|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just love this quote from a lobbyiest:
''I'm frightened about this decision, only for the fact that families will not support victims and survivors to go report because they can now say, `Look what happened to so-and-so,''' said Jeri Elster of Los Angeles [a lobbyiest]
Give me a break. Her family would not support her?! What a misleading and wrong statement. Her family may caution her that going forward is difficult, but to compare the Kobe case to the coverage given to the average rape case is just silly. As a precedent maybe, but even then, unless the woman has a history of submitting false testimony what is she afraid of? The accused is getting far more "uncomfortable" treatment, and he has no choice in the matter.
This statement in the article surprised me and made me realize this case may be making a difference in how people perceive the "rape shield" laws:
'This is the most harmful misuse of the rape-shield law I have ever seen,'' Wendy Murphy, a former prosecutor who teaches at the New England School of Law, she said of the Bryant case. ''Without it, the defense would have nothing to point to to drag her into court.''
Of COURSE Kobe gets to confront his accuser. HELLO!? Confronting one's accuser is a RIGHT, not an OPTION that the accuser gets a voice on.
But the article did ONLY quote prosecutors, former prosecutors, and lobbyists/activists for victims. That being said, it was almost balanced. Changes are STARTING, let's hope they keep coming.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:49 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of law and the courts, did anyone else hear the news from the supreame court?
They (supream court) said that they will investigate the alegations of 'anti-male gender bias' in divorce and child custody cases. They say that they will not only teach law makers and judges to be aware of the possibility of racial bias but GENDER bias as well.
If this turns out to indeed be the case I say to them, Great!
But I also say to them, It's about freakin' TIME! we've only been telling you all this for 30 YEARS!
Of course the whole thing remains to be SEEN! I am a bit skeptical.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:02 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Which Supreme Court? The U.S. Supremes or a state court?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fellas, that business SOW started about having the thought police peek in on these forums in order to see if they could lump us in with the neo-nazi's really HAS worked in our favour. Keeping my anonimity is important to me and I do not want to say things that could reveal it...but the security officer that was assigned to check up on me because of this (and in the post 911 world YES they ARE that paranoid) told his bosses in no uncertain terms that he regards me as a hero and that they would have to shoot him too (I've been having my coffee breaks with him for years). The content of these forums has indeed been noted and is indeed being taken seriously. Keep it up guys our day IS DAWNING!!! I've heard tell that there was almost a mutiny of RCMP officers who have been shafted in family court and who deal with DV on a day to day basis when it was suggested that the SOW recommendations be acted upon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great and encouraging news!
Keep us updated.
Don't mention names, but ask your Security Friend his opinions, what he has heard, and tell him to encourage his buddies to look in on this stuff too.(all in the name of making sure we are being well behaved of course)
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In spite of supposed privacy protection laws all electronic communication is routinely minitored by the CIA and CSIS. It is only the police who have to do any sort of legal dance to get permission, but in practical terms that is only an inconvenience in terms of admissibility of evidence...they routinely do it for investigation purposes. At a public inquiry into CSIS one of the things that came to light was that a woman talking to her neighbour on the telephone said "That kid of mine BOMBED a math exam and I BLEW UP at him. Honest to God some times I FEEL LIKE KILLING HIM" The three keyword or phrase match met the criteria to get her on a possible terrorist watch list. The security personnel of any and all potential targets of terrorism are provided with watch lists of anybody and everybody who might have a political axe to grind. And fellas, we are all on that list and our aliases only keep us anonymous from our amateur enemies. The good news is that WE are indeed everywhere.Even in the ranks of our big brother organizations there are lots and lots of guys paying alimony and/or child support and who have or are closely aquainted with someone who has been wrongly tarred with the brush of sexual misconduct and who are just generally sick and tired of being treated like 17th century aristocrats who exercised jus prima nocta (right of first night). These forums have at the very least acheived the status of reasonable, mainstream political ranting and even our watchers are saying AMEN BROTHER.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw something about this very story on "History" channel or some-such. The CIA or NSA operation) has a monitoring station in Canaa. According to CIA rules they cannot spy on Americans (Domestically). So, the BRITISH spy on Americans, we spy on the Brits, and ... guess what .. the two angencies "SHARE" the information (how convenient). So the letter of the law is maintained, while the spirit of the law is screwed. And this was done long before 9/11.
Just give THAT some thought.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"All pigs are equal. But some are more equal than others..."
Better get used to being a pig, I guess.
Or, maybe reject this tyranny!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:54 PM March 28th, 2004 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
So the letter of the law is maintained, while the spirit of the law is screwed. And this was done long before 9/11.
I saw the same program. You are quite right.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which Supreme Court? The U.S. Supremes or a state court?
The Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 29, 2004
S04F0141. HUBBARD v. HUBBARD.
FLETCHER, Chief Justice.
As a result of a divorce trial in May 2002, Randy Hubbard was granted custody of the two children and ordered to pay Wife $1000.00 per month in alimony. Danette Hubbard was not ordered to pay any child support except for the children’s healthcare insurance premium, totaling $60.00 per month. Husband appeals, claiming that the trial court prejudiced the jury against him by expressing its high opinion of one of Wife’s witnesses, who had testified about Wife’s allegations of physical abuse by Husband. Because the trial court improperly bolstered the credibility of Wife’s witness, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
During the trial, Wife presented the testimony of Linda Wells, a domestic violence counselor. Wells testified that Wife had come to her alleging physical abuse and seeking a restraining order against Husband. Following Husband’s cross-examination of Wells, during which he challenged her credibility, the trial
judge made the following comment:
Before she leaves, let me clear the air on one thing. This has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with this case, what I’m about to say. But [husband’s counsel] knows and [wife’s counsel] knows because they’ve practiced over here long enough that Ms. Wells, when she started the Council and the Center for Domestic Violence, it was a model for the rest of the state. I’m not suggesting that what anyone tells her is true or false, but I don’t want to see her up here and be treated like she has done something wrong when she has
provided such an unbelievable service for this community. It’s a model for other programs in the state of Georgia. And not only that, as you know, she wears a hat as a county commissioner and she does an excellent job from that standpoint.
Following the comment, Husband moved unsuccessfully for a mistrial.
1. On appeal, Husband contends that Wells’ testimony, and the trial court’s favorable comments about her, prejudiced the jury against him and caused them to award alimony to the Wife and no child support to him. Under OCGA § 9-10-7, a new trial must be granted if the trial judge expresses or intimates his opinion as to what has or has not been proved. Here, the court clearly stated its high opinion of Wells and bolstered her credibility as a witness, influencing an issue that is solely for the jury to determine.2 The statute unambiguously requires that upon any violation, “the decision in the case shall be reversed, and a new trial shall be granted.”
2. Husband also claims that the trial court erred in entering final judgment on a defective verdict form and in failing to strike the part of the jury award that gave the children a contingent remainder interest in his business. Because neither of these issues are likely to recur on retrial, they need not be addressed.
Judgment reversed and case remanded. All the Justices concur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Kobe's defense attorneys prevail and gain the right to enter into evidence the past sexual behavior of his accuser, this will be a small step forward for restoring due process; however -
the way rape laws are currently written, a female has typically 30 days following any sexual encounter to "decide" whether it was rape.
Note that rape as a crime is not in strictly legal terms based on an act or behavior -- the very same sexual interactions between consenting adults are not criminalized.
Rape is a crime based on lack of consent.
And the state's rape laws allow a supposed "victim" to determine whether consent was present or not, long after the actual act.
Another crucial aspect of the law is that it makes the man responsible for HIS behavior and also responsible for the FEMALE'S behavior.
If a man buys a woman several alcoholic drinks, which she chooses to accept, and they later engage in sexual intercourse, and she alleges that it was rape... the MAN is held responsible for her decision to consume alcoholic beverages, and he will be portrayed in court as a predator.
The net effect of today's rape laws is that every man's liberty hangs by the merest thread of retroactive female subjectivity as to the presence or absence of consent.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:23 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
30 days afterwards to decide if you consented? Ok, then lets make the penalty for rape equal to a "parked in the wrong spot" fine rather than 25 years in the slammer. Stop the criminalization of men!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The very worst aspect of all this is that it trivializes actual rape.
The underlying philosophy that is at the heart of this is the notion that sex is a form of putting one over on someone. If there was no cohersion or quid pro quo what is the offence?
The most fundamental point of logic is that a thing is equal to itself...X equals X.
The second point of all logic is that X=X and does not equal X+Y where Y is ANY VALUE GREATER THAN ZERO.
That being the case why is it so difficult to grasp the notion that sex=sex and sex does not equal sex+Y where Y equals any value greater than zero?
I think I deserve an honourary doctorate in men's studies for formulating the fundamental proof that any and all notions of equality between the sexes is hogwash simply because women get pregnant and men don't and THAT has always brought about issues of SEX+Y.
What has muddied the social political water in this though is the unholy alliance between lesbian feminazis who are consumed with penis envy and die hard Protestant Puritans who are convinced that sex offends God.In such an arena men really don't stand a chance.
I miss the days when sex was a sin instead of a social injustice. Back then all you had to do was find another sinner and THAT was never difficult. Now you need to find someone who is willing to sell out the world's most noble cause to the enemy and risk the lable of traitor. And not change her mind for thirty days. Anonymous encounters with prostitutes would seem to be all that is left. SEX=SEX+Y$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:32 PM March 27th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
That and the knowledge that you can't get Mrs. thumb and her four daughters pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It also avoids paternity fraud, excessive child support payments, divorce lawyers, charges of rape (marital and otherwise), paternity suits, PMS attacks, getting murdered while asleep and she being found not guilty by saying you abused her for years and she was afraid of you.
You forgot the health benefits. Frequent monkey spanking is associated with lower rates of prostate cancer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, now Mensactivism is going to be known far and wide as the "whiners and wankers" board?
Ray... got an appropriate tee-shirt for this noble cause?
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:27 PM March 28th, 2004 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
..."Spank the monkey"...?
That's a new one, for me.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone in another forum I used to participate in used the term "bash the bishop"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:20 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if the $63,500 is excessive, or for how long Brown is in arrears. I would agree that he should contribute to the support of his children.
This suggests that perhaps he really can't pay the money, which is a different case. The judge simply "found" that Brown's contention that he had not received an advance "not credible." It sounds like his financial history was not even examined by the feminist judge. And of course the money had to be paid in full. What happens if he still can't pay next time? What a mess.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:19 PM March 26th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Duh. I'll post this again on the other topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder when the feminists will speak out against the rape of men in prison...or the particularly pernicious rape where men are the victims and women are the perpetrators: PATERNITY FRAUD. Maybe I shouldn't hold my breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a permanent solution to the Feminist problem. We refuse to Marry American Women and embrace their Narcicistic views. Marry Foreign Women and Breed Feminism out of our culture once and for all. When enough American Women see that they are not needed or wanted the culture will change. It is time for us to fight back for our future and that of our future generations. I am sick of the misandry and the oppression of Men. It is about Money are redistribution of income. The Divorce Industry is a parasite feeding off of us. Starve the Bastards to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legislation to stop the traffic and trade in exploited foreign women is already in the works.
But you have the right idea. I once used an introduction service to meet women and on one date I was actually at her place, probably comming down home stretch. I was in her living room and she went into the kitchen to make coffee and get snacks. I looked over at her bookshelf and noticed about a dozen bookspines that were all too familiar to me, Betty Freidan, Shere Hite et al...I was gone like the cool breeze before she even got the coffee perked.
Good news is this has NOT spread to all women and the younger ones are not buying into it in the sort of numbers that they did before.
One of the law reforms that feminists are trying to get passed is a prohibition of middle aged men having relationships with younger women because of some balance of power issue.
The ones who have some vestige of heterosexuality left are somewhat worried about the turn of events except that if it is simply a question of getting laid...when has THAT ever been difficult for any woman?...they can simply get YOU drunk and charge YOU with rape if you fail to bring them to orgasm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:40 PM March 27th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
So the feminists are trying to get legislation passed to prohibit middle aged men from dateing younger women, huh?
Gee, I wonder when they'll admonish Demi Moore for dateing the MUCH younger Ashton Kutcher?
What's that? Oh, yeah I forgot the old, tired feminist montra: "But that's DIFFERENT..."
What Hypocrits the feminists are. And frankly, it seems that a good majority of American women are just as guilty.
...My head hurts...
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a bit of an aside, I made this up today:
Radical Feminists Repeal Laws of Physics
March 27, 2004
BERKELY, CA (Reuters)
Having already attempted to rewrite the rules of biology, radical feminists have decided to repeal the laws of physics on the grounds that they are a “patriarchal device used to oppress women.”
Gloria Allred, spokeswoman for the event, stated that “As of April 1, 2004 the laws of physics will be radically changed to a more feminocentric version.”
“Physics consists of four basic forces” Allred continued. “That is, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Gravity is in itself oppressive to women as it keeps them down. Electromagnetism furthers this subjugation in that one of its major features, electricity, is used to power devices such as vacuum cleaners, washers, and dryers, which are used to limit women to domestic roles. The strong nuclear force is perhaps the ultimate symbol of patriarchal destructiveness, as it is utilized in nuclear energy and nuclear bombs. The weak nuclear force is a symbol of male irrelevance, as we aren’t sure what it’s for.”
“We appeal to the female Goddesses to recreate the laws of physics originally designed by the patriarchal God to subjugate women” Allred concluded.
Also in attendance were Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin, and California senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who ratified the new laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I know you like Hillary so much ;) Perhaps she was at a NOW convention?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:42 PM March 27th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
And don't forget Nancy the "palooka" Palosi!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:18 PM March 27th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
If a drunk person cannot give valid consent to sex, then prosecute women who rape drunk men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to feminist physics, no such penetration could ever occur...
there would be too great of a vacuum between the opposing objects...
The man is a mere "quark" (imagined particle) in this feminist conspiracy!
And, if she actually gets drunk, she is only engaging in auto-erotic delusional practices...
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:45 PM March 27th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are makeing me feel really DUMB!
If I was a woman you'd all be in trouble by now, by golly! (^_^)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I was a woman you'd all be in trouble by now, by golly! (^_^)
I recently read someone who remarked that it was only women who ever accused him of "trying to confuse me with logic."
Hey TC,
Do you have access to an email account? I'm trying to put together something about what MRA's can learn from activists in other issues and I'd like to pick your brain for your experiences. If you're able and willing, please email me at dangerprodataoldotcom. Thanks.
Larry
ADULT: What you are once you've run out of excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:17 AM March 28th, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Larry.
I've been having trouble with my email but hopefuly the problem will be fixed soon.
When it is I'm going to re-establish my account here.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You canny change the laws of physics...
scotty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the disciples of Lao-tzu said that nobody ever needed to assert the truth because the truth has a very ruthless way of asserting itself. People just lack patience.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
