Is it Constitutionally legal for Hillary to become President

**dragonspring** · Associate Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts votes: 1

I think we could agree that the American justice system often fails. It especially fails children, who unfortunately are regarded as chattel. Although I was able to protect my daughter, she did not get justice from our legal system.

For a time after my experience, I held a grudge against men in general. I came to realize that it was unfair to hold all men responsible for the actions of one. Hopefully, you will someday realize that holding the female gender in contempt is unfair as well.

**AlicornsPrayer** · Admin Thanks: 8 Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts votes: 2

Dragon's post here, pretty much sums up my own thoughts about your situation Injst.

You're holding all responsible for the actions of one person, and that just isn't the right thing to do. Understandable, but still not the right frame of mind in which to handle the situation.

Let me tell you my experience about the legal system and the courts.

I was married twice previously. The 1st marriage was hell, but the second was worse. I was married to an alcoholic who's idea of 'fun' was to beat me for just exsisting. I didn't know at the time, that he was also a drug addict (cocain). I'd had a child my first marriage, and had a child as well with this 2nd husband...I tried to leave once and he threatened to kill me and my children if I did so again. My family, who lived closeby, actually can tell you about having to break into our home to remove him from off top of me while beating me to a pulp.

When I finally worked up the courage to divorce him, because of the legal system and his family's political connections, he dragged out the proceedings for 2 years. And he had a sympathetic judge, to say the least, who'd recently went through a bad divorce himself so he naturally thought as you did...That women were scum and the system was 'stacked' in their favor...

I was lucky though. Even though the judge threw out the police reports, psych reports, etc. that backed up my sitation about the spousal abuse and threats...My hubby was the one that spilled the beans on himself in court showing the judge that his feelings against women in general was misplaced. Because my hubby had gotten so sure of himself with the judge's 'favor', he actually felt safe enough to attempt to hit me in the courtroom, as well as threaten to kill me if I didn't drop the whole thing and get my rear back to our home...

I got the divorce. But unlike your ex, I believed that no matter how bad the other parent was, that a child deserved having both parents in his life...15 years later though, and against the advice of doctors, courts, and school I lived to regret that decision.

Because of that limited influence of having his father's negative influence in his life, now there's a mini-ex who's just as volital, aggressive, and addicted as the man who helped bring him in this world.

What your ex did, and I only have your side of the story to go on, was bad. You got shafted sure. But in most cases, unfortunately, having one of the parents removed from a child's life is actually a good thing. What happened to you was a rarity. What happened to me was also a rare occurance.

But mistakes are sometimes made, by both sides of the issue and it happens. But it's unfair to take what happened out on everyone you meet afterwards. Because there are good judges who do listen to both sides...They're not always judging who gets what based on the gender of the persons, but on the evidence they present and can back up appropriately.

I have male friends, who have sole custody of their children...Who's mothers aren't allowed to visit with their children. Courts do take into consideration that the mother isn't always the right choice, or that the mother is making up stuff.

So whatever was said/done in court by the both of you is what determined the judge's decision more then likely...Not her gender alone, but what 'evidence' you provided yourself to refute her claims. And if that 'evidence' wasn't convincing, then that's why you got the bum deal.

Oddman put it best...You do your child a disservice by blaming your ex and holding a grudge against women and the system for what happened.

I realize you need someone to blame, but whatever you didn't do/show/prove more then likely was what that persuaded the outcome and decision. And misplacing the blame on others isn't going to fix your situation at all. Instead it's just going to make you a bitter person that when your child finally has a chance to be in your life, she'll not want to be there cause of your mindset.

**Crystal** · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject:

I'm going to echo what Dragon and Ali have said. I too had first hand knowledge ... both of the abuse of my daughter, and attempted abuse on my person. I was lucky in that my ex couldn't afford an attorney to drag things out.

AlicornsPrayer wrote:

I realize you need someone to blame, but whatever you didn't do/show/prove more then likely was what that persuaded the outcome and decision. And misplacing the blame on others isn't going to fix your situation at all. Instead it's just going to make you a bitter person that when your child finally has a chance to be in your life, she'll not want to be there cause of your mindset.

And this is the core of what we were all responding to. My ex treated my daughter so badly after my divorce that by the time she was 10 she didn't want anything to do with him. He thought he was going to be able to just start up with her when she reached 18, but if he were to show up today, she'd just as soon kick his butt. It's sad really ... I would have allowed him access to her if he'd just behaved, but I was not about to put her in a position to be physically hurt by him or have him decide to just take her somewhere. It was his choice to not see her (he didn't want to be monitored ... can't manipulate a child if someone is watching) and his choice to treat her badly.

**injstcwry** · Civilian Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Like I said already, I'm fully aware that both men and women are capable of taking positions in divorce or separation situations involving children that have nothing to do with what is best for the child. It is the clear and distinct gender discrimination against men in the family law system, and favoritism towards women, that is the issue. I'll fully admit I am very bitter, but I don't think any more so than any man would be who had his rights, and his child's rights spit upon by the system. But, even more so than bitterness, I am plagued by a profound sense of disillusionment and disgust with a system that taught me from youth that, if the truth is revealed, justice will be served. I never really had any reason, or the inclination to be involved at all with the legal system in any aspect, except for the short encounters that most citizens have. But, when I filed for divorce 5 years ago, my experience with US law , courtesy of the family law system, gave me a crash Rhodes Scholar education as to the vast corruption that exists in this system.

As for holding a grudge against women, or blaming women, that is not the case. Hell, if the system was reversed, I'd accept the manna from heaven to my benefit just like women do. The Pope himself would probably succumb to that kind of free ride. But, I didn't ask people to get onto the census site or the justice dept site for nothing (www.census.gov www.usdoj.gov). I have found these two sites to be the proof that I use to substantiate the discrimination that I claim (personal experience notwithstanding). How else, but through gender discrimination, would you explain how in over 85% of divorce or separation situations, the mother is given physical custody. How else, but through gender discrimination, would you explain how in over 85% of restraining order cases, the RO is granted to females against males. How else, but through gender discrimination, would you explain how in over 85% of child support orders, fathers are ordered to pay the mother, regardless of the mother's or father's income, and in many cases, regardless of actual paternity. I understand and acknowledge that there are men (cowards) out there that beat women. I know there are fathers (animals) out there that abuse their children. But, like a verse in a paper that I hand out at the courthouse when I protest says "No one has the authority, moral or otherwise, to forfeit the rights of another, that which is not theirs to barter with in the first place, to try and solve a problem, no matter what the problem may be." I will not be a sacrificial lamb and be lumped along with the guilty, nor will my child be deprived of her father, so the family law system can deal with the issues of DV or child abuse. No, for me, even though I have admitted to having immense bitterness and disgust towards the system, those emotions have not influenced my existing views on women, nor clouded my reasoning and presence of mind to see, in crystal clear fashion, exactly what is happening here.

John Alvarez

**injstcwry** · Civilian Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

You know DS, in all of the words I and everybody spoke, I can't believe I nor anyone else mentioned this. Even though you made it safe for your daughter, with the evidence pointing towards this man, or, for that matter, this kind of evidence pointing towards anyone concerning this type of crime, am I alone in being concerned about any other children this type of predator has had, or will have contact or access to. I know in many cases, and I think you mentioned this yourself, the prosecution of these child predators is not pursued because of the additional trauma that might be inflicted on their most recent innocent victim. But, when you think of it in terms of, if the person isn't incarcerated concerning this crime, then they will be free to victimize innocent children in the future. There is a sign in my city that says "abducted children are everyone's children." I would take it one further and say regardless of the circumstances, abduction situation or not, keeping any and all children safe is everyone's responsibility. Thinking that any innocent children who cannot defend themselves would be in contact with this man, or, like I said, any person, man or woman, who would harm them in any way is a grave concern.

John Alvarez

**dragonspring** · Associate Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts votes: 1

I have always worried about him abusing other children, but there was really nothing I could do about it. He did remarry. His new wife was past childbearing age although she probably has grandchildren...

**injstcwry** · Civilian Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Someone forwarded the below content to me in an email. It looks like this guy Wallace is filing this issue as his own despite I being the catalyst that brought this constitutional issue to public attention. It also looks like he is trying to use it to get the Mormon church laws changed. I had intended this issue to have the adherence or non-adherence to constitutional law, and general law by government officials scutinized by an investigation. I sent out the press release hoping that some attorney would have the "brass ones" to take my case. I guess I should have known someone might use it for different motives. Well, even if I could not file it on my own, maybe this guy filing it will still bring attention to gross violations of the law that are perpetrated everyday in courtrooms (more specifically family court) across this country.

John Alvarez

_____________________________________________________________

FOUNDERS FREEDOM DEFENSE FUND

“Protecting the Constitution”

P.O. Box 60958, Reno, NV 89506 775-352-4426

PRESS RELEASE

April 2, 2008

For Immediate release

Subject: LAWSUIT TO BE FILED TO REMOVE HILLARY

CLINTON FROM NEVADA PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT

On Friday April 4th at 8:00 AM a lawsuit will be filed in the Second Judicial District of Nevada in Reno. The lawsuit to be filed by Doug Wallace seeks the removal of Hillary Clinton from the Nevada Presidential Ballot on the grounds that she is ineligible to hold the office conforming to Article II specificity of the U.S. Constitution.

Article II specifies only a male gendered candidate for that office. In fact Article II uses male gendered pronouns a total of nineteen times to so specify the gender of the President. No female gender is mentioned.

“Before Clinton or any woman can become President, Article II will need an amendment or a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court to overcome that ineligibility”, Says Wallace.

Wallace is remembered internationally for his struggle against Mormon leaders 32 years ago on April 2, 1976 for seeking equal rights for Black men in the Mormon priesthood with success coming two years later.

Wallace chose the filing date to commemorate the assassination of Martin Luther King on April 4, 1968 as well as his own effort the date of this press release. He says that these combined dates should be known as Civil Rights Day to mark the need for further expansion of those rights to all people regardless of race, ethnicity or gender so that women can legally be U.S.President.

Wallace Adds, “That equality will have to include the emancipation of women in the Mormon Church to hold priesthood rights along with the men”.