… and the laws and polices it has spawned, and funded, have resulted in an epidemic of false allegations, judges that grant restraining orders without consideration of the veracity of the claims as a matter of policy, and a well funded extremist feminist beurocracy that has crippled many state family law committees. I personally spoke to the person who writes the family law legislation in my state, yes, with his own hands, who says that the feminist lobby is so strong that:

1. America’s foremmost researcher on family violence cannot attend family law committe meetings because of his recognition of the rates at which women commit acts of domestic violence.

2. Committee members who propose treating this as a family issue, rather than a women’s issue are prevented from speaking their concerns in family law committe meetings.

3. Feminist stakeholders control the process, financially and legislatively, from start to finish.

Here are some very compelling examples for you to consider:

New Jersey’s domestic violence statute has recently been found unconstitutional. The New Jersey Attorney General is taking this case to the state’s Supreme Court.

The New Jersey Law Journal reports that Judge Richard Russell of Ocean City made the following remarks on tape during a judicial training session regarding the issuance of restraining orders.

(source – scan of print copy: www.fathersandhusbands.org/NJ_Rights_1.pdf)

“If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties’ rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners. Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’ “

A new municipal judge attending the training session stated “The statute says we should apply just cause in issuing the order.” “You seem to be saying to grant every order.” Russell quickly replied, “Yeah, that’s what I seem to be saying.”

The article is full of comments from Russell and his colleagues that are equally inflammatory.

Perhaps you think Russell should have been disbarred for instructing judges to ignore the constitution. In doing so, he violated his greatest responsibility as a judge in the most blatant way possible. Perhaps you think he should have gone to prison.

Russell now serves on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s State Domestic Violence Working Group, the Executive Committee of the State Bar’s Family Law Section, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Family Practice Committee. He currently is the chair of the court’s Child Support Subcommittee.

Elaine Epstein, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association (1999), has said “the facts have become irrelevant… restraining orders are granted to virtually all who apply. Regarding divorce cases, she states “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage”. According to Epstein, who is also a former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, restraining orders are doled out “like candy” and “in virtually all cases, no notice, meaningful hearing, or impartial weighing of evidence is to be had.”

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/10/25/restraining_orders/

The 2006 restraining order against David Letterman granted to a mentally disturbed New Mexico woman by the top restraining order policy maker in northern New Mexico, Daniel Sanchez, is an example. Daniel Sanchez, northern New Mexico’s top judicial family law policymaker granted the restraining order without consideration of the credibility of the claims because the form was filled out properly.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,1143004,00.html

The Illinois Bar Journal calls the orders “part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”

A recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the Bar is concerned that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are “almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person….it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”

http://www.glennsacks.com/letterman_case_shows.htm

A recent CDC study indicates that women between 18 and 28 initiate reciprocal violence against their intimate partners about as often as men. It also indicates that they indicate non-reciprocal violence against their intimate partners more than twice as often as men.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

Here is a bibliography of over 200 studies indicating that women attack their intimate partners as often, or more often than men.

www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

This report from RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) provides much insight into the situation brought about, in large part, by Joe Biden.

http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-VAWA-A-Culture-of-False-Allegations.pdf

Cathy Young, who wrote the Salon.com piece on the Elaine Epstein quote write in greater depth, from an academic perspecive, here:

http://www.iwf.org/files/50c58dda09f16c86b2c652aa047944f6.pdf

New Jersey’s domestic violence statute has recently been found unconstitutional because it imposes penalties that deprive the accused of the most basic and important of human rights without due process, and because the legislature has told the judiciary what the standards of evidence should be (i. e. none). The constitution says that the judiciary and only the judiciary can define standards of evidence.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/807110356/1006

We wouldn’t have an epidemic of false allegations if the legislatures respected the constitution. As long as the public is silent on this issue, lawmakers like Biden can ignore the constitution. We, the people, are standing up for justice, and we will prevail.

Now, Ms. Thomas, do you think this is a problem that you can help solve?

dude. you really need to learn some social skills. Go play in someone else’s yard.

I’ve been a spokesman for my industry at major international conferences. I’ve been invited to present to Senate committees, to the CEO’s of some of the world’s largest corporations and to the leadership of America’s largest advertising agencies. I’ve also been invited to appear on many news and talk programs and have been quoted in hundreds of major newspapers around the world.

If these facts make you uncomfortable, take them down. But you and your readers would benefit from considering them.

HR

Thank you for providing an elegant example of why I don’t do online blog debates.

I do not do censorship. I however do insist on politeness.

The facts that you present do not make me uncomfortable. I gave you some of your points in your other comment- but I still feel that VAMA is important .I think there are a number of shades of grey with this issue.

You are obviously someone who feels very passionate about this issue- especially if you are staking out my little blog (population 12, plus my mother)

The problem sir, is that you do not communicate in an effective or frankly interesting way.

Is your intention to bludgeon me into submission or would you like to have an honest and adult conversation.

I suspect the former.

i would encourage you to consider what you would like your end result to be the next time you go skipping down someone else’s tiny corner of the www. In fact, I imagine that would be something for you to consider in every interaction.

You are not invited to leave further comments sir not because of their content, but because you are rude.