The "silver bullet" technique involves a carefully contrived, and set up,
false accusation of Domestic abuse, or, when possible, the provocation of
real incident of Domestic abuse.

Those who perpetrate this scam will make the charge of Domestic abuse, no
matter what their victim does, or fails to do. In many cases they close
joint bank accounts, and make doctors appointments, BEFORE they create the
"incident". It happens hundreds of times every day.

This technique is being taught by political activists, who pose as victim's
advocates. It is a means of gaining advantage, in any confrontation-
particularly divorce.

It gives the complaining party (refered to as the "victim"), immediate
exclusive custody to the house, to the contents of the house, and to the
children. It gives the REAL VICTIM (refered to as the "Defendant") the
responsibility for all of the bills, while he is trying to deal with
suddenly becoming homeless. The perpetrators call themselves "victims". The
REAL victims generally do not have a clue what was done to them.

Over and over we see the following interesting phenomenon:

1. A marriage has existed for decades. There was never a call to 911, never
a policeman in the house, never a complaint to family court, never a
complaint to the Department of Social Services, never a time when the wife
left the house "to avoid abuse".

2. The wife goes to see a divorce attorney, for reasons known only to

3. Within a few weeks there is a call to 911, police in the house, a
complaint to family court, a complaint to the Department of Social Services.
On the night of the alleged abuse the wife leaves the house "to avoid
abuse". The next day she has her husband thrown out of the house by the

4. OF COURSE, the divorce attorney claims no involvement in creating such a
strange change in the pattern of this marriage.

The first step is usually a complaint for relief from "domestic abuse". This
is filed in Family Court. Relief from "domestic abuse" is a civil action for
restraining orders.

"Separate the combatants" is the goal of the family court. There is very
little consideration given to the question of who is to blame. The more
important consideration is the question of which "combatant" is best able to
deal with suddenly becoming homeless. It does not take too long to figure
out that it is usually the man, who suddenly becomes homeless.

Women generally know this, when they complain.

This is not a game for tramps only. If the most exalted love of your life,
ever becomes "a woman scorned", you could STILL SEE THIS HAPPEN. Most of
these "women scorned" scenarios involve WIVES.

The "silver bullet" technique is a system of stripping you of your property,
your right to own a gun, and your freedom. It can put you out of you own
home, with no access to your own money, your children, or your possessions.
It can cause you unlimited legal expenses. It can turn your friends and
family against you. The "silver bullet" technique is being implemented by a
well organized network of lawyers, paralegals, advocacy groups, radical
women's groups, prosecutors, doctors, police, and even judges. The "silver
bullet" technique replaces the family unit with the power of government. The
"silver bullet" technique neutralizes political activists.

If you do not understand it, you are in grave danger.

It is a very old axiom that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." No
matter how well this principle is known, it is apparently not well
understood by many prosecutors. There is now a movement to demand a
mandatory "NO DROP" policy for cases involving false domestic violence.

Local Solicitors know how to recognize malicious prosecution, retaliatory
cross complaints, self defense, abuse of process, simple con games, mental
instability, and ulterior motives. Local Solicitors are now being stripped
of the ability to use common sense in handling Criminal Domestic Violence
allegations. OF COURSE, this takes resources away from protecting the women,
who really DO need protection. OF COURSE, there really are women who need
protection. No usurpation of power would be possible if it did not proceed
on the basis of solving a REAL PROBLEM.

Many of the REAL victims of domestic abuse are so afraid, that they never
call the police. The only ones, who call the police, are those who are not
afraid to do so. Police know that much of the abuse goes unreported. They
compensate for this, by more zealously prosecuting those who are falsely



"Allegations of family violence are the weapon of choice in divorce
strategies. Lawyers, and paralegals in women's shelters, call them the
"Silver Bullet." False abuse allegations unquestionably work very
effectively in removing men from their homes and families. " Your 'lucky' night. Take the
following scenario that might happen on any summer weekend as you are out
cruising the local scene. This hypothetical situation is perfectly
reasonable under current laws (This was written in Colorado, but most states
have similar laws).

While it is unknown whether this exact situation has occurred, variants of
it have.
She was all over you almost as soon as you walked in the bar. She
couldn't keep her hands off you, and when you danced she got you so h*** you
had to hide it on the way back to the table. Naturally you take her to your
house. A warm summer evening, the windows are open, and she is, shall we
say, audible. This woman loves it! She is panting and moaning, yelling
"Stop! Stop! I can't stand any more!" "Oh please don't do that!" as she
grabs you and pulls you into her, and then climbs on top of you. You finally
collapse from exhaustion planning on how you are going to brag to your buddy
next door, who must have heard this.

She wakes you in the morning, screaming and tearing up the house. You grab
her and try to control her. She is berserk. You are scratched up and she is
looking the worse for wear. Neighbors call the police, or she does.
Obviously 'domestic violence' when they get there. Arrest is mandatory
C.R.S. 18-6-803.6 and you are taken off in handcuffs. You protest you've
never seen this woman before but it is obvious that you have been intimate
with her C.R.S. 14-4-101.

You make bond eventually and sign the mandatory restraining orders or you
don't get out of jail. Maybe you don't notice that one of them says you will
vacate the premises C.R.S. 18-1-1001. Hell, you never saw her before last
night, and you head back home. She is still there and starts screaming again
as soon as she sees you.

More police!

You've violated the restraining order to vacate, harassed and intimidated
her, and would obviously like to retaliate against her. You probably also
shout at and threaten her. Three months later, when you get out of jail
again, you are a little more cautious but she is still in your house. She
has told the victim's assistance program that is where she is living. You
have no options, the female district attorney assures you that you are an
unspeakable beast, the judge is bound by the laws and judicial bias is a

The rent is way past due. Best if you pay it or the landlord will take you
to court!

You'd like a drink but consumption or possession of alcohol is prohibited.
No guns, any other weapon, or explosives either or you will violate Federal
law and be up on a felony charge. You are also ordered not to contact, or
directly or indirectly communicate with the 'victim.'

Any minor infraction of these restraining orders and you get another reunion
with all those great people down at the county jail. Unless you like tending
the Sheriff's flower garden you obey the restraining orders. However, by
court order, you are a street person, and have probably lost your job, so
maybe the jail looks good to you during the winter months.

You will also be made to take domestic violence counseling run by rabid
feminists where you are made to admit that you are a 'batterer' and swear to
forsake the patriarchy forever. Before this started you probably hadn't even
heard of the patriarchy but you are still inherently evil because you are

And all of this is supposed to reduce your tendency to violence?

Because you haven't learned your lesson, you plead innocent at the hearing.
This is a free country, right? Justice will be done and within 6 months your
case comes up for trial on 'fast track.' In Colorado Springs, defense
attorneys refer to 'fast track' as a railroad.

How's the house looking now? Did her boyfriend move in with her? How does it
feel when you make the house payment? Anything left of your possessions?
Were they doing drugs, and when the police broke in, she blamed them on you?
Does RICO now have a whole new meaning to you? Or maybe you live in Denver
and they've taken your house under municipal ordinance 37-50, et seq . as a
'public nuisance' because of the loud parties she was having. 1

Well, likely she won't show up for the trial, and eventually you think you
will get to go back home. But you end up convicted of domestic violence
anyway after the cops testify what they saw when they arrived. Anything the
neighbors may have heard or thought they saw is also admissible together
with any other hearsay the prosecutor can dig up.

In San Diego, California, they found they got a higher conviction rate if
the alleged 'victim' didn't testify. Boulder is now using the same approach
with the same results. If, as you should, you carry the issue to trial, you
must be sure and subpoena the 'victim.' Dismissal of the charges should be
demanded if she fails to appear.

Conviction carries a lifetime sentence, no weapons, you are listed in a
national database, the restraining orders are permanent , and you've earned
the contempt of your neighbors. Every time a cop stops you the restraining
order will come up.

When you do check out the house after the trial, she is still there. Please
don't be so foolish as to go in, or anywhere near your house if she is.

If there is anything left of your life, home, job, savings, or children
after having been accused of domestic violence, you will be hard pressed to
recognize it.

Can't happen? You haven't looked at the domestic violence laws now on the
books in many states, under the umbrella of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) passed by Congress in 1994.

Other possibilities: Divorce games.

Perhaps the above scenarios don't fit your circumstances? In your nightmare
the wife wanted to keep the house, kids, and all your possessions as
happened with Rikki's Dad in Minnesota or to Bob in Australia. It seems
unlikely that she will get everything she wants in a simple divorce. Instead
she dials 911, scratches herself up, maybe she has a bruise from a fall and
goes to the hospital, or police station, with a story that her husband
abused her. Maybe her new boyfriend roughed her up, or you threaten the guy
like Dr. Emerson allegedly did.

In any case, the law requires that you be arrested, evicted from your home,
and have no contact with her or your children. Mediation is rarely an option
when domestic violence or abuse is charged and was forbidden prior to July,
1999. Months will go by before the case comes to trial. Meanwhile, you are
on the street. All of this on the unsupported word of a woman seeking gain,
revenge, playing games, or simply wanting to get rid of you.

If you have children in the home, and she has filed domestic violence
charges against you, there is also a very high probability that she will, at
some point, charge you with abuse of the children as well. Defending
yourself against the domestic violence or abuse charges raises the
probability of her charging you with abuse of the children. The process she
is going through is known as the divorce-related malicious mother syndrome.
It may help to look at that Web site to prepare you for what might be coming

You will need a lawyer!

The Reverend Dennis Austin has looked at the allegations of child-abuse
under current laws and finds that:

"Before 1973, child abuse was rarely reported to authorities and often it
was covered up. In 1963, reports of suspected child abuse was 160,000 but
between 1976 and 1993, the total yearly number of child abuse reports grew
from 669,000 to over 2.9 million after the child abuse protection
legislation that Senator Mondale sponsored.

The passing of this legislation has also resulted in the increase of
allegations of child abuse in divorce battles. In 1975, thirty five percent
of all child abuse reports were unsubstantiated, but by 1993, that
percentage sky-rocketed to sixty-six percent. In divorce, when allegations
are made and the police conduct investigations, ninety seven percent of
these claims are unable to be substantiated.

It is obvious that many allegations of abuse which are reported in divorce
situations are false and ninety five percent of those accusers are women.
With the high amount of divorces, the percentage of those divorces which
abuse is reported, and the percentage of which are unsubstantiated, it shows
that children are being used as pawns to hurt or destroy the other parent.
These false allegations of abuse, even if proven to be false, can ruin
someone's life and have a devastating effect on the children."

By the way, you also lose you right to keep and bear arms for LIFE.


Step One: The government enters your life: Perhaps your children utter an
idle word at school. Perhaps one of your children gets into trouble. Perhaps
a medical professional, or counselor, makes a report. (They are required, by
law, to report suspicions of "abuse") Perhaps your spouse complains. Your
spouse may be encouraged to complain by a friend, relative, or a
professional. At first, this might seem like a good way just to "get his
attention". Someone called 911. Many jurisdictions have a policy that
"someone" has to be arrested on every domestic disturbance call.

Step Two: The pressure to escalate to CRIMINAL CHARGES: Child Protective
Services says that they will TAKE YOUR CHILDREN, if you do not act according
to THEIR "suggestions". "No one will take you seriously if you do not file
an "incident report" with law enforcement." The "incident report" starts a
criminal investigation. Some time later the person, who made the "incident
report" is told to come and sign a warrant. "We have done all of this work

We EXPECT you to follow through". "Were your original statements true,
or did you commit perjury?" The warrant is signed UNDER OATH. Now they say
that it WOULD BE perjury to try to back out. If you try to back out they
assume that you have been threatened. Well NOW you have really "got his
attention"!!!! You also got a restraining order, that says that he cannot
contact you. Are you getting more attention now, or less?

Step Three: The "No Drop" policy. Many jurisdictions have a policy that no
domestic disturbance cases can be dropped, NOT EVEN IF THE SO CALLED VICTIM
has been threatened. Yes, it CERTAINLY is PEOPLE, who make false
accusations. BUT the fact is; the system is structured like a row of
dominoes. Knocking the first one down does not always look like it is going
to "run the whole course" as it generally DOES. South Carolina Attorney
General Charles M. Condon. ( Email: is demanding
a mandatory NO DROP policy for cases involving domestic violence.


Attention of all MSP's Scottish Parliament
To contacts worldwide and all Scottish media

Fri 21 Feb 2003
Massive abuses

Further to the excellent comments regarding the appalling injustices within Scotland (Letters, 14 February), until the devolved Scottish Parliament takes proper control of the legal and judicial systems in Scotland we will continue to see massive abuses of human rights in our courts .

The failure of the legal profession inquiry to take immediate action on evidence provided for that inquiry is cause for grave concern as to why that evidence was buried without giving the opportunity for oral presentations to be made by those providing a catalogue of evidence showing corruption within the legal system.

The International Mens Organisation


Our organisations are presently being BLOCKED from making an oral presentation on a new Public Petition

"Public Petition PE593
Petition for and on behalf of the International Mens Organisation , calling for the Scottish Parliament to ask the Scottish Executive to take emergency action to address the alleged discrimination shown by the judicial system in Scotland against fathers and their children in relation to divorce actions. "

within the Scottish Parliament with evidence of widespread persecution of fathers and their children . We seek the Scottish Executive take immediate steps to ensure that public platform remains open to proper discussion of IMPORTANT issues while frivolous subjects such as hedgehog culling and the colour of the national flag are given a higher priority. If our devolved parliament cannot deal with pressing issues affecting the deaths of many fathers pushed over the edge by a tyrannical legal process we will continue to EXPOSE that utter hypocrisy when massive public funds continue to be given to lawyers to do irrepairable damage to Scottish men and their children.

We will be raising an action to challenge ALL law society members who are MSP's as being a serious conflict of interest and breaching ECHR protocols when law makers are also enforcing laws. This allows laws to be made to line the pockets of those MSP's who are presently using their position within this devolved parliament to line their law practices pockets with massive legal aid .

We DEMAND in our petition that AUDIT SCOTLAND take immediate steps to examine the workings of the LEGAL AID BOARD of Scotland who are presently funding the persecution of families by lawyers abusing human rights of fathers and abusing children and their human rights in actions which breach many articles of ECHR using the Scottish legal process which is incompatible with many ECHR protocols.
Openly condoned in court by Scottish judges and sheriffs.

for and on behalf of The International Mens Organisation


American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition, Judge Tells Harvard Law School
By Geraldine Hawkins

The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.

She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.

"The integrity of law, its religious roots, its transcendent quality are disappearing. I saw the movie 'Chicago' with Richard Gere the other day. That's the way the public thinks about lawyers," she told the students.

"The first 100 years of American lawyers were trained on Blackstone, who wrote that: 'The law of nature dictated by God himself is binding in all counties and at all times; no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all force and all their authority from this original.' The Framers created a government of limited power with this understanding of the rule of law - that it was dependent on transcendent religious obligation," said Jones.

She said that the business about all of the Founding Fathers being deists is "just wrong," or "way overblown." She says they believed in "faith and reason," and this did not lead to intolerance.

"This is not a prescription for intolerance or narrow sectarianism," she continued, "for unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect. It is my fervent hope that this new century will experience a revival of the original understanding of the rule of law and its roots.

"The answer is a recovery of moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society. Post 9/11, many events have been clarified. It is hard to remain a moral relativist when your own people are being killed."

According to the judge, the first contemporary threat to the rule of law comes from within the legal system itself. Alexis de Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America and one of the first writers to observe the United States from the outside looking- in, "described lawyers as a natural aristocracy in America," Jones told the students. "The intellectual basis of their profession and the study of law based on venerable precedents bred in them habits of order and a taste for formalities and predictability." As Tocqueville saw it, "These qualities enabled attorneys to stand apart from the passions of the majority. Lawyers were respected by the citizens and able to guide them and moderate the public's whims. Lawyers were essential to tempering the potential tyranny of the majority.

"Some lawyers may still perceive our profession in this flattering light, but to judge from polls and the tenor of lawyer jokes, I doubt the public shares Tocqueville's view anymore, and it is hard for us to do so.

"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law. While the business mentality produces certain benefits, like occasional competition to charge clients lower fees, other adverse effects include advertising and shameless self-promotion. The legal system has also been wounded by lawyers who themselves no longer respect the rule of law,"

The judge quoted Kenneth Starr as saying, "It is decidedly unchristian to win at any cost," and added that most lawyers agree with him. However, "An increasingly visible and vocal number apparently believe that the strategic use of anger and incivility will achieve their aims. Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"

Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'

Another pernicious development within the legal system is the misuse of lawsuits, according to her. "We see lawsuits wielded as weapons of revenge," she says. "Lawsuits are brought that ultimately line the pockets of lawyers rather than their clients. The lawsuit is not the best way to achieve social justice, and to think it is, is a seriously flawed hypothesis. There are better ways to achieve social goals than by going into court."

Jones said that employment litigation is a particularly fertile field for this kind of abuse. "Seldom are employment discrimination suits in our court supported by direct evidence of race or sex-based animosity. Instead, the courts are asked to revisit petty interoffice disputes and to infer invidious motives from trivial comments or work-performance criticism. Recrimination, second-guessing and suspicion plague the workplace when tenuous discrimination suits are filed creating an atmosphere in which many corporate defendants are forced into costly settlements because they simply cannot afford to vindicate their positions.

"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"

Jones wonders, "What social goal is achieved by transferring millions of dollars to the lawyers, while their clients obtain coupons or token rebates." The judge quoted George Washington who asked in his Farewell Address, "Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths in courts of justice?"

Similarly, asked Jones, how can a system founded on law survive if the administrators of the law daily display their contempt for it? "Lawyers' private morality has definite public consequences," she said. "Their misbehavior feeds on itself, encouraging disrespect and debasement of the rule of law as the public become encouraged to press their own advantage in a system they perceive as manipulatable."

The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself. "Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self- interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."

Jones recommends three books by Philip Howard: The Death of Common Sense, The Collapse of the Common Good and The Lost Art of Drawing the Line, which further delineate this problem. The third and most comprehensive threat to the rule of law arises from contemporary legal philosophy.

"Throughout my professional life, American legal education has been ruled by theories like positivism, the residue of legal realism, critical legal studies, post-modernism and other philosophical fashions," said Jones. "Each of these theories has a lot to say about the 'is' of law, but none of them addresses the 'ought,' the moral foundation or direction of law."

Jones quoted Roger C. Cramton, a law professor at Cornell University, who wrote in the 1970s that "the ordinary religion of the law school classroom" is "a moral relativism tending toward nihilism, a pragmatism tending toward an amoral instrumentalism, a realism tending toward cynicism, an individualism tending toward atomism, and a faith in reason and democratic processes tending toward mere credulity and idolatry."

No 'Great Awakening' In Law School Classrooms

The judge said ruefully, "There has been no Great Awakening in the law school classroom since those words were written." She maintained that now it is even worse because faith and democratic processes are breaking down.

"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."

Jones said that all of these threats to the rule of law have a common thread running through them, and she quoted Professor Harold Berman to identify it: "The traditional Western beliefs in the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness, its religious roots, its transcendent qualities, are disappearing not only from the minds of law teachers and law students but also from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens, the people as a whole; and more than that, they are disappearing from the law itself. The law itself is becoming more fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediency and less to morality. The historical soil of the Western legal tradition is being washed away and the tradition itself is threatened with collapse."

Judge Jones concluded with another thought from George Washington: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Upon taking questions from students, Judge Jones recommended Michael Novak's book, On Two Wings: Humble Faith and Common Sense. "Natural law is not a prescriptive way to solve problems," Jones said. "It is a way to look at life starting with the Ten Commandments."

Natural law provides "a framework for government that permits human freedom," Jones said. "If you take that away, what are you left with? Bodily senses? The will of the majority? The communist view? What is it - 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need?' I don't even remember it, thank the Lord," she said to the amusement of the students.

"I am an unabashed patriot - I think the United States is the healthiest society in the world at this point in time," Jones said, although she did concede that there were other ways to accommodate the rule of law, such as constitutional monarchy. "Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."

Potential Nominee to Supreme Court

Judge Edith Jones has been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court in the Bush administration, but does not relish the idea. "Have you looked at what people have to go through who are nominated for federal appointments? They have to answer questions like, 'Did you pay your nanny taxes?' 'Is your yard man illegal?'

"In those circumstances, who is going to go out to be a federal judge? People who have accomplished nothing. In other words, federal employees." Judge Edith H. Jones has a B.A. from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law. She was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. Her office is in the U.S. Courthouse in Houston.

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 when a group of law students from Harvard, Stanford, the University of Chicago and Yale organized a symposium on federalism at Yale Law School. These students were unhappy with the academic climate on their campuses for some of the reasons outlined by Judge Jones. The Federalist Society was created to be a forum for a wider range of legal viewpoints than they were hearing in the course of their studies.

From the four schools mentioned above, the Society has grown to include over 150 law school chapters. The Harvard chapter, with over 250 members, is one of the nation's largest and most active. They seek to contribute to civilized dialogue at the Law School by providing a libertarian and conservative voice on campus and by sponsoring speeches and debates on a wide range of legal and policy issues.

The Federalist Society consists of libertarians and conservatives interested in the current state of the legal profession. It is founded on three principles: 1) the state exists to preserve freedom, 2) the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution and 3) it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to state what the law is, not what it should be.


Comment from IMO member Scott Sheffield who was close to being incarcerated by that appallingly corrupt system for DEBTS





Scott A. Sheffield