law courts

Police State Amerika I: Facebook Thought Police and CPS Blues

By M.K. Styllinski

“The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State.”

– Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels


As a direct result of the Global War on Terror we are seeing the militarisation of law enforcement, the shocking rise of police brutality and an out of control US Army. The inevitable result is not merely the erosion of civil liberties but the very real danger of no civil liberties at all. America is at a crossroads with numerous symptoms of soft totalitarianism converging to meet its overt, classical form.  In other words, A Brave New World of social engineering and transhumanist-led SMART society converging with an Orwellian rule of martial law. This is getting more likely by the day and in Europe life is changing in more gradualist terms, but changing nonetheless.

Perhaps one of the clearest signs of psycho-pathogenic infection of the US government can be seen in who is deemed terrorist material. If entrapment doesn’t get you then considering yourself a “normal” citizen seems to be no protection either. The definition of the word “terrorist” has been stretched so far that anyone who doesn’t conform to the Establishment perception of reality is effectively a potential threat. As we know, Pre-Crime and mass surveillance is a much loved principle. The events of 9/11 seemed to open a a door to psychopathy and authoritarianism in a way that harks back to the both the building and collapse phases of historical Empires with each transition exhibiting a huge increase in pathology. It is my contention that we are transforming to toward a global consolidation arising from manipulated chaos, or we are going to see this attempt swing to the other polarity where the Pathocrats will lose control of their Grand Project and fall into their own entropic footprint.

Either way, Big Change is ‘a comin.

Since America is the primary source of Pathocracy at this time, the disintegration of which is required for the Establishment to extend its reach globally, it is little wonder that clear signs of a police state are not being reported in the MSM and if they are, it is with a broad strokes that exclude any historical perspective and analyses that could counter the official line. Only the most outrageous events are reported to give the impression that they are the exception to the rule when the opposite is the case. To that end, let’s explore thematically some of the police crimes taken at random from a variety of newspapers and online journals to illustrate the audacity of this emerging war against the people.

USApolicestate1© infrakshun

In early 2014, Pentagon directives advanced greater contingency powers for the war on terror on domestic soil. A particular focus of these new powers is the targeting of the civilian population and the enforcement of martial law through convenient loop-holes through the updating of the Insurrection Act of 1807 and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In the new DoD Directive 3025.18: Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA) the ill-defined, nebulous language allows “federal military commanders” these new powers, namely, anyone who happens to be in command can enforce military law against civilians according to their say so and without presidential authorisation. One section reads: “In these circumstances, those Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”  Naturally, the severity of that scenario is not discussed nor why it is that presidential authority is suddenly “impossible.” Vague wording without legal meaning is a back door for emergency powers to arrive in favour of the military to do as they please, when and where they like.

Oddly enough, while the American public’s trust in the government and media is at record lows, the military fairs better. [1] This maybe due to the lack of psychological and financial support given to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans upon returning home and the sense of nationalistic pride that tends to surround them in the community. What this means when the military is not only employed on the streets but when they are an everyday presence, may change this perception.

Meanwhile, not content with performing invasive criminal background checks on passengers exercising their right to travel, the Transport and Security Administration (TSA) has expanded its duties beyond airports and is now armed and allowed to roam in public to conduct “suspicionless searches” on demand. They even carry out searches of cars at airport car-parks – without a warrant. (Oh, and make sure you have your papers i.e your biometric identity card otherwise you won’t be travelling anyway). Parallel with these inspection powers checkpoints have been popping up in various states used to “Dominate, Intimidate, & Control”. ‘Sneak & peek’ warrants allow police and FBI to secretly enter homes without notice; the IRS can seize entire bank accounts of unsuspecting citizens if there is sufficient reason for suspicion. There is no sign that these patterns of surveillance and intimidation have any intention of slowing. Indeed, it is getting worse very quickly. [2] [3] [4]

shocked emoji

Internet emoji used in social network messaging. Even this harmless symbol may get you into trouble with the thought police.

As we know, this trend has been allowed to target the internet, with federal and intelligence agencies monitoring and commandeering the freedom of expression on social networks in order to fine those – mostly young people – critical of the government. 

A 19 year old was jailed for leaving a sarcastic comment on Facebook regarding “shooting up a kindergarten”. He did so after being embroiled in a spat between other gamers who questioned his mental state. He responded: “I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them.” He received 9 months in prison for the trouble. [5]

The ability to understand irony appears to be missing in the minds of police and judiciary.

Even posting rap lyrics on Facebook can get you branded as a “terrorist threat” it seems. When high school student Cameron D’Ambrosio, 18, posted this little missive on his account: “F— a boston bombinb [sic] wait til u see the sh– I do, I’ma be famous for rapping, and beat every murder charge that comes across me…” It was enough to land him front of a grand jury, though he was thankfully acquitted after members had the wit to reflect on the First amendment. [6]

Over in the United Kingdom the same level of insanity has also gripped the authorities. 19 year-old Matt Woods was sentenced to three months in jail for making sick jokes about missing children on Facebook. His comments focused on missing children April Jones and Madeline McCann including the following: “I woke up this morning in the back of a transit van with two beautiful little girls, I found April in a hopeless place.” and “Who in their right mind would abduct a ginger kid?” [7] He was apparently inspired to do so by a website called Sickipedia, where tasteless jokes are the norm. It seems his comments were enough to have a lynch mob at his door baying for blood which ultimately led to his arrest after the comments received a wider circulation. The judge called it: “ a disgusting and despicable crime,” sentencing him to 3 months in jail. [8]

Tasteless and silly, but a “despicable crime”? Hardly. What are becoming when we begin to send young people to jail for doing nothing more than exercising their right to free speech?

Then we mustn’t forget one of the most ridiculous attempts to drum up more cash for the Terror Industry when even using words – sick or otherwise – isn’t necessary for you to be handcuffed and led away.

After NYPD police were conducting a “routine Facebook monitoring” – and oxymoron in itself – Osiris Aristy, 17, was arrested at his home and charged: “with making ‘terrorist threats’ due to his use of emojis, posting photos of himself with a gun and therefore a criminal possession of a weapon, criminal use of drugs and criminal possession of marijuana” – all from the catalyst of using … emojis. The criminal complaint stated: “As a result of this conduct, the defendant has caused informant and other New York City police officers to fear for their safety, for public safety, and to suffer alarm and annoyance…” [9]

Aristy1

The FBI also likes to flex their muscles by tracking down Facebook users.  Within 24 hours of posting a comment about the “American Police State” Blaine Cooper, 33, was interviewed for 45 minutes by Prescott Valley Police Department based in Arizona with the FBI sitting in. Satisfied that he wasn’t a threat Cooper was Released. after Cooper contacted the website policestateusa.com and revealed further details:

“They had every Facebook post I had ever made in a huge file, along with all my wife’s information, and parent’s information…” Cooper said that he was told that without “defusing the situation” by complying with the interview, his house might have been raided. “The FBI made mention they came to question me so they didn’t have to kick in my door,” [10]

As legalisation of marijuana laws gains momentum, this hasn’t slowed down the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in matching the FBI’s penchant for snooping, this time to support the tangential nonsense of the “War on Drugs.” Setting up fake Facebook accounts to impersonate and spy ona victim’s friends was a normal part of DEA work load it seems.

It was back in 2010, when Sondra Arquiett was arrested by the DEA and along with her boyfriend, charged for distributing drugs. Special Agent DEA Special Agent Timothy Sinnigen took it upon himself to purloin her cell phone (apparently with consent) in order to access the wealth of personal information. The phone was returned only after all her private photos, addresses, emails and records had been copied, a fact about which Arquiett was entirely unaware. The agent then created the online Facebook account and pretended to be Arquiett by contacting her friends, posting photos, sending messages and making friend requests. A high level of personal information was used to create the illusion that this was Sondra Arquiett – AKA Sondra Prince.

Arquiett only became aware of the false account when one of her friends alerted her to the fact. Since she had not even registered for a Facebook account this was doubly shocking. After the drug case had been concluded and she had served weekend jail terms for several months, she filed a lawsuit at a New York, Syracuse District Court in June 2013. Arquiett, now 28, cited emotional distress and the perceived cooperation with the DEA that might endanger her life and that of her child. 

What is perhaps more troubling is the clear breech of ethical guidelines where law enforcement not only mimics crime but once again sees no problem in actively creating it. The government, using the same para-logistical arguments to which we should now be well accustomed, defended the DEA and their methods by claiming that Arquiett “implicitly consented” by allowing agents and police access to her phone reinforcing their belief that these actions were carried out “for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.”  If such implicit consent and standardised legitimacy is now seen as normal, then American law has set the bar extremely low indeed. Many privacy experts agree.  Anita L. Allen, a professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School commenting on the case said: “It reeks of misrepresentation, fraud, and invasion of privacy.”  [11]

Sondra-Prince-Arquiett

The Facebook page set up by the DEA impersonating Sondra Arquiett AKA Sondra Prince. (Source: Associated Press)

Despite the obvious trashing of the principle of free speech anyone with a normal ability to discriminate between a terrorist threat, taking advantage of potential petty criminals and the ever-present noise of teenagers and their hormonal spats would have swiftly moved on, bored out of their minds. Such is the extreme paranoia coupled with profit margins the government prefers to waste billions of tax dollars on creating a climate of fear in the younger members of society. When the right to be silly and say inane and even controversial comments on the “privacy” of one’s social networking page is restricted and monitored then it is no distance at all to censorship, control of information and using the internet as a cynical opportunity to blur the lines between crime and prevention. Free speech then becomes a quaint afterthought.

Compliance becomes the norm.

CPS and DHS

The corruption of Law and the family Courts is now common place. It seems the Child Protection Services (CPS) and the Department of Human Services (DHS) appear to be working in tandem to make the lives of ordinary children, new born babies and their families an utter misery. That is not to say that these services do not offer protection and care for the young in many, perhaps still the majority of cases. However, there is a large body of evidence to suggest that this is changing – and changing fast. This is unsurprising given the fact that the CPS and DHS are tied to the hip with Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment which routinely enforce mandatory vaccination, orthodox medical procedures  and the growing seizure of children, despite and often due to the fact that parents have the temerity to call them out on their failures. The CPS in particular, shows itself to be a cartel with profits as the primary mover. It has come under the intense scrutiny of concerned citizens across America who have suffered a severe abuse of their human and civil rights. The reports are so alarming that it you’d be forgiven for harbouring doubts. Unless that is, you talk to those who have been on the sharp end of totalitarianism camouflaging itself as social care.  A few examples follow.

eroicamaycarey

Erica May Carey “escorted” away from her child by police

“The police literally ripped 14 month old Levi from his mother’s breast, reports Erica May Carey, as she was nursing him in the car at a California gas station. Her baby was screaming, and she says her breast was exposed as the officers dragged her from the car. As she recounted the events of last Thursday, Erica began weeping, saying that she was “hogtied like an animal, when moments before I was nursing my infant.” She was arrested and jailed for fighting to keep her children with her.

Erica and Cleave Rengo were the subject of national interest as reports of them fleeing Washington CPS [Child Protection Services] made the headlines. Last November, the holistic, devoutly Christian couple’s three breastfed babies were taken amidst accusations of neglect for choosing alternative remedies such as calendula and coconut oil for their older baby’s eczema and preferring not to take their newborn twins to the hospital after an unassisted homebirth, even though they were reportedly healthy.” (Source: Epic Times)


You might think you would have the freedom of choice to forgo vaccines for your new born baby but this wasn’t the case for Aliea Bidwell and Ben Gray, who became parents on March 14th, 2014. Unfortunately, the parents had the bad luck to come up against a doctor who took exception to the fact that they did not wish to inject drugs into their son. Despite this vaccine not even required by law in Alabama state, Dr. Terry M. Bierd, MD, staff pediatrician at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Birmingham, gave them an ultimatum: take the Hepatitis B vaccine or lose your baby to the Child Protection Services (CPS). The family is filing suit against the doctor and also set up a Web site to raise awareness of this medical blackmail and aggression. Donations are accepted to assist with legal costs.  [12] (A detailed account of their experience can be found at The INQUISITR).

It is completely understandable that parents do occasionally opt to refuse the Hepatitis B injection for their sons and daughters given the evidence of its toxicity and record of related deaths.  In June 2014, Lorie Blalock’s baby suffered an adverse reaction after being vaccinated with the drug against the mother’s wishes whereupon the infant was abruptly taken into medical foster care. They are still waiting to have their baby back. [13] [14] [15]

Then we must also mention Rebekah McClain was made a victim of the medical establishment after having her baby removed by the CPS despite demonstrable evidence that vaccinations were having adverse reactions. McClain was later accused of abuse. Her tale is an horrific one, detailing medical malpractice and vindictive behaviour that you would expect to find in a bizarre horror film. [16]

In a similar case which beggars belief, the Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) subjected a Tacoma foster mother and her baby to a bureaucratic attack on her civil rights to refuse influenza vaccinations. They gave her the same ultimatum so common in these cases by insisting that the entire family have the shots and if they refused, the baby would be seized by the state. In the end, Jamie Smith the boy’s foster mother, reluctantly complied stating: “I’ve done a lot of research on it and I don’t like some of the side effects that it has,” …. “I’ve thought about that a lot. Unfortunately, I have to think about our kids who are in the house first and to me they’re more important, their safety, than trying to fight to keep this little guy.”  [17]

She is not the first mother to be threatened with kidnap if the vaccinations are not accepted nor will she be the last. Not only babies are being snatched from their mothers to cover up malpractice and to fall in line with mandatory vaccinations, refusal to have chemotherapy treatment can also be considered abnormal, where the strong arm of the law must force you to comply.

An Amish family and their daughter suffering from leukaemia were initially forced to flee the United States, despite the ruling from an Ohio Judge supporting their right to halt all chemotherapy treatment. The parents of Sarah Hershberger believed that drug treatment would have produced more suffering and likely killed her rather than cure the disease.

According to one report:

“An appeals court issued a ruling granting an attorney for Akron Children’s Hospital, Maria Schimer, temporary guardianship over 11-year-old Sarah Hershberger after she begged her parents to discontinue the toxic drugs being administered to fight cancer. ‘Parental rights, even if based upon firm belief and honest convictions can be limited in order to protect the ‘best interests’ of the child,’ the court ruled.”  [18]

When sheriffs and CPS representatives came to take the child, the family had already left the country. Maurice Thompson the Hershberger’s attorney claimed: “It’s the constitutional right, but [there’s a] moral right to refuse conventional medical treatment,”. Thankfully, the family was able to return to the United States after grassroots protests and a successful legal battle. Sarah is now cancer-free. However, many are still not able to express their right to have a say in what happens to their own bodies in the event of a serious illness. Especially, it seems, where money is to be made.

Another instance of State coercion was visited upon 17 year old Cassandra from Connecticut State who was taken away from her mother and forced to receive chemotherapy that she vehemently opposed.

Diagnosed with Stage 3/4 Hodgkin’s lymphoma by Connecticut Children’s Medical Centre (CCMC)  doctors opted to remove some of Cassandra’s lymph node. This is where the chemotherapy drugs came in. Cassandra was opposed to this form of treatment, viewing the side effects as too dangerous, an opinion she had had for several years, according to her mother. As pressure from doctors mounted the family decided to seek a second opinion elsewhere. Meanwhile, the CCMC contacted Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) alleging “parental medical neglect.” A Superior Court ruling swiftly followed, forcing Cassandra’s mother to return her daughter for chemotherapy treatment she had no wish to have.

After two chemotherapy treatments at the end of 2014, Cassandra was desperate and ran away from home to avoid any more interference. Upon her return she still refused treatment. Yet, at the conclusion of a CPS session and the CCMC doctors testimonies, the trial court subsequently ordered her “removed from her home and that she remain in DCF’s care and custody.” Which meant that Cassandra was hospitalised as a ward of the state with “all medical decisions made on her behalf.” She was then forced to endure further unwanted surgery and chemotherapy treatment.  [19]

To any normal person, having the choice as to whether or not you wish your kids to be vaccinated with toxic drugs, the chance to exercise your right to take care of your own children when it is self-evident that you are a responsible parent, or if your right to reject potentially dangerous treatment, is of supreme ethical and moral importance. Apparently, the CPS and similar social services and members of the medical Establishment disagree. What is more, should you have the audacity to question their Orwellian procedures you better make sure you have a lot of money and a suitable support system.

Cassandra and her mother committed the cardinal sin of seeking a second opinion which meant that the CPS/medical cartel went into overdrive. Since they have unlimited resources the sheer tripartite power of medical, judicial and law enforcement tag team is frightening to the ordinary family who ends up the object of their ire. For all the high profile cases that gain momentum on the internet or in local newspapers there are thousands of other cases that do not receive the headlines they sorely need. 

The Connecticut Children’s Medical Centre was in the news again in March 2015, this time for separating a 3 year-old cancer patient from his mother and accusing her of child abuse when it was nothing more than a diaper rash. Known to be a dedicated and loving mother by her friends and family, no charges were filed but Wendy Lamarre is still fighting to get her child back.  [20]

Here is a very brief round up of just some of the cases where people exercised their rights and dared to take a second opinion:

Teenager Isaiah Rider Speaks Out After Being Taken From His Mom In Medical Kidnapping Case

“Dissatisfied with her 16-year-old son’s medical care, Michelle Rider was preparing to transfer him from Lurie Children’s Hospital when a doctor delivered staggering news: The teen had been placed in temporary protective custody.

“They accused me of medical (child) abuse,” Rider said of that morning last month. “I said, ‘What is that?’ They told me to Google it. I was not allowed to have contact with my

Eight year old Jaxon Taken By Hospital When Parents Ask For Second Opinion

A Missouri doctor recently told a little boy that, if she had it her way, he would never see his mommy and daddy again. This was after 8 year old Jaxon was seized from his parents’ custody based solely on a statement from this single doctor. His parents, Tiffany and Jason Adams, are desperately trying to bring him home after what appears to be his doctor’s retaliation because they “dared to seek a second opinion.”

Teen indefinitely detained in psych ward after parents seek 2nd medical opinion

A judge has ruled that a Boston teen may continue to be held captive in a hospital and forcibly drugged… indefinitely.  The tragic series of events began when a doctor discarded an earlier medical diagnosis and declared another, prompting objections from her parents and threats to discharge her from Boston Children’s Hospital to take her to get a second opinion.  An epic battle of egos ensued, and the hospital decided that the parents’ insolence in challenging the doctor was tantamount to child abuse.  Without a trial or having broken a specific law, the girl was stripped from her parents’ custody and the state of Massachusetts has kept her indefinitely detained in a hospital since February 2013.  Based on the latest ruling, the girl may very well be locked in a psychiatric ward until she turns 18 years old.

The above  case of 15 year-old Justin Pelletier is a tragic summary of the authoritarian crimes of the CPS and Medical Establishment. Please visit the website http://justiceforjustina.com/ and donate to their cause.

Not only do we have these cartels gnashing their teeth at families who seek a second opinion in the face of their extreme behaviour but it seems smoking pot, drinking raw milk, perceived mental disability, hanging around with black kids, swearing on camera and even giving birth at home can land you in jail or facing the seizure of your children:

CPS snatched infant because of legal medical marijuana prescription

A man was placed into handcuffs, a woman sobbed uncontrollably, and their 11-month-old boy was seized by social workers and put into foster care — all because of legally prescribed medical marijuana.  It didn’t matter that no law had been broken; Child Protective Services has the power to split apart families in an instant without a trial, and regularly does across the country.

This heartbreaking situation happened to California couple Shawnee Anderson, 27, and Aaron Hillyer, 34.  After a nosy neighbor called the police because of a loud argument, cops arrived and found doctor-prescribed cannabis — legal for medicinal use in a total of 20 states. […]

The commonly-used cannabis plant is an easy target for child-snatching agencies — even if it is legal.  The agency can deem virtually anything “abusive” or “neglectful” at their discretion.  The targets of CPS are punished first, then attempt to prove their innocence later.  The American tradition of treating people as if they are “innocent until proven guilty” is lost on CPS.

“There are families out there … destroyed over a medicinal plant,” said Hillyer to CNN. “It’s baffling.”

Mom gets investigated by social workers after advocating marijuana reform and for in-depth: Fighting FIRES: Branden the Brave’s Battle for Medical Cannabis Access

“I feel like our family was targeted, just because I’m doing what our beautiful country is built on: Freedom of Speech.” […]

A child-abuse investigation has been launched on a Florida mom after she made some public statements in support of medical freedom. Social workers intruded into her life in order to look for excuses to seize her children.

This is the situation that Renee Petro is facing.  She is the mother of a boy with a terrible illness.  Branden, age 12, has been diagnosed with a rare form of epilepsy which results in uncontrolled seizures and can be fatal.  Her desperate quest to save him is also what has drawn the scornful eye of the state.

Healthy girl confiscated from parents who smoked pot, given to murderous foster mother

A little girl was confiscated from her loving parents because they smoked marijuana, and given away to a foster mother who put her into a coma and killed her. Alexandria “Alex” Hill, age 2, succumbed to her injuries after being “thrown to the ground.”

“We never hurt our daughter. She was never sick, she was never in the hospital, and she never had any issues until she went into state care,” said the girl’s father, Joshua Hill, to KVUE.

Alex was seized by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service (TDFPS) after her parents were accused of smoking marijuana while the girl slept. She was taken into state custody in November 2012.

Mr. Hill said that she was put into more than one dangerous foster home.

Breastfeeding 2-day Old Newborn Seized From Parents Because Mother Has Disability :

“A Florida couple is devastated. Child Protective Services just took their breastfeeding newborn from her mother’s arms at the hospital. She was is not even two days old, but parents Tracey and Freddie Verzosa of Kissimmee, Florida will now only be able to visit their baby for feedings, under supervision. The accusations against them, according to the parents’ story, boil down to the facts that Tracey is a slow learner, they are poor, and the baby was born too quickly for them to make it to the hospital.”

DHHS accused of abusing authority with Brooklin teen who feeds baby goat milk formula

A young Brooklin mother who feeds her baby a goat milk-based formula, missed doctor appointments and refuses to have her child vaccinated is accusing the Maine Department of Health and Human Services of overreaching its authority by investigating her son’s well-being.

Family and supporters of Alorah Gellerson, 17, and her 4-month-old son, Carson, held a rally Thursday at Cascade Park in Bangor to make a statement against DHHS, which the young mother says has completed its investigation and given the baby a clean bill of health.

“We must send Maine DHHS a message that this overreach of authority is not acceptable,” the family wrote of the event on their farm’s Facebook page.

Many in the group who gathered at the park wore pins that read, “Goat milk formula is not a crime.”

CPS seizes toddler for saying naughty words on video

“A 2-year-old toddler has been seized by Child Protective Services when a clip surfaced of him using “inappropriate” language in a video posted on the internet.  The standard for breaking apart families has become so broad that it now covers politically incorrect speech.

The events began when the Omaha Police Department discovered a YouTube video of a diaper-wearing child using profanity at the encouragement of two adults.  OPD posted the video to its website, saying it was an example of the “cycle of violence and thuggery” in the community.”

CPS nabs teenager because she was hanging out with black people

A teenage dance student took a trip out of state with two fellow dancers to spend a weekend taking classes with some of the top professionals in the industry.  The weekend came to an abrupt end when she was seized by police and put into the hands of Child Protective Services because of the way her companions looked.

Young dancer Landry Thompson, 13, and her two companions departed from Tulsa, OK, and headed down to Houston for a weekend of professional dance instruction.  Her mother trusted Emmanuel Hurd, 29, and Josiah Kelly, 22, and had given her full consent to the trip.

The group spent all day Saturday in dance class.  Exhausted, they departed for their hotel.   But they struggled to find their destination. “We were on the GPS trying to figure out where the hotel was.  And we sat there and we dozed off,” said Hurd, her instructor.

The next thing the group knew, there were police surrounding the vehicle.  They apparently didn’t think Thompson had any business in a car with her companions, based on nothing but the way they looked.

[…] “‘Are you aware your daughter is with two Black men?’ When I said, Yes, I’m aware of that, he called into questioning [my] parenting,” the mother said. […]

A woman who wished to remain anonymous recounted her story of authoritarian abuse on a blog (now defunct) subsequently reported by Police State USA. After delivering her baby naturally at home she and her partner were surprised to find themselves putting up with a flood of visits from social workers checking to see that the baby was “healthy and “under government-approved medical supervision.” The mother was happy with the birth and both she and her husband were keen to avoid “unnecessary medical interventions”, hence the reason for a natural home birth. They had the baby checked out on the 6th day. It was then that things began to get disturbing:

Police State USA takes up the story:

The hospital experience, according to the mother, was infuriating. When doctors found out they had performed a home-birth, she and her husband were allegedly treated as if they were “crazy” and “incompetent fools.”

While at St. Joseph’s Hospital ER in Philadelphia, after some brief checks, the mother said that doctors rudely told her that her baby would be transferred — without permission — to another hospital. The supposed reasoning was that St. Joseph’s did not have a dedicated pediatric center. The mom says the decision was made behind their backs and an ambulance was already dispatched by the time she was informed.

Even though nothing was found wrong with her baby, the mother said that rejecting the transfer was not an option. A staff member named Dr. Elisa Evans allegedly “came in the room with a stern look and said, ‘If you refuse to transfer her, we WILL CONTACT DHS AND THE POLICE,’” she recalled.

The mom says that cops appeared and blocked the exit. “The officers stood in front of the emergency room doors — arms crossed and said you cannot leave with your child”.

The baby was involuntarily transported by ambulance to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (costing the parents $3,320.00). The mother said that doctors performed “test after test, hoping to find something.” For four hours this process went on, without the parents’ consent and under the threat of government compulsion. The parents had walked into St. Joseph’s at 10:00 a.m. and were not allowed to leave Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia until 9:30 p.m.

This is the same political correctness and paranoia gone mad that we explored in The Rule of Law , Sex, Lies and Society and The Politics of Entrapment. The confusion and mixed messages within such state departments and institutions is breath-taking. Real child abuse is covered up while the innocent are persecuted through a convergence of ineptitude, ignorance, bureaucracy and deception. They may even use these labels to cover their own tracks and maintain authority. Higher up the chain of command there are no doubt reasons to suspect elements of social engineering and ideology steering the DHS and CPS ships.

Now keep in mind Surveillance Society and All the Way Down to our DNA... and you may now have a better idea as to how ordinary people are being made to conform to Official Culture. Can you see how this plays an important part in a new form of technocratic centralisation? The Medical Establishment is no exception to this ideology.

Which brings us to this little item:

Secret list: Having your name on this secret Michigan list of 275,000 people could cost you your job (video included at source)

It’s a secret list that can cost you your family or your job.  Once you’re on it, it can be very hard to get off.   While some changes are being made to the law, many experts say it doesn’t go far enough.

The state maintains something called the Michigan Child Abuse and Neglect Central Registry and the sole power to label you an abuser lies not with a judge or a jury, but with child protective services workers.

And you may be surprised at how the state can define “abuse.”

Anita Belle says she’s never been convicted of a crime.  But Belle’s name has been put on the Central Registry as a child abuser.

“Where is the due process,” asked Belle.

The Central Registry is maintained by Child Protective Services workers inside Michigan’s Department of Human Services, or DHS.

Something to remember next time you consider placing efficiency before freedom – such as it is. Making false diagnoses, suppressing evidence, refusing to hear medical testimony and harassing families and their children appears to be business as usual for many members of the CPS and DHS departments fully mandated by the government. Independence and self-sufficiency covers all avenues. The more outside society you can be whilst cultivating a large network of like-minded friends, the better the potential for your future. 

In the next post we’ll look further at the rise of the police state after 9/11, with stories from those who have come under the baton and jackboot of the police and SWAT teams.

 

See also: Public School System Exposed for Reporting Parents to CPS for Homeschooling


Notes

[1] ‘I Can’t Breathe’: Eric Garner’s Last Words Symbolize Our Predicament’ By Rev. Jesse Jackson and Grace Ji-Sun Kim, Huffington Post,  12/18/2014| Updated: 02/17/2015.
[2] ‘Security Check Now Starts Long Before You Fly’ By SUSAN STELLIN, New York Times, OCT. 21, 2013.
[3] ‘T.S.A. Expands Duties Beyond Airport Security’ By RON NIXON, New York Times,  AUG. 5, 2013.
[4] ‘Sneak & peek’ warrants allow police to secretly enter homes without notice -Covert tactics have become legally accepted and increasingly popular. Police State USA, June 27, 2014.
[5] ’When A Teen’s ‘Sarcastic’ Facebook Message Goes Terribly Wrong’ Daily Mail, Jul. 8, 2013.
[6] ‘Grand Jury Rejects Indictment of Teen Arrested for Rap Lyrics’ Massachusetts student’s arrest for alleged ‘terroristic threats’ raised First Amendment concerns, By John Knefel, Rolling Stone, June 6, 2013.
[7] ‘Teenager jailed over offensive April Jones Facebook posts’ By Kim Pilling, The Independent,  08 October 2012.
[8 ]‘Unemployed teenager sent to prison for three months for vile Facebook posts about missing children April Jones and Maddie Mccann’ Daily Mail, By Emily Allen, 8 October 2012.
[9] ‘Teen Arrested for His Choice of Emojis in a Facebook Post, By Cassandra Rules, January 23, 2015. The Free Thought Project at www.freethoughtproject.com.
[10] ‘FBI interrogated man after comment about American ‘Police State’ on Facebook’ -Man’s fears are confirmed when the FBI wanted to interrogate him within hours of making an impassioned comment, www.policestateusa.com August 27, 2013.
[11] ‘Government Set Up A Fake Facebook Page In This Woman’s Name’ By Chris Hamby, http://www.buzzfeed.com/ October 7, 2014.
[12] ‘Parents Blackmailed By Doctor: Consent To Vaccine Or We Take Your Newborn’ The Inquistr, May 23 2014.
[13] ‘Grassroots Effort To Fight Medical Kidnapping Of Baby Kathryn By UMC Children’s Hospital And CPS In Texas’ The Inquitr, October 26, 2014.
[14] ‘Social Services To Family: ‘Get Flu Shots Or We’re Taking Your Baby’ By Mac Slavo, January 18th, 2015 | SHTFplan.com.
[15] ‘Vaccine-Injured Child Kidnapped from Family by Child Protective Services’ by Augustina Ursino,www.vactruth.com,  November 15 2014.
[16] ‘4 Month Old Texas Baby Seized from Parents in Medical Dispute’ By Terri LaPoint
Health Impact News, December 2014.
[17] ‘Amish family forced into hiding to avoid court-ordered chemotherapy treatment’  December 1, 2013. www.policestateusa.com
[18] ‘Connecticut Supreme Court Upholds Ruling That State Can Force Chemotherapy On Teen’ By Josh Kovner, www.courant.com/
[19] ‘No Charges Filed, But 3-year Old Cancer Child Taken from Mother over “Diaper Rash”  by Terri LaPoint, March 14, 2015, healthimpactnews.com/
[20] ‘Medical Kidnap: CPS Worker Makes False Medical Diagnosis to Seize 4 Year-old Child from Family’  Terri LaPoint, March 14, 2015.

Save

Save

Advertisements

The Rule of Law? III: Forensics and Impression Management

“Our educated guess is that many practitioners in the field of law and psychology have faced a situation … where they have experienced difficulties in identifying the “true nature” of the psychopathic interviewee, until the situation has proceeded to the point where they’ve been fooled or some ways misled.”

– Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm, Psychopathy and Law, a Practioner’s Guide


The British justice system is still at odds with reality where fathers’ rights in custody battles are considered an irrelevance. The opinions of children in this matter are ignored as is basic psychology that a child grows and develops best when he or she has both parents present in their lives and access to respective family relatives. Although surprising to some, family law courts in the United Kingdom and in a significant number of cases in the United States, heavily favour the rights of the mother.

Many pressure groups on behalf of fathers’ rights as well as social justice organisations campaigned for a change in the law that would view the rights of both parents as a prerequisite for a just and equitable resolution in custody cases, while also addressing the “shocking delays” in custody battles in general. In the United Kingdom, several years ago the government family justice report chaired by David Norgrove made a review of these claims. Certain aspects of the family courts were marginally improved, cutting down the time where decisions must be taken to no more than six months rather than years, though this has been a sporadic rather than a consistent success.  Moreover, the issue of equal parenting rights – with special focus on fathers’ rights – was deemed unworkable. A spokesman for the Norgrove report said: “While is it usually in the child’s interest to have contact with both parents, seeking to enshrine that right in law would lead to greater conflict and confusion.” David Norgrove stated that: “Fundamentally, this is not about the rights of parents, it’s about the welfare of children and we should be focused entirely on that.” [1]

i-love-you-lets-fight© Infrakshun

Many campaigners believe that the issue of children being granted accessibility of both parents was crucial factor in addressing the welfare of the child and were at a loss to see how such a conclusion could have been reached. With one in three children in the UK without a father it does tend to stretch credibility that these decisions would help to alleviate such a sad statistic. The Centre for Social Justice a UK charity and campaigning organisation on issues of poverty, crime and family law stated in their 2009 family law review, Every Family Matters that “…legislation should acknowledge that children are most likely to benefit from the substantial involvement of both parents in their lives.” [2]

Ken Sanderson, of the campaign group Families Need Fathers, said: “The core failing of the current family justice system is that the rights of children to maintain meaningful relationships with both parents, as set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are not adequately supported or enforced. By choosing not to address this issue, any other proposals… will be merely superficial adjustments to a fundamentally broken system.” [3] And these superficial adjustments are a common theme through the legal and justice systems in both the UK and the United States. Tinkering around the edges allows just enough leeway to placate media and pressure groups for a short time whilst altering very little.

Fathers 4 Justice Campaign Director Nadine O’Connor was even more scathing of the report and revealed the corrupt background of the legal system as a whole. In a detailed response to Norgrove she outlined some of the reasons for what campaigners believed were unreasonable and unjust conclusions arrived at by report members and suggested an agenda on behalf of those taking part. A long list of grievances were listed including the belief that the:

  • The report’s primary function was to look at procedure, not principle;
  • The review panel was not impartial – it excluded parents and users of the system;
  • The rejection of a 10,000 parent testimony
  • The highlighting of the support given by the report of “secret courts”
  • The rejection of “transparency and public accountability;”
  • The rejection of a parents right in law to see their children;”
  • Claims of gender bias despite 93 percent of residencies being awarded to mothers;
  • The rejection of the principle of equality and shared parenting, stating it was ‘not in the bests interests of the child.’ [4]

O’Connor also drew the intention of the media and public to the fact that the report acknowledged that “no records have been kept on the outcomes for children,” and logically asked the question: “How can the Family Justice Review panel know what is in the ‘best interests of a child’ without empirical evidence?” [5]  Further attention was given to failure of the report to address: “… the number of warring parents going to court and the impact government cuts to legal aid will have in the increase in the number of unrepresented parents going to court; condemnation of the court system itself “…which is run by an ‘unelected, unaccountable and unsackable judiciary operating in complete secrecy;’ the inappropriate nature of courts originally intended for criminals rather than dealing with family cases. [6] The review also concluded that it was still necessary for “…grandparents… to go to court to demand access to their grandchildren when it is denied” which many believe dismisses the value of family and community. Which also means a division opens up between the rich and poor once again, and where only the wealthy can find justice to pursue their familial rights. [7]

The above report represents a classic example of the kinds of stone-walling within government and the judicial system which campaigners face year in and year out, not least the thousands of parents and their children who get caught in this iniquitous system.

According to Saga an insurance and investment company for senior citizens: “…the [court] process is extremely difficult and many grandparents simply can’t face a court fight that they feel may be unfairly stacked against them. They had hoped that the law would recognise the importance of their rights properly.” [8] Saga Director-General Dr Ros Altmann opines: “The relationship between a grandchild and a grandparent can be an extremely special one, and can provide consistency for a child when the family unit breaks down. “This Review rightly points out that decisions should be made in the best interests of the child, however to give one adult ‘rights’ to access that can be withdrawn by the courts, whilst all others have to fight for any right to maintain a relationship with their child or grandchild is surely wrong.” [9]

In the United States, the story is the same though with a greater State by State and case by case variation. This is illustrated with the following examples. Firstly, according to Anne P. Mitchell, fathers’ rights attorney and Founder of Dads’ Rights:

Men absolutely, and often, get the short end of the stick financially in divorce. There is a big myth out there that men make out like bandits in divorce, and women get left in poverty. This is completely untrue. Ironically, it is this myth that causes women to resist fathers having more parenting time, as the less time the child is with Dad, the more money Mom gets. So fathers get the shaft twice: their time with their children is limited, and they get to pay for being pushed out of their children’s lives.” [10]

Judge Michele Lowrance, child of divorce, divorced mother and author agrees that unfair treatment of men is borne out by the statistics:

For example, 85 percent of non-custodial or non-primary residential parents are men who typically see their children only two out of 14 days. In addition, 40 percent of America’s children will spend at least part of their childhood without their fathers living together with them. This translates to over 21 million children. There is definitely cultural paranoia about each side having an advantage. Women think men have the advantage because, for example, it is hard to support the average family on a small percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income. If Dad earns $2,500 net and there is one child, in many jurisdictions Mom would only get $500 for support. Understandably that feels unfair to her, as clearly she might need more to support a child. [11]

While on the other hand, Scott Hampton director of Ending Violence:

When I was presenting a workshop at a national judges’ conference I asked those judges whether there was bias in family courts during divorce. Their answer: Yes, but usually it’s against women, not men. Their reasoning makes perfect sense. Society expects mothers, not fathers, to be the natural nurturers. So, if Mom falls just a bit short of the ideal parent, we unconsciously penalize her. In contrast, if Dad changes a couple of poopy diapers, we unconsciously give him extra credit. So if that’s true, then why do mothers more often have custody? The judges explained that it’s not the court’s bias against fathers. It’s men’s bias against fatherhood and dads who run away from their responsibility. Those are the ones who are skewing the numbers. It’s the men who fight paternity or who are abusive who are making responsible fathers and husbands look bad. The fact of the matter is, when men actually want and ask for custody, they are much more successful than some would have us believe. [12]

Father’s running away from their responsibilities, uncaring of their children, mothers taking advantage of a biased system and financially milking their ex-husbands remorselessly; false accusations of child abuse alongside authentic cases that somehow pass through judicial loopholes and the many corrupt judges open to those with the right money.

The system is broken and quite obviously ponerised.

There are many other similar cases where the male-dominated courts and judicial system do not necessarily override the apparent bias against fathers. Nevertheless, while negative attributions are fielded on both sides of the fence the statistics paint a very bleak picture for the father in the majority of cases. Despite psychopathic predominance in the male (at least so far, data is still being collected) the female pathological narcissist and psychopath also exist. As awareness of the bias against diagnosing women with psychopathy becomes more widely known, statistic are likely to reveal even more of a prevalence that is not necessarily seated in criminal activity but within domestic and public institutional settings.

Disturbing statistics that seldom get any airplay in the media denote an inversion of the female attributes that collectively express a highly significant reaction to the mass pathology inflicted on Western societies. As to how custody battles are reflected in statistical analyses these figures are from the late 80s’ and early 90s’:

  • 79.6 % of custodial mothers receive a support award
  • 29.9 % of custodial fathers receive a support award
  • 46.9 % of non-custodial mothers totally default on support
  • 26.9 % of non-custodial fathers totally default on support
  • 20.0 % of non-custodial mothers pay support at some level
  • 61.0  % of non-custodial fathers pay support at some level
  • 66.2 % of single custodial mothers work less than full-time
  • 10.2  %  of single custodial fathers work less than full-time  [13]

By 2007, five of every six custodial parents are mothers, yet the number of custodial mothers in poverty is 27.7 percent in contrast to the percentage of custodial fathers in poverty at 11.1 percent [14]  With one in four divorced Americans yet to receive child support or alimony and of those who are supposed to receive spousal support, 49 percent are not receiving any of it, fighting to get it, or have completely given up, what does this say about the system of allocating benefits to each parent and the ability of fathers to find work over mothers? What of the prevalence of mental illness and undiagnosed pathology hidden from view? [15]

In custody and criminal trials prosecutors will have no compunction in using gender myths as a strategy to win their cases or “… packaging the myth for persuasive purposes” depending on which position they are advocating. [16]

5960558-lg© infrakshun

Impression Management

It might be an idea to revisit the Female Psychopath in a court setting.

The female psychopath’s own formula of “impression management” is especially effective yet we have no way of knowing how many take advantage of the criminal justice system except through reading between the lines of statistics. Is it simply self-presentation or cunning manipulation of the jury and all participants, from detectives to judges? Impression management is a crucial tool of the psychopath yet relatively unexplored in forensic psychology. If the overriding need to control and win is a primary driver of psychopathic behaviour this suggests a huge psychological loop-hole that takes advantage of the idealised image of feminine passivity which is then ruthlessly exploited.

Criminal trial attorney Frank S. Perri and clinical psychologist Terrance G. Lichtenwald see law enforcement and the criminal justice system facing a serious challenge in their ability to correctly perceive, diagnose and bring to justice female psychopaths. For instance: “Diane Downs, the woman who killed her two children by shooting them, came to her jury trial pregnant, projecting the image that a mother could not commit such an act. [Serial killers] Golay and Utterschmidt projected a disposition of two elderly, grandmotherly-like women, and Karla Homolka projected the image that she was under the control over her husband when she helped kill three young women.”  [1]

Other examples of possible misdiagnosis and leniency include one Marie Noe, who in 1999: “… admitted to killing her eight children [and] received probation. It had been suggested that her 72-year-old appearance, mannerisms and her gender affected the decision and because society is reluctant to believe that women kill serially, law and prosecutions lacked the motivation to investigate and vigorously prosecute these women.” Another female serialist received only 10 years in prison after admitting to killing her five children, but the jury felt sorry for her because she had lost all the children in her life.”  [2]

The courts, forensics and law enforcement are areas more likely to encounter male and female psychopaths than any other profession. The absence of courses in psychopathy awareness is still not forthcoming where it is needed most and where: “…the study of violent offenders is lumped together under the same umbrella that somehow criminals are from the same mold.” The authors therefore pose the following questions:

Does this individual understand that parents who kill may not be mentally ill but possess psychopathy traits that, in fact, make them more prone to planning their child’s death? Does this person have training on how to spot psychopathic traits or are does he harbor the view that a mother is incapable of intentionally killing her child because of her gender? If the parent did plan the murder, could this professional participate in the evaluation of such a case without resorting to myths to resolve the “shock” he or she experiences? […]

It can be particularly unnerving for professionals to realize that a female is capable of brutal violence, especially homicide, and project normalcy to those she encounters. Unfortunately, many in the law enforcement and behavioral field resort to the myth in order to resolve an uncomfortable inconsistency between what they observe and what they want to believe. […]

Professionals’ beliefs about female aggression influence their approach to inquiry, interviews, investigation, and their reactions to female disclosures about their criminal acts have an enormous impact on who is labeled a victim or an offender… [3]

Given the custodial, socio-economic statistics and those for female psychopathic traits that point to high incidence of biological mothers as perpetrators of some forms of child abuse and child deaths, a massive overhaul of gender stereotyping and target training for police and the law courts, social services and child care is long overdue. The authors recommend several changes that must take place if professionals – investigators or examiners – are to meet the challenge of psychopathy:

  • Self awareness of one’s own gender bias
  • Management of cognitive dissonance in the face of incongruous evidence: “female as care taker and female as abuser, female as peace maker and female as perpetrator.”
  • During evaluation, confidence borne from a strong data set ready to test for different gender myths regardless of the individual being evaluated.
  • Awareness that the examinee “has much to gain and little to lose by manipulating.
  • The evaluation of the deception but also the quality of the deception i.e. “How did the examinee respond when the deception was exposed?”
  • Awareness that the examinee may be wearing a “mask of sanity” thus he must be ready to examine his emotions for countertransference “…such as the feeling of disappointment that the individual is not what she first seemed.”
  • A willingness to excuse oneself from the case if these criteria cannot be met.  [4]

Finally, the authors conclude that: “Violence, especially murder, is a human issue and not a gender-specific phenomenon.” a conclusion that must extend across all societal domains when evaluating anti-social personality disorders such as psychopathy and narcissism whether in relationships, business, organisations or social movements.

The above examples are admittedly from criminal psychopaths. Garden variety psychopaths happily go about their business deep inside society assisting in the sometimes subtle and slow ponerogenesis of normal human behaviour.  Therefore, since we already have a problem that is highly advanced in Western societies in particular, then it does not necessarily mean employing specific models to be absorbed into already ponerised arms of the Establishment. It may be a bit late for current Western societies to incorporate large-scale change without systematic radical upheavals. What it does mean is offering the opportunity for all of us to be super-aware of the depth and nature of psychopathy so that we may give inoculate ourselves and our love ones from its destructive effects. Only then will we begin to loosen the grip of  the global predators in our midst.

 


Notes

[1] Nation of broken families: One in three children lives with a single-parent or with step mum or dad’ The Daily Mail, By Steve Doughty, 25 June 2010.
[2] ‘Norgrove Report fails children by not giving fathers access rights, says Centre for Social Justice’ Press Release, November 3, Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) http://www.centreforsocialjustice.co.uk
[3] ‘Dads should NOT be given right to equal access to children, says review’ The Daily Mirror, November 3, 2011.
[4] Fathers 4 Justice http://www.fathers4justice.co.uk
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Channel 4 News, F4J Respond to Norgrove Report, November 2011 | ‘Family justice review criticises ‘shocking delays’’ BBC News, November 3, 2011.
[8] ‘Norgrove review fails to grasp the nettle for grandparents’ By Dr Ros Altmann , Saga http://www.saga.co.uk  4 November 2011.
[9] Ibid.
[10] ‘Do Divorced Dads Get a Raw Deal?’ By Tom Matlack, Mens’ Health, March 12th, 2011.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] 1988 Census ‘Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7. and U.S. General Accounting Office Report’ GAO/HRD-92-39FS January, 1992.
[14] U.S. Census Bureau, Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2005, released August 2007 | Ibid.
[15] http://www.Divorce360.com, Child Support Poll Results, conducted by GFK Roper Public Affairs and Media, 2007 | Ibid.
[16]] op. cit. Perri & Lichtenwald (p.63)
[17] Ibid. (p.64)
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20  Ibid.

The Rule of Law? II: Slush Funds, Serial Judges and the SAP

“… it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed.”

– Robert Canup


The law is of course, about money rather than justice. Nothing new about that.

No-one but the rich can afford to go the whole nine yards in a highly contested custody case which requires thousands of dollars to see it through to the end. Child custody has become a huge money-making enterprise along with so many other forms of control. Money talks, the abuser walks. With an estimated 40 to 50 percent of all marriages ending in separation or divorce, this affects approximately one million children each year, [2] as well as the fall-out from a needless war in Iraq that fuelled a similar rise. [3]  The emotional cost to the child is also rising with higher incidences of stress related illnesses appearing in custody battle children. Judges receive a fat salary and job security. When the overflow of cases gets too much those in retirement are wheeled out with their accompanying prejudices and outdated beliefs intact. Appeal judges seldom reverse lower court rulings.

When funding is added to the equation it becomes a dangerous gamble. If you are unhappy with the ruling and you suspect foul play – which will happen at some point along the judicial line – you will have no chance for redress. Judges have total immunity which means suing is not an option. No surprise then that the Oversight Agency Commission for Judicial Performance spends over $3 million dollars per year, yet in a 3 year period, not a single judge was removed from the bench.

One victim who was corresponding with me several years ago (we’ll call her “Sandra”) is fighting depression as her hope wanes. She is wracked by guilt that she could not protect her child. She paints a bleak picture of the judicial system in America, describing the tight net of oppression and injustice that lies in wait for those who are unfortunate enough to arrive at a custody battle. Sandra also believes the law views men and women as a lucrative resource to exploit.

She writes:

“If you do something to try to protect an abused child,  you will be placed on a missing poster by the National Clearing House for Missing and Exploited Children, you also will have the FBI issue a warrant for your arrest even if you have custody, if you are caught (you most likely will) you and your children will be hunted by local police agencies if you are captured (which you will be) than these police will take your child , call the abusive parent and give your child to the abuser to with as he likes. Meantime, you will be handcuffed, held in a holding cell, you will not be read your rights nor will anyone offer the elusive phone call. After you repeatedly ask for an attorney (which you will not get) you will, in handcuffs be taken to a county jail. Now, depending on the size of the state you will be stripped searched and put in maximum security lockdown.

At this point, your crime is “noncustodial interference” even if you had custody (because you were not there to protect your rights so the court took this chance to strip you of them) Do not forget you will also be put on the 5 o’clock news on every channel in that area with the headline reading “parent abducts child – child returned safely to other parent.” Something like that. Your state has about 7 days to extradite you (which they will) most likely in chains (again your crime trying to protect your child being abused which you know about). You will be held in your county jail not able to pay bail, because this court has financially ruined you.  (That is to say, you spent your savings on all the court fees to protect your child). You will sit in jail not knowing if your children are safe. Everyone you trusted – this is to say the same people who testified in the civil action for you – will betray you – and believe me they will. No one will believe you because “this couldn’t happen” and even so ‘why to you?’ This, despite all the evidence, the pictures and stuff like that, you cannot see your child because you tried to save them. If you don’t have a nervous breakdown, if no one will give you a job because of the publicity and if you don’t harm yourself you get treated like you are crazy, or better yet, like you are a bad parent for not having your child. Now you are destitute and easy pickings for this corrupt court system.

You will more than likely not see your child but these officials will try to charge you money for every conceivable thing you can think of. If these officials take it all and make it impossible for you to get more, you will either watch any rights you had to your poor child terminated and given to the parent who is horrifically abusing them (you know this because you have the evidence, though what good it is I’ll never know) or get to be sent to jail again once these officials have drained you financially. You then get to be the lucky recipient of nightly nightmares regarding your child and how the evidence vividly details how the parent abuser is abusing your child.

The justice system and concept of law has been corrupted by officials who allow notions of equality and fair play to be used as chess pieces by psychologically compromised individuals. These in turn, allow psychopaths to rule the law rather than follow it.  Sandra and her daughter are two victims out of thousands who are suffering a similar fate, be they male or female. Such dynamics are predicated on what philosopher Robert Canup calls “a plausible lie” where the justice system and family courts are rooted in a written code of ethics that promote an inherently unethical profession. The reader might be getting some idea by now that such convincing lies propagated by those without conscience are the cause of all of our troubles, or as Canup terms it:

“If the legal system allows you to feel good about convicting someone when you KNOW they are innocent, and you KNOW that the case against them is a pack of lies; then the legal system is worse than useless.” [4]

 public-domain-images-free-stock-photos-high-quality-resolution-downloads-unsplash0071-1000x666© infrakshun

In Canup’s concept of theSocially adept Psychopath” (SAP) he introduces another angle as to why the legal system is inherently loaded against innocence and fair play, suggesting: “… it is the familiarity of the legal system which gives an air of plausibility to the lies from which it is composed.” [5] It amounts to those who are cunning enough, ruthless enough and with an absence of scruples can ride on the crest of a filthy tide that leaves the label of justice as just that –  a label that disguises a host of negative anomalies that lead to the law loaded towards the criminal. It is in our culture to believe that the truth will out and bare-faced lying will not carry much power. In fact, the opposite is the case thanks to this particular legal foundation.

From this perspective, he explains the law in the following terms:

I think that there is little argument that the United States has the best legal system in the world. Unfortunately having the best legal system in the world is a lot like having the world’s biggest flea, or the world’s fastest snail; so what? If the US system is the best, then using the US system to show what is wrong with legal systems will also show what is wrong with legal systems around the world – all the rest are even more heavily influenced by evil than the US system is. […]

The State of Texas vs. Joe Blow. … A court of law is carefully designed to present the appearance of fairness, rather than being designed to actually be fair. I am sure that most people are familiar with things that look one way but are actually different from the way they appear on the surface. A court of law is one of those things.

In a court of law we have a very familiar structure: two opposing players, and an impartial referee. This is a structure which almost everyone can recognize: it is a contest. If we look a little closer we will realize that the structure is a sham.

Suppose that you were to go to play a football game only to discover:

The other team gets to make up the rules.

The referee plays for the other team.

One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score – the other team is at no risk – only you can be scored upon.

Guess who’s going to win most of those games? The best you could hope for is a 0 – 0 tie.

That is what is actually going on in a court of law. The ‘fair and impartial judge’ is employed by the state, as is the prosecutor; they are both on the same team. The state sets all the rules. The state is at zero risk – the best you can hope for is a scoreless tie.

Bottom line? You are going to lose. In fact you have lost before you ever get to court. Trials are not about whether the State of Texas gets to beat on Joe Blow, trials are about whether the State of Texas gets to CONTINUE beating on Joe Blow. [6]

The upshot is that the pathological liar has a huge advantage over the innocent, shackled by his conscience and sense of morality, the very precept that is encouraged in the justice system and the very same cause of his or her downfall. Swearing on the Bible might as well be swearing on a copy of Playboy for psychopaths and other psychological deviants. Putting aside the wholesale corruption that exists in the law courts and the prime mover of any claims that arrive in front of the judge…

What of the judges?


 “It should be against the law to break the law. Unfortunately, it is not. In early 21st-century America, a dirty little secret still exists among public officials, politicians, judges, prosecutors, and the police. The government, federal, state, and local, is not bound to obey its own laws. I know this sounds crazy, but too many cases prove it true. It should be a matter of grave concern for every American who prizes personal liberty.”

– U.S. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano


The legal landscape has been infiltrated by the psychopath and sociopath where a psycho-subversion is elevated to be the primary arbiter of who lives and dies, who is guilty and who is innocent. The ponerological reality behind our concept of US Law is described by Canup in the following extract:

Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist – an inexplicable quirk in Bundy’s bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the Psychopaths of the world. I would estimate that about 10 percent of the prosecutors and judges in the United States are in fact, S.A.Ps. The ONLY difference between them and Ted Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. I will quote from my novel “Unsuspected” to show how a psychopath views the position of Judge. […] How brilliant of his predecessors to slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers – who sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease of royalty. There are, he reflected, no ‘Your Majesties’ or ‘Your Excellencies’ in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into accepting ‘Your Honors’. […]

It is difficult to believe that huge parts of society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic. [7] [Emphasis mine]

That’s it – in a nut-shell.

Except perhaps, many essential psychopaths may not be “mentally ill” but merely expressing their true nature.

Los Angeles Police Department BadgeIn May 1999, a magazine article reported on payoffs to judges through a slush fund in Los Angeles. The extensive article followed Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, California as he attempted to find justice for his daughter, who was enmeshed in the corruption of family courts and facing the prospect of losing custody of her 2-year-old son.[8]

After spending $100,000 on attorneys and research fees, Bryer has since “been campaigning for a probe of a system that he claims ‘purposefully profits off the conflict of the families in litigation.’ He says, ‘I felt violated, almost numb, when I learned that the judges were making money through the child-custody system. The judges have too much power, and nobody is monitoring these guys.’”

What he discovered were considerable sums of money being funnelled through inconspicuous and pedestrian sounding covers in order to accrue funds from the litigation process at great emotional and material cost to the payers.

The Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, The Judges Trust Fund, Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services, were able to efficiently disperse the cash and not being registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, to smoothly funnel the money without anyone knowing. What this represented was a private corporation run from the public sector that actually promoted and banked on lengthy custody cases. When Bryer took his evidence and pleas to the judges themselves: “the Los Angeles Police Department, or LAPD; the bunco and forgery unit of the LAPD; the county Sheriff’s Department; the district attorney; the city attorney for Los Angeles; the county of Los Angeles auditor and assistant auditor; the county treasurer; and the state attorney general. All failed to act.”

Attorneys arguing cases before the family courts were making payments to the Judges’ funds, as were court monitors – “appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.” This makes further sense concerning faulty psychological analyses and evaluations – perhaps they were never meant to serve the child or parents but only the slush fund and litigator that were offering the biggest and swiftest financial benefits. Extending the litigation means more money for all those involved in the court process. Mediators for example, have the authority to demand tests for one or both of the litigants with additional testing ordered at the discretion of the judge.

This article includes an example of what may be requested from those unfortunate enough to come up against the family courts of Los Angeles:

If a divorcing couple is unable to come to an agreement on the custody of their child, the court has the power to require the couple to attend mediation sessions with a court-appointed marriage counselor who attempts to resolve custody differences. A each step of the process, both litigants are forced to pay thousands of dollars for the services demanded by the court, not including the fees each side already is paying attorneys. But the child-custody cash register doesn’t stop ringing. The system continues to rake in money for its swarm of support personnel long after custody has been awarded. [9]

The Department of Social Services in 2001 investigated over 16,637 cases where suspected abuse or neglect was not substantiated. Far from being based on meticulous analysis and rigorous evaluations by professionals, the vast majority of these cases were representative of serious bureaucratic mismanagement and criminal referrals which led to motions and counter-motions. Evidence that should be admissible is denied under outdated laws – and “bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.”

Child support agencies are continually leaning towards incompetence, adding to the burden of divorce and family fragmentation. From a report in Michigan, over $7 billion of payments are owed to single parents which translates into “600,000 Michigan children not getting the court-ordered support they deserve” and with over 400,000 not getting anything at all. [10]  County agencies such as “Friend of the Court” are notoriously inefficient and indifferent. In the same Michigan County alone, the child support caseload has doubled in a decade which is being repeated in many states across America. This is partly the result of an economy currently in a nose dive and with over 12 trillion in national debt and rising. [11] It is then, hardly surprising that social costs are bearing the brunt and more custodial parents seeking support that isn’t there.

720px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Department_of_Justice.svgBack in the UK, a similar story has come to an end with the Child Support Agency (CSA) being replaced by a “tougher agency” set to clear defaulting payments from parents unwilling, or unable to pay. An official report found that over 86 percent of cases had serious flaws and clerical errors with an all-party committee of MPs finding “a backlog of 30,000 cases that were building up each month and an estimated 170,000 waiting to be processed.” Private debt collectors have since been called in to clear £3.3bn arrears while some families are still enmeshed in the labyrinth of the old system with no end in sight. [12]

All this has contributed to cases of approximately 350,000 yearly. This consist predominantly of child abduction and kidnapping incidences by custodial, non-custodial parents and family members. Combined with the familiar entrenched bureaucracy, manipulations from paedophiles and psychopaths already play off the inherent failings of an equally prejudiced system of justice. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves to think that the complexity of our social systems means that child abuse is an overblown fantasy. The key issue here is the creation of divisions, confusion and beliefs which are funnelled into the overworld of criminally flawed legal system where abusers get off scot-free in a multitude of ways.

The words of an experienced Texan attorney of thirty-years had this to say on a recent internet forum discussion thread:

“Once the word gets around that you are willing to stand up for a child and you might be amazed at who and how many, people disclose histories of abuse. Husbands reveal their wives screaming ‘No, Daddy, No!’ before they fully wake up when they awaken them with amorous intentions. Teachers and hospital personnel call about what they know and about which the authorities won’t act. Two girls in Juvenile Detention who told me of being molested by a guard weren’t there at the same time and didn’t know each other, but both knew things only his wife or urologist should have known.

A judge told me he was appointing me to represent the children in one case because a family member had long been reputed to ‘go after young girls’ during his several terms in elective office but nobody had ever investigated this. Where do you think kindergarten and eleven year old, etc., boys observed attempting rape of babies and younger children learned that behavior? Can you conceive of one plausible, non-criminal way in which a profoundly retarded ten year old child could catch an STD, much less the same ones her stepfather defendant was found to have?”

Despite signatories to UN conventions to combat and prevent corruption the Rule of Law is continually distorted and abused with threats of death and blackmail circumventing the good intentions of new corruption laws. When patronage, bureaucracy, bribery, extortion, fraud, embezzlement, and nepotism are so endemic within the judiciary it is difficult to address the core reasons for the deformation of law without addressing other key factors in the global set up. The underworld and its body politic keep pace with such reforms because they are naturally attached to their host, akin to parasites on a lumbering elephant.

As commentator Lee Sachs eloquently stated in his 2005 article America’s Corrupt Legal System with “rigged courts, bribed judges, phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag” – nothing much has changed in 2014. Back in the UK it has been reported that the UK’s key institutions have long been infiltrated by criminals  while using Freemasonry as a useful recruiting tool for bent coppers. (Mainstream media loves to state the obvious while independent journalists have been pointing this out for decades. We’ll look at this further in future posts).

Lawyers are making big money out of emotional anguish by selling their services to men and women who abuse and batter children. When those with the fattest pay checks can afford to buy off their guilt and assuage their conscience the ponerogenesis of the law strengthens itself by becoming a commercial interest administered by the criminal Elite. As the American poet Robert Frost once remarked:“A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.” Social services and court bureaucracy are inextricably tied to systemic corruption regardless of the veracity of abuse.

While keeping in mind the ponerisation of the feminist movement, indeed, all movements that may start off with good intentions  to address victimisation, it is important to reiterate that both men and women are victims of the so-called justice system. Fathers are denied their rights as are mothers and this normalised conflict can only continue to bolster the leverage of the psychopaths in our midst if we do not open our eyes.

 


Notes

[1] The names have all been changed to protect the identities of those involved, not least the mother who is legally bound to silence. The content and facts of the case have not been changed, though I have placed these facts into a suitable narrative for ease of reading. I can fully vouch for the mother’s evidence and testimony during the course of my own correspondence.
[2] Generally, the global divorce rates are climbing (even among older couples) including separation between co-habiting couples. Europe has a slightly less rate while the US is highest in the world, though it has since leveled off from a leap in from 60s to the 80s. See: ‘Divorce Wars: Litigation as blood sport’ By Chris Francescani and Kristen Depowski, ABC News, July 11, 2006.
[3] ‘Soldiers’ divorce rates up sharply’ By Gregg Zoroya, USAToday, July 6, 2005.
[4] ‘The Greatest Problem Facing Mankind’ by Robert Canup, http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/problem.html
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘The Socially Adept Psychopath’ by Robert Canup, http://users.hal-pc.org/~rcanup/index.html%5B1%5D ‘Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?’ By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Vol. 15, No. 16- May 3, 1999, http://www.insightmag.com.
[8] op. cit. O’Meara.
[9] ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.
[10] $8.837 trillion (30 June 2005 est.) from the CIA World Fact Book. “The estimated population of the United States is 299,238,103 so each citizen’s share of this debt is $28,220.25.” from the US National Debt Clock at brillig.com.
[11] ‘The troubled history of the CSA,’ BBC News, 18 January 2006.
[12] ‘Private debt collectors called in to clear £3.3bn CSA arrears’ The Times, February 10, 2006.

The Rule of Law? I

By M.K. Styllinski

“We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.”

Andrew Łobaczewski, “Political Ponerology


In the family courts of the US and Europe, fathers and mothers are routinely set against each other with children crushed in the ensuing fight. As always, there appear to be valid cases on both sides of the male-female divide, though judging from the carnage left after the numerous battle, you would never know it.

There legions of cases where families have been torn apart due to corruption, ineptitude and ignorance of psycho-social dynamics. For example, we have mothers who have discovered that their spouse has been molesting their child and have taken the appropriate action through the courts to grant them sole legal and physical custody, yet the child somehow happens to end up with the abuser. Similarly, we have individuals within the feminist movement and its breeding ground for covert narcissism and parental alienation syndrome victimising fathers and turning them against their children. The courts have turned justice into a tragi-farce with the alleged abusers  – male or female –  either getting unsupervised visitation rights and more frequently, full custody. In some countries fathers are also being denied access to their children based on out-of-date and unfair bureaucratic laws regardless of whether they have committed a crime. In effect, the laws are biased towards the mother in some courts and biased towards the father in others, according to the specifics of national law, cultural influences and widespread corruption. Indeed, family courts seem to be presenting the worst kinds of injustices in cases which are both complex and multifaceted.

In the US, by far the most reliable source of litigation is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, in Denver. A recent study surveyed 9000 custody disputes in 12 family courts across the country. Only two percent involved child-sex-abuse charges. Although this is certainly small it is known that the psychological footprint is very large indeed from those that do. Domestic physical abuse is highly likely to involve a percentage of sexual sadism which is often mistaken for a purely violent and aggressive display of anger. While physical abuse is still being reported in a greater number of cases, the sexual abuse taboo naturally restricts the number of cases that see the light of day. Even before they get to the courts they must be taken seriously by doctors or paediatricians, notwithstanding the likelihood of such charges sticking. Increasingly, many health professionals fear child abuse cases due to the complex nature of the claims and the potential labyrinth of litigation.

In the UK, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Professor Sir David Hall, told the Royal Society of Medicine that “recent high-profile cases in which doctors had been censured had undermined confidence in the regulatory authorities.” He believed that signs of abuse might go unreported until the indications were ‘all too obvious.’ Careers are apparently coming first. [1] Allegations of sexual abuse, paedophilia and child violence are more commonly made by mothers and can be voiced without challenge or a burden of proof. During the interim, access is denied and courts appear to accept accusations regardless of the possibility that this could be the product of hate and acrimony from an embattled relationship. If the father is innocent and when the claim is finally dropped, there is no penalty for making such a vindictive claim. By then the damage is done, which may partially account for the rise in father suicides relating to unfair agency payments and the ensuing custody battles. Unsurprisingly, a divorced father is ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced mother and three times more likely to commit suicide than a married father. [2] As one divorce consultant mentions: “It’s a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children. Most of the men I deal with never saw their divorces coming, and they are often treated very unfairly by the family courts.” [3]

vintage-man-woman-couple-conflict-black-and-white-photography

Back in the UK, each year, some 85,000 families with children younger than 16 undergo divorce. The standard aftermath includes disputes over how much the “non-resident parent” should see his children, which is generally the father. Though the cases are compelling, a range of societal factors could be involved, as the broader statistical picture suggests. America is not Britain (not quite yet anyway). In 1998, a Children First Government paper, indicated that 40 percent of separated mothers admit to thwarting contact, leaving fathers losing all contact with their children within two years of separation or divorce.[4] In 2015, nothing much has changed. According to one English solicitor I spoke to: “Some 80,000 parents issue proceedings a year, many of them fathers seeking reasonable contact with their children. A common outcome is permanent severance.”  With family Court welfare services providing under-trained personnel to evaluate and report on the welfare of children “Normal family men are routinely assessed as unfit to have significant contact with their children; normal children are routinely sentenced to years of ‘relationship-building programme[s]’ to condition them to withstand visits from ordinary Dads.” [5]

The patterns of bias vary from country to country with a trail of injustice due to poor judges, out-dated court procedures and corrupt agencies. Many fathers rightly cry foul and highlight the shared parenting concept that is constantly under attack by the blight of many in the feminist movement who consider fathers secondary to the mothering principle and inherently untrustworthy. At the same time, the shared parenting concept as well as parental alienation is of little value if one of those parents – male or female – is a closet molester or covert narcissist. The systems are not only ill-equipped to deal with the subtleties and nuances of lengthy custody battles and child abuse cases but bureaucratic delays mean that judges are often forced to speed up the process rather than let the case proceed in a measured way. In the words of one Colorado attorney: “If we ever sat down to design the worst possible system that protects the smallest number of children, it would look a lot like the family courts look today.” [6] However, there is much more to this than just a back-log of paper work. Fathers, mothers and children’s misery is being used as a means to make a lot of money. Breaking up families was never more lucractive.

In Kristen Lombardi’s award-winning article “Custodians of Abuse” she researched the background behind family court custody battles, interviewing almost 25 experts in custody litigation. Lombardi offered some enlightening reasons as to why these courts are failing children and parents, contributing to a further layer of what amounts to long-term, state-sponsored emotional abuse. [7] She found that family courts: “… do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims, but family advocates called guardians Ad Litem (GALs), whose charge is to investigate allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect and to represent the best interests of the children in disputed custody cases. More often than not, they are licensed psychologists or social workers. Sometimes, they are attorneys.” [8]

Ad items they have their own individual areas of expertise which do not however, qualify them to act as evaluators of the highly sensitive problem of child abuse. With the spread of Kinseyian sexology and psychoanalysis as the platform for most evaluations, the interviews, assessments and judgments are routinely carried out without the necessary qualifications. What is more, cultural bias is frequently operating where the gender of the alleged victim – parent and/or child – is crucial to the final judgement.

public domain-girl-railroadtracks-walking-1Family courts are now a law unto themselves. Judges can operate as mini-dictators where their opinions, beliefs, and gender bias (towards male or female) take precedent over the evidence. This has shown to be true in case after case, including “judges…hold [ing] hearings in which important rulings are made with only one party present (called ex parte hearings); such hearings violate basic constitutional rights of due process.” [9]  The courts do not have juries nor a mandated legal representation, so that the law for the rich imposes another law for the poor, reinforced by the inner circle of Establishment opinion that is intentionally set up to serve itself.

The American Judges Association confirmed findings from its 1996 report:  “Domestic Violence and the Courtroom,” which showed that “wife batterers and child molesters convince family-court officials that their ex-wives are ‘unfit’ or ‘undeserving’ of sole custody in roughly 70 percent of contested custody battles.” [10] What is seldom mentioned is the fact that when there was a fight over the children, “…fathers won primary or joint custody more than 70 percent of the time — whether or not there was a history of spousal or child abuse…” [11]

However, the data is sparse indeed on the presence of pathological narcissism and Munchausen By Proxy which is very much the province of the female. We can see how variable the data really is from country to country – even state to state. Statistics change for domestic violence as opposed to straight divorce cases.

Another study by respected social scientist Murray A. Straus, appears to show that “Family conflict studies, without exception, show about equal rates of assault by men and women.” (Keep in mind that there is considerable discrepancy as to what constitutes “violence.”) Straus mentions that though women score highly on physical violence: “Crime studies, without exception, show much higher rates of assault by men, often 90 percent by men.”[12] This may account for the quote that “every 15 seconds a woman is battered by their [intimate] partner in the United States.”[13] The latter conclusion needs to be kept in mind that the crime of assault against women is overwhelmingly the province of the male.

Conversely, the extent of husband battery is thought to be hugely underestimated. Men do not usually report their violent wives to police; similarly, children do not report their violent mothers to police. Meantime, women are far more likely to report men to relevant authorities. Straus believes that: “…neither side can give up their position because it would be tantamount to giving up deeply held moral commitments and professional roles. I conclude that society needs both perspectives. Neither side should give up their perspective. Rather they should recognize the circumstances to which each applies.”[14]

Easy to say but how to apply?

predatorclouds2

The Predator’s System

A “medicalisation” of the law can also be personified in the form of “interactional assessment” which uses intense observation by experts who are trained to look for signs of abuse. While working well in a classroom for a variety of different criteria, it is still an entirely unproven method of evaluation. Despite this, it is still widely used in the courts.

Advocates of this method believe: “validation of the abuse does not depend on the verbal disclosure of the child, confession of the perpetrator, or the conviction of the other parent that abuse has occurred. It depends on gathering and sifting through information from multiple sources.” [15] This represents a massive oversimplification and assumption regarding assessments of this kind. There is no evidence either way that behaviour cues can be used to determine whether abuse happened. Subtle signs of anxiety can be attributed to a host of different reasons, not least being present at the interview itself and most certainly being present in a courtroom.

The existence of such psychiatric and legalistic onslaughts has caused countless children to become easy targets for further manipulations leading to another layer of emotional trauma. Why would the child molester – male or female – worry about going to court when s/he has so much confusion circulating? In his domain, he is the master actor and manipulator, leading a double life and relying on the trauma-induced child he abused to complete the proceedings. After all, if he can be in the same courtroom as the victim – all the better. He can intimidate the child further and induce yet more trauma, causing the testimony to be less than believable. This is the psychological legacy of the last 50 years – which children are simply fabricating, that they should indeed be “seen but not heard.”

One specific book singing the praises of interactional assessment illustrates techniques including anatomical dolls and drawings to use as useful tools with no data or evidence to suggest that these techniques are even helpful. There are several drawings which the authors interpret as “signs,” of abuse such as missing ears, the absence of feet, and phallic shapes. References are sparse. Case histories can be interpreted a multitude of ways serving as a perfect example of how easily evaluations, with no proven record of efficacy, can lead to catastrophe despite the best of intentions. Meanwhile, the abuser – along with his lawyer – is laughing all the way to the bank. With naive theories and Faustian bargains made by lawyers who routinely pimp their principles for whoever pays the most, the attorney client privilege takes up the slack and banishes any other compelling evidence that may be offered.

At the same time, psychotherapy as a once useful tool in the hands of responsible professionals is under attack from the US government. A colleague of psychiatrist Corey Hammond and co-author of Memory, Trauma Treatment and the Law, Professor Alan Scheflin of Santa Clara University Law School is an expert on clinical and experimental research on hypnosis, memory and trauma treatment and their applications to the law system. In a recent interview he talked about the changing climate of psychotherapy and trauma assessment, where therapists are clearly being used in ways that undermine children’s’ best interests.  Third party liability suits brought against therapists and the invasion of privacy and the autonomy of the therapist-patient relationship are some of the changes imposed by business and government.

Scheflin explains:

A scheme in which physicians exercise principal control over decisions about the use of facilities, choice of treatment and determining what information should be disseminated to patients, has given way to a system in which competition and cost containment have become dividing forces, driving forces. Insurers and other large business entities exert great impact over treatment choices and hospitalization as well as selection of providers. […]

Unfortunately other professions and the uninformed have now stepped in to determine the standard of care. The standard of care being a legal standard is informed by good medical practice, but by being a legal standard, it can be manipulated by lawyers and propagandists and other people, and that is what has happened.

Therefore it is necessary for the mental health profession to wrest back control of the standard of care from the avaricious lawyers that are in the process of changing it. [16]

Psychotherapy is either co-opted or the therapists themselves are seduced by payments and propaganda. The law was never about who is innocent or guilty but the profits that can be extracted from the bloody battles that follow. On many occasions the “discourse of disbelief” and from psychologists with poorly applied evaluation techniques or False Memory Syndrome advocates of psychiatry are enough to allow children to go home with their abuser. The following case study illustrates this point.

Picture a wealthy businessman, accused by his wife of committing sexual abuse against his four year old daughter. These become the grounds for a lengthy custody battle. Psychological evaluations of the man’s relationship towards his daughter show: “…a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.” A history of sexual abuse is known by the psychologist but dismissed as irrelevant in court due to the man’s obvious disposition; his charm, amiability and more importantly – his status.

predatorbuys

Power buys influence – truth is secondary | © infrakshun

While the court case is proceeding, the polygrapher with an excellent record enters the picture and is requested by the attorney defending the man, convinced as he is that his client is innocent. This highly professional and experienced polygrapher describes the details of the accuser’s confessions during the test:

She grabs his penis while he washes her in the shower and he has explained to her what a man does with it. When questioned further about how often this happens, he said about three or four times a week. When asked to give a high figure regarding the number of times that Julie has touched his penis he said about twenty times… […] He also acknowledges erections and masturbations in the showers while Julie is in the shower with him….Her father stated that he sleeps nude and stated that Julie likes to cuddle. He stated he likes to run her foot up and down his penis until he gets an erection and sometimes ‘things happen.’ […] He stated that she ‘loves’ to orgasm. ‘I’ll get her a vibrator. She’ll hold the handle against her peepee and giggle until she climaxes.’ [17]

Remember, this is a four year old girl.

The report by the polygrapher continues to relay the man’s inability to contain his excitement to the extent that he finally admits to severe child abuse. In fact, he can’t stop relating his exploits, confirming the pattern of the psychopath’s need for self-aggrandizement through communicating his “successes.” He knows his money and influence will protect him and that his self-assurance regarding the mechanisms of the law will allow him to get away with such audacious confessions such as the following: “She has licked and sucked his penis no more than five times, has given him two full ‘blow jobs.’ He has ‘69ed’ her. He has licked her vagina and has performed oral sex on her not more than ten times.” [18]

The polygrapher faxes the report to the attorney acting for the father but to no avail. The attorney-client privilege is enacted and the report suppressed.  The “audacity” is actually an utter self-confidence in the duplicity of the system. The custody battle ends in the man’s favour and an admitted child molester is recommended for full custody.

How could such a travesty take place?

The man was a wealthy businessman who used the exact same skills of manipulation and ruthlessness which allowed him to gain a substantial footing in the commercial world. A personification of our economic and corporate model. This afforded him the best attorney in town, supplanting the mother’s meagre attempts to find a similar worthy opponent to defend her child’s interests. Coupled with biased psychological evaluations and the ignorance of the nature of the psychopath, the child never had a chance. The spellbinding techniques of the man were so effective that the whole courtroom was captured in his thrall. This man could never have abused the child! The attorney reminded the judge and jury that there was a man of standing and impeccable character before them, and psychiatrists provided the pseudo-psychology for him to get away with it.

Now reverse the scenario with a feminine vampire/narcissist using the cultural advantage and female pity-me ploy which also works wonders with a jury. Both occur and the courts facilitate these manipulations. The possibilities for pathological narcissists, child rapists and paedophiles from each gender to pull the wool over the eyes of those with conscience has never been easier in a legal system that is loaded towards the desires of the psychopath.

The late psychiatrist Ralph Underwager was likely the leading US scholar on child sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990’s. He wrote extensively about the over protection issue and anti-sexuality climate in the States. The essence of Underwager’s argument was however undermined by his actions. He represented an expensive resource for often high-level predators seeking to buy their way out of abuse, though courts have rejected his testimony on more than one occasion. This has been on the basis of the doctor’s unsubstantiated and clinically unproven sources and methods (such as learned memory) that serve to underline his belief that “90 percent of accusations against child molesters are wrong.”

While Underwager’s writings do have much validity in addressing the anti-sexuality present in Christian America, his defence of paedophiles undoubtedly acted against children. As discussed, there are plenty of psychiatrists and psychologists present who continue to blur the lines. Jim Peters, a senior attorney for the National Centre for the Prosecution of Child Abuse who investigated Underwager in the late 1980s believes that such psychiatrists present themselves as scientific observers, when more often than they are advocates for abuse inside and outside the courtroom. [19]

In 2005, an appellate level court in New York was the first to recognize the debate within the mental health community over whether “it is ethically proper” to give opinions on the best interests of the child when there is no empirical base to support them.” So said Matrimonial attorney and Albany Law School professor, Timothy Tippins. The article continued:

 “Psychologists and psychiatrists are unable to scientifically measure and predict the effects of different factors on the future well-being of a child. There is no way to ethically study, for example, the effect it would have on a child to place him in a home with schizophrenic parents. Therefore, after a mental health expert offers opinions regarding the effects of, for instance, depression or spousal abuse, the judge should be the one to opine as to the child’s best interest.” [20]

Psychopaths can attune to everyone’s ideal hero. The pervasive adulation which is afforded to the charismatic spellbinder in our societies allows the predator to slip between our shadows unnoticed. Children disappear in plain sight in exactly this way. There, behind closed doors they are abused and scarred for life with the blessing of family courts.

 


Notes

[1] ‘Doctors ‘fear child abuse cases’ BBC News, 5 January 2006.
[2] National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) – males actually commit suicide four times as often as females do, and have higher suicide rates in every age group, yet the statistics suggest that losing a job and divorce are the most frequent cause.
[3] Quoted from ‘Distraught Father’s Courthouse Suicide Highlights America’s Male Suicide Epidemic.’ By Glenn Sacks, San Diego Union-Tribune, 11 January, 2002.
[4] Children First Dept. Of Social Security, UK Government, 1998.
[5] Public Eye.Website of Political Research Associates, June 1989.
[6] ‘Deadbeat parents, system fail children’ Lansing State Journal, Michigan, April 13, 2003.
[7] ‘Custodians of Abuse’ by Kristen Lombardi’s The Boston Phoenix, Jan.9-16, 2003. This is required reading for anyone wishing to gain an insight into the nature of abuse, in this case from women’s perspective in the courts.
[8]  Ibid.
[9]  Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘The Controversy Over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological Theoretical and Sociology of Science Analysis’ by Murray A. Straus. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, 1998.
[13] United Nations State of the World Report, 2000.
[14] op. cit. Straus.
[15] Children Speak for Themselves: Using the Kempe Interactional Assessment to Evaluate Allegations of Parent-Child Sexual Abuse by Clare Haynes-Seman and David Baumgarten Published by Brunner/Mazel, Inc., 1994 (pp. 33-34) ISBN: 0876307454.
[16] From the Presentation entitled: Risk Management in Dissociative Disorder and Trauma Therapy by Professor Alan Scheflin given at the International Society for the Study of Dissociation (ISSD) and International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (ISTSS) conferences at a joint session in Montreal on November 9, 1997.
[17] op. cit. Salter (p. 18-19)
[18] Ibid.
[19] ‘Witness for Mr. Bubbles’ Transcribed from “Australia 60 Minutes,” Channel Nine Network (Aired on August 5, 1990 in Australia) produced by Anthony McClellan; Reported by Mike Munro.
[20] ‘Custody Ruling Addresses Reliance on Expert Opinions’ By Mark Fass, New York Law Journal, 2005.

Crowd Control I

By M.K. Styllinski

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a  profoundly sick society.”

– Krishnamurti



In this post I want to offer some further examples on just how complex and confused our ideas of sexuality, sexual offences and the law has come to be, primarily due to our lack of awareness of ponerology and the development of our Official Culture.

A recent Telegraph report has highlighted the kind of ridiculous mindset so prevalent in US lawmakers. Some of these wise men and women in the State of Virginia:  “… want to make oral sex illegal for teens aged 15-17, although it’s still legal for two teens aged between 15-17 to have vaginal sex with each other.”

I kid you not.

As journalist Rebecca Holman rightly points out: “If you ban oral sex, what else will these teenagers do with their time? Set fire to bins? Do poppers? Shoot things with air rifles? HAVE ‘ACTUAL’ SEX? All of the above?”

There continues to be considerable controversy in the West as to what denotes a balanced and natural sexual expression for children. With our culture becoming increasingly sexualised on the one hand (Kinseyian programming) and made to feel dirty and deviant on the other (fundamentalist religious conservatism) it is little wonder that children and young adults are becoming confused and disoriented.  In any given case, there are complex interplay of forces which define the descent into abuse.  Translating new insights from psychology and social science and transforming them into practical tools for educational and treatment practices are proving challenging to implement. The battle between those who advocate what amounts to a form of anti-sexuality clashes with the those who posit a pervasive sexualisation of women AND men. This is producing an almost irreversible tension in the minds of children. The issues they raise are valid in each camp but they are politicised, thus producing more noise rather than true solutions.

Those that advocate the extreme curtailment of sexual freedom are offering children repression, conformity and far too strict a definition of what is sexually “appropriate.” This fear-based and reflexive wish to white-wash the child into a perfect angelic purity serves to warp the natural growth of the child’s sensual curiosity and inquisitiveness. Over in the United States, the city of San Diego is a case in point. Though instances of abuse clearly exist, it seems the cases where the authorities got it hopelessly wrong are also common:

In 1992, a major grand jury investigation found the county’s child welfare agencies and juvenile courts to be ‘a system out of control,’ so keen on protecting children from predation that it took hundreds of them away from their parents on what turned out to be false charges. The report called for ‘profound change’ throughout the system. […] Teachers and social workers, undereducated in psychology and overtrained (often by law enforcers) in sexual abuse, tend to see sexual pathology and criminal exploitation in any situation that looks even remotely sexual. [1]

And this is a form of ponerisation in itself where paranoia sits next to very real abuse and a product of the exact same degeneration. For example, there is still resistance to the fact that as psychopathy rises to positions of power, and as society begins to exhibit symptoms of psychopathological inculcation it may follow that more sociopaths, narcissists and psychopaths will emerge in society as a whole.  The type of intervention that blends the law courts, mental health and psychological evaluations are too close to the needs of lawyers tuning in to the lucrative climate of sex-predator-paranoia. In many cases, the law is actually causing great harm to children for no other reasons of greed and material gain.

c-g05-eng

www.statcan.gc.ca/

c-g06-eng

The above statistics offered by the Canadian government in 2012 show that the highest police reported sexual offences per 100,000 and by age ranges from 13-15 years old with the highest age of victims of sexual offences at 14-15 years old. What is extraordinary in Canada at least, is the high rate of offences from females far outstripping males which may reflect the commensurate rise in narcissistic behaviour in young women and girls.

Over in the state of Texas, USA it is a similar story. While juvenile crime has gone down overall sexual assault has continue to rise according to statistics from 2007 – 2011. Yet how much of this is drawn from genuine pathology and / or the result of draconian laws and the blurred definitions as to what is a “sexual offence”?

628x471

Sex crimes by juvenile offenders are on the rise in Harris County,”by Cindy Horswell, Houston Chronicle, April 21, 2012.

While offering some welcome amendments, the UK’s Sexual Offences Act 2003 nevertheless incorporates new and draconian provisions on child pornography and prostitution. [3] Anyone asking a person under 18 to provide a “sexual service” for “payment” commits a crime and the child (those under 18) is classed as a “prostitute.” However, if an individual asks a person under 18 for a nude-photograph this will automatically be considered a criminal offence or “inciting child pornography”. This means that anyone under 18 and engaged in a relationship is legal, but when expressed physically with the use of a web-cam, they become criminals. All those under 18 of course, are deemed “children” which, when applied to the law, is unfair and dangerous to civil rights. The law is therefore, high on rhetoric but low on the practical realities of such a law.

Compare this UK jailing of a man along with his female accomplice, who raped a 12 week old baby. [4] The subsequent sentence reflected a clear deficit in the justice of the law where “life” meant that the perpetrator was eligible for parole in only six to eight years. We have to wonder why it is that the justice system seems to either favour the predator or to accuse and scapegoat the innocent, rarely finding the median between those two poles. Should genuine sexual predators find themselves with a silver spoon in their mouths then the likelihood that they will face prosecution and punishment becomes even less probable.

Protection is always afforded to the aristocracy and the upper classes of the British Establishment with favouritism filtering down to the outer rings. In one instance a judge give undue leniency to the Queen’s former choirmaster for a series of child sex attacks in the 1970s and 80s. He received five years meaning he would be out on good behaviour in a very short space of time, which indeed he is. [5] While this occurs in the UK, such disparities are far more extreme in the US.

Being caught urinating behind a tree, mooning, skinny dipping, masturbating, and passionate lovemaking and many other non-violent, victimless offences can make individuals sex criminalss and placed on the sex offenders register. A “doctor and nurse” game could now criminalise both US and UK children.  However, those that voice such concerns are either labelled paedophile apologists and tainted with an undue liberal reflex or are quite literally paedophile advocates! When criminalisation has broad generalisations and poorly defined legislation contained within it and where essential definitions are needed for each sexual crime, the inevitable result is that all sexual activity is seen as criminal. When we understand, in the real world, that much sexual activity involving children under the age of consent is consensual and experimental, the involvement of the law should not be necessary.

What the law does is to effectively criminalise young people under 16 who engage in sexual experimentation. Coercion is so often assumed in many cases. If a fifteen year old girl “forces” a 16 year old boy into having sexual relations, what then? What if they are genuinely “in love?” Is the boy to be prosecuted and placed on the sex offenders register?  Apparently so.

One example from an American mother who wrote an open letter to former President George W. Bush, on an internet blog illustrated the crassness of current legislation which has yet to improve:

Dear George:

I am a mother of a sex offender, at least that is what they are calling it. My son did not rape, abuse, or force anyone. He had sex with a minor, who also wanted sex with him. I am not an educated female, but I do know the difference between forcing someone and consenting.

I do not Condone what my son did, it was wrong and he should be punished. My problem is this: he was sentenced to 30 yrs. to a violent prison. On his court papers it says it was a non-violent crime. So why is he in a violent prison? No one will give me the time of day. Also he has to register as a SO. [sex offender] […]

I would like to be alive when my son gets out.[6]

One of the most recent examples of this dangerously simplistic view of prosecution concerns 17 year old Genarlow Wilson who was convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation for a voluntary act of oral sex with another teenager at a New Year’s Eve party.  He was 17 and she was 15.  Genarlow,  a good student, athlete and with no criminal record not only received a sentence of eleven years but the disastrous label of “child molester” requiring him to be placed on the sex offender register for life. He was also black.

“ ‘Wilson maintained his innocence. ‘I know that it was consensual,’ he told ‘Primetime.’ ‘I wouldn’t went on with the acts if it wasn’t consensual. I’m not that kind of person. No means no.’”

“ ‘Five of the boys accepted plea deals, but Wilson — the only one without a police record — held out. ‘I knew Genarlow’s state of mind,’ said his attorney, Michael Mann. ‘He wasn’t going to prison willingly. He wasn’t going to plea to something in his mind he didn’t do.’” [7]

Such is the law in the State of Georgia where two teens can have intercourse which is counted as a misdemeanour but where oral sex is a felony carrying a minimum of 10 years in prison. If two teens are engaged in heavy petting, this could be felony of child molestation. Until 1998, oral sex between husband and wife was illegal, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. For Wilson, whether the fifteen year old was willing or not, and the fact that he was only two years her senior, the law on child molestation had the last word. Was Wilson’s case yet another miscarriage of justice based on outdated laws favouring a religious puritanism?  A public outcry concerning the Wilson case was thought to have secured his release after serving four years. His sentence was deemed “dispropotionate” but the original conviction was unaltered. As a result of this case however, Georgia law is being reconsidered, though at the time of writing any formal legislation has yet to materialise.

It has not helped a 26-year-old college student on federal disability, who has been on the sex offender’s registry for a decade after a being charged over 10th grade fellatio. Despite the fact that it is no longer a crime in Georgia she and her husband have had to be moved on by Harlem police under sex offences law that prohibits “offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school, playground or other place where children congregate.”

Careless and ill-considered, perhaps, but criminal? This woman was ordered to leave her legally bought home or face arrest:

Before she and her husband of six years bought the house, she says, they made sure the property was far enough away from a public park down the street. What the Whitakers didn’t realize was that a nearby church was operating a small day-care center. As a result, they’ve had to move into a trailer park across the county line. They’re sharing a two-bedroom single-wide with Whitaker’s brother-in-law and his teenage daughter.‘We’re paying a mortgage for my cat to live here,’ she says of the house she and her husband have had to leave behind. When she stops by to check on the property or do laundry, she says, her neighbors routinely call the cops, who drop by to make sure she isn’t trying to move back in.

Now, Georgia’s strict new sex-offender law — signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue in April but delayed in federal court before it could take effect July 1 — could force Whitaker out of the trailer park as well, leaving her with few options for living anywhere in the state. Under a nebulous loitering provision in the new law, she might not even be allowed to go to church. [8]

Judgments concerning adult sex offenders which are then applied to children and often careless adults alike can represent a dangerous misunderstanding of the nature of sexuality. For children, while the mimicking and simulation of T.V. and magazine images and messages may be an indication of a premature sexual induction that may lead to so called unwarranted behaviour towards other children, it should not immediately be confused with pathology or abuse. Yet this is exactly what is happening in many instances. This is more likely an indication of an adult prurience projected onto the child who may actually ensure that such explorations do become neurotic, obsessive or worse.

At the same time, psychopathic children could be a reality where no amount of rehabilitation is ever going to work. The very real indications that conviction rates of child molesters in the UK for example, are frighteningly low, the extreme difficulties in detecting the abuse of under-fives and the general underreporting of incidences, all suggest that we are still operating between two extremes.

What is appears to be true is a steady rise in sexual offences in the United States, Canada and certain European countries. The true statistics may be extremely difficult to ascertain since we have draconian, repressive laws operating alongside psycho-social and technology influences further mixed with the social engineering of oversexualisation and the anti-sexuality reflex of moral panic. What is certain is that children are as increasingly confused and lost as adults when it comes to healthy sexual identity.panic_button_1600_clrMoral Panics and Neural Circuits

The question of “moral panic” was first coined by British sociologist Stanley Cohen from his study of UK mods and rockers during the 1970s. He used this term to define the role of media and deviant behaviour which fed on peoples’ already sensitive fears of the unknown, still raw from economic hardship. The threat from this perceived deviancy was thereby exaggerated, fuelling unrest. Cohen defined this collective behaviour as:

“A condition, episode, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are manned by editors, bishops, politicians and other right thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnosis and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and becomes visible.”  [9]

A recent UK Home office report found that “a lack of intimacy and high levels of loneliness” were common factors in the profiles of the vast majority of sex offenders, similar to the high level of neglected children in the UK and abroad. [10] Far from dealing with the dark and hidden aspects of our collective shadows we have found new ways to limit reality and thus our own understanding by creating new demons, whether they are paedophiles or terrorists.

Both exist, but not in the ways that governments and their agencies would like us to think. Just as anti-sexuality and puritanical beliefs clash with overt sexualisation, so too the divisions between those who promote moral panic as opposed to finding out the root sources of abuse and sexual crime.

Sarah Payne’s law in the UK and Megan’s law in the US both seek to alert the public about the whereabouts of the sex offender in your town or village under the guise of freedom and protection. [11] Though it seems logical that we should all be alerted to the presence of paedophiles and child killers in our neighbourhoods evidence suggests that further isolating and excluding the offender, – child molester or not – and reinforcing this identity through stigmatisation, naturally drives such people underground, continuing the likelihood of long-term child abuse or other related crimes.

The question of such moral panics disappearing is dependent on how useful their presence may be. Self-appointed vanguards of this moral imperative would love to believe they are upholding the sanctity of society as they perceive it. It is more likely that they are merely cogs in the wheel of a purposely initiated “panic” that is tailored towards a pre-designed conclusion. The witch hunts of 17th Europe; the trials of the Spanish Inquisition; the Nazi programs of genocide are testament to the ease by which ponerisation of an idea then “injected” into the populace can be initiated.

The primary mode of panic thus adopted appears to have been the “Elite-engineered” model, [12] with other secondary models under its influence. We can include the Grass Roots model of a dissatisfied society achieving catharsis through retribution and the Interest Group model made up of advocates, activists, interests groups and think-tanks seeking to bring awareness to the “moral evils” in society. These latter forces work in tandem with each other come up against the infinitely more knowledgeable core of Elite control, the top tiers of which have had the populace under a microscope for a considerable length of time. These “positive” forces for change can thus be easily manipulated despite an increasing awareness.

When the action of negative feedback is excluded from contemporary discourse concerning abuse and the nature of the child molester, the obvious outcome is a headlong rush to reaction without any understanding of the consequences. Judgments about whether one is a child molester, a terrorist, mentally ill, or a dissident, it is becoming the province of authorities which are tied to regressive world-views and corrupt political interests. Moral panics lead to various individuals and groups becoming scapegoats for a host of inner demons the history of which is long and rich, whether they are the “white trash” of nomadic America or the Irish gypsies on the outskirts of London. When crude moral indignation surfaces with clamours for “justice,” scapegoating always emerges from its artificial womb.

KF987881_942long

Quite apart from religious absolutism, moral panics were often whipped up by the authorities for political or monetary gain. Women were the primary targets. | Photo credit: Witch Hunt Exhibition, Vestry House Museum March 2012

The more horrific and depraved the crime, the easier it can be to direct the fear and revulsion towards a group or individual and the solution provided by the Establishment to enact laws or justify social engineering. The reaction of populations against the real or imagined threat of sexual predators creates the vortex to which all “deviance” or resistance is drawn. Behind this chaos lie select members in power for whom such confusion is ripe for manipulation. The reaction seems to follow a pattern whereby those least able to defend themselves are targeted such as ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Sexual offenders in the US, under the present laws, many of whom have placed on the register as dangerous sex offenders, may have only committed relatively minor offences. This serves to bypass the real culprits who were responsible for the crimes.

Medical and health authorities are becoming the next stage in the law and justice treadmill, where dissent and deviancy are judged to be “abnormal” or threatening, the hatred of the paedophile becomes a microcosm of bigotry and intolerance then applied to many other “deviant” groupings. There is a medicalization of social control where mental illness, ethics and political bias merge. That is not to say that we must embrace deviancy that is clearly harmful to the child as outlined in the previous chapter. There must be the clearest definitions possible so as to maintain the purest objectivity in a world of full of murky disinformation.

While the “moral panic” meme does have validity it also acts to mask deeper social problems that lie festering at the roots. Social constructivist solutions are focused on how and why these issues become defined at particular historical junctures but they neglect the overall synthesis of why these social problems appear in the first place and are singled out for public exposure. Ponerisation operates on precisely these gaps in awareness, where sophisticated “twists” on truth discombobulate individuals and groupings perceived as threatening to the status quo. The tide of emotional rage becomes paramount and reasoning leaves by the back door, held open by the authorities. For instance, the multiple strands of warring interests groups exclude the possibility that in some cases there is unwarranted panic about Satanism and ritual abuse whilst in other instances it has been proven exist. Centralisation and bureaucracy tends to quash lateral thinking and multi-disciplinary approaches.

The technique of scapegoating comprehensively pervades the media, the judiciary and law enforcement. Though there are numerous cases of justified sentencing of child molesters and rapists, there is also a tragic quota of those wrongfully accused. If the individual is guilty, a remorseless witch hunt results in a regression towards vigilantism and the herd mentality, often destroying all that goes before it. The net result, (so beneficial to the Establishment), leaves civil society with a situation far worse than the one that preceded it. Miscarriages of justice are intermingled with genuine abuse all of which produces an exponential footprint of trauma that engulfs communities and feeds media sensationalism.

Examples of high profile ritual or familial abuse claims came pouring in from around the world during the late nineties and early 2000’s including the Orkney Islands, the Pitcairn Islands, the Isle of Lewis, Rochdale and Cleveland cases of sexual abuse in the UK and the Christchurch Crèche case in New Zealand; the separate cases of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Martensville ritual abuse, the Shieldfield child abuse scandal in the US and several others. It is precisely because the abuse was present that the methods used by police and the judiciary ensured that innocent men and women took the fall for predators ensconced in the community and with links to those in wider positions of power.

 


*  For an instructive look at the reality of child psychopaths and the havoc they can cause have a look at the film Joshua (2007) and We need to talk about Kevin (2011). These are extreme cases admittedly, but the core disturbances they cause are very real.

Notes

[1] p.34; Levine, Judith; Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, University of Minnesota Press (2002).
[2] Severe Attachment Disorder in Childhood – A Guide to Practical Therapy by Dr. Niels Peter Rygaard authorized by D.P.A., Aarhus C, Denmark Translated from N. P. Rygaard, L’enfant abandonn6. Guide de traitement des troubles de I’attachement. 2005; Printed in Austria by SpringerWien New York. | ISBN-10 3-211-29705-7.
[3] Sexual Offences Act 2003 Elizabeth II. Chapter 42, Great Britain – “An Act to make new provision about sexual offences, their prevention and the protection of children from harm from other sexual acts Royal assent, 20th November 2003. Explanatory notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately (ISBN 0105642037) Reprinted incorporating corrections, January 2004; reprinted May 2004.” TSO The Stationary Office: http://www.tso.co.uk/
[4] “Babysitter raped 12-week-old as girlfriend took photographs,” The Times, January 11, 2006.
[5] “Child abuse sentence ‘disgusting’ BBC News, 27 August, 2004.
[6] ‘Mother of Sex Offender’ by “Dianne,” Age 57, Columbia, SC. http://www.deargeorgeletters.blogspot.com/
[7] ‘Outrage after Teen Gets 10 Years for Oral Sex with Girl’ ABC News February 7th 2006, to find out more about Genarlow Wilson’s appeal, visit http://www.wilsonappeal.com.
[8] ‘Life in the shadows’ – Now facing a legal challenge, Georgia’s war on sex offenders could punish minor violators while failing to focus on the worst ones By Scott Henry, July 19, 2006.
[9] p.9; Folk Devils and Moral Panics the Creation of the Mods and Rockers by Stanley Cohen, 1973, published by Paladin.
[10] Research and Development Statistics (RDS)Home Office UK, Crime in England and Wales, 2004/2005 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/
[11] ‘Megan’s Law,’ was passed after seven year-old Megan Kanka was raped and murdered by a paroled convict who had moved onto her street in New Jersey in 1994. Photos and addresses of all high-risk, Class 3 sex offenders are to be posted on the Internet.
[12] “Moral Panics and the Social Construction of Deviant Behavior: A Theory and Application to the Case of Child Ritual Abuse”, by Jeffrey S. Victor, Social Perspectives Autumn 1998.

Save

The Sex Establishment VI: False Memory?

“We propose that use of the term “false memory” to describe errors in memory for details directly contributes to removing the social context of abuse from research on memory for trauma. As the term “false memories” has increasingly been used to describe errors in details, the scientific weight of the term has increased. In turn, we see that the term “false memories” is treated as a construct supported by scientific fact, whereas other terms associated with questions about the veracity of abuse memories have been treated as suspect.”

― Jennifer J. Freyd; from Use of the Term “False Memory” for Errors in Memory for Details, Journal: Ethics & Behavior 14(3) pages 201-233, 2004”


imagesIt is curious how the deconstruction of psychoanalysis has led to the resurfacing of child abuse at this particular juncture in human history and precisely at the time of an overt sexualisation of children, in turn, drawn from a foundation of religiously-induced anti-sexuality!

An example of a strange Establishment-led “science” which is stirring the pot of both extremes is False Memory syndrome (FMS) where many genuine child abuse victims were denied justice on the basis that “recovered memories” were deemed unworthy of analysis due to alleged “suggestions” or verbal “cues” from mental health professionals. [1]

That doesn’t mean to say that FMS is wholly without merit. If a therapist is convinced that the patient has been sexually abused by her parents or by a Satanic Ritual Network then this bias can influence the subject – in some cases. Even if the client has no memory of it, it is possible to offer leading questions and subtle persuasion which can lead her away from objective recall to subjective assumptions. Not recalling the trauma means that the client is in denial which then becomes the “proof” which establishes a dangerous loop of confirmation. Memory is highly malleable, of that fact there is no question. The detection of false memories is an essential skill that not all therapists possess, nor is it immune to political interference.

There is danger from both directions. Yet, the more one digs into FMS the more reasons for disquiet can be found.

The False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) founders are Peter Freyd and his wife Pamela, whose daughter had accused Peter of molesting her as a child and provides an interesting set of initial reasons why such a belief may have come into being. Moreover, the late psychologist and paedophile advocate Ralph Underwager was an original member of the FMSF Advisory Board and helped to create the foundation. He and his wife Hollida Wakefield used to publish a publish Issues in Child Abuse Allegations, a journal written by and for child abuse “skeptics.”

Dr. Ralph Underwager’s credentials as a paedophile apologist were well-known. Rather than call for preventative treatment Underwager was intent on campaigning for paedophile’s rights and to insist that the condition was simply another sexual preference that should be sanctioned. Underwager was interviewed in Paidika -The Journal of Paedophilia where he was asked the question: “Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individual?” Underwager: “Certainly it is responsible”…. Paedophiles need to … make the claim that paedophilia is an acceptable expression of God’s will for loved unity among human beings”. [2]

Whilst Underwager dismissed all ritual child abuse as fantasy and the rights of paedophiles as sacrosanct, his outspoken comments caused his resignation from the foundation in 1992. His wife Hollida Wakefield who remained a member despite similar views on paedophilia where she claimed:  “… a longitudinal study of, let’s say, a hundred twelve-year-old boys in relationships with loving paedophiles” would be a good starting point for research. [3]

Some of the other original board members – some of whom are now deceased – include:

Dr. David F. Dinges a Faculty head of the Unit for Experimental Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, is on the Scientific Advisory Board and used to work with the late Austrian-born Dr. Martin Orne. (More on him later).

Dr. Harold Lief was the Freyd family’s personal psychiatrist and was tasked with persuading the Freyd’s daughter Jennifer that no abuse took place. Another close colleague to Orne and a participant in hypnotic programming and behavioral modification experiments at the University of Pennsylvania. Past president of the Sex Information and Education Council and director of the Centre for Sexuality and Religion. Lief is credited with the introduction in the DSM of the “inhibited sexual desire” and a longtime supporter of Alfred C. Kinsey.

Dr. Elizabeth Loftus – A research psychologist who testified on behalf of serial killer Ted Bundy. Loftus also defended various individuals accused of child abuse and was ejected from the American Psychologist Association. Californian Clinical psychologist Catherine Gould an expert in the treatment of ritually abused children who stated at the September 1993 National Conference on Crimes Against Children in Washington, D.C., that the studies by Elizabeth Loftus ignore past research on trauma and its influence on memory. Gould voices her concern about Loftus pointing out that the nature of memory of traumatic events is not discussed in her data and yet:

“… she has failed to protest the misapplication of her findings by groups who are involved in discrediting the accounts survivors are giving of their traumatic history. I believe that Dr. Loftus, like other psychologists, has an ethical responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that her research findings are interpreted and applied accurately, and are not manipulated to serve the political agenda of groups like the False Memory Syndrome Foundation. I question whether she has met this ethical responsibility.” [4]

Michael A. Persinger – a Professor of Cognitive neuroscience and militant atheist. An expert in low frequency electromagnetic waves (ELF) he believes almost any experience can be produced whether by false memory or mind control by beaming specific frequencies at the temporal lobes of the brain. He has worked for the Navy and the National Security Agency and his been associated with military mind control research.

Others worth mentioning who were members of FSMF were Louis Jolyon “Joly” West who had a resume for mind control psychiatry as long as your arm. He worked with Orne, Persinger and others as key personnel in the CIA’s mind control programs. For example, Margaret T. Singer noted for her psychological brainwashing techniques in the military and her association with West and Dr. Martin Orne. “The Amazing” James Randi Luminary of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Randhi was also accused of being a serial paedophile. All of whom have made it their calling to deny the claims of those suffering from child sexual abuse.

In fact, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) board members offered a veritable hornet’s nest of CIA and military-intelligence connections.  And with a history of sexpionage manipulations and mind control operations a proven part of the agency’s past (and present) one has to question why it is that this grouping of connections exist. [5]

Martin Orne, a co-founder of FMSF had a particularly interesting history in this context. Researcher Colin A. Ross MD who obtained Freedom of Information documents regarding the origins and history of FSMF provides the needed background on the co-founder. He established that Orne not only had top secret clearance for and consultation status for Operation MK-ULTRA mind control programs conducted by the CIA but his C.V. is positively brimming over with military-intelligence funding and contracts, citing infamous centres of mind control research institutes the Office of Naval Research and Centre for Human Ecology. On FSM, Ross opines that:

“The FSMF Advisory board was a very diverse group with many personal, political and professional agendas,” yet the presence of  “a sub-group including Drs Orne and [Louis Jolyon] West were primarily interested in discrediting multiple personality and ‘recovered memories’ in order to protect the Manchurian Candidate programs [US mind control programs] During the 1990s when the false memory wars were at their peak, hundreds of lawsuits were filed against therapists inducing ‘false memories.’” [6]

Ross asks us to consider the following:

… a woman tells a psychotherapist that a psychiatrist working for the U.S. Air Force gave her LSD during an experiment conducted at the University of Minnesota, where he worked and she was a research assistant. He then made her sit in a specially constructed room that had leaves glued to its walls, floors and ceiling. In the 1990s a person who remembered this in therapy could have sued her therapist for implanting fantastic, impossible false memories. FMSF expert witnesses would have told the jury that these memories were false and implanted by the therapist who was guilty of malpractice. [7]

It was these exact experiments which were carried out at the University of Minnesota by Dr. Amedeo Marrazzi with funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. [8]

Indeed, FMS experts believe that even the very idea of repressed memories of trauma have no empirical evidence, preferring to place the blame largely on the pseudo-science of various therapists implanting these memories. Despite this claim there are many examples that the mind does indeed repress authentic trauma and in the hands of an experienced psychologist or psychotherapist can be worked through.

According to Psychologist Ken Pope, in 25 studies of amnesia for childhood sexual abuse it was concluded that:

“… all demonstrate amnesia in a sub-population including recent studies with design improvements such as random sampling and prospective designs that address weaknesses in earlier studies. A reasonable conclusion is that amnesia for CSA [childhood sexual abuse] is a robust finding across studies using very different samples and methods of assessment. Studies addressing the accuracy of recovered abuse memories show that recovered abuse memories are no more or no less accurate than continuous memories for abuse.” [9]

The FMS crowd can just as easily be accused of producing an industry of denial where all abuse reports and trails are burdened with what author and sociologist Sara Scott describes as the “discourse of disbelief.” These industries of disbelief and the industry of survivors compete together to produce more suffering and more victims in the law courts.

Professor Ross E. Cheit, head of the Recovered Memory Project, suggest financial gain from recovering memories as the only driving force, stating: “… it is curious to note that critics who are quick to question the financial motives of anyone who might receive compensation for a recovered-memory claim never seem to raise the same concern when considering those who have recovered enormous financial payments in ‘false memory’ cases: the so-called ‘retractors.’ The one-sidedness of this scepticism can best be explained as politics, not science.” [10]

While FMS is not acknowledged by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders it is often included in mental health papers for public advisory guidelines. FMS “experts” can charge fees of over $450 per hour, thus contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation and vested interest far above the needs of truth. [11]

 


Notes

[1] “False memory syndrome” (FMS) is the term for the hypothesis describing a state of mind wherein sufferers have a high number of highly vivid but false memories, often of abusive events during their childhood, though this remains a highly contentious area of conjecture. It is not listed DSM-IV, though this in itself does not constitute a non-validation of this theory, being as the manual is less than objective in its criteria for mental illness.
[2] Paidika Winter Issue, 1993, pp. 3, 12.
[3] Ibid.
[4] ‘The False Memory Hoax’ By Alex Constantine, January 1996 | educate-yourself.org/mc/falsememoryhoax1996.shtml
[5] Ibid.
[6]Military Mind Control: A Story of Trauma and Recovery [Kindle Edition] Colin A. Ross M.D. Published by Manitou Communications 2008. | ASIN: B005ZJUXA8
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. (introduction)
[9] ‘Science as Careful Questioning: Are Claims of a False Memory Epidemic based on Empirical Evidence?’ By Ken Pope appeared in the American Psychologist, vol. 52, #9, pp. 997-1006.
[10] ‘Response to Critics’ Professor Ross E. Cheit, Project Director Of the Recovered Memory Project Taubman Center for Public Policy & American Institutions at Brown University. Information can be found at recoveredmemory.org.
[11] op. cit. Scott (p.58)