Thursday, February 21, 2008

D is for Disconnect

More specifically, the disconnect between what is an obvious and well documented history of kids gone wild who are brought up in the Single Mother household. Take this latest example (it's also interesting to note...this is a picture of a woman who is THIRTY THREE YEARS OLD! She looks like she's FIFTY THREE...doesn't single motherhood look like a healthy lifestyle CHOICE!?!?!)

On Strike' Mom Accused Of Neglect - Woman Says She Can't Control 4 Teen Boys

OCALA, Fla. -- A Central Florida mother of four boys was arrested on Tuesday after telling authorities that she went "on strike" more than a month ago, leaving the teens home alone for hours every day because they would constantly fight.

Melissa G. Dean, 33, was charged with child neglect after telling Ocala police and the Department of Children and Families that she leaves her children, ages 17, 16, 14 and 13, home alone.

According to a charging affidavit, Dean said the children needed to start cleaning up and stop fighting and that she had no control over them. Dean also said she was fed up with being run over in her own home and having no privacy, according to the affidavit.

Dean told a DCF official that she decided to "go on strike" because no one would help with her children, saying the police and courts would do nothing to help her.

Dean, a Walgreens manager, said she spends nights at a friend's house and would only spend one night per week at her home, the affidavit stated.

The affidavit said that Dean would cook meals and take them to her children and would sometimes check on them. Dean said she called her children often, the charging affidavit said.

Police said they were called to the home on Monday because two of the children were fighting over a computer cord. One of the boys ran to a neighbor's home and police were called. Dean was not home at the time of the incident, police said.

Police have responded to the home several times in the past.

No mention of a Father (or Fathers) in the story.

No control. Yet this connection is almost never made in such stories. The proliferation of divorce and single motherhood has been great for society, hasn't it?

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

W is for WRITE!

Please write a letter to the Michigan Parole Board

Michigan Parole Board
C/O Executive Secretary
PO Box 30003
Lansing, MI 48909

Copy to:

William J. Hetherington #186155
Boyer Road Carson City Correctional Facilities
PO Box 5000
Carson City, MI 48811-5000.


Lots of reasons here at TMOTS but for my money these:

William was convicted of raping his wife, who brought these accusations simultaneously with seeking custody of their children (nothing fishy there) and sentenced to 15-30 years, when Michigan state law specifies 1-10 years. He is seeking parole, but the parole board refuses on the grounds that he will not confess that he actually committed the rape. Key points from TMOTS's post:

  • Linda Hetherington is not and has never been a battered wife. She herself, under oath, testified that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage.
  • Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. As previously stated, this case was a he-said-she-said case during a custody battle; he claims that they had consensual sex, she claims it was rape. The presiding judge used Michigan's new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda.
  • For which if cross examination had been allowed, the fact that Linda had on two other separate occasions, made claims of rape against William only to rescind these claims later. Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, “a person has a right to face their accuser”. If one cannot question the validity and/or the possibility of serial false accusations, how is one to get a just and fair trial?
  • No physical evidence of rape was produced at the trial. A pelvic examination of Linda at the hospital three hours after the alleged offense showed no evidence of injury or forced penetration. Only her words were enough for this man to be found guilty of the heinous crime of rape.
  • The court-designated psychologist who examined Hetherington, Dr. Harold S. Sommerschield, Ph.D., concluded: "This is not a man who would force himself sexually or hostilely on another individual, as this would be foreign to his personality dynamics. ... His histrionic personality ... would substantiate his explanation of what has occurred in regards to the relationship with his ex-wife."
  • Evidential photographs of the alleged victim were never disclosed to the defense and were incorrectly handled. Specifically, ten years after conviction, Jeff Feldman, under the Freedom of Information Act, obtained copies of the five photographs taken of Linda by police at the alleged crime scene immediately after the alleged offense. The photographs were in a locker in a police garage.
  • The rape case was coincidentally prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case. This action alone put William in the middle of a ‘rock and a hard place’. Since the divorce court had frozen all his (their) assets, he had no money to hire a lawyer or to even make bond. Yet, because of his listed assets, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent (or poor enough) and refused to provide him with a court appointed lawyer.
  • A four page report submitted with a sworn statement dated January 8, 1998 by an acclaimed forensics photographer. John Valor, utilizing new and modern techniques, stated that the pictures of Linda showed no scratches, tape marks or abnormalities of any kind, absolute. Furthermore, he states that marks would have been identifiable and clearly visible if there had been any at all.
  • This brings to the forefront an additional discrepancy that, under the law, if a witness (in this case a government witness) gives false testimony, a convicted prisoner should be entitled to a new trial, but William Hetherington has yet to receive one. In the least, the witness should be charged with perjury.
  • The State of Michigan’s sentencing guideline for this new offense at the time was 1 to 10 years yet, without cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years.

William has been in jail for 20 years now, for what looks like a case of spousal revenge and moneygrubbing. Having served the majority of his sentance, he is now being held in jail for the mindcrime of not confessing to what he didn't do. Write that letter.

Friday, February 15, 2008

E is for Easier

Today I paid a medical bill for one of my kids.

Now, in actuality, there is a complex, lawyer-invented formula that dictates how my ex-wife and I split up medical bills. She isn't supposed to get off without paying anything. She is supposed to pay (subject to the vagarities of the formula) perhaps about 42% of their medical expenses after their insurance costs. ("HEY!" some of you are likely saying; "weren't you unemployed for a while? Didn't she have to pay the insurance and bills then?" Yes, she did, and once I was employed again, I had to repay her for those payments. See, even if the woman is taking home more than 100k/year, which she was, the woman can never be inconvenienced by having to pay one more penny than is in the divorce agreement. As for the man, well, you know that story.)
...So anyway, today I paid a bill in full that was over 42% hers. And why? Because it just isn't worth it to fight over it. I've tried before-paying my part of the bill, asking them to bill her for the rest, getting dunned by her creditors when she refuses to pay, having the whole thing end up being raised in court when she inevitably sues me for whatever reason, and having the judge tell me "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."

So, I pay the bill. It's easier.

Probably I should find ways to fight, and keep the struggle alive, chanting "It's the principle of the thing!"

But some things just aren't worth it.
Among them, annoying a misandrist judge who is going to rule against me anyway over what, by the end of the year may amount to a few hundred dollars that I can afford.

But maybe, if you are drafting a divorce agreement, you could have all medical bills go to the person who earned more that month, and only mention it if you actually become poor.

Of course when you try to enforce your agreement the judge may still just say: "You're right, but I am ruling against you anyway. -Don't raise this issue again."

-but it would reduce the amount of unenforceable junk in your divorce agreement, and....

...For as long as you made more than her...

...It would make your life easier.

My Best To You In Your Struggles:

Monday, February 11, 2008

I is for Index as of Feb, 2008

In Alphabetical Order:

A Call To Arms
A is for Abuse
A is for Abusers (Women)
A is for Activism
A is for Activism...
A is for Alimony
A is for Alimony Part II - or - Why Alimony is Wro...
A is for Alpha-Bet - or - What's on the Reading Li...
A is for Authors...
A is for it's Always Some Man's Fault
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bachelor
B is for Bathrooms
B is for Biology
B is for Blackmail
B is for Breasts
B is for sdrawkcaB aka 'The Garden'
C is for Change
C is for Check the Statistics
C is for Child Support/Custody
c is for Class
C is for Cohabitation
C is for COLA
C is for Contemplative
C is for Contribution
C is for Contribution
C is for Crow
C is for Crushing Injustice
CM is for Cuban Men
D is also for Deadbeat
D is for Deadline
D is for Debt Servitude
D is for Decompression
D is for Diverse
D is for Divorce
D is for Doesn't Count
D is for Downward Mobility
D is for Dynamite
D is for the Dance of Death
E is for Effect, as in ‘Cause And’
E is for Elipses...
E is for Everything
F is for Faith, Hope and Love
F is for Fatherhood
F is for Fathers
F is for Fees
F is for Friday, and Fatherhood.
F is for Frivolous
G is for Gender-Feminism...
G is for Good
H is for Dr Helen
H is for Happy
H is for Help?
H is for Hero
H is for Hero
H is for Hero, Pt II
H is for Home for Christmas
H is for How-To
I is also for Incentive?
I is for (dis)Incentive Part V
I is for (dis)Incentive pt IV
I is for Imagine...
I is for Incentive Part II
I is for Incentive, Part III
I is for Indecent Justice
I is for Indecent Justice pt II
I is for Insidious
I is for Intrusive
I is for Invisible Elephant
Initial Post
J is for Just Not Right
J is for Just Wrong
K is 'For the Kids'
L is for Lawfirm Disclaimer
L is for Lawyers
L is for Legal System
L is for Leprosy
L is for Links
L is for the Love Whose Name is Imprisoned
M is for Malevolent - Pt I
M is for Malevolent Pt II
M is for MBTYIYS
M is for Merry
M is for Moms
M is for Monday
M is for 'More Equal'
M is for Murder
M is for Myths
Male is for Magnificent
More About This Blog
N is for Network
N is for Never Forget
N is for Never Wrong
N is for New Rules
N is for Nineteen-Sixty-Two
N is for No Accident
N is for No Good Deed
N is for NO IDEA
N is for Not-So-Happy New Year
N is for Nude Jersey
N is for Nurturer
N is for Nurturer Pt II
O is for Oh, Canada!
O is for Only Applies to Men
O is for Opportunity
O is for Over the Edge
Overheard in Family Court...
P is for Paternity
P is for Patriarchy
P is for Payor
P is for Pendulum
P is for Perjury
P is for Personality Disorder
P is for Picketing
P is for Postcards
P is for Postcards
P is for Pro-Se
P is for Pure BS
PBS is for Pure....
R is for Fathers Rights Judge?
R is for Radar
R is for Rapist
R is for Reality, Just Outside
R is for Recognition (is it brief?)
R is for Relentless Persuit
R is For Reporting, and Revenue, and Roadkill
R is for Roe v Wade for Men
S is also for Suicide
S is for "Should Men Get Married?"
S is for Scary
S is for Schizophrenia
S is for Separation
S is for Silly
S is for Slavery
S is for Sorry Fellas
S is for Spanking
S is for Spanking, Part Deux
S is for Storm Warning
S is for Success...
S is for Suicide - Revisited
S is for Superior Firepower
S is for Support
S is for Suspicion
SMH is for Single Mother Households
T is for "Thirteen Will Get You..."
T is for Thanks
T is for Theology
T is for Things to Look At
T is for To Look At
T is for Today
T is for Tomorrow
T is for Tragedy
T is for Travel
T is for Two-Hundred-Twenty-Six-Thousand Children
Today I am not the Moon...
U is also for Upside-Down
U is for Unequal
U is for Unicef
U is for Update
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victim
V is for Victory... For Nifong, That Is
V is for Viewpoint
V is for Voluntary Execution -aka- Wax Fruit:
V is for Vomit
V is for Vomit Part II
V is for Vortex of VAWA
W is for Wave Goodbye to the $
W is for What Kind of Ex?
W is for What Men's Rights?
W is for What to Do?
W is for Where are the Men?
W is for Whooops again!
W is for Whoops!
W is for Wide Open Eyes
W is for Women who Lie or Viewpoint II
W is for Women-Specific Charity
W is for Work
Z is for Zed

(Missing Letters: Q, X, Y)

My Best To You In Your Struggles:


W is for Work

In my larger circle, there are three single women who have related interesting things to me about their employment history. Two of them have been out of work for most of the last eight years, while somehow maintaining NYC apartments and lives. How is this possible? Unemployment, in one case, using an inheritance to actually buy their appartment, largesse of friends, early drawing of retirement funds and savings have helped. The third was sharing how she, at her last job change, chose to take a secretarial position, because it was more stable than the high-paying position she was filling previously.

Now, in an economy with about 4% unemplouyment, it boggles the mind how one can spend years unemployed, and it double boggles the mind, that someone CAN choose to earn less.

Because support-paying men can't. They must find jobs, and remain well employed, or be called 'undereployed' and have their old salaries imputed to them.

Neither do these men have the option of choosing to re-tool or educate themselves, or change careers.

These educational/financial/career-change/lifestyle benefits, so touted as so critical to the lives of women, that they must have the right to abort the children in their wombs, are not available to men.

Living on savings/retirement funds? Impossible once they are minced and divided by the divorce process, not to mention how rapidly the irreducable support/alimony number would liquidate them.

Saving by owning your own home? The marital home likely went to the wife in the first place, and if some (very unlikely) post-divorce fat years somehow allowed a man to buy a home and own it clear of mortgage, the legal system would be quick to place leins against it and liquidate it to satisfy the 'need' of the ex wife to continue 'to enjoy the lifestyle she has become accustomed to'.

Living on the largesse of others? The state has an answer to that too, imprisoning 'deadbeats' to shake funds lose from those who care for them.

Honestly, I think that most who can work, should.

But while living in a world where the man must always remain very well employed, it is eye-opening to be reminded that there are those who can spend years 'finding themselves', 'looking for stability', or 're-tooling', 'being housewives'* or even just 'being unemployed'.

Our culture provides that option.

-Just mostly not for men.

My Best To You In Your Struggles:

* It is shocking to many even to imagine a man wanting to just stay home and care for his kids.

Friday, February 08, 2008

F is for Friday, and Fatherhood.

Some time ago (Aug, 05) I came across the following animated video, and posted it.

I think it is time for a re-run.

Take a look, and then take (or at least plan) a moment with your kids, ...if you can.

p.s. Yesterday, about 500 visitors. Pretty amazing. Guess Dr H pulls more weight than I do.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

H is for Dr Helen

Wow, I posted a comment on Dr Helen's Pajamas Media post titled Single Men in Never-Neverland and suddenly a small torrent of visitors are giving the hamsters in Blogger's serverland a workout.

But this is exactly what I had hoped for, I hoped that people would come, and read, and learn what can and does happen to men in this country, and learn how our rights have been eroded - almost to nothing.

Welcome, Welcome to Dr Helen visitors.

Please read, check my sources, and think about what you find. It is my prayer that if enough people become informed about the situation that men face in this country today, we may start seeing some real equality between the sexes, and might just reduce the incidence of male suicide, of which 14,850 deaths per year in the US are attributable to the loss of children, financial stability, civil rights and freedoms that come with divorce - for men. With total male suicides running about 22,500/year, the odds are that if you know a man who committed suicide, they are a divorcee. Putting it simply two-thirds of male suicides are divorcees.

...Think of all those children without fathers - oh, but they probably didn't get visitation anyway...

Quoting from my prior post on this subject:

One can only wonder what value the approximately 148,000 men killed by divorce over the last decade would have added to our country if they had not been driven to suicide by our country's misandry.

Imagine the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of children growing up over the last decade without fathers; [and the] brothers, sisters and parents bereft of their [brother, or son].

- Men who died for the crime of getting married to the wrong person.

The total loss is mind-numbing.

With that said, the text of my comment on Dr Helen's post follows:

M :
It isn't news to most men that Marriage isn't a cost-effective proposition. But what probably is news, even to men, is how likely it is to end up stripping them of anything resembling rights and disenfranchising them. The financial ruin that follows divorce is credited for the huge rate of male suicide compared to women.
But this is just one element of our society's war on men - even more horrific is how men are punished in an entirely different way by the courts than women are. As a culture we seem to be saying that we don't want men anymore. Don't be suprised if they respond by finding some way to go elsewhere.


Friday, February 01, 2008

M is for Murder

Recently a poor woman was murdered, beaten to death in the Hopatcong area.

The news helpfully tells us she is divorced for some time, with teenaged sons, and was in just a couple days about to use the courts to seek full custody - to cut the boys off from their father, while seeking more support.

We read between the lines that of course the ex-husband is a primary suspect.

Which makes perfect sense.

When you take away all rights from a man, turn him into a slave, and make him pay for all your legal assaults on him, while laying the burden of proof on him, and try to take away his children, rage and violence are actually reasonable.

And this is what is troubling me again today.

At what point is it appropriate for the slave to revolt? Does his life have to be at risk? Or is a life (or twenty years) of unrelenting subjugation worth killing to escape? How about ten years?

Ma Jersey herself gives us a hint: if you murder someone in a crime of passion, and are truly regretful, and well behaved in jail, you can be back out on the streets in as little as five years.

So Ma Jersey is telling us that we should kill our wives when they win unreasonably onerous judgements against us that will lock us into slavery for significantly more than five years.

But beating her to death? Surely that is over the top? Again, Ma Jersey steps in to help us out with the question. If you bought a gun, and ammo, and loaded the gun, and brought it to where your ex wife was, and pulled the gun, and shot her... ...that would show a lot of premeditation. If you instead showed up at the home you bought with the money that you earned and that she owns now, and bludgeoned her to death with one of her mahogany chairs, or one of her equestrian trophies, or one of her designer golf clubs, or crushed her under her antique china cabinet, that's a crime of passion. Premeditated murder can get you life as a man. (As a woman, premeditated murder of your ex can get you free therapy.) Crimes of passion are more forgivable, per Ma Jersey.


I FEEL like ending this post here, saying that I won't address the MORAL aspects of the situation until Ma Jersey addresses the moral aspects of reducing divorced men to slaves... ...but that itself would be immoral.

Folks, even though Ma Jersey seems to find some balance between a ten year alimony/support sentance and a crime-of-passion murder, it isn't O.K. to kill your ex-wife. Morally, the slave should not kill the master unless his mortal life is at risk. Instead, your duty, if you cannot or will not bear the slavery, is to run away. Escape it somehow.

Yes, you may be relegated to a much more limited life, in a foreign or remote region, but that is the trade-off. You are a legal slave in the US. The state will be 100% against you, and 100% for her. If you stay here, she can take the majority of your earnings and all your assets. So you can earn nothing and own nothing, live at risk of having everything taken, live as a slave, or leave the country. Morally, murdering her for just stealing from you and enslaving you is wrong.

You f*ked up, and let yourself become a breadwinner for a parasite.

A parasite with legal rights, and a soul, whose life you are morally and legally forbidden to end.

It needs to be said again and again;
Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Because sooner or later, they will become bored with you, tired of you, annoyed with you, and realize that they can have all the financial benefits of being married to you, and most of your assets, without having to put up with you, yourself. -by casting you into legal slavery.

And that's a tempatation that most women cannot resist, *and the most likely outcome of marriage* - an outcome men don't have the legal right to resist.

Don't live with women
Don't earn more than your woman
Don't marry women

Unless, of course, being a slave is something you have always aspired to.