Sunday, February 26, 2012
Das State of Maine
When Stephen King would depict parts of Maine as horrible I thought it was fiction. Now I know better.
Two words come to mind: collusion and conspiracy.
Senator Grassley's letter to the New York Times
Letter
Violence Against Women
Published: February 24, 2012
To the Editor:
“Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence” (editorial, Feb. 10) doesn’t recognize the reasons for the lack of support for the Judiciary Committee bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The bill fails to recognize the dire fiscal situation, fails to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and adds unjustifiable controversial provisions.
My alternative bill provides more assistance for victims than the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee. The inspector general’s random audits of the act’s grant recipients repeatedly found irregularities and misconduct, including unauthorized and unallowable expenses in 21 of 22 grants. It’s only logical to change the committee’s bill to ensure that those funds go to help victims.
Also, the committee’s bill fails to address testimony at a hearing demonstrating that some immigrants applying for visas falsely claim to be victims of domestic violence.
I object to the editorial’s claim that my bill would eliminate the Office on Violence Against Women. Given the poor record of that office in administering these programs efficiently, my bill retains a separate Office on Violence Against Women within an existing Justice Department agency that administers grants. This means that less money is spent on bureaucrats, leaving more funds for victims.
Democrats have insisted on inserting controversial items into the act for which there is no proven need. In doing so, they have prevented Congress from strengthening it as a consensus bill and turned a routine reauthorization into an unnecessary dispute.
CHUCK GRASSLEY
Washington, Feb. 10, 2012
The writer is a Republican senator from Iowa.
Source:click here
There is no mention of male victims of domestic violence. That is what is missing. Why is that? Let's contact Senator Chuck Grassley and ask why not. I think it's admirable to make those receiving VAWA money to be held accountable but let's not forget the already forgotten victims of domestic violence,men. Let's put that question to Senator Grassley.
Violence Against Women
Published: February 24, 2012
To the Editor:
“Republicans Retreat on Domestic Violence” (editorial, Feb. 10) doesn’t recognize the reasons for the lack of support for the Judiciary Committee bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. The bill fails to recognize the dire fiscal situation, fails to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and adds unjustifiable controversial provisions.
My alternative bill provides more assistance for victims than the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee. The inspector general’s random audits of the act’s grant recipients repeatedly found irregularities and misconduct, including unauthorized and unallowable expenses in 21 of 22 grants. It’s only logical to change the committee’s bill to ensure that those funds go to help victims.
Also, the committee’s bill fails to address testimony at a hearing demonstrating that some immigrants applying for visas falsely claim to be victims of domestic violence.
I object to the editorial’s claim that my bill would eliminate the Office on Violence Against Women. Given the poor record of that office in administering these programs efficiently, my bill retains a separate Office on Violence Against Women within an existing Justice Department agency that administers grants. This means that less money is spent on bureaucrats, leaving more funds for victims.
Democrats have insisted on inserting controversial items into the act for which there is no proven need. In doing so, they have prevented Congress from strengthening it as a consensus bill and turned a routine reauthorization into an unnecessary dispute.
CHUCK GRASSLEY
Washington, Feb. 10, 2012
The writer is a Republican senator from Iowa.
Source:click here
There is no mention of male victims of domestic violence. That is what is missing. Why is that? Let's contact Senator Chuck Grassley and ask why not. I think it's admirable to make those receiving VAWA money to be held accountable but let's not forget the already forgotten victims of domestic violence,men. Let's put that question to Senator Grassley.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Tell the State of California to obey its own laws
From the NCFM:
NCFM VP Marc Angelucci and David Woods living legacy helps clean up the domestic violence industry
February 20, 2012
By NCFM
NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci, Esq., represented the plaintiffs in the landmark domestic violence case Woods v. Horton (“Woods”). Consequently, in 2008, the California Supreme Court decided domestic violence services providers had to provide services to men as well as women. To our knowledge there has been little or no effort on behalf of the state of California or domestic violence service providers to comply substantively with the court ruling.
The California Emergency Management Agency oversees domestic violence service providers receiving state funds. The attached public records request from Mr. Angelucci, on behalf of the National Coalition For Men, to the Emergency Management Agency, requests substantial information necessary to answer compliance questions.
Thank you Marc. This is a major undertaking. For you non NCFM members, well… saddle up my friends, we still have a long way to go. Thanks to those like Marc your journey may not be as dangerous as was David’s and his family…
(Click here to read NCFM authors Marc Angelucci Letter 2-14-11 to CEMA)
If you are a California resident you can find your state elected leaders here you can find both houses using this map. And/or you can email the Governor here. If you are outside of California contact the Governor. Let's ask why Woods vs. Horton is not being implemented. You can find the Assembly here and the Senate here and the California Legislature website here.
NCFM VP Marc Angelucci and David Woods living legacy helps clean up the domestic violence industry
February 20, 2012
By NCFM
NCFM Vice President Marc Angelucci, Esq., represented the plaintiffs in the landmark domestic violence case Woods v. Horton (“Woods”). Consequently, in 2008, the California Supreme Court decided domestic violence services providers had to provide services to men as well as women. To our knowledge there has been little or no effort on behalf of the state of California or domestic violence service providers to comply substantively with the court ruling.
The California Emergency Management Agency oversees domestic violence service providers receiving state funds. The attached public records request from Mr. Angelucci, on behalf of the National Coalition For Men, to the Emergency Management Agency, requests substantial information necessary to answer compliance questions.
Thank you Marc. This is a major undertaking. For you non NCFM members, well… saddle up my friends, we still have a long way to go. Thanks to those like Marc your journey may not be as dangerous as was David’s and his family…
(Click here to read NCFM authors Marc Angelucci Letter 2-14-11 to CEMA)
If you are a California resident you can find your state elected leaders here you can find both houses using this map. And/or you can email the Governor here. If you are outside of California contact the Governor. Let's ask why Woods vs. Horton is not being implemented. You can find the Assembly here and the Senate here and the California Legislature website here.
Maine steps on the rights of men accused of domestic violence
I see that Mary N. Kellett is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misconduct in Maine,which means this is business as usual:
Maine’s chief justice changes bail rules for domestic violence suspects
By Judy Harrison, BDN Staff
Posted Feb. 09, 2012, at 1:28 p.m.
Last modified Feb. 09, 2012, at 6:27 p.m.
AUGUSTA, Maine — The chief justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court said Thursday that the court system would work with the governor and lawmakers to curb domestic violence in Maine.
In her annual State of the Judiciary address, Leigh I. Saufley announced that, effective immediately, bail commissioners may not set bail in domestic violence-related cases unless they have access to the defendant’s criminal history in Maine.
“We know that one of the most important tools in averting repeated violence is for judicial officers to have the criminal history records of the person charged with domestic violence,” she said. “Without that history, informed decisions cannot be made.”
Bail commissioners sometimes don’t have that information because of varying legal interpretations, technological limitations, law enforcement staffing limitations and miscommunication, according to Saufley.
“But frankly, it doesn’t matter why bail commissioners don’t have the records,” she said. “By law, you have mandated policies by which criminal history records will be relayed to the bail commissioners. To make well-informed decisions, they must have the information. Too often, they are not receiving the reports. That is simply not acceptable.”
If a bail commissioner does not have a defendant’s criminal history, the defendant will have to remain in jail and appear before a judge within 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays, Saufley said at a press conference after her speech.
I see so it's screw the Constitution. That sounds like business as usual for Maine. Chances are only men are going to get fucked over by this so bitches like this judge have no problem fucking over men.
Gov. Paul LePage, who has made eradicating domestic violence a priority for his administration, praised her action in a press release issued Thursday afternoon.
“I applaud Chief Justice Saufley for taking a proactive step which will ensure the safety of the public,” he said. “Any type of violence against a person is a threat to their well-being and we know domestic violence can be particularly harmful and escalate quickly for those who are in relationships. I commend the leadership of the chief justice for this renewed focus on domestic violence and implementation of meaningful change which will benefit many Mainers.”
In a statement issued after the address, House Minority Leader Emily Cain, D-Orono, also expressed support for Saufley’s desire to curb domestic violence.
“I look forward to working with the Chief Justice to strengthen … protections for victims of domestic violence,” said Cain, who has introduced emergency legislation to prevent domestic violence this year in response to the tragic event in Dexter last June in which Steven Lake murdered his wife, Amy Lake, and the couple’s two children before turning the gun on himself.
“The Dexter tragedy rightfully put our entire system under a microscope,” Cain said. “We know that we must work together [to] do more to protect victims and prevent harm.”
What do they do about Vledek Filler case and others like it? Oh yeah,they sweep it under the rug whlle saying "nothing to see here".
The Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold public hearings Monday on Cain’s bill and other bills concerning domestic violence.
The chief justice’s action raised concerns among criminal defense attorneys.
“I am deeply concerned that the likely effect here is that people merely accused of crimes are going to be held without any bail whatsoever,” Walter McKee of Augusta said in an email. “That’s flatly unfair, unconstitutional and disappointing. The overwhelming majority of those arrested are going to be held while waiting for information that will have zero impact on any bail issue.”
The president of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also expressed concern about Saufley’s directive.
“Holding an accused on a crime that is bailable as a matter of right until criminal history information is received is not a novel concept — the problem is that technical limitations on the sharing of this type of information between law enforcement and bail commissioners results in justice being denied and constitutional rights being violated,” Sarah Churchill of Portland said Thursday in an email.
“What the Chief Justice has proposed can be done without violating the rights of the accused if changes are made to how information is shared,” she continued. “I have concerns about how quickly those types of changes can be made and how the potential violations of constitutional rights of the accused are going to be handled in this interim period of time.”
Saufley did say that the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Maine and U.S. constitutions must be preserved and enforced.
“To be clear, in our efforts to eradicate domestic violence, we must not allow a rush to judgment to sweep in the innocent,” she told lawmakers.
"We must preserve and enforce the rights guaranteed by the Maine and federal constitutions. And we must carefully balance the rights of the accused against public safety and protection for victims.”
What she didn't say: "he prceeding is my insincere lip-service to male victims of this policy now leave me alone"
Saufley also said that the court system should be involved in finding solutions to domestic violence.
“While the courts are neutral fact-finders, courts are not neutral on the fact of, or the solutions for, domestic violence,” she said. “Chief justices across the country are looking for ways to better identify the potentially lethal cases.”
Actually the court is supposed to be neutral. The only one who should be conducting themselves as prosecutors are prosecutors. The day the court becomes a co-prosecutor the defendent is fucked.
Saufley suggested using principles outlined by the national Conference of Chief Justices as a guide in crafting legislation and implementing changes to the court system. They are:
• Families in crisis must be able to easily access courts.
• Judges must have comprehensive information on prior court orders and any history of violence in the family.
• Convicted abusers must be held accountable.
• Judges can be catalysts to enhance intergovernmental collaboration for improvement.
What about false accusers? Are they listed as criminals? Didn't think so.
New initiatives in 2012 that Saufley announced Thursday include audio web streaming of oral arguments in appeals to the state supreme court and a pilot program that would direct phone calls from people in Androscoggin County from the clerks’ offices in Lewiston and Auburn to three court employees who would answer questions, help them find information and more easily negotiate the court system. This would free up clerks to work on cases already filed with fewer interruptions, she said.
In addition, Saufley praised lawmakers Thursday for restoring baseline funding of $55 million a year to the courts after a series of cuts in the previous administration left 60 clerk and security jobs vacant because of a hiring freeze.
She's getting more money to fuck over men and that makes her happy. Time to bring on the Maine witch hunt.
As of July 1, 2011, the start of the fiscal year, those positions were filled, allowing for an increase in entry screening and efficiency in clerks’ offices around the state, she said.
Sen. David R. Hastings III, R-Fryeburg, who is chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee and an attorney, said after the speech that funding the court system’s baseline budget “has been crucial in providing access to justice, especially in rural area.”
To view the Maine Judicial Branch 2011 Annual Report, click here.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source:click here
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Kenyon men boycott women because of DV
Kenyan men protest domestic violence
(Washington D.C. Feb 21, 2012 AVfM News) Yesterday the BBC reported that
a men's group in Kenya named Maendeleo Ya Wanaume (translation not
available) announced an initiative to protest what is becoming a growing
problem of female perpetrated domestic abuse in that country. The
protest will entail a nation wide boycott of meals made by their wives
and partners and is supposed to encourage men to eat away from home
together and share their experiences with domestic abuse whether it be
physical or emotional.
In Kenyan culture eating your wife's meal is said to be a very important
part of a mans expression of appreciation for his wife.
Last year, the group conducted its own survey of Central and Nairobi
provinces and found that up to 460,000 men said they had been subjected
to some sort of domestic abuse. The two provinces have a combined
population of more than seven million people.
In addition to the BBC release local Kenyan television station, NTV
Kenya, has broadcast a story about the protest and featured victims of
extreme physical abuse. Explanations for the abuse perpetrated by wives
included undocumented reports of widespread alcoholism by men and the
fact that women were now earning more than men and as better earners
were more resentful that they were taking up more financial responsibility.
Source:click here
The African continent has some very predatory women. When these women are not raping the men they are battering them. I want to wish our Kenyon brothers the best on this boycott and I hope they are able to conscious raise the feeling in the community that female-on-male domestic violence is an issue that needs to be taking more seriously.
Standing up to the whoreporations
I received the following from Demand Progress:
Tell Congress: Only people are people
We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by big corporations.
But the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system.
Shockingly, the court came to this decision based on the notion that a corporation is legally a "person" entitled to First Amendment rights, and by equating a corporation's right to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing an election with our right to free speech.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
Even before the Citizens United decision, we too often saw the interests of Main Street subverted in favor of the interests of Wall Street.
But with the Citizens United decision now the law of the land, large corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries to buy elections.
To put things in perspective, the roughly $745 million Barack Obama raised to run for President in the 2008 election cycle (which was the most money raised by any candidate ever to run for office in the U.S.) is dwarfed by the $45 billion in profits a single company (ExxonMobil) made in 2008.
What's more, Citizen United opened loopholes that allow corporations to hide their campaign expenditures by laundering the money through non-profit advocacy organizations.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
The Supreme Court recently indicated that it would hear a challenge to Montana's campaign finance law. While it's possible the Court could narrow the scope of Citizens United, it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court will fix the issue any time soon.
And because Congress cannot pass a law that supersedes a Supreme Court ruling, it may take a constitutional amendment to undo the worst aspects of the Citizens United decision and end corporate personhood.
Clearly, the bar to successfully amending the Constitution is very high. But with 85% of the public opposed to the Citizens United decision, there is a potential for a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who all want to restore our democracy.
And let's remember, the stakes are too high to allow inaction on this issue. It's no exaggeration to say that the Citizens United decision fundamentally threatens the integrity of our democracy.
We need a government of, for and by the people. And sadly, we might need to work really hard to re-establish the common sense and democratic view that only people are people, not corporations.
Your senators and member of Congress need to hear from you, regardless of where they stand on this issue. We need to show them that their constituents are part of a broad movement demanding action -- not only to convince them that overturning Citizens United is the right thing to do, but also that it's possible.
Today, take a step to be part of that movement.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
click here to sign the petition.
If it's not the government fucking with you it's corporations. This time it's both. We need to give power back to the people and tell the whoreporate assholes to shove it and the best way you can do that is sign the petition. The freedoms you save may be yours,sign today.
Tell Congress: Only people are people
We deserve a country where our elected officials are not bought and paid for by big corporations.
But the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court decision overturned over a century of precedent and opened the floodgates for unlimited amounts of corporate money to flow into our political system.
Shockingly, the court came to this decision based on the notion that a corporation is legally a "person" entitled to First Amendment rights, and by equating a corporation's right to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing an election with our right to free speech.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
Even before the Citizens United decision, we too often saw the interests of Main Street subverted in favor of the interests of Wall Street.
But with the Citizens United decision now the law of the land, large corporations have the power to spend unlimited amounts of money from their general treasuries to buy elections.
To put things in perspective, the roughly $745 million Barack Obama raised to run for President in the 2008 election cycle (which was the most money raised by any candidate ever to run for office in the U.S.) is dwarfed by the $45 billion in profits a single company (ExxonMobil) made in 2008.
What's more, Citizen United opened loopholes that allow corporations to hide their campaign expenditures by laundering the money through non-profit advocacy organizations.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
The Supreme Court recently indicated that it would hear a challenge to Montana's campaign finance law. While it's possible the Court could narrow the scope of Citizens United, it's very unlikely that the Supreme Court will fix the issue any time soon.
And because Congress cannot pass a law that supersedes a Supreme Court ruling, it may take a constitutional amendment to undo the worst aspects of the Citizens United decision and end corporate personhood.
Clearly, the bar to successfully amending the Constitution is very high. But with 85% of the public opposed to the Citizens United decision, there is a potential for a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who all want to restore our democracy.
And let's remember, the stakes are too high to allow inaction on this issue. It's no exaggeration to say that the Citizens United decision fundamentally threatens the integrity of our democracy.
We need a government of, for and by the people. And sadly, we might need to work really hard to re-establish the common sense and democratic view that only people are people, not corporations.
Your senators and member of Congress need to hear from you, regardless of where they stand on this issue. We need to show them that their constituents are part of a broad movement demanding action -- not only to convince them that overturning Citizens United is the right thing to do, but also that it's possible.
Today, take a step to be part of that movement.
Tell your senators and member of Congress to support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and end corporate personhood.
click here to sign the petition.
If it's not the government fucking with you it's corporations. This time it's both. We need to give power back to the people and tell the whoreporate assholes to shove it and the best way you can do that is sign the petition. The freedoms you save may be yours,sign today.
From SAVE: College men fighting back
This past Saturday SAVE launched our Accusing U. campaign at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington D.C. It was a complete success -- the room was filled to capacity, barely leaving room to stand. Several students volunteered to become Campus Coordinators.
If you received our last E-lert, you are aware of the government's effort to remove the presumption of innocence from persons accused of rape or sexual assault on college campuses.
SAVE is working tirelessly to expose and expel this new Directive -- and we invite you to get involved. We have just set up a new Facebook page for persons falsely accused of sexual assault: click here.
Drop by, like a comment, join the conversation, recommend us to a friend! For more information, visit Accusing U.
Sincerely,
Tom Lemons, Director of Special Events
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
Save Services
P.S. Help us grow our efforts.... Contribute to SAVE
Excellent. I see word is getting out concerning this draconian approach being implemented by the DOE and that men on college campuses are standing up to it and saying "enough". It is a good sign indeed.
If you received our last E-lert, you are aware of the government's effort to remove the presumption of innocence from persons accused of rape or sexual assault on college campuses.
SAVE is working tirelessly to expose and expel this new Directive -- and we invite you to get involved. We have just set up a new Facebook page for persons falsely accused of sexual assault: click here.
Drop by, like a comment, join the conversation, recommend us to a friend! For more information, visit Accusing U.
Sincerely,
Tom Lemons, Director of Special Events
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
Save Services
P.S. Help us grow our efforts.... Contribute to SAVE
Excellent. I see word is getting out concerning this draconian approach being implemented by the DOE and that men on college campuses are standing up to it and saying "enough". It is a good sign indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)