Tuesday

VAWA Misinterpreted Statistics

fam law scandal - 2016Watch HouseLive.

E-lert: Let’s Watch the House Vote on VAWA » SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

FYI, more work to do!
The Violence Against Women Act reveals structural bias, political gains




Domestic violence is intolerable – and so are gender biased laws like the Violence Against Women Act; acts like this tell an incomplete story of domestic violence for political gain.


The VAWA first started replicating local and state domestic violence laws in 1994. It was hailed then as “landmark” legislation, turning a local issue into a federal one. In 2000 it visited the Supreme Court, where U.S. v. Morrison’s ruling found the law unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment.


One formal intention of the VAWA is to fund domestic violence programs. Informal intentions are to provide the opportunity for fake bipartisan celebration while defacing opponents every time the bill is voted for re-authorization. Last Thursday, the U.S. House voted 286-138 in favor of the bill, reciprocating the Senate’s 78-22 vote last month.


Proponents are so adamant for this legislation that legitimate objections for debate are always squandered to demagoguery. This is the first of a long list of issues this law hides under its thick framing effect that automatically produces an improper assumption: anyone who’s against it must be pro-women’s violence.


Surface-level framing hints at underlying structural problems. Men’s domestic violence statistics are systematically ignored by leading anti-domestic violence organizations as if they aren’t relevant. The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence provides the most popular statistics on its website: one in four women will experience domestic violence in their lives, 1.3 million women are assaulted by their partner every year and 85 percent of domestic violence is against women – criteria justifying the VAWA. Hundreds of advocacy groups fall in line with the same angle: suppressing or downplaying the men’s numbers.


Due to this practice, many forget that significant amounts of domestic violence cases happen to both sexes as well as children. The same study that found that 1.3 million women were assaulted by their partner every year also found that 835,000 men fell victim to the same violence.

Aggregate totals of more than 250 studies since the 1970s find that men and women nearly split partner violence rates halfway. One study in 2011 conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 40 percent of severe, physical domestic violence cases were against men.

Misrepresenting relevant statistics has consequences. Significantly fewer studies include men and boys because few organizations are willing to provide funding for seemingly needless information. Domestic violence studies and policies are not created nor treated equal.

A snowball effect enables biases and misunderstandings to grow.

In turn, policy is influenced in favor of women – the flagship legislation being the VAWA. But the VAWA doesn’t only feed off of misinterpreted statistics; audits by the Government Accountability Office discovered the bill breaks its own rules.


The audits found some organizations receiving the VAWA’s appropriations to have large portions of funding never reaching victims and many instances of spending against a grant’s intentions. Other audits even found embezzlement and outright fraud. These cases are covered up in the name of preventing violence against women.


Julie Borowski, a policy analyst at FreedomWorks, wrote how the $660 million annual budget’s lack of accountability measures opens the door for mishandled funds, possibly explaining why the program cannot take credit for reducing domestic violence rates.
“The real purpose of the VAWA is to shell out taxpayer dollars to liberal organizations that help elect Democrats – which is why the re-authorization passed out of committee on a straight party-line vote,” Borowski said.
Democrat minority house leader Nancy Pelosi accepted her political gravy in a tweet, @NancyPelosi, “No woman should be forced to suffer abuse in silence.” Pelosi is absolutely right. Still, the VAWA’s re-authorization should have addressed growing biases against men and boys and many other concerns. Rather, politicians seem more interested in taking advantage of domestic violence to gain political face than providing aid for all citizens. Politics continue to infiltrate social services.

Domestic violence is a real issue for women, children and men. Major policies need to better reflect that.


Jeff Bart is a senior in the College of Liberal Arts and can be reached at opinions@purdueexponent.org.


We only support organizations who show an understanding that children need both parents, and that either parent is equally capable of the choice to perpetrate hate or declare peace.


11 comments:

  1. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    United States v. Morrison

    United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

    Supreme Court of the United States
    Argued January 11, 2000
    Decided May 15, 2000
    Full case name United States v. Antonio J. Morrison et al. and Christy Brzonkala v. Antonio J. Morrison et al.
    Docket nos. 99-5
    99-29
    Citations 529 U.S. 598 (more)
    120 S. Ct. 1740; 146 L. Ed. 2d 658; 2000 U.S. LEXIS 3422; 68 U.S.L.W. 4351; 82 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1313; 77 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P46,376; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3788; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 5061; 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2583; 13 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 287
    Prior history Brzonkala v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 935 F. Supp. 779 (W.D. Va. 1996), aff'd, 169 F.3d 820 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. granted sub nom. United States v. Morrison, 527 U.S. 1068 (1999).
    Argument Oral argument
    Holding
    The Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 13981, is unconstitutional as exceeding congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
    Court membership
    Chief Justice
    William Rehnquist
    Associate Justices
    John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
    Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
    David Souter · Clarence Thomas
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
    Case opinions
    Majority Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
    Concurrence Thomas
    Dissent Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer
    Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter (Points 1 and 2 only), Ginsburg (Points 1 and 2 only)
    Laws applied
    U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV; 42 U.S.C. § 13981.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SAVE Praises Attorney General Eric Holder for Visionary Statement on VAWA Inclusion ~

      WASHINGTON / March 7, 2013 – SAVE, a leading victim-rights organization, is applauding United States Attorney General Eric Holder for his statement advocating for the inclusiveness of programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act.

      Within hours of the bill’s passage in the House of Representatives, Attorney General Eric Holder released this statement: “I applaud Congress for passing a bipartisan reauthorization that protects everyone – women and men, gay and straight, children and adults of all races, ethnicities, countries of origin, and tribal affiliations.” (1)

      The recently passed bill contains numerous non-discrimination provisions designed to assure all victims are helped by the new law.

      Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) likewise noted, “Today’s passage of the Senate’s bipartisan Violence Against Women Act reauthorization is a victory for millions of women and men across the nation who are victims of sexual and domestic violence, and proof that the voice of the American people matters.” (2)

      “Today, many Republicans are taking a stand for a more modern and inclusive GOP. Our leaders in Congress should be weary of leaving the LGBT community out of legislation that is intended to protect all Americans from domestic violence,” said Gregory Angelo, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans.

      “The VAWA debate over the last year has exposed a disturbing pattern of prejudice and bias in our nation's approach to curbing partner abuse,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We thank Attorney General Holder for his courage and foresight in advocating in advocating for all victims of domestic violence.”

      Discriminatory practices have been documented on a wide scale against male (3), lesbian/gay (4), and immigrant (5) victims of abuse.

      Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

      1.http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/February/13-ag-253.html

      2.http://ellison.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=967:rep-keith-ellison-violence-against-women-act-passage-a-victory-for-the-wellstone-legacy&catid=1:latest&Itemid=16

      3.http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Domestic-Violence-Programs-Discriminate-Against-Male-Victims

      4.http://www.cuav.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/5670_2008NCAVPDVReport.pdf

      5.http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=384

      Delete
  2. It's human nature to seek out a partner in life, and to possibly marry and have children. Unfortunately the matrimonial establishment, as we are all aware, is being methodically torn down by a demoralized society. Sadly the divorce rate is still on the rise and the foundation of marriage is being devalued and is crumbling. As adults we learn to adapt and move on when divorce attacks our lives but for children this is another story. They are the real victims of divorce and unfortunately they will suffer dearly from our selfishness and in most cases follow the same path of destruction if not worse.
    As a nation we have been granted certain civil rights by our constitution. Through the years it has been amended to better the lives of many Americans. The two most notable changes have come to Women in the 1920s and with African Americans in the 1960s. These rights were long overdue for both segments of our nation but thankfully we realized our mistakes and corrected them. This was not an easy journey for either of these crusades but through dedication and perseverance the bells of liberty rang loudly and victory was achieved.
    Unfortunately we have reached yet another fork in the road and with that comes another challenge to the American people. "We've worked hard for women's rights, but we have to watch out that the pendulum doesn't swing the other way" says Ruthie J. of the Reach FM. Ironically the pendulum has already swung far to one side and this time the male gender is being demonized by erroneous and fraudulent information. Males are being portrayed as callus, uncaring, and without emotion. We are being taught that men represent 95% of abuse in this nation against women. These and many other false statistics are being recklessly strewn throughout society and none of it is true. Yes, women are being abused by men that is a fact. striking a woman is abhorrent to the highest degree and should be dealt with appropriately but men are abused at an equal rate and they are being ignored. According to a study by the Center for Disease Control men represent 38% of domestic violence related injuries. Compound that with the fact that only 0.9% of men report abuse verses 8.5% of women and I think we have a pretty equal degree of violence between partners.
    The cornerstone of this "abuse" is VAWA the Violence Against Women Act. It was passed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been extended by every subsequent President. This law funnels Billions of dollars into discriminatory education and propaganda that violates men's civil rights. Many times DVIs or Domestic Violence Injunctions are used as a tool in divorce, child custody or just vengeance against a partner, most often against males. This is because the system of acquiring a DVI is simple and requires no evidence, witnesses or prior police reports. Just the word of an alleged victim making a claim of abuse. The repercussions of these orders are devastating and many times result in a violation, arrest and complete destruction of one's life. Even in cases when they are dismissed, a serious blemish remains on the falsely accused forever; how does that look to potential employers who almost always perform background checks prior to employment? This must be stopped and a better system of protecting all victims of domestic violence should be put in place.
    I hope to help bring awareness to gender discrimination and help provide support for men who are abused. There are programs to help women of abuse but nothing for men. My website will provide more information on the facts, my personal experiences and the stories of those who have been victims of this heinous tactic of relationship vengeance. Men and women should truly have equal rights and currently the scales are unjustly tilted. Let's work together to end domestic violence and not vilify one gender as inherently abusive. "United we stand, divided we fall" A powerful statement that we must never forget.

    Thank you,
    Tom Lemons
    Founder, www.falsedvireports.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Violence Against Women Act passed by House, sent to Obama for signature

      By Rosalind S. Helderman
      February 28, 2013

      The Republican-held U.S. House signed off on a reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act that includes expanded protections for same-sex couples Thursday, ending a protracted political fight over the measure and sending the bill to President Obama to sign into law.

      Obama said he will sign the bill as soon as he gets it. “Renewing this bill is an important step towards making sure no one in America is forced to live in fear,” he said in a statement.

      The measure, which was already approved by the Senate, passed the House on a 286 to 138 vote, as 199 Democrats joined 87 Republicans to push the bill over opposition from a bloc of 138 conservatives, who opposed the bill for a number of reasons, including the new protections for gays and lesbians.

      More Republicans voted against the bill than supported it — the third time since December that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has allowed legislation to move off the floor that did not have the support of a majority of his divided members.

      In this case, the outcome stemmed from a broad desire from GOP leaders to get past the Violence Against Women Act issue. It was an acknowledgment that their continued opposition to a measure that had passed with broad bipartisan support in the Senate and has strong appeal with women voters was damaging the party’s image.

      Hailed as landmark legislation when it was first passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act authorizes funding for programs across the country that help in the prosecution of sexual assault and domestic abuse, and assists victims of the crimes.

      Those include battered women’s shelters, victims advocates, rape-prevention education and other programs.

      The bill will authorize up to $660 million be spent each year for the next five years for such programs — a drop of 17 percent from the last time the act was reauthorized in 2005.

      Read more: http://www.saveservices.org/2013/02/vawa-passed-by-house-sent-to-obama-for-signature/
      Source” WP

      Senate VAWA Reauthorization Violates First Amendment

      Delete
  3. Children's Bill of Rights

    WHEN PARENTS ARE NOT TOGETHER

    Every kid has rights, particularly when mom and dad are splitting up. Below are some things parents shouldn't forget -- and kids shouldn't let them -- when the family is in the midst of a break-up.

    You have the right to love both your parents. You also have the right to be loved by both of them. That means you shouldn't feel guilty about wanting to see your dad or your mom at any time. It's important for you to have both parents in your life, particularly during difficult times such as a break-up of your parents.

    You do not have to choose one parent over the other. If you have an opinion about which parent you want to live with, let it be known. But nobody can force you to make that choice. If your parents can't work it out, a judge may make the decision for them.

    You're entitled to all the feelings you're having. Don't be embarrassed by what you're feeling. It is scary when your parents break up, and you're allowed to be scared. Or angry. Or sad. Or whatever.

    You have the right to be in a safe environment. This means that nobody is allowed to put you in danger, either physically or emotionally. If one of your parents is hurting you, tell someone -- either your other parent or a trusted adult like a teacher.

    You don't belong in the middle of your parents' break-up. Sometimes your parents may get so caught up in their own problems that they forget that you're just a kid, and that you can't handle their adult worries. If they start putting you in the middle of their dispute, remind them that it's their fight, not yours.

    Grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins are still part of your life. Even if you're living with one parent, you can still see relatives on your other parent's side. You'll always be a part of their lives, even if your parents aren't together anymore.

    You have the right to be a child. Kids shouldn't worry about adult problems. Concentrate on your school work, your friends, activities, etc. Your mom and dad just need your love. They can handle the rest.

    IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT AND DON'T BLAME YOURSELF.

    ----Special Concerns of Children Committee, March, 1998

    "Children's Bill of Rights" is a publication of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. © 1997 - 2001. All rights reserved. "Children's Bill of Rights" may be reproduced under the following conditions:

    It must be reproduced in its entirety with no additions or deletions, including the AAML copyright notice. It must be distributed free of charge. The AAML reserves the right to limit or deny the right of reproduction in its sole discretion.

    © 2013 AAML Florida. 3046 Hawks Glen Tallahassee, FL 32312 | 850-668-0614

    The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements. Before you decide, ask the attorney to send you free written information about their qualifications and experience. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
    http://www.aamlflorida.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.tentips

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PRO SE RIGHTS:
      Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425 ~ Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.

      Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 (1957) ~ "Following the simple guide of rule 8(f) that all pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice"... "The federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits." The court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which holds that all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice.

      Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449 ~ "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice."

      Elmore v. McCammon (1986) 640 F. Supp. 905 ~ "... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws."

      Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend" ~ A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.

      Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ~ "Allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient"... "which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

      Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1959); Picking v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 151 Fed 2nd 240; Pucket v. Cox, 456 2nd 233 ~ Pro se pleadings are to be considered without regard to technicality; pro se litigants' pleadings are not to be held to the same high standards of perfection as lawyers.

      Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) ~ "Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment."

      NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969) ~ Members of groups who are competent nonlawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law."

      Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, 151 F.2d. 240, Third Circuit Court of Appeals ~ The plaintiff's civil rights pleading was 150 pages and described by a federal judge as "inept". Nevertheless, it was held "Where a plaintiff pleads pro se in a suit for protection of civil rights, the Court should endeavor to construe Plaintiff's Pleadings without regard to technicalities."

      Puckett v. Cox, 456 F. 2d 233 (1972) (6th Cir. USCA) ~ It was held that a pro se complaint requires a less stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer per Justice Black in Conley v. Gibson (see case listed above, Pro Se Rights Section).

      Roadway Express v. Pipe, 447 U.S. 752 at 757 (1982) ~ "Due to sloth, inattention or desire to seize tactical advantage, lawyers have long engaged in dilatory practices... the glacial pace of much litigation breeds frustration with the Federal Courts and ultimately, disrespect for the law."

      Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973) ~ "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights."

      Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239. ~ "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State."

      Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925) ~ "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

      Delete
  4. HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?

    What is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?

    Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."

    This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!

    Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.

    Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.

    Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Normal parents can put the needs of their children first. They know that demeaning and demonizing their partner harms the children and however they may feel about their they do not want to harm their children. The problem of brainwashing children arises when one or other parent or both put their needs first and use the children as weapons against each other. These are the adults who have personality disorders that go unrecognized in court. There both parents are given an equal hearing the problem occurs when one parent lies and cheats under oath, manipulates the judiciary and everyone in the case while the normal parent looks on in horror. Women will always be given the benefit of the doubt over men especially by men which is why so many men loose their children. The training of so called experts in the universities and in workshops has been in the hands of radical feminists for the last forty years as a result there is no level playing field between parents any longer. All I can say that I have seen children deprived of a loving parent reconnect after years of demonizing that parent. For other parents they have to live with the injustice for the rest of their lives their child or children are to damaged to ever know the truth." ~ Erin Pizzey

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dear Friends,

    One in six Americans know someone who has been falsely accused of domestic violence. The silver bullets in divorce, false allegations are sometimes used to obtain child custody. This despicable act removes fit and loving parents from the lives of their children.

    Please take a moment, as soon as possible, and speak out for the millions of children who are missing a falsely accused parent. And do it for the parents who are grieving for their children, stolen with a lie.

    Find your senators here:
    http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

    Take note of their party affiliation and phone number.

    If your senator is a Republican, call, and ask them to support Sen. Grassley's Substitute Amendment to VAWA.

    If your senator is a Democrat, call, and ask them to demand changes to Sen. Leahy's VAWA (S. 1925), to curb false allegations of domestic violence.

    Do it For the Children, Stolen with a Lie

    Thank you for taking a stand for affected families everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. President Obama signed into law the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. Obviously the law has many, many bad things in it, especially when compared to our 12 VAWA Reform Principles: http://www.saveservices.org/pvra/vawa-reform-principles/

    That said, we can’t allow ourselves to slip into despondency and despair. We’ve reviewed the 2013 law, and the one silver lining is the language is more inclusive than the previous version: http://www.saveservices.org/vawa-reauthorization/inclusive-vawa/

    This certainly doesn’t mean that shelters will begin to put out the Welcome mat to male victims. We still have many battles to fight, especially at the state level. But at least we now have a strong legal basis for demanding an end to discriminatory practices.

    So moving forward, we will highlight the stronger inclusiveness language in the new VAWA, and we will call on lawmakers and DV providers to implement the new mandate.

    And in the upcoming weeks, we will return to our frequently-highlighted concerns about false allegations, lack of due process, lack of the presumption of innocence, and so forth. To do that, we’ll need to adjust our strategy, tactics, and messaging.

    Thanks for all your blood, sweat, and tears the last several years. The struggle will continue.

    Ed
    E. Everett Bartlett, PhD, President
    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)
    P.O. Box 1221
    Rockville, MD 20849
    Office: 301-801-0608
    Cell: 301-670-1964
    Email: ebartlett@saveservices.org
    Internet: www.saveservices.org
    SAVE is a 501(c)3 victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault.

    ReplyDelete
  8. “Justice is a part of the human makeup. And if you deprive a person of Justice on a continuous basis, it’s really an attack (and not to get religious or anything) but it’s an attack on the human soul. We have, as societies, evolved ideas of Justice and we have done that because human nature needs Justice and it needs resolution. And if you deprive somebody of that long enough they’re going to have reactions…” ~ Juli T. Star-Alexander – Executive Director, Redress, Inc.

    Redress, Inc. 501c3 nonprofit corporation, created to combat corruption. Our purpose is to provide real assistance and solutions for citizens suffering from injustices. We operate as a formal business, with a Board of Directors guiding us. We take the following actions to seek redress: Competently organize as citizens working for the enforcement of our legal rights. Form a coalition so large and so effective that the authorities can no longer ignore us. We support and align with other civil rights groups and get our collective voices heard. Work to pass laws that benefit us and give us the means to fight against corruption, as is our legal right, and we work to repeal laws that are in violation of our legal rights. Become proactive in the election process, by screening of political candidates. As individuals, we support those who are striving to achieve excellence, and show how to remove from office those who have failed to get the job done. Make our presence known through every legal means. We monitor our courts and judges. We petition our government representatives for the assistance they are bound to provide us. We publicize our cases and demand redress. Create a flow of income that enables us to fight back in court, and to assist our members impoverished by the abuses inflicted on us. Create the means to relieve the stresses on us, as we share information and support each other. We become legal advocates for each other; we become an emotional support network for each other; we problem solve for individuals on a group basis! Educate our judges, lawyers, court personnel, law enforcement personnel and elected leaders about our rights as citizens! Actively work to eliminate incompetence, bias/prejudice, special relationships and corruption at all levels of government! Work actively with all media sources, to shed light on our efforts. It is reasonable to expect that if the authorities know we are watching and documenting, that their behaviors will improve. IT'S A HUGE TASK! Accountability will not happen overnight. But we believe that through supporting each other, we support ourselves. This results in a voice for justice and redress that cannot be ignored. Please become familiar with our web site, and feel free to call. We need each other - help us to help you! Although we are beginning operations in Nevada, we intend to extend into each state in a competent fashion. We are NOT attorneys, unless individual attorneys join us as members. We are simply people helping people. For those interested, we do not engage in the practice of law. You might be interested in this article Unauthorized Practice of Law on the Net. Call Redress, Inc. at 702.597.2982 or e-mail us at Redress@redressinc.com. WORKING TOGETHER TO ATTAIN FAIRNESS

    ReplyDelete

Take Action Now!

Children's Rights Florida

Florida Family Law Reform

Family Law Community

Search This Blog

American Coalition for Fathers and Children

Means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.

Abuse (7) Abuse of power (1) Abuse of process (5) Admission to practice law (3) Adversarial system (83) Advocacy group (3) African American (1) Alienator (1) Alimony (7) All Pro Dad (1) All rights reserved (1) Allegation (2) Alliance for Justice (2) American Civil Liberties Union (3) American Psychological Association (1) Americans (2) Anecdotal evidence (2) Anti-discrimination law (1) Arrest (1) Bar association (1) Best interests (42) Bill (law) (1) British Psychological Society (1) Broward County (1) Broward County Public Schools (2) Brown University (1) Catholic Church (1) Center for Public Integrity (2) Chief judge (26) Child Abuse (48) Child custody (78) Child development (6) Child neglect (2) Child protection (15) Child Protective Services (19) Child Support (64) Children (3) Children's Rights (83) Christine Lagarde (1) Christmas (3) Circuit court (3) Civil and political rights (14) Civil law (common law) (1) Civil liberties (9) Civil Rights (145) Civil rights movement (1) Class action (1) Communist Party of Cuba (1) Confidentiality (1) Constitutional law (1) Constitutional right (5) Contact (law) (11) Contempt of court (4) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1) Coparenting (28) Copyright (1) Copyright infringement (1) Corruption (1) Court Enabled PAS (92) Court order (2) Cuba (1) Cuban Missile Crisis (1) Cuban Revolution (1) Custodial Parent (1) Declaratory judgment (3) Denial of Reasonable Parent-Child Contact (110) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2) Divorce (124) Divorce Corp (6) Divorce Court (1) Documentary (25) Domestic Violence (51) Dr. Stephen Baskerville (5) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1) DSM-5 (1) DSM-IV Codes (1) Due Process (45) Due Process Clause (1) Dwyane Wade (1) Easter (1) Equal-time rule (2) Ethics (1) Events (10) Exposé (group) (1) Facebook (19) Fair use (1) False accusation (4) False Accusations (57) Family (1) Family (biology) (2) Family Court (198) Family Law (113) Family Law Reform (119) Family Rights (87) Family therapy (10) Father (12) Father figure (2) Father's Day (1) Father's Rights (12) Fatherhood (106) Fatherlessness Epidemic (4) Fathers 4 Justice (3) Fathers' rights movement (46) Fidel Castro (1) Florida (214) Florida Attorney General (7) Florida Circuit Courts (19) florida lawyers (30) Florida Legislature (6) Florida Senate (11) Foster care (1) Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1) Fraud (1) Free Speech (1) Freedom of speech (1) Frivolous litigation (1) Fundamental rights (12) Gainesville (1) Gender equality (1) Government Accountability Project (2) Government interest (2) Grandparent (3) Havana (1) Healthy Children (14) Human Rights (119) Human rights commission (1) I Love My Daughter (56) I Love My Son (8) Injunction (1) Innocence Project (1) Investigative journalism (1) Jason Patric (2) JavaScript (1) Joint custody (8) Joint custody (United States) (16) Judge (5) Judge Judy (7) Judge Manno-Schurr (55) Judicial Accountability (103) Judicial Immunity (7) Judicial misconduct (8) Judicial Reform (3) Judicial Watch (2) Judiciary (3) Jury trial (1) Kids for cash scandal (1) Law (2) Lawsuit (9) Lawyer (8) Legal Abuse (150) Liar Joel Greenberg (16) Linda Gottlieb (1) Litigant in person (1) Little Havana (1) Marriage (6) Matt O'Connor (1) Men's rights movement (1) Mental disorder (1) Mental health (2) Meyer v. Nebraska (1) Miami (44) Miami-Dade County (8) Miami-Dade County Public Schools (1) Miscarriage of justice (42) Mother (4) Motion of no confidence (1) Movie (4) Music (8) Nancy Schaefer (1) National Fatherhood Initiative (1) Natural and legal rights (1) News (89) Nixa Maria Rose (16) Non-governmental organization (1) Noncustodial parent (4) Organizations (60) Palm Beach County (1) Parent (35) Parental Alienation (116) Parental alienation syndrome (15) Parental Rights (36) Parenting (12) Parenting plan (6) Parenting time (7) Parents' rights movement (38) Paternity (law) (1) Personal Story (22) Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1) Pope (1) Posttraumatic stress disorder (27) President of Cuba (1) Pro Se (30) Pro se legal representation in the United States (3) Prosecutor (1) Protest (1) Psychological manipulation (1) Psychologist (1) Public accommodations (1) Public Awareness (108) Raúl Castro (1) Re-Post/Re-Blog (12) Research (1) Restraining order (4) Rick Scott (12) Second-class citizen (1) Self Representation-Pro Se (31) Sexism (1) Sexual abuse (2) Sexual assault (1) Shared Parenting (92) Single parent (6) Skinner v. Oklahoma (1) Social Issues (59) Social Media (1) Spanish (8) Stand Up For Zoraya (47) State school (1) Student (1) Supreme Court of Florida (8) Supreme Court of the United States (5) Tampa (1) Testimony (23) Thanksgiving (2) The Florida Bar (10) The Good Men Project (1) Trauma (4) Troxel v. Granville (2) True Story (21) Turner v. Rogers (1) United States (26) United States Congress (1) United States Constitution (1) United States Department of Justice (4) Videos (51) Violence Against Women Act (1) Whistle-blower (3)