Title of Petition:
REGULATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION INQUIRY PE483
A call for the Scottish Parliament to review the make up of the Justice 1 committee in light of the resignation of the first minister.There is serious concern as to the impartiality required under ECHR criteria and a failure to fully publish all evidence submitted to this inquiry.Also a full disclosure of all injustice and persecution within the Judicial system of Scotland including the connection between litigation and suicide.
Association : IMO
On-line Submission Date : 9 March 2002
Title of Petition:
CALLING FOR A NATIONAL REGISTER OF SEPARATED CHILDREN PE492
We the undersigned, declare that .....
That the Scottish Parliament endorse a call for a National Register of children permanently alienated from a parent. Both a private register with full details and a public register with first names connected with legal firms and sheriffs responsible for any legal action and decisions which brought about that alienation.This to show the scale of this problem and a means of monitoring how the Scottish legal system is presently handling such serious issues .
The Petitioner(s) therefore request(s) that the Scottish Parliament .....
take steps to have proper monitoring of such serious issues which impose on families to the degree and scale this issue is presently affecting all of Scotland.In many cases breaching those children and parents human rights who are caught up in such actions .
Association :IMO
Other relevant information :
This Petition brought on behalf of IMO for and on behalf of all children presently alienated from a parent due to the Scottish judicial process
On-line Submission Date : 31 March 2002
Latest evidence
To all msp's, all media and groups world-wide
Initial evidence in support of PUBLIC PETITION PE483 to be heard on
7th May 2002 in committee room 2 ,George IV bridge ,Edinburgh
from International mens network organisation
In particular to the public petition msp's
John McAllion (Labour Party)
Members
Helen Eadie (Deputy Convener)
Dorothy-Grace Elder
Winnie Ewing
Phil Gallie
Rhoda Grant
John Farquhar Munro
This is only a small part of the evidence for this public petition in relation to persecution of males in family courts taking place throughout Scotland daily .Also the reasons for such actions destroying not only males caught up in such litigation ,but the devastating effect of brutal and inhumane treatment of separated fathers and their children
BEHIND THE CLOSED DOORS of secret family courts.
There is ample proof to show those psychological pressures imposed by a draconian
court system and there is a mountain of evidence within the inquiry into the legal profession to show PERSECUTION not only of males but many who take complaints to the LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND .Most of the evidence is available now to read eventually after lengthy failures to publish my own submission showing persecution while I was being treated for CANCER .
Something the Scottish Executive cannot ignore is the scale of male suicides in
Scotland
670 in 2000 with 45,000 treated for depression
A justice system that is riddled with persecution can no longer be protected from EXPOSURE and there are many groups world-wide presently EXPOSING what is gender apartheid campaigns to denigrate males and justify murder by stealth ,something which is not going away until this is given the resources and the attention that such a serious issue requires.
Also until there is a redress by the Scottish Executive in the massive imbalance of funding towards positive female campaigns which includes massive negative male campaigns as opposed to little funding for positive male issues .
This Scottish Executive are indeed undermining the human rights of males by breaching the European Court of Human rights on discrimination grounds with such imbalance of funding .
Presently there are groups acting within this assembly who are showing clear signs of a hate agenda against males which this assembly ,responsible for Human rights issues ,cannot possibly justify under that discrimination criteria.
Were false and one sided evidence is being used to add additional pressures to
the view of how males are seen in Scottish society while those suicide stats continue to rise .
Such propaganda can be seen to add to the negative view of males in Scotland while such huge negative malebashing campaigns continue without any balance in this propaganda and a refusal to accept ACCURATE facts while supported by Scottish Executive funding
Presently the eyes of the world are watching what this assembly are doing and not only is their widespread concern throughout Scotland but also the rest of the world as to what motivates a devolved parliament spending so much time and effort on causing such serious imbalance in gender issues
Our groups can conclude it is an attempt to justify that persecution being meted out
with such an evil system intent on murdering by stealth with the psychologically pressures males face in secret family courts .
The health ministers conclusion that it is complex is not the case in many occasions.
When accurate figures are publicly made available ,there has been a deliberate attempt to hide those figures ,there will be the same clear evidence of such a connection, as clear as there has been in those inquiry submissions of injustice and persecution taking its toll on the health of men and families throughout Scotland.
This is not going AWAY it is only the first stage in a campaign to get publicly addressed what is a sinister conspiracy which is right at the very heart of Scotland .
No amount of evasion of these facts will suppress this and as was said already ,these accurate statistics must at some point be given full acknowledgement of this parliament .
Only then can action be taken to stop such a force destroying much of our good men and families as it is presently doing.
Later, in the article below ,it describes clearly why such events can lead to catastrophic consequences for all who are caught up in a draconian system lacking proper monitors and statistics.Something we wish to pursue and rectify to stop all further unnecessary suffering for the many who fell to such utter tyranny meted out daily in Scottish courts.
LAWYERS AND JUDGES actions are killing Scottish males that we have no doubt.
Many who may already have been weakened by separation from their children ,their home and with ruthless state intervention oppressing mens right to protect their families, instead separating men from that role and breaching many articles of the European court of human rights.
We will provide further evidence in our submissions.Meanwhile I ask that the article below and this email is made available on the day of that public petition hearing .
on behalf of the IMO
Class Dismissed
by Paul F. Goetz
The nation seems to be accumulating more and more of two distinctly related types of people, organisations, and agencies: one, disgruntled parents, many of whom have joined some sort of organization in an effort to help them with their grievances, and also many who have just vanished, or self destructed; and two, organizations and agencies, both governmental and private, with a distinct symbiosis, aligned against the first group.
I've heard both sides present their positions in various forums, and the positions never seem to change over the years. Each side just seems to get bigger and bigger and bigger. One of the things I've noticed when talking with others, or just listening or reading, is that, when discussing one of the issues, most seem to have gotten caught up in the rhetoric that has been essentially forced on them by the government and the media. And all the discourse is limited by using the rhetorical labels, such as "custodial parent", "non-custodial parent", "child support", "obliger", "absent parent", "visitation", "custody", etc. etc. etc.
Over the years, in all sorts of court cases, articulate judges have developed a way of distinguishing between the substance of something (such as a particular law) and what it says that it is - sometimes referred to as the difference between substance and form.
It seems to me that if one can rid them self of all the labels and the built in implications of each one gets a different perspective of the situation, and more at the heart of the substance of the issues. When viewing the situation as freely as possible from all the constraints of the labels, it appears quite clearly that the government has created three distinct classifications of parents. (By "parent", for simplicity and for the sake of this article, I'm referring to the biological parents, whether they are married, divorced, separated, or never married, and with no distinction as to male or female.)
Starting from a financial perspective one finds:
CLASS I - those parents who are free to provide for their children whatever amount of financial support they choose, in whatever form they chose - they are not obligated by the government (other than their implied natural obligation to provide necessities) to provide any particular specified amount of money, whether it be weekly, monthly, annually, or whatever.
CLASS II - those parents who are mandated by the government (by some sort of official looking court order) to pay a specified amount of money on a regular basis to some other person or organization allegedly in support of their children - in other words they have been stripped of the various freedoms and liberties and all related aspects allowed those in CLASS I. CLASS IE - discussed shortly.
The class distinctions are not naturally occurring. They are a sole creation of the government. CLASS I is the original and natural class of all parents. It's the obligation of all parents to make a reasonably diligent effort to provide their children with the basic necessities of life. But, that's the only obligation they have. Nothing more, and nothing less. And, they are free to chose the manner in which they provide for their children. CLASS I parents who happen to earn a large amount of money, or simply have lots of money, are under no more obligation to their children than those who earn or have very little. Some parents chose to provide more than the basic necessities (keeping up with the Joneses, so to speak), but the essential aspect is that it's their choice, not their obligation.
CLASS II status usually results when one of a child's parents uses the power of the government to transform the other parent from CLASS I. The government provides a great deal of incentive, which has grown tremendously over the years, for the transformation because the one parent is then effectively elevated to a new class - CLASS IE - and gains a variety of rights and benefits that they did not otherwise possess, including various forms of governmental aid and assistance not available to the CLASS II parent, and also not available to regular CLASS I parents. For instance:
* Do all parents receive monthly income, sometimes up to $10,000/month or more, to use as they please, with no regard to whether they have an additional income producing job, and with no regard to the amounts of other income or ability to earn income, which is free from all federal and state income taxes and social security tax ?? NO, only some CLASS IE parents. (Over the years this has become an increasingly mammoth source of income exempt from the social security tax, while the government has increased the withholding amounts for many others, and bemoans the future of Social Security in general, and utilizes time & energy on studying how to save it from collapse.)
* Do all parents (or citizens in general) receive the assistance of governmental agencies, lawyers, computers, etc, in assisting them in collecting debts allegedly owed them by others (that are often exempt from all taxes) ?? NO, only some CLASS IE parents.
The disgruntled parents to whom I referred at the outset are mostly members of CLASS II. Some are divorced, some are separated, some were never married, and some didn't even know they were a parent until their child was getting older. (And there is also a growing number of supporters of the CLASS II members, such as a new spouse.) But most didn't volunteer to be put into CLASS II. Many (although certainly not all) would gladly continue to live a productive life as a conscientious CLASS I parent.
In many instances, however, they were often not presented with any alternative to being transformed into a CLASS II parent by either their own lawyer, or the government, or they were told that it would be extremely costly (often costing far more money than they even had) to try to remain a CLASS I parent, or they were told that no matter how much money they spent the government would probably still force them into CLASS II status (or they spent a substantial sum of money that could have been used to support their children, but were still forced into CLASS II status) - so they just submitted to a larger force they had no money to fight, or knew they couldn't defeat.
There are some parents who, given a choice, and explained all the ramifications, might prefer to be a CLASS II parent, just as there are some parents who, no matter what class they are in, are not good parents. But there are many who don't like CLASS II. For them, being forced into CLASS II status is humiliating and demeaning enough all in itself. It is dehumanizing, and it signifies loss of freedom, loss of liberty, loss of control. Buying their children a new bicycle or a pair of shoes, or simply feeding them does not count as "support" for most CLASS II parents. Maintaining a motor vehicle and driving their children to soccer or gymnastics practice does not count as "support" for most CLASS II parents.
However, it just continues to get worse. AFTER the government has forced a parent into CLASS II it then passes SPECIAL LAWS that only apply to the parents that it has forced into CLASS II:
* Do all parents face revocation of their driver's license if they do not provide a particular amount of financial support for their children ?? - NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Do all citizens face revocation of their driver's license over an issue that is totally unrelated to their ability to operate a motor vehicle and public safety in general? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Do all parents face forced periodic review by government agencies of how much money they are earning and determinations of whether they should pay more to some other person or agency ?? - NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Do all parents face mandated regular increases (with no court hearings, and no regard to how much money they are earning) in the amounts they are forced to pay others? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Do all parents face jail if they fail to provide a specified amount of financial support for their children?? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Are all parents obligated to provide a government specified amount of financial support for their children?? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Are all parents under any kind of obligation to provide more financial support for their children other than for the basic necessities of life?? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Are all parents forced by the government to provide health insurance for their children (while the same government passes laws that allow the insurance providers to raise rates however they want to guarantee a specific level of profit)?? NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Do all parents face forced withholding from a paycheck? - NO, only CLASS II parents.
* Does the government care and keep tabs on where all parents work (besides basic IRS records)? - NO, only on CLASS II parents.
* Does the government pass special laws that allow it's own non-lawyer bureaucrats to bring charges and argue issues in its courts in front of judges against all parents? - NO, only against CLASS II parents.
* Does the government hire mammoth high tech and well funded and paid private organizations to hunt down and enforce government determined obligations against all parents? - NO, only against CLASS II parents.
* Does the government utilize public money to post the names and pictures of all parents on the internet who have allegedly transgressed some government demand related to their children? NO, only for CLASS II parents.
* What percentage of the people in jails and prisons have had no opportunity to present their case to a jury? VERY LOW - that is, except for CLASS II parents.
* Does the government ever periodically review whether its determination of the "best interests of the children" is working, or actually is in their best interests?? NO, it only reviews issues related to the amount of money it is suctioning from CLASS II parents, even though neither the amount of money any parent is willing to pay or able to pay has nothing to do with the "best interests of the children" as defined by the government's own criteria.
And on and on and on. It's an incredible snowballing effect, often resulting in death of those forced into CLASS II, sometimes quickly and violently, and sometimes slowly but prematurely, or death to others as a result of the stress, humiliation, agony, and desperation associated with forced CLASS II status, or many other destructive societal effects (parents who have "disappeared" or "vanished", or parents who are in jail rather than helping their children develop into responsible, productive adults).
I have not seen any actual statistics (possibly because there are some who would prefer that they not be known), but it appears that a very high percentage of domestic related murders and suicides of children and parents are related to situations where a parent was (or is in the process of being) forced into CLASS II status. The situations and events vary, and many are never explained (and some are never even known), but they often occur after the parent's boiling or breaking point threshold has been reached or surpassed on one or more occasions - sometimes resulting in a volatile eruption of anger and rage (often lashing out at seemingly intangible forces), and sometimes ending obscurely in the tears of solitude. Some are related to the children of a CLASS II parent being withheld from them while the government does nothing, or even assists, and some are the result of the full realization of the futility of what has happened to them, and the frustration with their helplessness to do anything about it.
It seems to me that forcing parents into distinct classes which are then treated drastically different, while also subjecting one class to additional special laws that apply only to them, and then hounding and effectively clubbing them until the end of time (or until they self destruct - often taking a few others along the way) is one of the most odious and despicable forms of government known - with marked similarities to those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis - not to mention against the law. However, I guess it's not surprising from a government who also secretly ran radiation experiments, syphilis experiments, and psychedelic drug experiments on it's own citizens.
Maybe it's time for this experiment to also end, get the class dismissed (as in "to put an end to"), and get the 21st century off to a fresh start.
COPYRIGHT 1998 Paul F. Goetz
pgoetz@minn.net
LINK: http://www.amazoncastle.com/feminism/paulg.shtml
Further evidence
To all msp's, all media and Organisations world-wide
Further evidence in support of PUBLIC PETITION PE483 to be heard on
7th May 2002 in committee room 2 ,George IV bridge ,Edinburgh
from IMO
In particular to the public petition msp's
John McAllion (Labour Party)
Members
Helen Eadie (Deputy Convener)
Dorothy-Grace Elder
Winnie Ewing
Phil Gallie
Rhoda Grant
John Farquhar Munro
Also now including Public Petition PE492
Professor Stephen Baskerville Head of Political Science at Howard University
Washingtom USA has personally provided evidence to Fathers Fighting Injustice which we use in support of the above public petitions.
Despite the articles having a USA context much of what is said is highly relevant to
the issues addressed ,due to duplicity in Scottish Courts and Government agencies.
He has provided further articles ,which will follow ,due to the large volume of information showing a direct connection between judicial and government power and the effect on the psychology of males enduring persecution from abuse of that power.
The Real Responsibility of Men by Professor Stephen Baskerville
Head of political science at Howard University, Washington, DC.
==========================
Available in audio form from these locations
Real Media
rtsp://rslb.eonstreams.com/tfcf/CommentaryBaskerville-NORTH-128-18April02.rm
Mp3 download
ftp://mp3.fcfnewsondemand.org/CommentaryBaskerville-NORTH-128-18April02.mp3
Available from Free Congress Foundation
http://www.fcfnews.org/
Col. Oliver North recently stated that a more serious problem than winning
the war against terrorism is men not being responsible for the children they
create.
This is an astonishing statement from a man who speaks with enormous
authority on military matters. And in a sense he is correct.
Some 25 million American children, about 40 percent, live in households
without their fathers. Moreover, every major social pathology is strongly
linked to father absence, including violent crime, drug abuse, truancy,
unwed pregnancy, and suicide.
We must be careful, however, whom we blame for this. President Clinton used
to inveigh against fathers who (he said) have chosen to abandon their
children. Yet there is no evidence that the fatherhood crisis is caused
primarily by fathers abandoning their children. Most divorces are filed by
mothers, usually without any legal grounds. Mothers, not fathers, are
leaving marriages in droves.
Moreover, what some see as irresponsible fathers is in reality an abuse of
government power. Once a mother files for divorce, the government seizes
effective control of the children. With no evidence of wrongdoing, the
fathers contact with them is from that point criminalized. The
forcibly-divorced father can then be evicted and plundered by a powerful
machine of judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and enforcement agencies. All
these officials have a vested interest in encouraging divorce and separating
children from their fathers. Windfall child-support awards further
subsidize divorce and fatherless homes.
Were policymakers sincere in their sympathy for children, they would curtail
the power of the divorce industry to rip apart their homes in the first
place. The most effective antipoverty program is an intact family. This
would benefit vastly more children than further pointless crackdowns on
fathers.
In a larger sense, therefore, Col. North is profoundly correct and his
comparison with terrorism especially apt. It is highly irresponsible of men
to leave our nation's children unprotected against abuse and exploitation by
government officials.
President Bush tells Americans that in the war on terrorism, ³We defend . .
. the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free
from fear."
Yet that is precisely the freedom that is under attack at home.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Criminalization of Fatherhood
Family Court Most Powerful Branch of the Judiciary
By Stephen Baskerville
=======================
Fatherhood is now the rage: presidential initiatives, federal staff
conferences, congressional task forces and resolutions, federal grants, new
nonprofit organizations, and media reports now "promote" fatherhood.
Yet the nation's discovery of fatherhood also has a darker side: law
enforcement initiatives targeting "deadbeat dads," federal registers
monitoring millions of parents, databases and information gathering on
American citizens accused of nothing, new cadres of armed, plainclothes
police, and endless "crackdowns" on allegedly dissolute parents.
Campaigning for president, Al Gore calls for incarcerating more fathers.
What we are seeing today in fact is nothing less than the criminalization of
fatherhood: criminal penalties imposed on citizens who have committed no
act but are made outlaws through the actions of others. This phenomenon
proceeds largely from involuntary divorce and is affected by family courts.
Family courts are the arm of the state that routinely reaches farthest into
the private lives of individuals and families. "The family court is the
most powerful branch of the judiciary," writes Robert W. Page, Presiding
Judge of the New Jersey Family Court. By their own assessment, "the power
of family court judges is almost unlimited." One father was told by a New
Jersey judicial investigator: "The provisions of the US Constitution do not
apply in domestic relations cases."
A father brought before these courts - in the absence of any civil or
criminal wrongdoing - will immediately have his movements, finances,
personal habits, conversations, purchases, and contact with his children all
subject to inquiry and control by the court. He must submit to questioning
about his private life that author Jed Abraham has termed an
"interrogation." He must surrender personal papers, diaries,
correspondence, and financial records. His home can be entered at any time.
His visits with his children can be monitored by court officials and
restricted to a "supervised visitation center," for which he must pay an
hourly fee and where he and his children will be observed and overheard
throughout their time together. Anything he says to his spouse or children,
as well as family counselors and personal therapists, can be used against
him in court, and his children can be used to inform on him.
Fathers are questioned about how they "feel" about their children, what they
do with them, where they take them, how they kiss them, how they feed and
bathe them, what they buy for them and what they discuss with them. He will
forced, on pain of incarceration, to pay for lawyers and psychotherapists he
has not hired. His name will be entered on a federal registry, his wages
will be garnished, and the federal government will have access to all his
financial records. If he refuses to cooperate he can be summarily
incarcerated or ordered into a psychiatric examination.
Henceforth, that parent has no say in where the children reside, attend
school or daycare, worship, or visit the doctor and dentist. He has no
right to see their school or medical records nor any control over what
medications or drugs are administered to them. He can be enjoined from
taking his children to a physician when ill. He can be told what religious
services he may (or must) attend, what he may do with them, and what
subjects he may discuss with them in private. And he can be forced to pay
two-thirds or more of his income as "child support."
If for any reason the father falls more than $5,000 behind in owed child
support, he becomes a felon. If he moves to another state while he is in
arrears, perhaps to find work, he becomes a felon. It is possible he can
even become an instant felon from the time his children are taken. If his
ordered child support is high enough, and if it is backdated far enough, he
will be and instant felon and subject to immediate arrest.
A presumption of guilt pervades child support enforcement where "the burden
of proof may be shifted to the defendant" according to one ruling. In clear
violation of the Constitution it has been held that "not all child support
contempt proceedings classified as criminal are entitled to a jury trial,"
and "even indigent obligors are not necessarily entitled to a lawyer."
Setting child support is a political process conducted by interest groups
involved in collection but from which parents who pay the support are
excluded. Such legislating by courts and enforcement agencies raises
serious questions about the separation of powers and the constitutionality
of the process. Where officials in all branches and at all levels of
government develop a financial interest in hunting "delinquents," it is
predictable that they will create delinquents to hunt. Obviously the more
onerous the child support levels, and the more defaults and arrearages
created, the more demand for coercive enforcement and for the personnel and
powers required.
Private collection firms also set the levels of what they collect. Not only
does an obvious conflict-of-interest arise in terms of the amount to be
collected, but the firms can create precisely the "delinquents" and
"deadbeats" they are hired to pursue and on which their business depends.
In Los Angeles former Deputy District Attorney Jackie Myers told the Los
Angeles Times she left office in 1996 because "we were being told to do
unethical, very unethical things."
Myers is not alone. "I got a call from a homeless shelter and was told that
I had put a man and . . . his four children out on the street because I had
put an enforcement order . . . for 50% of his income," ex-Deputy District
Attorney Elisa Baker recalled. "That was the first time I was in touch with
the ramifications of what I was doing."
Men are now forced to support children who are acknowledged not to be theirs
biologically. Stepfathers are ordered to pay support for stepchildren.
Grandparents and second wives are pursued by child support prosecutors.
Minor boys statutorily and forcibly raped by adult women must pay child
support to the criminals who raped them.
A presumption of guilt also pervades allegations of domestic violence made
during custody proceedings, where a father's contact with his children is
criminalized through restraining orders that are routinely issued with no
evidence of wrongdoing whatever - orders that cannot protect anyone because
they criminalize not violence (which of course is already criminal) but a
father's contact with his own children.
Family law is now criminalizing rights as basic as free speech. In many
jurisdictions it is now a crime to publicly criticize family court judges,
and fathers have been jailed for doing so. In a paper funded by the Justice
Department, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, an
association of ostensibly impartial judges who sit on actual cases, attacks
fathers' groups for their political opinions and activities.
No figures are available on how many fathers are incarcerated for "family
crimes." Informal estimates put as much as one-third of the nation's jail
population consisting of fathers on contempt-of-court charges. Some
jurisdictions now propose creating forced labor camps specifically for
fathers to relieve overcrowded jails. Not since the fall of the Weimar
Republic has a democracy treated millions of its own citizens in this
fashion.
About the author: Stephen Baskerville teaches political science at Howard
University.
|
