Monday, November 21, 2005

Everett Herald spins again on DV

The Geez was rudely awakened at Chez Denny at 5 ayem today by this article in the Everett Herald. Now, the Herald is generally sympathetic to the genderists that run the Everett Center for Battered Women, but this time they give props to the City Prosecutor.

My emailed response is below. Lets see if Ms. Reporter has the cajones to read it all the way through, and take me up on my gracious offer to spread some truth.

Email follows:

Hello, Krista

You may be new, or I may not be paying attention, but this is the first time I noticed your byline.

Unlike many who write, I will tell you my biases upfront. Got your armored underwear on? Good.

I have read the Herald since I was six years old, and now my youngest calls me the Geezer (affectionately) Ask Robert how old I am if you think it relevant.

I have twice been the victim of DV, even though I abhor that word. First time wife #1 chased me down a dead end hallway with a 12" bladed kitchen knife. No biggie.

Second time, wife #2 set the five bedroom house on fire, which I paid for with the 12 hour day I just worked, while I was snoozing in the Barcalounger® in the basement, after she left the house with the babies. That one kinda pisses me off when I think about it.

So, now you know my bonafides. I work with Families First of Washington, The Other Parent, and the Washington Civil Rights Council, helping non-custodial men and women, and the men and women that love them, battle the system that is so stacked against them in many areas, and DV, particularly in divorce or custody matters, is certainly the "silver bullet" and the "nuclear option" for moving a guy out of his house, guarantying custody, and a large court-enforced child support award.

Those are my biases. None of this is for publication, by the way, even though Robert Jamieson has written about me in the Pee-Eye Fishwrapper, without my name attached.

Now, on to the article.

First the sidebar on page one. Your source, the Center for Battered Women (NOT men) is known for spreading disinformation, and blatant untruths. I invite you to call me before you print next time, to get "the rest of the story" any time they tell you anything, particularly of a statistical nature. The number is XXX-XXX-XXXX, which is my cell, on 24X7, and I love to talk to the press. The sidebar does not refer to men, but I invite you to have a man call, and see what they do. Answer: One night's voucher in the roach-infested "no-tell" motel, which does zip-nada for a man fleeing an abusive and out of control woman, particularly with children. If a man has no children, they will direct him to a friends couch. Go ahead, find a guy to call them, I will wait...............

Of course, they will SAY they serve men (see above) but they count men that are railroaded into their "treatment" programs, which are not treatment at all, but a yelling session by the genderists (gender feminists, rad-fems, feminazis--take your choice, The boyz told me to quit using feminazi) called the Duluth Model. It is not about treatment, or anger management, and most men in there do not need it. It is simply old communist style indoctrination, using the "wheel of control" as a model. More on the wheel later.

In paragraph two, you talk about beating victims. Do you know that most DV is not about beating, but about loud domestic disagreements, often accompanied by drugs or alcohol? Do you know that it is NOT hard for men or women to leave, but that they actually have a model, or a need, for that heated kind of confrontation? I didn't think you knew that. More later on that, again.

As a reporter, I am surprised (NOT) that you didn't ask why 50 percent of the (you said defendant) plaintiffs failed to press charges in the old days. Actually it is the state that presses charges, IE The people VS. Mr. Smith. The alleged victim didn't press charges in the old days because they knew they were majorly complicit in the action, and were afraid of being busted themselves. Now, you think guys go from zero to "punching" in two seconds? No, women push, shove, kick, scream, and do other "encouraging" behaviors, and they know it, so they didn't show up to testify. Thanks to Sen. Biden, and the copious funding of VAWA, the "service providers", shelters, cops and persecutors (sic) smelled money, and created programs. What they had wasn't working so they created "no drop”, mandatory arrest and other questionable practices. They defined DV to include denigrating speech, yelling, and yes, even a discussion, no matter how calm, about financial spending habits. Yes, according to the laws of the FU-WA (Feminist Utopia of Washington), reigning in the little woman's out of control spending habits is DV!!!!! Check the "wheel of control" mentioned above.

Now, after millions of dollars, and 8 years, prosecution in the City of Everett jumped to 73 percent of DV cases. Hmmmm, Ms. Reporter, you compare that number to prosecution of other police reported crimes? Burglary? Theft? Assault (non-DV)? I didn't think you took the time to do that. You would find that way fewer of those cases are prosecuted, which you inadvertently point out, but only your most discerning readers would notice, by mentioning that DV is 20% of the city persecutors (SIC) caseload. Now, in the grand scheme of things, with the loosey-goosey definition of DV, why did you not mention that that seems out of balance?

And you neglected to mention that all DV crimes are already covered under assault laws!!!! So, why do we need special DV laws, special DV prosecutors, and special DV advocates training judges, police and prosecutors? And why do we spend so much on this type of assault instead of all assaults? IS NOT EVERY VICTIM OF ASSAULT IMPORTANT???????? Then why not prosecute some of the non-DV cases?

Lastly, lets take a look at the training the prosecutors, cops, and judges take. Let me give you a little snippet from a real judges training course.

Ready?

New Jersey municipal judge Richard Russell actually urged his colleagues to violate basic constitutional protections: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order," he told a judges’ training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. . . . We don’t have to worry about the rights."

I would make a crappy reporter, because my editor would cut my stuff to shreds, because I am old school, and tell the WHOLE story, even the part that doesn't bleed, or otherwise titillate.


********************

Now, I am old, and at home in cornfusion (sic), but when we got to where we talked about Lt. Olafson talking to the perps, I am unclear as to the bulleted comments "men seeking sympathy" and the meaning of the prosecutor and the genderist from the Battered Women's Center head nodding. The way I read it, the bulleted items were NOT viewed by the literati as DV, when, of course, all bulleted items, save perhaps the first one, ARE DV!!!!!

Now, it gets even foggier beyond that. Understand that the CBW makes a ton 'o cash from the "treatment" (NOT) that they provide, by charging these (majorly) men for that treatment, in a group setting, at between $30 and $100 per hour. Additionally, there was a recent US Supreme Court Case in the last couple of months that confirmed that the police are NOT obligated to enforce restraining orders or no contact orders, and therefore the prosecutor, Mr. Cox, is way off base suggesting he and the blue gunned thugs can or will protect supposed victims.

Cox's story of "taking all day" in court on a case, with the "victim" under oath stating that it never happened is over the top. Ask him how many non-DV assaults he has taken "all day" to present. And with the mandatory arrest policies, based on only "saying that it hurts", with no visible marks, and conflicting stories, it is very possible the "victim" was telling the truth!!!

Ok, enough. If you want to hear an up close and personal story about DV, call me. Three doors down is a "lady" who got her next door neighbor thrown in jail for attempting to speak with her about her abysmal treatment of her dog.

Within a week, she got her BF thrown in the pokey for DV, and later that day, admitted that she was the instigator, and that she intentionally yelled so that the neighbors would call the cops. Now, he got out, but can't go to HIS house, where she was staying, or drive HIS car, which she drives like a maniac, even though she has no ownership of the house or the car. Tell me how that is fair????????

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main