Alleged NWO Rulers of the World 31 March 2005


All the skullduggery and highbrow crime protected by this sinister network were MASSIVE land,business and property theft is controlled by the New World Order MOB

Skull's Gallery of Alleged NWO Rulers of the World

Some researchers claim that the NWO has a definite pyramid structure, with one person at the top who is the 'boss of all bosses' to use a mafia expression. I'm not sold on the 'boss of all bosses' concept. I tend to guess that the NWO is a grab bag of usually cooperating, but often clashing mafias. Whatever the case, on this page I will list all the alleged freaks at the top of the NWO pryamid, to assist you in making up your own mind. Dig in!

Sir Evelyn Rothschild: New Head of the House of Rothschild
Nationality: French ... Well, actually Jewish
This dude is my personal favorite for the ruler of the world, if in fact there is such a single person.
The British and French Rothschild banking empires were recently united under this guy.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Nationality: Limey (if you don't count her German background)
I don't think anyone alleges that Her Right Inbred Retarded Majesty concerns herself with the actual running of the world, even if she is in fact the official head of the NWO. However, any 'power behind the throne' has to project his power through her.

Count Hans KlovenBach: Superior General of the Jesuits
Nationality: Dutch
Some researchers claim that the Jesuits were created as a sort of CIA for the Black Nobility of Italy at the time of the Reformation. The stated purpose of the Jesuits was to turn the tide of the Reformation, and reclaim protestant lands for the Pope.The head of the Jesuits is commonly refered to (by those who don't like him or his screwy Jesuits) as 'The Black Pope' for the alleged nasty things he and his Jesuits do. He's Black Nobility for sure, and as the (alleged) head of the intelligence service for the infamous Black Nobility, he may well indeed be the secret ruler of the world.
The Black Pope - Eric John Phelps

Sir Andrew Bertie: Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta
Nationality: Limey
This guy is the head of the 'official' Knights of Malta, the one the Pope recognizes. There are other 'Knights of Malta' organizations, but his is the official one. He is the first limey Grand Master in hundreds of years, and he is a cousin of Queen Elizabeth II. He is Black Nobility, for sure, and may just be the ruler of the world, the actual power behind the Pope, but I think he's a dark horse a best. But there is do doubt he is a NWO heavyweight for sure.
Official SMOM web site.

Pope John Paul II
Nationality: Polish (Some researchers claim his mother is Jewish!)
Just guessing, I'll say that if he is the official head of the NWO, the real power lays with some high mucky muck behind the throne, just like the case of Queen Elizabeth, if she is in fact the official ruler of the NWO.

Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Grand Master of Scotish Rite Freemasons in the UK
Prince Edward is included on this page because he is the Grand Master of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the British isles, which many assert is the most infamous of all the mason hocus pocus groups. As such, he may be the real power behind the British Monarchy. His Father was a brother of King Edward VIII, and was also the head of Scottish Rite Masonry in the UK before his 'mysterious' (snicker snicker) death. His daddy was prominent among those termed 'peace' advocates during WWII, or 'Nazi Sympathizers' if one has an less generous frame of mind. Daddy died in an airplane 'accident' (snicker snicker) during the war. Many assert he was actively involved in the Rudolf Hess affair, and that Hess was on the same ill-fated airplane. See the link below.
What Really happened to Rudolf Hess

The United Grand Lodge of England - Official Site

Edgar Bronfman: Top Banana of World Jewish Congress
Nationality: Canadian .... well, actually Jewish
This cat is so powerful that he can even shake down the Swiss Bankers. By the way, the WJC is not a 'congress,' but a rubber stamp collection of rent-a-shills controlled from the top down by puppet master Bronfman. The swag from the Swiss bank shakedown mostly disappearded into the expense accounts of Edgar and his band of merry men. It got so bad even the New York Times got all shook up. How Edgar Bronfman Persuaded Clinton to Pursue Non-Existant Claims

C. Fred Kleinknecht - Sovereign Grand Commander of all Scottish Rite Freemasons World-wide
Nationality: Unknown to webmaster at this time
The Scottish Rite Freemasons are the most numerous and the most infamous of all the masonic groups, especially in the UK where they are the most powerful, and this dude with the purple hat and big gong is their top banana. Proof that masons worship Lucifer, from the lips of Kleinknecht himself.
Here's some interesting facts about Kleinknecht that Texe Marrs dug up, the little-known masonic connection to NASA

The Campaigning Groups have been aware of a widespread conspiracy for some considerable time where certain business people, their accountants, solicitors and bank managers have been acting in an organised commercial crime ring, deliberately driving small businesses and individuals out of business in order to pick up their business assets, premises, homes etc up for a small pittance, often funded by Drug and other money obtained by the black market economy – For example, a property worth say £ 200,000 with a mortgage secured on it for say £ 60,000 could be picked up for say £ 65,000 post a foreclosure / repossession / bankruptcy situation !

We now urge all victims of conspiracies similar to the above to attend their local Banks to voice their concerns over their own situations and register their own complaints for financial compensation. Please take a copy of this email so that the unknowing staff can be brought up to speed and insist that the Bank personnel acknowledge your complaints in writing and so that their superiors are unable to try and dilute and fragmentise your complaint We also urge all complainers to email or write to us so that we can move forward in a joint and coordinated fashion.  

On receipt of your email or letter, we will send you a very simple questionnaire which will request from you details of your complaint together with bank and names of bank personnel who dealt with the matters etc so that a database can be formed to provide a bigger picture. ALL DETAILS provided to will be treated as extremely sensitive and confidential. We are fully aware that neither the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors scheme are working.  

Your complaint must be detailed including the names of the Bank personnel who have dealt with your former matters, relevant dates, what assets and property was lost etc. Remember to include all details of any bankruptcies and/or inflicted bad credit history ( leading to subsequent increased mortgage payments etc) that have resulted as a result of the Banks failing to protect the individual(s) from a conspiracy.  

Not only have some of the Banks been involved in this conspiracy but, the main Banks have been aware of these matters for some five years yet, failed to do anything about it resulting in information being withheld from the Stock Market resulting in shares subsequently being traded at an artificial high. As a result some Chief Executives have deliberately:  

DECEIVED their own Banks and Financial Institutions
DECEIVED their Banks Shareholders and
DECEIVED Consumers.   As a consequence, financial products linked to the Stock Market such as certain mortgages, savings plans, Insurance plans including endowments based on previous financial results may have been mass miss-sold to CONSUMERS AT LARGE.


The law states that Official Receivers or their ‘agents’ such as Trustees have no duty to protect the Bankrupt or his/her estate and merely have a DUTY to protect CREDITORS.   Again we urge consumers to report their situations to us at or write to us. Bankrupts who have lost assets such as premises need to take their complaints up with the Banks. However, where the individual has claimed to the Official Receiver or his ‘agents’ that the bankruptcy instigated is fraudulent, we now suggest that he or her contact their creditors and suggest that where they have been ‘duped’ into claiming a percentage of the proceeds said ‘pot’, to now claim their entire shortfall from the Insolvency Service. In the first instance, they should write to the individual area’s Official Receiver. Tell them not to be put off by claims that the Insolvency Service that they are not insured as they are covered under The Crown.


We are considering using the Freedom of Information Act to expose why the government can use draconian measures to convict benefit fraud which totalled £5.2 million last year while legal fraud by corrupt lawyers on legal aid is ignored and likely to be ten times that found at the very poorest end of society. They spend millions policing benefit fraud while ignoring completely legal fraud and the government need to be challenged for their selective bullying of the poorest in our society .

Benefit appeal panels consist mainly of lawyers who charge in excess of £60 for one A4 letter while they make decisions on a person on benefit who doesn't even get that amount to live on in a week.THAT SYSTEM IS OUTRAGEOUS AND HAS TO BE CHALLENGED


"benefit fraud dipped slightly to £5.2m"

Councils stockpile record £1bn as taxes rise

How your council fares

LOCAL authorities had record reserves of more than £1bn when they increased council tax by 4.4% last year, according to the national spending watchdog. The funds were equal to about £500 for every household. Tom McCabe, finance minister, said he wanted councils to maintain adequate reserves, but warned: "There is no case for unreasonably high ones." Opposition parties said voters could have been spared much of the pain of tax rises if councils had drawn down some reserves instead of raising extra income. They also said claims by councils that they were under-funded would in future ring hollow.

The figures are revealed today in the Accounts Commission's annual report on Scottish local government spending. It shows the 4.4% tax rise, which generated about £80m, was set at the close of a year in which reserves rose 25% to £1.05bn, the equivalent of 10% of all council spending. This was in spite of a warning from auditors the previous year that reserves were "high" after they rose 22% to £839m. The increase for 2004/05 took the average bill for a band D home from £1009 to £1053. The highest rise, of 9.8%, was in Moray, which also had the highest level of reserves. Other councils with high reserves were Dumfries & Galloway, Western Isles, and Inverclyde. South Lanarkshire had the lowest level of all 32 councils. The reserves included a day-to-day general fund, the most important when setting council tax, as well as dedicated funds for housing and investment.

Alasdair Morgan, the SNP's shadow finance spokesman, said the report had exposed the continued failure by councils to manage their reserves. "This time last year (the commission) called for action by councils to control money held in reserve. This new report shows that despite this warning, local authorities have failed to act. "Council tax payers need assurances that that they are not paying over the odds in tax increases for the money to then lie dormant in their local authority's bank account." Brian Monteith, Tory local government spokesman, said: "Council tax has soared by 55% under Labour and when water charges are added to the bill, band D property owners are faced with paying an exorbitant cost of £1400 a year." He said people were "entitled to ask why there are increases in council reserves when spending on housing is down, our roads remain in poor repair and council tax just keeps on rising". Mr McCabe said he agreed with the commission that councils must now produce clear policies on their reserves as part of "robust financial planning", and explain them to the public.

But the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities accused the commission of pursuing a "cheap headline". Pat Watters, Cosla president, said: "It is wrong to go with an all-Scotland figure – reserves and balances are something that should be treated on a case-by-case basis. They have obviously gone for the all-Scotland figure to give the media its billion-pound headline. Councils hold balances in accordance with local needs and a strategy for long-term investment." He pointed out that, in the mid-1990s, councils were criticised for having their reserves too low. "Yet again councils are damned if they do and damned if they don't." The commission report also highlighted a sharp rise in fraud. The number of cases rose 35% from 109 to 147, while the sums stolen rose almost four-fold, from £166,000 to £648,000. The cases were in addition to benefit fraud, which dipped slightly to £5.2m, or 0.35% of the £1.5bn paid out. The report concluded that councils had generally improved their stewardship of public funds, but needed to do more to improve performance.



ALBUQUERQUE, NM - According to federal reports, 159,000,000 million crimes were committed against Americans in the 12-year period ending in 2002. America, the greatest nation on earth is engaged in a scandalous and shameful undeclared war! If America is to be destroyed, that destruction will in all likelihood come from “homegrown terrorism” by its own citizens and non-citizen immigrants within-rather than the declared war on terror from outside our borders. Experience and history has taught us the possibility of that destruction is not so far fetched. There have been a number of forces within America that have set up a power base seemingly determined to destroy life in America as we have known it, either through evil, stupidity or by design!

Albuquerque, New Mexico legal Author Sammy Sorrell in his newly released 425-page book (Homegrown Terrorism, The Undeclared War Against Crime In America) offers some shocking revelations about homegrown terrorism. Sorrell says that the media focus upon “offshore terrorism” has taken the focus off the greatest threat America faces and that is “homegrown terrorism.” He points to the 350% increase in crime in America during the past 40 years that leaves behind unbelievable acts of barbarism that far exceed offshore terrorism and far exceeding the cost in loss of lives, with millions of brutal acts including murders, assaults, rape, robbery, child abuse, domestic violence and shallow graves of victims that dot the national landscape. Sorrell identifies the most feared terrorist in America as the DWI’s that have killed and maimed more innocent Americans than in all our wars combined. He says these are regulars of the revolving door justice system.

Although Sorrell details the reasons and the solutions for the huge crime increase in his book, he faults the revolving door criminal justice system and the dominant lawyer culture as the largest single contributing factor in the most dangerous war America has ever faced. Sorrell says high on the list of solutions to winning the war against homegrown terrorism is the immediate need for “legal justice reform”. He says the judicial system has virtually become the lawmaking body of the nation making their own laws and rules and their own methods of enforcing or not enforcing those laws. He says absent a massive national movement for legal justice reform, America faces a future of vigilante justice and anarchy. He cites recent courtroom violence as an example.

The book has been published in three formats; PDF E-book, CD and Soft Cover, all available on the Internet at or direct from the publisher at 800-505-6555. The author is available for speaking and media interviews call (505-797-2856) or (800-505-6555) marketing department. Free E-book review copy available to media and legal justice reform organizations.

Sammy Sorrell,
Contact Phone: 800-505-6555 or 505-797-2856
Web Address:


It's a good point you make about Husband bashing but I think many are arguing about the deeper issue... the one that really belies the disenfranchisement of men from their parental rights which is the same force that is depriving Terri of her right to live: the black robed thugs who are controlling every aspect of our lives and now it seems, of our deaths as well.

Until WE, the American people stop these bullies from terrorizing the schoolyard, we are going to watch them play with our rights as they choose. We are already in the pitiful position of watching them play with OUR ball while we helplessly watch through the bars of the fence that was designed to protect us: the constitution. It took a few good men to make it ...all it takes is a few more good ones to re-take it.


A Dream 24 March 2005

I had a dream the other night, I did not understand, There was a figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and tattered, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said: "We fought a revolution to secure our liberty, And we wrote the constitution as a shield from tyranny. For our future generations, this legacy we gave, In this the land of the free, and home of the brave, The freedom we scoured for you, we hoped you'd always keep.

But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep. Your freedom gone, your courage lost, you're no more than a slave In this land of the free and home of the brave. You buy ~`permits travel, and `permits" to own a gun, "Permits" to start a business, and "permits" to build a home, You live on land you believe to be your own, But you pay a yearly rent, just to keep a home.

Your children attend a school that doesn't educate, And your moral values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about news in a very biased press, And you pay a tax you do not owe to please the IRS Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold You have traded your wealth for paper, so your life car, be controlled.

You are just a number there's no family honor that you hold. You've given government control, to those who do you harm, As they padlock your businesses and steal the family farm Can you regain the freedom for what we fought and died? Or coat you nave the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Just what would you fight to save? Aren't you sick of being just a government slave?

Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand! Defend our Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Preserve our great republic, and each God given right! And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright." As I awoke he vanished in a mist from whence he came. His words were true, we àré not free, and we have ourselves to blame For even now as tyrants trample our God given rights, we only stand and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside in a dream while you were asleep, and asked you what had happened to the rights he died to keep, What would he your answer if he called out from the grave? "Is This Still The Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave?"

Custody laws should be revised to protect military dads’ rights 24 March 2005

Child-support, custody laws should be revised to protect military dads’ rights
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Military service sometimes costs men their children. When the Iraq war began two years ago, tens of thousands of fathers who serve in the armed forces expected hardship and sacrifice. But they never expected their children might be taken from them while they were deployed or that their government might jail them upon their return. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act provides that if a parent moves a child to a new state, that state becomes the child’s presumptive residence after six months. A military spouse can move to another state while the service member is deployed, divorce him and be virtually certain to gain custody in the new state. Given service members’ limited ability to travel, the cost of legal representation and travel, and the financial hardships created by child-support and spousal-support obligations, it is difficult for fathers to fight for parental rights in the new state. For many, their meaningful role in their children’s lives ends — often permanently — the day they are deployed. Gary S., a San Diego-based Navy SEAL, had his child permanently moved from California to the Middle East against his will while he was deployed to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The 18-year veteran has seen his son only three times since he returned from Afghanistan in April 2002. He is nearly bankrupt from child support, spousal support, travel costs and legal fees.

To solve the problem, the federal government must amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 to specifically prohibit spouses of active-duty military personnel from permanently moving children to another state without the permission of the military member or a court. In addition, the act needs to be modified to say the presumption of new residence does not apply if the children are taken in this fashion. While some fathers face the loss of their children, others face prosecution and jail for child-support obligations that their military service has rendered them unable to pay. Support orders are based on civilian pay, which is generally higher than active-duty pay. When reservists are called up to active duty, they sometimes pay an impossibly high percentage of their income in child support. The federal Bradley Amendment prohibits judges from retroactively modifying child support beyond the date when a father has applied for a modification. Reservists can be mobilized with one day’s notice. If a reservist didn’t have time or didn’t know he had to file for a modification, the arrearages stay, along with the interest and penalties charged on them.

When the arrearage reaches $5,000 — a common occurrence during long deployments — the father can become a felon who can be incarcerated or subject to a barrage of harsh civil penalties, including seizure of his driver’s license, business licenses and passport. To date, Missouri is the only state to adequately address the issue. During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, it passed a law requiring that reservists’ support obligations be automatically modified when they are called up for active duty. Other states, including California and Illinois, are considering legislation that would help reservists. But tens of thousands of reservists were deployed before they could file for modifications. Only a repeal of the federal Bradley Amendment can prevent them from facing years of debt, harassment, legal woes or even incarceration upon their return from active service. Jeffery M. Leving is a family law attorney and the author of the book “Fathers’ Rights: Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute.” His Web site is Glenn Sacks is a nationally syndicated radio talk show host whose columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of newspapers. His Web site is

Bound by blood 24 March 2005

by Richard Yallop

US television program controllers discovered quite recently that for top-rating stories of love, anger and betrayal they should turn not to the movies or drama series but to paternity quiz shows. In those shows, in a Jerry Springer-style setting, studio audiences witness couples arguing over the paternity of the woman's child. To cheers and boos, the woman states her side, the man responds, the audience asks them questions, then votes on who is telling the truth. The man goes offstage for a DNA paternity test and all is revealed to the audience. With 350,000 paternity tests conducted each year in the US, it is big business – to the point where companies offering the tests advertise on billboards, posing the question: "Who's your daddy?" It can also provoke a media circus, according to Swinburne University of Technology academic Michael Gilding, who has done a study of DNA paternity testing along with colleague Lyn Turney. He is referring not only to the quiz shows but also to the saturation coverage of loss and heartbreak Health Minister Tony Abbott has experienced at the hands of media outlets since DNA testing revealed that Daniel O'Connor, the son he thought he had discovered after giving him up for adoption 27 years ago, was not his biological child. The Abbott case has given high-profile exposure to a biotechnological advance that is already growing in Australia, prompting fierce moral debate on men's and women's rights.

Sue Price, of the Men's Support Agency, argues that "to get rid of all the deceitfulness", a DNA test should be standard for all babies at birth, when they also have the Guthrie blood test to check against various diseases. But prominent feminist Eva Cox fears that standard testing will lead to women getting blamed "because blokes don't know if the child is theirs". Since its introduction in 1984 until recently, the use of DNA testing has been fairly limited but, according to test provider Vern Muir of DNA Solutions, about 5000 tests a year are now conducted in Australia. About one in five of those tests is negative, showing the man is not the biological father of the child. When he started the business 10 years ago, Muir specialised in veterinary pathology, but persistent requests soon led him to conduct human DNA tests. In the early days the tests involved blood samples, but now they can be done from strands of hair or mouth swabs. According to Muir, the ease of testing has led to its growth. "We were the first company in the world to offer an in-home DNA collection kit." He charges a minimum of $495, while most Australian laboratories charge $600 to $800. Muir says the growing use of DNA testing has even given rise to the rare practice of DNA testing fraud. On three occasions women have used DNA Solutions' letterhead paper to present a false finding on a test. John, from NSW, was one of Muir's clients. In his case, the test showed he was the biological father of all of his children. He asks to remain anonymous, but explains why he wanted the test. "My wife has had numerous affairs," he says. "She admitted to one in particular [that] occurred about the time she fell pregnant with our first child. I love my children with everything I have. I am their father irrespective of who the biological father is. I am the one who loves them, cares for them and the one who would lay down my life without a split second's hesitation to protect them."

The question, then, is: Why have the test done? John says he wanted it done for peace of mind; because of his right to know, the argument commonly advanced by men's groups; for the wellbeing of his children, who might one day need the correct biological information to enable them to have a lifesaving transplant; and to ensure that the biological father lived up to his responsibilities. "Every one of the men my wife had affairs with knew she was married. Every one chose not to practise safe sex. I cannot express my disgust at their actions. They made their choices and were going to live with the financial consequences of their actions, just as I have to live with the emotional consequences of their actions." Before the growth of voluntary, commercial testing, DNA had been been used by courts ordering paternity tests in cases involving single women seeking Centrelink child support payments. Its increased use and the polarisation of community views between men's and women's groups have led to pressure on the federal Government to decide whether the practice needs to be regulated. The Government referred the issue to the Australian Law Reform Commission, which produced a report in 2003 recommending that testing should not occur without the consent of both parties – and the child, if he or she were old enough. Australia would be the first country to introduce such legislation if the recommendation is adopted. ALRC head David Weisbrot says the recommendation was a "very close call", based on the principles of respecting human dignity and placing a high premium on human consent. John believes it is ludicrous that the woman should have the right to veto a DNA test. "They are the ones with a vested interest to keep their secret. The fact they want to keep the secret shows they place themselves above the welfare of their children. The children and the father also have a right to know the truth, particularly the children." Price says the agenda of the Men's Support Agency has always included giving fathers the right to DNA testing. "It's not about taking a moral stance, it's about truth," she says. "The dishonesty is what causes the problems. It's too hard for the Government to do anything about it because they're afraid of upsetting the women and losing their vote."

She says the argument for and against testing is one between deception and disruption - deception of men led to believe they are the child's father, when testing may show they are not, and disruption to families who suddenly discover after testing that the father they think is a child's biological parent is, in fact, not so. Cox, an academic at the University of Technology, Sydney, fears that the increased emphasis on biological parenting detracts from the importance of social parenting. "We've got to recognise that in many cases the social parenting is more important. The common feeling seems to be if you're not the biological parent, you've got no rights. We need to be more analytical about what we mean by fathering and mothering." Gilding, professor of sociology at Swinburne in Melbourne, surveyed 1000 people on DNA testing and found that most Australians were comfortable with it where both parents consented. Results did not vary between men and women. They were also comfortable – though less so – when the tests were used to enforce child support payments. But they were not comfortable when testing was done without the knowledge of the mother. According to the fathers' rights activists in the survey, testing meant that men, as non-custodial parents, were able to make sure that they were not treated as "just a wallet" for women to live off the family law settlements and ongoing child support. They saw it as enabling technology in the context of an unfair legal system stacked in favour of fraudulent women. Women in focus groups associated with the survey, and who had experience of tests in relation to their children, were concerned about the accuracy, validity and confidentiality of tests. They believed men used the tests to delay and thwart access to child support payments and as "a way to punish their ex-partner rather than out of any real concern about paternity". Gilding believes testing should take place with the knowledge, rather than consent, of both parties. That view is partly shaped by the pragmatic recognition that men can freely obtain testing through internet companies, without the consent from the child's mother. "It's a really hard issue," Gilding says. "I don't think people should do the tests lightly. In some cases it can lead to quite tragic outcomes. And the welfare of the child needs to be carefully protected. The happy stories are the 70 to 80per cent of cases where the test comes back positive and people go on happily living in the relationship. "But in the other 20 to 30 per cent it can be heart-rending.",5744,12629343%5E28737,00.html

He says he's the biological father 24 March 2005

He says he's the biological father, but law says matrimony trumps DNA
By John Agar

Traverse City - After his girlfriend became pregnant, Bill Numerick Jr. looked forward to being a father. He said he accompanied her to doctor appointments and took a parenting class. But early in her pregnancy, she ended their relationship and married someone else. Heather Smith, now 22, had a boy, Caleb, on May 6, 2003. Numerick sent a teddy bear to the hospital.

Nearly two years later, he has not seen the boy he considers his son. By law, Numerick, 26, is not the father. He filed what amounts to a reverse paternity lawsuit, asking that the child's mother be forced to acknowledge him as a father, allow visitation and accept child support. But Numerick has no right to question paternity, a judge ruled, because the baby was not born out of wedlock. The state Court of Appeals recently upheld the trial-court decision.

State paternity law - sometimes called the Bastardy Statute, or Lord Mansfield's Rule, its British common- law origin - maintains that a child born into a marriage is a product of that marriage. The idea is, supporters of the law say, a child is best born to a married mother and father. Such a presumption helps protect the sanctity of marriage, they say. However, with the advent of DNA testing and changing social mores, advocates for fathers say changes are needed -- for the child's welfare and for the biological father's rights.

"That a woman can still control, essentially, who becomes the father of the child by simply marrying somebody else isn't fair," said Numerick's attorney, Craig Elhart. Smith's attorney, Steven Fox, said paternity law was clear, for good reason. If paternity tests were allowed in such cases, it could harm the child and family and the child's relationship with a legal father, he said. Fox noted that regardless of the legal argument, he and his client do not concede that Numerick is the biological father. "His argument is, 'I ought to have some rights to the child' To what extent do we allow someone who claims to be a father to intrude upon a family, a mother and father and child, a single family unit?

"The mother and father are married; they have a child born to them. He's trying to insert himself into that family unit." Numerick's hopes rest with the state Supreme Court. It is an uphill battle. He cannot understand the reason he has no legal standing. Even the Grand Traverse County judge who ruled against him said the decision "doesn't seem logically fair," but it was legally sound. He is not alone in court fight

This kind of legal battle is familiar locally. Numerick is taking on a fight lost by a Rockford man. In that case, DNA tests showed the man was the biological father of a girl born during an extramarital relationship. He was part of her life for two years when the woman, who reconciled with her husband, wanted to end the man's relationship with the girl. The man filed a complaint for a custodial relationship in Kent County Circuit Court, but the claim was denied. The appeals court in 2003 overruled that decision. Appeals Judge Bill Schuette wrote in that case: "Quite possibly, the equal protection considerations that are embedded in the facts of this case may permanently open the door to similarly situated plaintiffs." That door soon closed.

In a one-page order, the state Supreme Court reversed that decision: "Plaintiff did not have standing under the Child Custody Act ... and would not have standing under the Paternity Act ... to seek custody of and visitation rights with a child whose mother was married at the time of the child's conception and birth." Numerick's attorney sees a slice of hope before the Supreme Court because his client filed for a paternity test before Smith was married, and before she gave birth. Meanwhile, Numerick acted on the appeals court's recommendation to seek legislative changes and wrote several lawmakers about amending paternity laws.

State Sen. Raymond Basham, D-Taylor, said he intended to introduce legislation that could help men such as Numerick. "I just think judges should have more discretion," Basham said. Such cases prompt questions Others are concerned about consequences, intended or not, of changing the law. "Obviously, the state has an interest in the best interests of the child, so it may be worth doing some review," said state Rep. William VanRegenmorter, R-Georgetown Township. "But it really is hard to answer that because the facts are so unique. You want to be careful. Issues of paternity, issues of custody and visitation and support are all subject to lots and lots of legislative (review) every year. But this is different, quite unique."

Some think the law has failed to keep up with technology, said Kristine Mullendore, a professor of legal studies at Grand Valley State University and a former assistant Kent County prosecutor. She said the debate should center on what is best for the child, but disagreements occur there, too. "There are a lot of questions that come out of this. What makes someone the father? Is it protecting the child, or promoting biology? What is a father in our day and age?" Social norms have changed - government statistics show about a third of births in the United States in 2003 were to unwed mothers - but Mullendore asked: "Does that mean laws have got to change?" Charles Regan, of Grand Rapids, who has a Web site - - that advocates for fathers' rights, has noticed a "shift toward more fairness" for fathers in recent years.

But, he added: "I think parents who conceive ought to both be involved in the child's life. ... It's an uneven playing field." Although changes to the law would not help Numerick's case, he said his fight might help someone else. "As far as even going to court, it's not really about me, it's about him," Numerick said of the boy. "(Caleb) has a right (to know his biological father). It's not like I've done anything wrong. I'm just in love with him." He wants boy to know he cares Smith did not want to comment. "I feel it's very personal, and I don't care to talk about it," she said. Numerick, a Web designer in Traverse City, thinks he would be an "awesome" father. He created a Web site - - devoted to his case.

If he does not get to see the boy, he thinks the Web site later will show his feelings toward the child, Numerick said. "I know she, in her eyes, is doing what she thinks is right," he said of the boy's mother. He said he dated the former Heather Krull, of Traverse City, about two years before they broke up. They resumed their relationship a few months later, when she became pregnant in summer 2002, he said. Numerick said she later broke up with him, and "I said, 'OK, I better find out what my rights are.'" On Feb. 21, 2003, he asked Grand Traverse County Family Court to determine parentage. A month later, Krull married Derek Smith. She then asked the judge to dismiss Numerick's claim.

In a May 16, 2003, hearing, Judge David Stowe reluctantly determined Numerick had no legal standing to challenge paternity but suggested legislative review and "further direction from the Court of Appeals." Numerick's former attorney, John Ferguson Jr., argued his client did not want to split up the marriage but wanted to assert his rights as a father. "By virtue of the fact that Ms. Smith, if you will, ran off and got married ... there are no circumstances in this factual scenario that would give him his due process rights under this statute," Ferguson said, according to court transcripts. The Court of Appeals upheld Stowe's decision in an opinion signed by Justices Richard Bandstra, Michael Smolenski and Henry Saad.

Fox,Smith's attorney, disputes claims that paternity laws are antiquated. He said laws were "carefully crafted" to protect children and families. "This is a statute that has been amended recently by the Legislature. It's not a case where you've got a 100-year-old statute that says no swearing by the river," he said. "I think the Supreme Court of the state of Michigan, in its prior opinions, hit the legislative intent dead on. "In similar claims to Mr. Numerick's - claims they ought to have the ability to have a hearing on whether they are the biological father - the Supreme Court said, 'We ... want to preserve the family unit.'"


Press release
International Mens Organisation and Fathers Fighting Injustice

The Bloody Big Con who promote venomous anti male radical feminist domestic abuse programs now exposed as its senior staff caught not only bullying but actually physically harming each other were a director general is reported to have bit a colleague. Those who point the finger at so called abusers now once again shown to be the top abusers and bullies.Men do not need the BBC to continually undermine mens authority in the home by accusing men of the very abuse their own SENIOR STAFF are guilty of. SMG the (Scottish Masonic Group) and owners of STV are another TV company pushing the radical feminist line with their continued anti male output a well worn illuminati ploy to back up the masonic monsters running our judicial system.Protecting and promoting their crooked judicial brothers stealing mens homes ,children and lifes work on the propaganda they continue to feed the populous.


Will Thompson be toast over the day he bit a BBC colleague?

Mark Thompson, the BBC's director general, is gaining a reputation as something of a rottweiler as he slashes into the corporation's staffing structure. Yesterday this image took on a physical manifestation when allegations emerged that, when he was editor of the Nine O'Clock News, Mr Thompson sank his teeth into the arm of a colleague. The BBC yesterday played down the incident as "high jinks and horseplay". But Mr Thompson's victim, a junior member of staff who went on to become Kate Adie's producer, has disclosed that he considered making a formal complaint at the time. The story emerged because Jeremy Paxman, the Newsnight presenter, was preparing to interview Mr Thompson for an internal BBC event and emailed the producer to ask if the incident really happened.

The producer, Anthony Massey, replied: "It was late summer or early autumn of 1988 when he [Thompson] was the newly appointed editor of the Nine O'Clock News, and I was a home news organiser. It was 9.15 in the morning, in the middle of the old sixth floor newsroom. I went up to his desk to talk about some story after the 9.00 meeting ... I was standing next to him on his right, and he was sitting reading his horoscope in the Daily Star (I always remember that detail). "Before I could say a word he suddenly turned, snarled, and sank his teeth into my left upper arm (leaving marks through the shirt, but not drawing blood). It hurt. I pulled my arm out of his jaws, like a stick out of the jaws of a labrador." He told his then boss, Chris Cramer, now a senior CNN executive, that he wanted to "bring the whole BBC disciplinary process" against Mr Thompson, but the incident "lost momentum" when Mr Massey was sent on a month-long assignment abroad.

In his email reply, Paxman wrote of Mr Thompson: "If any of this came out, he'd be toast." Mr Massey passed the email exchange with Paxman to a friend, who passed it to other BBC colleagues, and it was quickly forwarded to scores of people, and leaked to the Guardian. There is no suggestion Mr Massey or Paxman intended the story to reach the press. Mr Massey and CNN de clined to comment yesterday; Paxman could not be reached. After speaking to Mr Thompson, a BBC spokesman said: "There was an incident 17 years ago ... Mark would have been about 30. There was a pretty robust atmosphere in the newsroom then. There was some high jinks going on and Mark leant forward and did something like a biting gesture. He thought it would be quite funny but clearly it was hugely misinterpreted. "Mark apologised. Our view is that it was a long time ago, there was an apology at the time, and it was high jinks and horseplay.",3604,1444507,00.html


THE NO-BLAME GAME: By Stephen Baskerville

The nation is in revolt over marriage. Some 17 states have now passed amendments to protect the definition of marriage, and more will follow. The issue is plausibly credited with creating President Bush's margin of victory in the 2004 election and that of some congressional candidates. Same-sex marriage has also shaken the decades-long loyalty of African-Americans to the Democratic Party. Only a short time ago, few would have predicted such a public uprising in defense of marriage and the family.

And this may be only the beginning. Bill Cosby's celebrated remarks last year on family morality -- and the largely positive response -- has placed a once-taboo subject at the top of the African American agenda. And another ballot result has not received the attention it deserves. In liberal Massachusetts, a whopping 85 percent of voters defied the strident opposition of feminists and lawyers to approve a non-binding referendum giving fathers equality in custody decisions. In Britain, Australia, and Canada, fathers are literally marching in the streets over child custody. All this suggests that not only gay marriage but larger questions of family integrity and parenthood are set to convulse our politics. Those who cast their ballots last November on the basis of "moral values" may have had more in mind than just same-sex marriage, which is neither the only threat to marriage nor even the most serious. To truly reverse the decline of the family, the momentum must be carried forward to confront the others. And eventually we must grasp a painful nettle: The most direct threat to the family is divorce on demand. Sooner or later, if civilization is to endure, it must be brought under control.

The most forthright marriage advocates recognize that, as Michael McManus of Marriage Savers writes, "Divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." Predictably, this fact has been seized upon by advocates of same-sex marriage. "The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates, and single-parent families that have wrought social damage," opines the Economist. This distinction ignores the fact that the two problems are closely connected. Gay marriage would probably not be an issue in the first place if marriage had not already been weakened by divorce. "Commentators miss the point when they oppose homosexual marriage on the grounds that it would undermine traditional understandings of marriage," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University. "It is only because traditional understandings of marriage have already been severely undermined that homosexuals are now laying claim to it." Likewise, though gay activists cite the very desire to marry as evidence that their lifestyle is not inherently promiscuous, Andrew Sullivan acknowledges that that desire arises only because of the promiscuity permitted in modern marriage. "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50 percent divorce rates preceded gay marriage," he points out in the New Republic. "All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is…a denial of basic civil equality" (emphasis added). Gays to do not want marriage in the traditional mold, only the watered-down version that exists today.

Blaming the Victim

While lamenting the high divorce rate is conventional piety among family advocates, most have refused to challenge the divorce laws. The standard rationalization is that to control divorce we must first change the culture. But no one suggests that changing the culture is a prerequisite for preventing, say, abortion. While cultural forces certainly contribute, the divorce epidemic has proceeded directly from a legal system which permits and even encourages it. No-fault divorce laws were introduced in the United States and other industrialized countries during the 1970s and are being expanded into other regions of the world today. "No-fault" is a misnomer (taken from car insurance), for the new laws did not stop at removing the requirement that grounds be cited for a divorce, so as to allow for divorce by mutual consent, as they were misleadingly promoted. But they did create unilateral and involuntary divorce, so that one spouse may end a marriage without any agreement or fault by the other. Moreover, the spouse who divorces or otherwise abrogates the marriage contract incurs no liability for the costs or consequences, creating a unique and unprecedented legal anomaly. "In all other areas of contract law those who break a contract are expected to compensate their partner," writes Robert Whelan of London's Institute of Economic Affairs, "but under a system of ‘no fault’ divorce, this essential element of contract law is abrogated." In fact, the legal implications go further, since the courts actively assist the violator. Attorney Steven Varnis points out that "the law generally supports the spouse seeking the divorce, even if that spouse was the wrongdoer." "No-fault" did not really remove fault, therefore; it simply allowed judges to redefine it however they pleased. It introduced the novel concept that one could be deemed guilty of violating an agreement that one had, in fact, not violated. "According to therapeutic precepts, the fault for marital breakup must be shared, even when one spouse unilaterally seeks a divorce," observes Barbara Whitehead in The Divorce Culture. "Many husbands and wives who did not seek or want divorce were stunned to learn…that they were equally ‘at fault’ in the dissolution of their marriages."

The "fault" that was ostensibly thrown out the front door of divorce proceedings re-entered through the back, but now with no precise definition. The judiciary was expanded from its traditional role of punishing crime or tort to punishing personal imperfections and private differences: One could now be summoned to court without having committed any infraction; the verdict was pre-determined; and one could be found "guilty" of things that were not illegal. Lawmakers created an "automatic outcome," writes Judy Parejko, author of Stolen Vows. "A defendant is automatically found 'guilty' of irreconcilable differences and is not allowed a defense." Though marriage ostensibly falls under civil law, the logic quickly extended into the criminal. The "automatic outcome" expanded into what effectively became a presumption of guilt against the involuntarily divorced spouse (the defendant). Yet the due process protections of formal criminal proceedings did not apply, so involuntary divorcees could become criminals without any action on their part and in ways they were powerless to avoid. In some jurisdictions, a divorce defendant is the only party in the courtroom without legal immunity. Contrary to the assumptions of "change the culture" thinking, these laws were not enacted in response to public demand: No popular clamor to dispense with divorce restrictions preceded their passage; no public outrage at any perceived injustice provided the impetus; no public debate was ever held in the media. Legislators "were not responding to widespread public pressure but rather acceding to the well-orchestrated lobbying of a few activists," writes Christensen. "Eclipsed in the media…by other issues -- such as civil rights, Vietnam, Watergate, and abortion" -- the new laws rapidly swept the nation "with little publicity and no mass support." In retrospect, these laws can be seen as one of the boldest social experiments in history. The result effectively abolished marriage as a legal contract. As a result, it's no longer possible to form a binding agreement to create a family.

Quiet Legal Maneuvers

Though the changes were passed largely by and for the legal business, the ideological engine that has never been properly appreciated was organized feminism. Not generally perceived as a gender battle -- and never one they wished to advertise -- divorce became the most devastating weapon in the arsenal of feminism, because it creates millions of gender battles on the most personal level. Germaine Greer openly celebrates divorce as the foremost indicator of feminist triumph: "Exactly the thing that people tear their hair out about is exactly the thing I am very proud of," she tells the Australian newspaper. This is hardly new. As early as the American Revolution and throughout the 19th century, "divorce became an increasingly important measure of women’s political freedom as well as an expression of feminine initiative and independence," writes Whitehead. "The association of divorce with women’s freedom and prerogatives…remained an enduring and important feature of American divorce."

Well before the 1970s, it was the symbiosis of law and women's rights that created the divorce revolution. The National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) claims credit for no-fault divorce, which it describes as "the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken." As early as 1947, the NAWL convention approved a no-fault bill. Working through the American Bar Association, NAWL convinced the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) to produce the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. "By 1977, the divorce portions had been adopted by nine states," NAWL proudly notes, and "the ideal of no-fault divorce became the guiding principle for reform of divorce laws in the majority of states." By 1985, every state had no-fault divorce. Today, feminist operatives employ similar strategies to encourage divorce worldwide, often inserting it unnoticed and unopposed into programs for "human rights," and unilateral divorce is now one of the first measures implemented by leftist governments. When Spain's socialists came to power last year, their three domestic priorities were legalized abortion, same-sex marriage, and liberalized divorce. Iranian feminist Emadeddin Baghi writes in the Washington Post that "a 20 percent increase in the divorce rate is…a sign that traditional marriage is changing as women gain equality." And Turkey was required to withdraw a proposal to penalize adultery to gain acceptance in the European Union, while divorce liberalization counted in their favor.

The High Cost of Divorce

The damage done by family breakdown -- especially to children -- is now so well known that it hardly needs laboring. Children of divorced parents suffer far more emotional and behavioral problems than do children from intact families. They are more likely to attempt suicide and to suffer poor health. They perform more poorly in school and are more inclined to become involved with drugs, alcohol, gangs, and crime. These problems continue into adulthood, when children of divorce have more trouble forming and keeping stable relationships of their own. Through divorce, they in turn pass these traits to their own children. All this entails social costs for the rest of us, giving the public an interest in family preservation. It might be one thing if parents were colluding to inflict this on their own children, as divorce defenders like to pretend. Even given the social consequences, a case might still be made that divorce is each couple's "private decision," as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm recently claimed when vetoing a mild reform bill. But in the vast majority of cases, only one of the parents imposes divorce on the children and the other parent. Astoundingly, the parent who inflicts the divorce on the children is also the one most likely to retain custody of them. In such cases, divorce isn't remotely; it amounts to a public seizure of the innocent spouse's children and invasion of his or her parental rights, perpetrated by our governments and using our tax dollars. Indeed, civil freedom is perhaps the least appreciated casualty of unilateral divorce. G.K. Chesterton once warned that the family is the most enduring check on government power and that divorce and democracy were ultimately incompatible. The repressive measures being enacted against divorced fathers -- most of whom never agree to a divorce and are legally faultless -- now include incarcerations without trial or charge, coerced confessions, and the creation of special courts and forced labor facilities.

Recognizing the Problem

No one should have any illusions that reversing these trends will be easy. The political interests that abolished marriage in the first place have only grown more wealthy and powerful off the system they created. Thirty-five years of unrestrained divorce have created a multi-billion dollar industry and given vast numbers of people a vested interest in it. Divorce and custody are the cash cow of the judiciary and directly employ a host of federal, state, and local officials, plus private hangers-on. More largely, the societal ills left by broken families create further employment and power for even larger armies of officials. So entrenched has divorce become within our political economy, and so diabolical is its ability to insinuate itself throughout our political culture, that even critics seem to have developed a stake in having something to bemoan. Hardly anyone has an incentive to bring it under control. In contrast with gay marriage, abortion, and pornography, politicians studiously avoid divorce laws. "Opposing gay marriage or gays in the military is for Republicans an easy, juicy, risk-free issue," writes Maggie Gallagher. "The message [is] that at all costs we should keep divorce off the political agenda." No American politician of national stature has ever challenged involuntary divorce. "Democrats did not want to anger their large constituency among women who saw easy divorce as a hard-won freedom and prerogative," observes Whitehead. "Republicans did not want to alienate their upscale constituents or their libertarian wing, both of whom tended to favor easy divorce, nor did they want to call attention to the divorces among their own leadership." In his famous denunciation of single parenthood, Vice President Dan Quayle was careful to make clear, "I am not talking about a situation where there is a divorce." The exception proves the rule. When Pope John Paul II spoke out against divorce in January 2002, he was roundly attacked from the Right as well as the Left. Yet politicians can no longer ignore the issue. For one thing, the logic of the same-sex marriage controversy may force us to confront divorce, since the silence is becoming conspicuous and threatens to undermine the credibility of marriage proponents. "People who won't censure divorce carry no special weight as defenders of marriage," writes columnist Froma Harrop. "Moral authority doesn't come cheap." There is also evidence that the public is becoming not only aware of, but increasingly impatient with, fallout from broken families. A 1999 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 78 percent of Americans see the high divorce rate as a serious problem, and a Time/CNN poll found that 61 percent believe it should be harder for couples with young children to divorce. David Schramm of Utah State University estimates that divorce costs Americans $33.3 billion annually. "Taxpayers who have preserved their own marriages through personal integrity and sacrifice," Christensen suggests, "may find it puzzling and offensive that state officials appear so willing to dissolve marriages and to collectivize the costs."

Fighting Back

Thus far, most proposals aimed at addressing the divorce issue have been limited to the least costly -- and least effective. Requirements that divorcing couples undergo waiting periods and counseling have passed in some states (and form the substance of most "covenant marriage" laws). But at best, such provisions merely delay the outcome. At worst, they place psychotherapists on the government payroll or force involuntary litigants to hire them. Either way, the therapists develop a stake in more divorce. On the other hand, while simply banning groundless divorce shows more determination, it's unlikely to be very effective, since it isn't practical to force people to live together. An Arizona bill introduced in 2003, for example, stipulated that a court "shall not decree a dissolution of the marriage on grounds of incompatibility if: a) the wife is pregnant; or b) the couple has ever had a child." Such measures may discourage break-ups among observant Christians and could provide some legal redress against desertion. But as Chesterton observed, a ban on divorce is mostly, in practice, a ban on re-marriage. Under such a provision a spouse could simply separate (with the children) and live in permanent adultery with a new paramour.

Such schemes lend plausibility to some of the irrelevant arguments of divorce promoters: "No good can come from forcing people to remain in loveless marriages, even in the misguided belief that somehow it is better for the children," runs an editorial in the Daily Herald of Provo, Utah, opposing a mild reform bill recently introduced. "Is it really good for children to be raised in a home by two parents who don't love each other and who fight all the time but who are forced to stay because of the law?" These questions are red herrings. Divorce today does not necessarily indicate marital conflict and is less likely to be the last resort for a troubled marriage than a sudden power grab. Most divorces are initiated with little warning and often involve child snatchings. In 25 percent of marriage breakdowns, writes Margaret Brinig of Iowa State University, the man has "no clue" there is a problem until the woman says she wants out. A University of Exeter study found that in over half the cases there was no recollection of major conflict before the separation. "The assumption that parental conflict will cease at divorce is not only invalid," writes Patricia Morgan; "divorce itself instigates conflict which continues into the post-divorce period." Further, as Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee found, few children are pleased with divorce, even when severe conflict exists. "Children…can be quite content even when their parents' marriage is profoundly unhappy for one or both partners," they write. "Only one in ten children in our study experienced relief when their parents divorced. These were mostly older children in families where there had been open violence." Divorce and separation almost always have a more detrimental effect on children than even high-conflict marriages. "The misery their parents may feel in an unhappy marriage is usually less significant than the changes [the children] have to go through after a divorce," says Neil Kalter, a University of Michigan psychologist. Surveys of children by Ann Mitchell and J.T. Landis found that most recalled a happy family life before the breakup.

How the Law Can Be Reformed

In any case, limiting no-fault divorce will never force people to live together -- though done properly, it will provide strong incentives to work at their marriages rather than dissolve them. Reforming divorce laws, first of all, means re-introducing fault for violating the marital contract. It will, in effect, restore justice to the legal proceedings. "The alternative to liberal or ‘no-fault’ divorce is not no divorce," writes Whelan, "but divorce which is granted only…after due legal process to establish fault." The obvious counter-argument, that failed marriages often entail imperfections on both sides, does not justify abandoning all standards of justice. "There is fault on both sides in every human relationship," Fred Hanson acknowledged when the laws were enacted. "The faults, however, are far from equal. No secular society can be operated on the theory that all faults are equal." Hanson was the dissenting member of NCCUSL, which designed no-fault laws. "To do justice between parties without regard to fault is an impossibility," he warned. "I wonder what’s to become of the maxim that no man shall profit by his own wrong – or woman either, for that matter." Tragically, we now have the answer in today's perversion of the criminal justice system by divorce-related accusations of domestic "abuse." Patently fabricated charges are now rampant in divorce courts, mostly to secure child custody and remove fathers, and the cry of "trapping women in abusive marriages" has become the principal argument against fault-based divorce. The irony is telling, since physical violence obviously is and always has been grounds for divorce. The argument also reveals the totalitarian nature of today's feminism. What feminists object to is being held to the same standards of evidence as everyone else by having to prove their accusations. Fault divorce would entail the "burden of proving that abuse had occurred," argues the Daily Herald. "It's not easy to accumulate medical records detailing injuries, eyewitnesses, and a police record of domestic violence calls to the house." It isn't? But that's precisely what the rest of us must do when we accuse others of vicious crimes. What feminists want -- and already have -- is the power to trample the presumption of innocence and due process of law in order to evict fathers on accusations of ill-defined "abuse" that cannot be proven because, in many cases, it did not take place at all. This is the inevitable consequence of abolishing objective standards and allowing judges to create infractions out of whatever subjective grievance or "abuse" a tearful spouse invokes. To operate effectively, fault must entail objective, enumerated, and proven grounds that are understood at the time of marriage. These grounds may vary somewhat among jurisdictions, but spouses must have a reasonably predictable expectation of the consequences of specific misbehaviors and violations of the marital contract. This basic principle of justice is required of all other laws in a free society. Further, to effectively deter divorce, fault must entail substantial consequences. Or stated more positively, innocence must carry substantial protections. While property considerations are not trivial, most important is that marriage must protect an innocent spouse's right to be left in peace with his or her children. Feminists complain that this punishes women for leaving a "bad marriage." But strictly speaking (and aside from the question of whose behavior made it a bad marriage), it need entail no punishment at all. It simply allows an innocent spouse to invoke the protections for which he or she originally married.

This is the essential insight provided by the fathers in Massachusetts. Though not all of them question no-fault divorce, their plight illustrates why divorce reform will never succeed unless fault is tied to child custody. Because most divorces are filed by mothers, the fathers' demands could sharply reduce divorce and the stranglehold of the divorce industry. Yet even this alone will prove insufficient. Divorce and custody are connected with larger problems of judicial activism and corruption, and judges can readily concoct justifications to rule in the best interests of themselves and their cronies. The Massachusetts same-sex marriage decision has unwittingly created common cause between family advocates and judicial reformers. This alliance must be expanded, since divorce reform and judicial reform are inseparable. As Gallagher writes, "People don't trust the legal system to determine who committed a murder, let alone whose conduct destroyed a marriage." Today's family crisis is being attacked piecemeal by groups that hardly talk to one another, each hacking at branches that proceed from a common root: pro-family groups trying to forestall same-sex marriage, marriage promoters trying to discourage divorce, fathers demanding equal rights, African-American leaders encouraging family responsibility, and judicial reformers pushing for improvement. Alone, none of these will reverse the decline of the family. But taken together, they wield sufficient political strength to challenge the formidable judicial-divorce machinery. Something like this coalition is emerging in Virginia, where disparate groups have teamed up to propose a "Family Bill of Rights." In addition to a marriage amendment, legislators have introduced an amendment protecting "the God-given rights of parents" to determine the upbringing of their children. Stronger still, Catholic state senator Ken Cuccinelli proposes tying child custody to marital fault, giving children the security of knowing they cannot be torn from a parent unless that parent has already acted to destroy their home. Together, these measures will give Virginia the strongest family protection provisions in the Western world.

The Religious Dimension

But politicians and interest groups can only achieve so much; a central role remains for churches. Family integrity will be secure only when families are de-politicized and when the church, not the state, is again both the first recourse at the advent of conflict and the family's principal guarantor against state encroachment. Our present predicament results partly because churches (with only the partial exception of the Catholic Church) abdicated these roles. Failure to intervene in the marriages it consecrated and to exert moral pressure on misbehaving spouses left a vacuum that has been filled by the state judiciary. Reforming the family judiciary will therefore will create an immediate demand for the services of morally vigorous pastoral communities, even among those who previously viewed the church's role in their marriages as largely ceremonial. No greater challenge confronts the churches today -- nor any greater opportunity to stem the exodus from them, than to reinvigorate and defend their own sacrament and the families created by it.

Stephen Baskerville is political scientist at Howard University and author of Not Peace but a Sword: The Political Theology of the English Revolution (Routledge Press 1993). This essay was made possible by a fellowship from the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society.
Crisis, vol. 23, no. 3 (March 2005), pp. 14-20.

Son of divorce 23 March 2005

By Bob Just

My mother left my father when I was 5 years old.

I make no harsh judgment of my parents, who have many wonderful qualities. But from that moment I began my personal journey, a struggle that has so far lasted a lifetime – getting over the fear and anger that resulted from that one single decision. And there are millions of other Americans coming up behind me with the same demons. We are not just a social problem, but also a growing political force. In fact, America's ability to maintain her freedoms may ultimately depend on there being some kind of massive national healing, which, let's face it, can only begin with massive national honesty. We don't get much of that from the secular culture.

So let me start here with myself. I have only two real memories of home life before my parents separated: my father practicing scales on his flute (he was a professional musician) and, of course, the sound of angry voices – coming from the next room. I don't remember any arguing in my presence. After all, this was the 1950s, an era when most parents did their level best not to fight in front of the children. Back then, it was still generally recognized that children are "impressionable," and therefore adults made every effort to protect us, both in their homes and in the public square – including the culture. Those days are gone. Society just doesn't care about the innocence of children anymore. The "separation of church and state" decision officially rendered us soulless beings in the eyes of government. That didn't happen in a vacuum. Even in the idealized 1940s and '50s, the atheist view that people are mere animals dominated liberal intellectual circles, especially in places like Manhattan where I was born and raised. The feminist "no-fault" divorce movement also did not happen in a vacuum. It was the culmination of a long, furious cry by secular men and women who didn't see any reason why they should submit to the "ancient superstitions" of Judeo-Christian America when it came to their private lives. The floodgates of nihilism were opening.

By the 1970s (the "anything goes" era that brought us "no-fault" divorce), this secular view had taken almost complete control of American culture, especially in the arts and social sciences. Concepts of childhood innocence were dropped for much more convenient beliefs. Children were now considered "resilient." Secular science had declared us all "animals," and thus, it only made sense that the younger we exposed children to life's realities, the better the lessons took. Although a decent and remarkable person, my mother had long since been influenced by this worldview. A French immigrant from a secular family, she was ahead of her time, as were so many of her New York City peers. They were a foreshadowing of what was to come with the final stages of the sexual revolution. Mom was a "free thinker" who rejected outright what she called "bourgeois middle-class values." At the time, I did not understand this speech code. "Free thinker" meant secularist. And "middle-class values" meant Christianity.

It took me years to realize that my mother was an atheist socialist of the classic 19th century variety, embracing the philosophy that caused so much horror later on. Thinking back, there was nothing surprising about her beliefs. My mother had grown up in Paris, the daughter of two Russian immigrants whose attitudes were greatly influenced by the "anything goes" Bohemian era – a movement known for its rebellion against "all of society's standards, values and restraints." My grandmother Fée Helles (her professional name) had studied with the famous avant-garde dancer Isadora Duncan and later taught her own formulation of dance exercises in Paris, practically in the shadow of the city's famous Arc de Triomphe. As a teenager, I visited her there and was surprised to find that my grandmother (I called her Mamine) slept on the floor of her Champs Elysee studio, using a hot plate to cook and a folding oriental screen to give herself some privacy – a very Bohemian way of life. And yet, despite Mamine's unusual social attitudes (or perhaps because of them), she was at the center of a very glamorous, almost storybook, Parisian world. When she set me up on a date with one of her students, it turned out to be Pablo Picasso's daughter, Paloma. My grandmother's studio was a popular and busy place, and on top of that there were movie rehearsals going on that summer. One of France's most celebrated film directors was planning a documentary about Mamine, who as I remember was later given a medal for her cultural contributions. I took all this for granted – and there's more.

My Zionist grandfather, a concert pianist from age 8, had long since moved to Israel to teach at the Jerusalem Conservatory. The two would meet in Switzerland for their vacations. Needless to say, I have an odd and exotic family – with the emphasis on odd. Even my father (who was incredibly normal considering his father abandoned the family) rose to the highest levels of his profession and ended up playing for the Metropolitan Opera. Adventure runs on both sides of my family, and my father was no exception. He hitchhiked to New York during the depression to study on scholarship at Juilliard. In a profession where people are happy to have any paying job, my father was never without solid work. He played under great conductors, from Toscanini to Bernstein and with most of the opera stars of his day. Between jobs of that stature, he played in the original Broadway production of "The Sound of Music" and I would often, after a date or a party, meet Dad at the theater to ride home with him, waiting in the wings until the performance was done. Why do I tell you this? Because the privileged New York City life I lived did not make up for the reality of my parent's divorce. Despite all this "glory," despite an elite education at two famous Manhattan private schools, despite my parents' many good points, I grew up a frightened, deeply angry young man – a "rebel without a cause."

Of course, I didn't understand my own reality. On the outside, I was a confident teenager running around New York City as if I owned it. (Nobody needs a car in the city, so kids have a scary kind of freedom to come and go as they please.) The parties, school dances, the theater openings, great museums and the famous restaurants were only a small part of an urban environment that seemed to be on the cutting edge of everything – wealth, intellectual and political influence, and raw international power. All very glamorous! In fact, just like America herself. Let's face it: The world has never seen a richer, more powerful nation than the United States. We are not only wealthy, we are an emblem of freedom to the world. Our language is spoken everywhere. Our technology and our culture are influential worldwide. Our military is second to none. But that won't save us from our own angry children, generated by millions of broken homes, of every race, color, creed and socio-economic background. America may look strong, but her foundation has been severely damaged. I was comparatively lucky. Many children of divorce suffer additional hardships, making things far worse. But whatever their backgrounds, these "children" – now on their own dysfunctional adult journey – are my brothers and sisters, and I can tell you all about them.

First, remember we are not talking about a few hundred thousand Americans. We are not even talking about a few million Americans. Considering what we all know about the divorce rate, it is not hard to predict that a huge, if not dominant, portion of this country's electorate will soon be "adult children of divorce" (ACDs). Politicians who can push our many emotional buttons may well be able to control the elections of the future. Why? Because unless we ACDs go through a powerful personal recovery, our problems are likely to get worse as we get older, and more vulnerable. Our fear, our anger, our sense of betrayal, our self-loathing, fear of failure, fear of success (as something undeserved), and our often deeply depressive nature may cause us to harken to the angry demagogue politicians who outwardly echo our internal pain. In that sense, we are a "mob," full of dark emotions and looking for a leader. A political tsunami is coming. My parents' divorce preceded by two decades the arrival of "no-fault" divorce in the 1970s. That generation of ACDs will hit the shores soon – the sons and daughters of the "I'm-not-happy-so-I'm-leaving" generation of parents. (Add to this group other adults who were born out of wedlock and never experienced an intact family, and it's clear that we have a serious social problem on our hands, perhaps even a nation-killing problem.)

People like me are just the early warning waves of this tsunami. But a wall of water is speeding our way as the aging no-faulters enter their 40s and 50s. The gathering force of their pain and disillusionment is a socio-political reality. Who are we? We are often ready to believe the worst about America and about our fellow Americans because our experience with "family" is not good. After all, a nation is a family. We don't just "question authority," we often distrust, even hate authority. (Look for us at all those angry demonstrations.) Why do you think politicians get such resonance by crying "victim"? What child of divorce doesn't feel like a victim? What else would you call us? The disaster that befell us was completely out of our control. I was blessed to have great stepparents, and some stability in my high school years at a wonderful all-boy Episcopal school, and yet I was still furious and disoriented. My reality was split down the middle when I was five years old, and there was no putting me back together with a quick patch job. Time was necessary, as well as the essential process of learning to forgive.

The battle lines

A New York friend of mine is going through a very painful recovery since his wife left, taking the children with her. (I can't imagine how people survive such a thing.) He was broken-hearted recently over a surprise visit he made to his children. When he walked up to the house, his young son saw him coming and smiled. Daddy's back! But the delighted look quickly faded, and suddenly his son turned and ran away. I can only imagine what the father felt (or mother if the situation was reversed). But I know exactly what the little boy was going through. He had figured out in the months succeeding the separation that to be loyal to dad was somehow to be disloyal to mom – to love father was to betray mother. This is the true hell of divorce where the battle lines are drawn right through the child's heart. It's a no-win situation during holidays and at special events. One way or another, you are always choosing between your parents. As I said, superficial solutions are not helpful, nor are platitudes about resiliency. Only national mourning will do, rooted in genuine honesty. This will not come easily.

"This is a social policy problem that is located in the heart of the white middle class," said Bill Galston, a former Clinton deputy assistant for domestic policy. "People don't want to hear that their quest for personal fulfillment may come at the expense of their children." There are a growing number of books that deal with the reality of "no-fault" divorce and its impact on children, starting most famously with Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's 1997 book, "The Divorce Culture." At the time, Ms. Whitehead rightly railed against the culture's dishonesty on the subject, especially the media's dishonesty. Until we can get past the resilience myth, and get to the heart of the matter we will be an accident happening in slow motion, with a potentially catastrophic outcome. By the dawn of the 21st century, Judith Wallerstein's "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" was published, a 25-year landmark study of adult children of divorce. Parental denial was becoming more difficult.

"The delayed impact of divorce in adulthood is a revolutionary finding and a stunning surprise," announced Dr. Wallerstein, along with the two other women who authored the book. "We thought that children would be able to work through issues related to divorce by the time they reached late adolescence or left home. We advised parents that if they refrained from fighting and arranged their schedules so that the children could see both of them often, the children would do well. But these policies were based on adult needs and perceptions of divorce. We failed to realize that living in a post-divorce family is an entirely different experience for children as opposed to adults. The story of divorce is far more complex and the impact more far-reaching than we had ever imagined." The study showed that ACDs have to overcome many emotional problems: expectations of failure; fear of loss; fear of change; fear of conflict; fear of betrayal; and fear of loneliness. (Read that list again and ask yourself which political party – and which special interest groups – cry out more to these impulses.) These are deep wounds and cannot be superficially treated. And blaming one parent or the other is not usually the point.

For me, healing was a long journey begun with the sudden realization that my parents are just people who make mistakes and who, like so many others today, were propagandized by a secular culture that knows nothing about men, women or children – and especially knows nothing about marriage and divorce. This ignorance goes back many decades. Our grandparents and even great grandparents came under its influence. When Hollywood started the mass drumbeat for easy divorce, their message was simple: "Marriage is about happiness, and so if you are not happy, you are in a bad marriage. Bad marriages waste lives and hurt children, and so it's better to divorce your spouse and seek a good marriage, because then you'll be happy. And if you are happy then your very resilient children (who are really your pals) will be happy too. Because they want nothing more than your happiness. …"

That about sums it up. For how many decades have we seen movies involving divorced parents where the son or daughter is a wisecracking, well-adjusted kid who acts more like your best buddy at the office? More likely than not, the child is comforting the adult. Since we adults go to these movies, it's not surprising that the plots are rooted in the notion that parental "happiness" is at the center of everything.

True love

Of course, children have not been entirely forgotten. Part of this devastating cultural message is that your newly found "happy marriage" (however many you go through to find it) will set an example to your children that they, too, can be happy if only they can find the ideal person. There are only two problems with this: no spouse is ideal, and marriage is not really about happiness. I made the latter statement on HBO's Bill Maher show and practically got booed out of the studio by the shocked audience. Many decades of lies about marriage made my statement too hard to hear. After all, says the pop culture, if marriage is not about your spouse making you happy, why get married?

It's actually a great question, if only we dared to really ask it. I believe the traditional culture has the answer. You get married to learn what real love is (by way of your spouse, and your children if you have them). But – and here's the clincher – if and when you do discover what real love for your spouse is, you also find real happiness and joy inside yourself, the kind no one can take away from you. Remember, most 25-year-olds don't yet know what love is. Until young marrieds learn that lesson, relationships can be hell because each spouse brings any number of flaws and even serious faults into the marriage. That is the real battle line – facing up to your spouse's faults and still loving. And facing up to your own faults. Marriage is not about being loved. It is about loving. Of course, with mutual love comes a special joy, but since it takes time to learn what real love is (it certainly did for me), commitment is the only real answer. It's the vice grip that holds the two pieces together while the glue bonds.

If this were not true, no marriage would last because all marriages go through tunnels of unhappiness, whether from financial stress, personal doubt, sexual problems or whatever. But as the saying goes, there is light at the end of the tunnel. This is the essential wisdom of traditional "under-God" marriages – that there's a higher right than our own wants. Without that understanding, nothing works. Unfortunately, in the name of freedom and self-realization, society has increasingly rejected this worldview. After all, from a secularist's point of view, physical life is the only "heaven" there is. There is nothing else to hope for, or work for, or long for. What you get in this life is all you are ever going to get. Thus, to give up your personal happiness is to turn your heaven into hell.

As I said, my mother is a decent person. Often secularists are not bad people, but they are deeply confused, and their confusion can be deadly when it comes to their children. This confusion has even affected the religious community. The pop culture's propaganda is everywhere and has been for most of the last century. Not surprisingly, massive numbers of Christian families are blown apart by the "happiness myth." This is especially ironic considering the Christian call to "take up your cross," in other words, always to sacrifice yourself for the highest good – which paradoxically leads to the greatest and truest happiness. I once counseled a Christian friend in Los Angeles who admitted to me that he'd been unfaithful to his wife. She found out – and he was distraught. I warned him that the pain he was feeling had a very dangerous other dimension to it. Instead of facing up to what he'd done to his family, he might start to deny it – by rationalizing that the "other woman" was his true love – and that his children were resilient and would understand.

He then admitted to me that he didn't feel loved by his wife, and that he felt he deserved to experience this happiness. Of course, it is wonderful to be loved, but as I said above, the object of marriage is to love, not to be loved. Which is what I told him. Sadly for his wife and children, the call to being "loved" and being "happy" was too strong for him, and so were the culture's lies about resilient children. My friend turned a bad situation into a family disaster. He couldn't see the truth of what he was doing, putting his own wants first – the exact opposite of what parents must do, which is to deny themselves. Good husbands and wives must follow the same principle. Otherwise, the marriage descends into I-me-mine-ism. And the first thing to go is genuine family unity.

Thus, marriage is about commitment – in the same way that having children is about commitment. Hold tight until the glue has solidified. In the context of a tight-knit family, children grow strong and secure. As I tell my friends who grew up with two loving parents under the same roof, they can't even grasp how different they are from people like me. It's just a plain fact.

The heroic parent

One of my favorite examples of "family" (although they had no children) is the story of newlyweds John and Mary Scully. They were both attorneys in San Francisco, victims of that terrible law firm shooting in the mid-1990s. A gunman found his way in and started killing people. The Scullys sought each other in the chaos, as the madman went from office to office. Cries of anguish could be heard down the hallway as loud shots rang out. The Scullys hid behind a desk, but the killer found them. As he raised his gun to shoot them both, John quickly threw his body over Mary's. Most of the bullets found John. Mary was wounded in the arm. Her 28-year-old husband died that she might live. Later she remarried, and now has the children they never had together. In a way, of course, they are John's children too. John is a hero. He did the fatherly and manly thing, but this is no negative reflection on Mary. Men are expected to make that sacrifice and women are expected to let them. Does that make women cowards? Not at all. If Mary had been there with a young son, we would all expect her to do the same thing to save the life of her child. Denying "self" is the essence of parenting (and the essence of responsibility). Imagine Mary hiding behind her child in such a situation. Imagine John hiding behind Mary, and letting her take the bullets. The very thought makes us cringe.

This indicates not only the proper order of gender responsibility, it's also a statement of genuine love – the only real kind – self-sacrificial. Yes, there is an order to sacrifice. Children expect you to sacrifice for them, and not the other way around. Like it or not, it comes with the territory of parenting – "women and children first," as the saying goes. Of course, this attitude would put divorce lawyers pretty much out of business, except in the most extreme cases. So our forefathers and mothers weren't so stupid after all. The great wisdom of building a family is that you stay together for the sake of the children if for no other reason. And yet, there is another very precious reason, another wisdom that results in a fulfilling life.

Marriage forces us to face ourselves. I say this as an adult child of divorce who has had a great deal to face. My wife is also from a divorced (and glamorous) family, with additional troubles brought on by parental alcoholism. We both lived the youthful lie – and we are both finding our way out of it. Thankfully, the truth is revealed to us in doses we can tolerate, each of which gives us strength for future revelations. If we are to learn to love each other, we must deal honestly with the battle going on within us all. Marriages are not perfect. Parents are not perfect, and they don't create perfect children. These imperfect children become troubled adults and inevitably they bring their troubles into their marriages. That's the way it is. Sorry. Nobody ever said life was easy, and nobody intelligent ever said marriage was about happiness. I don't know anyone who thinks it's a happy experience to stay up all night with a cranky baby while you're worried about job stresses and paying the bills. A great movie line from "The Princess Bride" sums it up for me: Life is pain and anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something.

The entire question is how we handle that pain. The foolish media culture is out there telling us we deserve to be "happy," and that if we are not, we must make changes or life will pass us by. My heart breaks for the 30-year-olds who don't know enough not to listen to these old lies – young people who don't know that life is a wonderful yet painful battle. And that engaging in "the good fight" (as the Bible calls it) with a lifetime spouse is not only what we are called to do for each other's sake, but is ultimately the only path that creates healthy children, whose mothers and fathers may argue in the next room, but who never give up on each other or on the sanctity of their marriage vows. Still, I can't say it enough: We must reject judgment in all of this. We must never give up our right to say divorce is wrong, but we must avoid condemning the people involved.

I have learned not only to forgive my parents, but also to genuinely love and honor them. It wasn't an easy path. I was the classic "angry young man." In truth, I actually hated life (something it me took years to realize). After my parents' divorce, life seemed like a huge bear trap, with jaws ready to close on me at any moment. But now I've changed. Now, even in the midst of life's inevitable pain, I am so glad to be alive and to be the son of my parents – all five of them – and to be the grandson of their parents on both sides of my family. I do not judge any of them, especially as I understand the confusing power of the false things they believed.

I have also grown to know my own faults, which helps to put the mistakes of my parents, including my stepparents, in a very soft light. I am grateful for their myriad good qualities, and for the many ways in which they blessed me. But more simply and fundamentally I honor them for giving me the incredible gift of life, and for making the many and varied sacrifices necessary to help fulfill that original gift. Still and finally, it must be said: The real heroes of the family struggle are those that reject divorce. Let us honor especially those parents, the ones who stayed together for the sake of the children. Let children rejoice in such parents, and honor them to the end of their days. And let the whole country – even the secular culture – honor them as well.

Something worth earnest prayer.

Nine Famous Irishmen 23 March 2005

During the civil disobedience that occurred in Ireland in 1848, the following nine men were captured. tried, and convicted of treason – the Crown sentenced to death: John Mitchell, Morris Lyene, Pat Donahue, Thomas McGee, Charles Duffy, Thomas Meagher, Richard O'Gorman, Terrence McManus and Michael Ireland.

Before passing sentence, the judge asked if there was anything that anyone wished to say, Meagher, speaking for all, said "My Lord, this is our first offense but not our last. If you will be easy with us this once, we promise, on our word, as gentlemen to try to do better next time, and next time -- sure we won't be fools to get caught."

Thereupon the indignant judge sentenced all of them to be hanged by the neck until dead. Passionate protest from throughout the world forced Queen Victoria to commute the sentence to banishment to Australia.

In 1874, word reached the astounded Queen Victoria that the Sir Charles Duffy, who had been elected Prime Minister of Australia, was the same Charles Duffy who had been banished 25 years before. On the Queen's demand, the whereabouts of the others banished with Duffy should be determined – and the following was discovered:

TERRENCE McMANUS, Brigadier General, United States Army
PATRICK DONAHUE, Brigadier General, United States Army
RICHARD O'GORMAN, Governor General of Newfoundland
MORRIS LYENE, Attorney General of Australia, in which office MICHAEL
IRELAND succeeded him
THOMAS D'ARCY McGEE, Member of Parliament, Montreal, Minister of
and President of Council Dominion of Canada
JOHN MITCHELL, Prominent New York politician. This man was the father of
John Purroy Mitchell, Mayor of New York, at the outbreak of World War I.

As another, and more renowned, American radio reporter would say, “Now you know the rest of the story.”

Legal watchdog charts four-fold rise in complaints 23 March 2005

PUBLIC disquiet over how Scotland's solicitors are regulated has quadrupled since 2001, figures suggest. The Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman has received 433 complaints about the way governing bodies, the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates, handled complaints about their members in the past 12 months. This compares with 338 complaints in 2004, and 104 in 2000-01. More than 90% of these cases involve complaints handled by the society. Evidence of a rise in complaints comes at a politically sensitive time.

The society and faculty are determined to retain their right to regulate solicitors and advocates, which is conferred by the Scottish Parliament. This is despite the proposed creation south of the border of an independent, overarching regulator for the equivalent bodies, the Law Society of England and Wales and the Bar Council. Both southern bodies have since moved to separate their regulatory and policy arms to avoid accusations of a conflict of interest. The Scottish society carried out its first regulatory shake-up for 20 years in August 2003, overhauling the system to create a better balance between the number of lawyers and lay people on complaints committees. An executive consultation paper is expected soon, outlining further proposed improvements to complaints-handling. Linda Costelloe Baker, the ombudsman, said: "What worried me last year was the increase in the proportion of complaints which the society dealt with but were still referred on to me. "It looks like it's going to be the same this year.

"If I am still getting (nearly) one in three, then that is a very marked vote of no confidence in the way complaints are being handled." A society spokeswoman said: "We disagree entirely with (the) interpretation about a four-fold increase in dissatisfaction. "The increase in opinions from the ombudsman is because the society is processing more complaints much faster than before. So the 433 opinions will not all relate to complaints received in 2004." She added: "The number of complaints to the society about solicitors from 2003-2004 increased by 26%. The figures from the ombudsman show an increase of 28%. Even although the figures do not cover the same period, they do show that, overall, the increase in complaints received by the society are directly proportionate to the increase in complaints to the ombudsman and therefore the number of opinions which she issues. "The society believes the increase in the number of complaints reflects people's faith that it is worth complaining. "The ombudsman has echoed this view and her office recently stating that it showed people were willing to make complaints more readily. "Also, the ombudsman's opinions can range from satisfactory to critical, and there are several shades of critical which include positive suggestions to recommendations to reinvestigate. "Many of the opinions received from the ombudsman over the past year have been satisfactory."

Orwellian State at the UN Women's Conference 23 March 2005

By Carey Roberts

For sheer propaganda value, it doesn't get any better than the United Nations women's conference, which wraps up later this week in New York City.

No doubt you are wondering why your local newspaper didn't cover this historic event. The reason is, the sessions were so mired in fem-speak and harsh rhetoric that the ultra-liberal New York Times decided to take a pass. Ditto for the Washington Post and Boston Globe. Ten years ago in Beijing, the Commission on the Status of Women conference gave its speakers free rein. But then Madame Hillary let loose with her keynote rant, making nonsense claims such as "Women are 70% of the world's poor"

This time around the conference planners learned their lesson. Everything was scripted, right down to the snappy slogans and approved list of grievances. Once you heard UN secretary-general Kofi Annan give his welcoming speech, you knew you were going to be hearing a lot about "gender equality and women's empowerment." Of course, it's all a ruse. When the Sisterhood speaks of "equality," equal opportunities for men and women are the last thing they have in mind. In fact, "equal opportunity" appeared to be on the conference organizer's list of banned expressions. Feminists don't like the O-word because it implies women might need to operate on an even and fair basis with men.

So when feminists claim to be in favor of gender equality, they are really referring to a genderless society. "Gender equality" means "genderless society." Get it? To achieve their gender-free utopia, the rad-fems employ tactics that are hallmarks of totalitarian societies: revamping the traditional family, mass re-education programs, gender quotas, and discriminatory laws that promise to "re-engineer" society

Mind you, the feminist rendition of "gender equality" is always a one-way street. Around the world, men have a higher death rate than women The victims of worksite deaths are almost always male. Men’s suicide rate is three and a half times higher. But the problems of men will just have to wait.

Then there's the mantra of "women's empowerment" - that one is even more disingenuous. Feminists think of "empowerment" in the neo-Marxist sense – inducing women to become angry and resentful, thus driving a wedge between the sexes and undermining marriage, the most fundamental unit of society. Propaganda is a slippery slope. Once you tell an untruth, you have to come up with more falsehoods in order to be consistent. These are a few examples of the lies that filled the halls of the United Nations this past week:

Eduardo Sevilla, acting president of the UN General Assembly, alleged that women are "discriminated against more than any other minority." That statement contains two absurdities. First, women represent a majority of the world's population. Second, Sevilla's remark flatly ignores the ethnic-cleansing that has been directed against minority populations in Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, and elsewhere. Then Munir Akram, president of the UN Economic and Social Council, repeated the old myth about women being the main victims of war. Apparently Mr. Akram never got around to reading the UN's recent Report on Violence on Health, which documented that 310,000 men, and only 77,000 women, died of war-related injuries in 2000

Next the ever-shrill Noeleen Heyzer, executive director of the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), stepped to the podium and claimed that "violence against women has become routine as a weapon of war." That hyper-inflated remark ignores the fact that women are just as likely to commit domestic violence as men Several speakers fell back on the old stand-by, the gender wage gap, even though that shibboleth has now been thoroughly debunked Propagandists care little about the facts, because the ends always justify the means.

Really, how can so many well-educated, highly-placed UN officials say so many stupid things? After listening all day to the ideological slogans, factual distortions, and emotional harangues, one almost begins to believe they are true. That's how brainwashing works.

The history of 20th century Europe offers a cautionary tale of social movements that promised a better future, but in truth were fueled by lies and anger. Looking back, no one doubts the sinister nature of those movements. Now in 2005, the face of modern-day evil is beginning to emerge. That face wears the mask of radical feminism. And slowly but surely, that divisive ideology is taking hold at the United Nations.

An invisible hand guiding the populace 22 March 2005

The Traitors Amongst Us

"An invisible hand is guiding the populace." LaFayette

By now, many of you must be wondering, who is the power behind the throne? In the 50th anniversary of "The Foreign Affairs," the official publication of the Council of Foreign Relations entitled, "Reflecting our National Purpose" stated, "Our national purpose should be to abolish our nationality." Remember, the CFR was instrumental in the United Nations. Admiral Chester Ward, declared, "The goal of the Council of Foreign Relation is submergence of the U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all powerful ONE-WORLD government and equally important is the C.F.R influence in our mass media. They control or own most major newspapers, magazines, radio and television networks." Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C. summarized the CFR's purpose as follows: "The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system and make the U.S. an official part of it."

Carroll Quigley, Professor of History at Georgetown University, stated, "The Council of Foreign Relations is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." On March 29, 1981 the Associated Press reported, "In some quarters of the world, the Trilateral Commission whose founder is David Rockefeller is pictured as a nefarious [unspeakably wicked] communist conspiracy. Elsewhere it is a cabal [a secret scheme of plotters] seeking to chain the worlds people to the chains of capitalism." John Hylan, Mayor of New York 1918-1925, said, "The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation." Walt Rostow, CFR member and U.N. spokesman stated, "It is in the American interest to put an end to nationhood."

The American Legion declared the Council of Foreign Relations to be Subversive. In its Resolution No. 62-631-28 of July 1, 1962, the Legion states in part: ". . . The Council of Foreign Relations has been exposed by extensive research and much testimony as being engaged in destroying the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States of America . . . ". . . Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died for liberty, and this liberty is being swiftly destroyed by members and programs of the Council of Foreign Relations, who, in the name of One-Worldism and United Nationism, are surrendering our country to the enemy, proposing that our country be disarmed unilaterally or bilaterally, that all individuals in the United States be disarmed to make enemy conquest easier, that our Armed Forces be turned over to the Communist-controlled United Nations." Senator Barry Goldwater, in his book "With No Apologies", wrote: "The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - Political, Monetary, Intellectual and Ecclesiastical."

Mr. Goldwater goes on to write, "Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happen to be CRF and just happen to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A private owned organization, the Federal Reserve which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America." Rear Admiral Chester Ward warned the American people with these words: "The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government." CFR member Zbigniew Breninski (National Security Advisor to President Carter) proclaimed: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values." Walter Cronkite of CBS pointed out, "The Rockefeller's are the epitome of the nations permanent establishment: Governments change, economics fluctuate, foreign alliances shift - The Rockefeller's prevail." Congressman John Rarick warns: "The CFR dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education and mass communication media should be familiar to every American concerned with good government and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free enterprise system. Yet, the nation's right-to-know machinery, and the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities. The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship."

Are you beginning to get the picture?

Col. Fletcher Prouty, Liaison Officer between the Pentagon and the CIA, had this to say, "The Secret Team is a group of men who can orchestrate the activities of the United States government. They are from industry, big business, the military, big banks and big lawyers . . . They manipulate the government policy." ("The Secret Team") Now let's take a look at the Secret Team. The following is a partial list of past and present members of the Council of Foreign Relations and/or Trilateral Commission: George Bush, Billary Clinton, Reagan, Ford, Carter, Nixon, Mr. Gravel President of "ONE WORLD", Henry (the Peacemaker) Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor, Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense, Collin Powell, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Wm Webster, Dir, C.I. A., Dick Thornbourgh, Attorney General, Nicholas Brady, Secretary of the Treasury, Richard Darman, Director Office of Management of Budget, James Williams, Dept. of Education, Horace Dawson, U.S. Information Agency, Alan Greenspan, Chairman, Federal Reserve, Cyrus Vance, Federal Reserve, Paul Volker, Federal Reserve, Allied Supreme Commanders: Eisenhower, Ridgeway, Gruenther, Norstad, Lemnltzer, Goodpaster, Haig, Rogers, Secretaries of Defense: McElroy, Gates, McNamara, Laird, Richardson, Rumsfeld, Brown, Weinberger, Carlucci, Cheney, Superintendents U.S. Military Academy at Westpoint: Westmorland, Lampert, Bennett, Knowlton, Berry, The list goes on and on and includes: Congressmen, Supreme Court Judges, Presidents of Colleges and Universities, Ambassadors, Military, Officers of Exxon, Texaco, Shell, Mobil, John Deere, IBM, Amtrak, AT&T, Chrysler, GM, Ford, GE, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp, Morgan Guaranty, Bankers Trust of New York, First National Bank of Chicago, Manufactures Hanover, and Export-Import Bank, just to name a few. Members of the CFR and TLC in the current Billary Clinton administration include, Billary Clinton, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Deputy Secretary of State Clifton Wharton, CIA Director James Woolsey, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, Deputy National Security Advisor Samuel Berger, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, Chairman of Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board William Crowe, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeline Albright, Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen, Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, Deputy Director Office of Management and Budget Alice Rivlin, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors Laura Tyson, and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. The top 35 members of the Billary Clinton administration, including the entire cabinet belong to the CFR and/or the TLC. The Clinton administration is filled with TRAITORS! With enemies like this, who needs an honest government? If you thought Ross Perot was any different, you have got another thing coming. The May 29, 1992, issue of the Wall Street Journal revealed the following, "FRIEND IN NEED: Perot's candidacy for the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations several years ago was seconded by . . . George Bush. A Perot aide says Bush's seconding letter was `lovely,' but that there aren't any plans to release the text." Surprise! Surprise! Perot, Bush and Clinton are all on the same side. If you think we have a two party system, or even a three party system, you are dreaming. It may have been a nice dream while it lasted, but it is time to WAKE-UP to reality. By the way, there has never been a Chairman of the Federal Reserve that hasn,t been a member of the Council of Foreign Relations.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Man will ultimately be governed by GOD or tyrants." As a nation, we are certainly not being governed by God, so therefore we must be governed by ungodly TYRANTS! By now, many of you are probably asking yourself, "If all this is true, why hasn't the media told us?" John Swinton, former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, answered this question while giving a toast before the New York Press Club in 1953: He is quoted as follows: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write you honest opinions, and if you did, you know before hand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting and independent press! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intelligent prostitutes." Richard Cohan, Senior Producer of CBS political news said, "We are going to impose our AGENDA on the coverage of dealing with issues and subjects that WE choose to deal with." Richard, former President of CBS News stated, "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what WE decide they ought to have."

Hard to believe? If there is any doubt - read on.

International MONEY-CHANGER David Rockefeller said, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced for past centuries." Media members of the subversive (TREASONOUS) Council of Foreign Relations and/or Trilateral Commission include: Dan Rather, Henry Reasoner, Bill Moyers, Jane Pheiffer, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Marvin Kalb, Irving Levine, Ted Koppel, John Scalli, Barbara Walters, Wm F. Buckley, Robert McNeil and Jim Leher, Connie Chung, Bret Hume and David Horowitz. As well as, other top officials of CBS, NBC/RCA, ABC, CNN, PBS, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Boston Globe, L.A. Times, Denver Post, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, New York Times, Time Inc., Newsweek, Washington Post, Readers Digest, Dow Jones & Co. and the National Review. Just to name a few of the TRAITORS. "Our Republic and its free press will rise and fall together." Joseph Pulitzer To illustrate the power of the media in America, on February 29, 1992, a very important historical event took place at the Martin Luther King Jr. Auditorium in New York. This event, the International War Crimes Tribunal was completely blocked out by the media in America. A 22 member International War Crimes Tribunal representing the People of five continents concluded 12 months of gathering and reviewing evidence. Before a public meeting of 1,500 people, the Tribunal, headed by former United States Attorney General, Ramsey Clark found George Bush and others in his administration guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of 19 charges of war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity for U.S. conduct before, during and after the war against Iraq. The audience leaped to its feet when the verdict was read and in a standing ovation chanted the verdict over and over. "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" World, media recognized the International War Crimes Tribunal as an historical event, two of Japan's biggest dailies and Tokyo Broadcasting System, Danish National Television, and newspapers throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe published extensive reports. Why then, did the media in the United State completely black out Tribunal coverage. They all knew of the Tribunal. They made up half of the journalists who signed in February 29, 1992. A letter from Ramsey Clark reminded heads of the media corporations of their responsibility to report the news. Yet individual journalists told the Tribunal media staff that an attempt to cover the Tribunal could lead to their being fired. All evidence points out to a systematic, coordinated censorship within the United States of the Tribunals findings.

Only a free media can represent a free people. So why hasn't the media told us the truth about the Council of Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, the findings of the International War Crimes Tribunal and the real purpose of the United Nations? Why, because the so-called "Freedom of the Press" in America isn't free, and that's why they haven't told you! They didn't want to WAKE-UP the SLEEPING GIANT. Thomas Jefferson declared, "Their purpose is to diffuse the knowledge more generally amongst the mass." For those of you who are having a hard time accepting these truths presented to you for the first time, these words from Mr. Al St. Clair, President of Informed Consent may be helpful: "How is it then, that most of us are seeing this shocking truth for the first time in 1994? The truth is that those we trusted with positions of leadership, both state and federal, have betrayed our trust. Blinded by ambition and the fear of loss, they have denied the real consequences of their actions even to themselves and at the expense of their own families. It is difficult to acknowledge that all these men and women could individually and collectively be guilty of treason against the Constitution and the people they claim to represent. But the facts tell an irrefutable story. Now, We the American people, must face and deal with the problem before we become 'Feudal Slaves' in their newly constructed NEW WORLD ORDER." The following "Occasional Letter No. 1" of Rockefeller's General Educational Board was issued in 1904, it reveals in part how they look upon the people as being mere sheeple:

"In our dreams we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farms." Perhaps he should have continued by saying, 'We have them where we want them. Our propaganda has worked. They have given up and really believe there is nothing they can do about what we have done to them. They are our sleeping slaves.'


You Be The Judge and Jury is a trial for  the acts of rebellion, sedition, insurrection and treason being committed by the Federal Reserve, IRS, U.S. Government against We the People.  The defendants are the United States Government, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Banks, IRS, Internal Revenue Service,  President Clinton, the Supreme Court, the State Governors,  Bar Association lawyers, judges, FBI, DEA, CIA and the FDA.

They are guilty of  committing treason, rebellion, insurrection, and waging war against its people.  Read the book and find out for yourself!  You'll be surprised! You Be The Judge and Jury exposes the acts of rebellion, sedition, insurrection and treason being committed by the Federal Reserve, IRS, U.S. Government against We the People.  The United States Government,  Federal Reserve Banks, IRS, Internal Revenue Service,  the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, the Governors, lawyers, judges, FBI, and CIA have been committing treason, rebellion, insurrection, and waging war against its people under the War Powers Act of 1917, as amended, March 9, 1933.

34 years of women's shelters 22 March 2005

Renew America

Everybody deserves better - 34 years of women's shelter services By Trudy W. Schuett, RenewAmerica analyst

On this International Women's Day, it is time to consider the roots of the women's movement of the 1960s. Back then, the issues were focused on equal rights for women. In 2005, most if not all, the issues have been successfully resolved, in terms of literal equality in western industrialized nations. The movement has evolved over time into something more about female supremacy rather than equality. While there are those women who will never be content with their lot in life and always imagine their perceived lack of prestige, or success, or whatever to be entirely the fault of men in general, that simply does not apply to women today.

Most women accept the challenges presented to them in their lives, work through them, and move on to enjoy the benefits provided women which may or may not have existed before. They wish to live full and balanced lives, and are free to organize the varied parts of their lives — marriage, children, and career in whatever way they choose. Generally speaking, the radical elements who haven't yet realized their work is done are easily dismissed, and most often ignored. Malcontents in society will always be with us. It is only when we allow these malcontents to dictate public policy, and our government to fund programs to further their extremist philosophies that society puts itself in harm's way.

Such is the case with the issue of intimate partner abuse, most popularly recognized as domestic violence. Today's programs are still operated by the same radical feminists, in the same ways as they were in the 1970s. The only difference in these programs is that they are now being given public funding — to the detriment of any community which supports these programs. They have ceased to be helpful, if in fact they ever were. At the root of the problem is the fact that domestic violence is neither a political issue, nor a gender issue. To address this social issue in this fashion, from this standpoint, is a mistake which sends victims down a dangerously wrong path. All it does is set the immediate problem on hold temporarily while creating a new set of problems for the victim to confront. Offered no other choice, victims follow the direction of shelter programs, unaware the actions suggested will have ramifications that may never be resolved for years, possibly even causing permanent, irreparable, damage to themselves, and their children and families.

The only victims willingly served by existing programs are women — preferably those with no male children over the age of 12. Male abusers are eagerly placed in re-training or incarceration programs by institutions created to do just that. There are no effective screening measures in place in either case to demonstrate evidence of need; only a verbal request or accusation is ever required. The nationwide network of women's shelter programs actively and constantly remind the public that men are to blame for the problem, and naturally enough, refuse to aid male victims or female abusers. (While many programs claim to serve all, in an awkward attempt to address the public perception they provide assistance without regard to gender, in practice there are few equally-accessible services available for anyone other than female victims and male abusers.) This same network maintains a stranglehold on public funding for domestic violence services, and goes to great lengths to prevent agencies intending to serve those other populations from doing so.

It is time this project in the cause of feminist ideology came to an end. Everything You Thought You Knew about Domestic Violence is Probably Wrong There is a morass of confusing dogma surrounding the subject. It is often lumped together with other issues of stalking, sexual assault and divorce which are in fact, entirely separate issues and should not be considered in the same way, and at the same time. However, the establishment in charge of these programs has found it expedient and profitable to allow the confusion. In fact, it could be said that misconstruction and partial truth is the hallmark of feminist marketing and activism. This has worked well for them for decades, but in these days of transparency and accountability, the abilities they may have had in the past to revise everything from history to the laws of physics are no longer so dependable.

Some misconceptions have become part of conventional wisdom. But, just because "everybody says so" doesn't mean everybody is right. Here are some of the most widely-repeated tales: 95% of victims of domestic violence are women. This came to be due to either a misunderstanding or an outright manipulation of Dept of Justice figures. While it seems logical to shelter personnel, that is because shelters are in practice open to women only. Female victims are the only victims they see. There is an epidemic of domestic violence. Since the actual meaning of the term is something to the effect of "a greater than usual amount of cases," it can't possibly apply. Nobody knows what is usual in the first place. From a marketing perspective, the word sounds good for emotional effect, but that's all.

Domestic violence is unknown and unrecognized. We maintain a running search for articles in media and online, and even on a slow day there will be about 50 articles relating to the issue. Ironically, many of those articles contain a quote from somebody saying nobody ever talks about domestic violence. A recent Google search for the term yielded 5,810,000 results. Battering always escalates, and the eventual conclusion is death. This untrue, unsupportable statement gives some important insight into the mindset of those running shelter programs. They do not recognize their clients as individuals, and there is no provision in shelter programs for meeting the needs of individuals. Therefore, it is easy to make blanket statements regarding this situation, despite a lack of actual evidence. Domestic violence is a deliberate pattern of power and control. While this is true in some cases, it cannot possibly be true all the time. Again, this relates to the inability of current programs to treat victims as individuals. It also reflects on the viewpoint of feminist-run shelters that domestic violence is political in nature. In this ideology, men are the cause, and women are the hapless victims, unable to deal with their problems without outside intervention.

We can have an end to domestic violence, if only _________. This purely human problem has been with us long before it was given a name, and will be with us as long as we continue to be human. Certainly, we can have an end to the parts of it engineered by the feminists as soon as control of these programs is given to apolitical professionals with an understanding of family problems. It is unreasonable to even consider there will be a day when there is no domestic violence whatsoever, just as it is unreasonable to consider there will ever be an end to crime, greed, or any other human failing.

How Did Things Get This Way?

People in general, and Americans in particular, have a deep well of compassion and concern for other individuals. Yet, in the 20th Century there was a new reliance on the word of "experts" in dealing with personal issues, as the population became increasingly mobile and separated from the extended family situations of earlier times. The 20th Century was also a time when socialist ideals became attractive to a people faced with issues such as unemployment and alcoholism. Welfare programs, such as those established in the Great Depression of the 1930s appeared to succeed, even though Prohibition on alcohol did not. Still, there was an acceptance of the idea that politicizing and criminalizing dysfunctional human behaviors was an appropriate means of dealing with those kinds of issues. By the 1960s, socialist activists and various groups seeking improved levels of social acceptance for specific groups of people appeared all over the country.

Among these groups were the feminists, who claimed to want "equal rights" for women. This term was, and still is defined differently, depending on who is using it. What the most radical and militant feminists considered equal rights included dominance over men, and the dissolution of marriage and traditional family structure. This would be replaced with government control, including placement of children in public childcare facilities from birth to adulthood. By the 1970s, most of the more-realistic goals of equality for women were achieved, leaving the radical elements with few issues to confront. Here and there, shelters and services were beginning to be established to help battered women, which were prime targets for the radical feminists. These were usually small grassroots efforts run by people with little or no experience in political activism. The only thing the early shelter volunteers had in common with the radical feminists was sometimes a shared hatred of men and everything they did. This happened often enough that the feminists were given free rein in their activism. What had once been agencies providing simple aid on a volunteer basis became massive concerns, with infrastructure, staffing, and funding to match.

The well-publicized goal of these programs was "an end to domestic violence." Advocates for these programs were constantly lobbying legislatures at all levels for favorable laws fostering divorce, and criminalization of perceived abusive behaviors by men, as well as ever-increasing levels of funding. No law, no amount of funding, was ever enough. Any legislator, researcher or public figure of any kind who attempted to object to this level of government control of private lives, who suggested seeking solutions other than divorce or that men and women were equally responsible for the problem was labeled a misogynist, an abuser, or worse. Many careers have been ruined by shelter advocates resisting change or accountability for their programs. Some questioning these programs have even suffered threats of physical harm or specious lawsuits. This kind of behavior on the part of anti-male, anti-family factions of the radical feminist movement continues today.

In 1994, the initial Violence Against Women Act was passed, and a new social problem was recognized by Congress. "Gender violence" was claimed by advocates to be the #1 issue facing women everywhere. Despite the fact the term has no meaning on its own, the law passed, and $3.5 billion dollars in public funding was earmarked for these women-only shelter programs. Meanwhile the general public, believing the problem was under the control of well-meaning experts, not only supported this act, but encouraged the programs to expand and the laws to become more restrictive and inequitable. Legislation suggested by shelter advocates moved farther and farther away from the core issue as time went on. Today it is almost impossible to have a discussion of either divorce or domestic violence without mentioning the other, or bringing in the blame issue.

We are no closer to finding practical solutions to the problem, for either victim or abuser, than we were when the first shelter was established in 1971 by Erin Pizzey. Her early attempts at providing equitable services were promptly eradicated by the feminist takeover of shelter services everywhere.

What Can We Do to Change Things?

First, the public needs to recognize the difference between the fictions promoted by those implementing an ideology, and the reality of the situation. Those who have been able to avoid intervention by the established domestic violence industry, and study the problem using accepted scientific methodology and objectivity have found a quite different problem than is generally claimed. Intimate partner abuse is something that can often be addressed in other ways than the overly simplistic intervention/divorce/relocation scenario provided by existing programs. There are also different people involved. While the male abuser/female victim is part of the picture, there are also female abusers, male victims, mutual victim/abuser situations, serial victims, and a small group of those who appear to have an addiction to violence.

There is a nascent, but emerging pattern of individuals and groups seeking alternatives to the ideological approach, which could be encouraged to come forward. In some locales, human services programs have deliberately removed themselves from the national network of services in order to serve their communities without interference. Some agencies that depend on the funding and networking opportunities provided by the national network have an unspoken, but functioning, "open door policy" that provides those limited services allowed by the network to a greater population than only the female victims mentioned earlier. Others, such as the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men, function independently of the network, as it has repeatedly been refused admission. While the issue is nowhere near as cut and dried as is publicized today, an opening up of inquiry, allowing honesty and objectivity to prevail will go a long way itself to provide otherwise-unknown solutions for some cases. Here and there, in isolated shelters and counseling programs, are the seeds of these new, and unidentified approaches.

Federal, state, and municipal government needs to stop funding organizations that are using public monies for ideological purposes and divert those funds to those who are operating on equitable terms, and providing practical assistance to members of their communities without regard to gender. A serious investigation of organizations such as the Violence Against Women Office, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the individual state DV coalitions needs to be undertaken, and criminal charges filed where necessary, if misappropriation of government funds or other wrongdoing is found. Civil litigation needs to be pursued in those cases where these agencies and coalitions have caused economic or other actionable damage to communities and individuals.

Legislators and public officials at all levels of government who have opposed the feminist-based programs and been hesitant to speak out due to fear of political repercussion should be encouraged to make their positions clear, by taking the lead in restoring their communities to the sanity of equal treatment for all. In addition, they can withdraw and/or oppose any legislation that is related to increasing criminal penalties for domestic violence. Past laws have been proven to be of little value, and only serve to add to the burden of already overcrowded prison populations. They are only reflections of the politicization of human relationships, which is part of the feminist ideology, and has no place in addressing domestic violence from a humanitarian point of view.

Screening procedures must be developed to ensure that applicants can demonstrate a need for services of any kind. There is no screening procedure in place today, and many cases of abuse of the system itself go unrecognized. Current services have resisted any suggestion that they either screen applicants or network with other agencies to avoid duplicating efforts. Finally, since there is no procedure in place to determine whether shelters actually aid women in becoming free of abuse in their lives, there should be some way to establish independently whether these shelters provide the community with any service at all.

Some have said to me that this idea of scrapping VAWA entirely is the wrong approach, that we should simply correct the problems and give this system credit for the good it has done. If I knew of any actual good to anyone, I would give credit where credit is due. I've been writing about this issue since 1999 and not once have I ever had a single positive e-mail about women's shelter services from a recipient of same. I don't believe they come away from these programs any better off than before. Allowing these prejudicial, deeply biased and regressive programs to continue unchecked will only serve to add to the numbers on the welfare rolls, in the jails and under the care of government-sponsored child protective agencies. In the United States of America, in the 21st Century, our families deserve better.

Baby deaths mother granted bail 15 March 2005

A mother who was jailed for life for killing her two babies has been granted bail by an Appeal Court judge - but will not be freed immediately. A full appeal into Donna Anthony's case will be heard next month, but her conviction will stand until then. Anthony, 31, of Yeovil, claims she was wrongly convicted in 1998 following the deaths of 11-month-old Jordan and four-month-old Michael.

She is likely to be freed on bail in the next few days.

Her bail application could not be processed at the court because of "technical reasons". Her case was one of 28 put up for review after Angela Cannings' murder conviction was overturned. The original murder trial, at Bristol Crown Court, relied on evidence from paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, whose evidence in other cases has been discredited.

'New evidence'

Mr Justice Judge, sitting at the High Court in London on Tuesday, said he understood the Crown Prosecution Service did not plan to contest the appeal. But he said it was for judges to decide the outcome of the case based on evidence put forward. The Criminal Case Review Commission (CCRC) decided in February that there was evidence to refer Anthony's case to the Court of Appeal. It was referred to the commission in September 2003, following an unsuccessful appeal in 2000. The CCRC said it was sending her case back to the Court of Appeal after considering "new expert medical evidence".

Anthony believes her children were victims of cot death.

Angela Cannings was cleared on appeal in December 2003 of killing two of her sons, seven-week-old Jason and 18-week-old Matthew.


by Paul Robbins
As far as I can tell...

Feminists believe all men are guilty of being men, an original sin no amount of virtue can erase. So I confess—I’m guilty. First, of being a man, second, of not being a feminist. If that makes me a misogynist, so be it. I’m a man and I make no apologies for being a man.

I am not a feminist because I believe society must balance the inter-related needs, rights, and interests of men, women, and children, while feminists believe the needs, rights, and interests of women always outweigh those of men and children. So here, Brother Hugo, is my mea culpa—read it and weep.

I respect and acknowledge Condoleeza Rice for being the first black woman to be confirmed as Secretary of State.

Feminists oppose Dr. Rice because she's a political conservative. Barbara Boxer all but called her a liar during her confirmation hearing. So much for the sisterhood. I deeply admire and respect Mother Teresa, a Catholic nun who felt called to spend her life comforting the dying untouchables in India.

Feminists dislike Mother Teresa because she opposed abortion. Germaine Greer wrote a snippy, catty critique of her life when she died. Feminists admire Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood; Sanger was a racist eugenicist who wanted to sterilize blacks to limit their numbers. I believe the only difference between The Vagina Monologues and a blue movie is that the blue movie has better monologues.

Feminists believe The Vagina Monologues is the greatest piece of literature since Medea. I'm not a male feminist. A male feminist believes all men beat their wives—except himself. A male feminist believes all men rape women—except himself. A male feminist believes all men oppress women—except himself. He's half right–he doesn't, but neither do most men.

Female feminists believe all men beat their wives, rape women, and oppress women–except for Bill Clinton. I believe men have made enormous contributions to civilization and that absent those contributions civilization itself would disappear.

Feminists believe men are good for three things: donating sperm, changing the oil, and paying child support. I believe women have made enormous contributions to civilization and that absent those contributions civilization itself would disappear.

Feminists believe women would have made enormous contributions to civilization if men had not oppressed them. Since their liberation, feminists have made up for lost time by giving us Women’s Studies. I’m a misogynist because I believe most women are fair-minded individuals who seek fairness and equality for both men and women.

Feminists seek fairness and equality for women but not for men. I believe when the Titanic goes down without sufficient lifeboats, women and children should share the lifeboats.

Feminists believe women should share the lifeboats with the children—if there’s room. I believe children need both mothers and fathers.

Feminists believe children need mothers and child support checks but not fathers. I believe most men truly love their children and their wives and that most men behave responsibly and lovingly towards their wives and their children.

Feminists think women are good, men are bad. Well, except for the evil Dr. Rice and Mother Teresa, of course. I believe a father who loses his kids in an unfair and biased custody decision suffers an injustice—and that his pain at losing his children is real.

Feminists believe his pain is real but deserved. If he didn't want to lose his kids in a nasty divorce, he shouldn't have married. You know, kind of like the black slave who objected to being whipped–if he didn't want to be whipped, he shouldn't have run away in the first place. I believe children deserve both a mother and a father in the event of a divorce.

Feminists believe children deserve only a mother and a child support check in the event of divorce. Whether children ever see their father again should be left up to mom. I believe no man should be forced to support another man's child.

Feminists believe women have the right to lie to their children about who their fathers are, lie to fathers about who their children are, and to jail any man who refuses to support the child the woman said was his–even if the DNA proves she lied. I believe both fathers and mothers should have both rights and responsibilities when its comes to their children.

Feminists believe mothers should have rights to children, fathers should have responsibilities. I believe that marriage benefits men, women, and children and deserves widespread societal support.

Feminists oppose heterosexual marriage but think homosexual marriage is the greatest thing since Roe v Wade. I believe in the event of divorce, the state has an obligation to treat both the husband and wife fairly and equally and to mitigate the damage to all parties, but especially to the children.

Feminists believe the purpose of divorce is to allow a woman to end a marriage but keep all its benefits, including the children and her former husband's money. I believe the destruction of the family is a result of ideas and policies advanced largely by feminists.

Feminists agree—and they’re proud of it. According to Germaine Greer, widespread divorce is feminism's greatest achievement. I believe most divorces are filed and initiated by wives because they know they'll receive the children, the bulk of the marital property, and a sizable share of their former husband's income.

Feminists believe women file most divorces because the husband deserves it. He’s a man, after all. I believe divorced fathers are justly angry at a family court system that routinely deprives them of their children, their property, and their rights–and that calling these men "misogynists" will not suffice to silence their anger and their cries for justice.

Feminists call these men "misogynists" to silence them so that women's gravy train will not be derailed. I believe domestic violence is a human problem, that women are as likely to resort to violence in an intimate relationship as men, a conclusion supported by numerous scientific studies.

Feminists believe that only men resort to violence and a woman who appears to resort violence is actually defending herself. Feminists have no explanation for intimate violence in lesbian relationships, so they don't talk about it. I believe most child abuse and murder is committed by mothers, not by fathers, a conclusion supported by solid evidence.

Feminists avoid dealing with this issue. When confronted, they say it's because mothers spend more time caring for children than fathers, but feminists do not make the same effort to prevent mothers from abusing their children as they do to prevent men from abusing their wives.


Is the NASA program a secret ILLUMINATI system of new world order domination and to set up their satellite tracking and global listening stations?


(Astronaut, Senator) Bro. John Glen

The Freemason 11 March 2005

JB (Jeb Bennie)

The freemason is at heart a cheat. Here we have the sleazy little fellow who thinks he can advance in life by trickery or 'craft' as they call it so aptly.

He is the dishonest toerag seeking unfair advantage over his fellow earth-travellers or brethren; he is a scoundrel of the first order who knows nothing of brotherhood and everything about how to cut corners.

Therefore you will observe these chaps to be shoddy and of below average wit. This is why we see so many criminals attracted to their fold, and because of their inherent dimness we see that they are so easily manipulated by their masters at the top.

Tyranny Comes to Amerika 11 March 2005

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

The "suicide" deaths of Hunter Thompson, Gary Webb and J.H. Hatfield show that reporters who expose the criminal activities of our political elite are risking their lives. They are on the front line of freedom. When they are killed, it means very bad things are in store. In the latest issue of "World Currency Review," veteran British intelligence analyst Christopher Story warns us to expect a tyranny in America worse than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I'll elaborate below. Hunter Thompson was killed late last month. He was working on stories dealing with a homosexual callboy (or programmed sex slave?) ring in the Bush White House and the demolition of the World Trade Center.

Gary Webb was killed in December. His specialty was the Cocaine Import Agency (CIA).

J.H. Hatfield "committed suicide" in 2001. His book "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President" was actually withdrawn by the publisher during the 2000 election campaign. About 100,000 copies were actually burned! In the book, Hatfield established that G.W. Bush was convicted of cocaine possession in 1972. His father had the record expunged. Otherwise Hatfield's book is quite positive about Junior. I never thought El Presidente had the wit to fly a jet fighter. Two other details caught my attention:

One of the original investors in Daddy Bush's Zapata Oil was Eugene Meyer, a Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a war profiteer and the publisher of the Washington Post. The Bushes were always operatives for the Illuminati bankers. And when Junior was looking for investors in Arbusto Oil, James Bath staked him. Bath was a close business associate of Osama Bin Laden's father! This supports my contention in "Bush, Bin Laden Serve the Same Master" that the globalist elite directs the War of Terror against the American people.


Christopher Story is the author of "The New Underworld Order: Triumph of Criminalism and the Global Hegemony of Masonic Intelligence,"(available from I haven't read it yet but I have read the latest (winter 2004-2005) issue of his"International Currency Review." Story has extensive contacts in the Intelligence Community. Essentially his view is that, despite the supposed "fall" of Communism (See Anatoly Golitsyn's The Perestroika Deception) the Illuminati bankers continue to use Russia, and specifically the KGB successor agencies to foster their world tyranny, which he defines as:

"The destruction of the nation state and its replacement by regional and global governance systems, with a small, self-appointed elite controlling the world's resources at the expense of everyone else, for their own benefit. This is the essence of the world revolution through which we are living." Story says that this "revolution" uses corruption and criminalism as instruments. Soviet intelligence operatives were literally retrained as criminals and infiltrated into Europe and the U.S. He says the US intelligence community also is used to foster moral corruption partly to blackmail and bribe holders of public office. No elected official "can move," he says. "In this coup d'etat by installments, the US intelligence community has impregnated and corrupted the republican form of democratic governance by blackmail...and by always ensuring that its own personnel occupy the most important policymaking posts. In this respect there is no difference between the US and Soviet Systems."

This is literally true in terms of personnel. The list of "former" KBG generals working for the new Dept of Homeland Security includes Yevgeny Primakov, Alaxander Karpov and Oleg Kalugin. These men continue to serve "the covert Communist Party of the Soviet Union." (82) The Dept. of Homeland Security, headed by Israeli-US joint citizen Michael Chertoff, is accountable to the President only. Its entire dealings are secret. It operates with impunity. Story writes: "The language of Patriot Act II is believed to be lifted almost verbatim from...the Soviet Internal Security Enhancement Act (1965). A system of internal spying is being installed...along East German STASI lines [with help of consultant] East German STASI General Marcus Wolf." (130)

In an interview, Primakov volunteered that when the National Identity Card act (NICA) is passed, the Posse Comitatus Act is overturned, and other forms of repressive legislation are approved, "the White House will have acquired greater control over the American people than the Kremlin could exert when Stalin was alive." (82) Story says that "the volume of official criminal operations and funds stolen have exceeded mind boggling numbers...only the most draconian control mechanisms can ever guarantee the immunity of all the high-level perpetrators...from exposure, arrest, indictment or worse." (110) He reminds us of George H.W. Bush's comment that "if the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts." The "draconian control mechanisms" include the construction of an American Gulag, a system of "prison camps" in army installations, euphemistically known as the "Civilian Inmate Labor Program." The same thing has happened in Canada.


Christopher Story is describing the stealth Communist takeover of the USA. How better do it when everyone is thinking Muslims, and our elected officials are too corrupt and compromised to protect us? The Illuminati puppeteers appear to be setting the stage for a world war between the US and Israel on the one hand, and Iran, Russia and possibly Europe and China on the other. The Iraq war is a proxy war like the Spanish Civil War. According to Story, the Russian GPU prepared the Iraqi insurgency. World War may be preceded by a breakdown in the world financial system prompted by financial and criminal excesses or the abandonment of the US dollar.

Or a "terrorist" event could provide an excuse to impose martial law, the draft, confiscate gold etc. I almost didn't write this week. I felt like taking a break from this stuff. Spring is teasing us here in the North where I live. The days are getting longer. Divorced from our real history, we are taught to think of concentration camp, plague, mass slaughter and secret police as things from a benighted past.

The events of Sept 11 have brought us back to rude reality. The forces responsible for the excesses of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia are responsible for 9-11. They still rule the world.

The Internet is abuzz. The American sheeple are stirring. Wolves have slaughtered some at the edges. Three thousand at the World Trade Center; ten thousand in Iraq; some reporters. The sheeple hope they will be spared if they keep their head down and play stupid. If history is an indication, this won't be the case. Sheep get slaughtered.

Why are we welcoming this torturer? 10 March 2005

Europe is tacitly condoning the Bush regime's appalling practices

George Bush is this week having an extravagantly orchestrated series of meetings with Europe's leaders, designed to show a united front for the creation of democracy around the world. Tony Blair talks of our "shared values". No one mentions the word that makes this show a mockery: torture. It is now undeniable that the US administration, at the highest levels, is responsible for the torture that has been routine not only, as seen round the world in iconic photographs, at Abu Ghraib, but at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram. Meanwhile, in prisons in Egypt, Jordan and Syria (and no doubt others we do not know about), Muslim men have been tortured by electric shocks to the genitals, by being kept in water, by being threatened with death - after being flown to those countries by the CIA for that very purpose.

How can it be that not one mainstream public figure in Europe has denounced these appalling practices and declared that, in view of all we now know of cells, cages, underground bunkers, solitary confinement, sodomy and threatened sodomy, beatings, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, mock executions and kidnapping, President Bush and his officials are not welcome? Perhaps it's not surprising given the British army's own dismal record in southern Iraq. Why has no public figure had the honesty to admit that the democracy and freedom promised for the Middle East are fake and mask US plans to leave Washington dominant in the area? And why does no one say publicly that what is really happening in the "war on terror" is a war on Muslims that is creating a far more dangerous world for all?

From the flood of declassified material from Guantánamo, from recent reports by the military that reveal evidence of abuse and even deaths at Bagram being destroyed, from the war between the FBI and the CIA about who is responsible for the interrogations, from the utter confusion about who is to be responsible for the prisoners who will never be released, one thing is clear: even in its own terms, the torture strategy is a failure. A s far back as September 2002, a secret CIA study into the Guantánamo detainees suggested that many were innocent or such low-level recruits to the Taliban forces that they had no intelligence value whatever. You do not have to be a specialist in torture to know that after a short period anyone will confess to anything to stop the pain. Men in Guantánamo have been interrogated more than 100 times - always shackled, always the same questions. No wonder prisoners simply stop answering. No wonder there are so many unconvincing confessions. Now The Torture Papers - 1,249 pages of government memos and reports, edited by Karen Greenberg, the executive director of the centre on law and security at the New York University School of Law - shows the American government to be guilty of a "systematic decision to alter the use of methods of coercion and torture that lay outside of accepted and legal norms".

The young women interrogators in Guantánamo who put red ink in their pants, then smeared what appeared to be menstrual blood on devout Muslim men, and mocked them by turning off the water so they could not wash before prayers, did not dream up such an idea and send home for red ink. It was policy. Like the wearing of lacy underwear - only - for work sessions, it was designed to humiliate and break men. These reports have come from an army translator, Eric Saar, as well as from prisoners. Lawyer Michael Ratner of the New York Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents over 100 prisoners, said it reminded him of "a pornographic website - it's like the fantasy of these S and M clubs". The lack of moral courage that prevents our leaders, religious as well as political, from speaking out against all this is deeply disturbing. Either they choose not to know or, by not speaking out, they tacitly condone it. Whichever it is, their behaviour is in stark contrast to the dignity of the relatives of the prisoners, or of the returned prisoners in many countries. The care and concern that many of them display to the isolated, the sick, the frightened and the traumatised among the families are a testimony to the very best of the human spirit. If only these were the shared values that Tony Blair liked to highlight. These men are driven by a feeling of responsibility for trying to end the ordeal of those 540 men still at Guantánamo, including six UK residents. Among these are a Palestinian refugee, Jamil el Banna, and an Iraqi, Bisher al Rawi, men who have lived here for 10 and 20 years respectively, have families here, and who the foreign secretary shamefully refuses to bring home from hell. · Victoria Brittain, with Gillian Slovo, compiled the play Guantanamo

Illuminati undermining privacy on the net 10 March 2005

Ever wondered why there are so many HOLES in microsoft software that undermines your privacy?

Gates has ALWAYS had a hidden ILLUMINATI agenda .

Knighthood for Microsoft's Gates
Bill Gates and the Queen chatted about computers

The king of computer software Bill Gates has received an honorary knighthood from the Queen. Mr Gates, 48, the world's wealthiest man, said it was "a great honour" to be recognised for his business skills and for his work on poverty reduction. The Queen had spoken to him about using computers, he said after a private audience with her. As an American citizen he cannot use the title "Sir" but will be entitled to put the letters KBE after his name. 'Travel talk' The entrepreneur was handed an insignia to make him a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. We talked about using computers, and the foundation, and about her travels and ours

He was joined at Buckingham Palace by wife Melinda. "It's not as natural [using computers] for the Queen as it is for young people," he said. "She was very nice. "We talked about using computers, and the foundation, and about her travels and ours." The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently working on a global health programme in the developing world. Mrs Gates said: "We talked a lot about the developing world - it was very engaging."

Research laboratory

Before the private audience, Mr Gates met the Duke of Edinburgh, who is chancellor of Cambridge University, to talk about Microsoft Research Cambridge. The research laboratory is the first of its kind outside the US. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tackles global health Honorary awards to foreign nationals are conferred by the Queen on the advice of the foreign secretary. Jack Straw said he was "delighted" Mr Gates had been honoured. He added: "He is one of the most important global business leaders of this age."

Aids vaccine

Mr Gates set up Microsoft in 1975 with his childhood friend Paul Allen, and by last year was worth an estimated £28bn. He and his wife, who have three children, are also known for their charitable work. As well as investing millions in research for an Aids vaccine, their foundation has also established a scholarship scheme to enable the brightest students to go to Cambridge University. But Microsoft has been convicted of anti-competitive behaviour in the USA and is being investigated in Europe. Other Americans who have received the KBE include former president George Bush Senior, former Mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani and film director Steven Spielberg.

Unethical and immoral behavior of judges 9 March 2005

If we look for root causes for the unethical and immoral behavior of judges, other public servants, and the law profession in general, we keep coming back to a single common factor: American education, especially higher education. While college professors have a far lower status in the United States than they do in most other countries, they are not poorly paid, and the established ones have complete job security.

While most people generally ignore what they say as too esoteric or technical, a few of them wield immense power in the media and in the halls of government. Even those who do not have such power play a pivotal role as “gatekeepers,” denying college and professional degrees practically at whim to anyone whose views they do not like. Since access to law school and law degrees is controlled by people who, in recent years, have launched an insane campaign to re-write American history by rejecting the ideas of the Founding Fathers and accusing them of instituting slavery and abusing their wives, it is not surprising that they have tried to re-write the Constitution according their own crackpot beliefs. At the same time, ethics and morals have become dead issues because they interfere with their plans for turning America into an oligarchy of Ivy League academics.

I propose that we begin looking at the bibliographies of judges who commit outrages and finding out what law school they graduated from. I personally believe that the most arbitrary and corrupt judges did not come from East Podunk Community College and Law School. They are far more likely to have graduated from Harvard or Yale. Once having made it through the mandatory harangues of the radical professors without showing any signs of intellectual resistance, they have attained a position above the law and will not go to jail no matter what they are caught doing.

By examining the website of the Federal Circuit, probably the most overtly corrupt appeals court in the country and the protector of crime and sleaze in the Federal civil service, I have made a list the institutions from which the individual judges have graduated:
1. Virginia Law School
2. Vassar, Columbia, Yale, New York University
3. West Point, Marshall-Wythe School of Law (Retired military lawyer)
4. Harvard, University of Wisconsin, University of Pennsylvania, Temple University
5. Brigham Young, George Washington University
6. Princeton, Tulane
7. Harvard, University of Texas Law
8. Rensselaer Polytechnic, Catholic University of America, Georgetown Law
9. Rensselaer Polytechnic, Georgetown Law Center
10. Harvard, Harvard Law
11. Cornell, George Washington, George Washington Law
12. Yale, Yale Law
That some of the judges have received a technical education as well as a law degree is explained by the fact that this court started out as an obscure patent court until Ronald Reagan converted it into an instrument of persecution for whistleblowers and veterans.

I have frequently heard the recommendation that judicial reform advocates should recruit the assistance of law school professors to help reform the system. If the professors at the most “respected” law schools in the country are turning out the likes of these judges, I think that their efforts would make things worse rather than better.

I am not the first one to notice the sinister role of law schools in corrupting the legal profession and the courts. A legal reformer in New York has long denounced Columbia University School of Law and Brooklyn Law School for cranking out mobs of corrupt lawyers and turning them loose on society.

Hopefully, my e-mail account will not suddenly be closed. The account I have been using for my veterans’ issues was shut down without warning last month after I distributed a message calling for Federal aid to be cut off to universities that violate the Federal contract by discriminating against veterans in employment. The law already mandates this but is never enforced. Apparently, this message hit a nerve.

Charles W. Heckman

Undoing the damage of male-bashing 9 March 2005

The letter below was published in The Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, 6 March 2005. The column responded to is pasted below the letter.

Fathers' role

As a divorced father, I would like to thank Kathleen Parker for her Wednesday column, "Undoing the damage of male-bashing, one daughter at a time." Hopefully, not only will Parker's column begin to open minds about the critical role that fathers play in their children's lives, but also increase recognition that many of the messages children of divorce receive about their fathers - especially from their divorced mothers - not only are untrue but are not in the best interests of the child.

In my view, and consistent with Parker's column, children of divorce in Florida would be much better off if we changed divorce law so that the post-divorce family was based on a paradigm of equal, shared parenting and financial responsibility rather than sole maternal custody.

With divorce reform like this, daughters of divorce would have the opportunity to have the kinds of relationships with their fathers that Parker writes about so eloquently.

Gordon E. Finley
Professor of Psychology
Florida International University

Undoing the damage of male-bashing ... one daughter at a time
By Kathleen Parker

2 March 2005

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - While most American women obsess about the laments of frazzled mothers, a handful of their daughters at Wake Forest University are turning their attention to the study of that mysterious and often-demonized species - fathers.

Yep, you read it right. Fathers. Dear ol' Dad. Remember him?

Each week, these young women (and one young man, who signed up because he hopes to be a good father someday) arrange their desks in a circle with Dr. Linda Nielsen, psychologist, professor and author, to learn about fathers and fatherhood in the only such college course in the country.

The class is not a therapy session or support group, but a tough college course like any other, involving research, reading, field projects, papers, tests and grades. It's just harder than most because it also involves introspection, self-analysis and the search for insight into one of life's most important relationships.

I attended a class recently, both as an observer and quasi-lecturer, at Nielsen's invitation. Nielsen's and my discovery of one another was like that scene in The Count of Monte Cristo where Edmond Dantes suddenly hears the tapping of another inmate through the dungeon floor and realizes, joyously, that he's not alone. Together they labored to tunnel their way out of captivity and darkness into freedom and light.

Similarly, these young people dig deeply to liberate themselves from the dark male stereotypes that pervade our culture, enlightening themselves in order to embrace their fathers. The title of Nielsen's book and the course textbook is Embracing Your Father: How to Build the Relationship You've Always Wanted With Your Dad (McGraw-Hill, 2004).

Despite the popularity of Nielsen's class, now in its 15th year, and rave reviews from alumni, Nielsen has received scant attention from our nation's literary and cultural gatekeepers. She understands the problem. It is, after all, her job to understand the psychology of groupthink and the unconscious motivations of human beings.

Thus, the joke around Nielsen's kitchen table is that her book might have been a best seller if she'd titled it, Ten Reasons to Hate Your Father While Losing 20 Pounds and Having Great Sex!

Nielsen prefers to deal in reality, however, and is fearlessly steadfast in her conviction that most young women have been brainwashed by the culture into believing that men are inferior to women and that everything lacking in the father-daughter relationship is Dad's fault. An avowed feminist, Nielsen tries to show her students that sometimes girls and women are not victims, but are arrangers of their own unhappiness and misfortune.

At the same time, Nielsen is careful not to demonize mothers, which she says would be counterproductive and unfair. Daughters need to respect the mother as well as the father part of themselves, which evolves from a deeper understanding of both parents.

Her approach is short on warm and fuzzy. She's a teacher, not a baby sitter, and instructs the old-fashioned way, using hard facts, statistics and research that bear out what women who've had good relationships with their fathers have always known - that most fathers are lovely creatures who teach their daughters, among other things, self-respect.

How peculiar that so many girls today learn a different story, often from mothers who, sometimes hurt or embittered by divorce, communicate negative messages to their daughters. Movies, books, television and other media are equally culpable.

By contrast, Nielsen's book is full of documented facts that invariably take students by surprise. By learning, for example, that 2 million single dads are raising 3 million kids on their own, or that 80 percent of married fathers in this country earn most of the money for their families, students begin to see their fathers as hard-working, responsible men rather than as objectified wallets who routinely disappoint families by working too much.

They also learn that they share the responsibility for having a better relationship with Dad, and that fathers sometimes need permission to be more involved with their daughters. Such lessons offer dividends beyond grades, as expressed by grateful students who write to thank Nielsen for helping them discover their fathers as fellow travelers in life's journey rather than as obstacles to gratification.

All students learn that most invaluable of lessons, that Dad is also "just" a human being, perhaps flawed and even struggling, and that he, too, could use a little understanding. Just like his little girl.

Kathleen Parker can be reached at or 407-420-5202.

Overhaul divorce laws 9 March 2005

The letter below was published in The Miami Herald
Tuesday 8 March 2005.

Overhaul divorce laws

In his March 2 Other Views column, Social Services: Privatizing American unity, Robert Steinback accurately chronicles the social costs of privatization with stark eloquence. Unfortunately, we already have a model: the divorce industry. With the exception of family-court judges, all else already is privatized -- divorce lawyers, custody evaluators, family coordinators, family therapists, etc.

Equally unfortunate, the consequences of privatization are abundantly apparent in the high costs, conflicts, delays and emotional distress for the children of divorce. As a divorced father, I believe that the best solution is to follow the lead of Kansas and Iowa.

They begin divorce deliberations with the presumption of equal shared parenting and financial responsibility. Since this presumption equalizes maternal and paternal power, it reduces the role and costs of all the privatized entities. By contrast, children of divorce, noncustodial parents, their second spouses and noncustodial grandparents all would fare better with the new model.


Anger over jail term in baby neglect case 9 March 2005

POLITICIANS have criticised as lenient a one-year sentence given to a heroin addict whose baby died of blood poisoning from nappy rash. Mary Pickering was yesterday jailed for a year at Hamilton Sheriff Court after she admitted neglect. Her daughter, Alexandra King, died from septicaemia after she was infected by her own excrement. Pickering, 27, of Rutherglen, near Glasgow, admitted wilfully neglecting the baby between December 2002 and March 9, 2003.

She also admitted failing to care adequately for the child in a manner likely to cause her unnecessary suffering. Pleas of not guilty to a charge of breach of the peace and failing to appear in court were accepted by the Crown. Passing sentence, Sheriff David Bicket said: "This is a matter so serious that nothing other than a custodial sentence will suffice."

Alexandra, who was born in December 2002, was taken to the Royal Hospital for Sick Children at Yorkhill, Glasgow, after Pickering's partner at the time checked the baby and found her cold. Paramedics failed to revive her and upon examination, doctors found the child's nappy was soiled and had blood on it. Police who raided Pickering's home at Wilson Street, Larkhall, found there were no nappies to change the child. Two of Pickering's other children are being looked after by her parents, while another was adopted.

Sandy Morrison, her defence solicitor, told the court that his client and her mother had suffered intimidation in the community since the baby's death. Sheriff Bicket said Pickering would be placed on a list of those unsuitable to work with children. Care workers from NHS Lanarkshire saw the baby – who had been on the child protection register since birth – 18 times and tried in vain 11 times to contact her mother before her death. An internal review of the case by health chiefs with South Lanarkshire Council cleared staff of any blame.

However, politicians have called for a fatal accident inquiry or independent hearing. Alex Neil, SNP MSP, said: "I'm surprised that she wasn't given a longer sentence. "Given that a life was lost, it is very lenient. The whole thing is just a tragedy. "But given that Ms Pickering is pregnant then I hope there will be a serious effort to try to rehabilitate her so that when she gives birth again, she will give the child the correct care," he said. Karen Gillon, Labour MSP, said she had written to the lord advocate to ask if there were grounds to appeal against the "undue leniency" of the sentence. She said: "This is a complex but very tragic case. "However, I do think that the sentence is inadequate for the crime that was committed."

High noon for judges 8 March 2005

by Thomas Sowell (archive)

It is painfully ironic that we should be promoting the spread of democracy abroad when democracy is shrinking at home. Over the years, the outcomes of our elections have meant less and less, as judges have taken more and more decisions out of the hands of elected officials.   Judges have imposed their own notions on everything from school administration to gay marriage, and have ordered both state and federal agencies to spend billions of dollars to carry out policies favored by the judges or have even ordered a state legislature to raise taxes.  This naked exercise of judicial power has been covered by the fig leaf of pretense to be "interpreting" laws and the Constitution by stretching and twisting words beyond recognition.

 The merits of the particular policies or expenditures is not the issue. The real issue is much bigger: Are the people to have the right to elect their own representatives to decide issues or are unelected judges to take over an ever-increasing share of the power to rule?  This has happened gradually but steadily. Just as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to our growing acceptance of immoral behavior as "defining deviancy downward," so we have come to accept the steady erosion of democratic government as judges have defined democracy downward.  While people in various countries in the Middle East are beginning to stir as they see democracy start to take root in Iraq, our own political system is moving steadily in the opposite direction, toward rule by unelected judicial ayatollahs, acting like the ayatollahs in Iran.

 That is what makes the impending Senate battle over judicial nominees something much bigger than a current political squabble or a clash of Senatorial egos.  One way to stop the continuing erosion of the American people's right to govern themselves would be to appoint judges who follow the great Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' doctrine that his job was to see that the game is played by the rules, "whether I like them or not."  Judges with that philosophy are anathema to liberal Democrats in the Senate today. They know that the only way many liberal policies can become law is by having them imposed by judges, because voters have increasingly rejected such policies and the candidates who espouse them.

 The Senate's Constitutional right and duty to "advise and consent" on the President's judicial nominees is being denied by a minority of Democratic Senators who refuse to let these nominees be voted on. Since Republicans have a majority in the Senate, they have the power to change Senate rules, so that a minority of Senators can no longer prevent the full Senate from voting on judicial nominees.  Such a rule change is referred to as "the nuclear option," since it would be a major change that could provoke major retaliation by the Democrats, both in obstructing current legislation and in the future using that same rule to ride roughshod over Republicans whenever the Democrats gain control of the Senate.  An aging Supreme Court means that there is now a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to stop the erosion of democratic self-government by putting advocates of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism, on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

 Senate Democrats understand how high the stakes are. But do the Republicans? President Bush clearly does but Republican Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, either doesn't know or doesn't care about the larger Constitutional issues. He is siding with the Democrats in the name of compromise.  Senator William Frist, the Republican majority leader, says he has the votes to change Senate rules to prevent a minority from denying the full Senate the right to vote on judicial nominees. Senator Frist also had the votes to prevent Senator Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee but he didn't do it. He chose to avoid a fight.  That is not a hopeful sign for what to expect when high noon comes on the President's judicial nominees.

Separated dads fight long odds 3 March 2005

Many men fear an ex wives lawyer can EASILY coerce a judge to lock up a father who gets in the way of them stealing the assets of the father and family The judge usually doesnt need much coaxing as likely he will be financial rewarded thro the back door.

Nearly half of all separating fathers think they have no say in the custody of their children, a new study has found.

Bruce Hawthorne, of the Family Court of Australia, surveyed 260 men who don't live with their children across Australia and conducted interviews with 50 men about fathering after separation. He found many were facing severe emotional difficulties because of lack of day-to-day contact with their children, and fear they will become irrelevant as fathers.

Concerns that conflict between parents is damaging to children has meant many fathers are relegated to the fringe of children's lives, Mr Hawthorne said.

His study found:

SOME fathers who do not live with their children suffered breakdowns and even contemplated suicide, particularly when contact with their children broke down.

FATHERS who do not live with their children have the lowest well-being of separated parents because they mourn the loss of their children.

FATHERS did not pursue shared or sole residence because they did not think they would succeed in court.

SCHOOLS largely ignore non-resident parents.

SOME fathers withdraw from contact with their children in order to avoid tension with the mothers.

"Anticipated loss of their daily contact with their children following separation may well explain why many fathers are more prepared than mothers to stay in conflictual or unsatisfying relationships," Mr Hawthorne said.

"Few non-resident fathers have much scope to determine the level and type of their involvement with children."

The study found nearly half of fathers think the decision about who the children live with is solely decided by the mother without consultation.

More than half are very dissatisfied with their input into the decision, and only 30 per cent satisfied. One in three said the mother unilaterally decided the level of contact the father should have with the children.

Mr Hawthorne also found 43 per cent of separating fathers wanted their children to live with their mothers, 42 per cent shared residence and 11 per cent sole custody.

Fathers also criticised the child support system, including their lack of control over how the money is spent on the children and the assessment formula.

Australian Family Association national vice president Bill Muehlenberg said the results confirmed the anecdotal evidence he collected from desperate dads.,5481,12283091,00.html

Law Society scraps tariff of fees 3 March 2005

THE governing body of Scotland's 8000 solicitors is to scrap its tariff of recommended charges. The Law Society of Scotland's decision comes amid mounting suspicion that a so-called "table of fees" constitutes a price-fixing arrangement which flouts European fair trade rules. Abolishing recommended legal fees could increase competition among solicitors and bring prices down. Last week, The Herald revealed that the Office of Fair Trading, Britain's most powerful consumer watchdog, had warned the society it was risking a huge European Commission fine for co-ordinating the pricing of lawyers' services.

The commission recently imposed a £69,000 penalty on another professional body, the Belgian Architects' Association, for failing to abolish a similar tariff. The OFT said it would await a society review of the table of fees before deciding on any further action, an option which yesterday's announcement has pre-empted. The 16-page table of fees, removed from the society's website yesterday, outlines charges for a range of services expressed in "units". Solicitors' letters, for example, are recommended to be charged at 1.25 units for "each page of 125 words or part thereof". A phone call lasting anything up to six minutes should be charged as one unit, the document says, and then at 10 units per hour thereafter. One society "unit", currently priced at £11.85, has risen in value by 26% since 2001, well above the rate of inflation.

Many solicitors have enjoyed big salary increases in that time, though partly as a consequence of Scotland's runaway housing market, which has boosted conveyancing and estate agency fees. One survey found the average profit-sharing partner in a Scots law firm earned £66,700 in 2003, 13% more than in 2002. The society said its ruling council had decided on Friday to stop recommending the fees after taking legal advice. The move followed a review of all the society's rules and regulations to check their compliance with European law. Legal Aid fees, which are fixed by the Scottish Executive and confirmed by the Scottish Parliament, are unaffected by the changes.

Duncan Murray, society president, said it was acting "to comply with European and national law as it develops. The society has also decided to consult with the Scottish Executive, the OFT and the lord president for their views on how this significant change should be effected and its impact on auditors of court, who assess solicitors' fees. "Firms usually have their own feeing structure based on their running costs, the type of legal work they offer and market conditions, but some still rely on the recommended table for guidance."

He said the the changes "should be good for business as well as clients. Clients are already advised to ask for an estimate of costs from their solicitor, although of course there is more to choosing a solicitor than cost alone." The Law Society has come under intense scrutiny recently amid renewed debate over whether it should continue acting both as trade association and regulator, a dual role which critics say amounts to a conflict of interest. South of the border, the bodies that regulate solicitors and barristers – the Law Society of England and Wales and the Bar Council – are separating their representative and regulatory functions amid a wholesale shake-up of legal regulation.

Dads could be forced to wear electronic dog-collar 3 March 2005

Fathers are routinely removed from their homes, from families, put into prisons, have their property taken away from them. Much of the time when this happens they have not been found guilty of anything. What's next? Gas chambers?


Fathers & Families Announces Opposition to Lt. Gov's Dog-collar Bill Fathers & Families today announced its opposition to Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's proposed "Act Relative to Enhanced Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence." Under this bill, any violator of a domestic restraining order could be required to wear a satellite tracking device similar to an electronic dog-collar.

Boston, MA, February 23, 2005. Fathers & Families, a non-profit organization of 2,000 men and women in Massachusetts who support equal rights and responsibilities for mothers and fathers after divorce, today announced its opposition to Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey's proposed "Act Relative to Enhanced Protection for Victims of Domestic Violence." Under this bill, any violator of a domestic restraining order could be required to wear a satellite tracking device similar to an electronic dog-collar. The device would signal authorities whenever the wearer came within range of certain exclusion zones, such as the complainant's home or workplace.

Massachusetts courts issue around 40,000 domestic restraining orders each year. Many of these are bogus. For instance, Attorney Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, wrote, "The facts have become irrelevant. Everyone knows that restraining orders.are granted to virtually all who apply. In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" [in divorce. And the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has tacitly agreed with this view by writing that we must "resist a culture of summarily issuing and extending these orders." Most violations of restraining orders are non-violent, such as placing a telephone call about a sick child.

According to Dr. Ned Holstein, President of Fathers & Families, the bill is "a Robocop nightmare." "Getting tough on crime always makes a good sound bite, until you look at the details. This bill takes Massachusetts down the slippery slope towards a police state, subjecting non-violent offenders to 24/7 surveillance, humiliation, and false alarms due to inaccurate devices and outdated exclusion zones. It piles on still more penalties for non-violent offenders, while doing nothing about the tens of thousands of innocent men who labor under fraudulent restraining orders. Finally, it diverts resources from those who really need protection, as police race to the sites of trivial, accidental or non-violent infractions."

Man Can Sue Over Surprise Pregnancy 1 March 2005

Chicago (AP) - An appeals court said a man can press a claim for emotional distress after learning a former lover had used his sperm to have a baby. But he can't claim theft, the ruling said, because the sperm were hers to keep. The ruling Wednesday by the Illinois Appellate Court sends Dr. Richard O. Phillips' distress case back to trial court.

Phillips accuses Dr. Sharon Irons of a "calculated, profound personal betrayal" after their affair six years ago, saying she secretly kept semen after they had oral sex, then used it to get pregnant. He said he didn't find out about the child for nearly two years, when Irons filed a paternity lawsuit. DNA tests confirmed Phillips was the father, the court papers state. Phillips was ordered to pay about $800 a month in child support, said Irons' attorney, Enrico Mirabelli.

Phillips sued Irons, claiming he has had trouble sleeping and eating and has been haunted by "feelings of being trapped in a nightmare," court papers state. Irons responded that her alleged actions weren't "truly extreme and outrageous" and that Phillips' pain wasn't bad enough to merit a lawsuit. The circuit court agreed and dismissed Phillips' lawsuit in 2003. But the higher court ruled that, if Phillips' story is true, Irons "deceitfully engaged in sexual acts, which no reasonable person would expect could result in pregnancy, to use plaintiff's sperm in an unorthodox, unanticipated manner yielding extreme consequences."

The judges backed the lower court decision to dismiss the fraud and theft claims, agreeing with Irons that she didn't steal the sperm. "She asserts that when plaintiff 'delivered' his sperm, it was a gift - an absolute and irrevocable transfer of title to property from a donor to a donee," the decision said. "There was no agreement that the original deposit would be returned upon request."

Phillips is representing himself in the case. He could not be reached for comment Thursday. "There's a 5-year-old child here," Mirabelli said. "Imagine how a child feels when your father says he feels emotionally damaged by your birth."

More battered hubbies seek court protection 1 March 2005

For years, white-collar worker John (not his real name) had been enduring his wife's frequent violent outbursts. Sometimes, she would throw ashtrays and books at him when she got angry. On other days, he would get scratched or punched.

But when the heavily pregnant woman threatened him with a chopper after a quarrel, John decided that enough was enough. He left home and sought a Personal Protection Order from the Family and Juvenile Justice Centre. "What struck me most was that he really wanted the marriage to work," recalled court social worker Goh Soo Cheng. "He still loves her and merely wanted to remove the violent part from the marriage."

Distressed men like John made up a near-three-fold increase in the number of males applying for protection orders last year as compared to 1997, according to a study released by the Subordinate Court yesterday. Last year, the number of men seeking protection was about 450, compared to about 161 in 1997, the study showed.

The study Faces of family violence: A profile study of family violence was based on a sample of 1,918 cases, picked randomly from the number of cases received in 2003 and last year. Last year, the centre's Family Transformation and Protection Unit received 2,522 protection order applications. In 2003, it was 2,783.

Calling the increase in the number of men seeking protection orders "significant", the centre's director, Ms Annie Lee, said a lot of men could have suffered verbal abuse, threats or "actions that border on violence". And some men have been at the receiving end of physical pain too. "They scratch, they scream, they shout, they threaten," said Ms Lee, of abusive women.

One reason for the increase in male applicants could be heightened awareness. "Men are more aware of their protection rights … they are more aware that they can complain," said Ms Lee. Also, there might be more men who realise that it is not embarrassing to ask the court to protect them, she added.

Ms Braema Mathi, president of women's rights group Aware, suggested that more studies be done to find out if there are "deeper frustrations" within women. "To be in touch with your pain is very much a human condition and for a long time, men have buried this side of them," she said.

"There is still a question of (the sexes) wrestling for power. We need to study why women are doing it, whether there are deeper frustrations. "We need to track cases annually. The current gap of 1997 and 2004 is too big to really understand this phenomenon well," she said.

Scores of police retiring to avoid inquiries 1 March 2005

POLICE officers in Scotland are avoiding official complaints procedures by resigning or retiring early. According to figures ob-tained by The Herald under The Freedom of Information Act, scores leave the force each year whilst subject to misconduct investigations. Last night pressure groups said the revelation demonstrated the urgent need for an independent police complaints body. Campaigners said it was vital officers should face the complaint before leaving the service. In the past six years more than 90 officers escaped proceedings, which can last months or even years. Since 2000, 24 officers from Lothian and Borders police retired while they had an outstanding complaint against them, either due to ill-health or after 30 years service. One officer from Grampian retired pending the outcome of a complaint and 18 officers retired from Central under similar circumstances.

In Strathclyde, 40 officers have resigned in the last six years before the conclusion of misconduct proceedings, and one officer was allowed to retire on grounds of ill-health immediately prior to the instigation of proceedings. In addition, a further 12 officers have left Tayside in the past 10 years with complaints still outstanding against them. There is also concern that officers who leave following a complaint will still get access to their pension.

Only those convicted of serious or violent offences lose their pension rights. One of the few examples in Scotland is Adam Carruthers, formerly of Dumfries and Galloway Police, who was jailed for 12 years in 2001 after being found guilty of raping two women. Those officers with more than 25 years service, aged 50 or above, or retiring on grounds of ill-health are categorised as "retiring" and usually have immediate access to their pension. Police leaving with less than 25 years service are regarded as "resigning" and do not generally have access to their pension until they are 60. Police subject to criminal in-vestigations, rather than internal complaints procedures, can leave the force but they are still liable to prosecution. Although there were more than 2880 complaints made against the police last year, just 23% were referred to the procurators-fiscal because of alleged criminal conduct. Of internal and external complaints, only 78 were referred to a misconduct hearing, and of those referred to a hearing just three officers lost their job.

In 2003 Keith Cullen, deputy chief constable of Northern Constabulary, retired despite the fact he was supposed to face a disciplinary hearing over his handling of complaints after the death of a man, Kevin McLeod, in Wick eight years ago. The McLeod family said it was an "absolute disgrace". Les Browne, founder of Search for Justice, a charity which helps those who believe they have suffered a miscarriage of justice, said the "system is unfair" and called for an independent police ombudsman". Rosemarie McIIwhan, director of the Scottish Human Rights Centre, also believes an independent complaints body is required. "People should not be able to wriggle out of facing complaints investigations." Each of the eight Scottish forces has a different policy on officers leaving during complaints, depending on the view of the chief constable. Chief constables in England and Wales have been encouraged to "tighten" these procedures.

Doug Keil, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said he thought resigning or retiring while the subject of a complaint "is more likely to be a question of timing than . . . of trying to escape justice. A police pension can be forfeited but only for the most serious and exceptional circumstances which will almost certainly involve a lengthy custodial sentence. So the notion we have large numbers of officers resigning or retiring to save their pensions is simply not true."