10/04/05

Judges

Dr Michael Pelling Found Guilty A campaigner for fathers’ rights who publicised the full details of a private judgment on contact with his son was today found guilty of contempt of court.

The judges said the privacy laws covering family cases were there to protect the interests of minors ...

Not true.

The privacy laws are there to prevent the family court judges being exposed for who they really are - feminist lackey boys and girls who will do whatever the feminists tell them to do.

Hiding the truth from the public does not protect children.

And as for this, ...

... it was “an affront to justice” to publicise judgments which the courts had determined should be kept private.

... notice how in the above text the judges try to equate the notion of 'justice' with their own various pronouncements - as if, somehow, their very words are, themselves, the essence of justice.

Indeed, in so very many ways, lawyers are among the least suited individuals when it comes to honouring any system concerned with justice.

Stranger Rape = Relationship Rape A revived measure in Arizona to punish the rape of a spouse as severely as the rape of anyone else gained a preliminary thumbs-up Thursday in the House.

This feminist-inspired notion that being raped by a stranger is the same as being raped by a spouse is preposterous. And it is another example of the judges, the lawyers and the politicians corrupting the justice system in order to further their careers at the expense of men.

I have already written about this before in connection with similar legislation in the UK, but, in summary, if you look at other crimes, both big and small, that take place against other people, it becomes very clear that those against strangers are often far worse than are those against people who are close to the perpetrators.

Here is a list of some fairly wide-ranging examples.

1. Slapping someone's face.

Would it really be the case that slapping your spouse's face is as serious a crime as slapping the face of a complete stranger?

2. Kidnapping a child.

Would kidnapping your own child (e.g. as a result of a custody dispute) be as serious a crime as kidnapping someone else's child?

3. Lying drunkenly upon a woman and insisting that she opens her legs so that you can have sex.

Would this crime really be of the same seriousness for a woman who was a complete stranger to you as it would be for a woman who had been married to you for 20 years?

4. Killing a child.

Is a woman who kills her own child deserving of the same punishment as a woman who kills someone else's child?

5. Taking $100 from a wallet without permission.

Is taking $100 from the wallet of your spouse without permission the same type of offence as taking the same amount - in the same manner - from a complete stranger?

6. Spanking a child's bottom.

Is someone who spanks their own child's bottom for being naughty as culpable in terms of 'abuse' as would be a complete stranger who also spanked the child's bottom?

7. If Lorena Bobbit had gone out into the street and cut off the penis of a passing stranger, would this crime be equivalent to what, in fact, actually happened?

Well, I could go on! But it seems quite clear to me that the malefactions of a Stranger are usually worse for victims than are those of an intimate with whom one has a Relationship.

Of course, if someone acts in a poor manner towards you then it might be the case that your hurt will be greater the closer that you are to them, but there is no reason why courts should presume this in advance. If anything, the evidence suggests very strongly that the opposite should be presumed.

allegations of rape tend to be made by women who are having serious relationship problems with their partners

Furthermore, a complainant in a court case is very likely to be seeking some kind of revenge, and this is especially true if the complainant has a close relationship with the defendant. For example, allegations of rape tend to be made by women who are having serious relationship problems with their partners. And in such situations women are far more likely to make wild and exaggerated claims of rape - amongst other things - than are men in these situations likely to rape them. And their reasons for doing this are, clearly, likely to have something to do with revenge.

But the general point is that people who are in close relationships with each other do not treat each other as if they were complete strangers. And, further, we should not be expecting them to do so.

It is therefore ridiculous to suggest that the relationships between individuals should have no significant bearing on how they treat each other - or, indeed, on how they portray each other. 

Indeed, feminists are constantly trying to get murdering women out of prison on the grounds that, basically, these women had terrible relationships with their murdered partners. After all, should such terrible relationships be ignored, and the murdering women be sentenced in exactly the same way as if they had killed passing strangers?

Surely not, the feminists argue.

And they have a point.

But, on the other hand, the feminists also say that if a man rapes, kills, or, in any way, assaults a woman, then the facts concerning their relationship should not count at all!

They will now argue the complete opposite. They will now say that the relationship is completely irrelevant. Indeed, they will even argue that the presence of a relationship makes the crime worse.

And so, for example, if a woman assaults a man, perhaps kills him or cuts off his penis, then feminists demand that the nature of their (poor) relationship must be taken into account. In fact, the relationship and its whole history are seen as highly relevant. And many women are even spared prison on precisely such grounds. 

"He was abusive towards me."

But if a man was to do something equally heinous, then they argue that the past relationship should either count for nothing (Relationship Crime = Stranger Crime) or, indeed, that his crime should be seen as being worse in some way.

So, if a woman does something bad to a man, then the Relationship counts, but if a man does something bad to a woman, then the Relationship does not count.

And so what we see happening here - yet again - is the justice system being thoroughly debased and corrupted in order to treat men particularly harshly when it comes to their dealings with women, whereas women themselves are being allowed to get away with almost anything when it comes to their dealings with men.

Even murder.

the suggestion that Relationship Rape and Stranger Rape are automatically equivalent is nonsense.

And in the case of rape, the suggestion that Relationship Rape and Stranger Rape are automatically equivalent is nonsense. But the motivations behind this new legislation are clear.

They are to give women in relationships with men far more power to hurt them - and to be able to threaten to do so - to stir up more hatred towards men - by making 'relationship' assaults appear far worse than they really are - and to give the legal profession and the politicians better careers.

And what readers must try to understand is that these utterly disgusting manipulations of the justice system are not merely the consequences of the handiwork of the feminists, they are also very much the result of greedy and corrupt judges, lawyers and politicians trying to make a good living out of the breaking down of men.

And these self-serving phonies will gradually take everything away from you if you do not wake up. They are not the honourable people that most of you think they are. And they do not deserve our respect. 

Finally, something which these fraudsters are clearly aware of is the fact that when those in relationships commit serious assaults against each other, fear does not spread throughout the rest of the community. However when strangers commit serious assaults, it does.

In other words, crimes against persons that are committed by strangers are not comparable to those committed by intimates even at the community level.

At the community level, the negative impacts of crimes committed by strangers are far worse.

But so corrupt are these judges - and so keen are their feminist masters to inflict hurt on to men - that, regardless of truth, regardless of justice, regardless of consequences, these dishonourable shysters will stack everything in the courtroom against any accused man.

British Justice After a five-day hearing at the Old Bailey, Luxford was convicted of two charges of rape and one of indecent assault. There was no medical evidence and no corroboration. The jury apparently believed that Kimberley was a better witness than Luxford. Sentencing was deferred for two months and then he was given a total of seven years in prison. 

Yep: The word of a single alleged female victim is all that is nowadays required to send a man to prison.

Please tell me for how long you men out there are prepared to live in a world where you are considered to be so utterly worthless that the mere testimony of a young female can actually destroy you before you finally try to do something about it?

Do you really intend to creep around for the rest of your life as if you were walking on eggshells lest you offend some female

Do you really intend to creep around for the rest of your life as if you were walking on eggshells lest you offend some female who might - even years later - destroy you simply by making some kind of false accusation?

Do you really intend to allow your justice system to be run by a bunch of self-serving corrupt officials and judges who clearly have no concern about justice?

Just think about these judges for example. They are supposed to be the most highly-trained experts on justice in the land. They are supposed to be ensuring that their courtrooms operate systems that maximise both the likelihood of justice and access to the truth. But what do we get from these people? We get courts wherein men are sent to prison to serve long sentences on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of just one malicious female.

And do not allow yourself to be fobbed off with any notion that the juries decide the verdicts.

Judges have an enormous influence on the juries not only in the way that they address them but also in the way that their cases are conducted. And they also have the power to dismiss cases before them on the grounds that the evidence does not warrant any hearing.

Furthermore, one of their main duties is to protect citizens from abuses of power by state officials.

However, the judges that we have currently in office are doing the very opposite. They are colluding with state officials and feminists to heap serious injustices upon men.

These judges do not have guns aimed at their heads.

These judges do not have guns aimed at their heads. No-one is coercing them into doing what they are doing. They have a voice! But I do not hear it.

Why?

Because they are doing what they are doing as a result of selfish greed and personal ambition.

There is no other explanation for their appalling behaviour.

"John Major revealed that one of the disadvantages of being Prime Minister was the "tasteless" lobbying from people wanting honours. He told how he was often lobbied by prominent public figures angling for a peerage or a knighthood when he was at No 10, and how much he disliked their behaviour." Daily Telegraph 21/05/04

It is very clear that these self-serving legal professionals do not give a damn about the destruction that they heap on to the lives of innocent others if it helps them in their careers. This is what is going on out there. (Also see this article, The Michael Nifong Scandal, by Dorothy Rabinovitch, about the disgraceful behaviour of those working in the legal profession in the USA.) 

And, almost unbelievably, here is the highest-ranking family court judge in the UK recently telling the nation that there is no bias in the family courts against fathers ...

 Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

The most senior judge in the UK's Family Court Division.

Courts Not Biased Against Fathers Claims that family courts are biased in favour of mothers have been rejected by top judge Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.

Well, she is being dishonest.

For example, there is the recent case where a father stayed at home to look after the children while the wife pursued a career, and yet this father still lost custody when they divorced. 

... The principle that children should be raised by their mothers won the overt backing of the Court of Appeal yesterday after it rejected a house husband's attempt to win custody of his two children.

And, further, ...

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice Buxton, said that despite the "unusual" role reversals in this case, they could not ignore the "realities" of the "very different" traditional functions of men and women.

And so when this most senior woman judge claims that there is no bias against fathers, she is lying.

According to Justice Thorpe the court could not ignore the "realities" of the "very different" traditional functions of men and women.

In other words, this bias against fathers is publicly admitted to and endorsed by many senior judges in the Family Division; including Lord Justice Thorpe - and he is the SECOND most senior judge in the family division.

a senior judge publicly admitted that fathers were often falsely accused of various heinous crimes

Furthermore, as we saw in the Bob Geldof programme recently, a senior judge publicly admitted that fathers were often falsely accused of various heinous crimes by their hostile ex's in order to stack the legal odds against them and, as we know, these fathers are then separated from their children for months on end while they are being investigated for these alleged crimes.

The consequences of this are that the mothers can then claim during any ensuing custody battles that a) the children are now settled in with them, b) the children have not seen their fathers for ages and that c) the fathers are abusers of some sort.

It is preposterous for the highest-ranking family court judge in the UK to claim that there is no bias.

And, as further evidence that this very senior woman judge is lying, here is another decision by Lord Justice Thorpe reported today ...

It appeared the ultimate dilemma for a woman with outstanding career prospects - abandon your dream job or give up custody of your child.

She got both. ...

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting in London's Court of Appeal, has now overturned the [earlier] county court decision, giving her the green light to move to New Zealand.

And so this woman can now take away the child from the father and move across to New Zealand - which is on the opposite side of the world to the UK.

The relationship between the father and the child - and vice versa - simply does not matter.

Again, the evidence is that Elizabeth Butler Sloss' claim that the courts are not biased against fathers is nothing more than a downright lie.

Furthermore, ...

Mr Justice Munby, one of the country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his seven-year-old daughter. Sunday Times 25/04/04

Yep. A downright lie.

Justice Thorpe has also just overturned another court decision and allowed a woman to take her children to live permanently in Argentina on the grounds that she would otherwise be unhappy, and that this would affect the children negatively.

Her lawyer argued successfully that all that the mother "needed to prove was that there would be an impact on her sense of well-being and that this would be transmitted to the children."

the father is irrelevant

In other words, the father is irrelevant. It is the mother's ALLEGED feelings alone that count.

And Justice Wall has just upheld the threat of imprisonment against a man for telephoning his own son on the grounds that the mother thinks that he is disparaging her.

Finally, in the most recent Home Office report on domestic violence there is no mention at all made of the men who are physically abused or killed by their partners or family members.

Not even a mention.

Only women victims of such incidents are mentioned.

And yet the UK's most senior Family Court Judge, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, tells the country that there is no bias in her courts against fathers.

........

And, finally, while on the subject of the family courts in the UK. Their proceedings are held in secret - mostly on the completely spurious grounds that this is 'in the best interests of the child'.

But I want you all to contemplate the following.

One of the main reasons why it is so crucial for any decent system of justice to operate in the open - and under public scrutiny - is because when the proceedings are hidden from the public, history shows that the system is very quickly corrupted and that the state's officials collude with the judiciary to impose their own self-serving demands on the people.

And these demands quickly become more and more tyrannical as time moves on.

And if you know anything about human nature then it is very easy to understand how, and why, such horrors come about when powerful bodies operate in secrecy.

And in the family courts across the western world these horrors have already come about.

They are already here.

They are already happening.

Whether these 'relationship' courts are dealing with issues of child support, child custody, child abuse, divorce or domestic violence, they have been thoroughly corrupted - corrupted in a manner consistent with feminism, political correctness, and the complete disempowerment of men when it comes to their relationships.

And yet the UK's most senior Family Court Judge, Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, tells the country that there is no bias against fathers in her secret courts.

Do you really think that our judges are honourable people

Tell me. Do you really think that our judges are honourable people who are deserving of the high degree of trust that we place in them?

Here are just two more examples of corrupt western judges trying to further their own careers by imprisoning men on the basis of no valid evidence to warrant a trial, let alone a conviction ...

 Teacher Cleared Of Rape A teacher who died in prison after being convicted of raping one of his pupils has been posthumously cleared by the Court of Appeal.

It all boiled down to one girl’s word against his, and the jury believed her.

Once again, never fall for the shameful lie perpetually perpetrated by dishonest self-serving western government officials and by their corrupt cronies in the judiciary that their systems of justice are based on the notion that men are deemed to be innocent of a crime until proved otherwise.

Proof is no longer required in cases of 'abuse'. A single accusation alone - without further evidence - is all that is required to send a man to prison or to have him removed from his own home.

And please do not believe the nonsense that miscarriages of justice like the one above are the fault of the juries. The judges in these cases have the power to throw them out of court on the basis of insufficient evidence to warrant a trial. But, in a nutshell, they are just too self-serving and just too corrupt to do this.

+ Mrs Gee told The Times yesterday that her son was physically disabled and would not have been capable of committing the alleged acts. Mr Gee, from Huddersfield, was born with spinal deformities that made it difficult for him to balance and to co-ordinate his hands.

It also emerged that the girl, now 26, made similar allegations against another man, whose CONVICTION was quashed earlier this year.

Can you imagine what this poor man must have gone through before he died?

Can you imagine the strength of the public outcry that would have been fuelled by the media had a woman been subjected to a similar ordeal at the hands of this CORRUPT system of justice?

Politicians would have been positively falling over each other in their demands to change the law when it comes to these cases.

But, of course, because it is men who are treated in this appalling fashion, they will say, and do, absolutely nothing.

And those oily arrogant toads who sit as our judges, will continue to masquerade as experts on justice, and they will continue to send innocent men to prison - long term - on the basis of no valid evidence whatsoever.

American Justice There was no physical evidence, no medical exam and no testimony from any corroborating witnesses at his trial in 2000 in Butler Circuit Court. So when the girl, now 16, recanted her allegations last October -- swearing under oath that her stepmother forced her to falsely accuse Kiper during a custody dispute -- you might have expected the 35-year-old inmate to go free, or at least win a new trial. 

Nope. No new trial, and so he remains in prison.

There was no physical evidence, no medical exam and no testimony from any corroborating witnesses ...

It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice.

Needless to say, I often receive emails asking me what can be done about this sorry situation and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the words of George Orwell. "It is no use appealing to their sense of honour or justice. The only thing that they respond to is the threat of losing some of their own power."

In other words, we need to undermine and expose those self-serving charlatans who are responsible for creating and maintaining this state of affairs - which includes the politicians, those working in the 'abuse industry' and the legal system, the various victim groups, and the feminists etc etc - and to continue doing so until their self-serving maliciousness backfires on them to such an extent that they dare not continue doing what they are doing.

As both Richard and James were to discover, the British courts still favour the mother when it comes to deciding where the children should live in divorce cases, even if the father has previously been the primary carer.

"It was as if she was losing all respect for me, just because I was the one at home, doing the domestic duties. Then, one day two years ago, she announced she was leaving me - and taking the children with her.

END NOTE:

While it remains the case, for example, that men can be imprisoned for sex-assault in the UK without a shred of objective evidence standing against them, but can be imprisoned solely on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of one aggrieved woman, then I will do everything in my power to discredit judges.

They can hardly complain, can they?

For example, I think that doctors would be foaming with outrage if certain members of their own profession were handing out poison to those whom they were supposed to be curing. And, similarly, I would expect judges with integrity to feel exactly the same way when certain members of their own profession hand out prison sentences to those whom they are supposed to be protecting.

Yes, it's true.

Judges are supposed to be protecting the defendants in criminal cases, because defendants are supposed to be deemed to be innocent until proved otherwise.

That.

Is.

Their.

Job!

And if they are not doing this, then, amongst other things, they are cheating us.

And this means that they deserve to be discredited.

Amongst other things, judges are supposed to ensure that justice takes place in their criminal courtrooms. And if, for example, they cannot do this properly in many cases, because, perhaps, there is not sufficient evidence - or because sufficient evidence is being denied to them - as so often occurs in relationship assault cases -  then they should be throwing such cases right out of their courtrooms before any trials even start.

 they are completely unfit to hold such lofty positions.

And the fact that many of them are not doing this, but, instead, actually punishing men simply on the basis of some unsubstantiated complaint by one aggrieved other - usually a woman - tells me that they are completely unfit to hold such lofty positions.

Finally, judges frequently claim that family court proceedings need to be kept secret in order to protect any children from distress; but you will not hear them arguing this when, for example, men are accused of, say, sexual crimes. The names of these men - even if later found to be completely innocent - can be paraded about in the glare of full publicity regardless of any distress that this might cause to their children.

In other words, the judges' professed concern about the children is a sham. Their true concern is to ensure that the public does not get to see what is going on in their corrupt family courts across the land.

Indeed, whenever you hear officials talking about the 'best interest of the child' you will almost invariably discover on close inspection of the details that it is government officials and/or women who are seeking some advantage, and that men and/or children are about to be disadvantaged in some way.

(Also see my piece Family Court Secrecy.)

.....

In summary, ...

 Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

The most senior judge in the UK's Family Court Division.

"There is nothing in the law to lead courts to chose one parent or another," she said.

Yep; the most senior judge in the Family Division.

It is surely no wonder that so many people nowadays have such contempt for judges.