Gynocentrism Sucks
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.
AUGUST 15--In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged "by a puppy in her chewing stage."
Additionally, in an August 7 letter to the North Carolina State Bar, Nifong noted that the law license also contained a misspelling of his middle name (which is Byron). A copy of Nifong's "the dog ate my law license" letter can be found below.
Nifong was stripped of his license as a result of his unethical stewardship of the Duke probe, which resulted in felony charges being dropped against three students who had been charged with the sexual assault of a stripper who had performed at a March 2006 off-campus party attended by members of the school's lacrosse team. (1 page)
But is the hatchet of widespread discrimination against men and their institutionalised civil violations to be burried with Niffong ONLY.
Mike Nifong has lost his law license and his seat as Durham County district attorney. And he could lose more than that in the months ahead.
Criminal charges are possible, and civil lawsuits are a virtual certainty for the disgraced former attorney.
Nifong, who brought charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, was disbarred Saturday for unethical conduct in his handling of the case. But attorneys for the falsely accused players say there's more in store, saying there are plans to file a motion this week asking Durham County Superior Court Judge Osmond Smith to consider additional punishment.
Smith presided over pretrial hearings in the Duke lacrosse case. As part of its decision to revoke his license, the North Carolina Bar found Nifong guilty of lying to Smith about the existence of exculpatory DNA evidence, evidence that he had not handed over to the defense in a clear report. The players' attorneys say Nifong buried information about unidentified male DNA found on the accuser's body and clothing in hundreds of pages of raw data.
In their motion defense, the attorneys plan to ask Smith for further sanctions against Nifong, punishment that could include fines and contempt of court. A ruling of contempt could come with jail time.
Nifong could also face lawsuits from the exonerated players and their families. Joe Cheshire, an attorney for former Duke lacrosse captain David Evans, one of the three exonerated players, said he expects "excessive civil action" against Nifong.
"Some people will take that as being mean-spirited and kicking somebody when they're down," Cheshire said Sunday to The Associated Press. "But we believe that this issue is enormously important and it carries significant precedent, and (the judge) ought to be the one to make that decision because it happened in his court."
The families are seeking an independent investigation into Nifong's conduct -- an inquiry that could determine whether he committed any criminal violations in prosecuting the Duke players. Prosecutors are normally immune from criminal charges, but attorneys for the lacrosse players say Nifong went beyond his role as a prosecutor by actively investigating the case alongside the Durham Police Department.
Requests for a federal investigation have also been made by several members of Congress, including Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., and Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla. The lawmakers believe Nifong violated the players' constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
Nifong accepted his punishment from the North Carolina Bar, saying that disbarment was an "appropriate" penalty for his actions and that he would waive any right to an appeal. Over the course of his five-day ethics hearing he admitted to making major mistakes during the case but said he did not do anything intentionally unethical. Instead, he cited his lack of experience with high-profile cases and said that he got "carried away" by the national press coverage the case.
Matt Heck, president of the National District Attorneys Association, told ABC News that disbarment for conduct during a specific prosecution is "very, very rare.'' He added that his organization "agrees with the North Carolina State Bar committee, its decisions and its conclusions.''
Still, Heck said that Nifong is living "a prosecutor's worst nightmare -- to think of prosecuting and convicting an innocent person.''
Nifong's disbarment ended his three-decade run as a Durham County prosecutor and a lifelong career as a public servant. Nifong was a social worker before getting his law degree and worked as an assistant district attorney.
As part of its decision, a Bar panel cited his years of service and lack of prior disciplinary issues as points in Nifong's favor. But ultimately the Bar found that there was no counterweight to Nifong's conduct on the Duke lacrosse case.
The reason for this which is also the reason that feminists have had such an easy time in getting legislation passed and services funded, is because men are genetically, hormonally and socially programmed to take care of (provide and protect) women. Men are asleep in a sea of provide and protect and refuse to wake to the humanist idea that men are also in need sometimes.
I hear your frusttration and can only nod my head with a similar experience. For all of our upset with the feminists it is the sleeping and bigoted men in power who are a huge force that is against us.
Wow. Fascinating stuff. I had no idea of the extent of anti-female behaviors that go on there. Thank you for giving me a lesson.
It is absolutely mind boggling that the feminists aren't throwing a fit over this stuff. Instead what we see is them supporting Muslim cultures. Are they simply ignorant or are they consciously choosing their agenda?
Top tips for divorced dads
1 Be committed to being a great divorced dad. If necessary, and if the children are old enough, make and sign a divorced dad contract with them laying out your mutual responsibilities. This way, they will feel secure about what to expect in what will be a big change for everyone.
2 Identify your strengths and weaknesses and work on the weaknesses.
3 Put your children first all the time. Make sure they know the divorce was not their fault and that you are a team.
4 Make the time you spend with your children quality time, and establish routines and household rules.
5 No matter what, try to respect your ex-wife even if she does not respect you. Your children will appreciate it, because she is still their mother. The sooner you both learn mutual respect, the faster you'll recover from the divorce and the better it will be for the children.
6 Never be frightened of "failing" or asking for help. There are hundreds of thousands of divorced dads out there all feeling the same as you. Parenting is something we all learn as we go along.
7 Expect the unexpected.
8 Look after yourself.
9 Be aware that divorce affects people differently. The woman you married is now not the woman you are divorcing, so do not rise to the bait if she tries to cause problems postdivorce and never argue with her in front of the children. Nor must you deliberately upset her. Keep it civil and simple.
10 Love your children and be there for them.
Top tips on making a new home for your children
1 Within your budget, buy or rent a property with space to give the children a sense of belonging and security.
2 Negotiate with your ex to split the children's toys, furniture and other items so some of their favourites are at Mum's house and some at Dad's house.
3 Young children (under the age of 5) need and like consistency so if possible keep consistency with the family home - for example, buy the same night light that Mum has taken to their new home for them.
4 Give older children a budget to decorate their room, or to buy new toiletries to stay at your house. Within reason, let them help to create their new second home.
5 Your children's involvement is crucial, so ensure that you ask for their input. They should know this is their other home.
6 Allow them to leave things at your house. It is their way of saying: "I am your child and I belong here too."
7 Ensure that your house is child-safe.
8 Don't let a sense of guilt lead you to spoil the children with material possessions.
9 Regularly use a checklist for items you need to replace or add as the children grow.
10 Respect older children's privacy.
11 Ensure that your home is decorated in a way that makes the children feel that they belong.
12 Keep a photo of your ex in an album so the children can see it if they wish to.
Can Mum see my room?
No matter what age, children will be proud of special things and this includes their rooms. When your children start living between two homes they may ask if their mum can see their room or something else in your home.
This is a question that needs to be handled carefully. You may wish to protect your privacy if it has been a particularly acrimonious split. However, if you get on with your ex and you can be sure that if she visits the house she won't criticise, then consider letting her visit to grant the child's request.
If there is still acrimony between you and your ex-wife consider taking some photographs of your child in their room that they can show their mum and friends. This shows your child that you have a level of flexibility and put their needs first. But make sure that your ex understands that the photos have been taken for the child's benefit or she might mistake the gesture as you showing off.
If your ex asks to see your home and the children's room and you are having difficulties with her, it might be best not to allow her in. Tell her that you will respect her privacy and that she must respect yours. The reason for this is that she is likely to find fault with your home. If it comes up in legal letters, offer a third party to view the property, which will protect your privacy. If it is in the court orders that she can inspect your home, you could and should request a reciprocal arrangement. Discuss this with your lawyer and again consider a third-party presence.
The campaign for children's rights represents one of the most powerful lobbies now working in the field of family welfare. Its advocates have succeeded in almost every task they have set themselves. They have out-lawed smacking in schools and given children sufficient 'rights' to make parents and teachers think twice before attempting to curb or discourage unruly behaviour.
Yet, as Lynette Burrows shows in this booklet, the children's rights lobby is a paper tiger. It consists of a small number of individuals who form front-organisations, ask each other to sit on committees, take 'evidence' from each other and publish 'reports. The movement has no popular base. Without the financial support of two grant-making trusts, and the unwitting compliance of public bodies and the media, it would collapse.
The 'rights' which interest the lobby boil down to only two: the 'right' of children to behave badly without any chastisement and the 'right' to enter into sexual relationships at any age, without the knowledge and consent of their parents. The agenda thus fits neatly with the stated aims of paedophile organisations which realised long ago that the only way to obtain access to children was to persuade professionals and campaigning organisations to demands freedom for children from any form of restraint - a policy which leaves them exposed to the predatory behaviour of those who would harm them.
The first thing to note is that the very expression 'children's rights' is a misleading title. It disguises the fact that what is being sought is not more rights for children to decide the policies which affect them. There is no question of allowing them to decide if their school uses corporal punishment on bullies or not; whether they can smoke at school or indeed, whether they need to go to school at all if they have a job to go to.
Children's rights are the means by which different groups of adults - notably lawyers and social workers, can select certain children's grievances - on a largely ideological basis - and then pursue these, with public funds, even through the European court. What is striking about so many of the issues that have been taken up by children's rights activists, is that, by and large, they involve solely the right of children to behave badly when they want to and to get into premature sexual activity. The strikingly homogenous nature of these 'rights' as they are at present perceived, is explained by an ideological agenda that is shared by the activists, and by very few others.
When you think about it, the fashionable crusade of 'children's rights' is bound to be anti-family. It is a movement which declares itself to be more interested in the welfare of children than are ordinary parents. It seeks rights and laws for children that neither they, nor their parents, want. It promises to give children legal sanctions against their parents and, in so doing, pits the interests of children against their parents. The inescapable implication is that children are not in safe hands with their own parents and that a whole movement has had to be called into being in order to protect them. It is an innocent-sounding piece of subliminal, anti-family propaganda, advertising the fact that parents are, at best, inadequate and, at worst, hostile to the needs of their children.
Analysing the 'loaded' message of the title 'children's rights' one can see it attempts to pack the punch of an appeal to both parental feeling and the nobility of action implied by the word 'rights'. It is utterly bogus! A 'right is classically defined as 'the freedom to act without interference, according to one's conscience.' It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their 'right' and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else. Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children and it is that freedom that the children's rights activists seek to remove.
One can clearly map their intentions by what they have achieved so far and what they are signalling they want to do in the future. I don't know anything about the American scene but, in Great Britain, and several European countries, among their achievements has been securing the right of the state to allow under-age children to be given contraceptives and abortions without their parents' knowledge or consent. This remarkable right was not achieved via parliament, which still upholds an 'age of consent' at sixteen years. Still less was it achieved by pressure from either parents or children. It was as achieved by the active collaboration of the industry that sells contraceptives, the people who are employed in promoting their use, and the 'children's rights' lobby who claimed that, since children had now decided to be sexually active - there was nothing parents could do about it.
The right for children to 'divorce' unsatisfactory parents has also been secured for them by children's rights lawyers; working on the usual pay-rates but with the bill settled by the taxpayer. So far parents have not been given the right to divorce unsatisfactory children - but that is consistent with the philosophy of children's rights. It is parents who are failing in their duty to give children the freedom they need. Children, the client group, are not to be criticised or restricted in any way.
Children have also been given the right to take themselves out of the care of their parents and put themselves instead, into the misnamed 'care' of the local authority. Just what this can mean was illustrated by a mother, Mrs Iverson, whose14 year old daughter went to live with a 33 year old drug-dealer from Jamaica. She appealed to the local authority to get her daughter back and they responded by getting a social worker to take the child to a contraceptive clinic. The anguished mother could do nothing whilst her daughter was first introduced to a life of prostitution and then, a month later, murdered. No-one in authority was criticised or prosecuted for their lack of action since they, and the police, were prevented from denying the child her 'right' to free association, by the Children Act, 1989.
A multimillionaire succeeded yesterday in stopping the woman whom he divorced nearly 30 years ago from claiming a slice of his fortune after she fell on hard times.
Dennis North, 70, a retired builder from near Sheffield, had appealed against the decision made by a family judge last year to award £202,000 from his retirement fund to his ex-wife, Jean North, whom he divorced in 1978.
Mrs North, 64, had left him and their three children for another man and the couple had divorced with a financial settlement that gave Mrs North a "reasonable" lifestyle.
But after her finances took a turn for the worse she returned to court to seek a further award from her former husband in what Mr North called "a second bite of the cherry".
Mr North, whose fortune is estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, argued that it was "simply unjust" that he should have to make another payment so long after the original settlement, particularly because his former wife's financial state was a result of her own lifestyle choices.
In a rare court victory for a husband, the Court of Appeal agreed with Mr North, ruling that the second award was "fundamentally flawed".
Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, ruled that Mrs North may still be due "some modest award" from her former husband, but it would not approach the six-figure sum that she had previously been granted.
The judge said that it was the court's "overarching objective" to be fair to both sides. But he said of Mr North: "He is not an insurer against all hazards nor, when fairness is the measure, is he liable for needs created by the applicant's financial mismanagement, extravagance or irresponsibility.
"The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity, come to her rescue." The appeal judges will decide before the end of this month after considering written arguments whether Mrs North is still entitled to anything at all from her husband.
The couple split up in 1977 and were divorced the following year, with the three children staying with their father. Mr North divorced his wife when he found that she was having an affair with a friend of his. In 1981 they hammered out what he believed to be a final agreement, under which he gave her a house in Sheffield, and paid her ground rents that he received on various properties that he owned in the area.
By the late 1990s Mrs North had accumulated investments worth £328,000. But her fortunes declined when she emigrated to Australia in 2002.
As a result of a series of "unfortunate" investments, based on alleged poor advice, her assets dwindled by more than £100,000 over the next two years.
In March last year Mrs North, who lives in Sydney, applied to the High Court in the UK to vary the terms of the 1981 divorce settlement to provide for her basic needs and, in April, a district judge awarded her £202,000.
District Judge Peter Greene awarded her the lump sum, despite finding that Mrs North's problems were "entirely of her own making" and that Mr North had no further responsibility towards her.
Lord Justice Thorpe said yesterday that that approach had been "fundamentally flawed" and the appeal should be allowed. He said that any settlement must be fair to both parties and it did not follow that Mr North was responsible financially for any of Mrs North's needs.
He added: "Even the applicant's subjective sense of fairness should surely not encourage her to expect that someone from whom she was divorced so many years ago should be required in law to compensate her for the financial consequences of ill-advised choices."
Mr Justice Bennett said he agreed that there had been an "illogical inconsistency" on the part of District Judge Greene.
"Having found that the husband played no part in, and should not be held responsible for, the depletion of the wife's finances, the district judge nevertheless jumped to the impermissible conclusion that the wife was entitled to an order of periodical payments."
A man is being hunted by police after a mother and her two children were found murdered in Greater Manchester.
...The children's father Fred Wizzart said: "Words can't describe the loss. No-one could ever replace them."
...Police last night named a 32-year-old suspect whom they are hunting in connection with what they labelled the "horrific murders".
Pierre Williams, who neighbours said was the mother's boyfriend, was described as about 5ft 8in (1.72m) and of medium build. Mr Williams, who grew up in Moss Side, Manchester, but lived in Birmingham more recently, has a tattoo on his right arm which says "cream" and more tattoos on his chest.
...Neighbours spoke of heart-rending scenes as members of the family, including Ms Samuels's former husband, Fred Wizzart, 38, a sales manager, arrived to be informed of the deaths. Jamie Smyth, 21, a neighbour, said: "I saw Fred. He was pacing the square with his head in his hands. He looked devastated."
...The parents separated early in the children's lives but, say friends, Mr Wizzart had been a loving father who paid close attention to their welfare.
Re: Study: 30% of mothers and 40% of fathers are abused during a pregnancy
How about the difference in the result of the abuse?
Are men more likely to die than women?
Or do you guys prefer to overlook the leading cause of death in pregnant women?
What difference does it make who the perpetrator might be? Do you care about all victims or just those who are female victims of men? I mean really, what difference does it make who perpetrated the crime. The end result to the victim is exactly the same no matter who the perpetrator might have been: They are DEAD. Your trying to split off worthy victims versus unworthy victims shows your bigotry and sexism. Victims are victims. It is laughable how you blame and devalue male victims due to the sex of their perpetrators.