|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @05:58PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
These are good points. But they seem to assume that a more complete bill would have gotten the support from the legislature that it did. To get the bill where we got it, it took some cutting that nobody liked. But the idea was to get it passed and then amend it later. Amendments are much, much easier to do than getting a whole bill written and passed, especially with the kind of opposition we faced. People have been trying to get a paternity fraud bill in CA passed for years and years. This is the closest we got. Maybe next year we can get a better one written, and passed. But given the political situation we faced, a bill that this author speaks of (that makes the mother accountable, etc.) would never have gotten as far as it did otherwise. That's just a reality. There are lots of men and women, even some victims of paternity fraud like multi billionaire Kirk Kirkorian, who did not help us at all. We were a small number working against the stream and were lucky to get it as far as we did this year. Now the issue is much more publicized and we can re-load for the next round.
As far as the bill allowing compensation from the bio dad to the paternity fraud victim, a don't think a civil lawsuit would provide back pay without a showing of negligence or that the bio dad knew about it in some way. In any case, yes this was an area that definitely needed adjusting, and that would have been one of the next steps. But meanwhile we personally know men whose paychecks are cut in half every week for a child that is NOT theirs, and they are suffering. This bill would have given thousands of these men immediate relief (though not all of them) while we moved on to work on its flaws.
Ideologically I can agree with this author's points, but realistically I cannot, having been part of the process and seen first hand what we were up against.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @06:52PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
These are good points. But they seem to assume that a more complete bill would have gotten the support from the legislature that it did.
So you would rather pass a bill that wrecks the lives of men OTHER than the paternity fraud victims, trading one crime against men for another? Just because the legislature supported it? I hope to God you're not in charge of this bill.
But the idea was to get it passed and then amend it later.
Wouldn't happen. Affirmative Action, Title IX, etc., are all examples of half-right bills gone wrong. The bill would have simply passed the burden from the frauded man to the biological father. There is no "justice" in that. Getting a bill passed by the legislature at the COST OF THE VERY FREEDOM THE BILL IS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE is NOT A GOOD COMPROMISE, PEOPLE.
But given the political situation we faced, a bill that this author speaks of (that makes the mother accountable, etc.) would never have gotten as far as it did otherwise. That's just a reality.
Well, then we'll just have to work harder to change that reality. Jesus, people, do you really want to make things WORSE so you just MIGHT, POSSIBLY, PROBABLY NOT "amend it" in the future? I'm not willing to risk biological fatherhood for paternity fraud victims. Nor am I willing to sacrifice paternity fraud victims for biological fathers. This issue CANNOT be compromised. If it is, the legislature gets to keep raping men's wallets (albeit DIFFERENT men) and women keeping getting away with it.
No wonder Californians can't get their men's commission. They're apparently all willing to throw the baby out with the bath!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not willing to risk biological fatherhood for paternity fraud victims. Nor am I willing to sacrifice paternity fraud victims for biological fathers. This issue CANNOT be compromised. If it is, the legislature gets to keep raping men's wallets (albeit DIFFERENT men) and women keeping getting away with it.
AU has spoken like a true dictator. The democratic process simply doesn't work that way. If you don't compromise you will not go anywhere in passing a bill.
The democratic process is one where the proponents and opposition go to the table and discuss an issue. Neither side gets exactly what the want. What we get is a compromise solution. That's how the process works. If it didn't then we would have a dictatorship.
The biggest problem for men is that we don't have a full time lobbyist in the legislature. So, the proponents of feminist issues go unopposed and get a blanket check. If men don't like it then they need to join NCFM, LA and help us get funds for a lobbyist. If a man is wealthy then he needs to stop being a whiner and pony up the cash to help NCFM, LA further male friendly legislation. Otherwise, I don’t give a damn what the opinion of AU is. It’s just whining.
Warble
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:08PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Whining" is exactly right Warble.
Warren Farrell is right in The Myth of Male Power that the men's movement will be the most incremental of movements, and it's just a reality.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:18PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
"Whining" is exactly right Warble.
Sorry you feel that way, Marc. If expressing my displeasure against a bill which would rob biological fathers to pay paternity fraud victims (and/or biological mothers) is "whining," then so be it.
I know of thousands of feminists who would call YOU a whiner for wanting this bill in the first place, so it looks like I'm in good company.
Whiner, indeed. Has the men's movement fallen so far as to stoop to the same name-calling tactics of the pheminists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @03:41PM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
The "whining" part is the sarcasm and personal attacks ("I hope you're not in charge" and attacks on our activism in CA for a commission for men, etc.)
Saying someone is whining is not name-calling, or at least it's no more name-calling than your personal attacks.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @03:47PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
The "whining" part is the sarcasm and personal attacks ("I hope you're not in charge" and attacks on our activism in CA for a commission for men, etc.)
Those were not personal attacks. They were questions about your abilities to discern the difference between getting good legislation passed or getting legislation passed just to get it passed. I admit they were harsh things to say. Sorry if your feelings were hurt.
Saying someone is "whining" is name-calling. You are calling that person a "whiner."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @04:31PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
"Saying someone is 'whining' is name-calling. You are calling that person a 'whiner.'"
To that extent, you were calling us "compromisers" and your other attacks *were* personal.
And I don't agree anyway with this reasoning. If I say you are jogging it doesn't mean I'm calling you a jogger.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @04:44PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
To that extent, you were calling us "compromisers" and your other attacks *were* personal.
I know nothing about you personally, so how could my "attacks" have been personal? And as far as calling you "compromisers," that's exactly what you did on this bill, is it not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @09:07PM EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"I know nothing about you personally, so how could my "attacks" have been personal?"
You obviously knew that I was involved in the effort in CA to get a commission for men, and you out of total ignorance insulted our efforts and made totally unfounded suggestions about it, as I explained. The reality was the exact OPPOSITE of what you said. The reason we are facing such a strong wall of resistance on the commission for men is that we REFUSED to compromise. But the paternity fraud bill was a totally different scenario and strategy. The bill's author and many others, including the vast majority of the victims themselves who needed immediate relief, felt that compromise was necessary to get a minimal bill passed, or at least to get it far enough to get mass media coverage, which we thankfully got (and now it's fairly well known in CA and alot of people are angry as a result, thanks to our big bad "compromise"). We also talked with people like Dianna Thompson who had worked on preceeding paternity fraud bills for years and years that usually never even went past the committees and never got media attention, and most of them felt the same. It was a difficult decision for NCFM, LA. We debated a little among ourselves. But ultimately we agreed to go with what we had and, if it passed, to work later on amending and strengthening it while the victims went to court for relief. Though I don't agree with it, I can see an argument that the veto was a good thing, because the media attention and other publicity that we got from the bill going as far as it did gave us a greater ability to pass a stronger bill now. But that's not the same as saying we should not have compromised the bill. There was good reason to do so even if the bill's veto is a good thing.
And even aside from that, your approach of insulting us for our work was totally uncalled for. We've got a very small number of activists with very few resources working like dogs and shaking things up behind the scenes in LA, and we don't deserve reactinary criticism from some anonymous person who doesn't what what's happening here and sounds very much like an armchair activist who only knows how to criticize.
"And as far as calling you "compromisers," that's exactly what you did on this bill, is it not?"
Precisely. The point was not to deny that. The point was that to the extent that *I* name-called (which you accuse me of doing), you did exactly the same.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And as far as calling you "compromisers," that's exactly what you did on this bill, is it not?
My my. We are ignorant of the democratic process that is required to get a bill passed. These kinds of statements are very telling. Nevertheless, we invite you to help us in the next round if you like. But if you have an attitude where you will not compromise we won't waste our time with you because the bill will fail in the first committee hearing with that kind of strategy.
The democratic process by definition requires negotiation and compromise among competing interest. If a person cannot handle that then they belong in Iraq or some other dictatorship because you are not an American.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:01AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
And even aside from that, your approach of insulting us for our work was totally uncalled for. We've got a very small number of activists with very few resources working like dogs and shaking things up behind the scenes in LA, and we don't deserve reactinary criticism from some anonymous person who doesn't what what's happening here and sounds very much like an armchair activist who only knows how to criticize.
I have read all of these posts. I think you and Warble are much too emotionally attached to your bill. You may not agree with this person about the bill, but he did not insult you. You insulted him because of his strong opposition to the bill. Nowhere in any of his posts has he insulted you.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:03AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
My my. We are ignorant of the democratic process that is required to get a bill passed. These kinds of statements are very telling.
If you, like Marc, are upset about the flame war here, might I suggest you not fan it? This anonymous poster obviously isn't "ignorant." You just seem to be pissed because he/she is right. In fact, he/she even suggested what would have been a *better* compromise for this bill, but you just skipped right past that post in your rush to judgment, didn't you?
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @05:17AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
Nuh-uh, Did not, Sez you, You big smarty-pants!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you, like Marc, are upset about the flame war here, might I suggest you not fan it? This anonymous poster obviously isn't "ignorant."
Jack,
I disagree. AU is quite ignorant on the issue of paternity fraud and AB2240. I strongly suggest that AU, if that person wants to become informed, order all of the tapes from the hearings, study all of the analysis about 20 times (literally), read all of the amended versions of the bill about 20 times (literally), talk to 119 California legislatures/assistants and then come back to make informed statements.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @11:54AM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. AU is quite ignorant on the issue of paternity fraud and AB2240. I strongly suggest that AU, if that person wants to become informed, order all of the tapes from the hearings, study all of the analysis about 20 times (literally), read all of the amended versions of the bill about 20 times (literally), talk to 119 California legislatures/assistants and then come back to make informed statements.
I believe if you actually read the posts here you would find that AU actually HAS read the bill and kept up with the processes. He obviously knew that the bill was watered down considerably from its original. He even said he supported it in its original form.
You know, if you want to attract people to your cause, tossing out insults really isn't the best way to go about it. Hell, I'm offended and I don't even have a dog IN this fight.
Uh oh. I disagreed with somebody. Guess I'm a troll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe if you actually read the posts here you would find that AU actually HAS read the bill and kept up with the processes.
Well we have been here before. We have the AU's defending the AU's and neither of them is informed.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have the AU's defending the AU's and neither of them is informed.
Actually, what I think we have here is one AU pretending to be several AUs, and thinking if he or she posts often enough, and loudly enough, and stridently enough that people will be persuaded to believe them.
I tell you what - I really wish there was a way to filter any post by "Anonymous User."
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know of thousands of feminists who would call YOU a whiner for wanting this bill in the first place, so it looks like I'm in good company.
And so they did when the likes of Valerie Ackerman mocked men for wanting just by stating that men want to be Disney dads and no financial responsibility. We got lots of that during the hearings. It was the most bigoted thing I've ever seen.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @05:31AM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Warb.,
Is there any chance you can record these 'sessions'? You know with video or even audio?
If so, You should do it, then give a copy of the recorded meeting to a news out-let, so the whole country can see what a bunch of dievient bigots Valerie Ackerman and her ilk are and how they truely DO stand against the guaranteed constitutional rights of some Americans simply because of GENDER!
The problem may be, however finding a news out-let that is un-biased towards men.
OR could you use it as evidence in court if the need should arise?
Just a thought.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should do it, then give a copy of the recorded meeting to a news out-let, so the whole country can see what a bunch of dievient bigots Valerie Ackerman and her ilk are....
Yes. I have all the recordings, and I've transcribed key portions of the testimony. I have been quite careful to quote Ackerman and Kuehl accurately. They are attornies and can cause a great deal of trouble if we misquote them.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:16PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
AU has spoken like a true dictator. The democratic process simply doesn't work that way. If you don't compromise you will not go anywhere in passing a bill.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Compromising the entire purpose of a bill just to get a bill passed is NOT the true nature of compromise.
A GENUINE compromise would have been not holding the courts responsible, but holding the mother responsible. THAT would have been a compromise, and the bill itself would not have been utterly destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @04:36PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Where the hell do you get "just to get a bill passed"? You want to come here and tell that to the thousands of males who are suffering every day and WOULD have been relieved immediately by the bill?
You "genuine" compromise, given the climate we had, wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Now that we got it somewhere and got publicity for it, there's an even stronger ground movement and we might be able to get a stronger one further than it would have gotten last year.
I don't mind disagreement, such as that made by the author of this article. But you wigged out on my and made personal attacks based on ignorance of our work in CA and I don't even know who the hell you are.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @05:21PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't mind disagreement, such as that made by the author of this article. But you wigged out on my and made personal attacks based on ignorance of our work in CA and I don't even know who the hell you are.
I did no such thing. And, as I stated in a different post, I have been keeping up with the efforts and I HAVE READ THE BILL. Whether you like it or not, this bill WOULD NOT have provided relief for anyone. It would have simply hurt biological fathers and forced taxpayers to foot an even HIGHER bill for the dipsquirts at the Departments of Health and Human Services to go on manhunts for so-called "deadbeat" biological dads. THAT'S what this bill would have accomplished.
I hope you DO get a bill passed Marc. I just think it should be the RIGHT bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @05:48PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Where the hell do you get "just to get a bill passed"? You want to come here and tell that to the thousands of males who are suffering every day and WOULD have been relieved immediately by the bill?
By the way--exactly how would this bill have provided any "immediate" relief to victims of paternity fraud? Here's what it would have done:
1) Paternity fraud victims would have doled out thousands of their hard-earned dollars to family lawyers, meanwhile still having to pay for child support and prove that the fraud exists.
2) Lawyers would have said "we have to find the biological father. we can't recoupe losses from the woman or the state
3) Bio-father would have said "ain't my kid and you ain't gettin' my DNA."
4) Victim would have said "i just want to get out of child support"
5) Judge would have said "can't do that, son, the economy's in the dumpster and the kid's gotta eat. sorry."
6) Family lawyer would have said "pay up, sucka."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @08:42PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way--exactly how would this bill have provided any "immediate" relief to victims of paternity fraud?"
Because it would in many, many cases take only a simple motion to bring the DNA evidence in, and that motion can be done with the help of the family law facilitator. Many, though not all, of the judges would allow the evidence and relieve the men right away. Some of the victims I know have had judges TELL them they agree this is unfair and they'd relieve them but they can't because of current law. Obviously it's totally imperfect. But it would relieve MANY of them immiediately, and MANY more to come as they learn of the fraud. Hundreds of men, probably thousands, and their loved ones, in the State were waiting eagerly for this bill to pass so that they could go straight to court.
You really should inquire more or look into these things before making such blanket statements. It's becoming clear why you are anonymous. Debating with with ignorance here is a waste of time.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what it would have done...
Ah yes. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. But the fact remains that we have no reason to believe that you did a damn thing. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @01:26AM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Dam right.
AB whatever would have done nothing for 98 percent of wrongly accused fathers. The only thing it would have done is make some fat-rich lawyers even more fatter and richer…and let them claim they are “fighting” for men’s rights while getting fatter and richer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
A personal note: While I think that this bill may have been so corrupted by the genfems that it's best it was vetoed (the greatest improvement may be rebuilding it from scratch), I hate to see you being caught up with a debate here that has become so personal. I know that you have far better things to do. From what I can tell, you are one of the most effective supporters and promoters of inter-gender decency and fair and equitable laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will add that I also hate to see Warble caught up in this personal argument, though he seems to have bowed out of it. He, too, has done a great deal for us all and was on the front lines of this battle. Many thanks to Warble and Marc.
Who ever heard of a perfect war?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From what I can tell, you are one of the most effective supporters and promoters of inter-gender decency and fair and equitable laws.
Well said. And for that the men of America owe Marc a great deal of gratitude. He is an unsung hero of the men's movement. This AU is an idiot to be attacking Marc. It's probably some gen-fem-warrior trying to pose as a masculist.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will add that I also hate to see Warble caught up in this personal argument, though he seems to have bowed out of it.
Ah but what can I say. I'm just having fun. Don't take any of this too seriously. Currently, AU comes off like a nobody that knows nothing about the men's movement. Now if the AU wants to become somebody AU can get involved and learn what the democratic process is all about.
As for me, I'm determined to have a good time in my activism. Criticism is fine and many times leads to greater ideas.
Finally, I believe that Marc has presented some new points that haven't been considered by responding to AU. So flame on! This is too much fun!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I'm about it, I'd like to thank Kirsten Tyrnan for her well considered thoughts on this matter. She seems to have justice at heart. I hope that we hear more from her in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:05AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. But the fact remains that we have no reason to believe that you did a damn thing. If I'm wrong please correct me.
Are you saying we have reason to believe YOU did?
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:06AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
You really should inquire more or look into these things before making such blanket statements. It's becoming clear why you are anonymous. Debating with with ignorance here is a waste of time.
My my, Marcy. For someone who doesn't want to be insulted, one certainly doesn't mind tossing the insults at one's perceived enemy, does one?
I still think you guys are just pissed because anonymous is right.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:08AM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
This AU is an idiot to be attacking Marc. It's probably some gen-fem-warrior trying to pose as a masculist.
Still bitter that he's right, huh? I've read and re-read these posts. The only people getting into a "personal war" here are you and Marc. Anonymous just stated his (admittedly strong) opinions. You took it personally. One should never make the political personal. That's where feminism went wrong.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:10AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Finally, I believe that Marc has presented some new points that haven't been considered by responding to AU. So flame on! This is too much fun!
You and Marc are the only ones flaming anyone. And I haven't seen one iota of anything *new* presented by Marc that refutes Anonymous' scenario.
Look, just because the guy doesn't like your bill doesn't make him your enemy. It makes him concerned about biological fathers' rights.
Stop taking disagreement so personally.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @05:52AM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
Warning, Warning, Will Robinson!!! Troll alert Troll alert!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warning, Warning, Will Robinson!!! Troll alert Troll alert!
This is taking on the tone that a troll is supporting a troll AU.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @11:52AM EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
Warning, Warning, Will Robinson!!! Troll alert Troll alert!
Ah, here's the old mensactivism.org song and dance all we other men's rights people know and love. You disagree with me therefore you MUST be a troll.
Be careful, Jack, next Thundercloud will accuse you of being racist even though this thread has nothing to do with race.
Then Mars will come along and say "hey, only trolls toss out insults," conveniently ignoring the insults tossed out here by Marc and Warble (notice all the anonymous user did was disagree with the way watered down bill. In no post did he toss out any insults).
Next the other MANN people will demand that your posts be deleted.
Yes, the mensactivism.org people have been trained well to behave like feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see a little check box to the lower left of where I write asking even me, a registered user, whether I wish to post anonymously.
How do we know you aren't the same AU who originally posted? There's real good reason to know Warble is warble, I'm the Gonzo Kid, Frank h is him - but WhoTF are you? What are your bona fides?
Any moron can post and sign a name. We generally don't criticize Thundercloud for it because he doesn't start flame wars (But, TC, do you have any idea how easy it would be for someone to post using your name at the bottom and mess you up?)
Want some credibility? Get an ID. Sign a name and have the cojones to stand behind your words. Until then, so far as I am concerned, you're an AU Flame Troll.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @01:22PM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
(("Be careful, Jack, next Thundercloud will accuse you of being racist even though this thread has nothing to do with race."))
Well, first of all, Jack has said nothing that makes me even remotely suspect he\she is a "racist".
Second, As I've said before (many times) Just disagreeing with me (or anyone else) doesn't make you a "Racist" or a "Troll".
And third, Why drag ME into this? I didn't say a thing...,
But since you now HAVE drug me into this, I have only one thing to say to you...,
Nehi uha tla unvtsida, Unalii.
There, I said it and I'm glad!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:02PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
"So you would rather pass a bill that wrecks the lives of men OTHER than the paternity fraud victims, trading one crime against men for another?"
You've shown nothing showing it would "wreck" the lives of other men in any way near the same level of what it has done to the current victims. where did you get that from?
"Just because the legislature supported it? I hope to God you're not in charge of this bill."
Yeah, it would be better if it was you, Anon. Then it would get about as far as one legislator, and the media would not have even raised any awareness about the issue. Boy I wish it were you in charge.
"Wouldn't happen. Affirmative Action, Title IX, etc., are all examples of half-right bills gone wrong."
Not true. There are legislators who said the bill didn't go far enough and would strengthen it. But getting them to do a whole bill would not be likely since their schedules are full and it's not their main issue.
"The bill would have simply passed the burden from the frauded man to the biological father."
No. It would have relieved thousands and thousands of men immediately and in the future. Many of the bio fathers can't be found. Some of them who can be found did know about the child and some even did abandon. And others wouldn't necessarily be charged back pay. There is no way that any resulting harm to men would be anywhere close in comparison to what is hapening to the men who are currently victims. These victims need relief NOW.
"Well, then we'll just have to work harder to change that reality...No wonder Californians can't get their men's commission. They're apparently all willing to throw the baby out with the bath!"
Let's work harder together. I agree. But since you don't put your name, I have no idea what you're doing. You can critize others but since you're anon you can't be criticized. You just shoot off your mouth attacking others, which is typical of those who aren't on the front lines but who choose to be armchair activists.
Incidentally, we aren't compromising anything with the commission for men. We've been told to, but we haven't. And that's why there's so much resistance that has built up. It's exactly the OPPOSITE of what you say. And we'll continue to fight no matter how long it takes and no matter how many armchair activists scream at us and falsely accuse of comprising when they know nothing about what we're doing.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 29, @06:57PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
In any case, yes this was an area that definitely needed adjusting, and that would have been one of the next steps. But meanwhile we personally know men whose paychecks are cut in half every week for a child that is NOT theirs, and they are suffering. This bill would have given thousands of these men immediate relief (though not all of them) while we moved on to work on its flaws.
In other words, all this bill DID was acknowledge a problem that the Legislature had already acknowledged existed and added a priviso to make that mean old guilty bio-dad who wasn't even aware of the child's existence the "GUILTY" party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From about 2,400 miles away, I just want to say that I certainly DO appreciate the work that Marc and Warble and everyone else put into this. But from what I've read here about how the final legislation did more to blame another man for paternity fraud than target the REAL perpetrator (the mother who lied), I have to conclude that it was NOT the solution that is needed and perhaps it is better that it wasn't passed. If it had passed and further complaint arose, then the politicians who quake at the threat of losing the women's vote would point to it and say: "See!! We solved your problem right there! We can't do anymore more for you."
JMHO (just my humble opinion)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But from what I've read here about how the final legislation did more to blame another man for paternity fraud than target the REAL perpetrator (the mother who lied), I have to conclude that it was NOT the solution that is needed and perhaps it is better that it wasn't passed.
Frank you are of course right. On-the-other-hand we have much more experience with the democratic process now. Therefore, we're going to be trying to find a sponsor for a separate bill that will attach criminal penalties to a woman's act of paternity fraud.
But you need to be aware that there is a long history going back to Rome of women not being held criminally accountable. People don't believe that woman can commit heinous crimes. We have a culture where most people believe that women are superior moral beings.
For example, only a few people consider Lisa Bonder's act of paternity fraud against Kerkorian to be a real crime. Remember, in this case she switched the DNA samples.
We also need to keep in mind the victims that were present. We took informal votes on the progress of the bill. The victims were just as horrified as we were at the feminist attacks against men from the legislators. Nevertheless, it would have provided relief.
The fact of the matter is that the feminist Ca legislature knew these paternity fraud victims were hearting. They knew there was a tone of desperation, and these heartless feminists exploited that fact to put in anti-male measures.
We knew that was happening and we hated it. We cannot expect better from this socicialist feminist controlled legislature that daily enacts new anti-male legislation. The best we can hope for at this time is to control the damage. Until we get more numbers and alot more money.
Frankly, I expect the same next year from the legislature. And if we get a bill passed the Kirston's who did nothing will criticize it again.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @12:49PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean the Kirsten's who "did nothing"?
How exactly is it that you know how I spend my time?
Kirsten Tynan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:23PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't mind Warble, Kirsten. He and Marc are just getting defensive because they know the bill was too-much compromised to do ANYONE justice, but they supported it anyway.
As for me, I did something. As soon as the bill was compromised beyond helping anyone, I dropped my support of it. Unlike many who blindly supported it, I actually READ THE LANGUAGE of the bill. It read more like a feminist treatise on "how to stick up men for more money" than any protection of paternity fraud victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean the Kirsten's who "did nothing"?
How exactly is it that you know how I spend my time?
Sorry Kirsten, I worded that badly. I meant to say that if you were not actively lobbying the CA legislature in person that you did nothing and didn't get a first hand look at the process and the bigotry against males. Obviously, if you wrote letters of support or whatever then you did something that is of course greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, I don’t recall seeing you at the hearings. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Further, there are details in your article where I believe you're mistaken. For example, there was language that AB2240 would hold a biological father responsible for child support and reimbursement to the falsely identified father. I believe that is entirely appropriate. A man knows if he is having sex with a woman and that there are natural biological consequences and risks. He is not justified in assuming that he isn’t a father when a mother has multiple sexual partners. If anything, he should come forward and insist on a paternity test.
Further, we did consider the possible situation where the biological father may not be able to pay due to inequities in earning power. So there was language in the bill to permit that factor to be taken into consideration when the biological father was required to reimburse the falsely accused male.
Finally, the California already had case law that permits collection of child support from the biological father even when there is a presumed father. So your argument, which suggests that AB2240 would create a new problem of the state victimizing the biological father, is incorrect. That condition already exists as a result of case law. Feel free to look it up on findlaw.com. I documented that fact and submitted the information to the Senate Committee of Judiciary.
In my opinion, if a man is going to get a married man's wife pregnant, he'd better be ready to accept the financial risks even if there is paternity fraud. This is justified using the “but for test” which states that but for his sexual involvement with the married woman there would not have been an opportunity for the wife to commit paternity fraud.
Nevertheless, I do agree that this should not excuse the mother from criminal and financial penalties for the fraud. But again we have a culture where women have historically been able to commit criminal acts with impunity. Paternity fraud is but one example. False allegations are another.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @01:02AM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Kirsten, I worded that badly. I meant to say that if you were not actively lobbying the CA legislature in person that you did nothing and didn't get a first hand look at the process and the bigotry against males. Obviously, if you wrote letters of support or whatever then you did something that is of course greatly appreciated. Nevertheless, I don’t recall seeing you at the hearings. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh, yeah, Kirsten. Didn't anyone tell you? You're only allowed to comment on politics in the United States of America (or California, at least) if you SUPPORT it. At least that appears to be Mr. Warble's reasoning. Oh, but if you didn't support the bill, don't you DARE say a single word about it. You can't possibly be smart enough.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @07:03PM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
My activist efforts are private matters until and unless I choose to make them public. I choose not to make them public here because they are not relevant to the points I have expressed, and I do not care to become mired in the sorts of personal exchanges that I've been seeing in this thread. Whether one has done nothing or whether one is the most active advocate on the face of the planet is irrelevant to whether the arguments one puts forth are correct or not. They stand or fall on their own merits.
That said, insofar as you have addressed my arguments, I would welcome an exchange with you about those ideas. I'm having a little trouble keeping all the posts in this thread, so please alert me if I have neglected to list something here- it is certainly not intentional. I gather that the key points on which we are not currently in agreement are as follows:
1. You believe that it is appropriate for a biological father to be held responsible for child support and reimbursement to the falsely identified father.
2. You believe that the language in AB2240 would permit discretion in cases where the biological father is unable to pay.
3. You believe that there would be no difference in the effect on biological fathers if AB2240 were passed because California case law permits collection of child support from the biological father even when there is a presumed father.
If you would like to change, clarify, or add to the above, please do so. If we can have a productive exchange, I would be most pleased to discuss them. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know every last thing there is to know about this subject and can certainly learn from other advocates. But I believe that to be true of everyone, and I believe I have some valuable points to add to the discussion.
Thank you,
Kirsten Tynan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @08:03PM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
My activist efforts are private matters until and unless I choose to make them public. I choose not to make them public here because they are not relevant to the points I have expressed, and I do not care to become mired in the sorts of personal exchanges that I've been seeing in this thread.
Heh. Good luck on that one, Kirsten. Truly. Of course, Warb may treat women differently than he treats men who disagree with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @01:59PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, would you agree with me that this bill lost its focus during the process? The focus, according to Marc's post, seemed to just become about passing A LAW (which would somehow magically be made right later by the amendment process), and not really interested in exactly what damage that law was going to do.
Frankly, I think it is wrong to fight for a law's passage just to say "Hey, look, the men's movement got a law enacted!" And, to me, that seems to be what this whole fight became about.
When feminists slashed the bill to pieces, the supporters should have objected. Were their objections not heard, they should have dropped their support.
That's just my opinion, and I am sorry if it sounds harsh to those who are fighting so hard to get justice for victims of paternity fraud, but we have to face the reality of the situation. We don't want to make things better for *one* group of men just to make them *worse* for another.
Marc, Warble, and all you guys and gals who worked hard on this: I do appreciate your effort. I just don't want you to lose sight of the actual original GOAL of the Paternity Justice Act and get it passed just to be able to say you got it passed, you know?
That said, I am looking forward to lending my support to a TRUE paternity justice act when it is presented, no matter in what state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, would you agree with me that this bill lost its focus during the process? The focus, according to Marc's post, seemed to just become about passing A LAW
No I would disagree. While the bill was narrowed and had many amendments that were unpleasant, it would have most definitely cast a clear net to victims of paternity fraud that had default paternity judgments.
The initial goal was to provide relief to all paternity fraud victims. However, it is the practice of the Ca Senate Committee of Judiciary to incrementally make changes to the law. They will not tolerate dramatic changes. Incrementalism is the only thing that will work with this legislature. Radical changes in paternity law are guaranteed to be doomed to failure.
Finally, the fact remains that the men's movement has a big win in AB2240 even if it did get vetoed. We got National coverage, we got overwhelming support from the California legislature, and we became somewhat skilled at participating in the crafting of new male friendly law. Was it perfect? NO! But it was a damn good first try.
Only a couple of men's groups have this kind of experience. The rest are nothing but whiners that do little or nothing.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @12:59AM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
The rest are nothing but whiners that do little or nothing.
Gee, it's great to know all we little men in the men's movement can find such great relief and support from you big bad famous guys! Yeah, all we men's rights people are just whiners. You're the REAL heroes, aren't you?
Well, I feel better already. How about the rest of you? Anyone else want to bend over and kiss Marc and Warble's feet?
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, it's great to know all we little men in the men's movement can find such great relief and support from you big bad famous guys!
LOL! I am just rolling on the floor with laughter.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think proponents of a paternity fraud bill will have a difficult time getting a retro-active law passed. This is a problem no on seems to want to talk about from any angle, not even the strategic/tactical angle.
Also, if the plan is incrementalism to get a bill passed and then beef it up later, foregoing retro-active IMO seems like the most logical strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @10:13PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
I'm just curious if there is any precedent for any kind of retroactive justice. Barry Scheck's group, "The Innocence Project" has freed, at last count, 114 convicted rapists and murderers with DNA evidence. I would suspect there was false testimony given in some of those cases.
I would be curious to know if any of those 114 people have pursued any criminal or civil action against any false accussers or false witnesses. Do they have any legal right to do so?
It seems like our system protects those people (false accussers/false witnesses) like a sort of sacred cow. If they were made to account it might make people reluctant to lie against innocent people, and thereby hurt the profitability of this radical feminist exploited arm of the legal business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bill explicitly states that the man who has been defrauded by the mother and has been injured by the enforcement of her fraudulent claim "has no right to reimbursement from the mother, the state, or the local child support agency, for any amount of support collected prior to the granting of the motion." Neither the woman who lied about vital information to the presumed father, nor the system which blindly enforced her fraudulent claims against him, would be held accountable.
I saw how Valerie Ackerman pushed that little bit threw. Frankly, I was quite pissed at Wright for not refusing to take that one. However, the socialist feminists and pantyhose feminists that control the California Senate Committee of Judiciary are in power. They were hacking the bill to pieces. In this state, there is an all out war against men being waged by these women and male feminists in the legislature. I believe that Wright took that amendment because he didn't want the bill to die over that issue. He is the type of person that believes you can come back and fight another day.
Kirston is absolutely right in all of her points except one. While the biological father could be sued there were provisions in the bill that would have protected him in the case where he is poor and unable to pay another man who is wealthy.
Anyway, it’s easy to criticize AB2240. It was shot full of holes by the feminist legislature from day one. We were lucky that anything even remained that would allow a few victims of paternity fraud to find relief. But then Kirston wasn't there on the front lines where the war against men is being waged. So she didn't have to take any bullets for the cause.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @02:27PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Kirston is absolutely right in all of her points except one. While the biological father could be sued there were provisions in the bill that would have protected him in the case where he is poor and unable to pay another man who is wealthy.
Gee, so it's OK to rob a man just because he's wealthy? I hope that's not what you're saying Warble. The fact that there was a provision for poor men does not negate all the other problems with that bill.
But then Kirston wasn't there on the front lines where the war against men is being waged. So she didn't have to take any bullets for the cause.
So because she wasn't there supporting a bill she doesn't support, she shouldn't be allowed to criticize it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why they would not support the paternity legislation I wrote to San Diego based child foundation mentioned in the article for their arguments against it. ...
here is what they wrote back.
The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor
State Capitol, 1st Floor
Sacramento, Ca 95814
Re: AB 2240 (Wright) Child Support – OPPOSE (as amended 08/21/2002)
Dear Governor:
Children’s Advocacy Institute opposes AB 2240 (Wright), which disregards the interests of the child in paternity and child support proceedings. AB 2240 permits a man to challenge a paternity judgment based on DNA genetic evidence virtually indefinitely by allowing men to contest paternity and have their child support orders set aside within three years after they find out that they are not the biological fathers of the children in question.
Legal History
California courts, as well as other courts throughout the country, have rendered decisions prioritizing the father-child bond over genetic ties. This focus on familial relationships rather than biological connections has informed decisions regarding both the establishment of paternity as well as challenges to paternity judgments. The California Court of Appeal has relied upon the Legislature’s statement that “Establishing paternity is the first step toward a child support award, which, in turn, provides children with equal rights and access to benefits….” In re Raphael P., 97 Cal. App. 4th 716, 733 (2002). California courts have further recognized that “The state has an ‘interest in preserving and protecting the developed parent-child…relationships which give young children social and emotional strength and stability.’ ” In re Nicholas H., S100490, 2002 Cal. Lexis 3775, at *17-*18 (June 7, 2002), (citing Michelle W v. Ronald W., 39 Cal. 3d 354, 363, (1985). AB 2240 does not reflect this interest. AB 2240 stands in opposition to the principles developed in the current case law, namely the focus on familial rather than genetic bonds and the goal of finality and stability in paternity decisions.
First, recent case law has focused on recognizing the validity of familiar bonds despite a lack of biological connection. This past month, the California Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether a presumption of fatherhood is rebutted by the admission of the presumed father that he is not the biological father. In re Nicholas H., 2002 Cal. Lexis 3775. The Court stated that “courts have
repeatedly held, in applying paternity presumptions, that the extant father-child relationship is to be preserved at the cost of biological ties.” Id. at 18. In reaching this decision, the Court recognized that:
In the case of an older child [over two years of age] the familial relationship between the child and the man purporting to be the child’s father is considerably more palpable than the biological relationship of actual paternity. A man who has lived with a child, treating it as his son or daughter, has developed a relationship with the child that should not be lightly dissolved…. This social relationship is much more
important, to the child at least, than a biological relationship of actual paternity….Id. (quoting Estate of Cornelious, 35 Cal.3d 461, 465-66 (1984))
In a similar case, the California Court of Appeal stated “we fail to see what purpose is served by using genetic testing to defeat an existing father-child relationship when there is no biological father seeking to assume care, support and nurturance of the child.” In re Raphael P., 97 Cal. App. 4th 716, 735 (2002). These cases have pointed out the court’s reluctance to leave a child without support when a man has previously taken responsibility for the care and well-being of the child. Where the courts have made this a guiding principle, AB 2240 works in opposition to this idea. Allowing a man who has taken on the responsibility of supporting a child to abandon that obligation on the basis of biology is in conflict with the judicial tide.
This focus on the well-being of the child in paternity issues is not a new idea in California. In a 1961 case, the Court of Appeal recognized the benefits to a man that flowed from time spent as a father as well as the detriments to the child when that father takes on the role and later repudiates it. The child would “accept the husband as his natural father and render to him the affection and love of a son, with the son's reasonable expectation of care, support and education until adulthood. The reversal of this representation…inflicts deep injury upon him.” Clevenger v. Clevenger, 189 Cal. App. 2d 658, 671 (1961). The court urges that “We are dealing with the care and education of a child during his minority and with the obligation of the party who has assumed as a father to discharge it. The law is not so insensitive as to countenance the breach of an obligation in so vital and deep a relation, undertaken, partially fulfilled, and suddenly sundered.” Id. at 674.
Courts in California and across the country have taken a stand for children whose well-being and need for stability is often undermined. AB 2240 unravels much of the work that has been done by these courts to establish that parental bonds extend beyond genetics and that commitments to support children are final and enforceable. The Legislature should instead focus its efforts on maintaining measures that encourage support and connection rather than undoing them. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Brennan, “Child support is a strand tightly interwoven with other forms of connection between father and child. Removal of this strand can unravel all of the others.” Bowen v. Gillard, 483 U.S. 587, 617 (1987) (Brennan, J. dissenting).
Other States
Other jurisdictions have dealt with the same issue and have recognized the detriment to children whose fathers are allowed to disappear out of their lives, physically, emotionally, and financially. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts summarized the stance of many courts in saying “Like [other] courts, we have recognized that stability and continuity of support, both emotional and financial, are essential to a child’s welfare.” Paternity of Cheryl, 434 Mass. 23, 31 (2001). Recognizing that “children benefit psychologically, socially, educationally and in other ways from stable and predictable parental relationships,” the Court took a stand for the child, stating that “[w]e can ensure that Cheryl, who may be deprived of her father’s affection and long held assumptions about her paternity, is not also deprived of the legal rights and financial benefits of a parental relationship.” Id. at 37.
The importance of finality in paternity judgments has been discussed by courts as well. An Ohio court stated “Finality is particularly compelling in a case involving determinations of parentage, visitation, and support of a minor child.’” Crago v. Kinzie, 733 N.E.2d 1219, 1227 (Ohio Misc. 2000), (citing Strack v. Pelton, 637 N.E.2d 914, 916 (Ohio 1994). Equitable doctrines have been utilized to enforce the obligations of fathers and to preserve the finality of previous judgments. “With the advent and widespread availability of genetic testing, it is tempting for putative fathers to assume that their exclusion as the biological father of a child through such testing will necessarily extinguish their duty of parental support. Putative fathers who make this erroneous assumption may learn that…rules of equity (laches, equitable estoppel, res judicata, and the best-interests-of-the-child doctrine) render their disestablishment efforts for naught.” Id. at 1230.
Recourse Available
The bill’s supporters claim that this legislation is necessary to combat “paternity fraud.” Existing law, however, already provides many opportunities to challenge paternity determinations and/or child support orders based on such determinations, particularly in cases involving fraud or perjury. Existing law provides that a man can move for blood tests to determine paternity within two years of the child’s birth. Fam.Code § § 7541, 7576. (See also Fam. Code §§ 7551, 7552, 7554 regarding genetic testing.) Moreover, under Family Code § 3691, a man can move to set aside a support order based on fraud, perjury or lack of notice; such a motion can be brought within six months of the time the man reasonably should have known of the fraud or perjury, even if this is many years after the order was originally entered. If the motion is based on lack of notice, the defendant has six months from the time he knew or should have known of the support order to challenge it.
Furthermore, as a policy matter, allowing a challenge to paternity at any time creates an incentive for men to delay in investigating and presenting the relevant facts early in this process. Existing law permits a man to challenge a paternity judgment for up to two years after the judgment has been entered. Two years is ample time to pursue an accurate and final paternity determination, including a determination based on genetic testing. The child’s interest in prompt and early establishment of paternity is paramount. If a man does not believe he is the father and wishes to contest paternity, the time to do so is early in the process. (See Family Code § 7541 (motion for blood tests can be made within two years of child’s birth.) ) At that point, if he is not the biological father, timely efforts can be made to locate and identify the actual father and ensure that the child receives the support to which they are entitled from the appropriate person. If a man is permitted to wait to assert a paternity challenge until he has reason to believe he may not be the biological father, the child may lose any opportunity to establish a relationship with a father to provide needed emotional and financial support.
Moreover, a motion to set aside a default judgment may also be made on the basis of extrinsic fraud or mistake. Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 295, 314; Steven W. v. Matthew S. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1108. In a recent unpublished appellate decision, the court applied this doctrine to set aside a default judgment seven years after its entry where it found extrinsic fraud based on the mother’s deception as to who had fathered the child. County of Fresno v. Ruiz (1999) 79 Cal.Rptr. 684 (unpub.) Furthermore, in judgments taken by mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect can be set aside within six months of entry. Cal. Code Civ.Proc. § 473. Thus, in the event there has been so-called “paternity fraud,” the defrauded party has adequate remedies under existing law to rectify an error if these remedies are pursued in a timely and diligent manner. Principles of finality of judgments, which preclude the reopening of other civil judgments, dictate that paternity judgments should be less, not more, vulnerable to attack than other civil judgments in light of the public policy interest in protecting children.
Personal Service
The bill in its current form requires personal service delivery for all paternity complaints. This requirement represents a higher standard of service for these legal actions than in any other requirement for service covered under the Code of Civil Procedure. That change will result in several unintended consequences, including negatively impacting thousands of children.
Statewide, an estimated 40% of all legal actions for paternity are served according to the statute by substituted service. That results in tens of thousands of paternity judgments established in a timely manner that would potentially be delayed or denied under the provisions of AB 2240. Additionally, the changes proposed in this bill would encourage defendants to evade service of process. At the local level, because substitute service is no longer an option, the statute would require local agencies to re-negotiate their service of process contracts, resulting in an estimated several million dollars in increased costs to the child support program.
Children Come First
More importantly, AB 2240 fails to consider the potential harm to children that have developed a strong and long-standing emotional and financial attachment to men that have acted as their only father throughout their minority. The California Legislature and the Courts recognize the importance of these bonds and have repeatedly held, in applying paternity presumptions, that the extant father-child relationship is to be preserved at the cost of biological ties. For the child, the social relationship to the extant father is much more important than a biological relationship of actual paternity.
AB 2240 will harm innumerable children because it will create instability in their lives. If you have any questions regarding our position, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 444-3875.
Sincerely,
Lupe Alonzo-Diaz
Senior Policy Advocate
cc: The Honorable Rod Wright
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @11:10PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
That was brilliant, but I did notice one small error. Everywhere you referred to the nonbiological father you should have inserted the term, "COURT MANDATED SLAVE," in the interest of truth and accuracy. "We shall overcome some day."
It would be nice to see all your concern about the bond of the child to the father this strongly exercised when bilogical fathers are ripped from their children's lives through divorce, and left with little or no visitation. Where are you then?
There is a strong flavor of hypocrisy to your reasoning. That kind of scam artist rhetoric may hold sway in legal proceedings, but in this court of public opinion your misapplication of fair dealing merits no consideration. I suggest you go dig up another hundred pages of case law to rationalize and support your myopic reasoning, since the overall concept of equal justice for all seems to be far, far beyond your perception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a point of curiosity you do realize this is a letter they sent me correct? My purpose in posting it was more to help create logical responses that can be used to counter their arguement in the future.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that post Tony. This letter is of course filled with lies. It is nothing more than a smoke-screen. In fact there are so many lies told that I cannot begin to expose them all due to time constraints. It is sufficient to say that AB2240 did consider the best interest of the child and every point that this letter raises.
The bottom line is that it is in the best interest of the child to know the truth about the biological father. It doesn't matter what the judges say. The purpose of creating law is to provide a framework that allows judges to make well-reasoned ruling that are fair to all parties. Currently, the judges are creating untold hardships and devastation without justification. It is on its face clearly a form of tyranny for judges to harm so many families.
Further, there is the lie that every child has a familial relationship with the falsely identified father. That is the biggest lie of all that the Children’s Advocacy Institute tells. Many victims of paternity fraud have little or no contact with the children while the biological father is free to enjoy status as a father in the eyes of the child without financial obligation. AB2240 considered all of the concerns that this letter raises. Further, it addressed them with specific amendments.
Men would be wise to learn the lies told in this letter and be ready to answer them.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @09:19PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"Gee, so it's OK to rob a man just because he's wealthy? I hope that's not what you're saying Warble. The fact that there was a provision for poor men does not negate all the other problems with that bill."
Rob a man? If any man should be paying for the child between a bio father and a non bio father, it should be the bio father. And probably more than half of the fathers who are relieved would not win judgments against the bio dads, because the bio dads either aren't around, or they won't file lawsuits, or won't win for various reasons, etc. The point is to first relieve these non bio dads of the suffering they go through every darn day. I agree the law should allow a suit against the mothers and eventually we'd have a much easier time getting that by amendment than by a whole new bill. In any case we built alot of momentum by getting publicity which we wouldn't have gotten if we didn't do what was necessary to get the bill where it was.
"So because she wasn't there supporting a bill she doesn't support, she shouldn't be allowed to criticize it?"
I didn't read Warble as saying this. His point, as I took it, was that her approach might be different had she been one of these guys who was waiting desperately for the bill to pass so they could go to court and seek relief. I respected the author's criticism, who made no insults or attacks but simply stated her position on the bill. I don't respect the insults and attacks made upon NCFM, LA activists by anonymous, no-namers who come off as armchair do-nothing-but-sit-around-and-attack-others-in-ign orance-with their-thumbs-up-their-asses activists.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...no-namers who come off as armchair do-nothing-but-sit-around-and-attack-others-in-ign orance-with their-thumbs-up-their-asses activists.
This is getting to be quite fun! LOL!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @11:58AM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't respect the insults and attacks made upon NCFM, LA activists by anonymous, no-namers who come off as armchair do-nothing-but-sit-around-and-attack-others-in-ign orance-with their-thumbs-up-their-asses activists.
Ahh, here we go again. Nice way to get people over to your side of the fence, Marc. Insult people who have legitimate complaints. I notice you're using profanity even more now. That's generally a sign of desperation.
As for thumbs up asses, like Warble with Kirsten, you have no idea what I do and don't do with my free time. Perhaps it is YOU who should know the facts before you judge.
And, by the way, where is it written that I must justify my own activism to you, Oh Great Famous All-Right And Never Wrong One?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for thumbs up asses, like Warble with Kirsten, you have no idea what I do and don't do with my free time. Perhaps it is YOU who should know the facts before you judge.
Really AU? So I have a few questions now. What exactly do you do with your free time to move the issue of men's rights forward? Were you at any of the CA committee hearings to lobby in favor of paternity fraud legislation? How many paternity fraud victims to you personally know? Do you know the intimate details of their situation? Have you backed any lawsuits financially or otherwise to restore some rights to men? If so which ones?
What exactly have you done in your free time to move the cause forward? Really. I'd like to know. I've noticed that Kirston isn't claiming that she was at the hearings. Where were you? What exactly is the men's rights group that you belong to? Do they have monthly meetings where you get together and discuss strategy? If so, where are the meetings held. If you are a member if a means group then how many attorneys do you have supporting your group and representing you in public? How many members do you have? Do you meet only on the Internet?
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @02:01PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh here we go with our Great Hero Warble again, demanding that other men's activists justify their very existence to him. Sure is nice to meet GOD here on good ol' MANN.
I am not required to have supported your bill to be "allowed" to criticize it, Warble. The United States is a free country, and I can speak my peice about this issue WITHOUT your consent or justifying to you those rights.
My activism is my private business. Not yours. And since I do not choose to be a celebrity like you and Marc, I choose not to discuss it.
I ask you people out here who supported the end result of this bill to look at what one of its major defenders is trying to do. He wants to censor opinions not in line with is own. He wants to demand that you kneel down and kiss his feet because god knows the rest of us men just can't stand up for ourselves and are a bunch of "whiners."
Also is "Kirsten" really such a difficult name to spell or are you misspelling it on purpose in some half-baked attempt to insult her?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My activism is my private business. Not yours. And since I do not choose to be a celebrity like you and Marc, I choose not to discuss it.
There is nothing so holy about being a men's activist that you cannot describe your activities. So, using Occam’s razor I must conclude that the simplest answer is the correct answer. You do little or nothing other but whine and complain.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh here we go with our Great Hero Warble again, demanding that other men's activists justify their very existence to him. Sure is nice to meet GOD here on good ol' MANN.
Pronouncements from on high don't seem to be limited to Warble here. ;)
I am not required to have supported your bill to be "allowed" to criticize it, Warble. The United States is a free country, and I can speak my peice about this issue WITHOUT your consent or justifying to you those rights.
Free country...? We'll leave that one alone for now.
FOr the observer, mind leavening your assertations with facts instead of histronics?
My activism is my private business. Not yours. And since I do not choose to be a celebrity like you and Marc, I choose not to discuss it.
Ah, but you have3 damned their activism with faint praise, giving thinly veiled accusations that they do it for the celebrity value of it. So since you have the nerve to critcize what they do, what you do is perfectly acceptable as a target - and just because someone has to be the mean bastard, and I am just So. Damn. Good. at it - either answer the question or shut the fuck up - Asswipe.
So - where were you on St. Crispan's day? That's a Shakespeare reference, son, just for a hint. One of the benefits of a classical, all male, education from the good Jesuit fathers.
And my bona fides are they I help out with an underground. We'll leave it at that for now.
I ask you people out here who supported the end result of this bill to look at what one of its major defenders is trying to do. He wants to censor opinions not in line with is own. He wants to demand that you kneel down and kiss his feet because god knows the rest of us men just can't stand up for ourselves and are a bunch of "whiners."
I think the bill is shit. I also think it's the best we can do for now. I'd rather have some of something than all of nothing.
In Gonzo's Ideal world, Paternity Fraud would be a felony, and would create a legal presumtion (Whether rebuttable or not) that a woman was an unfit parent, as well as subject her to triple idemnity for repayment of damages.
Also is "Kirsten" really such a difficult name to spell or are you misspelling it on purpose in some half-baked attempt to insult her?
Ah - a little short of things of substance to attack Warb on, so we're doing the spelling thing? How droll.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @02:32PM EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing so holy about being a men's activist that you cannot describe your activities. So, using Occam’s razor I must conclude that the simplest answer is the correct answer. You do little or nothing other but whine and complain.
Occam? OCCAM? Since you do not understand how to apply the full principle, I believe that my original point stands, so there is no need to further discuss this flaw in your reasoning. No one owes you any thanks or worship or justification Warble. No one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that my original point stands, so there is no need to further discuss this flaw in your reasoning. No one owes you any thanks or worship or justification Warble. No one.
Like I said, if you cannot list how you are active in supporting men's rights then you are most likely a whiner that does nothing. You cannot even cite membership with a single men's rights group. If you cannot list a single letter that you've written in support of men's issues then you are most likely a whiner. Y
AU has already demonstrated an incredible level of ignorance by claiming that AB2240 would not provide ANY relief to ANY paternity fraud victims. Yet AU cannot admit being mistaken or cite any passage of AB2240 that would exclude ALL men from obtaining relief from paternity fraud as AU claims.
As for discussion, there has not been any discussion on the part of AU. There have just been wild misinformed assertions, and a desperate grasping at trivial details like minor misspellings to carry out unwarranted attacks. I’m willing to bet that AU is a feminist who is a poser pretending to be a masculist.
If you want respect from us then go back and do your homework. Learn a little about the Ca legislative process. Try getting a legislator to sponsor a bill. Then try to apply your dictatorship leanings to force that person to craft the bill in a way that you want it to read. It ain't gonna happen.
California men will have to learn the Ca legislative process and how to work within the system as a unified team that has honest disagreements. They have no choice. If they fail to learn how to do this then they are doomed to become angry Muhammad serial killers and suicidal victims that shoot their brains out on the front steps of the family court in public view.
Worse, they will have to learn to work with a well-entrenched feminist legislature that is biased against men's issues. That isn't going to happen by being an uncompromising masculist that wants all or nothing. The democratic process is by definition one where competing interest negotiates and compromise. NOBODY gets 100% of what they want unless they are unopposed. We didn’t even get 50% of what we wanted. Yet the bill would have provided relief to a category of paternity fraud victims with a default judgment.
The biggest problem that men have is that there is little or no opposition to the feminist agenda of male hate. What this poser wants is to divide activist that are actually on the front lines fighting for their rights. AU wants the comfort of never being on the front lines fighting for a good cause and having to take a bullet for the good of others.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @07:57PM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble once again spreads lies and misinformation which anyone who actually reads the thread can determine on his/her own.
The rest of you here should be careful of this person. If he is so publicly willing to misrepresent the facts of even a small disagreement on a message board, there is much more damage he can do to the movement and other individuals in it as well.
He has already demonstrated (several times) his disdain for anyone except his bestest buddies who consider themselves men's activists. He demands that you show him, God Warble, proof of your worth.
My activism may not be as "active" as some, but I also know hard-working, dedicated people who could put Warble to shame, and who don't need to tout their deeds on a message board for public recognition.
Watch out for this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My activism may not be as "active" as some, but I also know hard-working, dedicated people who could put Warble to shame, and who don't need to tout their deeds on a message board for public recognition.
Watch out for this guy.
I'm not asking about other hard working activist. This question is directed at you. You claim to be an activist and I'm asking about your activities as an activist. That is a legitimate question.
The purpose is not to shame you or make myself out to be some big famous activist (I'm not), it is to learn about what you do to further the men's movement.
It doesn't have to be some great effort. But is does need to be SOMETHING. So far you've given us nothing. You say you are an activist that supports men’s issues, and so okay, I’m interested and asking what exactly are you active in? The reply was that it is in effect secret. So, I’m asking what are you hiding? There is no legitimate form of activism that must be hidden unless your activism is a criminal activity.
As for the “little guys” that you mentioned in another post, I would love to have 10,000 activist who are “little guys” that spend only 1 hour per month being active and working to resolve men's issues. That's 10,000 human hours and by far much more that I can ever accomplish as an individual. My individual efforts are nothing compared to the collective efforts of 10,000 “little guys.” Give me 10,000 "little guys" that are willing to do the work (just a little bit every month) and we will perform a work of wonder in California.
It is the little guys in this movement that will make the difference. They will be the unsung hero's in the men's movement, and they will be the ones that make the real difference. It is the "little guys" that will determine what the future of men's issues will be.
As for Marc and I, well we are not out for fame, fortune, or power. If we want that then we'd better forget about men's issues. There just isn't any money, fortune, fame, or power to be had in the men's movement. It just doesn't interest or motivate us. What we are motivated by is altruism and a sense of what’s just.
As for your statement "watch out for this guy" well only a radical gender feminist warrior would be so scared as to make that statement, and yes they better watch out. We are mad, and we are going to work the system to make positive changes that are fair and equitable for all parties. We are going to stop those warriors from their open attacks on males. We are going to take those gender warriors from attacking innocent boys and victimizing them with their hate. Oh it will take time but we are well on our way.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday October 31, @09:58PM EST (#78)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not asking about other hard working activist. This question is directed at you. You claim to be an activist and I'm asking about your activities as an activist. That is a legitimate question.
It is not at all a legitimate question because it is none of your business. I have told you that. Kirsten has told you that. Who else do you need to hear it from?
The purpose is not to shame you or make myself out to be some big famous activist (I'm not), it is to learn about what you do to further the men's movement.
Baloney. What I do to "further the men's movement" has no bearing on the discussion at hand. It was an attempt by you to accuse me, to distract from the topic genuinely AT hand, which is the numbskullery of that bill you support.
It doesn't have to be some great effort. But is does need to be SOMETHING. So far you've given us nothing. You say you are an activist that supports men’s issues, and so okay, I’m interested and asking what exactly are you active in? The reply was that it is in effect secret. So, I’m asking what are you hiding? There is no legitimate form of activism that must be hidden unless your activism is a criminal activity.
Again, knowing what I do is not in any way germaine to this discussion. I also did not say it was "secret." I said it was "none of your business," which it is not.
This discussion is not about me, Warble. This discussion is about your piss-poor bill.
What we are motivated by is altruism and a sense of what’s just.
Altruism, eh? Well, if you're motivated by altruism, then I want no part of you. I wonder if you even really understand what altruism is and what's wrong with it as a motivator. Hop over to ifeminists.com and engage some of them there in a discussion of altruism. I think you will be enlightened.
As for your statement "watch out for this guy" well only a radical gender feminist warrior would be so scared as to make that statement, and yes they better watch out.
I told them to "watch out" for you for the exact reason I stated I did. You are shady. You lie in the face of the truth. You attempt to manipulate conversation to hide the truth behind your own agenda (getting a piss-poor bill signed). As evidenced here, you tried to make this thread about ME, for god's sake. The thread is about the bill, and you have no right to tell me I have no right to criticize it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I told them to "watch out" for you for the exact reason I stated I did. You are shady. You lie in the face of the truth. You attempt to manipulate conversation to hide the truth behind your own agenda (getting a piss-poor bill signed). As evidenced here, you tried to make this thread about ME, for god's sake. The thread is about the bill, and you have no right to tell me I have no right to criticize it.
You are entitled to your opinions of course. Now was the bill ideal? No. Did it have problems? Yes. Is it possible to get an ideal bill passed? No. Never. In the end no matter what form the bill takes it will always have critics. It will have critics on all sides including those from the men’s activist groups. B.T.W. men’s activist groups have a great deal to learn about the democratic process and unity.
If men’s activists hope to get anywhere then they better learn how to be supportive even when they don’t get their way. It is better to make incremental process and go back to fight again another day then to loose outright. When men’s activists learn that hard lesson then they will start making major progress. Currently, most are getting shut out because of their attempts to make radical change. Trying to make radical changes to the law and dogmatically trying to dictate the form of a bill is the tactic of a looser.
Has anybody told you that you have no right to criticize the bill? No. Have I lied? No. Am I shady? No. Am I justified in asking about your form of activism? Yes, when you claim to be an activist that supports men's rights. Are you hiding your activism? Yes. Is hiding ones activism being secretive? Yes.
Funny, in hindsight I remember not too long ago that I was critical of Glenn Sacks for supporting a bill that I didn't like in Tennessee. As I recall, that bill would have created law where the court would be required to have a default presumption of shared parenting. It has all kinds of amendments that I disliked. In the end I had to agree with Glenn that it would do more good than harm and back off my position. Glenn was right and I was wrong. Like AB2240, it had all kinds of amendments that I thought were less than ideal.
At the time I also had many misconceptions about how bills are drafted, debated, amended, and voted into law. I thought, much like you, that I could control how a bill would evolve. NOT! Every bill that goes before a legislature is subject to uncontrolled amendments. If you have a problem with that then you belong in a dictatorship because America doesn’t work any other way. In fact if you have a problem with that process you are un-American.
AB2240 had opposition that was powerful, well funded, and well represented. Yet we preserved key portions of the bill that would allow victims of default paternity judgments to obtain relief. There were several points where the bill was nearly tabled. We may not like the amendments and find them outright distasteful, but that is the democratic process in action. Nobody, no matter how powerful or influential in the country is able to stop or control that process. Only a control freak would try to do so. It is that process that prevents the control freaks from taking over the country and turning America into a dictatorship.
Finally, when somebody chooses to criticize the efforts of a group of people, that group has a right to criticize the comments that are being made. So, yes I am openly criticizing you and Kirsten. That is quite different from telling you that you have no first amendment right as you falsely assume. If you are going to criticize then be prepared for a response, know your facts, and don't take it so personally.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, knowing what I do is not in any way germaine to this discussion. I also did not say it was "secret." I said it was "none of your business," which it is not.
This discussion is not about me, Warble. This discussion is about your piss-poor bill.
I am *NOT* an activist. I don't lobby, and only occasionaly write letters. I do throw bucks to worthy causes. I wish I still had faith in the system. But I believe it to be broken beyond repair.
If I were publically "Active" I would be an "Activist." Since I am underground, I'm not really all that public. I am active. But not an "Activist."
However, that don't mean, Troll, that I do not do things for the movement. I engage in acts of civil diosobedience that were they to be found out could wind up with me in jail.
I find out dirt on women so that their husbands can be reunited with their kids. I had an affair with a woman - on purpose - and finally threatened to break up with her because of her kids. The minute she gave up custody, I left her. Why? Because I was hired by hubby to do so.
I help men find work "under the table" so they can have money to fucking live on.
I use my position to hire men, and I use it to keep certain women in their place - which is the pheminist take. What I actually do is hold women accountable to the same standards as men; which is grossly politically incorrect, unchivalrous, and makes me a sexist pig.
I put up men who are in abusive situations, and their children, because we can't get a man's shelter because of the damn Pheminazis.
I have bought bus tickets, and driven vans to take men and their kids to safe houses. Or nearby states and cities.
I've set up scummy bitches to be arrested for drugs and the like - comitted acts of entrapment the civil authorities would never be allowed to get away with - to help my brother men out.
I've been stalked, shot at, harassed by civilians and "da man" alike. I put my life, physical well being, financial well being, or freedom on the line on a regular basis.
So - What have you done for us?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @09:33AM EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
So - What have you done for us?
Why not tell us what you have done instead? Being shot at does not tell anyone what you have done, other than possibly trespass or break into someone else's private property.
I hate smartasses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hate smartasses
Yes. We all see your brand of hate. It is quite clear now. Now it's time to put that aside and anwer the question.
Like Gonzo asks, "So - What have you done for us?"
It's a perfectly legit question. If nothing what do you plan on doing in the near future to help move the cause of men's issues forward?
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday November 01, @12:17PM EST (#89)
|
|
|
|
|
Slingling false accusations now. Nice method of avoiding the subject guys.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am *NOT* an activist. I don't lobby, and only occasionaly write letters. I do throw bucks to worthy causes.
Gonzo,
We could you a few thousand more people are "*NOT* activist" actively supporting men's issues. You are a tribute to the cause. You may not formally be an activist, but you sure as hell make a difference in your underground brand of activism.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gave ya the high points, there, buckwheat. If it's all the same to you I'll keep the sordid details to myself and prevent some overzealous pheminutsy lawyer or prosecutor from taking a bite outta me, 'kay?
And it's a darn shame ya hate smartasses, me bucko, 'cause ya locked horns with the wrong sumbitch for that. I'm the master of sarcastic humor.
Want to hear something funny? Well, pleased to meet ya. ;-)
Cheers!
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
Hmmm. Maybe I should change my tag to "My statements are intended to piss off and cause coronaries in assholes and the overly politically correct. Go ahead and sue me, shitheel; I'm judgement proof!"
Whatcha think?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slingling false accusations now. Nice method of avoiding the subject guys.
Jack Implant
Jack,
This is looking more like a bunch of feminists AU's posing as different people every hour. We have all see this before. It really gets old.
Notice that every time there is an attempt to have dialogue with AU that petty attacks are the result. Every time that a reasonable question is asked, AU gropes to find more ways to sling attacks rather then carry on a dialog. How urbane.
It isn't at all uncommon for this board to attract radical-gender-male-hating-feminists and possibly undemocratic Nazi like un-American pseudo-men’s activist that pose as multiple users and sling personal attacks. These so-called pseudo-male-activists do allot of damage to the legitimate branches of the men’s movement. I suspect that AU is most likely one of those KKK organizations that calls themselves a men’s rights or a father’s rights group. The other possibility is that AU is a rad-fem.
We've all seen this form of hate before. When they decide to put aside the hate and have rational dialogue they are welcome to let us know. Of course, if that person is a gender warrior or some KKK member posing as a masculist then that person is going to continue failing to put forth anything of substance.
Next, I realize that I upset AU. I did that when AU insisted that they could control the evolution of a bill by demanding total control over the amendments. Nobody, not even a legislator sponsoring the bill, gets that kind of control over the development of a bill except when there is an absence of any opposition, and that is extremely rare. Complicating that fact is a feminist controlled legislature. It is a nightmare by any reasonable person’s standard.
For men to get back basic protections, they will need to be very vocal in opposing the feminist’s bills that attack men’s rights. Up till now, there has been almost nobody saying a single word in person for decades. Men will also need to come to terms with the democratic process, and they will need to learn that the competing interest of the gender warriors will hamper their efforts at every turn. It will mean men's activists are forced to take compromise amendments that they strongly dislike.
Further, as noted, these gender warriors are to be found in positions of power at every level of government in California and throughout America. They have absolute control over key committees in the legislature and can kill any masculist-supported bill with a word for any reason. Trust me when I say that these women are not afraid to wield their power. They will not hesitate to shut-up any person they do not like or have them arrested on a technicality. It will take many years to undo the decades of damage done to the basic human rights of men by these bigots in power.
Nevertheless, most people still ignorantly believe that because the legislatures are composed mostly of men, that they should have no problem getting a male friendly bill passed. What they fail to realize is that these "men" are pantyhose feminist that were voted in by the female majority vote.
On the conservative side, men are eager to pass chauvinistic bills that protect women and give them special rights even if it means that men have their rights compromised. They do this because they believe that women are superior moral human beings. On the liberal side they are eager to pass bills that grant women special protections because they are indoctrinate to believe that an evil white male hierarchy in is power. It is this weird marriage of opposing interest that systematically attacks men using men at every turn.
Clearly, if AU wants to ever have any influence in moving men's issues forward and ending some forms of discrimination against men then AU will need to learn to work within the system. There are many ways that AU can be involved. Of course, efforts by others like Gonzo that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience are fruitful also. We need to multiply the number of Gonzo’s out there. Clearly, we will need to use every reasonable mechanism at our disposal to fight back, and it is not going to be a clean war where we get clear wins without losses, casualties, or taking a bullet for the cause.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
Sorry to hear you're getting an ear-bashing over your efforts in California. It seems to me that some in/around the men's movement can be as bad as old women (Oh, dear, un-PC!). I'm still interested in interviewing you about the paternity bill for the Men's Hour. If you're interested contact me at rcuttill@menshour.com
Raymond Cuttill
http://www.cyberManbooks.com, http://www.menshour.com, http://www.mensmovement.org
Men's Books, Men's Radio, Men's Resources and Men's Studies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So because she wasn't there supporting a bill she doesn't support, she shouldn't be allowed to criticize it?
Kirston can criticize it all she wants. In fact I agree with many of her points. Nevertheless, she has gotten some key facts wrong. For example, the state already chases after biological fathers even when there is a presumed father. AB2240 would not have created a new problem in this area.
As for the wealthy, where the hell were they when we needed them? They were nowhere to be found. I have personally ask several millionaires to financially support us. I’ve explained why it is important to them and how they can be defrauded. They did nothing. Not even Kerkorian raised a finger and he’s got millions that he can put into the cause.
Now if the millionaires want to cough up the cash and help us then perhaps we will be willing to watch out for their interest, but if they are going to refuse to financially support us in our fight (which many did) they can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. They are fair game.
Because of the apathy of these millionaires and billionaires, they are part of the problem instead of being part of the solution. The wealthy are either for us or against us. If they are for us let them put their money where their mouth is and we will consider their interest. Let them cough up the dough so we can contract some full time lobbyist. It costs lots of money to get good family law attorneys to represent our interest and fight against these rad-fems.
I can assure you that the opposition has no lack of funds. They had all kinds of paid family law attorneys present at the hearings. Those were the people that we fought against, and we won. We kicked their asses!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So because she wasn't there supporting a bill she doesn't support, she shouldn't be allowed to criticize it?
Kirston had key factual errors in her article that I've already pointed out in other posts. I believe she should have done more research before criticizing the bill. I also believe that she lacks insight on the issue, but that is my opinion.
Finally, if Kirston is going to criticize the bill then it is fair game to criticize her factual statements in the article. Nobody is saying that she cannot voice her opinion. Funny how some people think that if you criticize a criticism that you are telling somebody that they have no right to free speech.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then Kirston wasn't there on the front lines where the war against men is being waged. So she didn't have to take any bullets for the cause.
So because she wasn't there supporting a bill she doesn't support, she shouldn't be allowed to criticize it?
Well it does seem a lot like rich white kids rapping about how rough life is in "the hood" doesn't it?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Friends:
My brother sent me the quote below the other day and I thought it might be relevant. Having been through the ringer a half a dozen times or so myself, I try a lot harder now to keep my focus on the real goals and objectives and avoid wasting precious resources on finger pointing or blame fixing. Learning from our mistakes is good, but using them to weaken our unity and resolve is simply counter productive.
As much as I care intently about everyones right to express themselves freely, I care still more about our common needs and objectives so I just can't stand idly by and and see dissension undermining our cohesiveness without saying something:
"it's not surprising that class and gender warfare is fostered by those in power . . . so they can stay in power. Because when people are fighting among themselves, they have little time to fight the real enemy"
It's good to blow off steam in a heated discussion, but let us never relent in that same intensity in pursuing those who would pursue and persecute all men (radical feminists and their ilk). We are truly living together through a kind of political combat and I am proud to say we are just as truly a noble band of brothers in this endeavor.
Respectfully, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 30, @07:50PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Well said Ray (and your brother). As I stated a few posts ago, it is not my intent to personally attack anyone here. It is my intent to show the problems with supporting that bill, and why it was a GOOD thing the bill was defeated (even though Davis' reasons weren't the right ones). I support fighting paternity fraud, but I won't support it at the expense of biological dads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
"but I won't support it at the expense of biological dads."
My Reply:
One major thing that seems to have gone unmentioned or undermentioned here (or maybe I just missed it) is that if Governor Davis had not vetoed this bill biological fathers would now, or soon, be getting financial relief from their burden of child support for kids that are not theirs.
I know of one father who was devastated by the veto, is very depressed, and is having a generally rough time bearing up. I don't understand how you could NOT support this bill. How is ending the drain of money coming out his pockets something that is "at his expense?"
I'm sure that father's true biological children do not share your view as they subsist on their poverty level budget, while their dad in his role as "non bio dad" continues to make child support payments to other children that are not his.
I think you may have it backwards, unless I'm misunderstanding something, and that's entirely possible since I'm rather new to AB2240. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong on any of the above.
Politics is dirty business at best and often a game of diplomacy, negotiation and compromise so...
Way to go Marc and NCFMLA. Don't let the back seat drivers steer you wrong. This pathway isn't clear to see, and this course isn't easy, but unless somebody can constructively contribute to a better tact I suggest we stay with the team work and flexibility that has allowed AB2240 to get to the Governor's desk in the 1st place.
Lastly criticisms, even harsh ones are always welcome, because their truly is wisdom in much counsel.
I apologize if I've offended anyone with my opinion and welcome rebuttal.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks to Marc and Warble for their efforts to correct the monstrous injustice of paternity fraud.
I think we all realize that the bill in question had many serious problems by the time it saw the pen of Governor Davis. Perhaps it's best, even if extremely disappointing, that it was defeated. The legislation will now be rebuilt. The men's rights activists, who are truly involved, have learned a great deal.
I may even have disagreed with some of the bill as it was originally proposed. Though I don't care to get into an argument about it right now (another time, maybe), I will state as an example that I believe if a woman has the legal power to destroy an embryo/fetus on as little as a whim, then a man has the right to walk away from it. In a society that allows abortion to the extent that ours does, a bio-father, who doesn't want to have to pay for the raising of a child, shouldn't have to pay, provided he opts out of all rights and responsibilities in a timely fashion (perhaps within nine months of learning of his paternity).
Be that as it may, Marc and Warble put in many hours of hard work in an attempt to right a serious wrong, and for that I extend my sincere gratitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I certainly hope that this legislation is attempted again and soon. As a suggestion I would try to spend sometime up front and send the governor, senators and represenatives in CA a weekly story about how paternity fraud has injured a man's life. While they might get tired of them it will highlight that this issue is not a rare event. It will innoculate them against the letter from groups that work to distract the attention from the truth. Also a suggestion along these lines would be to have the occasional hand written letter (type written?) sent to an important senator, represenative or governor. Hand written snail mail letters get a great deal more attention than mass e-mails. [It gives the politician something they can put on their I-love-me-wall or to wave under the nose of others.] Just a thought but it seems that working the ground would be helpful in this case. The 1% legislation portion is important but it seems that it just needs some minor work. The support is there but the flames need to be fanned and not allowed to die out.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
