 |
posted by D on Tuesday May 20, @10:19PM
from the Paternity-Fraud dept.
|
|
|
|
|
warble writes "Paternity fraud victims have experienced a second major win, and they are just friggin out! As everybody knows, AB2240 was vetoed by Gov. Davis last year. As part of the veto, he issued an Executive Order to create a Paternity Workgroup. After five months of nothing, NCFM, LA took action and demanded that the Executive Order be carried out.
The result was that a workgroup, sponsored by the CA-DCSS, started in the last week of Feb. 2002. Prior to the first meeting of the workgroup, the opposition started a bill (AB252) that was designed to give them a means of subverting the efforts of the paternity fraud victims. This bill was worded such that it would have destroyed the efforts of the paternity fraud victims in seeking relief. It would have done this by directly attacking SB1030 and coercing the paternity fraud victims submit to the efforts of the opposition.
That strategy of the opposition has now been thwarted, and the opposition has been put on notice. The vote was close at 34 ayes and 30 noes. It is the abstaining votes that made the difference in this case. The paternity fraud victims are deeply grateful to the Dem's that abstained from voting in favor of AB252.
It is no accident that all Dem's voted in favor of AB252. We believe the opposition misinformed them because they were lied to and haven't heard the truth from the victims. The truth was that AB252 represented the interest of the opposition that was composed of a secret alliance who opposed AB252. Further, the alliance excluded the victims from voicing their objections to AB252 in the analysis that went before the Assembly Committee of Judiciary.
Finally, AB252 failed in that it did not provide any timelines, goals, directives, or specify which categories of paternity fraud were to be addressed by the workgroup. NCFM, LA has made it clear that we will continue to support the Paternity Workgroup despite its being stacked against the victims. This is to demonstrate good faith to the Dem’s and Gov. Davis. In addition, should the workgroup produce an actual product that has merit in relation to the issue of paternity fraud then Senator Ashburn will be most willing to amend SB1030.
Later!
Warble
"
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 20, @11:07PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
In short, what does this all mean? I don't want to pour over the specifics of the legislation. I feel like I should be happy about something here but honestly don't know exactly what is happening?
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark,
As noted there are two bills in California. The first is supported by the paternity fraud victims and it is SB1030. This bill has actual language that addresses a very narrow form of paternity fraud called incorrect default paternity judgments.
The second bill is a spot bill created by the opposition. It is being used to deceive the public. It has no language, no timelines, no goals, and no mandate to even address the issue of paternity fraud.
This bill is being used by the opposition to draw in and dupe people. Their intent was to create language that would attack any effective language in SB1030. If you read the bill you will find that it makes enacting SB1030 illegal.
It's really quite brazen. The opposition created legislation that would make it illegal for the actual victims of paternity fraud to have new law enacted and thus provide relief.
This is like saying, oh you are associated with the men's movement, we are making it illegal for you to have any legislation passed in California.
Make no mistake. The politics of paternity fraud have gotten extremely vicious in California. The commi-nazi-fems are pissed! They know that we caught onto their hate law tactic and cut them off. What is really pathetic is that the public in California has no idea of how these male haters are attacking men! Honestly! I mean really! Making it illegal for a men's issues group to have a law enacted?!?!? They will stop at nothing now.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @11:42AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
Do you live in CA?
What is the level of awareness out there about this legislation? Is it getting press? What are people saying?
Mark
btw, thanx for the previous explaination
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark,
We are keeping a low key. It seems that if don't let the media know what is going down that the legislature has more room to maneuver and seek fairness.
We have also noticed that the rad-fem groups have sent orders to the media not to publish anything from NCFM, LA. The media of course is accepting the orders and keeping silent also. It turns out that they are getting very scared of us due to the men’s issues coalition of several groups that has formed in California. They see us acting in unison and it terrifies them.
They know that if we get publicity and our story is told that the public is sides with us. They cannot stand having the public hear the truth. The truth destroys their agenda.
So for now the public is going to have to remain ignorant and we will continue working in the background.
It is really weird. If the rad-fems cannot find a way to get all of the recognition for ending paternity fraud then they still want the victims to be oppressed. It is even worse if they learn that NCFM, LA is going to get press. It is like listening to a bunch of screaming bitches having a temper tantrum while kicking and flailing. They will do ANYTHING to get attention and try to continue the oppression of innocent victims.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday May 21, @07:32PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I know you're fighting against great odds. Thanks for your efforts, and keep fighting for justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 22, @06:08AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh boo hooh, another example of men who are too afraid of accepting responsibility for raising a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh boo hooh, another example of men who are too afraid of accepting responsibility for raising a child.
Oh look, another "strong, successful, independent woman who needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" who - um - needs a man to keep her worthless and weak ass in cash, and has such a total lack of morals and character so as to feel entitled to lie and decieve in order to do it.
But - not so uncommon, eh?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 22, @12:13PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
What does being defrauded have to do with supporting your children?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does being defrauded have to do with supporting your children?
Well, let's see... hmmm ...
If I didn't father them, then I guess it means they're not my children? They're your children, madam, and you have the responsibility to be truthful, up front, and forthright about about it, or *YOU* will be the root cause of *YOUR* children being fatherless.
Which does make you a bad mother. But that's another thing.
;-)
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like another AU that is too chicken to get a handle.
What is really interesting is the level of whining we get from mothers that want the freedom to defraud any male at their say-so by naming them as the father. A look at the facts demonstrates the level of harm done to children by these vile mothers.
There is nothing that is in the "best interest of the child" in intentionally defrauding men for money when they are not the father of the child. But then the male-haters don't want men or children to have a choice in preserving their biological lineage.
The male-haters want to just stick Bill Gates with the child support bill while they rake in the money from their comission for paternity fraud. Then if Gates complains about their fraud and criminal activities that fault Gates. What a bunch of amoral loosers!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the continued hard work, Warble.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
