kidsnav.gif (4714 bytes)

Contact Us

What are you going to do / Augusta flop / Letter to the Judge / Anti Mom & Dad!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: AKidsRight Webmaster (webmaster@AKidsRight.Org)
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 13:59:51 EDT

This is a message from a mailing list,
Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message.

Good People & People of Faith:

This message contains info on:
1. The Lighter Side - the Augusta flop.
2. What are you going to do - ask the right question.
3. Letter to the Judge - don't bother me.
4. Anti-Mom & Anti-Dad - where is love?

1. The Lighter Side - the Augusta flop.
The following is excerpted from an article at: SportingNews.Com

What if you call a protest and nobody shows?  We share the following
with you NOT to get involved with the issue involved in this protest
effort (whether women should be allowed as members at a private golf
club), but to encourage all of us who face the struggle of getting
people to "show up."  It happens to the best of them and you just
have to smile, learn, and try again!

The following effort by Martha Burk and the National Council of
Women's Organizations had a LOT of media attention and participation
from a LOT of well known groups -- the only problem was ... no one
came!  They even ended up leaving their own protest early.

--- Burk protests Augusta National with a downsized demonstration
--- (April 12, 2003)

AUGUSTA, Ga. -- Backed by about 50 supporters with a giant inflatable
pig and a cardboard Klansman for props, Martha Burk bashed the
all-male Augusta National Golf Club with a tepid protest that was more
circus than showdown.

The combined picketing Saturday by Burk's National Council of Women's
Organizations and Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition turned out to
be much smaller and shorter than expected. Still, Burk said the
corporate executives in the club that holds the Masters were terrified
that the activists would force them to admit a woman member.

Burk still drew a crowd, even without the 224 protesters she initially
planned to bring. Her anti-discrimination speech was heard by a small
army of reporters and a handful of booing hecklers.

"She's pretty much just shot herself in the foot," said Ron Pontiff of
Newbern, N.C., who has opposed Burk under the monicker Golfers for a
Real Cause. "I'm glad it's over."

But Burk, whose organization claims to have 7 million members, said
she wasn't flustered by the low turnout.

"I don't think we're hurt by that at all," she said. "We already know
the women of America support us."

The 5.1-acre field hand-picked by Sheriff Ronald Strength for Burk and
her opponents to protest resembled a policemen's picnic.  Strength
chose the lot after receiving requests for more than 900
protesters. But it turned out to be mostly empty, save for 100
deputies and state troopers who leaned against patrol cars parked
bumper-to-bumper on the grass to separate protesters who never

A single bus pulled up to drop off Burk supporters -- and 17 people
got off. A handful more, mostly college-age women, were already
setting up their small stage. And 20 Rainbow/PUSH protesters joined

Jackson himself was a no-show. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black
minister who heads the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, flew
in from Los Angeles with five members to ridicule Jackson for siding
with Burk.

Burk's opponents seized on the sideshow atmosphere and low turnout to
declare the protest a flop.

"It says to me Jesse Jackson knew this was going to happen and pulled
out," said Todd Manzi of Tampa, Fla., Burk's self-appointed
nemesis. "This issue was never an issue. It's all about Martha Burk's

Burk, who had permission to protest for seven hours, left the site
within an hour. She also opted not to risk arrest by approaching the
gate against the sheriff's orders.

Reaction at the course to Burk's presence was ho-hum.

At a house across from the protest site, Dutchess Smith, her husband
and a few friends arranged lawn chairs where they could watch the
protests while sipping beer from foam cups.

"I thought there would be a whole lot more protesters," Ms. Smith
said. "It's just a joke."

2. What are you going to do - ask the right question.
Sometimes to get a good answer, you have to ask the right question.
This is one we may all be able to answer about Family Law Reform.
Send us an email and tell us what YOU are going to do to right now to
make reform happen.  Please don't start your answer with "I'll join
other people in an effort to...."  If no one else cared, and no one
else "showed up" -- what would YOU be willing to do right now?

As a group we have talked about Sacrifice and Civil Rights -- is that
part of the answer for us as individuals?  Many of you have done a lot
in letter writing, lobbying, counseling, etc... is that enough?  What
is the "next level" of individual effort?  Also, if you find yourself
not ready to do much, please let us know why.

We'd like to share all your answers with others.

3. Letter to the Judge - don't bother me?
A Letter to a Family Court Judge about parents rights.

>From Mary Jo Marceau-Hawthorne  <pr@AKidsRight.Org>

> I wrote the following letter to a family court judge in Oswego
> County (New York) about a family whose case I have been following
> for the past six months.  The mother has filed a petition with the
> court that claims her visitation with her daughter who is in foster
> care at this time is being denied at times and at other times is
> being shortened by the foster care provider.  I attended two of the
> three hearings that have so far been scheduled and at no time heard
> the judge confront the foster care provider with the question, "are
> you dening visitation?" or "have you been interfering with
> visitation?".

> Instead he is interrogating the child again to find out if she has
> had any contact with her foster father who is under court order to
> have no contact with her.  There was no evidence brought to the
> court to suggest that any contact has occurred, except the foster
> parent's allegations and suspicions in order to side track the court
> regarding the petition against her.

> When the judge was asked by the law guardian if he was going to give
> any credence or weight to my letter he said, "the letter said
> something about parents rights,.... of course the court will give no
> weight to this letter".  The judge also said, "The court will give
> no weight to anything friends of the Starkeys have to say".

-------    The letter to the Honorable James M. Metcalf ;
> I am writing to address some issues that arose in the last family court
> hearing petitioned by Joanne Starkey.

> Let me introduce myself.   I am an advocate with VOCAL of New York, a
> non-profit organization composed of parents, children, and others who
> provide support, advocacy, and information to families who have been
> negatively impacted by the child abuse laws and are  involved with the
> family court system.  VOCAL stands for 'Victims of Child Abuse Laws'.

> We wish to see children protected from all forms of abuse, including that
> which is being inflicted upon them as a result of poor judgment made by
> child protective agencies.  We want to see due process accorded to all.
> wish to see preservation of the family unit made a priority in the
> of suspected child abuse cases.  Families afford a key source of emotional
> stability in a child's life.

> With that said, I would like to express my deep concern over the
> type of visitation, the interference with visitation, and the amount
> of visitation afforded Joann Starkey and her children.  Visitation
> should be cared out in a setting where they can be at ease and feel
> like a family.  To best serve this end, visitation should be in the
> family home where the young children can comfortably share their
> lives with their sister; playing a favorite game or watching a loved
> show...  Mrs. Starkey's liberty interests as a parent are not being
> served by the meager amount of visitation allowed, but most of all
> this causes great emotional hardship on the child, Wendy as well as
> Mrs. Starkey and the other siblings....

> Mrs. Starkey's only crime here is standing by her husband, living up to
> commitment to support him in good times and bad and proclaiming his
> innocence.  I commend her for this when it would have been much easier for
> her to just separate from Mr. Starkey.  Since the family court issued
> orders, Mr. Starkey has complied with all the courts requirements
> visitation and at times has gone to great personal sacrifice to comply
> the courts orders regarding the lack of contact with Wendy and Lisa and
> has complied with orders concerning the other minor children....
> Respectfully,
> Mary Jo Marceau-Hawthorne, Vice President of VOCAL NY
> cc. Michael Shanley Esq.
> Steve Arnold Esq.

4. Equal Time - anti-Mom and anti-Dad!
The following two articles are rather long and both are a bit
disturbing in tone and content.  Written by good people, but we
are not sure of what the goal is?  Unfortunately, these types
of messages are not uncommon and as we work for reform -- this is
a gap that needs to be bridged.

Some of you may find your names here, or the names of groups you are
associated with.  We apologize!  We certainly don't endorse any of
what follows and we wouldn't even print it if it was extreme.  But
what follows below are not the views of "fringe" elements, but some
sincere beliefs in some large groups.

As you evaluate your own goals for reform -- how often does the word
"love" appear in your texts?  Isn't that the Raison d'Etre (Reason to
Be), for all of us as parents to be involved in reform.  That we love
our children and can recognize that the other parent has the potential
to love them just as much as we do.  Or are we just fighting over a

You won't see the word love anywhere in the next 300 lines.  They are
a wasteland.

===== Come on, Dads are best, it works!

From: Aaron Burr <>
Dear Lionel, Tom, et als;

As I hope, you should be familiar with my position on this subject.
Let me tell you the salient reasons why, and more importantly; why the
"Shared Parenting" and "Equal Parenting" coalitions "should" place
their support behind Patriarchal archetype "father only" custody
within family courts.

Again, Mr. Farrell, mentioned here, did much work on this--empirically
demonstrating that when children are placed with fathers, that they do
very well...which should be an element to consider when discussing
this issue.

Secondly, what this gentleman verifies, in this e-mail; it is the
father's who are more willing to foster more contact with both
parents: which is again, yet another element to consider.  Father's
appear to be more fair than mothers.  Not only this gentleman's child
affirms this, but history does as well.  In fact, the term: "Parens
Patriae" means the state as the Father--a wise and affectionate

Thirdly, and an item of which is barely recognized in the Father's Rights
community and rarely considered: going back to father-only custody within
the courts, BY DEFAULT, has "Shared Parenting" and "Equal Parenting" as a
subset solution to our current problems ingrained within it (as any male
can "willingly" contract out his sole custodial position and enjoin himself
with the mother a shared or equal custody arraignement) to the subset of
joint custody which is a subset of father only custody.   HOWEVER....if
"shared parenting" is implemented....THE CONVERSE IS NOT TRUE.   We "father
only" Patriarchal segment of the father's rights community are left out in
the cold!  Shared parenting does not allow the law of Patriarchy...and that
is a very huge problem, and a fractionalizing impediment to us all.  It is
a problem that effects and is felt throughout the FR movement.   So
embracing Father only custody, immediately allows every part of the FR
community : Patriarchs, Shared Parenting, Equal Parenting, and Joint
Custody solutions, to come under one umbrella to obtain what they all
desire as their separate solutions...which they want to voluntarily
contract to...but clearly, joint custody does not.  Joint/shared custody
directly EXCLUDES the father only solution.

Fourthly, Shared Parenting/Equal Parenting WORKS.....ONLY, and I mean
ONLY if the parents agree.  As we can see, and it is
incontrovertible--the present court system depends upon that designed
anarchy...and directly due to this, they have sustained a bloated
Family Court system that for generations, has cannibalized fatherhood
and destroyed both family and well as our children.
This is a huge flaw, and cannot be mitigated by "statutory" mandates
to have judges "strictly" abide by shared parenting
the system will always (and I mean ALWAYS) devolve into their assured
anarchy under shared/equal/joint custody arrangements--which will lead
to court empowerment--at the expense of fathers, families and

Now finally--and this must be seriously considered, but never is in
the Shared Parenting/Equal Parenting tribes: PATRIARCHY WORKS.
Period.  This is not mythology...this is not "pie in the sky" Father's
Rights wishful thinking.  Western Civilization has literally hundreds
if thousands of years which to draw the facts from (PLUS A SUBSTANTIVE
to draw from.  Simply put: "Fatherhood" works.  "Leadership" in the
home and family works.  Giving Fathers command over their own homes
create WELFARE.  Designing the courts to give fathers children; KEEPS
FAMILIES TOGETHER....and as that fact is again, incontrovertible,

It is odd, that this final solution, which is so readily and
eloquently enunciated and mandated in American and English law: has
been all but forgotten.  This "solution" evolved Western Civilization
to supercede all other forms of government before it.  It allowed the
common man, the greatest personal, economic and justice systems human
civilization has ever seen.....yet, it is all but unknown to the
Fathers' Rights community.  It was one of the safest designs ever
invented for men, women and especially children.  It was one of
humanities greatest inventions...which in fact, allowed the vehicle
for wealth and independence which allowed Western Civilization to
flourish, and which allowed freedom for man to evolve at a rate for
the past 5000 years which has been stunning, and totally
incredulous....yet....for which for approximately 50,000 years prior
to the advent of Patrirachy, that under the system of matriarchy,
(Hillary Clinton's "Village") mankind remained stolid, stagnant, and
in complete stasis, unable to create the templates of human

I think our solution is clear.

However; many within the FR community state that it is not
"pragmatic"--that we must recognize government and the feminists and
socialists will never allow it.  (And by that, we are forced into
inevitable anarchy, which will never eradicate our current problems).
This illusion of being "pragmatic" allows those whom command our
failure, to be assured that we are placed in a continuing and "no-win"

I think the time has long past where we look at clear eyes, not at
what they want, but what we must engineer as the correct and final
solution.  I am certain that those in power will offer us every system
which will allow our demise as we are willing to pragmatically accept.
However;, perhaps it is time to call a spade a spade, and just fix the

I feel this is where we should be headed.  We should have the courage
to engineer something we know works, not something we wonder if they
will accept.  We should be level-headed.

They are the Masters of our failure and destruction.  We should not be
led by the nose by their false approbations.  The time has long past
where we ignore their needs, and finally do, what is simply "right."

Hope this helps.

====  Father's Rights people, just abusers and pedophiles!

From: a leader in VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws).  [Ed - we find
this one disturbing because of the source. From someone who knows
what it is like to be labelled and found guilty before a trial or
chance to explain -- to be just called a "child abuser."  They seem
all to ready to use that same brush in depicting others. This came from
a third-party so the writer's info is removed.]

> Well, you asked.  This is a small bit of what I want to say on the MDM:
> Given the option, I'd tip over cars (from the below MDM dialog) before I
> promoted pedophilia, child abuse and/or domestic violence.  I have opted
> neither and will continue to peacefully tell of the horrific corruption
> within the FR's.  As you may read on the MDM site, the MDM started to
> unravel as they were once again exposed and their infighting broke out -
> again.
> I strongly recommend that you research a few of the key players in the
> March - this is a Father's Rights group.  Not all are the same, however,
> this March is led by some that are receiving the same A/V funding as the
> judiciary, promoting Richard Gardner's PAS theory of Pedophilia is GOOD
> children and other horrific issues.
> I am attaching a few papers on this topic for you all to read, again.
> are on the files section of VOCAL NY and TZ VOCAL.  More are on
> TZ VOCAL, as the membership there had voted from the beginning
> (years before the e-group began and we have only just been recognized by
> State) that this is a serious concern to all.  So serious, that our
> on DV, FR's and the Family/Supreme Courts involve the men to speak out
> against DV to other men and the public. I speak publicly at least once a
> month on just this topic.
> Personally and Professionally, I could and would never support any of the
> FR's or support/associate with any Organization that does promote/support
> FR, regardless of how "good" they may claim to be.  Smart: Yes.  Know the
> Law: Yes and Smooth Talkers.  Corrupt: The Absolute Worst.
... However, the
> Organizations I have worked with since 1991 (some joined a bit later on,
> like 1994 or 1996) are listed by the actual name and we are still here and
> working.  It was horrible what me and my children endured.  And he got the
> children, eventually.  I just ran out of money for the pricey lawyers and
> experts.  Lost my children.   However, I am fighting on my own, now - sans
> attorney. Same with many current TZ VOCAL members who are fighting
> Pro Se after the Custody Switch.
> TZ VOCAL has a VERY LARGE membership (over 300 families) and has
> long held the Public Position that FR's are not FOR or PRO Children and
> Families.  Unfortunately, the State only recognized us in November of
> meaning that our Positions were never known for some reason or another in
> communication breakdown with the Utica Address and website contact button.
> However, my dues have remained current since 1994.  Those were accepted.
> We have two local family court justices that openly RUN two father's
> groups that also openly promote pedophilia.  The bulk of my advocacy is in
> those two courtrooms (both in different Counties) just babysitting the
> judges, speaking out for the Children and abused women, holding the women
> after the Court appearances.  I mean physically holding them up.
> On Clinton, myself and another advocate have an appointment to meet with
> on Family Court/Child Welfare issues.  I sent a letter requesting an
> appointment, outlining what was going to be discussed, what TZ is
> requesting and suggesting.  If you write, just enclose the full name of
> person attending with you as you need security clearance prior to the
> appointment.
> I am going to send a few attachments so you can see the total picture of
> the FR's and the damage done to the children.  Let me know where VOCAL NY
> stands on this matter, please.
> Just know that TZ VOCAL will not support or associate with the FR's
> or the MDM and has always publicly maintained this position.  Domestic
> Violence is a Crime.
> TZ VOCAL and its members have had ongoing and national televised
> media coverage on the subject of Child Welfare, FR's and Family Courts.
> Also, on Scamsandscandals on this subject - twice...
> Barry Goldstein devotes an incredible amount of his personal time
> women and their local lawyers in the TZ membership and also the
> Families At Risk membership.  Just last week, Barry took time to speak
> two new women and their attorneys and more media (print media) on those
> cases in Sullivan County, NY.  He is the lead lawyer on a Dutchess County
> case and really putting his license on the line to get the corruption on
> record.  I commend and respect Barry Goldstein, an awesome and fearless
> lawyer, passionately dedicated to the cause.  And going where no lawyer
> gone before in Dutchess County, NY, as he is seriously considering calling
> key witness to the corruption - the judge, himself.  He really fights and
> like a gentleman to get the truth onto the record - and he is successful
> with this.
> Please seriously, reconsider the MDM and read the attachments and let me
> know your thoughts.  I know not many of you realize the depth of the work
> carry out or the dedication I have, but it is straight from my heart.
> Since the last election, it was clear that the FR link would be removed
> the WebPages and no more association with the FR's as they are not
> or pro-family.  If this has changed in any way, please let me know.
> If you are seeking a vote on this Postition: I vote No, to supporting the
> MDM or any FR.  And for many reasons that are far and above (or below) the
> reasons set forth above.

> Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) methodology was devised by Dr. Richard
> Gardner working with AFCC judges and father's rights groups "FRs",
> principally Children Rights Council "CRC" (also named - National Council
> Children's Rights "NCCR") and the National Congress for Fathers and
> "NCFC" for the singular purpose of giving abusive males an advantage in
> custody litigation by producing false negatives to suppress paternal child
> abuse evidence.  CRC's IRS non-profit (503(c)(3) status determination and
> other documents name the following individuals as their officials: Meyer
> Elkin (also the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - "AFCC"
> co-founder), Warren Farrell, Ronald Haskins (former Congressional Ways &
> Means, staff director, 1988-2000), Debbie Stabenow (then a Mich. state
> representative, now a U.S. Senator), Joan B. Kelly (Northern California
> Mediation Center), James Levine (Director - Fatherhood Project), John
> (John Hopkins professor) and other important "players" in the AFCC-lead
> family advocacy and pedophilia movement.  PAS was devised to obstruct
> charges of paternal sex abuse by producing a false negative and
> blame to the complaining mother (Protective Parent) by switching custody
> the abused child to the father, blocking most or all contact with the
> and engaging in a comparing of official retaliation against the mother to
> enforce her silence.
> CRC literature proclaims close association with the AFCC.  Many people who
> promote PAS are officials or activists with both AFCC and CRC,  including
> Elizabeth Hickey of UT and Joan Kelly of CA - Northern California
> Center.  Several AFCC judges are closely associated with the CRC including
> Judge Lawrence Kaplan of Pennsylvania.  Many judges with established
> anti-mother/pro-abusive father patterns are also AFCC judges, including:
> Dranginis - CT, Cawood - MD, Kass - NM, Rotman MA.
> Dr. Richard Gardner is the centerpiece of the fathers rights movement and
> their public policy efforts.  He is the featured speaker at all their
> events, his publications are sold through their membership network, and
> been instrumental in the implementation of CRC's self-devised federal
> "custody" program - The Access/Visitation (A/V) and predecessor Child
> Demonstration Project.  Gardner's writing are very pro-offender and
> pro-incest, including such statements that a mother who is angry at the
> father for incestuous relations with the daughter, should be sobered up
> told to use a vibrator to make her more sexually responsive so that the
> father will not need to seek sex from his daughter.  Despite being
> frequently discredited, local judges adhere to his theories is custody
> cases.
> John Money and Warren Farrell are also incest/pedophile advocates.  Money
> interviewed for the notorious Dutch pedophile publication Paedika,
> the legitimacy of sadomachoistic sex, and justifying a death during such a
> ceremony as free choice.. Farrell interviewed for Penthouse on positive
> incest, saying it can be better for a teen girl to have her first affair
> with her father.
> The A/V Program, began in 1988, with grants to Iowa CRC Iowa Chapter
> Director and Fathers for Equal Rights, Dick Woods, through the backing of
> Sen. Harkin, then Senate Chairman for Appropriations Subcommittee for HHS,
> and Bonnie Campbell, then IA Attorney General, most recently Clinton
> Administration Director of DoJ Office for Violence Against Women.  While
> stated objective of the program has been to assist visitation enforcement
> for non-custodial parents, in practice, the program acts as a kick-back
> scheme for CRC litigating members and their AFCC affiliated court
> professionals.  A/V grants are steered to CRC chapter members or their
> allies. AFCC affiliated judges, attorneys, psychologists and given
> incentive to favor the CRC litigating members who get their civil
> attorney fees paid from A/V funds.  Gardner, Underwager and other members
> the pro-pedophilia psychological movement are used as expert witness for
> custody and child abuse evaluations.
> Center for Policy Research (CPR), officials, Jessica Pearson (also an
> original incorporating officer of the AFCC) and Nancy Thoennes, did the
> evaluations for the (A/V)  and Child Access demo project, developed in
> associated with Dick Woods, IA - a state chapter director for the CRC.
> Wood's material relies heavily on Gardner's work and he is known to refer
> cases to Gardner.   While CPR's Nancy Thoennes, was the author of the
> federal granted study which discredited PAS and Gardner, both Thoennes and
> Pearson have been actively involved in the CRC's promotion of the A/V
> programs.  CPR conceals all their pro-CRC, pro-Gardner affiliation when
> making public statements about custody and child sex abuse.  Policy
> Inc. (the for-profit arm of CPR) has also been involved in these programs
> since inception.   Joan Kelly's Northern California Mediation Center
> conducts training courses in PAS, and is a past President of the Academy
> Family Mediators (AFM) another AFCC affiliate.  A/V grants are
> primarily by DHHS-Office of Child Support Enforcement.  Former Director of
> that Office (1993-2000) is David Gray Ross, former Prince George MD judge
> and CRC regular speaker.  Friends of  Judge Ross say he became an early
> participant as a result of his own divorce/child support problems and may
> a CRC member.
> ............ (much, much more)

To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to with the following 1 line in the
BODY of the message (Subject is ignored).

unsubscribe members

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 03:12:00 EST