Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - K9


Affordable Care Act's Anti-Male Sexism Fixed?
September 9th, 2012 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

Not long ago, I wrote this post encouraging readers to sign a petition to make the Affordable Care Act gender-neutral.  As I said at the time, the ACA mandates well woman exams, including a variety of preventive screenings, for all women completely free of charge, no deductibles, no co-pays.  But it does nothing of the kind for men.  Whatever we may think we need in the way of preventive care, we pay for; the ACA leaves us on our own.  When it comes to preventive care, the ACA rations our preventive care according to our ability to pay, but requires providers to screen women at no cost.

That struck me and the other signers of the petition as (a) sexist and (b) bad policy.  After all, doesn't effective preventive care for men save the healthcare system money in the long term the same as it does for women?  Of course it does, so, since the ACA is so much about keeping costs down that it's part of the law's name, why not go all in?  Why not include men's preventive care along with women's?  And that of course is in addition to the fact that, as a matter of morality, fairness and justice, men and women should receive equal treatment by public policy.  Men contribute far more to tax revenues than do women, so why does the ACA short men?

All of that should be perfectly obvious, even though it escaped the notice of the Obama Administration that wrote the law and everyone on Capitol Hill who voted for it.  But, thanks to the intrepid work of a Fathers and Families supporter, we now have the problem fixed.  No, we haven't gotten the president and Congress to re-write the law or the regulations, but what we have done is to figure out a handy-dandy fix that every man can use to get his fair share of preventive care, free of charge, even though he's persona non grata in the wording of the act.  And (drumroll) here it is:

Just tell 'em you identify as a woman.

That's right, our fearless reader informs us that the Department of Health and Human Services recently sent a letter to the National Center for Lesbian Rights confirming that the ACA prohibits discrimination "based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity..."  In short, the ACA has been interpreted by the DHHS as prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered people.  Of course transgendering is a process that includes a pre-operative period.

So the fix is simple; when you go to the doctor to be screened for various possible male-only maladies and conditions, just tell them you identify as a woman and are in the first stage of re-orientation.  According to DHHS rules, they have to screen you for free.  You don't even have to wear a dress.

Admittedly, if you do this too often, the doctor might begin to question your commitment to the transgendering process.  But not to worry, by then the Obama Administration will have discovered the error of its ways, changed the law to include men in its protections, and all will be well in this best of all possible worlds.  Until then, you have Fathers and Families to thank for fixing what could be considered one of the most egregious examples of misandry to come along since Joe Biden last uttered a word.

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 9th, 2012 at 12:08 pm    and is filed under Bills/Initiatives, Elections, Politics, Court Cases, Misandry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
Main / Equal Pay, War on women, AGAIN!
May 30, 2012, 10:10 AM

Dems will use this in their war-on-women claim.

Senate Democrats Make Play on Equal Pay

    By Humberto Sanchez
    Roll Call Staff
    May 24, 2012, Midnight

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call
Sens. Barbara Mikulski (left) and Patty Murray arrive at a press conference Wednesday at which they challenged Republicans to join them in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

    Text size

Related Content

    Republicans Find Fresh Voice on Gender Issue
    Taking a Different Look at the Gender Gap
    Hill Women Play Starring Role in 'Mommy Wars'

Related from CQ Today

    Activists Find GOP Agenda Lacking
    'U Visa' Provision in Domestic Violence Bill Still Has Reid in a Bind
    House Leaders Chart Legislative Agenda Meant to Show GOP Can Govern
    Reid Outlines Busy Senate Floor Schedule For June
    Keeping Agenda Under Wraps 'Seems Like an Innovation'
    If Judicial Confirmations Slow This Election Year, It's the 'Leahy Rule'
    Appellate Judge Approval Lifts Democratic Hopes

In their latest play for female voters, Senate Democrats have begun laying the groundwork for a legislative fight over equal pay next month.

Senate Democrats intend to set up a procedural vote after next week's recess on the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would update the Equal Pay Act signed into law June 10, 1963.

"Forty-nine years later, women still make less for doing the same job with the same education as men do," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who introduced the bill, said Wednesday at a briefing. "What we are saying here on the eve of the 49th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act is we're mad as hell and we're not going take it anymore."

Republicans were unmoved and criticized their Democratic counterparts for pushing what they said was more pressing legislation to the side. A senior GOP leadership aide said "it makes it tough to swallow" that Senate Democratic leaders have complained about lack of floor time to deal with what the aide said was "the largest tax hike in history, sequestration, spending bills" and an assortment of other must-do legislation.

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), who is head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called on Republicans to back the bill to show that they support women's issues, despite what she called a raft of recent GOP legislative proposals that would disadvantage women.

"I ... urge Republicans to join with us to pass this critical legislation," Murray said at the briefing. "Over the past few months, many of us have stood up here in front of you to fight against partisan attacks on policies that would impact women across America. None of us started these fights, but we are not going to stand by and watch as Republicans roll back the clock."

Among the examples Democrats have cited is contraception. In March, Senate Republicans offered an amendment to transportation reauthorization legislation that would have allowed companies and insurance providers to opt out of a proposed rule that mandates access to birth control.

The amendment, which was defeated, came in response to a rule proposed by the Obama administration that would require insurance companies to provide and pay for contraception services in accordance with the 2010 health care law.

Democrats said the amendment showed that Republicans were willing to trample on women's right to contraception, which they said was standard health care.

Republicans said the rule threatens religious freedom.

Since then, however, Republican leaders have focused on jobs messaging and have largely deferred on getting involved in any more sparring in the culture wars.

Democrats on Wednesday insisted their bill had bearing on the economy.

"Every time we stood up to defend women, the Republicans would jump up and say we were creating distractions or creating manufactured issues," Murray said. "They would say we should be focused on the economy, like we were the ones changing the subject and making partisan attacks. We are not going to stop standing up for women and our families. And to those Republicans who claim to be so concerned about the economy, now is your chance to sign on to co-sponsor this bill.

"The Paycheck Fairness Act isn't just about women and is not just about fairness, it is about the economy," Murray continued. "When women are not paid what they deserve, middle-class families and communities pay the price." 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women who work full time still earn, on average, only 77 cents for every dollar men earn. On average, black women were paid 62 cents and Latinas were paid 53 cents, as compared to white men.

The pay disparity comes at a time when almost 40 percent of women are acting as their primary household breadwinners.

Republicans were skeptical of the legislation and pointed to Democrats' touting over the past few years of the 2009 passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as a balm to the issue of pay equity.

The law was named after a woman who discovered she was being paid less than her male peers.

A jury found the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Ala., where she worked, guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that Ledbetter should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers. In 2009, the 111th Congress passed the legislation that  clarified the statue of limitations on pay discrimination cases.

"Either they've been lying about Lilly Ledbetter for three years or they're losing so much ground among women that they'll say anything to try to get it back," a different senior Republican aide said.

Democrats said the Ledbetter bill only relaxed the statute of limitations on pay equity discrimination. Mikulski said the Ledbetter bill was a "down payment" by "keeping the court house doors open."

The Paycheck Fairness Act "closes the loopholes that allow discrimination in the first place," Mikulski added.

The bill would require employers to demonstrate that wage differences between men and women doing the same work have a business justification and stem from factors other than gender. It would also prohibit retaliation against workers who inquire about their employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. It would also protect certain confidential wage information.

The bill would help level the playing field by ensuring that women can obtain the same remedies as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin.

It would also seek to encourage enforcement of equal pay laws by reinstating the collection of wage-related data and providing resources to train workers who enforce equal pay laws.
Main / Really confused Here...NZ Story
May 14, 2012, 02:16 AM
Why would a school be handing out chocolate breasts and penises to parents anyway, let alone mistakenly giving them to the kids to hand out?]

Penis-shaped chocolates sour Mother's Day event

A bungled Mother's Day event where children were given erotic chocolates has exposed a bitter rift among parents at Woodberry Public School.

The Newcastle Herald reported on Saturday that several parents were horrified that bags containing chocolate penises and breasts were handed to children to give to their mums.

Others have since leapt to the defence of the school's Parents and Citizens committee.

A parent, Adam Moon, said yesterday the negative reaction had been exaggerated by parents who had ''personal issues'' with members of the committee.

''If there's an opportunity to have a whinge about [the committee], they're going to take it.

''There are some personal issues involved with it all.''

Mr Moon said the chocolates were supposed to be handed to parents by other parents, but that the process was ''mishandled'' and children were given the bags instead.

''From my point of view, I think it's a minor matter,'' Mr Moon said.

Another parent, identifying herself as ''Jen'' on the Herald website, said the chocolates were inappropriate but defended the committee and the school's principal.

''The kids see worse on television on a daily basis,'' she said.

Another poster, ''Dottie'', urged parents to support the school.

''The principal at that school does a great job, so lay off,'' she said. ''And instead of criticising the P&C, why not pull your weight and join.''

NSW Country P&C vice-president Mary Lawson, who is based in the Hunter, said giving out the chocolates was ''not a good idea''.

''As a parent, I wouldn't like it,'' she said.

''But I don't know the full story.''
In an age where women can sue for ANY perceived injustice, this guy has to fight to be compensated for physical and emotional damage.

Notice also, they don't mention the sex of the custodial worker.

Appellate Court Rules Man Can Sue Hospital Over 'Excruciating' Catheter Mishap

SANTA ANA (CBS) -- An appellate panel reversed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed against South Coast Medical Center in Laguna Beach by a man who claimed he suffered "excruciating pain and trauma" when a worker tripped on a hose, yanking a catheter from his penis.

Gregory Harry, a quadriplegic who was being treated at the medical center in June 2009, relied on catheters to urinate because of his paralysis. A custodial worker tripped over a hose connected to the catheter in Harry's hospital room.

Harry had to summon a nurse after the accident caused him to pass blood and tissue, according to the ruling from the three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The nurse gave him pain medication and made several unsuccessful attempts to reinsert the catheter, according to the ruling. Ultimately, the nurse summoned a urologist, who was able to insert a new catheter.

Harry's negligence lawsuit alleges he suffered "excruciating pain and trauma, permanent injury and loss of functionality," and that the mishap worsened his problems with incontinence.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz Miller granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the medical center's attorneys, who cited experts who said the incident did not fall below the standard of care.

The appellate justices cited the difference of opinions from various experts as a reason the case should not be dismissed.
Crazy Chick from FAU has an Opinion

Woman goes berserk in class.

This is PMS at it's second worst (nobody was killed).
Main / Child Support on Yahoo News
Feb 28, 2012, 10:58 AM;_ylt=AlfwWy_HKV7KVMKs32BIoRG1qHQA;_ylu=X3oDMTRwMjU2MjF1BGNjb2RlA25sY3RycmVsX3dpa2lkcDQEbWl0A0FydGljbGUgTmV3cyBGb3IgWW91BHBrZwNhZmQwNDEzYS05MTczLTMwOWMtYjYyZS0xNTkxMzU1NDNjOGUEcG9zAzEwBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzUwZDcxNjZjLTYxNDAtMTFlMS1iZmNjLTc1YmU2NTc3Y2I3MQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJwbHV2azc4BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDMWNhY2JlMmQtZWRlNy0zODNjLWJmNWUtMjdlOGUzOTZlZTQ2BHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3


Rule could leave child-support debtors no income
By DANIEL WAGNER | Associated Press - Mon, Feb 27, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Old child support debts could cost thousands of poor men their only income next year because of a policy aimed at reducing the cost to the government of mailing paper checks to pay federal benefits.
The Treasury Department will start paying benefits electronically next March. It will stop issuing the paper checks that many people rely on to safeguard a portion of their benefits from states trying to collect back child support.
States can freeze the bank accounts of people who owe child support. A separate Treasury Department rule, in place since last May in a preliminary form, guarantees them the power to freeze Social Security, disability and veterans' benefits that have been deposited into those accounts.
Once paper checks are eliminated, about 275,000 people could lose access to all of their income, advocates say.
"It's kind of Orwellian, what's being set up here for a segment of the population," says Johnson Tyler, an attorney who represents poor and disabled people collecting federal benefits. "It's going to be a nightmare in about a year unless something changes."
In many cases, the bills are decades old and the children long grown. Much of the money owed is interest and fees that add up when men are unable to pay because they are disabled, institutionalized or imprisoned.
Most of the money will go to governments, not to the children of the men with child support debts, independent analyses show. States are allowed to keep child support money as repayment for welfare previously provided for those children.
In some instances, the grown children are supporting their fathers.
The rule change illustrates how a politically desirable goal like cracking down on so-called deadbeat dads can have complicated, even counterproductive, effects in practice.
"The rule doesn't look at the fact that the money is mostly interest, the money is going to the state, the kids are usually adults, and it's leaving the payer with nothing," says Ashlee Highland, a legal aid attorney who works with the poor of Chicago.
Highland says her office has clients in eviction, in foreclosure and unable to pay their bills because of states' aggressive efforts to collect back child support.
Marcial Herrera, 44, has had his bank account frozen repeatedly since 2009, blocking his access to $800 a month in government benefits. Unable to work because of a severe back injury he suffered in 2000, Herrera fell behind on child support. He owes more than $7,000 -- not to his 22-year-old son, but to the state of New York, because his son received welfare years earlier.
Herrera sought help in court and had his son speak on his behalf, but the judge could not erase the thousands he already owed.
"I'm just waiting for them to lock me up," he says. "I don't see no other way of me repaying that debt."
A legal aid attorney suggested Herrera collect his benefits by paper check. It costs him $15 to cash the check each month, but at least he can be sure that he will have money to pay his bills.
States have had the ability to freeze accounts for years. That's why people like Herrera rely on paper checks to safeguard part of their income.
Starting next March, that option will disappear. The Treasury Department will deposit federal benefits directly into bank accounts or load them onto prepaid debit cards. Either way, state child support agencies will be able to seize all of it.
Electronic payments are expected to save the government $1 billion over the next 10 years, the Treasury Department says. It costs the government about $1 to mail a check, compared with about 10 cents for an electronic transfer.
The Treasury Department understands that forcing people into direct deposit could deprive them of all of their income, say officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the rule-writing process.
States can garnish only 65 percent of benefits before the federal government sends them out. But the limit does not apply once the money is in an account and states ask banks to freeze it, according to a Treasury Department memo obtained by The Associated Press.
A Treasury spokesman declined to discuss the policy. The officials who spoke on condition of anonymity say they believe the policy is legally unavoidable. They described a dilemma: Restrain states trying to collect child-support debts or risk depriving thousands of people of their only income.
Treasury's legal justification assumes that receiving a paper check is still an option, says Tyler, the Brooklyn attorney.
Letting state agencies seize the money contradicts the public stance of the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal agency in charge of child support collections. The department does not want states to collect child support so aggressively that poor people lose their only income, spokesman Ken Wolfe says.
"Child support enforcement -- getting that money and passing it on to parents and children -- is a measure to fight poverty, and it doesn't make sense to accomplish that by impoverishing somebody else," he says.
Wolfe said HHS is developing guidelines for states to "make sure we're not putting someone into deep poverty as a result of an automatic collection." He declined to provide details of those plans.
Lawyers from HHS agreed with Treasury's decision to let states seize benefits, according to the Treasury memo.
An early version of the Treasury department rule protected people from having their federal benefits frozen by debt collectors -- including private collection agencies and states seeking back child support.
State child support agencies replied in public comments on the proposed rule that blocking their access to people's benefits would cause great harm to parents and children receiving child support.
HHS research suggests the policy could deepen the hardship for people who collect benefits as well.
People who owe large amounts of child support are almost universally poor. Among those owing $30,000 or more, three-fourths had no reported income or income of less than $10,000, HHS says. Many had their earnings interrupted by disability or jail time and are unlikely to repay the child support debt, the government-sponsored research says.
The usual methods of collecting back child support often don't work with the poor. States typically start by garnishing wages. If that doesn't work, they can suspend driver's licenses, revoke passports and take away professional credentials.
Those measures have little effect on poor people without jobs who rely on federal benefits. They have no wages to garnish and no passports. Many can't afford a car and do not need a driver's license.
State child support agencies echo the HHS view that child support enforcement should not be so draconian that people end up with nothing.
"You don't want the noncustodial parent to go out and be living on the streets. You're not going to collect anything at that point," says Tom Shanahan, spokesman for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare.
The Idaho department requires people who owe child support to show good faith by paying a minimum amount and seeking jobs when they are out of work, Shanahan says.
The White House is reviewing the final version of the rule. Its impact so far has been limited, legal-aid lawyers say, because people can still use paper checks. A White House spokeswoman did not respond a request for comment.
In a letter sent last week, the National Consumer Law Center and dozens of other groups called on the head of the Social Security Administration to withdraw his support for the rule.
"While both current and past due child support orders should be paid," the letter said, it should not result "in the complete impoverishment of recipients" of federal benefits.
The issue has failed to raise alarm in part because most people feel little in common with men labeled deadbeat dads, says John Vail, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Litigation who provided legal services for the poor for decades.
"There's not a lot of sympathy for deadbeat dads, and justly so," Vail says. "But everybody's got limits, and I think people who have never walked a mile in some of those old, worn-out shoes are a little quick to rush to judgment about what that life might be like."
AP Business Writer Christina Rexrode contributed to this report.
Follow Daniel Wagner at
Main / Movie Review: Mars Needs Moms
Jan 09, 2012, 11:05 PM
Ok, yes, it's animated. However, it's Pixar or one of those where many scenes will have you confused as to whether you're seeing real characters or not. Real characters stood in and did the dialogue and actions that were recorded by a computer and converted to animation.
Anyway, the title should read Mars Needs Moms, or How I Saved My Mother and Defeated The Evil Martian Matriarchy
See this alone if you don't mind animation, but if you have a chance, see it with a son, nephew, cousin, etc.
Seems the Matriarchs needs Mom's mind to install in their nanny-bots ('cause what female wants to raise children?) Don't want to give too much away, but what's done with the male martians is much of what I imagine feminists want here on earth.
The heroes are male and receive assistance from one female.
I actually came close to having my eyes water a few times.
One reviewer says,
" The motivation behind the Supervisor's tyranny is rooted in female empowerment, but along the way it stripped female Martians of the ability to have families."
Note, it stripped FEMALES, not males, eh?
Great for young and older kids
I loved this movie! It had a very positive message about Moms and how important they are to a child's life. There may be a few scary moments (when the mom is abducted or when one of the moms dies - the latter isn't really shown and is only suggested) that might be upsetting to a younger child, and some violence, but my kids loved it and we thought it was really entertaining. I even got teary at one point!

More reviews here:
This is a must see for any MRA and young men-boys.
Main / GHANA:Is Feminism The Right Path?
Dec 30, 2011, 04:54 AM

Commenting is wide open; no registration. English seems to be a second language here.

An experiment is of no use if what is being experimented has already been tried and tested. The end results of feminist ideologies and laws application are not uncommon. Trying them in Ghana is an unnecessary adventure, given that the results of it is all over the world.

All over Europe where I have been living for most part of my adult life, America, Espanic colonies and many other places have held on to feminism and the good and bad of it has been exposed.

I personally have no worry if women call for equality with men. At one point I even think that it is not really worth crying for, because to me we are equal already. Feminists push becomes mischievous when instead of equality they intend to ride over men and put men in a place where they might be tempted to also cry for equality.

Any abuse, undermining and ill-treatment of womanhood is my worry. I have two baby girls and I am the only man of my mothers five children. I see my wife as a friend and a partner whose say and contribution I uphold with the highest respect. I try to train my baby girls to be in the same class as my two sons I don't intend to allow my daughters to ride over their brothers just because they are girls neither do I give way to the boys to feel more important because they are boys. They are all my children and I love all of them equally. When am providing for them I am even more cautious about the girls because their needs are more. But as much as I want the girls to be comfortable I equally make sure the boys don't lack anything.

I am training my boys to respect their wives and any other woman in the future. In the same way I train my girls to also respect their future men and any other man.

When I first came to Europe I happened to sleep in a hostel meant for the homeless. And in this Hostel I found out that many men who were indigenous people of the country lived with us(poor foreigners without homes) in the same place. As time rolled on, I had conversations with some of this people. And believe me 90% of them had homes of their own. Some had bought houses during their working days and had successfully paid for the houses. Some had worked from their youth till pension. I met one who had served in the army for 25 years. Almost all of them were victims of harsh feminist laws which forced them out of their houses because a former wife did not want to live with them. Some could visit their own children only once in a month or in some case every two or three months on the approval of the women who chased them into the cold.

Feminist laws have cowed the men and have handed over every say to the women. What the woman tells the law enforcer is final men have no defense nor protection. She points the exit to the man out of his own house and he has to take the orders. In my working days here, I met men who told me that they knew how much they earn only by looking at their pay slip. The woman controlled anything that came into the house and gives the man what she desires, this is a reality. The end result is that most European men do not want to hear about marriage. Some have gone to the extent that they will prefer to marry and live with a fellow man.

Feminists entered this countries with the same message they are using in Ghana today. A claim for equality. If my understanding of equality is right, why should women pay less to contest for parliamentary positions in their parties? Why will anyone suggest that girl children be made to pay less fees? Why will a law demand that if a man offends the wife she can dictate that the man be thrown out of the house with just his hand bag even if the house belongs to the man? If a woman slaps a man in Europe it goes nowhere, but if a man dare raise his hand against a woman he will be thrown in jail in.

Fairness should be the bedrock of any law and by fairness I mean our men should not be turned into slaves because we want women to come up. The same opportunities should be given to both our girl and boy children. Let us not open the doors to the culture which has left Europe in shambles. As a nation I recommend that we leave a level playing ground for both the girl and boy child. Protecting the girls because of their vulnerability strength wise and also protecting the boy child because of their vulnerability opportunity wise.

Finally, I will want to make it clear here that feminism should not be tolerated in it's sense of the western culture. Because in their own homes it has caused more damage than repair. We need to build our own society of fairness where a woman will not be looked down upon because of her gender. A society where the men will still be men and the women respected individuals not any less than a man. A society where the laws of God will govern us. A society where we will have it in mind that nations are made up of communities and communities are made up of families and families are built through strong and disciplined marriages where both men and women play their rightful roles. Not when women will like to be men and men turned into women. Any living thing with two heads is a dragon, evil. A marriage like any other institution must have a head. When both couples becomes heads, chaos cant be avoided. This forcible change of positions and status in marriage has led to many broken homes in states where feminism is at it's peak resulting in many wayward children. Children who lacked the full compliments of parental training because either the man or the woman had to do the work of both parents.

Indiscipline can be brought down if good and strong families are built. Children will be trained as responsible citizens from this families and they will grow into responsible adults. Feminism has the ability to destroy the very family units which will lead to more chaos in our society.

God bless our homeland Ghana.

Noah Dugubrame Asare. Frankfurt, Germany.
Main / Yahoo Comments
Dec 13, 2011, 05:06 PM
I seem to be blocked from comments past 24 hours. Anyone else?
Main / Custody at the Door, Redux
Dec 12, 2011, 02:17 PM
Woman, 66, Shoots Estranged Son-in-Law Over Custody Dispute, Florida Police Say
She blames him, but  :engel2: HE has a recording.

A 66-year-old grandmother is under arrest after police say she shot her estranged son-in-law because of an ongoing custody battle he and her daughter were having over the pair's young son.
The victim, Salvatore Miglino of Boca Raton, had his cell phone recording the entire time, and the audio was key to the investigation of the Wednesday shooting in Broward County, Fla.
The incident unfolded when Miglino, 39, went to pick up his 3-year-old son for a scheduled visit. His mother-in-law, Cheryl Hepner, stood outside the home with the toddler's pillow and bag.
"According to him, when he asked for the things, she instead pulled out a handgun and starts firing shots," according to Dani Moschella, a spokeswoman for the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
Miglino was shot twice with a .22 caliber Beretta handgun. The bullets hit him in the shoulder and rib cage. Even though he was injured, he pounced and wrestled the gun away from Hepner, then drove away while calling for help, police said.
But it turns out that Hepner, too, had called police, with a different version of events.
When she was asked by the 911 dispatcher about whether she or Miglino pulled the gun, Hepner replied: "No, he pulled it on me and he's got it. He drove away," according to an audio recording of the call.
She also mentions to the dispatcher that he and her daughter were in "the middle of a horrible divorce."
But in the recording on Miglino's iPhone told a different story.
Fifty-eight seconds into the recording, three gunshots are heard. Then Miglino can be heard saying: "I can't believe you did that. I can't believe you did that ... I can't believe you f***ing shot me."
Miglino told the 911 operator that he had his phone recording his visit because "I knew something stupid was going to happen, but we're going through a divorce and trying to settle."
"Mrs. Hepner told authorities that [Miglino] pulled a gun on her so it was in fact the exact opposite of what had happened," Moschella said. "As evidence goes, that was a gem. That absolutely corroborated everything that Mr. Miglino had told detectives."

Somebody GETS it; CYA with these bitches!

Main / Lois Fraley On ID Channel
Dec 04, 2011, 02:37 PM
On the ID Channel
"Hostage: Do or Die
The chilling story of how corrections officer and single mom Lois Fraley survives being taken hostage by two inmates in an Arizona prison. Louis endures physical, psychological and emotional abuse for 15 days, and lives to tell about it.

Lois helps tell the story in her own words. One most notable comment was made when the story showed that the inmates released the other captive guard, a man, in exchange for food.

Lois wondered aloud why the inmates let HIM go. She was a mother and had family, and wasn't it supposed to be men that stayed and faced danger? Shouldn't they have let the woman go?  :angryfire:

Lois, you useless, ignorant slut!  :angryfire: :angryfire: Here again we have a women wanting to be captain of the ship, all the while eyeing the lifeboats and counting on the men to be white knights when she steers the ship into an iceberg.  Admittedly, Lois did not directly cause the situation, nor can I say she indirectly caused it. I can, however, guaran-fucking-tee she was eye-balling a position as top cop at the prison.
Excuse me, Lois. In the real world, the world of men, where there are consequences for actions, where every cut leaves blood behind, we call your attitude COWARDICE. Bitch, you wanna run with the big dogs, you better have more skill than whining when things go wrong.
Main / Embeding
Nov 27, 2011, 10:15 AM
Trying to embed the following shrew-tube video, but don't see the method on BBC or help guide.
Anyone? TIA.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Main / Local Movember
Nov 14, 2011, 01:45 PM

Valley legal team faces up to prostate cancer

Published: Mon, November 14, 2011 @ 12:05 a.m.
Attorneys grow mustaches, beards to raise awareness

By The Vindicator
Atty. Patrick K. Wilson shows off his new facial hair to raise awareness of cancers common among men.
By William K. Alcorn

[email protected]


Patrick K. Wilson had his son Liam in mind when he persuaded eight fellow attorneys from the Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell law firm to grow mustaches and beards as part of a worldwide movement in November to raise awareness and funds for men's cancer issues.

For Wilson, the movement called Movember, hits very close to home.

Because prostate and testicular cancer are rampant in his and his wife's family, he sees Movember as a way to improve 8-year-old Liam's future.

Wilson, 48, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer in December 2009.

Because he wanted to see his daughter, Mara, compete in the upcoming Irish Dancing World Championships in Glasgow, Scotland, he opted to use medicine to prevent the cancer from spreading and underwent surgery in April 2010. His surgeon was Dr. Dan Ricchiuti. The cancer had not spread beyond the prostate and he remains cancer free.

Wilson, who grew up and lives in Warren and graduated from JFK High School, is not the only male in his family to face cancer.

His father, Thomas, died of prostate cancer in May 1996, His father-in-law, Dr. Jerome Stanislaw, died of prostate cancer in July 1997.

Wilson's brother, Terry in Indiana, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2008 and was successfully treated with surgery, and another brother was diagnosed with testicular cancer in his 20s and has been cancer free for many years.

Because of his family history, Wilson, who is the Cortland city law director, was surprised but not shocked by his diagnosis ... surprised because he had no symptoms.

A strong advocate of annual physicals for men, Wilson said his cancer was caught by a PSA blood test during a regular physicals, and because it was caught early it had not spread beyond the prostate gland.

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a substance produced by the prostate gland. Elevated PSA levels may indicate prostate cancer or a noncancerous condition such as prostatitis or an enlarged prostate.

"I was never angry and I never said 'why me.' But, I was determined to treat the cancer aggressively and found an aggressive doctor to do it. We thought I'd be able to beat it because of my age and because it was caught early," he said.

His said his wife, Elisabeth, also a JFK graduate and a seventh grade teacher at Lakeview Middle School, went with him when the doctor gave him the diagnosis.

"After the surprise wore off and we had a plan in place, we sat down and told the two older girls, Madeline and Laurel, now 19 and 16. My wife is 100 percent supportive. She lived through it with her father and is an extremely good and effective caregiver," Wilson said.

"We have to thank our Australian brothers who started Movember. What better way to fight cancer than to have some fun and grow some facial hair," he said.

Wilson's nephew Conor Shanahan, a student at St. Louis University, got Wilson involved in Movember in 2010 when Shanahan's fraternity took it on as a project. Wilson grew a goatee.

A year later, he said, "why not get my partners involved. I approached the firm and got an overwhelming response. I'm honored by the outpouring of support of the partners, and excited about the prospect of providing support for research for a disease that affects many men and may possibly affect my son someday," he said.

Last year, the U.S. Movember campaign raised $2.5 million for the Prostate Cancer Foundation with nearly 65,000 participants.

Clients, friends and family of the firm, and the community at large, are encouraged to track the progress of participating attorneys' facial hair growth by visiting the firm's website at

Besides Wilson, participants are Attys. Chris Baronzzi, Marty Boetcher, Fritz Coombs, Paul Dutton, Jess Enyeart, Bill Hawley, George Millich and Alan Wenger.

"The cause is near and dear to me as someone who was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 46 and whose father and father-in-law both passed away from the disease," Wilson said. "I've been cancer-free since April 2010, but I'm one of the lucky ones. So much more research is needed to help fight cancer, and anything I can do to support fundraising efforts, I will do."
Main / The Easiest Lie (False DV at Huffpo!)
Nov 06, 2011, 06:00 AM
The Easiest Lie

Not long ago I had a client in Texas who came to me desperate for help in regaining custody of his daughter. He said the courts disallowed him for seeing her for three months and had threatened to kick him out of his house. They also told him they had the power to issue a permanent protective or restraining order, grant his ex-wife's demand that he only have supervised visitation and require him to enter in to an anger management or batterer's intervention class. Upon hearing that last provision I asked the natural question, "Did you hit her?" He replied that not only didn't he hit her but he had never been physically violent towards her. Having been at this for a while I knew what to ask next. "What did she say you did?" He responded with the words that kicked off his nightmare as it has done for countless men. "She said I raised my voice and was frightened I was going to hurt her and the baby."

A sea change took place in the area of Domestic Violence following the tragic murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. Approximately three months after her death in 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This legislation empowered the federal government to take part in the fight against domestic violence and provides more than $1 billion a year to increase investigation and prosecution efforts.

But as is frequently the case with legislation passed with the best of intentions there have been unintended consequences. According to a study done by the non-profit advocacy group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, more than 700,000 individuals are falsely accused and arrested for domestic violence each year. And beyond the damage done to the individual, the taxpayer pays a price as well with an estimated $20 billion a year going to social welfare programs to support single-parent families that have been harmed by false accusations of domestic violence.

When one parent wants to take unfair advantage in a divorce or custody case, all that is needed is a claim of domestic violence and the wheels are set in motion. A Domestic Violence Restraining Order is issued and the court will automatically suspend parental rights of the accused. These orders are meant to be a protective measure by the courts. They are to prevent truly violent people from harming innocents and fathers who are truly guilty of domestic violence or child abuse should be viewed as criminals and treated as such.

But in the bitter arena that is divorce court, the charge of domestic violence -- the vast majority of which are made by women -- and the reaction by the judicial system to it has caused the pendulum to swing too far. There are currently 32 states with civil definitions that classify domestic violence as a spouse being fearful, apprehensive or experiencing emotional distress. All it takes is a claim of "I was afraid" and, valid or not, the "victim" is now presumed to be a better parent and has an advantage when the court makes final determinations of child custody, visitation, and move-away plans to new cities, states or countries. Provocation, not having a history of violence or even being the abused victim, is irrelevant.

In our rush to avoid tragedies through a "zero tolerance policy," claims of domestic violence have become a fast track process by which unscrupulous parties gain sole custody of the children based on a lie, a lie that is shockingly easy to tell. The result of this gamesmanship is that our courts become overloaded, resources are diverted away from the true victims of domestic violence and children grow up in single-parent homes with little or no access to both biological parents.

In the case of my client in Texas, his soon-to-be-ex-wife abducted the child to California where she sought protection based on her lies regarding the potential for violence by my client. I say "lies" due to the fact that by the time her lawyer and I had developed the facts and worked out a deal, the baby was being sent back to Texas because my client was shown to be the more loving, peaceful, stable, nurturing and capable parent despite working full time. But this case was an anomaly.

VAWA was enacted to help stop spousal abuse and I believe was created with the best intentions. But in its overzealousness a new abuse has been created and perpetuated -- the marginalization of fathers through false accusations. No one wants to turn a blind eye to violence of any kind and offenders should and must be prosecuted. But until VAWA and the courts recognize that guilty until proven innocent goes against everything we claim to stand for, more injustices will take place and more lives will be ruined.

By David T. Pisarra, Esq.
Men's Rights Lawyer
Author of A Man's Guide To Domestic Violence, A Man's Guide to Divorce Strategy, A Man's Guide To Child Custody and the just released What About Wally: Co-Parenting A Pet With Your Ex. Available on, and

Report ignored by Gov't who wants to throw money at non-existent problem.

45% of teen hookers in NYC are boys.

Human trafficking of underage hookers almost non-existent.
Main / Topeka Suspends DV Law
Oct 07, 2011, 01:42 PM

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds
By Liz Goodwin | The Lookout - 4 hrs ago

State capitol in Topeka (Thinkstock)
A bitter argument over money in Topeka, Kan., means that city and county authorities have neglected to prosecute or charge people suspected of domestic battery since Sept. 8.
In other words, the local justice system has spent a month effectively sending the message that misdemeanor domestic assault will go unpunished--at least for now.
The dispute started last month, when Shawnee County District Attorney Chad Taylor announced that a 10 percent budget cut to his office in 2012 meant he would no longer be prosecuting any of the city's misdemeanors, effective immediately. Topeka city council members say they can't afford the estimated $800,000 yearly cost of prosecuting those misdemeanors and jailing offenders--and that they want the county to continue carrying out misdemeanor prosecutions as it has for the past 25 years. The county continues to insist that the jurisdiction for these prosecutions should shift to city prosecutors, but the Topeka City Council says that none of the city's five attorneys has any recent experience prosecuting domestic violence cases.
Next week, the council will vote on a measure that will strip domestic battery from a list of crimes that are illegal in the city. The vote is a tactical bid to force the county to take those cases on again.
City Council member Larry Wolgast told The Lookout he's opposed to that tactic, since there's no guarantee that the county will actually prosecute domestic battery cases just because the city decriminalizes the offense. But Wolgast also says the city cannot find the money to prosecute the cases themselves. "If we could just solve this by taking them over, that would be great to do. But the people aren't there," he said. He added that the most severe cases of domestic battery would be written up as felonies, which are still prosecuted by the county.
Karen Hiller, another City Council member, tells The Lookout that the county already has the resources needed to prosecute these kind of cases, while the city--which doesn't even have its own jail--would have to build from the ground up. Taylor would need an extra $200,000 to continue prosecuting them, while the city would have to spend nearly $1 million.
"How could we possibly do this on 10 minutes notice?" she said.
A domestic abuse survivor and activist, Claudine Dombrowski, told Fox4 that the city is sending the message that it's OK to beat your wife or husband.
"They need to invest in headstones, because these women are going to end up in cemeteries," Dombrowski told the station. She said she was hit with a crowbar in a domestic violence incident classified as a misdemeanor 16 years ago.
Wolgast says he's not sure when the jurisdictional dispute will end. When asked to address potential victims of domestic abuse whose perpetrators are not being prosecuted, he said: "We're working to solve the situation. I don't know what more I can say at this point."
According to James Anderson at the Topeka Police Department, city authorities have arrested 20 people on suspicion of misdemeanor domestic battery since Sept. 8. Anderson said he doesn't know how many were charged, but the Topeka Capital-Journal reported last month that county judges had released at least three accused domestic abusers because no one would prosecute them. Their cases will be brought up for prosecution again once the city and county resolve their dispute, according to Hiller. According to WIBW, no one arrested on suspicion of domestic battery has been formally charged since Sept 8.
In Kansas, domestic battery is defined as "intentionally or recklessly causing bodily harm by a family or household member against a family or household member," or intentionally physically contacting a family member in a "rude, insulting or angry manner." The third time someone is convicted of domestic battery within five years, the offense becomes a felony.
Main / Silence Implicates Guilt
Sep 29, 2011, 11:49 AM

4-3 ruling: Prosecutor can question silence
Article by: ABBY SIMONS , Star Tribune Updated: September 21, 2011 - 10:17 PM
The court upheld a previously dismissed conviction in case where defendant cited Fifth Amendment rights.

A criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent does not mean his refusal to speak cannot be brought up at trial, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled while reinstating a man's criminal sexual conduct conviction.

The 4-3 decision reversed an earlier order by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that threw out Brett David Borg's third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction for having sex with a woman who was incapacitated after a night of partying at Grand Casino Mille Lacs in 2004.

The victim alleged she drank alcohol, was tired and passed out and did not consent to intercourse with Borg in a hotel room at the casino. Borg argued that the sex was consensual. Evidence in Borg's trial included testimony from Sgt. Scott Niemeyer of the Mille Lacs Tribal Police Department that, before charges were filed, Borg did not respond to a letter Niemeyer wrote requesting an interview.

During closing arguments of the trial, prosecutors characterized Borg's refusal to speak with police as evidence of his guilt. He was convicted by a jury in 2008 and sentenced to four years in prison.

Borg appealed, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, saying the judge made an error when he allowed prosecutors to use Borg's silence as evidence against him. Prosecutors then appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, who ruled that Borg's Fifth Amendment right not to speak with Niemeyer does not prevent prosecutors from presenting evidence that Borg didn't respond to his letter.

In her dissent, Justice Helen Meyer said prosecutors' use of Borg's attorney-advised silence violates his due process rights and "significantly erodes" the constitutional right not to speak with police. Arguing in court that silence implicates guilt is unconstitutional, she wrote. Justices Alan Page and Paul H. Anderson joined in Meyer's dissent.

Borg is on supervised release from prison.

Abby Simons 612-673-4921

Main / Scariest Video Ever Made
Sep 27, 2011, 12:15 PM

I've reluctantly climbed 90 foot wooden communication poles years ago. It's amazing what some guys will do do to put bacon on the table.