Even Some Men's Rights Activists Are Worried About a Trump Presidency
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.
Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"
It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?
"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.
"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."
Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power, says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.
"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.
But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."
Source
Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.
Showing posts with label Paul Elam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Elam. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Men are taught to die for women in the Anglosphere
Chivalry: A learned deathwish
April 25, 2016 By Paul Elam 79 Comments
Just after midnight last Friday, April 22, 2016, and a scant 4 or 5 miles from where I am sitting, 19-year-old Jason Cisneros stopped by his best friend Ivania’s apartment to see her. When he arrived, he heard a commotion near where he parked.
He sent a text to Ivania inside, saying, “’I’m outside. There’s a lady honking, and this guy wants to hit her. He wants to kill her.”
Jason then approached the woman’s car to intervene. Just a moment later, he lay dying on the street, with two gunshot wounds.
The news coverage on this, what little it will get, will paint a simple picture. A brave young man heard a woman in distress — a woman he did not even know — and lost his life trying to protect her.
Of course, the real story is not nearly so simple. What made this young man walk into the line of fire? Was it heroics? Why didn’t he just call the police? Why did he feel the pull toward intervening in the troubles of a female stranger?
Why have men like this, rushing in and dying to protect women they don’t even know, become their own crime statistic?
This is a sad event that illustrates so much of what is wrong with men’s story in the modern age.
With the narrative about men’s place in the world casting them in the role of a protective vassal, we have developed the expectation that this is what men ought to be.
Undoubtedly the news coverage will play this out as a senseless tragedy. Accordingly, most will eventually take refuge in the fanciful idea that Jason Cisneros died a hero.
The members of society, by and large, who read this story and watch the news video, will end up on a similar trajectory, toward glorifying the self-sacrifice.
They will not conclude that this was a young man who was set up, duped into putting his neck on the chopping block by a history and force he never had a chance to grow up to understand.
His parents will take solace in the idea that their son died doing something noble. His friend will apply a similar salve to her grief. Few, if any, will question the wisdom of his choice or the factors that drove him to make it.
Fewer still will wonder about the character of the woman he was trying to save, even though it was evident that she was in a relationship with a murderous thug, that her chickens had come home to roost that night, and that she wanted someone to rescue her at any cost.
Jason Cisneros
Jason Cisneros
Jason Cisneros died trying to protect a woman he did not know, who it turns out may have been no more worthy of protection than the man who killed him.
Our society will interpret his death as heroics, and thus teach more young men that this insanity is the model of manhood they should emulate.
We will deny our young men the truth. Jason’s impulse to rescue the damsel in distress is a dysfunctional mandate passed down from generation to generation living by a narrative that sees his life as easily disposable.
Was Jason a good man? Most probably he was, though I am loathe to use that term lightly anymore. There is too much pointless sacrifice that comes with it.
The small amount of information that I have indicates that he came from a loving, supportive and close-knit family. And he was, after all, doing what he believed to be the right thing.
I can’t even imagine the sense of loss his family feels right now. Parents burying a child instead of the reverse is a hugely painful deviation from the natural order.
But for the sake of preventing more funerals, it is important to push aside the misguided chivalry and false heroism of this event and recognize that Jason’s death is one of countless, pointless sacrifices that never should have happened.
There is nothing to glorify here. Not the death of a beloved son. Not the ill-fated choices of young women who are sexually excited by criminality and violence.
And not the false code of male honor inflicted on young men from the shadows of a warped social consciousness.
There is a lesson here for parents and for anyone else who has a young man in their lives whom they love.
Please ask yourself, if your son or other loved one encountered the same situation as Jason, what would they do? Would they intervene? If they did, is that what you would want them to do?
Would it make you proud? If it would, are you willing to bury them for the sake of that pride?
If you would not want your son to die like Jason Cisneros died, have you told him? Have you made it clear to him that dying for a stranger is not your idea of manhood?
Have the lessons from your family been about protecting his loved ones, protecting himself, or about protecting anyone at his own expense?
You know, this stuff matters. Today’s young men get copious amounts of messaging about manhood, most of it instructing them to accept their disposability by calling it a badge of honor.
Young men face a barrage of social messages to “man up” and be a “real man” and other shaming, exploitive instructions.
It even comes from the government. We see it in the “It’s On Us” anti-sexual assault campaign, which includes President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, along with stars like Common, Mike Roe, and others, telling young men that it is on them to intervene.
Just like Jason Cisneros did.
Please watch the “It’s On Us” video and think about the price Jason paid for making sure it was on him.
Doing that might make you stop to consider if you want to manipulate your son or another beloved man into playing unarmed and unpaid bodyguard, ever at the disposal of strangers.
And while you’re at it, you might ask yourself something else. Do you have any reason to think Common would risk his life for a stranger?
Do you think Joe Biden cares about your son — or the women’s vote?
When I look at what Jason’s story turned into, all I see is a devastated family, a grieving friend, and a decent young man with a life cut short on behalf of someone who in no way warranted that kind of sacrifice – not that any stranger ever does.
Perhaps there is a better social message we can send all people, young and old. It’s on you.
It’s on you to forge the ability to protect yourself. It’s on you to make sound decisions about people with whom you choose to get involved.
It is not the responsibility of strangers, and it is not a burden for another class of human beings to bear.
No one outside you, your family and the police have any obligation to take risks for your safety. If women don’t know this, the parents of young men certainly should.
Source
Warren Farrell weighed in on male disposibility in his book The Myth Of Male Power,how it reduces men to a lesser status than women and it makes men miscategorize their slavery as something heroic. This is misandry. This has to stop.
April 25, 2016 By Paul Elam 79 Comments
Just after midnight last Friday, April 22, 2016, and a scant 4 or 5 miles from where I am sitting, 19-year-old Jason Cisneros stopped by his best friend Ivania’s apartment to see her. When he arrived, he heard a commotion near where he parked.
He sent a text to Ivania inside, saying, “’I’m outside. There’s a lady honking, and this guy wants to hit her. He wants to kill her.”
Jason then approached the woman’s car to intervene. Just a moment later, he lay dying on the street, with two gunshot wounds.
The news coverage on this, what little it will get, will paint a simple picture. A brave young man heard a woman in distress — a woman he did not even know — and lost his life trying to protect her.
Of course, the real story is not nearly so simple. What made this young man walk into the line of fire? Was it heroics? Why didn’t he just call the police? Why did he feel the pull toward intervening in the troubles of a female stranger?
Why have men like this, rushing in and dying to protect women they don’t even know, become their own crime statistic?
This is a sad event that illustrates so much of what is wrong with men’s story in the modern age.
With the narrative about men’s place in the world casting them in the role of a protective vassal, we have developed the expectation that this is what men ought to be.
Undoubtedly the news coverage will play this out as a senseless tragedy. Accordingly, most will eventually take refuge in the fanciful idea that Jason Cisneros died a hero.
The members of society, by and large, who read this story and watch the news video, will end up on a similar trajectory, toward glorifying the self-sacrifice.
They will not conclude that this was a young man who was set up, duped into putting his neck on the chopping block by a history and force he never had a chance to grow up to understand.
His parents will take solace in the idea that their son died doing something noble. His friend will apply a similar salve to her grief. Few, if any, will question the wisdom of his choice or the factors that drove him to make it.
Fewer still will wonder about the character of the woman he was trying to save, even though it was evident that she was in a relationship with a murderous thug, that her chickens had come home to roost that night, and that she wanted someone to rescue her at any cost.
Jason Cisneros
Jason Cisneros
Jason Cisneros died trying to protect a woman he did not know, who it turns out may have been no more worthy of protection than the man who killed him.
Our society will interpret his death as heroics, and thus teach more young men that this insanity is the model of manhood they should emulate.
We will deny our young men the truth. Jason’s impulse to rescue the damsel in distress is a dysfunctional mandate passed down from generation to generation living by a narrative that sees his life as easily disposable.
Was Jason a good man? Most probably he was, though I am loathe to use that term lightly anymore. There is too much pointless sacrifice that comes with it.
The small amount of information that I have indicates that he came from a loving, supportive and close-knit family. And he was, after all, doing what he believed to be the right thing.
I can’t even imagine the sense of loss his family feels right now. Parents burying a child instead of the reverse is a hugely painful deviation from the natural order.
But for the sake of preventing more funerals, it is important to push aside the misguided chivalry and false heroism of this event and recognize that Jason’s death is one of countless, pointless sacrifices that never should have happened.
There is nothing to glorify here. Not the death of a beloved son. Not the ill-fated choices of young women who are sexually excited by criminality and violence.
And not the false code of male honor inflicted on young men from the shadows of a warped social consciousness.
There is a lesson here for parents and for anyone else who has a young man in their lives whom they love.
Please ask yourself, if your son or other loved one encountered the same situation as Jason, what would they do? Would they intervene? If they did, is that what you would want them to do?
Would it make you proud? If it would, are you willing to bury them for the sake of that pride?
If you would not want your son to die like Jason Cisneros died, have you told him? Have you made it clear to him that dying for a stranger is not your idea of manhood?
Have the lessons from your family been about protecting his loved ones, protecting himself, or about protecting anyone at his own expense?
You know, this stuff matters. Today’s young men get copious amounts of messaging about manhood, most of it instructing them to accept their disposability by calling it a badge of honor.
Young men face a barrage of social messages to “man up” and be a “real man” and other shaming, exploitive instructions.
It even comes from the government. We see it in the “It’s On Us” anti-sexual assault campaign, which includes President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, along with stars like Common, Mike Roe, and others, telling young men that it is on them to intervene.
Just like Jason Cisneros did.
Please watch the “It’s On Us” video and think about the price Jason paid for making sure it was on him.
Doing that might make you stop to consider if you want to manipulate your son or another beloved man into playing unarmed and unpaid bodyguard, ever at the disposal of strangers.
And while you’re at it, you might ask yourself something else. Do you have any reason to think Common would risk his life for a stranger?
Do you think Joe Biden cares about your son — or the women’s vote?
When I look at what Jason’s story turned into, all I see is a devastated family, a grieving friend, and a decent young man with a life cut short on behalf of someone who in no way warranted that kind of sacrifice – not that any stranger ever does.
Perhaps there is a better social message we can send all people, young and old. It’s on you.
It’s on you to forge the ability to protect yourself. It’s on you to make sound decisions about people with whom you choose to get involved.
It is not the responsibility of strangers, and it is not a burden for another class of human beings to bear.
No one outside you, your family and the police have any obligation to take risks for your safety. If women don’t know this, the parents of young men certainly should.
Source
Warren Farrell weighed in on male disposibility in his book The Myth Of Male Power,how it reduces men to a lesser status than women and it makes men miscategorize their slavery as something heroic. This is misandry. This has to stop.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Paul Elam exposes Christina Hoff Sommers
I've always been suspicious of Sommers for a long time and now Elam seconds what I've always thought about Christina Hoff Sommers.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Paul Elam exposes actress Souad Faress as a false rape accuser
Souad Faress is named in this article
If I were the accused I would sue this bitch for everything she is worth. I'm not going to name the accused because he is the real victim in all this and has his face plastered all over the media. So let's plaster Souad Faress' photo all over the place with the caption "This is what a false rape accuser looks like". Thanks to Paul Elam for making this video exposing Souad Faress for the criminal she truly is.
Monday, February 15, 2016
AVFM versus Roosh
If you've been following the manosphere as of late there is a feud between Dean Esmay of A Voice For Men versus Roosh from Return Of Kings. The funny thing is that A Voice For Men is joining with feminists to bury Roosh on alleged rape charges. Roosh has denied said charges and stated he only engages in consensual sex. He even said Anonymous got involved persecuting him. I've been waiting for Anonymous to fuck the pooch and they did. Anonymous is now synonymous with organized online bullying and terrorizing people. Anonymous demands redemption from others but will they make right what they did or are they just bullies too? No better than those they condemn. Anonymous is busted. Getting back to Esmay,Roosh is right,Esmay is not much of an MRA. From what I hear Esmay tried game and got shot down that is why he is pissed at Roosh. I wasn't there when Esmay was using game so I can't critique him but I do know that game minus confidence is a guaranteed way to get shot down. I don't know if this is the case but it is the most common mistake men make. Esmay did the same things others did from the British House of Commons to the Governor of Texas Greg Abbott to the feminists that Esmay agrees with. They all persecuted Roosh. Esmay could have critiqued Roosh independently but to join forces with feminists is treasonous to me and Roosh is right in calling out Esmay on it. Esmay is a confessed liberal Democrat. That alone should place him on the list of misandrists because the Democrats are in reality the Femocrats. If you have doubts look at their support for Hillary Clinton. I've had my differences with A Voice For Men especially with Paul Elam who once told me to mend fences yet he is the biggest bridge burner in the manosphere. Esmay made the following statement: And every MRA I know views him Roosh as a crackpot, a loon, a con artist and snake oil salesman, and a self-serving liar and weasel...
Source How presumptuous of you Esmay. I have to say I back Roosh on this one. Roosh has stayed consistent while A Voice For Men goes through editorial changes every three months. Don't only that but A Voice For Men diplomats are a bunch of rude dumbshits who go to other MRA websites and act like they own the place. They did that at Antimisandry. Roosh,on the other hand,has welcomed those of us who are MRA's and he doesn't censor people,unlike A Voice For Men,which has turned into an echo chamber thanks to the current management at A Voice For Men.
Source How presumptuous of you Esmay. I have to say I back Roosh on this one. Roosh has stayed consistent while A Voice For Men goes through editorial changes every three months. Don't only that but A Voice For Men diplomats are a bunch of rude dumbshits who go to other MRA websites and act like they own the place. They did that at Antimisandry. Roosh,on the other hand,has welcomed those of us who are MRA's and he doesn't censor people,unlike A Voice For Men,which has turned into an echo chamber thanks to the current management at A Voice For Men.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Elam and his stupid shit
Masculinists Need Not Apply at AVFM
June 23, 2014 By Paul Elam 188 Comments
This is going to a short bulletin, as I haven’t the time for a full article.
For some years now I have seen people who identify as “masculist” or “masculinist” online in a few locations. I have even seen a few of them pop up here in the comments, usually with something really stupid to say.
I can’t (and don’t want to) control whatever fucktardery that some people choose to engage. All I can do is clarify, and when needed assert AVFM editorial policy, and the philosophy that goes into it.
From my personal perspective, the following applies to masculists.
Masculinism is feminism’s mentally and morally challenged younger brother. It is an ideology, and most, (I know, I know NAMASCALT), demonstrate that with political polemics, phallo-centrism and other forms of general stupidity.
You have, as best I can know these days, never seen a “masculist” article on the pages of this site, or even mild endorsement for any of the people so identified.
And that is how we roll. The principles of inclusiveness, pragmatism, evidence based, non ideological solutions good — ideology, separatism, divisiveness, polemics, well, not so much.
That is all.
Source
That is enough. I don't know why Elam is shitting on his allies,allies that helped prop him up and his fucking website. Ever since they allowed women and gays to run wild at AVFM things have gone downhill. I liked what AVFM was,not what's it's become. Paul once told me to mend fences and now he's burning bridges,which is a stupid move. Perhaps Elam should practice what he preaches.
June 23, 2014 By Paul Elam 188 Comments
This is going to a short bulletin, as I haven’t the time for a full article.
For some years now I have seen people who identify as “masculist” or “masculinist” online in a few locations. I have even seen a few of them pop up here in the comments, usually with something really stupid to say.
I can’t (and don’t want to) control whatever fucktardery that some people choose to engage. All I can do is clarify, and when needed assert AVFM editorial policy, and the philosophy that goes into it.
From my personal perspective, the following applies to masculists.
Masculinism is feminism’s mentally and morally challenged younger brother. It is an ideology, and most, (I know, I know NAMASCALT), demonstrate that with political polemics, phallo-centrism and other forms of general stupidity.
You have, as best I can know these days, never seen a “masculist” article on the pages of this site, or even mild endorsement for any of the people so identified.
And that is how we roll. The principles of inclusiveness, pragmatism, evidence based, non ideological solutions good — ideology, separatism, divisiveness, polemics, well, not so much.
That is all.
Source
That is enough. I don't know why Elam is shitting on his allies,allies that helped prop him up and his fucking website. Ever since they allowed women and gays to run wild at AVFM things have gone downhill. I liked what AVFM was,not what's it's become. Paul once told me to mend fences and now he's burning bridges,which is a stupid move. Perhaps Elam should practice what he preaches.
Monday, December 30, 2013
Department of Justice hit with a lawsuit over dear colleague
Falsely accused student sues Delaware State University
December 18, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
A Delaware State University student is suing that school for defamation of character and violation of his civil rights delawareonline.com. reported yesterday.
Andre L. Henry was brought up on criminal charges after a woman with whom he had consensual sex on October 24 falsely accused him of raping her. The charges were dropped on November 1 according to his lawsuit but around that time the University notified him that he was barred from campus pending an investigation and hearing provided by the school. He was not allowed on campus grounds or adjacent areas for 45 days.
“For 45 days he was kicked out of his home, … he was kicked off campus, he was kicked out of school, all based on an allegation” said Daniel C. Herr, Henry’s attorney. “You can’t do that for 45 days and then finally say ‘Oh, we’ve come to our decision. He was found not guilty.’ ”
On Nov. 1 Henry was informed by DSU’s Director of Student Judicial Affairs, Paula Duffy, that a hearing would be held in front the General Judicial Council on Nov. 6. The suit says that he was not informed of his right to have an attorney present.
The suit also says he was not informed of his right to remain silent and that he was not given the right to face his accuser who was not present at the hearing.
A separate hearing, of which Henry wasn’t informed, was held especially for the alleged victim.
Jesse Allen, Henry’s roommate, testified at his hearing saying he had been in the apartment’s common room the evening Henry and the woman had sex and testified the woman did not scream for Henry to stop, as she previously alleged.
Henry’s suspension was lifted upon the conclusion of the hearing.
“We found out yesterday that his on-campus disciplinary charges were found to be ‘not responsible,’” said Herr on Tuesday, referring to DSU’s General Judicial Council’s investigation.“We are still moving forward for damages because he was suspended for a total of 45 days pending a full investigation and full hearing, which we allege is a violation to his right to due process,”
The lawsuit comes at a time when the Department of Education and Department of Justice has come under fire for recent developments in the way they expect schools to pursue alleged sexual assaults and sexual harassment. On November 14 the Department of Education, in a letter sent to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, renounced it’s overall support of the “blueprint” letter drafted by the Department of Justice in which it was deemed appropriate to suspend students, as well as meting out other punishments, before hearings were even held.
“The lawsuit looks good on DSU, and this sort of thing is way overdue. Colleges and universities have been blatantly violating the civil rights of male students since the Obama administration issued the ‘Dear Collegue’ letter’,” said Paul Elam, a men’s advocate and founder of A Voice for Men. “If they won’t stop it for the sake of decency, then perhaps financially bleeding them will do the trick.”
Source
I wish Andre L.Henry well and may he be victorious against this injustice called "dear colleague" which demonizes men and make women damsels in distress regardless of the facts. We at the Men's Rights Blog salute Mr. Henry and wish him well. If he is reading here he should go to the Community of The Falsely accused at COTWA where he can gain valuable information which should hopefully serve him well.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Mary N. Kellett may go for a plea bargin
Is Mary Kellet cutting a deal?
by Paul Elam
AND IS SHE THROWING THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF UNDER THE BUS TO COVER HER CRIMES?
Most of you who follow this website are familiar with the case of Vladek Filler, formerly of Gouldsboro, Maine. Filler was engaged in a child custody dispute for his two children when he became relentlessly pursued by prosecutor Mary Kellett for allegations of sexual assault made by his estranged wife, Ligia.
Kellett got a conviction in the case but it was set aside and overturned by the State Supreme Court due to prosecutorial misconduct on her part. Subsequently, Filler filed a Bar complaint against Kellett, where a three member bar panel ultimately found her guilty of nine instances of misconduct and conduct unbecoming an attorney. That resulted in the historic move of Kellett being the first prosecutor in the history of Maine to be referred to the State Supreme Court for disciplinary hearings that could result in the suspension of her license to practice law.
One of the matters before the Supreme Court is the fact that Kellett instructed law enforcement officers not to comply with valid subpoenas from Filler’s attorney to produce evidence held by the police departments relevant to Ligia Filler’s credibility as a witness. Evidence such as a withheld witness statement written by Ligia Filler, 911 tapes of her calls, and video and audio recordings of Ligia Filler making statements and threats against Vladek Filler and police officials. Those records were repeatedly requested and eventually the Court had to Order Kellett to turn them over to defense. To put it nicely, Kellett failed to do so, even after repeated requests from Filler’s attorney months after the Court Order. Put directly Kellett ignored the Order and simply refused to turn over the material to defense.
Among other violations, the Disciplinary Panel found Kellett guilty of suppressing and not providing exculpatory evidence. If that finding is not disturbing enough, a crucial video and audio recording that was Court Ordered was later destroyed without any chance of ever being produced to defense after Kellett told Filler’s attorney she would not provide it to him.
The recording was of an April 24, 2007 incident where two Washington County Sheriff’s Deputies apprehended Ligia Filler and secured her in the back of a cruiser which had a video camera running and recording all her statements and accusations. Filler’s Bar complaint alleged that the recording contained exculpatory statements by his accuser. The cruiser recording was not the only one made at the time as the responding Deputy also used his pocket recorder to captured 1 ½ hours of the incident in non-continuous bits and pieces.
Initially, Kellett did not even disclose the April 24, 2007 incident to defense despite her office obtaining the incident report just a few weeks later. In October of 2007 Kellett finally provided a copy of a brief incident report after defense made specific discovery requests. It took over 1 year of further requests, a discovery motion, a Court Order, and several more months of demands and threats of sanctions before Kellett would provide defense with a copy of the incomplete and chopped up audio recording captured by the Deputy’s pocket recorder.
The continuous and unedited audio recording which was captured by the video recording system inside the Deputy’s cruiser was withheld and denied to defense. Even months after the Court Order was issued for its production, Kellett told Filler’s attorney Daniel Pileggi that the video tape didn’t really show anything and couldn’t be copied for defense (despite a Court Order). Kellett then tried to mislead Filler’s defense attorney by claiming the chopped up audio recording she was willing to provide was copied directly from the video tape, hence could not contain anything different than the video tape that was being withheld. She told Filler’s attorney that if he still wanted to see the video that “didn’t show anything” he should make his own arrangements and “go watch it”. As it turned out none of what Kellett represented to Filler’s attorney was true.
Kellett’s position now is that the Court Ordered 911 tapes and video/audio recordings were not provided because of Washington County Sheriff’s Department’s insubordination to DA office’s requests for all the material. Essentially, Kellett is blaming Washington County Sheriff’s Department for mishandling and even destroying crucial evidence in a major felony case months after the Court Ordered its production, after Kellett alleges she tried to obtain it, and after numerous defense subpoenas that were not complied with.
Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy Travis Willey testified before the Bar’s Disciplinary Panel that almost immediately after the April 24, 2007 incident he quickly acted to preserve all audio and video recordings he made because he knew all this evidence was important in a case where criminal charges were filed. He wrote up his report and made copies of his digital audio recording from his pocket recorder on to a CD.
He then hand delivered his report to Mary Kellett’s office where it was stamped “Received May 29, 2007”. He testified that his cruiser mounted recording system at the time was a low tech standard VHS taping system. He readily located the VHS recording and had a chance to review the lengthy tape although not all the way to the end. He testified the video tape was eventually destroyed.
Vladek Filler’s Bar complaint alleges that months after the criminal trial and during a pending retrial, in a telephone conversation Deputy Willey suggested to Filler that the video recording in question might be made available; that it was not in his physical possession at the time and that everything was provided to Kellett’s office. Willey told Filler he needed to direct all his requests to Kellett’s office and get their approval even for the deputy’s compliance with any future defense subpoenas.
Filler’s defense attorney Daniel Pileggi testified that he repeatedly tried to obtain the video tape or even have an opportunity to view it, but it was never made available to him by Mary Kellett’s office nor by the Washington County Sheriff’s Department.
Pileggi made numerous discovery requests to Kellett, and further issued subpoenas to Kellett’s investigator Stephen McFarland, his co-investigator in the case Guy Wycoff, and to Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy Travis Willey. After all his requests were ignored, Pileggi was granted a Court Order and sent numerous additional requests demanding Kellett’s compliance. Filler’s Bar Complaint included copies of several discovery requests and subpoenas. Pileggi subpoenaed Deputy Willey a second time to produce the withheld video tape for Filler’s January 2009 trial but again it was not provided. Pileggi told the Disciplinary Panel that eventually he learned the video tape was destroyed which usually happens when prosecution does not request for it to be produced.
It would seem unlikely for Washington County Sheriff’s Deputy to take it upon himself to destroy a vital video tape which existed throughout 1 ½ years of repeated requests, several subpoenas, and a Court Order in light of the deputy’s clear testimony that he immediately understood the importance of all the evidence he had in his possession and took specific steps to preserve it.
But if Mary Kellett’s explanation is true and her office is absolved of responsibility through the upcoming Supreme Court proceedings then the failure to produce all the Court Ordered 911 tapes, audio, and video recordings will fall directly on the Washington County Sheriff’s Department. It would be a violation for both, the exculpatory 911 recordings that were withheld from Filler in violation of a Court Order, and for the video tape which was actually destroyed while in custody of the Sheriff’s Department despite being:
• Available
• Preserved
• Readily located
• Previewed/viewable
• Low tech VHS tape
• Known to be important/sought after evidence in a major class A Felony case
Despite the seriousness of the Bar Panel’s historic decision against Kellett and Bar Counsel’s complaint to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court calling Kellett’s misconduct “inexcusable”, if Kellett’s version of events is accepted or not addressed by the Supreme Court judge, then it would leave numerous law enforcement agencies responsible for taking it upon themselves to violate valid defense subpoenas and even violate Kellett’s alleged instructions for their compliance.
In the case of Washington County Sheriff’s Department, the responsibility would include destroying exculpatory Court Ordered evidence in violation of criminal statutes.
A Voice for Men News Director Robert O’Hara contacted Washington County Sheriff Donny Smith’s office for a comment on this. He reached Deputy Willey who refused comment. O’Hara also sent an email to the Washington County Sheriff which went unanswered.
The concerns about this case right now is that after several years of malicious prosecution against Vladek Filler and a number of other men, it appears as though Kellett might be orchestrating a back room deal to avoid responsibility for those abuses.
The only way to prevent this is for there to be a public, comprehensive disciplinary hearing of Kellett’s case before Maine Supreme Judicial Court Justice. Additionally, the Bar of Overseers, through Bar Counsel Scott Davis must seek full punishment for the “inexcusable” prosecutorial misconduct that has already been established at the Bar hearing.
There are further ramifications of allowing Kellett off the hook without a full trial and punishment.
She has prosecuted 1100 cases in just 10 years and if not removed she will be allowed to have at least another 25 year remaining career to continue practicing her ideological interpretations of criminal rules, court rulings, orders, and high court decisions.
Kellett has consistently refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for her own conduct which has been substantiated by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Overseers of the Bar. Kellett told the Disciplinary Panel she would not do anything differently in the future as she has a philosophical disagreement with the trial Court and the Supreme Court judgment concerning her conduct.
Through a plea deal with Bar Counsel or through a negotiated and controlled weak case presentation, a Ruling by the Supreme Court Justice could absolve Kellett of all her misconduct and further embolden her to legally terrorize other innocent victims like Vladek Filler.
Her deal, should it happen, will shift the blame for the illegal withholding and disposal of exculpatory evidence onto other law enforcement agencies and police officials who were simply following her orders, as well as onto defense attorneys like Daniel Pileggi.
Kellett is the first prosecutor in Maine’s history to face disciplinary proceedings for misconduct, the significance of which cannot be overstated. Allowing her to be absolved or even to continue practicing law as a prosecutor following these proceedings would send the most detrimental message to the entire legal and law enforcement community in Maine and beyond. It would be the ultimate betrayal by the Board of Overseers of the Bar and the Supreme Court of all ethical prosecutors, defense attorneys, police officers, and the citizens who live or visit Maine.
Bar Panel Decision
Source:click here
They better not drop the ball on this one. We will raise holy hell if they did. Kellett is a criminal and she should be behind bars for years for her misandric crimes. The only way the likes of Kellett learn is if someone yangs their license to practice law. Kellet was never really a prosecuting attorney she is more of an persecuting inquistor to push radical feminism. Let's make sure juctice prevails and Vladek Filler sees his tormentor get put through the grinder,the same grinder she knowingly put innocent men through.
Sunday, May 26, 2013
My thoughts on A Voice For Men
greg
I believe that Jodi Arias should receive the same sentence that I would if I had committed this crime. I believe in equality. I am a Feminist.
Then you sir favor female supremacy because that is what feminism is. Read about it here and here.
Of course I don't expect Stacey Harvey uh er Paul Elam to say anything even though Harvey's/Elam's/whoever is running that place's post follows Greg's. Is Elam still an MRA? That is the question being asked throughout the manosphere.
Which brings up something that I've suspected but never blogged about. Regular readers of A Voice For Men remember when Paul Elam was rushed to the hospital because of a smoking related illness. It was after that that A Voice For Men started changing things and started to become more female friendly. My theroy is that Elam didn't survive his hospital stay,that he is no longer with us. My theory is that a female,Stacey Harvey is running A Voice For Men now. A Voice For Men is now gay and female friendly,gays and females are traditional enemies of the men's movement and now they're here to help us? Forgive my skeptism but that don't wash. The question remains: did they join us or infiltrate us? It was after the hospital visit that Register Her went to hell. I remember Dean Esmay saying to discontiue it (this is why I don't like moderates) which was a bad idea and before my banning I told Esmay and the others that abandonding Register Her was a bad idea,that's the problem with this movement: too many hippies and not enough punk rockers/thrash metalers. One pet peeve I had is when JTO called a feminist a "naughty little doggie". That statement is way too effeminine for my comfort and might have told us more about JTO than he may have realized. Elam/Harvey have banned all the real activists with the exception of Ray Blumhorst. They keep moderates posting there but I look at moderates as Neville Chamberlains. Yes,I know there is an article on A Voice For Men from Glen Poole from Fathers 4 Justice and I guess when questions come up you better get some real activists for men on your side and Fathers 4 Justice fits that bill. Like I said,I'm not the only one asking these questions.
I believe that Jodi Arias should receive the same sentence that I would if I had committed this crime. I believe in equality. I am a Feminist.
Then you sir favor female supremacy because that is what feminism is. Read about it here and here.
Of course I don't expect Stacey Harvey uh er Paul Elam to say anything even though Harvey's/Elam's/whoever is running that place's post follows Greg's. Is Elam still an MRA? That is the question being asked throughout the manosphere.
Which brings up something that I've suspected but never blogged about. Regular readers of A Voice For Men remember when Paul Elam was rushed to the hospital because of a smoking related illness. It was after that that A Voice For Men started changing things and started to become more female friendly. My theroy is that Elam didn't survive his hospital stay,that he is no longer with us. My theory is that a female,Stacey Harvey is running A Voice For Men now. A Voice For Men is now gay and female friendly,gays and females are traditional enemies of the men's movement and now they're here to help us? Forgive my skeptism but that don't wash. The question remains: did they join us or infiltrate us? It was after the hospital visit that Register Her went to hell. I remember Dean Esmay saying to discontiue it (this is why I don't like moderates) which was a bad idea and before my banning I told Esmay and the others that abandonding Register Her was a bad idea,that's the problem with this movement: too many hippies and not enough punk rockers/thrash metalers. One pet peeve I had is when JTO called a feminist a "naughty little doggie". That statement is way too effeminine for my comfort and might have told us more about JTO than he may have realized. Elam/Harvey have banned all the real activists with the exception of Ray Blumhorst. They keep moderates posting there but I look at moderates as Neville Chamberlains. Yes,I know there is an article on A Voice For Men from Glen Poole from Fathers 4 Justice and I guess when questions come up you better get some real activists for men on your side and Fathers 4 Justice fits that bill. Like I said,I'm not the only one asking these questions.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Visit Mancouver,British Columbia
From John The Other:
The federal govt of Canada, and the provincial govt of British Columbia: Officially re-name the city of Vancouver, B.C. to Mancouver, B.C.
by Jack Handbreak
Vancouver, Canada
As many people are already aware, on the weekend of September 29 and 30th, Vancouver's men's rights activist group, that's VancouverMRA will be holding a two day men's rights summit – a very small summit, circus and side show somewhere on the streets of Vancouver, and this glorious event the first ever of its kind, and the first annual Man-cover circus and side show.
It is true that Vancouver MRA is not the only boots on the ground men's rights organization in Canada, not by a long stretch. There is also Men's Rights Edmonton, and Men's rights Hamilton organizations doing excellent ground breaking work. The Edmonton group now so effective that an oppositional organization has been formed to thwart them.
However, the city of Vancouver is where we do our human rights activism – and where Vancouver MRA was formed – and continues to operate, Vancouver is the city on Canada's left coast where an awful lot of action is happening in the men's rights movement. For newcomers, that's the human rights movement focusing of the social, legal and economic human rights issues affecting men and boys.
So, in addition to the first annual Man-couver western Canadian men's rights summit, circus and side show – we're going to do something more. And you can help, even if you’re not in this fine city.
In recognition of the ground breaking work done in Canada, and done in Vancouver on behalf of the humanity and the human rights of men and boys, we will be petitioning the office of the mayor, the office of the premier of BC – that's Christy Clark, who now has regular breakfast meetings of the senior members of BC's provincial government in which men are barred from entry and ejected from the premises right down to the serving staff – and we will be petitioning the office of the Prime Minister of this country – my home and yours, Canada – to officially re-name the city in which this human rights work is being pursued, to the appropriate name reflecting this great work. Going forward, let nobody refer again to the obsolete nomenclature of a previous era, and from today onwards let this city be recognized by it's true name – Mancouver.
To sign petition click here
AVFM source:click here
Not only that,JTO but today we are all MRA's. Sure I've had my differences with Elam but when it comes down to it I'm an MRA and the cause comes first. If any feminists out there are getting any "divide and conquer" ideas inside their twisted minds I want you to know one thing: I will shake hands with Paul Elam long before I ever shake hands with you. Never forget that. Anyway,sign this puppy to create Mancouver,British Columbia.
The federal govt of Canada, and the provincial govt of British Columbia: Officially re-name the city of Vancouver, B.C. to Mancouver, B.C.
by Jack Handbreak
Vancouver, Canada
As many people are already aware, on the weekend of September 29 and 30th, Vancouver's men's rights activist group, that's VancouverMRA will be holding a two day men's rights summit – a very small summit, circus and side show somewhere on the streets of Vancouver, and this glorious event the first ever of its kind, and the first annual Man-cover circus and side show.
It is true that Vancouver MRA is not the only boots on the ground men's rights organization in Canada, not by a long stretch. There is also Men's Rights Edmonton, and Men's rights Hamilton organizations doing excellent ground breaking work. The Edmonton group now so effective that an oppositional organization has been formed to thwart them.
However, the city of Vancouver is where we do our human rights activism – and where Vancouver MRA was formed – and continues to operate, Vancouver is the city on Canada's left coast where an awful lot of action is happening in the men's rights movement. For newcomers, that's the human rights movement focusing of the social, legal and economic human rights issues affecting men and boys.
So, in addition to the first annual Man-couver western Canadian men's rights summit, circus and side show – we're going to do something more. And you can help, even if you’re not in this fine city.
In recognition of the ground breaking work done in Canada, and done in Vancouver on behalf of the humanity and the human rights of men and boys, we will be petitioning the office of the mayor, the office of the premier of BC – that's Christy Clark, who now has regular breakfast meetings of the senior members of BC's provincial government in which men are barred from entry and ejected from the premises right down to the serving staff – and we will be petitioning the office of the Prime Minister of this country – my home and yours, Canada – to officially re-name the city in which this human rights work is being pursued, to the appropriate name reflecting this great work. Going forward, let nobody refer again to the obsolete nomenclature of a previous era, and from today onwards let this city be recognized by it's true name – Mancouver.
To sign petition click here
AVFM source:click here
Not only that,JTO but today we are all MRA's. Sure I've had my differences with Elam but when it comes down to it I'm an MRA and the cause comes first. If any feminists out there are getting any "divide and conquer" ideas inside their twisted minds I want you to know one thing: I will shake hands with Paul Elam long before I ever shake hands with you. Never forget that. Anyway,sign this puppy to create Mancouver,British Columbia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)