Tuesday, December 31, 1974

The “Jane Crow” Era

The “Jane Crow” Era



"MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."

Jane Crow and Jim Crow are both based on the conviction/lynching by infamous accusation without access to 5th and 14th Amendment’s Justice with the equal protection of Due Process of Law.  

The "Jane Crow" Era, “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house.”

fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start  decompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."  “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.comThe Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08. 

The Jane Crow era was instigated to protect children and woman with the Rule of Law  in 1974.  The witch-hunt for villains has, in effect, done just the opposite.  Society’s evolution has been attempting to establish the Rule of Law as stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):

The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”  

There was and is a historical preference for the “Jane Crow” era, similar to the “Jim Cow” era.  The “Jim Crow” era was initiated based on the non sequitur, "Black Men can not be trusted around White Woman."   The “Jane Crow” era was initiated based on the non sequitur, "Men can not be trusted around Children and Woman."

            The “Jane Crow”[1] Era[2] started with, “The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) is one of the key pieces of legislation that guides child protection. CAPTA, in its original inception, was signed into law in 1974 (P.L. 93-247). It was reauthorized in 1978, 1984, 1988, 1992, and 1996, and with each reauthorization, amendments have been made to CAPTA that have expanded and refined the scope of the law.  CAPTA was most recently reauthorized on June 25, 2003, by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36).” There was a decided preference for Mother’s right over Father’s rights in the unequal enforcement of the law.  The cost of 1/31/1974 Public law 93-247.Provides authorizations for fiscal years 1974 through 1977 of, respectively, $15,000,000; $20,000,000 $25,000,000 and $25,000,000.  The appropriation for PUBLIC LAW 108–36—JUNE 25, 2003, just for family violence has now risen to $175,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008.

That was followed up by Joe Biden's good intention, “The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) as a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused…” ‘‘Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005” has been funded through 2011.  There is a federal authorization of “$225,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011’’.
      
       The authorization is for “maintaining core victim services and criminal justice initiatives, while supporting complementary new initiatives and emergency services for victims and their families; supporting the placement of special victim assistants (to be known as ‘Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistants’) In local law enforcement agencies to serve as liaisons between victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking and personnel in local law enforcement agencies in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders.”
      
       With over $10,000,000,000 ($10 Billion) having been spent to date, to find villains, that brings us to today, I say again:

       “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection (209A[3]), if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house…
Long-term emotional damage to children's fathers -- surely not good for children -- often begins with a restraining order… 
"A man against whom a frivolous Order of Protection (209A) has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do start decompensating[4], and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do start developing post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect... It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order."”[5]
It is GOVERNMENT gone WILD[6].  Statistically speaking I do not think anyone would assert a Domestic Violence rate of 1incidents of violence / 100 couples.  But today we have a divorce rate of 1 out every 2 couples.  An Ex-Parte Order of protection in a divorce action is a NO LOSE petition for the woman. They are granted wholesale, without foundation at a rate of 9 out of 10.  With a divorce rate of 50 out of 100 and an Ex-Parte rate of 45 out of 50 you have an effective rate of 45 out of 100 being force fed the cure for a disease that only effects 1 out of 100 couples.  So there are 44 out of 100 males that are being illegally and unconstitutionally deprived of their paternal ad property rights.

"MEN ARE DISFAVORED BY AMERICAN DOMESTIC RELATION LAW."

That is insanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



[1] The illegal judicial preference for a Mother’s (woman) rights over a Father’s (man) rights with the UNEQUAL protection of the law.
[2] The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08
[3] The original quote listed (209A) This refers to the statute the result of 1978 Abuse Prevention Act in Massachusetts.  Could be MO.
[4] (in psychology) the failure of a defense mechanism.
[5] Sheara F. Friend, as quoted in  “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire.   That describes my first year under an order of protection perfectly!!!!!!!!!!!
[6] The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire, Hitting below the belt Monday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon - Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press, Dads to Sue for Discrimination, 08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra, ABCNEWS.com, The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08