legal system

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.

Advertisements

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.