Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Brett Sokolow wants to get your sons

Brett Sokolow

Look into the face of political correctness run amok where women are to be believed no matter what and you'll see the face of Brett Sokolow. If you are a male student in an American university and you find out you have less rights than you used to you can thank Brett Sokolow for that. If you are brandished a "rapist" by a college board with no legal training yet are cleared by a real court of law yet find your future bleak from just the allegation alone you can thank Brett Sokolow for that too. Who is Brett Sokolow? Brett Sokolow is the subject of the following article. You have to read it for yourself to see where I'm getting at. Here it is:

The New Rules of College Sex
How the federal government and a Malvern lawyer are rewriting the rules on campus hookups—and tagging young men as dangerous predators
By Sandy Hingston
Posted on September 2011

Jack and Diane are at a party at their college. It’s September of their freshman year. They’re still excited about being away from home, on their own for the first time. They don’t know each other, but they’ve noticed one another, at orientation and in the dining hall.

Because they’re underage, they can’t drink at this party, but before she arrived, Diane “pre-gamed,” as the girls in her dorm call it—downing mixed drinks, doing gummy-worm and Jell-O shots. Jack had a few beers.

The liquor’s gone to Diane’s head. On the dance floor, she makes eye contact with Jack. He maneuvers his way toward her. She grabs him by the crotch, then whirls around and pushes against him, letting him grind away. Jack can’t believe it—she’s so pretty. She smells so good.

“I can’t hear myself think in here, it’s so loud!” he shouts into her ear.

She smiles at him. “What?”

“Too loud!” He takes her hand and leads her outside, into the autumn night. She looks at him expectantly. He puts his arms around her, pulling her close, and begins to kiss her. She drapes against him. He touches her breast, and when she doesn’t protest, does it again. He moves his hands to her rear, cupping her buttocks. She kisses him back, frantically eager. He reaches underneath her dress.

Jack doesn’t know it, but he’s just created what the Department of Education calls a “hostile environment” for women on his campus—a violation of Title IX for which his college could lose all federal funding. Should Diane press sexual assault charges against him with the school, he’ll be tried in a judicial hearing that fails to guarantee him the most basic American legal rights—the right to counsel, the right to confront his accuser, the right not to be convicted unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He could well be expelled, and have a record that will hound him should he try to get into another school.

And here he thought it was his lucky night.

BACK IN APRIL, Vice President Joe Biden stood in front of 600 students at the University of New Hampshire and spoke out against an epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses, garnering national publicity with his cri de coeur: “No matter what a girl does, no matter how she’s dressed, no matter how much she’s had to drink, it’s never, never, never, never, never okay to touch her without her consent.” The statistic Biden cited—the U.S. Justice Department’s finding that one in five college women are victims of sexual assault—is bound to give anxious parents pause: For this they’re paying $50,000 a year?

Biden’s speech was meant to focus attention on what U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Russlynn Ali calls “a terrible, alarming trend” of campus sexual violence. Ali had just disseminated a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter to all colleges and universities that receive federal aid—which is all but two in the country—detailing how they’re required to combat that trend. Her letter came in the wake of a Title IX complaint lodged in March by 16 students and alumni at Yale, asserting that the university failed to eliminate a “hostile sexual environment” perpetuated by, among other things, an e-mailed “Preseason Scouting Report” on 53 freshman women that ranked how many beers a male student would require before having sex with them, and fraternity pledges who shouted “No means yes! Yes means anal!” outside a dorm.

While women’s rights advocates have lauded Ali for finally putting teeth in Title IX—the 1972 federal law that prohibits colleges from discriminating on the basis of gender—a quieter groundswell of protest has charged her with trampling on the rights of young men accused of sexual assault in her rush to protect victims. College deans say she’s stripped their ability to deal with delicate he-said-she-said cases in fairer, more nuanced ways. Other administrators warn that even with the guidelines, campus hearing boards are ill-equipped to investigate assaults and rapes—all in the midst of another epidemic, binge drinking. Peter F. Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University, told the Chronicle of Higher Education, “We’ve been lured into doing something in a criminal justice model that the criminal justice system itself hasn’t been able to deal with.”

But beyond the fundamental questions of fairness, Russlynn Ali’s guidelines impose a paralyzing “nanny state” on college campuses here in Philadelphia and across the country. At precisely the time in their lives when young men and women should be exploring what sexuality means, the new rules choke off their freedom, limit their choices, and encourage the canard that all males are unrepentant predators. What’s more, they position women as helpless victims who require bureaucratic protection from those males—victims with no responsibility for their own behavior.

Heaven help those women when they graduate.

IF YOU'RE CURIOUS as to how student sexual misconduct became a federal civil-rights liability for colleges, the man with the answer is perched in shorts and bare feet on a big, comfy sofa in the vault-ceilinged living room of his stone home in Malvern. Brett Sokolow, a ’97 Villanova Law grad, is founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, or NCHERM (pronounced “en-kerm”). For more than a decade, the genial 39-year-old has been warning colleges and -universities—he’s of counsel to more than 20, and has advised thousands—that the day was coming when courts would allow Title IX claims against them for sexual assaults. “The ‘Dear Colleague’ letter was one of the most important moments of my professional life,” he says.

Sokolow’s interest in campus safety stems from his sophomore year at the College of William & Mary, when he began dating a fellow student who’d been sexually assaulted: “She became an activist, and I became one as well.” He thought then that Title IX should have provided her redress, but “everybody said, ‘Title IX is just athletics.’” Actually, there’s no mention of sports in the law, which is enforced by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). (Disclosure: One of my relatives has been a victim of rape; another was once sanctioned by a college for sexual misconduct.)

Sokolow has built a business out of advising colleges on how to stay one step ahead of all sorts of legal liability, using hypothetical scenarios like the one in this article starring Jack and Diane. In a series of “white papers” for his clients, he’s traced how courts have been reinterpreting the laws on sexual harassment and assault to allow for Title IX complaints. For example, a finding of force was once necessary to prove rape. Gradually, the question instead became one of consent. And according to NCHERM’s “zero tolerance” model sexual assault policy, which many colleges employ, the burden is on “the initiator of sexual behavior” to obtain consent.

But wait, you say. Didn’t Diane consent when she let Jack touch her breast? No, because consent has to be active, not passive. And Jack has to get Diane’s consent every time he wants to move up another base—a policy first instituted at Ohio’s Antioch College in the early 1990s. Here’s how an Antioch women’s center advocate explained it to freshmen: “If you want to take her blouse off, you have to ask. If you want to touch her breast, you have to ask. If you want to move your hand down to her genitals, you have to ask. If you want to put your finger inside her, you have to ask.” Reaction to Antioch’s policy—including a Saturday Night Live skit—was wildly derisive; eventually, the college closed down. The policy, however, as detailed by NCHERM, lives on all over the country.

Besides, the NCHERM model says that even though Jack had no way of telling whether or how much Diane had been drinking, it was his responsibility to determine if she was “incapacitated”—a term of murky meaning. If she was, any fondling they did, no matter how great her zeal, was sexual assault. She doesn’t even have to lodge a complaint; the college has to investigate if, say, Diane’s resident adviser- sees her and Jack outside the party and suspects she’s drunk. And OCR says a single incident of sexual assault can be enough to create that hostile atmosphere.

“There have been widespread accusations,” Sokolow says, “that colleges don’t handle sexual assaults well.” The new OCR guidelines in the Dear Colleague letter, he explains, grew out of the Yale case as well as other Title IX claims accusing colleges of pussyfooting on campus sexual assault investigations of athletes. In one instance, a University of Georgia freshman said she was gang-raped by basketball players. (One was acquitted in court; charges were dropped against two others.) In another, women at the University of Colorado at Boulder claimed they were raped by football players. (No criminal charges were brought.) The women won major settlements.

To play by the new OCR rules, colleges must hold mandatory education and awareness programs for freshmen on what constitutes sexual assault. They’ll also teach the newest item in the assault prevention tool kit: bystander intervention. “If you’re a predatory rapist,” says Sokolow, “I can’t educate you or make you feel empathy. But I can teach the people around you to recognize you.” He cites the TV show What Would You Do?, in which producers stage vignettes of parents berating kids or teens egging drunken peers on, as a model: “The literature shows if you just watch that show, you’re more likely to intervene.”

Sokolow has done Title IX compliance training all across the country: at Stanford, UVA, Vanderbilt, UNH, Bowdoin and, locally, La Salle, St. Joe’s and Drexel, to name just a few. (Yale, he says, has been a client for years.) His aim is to get administrators and campus safety staffs to refocus through what he calls “a civil-rights lens.” You can look at Jack and Diane through one lens and ask, “How much did she have to drink? Was her behavior provocative?” Or you can change that lens for one recognizing that she was a victim, and instead ask: “How did Jack isolate her? What actions enabled him to take advantage of her weakened state?”

Though alcohol is involved in 90 percent of campus rapes, it shouldn’t cloud the waters, Sokolow says: An incapacitated woman can’t provide consent. The new guidelines are intended, Ali has said, to do no less than “change the culture.” What does that mean for young men? “It’s their job,” Sokolow says, “if they’re going to have sex, to figure that out—and to err on the side of caution.” Some people are still walking and talking—and grinding—when -incapacitated. Despite all the hoopla about rape drugs, they’re rare on campuses—and rarely -needed. The Partnership for a Drug Free America says more young women than young men drink these days.

WHILE SCHOOLS FEAR the loss of federal funding or getting hit by Title IX complaints if they don’t follow the new rules on sexual assault, our hypothetical Jack has other worries. He could find himself summoned to the dean of students’ office and told he’s being investigated for sexual misconduct, then peppered with questions: Did he ask Diane’s permission before he kissed her? Before he reached under her skirt? What did he say to get her to go outside with him? Where and when did he leave her? Jack could be forced to leave campus—staying, say, at a motel at his own expense—until the dean decides how much of a danger he poses to the community, whether to call in the police, and whether a campus judicial hearing is in order. Depending on the school’s rules, Jack may not be entitled to a lawyer. And if he approaches Diane to try to “talk things out,” he can be charged with intimidation.

And then there’s the new OCR requirement that has raised the most alarm among civil libertarians: the lowering of the evidentiary standard to that used in civil-rights litigation. For the school’s purposes, a “preponderance of the evidence” is now all that’s required to find Jack liable, not the more familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” of criminal cases or the intermediary “clear and convincing evidence” standard many schools used to employ. Women’s rights activist Wendy Murphy, who’s drawn up Title IX claims against Harvard, Princeton and UVA, considers this change transformative, because it tells victims they’re more likely to win. “Schools used to say, ‘Oh, we can’t figure it out, one says it happened and one says it didn’t,’” she explains. “The ‘clear and convincing’ standard was more painful. Now, it’s very easy for schools to say, ‘Well, her description was a little more believable than his.’” That makes it more likely a hearing board will convict and not worry that the accused will sue for violation of his due process rights. And for colleges and universities, Murphy says, it’s all about the liability.

A number of schools, including Stanford, Princeton and UVA, have kicked in the past against lowering the standard of proof in sexual assault cases. Now, Murphy warns, “They are going to change of their own volition or be made to change.”

But Samantha Harris, of the Philly-based nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which advocates for individual rights at colleges, says the new standard violates accused students’ due process rights. “Campus judicial procedures already have questionable -validity,” she says. “The preponderance standard, which essentially means 50.1 percent proof, will just compound those problems.” She says the Supreme Court’s precedents demonstrate that evidentiary standards should be higher, not lower, when so much is at stake, as FIRE argued in a lengthy letter to Russlynn Ali. “We’re not sending these students to prison,” Harris says, “but the terminology is the same. They’re found guilty of serious criminal offenses.” Perpetrators are subject to expulsion, which affects their employment and social prospects. Harris blames the guidelines, not the schools: “Their hands are tied. The loss of federal money would be catastrophic.”

Why don’t colleges just turn sexual assault cases over to police to prosecute? Because there’s rarely enough evidence to convict in a real court of law. Harris points to a case at the University of North Dakota in which a judicial board found a student guilty of rape under the preponderance standard and expelled him. The victim had also reported the rape to police—who charged her with filing a false report. “The potential for abuse and injustice is tremendous,” Harris says. “We have to protect victims’ rights, but how many innocent students is it right to convict to do so?” Due process, she says, doesn’t just safeguard the accused; it preserves the integrity of the judicial system. “If I were sending a son off to college now,” she adds, “I’d be very concerned.”

Sokolow’s response? “FIRE is sticking up for penises everywhere.”

THE WORLDS OF Harris, Murphy and Sokolow are largely theoretical; Kris Clarkson’s is, as the kids would say, for real. He’s the dean of students at Juniata College, a small liberal arts school in Huntingdon, 100 miles west of Harrisburg. He’s also worked at Hobart and William Smith, Syracuse, Dartmouth, Bennington and UMass Amherst, though he’s been at Juniata for 16 years. So, is there an epidemic of sexual assault at Juniata? “Oh gosh, I hope not,” he says. “Last year we had four incidents that were adjudicated”—heard before boards made up of faculty, staff and students. “We do orientation for board members in terms of procedures,” Clarkson says, “but there’s no specific training on topics like sexual assault.” The new guidelines dictate that there will be.

Clarkson says the Dear Colleague guidelines “set a tone—you better do this or else. They don’t leave a lot of room for working through the teachable moment.” He bristles at being told This is how you need to do it—“as though they know our campus and our students better than we do.”

Under the new federal rules, a school must inform a victim that she can file a complaint with the hearing board, file a Title IX discrimination claim, file criminal charges with the police, or any combination of the three. Schools are now required to have Title IX coordinators to walk students through the process of filing Title IX complaints. Clarkson says Juniata already makes it clear police can be informed if a student chooses. But when it comes to sexual assault, “The victim may want something done about it, but doesn’t necessarily want that to result in a criminal record.” Juniata students don’t have the right to an attorney at hearings, and the guidelines don’t require them to. Contrary to assertions that campus judicial boards are too lenient, Clarkson says that in Juniata he-said-she-said cases, “More often than not, the guy is toast.”

Deborah Nolan, dean of students at Ursinus College, thinks the guidelines will suppress reporting at her school, since any college official who hears of an incident must now initiate an investigation. “Students haven’t been afraid to tell us what’s going on,” she says. “That’s going to change.”

BACK IN 1991, Joe Biden, then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced a new finding by his staff that rape in America had reached “epidemic proportions,” exceeding more than 100,000 -annual offenses for the first time. That conflicted with the Justice Department’s figures, which showed the rate unchanged between 1973 and 1987. There’s a similar disconnect between the numbers in the Justice Department’s most recent report on campus sexual violence, which came out in 2007, and schools’ Clery Act reports.

The Clery Act is named for a Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered in her dorm room by a fellow student in 1986. Jeanne Clery’s parents learned there had been 38 violent crimes on Lehigh’s mountainside campus in the three years before her murder. For a quarter-century, they’ve been pushing for stronger laws—the Clery Act and its successors—on how colleges report crimes to the federal government, and thus to the public, through Security On Campus, their nonprofit headquartered on an obscure King of Prussia cul-de-sac.

Those Clery Act reports contradict Joe Biden’s claim of an epidemic. Take Temple University. There are 30,000 students at its main campus on North Broad Street. The student body is 55 percent female, so if the one-in-five DOJ figure for sexual assaults is correct, 3,180 of the current female students would have been sexually assaulted while at the school. And yet Temple’s Clery Act report shows five sexual assaults in 2007, two in 2008, and two in 2009.

So is there an epidemic of sexual violence at Temple? “I would not put the word ‘epidemic’ in that sentence,” dean of students Stephanie Ives demurs, seated at a boardroom table with anti-sexual--violence -posters spread out before her. Ms. magazine cited a one-in-four figure for campus sexual assaults back in 1987, she says, and the problem remains “as consistent and traumatizing as ever.” Victims are frequently confused about what they’ve experienced, she adds, and fear reprisals and retaliation.

Ives, who has 17 years’ experience in her field, has applied for a $300,000 grant from the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women. “They’re highly competitive,” she says. “But I’m confident we have the infrastructure to manage the grant.”

Temple freshmen are blanketed in information on sexual assault. Besides omnipresent posters and pamphlets, they get training at orientation and ongoing programs in the residence halls: “We try to help them understand that that gray area isn’t as gray as you might perceive.” There’s a special sexual assault unit within the counseling department. And there’s the new “Say Something at Temple” bystander-education program—“The thing I’m most proud of,” says Ives.

Yet with all this protection, education and awareness-raising in place, only two reported sexual assaults in 2009, among 30,000 students? Where’s the epidemic?

“I don’t want to lose my grant,” Ives says, with a nervous laugh. “But what was Vice President Biden thinking?”

IF WHAT JACK did doesn’t seem like a crime to you, here’s how NCHERM’s model policy defines sexual assault: “any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object, by a man or a woman upon a man or a woman, without consent.” That Diane got herself hammered beforehand doesn’t matter; the OCR warns the school not to punish her for breaking underage-drinking laws, since that could have a “chilling effect” on reporting offenses. And the new guidelines are all about racking up more sexual assaults.

That’s because if you look at campus sexual violence through a victim-advocate lens, you have to believe vast legions of rapes and assaults go unreported. There’s no other way to explain why the Clery numbers are so low and the Justice Department’s so high. What’s interesting about the 2007 Justice Department report is that its researchers didn’t ask the 5,446 female students who took their online survey if they’d been sexually assaulted. They decided for the young women, who despite their on-campus training and support were deemed too ignorant to know.

Specifically, the survey asked whether students had experienced unwanted sexual contact, defined as forced kissing, grabbing, fondling, touching of private parts, and/or oral, anal or vaginal penetration via finger, mouth, tongue, penis or object. If students checked YES, as 1,073—one in five—did, that was deemed a sexual assault. Of those students, 682 were classified as having undergone attempted sexual assault, and another 782 completed sexual assault, with 651 of the latter saying they were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated or asleep at the time.

“If drunken hookups are defined as sexual assaults,” a female colleague says, remembering her college days, “then I’ve been sexually assaulted 177 times.” Those peering through the victim-advocate lens, however, chafe at any suggestion this method is flawed. “As if there’s some sort of number that would be all right,” Sokolow sniffs.

Still, when researchers asked the young women themselves if they considered what happened to them “rape,” three-quarters of the “incapacitated” victims didn’t. Only three percent said they’d experienced physical or psychological harm. Only two percent reported what happened to campus security or police. Asked why they hadn’t, the women said they didn’t consider the incident serious enough (66 percent) and/or that it wasn’t clear a crime or harm was intended (36 percent). Half said they themselves were partially or fully responsible for what had happened. The gray looked pretty gray to them.

But the fact that the victims didn’t think of themselves as victims, Sokolow says, misses the point: “They have to learn to say, ‘This is something that was done to me, not something I did to somebody else.’”

Deborah Nolan says that in 25 years at Ursinus, she’s heard a ton of sexual assault stories, and only one didn’t involve alcohol. Drinking lowers inhibitions: “Sometimes we want to be coaxed into things. But it makes people irate when you say that.”

I have a college-age daughter. I tell Sokolow that if she got drunk and had sex with someone, I’d jolly well expect her to take responsibility. He isn’t buying it: “She should have the right to strip naked and run through the streets and be unmolested. She didn’t make that happen; the molester did.”

IN ITS 2007 REPORT, the Justice Department wrote that the primary implications of its study were the “relative rarity” of drug-facilitated sexual assault, meaning roofie-aided, and “the need to incorporate alcohol and drug messages into sexual assault prevention and risk reduction programming.” But remember that $300,000 grant Ives applied for? Its guidelines discourage programs that focus on alcohol use, because they “reinforce the myth that victims somehow provoke or cause the violence they experience.” In other words: The government knows what works, but won’t let you do it. How does Ives reconcile that with what she sees every day on North Broad Street? “Temple’s approach has been that there is an intermingling between mental health issues, substance issues and sexual violence issues,” she says carefully. She really does want that grant.

The trouble is, schools have no idea how to address their drinking problem. They’re afraid to take draconian measures—who wants to go to a college where you can’t get drunk? But while Diane may still be out there pre-gaming, as Sokolow puts it, “The game is different now.”

NCHERM’s founder defends schools against Title IX claims even as he represents assault victims, neatly playing both sides of the field. And his job’s been very good to him. In August, NCHERM hosted a seminar for college administrators on the role of the newly required Title IX coordinator. One hundred seventy people attended, at $2,500 a head. Gross revenue: $425,000.

Sokolow has been advising colleges that students found to have engaged in sexual assault should be expelled as quickly as possible, to guard against Title IX liability. He’d like to see a national database of offenders, so schools could check names and Social Security numbers when such students try to transfer. He’s not saying they’re all predators-—“I’m saying you can’t tell if they are or not.” Asked if he’d accept a transfer student who’d been expelled for sexual assault, Juniata’s Kris Clarkson says, “Oh gosh, no. How could I?” And yet, Deborah Nolan says, “I’ve seen these young men broken in ways that just break me, too. I see such shock and remorse and guilt. They want to make it right.”

Now, they won’t have the chance. “The number of expelled students is going to go way up,” Sokolow predicts—a prospect he’s looking forward to.

IT WOULD BE ONE thing if there were proof that the barrage of education and awareness being foisted on colleges has any effect on women’s safety. There isn’t. A major review of research on the subject concluded, “It does not seem useful to spend resources on attitude change programs as currently delivered,” and recommended focusing on self-defense skills and alcohol use instead.

Why, if researchers know what works, does the government require schools to do what doesn’t, promoting the erection of a monolithic assault-prevention infrastructure? Heather Mac Donald, who writes on the topic for the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, blames “rape industrialists” who strip women of “volition and moral agency” by insisting they’re never responsible for what happens to them, even when they “drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties.”

There is something insultingly infantilizing about the Obama administration’s approach. You can’t possibly protect yourselves, the government is telling our daughters, so we’ll teach the men around you to protect you instead. Kris Clarkson’s seen the effects of such protectiveness: “Where students become fragile is that they’ve had so much of their lives organized for them. They’re just not good at managing themselves.” And they’re socially awkward: “The dating concept is lost. No one is having relationships; they’re just hooking up.” If they don’t even talk to one another, how will they ask for consent?

As for Jack, if the campus board finds he committed sexual assault, he’ll likely be expelled from school. He’ll lose his scholarships and financial aid, and end up sitting at home, desperately trying to transfer to another school. But every transfer application asks: Have you ever been expelled from a college? If so, explain. Explain? How is he even supposed to understand?

That’s not Brett Sokolow’s problem, though. “I’m enjoying the position of having a Title IX training program in place even before the need for the coordinators was announced,” he says from his couch. “Registration has taken off.”

So the leviathan grows. When I was in college, back in the heady ’70s—when we battled hard for the Equal Rights Amendment, when Ms. magazine was still new—I and the women I knew got drunk a lot, and woke up in bed with guys we didn’t always like or know. They never asked us, “Can I put my finger inside you?” We never accused them of sexual assault. We were, all of us, learning about limits and needs and wants. There were a lot of teachable moments along the way.

Those days are gone. I guess Joe Biden would rather talk about epidemics of sexual assault than a dearth of common sense.

Source: click here

Now that's a self-hater and mangina extrodinaire. Someone who will throw his own gender under the bus to curry female favor. I've got more on Brett Sokolow so stay turned.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Blumhorst on prostate cancer

I was reading at the National Coalition For Men's website about an article by LA Chapter President Ray Blumhorst where he discusses prostate cancer. Here is what he said:

Prostate cancer strikes one in six men but gets very little funding for research
August 16, 2011
By Ray Blumhorst

President, NCFM Los Angeles

Here’s an important public service announcement from the Prostate Cancer Foundation called “Keep Dad in the Game. Keep Dad in the Game Youtube video

Prostate cancer strikes one out of six men, but prostate cancer research gets only a fraction of the annual funding that breast cancer research receives.

The number of men who contract prostate cancer is about the same as the number of women getting breast cancer. The disparity in annual, government research funding between the two cancers is striking and discriminatory, illustrating yet again the institutionalized misandry existing in Western societies, in my opinion.

This is an imbalance that must not be tolerated. We have to protest this imbalance.

Ray · 1 week ago
Of the fifteen leading causes of death in America: men lead in 12 categories, are tied in two with women, while women lead in only one category.

In America, there is an Office of Women's Health at the federal level, and one each at the state and county levels in Los Angeles , California. There is no Office of Men's Health in any of those places.

Wny is men's health given such low priority in so many areas by so many social institutions?

Ray makes an interesting and valid point: why is there no health commission for men like there is for women? That's because it is up to us to make that happen. The only way we can make that happen is to lobby our elected leaders at the federal and state levels and protest this injustice;that we will not stand for it and we need to do this in large numbers if we are to be effective. Send in those emails today without delay.

Also at the state levels is different that the federal level. For example in the State Of California the only service available to men is prostate cancer screening and testing,which is great but prostate cancer is not the only cancer that befalls men. There is also penile and testicular cancer that rarely gets discussed,even by MRA's,but should be. Now compare that to the extensive Women's health section. The Men's Health page,the Women's Health page and a web page where both are listed. Let us not forget the State of California Office of Women's Health but no Office of Men's Health.Now that we can compare how the State Of California views men we can conclude that the State Of California doesn't give a fuck about men and the brothers in that state need to do some emailing to their elected officials and protest this injustice. Other states may be better or worse so yahoo or google to find out.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Feminist skates from justice

Former UCD official pleads no contest to embezzling charge

By Hudson Sangree
Published: Friday, Apr. 15, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 3B
Last Modified: Sunday, Apr. 17, 2011 - 12:30 pm

The former head of anti-violence efforts at the University of California, Davis, pleaded no contest Thursday to two felony charges of embezzlement and falsifying accounts.

Jennifer Beeman, the veteran director of UC Davis' Campus Violence Prevention Program, entered a plea agreement with prosecutors in which seven other felony charges were dismissed.

She appeared at a hearing Thursday in Yolo Superior Court, in which she entered pleas before Judge Janet Gaard.

Beeman, who has remained free on bail, will likely face a sentence of probation when she goes before a judge June 2, Michael Cabral, Yolo County's assistant chief deputy district attorney, said Thursday.

She will also have to pay restitution of about $10,525 – the amount she is suspected of embezzling, he said.

Beeman has no prior convictions, the District Attorney's Office said.

"We believe it's a fair and appropriate disposition based on the amount of loss," Cabral said.

Beeman left the courthouse without comment.

Beeman, 53, has been the subject of campus probes for allegedly inflating crime statistics on federal grant applications and misappropriating money for personal uses.

She was arrested Dec. 10 and charged with nine felonies related to her alleged misuse of funds from educational and outreach programs meant to prevent sexual violence, the university said in a news release.

UC Davis police contended Beeman embezzled thousands of dollars by asking for travel reimbursements and mileage to attend meetings that never took place.

The university returned more than $100,000 to the U.S. Justice Department after finding that unallowable expenses were charged to a violence prevention grant Beeman administered, officials said.

Beeman spent 16 years at the university before retiring in June 2009.

In September 2009, UC Davis announced Beeman had inflated the number of forcible sex offenses that took place on campus in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in reports required by federal law.

The university revised the figures in 2009, reducing by more than half the number of incidents reported for each year.

UC Davis' crime reporting had come into question before. A Bee story in 2001 reported that Beeman had written a grant application in 1999 stating that as many as 700 students at UC Davis were victims of rape or attempted rape each year.

At the same time, the university's reports to the federal government said assaults on campus were practically nonexistent.

The criminal charges against Beeman stem from her handling of program funds, not from her alleged misreporting of crime statistics.

Source:click here

This is bullshit. She is charged with 9 felonies and they drop 7 of them? That is fucking ridiculous,a man would have never gotten lenient treatment like this so it must be the pussy pass in action. She also gets to keep her retirement pay? That is too fucking much and it is too fucked up considering she loses nothing while fucking the California taxpayer out of his hard earned money. It's time feminists paid for their crimes without some pencil neck DA making lenient deals with felons like Beeman.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Great news in the Kellett situation


Contact: Paul Elam, A Voice for Men
P.O. Box301172
A Voice For Men

Bar Harbor Maine prosecutor faces disbarment for prosecuting innocent men for rape

A Bar Harbor Maine prosecutor faces historic proceedings after the state Board of Overseers of the Bar Counsel issues a rare recommendation of finding probable cause of prosecutorial misconduct following a 7 month long investigation. Assistant district attorney Mary N. Kellett has been accused of prosecuting dozens of men for sex crimes even when evidence of their innocence was established. Several prosecuted men were accused by their wives or girlfriends in the course of their divorce or child custody disputes. The complaints investigated by the Bar Counsel Scott Davis cited witness and evidence tampering and presentation of false facts and evidence before the Court by prosecutor Mary N. Kellett.

The misconduct first came to light in the case of Vladek Filler, a husband accused of sexual misconduct by his estranged wife during their divorce and child custody battle in the Bar Harbor area[1]. Filler won and maintained sole custody of his children during two criminal prosecutions for spousal rape and the prosecutor’s appeal to the Supreme Court[2].

Renowned private investigator TJ Ward of the Natalie Halloway Aruba case conducted a two year investigation of the Filler rape case and called it a “fabrication,” publicly criticizing prosecutor Mary Kellett’s conduct[3]. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court followed with a decision noting prosecutor’s misconduct in the case[4], and numerous complaints to the State of Maine’s Board of Overseers of the Bar followed[5].

The Filler case shed light on numerous prosecutions of innocent men[6] in this small New England community which have been dubbed “The modern day Salem witch trials”[7]. Even on the eve of Board of Overseers Commission meeting concerning prosecutor Mary Kellett’s misconduct, new charges surface of witness tampering and misinforming the Court. The misconduct resulted in a mistrial and in the office of Attorney General’s office publicly pointing at prosecutor Mary Kellett[8]. A Voice for Men, an advocacy organization, is calling for disbarment of attorney Mary Kellett by the Board of Overseers of the Bar, and for her immediate suspension in the interim by the Hancock County District Attorney Carletta Bassano.

For more information contact Paul Elam of A Voice for Men at A Voice For Men

# # #


[1] Carey Roberts article
[2] SAVES press release
[3] NCFM press release
[4] Court documents
[5] SAVES complaint
[6] Filler fund concerning Mary Kellett
[7] Filler fund
[8] Bangor Daily News article

Source: click here

It is just like that Bob Dylan song "the times they are a changing" and a changing for the better. Wow,I am jazzed,this is indeed good news and everyone who signed those petitions and sent those emails this is how your hard work paid off. Give yourselves a pat on the back and a round of applause. You,me,we all did it,we FTSU specifically Kellett's. I want to thank us all who did the work to make this possible. A feminazi is going before the Maine Bar,this is an Nuremberg moment for us (I am referring to the Nuremberg trials conducted by the Americans in post WWII Germany) when we get to see the first of many feminists placed on trial for the horrible atrocities that they have committed against men and boys. The only thing I have to add further would be:Fry Kellett Fry.

Resisting anti-male sexism


Contact: Wendy McElroy, 301-801-0608,


WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 / U.S. Newswire / — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is calling on the U.S. Department of Education to rescind a controversial directive. The new DED rule forces persons to abandon their due process rights to get an education. Such persons are considered “guilty until proven innocent” whenever an on-campus sexual accusation occurs.

On April 4, the DED Office of Civil Rights instructed every university that accepts federal funds to use a “preponderance (51%) of evidence” standard in evaluating allegations of sexual offense, including rape. An accuser only needs to ‘tip the scales’ for a professor or student to be found “guilty.”

But the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) is now objecting. The group wants sexual accusations to be judged by a higher standard than traffic courts use for parking tickets.

On June 27, Gregory Scholtz, AAUP’s Director of the Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance wrote to DED to protest the “lower standard of proof” that threatens “academic freedom and tenure.”

Then on August 18, AAUP’s Chair of the Committee on Women expressed concern about the “potential for accusations, even false ones, to ruin a faculty member’s career.” Backlash from two separate units of the AAUP is remarkable. Their recognition of false accusations is extraordinary.

“People lie for many reasons including revenge and shame; people also make mistakes. This is why courts presume an accused to be innocent and place the burden of proof on the accuser,” explains SAVE spokesman Phil Cook. “Hard evidence and due process are all the more important in sexual cases that often devolve to ‘he said, she said.’”

As a result of the DED directive, campuses are already beginning to reverse the presumption of innocence. Based on questionable data, men are assumed to be predators and women are said to “never lie” about issues like rape. By lowering the standards of justice, the OCR is encouraging false accusations.

SAVE applauds the AAUP for its courage in demanding the OCR rescind its April 4th mandate. SAVE urges college student parents to contact the Department of Education to demand for due process for all.

The SAVE letter to the Department of Education can be seen here: click here. SAVE is a national victim advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence.

Source:click here

I heard that Ali is rejecting certain email,probably hoping we go away. I would also suggest contacting your Congressional leaders and let them know what's up and how you feel about it. Writing our Congressional leaders hopefully will keep Ali honest and help motivate her to rescind that order. The more of us they hear from the better so let's send those emails today.

Audit the Fed

In the United States we have to keep government accountable or we will be in dire straits. There is one agency that is not accountable to the people and that is the Federal Reserve. However Ron and Rand Paul want to change that. Ron with HR 459 and Rand with S 202. I'll let Audit the Fed take it from here:

An Open Letter to Congress
Whereas:Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Treasury have put the American taxpayer on the hook for over $16 trillion in bailouts and loans; and

Whereas: The Federal Reserve continues to refuse to fully disclose the details of its emergency lending; and

Whereas: Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation, and a lower quality of life for every American; and

Whereas: HR 459 and S 202, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, would require a complete audit of the Fed for the first time in its history and would provide answers to the American people about how our money is being spent;

Therefore: It's time to hold the Federal Reserve accountable to Congress and the American People. I urge you to do everything in your power to pass the Audit the Fed bill!

Submit the information below to sign the petition and join the Audit the Fed coalition. Copies will be sent to your representatives in Congress:

Yes,do sign the petition. If accountability in government to preserve freedom is something that appeals to you then by all means sign the petition. Hold government accountable. Also email your political leaders and tell them how you feel on these bills. The more of us they hear from the better so email them today.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

The Obama-Kagan connection

I received an email that details very shocking information about this administration; its cronymism and Chicago style politics. It would also shed light on how Elena Kagan became a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Here it is:

Received In An Email
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2011, 11:39 PM

----- Original Message -----


Obama is crooked as a snake. He should not have appointed this conflict-of-interest Kagan to the Supreme Court, and Congress surely should have picked up on this relationship and denied Obama this Kagan appointment!

Date: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 7:20 PM

I heard years ago that Snopes was a left-wing operation and found it odd that there was absolutely nothing negative to be found there about Obama when he was running for President. I should have known that George Sorros was behind them, too.

Most of us have gone to Snopes for verify information that we were not sure about. Now, come to find out, Snopes is not the paragon of truth we thought it was. I just eliminated them as a source of honesty and integrity.

Please read and pass on to your email friends.
Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a huge financial supporter of Obama!

In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have
suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check out "Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets." Snopes said there were no such dockets, so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what?

Yep you got it. Snopes lied. Everyone of those dockets are there. So Here is what I wrote Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets:

The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Court's website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.

I have long suspected that you really slant things but
this revelation is really shocking. You exist behind a veil of half truths and distorted facts.

Hoping you will be honest and forthcoming in the future is probably expecting too much.
That being said, if you really didn't know THIS then your
investigative reporting is a sham;
Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now that he has appointed her to the Suprene Court , she may help rule on them! Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics--and the beat goes on and on and on...

Once again the US Senate sold us out! Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.

Pull up the Supreme Court's website, go to the docket and search for Obama. Kagan was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her
big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard! It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It all comes down to payback
time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: When you look up some of these hearings, guess what?Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!
Check out these examples:

If you are not interested in truth or justice,
delete this. However, If you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by God and the U.S. Constitution, by all means, please PASS IT ON. I DID MY PART!

So did I. This is big and it certainly explains a lot. Journalistic integrity seems to be an oxymoron these days. The only way for any journalist with integrity to get their views known to the public is on the internet and more people are turning to the net in record numbers. When you look at what passes for "news" these days you'll want to get on the net PDQ and is it any wonder? Not to me.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

American college men in peril

Russlynn Ali

American college men are in big trouble on college campuses today. They have no rights and their freedoms can be taken away on a whim from a female,and ultimately dismay their plans of finishing school and choosing a career in a field of their desire.. When one takes into consideration how Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, head of the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights took away men's civil rights with a policy change. When one takes the following into consideration:

At the cost of losing federal funding—on which all major institutions of higher education have grown dependent—colleges and universities are obliged under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex) to thoroughly investigate all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus, including the felony of rape. They are also obliged, according to Ms. Ali, to curtail due process rights of the accused.

OCR's new interpretation of Title IX "strongly discourages" universities from permitting the accused "to question or cross-examine the accuser" during the hearing. In addition, if universities provide an appeals process, it must be available to both parties—which subjects the accused to double jeopardy.

Most egregiously, OCR requires universities to render judgment using "a preponderance of the evidence" standard. This means that in a rape case, a campus disciplinary board of faculty, administrators and perhaps students serves as both judge and jury. Few if any of these judges are likely to have professional competence in fact-gathering, evidence analysis or judicial procedure. Yet to deliver a verdict of guilty, they need only believe that the accused is more likely than not to have committed the crime.

Source: click here

We need to stand up to the anti-male policies of this administration and one of the things we can do email blitz our elected leaders in Congress,both Houses,and have them look into this. The DOE has no business putting men through this,it has to stop and we have to make sure these policies are never implemented ever again. So write your elected leaders and tell them you will not put up with this misandry any more. The more of us they hear from the better so send those emails today.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The continuous violations of Mary N. Kellett

It seems at times that Kellett has reached rock bottom,that there is no lower level of depravity that she can reach but it seems that she can and has reached a lower level than even most people thought couldn't be achieved. We know about her persecution of Vladek Filler,it's all over the mansphere,including on my blog. She has also engaged in witness tampering to get a conviction against a man but now she has no problem impugning the character of a man. But it seems that Kellett may have royally stepped in it this time because the man who's character she impugned is not a defendant who's case Kellett is going to prosecute. No,he's a fellow attorney,specifically an attorney employed by the Maine AG.

Paul Elam talks about this on his blog and he brings up the following:

Mary Kellett has just been dropped into the fryer. On the merits of his statement alone, two factors become abundantly clear.

  • Mary Kellett engaged in witness tampering by lying to the alleged victim in the case thus coercing her to withdraw exculpatory testimony.

  • Mary Kellett further perpetrated a fraud on the court by misleading the judge to believe that she had been furnished information from the state AG’s office, when in fact she had been furnished no such information.

  • There may well be other violations that become apparent as this case is investigated further. But these two points of interest do serve as grounds for further complaints to the Overseers of the Bar in Maine, as well as to the office of Governor Paul LePage and the Office of the State Attorney General.

    There is a pending bar complaint on Mary Kellett stemming from the Vladek Filler case that was filed by the National Coalition for Men. That complaint has been investigated and referred to the bar with the recommendation that sanctions against Kellett were warranted.

    Kellett is a rogue ADA and has to be stopped. That is why I am joining in with this campaign to stop Mary N. Kellett. We need to contact various people in the Maine state government. I'm talking about contacting the Governor,the Attorney General,the Overseers to the Bar of Maine and the District Attorney of Hancock County and the faster we do it the better so send in those emails today.

    Friday, August 19, 2011

    Defeat the House version of S.968

    Congressman Bob Goldlatte

    It seems someone in the House has authored a version of S.968 which is the Internet Blacklist bill aka PROTECT-ID act. To give you an idea how truly bad the Internet Blacklist bill is I present the following from an email:

    Congressman Bob Goodlatte, a leader in Congress on technology policy, told a crowd of over a hundred that the House is working on its own version of the Senate bill....The House bill will be introduced in the next few weeks, and hearings will be scheduled for mid-September, Goodlatte said.

    The Internet Blacklist Bill -- S.968, formally called the PROTECT IP Act -- would allow the Department of Justice to force search engines, browsers, and service providers to block users' access to websites that have been accused of facilitating intellectual property infringement -- without even giving them a day in court. It would also give IP rights holders a private right of action, allowing them to sue to have sites prevented from operating.

    If this sounds like a bullshit move to you then write your Congressional Representative and tell them your displeasure about their censorship attempt. Tell them that S.968 and a House version of it is wrong and unacceptable. If you live in Congressman Bob Goldlatte's district let him know that stunts like this are unacceptable to you and if he continues to pull them you'll remember that in the voting booth.The more of us they hear from the better so email your Congressperson today.

    Tuesday, August 16, 2011

    Carey Roberts on amending VAWA

    There is one columnist that I respect a lot and that is Carey Roberts. He is talking about amending VAWA which is long overdue. I'll let the master himself go from here:

    Violence Against Women Act must stop the hateful stereotypes

    By Carey Roberts

    The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing on the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Americans certainly should do all we can to stop partner aggression...but does that mean it's fine to batter the truth?

    In order to convince over-burdened taxpayers to pony up the nearly $400 million for VAWA's wide-ranging criminal justice programs, proponents have tucked into the law a series of alarming findings designed to play on the chivalrous impulses of male lawmakers...and the darkest fears of their female constituents.

    To put the issue into perspective, every good study has found that women are as likely as men to haul off and slap, kick, or punch their partners. And when women are maimed, more often than not, it's the female who started the melee.

    Professor Martin Fiebert at California State University has compiled the results of over 250 studies, concluding "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners." The problem is especially worrisome with high school girls who, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, are 25% more likely than boys to be the instigators of partner abuse:

    So welcome to the world of VAWA-land, where statistics are blithely sliced, diced, and cherry-picked to the point that they bear little resemblance to the truth. Here's just a sampling from the make-believe smorgasbord....

    First, the over-wrought generalizations. One of the VAWA findings avers, "One out of every 3 Indian women are raped in their lifetimes." But that statistic is based on the responses gathered from a grand total of...ready for this?...88 women.

    Second, the creative mangling of the truth. VAWA claims, "There is a strong link between domestic violence and homelessness. Among cities surveyed, 44 percent identified domestic violence as a primary cause of homelessness." But according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors report that is the basis of the claim, domestic violence is only the fifth leading cause of homelessness.

    Next come the weasel words. One finding states solemnly, "the former United States Advisory Board on Child Abuse suggests that domestic violence may be the single major precursor to child abuse and neglect fatalities." But according to the far more authoritative National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, children living in single-parent households face an 80% higher risk of experiencing serious injury or harm from neglect. In other words, breaking up a family on account of minor abuse constitutes a far greater risk to kids than the initial incident of partner abuse.

    Then we come to the one-sided claims: "40% of girls ages 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend." Shocking indeed, except it fails to mention the percentage of teenage boys who know of someone assaulted by a girlfriend, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40%.

    This brings us to the gross misrepresentations: "Each year about 324,000 pregnant women in the United States are battered by the men in their lives. This battering leads to complications of pregnancy, including low weight gain, anemia, infections, and first and second trimester bleeding."

    Outrageous? Now do you want to hear what the research really says? According to the analysis published by Julie Gazmararian in the Maternal and Child Health Journal, in her words, "we can estimate that between 152,000 and 324,000 women experience violence during their pregnancies."

    So VAWA conveniently omits the fact that the actual number may be 152,000, not 324,000. And most incidents of "violence" consist of a minor shove or slap — a far cry from what most people think of as "battering."

    Ready for the galloping falsehood? "37% of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend," the VAWA finding screams. But the US Centers for Disease Control says the actual percentage is less than 1%. But hey, when we're talking about a subject as important as domestic violence, any number will do.

    And now the grand finale, the gender vilification: "in a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, 50% of men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children." This claim is based on the 1985 National Family Violence Survey. Look closely at Table 14.2 of that study, and you'll see that child abuse rates for abusive moms and dads are nearly identical.

    Overall, VAWA contains dozens of alarming findings that depict a nation of women besieged by loathsome men incapable of containing their abusive impulses. Each year the federal government spends $84 million on domestic violence education and training programs that spew flawed statistics, one-sided claims, and undeserved stereotypes.

    It's time we stop the misinformation and hate.

    © Carey Roberts

    Edward Bartlett,whom I believe is with SAVES, suggests calling the Congressional switchboard: here

    You can also email Senator Patrick Leahy to help push things along. The more of us they hear from the better and the faster the better.

    A preview of the reign of Queen Michele the 1st

    Michele Bachmann:Queen of the Reich

    CNN weekend anchor Don Lemon says that Marcus Bachmann, the husband of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, and two members of her campaign staff pushed him into a golf cart during a campaign stop at the Iowa state fair in Des Moines before Bachmann's victory in Saturday's straw poll.

    "She came out, after speaking for just a couple minutes," Lemon said on CNN. "There were other reporters and cameras there. And I asked her very respectful questions: 'How do you think you did in the debate last night?' and 'How do you think you're going to end up in the Ames Straw Poll?' And her two campaign aides started elbowing me."

    Lemon continued: "I told them, asked them not to elbow me. And then her husband Marcus started doing the same thing. And then he elbowed me into the cart. And I said, 'You just pushed me into the cart.' And he goes, 'No, you did it yourself.'"

    "Why they would choose to do that?" he added. "We weren't asking any 'gotcha' questions."

    "Our number one priority is the safety and protection of Michele Bachmann," Alice Stewart, the press secretary for the Bachmann campaign, said in a statement. "It was just too crowded. We were just trying to get her out in order for her to go to other events at the fair and that's what we were doing."

    The incident comes less than a month after a similar scene at a campaign stop in Aiken, South Carolina, where ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross was "manhandled" by two of Bachmann's bodyguards.

    After Bachmann disclosed that she takes prescription medication to control migraine headaches, Ross attempted to ask her if the condition had ever caused the Tea Party hopeful to miss a House vote.

    "I was never closer than 10 or 12 feet to her," Ross later told Bill O'Reilly. "The people around her recognized me and came up and identified themselves as with the staff said they knew who I was. And the blocking was all about me. Other cameraman, other reporters were allowed to get close."

    Bachmann's security guards then grabbed and pushed Ross, according to Ross and several news accounts.

    "They kept me from going closer," Ross said. "The people around them are doing their best to protect them, not as a matter of security but from kind of annoying reporters like me asking a question that is a very penetrating question."

    The Bachmann camp blamed Ross for the encounter. "We were on a tight timeframe to get her back to D.C. for an important vote on Cut, Cap and Balance," Stewart told CNN. "We were on a beeline to the car. And he jumped up on stage. We repeatedly told him not to do it. And he did it. And then he ran around a group of people--just repeatedly disregarded our request for him to stay back so she could get in the car and go to D.C."

    Source:click here

    If you click on the above link there is a video which is very telling about Michele Bachmann.

    It appears that if anyone questions the queen they incur her wrath and the wrath of her stormtroopers and are promptly and harshly dealt with. If she ever gets into the Whitehouse you can believe things will be worse,especially for men considering it was male reporters her stormtroopers roughed up.

    Sunday, August 14, 2011

    Female rapists in Africa

    Police in Zimbabwe are on the trail of a group of women who have been raping men, usually at gunpoint, since last year.

    Cases of men who have been sexually abused by women are common in the country and hardly a week passes without such a report being made in the media.

    The motives of these women are not known, but there is speculation that they may be doing this for ritual purposes.

    Indecently assaulting

    “We appeal to members of the public to pass any information to the police regarding three women who have gone on a spree of kidnapping and indecently assaulting young men around town,” Harare police boss Angeline Guvamombe said in a statement.

    “The women drive in posh cars and offer their unsuspecting victims lifts before spraying some liquid substance on their faces.

    “Once the victim is drowsy, he is taken to a secluded place or house where he is forced to have sex,” said Ms Guvamombe. “I want to warn these criminals that their days are numbered,” she added.

    On Monday, the Herald reported that two men were kidnapped last week and forced to have sex with women at gunpoint.

    In one of the incidents, a 30-year-old man was kidnapped by three women and forced to have sex with them for five days.

    In some cases, the women use protection and collect the men’s sperm, leading to speculation that they were in the activity for ritual purposes.

    At times, the women are helped by armed men.

    Since the strange rape cases began sometime last year, no one has been arrested.

    Police have said the women cannot be charged with rape because Zimbabwean law does not recognise that women can rape men.

    But they will be charged with indecent assault, which carries a lesser sentence.

    Source:click here

    Tuesday, August 9, 2011

    Tell your Congressperson about the Partnership Violence Reduction Act

    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVES) is getting the word out to contact your Congressional Representatives and tell them about the Partnership Violence Reduction Act and why it should be supported. Some of the reasons VAWA should be amended are:
  • “We do not shelter men in the shelter even if it’s empty.” — Judy King Smith, director of the Rape and Domestic Violence Information Center, Morgantown, West Virginia

  • “VAWA needs to focus on ending those crimes [physical battering] rather than broaden the definition of violence to the point of meaninglessness.” – Concerned Women for America

  • Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing ‘annoyance’ or ‘emotional distress,’ or just not doing what your partner wants.” – Eagle Forum

  • “A number of women attending the seminars smugly—indeed boastfully—announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!”— New Jersey attorney

  • Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’” – Trainer at New Jersey judicial seminar

  • These bullet points are from VAWA:Mandate for Change. Congressman Ted Poe has no problem making VAWA gender neutral and the Roll Call brought up the economic side of VAWA and how there is no accountability for where the money goes. In fact Senator Grassley mentions how VAWA is accountable to no one It's time for a change for the better. It's time to contact your Congreesperson and the sooner the better. Do so right away.

    Saturday, August 6, 2011

    The persecution of Vladek Filler

    Vladek Filler:victim of the matriarchy

    Vladek Filler: A political prisoner in America

    Many of you will know the name of Vladek Filler. Thanks in part to your help with drawing media attention to his case, and the fact that he was innocent, Filler was exonerated of the false rape charges against him.

    He was, however, convicted falsely of assaulting his estranged wife, Ligia Filler, by putting a bruise on her arm. The court has scheduled Vladek’s sentencing hearing for August 10, 2011, at 9 am at Hancock County Superior Court in Maine, despite clear evidence that the assault conviction was based on fraud.

    I am asking for help from MRAs to make their voices heard concerning the fraud and abuse inflicted on Vladek Filler and his children by Ligia Filler, ADA Mary Kellett, DA Bassano, ADA Paul Cavanaugh, and the local legal establishment which is determined to severely punish an innocent man because he fought for the custody of his sons and because he has defied their corrupt actions against him.

    Vladek’s attorney not only filed an appeal for the assault conviction but went further and filed a post-trial motion asking the judge to acquit Vladek or order a new trial based on evidence of Vladek’s innocence.

    Vladek Filler Motion for New Trial:click here

    Included in the motion is just a few irrefutable facts proving that Filler was wrongfully convicted, based on the evidence. What the motion did not mention was that the original trial judge blocked a mountain of key evidence, including Police reports which explicitly stated that Ligia Filler changed her entire story days later after she materialized a fresh bruise on her arm. None of her prior transcribed statements about the incident were allowed at trial.

    To date the judge has not ruled on the post-trial motion to acquit or set aside the conviction for a new trial. Instead the establishment is rushing to use the wrongful misdemeanor conviction to harshly punish Vladek before blatant fraud and evidence suppression gets reviewed by a higher court.

    Simply put, Filler’s insistence on defending himself against lies and corruption has made him a liability to the system. They are pushing actively to put him in jail as quickly and quietly as possible.

    As Thomas Ball faced certain court abuse and jail at his upcoming hearing, on August 10, 2011, Vladek will face what is, on its face, political imprisonment.
    Prosecutor Paul Cavanaugh will argue for Filler to receive the maximum prison sentence (1 year). Yes, that is a year in prison for allegedly putting a bruise on a known liar’s arm that did not appear for four days after the “incident.” The judge allowed Vladek to remain free pending appeal, but required a $50K surety bail stating that it was “due to the seriousness,” of the allegations against him. This treatment for a class D misdemeanor conviction with no prior record is unheard of.

    The fix is in, people. They want to use this misdemeanor assault charge to make an example of Filler for speaking out; for filing a Bar Complaint against Kellett; for blowing the whistle on their crimes against men.

    This is the same district and prosecutor (Paul Cavanaugh) who sought only 30 days in jail for a confessed female child molester. Click here

    Yes,in fact this a quote from that other trial:

    Cavanaugh said he was “satisfied” that Cuddy agreed with the state’s recommended sentence of 30 days. He said there was no physical evidence in the case, and that if the case had gone to trial it likely would have taken a couple more years before it would have been resolved.

    “Hopefully, this can move both [of the families] forward,” the prosecutor said.

    If Vladek Filler were a woman would he be going through this hell? Chances are no he wouldn't. Read on,it gets worse.

    Not only was she allowed to keep custody of her boys despite being convicted for molesting their friend, but the rationale used for her 30 day sentence was to allow her to be with the children.

    No one seems to care that Vladek’s abused and traumatized sons will face more trauma and threats from both CPS and Ligia Filler if Vladek is imprisoned. Ligia Filler has a documented history of abusing her children. Officials saw her treatment of them as serious enough to award Vladek full custody despite the fact that he was being prosecuted for rape and assault.

    But it gets even more insane in Salem Village. Filler was criminally charged with this fake assault solely by Ligia Filler’s over the phone complaint. That’s right, the police never even responded to the “scene of the crime.” They simply had a warrant issued for his arrest based on an allegation an alleged victim made on the telephone.

    Evidence shows the police chief, Guy Wycoff, helped Ligia Filler concoct her story days later. By contrast, the police department and Kellett’s office refuse to allow criminal charges against Ligia Filler for well substantiated domestic abuse, harassment, or even for being caught by the police causing over $10,000 of theft and destruction to Vladek’s awarded property.

    Instead, on August 10, Ligia Filler and the same strangers who coached her to cry to be more believable,(click here) and helped her destroy Vladek’s life and lives of his children, will be allowed to address the Court and call for his imprisonment. Ligia Filler will be allowed to make her demands for his punishment for a misdemeanor assault by using her absurd and false rape accusations. Vladek’s sentencing is being turned into a public stoning by the villagers.

    The witch trials must end. As I write this, still another false sexual assault case is being readied for trial by Mary Kellett against another father desperately fighting for his children with his wife. And there is also the recent event that Kellett conned a woman in another case to not testify on behalf of her estranged husband by convincing her he had killed his first wife. That case was thrown out on Kellett’s misconduct when the judge found out what she did. More on both of these cases later.

    But right now I am calling for help from MRAs to speak out against this gross abuse of due process and civil rights. As Thomas Ball faced certain court abuse and jail at his upcoming hearing, on August 10, 2011, Vladek will face what is, on its face, political imprisonment.

    We need as many messages of support as possible before the sentencing hearing. The letters will be considered directly by the trial judge and will allow Vladek’s supporters to have direct access to the judge. We need people to call for Vladek’s acquittal or new trial. We need people to demand justice for Vladek and his children – not more abuse and imprisonment.

    Respectful emails for Judge Robert Murray of the Hancock County Superior Court, who is presiding over the case, can be sent to They will be forwarded to his office. You might also e-mail their letters to the local media and the Governor’s office.

    Source:click here

    This whole mess is just a travesty of justice and just goes to show that some officials think that they can play whatever games they play and that they'll never get caught. The ADA,DA and local law enforcement in this case stink and they stink up to high heaven. We've got to send those emails right away so we can put a stop to anti-male bullshit like this. Send those emails today and stand up for justice. To email the Governor of Maine click here and to contact the local media,The Bangor Daily News (click here) and write letters to the editor in support of Vladek Filler. The more of us they hear from the better so let's get busy and continue to fuck their shit up.

    Wednesday, August 3, 2011

    They're at it again

    The entertainment industry is starting the bullshit tango again with the PROTECT IP Act that will impose censorship on the net. If you think that is a bullshit move like I do then read on. I'll let Demand Progress take it from here (also while you're there don't forget to sign the letter):

    UPDATE: We're anticipating that a version of PROTECT IP will be introduced in the House of Representatives in coming weeks, so we've pulled together this video to remind the world about what makes it so awful. Please check it out and pass it on:

    ORIGINAL: We're forcing them to take our concerns seriously: Demand Progress members have sent more than 50,000 emails to Senators to urge them to oppose the Internet Blacklist Bill (the PROTECT IP Act). Now we're hearing back from them, and one thing is clear: Our emails are compelling Senators to start thinking hard about Internet freedom. Will you urge your lawmakers to oppose the Internet Blacklist Bill? Just fill out the form at right.

    PROTECT IP would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other "information location tools" to block users' access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement -- the initiation of a China-style censorship regime here in the United States.

    Senators are writing back to let us know that our emails are making them think twice before rubber-stamping PROTECT IP. For instance, Oregon's Jeff Merkley is telling Demand Progress members:

    I have heard from many Oregonians on both sides of this issue – those who support providing U.S. agencies with greater authority to shut down websites, and those who are worried that the legislation could result in Internet censorship. Thanks to your letter and the letters of fellow Oregonians, I have asked my staff to take a closer look into this legislation.

    Will you email Congress to urge them to oppose the PROTECT IP Act? Just add your info at right to automatically send this note to them, under your name and from your address. (You can edit the letter if you'd like to.)

    Like I said sign that letter. The freedoms you safeguard are you own so sign right away.

    Tuesday, August 2, 2011

    A couple of things from SAVES

    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVES is pleased to announce that the Dr. Phil Show will be featuring a program devoted to the topic of male victims of domestic violence. The program will be aired in mid-September. The show will feature SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook and several male victims of partner abuse.

    The decision to devote a program to male victims followed Dr. Phil McGraw's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 13, 2011 - see SAVE's July 25 press release:

    Download the file on how domestic violence programs discriminate against men

    SAVE applauds the Dr. Phil Show for its recognition and support of all victims of domestic violence.



    Teri Stoddard, Program Director
    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

    Philip Cooks book:here

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released its Women's Preventive Services requirements for qualified health plans yesterday. Some of the rules are reasonable, like screening for diabetes in pregnant women.

    But the document requires that health plans conduct "screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence" on an annual basis for women...but not men: Women's Guide Lines
    Contact Secretary Sebelius RIGHT NOW at . Then call Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Howard Koh at 202-690-7694.

    Respectfully tell them the DV screening requirement of the Women's Preventive Services guideines is unreasonable and a slap in the face to male victims of domestic violence. Tell them to promptly revise the discriminatory guideline to include both men and women.



    Teri Stoddard, Program Director

    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

    Dr.Phil is giving men a fair deal or not? Let's see what happens on the show. For SAVES to get a spot on the Dr.Phil show is quite amazing. I hope he gives the SAVES advocates the same courtesy and respect he affords feminists. Apparently activism works and all of you who wrote in support of men's rights should be very proud of yourselves and we have every right to be now let's see how the show goes.

    Get ahold of the Health and Human Services Secretary and tell her about the truth about domestic violence and what the real numbers are and that women are far from the angelic victims they pretend to be. The more of us she hears from the better so write in today. Act today with no delay.