Thursday, January 31, 2008

New Trend In Marriage Dissolutions: Collaborative Divorces

"A lawyer is never entirely comfortable with a friendly divorce, anymore than a good mortician wants to finish his job and then have the patient sit up on the table."
--Jean Kerr

Imagine a world without messy divorce litigation.

The couple calling it quits would agree to separate based on the mutual agreement of their attorneys. The attorneys would agree to negotiate amicably or drop out of the case, and expert witnesses would be neutral, mutually agreed upon and paid for by both sides.

Sound like a far-fetched idea? It is already here and being touted by Florida's Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina as a kinder, gentler way to handle a divorce. The judge last month signed an administrative order authorizing the collaborative model of family law to be used in Miami-Dade Circuit Court.

The model works like this: if a couple wants a divorce, the husband and wife go to different attorneys who are designated as collaborative lawyers. Working together, the lawyers agree on a neutral set of experts, and the lawyers come to an agreement on the value of the marital assets.

In a divorce, "the argument is over what people make," noted Administrative Judge Joel H. Brown of the Family Division. With both parties attempting to mutually disclose financial information, the collaborative method "totally de-escalates the emotional impact because it's not adversarial," he said. Read the whole article.

Collaborative divorce. The term sounds like an oxymoron in a culture steeped in high-cost, high-conflict breakups.

Yet many couples are embracing the approach,recently endorsed by the American Bar Association, as part of a broader quest tofind more civilized, efficient ways to end a marriage. Do-it-yourself divorces and mediation also are popular options.

Lawyers by the thousands want to be part of the trend.

"Most of us had that moment where we realize the adversarial process is so damaging for our clients — and there's a recognition that we can do better," said Talia Katz, a former divorce lawyer who is executive director of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals.

Katz said the academy, just eight years old, now has 3,000 members, mostly lawyers but also financial planners and other professionals. She estimates that 20,000 attorneys have received training in collaborative law, and groups promoting the practice are active nationwide. Read more….


* DivorceNet - Three Avenues to Divorce
* Collaborative Divorces On Rise
Save Your Pocket Book And Your Sanity


* The Social Health of Marriage in America for year 2004. Among those men in the report, 53% said they were not interested in getting married anytime soon — the marriage delayers. That figure alone is cause for concern. But this is the statistic that every American who wants to strengthen and protect marriage should be worried about: 22% of the men said they had absolutely no interest in
finding their Truly Beloved. The report described these guys as "hardcore marriage avoiders." When almost one-quarter of single men in their prime courting years — that's two million potential husbands — declare a Marriage Strike, we're facing an unprecedented social crisis.

*The Marriage Strike from the Perceptions vs. Reality Blog

* Newspaper Wrings Hands Over Abused Pets While Ignoring Lack of Services for
Abused Men


* It's hard to get rid of a bad judge,
* Sudden Divorce Syndrome – excellent article.

Be sure to visit thesesites:

Participate in our Alimony forum discussion group:

Join the Alliance ForFreedom From Alimony, Inc. to support the fight to abolish alimony.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Stop The Wars Between The Sexes

“I guess the only way to stop divorce is to stop marriage.”
--Will Rogers

Whether realize it or not, divorce is a war in which neither side can win!!! There are no victors among the main combatants in this war….only losers.

Only the sponsors of this war---the legal industry---will reap the rewards of the spouses struggle between themselves.

Waging war can be no more successful than the rim of a wheel fighting against the spokes and trying to break apart from the wheel to be independent of the spokes. One cannot operate without the other. It defeats the plan of nature and the inter-relationship of the Yin and the Yang. (See
definition by
clicking here.

The Yin and the Yang are inseparable and each one defines the other just as the night defines the day. If there were an absence of night or day, how would we know that the other even existed?

Governmental interference has contributed to the fallacy that the rim can operate independent of the spokes by facilitating the process. They do this by allowing the rim to separate from the spokes through a dissolution procedure while requiring the spokes to continue to provide support "known as "alimony" for the rim, frequently on a lifetime basis. This is an illusory solution to an ill-conceived concept called “No Fault Divorce.”

No fault divorce might have solved the problems for a few unfortunates marriages, but in the long run, the far reaching effects of the resulting "marriage strike" are resulting in the destruction of the institution of marriage in America not to mention being a multi-billion dollar cash cow for the legal industry. More on these subjects can be found in earlier posts.

Wars result in casualties. Finances are one of the casualties, but there are others. Some divorces and breakups are so traumatic to some that they incite some spouses to acts of violence…even homicide. Bureau of Justice lists statistics on homicide by "intimates" (ex-spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend).

The combatants are not the only casualties of this war. Whether you realize it or not, the children of the warring spouses comprise additional major collateral damage leading to the further destruction of the future generations of married couples and families.

“Divorce is most likely to wreak havoc when spouses declare war on each other and draft their kids.” --Constance Ahrons.

For now, this brief post concerns itself with a plea to all marriedcouples to face your responsibilities and work together, as adults should. Learnto work out the problems in marriage that most couples face rather than seekingshelter in a ruinous and destructive accommodation called no-fault divorce. Doing so begins the “war” in which neither side can win and the only one to benefit will be the legal industry facilitators, proponents, and supporters of this war.

If the situation exists where you both don’t feel you want to stay married, but do not want to go to war with each other, an alternative to the undesirable adversarial process is called a "Collaborative Divorce." For certain couples who would like a peaceful, no-court, less
expensive, asset saving divorce, it would be definitely worth looking into. Check out the following:

Locations of Collaborative Professionals
International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. Information on the collaborative process.

Collaborative Divorce Net


* Fairy tales for single chicks

* The Perceptions Reality Blog seems to sum up the position of men, in the
marriage strike, in a recent post. Click here.


* Man must pay alimony to wife despite her domestic partnership


* India’s Instant Divorce

* Moms Can Be Deadbeats, Too." Fox News article.

Be sure to visit these sites:

Participate in our Forum discussion group:

Join the Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. to support the fight to abolish alimony.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Post Dissolution Economics

"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language.
Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
--George Carlin

The links below will provide evidence that there are myths and false beliefs generated by feminists that women are the victims and suffer losses in marriage and therefore need to be protected with outdated laws that serve no other purpose than to violate the constitutional rights of men and impose un-necessary financial hardships on them, frequently for the remainder of their lives.

It is rare, in most articles discussing the losses suffered in dissolution, that mention is made of the equitable distribution of marital assets, home, pension plans and the like that the wife receives. Frequently these distributions are quite sizeable and are in addition to alimony and child support payments. It is hard to believe that there is much loss suffered by the wife in these instances.

The equitable distribution is meant to equalize the wealth accumulation resulting from the efforts of both parties during the marriage. That part going to the wife, which is frequently a larger portion of the split, is her compensation for her contributions to the marriage and loss of career opportunities.

In agreeing to be married, there is an implied consent that she understands the risks of getting married and loss of career opportunities (if child-care is necessary) and that she willingly agrees to accept that risk. No one is forcing or coercing her into a marriage. It is a voluntary agreement on her part resulting from a meeting of the minds of both parties. What she receives at the end of the marriage is payment for her share of the contribution to the marriage. She should be entitled to no more or no less.

We know how the mainstream media and such women’s groups as NOW demonize men by placing false labels and belittling titles of dubious credibility such as deadbeat dads, women and child abusers, domestic violence perpetrators, sexual abuse, etc. ad nauseum, myths propagated with the use of false statistics, misinformation, stereotypes, and partial information.

This demonization has lead to a misandrist mindset against men that has contributed to their harsh treatment in court and judge’s propensity to incarcerate them on unproven allegations. The statistically high rate of incarceration frequently is a result of the economic hardships on men resulting from the inequitable and excessive burdens of support payments as seen below.

Even though the articles below refer to child support, you can normally conclude that alimony support payments are involved as it is rare that men are paying child support and not paying alimony at the same time.

It’s time these myths were dispelled!


One of the reasons for the dramatic increases in child support guidelines over 20 years is the pervasive and mistaken notion that divorced fathers gain economically from divorce while women suffer from it. The myth stems from a now-discredited study conducted over two decades ago by feminist Lenore Weitzman, author of the 1985 book The Divorce Revolution. Weitzman concluded that women's standard of living after divorce dropped by three quarters while men's rose over 40%. The media trumpeted her research–some have called it one of the most widely reported studies in media history–and it led to sharp increases in child support guidelines. However, years later Weitzman was forced to admit that her findings were vastly overstated, due to a huge mathematical error. Read the whole article:

MSNBC Pushes Myth That in Divorce, Men Gain and Women Lose


But what we’re about to tell you is not the usual story about those deadbeat dads. Because it turns out that much of what we’ve heard about them is distorted.

The distortion began with US Census data that said half of divorced fathers don’t pay all the child support they owe and with this book written by sociologist Lenore Weitzman. It’s claim that men prosper after divorce while women and children suffer terribly got lots of publicity. Read the whole article:

Sanford Braver on the Myth That Men Gain, Women Lose in Divorce


Leslie Kaufman of The New York Times wrote an article titled "When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy" (2/19/05). She addressed the issue of "child support arrears". An excerpt follows:

"About 70 percent of the debt is owed by men who earn $10,000 a year or less, or have no recorded wage earnings at all, according to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. Less than 4 percent is owed by men with incomes of more than $40,000."


The Myth of the Successful Child Support System

Kasie Hunt of The Associated Press (11/30/06) reported: "A record 7 million people or one in every 32 American adults were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department. Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday

On The Open Society Institute website, I found a very important study regarding crucial factors that affect successful community reintegration of ex-prisoners in Baltimore. One of the factors affecting success or failure post-release was finances. An excerpt from the Baltimore study follows:

"Finances: Sixty-two percent of respondents said they were in debt because of child support and other court-imposed fees, which created a significant obstacle as they tried to support themselves financially."

If people who are incarcerated and released cannot keep up with unrealistic demands for child support while they are in jail, this may contribute to their having to return to incarceration. How can they survive financially and support their families under these misguided policies? Chances are great that they will be returned to prison if they continue to fall behind on paying child support. Furthermore, once they have an incarceration record, finding employment will be more difficult.

The majority of these noncustodial parents are "deadbroke," not so-called "deadbeat." Many of them are in as equally dire financial straits as the custodial parents to whom they pay child support. This is not the picture that we see portrayed, for the most part, in mainstream media.

Of course, there are some parents who willfully and consciously refuse to support their children. This is wrong. Research shows that they are not in the majority.

I believe that, too frequently, when the system incarcerates or uses other punitive measures against allegedly "delinquent" child support payers, it is, in effect, punishing them merely for being poor, ill, or unemployed. As my colleagues, Murray Davis and Dianna Thompson, of the National Family Justice Association wrote, and I paraphrase, society holds noncustodial parents to an unattainable standard to never become unemployed, never become ill or disabled,[12] or to never get layed off, downsized, or outsourced in a poor economy. When they inevitably fail to live up to this unattainable standard, they are criminalized, stigmatized, and, too frequently, jailed.


* Woman Convicted in Husband's Acid Murder


* Men refuse marriage, women lie to save face.

* Men Are Brainwashed by “Bachelorism” Be sure to read the comments and click on the links in the comments.

* No Feminism Nazis. Lots of articles debunking feminists misandry.


* Move to impeach federal judge is a rarity


* Pamela Anderson Marries Guy Who Makes a Fraction of Her Income, Divorces Him 3 Months Later–and Demands Alimony!

* Marriage Statistics Not Gathered – What is the government trying to hide?


* The Experts of Divorce Get A Sizable Piece of the Action

* Will This Marriage Last? - Does Living Together Before Marriage Help the Odds?

Be sure to visit these sites: and

Join our Forum discussion group:

Join the Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. to support the fight to abolish alimony.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

The Rise Of Feminism And The Fall Of Civilization

"He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with evil." -- Thoreau

An interesting article recently passed my desk that was written by Dr. Charles E. Corry which I felt fit right in with the theme of this blog. For those of you caught up in the family law injustice system, I feel you will be able to readily identify with what he is saying.

Here is his article:

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 or 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

Ever expanding definitions of "domestic violence," "sexual assault," "rape", and "abuse" created a bonanza for prosecutors and judges. Begun by the War on Drugs in the 1970s, prosecutors found they were no longer bound by such outdated concepts as providing due process, establishing mens rea (gulity mind), and proving a crime was actually committed (actus reus). A simple claim by a woman, no matter how blatantly false, became sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Examples of prosecutorial excesses generated by lack of such restraints abound.

Perhaps the best current example is that of Mike Nifong in North Carolina and his prosecution of rape charges that he had to know were false. The books Dreams of Ada and John Grisham's The Innocent Man document convictions for murder of four innocent men in just the small town of Ada, Oklahoma by one obsessed district attorney. Another disgusting example is John "Chuck" Magera, state Dept. of Social Services attorney for South Carolina. Those are hardly exceptions of headline-seeking district attorneys.

And persecution extends to even the most petty acts. Men throwing crayons or a snowball find themselves arrested and prosecuted in the name of defending women against "abuse."

Prosecutors now measure their success by numbers of convictions, usually measured in plea bargains, no matter how petty or outrageous, rather than by how well they serve justice.

Family court: an antonym

In Taken Into Custody Dr. Baskerville documents in detail the sick, despicable, dangerous beast the "family courts" have become. Judges, who should be neutral arbiters of justice, have become the major support of divorce and DV industries whose objective is to entrap men by deceit, stealth, and surprise before they can mount a defense traditionally supplied by due process. Courts have abdicated their role in ensuring warrants were required before an arrest could be made, that prosecutors met their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that property rights were honored, and to ensure that the rights of children and families to live their own lives was protected.

Attorney David Heleniak has shown how domestic violence and family courts have become modern Star Chambers, where the proceedings are secret and virtually no defense is possible. As the Star Chamber did in England during the 16th and 17th centuries, modern DV and familiy courts have become a byword for unfair judicial proceedings. Dean Roscoe Pound once said: "the powers of the star chamber were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile courts and courts of domestic relations."

In many cases under the guise of "the best interest of the child," courts have permitted "child protective services" to become little more than a rubber stamp for legalized kidnapping of children.

There is no better place to lay the problems with the destruction of children, families, and marriage today than on the courthouse steps. And my condemnation scarcely scratches the surface of court corruption.

Torture: Abu Ghraib spreads across America

As her humanitarian work was usurped by redfems, Erin Pizzey presciently noted that "Any country that has tried to create a political solution to human problems has ended up with concentration camps and gulags." With a current prison population of about 2.2 million men and women, we have reached that point.

It is characteristic of the authoritarian agents required to maintain gulags that they resort to brutality and torture. As they are nothing more than "deadbeat dads" and "wife beaters" in the totalitarian view of their jailers, men are tortured and beaten with nightsticks, pepper-sprayed, punched, tasered, have the nerves in their hands damaged by improperly applied handcuffs, subjected to sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and put in stress positions familiar to anyone who saw the Abu Ghraib pictures from Iraq.

One method of torture we have not heard of in use within the United States is waterboarding. But that may simply be incomplete data.

Ilana Mercer documents many such incidents in her article Tasers 'R' Us. In December 2007 the City of Chicago, Illinois, paid four former death row inmates $20 million to settle claims they were tortured by Chicago police and wrongly convicted.

While we've heard convincing stories from men in jails all across America about all these forms of torture, the one most commonly used appears to be hypothermia. Many jails in the United States have a "cold cell" where additional air conditioning ducts are run with cold air blasting the inmates. Sometimes they simply turn down the thermostat or heat isn't provided. The temperature in these cells seems to be about 50° and prisoners have only their jump suits for warmth, as no blankets are provided. A single day observing DV court in El Paso County (Colorado Springs), Colorado, was sufficient to find one case of such treatment. Another case in Christian County, Missouri, was reported to me while writing this. The best documented case, however, is in Charleston, South Carolina, where David Bardes was kept in a "cold cell" for three days, April 3-5, 2006, and nearly died. His ordeal is documented in his book The Public Trust: Statement of Fact.

There is little recourse and the public largely does not believe it because, as far as they are concerned, men who are being put in cold cells, tasered, sprayed, and beaten by police "must have done something wrong" to have gained the attention of the police and the courts. However, the major crime the men who contact the Equal Justice Foundation are guilty of is being a father.

Who is John Galt?

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and George Orwell's 1984 seem eerily prescient in the new millennia. The names are changed but we have the endless war, the mindless demonization of an amorphous enemy, the ceaseless monitoring of citizens, the arbitrary detentions and torture, endless and meaningless government propaganda, men presumed guilty unless and until they can prove their innocence, secret courts, decisions based on emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason, the destruction of our basic industries, etc.

The same theme is taken up by Pat Buchanan in his new book Day of Reckoning and by Lou Dobbs in his new book Independents Day among other modern writers.

In addition, the destruction of the patriarchy, families, and marriage appears to be succeeding at a rate even the most rabid redfem hardly dared dream of. The results of the alliance of the DV and divorce industry can be seen in any inner city ghetto as DV laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities. For blacks "domestic violence" has become the new Jim Crow and the effects of family breakdown are glaringly evident in black communities.

Regardless of what good intentions feminists of the 1960s had, it has become a form of public welfare in which these looters obtain billions in public funds for the clear, if unstated, purpose of destroying children, men, and families. As a result, modern feminism has evolved two types of common, and readily recognizable, types of women:

Susie Looter: Susie is typically a lawyer, or in some other parasitic profession like victim's advocate (note that only women are "victims"), social worker (CPS, CSE, or the like), but not a very good one. She has little knowledge of the law but an acid tongue and many cronies in the court. Susie probably has a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology, psychology, or, god forbid, women's studies. But it is certain she doesn't have any formal training in deductive, inductive, or symbolic logic, which are outdated methods of the patriarchy and the antithesis of her existence. And while she constantly quotes statistics she has no training or experience with quantitative analysis. One constant with Susie is a desire to destroy the "patriarchy" that she claims oppresses and subjugates women. Like all zealots, any means of doing so are justified by her ideology. Men are going to pay for every real or imagined slight she has ever received.

Julie Moocher: In theory, Susie exists to serve the needs of Julie but, in practice, Susie is often Julie's worst enemy. Julie is divorced or a single mother with a couple of out-of-control kids of questionable paternity. She has probably shacked up with a number of men who are, of course, the cause of all her problems. If divorced she likely brought DV charges or got a restraining order against her ex, who is now unemployed and a "deadbeat dad" as a result. Commonly she has a substance abuse problem, alcohol, prescription or illegal drugs, which is someone else's fault, of course. On top of the substance abuse Julie is likely to have a personality disorder or other mental problems. However, the world owes her a living, an unquestioned presumption. But she has no education or experience and no interest in getting any. No matter what happens, or what she does, Julie is the "victim."

In the face of these conditions do you wonder why I think we have entered the realm of the surreal? And why am I asking: "Who is John Galt?" Because looters never have plans for the future, that would require logic and reason, and injure their feelings and emotions in the present. While the redfems are successfully destroying the patriarchy according to all available evidence, and supplanting it with matriarchies in our inner cities, I have pointed out that I can find no evidence that any matriarchy ever advanced beyond a Stone Age level of technology. Clearly the de facto matriarchies in our inner cities are rapidly regressing to that level but redfems will feed on the carcass of our patriarchal civilization until they have picked the bones clean. Then what? Throughout known history only patriarchal families have farmed, mined, built, and developed the technology on which our modern world rests.

I have no easy solutions and here I only outline the problem. My only defense against this darkness is to document it. The closest individual we have today to John Galt is Congressman Ron Paul. If his campaign succeeds a mighty burden will rest on him and I hope he can bear the burden of Atlas on his shoulders.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

About the author

Dr. Corry is a Fellow of the Geological Society of America and an internationally-known earth scientist whose biography has appeared in Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in America, Who's Who in Science and Engineering, among others, for ten years.

After service with 1st Marines he became involved with the early space program in 1960, doing preflight testing and failure analysis on Atlas and Centaur missiles, including all the Project Mercury birds. In 1965 he switched to oceanography and did research at both Scripps Institution in San Diego and Woods Hole Oceanographic on Cape Cod. He has also taught geophysics at university and worked as a research manager for a Fortune 500 company.

He has climbed high mountains, been shipwrecked and marooned on an unexplored desert island, ridden horseback through Utah, Arizona, and Colorado, among other adventures during his career.

His research on domestic violence resulted from the horrifying experience of watching his former wife, Theresa, go violently insane between 1995 and 1997. He began documenting the problems after being acquitted of DV charges she brought against him and two subsequent restraining orders were dismissed. She also stalked him for five years. That experience pushed him from an ivory tower into the DV script outlined above and the corruption of today's legal system.

Presently Dr. Corry is president and founding director of the Equal Justice Foundation.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.

Equal Justice Foundation
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820


* Fertility Rates and the War Against Marriage

* No I haven't got a wife/girlfriend, so what?!

* FOX New's Alan Colmes: Who Needs Air America?


* JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE COMMISSION: Judge faces misconduct charges

* Reprimand recommendation for Ziegler "No surprise"

* Lynch: Judge Coffey must resign

Be sure to visit these sites: and

Join our Forum discussion group:

Join the Alliance For Freedom From Alimony, Inc. to support the fight to abolish alimony.