Tag: law

There are more deadbeat moms than dads

At least on a percentage basis:

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support — 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 — give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 “deadbeat” mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures….

The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent. Not only are the dads paying up more when they don’t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

I’d heard this was true but I didn’t have any statistical evidence for it before. I would expect that whereas men who don’t make child support payments are subject to the modern form of debtor’s prison, very few, if any women are similarly incarcerated.

A painful admission

I recently learned that I am a victim of rape. Hold me, Ralph:

Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required.

It’s very hard for me to admit this, or even to come to terms with it after all these years. But, it is very important, so I will be brave and come forward and admit the terrible truth at long last. I am a rape victim.

During my four years at Bucknell University, I was raped on various occasions by a band of serial female rapists whose nefarious actions were known and materially supported by the university administration through its “health office” and enabled by their sorority sisters. Being incapable of giving consent due to the influence of alcohol, I was repeatedly subjected to the most horrific abuse humanity can ever suffer and I am still attempting to come to terms with the psychological damage that has resulted from the delayed post-rape trauma.

There is significant photographic, testimonial, and in one case, even police-recorded blood alcohol content evidence of my inability to provide consent. Therefore, although the statute of limitations has passed concerning any criminal charges, I have contacted a lawyer and expect to be filing a civil lawsuit against the university as well as the sororities Delta Delta Delta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Pi Beta Phi.

I appreciate your support. I know I am not alone in this, and there are many men who have suffered in a similar manner. But together, we can be strong and fight against the violent, criminal actions of predatory women who take advantage of innocent and incapacitated young men.

The lawless society

I have been saying for years that there is no law in the USA, merely the pretense of law. Now the absence of justice in the so-called justice system is becoming readily apparent to everyone who is paying even casual attention:

Sarbanes-Oxley requires [John Corzine] as the CEO of a company to (1) guarantee that effective risk controls and rules are in place and (2) monitor their compliance. It renders failure to do so — that is, the old-fashioned “I didn’t know” defense that was routinely used after 2000-era failures in the Internet space — a felony.

Now of course Mr. Corzine is entitled to the presumption of innocence and he is entitled to a trial before being pronounced guilty, but the law on this point is clear: Executives, the CEO and CFO in particular, are required under Sarbanes-Oxley to factually know about matters such as this and they are required to attest to that knowledge — and the presence of appropriate and sufficient risk controls under penalty of felony indictment.

It appears that Mr. Corzine has admitted in front of a Congressional Committee that he does not know, and therefore this appears to be a prima-facie admission that he is in direct violation of this law.

If this is not dealt with on an expeditious fashion and the law is not enforced you have just seen proof on national television that there is no longer a rule of law in this nation of any substance.

The incredible thing is that the federal government is prosecuting and jailing hundreds of thousands of people for all sorts of drug “crimes”, but has no interest whatsoever in even arresting a man who admitted to stealing somewhere between $600 million and $1.2 billion dollars.

The USA may not be the most corrupt nation on Earth, but it is certainly among the most structurally corrupted. This is actually a more insidious form of corruption, because the law itself stands in open violation of Natural Law. We rightly condemn National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia because their governments legalized murder, and while events haven’t yet reached that level of extremis, it should now be clear that the USA has legalized fraud and theft.

Three strikes for corporations

Karl Denninger has an idea for forcing corporations to abide by the law:

Our current “justice system”, in short simply makes fraud a business model that has costs dramatically smaller than what the offenders can steal through their misconduct. Judge Rakoff is exactly correct in refusing to endorse this model, as despite the claims that this is an “effective” model for discipline of wrong-doing we have decades of experience with it now and all it has produces is serial re-offenders.

Were this a violent criminal context we would have protests on the courthouse steps demanding “three strikes” and similar laws, and we’d get them, exactly as we did years ago.

It is well beyond the time that we should have a “three strkes” rule for corporate misconduct and put a stop to the “neither admit or deny” negotiated settlement.

If individuals can be locked up for life on the basis of three felonies, then obviously it makes a great deal of sense to shut down a corporation after it commits three felonies as well. Corporations only exist by the action of the state and they are terminated by a subsequent action of the state on a regular basis.

While regulators could theoretically keep corporations under control, the historical fact is that they are rapidly captured by the very corporations they are meant to police and transformed into an insurance policy. Imagine how often banks would be robbed if each time someone robbed a bank, they were forced to pay a fine equal to about five percent of what they stole and told not to do it again… or they would pay another similar fine.

The present system of fraud and theft legalized after the fact isn’t good for the nation or the economy, and it isn’t even beneficial for the corporations in the long run. Veal may make for a nice meal, but if you eat all the calves, you’re not going to be eating beef for very long.

Teaching lawyers to lie

Granted it sounds rather like teaching fish to swim:

The University of Illinois acknowledged Monday that its law school reported and/or published inaccurate admissions data in six of the last 10 years. The university, in a prepared statement, said it had determined that Paul Pless, the law school’s former assistant dean for admissions and financial aid, who resigned last week, was solely responsible for the inaccuracies. It also found that the law school lacked adequate controls to prevent, deter and detect such actions, a situation that it said it is taking steps to correct….

The university’s investigation determined that the college reported and or published inaccurate LSAT and GPA data for the class of 2008 and for the classes of 2010 through 2014.

And they’re just heartsick about this ever so embarrassing rogue employee, gosh darn it! The truth is that ALL law schools blatantly lie about the employment prospects of their graduates. All of them. Every single one. And it would almost certainly be a major benefit to the economy and the nation if they were all shut down tomorrow.

Overruling the family court judge

Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the most effective way for men to overturn the ludicrously evil child custody system is to utilize violence to render moot the unjust dictates of the family courts:

A gunman who shot dead eight people in an upmarket beauty salon in California is said to have gone on the rampage after losing a custody battle over his son. Scott Dekraai, who is the former husband of one of the stylists, is said to have shot a total of nine hairdressers and customers at Salon Meritage, a beauty salon just blocks from the Pacific Ocean in the upscale seaside resort of Seal Beach.

His ex-wife, Michelle, is also reportedly among those who were killed. The 42-year-old, who used to work in the military, had allegedly threatened violence after losing a court case against Michelle – who was using the name Huff – over the custody of their seven-year-old son, Dominic.

The problem is twofold. First, the family court system is totally unjust. Second, there is simply no other recourse for the man who has been forcibly robbed of his children by the unholy alliance of ex-wife and family court. I have zero sympathy for any woman who would utilize the force of the law to deprive a man of his children, no matter how unhappy the marriage. In fact, one can quite reasonably argue that it is in the interest of women to demand a more equitable family court system; this should become more apparent when “winning” a child custody case amounts to a potential death lottery.

The ironic thing is that society tends to applaud a man who do anything and pay any price to get back his child. There are movies entirely based on this premise. So, why should it surprise anyone that increasing numbers of men are willing to resort to breaking the very law that took their children away from them? Throughout the West, the Muslims have shown the way: threaten sufficient violence in a credible manner and the law will be modified according to your will.

Breaking the law

In related news, bank robbers also reported they were worried about state plans to enforce the laws against bank robberies:

Effective Saturday, many of South Florida’s “No guns allowed” signs are gone. That’s thanks to a new state law imposing fines of up to $5,000 on county and municipal officials, and even threatening them with removal from office, if they enforce firearms and ammunition restrictions other than those spelled out by state statute.

The state legislation has been on the books since 1987. But because it did not contain any penalties until now, many local governments passed their own, more restrictive laws.

Now, do you suppose that the Federal Reserve and various federal agencies might be just a little more disposed to enforcing the various laws and regulations they are supposed to enforce if said laws and regulations came with penalties attached for not enforcing them?

So much for the Revolution

I know the American courts are as insane as they are totalitarian, but this disrespect for both the law and historical precedent is truly astonishing:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

Translation: America is demonstrably less free than medieval England. I tend to doubt that this was what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they revolted against the King’s rule.

A semblance of sanity

IP addresses are not people. And in related news, routers will not be permitted to vote in the 2012 election:

A possible landmark ruling in one of the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the US may spell the end of the ‘pay-up-or-else-schemes’ that have targeted over 100,000 Internet users in the last year. District Court Judge Harold Baker has denied a copyright holder the right to subpoena the ISPs of alleged copyright infringers, because an IP-address does not equal a person.

I’ve never understood the idea that an Internet connection can reasonably be pinned to a single individual. Even if there is only one computer connected to the local area network, who is to say that a different individual was not on the machine? But, given the 40-year war on common sense being waged by the U.S. judicial system, I suppose any semblance of sanity is to be celebrated.

Marriage and the state

Conservatives once welcomed the state getting involved with marriage, despite the fact that it had very little previous involvement with the institution. The result? Instead of strengthening marriage, in less than 150 years, we will have seen marriage devolve from a religious sacrament between a man and a woman to a state contract of indefinite term that can be created by anyone between anyone:

The ACLU of Nevada is challenging Nevada law on who may perform marriages. Currently, the law allows clergy, judges, “commissioners of civil marriages,” and the deputy commissioner to perform marriages. This, it seems is not enough to satisfy the five individuals (shouldn’t that be an even number?) suing Clark County and the state. They would prefer the state allowed any person, regardless of religious affiliation, to be given the authority to solemnize a marriage. More exactly, they believe they have a constitutional right to this policy.

It is long past time for religious individuals to begin pushing for the separation of marriage and state-marriage. I haven’t thought about this long enough to have a solution in mind, but the need is clearly there. And it should be an object lesson to conservatives: Trust not in the State!