It seems that instead of some lawyers who read my original press release taking the opportunity to represent me in this legal action, they have designated the legally valid constitutional issue that I raised their own, and are filing their own legal actions based on such. I have attempted to find local attoryneys to represent me in this legal action, but to use a common term here in New Mexico, I couldn't find any with the "cojones" or, to be non-discriminatory, the "ovaries" to take the case. Also, quite simply, I just don't have the kind of money or connections needed to get this done. However, I am still looking for an attorney to file the federal action for me. The publicity this attorney would get would be worth a thousand attoryney fees.

If you want an example of the other people running with my issue, take a look at www.opednews.com and look for the article concerning Hillary Clinton and the Constitution. There's a Washington state attorney who is filing a federal legal action based on the issue I raised in my press release of Feb 5, 2008. From what the article says, others are attempting to do the same thing. Seems like the issue I raised has begun to take on a life of it's own.

John Alvarez

Up to this point, I had not read this thread in its entirety due to the fact that prohibiting Clinton from becoming president based on her gender just seems ludicrous. Now that I have read it, I am somewhat curious as to what crime you were accused but not convicted of that is preventing you from seeing your daughter. I have some personal experience in the matter of family court and fought a successful and expensive court battle to keep my ex-husband from having private access to my daughter. My ex was never charged or convicted of the crimes he perpetrated against my daughter and I recall thanking the Divine that the burden of proof was less difficult in a civil case. Otherwise, I might have been convicted of crimes against him. So I ask, did your alleged crimes concern your family?

the guys either genius or idiot---genius in the respect that in getting people to review what has been allowed to pass (regardless of constitutionality---oh---and bushy's reaction to HEY----thats against the constitution! was a vehement "the constitutions just a g-d peice of paper!!!!! THAT is the calibre of knucklehead & co. that is *in charge*...) relatively and impotently challenged at best, or an idiot thinking that if only that "no women allowed" thing was really observed he'da got a male judge who may have given him a "fair hearing"---so, since you brought it up, ..."...And, the reason that Judge Jewell or any other family court judge gives for taking this position is, "I'm erring on the side caution" or "just because you were not found guilty Mr. Alvarez doesn't mean the crime did not happen, it just means they did not have enough evidence to convict you" or "I am acting in the best interest of the child." ...what is THAT all about? and as for this "...I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Constitution that if a family court judge or anyone for that matter thinks there is a good enough reason, constitutional rights may be denied..."...uuummmmm---the btk killer's idea of a good time was, well, to b,t, and k----i'm pretty happy he is no longer amoking and able to enjoy HIS pursuit of happiness.......

Let me guess DS, you didn't read it because the simple act of reading it, with absolutely no one else in the room to know that you read it, would have given it some kind of validity in your mind huh? What I am curious about is why your so interested in what I was accused of instead of what the main thrust of my issue is? Suffice it to say that, as I stated before, anything I was accused of was either unsubstatiated, dismissed, or a not guilty verdict was arrived at by a jury. So, in my mind, and by the way the justice system usually works, it renders those accusations immaterial. But, as you obviously found out to your present benefit and to your daughter's present and imminent detriment, that's not how it works in what we know as the family law system of this country.

You sound very proud of the fact that you have removed your daughter's father from her life. I would ask you your reason for doing this seeing that there was no charge or conviction, and seeing all of the statistical proof that children raised without fathers unfailingly suffer emotional and psychological damage, and a myriad of social ills. But, by you making the comment of "thanking the Divine" instead of "thanking God" (the masculine form of deity) I have my answer.

I hope that what I am doing brings attention to the violations to constitututional, civil rights, and human rights law based on gender in the family courts of this country. And, in turn, brings attention to what is happening to children, like your daughter and mine, who are being used as pawns, by mothers like you, to carry out your personal vendettas or agendas against a man who should have just as much right to his children as you do.

Oh, and you needn't have worried about being convicted of any crimes you may have commited against your husband if the case had not gone the way you wanted it to. Just ask the preachers wife who blasted a shotgun hole in her husband's back while he was sleeping just a year or so ago, and is now walking free. Or Debra LeFave who raped her male child student in Florida, and, then violated terms of her probation, and is now walking the streets free. Or, Clara Harris who murdered her husband by running him over repeatedly, and who was still granted joint custody of her children.And, in family court, there is no burden of proof at all, just preponderance of the evidence by the judge (usually female). And, she usually" preponders" it for about 10 seconds before granting whatever wish the mother's little heart desires.

John Alvarez

when the story of clara harris was brought up in the lounge, a very sweet naive thing replied wide eyed---"how did she get him to lay down for that??!!"---dear sweet child------JA----you have an impressive gallery of female neer-do-wells assembled----lotsa pent up anger there bud----i'd venture to say you're just a felony away from a bad day yourself---and as for all those guys who find themselves under a vengeful wheel or being at the wrong end of a shotgun?---i'd have to say "shouldntve pissed er off".....both sexes have wrought horrible things against each other and their families have had to suffer the fallout and damage that can never ever be fixed or right ---i think a better avenue would be for you to work out your anger more constructively so that when you do interact with your precious child youre not all hopped up on bile and bitterness --theres a positive legacy you can give to your daughter----you----healthy in mind and heart ----to give her anything else would be the real crime

injstcwry wrote:I hope that what I am doing brings attention to the violations to constitututional, civil rights, and human rights law based on gender in the family courts of this country. And, in turn, brings attention to what is happening to children, like your daughter and mine, who are being used as pawns, by mothers like you, to carry out your personal vendettas or agendas against a man who should have just as much right to his children as you do.

See, here's the thing Injust...You ASSUME that because the man didn't get jail time, that it was a vendetta issue...

I actually KNOW the story Dragon is talking about as well as her daughter. The father was guilty, but the daughter was spared. Dragon doesn't have to tell a very personal story that their family still deals with the emotional scars caused, just to satisfy your curiosity or alleviate your assumptions...

Not every woman who seeks justice for their children, gets satisfaction court wise....Not every guilty person is convicted for crimes committed...Because of technicalities and such usually occuring because of a mistake made on the search, investigation, or prosecuter's part. PLUS some aren't convicted because they're willing to deal to avoid jail time they know they'd get if it did go to trial.

And not every woman who fails getting said justice, fails because they were trying to cause 'trouble for the man'...In this case, the father was guilty...Simple and short of it all. If anything, his concession to stay out of his child's life was an act of self-preservation on his part...Not a claim of innocence at all. As much as Dragon was grateful it didn't have to go to trial, he was equally grateful he could avoid that as and the possibility of jail time as well...It was a win/win/win situation for Dragon, her daughter, and himself.

Don't use your anger about YOUR situation cloud your thinking about the realities that most cases like Dragon's are REAL cases and occurances. Don't let your anger about your situation be the cause of countless victims finding it even harder to get justice by labeling every situation as 'a woman trying to get even with a man'...Cause those types of cases are fewer then the cases of 'women/children who are really being hurt by those men'.

oddmanin wrote:when the story of clara harris was brought up in the lounge, a very sweet naive thing replied wide eyed---"how did she get him to lay down for that??!!"---dear sweet child------JA----you have an impressive gallery of female neer-do-wells assembled----lotsa pent up anger there bud----i'd venture to say you're just a felony away from a bad day yourself---and as for all those guys who find themselves under a vengeful wheel or being at the wrong end of a shotgun?---i'd have to say "shouldntve pissed er off".....both sexes have wrought horrible things against each other and their families have had to suffer the fallout and damage that can never ever be fixed or right ---i think a better avenue would be for you to work out your anger more constructively so that when you do interact with your precious child youre not all hopped up on bile and bitterness --theres a positive legacy you can give to your daughter----you----healthy in mind and heart ----to give her anything else would be the real crime

Dang Oddman...You're on a roll today. I tried to rec your post, but seems rec-ing someone once is only allowed. LOL!

So you'll have to accept my vitual rec till I figure out how to get the rec counter to allow more recs per member. LOL!

injstcwry wrote:What I am curious about is why your so interested in what I was accused of instead of what the main thrust of my issue is?

To be quite frank ... because women like Dragon and myself have dealt with men like you claim you are not for far too long. The simple fact of you mentioning the "injustice" done to you, but being unwilling to even describe the charge, and then the personal attack of anyone who questions the validity of your statements tells me plenty ... that it is more likely than not you are the kind of person we fear that you are. According to your logic, because my ex was not convicted of being a drug abusing, drunk, misogynistic jackass who thinks it's OK to verbally, mentally, and physically abuse women or children, I am supposed to let him have access to my daughter? Sorry bub, not a chance. And since we can only assume that you are the same type (since your "arguments" sound so much like the crap we've heard before) of jerk that these other losers were, your veracity in any matter, and most especially those regarding women and their qualifications, is in question.

Crystal wrote:

injstcwry wrote:What I am curious about is why your so interested in what I was accused of instead of what the main thrust of my issue is?

To be quite frank ... because women like Dragon and myself have dealt with men like you claim you are not for far too long. The simple fact of you mentioning the "injustice" done to you, but being unwilling to even describe the charge, and then the personal attack of anyone who questions the validity of your statements tells me plenty ... that it is more likely than not you are the kind of person we fear that you are. According to your logic, because my ex was not convicted of being a drug abusing, drunk, misogynistic jackass who thinks it's OK to verbally, mentally, and physically abuse women or children, I am supposed to let him have access to my daughter? Sorry bub, not a chance. And since we can only assume that you are the same type (since your "arguments" sound so much like the crap we've heard before) of jerk that these other losers were, your veracity in any matter, and most especially those regarding women and their qualifications, is in question.

Yep, there's that point too. I was going to say something similar, but...Well, I had to stop and take a deep breath so I could formulate the right words to say. Thanks for putting my other thoughts to words and saving me the time of doing it myself Crystal Sis.

injstcwry wrote:Let me guess DS, you didn't read it because the simple act of reading it, with absolutely no one else in the room to know that you read it, would have given it some kind of validity in your mind huh?

Wow, just wow; rather full of yourself aren't you? I didn't read it because I don't generally waste my time on idiots.

But, as you obviously found out to your present benefit and to your daughter's present and imminent detriment

My daughter was five when I went to court. Supervised visitation with her pedophile father was ordered. When she was twelve, SHE decided she never wanted to see him again. I made sure she never did and he never challenged me in court. He knew damn good and well that if he pushed it, my daughter was old enough to testify in criminal court and put his sorry butt in jail (the statute of limitations on sexual abuse lasts until the child is 19 in my state). She is twenty now and has actually thanked me for fighting on her behalf when she was unable to do so.

You sound very proud of the fact that you have removed your daughter's father from her life. I would ask you your reason for doing this seeing that there was no charge or conviction, and seeing all of the statistical proof that children raised without fathers unfailingly suffer emotional and psychological damage, and a myriad of social ills.

And what about the emotional and psychological damage of being abused by someone who is supposed to protect you? Or perhaps you think that is how fathers are supposed to "love" their daughters...

Your attitude in this post tells me all I need to know about you; definitely a waste of my time. Oh and, by the way, it was a male judge who awarded me sole custody and I think he was just as disgusted with my ex as I was.

The constitution was designed so that it could be changed. Women can run for president if they are born citizens of the U.S. Hillary can run for president-she's just not going to be president unless some extreme miracle takes place.

You know OM, you’re right. Both men and women have committed some horrible acts against each other. Actually, that's what I have been trying to convince all of the "women are dainty little flowers who couldn't hurt a fly" crowd for years. They are capable of lying, cheating stealing, killing, you name it, just like us men. But, that is not the point I am trying to get across. The point I am attempting to stress is the behavior and reaction of the system itself when someone of the female gender commits one of these acts, as opposed to when a man commits one of these acts. Think about the cases I already stated, but put a man in place as the perpetrator, and imagine what the system's reaction would have been. Do you really believe that a 23 year old male teacher, raping a 14 year old female student, would have done less than 20 years in prison, much less get off without a day like La Fave? Or, a husband, blasting a hole in his wife's back, while sleeping none the less, would have done anything less than life in prison, if not the death penalty if that state had it, or get a few months in jail like Winkler? And, imagine a husband running his wife over with the car, again and again until she was dead, with the act on videotape? Would he have gotten joint custody of the children in the relationship, like Harris did? Come on people, forget your "heaven forbid I appear politically incorrect or intellectually unprogressive" views for one second, and see the truth for what it is.

Some of the women who answered my post talk about how they are glad they removed the child's father from the child's life. They talk about all the justifications and reasons that they believe made it right to do this - he was a pedophile - or some other type of monster. But, since there was no jury that found the man guilty of this, how do they know these acts really took place? Did they see it with their own eyes? Did they have an absolutely infallible witness who saw the act and then recounted it to them? Did they have physical proof in the form of a medical exam or report? Maybe, the proof was the testimony of the child to authorities? Although I am not completely discounting the testimony of young children, I'm sure everyone has heard of Parental Alienation Syndrome. It's just a fancy word for a child being brainwashed to believe and repeat whatever the alienating parent tells the child to believe and say. And, just because the child has grown into an adult now and still corroborates the alienating parent's story doesn't matter. A false implanted memory can become as real as an actual memory, if the child’s brainwashing was done methodically enough. This has been documented in adult brainwash victims, who must then undergo a "deprogramming" procedure, so how much more with a child? So, without the aforementioned jury conviction, physical evidence, or witnesses, from where does the authority in their harangue, to spout commands about what will happen with these children, come from? Maybe it comes from their belief that the children are their personal property, to do with as they will. And, yet again, maybe they truly believe what they claim. You wouldn't believe what the human mind is capable of utterly convincing itself of, if there is strong enough emotion such as hate, or vengeance driving it. So, then again, I ask the question, without some form of proof as to what really happened in these situations, what makes the mother's story or view more valid than the father's? Maybe the fathers in some of these situations have their own versions or beliefs as to what happened - true or false. Yet if they have no proof and their versions are based solely on what they believed, what is the distinction between the mothers stories and beliefs and their own? Why are not the children taken from the mother based on the fathers story? Because ultimately, without a conviction or some kind of proof, isn't that what someone claiming without proof is, a story, like a bedtime story, fireside story, or a classroom story . So then, am I correct in assuming that everyone agrees an unsubstantiated story or allegation becomes enough reason to destroy a relationship between a father and his child? Oh, and don't take these fathers keeping quiet and not fighting the allegations as proof that they were guilty. I know many men who loved their kids very much, but were simply not willing to risk having their lives destroyed, or decades in prison, by putting their lives in the hands of a gender-biased legal system that is stacked against them before they ever set foot in the courtroom for the trial.

Another answer from these women might be, they don't need verification by our legal system, or a jury, to act on their belief that their child is in danger. I myself agree with this. My ex was taking our daughter to an unlicensed, inappropriate sitter when she was 2. There were many children years older than her, boys and girls, and they were supervised by only one older lady. I acted, mindless of what the law said, and as any parent concerned about my child should, and took my daughter out of this place. I was hunted down by the police, and the judge granted a restraining order to my ex. All because I tried to protect my daughter, regardless of what the "law" mandated. But, when my ex motioned to take our daughter to Poland, to her mother's house where my ex had confessed to me that her mother’s live-in boyfriend had sexually abused her as a child, not only did the judge grant the motion after my objections based on this reason, but I was held in contempt for refusing to sign the travel visa papers. This blows the reasoning that many reading this post are most likely thinking right now out of the water - in situations where child abuse is even a possibility, the judge and the system err on the side of caution. Well, if that's the case, why is it that the judge, saw my ex's decision to put our daughter in an improper, possibly dangerous, child care situation as perfectly reasonable, to the point of legally punishing me for taking my daughter out of there, and to the point of letting her go back there. But, scoffed at my concern over the danger my ex mother in law’s live in boyfriend posed to my daughter, again, even to the point of punishing me with a contempt charge when I would not sign the travel visa application? Wouldn't the erring on the side of caution philosophy have been applicable in both situations?

Bottom line is, and someone explain it to me if my violent "savage" brain cannot comprehend, lacking any form of legal proof that what the mother is claiming is the case, what makes her decisions towards the children and allegations towards the father, more valid than the father's decisions towards the children or allegations, if any, towards the mother? If you don't believe this is the case, just go to www.census.gov and look up what gender has custody of the children in over 85% of the custody disputes. But, then the original post I placed answers my own question doesn't it? The same coddling and allowances lavished on females in the family law system are being lavished on Hillary to be allowed to run for President without question, despite, as I read the Constitution, and apparently as lawyers, and many others who are filing legal actions of their own based on my line of reasoning, see it, there being big question as to whether the Constitution allows for a female President. Our present legal system, and family law system more than any, still recognizes (whether consciously or unconsciously) an unspoken chivalrous code that has existed for thousands of years in the laws of many societies. In the past, The Bible, the Code of Hammurabi, speak of special allowances and exemptions for females (the widow) but not the male (widower). In the present, The US Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) specifically names females to be protected from violence, but no VAMA. The UN's declaration of Human Rights has special verbiage devoted to the attention and protection of women, but not to men. Think of it in other terms and you might get the idea. If the US had enacted the Violence Against Caucasians Act, or if the UN had verbiage giving special attention and protection to Latinos, or any other specific ethnic group, do you think that there might be some cries of racism? Yet special allowances are made in the law specifically related to the female gender everyday, and no one bats an eye concerning the reverse sexism that is so clearly being committed. But, you know what, I was raised by parents who told me not hit girls, and to treat girls more gently because they are more fragile, so, because of those chivalrous ideals being ingrained into me from a young boy, I would most likely not have a problem with these special allowances being a part of the law. But, the problem is, they have now discriminatorily stripped me of my contact and my rights to my child. Back in the day when these chivalrous codes sprang up, they didn’t hurt men because women were not direct competitors with men for power, finances, authority over family etc.. But now, if I hold the door open for a women on my way to a job interview, she might get the job I’m trying for because she got there before me. If I take physical abuse from my girlfriend or wife, but don’t call the cops because of my chivalrous ideals, I might end up there myself when she calls first claiming that I beat her. See, now that women are direct competitors with men for power, resources, authority, these chivalrous directives in the law, hurt men. Because, a double standard is applied - little helpless red riding hood needing special recognition and protection from the "big bad man" when in divorce court, family court, or criminal court, but full throttle “femafia” female wanting equal rights and standing when going for that job, promotion, or political office. I’ve heard the same statement many times from many different women “I want equal rights, as long as it’s to my benefit.” But, when it’s to a woman’s benefit to assume the role of the helpless female needing doors opened, or dinner paid for, or the special protections of a gender-biased chivalrous law, she is more than willing to temporarily restrain the “femafia” persona and beliefs to get what she wants.

It is this reason and this reason only that Hillary is being allowed to run, despite the clear question of the Constitutionally legal validity of her campaign. And, despite all of the men out there in politics and the courtrooms knowing that this is a valid legal dispute, far be it from them to appear un-chivalrous or ungentlemanly and not , “hold the door open” for little old Hillary, even if it is to the detriment of their own gender.


P.S. For those of you who don’t recognize how important a father is to a child, or who believe a “bad” father should be kept away from a child, just look at the recent case of Jayci Yaeger. She would not leave this world until she could see her “bad” father, who was in prison, one last time. And, the mother allowed her to see this "bad" father in prison. See, kids don't know good or bad, they just know if they love their dad. So no matter the actual wrong the dad did, or, the "wrong" he was accused of doing, if the child loves his or her dad and wants to see him, it does more harm to the child to remove the dad from his or her life, than to let that child maintain a relationship with him even if it need be supervised. Even though I do not wish the same circumstances on the ladies from this post, I wonder if they would deal with a like situation in the same way? Or, if they would let their own vendettas rob their children of a last visit with their dads? I think their present behavior, sans the life or death circumstances, gives the answer.



John Alvarez

injstcwry wrote:Some of the women who answered my post talk about how they are glad they removed the child's father from the child's life. They talk about all the justifications and reasons that they believe made it right to do this - he was a pedophile - or some other type of monster. But, since there was no jury that found the man guilty of this, how do they know these acts really took place? Did they see it with their own eyes? Did they have an absolutely infallible witness who saw the act and then recounted it to them? Did they have physical proof in the form of a medical exam or report? Maybe, the proof was the testimony of the child to authorities?

You are making quite a few assumptions here and I really doubt that anything short of an actual conviction would serve as proof, but I will list the reasons I knew that my ex abused our daughter.
1. Physical evidence as confirmed by a doctor that my daughter had been penetrated. Subsequently, my daughter received victims's compensation from the state since her sexual abuse had been proven beyond a doubt. Additionally, my daughter suffered numerous urinary tract infections at the age of 4 which ceased upon her father's exit from the household.
2. Stains on her mattress that were confirmed to be semen. DNA testing was not possible due to an error of the local police who conducted the testing.
3. Psychological testing and investigation by the local Department of Human Services which indicated he was the perpetrator.
4. Testimony from his adult step daughter and natural daughter from a previous marriage describing the abuse they had endured. This abuse occurred in another state which precluded same testimony from being admissible in criminal proceedings.
5. My daughter exhibited many symptoms of children who have been abused including PTSD and exhibiting overtly sexual behavior at a very young age.

Although I am not completely discounting the testimony of young children, I'm sure everyone has heard of Parental Alienation Syndrome. It's just a fancy word for a child being brainwashed to believe and repeat whatever the alienating parent tells the child to believe and say. And, just because the child has grown into an adult now and still corroborates the alienating parent's story doesn't matter. A false implanted memory can become as real as an actual memory, if the child’s brainwashing was done methodically enough. This has been documented in adult brainwash victims, who must then undergo a "deprogramming" procedure, so how much more with a child?

My daughter received therapy from a court appointed psychologist who specialized in treating victims of childhood sexual abuse. As a precaution (in case she ever needed to testify against her father), I never discussed any details of her abuse in her presence. To date, I still have not discussed any details regarding her abuse. I do not wish to influence her memories in any way nor do I wish to trigger flashbacks or any further psychological damage than she has already suffered.

No, actually, considering the level of evidence that confronted you, a conviction is not necessary for me to agree that you had no choice but to take the course of action that you did. One thing that I would say though, in my situation, all evidence actually refuted the allegations that my ex made against me. But, the courts sided with her despite this, and have not allowed me to see my daughter for now 26 months. So, the opposite does, and continues to happen to innocent fathers like myself everyday, no matter what the evidence shows.

When my ex took our daughter to this innapropriate babysitter, a member of my own family, my daughter's close blood relative, offered to watch her for free instead of my ex taking her to this private home where she had to pay. But, to spite me, regardless of the danger to our daughter, she took her there instead. I am tormented everyday, wondering if the older children there, either boys or girls, could have done something to her. She was too young to defend herself, and after her time spent there, her demeanor changed dramatically. I have a suspicion that if any abuse ever did take place, it took place there.

But, like I said, I did everything I could to protect my daughter, and was arrested, thrown in jail, and had a restraining order granted against me, for nothing more than protecting my child to the best of my ability. You know, even though I was kept from protecting my daughter by the law itself, it does not absolve me from any responsibility for any harm that possibly came to her there, or ease any of the guilt I feel for not being able to protect her if anything did happen. See, I am her father. I was given the resonsibility to protect her by God, so nothing that the police, the courts, or the hearing officers did to prevent me from fulfilling this responsibility could release me from it.

So, you can sleep at night knowing that you did everything possible to protect your daughter from any further abuse, and was successful at doing just that. Not me, I am plagued daily and nightly, by the thoughts and nightmares of what might have happened to my helpless, innocent little girl at a place where her "loving" mom took her, just to prove the point to me, with the family law system's help, that she was the one that was calling the shots.


John Alvarez