"I don't think you can make a lawyer honest by an act of legislation. You've got to work on his conscience. And his lack of conscience is what makes him a lawyer."
--Will Rogers (1879-1935)
WHAT FATHERS SHOULD DO
Sometime in 1998, I went into a bar I hadn’t been in for a long time and met a long time acquaintance there named Steve, who worked there as a bartender. He was rather desolate, when I walked in, he immediately came to me and began telling me a harrowing tale to me. I noticed his demeanor and asked him what was wrong. He seemed ruffled, scared. He then opened up to me.
He told me that the local District Attorney was after him for Child Support after he had a one-night stand with a lady that he had previously met in that same bar. He said that his ‘blood test’ had just come back earlier that day, and luckily, it turned out negative. He was drained by the whole experience which took months and thousands of dollars, and he was white as a sheet when I spoke with him in fact, and he said that he barely escaped "by the skin of his teeth."
He was right. Most men placed into such an untenable situation are directly attacked by the District Attorney and admonished by ‘visceral’ thinking citizens that "if you had sex and get the girl pregnant—you must pay!" This mindset existed in England in the 14th century, and was soon-thereafter dropped because all it did was make men run away. It didn’t work then, it will never work today.
Clearly, people such of this cannot think abstractly, for when you ask them how this effects women getting pregnancy, they will reluctantly admit that it has exploded such illegitimate births, and thereby; holding the male responsible really isn’t the way for society to prohibit such births. When you again ask them to think abstractly and you ask them how this solves the problem of errant woman who intentionally go out and have one-night stands in order to get pregnant, again; these dull thinking people have no answer—because the answer is obvious—it factually in no way does it address the malevolent women who intentionally uses ‘any man’ in order to get pregnant. When you again; ask these people what would happen if you stopped 99.9% of the men from having any type of one night stands, would the remaining 1% still get the same amount of girls pregnant? The answer is an obvious yes. It only takes one bull to impregnate a heard of cattle, and many of these women, there aren’t clear estimates; intentionally get pregnant so they can collect Welfare or at minimum, instantly obtain a subsidy.
So clearly, holding the man responsible for pregnancy is a false doctrine which hasn’t worked, has never worked throughout history, and never will work throughout the present or future history of mankind.
Therefore, we must again hold the ‘only’ the woman responsible (for her own body, for her own sexual freedom) for such pregnancies, and miraculously such unwanted or unplanned pregnancies instantly disappear. Cite these facts to those individuals who mistakenly hold only men accountable for such births—and you get very silent people—because their whole mindset is flawed. Again, what they are espousing is classical Radical Feminist mantra. It doesn’t work, it has never worked throughout history, it never will work no matter how much money any society can throw into it. But again, the proof of this whole book is that the present feminist system is completely flawed and it doesn’t work, and must categorically be not only abandoned, but outright fought against; resisted at every level of society. Simply put, we must rediscover the obvious and re-implement Patriarchy throughout this nation, either by force or outright war if need be. For we are addressing the fundamental configuration of governance within this society.
Both laws were evident violation of natural liberty, and therefore unjust. It is in the interests of every society that things of this kind should never be forced or obstructed. The man who employs either his labor or his stock in a greater variety of ways than his situation renders necessary can never hurt his neighbor...He many hurt himself, and generally does so...but the law ought always to trust people with the care of their own interest, as in their local situations they must generally be able to Judge better of it than the Legislature can do."
[Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith, p. 30.]
This concept has echoed throughout not only American history, but the whole history of Western civilization. It has only been in recent times when this foundational concept has been lost to us.
"Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. This is not the case." [Television address on Civil Rights, after the registration of two negroes, at the university of Alabama. (June 11, 1963)]
[Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, by John Bartlett, Justin Kaplan, General Editor, @1982; Little, Brown and Company, Boston Toronto, London, ISBN 0-316-088277-5; p. 742.]
"What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." 15:23
"No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
[Second Treatise on Government (Indianapolis, Ind.: Hackett Publishing Co., 1980) p. 9
We must again remember that with freedom, comes an attendant responsibility. Presently, feminists who have demanded, and in turn received so much freedom, share none of the responsibilities. In fact, they have developed into a gender, a separate class of people with "Super-Rights." They can commit crimes, even murder—and they do not have to pay the price for their crimes. Of course this is not only anti-American and consummately unlawful, it is illogical as well. Yet, this is the present unjust system that has been implemented through radical feminism, and presently this whole nation is suffering because of this.
In talking with my bartender friend Steve, I found that everything he did was exactly the wrong thing and conversely, it was the perfect thing for the DA and the County in which was actively trying to destroy him. Like most men, he got a lawyer. He dutifully took blood tests. He paid large sums of money. He said the right things about taking ‘responsibility’...he put his life in jeopardy because that is what Hillary and her "Village" have inculcated into men over the past half-century. That they should give up everything, and willingly fall on their sword and civilly kill themselves so that the "Village" can accrue the benefits from his, and most like his own child’s impending destruction...just because some criminal female wants the safety, security and comfort of being 10 to 20 years on Welfare. Again, these women are knowingly accessing the Hillary’s Welfare machine for instant gratification, and the result is that the machine instantly destroys another human being: Steve...the father.
During this time period I was working on another book called American Thesis—which I was just about a third the way through. I recognized that that book had to be put on hold and that this book Suffering Patriarchy had to be pushed to the forefront and completed as soon as possible, in order to save good people like Steve, who were just trying to do the right thing, but were being led down a rosy path to personal destruction by the present ‘system.’ Hopefully this book gives such effective answers in order to help him and those Fathers like him..
The things the District Attorney was trying to do to Steve, and the things the DA’s across this nation do to Fathers has nothing to do with law, and everything to do, with fraud, theft, and most importantly: slavery. Steve, like so many fathers before him, are willingly consenting to be destroyed, because men, for the greatest part, want to try and do the right and moral thing. They go along with this system, because factually; there is nothing else they can do. They ‘think’ they are dealing with a legal system when in fact they are dealing something more akin to a corporate business deal. The system is designed to destroy men, children and families all under the guise of ‘law.’ There is no other redress by or from the current system in which Judges, DA’s, State Legislatures, Congress and the Lawyers have designed. Hillary, and many DA’s and Judges have taken advantage of fathers willing to be fair and honorable, and who ‘try’ and do the right thing; and by this; they have build this ruthless Welfare machine which has destroyed generations of people and which has harvested Trillions of dollars in the wake of all this war and destruction.. This Welfare machine winds up destroying them, their families and their future; and they don’t even know its happening. But those like Hillary, most certainly do—and they are literally banking on how fathers will react.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SINGLE MEN NOT MARRIED
Reason: If at any point in time you get into court over this, an affirmative defense that you gave this fair notice, and she understood what was happening and this gives basis for a contract. The government then has to prove that it has the right to add to that contract which it cannot do because of Constitutional restrictions. (This comes under the Slaughterhouse cases—and we are speaking as to a rats nest here, and trust me; they’ll want to avoid this indomitable question.) Therefore, any responsibility for the pregnancy ultimately falls on the women, which it already is supposed to, but the courts don’t recognize this. Bringing this issue up will make life difficult for many, many, many courts. Your job is, to fight your enemies, the D.A., Family Court, the Judge and everyone involved in this are your enemies. If you give your money to them, you will most certainly destroy yourself, other fathers, and probably your child, (not to mention society itself, who ultimately winds up funding these sophistries) and many others who will suffer from the pathology this system breeds. Not only that, you will be empowering the enemy, which have become the DA’s, courts and State governments, all who profit by and from your destruction.
Reason: In Legal procedure, your enemy; the District Attorney is trying to stop you from protecting yourself. He wants you to answer his letter, or to respond to it in order so you submit to his venue and jurisdiction. Ergo: YOU ARE VOLUNTEERING TO BE DESTROYED BY OPENING AND ANSWERING THIS MAIL SUPPOSEDLY ADDRESSED TO YOU. This is HIS notice to you. When you answer as such, you enter his venue and jurisdiction, and no Father can enter these corrupt courts. These are courts of INQUISITION. They are only there to steal and destroy from you, then to allow her Super-Rights. (The court for instance will pay her attorney representation, they will start special programs for her, all Carte Blanche). Just think of this as a tennis game, He sends something to you, and then you send it back, now—under law, since you have refused his ‘Military’ or ‘Undefined’ Jurisdiction, he must lawfully serve you under law. This must be done by a proper summons, and proper service. He doesn’t want to use lawful process, because that will personally jeopardize him, and he may lose his own property over this. They never use the law, because that binds them and places them into jeopardy. They’d just rather stick to the ‘business deal’ which they are fraudulently inducing you into.
A proper summons must have these following things to be legal.
You have just successfully resisted jurisdiction and entry of plea. This is not that hard, and does not take that much paperwork. You have probably just conservatively saved yourself $200 to $2000 or more in attorney fees. If you had ‘hired’ a lawyer (*snicker*) he of course, would have immediately joined with this court, plead, and thereby; you would have been destroyed. After you had joined issue, then; the lawyer would have actually helped the court destroy you. He would feed you into it, and split whatever monies that they both would steal from you with the court. They fully know this and understand this, because Lawyers are officers of the court. They work for your enemy. Just like the D.A., the Bailiff, the Clerk of the Court, they are working for the Judge.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the lawn or naval forces...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life, or limb; not shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Giving any type of bodily evidence, verbal evidence, or anything to the District Attorney (your enemy) is just helping his case. (Process Server on the Stand on your case for example: "Yes, he refuse the summons, and then laughed and said it was his kid, and he was going to beat it.") Poof! Anything you say to this enemy will be used against you—they don’t need any Miranda Warning like in the movies. They are your enemy and will try to do everything to destroy you. KEEP QUIET!! Be respectful, but do not talk with them. Give them no information. Zero. Nothing. When they ask you: "Don’t you know Ellen? " Respond with "I give you no information." When they ask you: "You had sex with her, we know that." Respond with "I give you no information."
"You worked at Burger King last month right?"
Response: "I give you no information as secured by the Fifth Amendment."
"You know your girlfriend Sally, right?"
Response: "I give you no information as secured by the Fifth Amendment."
"Don’t you want to take responsibility?"
Response: "I give you no information as secured by the Fifth Amendment."
"Is the sky blue?"
Response: "I give you no information as secured by the Fifth Amendment."
If you enforce this right, the DA is effectively screwed.
When they hand you information to fill out: do not fill it out. Do not sign any thing. Do not work with them in any way shape or form. Don’t even put you name on it. Just in large bold letters across all the writing put: "I give you no information as secured by the Fifth Amendment." REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR: UCC 1-207, then do not sign it.
All these people are is terrorists. They are not doing law. They are using "Equity" and "Discretion" against you to get around the law. They are committing worse crimes in which the British committed against American citizens 250 years ago. They are not there for your welfare, the child’s, or even societies...they are only there only to line their own pockets with your money, to create slaves, and to build empires. It is the duty of every single American to resist these corrupt court systems. Money is not only killing you, and children, but also these courts are applying terror throughout the land. And again, they are doing this against their own foundational precepts which established our system of law in the first place. They are in gross violation of their own oath’s of office. And they are doing this against their own citizens whom they have sworn an oath to protect and defend.
Just remember this simple construct: information are the bullets in which they use to destroy you.
The biggest thing they are trying to have you do is to ‘volunteer’ or to ‘consent’ to them through their coercion.
Most likely, they will know that you have not entered their jurisdiction, and then it becomes only a matter of time: how far they are willing to carry the fraud. We have personally witnessed the courts dismiss every action we have used a Bill of Particulars in.
We have knowledge of some cases going to Appeal, in which they were categorically dismissed. The DA, if he has not answered the Bill of Particulars (and they never do for Malum Prohibitum crimes...at least we have never heard of it) the DA and Judge are really putting their rear-ends on the line. Without informing you of the ‘nature and cause of the action’ he has violated the Sixth Amendment:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of Counsel for his defense."
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MEN MARRIED
I want to digress here in order to expose a rather large point in regards to the court and in which total fraud has been perpetrated upon them. In this, we will study the feminist institution of "Divorce" and how this institution has been perverted to the "Red Wedding" or communistic model, and how fathers are being unlawfully obliterated by these new communistic courts which have abandoned the law.
First, we will look at the modern meaning and definition of divorce. In a comparative analysis between the legal definition and then the contemporary legal definition.
First, the contemporary legal definition of "Divorce" is surprising to say the least.
Divorce, dissolution of bonds of marriage, 61 Ca. Rptr. 178, 180. It is not a punishment for a wrong done by one spouse to the other, but is the result of the determination by the state of domicile that the continuation of the marital relationship between the parties concerned with be contrary to the policy of the law. 75 A. 2d 889, 892.
While a divorce puts an end to the marital relation , it does not relate back to the act of marriage and render it null and void. It is based upon the theory of an invalid marriage for some cause arising after the marriage ceremony. This is to be contrasted with an annulment proceeding which relates back and erases the marriage and all its implications from the outset on the theory that for some reasons existing at the time of marriage no valid marriage existed. 104 A.L.R. 1290
NO-FAULT DIVORCE a divorce which is granted without the necessity of finding a spouse to have been guilty of some marital misconduct. The most common "no-fault" ground is voluntary separation for a period of time. Prior to the enactment of no-fault divorce statutes, the traditional concept of divorce required proof of marital misconduct as a prerequisite. There had to be a specified fault, a wholly innocent plaintiff spouse and a wholly guilty or aggressor defendant spouse.
The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act §§302(2), 305(1971) supports a pure no-fault concept. It allows for divorce unilaterally upon the application by either spouse without proof of marital misconduct and without mandatory waiting period either before or after the divorce is decreed.
SEPARATION [DIVORCE A MENSA ET THORO] – Lat: from table and bed. A partial divorce decree, usually entered in the course of divorce proceedings, which directs the parties to live separately—indeed, forbids cohabitation—but does not dissolve the marriage.
[Law Dictionary, by Steven H. Gifis, ©1996 by Barron’s Educational Services, Inc. 250 Wireless Blvd., Hauppauge, New York 11788; ISBN 0-8120-3096-6.; pp. 152-153.]
Just as the incongruence of family law noted between the Century Digest and Sub Juri Secundum in Chapter X, look at what Bouviers Law Dictionary states in regards to Divorce, paying special attention to the last item, number 12.
DIVORCE.The dissolution of a marriage contracted between a man and a woman, by the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, or by an act of the legislature. It is so called from the diversity of the minds of those who are married; because such as are divorced go each a different way from the other. Ridley's Civ. & Eccl. Law, pp. 11, 112. Until a decree of divorce be actually made, neither party can treat the other as sole, even in cases where the marriage is utterly null and void for some preexisting cause. Griffiths v Smith, D. C. of Philadelphia, 3 Penn. Law Journal, 151, 153. A decree of divorce must also be made during the lifetime of both the parties. After the decease of either the marriage will be deemed as legal in all respects.
Reeves" Dom. Rel. 204; 1 Bl. Com. 440. See Act of Pennsylvania, March 13, 1815, 5.
2.) Divorces are of two kinds; 1. a vinculo matrimonii, (q. v.) which dissolves and totally severs the marriage tie; and, 2. a mensa et thoro, (q. v.) which merely separates the parties.
3.) - 1. The divorce a vinculo was never granted by the ecclesiastical law except for the most grave reasons. These, according to Lord Coke, (Co. Litt. 235, a,) are causa praecontractus, causa metus, causa impotentiae, seu frigiditatis, causa affinitatis, et causa consanguinitatis. In England such a divorce bastardizes the issue, and generally speaking, is allowed only on the ground of some preexisting cause. Reeves' Dom. Rel. 204-5; but sometimes by act of parliament for a supervenient cause. 1 Bl. Com. 440. When the marriage was dissolved for canonical causes of impediment, existing previous to its
taking place, it was declared void ab initio.
4.) In the United States, divorces a vinculo are granted by the state legislatures for such causes as may be sufficient to induce the members to vote in favor of granting them; and they are granted by the courts to which such jurisdiction is given, for certain causes particularly provided for by law.
5.) In some states, the legislature never grants a divorce until after the courts have decreed one, and it is still requisite that the legislature shall act, to make the divorce valid. This is the case in Mississippi. In some states, as Wisconsin, the legislature cannot grant a divorce. Const. art. 4, is. 24.
6.) The courts in nearly all the states have power to decree divorces a vinculo, for, first, causes which existed and which were a bar to a lawful marriage, as, precontract, or the existence of a marriage between one of the contracting parties and another person, at the time the marriage sought to be dissolved took place; consanguinity, or that degree of relationship forbidden by law; affinity in some states, as Vermont, Rev. Stat. tit. 16, c. 63, s. 1, impotence, (q. v.) idiocy, lunacy, or other mental imbecility, which renders the party subject to it incapable of making a contract; when the contract was entered into in consequence of fraud. Secondly, the marriage may be dissolved by divorce for causes which have arisen since the formation of the contract, the principal of which are adultery cruelty; wilful and malicious desertion for a period of time specified in the acts of the several states; to these are added, in some states, conviction of felony or other infamous crime; Ark. Rev. Stat. c. 50, s. 1, p. 333; being a fugitive from justice, when charged
with an infamous crime. Laws of Lo. Act of April 2, 1832. In Tennessee the hushand may obtain a divorce when the wife was pregnant at the time of marriage with a child of color; and also when the wife refuses for two years to follow her hushand, who has gone bonafide to Tennessee to reside. Act of 1819, c. 20, and Act of 1835, c. 26 Carr. Nich. & Comp. 256, 257. In Kentucky and Maine,, where one of the parties has formed a connexion with certain religionists, whose opinions. and practices are inconsistent with the marriage duties. And, in some states, as Rhode Island and Vermont, for neglect and refusal on the part of the hushand (he being of sufficient ability) to provide necessaries for the subsistence of his wife. In others, habitual drunkenness is a sufficient cause.
7.) In some of the states divorces a mensa et thoro are granted for cruelty, desertion, and such like causes, while in others the divorce is a vinculo.
8.) When the divorce is prayed for on the ground of adultery, in some and perhaps in most of the states, it is a good defence, 1st. That the other party has been guilty of the same offence. 2. That the hushand has prostituted his wife, or connived at her amours. 3. That the offended party has been reconciled to the other by either express or implied condonation. (q. v.) 4. That there was no intention to commit adultery, as when the party, supposing his or her first hushand or wife dead, married again. 5. That the wife was forced or ravished.
9.) The effects of a divorce a vinculo on the property of the wife, are various in the several states. When the divorce is for the adultery or other criminal acts of the hushand, in general the wife's lands are restored to her; when it is caused by the adultery or other criminal act of the wife, the bushand has in general some qualified right of curtesy to her lands; when the divorce is caused by some preexisting cause, as consanguinity, affinity or impotence, in some states, as Maine and Rhode Island, the lands of the wife are restored to her. 1 Hill. Ab. 51, 2. See 2 Ashm. 455; 5 Blackf. 309. At common law, a divorce a vinculo matrimonii bars the wife of dower; Bract. lib. ii. cap. 39, 4; but not a divorce ti mensa et, thoro, though for the crime of adultery. Yet by Stat. West. 1, 3 Ed. I. c. 84, elopement with an adulterer has this effect. Dyer, 195; Co. Litt. 32, a. n. 10; 3 P. Wms. 276, 277. If land be given to a man and his wife, and the heirs of their two bodies begotten, and they are divorced. a vinculo, &c., they shall neither of them have this estate, but he barely tenants for life, notwithstanding the inheritance once vested in them. Co. Litt. 28. If a lease be made to hushand and wife during coverture, and the hushand sows the, land, and afterwards they are divorced a vinculo, &c., the hushand shall have the emblements in that case, for the divorce is the act of law. Mildmay's Case. As to personalty, the rule of the common law is, if one marry a woman who has goods, he may give them or sell them at his pleasure. If they are divorced, the woman shall have the goods back again, unless the hushand has given them away or sold them; for in such case
she is without remedy. If the hushand aliened them by collusion, she may aver and prove the collusion, and thereupon recover the goods from the alience. If one be bound in an obligation to a feme sole, and then marry her, and afterwards they are divorced, she may sue her former hushand on the obligation, notwithstanding her action was in suspense during the marriage. And for such things as belonged to the wife before marriage, if they cannot be known, she could sue for, after divorce, only in the court Christian, for the action of account did not lie, because he was not her receiver to account. But for such things as remain in specie, and may be known, the common law gives her an action of detinue. 26 Hen. VIII. 1.
10.) When a divorce a vinculo takes place, it is, in general, a bar to dower; but in Connecticut, Illinois, New York, and, it seems, in Michigan, dower is not barred by a divorce for the fault of the hushand. In Kentucky, when a divorce takes place for the fault of the hushand, the wife is entitled as if he were dead. 1 Hill. Ab. 61, 2.
11.) - 2. Divorces a mensa et thoro, are a mere separation of the parties for a time for causes arising since the marriage; they are pronounced by tribunals of competent jurisdiction. The effects of the sentence continue for the time it was pronounced, or until the parties are reconciled. A. divorce a mensa et thoro deprives the hushand of no marital right in respect to the property of the wife. Reeve's Dom. Rel. 204-5. Cro. Car. 462; but see 2 S. & R. 493. Children born after a divorce a mensa et thoro are not presumed to be the hushand's, unless he afterwards cohabited with his wife. Bac. Ab. Marriage, &c. E.
12.) By the civil law, the child of parents divorced, is to be brought up by the innocent party, at the expence of the guilty party. Ridley's View, part 1, ch. 3, sect. 9, cites 8th Collation. Vide, generally, 1 Bl. Com. 440, 441 3 Bl. Com. 94; 4 Vin. Ab. 205; 1 Bro. Civ. Law, 86; Ayl. Parerg. 225; Com. Dig. Baron and Feme, C;-Coop. Justin. 434, et seq.; 6 Toullier, No. 294, pa. 308; 4 Yeates' Rep. 249; 5 Serg. & R. 375; 9 S. & R. 191, 3; Gospel of Luke, eh, xvi. v. 18; of Mark, ch. x. vs. 11, 12; of Matthew, ch. v. v. 32, ch. xix. v. 9; 1 Corinth. ch. vii. v. 15; Poynt. on Marr. and Divorce, Index, h. t.; Merl. Rep. h. t.; Clef des Lois Rom. h. t. As to the effect of the laws of a foreign state, where the divorce was decreed, see Story's Confl. of Laws, ch. 7, 200. With regard to the ceremony of divorce among. theJews, see 1 Mann. & Gran. 228; C. 39. Eng. C. L. R. 425, 428. And as to divorces among the Romans, see Troplong, de l'Influence du Christianisme sur le Droit Civil des Romains, ch. 6. p. 205.
First off, look at the date of the Uniform Divorce act noted in Steven H. Giff’s contemporary law dictionary. The year? 1971. Again, this is the year when the feminists floodgates opened and the feminist plague with no-fault divorce when that was really set loose upon America. This is the year when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment, which has previously been applied to males only, and slaves only—but now was including women under it’s sweeping state privileges enforced by the Federal Government. Again, this shows collusion on the part of the design of this system.
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, look at the last part, item number twelve. This is what is very astounding. It again bring up the fact in the law of the clean hands doctrine, a doctrine by the way, the criminal courts have all but abandoned in which to enforce this fraud against American fathers. It reads: "By the civil law, the child of parents divorced, is to be brought up by the innocent party, at the expense of the guilty party." Well, how are criminal courts different in actions at law?? Aren’t the criminal courts established to apply law and justice within their reasoning? Isn’t morality and this concept of clean hands at the very basis and foundation of criminal law and indeed, its most intricate part??? Of course it is! And they know it is, and that is why they got rid of it, or at least ignored it through their creation of courts of both equity and law, which now embodies the ultimate paradox of having a human Judge use his errant and collusive powers of discretion in which to ply not law but discretion against unsuspecting fathers, most of whom, like me, have had their children outright stolen from them. Again, the lawyers never bring this glaring controversies to the forefront—nor do they apply succinct laws, maxims of laws, justice or procedures which would provide not only closure to many of these contumacious family arguments, but more importantly, provide this nation with stability and efficiency within our laws and our court systems. In re-establishing such well documented laws and procedures, these present courts could cut their caseload’s instantly, by 80 to 90 percent by re-implementing such well documented laws and procedures. They would also re-establish a Renaissance within Family Law which would stop the present wars and anarchy’s that are destructively raging across America right now, and which would ultimately stabilize the home and family.
Would Hillary and her feminist cohorts do this? Of course not! Would they re-implement Patriarchy even if they fully knew it would solve many of these problems which they pretend to be so concerned about? NO!! These wars under the guidance of Feminist Jurisprudence are the exact reason why they established these fundamental changes within the system in the first place!! Do you think the Krell mind-set built that all these jails, court systems, prison probation facilities, counseling, youth shelters, family shelters, Child Youth Authority’s, Child Protective Services, Foster Homes, and a panoply of other attendant superstructures—were built--just so they wouldn’t use them?!?! No! This needless war of feminism was a well-engineered assault against an unsuspecting American public. These feminists in collusion with a government elite overturned our laws with ‘new’ "modern" laws not to help us or families (as every social indicator exemplifies) but rather, to use a system in order to subrogate our form of government for another system of opposing governance. They are simply using Feminism to build and maintain their Krell Welfare Machine empire. Nobody really wants to solve anything or to allow civilization to ascend. This is the last thing on their minds.
Even they recognize the disaster they have leveled upon the home, families and children—and they fully recognize and understand the perversion and despair that they now eternally are happy to manage and profit from. Listen to what Louise Armstrong uncovered in talking to a Social Worker in her book Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics;
"One young woman told me she’d gone into protective services work two years earlier thinking she cold protect children. She said, "I’d tell them, ‘Trust me. You can tell me the truth. I’ll protect you.’" Now, she said, "I’ll still tell them, ‘Trust me. You can tell me, ‘ But—now I know—I can’t protect them."
[Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics, by Louise Armstrong ©1994; Addison Publishing Co., Reading MA, ISBN 0-201-62471-0; p. 90.]
Of course they can’t protect our children! And as this woman who is knee-deep in the social infrastructure fully comprehends, they never will be able to protect the children! Because the child’s real protectorate "The Father" has been forcibly removed directly by and through this new fraudulent system of ‘law’ that has disenfranchised him, thrown him out of his own home, proactively stolen great wealth from him, openly and incessantly publicly vilified him, and then allowed him no access to either law or redress in which he may be able to assume his proper role and authority within his own home and with his own children!! This feminist superstructure for the past 30 to 50 years has been slaughtering children’s fathers and they are ‘just’ getting it that they cannot protect the children? Do you think this woman who made this succinct observation quit her job? Do you think she is ‘changing things’ from the inside? No—most certainly she is not, nor are those like she and Ms. Hillary Clinton who have come to love and depend upon the profits of war and conflagration of which this thing has wrought such havoc.
What is most odd here however is by the facts, that the Feminist scream and vilify the Father, and attack him further—as more men get separated from their own children’s lives—more and more children get abused! You would think, that with the trillions of dollars spent on this problem, and the complete eradication of the male from the child’s domain—that we would see such facts and figures steadily decline, but oddly—they are on the eternal rise! Another odd thing is, that the figures of actual sustainable and legally provable abuse figures, are in truth low. We are speaking of 1,215 cases of actual child death—of which an unknown percentage of that being "actual" abuse; along with roughly 25,000 cases of actual child hospitalization, again, an unknown percentage of those being ‘actual’ child abuse. Strangely, more than half of all documented child abuse occurs after the child has been removed from the Father’s presence and protection—yet, no significance is given to this. But still, the problem exists as a daily documented national crisis.
But, trust me, Hillary and her cohorts are waiting in the wings to solve these crises with even more government programs to help replace the father. They’ll come up with even more programs, provide even more grants to undermine what it wouldn’t cost society 1 penny to let succeed if they would only let the Father alone and allow him under the law to rule in his own home. This must be done as broadly, and with as much protection as we can freely allow him to do this, again; all in accordance with the law.
Once this tenor starts rippling through society, Ms. Clinton and her radical feminist cabal will even start ‘studies’ to show the American people statistic’s of how these problems are now being presently ‘solved’! Wow. Finally. But all any American has to do to uncover this fraud is to watch his paycheck get whittled away by this incessant war and insanity, each and every payday. All they have to do is watch the growth of our prisons, and the ever expanding social empires. If Ms. Clinton cannot solve these problems outright, then; she’ll present disinformation proving she’s and her feminist sisters have solved the problem.
If you present to these people the simple solution of: "Hey...why don’t we just save a couple of trillion dollars and just allow the father to assume his own role within his own home with his own family?" You’ll get shrilly shouted down from all quarters of the Feminist culture. Again, they want to bury the most obvious answer in a combine of various studies, experts, commissions, and legislative reports. You start rediscovering the obvious, like a man should rule within his own home and his children should be as close as possible to him—you’ll chart hearing classical feminist chants about abuse, rape, incest and a panorama of classical feminist doctrines: "Save the Children" "Not one more child!!" "Abuse!" and "Take back the night!!"
Therefore, it is the duty of all men to vocally and openly resist this criminal system, to belligerently enforce their rights, and most importantly—to allow the District Attorney NOTHING. This man is not your friend, he is not your child’s protector: YOU ARE. It is time that men seize control of their own home, their own children and their own destiny, by denying this cancerous system money. If this system is intent on destroying men, it can get no help from them. It will obtain no monies, no funds, court costs, filing fees: nothing. When the money equation disappears, so will this system, and upon that realization—will come the first healing of the disease which has permeated every segment of society, from the inner sanctum of the home, to the workplace, to the highest office of the land.
Therefore, when a woman comes up to you and informs you that she has mistakenly gotten pregnant, these men like Steve have to file criminal counterclaims in court for simple ROBBERY. Again, if a man has recreational sex with a woman; it is she not he carries that the burden of procreation. This comes under the maxim of "He who accrues the benefit, also carries the burden." And if a woman used your sperm in a manner not contracted; and the term recreational sex is the controlling factor here, then she should not have gotten pregnant in the first place. More importantly, such misuse is theft: a robbery; and she is responsible for the damages: not the male. We must remember, that this nation has suffered decades if not centuries of radical feminists screaming to obtain their supposedly sacred rights to control their own body, and their own sexuality. If this is true, and they have secured those rights—which they most certainly have—then they must also be held responsible for the performance of that liberty which they have not yet been held to. For that is the cost of gaining such liberty, and that is the responsibility to use it wisely, morally, and justly. Presently, the radical feminists have secured their liberties off of a putrid foundations of irresponsibility, immorality and out-right injustice—all subsidized through the ensuing destruction of the male.
She of course only has one legal answer to this, and that is that it wasn’t recreational sex...that it was either planned—or rape. In that case, the ‘contract’ is null and void in ab initio (from the beginning) because there was no meeting of the minds. From this, her only real alternative is to charge rape—which again; under these present perverted court systems is a woman’s greatest weapon and is unjustly being used as a weapon against men. Unfortunately, I believe World Heavyweight Boxing champion Mike Tyson, as powerful as he was financially, was unjustly imprisoned upon such false testimony. But a woman charging rape after she realizes that she now has become pregnant would have a precarious legal stance in which to bring such a fraudulent charge.
These women have screamed themselves into a frenzy making sure they could enjoy sexual promiscuity, abortion, birth control, lesbianism, multiple partners, etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Since they obtained these things—they enjoy the benefit—and thereby only they should assume the responsibility. Start addressing ‘responsibility’ or better yet, just start the public debate on this and you will see illegitimate births drop from 5 to 10 percent. Just by discussing this issue.
Such a shift, again; back to the common law will completely devastate the present Krell Welfare Machine. Once this paradigm again is enforced within the courts, you will factually see three things.
I generally estimate these due to the fact of related facts and figures in regard to this system.
Now the courts will go apoplectic over such defenses and will brazenly state that "Oh! But we must save the children! The child here has clean hands and cannot suffer from the sins of both the parents!"
Well, wow. Isn’t it reassuring that Judges understand common law, once they have a need to use it. But again, it is the duty to reinforce the fact that the father has clean hands too! He cannot be burdened by the contract of sex in the first instance as that contract has been criminally abrogated by the woman. He is only doing what he is genetically predisposed to do. Therefore, ‘if’ the Judge upholds his duty to the child, he will fully understand and recognize that it is not in the best interests to penalize the father, for in doing so, the court will be establishing the fallow precedent of law, that the child will have to someday inherit this perverse system of law which will propagate such future injustices against the Father and society and more importantly; in the final analysis, the child itself who will not be able to live and flourish in a free and just society. And that legal fact is not in the child’s best interests...and more importantly it never has been. It is more important for the Judge to secure the child’s future Liberty, than it is to create a slave and destroy his father.
For such idiotic judicial doctrines which have attacked the father have only burdened generation after generation from realizing the American dream, which is most and best realized under the protection of a home and family—which factually requires as its main component: a father which the courts (for criminal altruistic purposes) have criminally been denying children for generations. It has also established a state of affairs where anarchy is the normative rule rather than the exception. Again, by these realizations, we can see that such a system of holding the father accountable for these births, has been a gross mistake, and a complete undermining of our law.
But they fully understand these facts, and this is why such pregnancies continually rise—and that is because they are being subsidized and affirmed through these criminal court systems.
What is most perplexing, is that nobody noticed that in doing all this, the Feminists are demanding total sexual anarchy all under the absolute guise and rights of Matriarchy—the right to breed with any man they choose, even several men. Then, in circumspection to their own feminist doctrines they are turning right around into the Patriarchal system to demand immediate subsidy from men (or society) to sustain their Matriarchal doctrines. The fact is, that such a countervailing system cannot work both ways, it never had, and it never will. It is completely Anti-American, and succinctly Anti-Law, and must be destroyed at all costs.GO TO CHAPTER 09