social welfare

The Old Boys’ Club II: Waterhouse and Whitewash

“There is no doubt about it now, from what we know, that she [Margaret Thatcher] turned a blind eye to people who were quite clearly paedophiles. That is absolutely clear.”

– Simon Danczuk MP for Rochdale, regarding the Westminster paedophile ring


Margaret Thatcher wasn’t the only one of course. She was simply a Prime Minister amongst many who toed the Establishment line in the same way that BBC executives chose to ignore the obvious to the point of complicity. As children were being abused right under her very nose she chose to place her trust in fear, money, prestige and power the very tools by which Official Culture stays on top. She acted as protector of evil and thus became its tool.

Let’s return to Richard Webster’s important book, briefly explored in the last post.

Trying to do the right thing in such a highly sensitive domain is fraught with insurmountable problems of a subjective and emotional nature, dealing as it does with the emotive question of child abuse. In one sense, Webster’s explorations are sorely needed, yet worryingly, for such a wide-ranging exploration of child care abuse – which he maintains is largely false – there were key elements and evidence that he did not include but were vital to the argument. It is clear that he knew of the information yet he chose to exclude it, suggesting clear bias on the part of the author.

Richard Scorer, of Partner, Pannone & Partners, a lawyers firm specialising in child abuse cases and who represented clients at the tribunal level, commented in a review: “I would put a stark health warning on the front of the book. This is a very unbalanced book, and in some instances Webster is economical with the facts.” He believes Webster’s bias in favour of those accused of child abuse may have: “… blunt[ed] his critical faculties and balanced assessment of the evidence.” He also maintained that the author “… excluded or downplayed information which contradicts his case” most particularly that the idea Peter Howarth was not a paedophile. According to Scorer, several of his witnesses had no interest in compensation and made no claims. They verified Howarth’s orientation as a paedophile by direct experience. Nor did they have contact with Alison Taylor the primary whistleblower.

Other witnesses provided similar statements but none of this evidence was mentioned in Webster’s research. Richard Scorer described his concerns thusly: “In the context of Webster’s argument this evidence is important, particularly because none of it has the features which Webster alleges contaminated the criminal prosecution of Howarth, i.e., the involvement of Alison Taylor and the so-called compensation motive. All three of these witnesses also defy Webster’s stereotype of the typical Bryn Estyn complainant as a drug-addled criminal (L is a successful businessman, C an advanced systems analyst and member of MENSA).”

Scorer raises the problem of severe bias in evaluating evidence which does not fit his line of inquiry and thus discarded:

“Webster is claiming to have demolished the case against Howarth, so you’d expect that he would have something to say about these allegations, particularly where, as in the case of my clients (and other Tribunal witnesses), the contaminating factors he claims to have identified elsewhere were absent. However Webster simply ignores this adverse evidence, and only mentions in passing at the very end of the book that there are, in fact, 30 other sets of allegations which he has neglected to consider. […] Who knows what other inconvenient details have been left out of the picture?” [1]

The portrayal of the whistleblower Alison Taylor as pathological appears to be disingenuous insofar as other players in the case are not given a similarly rigorous analysis; the individual members of the North Wales Police, for instance, being extremely deserving of further scrutiny. Taylor is deemed to be unstable and to have a financial axe to grind and no more.

The late Peter Howarth, jailed in 1994 for his part in the Bryn Estyn abuse scandal.

However, it was due to Taylor and her subsequent sacking that the abuse gradually came to light, though it was through Stephen Norris a self-confessed paedophile and home manager who once worked at Bryn Estyn, which finally got the investigative ball rolling. Quite apart from the fact that the Waterhouse inquiry, however toothless, proved the existence of a paedophile ring which targeted young boys, and concluded that whilst “the evidence does not establish that they were solely or mainly interested in persons in care … such youngsters were particularly vulnerable to their approaches”. [2] Yet in his 700 page book, Webster gave only a few lines to this salient fact.

Keeping in mind the central tenet of his claims, that Bryn Estyn was a witch hunt with no evidence of any cover-up or conspiracy, we would do well to remember that children at the home and other institutions were easily intimidated into silence. As with the many victims of Catholic Church’s paedophile priests and pederasts, it often took the passage of many years for the victims to have the courage of their convictions to admit it to themselves, let alone face a court trial. While the tragedy of some innocent men and women serving time for something they did not do seems beyond doubt, the sequence of events that led to this “witch hunt” does not necessarily mean that these were the only dynamics on display. And what of the overwhelming evidence of consistent child abuse at Bryn Estyn and beyond, which was ignored by the local Clwyd County Council because the council insurers advised against any action?

Webster, in his “forensic analysis” and blanket access to witness and police files, still neglected to include evidence provided by The Andy Sutton case. The full Public Interest Report by Andy Sutton can be found on the Freedom to Care internet website which detailed how key files were held back from the Waterhouse Enquiry by Flintshire County Council, who acted on behalf of North Wales Councils as a whole. Sutton was further warned not to pursue his inquiries by the then head of the North Wales Fraud Squad with the cryptic injunction to “beware of the Brotherhood.” [3] 

For all Webster’s excellent research, at no time does he seriously address the facts regarding freemasonic involvement in North Wales. Rather, he ironically falls into the very assumptions against which he rails and draws from the sensationalism of tabloid newspapers. A long list of names provided by the Crown Prosecution Service affirmed those who were not practicing freemasons were proof enough that no measure of control was operating. Yet surely, where high levels of masons do exist in both the law and the police force nationally, not forgetting the high membership in North Wales alone, is this not an area worthy of investigative digging? It does make one wonder if such denials of masonic influence, naturally bound by secrecy, can ever claim to be mere “observers.”

Impartiality of the law enforcement and judiciary will remain in these cases when so many freemasons are in positions to exert undue influence. Remember, Child molesters / psychopaths gravitate to places where they can be protected by those who are ostensibly serving the greater good.

The late investigative journalist Simon Regan in his now defunct Scallywag magazine made some investigations of his own that merit consideration.

Regan described how he had interviewed twelve young men, former inmates of Bryn Estyn who had all been involved in the Wrexham paedophile ring. The interviews were conducted in the informal setting of pub lunches with a view to obtaining sworn affidavits which were to be used as added clout for a series of paedophile articles Regan later published. Regan believed that two of the men who would have been 14 years old at the time were introduced on a few occasions to an abuser at a Pimlico address, the building of which they later identified:

“… turned out to be the private flat of a well-known, and since highly discredited lobbyist who later went into obscurity in some disgrace because of his involvement with Mohammed al-Fayed and the ‘cash for questions’ scandal. […] At the time we ran a story entitled ‘Boys for Questions’ and named several prominent members of the then Thatcher government. These allegations went to the very top of the Tory party, yet there was a curious and almost ominous lack of writs.

The lobbyist was a notorious ‘queen’ who specialised in gay parties with a ‘political mix’ in the Pimlico area – most convenient to the Commons – and which included selected flats in Dolphin Square. The two young men were able to give us very graphic descriptions of just what went on, including acts of buggery, and alleged that they were only two of many from children’s homes other than North Wales. There was, to my certain knowledge, at least one resignation from the Conservative office in Smith Square once we had published our evidence and named names. [4]

Regan also related how the deputy head of Research at Conservative party Central Office purchased the contents – including all files – of the Scallywag offices through a court order and the exploitation of a legal loophole in the renting conditions of the premises. During the court case however, Regan requested to see the purloined files and permission was granted in lieu of his defence. The paedophile documents were missing.  As Regan mentioned: “This is a very great shame, because Sir Ronald Waterhouse certainly should have been aware of them.” [5]


baghestani20121117111552253

Former Lib-Dem MP Cyril Smith (centre) in 1987 an alleged serial paedophile

“Fears of an establishment cover-up of sex abuse allegations have grown after claims that a special branch officer tried to prevent detectives from interviewing a man who alleged that a British MP abused children.”- Press TV.

(See: Politics of Entrapment I)


Like other cases where accusations of organised child abuse networks have occurred, the tribunal, under Sir Ronald Waterhouse QC, heard how more than a dozen people who had complained of abuse had met suspicious deaths. John Allen, a convicted paedophile, ran homes in London and North Wales that supplied children to wealthy outsiders. Two young brothers who were abused by Allen were trying to blackmail him. In April 1992 one of them died in a house fire in Brighton and the other was found dead soon afterwards in mysterious circumstances. This may be one reason Mr. Waterhouse imposed strict reporting restrictions which prevented any names entering the public domain, and quashed hopes that the press would be able to report proceedings using the laws of privilege. Such a process would have allowed them to name names in court proceedings without fear of defamation actions. Waterhouse decided that the press could not report the name of any of the accused unless they had previously been convicted of similar offences, which, on the face of it was a prudent measure keeping in mind Richard Webster’s analysis. Unfortunately, this would also allow already protected paedophiles to remain in a hermetically sealed state of immunity.

At least one high level member of another political party was also implicated. William Hague, then Welsh Secretary who had ordered the inquiry discussed it with ministers at the time and it was believed that the individual’s name would likely be revealed during the hearings. Prime Minister John Major was known to have loathed the politician in question and was not overly concerned at this possibility. Although names of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum were also named, one public figure was given immunity by Waterhouse in the final report and not found “culpable of any crimes, even though he ha[d] been identified by six victims.” [5]

One report by Tony Hyland of the International Worker had this to say about Conservative party, government paedophiles:

The most revealing evidence is that regarding one of the paedophiles, who it was hinted at was one of Mrs Thatcher’s most prominent supporters. When the police finally arrested 17 suspects during an inquiry in 1991 the victim claims, ‘For some unknown reason, he was not arrested like anybody else. He was allowed to walk round the North Wales Police headquarters and he was allowed to vindicate himself from anything, as if he was the boss… I tried to tell the police of many instances not just relating to him and I was told at the time, and I will never forget it as long as I live, that they were not interested in that.’ The tribunal was informed that the North Wales police had in fact recommended that the man be prosecuted, but this was blocked by the Crown Prosecution Service in London — which took over the case from its local branch. [6]

Keeping in mind the wily ways of political expediency, it might be said that an inquiry of this nature which was designed to allow full public scrutiny, would have had built-in protections for the politicians, policemen, clergy and freemasons who were rumoured to be part of the North Wales paedophile ring and who would have been liable for prosecution. Perhaps it would be foolish to have thought that such an inquiry on abuse, the first of its kind, would have been allowed to expose the rot in Establishment circles. No doubt many senior politicians and policemen breathed a sigh of relief when the case was closed in 1998 but over 650 abused young adults had meantime, been raped and battered, had turned to petty crime or ended up living on the streets. All those who had not committed suicide were dealing with psychological scars that would remain with them for life. Those individuals who were innocent of wrongdoing were sent to jail and those that perpetrated the crimes laid low and continued their otherwise normal lives.

What was also astonishing is that the Deputy Chief Inspector of Social Services at the Welsh Office, responsible for establishing the mandate for the Waterhouse inquiry was himself sentenced and jailed for 14 years in 1999 for serious sexual offences and for physical abuse of children. One need not take the greatest leap in logic to see that such an inquiry may have been compromised from the beginning. In the end, the same policy of apathy and incompetence from police and council officials dogged the inquiry, to the extent that papers went missing and statements were changed or witnesses become afraid for their lives. Once again, the trail led to some of the highest levels of the then Conservative government.

***

In the United Kingdom, the serious lack of social provision and the fragmentation of the family unit create fertile grounds for child victims. The crumbling social infrastructure coupled with inadequate support social service workers inevitably leads to malpractice and corruption and from within. As one writer notes following the University of Bristol’s  The Widening Gap report of 1999: “If Britain were divided into two nations, one containing the richer regions and the other the poorer ones, there would be nearly 80,000 more deaths every year in the poorer nation because of inequality. Epidemiologists would normally call this a plague.” The author further comments that “… researchers state[d] that the gap between rich and poor has widened more rapidly in Britain and levels of poverty are higher than in the vast majority of mainland Europe.” And poverty means a resource for child exploitation. Chronic underpayment of residential care staff, a demoralized work force, the highest working hours in Europe and a drop in social work applications by 50 percent from 1999 all increase the likelihood of family and institutional child abuse. [7]

Fifteen years later thanks to the legacies of Thatcher and Blair almost a third of all UK children live in poverty with 1.6 million of these children enduring severe poverty with a large spike in 2015 thanks to the bailout of the banking industry which meant austerity measures for rest of us, hitting the already poor and vulnerable the hardest.  According to Children’s charity Dr. Barnados: “63% of children living in poverty are in a family where someone works .”  What does that say about the success of an economic framework which consistently favours an iniquitous banking system maintained by these cyclic austerity measures? And since the Westminster paedophile ring was also drawn from one of the highest child poverty demographics it is little wonder that they drew from a wellspring of victims. Where there is poverty there is always a ready supply.

eh

a

_70546180_childpoverty_v2

When the Waterhouse report was published it provided a snapshot of the state of child care in the UK, not least the rapid dismantling of the welfare state with nothing but the American model of social exclusion to replace it. With over two decades of serious underfunding in child care and social service in general, this becomes a significant factor in the manifestation of abuse. The Inquiry found a serious lack of financial resources for children’s services, a lack of suitable staffing and generally inadequate provision at all levels. Like education, the return to authoritarian and antiquated ideals has led to retribution rather than rehabilitation and sees children facing Crown Court trials for murder, sexual assault and rape and their placement on the sex offenders register. This means that children as young as 10 are subject to punishment by the courts if their behaviour is deemed likely to cause harassment, alarm or “distress to others”. It means a child of 12 years old can now be imprisoned or sent to a “secure accommodation” – a euphemism for prison. With these kinds of draconian measures, we are encouraging a new generation of emotionally damaged children who are indeed, “lost in care” indicative of a justice system in Britain that is becoming a reflection of the more advanced stages of an American ponerogenesis. [8]

We are now living in what George Monbiot calls a: “Captive State” [9] where hundreds of children in young offenders’ institutions are being held in solitary confinement, often for weeks at a time, in what prison reform campaigners claim is a ‘medieval’ form of punishment. Rather than being subjected to a form of torture, the boys should be given the mental health support they so badly need yet are being purposely denied. [10] Indeed, Blair and subsequent politicians believe that we should now target children that are “a menace to society.”   The former Prime Minister turned global tycoon received a rightly cool reception to his statements with suggestions that he was advocating “genetic determinism.” One response derided him as exacting “empty threats to pregnant mothers” which would: “… do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years.” [11]

The abuse of boys and girls still remains in the bastions of a decaying Empire that has left only the residue of an out-of-date adherence to an old, class-based ethos of control. Or as George Monbiot once described it within the hallowed halls of preparatory schools for the rich: “new boys were routinely groped and occasionally sodomised by the prefects. Sexual assault was and possibly still is a feature of prep school life as innate as fried bread and British bulldogs.” [12]  It is this in-bred, all pervading, upper class prerogative of abuse that is in the very walls of our so called respected British institutions. These historical traditions allow the abuse to live on through the pathological clusters that promote the structural dominance of their kind and a steady supply of victims. The only difference is degree within such a blighted structure. Whether we focus on political parties of New Labour, Liberal Democrat or Conservative – the elite differences are irrelevant when it comes to the sodomy of a 10 year-old child or the frightened street urchin delivered to the bed of a priest or politician.

Paedophiles and child rapists have no dividing line or loyalties when it comes to finding their cover whether that be within secret fraternity – political, occult or religious.

 


Notes

[1] Partner, Pannone & Partners, childabuselawyers.com/
[2] pp.58-59 ‘Lost in Care’ The Waterhouse Report 2000 Stationery Office.
[3] The Sutton Report at freedomtocare.co.uk/
[4] ‘Child Abuse – The Waterhouse Report’ By Simon Regan, 20 February 2000, http://www.scallywag.org.[now defunct]
[5] Ibid.
[6] ‘State Cover-Up of High-Level Paedophile Ring’ By Tony Hyland, International Worker No 241, November 8, 1997.
[7] ‘Growing social divide in Britain’ Blair seeks to refute new study on the widening gap between rich and poor, Simon Wheelan, 11 December 1999, World Socialist Website.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Captive StateThe Corporate Takeover of Britain by George Monbiot Published by Pan Books, 2000. |ISBN 0-330-36943-1.
[10] ‘Children caged alone for weeks’ by Jamie Doward, The Observer, February 12, 2006.
[11] ‘We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair, Intervention ‘could prevent later problems’ Package of proposals courts controversy by Lee Glendinning,  The Guardian, September 1, 2006.
[12] ‘Acceptable Cruelty’ by George Monbiot, The Guardian, March 26th, 1998.

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.