{News Stories} - Kangaroo Court Misandry

{News Stories} - Kangaroo Court Misandry

Kangaroo courts have been historically corrupt, although the misandrous aspect caught on after their feminist takeover. Here are some examples of men getting the short end of the stick in the corrupt kangaroo courts, often by their misandric and feminist judges. (Updated: 2013/09/08.)

  • William J Hetherington has been incarcerated in Michigan prisons for more than 20 years on being falsely accused of spousal rape by his wife Linda. The sentencing guideline for this new offense was 12 months to 10 years. But, without showing cause, the judge sentenced him to 15 to 30 years (twice the time served by the average convicted rapist in Michigan). Hetherington has always maintained his innocence. The judge used Michigan’s new Rape Shield Law to prohibit cross-examination of Linda. 20 years later, despite an exemplary prison record, the parole board routinely refuses to parole him, giving as its sole reason "prisoner denies the offense". (Over the years, several pro bono lawyers and concerned citizens have tried to secure a pardon or a parole for Hetherington, but Michigan appears determined to make him serve 30 years because he won't admit guilt and because the feminist bureaucracy won't admit it made a mistake.) The rape charge was prosecuted simultaneously with the custody case, and the divorce court had frozen all Hetherington's assets so he had no money to hire a lawyer or make bond. Nevertheless, the criminal court ruled that he was not indigent and refused to provide him with a lawyer. For 12 years, the court refused to provide Hetherington with a transcript of the trial. Without funds, he was unable to buy one, so he was effectively denied his right of appeal, and no appeal has ever been heard on the substance of this case. Linda was not a battered wife; she testified at the trial that he had never beaten her in their 16 years of marriage. At the sentencing, prosecutor Robert Weiss called Hetherington's alleged offense equivalent to "first-degree murder" and falsely accused him of beating Linda. Weiss was running for a judgeship. Observers sized up his prejudicial statements as grandstanding for support from feminists. Linda walked away with custody of their 3 daughters, the marital home, and all marital assets.
  • Corrupt and misandist Maine Bar Harbor prosecutor Mary N Kellett has the support of the entire Maine judicial system in hiding and erasing her corruption. It also appears that Kellet's boss, D.A. Carletta Bassano, will not be facing any formal repercussions for allowing a subordinate in her office to behave in such despicably illegal and unethical fashion, either. Here's links to the coverage of the Kellett case:
    ~ 2011/03/26: Mary Kellett: This Time it’s for Real.
    ~ 2011/06/03: Barking mad or clever as a fox? The Vladek Filler re-trial.
    ~ 2012/08/29: Censorship Alive and Well at Bangor Daily News.
    ~ 2012/10/17: Filler jailed, denied attorney by Judge Robert E Murray.
    ~ 2012/12/03: Filler's sister speaks to the Bar Panel.
    ~ 2012/12/04: The curtain closes on justice.
    ~ 2012/12/10: Kellett faces suspension.
    ~ 2013/02/02: Save calls on Hancock county to remove Kellett.
    ~ 2013/05/14: SAVE challenges media coverage of Kellett scandal.
    ~ 2013/07/03: Is Mary Kellett cutting a deal?.
    ~ 2013/07/08: Team Kellett pulls fast one.
    ~ 2013/07/09: Kellett’s dominos need to fall.
    ~ 2013/07/09: Girl Writes What on the Mary Kellett Hearing.
    ~ 2013/07/11: Mary Kellett and Vladek Filler.
    ~ 2013/07/14: Ellen Gorman: conscience of a judge.
    ~ 2013/07/14: Don’t be THAT prosecutor.
    ~ 2013/07/15: Breaking news: Mary Kellett free to practice law.
    ~ 2013/07/16: AVFM News and Activism: Kellett Coverage.
    ~ 2013/07/16: Vladek Filler’s statement to Maine Supreme Court.
    ~ 2013/07/16: Vladek Filler speaks after Kellet’s hearing in Portland Maine.
    ~ 2013/07/16: Vladek Filler describes his anguish after Kellett hearing concludes.
    ~ 2013/07/30: Help me stop Mary Kellett.
    Some skipped because they were articles, and not news updates.
  • Bryan Sheffield married Calinda Cook in 2000, and had 2 children (6, 9). They divorced in 2009 and of course, Cook got the custody. When she moved to Nebraska, no court prevented her even though the move meant the kids wouldn't see their father. Sheffield moved and settled nearby just so he could keep seeing his children. However, having moved several states away, Sheffield couldn't support himself the way he used to, and he used his veteran's benefits to go back to school and work toward a degree in human resources management. But his income was still much below what it had been, so he asked the court for a reduction in the $1072 per month he'd been paying. Despite his lowered income and despite the fact that he was diligently trying to improve his earning ability, the court refused to lower his payments. (It did knock off about $100 because Cook's income had gone up.) But Sheffield soldiered on; he went right along making his payments to his ex just as before. He has paid every penny he owes and can prove it, but the State of Nebraska still says he owes almost $1100.
  • Gary Trieste tells his story of the kangaroo court injustice through manipulation of the system by his daughter Anya's mother Suzanne M Cayley, who made up false allegations to throw him away from his daughter's life and also abused Anya, with full encouragement from the courts, CPS, mental health services, school administration, and other elements of the system. Updates on the case:
    ~ 2013/09/07: Anya's abusers.
  • West Virginia family court corruption and incompetence, featuring:
    ~ Journalist Mark Hallburn (the hero in the story).
    ~ His divorce and child custody matters with his ex-wife Dolores.
    ~ The then Putnam County Family Court Judge William M "Chip" Watkins III (one villain in the story; now on a 4-year suspension from the bench - without pay - thanks to a matter brought forward by Hallburn, and who happened to be the judge in Hallburn's divorce case).
    ~ Troy Sexton (hero's well-wisher; another Putnam resident who had experienced some trouble from the legal system and who called Hallburn to tell him about his experience).
    ~ The controversial Kanawha County Judge Michael J "Mike" Kelly (second villain in the story; to whom Hallmark's case was assigned after Watkin's suspension).
    ~ West Virginia Supreme Court Administrator Steven D Canterbury (who refused to press charges against Watkins for his misbehavior, saying "Everyone can have a bad day").
    In a separate case, Watkins slaps one Margaret Farmer with a restraining order while she and her lawyer were absent! (That's against court rules.) But when Farmer filed a complaint with the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission, it was dismissed. Coming back to the original case, in early 2012, the appointed judge Kelly stripped Hallburn of more than 70% custody of his son Matthew (5); there were no allegations of abuse, no accusations of molestation, no accusations of drug use. Hallburn protested judge Kelly's misconduct to then West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice, Menis E Ketchum, who pissed on The First Amendment's "Right to redress government grievances" and issued an Administrative Order that Hallburn not contact the high court to complain about Kelly's misconduct.
    When Hallburn's mother Nancy became terminally ill in May of 2012, Kelly refused to allow Matthew to have a final visit with his grandmother (who later died on 2012/08/05 without seeing her grandson). Kelly's excuse for denying the final visit was that the office lost the budget that Hallburn provided at Kelly's request. However, Hallburn had re-submitted the budget in the Father's Day visitation motion that Kelly had also denied. So the lying judge is busted. When Hallburn complained about the "lost" budget, Kelly retaliated by issuing an order telling Hallburn not to contact the office about Hallburn's case. Hallburn filed a complaint against Kelly about his malicious refusal of the final visit, only to have the JIC refuse to press charges against the bad judge. Incredibly, in this courtroom video, judge Kelly states that no 4-year-old would appreciate a visit with his grandmother!
    The West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission refuses to release complaints, or even complaint numbers, about Mountain State judges, calling the elected officials "employees". A lawsuit about this issue has been filed. However, the odds of a judge ruling that this information must be made public is slim - Corrupt judges protect each other. In addition, reporters are not allowed to cover West Virginia Family Law court hearings, effectively protecting judges.
    A federal civil rights complaint, filed by Hallburn against Kelly, was also rejected. Hallburn met with WV Senate Judiciary Chair Corey Palumbo, Senator Chris Walters and Delegates Tim Armstead, Brady Paxton, Josh Stowers (whose uncle handled Hallburn's appeal) Jeff Eldridge, and Doug Skaff prior to and during the 2013 legislative session. None of them took the necessary action to reform the broken Mountain State Family Law system.
    In the final order Kelly retaliated and stripped Hallburn of all overnight visits, continued to hold Matthew hostage in West Virginia by banning out-of-state trips, doubled Hallburn's child support, and refused to provide him with a single cent of the $65000 that he put into the marital home over 12 years. Kelly also ordered Hallburn to pay Dolores' lawyer nearly $8000 because Hallburn filed motions for Matthew to travel out-of-state and to visit his dying grandmother. Hallburn appealed to Putnam Circuit Judge Phillip M Stowers, who chipped away at Kelly's audacious ruling and restored overnight visits (only every-other weekend) and allowed Matthew to travel outside of West Virginia - but not overnight. Hallburn appealed his case to the West Virginia Supreme Court 2013/06/05, which has been accepted for a hearing, but not until October 2013.
    Judge Kelly also wants Hallburn to come into his courtroom for a contempt hearing 2013/07/15, while Hallburn has already informed Kelly that he will be in California for his niece Melissa's wedding. In a further show of bias, Kelly moved the hearing from 2013/07/01, simply because Dolores will be on vacation.
    Hallburn even filed a lawsuit against Kelly, but West Virginia Chief Justice Brent D Benjamin refused to recuse Kelly despite this lawsuit. And the court has failed to set a hearing date for that lawsuit.
    Here are further updates on the case:
    ~ 2013/07/24: Judge Michael J Kelly Conflict of Interest.
    ~ 2013/07/30: West Virginia harassing father & publisher.
    ~ 2013/08/06: Hatcher dismisses Kelly suit.
    ~ 2013/08/12: Corrupt Judge Michael J Kelly Is Retiring.
    ~ 2013/08/24: Child abusing judge Kelly continues rampage.
    ~ 2013/08/29: Citizen Order issued against child-abusing judge.
  • Roger's ordeal at the hand of his manipulative and lying ex-wife Amy and her enablers - the kangaroo court lawyers and judges. All of the names in the story (except of the author herself) have been changed to protect the anonymity of the involved family.
  • Frenchman named only as Jean-Louis B (51) has been ordered to pay his ex-wife (47) £8500 for failing to have enough sex with her, which he said was owing to his "tiredness and health problems". The wife had filed for divorce 2 years ago, blaming her husband's lack of activity in the bedroom. A judge in Nice, southern France, then granted the divorce and ruled the husband was solely responsible for the split. Encouraged, the woman then took the man back to court demanding 10000 euros in compensation for "lack of sex over 21 years of marriage". So the kangaroo court looked for some manipulable law, and found article 215 of France's civil code, which states that the married couples must agree to a "shared communal life". A judge then ruled that this law implies that "sexual relations must form part of a marriage", and fined the man.
  • Australian kangaroo court has ordered a husband to pay his ex-wife $6000 a week to maintain her lavish lifestyle including a $500 hair and clothes budget and $1000 for entertainment. Justice Christine Dawe ruled the allowance be granted until the couple, who are in their 50's, can agree on a settlement of their estimated $80 million estate. The wife had originally asked for $9000 per week, as well as $2 million for their son's expenses including $440000 on holidays. She outlined her lavish expense budget including $1200 for food, $1100 for clothes, $770 for hairdressing, and $1200 for household supplies. The husband opposed the payments as the wife had been given $19 million in partial settlements since they separated. Justice Dawe dismissed the husband's claims that the payments were "excessive" and said some of the amounts were "necessary and reasonable". The husband's own expenses were submitted to the court as $33000 a week, including looking after his son. (cf, the kangaroo court decision when it's the husband who seeks alimony.)
  • In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J, 1996) forcing a boy (15) to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth. The court ruled (read, made up the excuse for granting a pussy pass) that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an "innocent victim" because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex (in fact, because he was a male and the rapist was a female, period). That this act was illegal and may have constituted coercion was apparently lost on the court. If the boy is considered legally incapable of providing consent, how can he be considered legally liable for giving that consent? Any consent or cooperation on his part should have been considered coercion and therefore not consent at all. California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force the male victims of rape to pay child support to their female rapists.
    In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.
    Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape. But this is not the case with fathers. Even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself.
    In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was "passed out" and "wasn't even aware of it". This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
  • On or about 1992/09/20, a woman named as T.M. raped a man named S.F. while he was intoxicated and not even cognizable of what was happening. She became pregnant and gave birth to a child. S.F. "did not knowingly and willfully participate in any sexual activity with the mother of the minor child". However, he was still required to pay child support to T.M. (in the best interest of the child, of course), even though he had been a nonconsensual party in T.M.'s sexual assault that resulted in her pregnancy.
  • "Two and a Half Men"-fame TV star Jon Cryer has almost sole custody (96% of parenting time) of his son with Sarah Trigger Cryer (whom he married in 2000 when both were actors). Somehow, he still must pay the child support to her, and not the other way round! That's because a Los Angeles trial court ordered him to and the appellate court upheld the order. Reverse the sexes and see how that would have gone. Is this child support or mommy support? The child will never see one-tenth of this money. In fact, Sarah is using it to pay her lawyers in the dependency case. Goes to prove again that the feminist system is there to transfer money from men to women, children are merely used as a flimsy excuse. (In cases of alimony/palimony, for example, they're not even needed as excuse.)
    The couple had divorced in 2004 with Sarah getting primary custody and Jon paying child support (of course). By 2009, Sarah's life went from bad to worse, she hadn't had an acting job since 2005. Jon and Sarah remarried. She had another son by this marriage and maintained custody of both boys upon separation (again, a matter of course). Jon filed for a modification of custody saying that Sarah was an unfit parent who left the children unsupervised. His request was denied (what else?), and the court just admonished Sarah for negligent parenting. That did not prove effective and in 2009, her child by her second husband was injured while under her care. So, though it took an innocent child to get injured unnecessarily, the court now had no option other than to take the children from her and give them to their dads. So Jon did the obvious thing; he asked the court to reduce his child support from $10000 a month to nothing. After all, he was the custodial parent and custodial parents don't pay child support, they receive it, right? Well, as the court admitted, that's usually the case, but not here. Because the non-custodial parent has a vagina. So Jon must continue paying Sarah $8000 a month ($96000 a year) to support a child 4% of the time. Would you laugh or cry?
    But the courts weren't finished. Perhaps sensing the radical injustice of what they were doing, both tried another tack. Because Sarah's children were taken from her by the 'Department of Children and Family Services' due to her neglect, there was a dependency proceeding in juvenile court at the same time the child support issue was being litigated. According to the courts, nothing could be done about Jon's child support obligation because, well, the juvenile court might alter the custody arrangement at any time! (The courts always keep a wild card when it comes to screw men.) According to them, because circumstances might change in the future, their hands are tied; Jon has to keep paying to support his ex-wife because, well something might happen. In other words, just make up any claim, however ridiculous; if it's against a male, nobody is gonna question you.
  • Federal Court Magistrate Tom Altobelli wrote a letter to boy (11) and girl (6), whom he deprived of their father's love, reducing their contact with him to letters, birthday cards, and gifts. In the letter, he explaining why he had cut them off from their father. The mother had accused the father of sexually abusing their daughter. Her belief was based on the predictions of a clairvoyant. Magistrate Altobelli, who heard all the evidence, concluded the father had not done it. Yet the father was still punished by losing his children. "I decided that you had not been hurt by your dad", Altobelli wrote in the letter, to be opened by the children when they turn 14. The false accuser mother was rewarded with sole custody because the magistrate said she would be a better parent (because... vagina). It doesn't seem fair, but Altobelli, like all kangaroo court judges, was in the devil's own predicament, pretending to be doing it in the "children's best interests" (which is just a veil for the "women's best interests").
    In a similar instance, Italian father Maurizio (35, not his real name) has found himself marooned while trying to retrieve his 4 daughters (9, 10, 13, 14) from Australia after his estranged Australian wife took them from Italy in 2010 on the pretext of a 4-week holiday. He has spent 2 years and his life savings to find his daughters. He even has invoked the Hague Convention, the international child abduction treaty, to get his girls home. The kangaroo court ordered the girls return to Italy with their father last month, but instead of delivering them to the airport, the mother's family took them into hiding on the Sunshine Coast where they had to be found by the federal police. Facing no sanction for repeatedly defying court orders, the mother and her family appealed to the High Court, so Maurizio has to wait until the case is heard in August. But he has been stunned by attacks on him in the Australian media after his ex-wife's supporters set up a Facebook page and gave interviews denouncing him, "I was portrayed as being a wicked, violent, and mentally ill man", even though he has never hurt his children and has evidence from the family doctor that his wife tried to falsely accuse him of abuse. (cf, what happens when fathers abduct children?)
  • Her "delinquent attitude" to parenthood was denounced in the Family Court after she waged a campaign to alienate her children from their father, but the woman has still won sole custody of daughter (10) and son (13), who barely had contact with their father since the mother launched court proceedings last year to stop them spending time together, and are now so distressed by the prospect of a reunion with their father a judge has ruled they should not have to see him. The enmity between the parents (who cannot be named) has made their children’s lives unbearably miserable, Justice Stewart Austin said. He concluded the only way to end the conflict was, ”regrettably”, to terminate the children's interaction with their father (not mother). Justice Austin was satisfied the mother "embarked upon a campaign to align the children with her and reject the father" - behavior described by a psychiatrist as emotionally abusive to the children. Police and child welfare agencies investigated and dismissed the mother's allegations that the father abused the children. The girl, when interviewed by officers, said she and her brother had been promised rewards if they "told the police about Daddy". Justice Austin said the mother made further "outlandish, unsubstantiated allegations", including that the father had installed a tracking device in her car and a surveillance camera outside her house, and had broken into her home. Her paranoia "invaded the children’s day-to-day lives". The children grew to fear their father might kidnap them after their mother kept them at home to prevent their abduction from school. The little girl wet her bed, while her brother had threatened self-harm if forced to see his father and was vulnerable to developing a mental disorder. Justice Austin found the "primary cause of the children's desperate emotional turmoil lies with the mother". Her conduct, he said, was lamentable. However, he did not agree with the father that the children should live with him. (That would be justice, avoiding which is the very reason the kangaroo courts are set up). Asked in court about how much responsibility she accepted for the children's emotional despair, the mother replied, in a typical feminist fashion, "I've done the best thing I can for my kids".
    In short, parental alienation is now legal and the kangaroo courts will reward you for it (if you're a mom, that is).
  • A couple referred to as Mr W (a chef) and Mrs W (in her late 30's, had cancer of the womb in her 20's), after suffering 6 late-stage miscarriages including 4 sets of twins, used a surrogacy website to find a single mother of two on benefits (known as Miss N) who agreed to be inseminated with Mr W's sperm. They made an informal agreement to pay her $20000 in expenses. But the relationship between the two parties turned sour after Miss N apparently began asking for more money. 3 months before the baby was due, she sent a text message to the couple to say she was keeping the child. During the bitter custody battle, Miss N accused Mr W of being violent towards his wife, which the couple denied. They accused Miss N of neglecting her sons and of living in a filthy home. The couple has now lost custody of their baby daughter T (8-month-old) to her surrogate mother and have been ordered by the Child Support Agency to hand over more than $1000 a month maintenance for the child. The couple later relinquished their contact rights because they said it would be too difficult emotionally and that it was unfair for the baby to be split between two homes. They allowed the surrogate to keep the $9000 they had already given to her. "I have written to Downing Street and my MP to call for a change in the law", said Mr W. He suspected it may have been Miss N's plan all along to have a child with a wealthy man from whom she could claim child support over the next 18 years.
  • After a DNA test that revealed that his daughter "L." (11 now) was not really "his", in July 2007, Mike L asked the Pennsylvania courts to declare that he was no longer the father of his daughter, because continuing to pay the child support for another man's child was unbearable. (His ex Stephanie had married that man, Rob.) 2 years after the suit, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. "I pay child support to a biologically intact family. A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?" The feminist rules have pressed states to chase down fathers and hold them responsible for children born outside of marriage - a category that includes 40% of all births - to the extent that even the DNA tests that prove that they're not really the fathers cannot spare them from the child support payments.
    A 2006 custody dispute was similar, wherein a married man named Kevin Moyer learned he was not the genetic father of his son (9). Still, when the marriage ended, Moyer had to pay child support. Moyer's ex-wife Vicky also subsequently married the son's biological father, Gary Gresh.
    In another case, Carnell Smith's girlfriend, a few months after splitting up with him 1988, announced she was pregnant with his child. Believing her, he signed a paternity acknowledgment for their daughter Chandria, and paid her child support. When Chandria was 11, her mother sued to increase support. Smith decided to be tested, and the results excluded him as the father. In a lawsuit, Smith demanded Chandria's mother pay back the $40000 he had laid out in what he calls "involuntary servitude" and fraud. (Hey, a man can hope, cannot he?) The court (of course) ruled against Smith, concluding that he had known that his former girlfriend had other partners at the end of their relationship and should have realized he might not be the father. By not exercising his "due diligence" and getting a DNA test early on, the court put the burden on Smith for not unearthing the truth sooner!
  • In yet another "outrageous" application of the child support law, divorced dad-of-two Joseph Chmelar has been ordered to pay for another man's child. This was not a mistake - the court knows that the baby is not Chmelar's - it's just legal for the State to order to do this - In the name of the best interest of the child, of course; it doesn't matter who the biological father is. (The law, written back in 1956, says that if a child is born to a married woman, the biological father has no legal rights, only responsibilities.) In the case at hand, the mother had gotten pregnant by another man during the separation. At the time, she was still legally married to Chmelar. The Friday before Father's Day, Chmelar got a letter in the mail from Friend of the Court, which said he owed $8500 in back child support plus medical expenses for the new baby his ex-wife had. After Target 8 starting looking though the Friend of the Court's files, it dropped its request for Chemlar to pay child support. An Ottawa County judge issued an order clearing Chemlar of all responsibility for that child.
    Another man, Rob Recknagel, is also on the hook. He says he didn't know the mother of his child was still married when they got together. They were planning to blend their families and he had bought a ring. But before she gave birth, Recknagel got an email saying that though the baby was Rob's, the mother was going to raise it with her husband. He went weeks without seeing the boy after he was born. Finally, Recknagel was allowed to see his son, but only for an hour. He's still fighting in court to get legal rights for regular visits.
  • Increasingly ugly false allegations of child sexual abuse are being brought up in the Kangaroo courts. Parents (read moms) are resorting to "incredulous" sex abuse claims against their ex-partners as custody wars turn increasingly ugly in Queensland. A father recently won custody of his two boys (2, 7) and girl (5). The Department of Child Safety found the mother (who was a "drama queen who is out to get her ex-husband") emotionally abusive of the three children. The father will have sole responsibility for all major long-term issues (with the mother still having the children 5 nights a fortnight, and the mother is considering an appeal). The man's son (7), after a toy inducement ("if I do a lot I have to get a Lego") from his mother, had accused him of inserting 17 items into his anus, including nails, a needle, some driftwood, a jellyfish, a small piece of pizza, a marble which grew as big as the room when it was removed, an electrical cord in the security area at Bunnings (in public at a large retail outlet), and a bow tie and a bouncy ball. The girl told a child safety officer her mother's "job is to make people believe that her dad did rude things to her and her brother".
    Centre for Human Potential principal psychologist Paul Martin said sexual abuse claims marked by single-minded vengeance had become quite a common occurrence in parenting cases with horrible consequences for the children.
  • Mother falsely accuses father of physically and sexually abusing their son (10). But it's only a man, so who is in a hurry to serve the justice? This father has been waiting 15 months for the court's decision (an extraordinarily long judgment delay). He has not seen his son since. Retiring Family Court judge David Collier said last week that the animosity between couples that enter the system was more intense than it had been at any time in his career, with some mothers fabricating claims that their children were abused by their fathers. Several fathers contacted Fairfax Media this week claiming to be among those falsely accused, included this father whose case was upgraded from the Federal Circuit Court to the Family Court on account of its seriousness - and then expedited to the front of the queue. But after the hearing, the presiding judge's sense of urgency evaporated and more than a year passed without a decision. Under the previous orders for shared care, the mother failed to turn up at handover time. He claims she is the one psychologically abusing the boy by making false allegations. The ICL argued that boy needed to be removed from his mother because she encouraged him to believe that he had been sexually abused by his father.
  • Jennifer Jones (47, English teacher) abducted 4 of the 5 children of her Spanish army officer ex-husband Colonel Tomas Palacin Cambra (53, who was granted the custody of the children in 2008 after the break-up of a 12-year marriage). They were found in Blackwood, Gwent, 60 miles from her home, just over a day later. The woman brought them to Wales on holiday last year but refused to return them at the end of their break, and enrolled them in schools in her home town. As a result, she now faces jail for breaching a High Court order. She and her boyfriend John Williams (48, a builder) were held in custody and the children taken to foster carers. Colonel Cambra flew from his home in Majorca with their eldest daughter Sara (17) to collect all of the children. But they returned home with only David (8) and Eva (10). Jessica (15) and Tomas (13) remained with their mother as the court decided their future. The father claims their mother made the children make false allegations about his treatment of them. And here's the kicker: Ms Jones was spared jail after being found guilty of "flagrant breaches" of court orders to return them by the Family Division of the High Court. A man doing the same would have been behind bars, with no questions asked.
  • As is widely known, if you're a man and are having to pay, even the so-called marriage contracts or prenups (short for 'prenupital agreements') are not worth the paper they're printed on. A 'landmark' New York appeals court ruling voids the prenup yet again, this time due to the millionaire Peter Petrakis' oral promises to his wife-to-be Elizabeth Cioffi-Petrakis, who says she was presented with the prenup 4 days before her scheduled 1998 wedding; and being young and naive, as she now says, she believed Petrakis when he promised her orally to destroy the document once they had children and put her name on the deed to the house. (So, somehow, the spoken words carry more weight than the written and signed contracts, and the court immediately believed her.)
    This ruling has ignored the parol evidence rule, which is a 400 year old legal doctrine that was adopted from English law that bars as evidence the statements allegedly made by either party that modifies a contract after the contract was reduced to writing. Effectively, Ms Cioffi-Petrakis just said that he said he would tear up the pre-nup after they had kids and the judges actually ruled on what she said. He was worth 10 million when they married, 18 million when they divorced. She did not just get half of the 8 million he made during the marriage, but she got half of his entire worth. She now runs a website that teaches other women, and private consulting on, how to get pre-nups voided.
  • Billionaire media tycoon Rupert Murdoch (82, worth $12 billion) divorces Wendi Deng (44, his employee), the prenup is useful for wiping ass as the asset and wealth division is totally on the whims of the Kangaroo court judges.
  • There's a heated debate over whether the court should order Sue Ann Hamm (56, former attorney at Continental) to turn over secret video and audio recordings she made of her husband Harold Hamm (67, oil baron, the Continental Resources Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, whose fortune is worth at least $11 billion). The breakup in their marriage of 25 years could result in the largest divorce settlement in history. Notice how the article makes it sound like the lack of a prenup is somehow responsible for the possibly large settlement, while the fact is, prenups are worth nothing when it comes to favoring the husband's assets and wealth - The judges make up and use arbitrary rules to void the prenups. Harold Hamm, who owns more oil in the ground than any other American, already has turned over 50000 pages of corporate information to his wife. At least 7 subpoenas have been filed by attorneys for Sue Ann seeking documents from Continental and 6 other companies controlled or partially owned by Harold. The goal: To parse internal records in an effort to value Harold's oil and gas empire. A settlement could cost him about $3 billion or more (which is 60% higher than the largest reported divorce settlement - News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch's $1.7 billion pay-out to ex-wife Anna in 1999), and would vault Sue Ann Hamm into the ranks of the 20 wealthiest women in America - worth more than Oprah Winfrey (the entertainment mogul whose fortune was estimated by Forbes at $2.8 billion this year). Raising cash for a $3 billion settlement by selling Continental shares would cut Hamm's stake to less than 50% of the company. The couple's marriage was since long a marriage just by the name; by 2007, Sue Ann had begun monitoring Harold's conduct by gathering electronic surveillance of her husband in the Hamms' Enid home. In a December filing, Harold's lawyers demanded that Sue Ann turn over "home video or audio recordings" of him. One bill for surveillance was for $9866.09. Those surveillance tapes (showing that the Hamms had stopped behaving as husband and wife) would be part of an effort to show he had in effect separated from Sue Ann Hamm years ago, rather than in 2012 (which would mean less of Harold's money for Sue). Sue Ann Hamm's attorneys objected to that. That point is moot now, however, as Hamms have agreed on a date of separation in 2012. What remains is determining how much Sue Ann Hamm is entitled to receive.
    The Kangaroo (family) law experts say that a 1995 Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in another divorce case (Thielenhaus v Thielenhaus) could prove pivotal, according to which "enhanced value" of a spouse's (read, the man's) property can be divided between the couple if it stemmed from "efforts, skills, or expended funds of either spouse [again, it just means the husband]".
  • Family Court orders a man (known as "Mr Hand", who became a multi-millionaire after divorcing his profoundly disabled wife) to pay for the wheelchair accessibility renovations at the home of his ex-wife (known as "Ms Bodilly"). Upholding the true slave-master relationship presumption in a husband-wife marriage, Deputy Chief Justice John Faulks and Justices Judith Ryan and Garry Watts have ruled there is no reason why Mr Hand should not pay $120000 to upgrade Ms Bodilly's home (instead of stating any reason why he should pay). Mr Hand and Ms Bodilly married in 1983, separated in 1998, and divided their assets in 2000. Mr Hand agreed to pay Ms Bodilly an amount of $500 a week on a continuing basis; at that time, Ms Bodilly worked part-time as a health care professional, earning $35000 per annum. Ms Bodilly has been unable to work since March 2007 and by November 2009 she was housebound. So she found the Family Court as the handy tool to extract some money from the man. She asked the court to award her a $120000 lump sum. The court made the order but Mr Hand lodged an appeal, saying Ms Bodilly needed only $45000, claiming that the judge had erred in his analysis of the evidence and relied on unreasonable quotations from engineers and builders. But he's only a man in a kangaroo court, so his appeal was dismissed with the court's claim that the trial judge had correctly calculated the renovations as costing $113000 and then "rounded up" because there "could be future change" to Ms Bodilly's needs. They further ordered Mr Hand pay Ms Bodilly's legal costs.
  • Vassar College student, Xiaolu 'Peter' Yu (from China), lost his virginity to Mary Claire Walker after a party in a "clearly consensual sexual activity". (Walker even sent Yu a message on Facebook the next day, telling him she "had a wonderful time".) A year later, Walker accused Yu of rape, and Yu was expelled from the college over the false rape claims and Walker's "flimsy say-so", by the kangaroo court setup of the college. (Mary Claire Walker remains a student at Vassar even after her lies have been exposed.) Yu is suing the college for undisclosed damages on the grounds of gender discrimination, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Yu alleges that male students at the formerly all-female college in Poughkeepsie are 'invariably found guilty' when female students accuse them of sexual misconduct. It's not clear what evidence was provided to Vassar to support Walker's claims, but Max Fraad-Wolf, who went through a similar experience to Yu in 1994, told that he wasn't allowed to present evidence in his case and that he was not permitted a lawyer. A spokesman for Vassar told that "all student-conduct matters at Vassar are confidential". In other words, a typical corrupt and secret kangaroo court saga.

End of the document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is ON. Only the following types of comments will be published (and possibly replied to): Dissenting with something, proving something wrong, asking for proof of something objective, and enhancing/correcting something. Comments of praise and encouragement are read and appreciated, but won't be published; don't feel bad about that.