to much of what we hear. The reason is our brains often filter out the completely stupid and inane things said to us.

Recently I was speaking with a Massachusetts State official. During the conversation I explained the absurdity of the State's domestic violence laws. In particular I mentioned that judges rarely if every turn down a woman's (plaintiff's) request for a restraining order no matter how absurd her request and no matter how strong the man's (the defendant's) defense.

Unfortunately when this official responded to me, my brain was not protecting me and did not filter out his absurd response. He said: "The reason that Judges grant so many frivolous restraining orders is they do not want to take the risk that one day in their long careers a woman who he has denied a restraining order will get killed by her domestic partner." And I thought about this and my head hurt. I responded "So judges want all woman killed by domestic partners to have a restraining order so that they will be protected from criticism."

That's it in a nut shell folks. Judges first priority is to protect themselves with a restraining order because they know that restraining orders don't protect women who are truly in danger. Massachusetts judges would rather protect themselves then speak out and act out against the system of restraining orders that is regularly abused by vindictive women, which systematically oppresses men, alienates fathers from their children and does not protect the women who are truly in danger from the tiny minority of violent men.


Monday, July 11, 2005

Massachusetts State Senator Richard R.Tisei Sponsors Anti Father Bill SB1050

This is an urgent request to the voters of Malden, Melrose, Reading, Stoneham and Wakefield who elected Tisei to reign him in. Tiseu has sponsored a modification to MGL209A under Senate Bill SB1050, "An Act Relative to Abuse Prevention" that is certain to cause much acrimony and will not reduce the incidents of domestic violence.

The act is short and sweet and you can read it here: Senate Bill SB 1050.

The result of this legislation will be every time that the police are called during a "domestic" situation one member of the couple MUST be arrested. This bill will guarantee that every time the police are called into a domestic situation the male partner in the relationship will be arrested.

If the police arrive and find an abused woman, arresting the male partner is a good outcome. There is the "unintended consequence" though when the police are called during a loud verbal argument. Yes, while these loud, emotional non-violent arguments are not politically correct, normal people occasionally have them due to stress, anxiety, depression etc. Without regard to the professional opinion of the police, they will have to arrest someone, and that someone will be the male partner or husband.

Let's consider one of the "unintended consequences" of arresting an innocent man, because the couple has had a loud non-violent argument. Lets say the man arrested has been arrested in front of his children. Not only is this traumatic for both father and child, it puts the police on the side of the mother and alienates the children.

Let's consider another "unintended consequence." After an argument, couples tend to forgive and forget. The experience of being handcuffed, removed from his home, locked in a cell and charged with criminal charges does not make a man more conciliatory.

Now, one more "unintended consequence": This couple will live under the weight of needless criminal prosecution. First we have the arraignment , then the pretrial conference and then the trial. If the man is poorly represented, he most likely will be coerced into a batters program and will be forced to admit that he is a batter and he will have a record. If he is well represented he will be $5,000 or $10,000 poorer but the matter will most likely be dismissed.

Now Jane Doe and NOW would condone this because verbal abuse is abuse and no one should ever yell at any one else. And they would also say that such invasions on people privacy and infringement on peoples constitutional rights is justified.

This is a rediculous waste of police and judicial resources. We should make more laws that make the police and judiciary accountable for arresting, incarcerating and rehabilitating the bad guy. Lets focus all the resources on clearly targeting the real abusers, not politically incorrect loud, rude, emotional normal people.

As to Senator Tisei, he has become too comfortable in his position if he is proposing rediculous legislation like this without consideration of its uninteneded consequences.





How Can We Lose When We Are So Sincere



In order to improve the rights of fathers and to end the regular oppression of men under MGL 209A we men have to change the Political Will of Massachusetts. Political Will has nothing to do with fairness, being right or being sincere.

We Charlie Brown's have had the football pulled away from us too many times. The reason: nobody is interested in making Lucy hold the ball.

Until we can find a way to present the laws and rights we want in a way that makes Massachusetts legislators need to support us and vote for new laws we will experience the continued erosion of father's rights and and our continued oppression based on false allegations using Massachusetts General Law 209A Abuse Prevention.

Our Massachusetts
State Representatives and Senators have really cushy jobs to which we elect them. Most of these people have full time employment outside of their Massachusetts employment. Many are attorneys. We pay them over $70,000 per year, they get full benefits and in retirement they get 80% of their highest salary plus medical benefits. They also get very special benefits from their election campaign funds.

We will have the Political Will to change our lives when our Representatives and Senators wake up every morning and believe that we men and fathers are critical to their re-election. If they don't they will continue to ignore us.



Sunday, July 10, 2005

Is Life Improving? Why Jane Doe is Bad at Math


With all due respect to the women harmed or murdered due to domestic violence, the approach taken by the State of Massachusetts and women's groups reminds me of the very abused women they seek to help who remain in abusive relationships year after year. The State of Massachusetts, women's groups and the abused women don't ask the question "Is life improving." Jane Doe provides a few analyses of increasing rates of domestic violence that are well done. But none of the statistics are presented such that we can conclude specific accountability of law enforcement and social services agencies or pinpoint specific programs or social or geographic segments that deserve attention. We can only conclude that more women are being injured and killed by more men.

Take a look at the list of unfortunate women killed last year due to domestic violence from the
Boston Globe Editorial on 12/31/2004 posted on the Jane Doe website. Included prominently in this list is the quote "state funding for domestic violence services have been cut by $3.7 million from fiscal years 2001 to 2005." My bet is if the budget were doubled, the 2005 list would not be much different. Anyone remember the $3.4 Billion Central Artery project that has cost more than $15 Billion and is still not complete and nobody in state government has been held accountable and fired? Stating that there is not enough money is easier than stating there is not enough results. Though if Chapter 209A was rescinded and the money was reallocated and legislators passed new laws making police chiefs, judges and social workers accountable you would see a big drop in domestic violence and a shorter list every December 31st on the Globe's editorial page. And fewer innocent men would mistakenly get caught in the net of anti-domestic violence like they are today under MGL209a.

Change the laws, change the budgets, replace judges, police chiefs, social workers, and if you are an abused woman change your man.

If Massachusetts objectively measured domestic violence on a court district and town basis and held Judges, Police Chiefs and Social Services heads accountable Massachusetts and Jane Doe would see a decrease in the annual list of murdered women.

Given the choice of accountability of Judges, Police Chiefs and Social Services Heads or more domestic violence our Massachusetts legislators and political leaders would rather have more domestic violence and more innocent non-violent men denied their rights of fatherhood under Chapter 209A.

Rush the Wire


Friday, January 07, 2005

They have the Bomb
I am not talking about North Korea or Iran. Tonight the message is short but not sweet.
Every time we men try to get ahead as fathers or in our independent post divorce lives, the unscrupulous divorce lawyers or vindictive ex-wives drop the Chapter 209A Restraining Order Bomb on us.

All you idealistic hopeful newly divorced young fathers with young children that you are sincerely hoping to parent, unless the 209A Bomb can be neutralized, you can just forget about it.

I have had many years of experience at this. All our most sincere efforts to seek justice and fairness are obliterated by the Bomb. When our ex-wives or their lawyers attack us with Chapter 209A it is like the United States attacking a third world country with Nuclear bombs. We are defenseless.

My advice: Stop the Bomb or give up and find a new woman (preferably in a more father friendly state than Massachusetts) and start a new family and start a new life. Otherwise you will spend a frustrating life trying to overcome Chapter 209A so that you can connect with your children. Then before you know it, your children are grown, you never had a satisfying relationship with them due to false allegations of domestic violence, you are too old to have children and you have nothing but painful memories to look back on.

Stop the Bomb


Wednesday, January 05, 2005

MGL Chapter 209A = Man Burka

The concept behind the Islamic Burka is that all women should be covered from head to foot so that they are not attractive to men other than their husbands. In order to prevent infidelity the men in power force the women to wear Burkas. Women who do not abide are beaten.

Example The Burka is like the Chapter 209A Restraining Orders. The principal is that a few men will abuse women, so to prevent this all male residents of Massachusetts are oppressed at the whim of any woman and this oppression is enforced by the courts and the police.

The concept is a simple one. When two armed policemen come to your home and serve you with a Chapter 209A Restraining Order and force you to vacate your home it is a shock. You are now a Defendant and you need to show up in District Court for a "hearing." I don't know why they call it a "hearing" because a "hearing" usually implies a determination, in other words the possibility of one of two outcomes. In the case of a Chapter 209A Restraining Order Hearing there is only one outcome, the Judge does not do any hearing, he commands you, the defendant to abide by the Restraining Order or go to jail. So you take the day off from work for a non-hearing where the outcome is always a one year or greater sentence to a restraining order.

This experience is like getting punched in the nose. It smarts, and it intimidates you. That is the purpose: to intimidate you, a down and dirty demonstration of the power of the court and the physical force of an armed police force.

The experience also is intended to embarrasses you. You don't want to talk about this injustice to your friends and co-workers because this experience of being treated like a criminal, makes you feel guilty. This is why the 40,000 men served with 209A Restraining Orders every year do not protest so loudly that the legislature repeals this oppressive law.

And that is how we have had one form or another of this oppressive anti-men, anti-father law since the 1970's. Generation after generation of fathers have faced this situation with the hope of co-parenting their children or the hope of changing this law so that they can parent their children only to find that they have grown old and failed.

And I have witnessed men so disoriented by this Chapter 209A Restraining Order "Punch in the Nose" that they forgive the police and judges, excusing them with "they were only doing their job." This is the wrong response. You should be outraged. You should never, ever, ever forgive anyone involved in systematic persecution. If you have any opportunity to express your outrage over yours or anyone you know being frivolously served with an unjust restraining order you should. If you socialize with Policemen, District Attorneys or Judges tell them that you don't respect their passive cooperation with this unjust law. Tell them that "I was only following orders" was not a defense for the Nazi's either in the Nurenburg War Criminal Tribunal or before God. We should shun them and make them feel like outcasts.



Monday, January 03, 2005

Massachusetts - State of Denial

The Chapter 209A Abuse Prevention Law is on the books because few people can articulate why. It seemed like the politically correct thing to do at the time.

Opposing Chapeter 209A Abuse Prevention does not mean that you are for domestic violence and
misogynistic. It just means that you have recognized this law, oppresses men, breaks up families and drains budgetary resources from the real problem of protecting women from domestic abuse. Massachusetts Legislators, District Court Judges and Law Enforcement Officers are all in denial about Chapter 209A. A 209A restraining order, a piece of yellow paper does not protect a woman from a crazy person.

To make matters worse there are no good statistics that prove that 209A restraining orders reduce domestic violence. With little more than anecdotal information to rely on, Politicians, Judges and Law Enforcement Officers cling to this law in their advanced state of denial. This is because they are psychologically justifying the thousands of innocent family men they have wrongly oppressed and persecuted and the abused women they have not helped.

So lets get serious for a minute. The way to reduce domestic violence is to redirect the money consumed by the incredibly ineffective Chapter 209A bureaucracy into protecting the few women who are in danger. It is also necessary to keep accurate statistics on a town and court district basis so that we can hold police chiefs, judges and social service agency heads accountable for reducing domestic violence.

In summary, Massachusetts Legislators, Judges and Law Enforcement Officers are in denial about the ineffectiveness of Chapter 209A. Legislators are afraid to tackle this issue and appose Chapter 209a because it is supported by many well funded women's groups. Legislators are afraid to try explain that 209A opposition is not support for domestic violence or anti-woman. They are afraid to say a new approach is needed.

So we are back to the issue of being afraid. The last time we were discussing the topic of being afraid it was the Judges being afraid to lose their cushy jobs. No we are talking about the politicians who are afraid of facing this because they are afraid of not getting voted back into office. Our legislators have really good part time jobs that they do not want to lose. The consequences of the politicians' cowardice: battered and murdered women.


Sunday, January 02, 2005

Just When You Thought It Could Not Get Worse

If you have a penis and have had a relationship with a woman and live in Massachusetts you are in terrible danger!

To sum up my earlier post: The woman in your life needs only to go to court or to the police station and say that she is "afraid" of you and she will be granted a 209A restraining order and you will be forced to vacate your home, you then are put on a database of violent offenders and you must stay away and not communicate with the this woman for a period of time, usually for a year but arbitrarily it can be for a life time. If you violate this restraining order you will be indited and tried as a criminal.



So after some consideration, you conclude that this woman is not worth going to prison for and you conclude that you can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding her. You should be safe right? Wrong! You forgot, you live in Massachusetts.

This woman can go to the police on a whim and say that you violated the 209A restraining order. According to Commonwealth vs. Andres W. Jacobsen 419 Mass. 269; 644 N.E.2d 213; 1995 Mass. The police can arrest you without a warrant. What this means is that there is no
"due process", in other words, the police can decide without evidence and without the concurrence of a judge and only relying on this woman's testimony to arrest you, charge you with a crime, to which you will have to defend yourself.

Doesn't it make you wonder guys, if the Massachusetts Supreme Court isn't trying to induce you into one of their same sex marriages?



This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?