Your FEEDBACK on F-4-J or J-4-F?

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Murtari (
Date: Thu Nov 06 2008 - 18:49:55 EST

All the information in our messages is FREE for reuse as you desire.
Subscribe/unsubscribe info at end.

Good People & People of Faith:

Here's your FEEDBACK to a recent message on F-4-J or J-4-F?  Original
msg at:

There were a LOT of messages and some excellent points raised. If you
had some thoughts, but didn't have time to write -- you will probably
find a reflection of your thoughts below and also a reply.

ONE NOTE:  In the original message people were asked:

    Your FEEDBACK is welcome. If you write, please include your 30
    second sound bite AND what actions and sacrifices you are willing
    to make so that 'sound bite' becomes reality.

As you read the messages below, keep track of the responses that
supplied an answer to a simple question.  I think your final count
will define why we are not making progress for reform.
For folks new to the list here are some basic 'guidelines' as to how
your input is handled.

1. If you write in, you should get a personal reply.  I try to include
all your messages in the feedback, and only include my reply on

2. It is easy on a moderated list to 'have the last word.'  If you
provide a follow up reply, you get the last word.

3. The messages are sometimes edited for length, when this happens I
try to include a '...' in the text.

To make things easier the FEEDBACK has been divided into groups by
topic.  PLEASE, putting the messages into the groups below was pretty
arbitrary and some messages could have gone either way....  You can
decide on your own where it should have been.

1. It should be about Fathers!
2. It should be about Parents!
3. What about suicide and not eating?
4. Other
5. In Canada - just move along.

1. It should be about Fathers!

--- Ross Virgin <>

> 1) Sadly, your assessment of the antics of Fathers 4 Justice is not
> accurate.

> 2) Their "climbing a crane" is as valid as your "going to jail for
> contempt". Their "climbing a crane" is almost 1,000 more powerful
> in the media than your chalk-writing efforts.

> 3) Fathers 4 Justice is achieving more awareness than any other
> group promoting children..... even more than AKidsRight.

> 4) I think you should support them, rather than undermine them.

Right now I don't think anything has demonstrated true effectiveness
in getting things changed -- we need to get there.  You may be quite
right that their methods are effective.  Time will tell.

--- "Kris Titus" <> 
              National Coordinator F4J Fathers 4 Justice Canada

> Thanks for raising this John.

> We have gotten in the habit a long time ago of saying it IS Fathers
> 4 Justice NOT just Justice for Fathers.

> We also have a significant portion of females in our organization
> and we have learned that the system is broken and can be
> manipulated, by men and women.

> We know it does not happen as often to women as men, but it does
> happen and that deserves acknowledgment.

> Fathers 4 Justice is about our dads, our kids, their moms, their
> grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles, and on and on. For every
> father affected, there is at least a child and a set of
> grandparents.

> Continuing to make this a gender war as opposed to a war against a
> horrifically inept system is a mistake in my view.

> All that being said. There will be mistakes made, and sometimes we
> must allow people to make them. Donald and Paul are heroes. They are
> heroes to me, and to many, many others.

--- Dr. Asif Suleman <>    F4J South Africa

> I always welcome introspection and constructive criticism of F4J.
> Having read your comments, i never the less find them somewhat
> disturbing in the insight shown into F4J by a fellow experienced
> activist.

> F4J south Africa is neither pro dad or anti mum, we subscribe to
> every child having the right to be loved and cared for by both
> parents and address gender inequality in family law.

> I admit that F4J SOUTH AFRICA may be a little different from our UK
> counterparts, in the "activist stunts area" regardless thereof...I
> am proudly a children's rights activist, and hope to leave a better
> environment in family law for my DAUGHTER, than the one i walked
> into.  Its time for the fathers rights movements to unite rather
> than increasingly drive "holier than thou" wedges into our cause.

> We are after all there as fathers who fight for justice for all
> children first and for both mums and dads

I respect your opinions, even though we appear to differ on methods.
As always, time will tell which way will be more effective.  When you
have the time, please check out the material at
http://www.AKidsRIght.Org/civil.htm -- and let me know what you think.
I think it provides a sound historical foundation for the level of
effort we will need to see real reform happen.

--- Jeremy Swanson <>

> All I can say is that when you were in jail it was F4J who were the
> most prolific in your defense and in protest and your support. The
> word traitor comes to mind.

> I saw this coming a long time ago and cut you out of my
> communications. In my opinion you have been been well and truly
> "feminized" and I don't believe you deserve any more support from
> the FR movement Jail has not served you well. Go away and fight your
> battles for your friends the oppressors. You have no place among us.

I'm still appreciative of the support folks have given me (and hope
I'm not a Benedict Arnold!).  Strong actions need to be taken and I
got a lot of respect for the F-4-J superheroes that risk arrest for
what they believe in.

My honest opinion is -- focusing on "Fathers" will not be effective in
bringing reform and we need to go to a deeper level of sacrifice if we
hope to win a great Civil Right.

When you have time, please check out
http://www.AKidsRIght.Org/civil.htm and let me know what you think --
that is the foundation of a sound approach.

     ----- followup reply from Jeremy

> Well you are wrong John and you are walking along a path which can
> only dilute the effort.  Diverting from the mission to restore
> Fatherhood and Fathers Rights and pandering to the enemy is nothing
> short of cowardice in my opinion and that of many many others. There
> can be no deeper sacrifice than to fight for ourselves and for our
> brothers. We do not need you undermining the effort. While I am mot
> a member I have a lot of respect for F4J and their mission and
> principles and they do not deserve. There are many out there trying
> to sell that concept too and you will find allies. They all have
> their place as they see it but they are not with us. As an example
> from history your efforts in the fight and defense of everything we
> hold dear is much like the Vichy French standing "neutral" with the
> occupying Germans. We reject that concept. its collaboration pure
> and simple. Besides Fathers ARE family for a start.

> However you intend to play the game we don't need it. Fight your
> battles as you see fit but take it out of the Fathers Rights
> realm. We don't need negativity and dissent-or the marketing of
> same. Especially from one who we once looked up to as a hero in the
> struggle. We are doing relatively well considering the circumstances
> and good men are putting their lives and careers on the line as you
> once did. No-one mocked you when you were engaged in your struggle
> for rights so your 'pull-down' of F4J USA is especially odious to
> me. You could have been in the forefront of the struggle and indeed
> you once were. Sadly, somewhere along the way you lost your nerve. I
> am very disappointed in you.

--- Fred Sottile <>  F4J LA

> dear john, neither you nor i can begin to judge paul, donald, the
> guy from england and the others who have stepped up to the public
> eye. each person has his own grief, his own experiences, his own
> rules of behavior, his own love. when a person chooses an expression
> of grief it is perfect by definition because it is his and his
> alone. we, not being him, are not qualified to judge. OJ simpson 
> and darren mack did it their way. some guys commit suicide or
> indulge in drugs or alcohol. i know one guy who wrote a
> book. several guys have made movies. all of these expressions are
> highly personal. they are the expressions of an individual not a
> public movement. your own expression of your own grief has always
> been unquestionably respected by me because i accept you as an
> individual. the bible says "judge not that yea be not judged." 
> (probably the book of judges, you would know better than i) please
> respect paul, donald and the guy from england. they are being

> themselves and are not doing their acts in your name. if identifying
> with an activist collective gives them any comfort i am happy to
> give them my nod of inclusion. they have had their inclusion in a
> fair society ripped away from them. i must extend my brotherhood to
> them and i always do, for they, are us.  please accept this comment
> with the understanding that i mean it in a very fraternal loving
> way. you, i and many other of my brothers and sisters are hurting
> and are doing what they can, with what they have. many have very
> little left. love them, support them and please try to understand
> them.

I really disagree with what you said on this. I'm not trying to Judge
their consciences or the 'moral' value of what they believed they were
doing as a good/evil act on their part.  Only God knows that.

What I'm commenting on is the efficacy of their actions and the
methods used to bring about reform. It is not all 'relative' and
doesn't depend on their 'feelings'.  I care about these folks too and
I hope they appreciate some frank feedback. I've taken some strong
actions in the past and I've never liked 'polite' approval. I want to
know what people think. If you think I'm heading in the wrong
directions, then please be a friend and tell me. 

The emphasis on Justice-4-Fathers isn't going to get us there.  The
sooner we realize that, the sooner we start to get on track.

--- William J. Wagener" <>

> I get your point.  Donald represents the 90% of NCP's called
> ... Dad.

> I am working now with some women who have been brutally treated, but
> the fact is more DADs die NCP from abuse than women because females
> are only 10% of the CPS victims.

> Don is free, so far to do his thing.  I applaud him.  The quiet
> wheel gets no oil.

> Next time, instead of spending 6 months in jail, I suggest you think
> along Don Tenn mode of protest.  HE got NEWS...  you mostly got
> ignored in jail, and NO justice at all.

> Check out:

--- Mark <>

> Being for fathers is not to be against mothers.  To the contrary,
> 99% of the fathers I've contacted support equal custody.  If mothers
> don't get that point are whiners who can't see past their own
> victimhood.

> Statistics show fathers are the victims in the vast majority of
> cases. I have a link on my website to Virginia's extortion agency -
> DCSE showing that only 4% of custodial parents in their system were
> fathers. They may have taken it down since its not currently
> available. Not to point this out is to deny the reality of
> this fact of our time. Mothers who have a problem with the
> statistics have a problem facing reality.

I agree with what you say about the statistics.  Men are definitely
effected more than women -- but the real problem is not a law that
'excludes men', but a system that doesn't even recognize the rights of
parents to be presumed both FIT & EQUAL when it comes to caring for
their children.

"We" gave the courts so much leeway in family law decisions that any
type of bias has free reign.  To turn this into a mom v. dad thing or
'we suffer more!!!!' comparison isn't going to help get parent's
rights recognized?

--- Jeff <>

> I'm unsure of your message here but wanted to comment on one thing. 
> Mothers who have been abused by the family courts and who have
> unreasonably lost equal access to their children.

> My Point is: They exist, we recognize them, it's yet another
> injustice. However there are statistically MUCH fewer of them
> (contested custody orders result in about 85% maternal custody
> awards) and clearly the class of citizens needing more help obtaining
> justice in family court are fathers!

I agree with what you say about the statistics.  Men are definitely
effected more than women -- but the real problem is not a law that
'excludes men', but a system that doesn't even recognize the rights of
parents to be presumed both FIT & EQUAL when it comes to caring for
their children.

"We" gave the courts so much leeway in family law decisions that any
type of bias has free reign.  I took a quick look at your web site, -- looks very nice.  I read your 'About us',
but didn't really see a clear legislative goal, especially when it
comes to divorce/separation?  Do you guys have some definite
legislation that you see as the goal?

  --- followup from Jeff

> You sum it up perfectly.  We have no legislative goal right now as
> we're still trying to amass more members and money.  We have failed
> legislatively a few times so we plan to go back after that cat after
> we're bigger!
> We plan the crying child billboard with the caption "Give me back my
> daddy" in downtown Manchester, NH on 12/1/08, heads will turn!

--- Fred <>

> 1. RF4J is one of the UK F4J spin off groups. F4J in the US has no
> affiliation with them, beyond showing solidarity for all father's
> rights and parental right's advocates. and can not direct their
> activities. Quite frankly the suicide stunt does not seem to
> register much higher on the crackpot scale than John Murtari and
> his jail me and starve me martyr-ism stunts. Classic F4J stunts
> involve 1] superhero costumes 2] a banner 3] climbing on something
> spectacular.

> 2. is fathers 4 justice AND families 4 justice. Fathers
> Rights is a subset of Parental rights. A victory for one is a
> victory for both. Non-custodial fathers outnumber non-custodial
> mothers by 8 or 9 to 1. The injustice and bias toward fathers is
> much more clear and apparent and thus a much more useful injustice
> to address. F4J UK has already established a foundation in fathers
> rights which we can build upon. NOW and radical feminism is one of
> the main obstacles against equal parenting. Buy a Families for
> Justice T shirt instead of a fathers 4 justice T shirt if this is
> so important to you. F4J has a defacto open door policy that
> encourages and invites all parental rights advocates, especially non
> custodial  mothers to participate in F4J at all levels. ie: the F4J
> Canada leader is a woman, the F4J leader in US was formerly,
> recently  led by a woman.

> 3. I think there is a consensus that our kids have been taken by the
> courts, overstepping their authority, for profit and sadistic
> gratification in destroying families, targeting one parent for
> torment, and especially raping the family estate of savings. It is
> fairly naive to cling to the notion that the 'other; parent is the
> real culprit, since the injustice would have never been allowed if
> the courts aka state were just, competent, or ethical.

I do agree with you on the #3 part -- it is a bad system allowing all
this to happen.

--- Andy Srougi <> c
    "climbed the Jacques-Cartier bridge in Montreal..."

> Fathers-4-Justice is NOT trying to turn men or divorced fathers into
> another victim class. Fathers who have been through rough divorces,
> have been deprived of their children, have been falsely accused,
> have been railroaded by incompetent judges, or have been fleeced by
> unscrupulous lawyers... are ALREADY victims.

> Fathers-4-Justice activists, like myself, do not act like
> victims. Instead of doing like women's organizations; crying, lying
> and asking for money, we are standing up and using non violent civil
> disobedience (a la Gandhi) to educate the public. The "stunts" and
> actions performed by Fathers-4-Justice, of which I am an active
> participant, are geared at bringing social change that benefits all
> members of our society. A small example of our success is proven by
> the recent remarks of Canadian Senator Ann Cools who recently
> explained to Toronto Police that there are many lies and false
> accusations being propagated by the women's organizations. These
> lies help nobody! Especially not women, or even the real female
> victims of male on female violence.

> *Senator Ann Cools speaks about Canadian domestic violence issues

> In 2005 I climbed the Jacques-Cartier bridge in Montreal with a
> poster saying "Daddy Loves You" (in french). I did not mean that
> mommies don't love their kids. I received a criminal record for this
> while my children are still being abused by a bipolar schizophrenic
> mother who does regular suicide attempts to "manage her stress"
> according to the court sociologist. I have also screamed and yelled
> profanities at judges, danced on court room tables, filed law suits
> against about 20 lawyers, judges and government ministers... all of
> which drew a lot of attention to the cause. I was not alone. Many
> other Fathers-4-Justice activists performed similar or even more
> outrageous stunts, all in the interests of the greater good. We have
> put our lives on the line, lost our homes, lost our professions, our
> reputations etc etc in the hopes that other fathers and children
> would not have to go through what we did.

> Social change comes slowly when using the "Gandhi method". Although
> some fathers have suggested violence and more Draconian measures, we
> have always rejected this because our ultimate goal is POSITIVE

> As you expressed... there are also mothers who have unjustly lost
> access to their children, and women beaten and abused by men. We
> have helped many. In fact we have several women who hold important
> positions in F4J and who have contributed considerably to the F4J
> cause.

> Our name is "Fathers-4-Justice", NOT "Fathers for justice for
> fathers only".

> We want justice for ALL... men, children and WOMEN. We do NOT hate
> women, unlike some radical feminists. We work with womens'
> organizations that believe in the same values as us, and when they
> demonstrate, we support them under THEIR banner. We don't need to
> change our name or our ways because most reasonable people, and
> especially individuals who have "been there", understand who we are
> and what we stand for. The ones that don't like us, are either
> ignorant, too busy with their lives to be concerned, or annoyed
> because we are going against their understanding of the situation.

> Sadly, if the father in the UK decides he wants to take his life in
> a public manner, I for one will not stop him. I would never suggest
> this method to my members or even encourage it, but I understand
> him. He wants to help prevent others from going through what he
> did. And if he does it, I am sure many people will be outraged to
> the point of bringing pressure for change. I have worked for over 20
> years in Emergency Management, preparing emergency services (fire,
> police, etc.) for emergencies and disasters. Our biggest hurdle has
> always been to get politicians to make funds available for equipment
> and preparedness. It always took a catastrophic event to bring the
> funds... example 9/11. As sad as this reality is... it is a FACT.

> Considering that we are NOT going to instigate a catastrophe to get
> our message across, we have chosen a means that is working well. Non
> violent civil disobedience through theatrical "stunts" and political
> actions may be considered a nuisance to some or even stupid to
> others... but it sure beats bringing down a building to get
> attention.

> I for one, sleep very well at night, knowing that I have contributed
> to the betterment of my society, even if my contribution was worth
> very little in the big scheme of things. But allot of little makes a
> big difference. And I am able to stand proud with my children and
> explain to them when they are older that I stood up for them.

> Your questioning of our methods is a healthy thing. We all need to
> look at our ways from time to time because we sometimes get lost in
> the emotions and end up going down the wrong path. We may yet change
> our methods, especially if others like you provide us with
> constructive criticism, suggestions and especially support.

> I thank you for your interrogations and hope you able to see that we
> are well intentioned.

I admire you for your actions, but I think F-4-J may be a far-cry from
what Gandhi or Martin Luther King.  Insulting the opposition was NOT
part of their method -- it was pure sacrifice and suffering for what
they believed in.  When you have time take a look at

What I would LOVE to find is a group of mothers and fathers willing to
visit the office of an MP or Member of Congress and not go away until
they were heard. When the police come and say 'go away' -- just
quietly sit down and get dragged off to jail. Don't make bail and ask
for a speedy trial.

That would put some real pressure on the politicians and make a
compelling story for the media and the public. These are LOVING
parents who just want to see their kids.

As you well know, it's hard to get people to join that type of
sacrifice -- but I think we are moving closer.

--- "AdVader" <>

> still in denial John? 'say, all action is good, together strong on
> what business criteria you dare say fighting is not good because of
> so-called Christian motives? wake up, it's false believing to do
> good is killing when knowing it's wrong ...

> yes, we are victims and thereby we are to blame they say ...  there
> shouldn't even be a discussion about child interest poor children
> mostly their father and his family

> not acting like a victim is also a trick, a strong man doesn't cry
> but that's denial of reality, boys&men are hanged in pseudologica
> diminishing men's interest is the best women-interest ...

> in fact mostly it's a womens madness, a poisonous womens sect
> dehumanization, polarizing men&women, the source is feminism wrong
> feminism that is, it started with the pill, supported by wrong
> knights also mostly all those child saving men hating 'people' need to
> score themselves ...

> in my 30secs I'd say "hey Obama, where is your real father?"

--- Ramon Collins <>

> I think that the message of Fathers 4 Justice is a message targeted
> at the root cause of AKidsRight. While their mission is just and
> good, their methods are sensational, I believe just as drastic and
> sensational as ripping a child from their protective and loving
> father, and then demonizing and bankrupting him and all he has done,
> all in plain sight of his children, just to appease a morally
> corrupt system, and a mother who is more interested in financial and
> social gain than her own child.

> While I believe that AKidsRight should keep an arms length from the
> tactics, I also believe that to shoot them down too vigorously is
> the same as a sport shoe company suing a shoe string company for
> making shoe strings in wild colors and patterns - they may not be
> the standard issue, but some folks pay more attention to the colors
> than the standard white shoe strings.

> In the race for better justice in family matters, we must admit to
> each other that the judges and lawyers are not stupid or naive. This
> system has been in place for almost half a century. They know the
> methods are unconstitutional and in violation of the equal
> protection laws. They know and understand that girls that are not
> with their fathers have a much higher rate of teen pregnancy and
> becoming high school dropouts.

> They know that boys not without their fathers have a higher rate of
> becoming involved with the criminal justice system and becoming
> dropouts.

> They know that forcing fathers into poverty and out of the homes
> does not help them to stay engaged in raising their children. They
> know that women initiate most family violence, but get hurt more
> because they are the weaker in strength. (My dad taught me not to
> hit girls, but no one told the girls not to hit boys.)

> They know this and much more, but the lawyers and judges choose to
> ignore these proven outcomes on decades of father (and child) abuse.

> The root cause is Father Abuse. Politicians like McCain have
> supported a political career by purchasing mom's vote with dad's
> money and rights to have power in his own home.

> Silent discomfort and the appearance weakness is the opposite of the
> many NOW campaigns. They have no problem with directing their
> politics directly against fathers and fatherhood. They will un-elect
> any politician who crosses them.

> ... So please do not kill the only group that is loud enough to keep
> the subject important to politicians. Remember, just as the many
> years of legal slavery followed by many years of Jim Crow Laws, THE
> POLITICIANS KNOW that what they do is wrong. Assuming that you are
> bring them new information is not a good strategy. Instance on our
> goals while not claiming the assistance to those actions that push
> this fight along is good for the children and families in the end
> and for the long term lessons to the nation.

--- Will Davis <>

> John does this mean you will be going to the federal building and
> writing in chalk SARA PALIN HELP US I LOVE YOU ?  The same as you
> wrote before?

... if we could get just a group of FIVE mothers and fathers that were
willing to 'sit-in' peacefully outside the offices of any of these
candidates until they were dragged away in handcuffs -- we would get
some great publicity.  How could a politician say 'no' to talking to
such a group and instead let them go on trial?

--- Israel <>

> For what ever reason men are not united and so every man is left to
> defend for himself.  I support each and every sacrifice any man
> makes for the cause, even if I do not agree with their methods.
> What else is a man going to hold on to?  If a man is going to die
> anyway, is it better to die leaving a message than to die silently?
> I know I am critical of different persons in the fathers rights
> ranks John, as I have been of you, but still try to help you in
> different ways.  I really have to wonder, based on your lack of
> successes, are you the one really to point a finger at anyone else?
> After all, you get to see Domenic, when many fathers haven't been
> able to see their children for years.  Many fathers probably wonder
> what in the world you are complaining about, compared to their
> situation.  Will we ever support each other in the process of trying
> to get every man on the same page?

You ask some good questions.  First, I think you know I feel we need
to see this as a 'parents' Civil Rights struggle, starting to label
ourselves as moms v dads makes each side want to prove they were hurt
more and it doesn't go anywhere (as we are seeing).

Regarding my actions, they certainly have not achieved the
effectiveness I would have liked.  I think you know I have encourage
other moms and dads to join me -- but the risk of jail scares people
away.  Does that mean I'm waisting my time? No.

I believe you are aware of the risk of jail and the actual jail time I
have spent for 'voluntary' acts.  Like you say below, Dom and I are
very fortunate -- why should I bother?

Because I do hear so many stories and feel so bad for all the parents
who can't see their kids -- that would have been my worst nightmare.
I consider myself quite fortunate and blessed to have maintained my
relationship with my son -- I can't put a value on that.  But it is
time for me to 'give back'.

They system is VERY wrong, until we as individuals are willing to
stand up to it and accept the punishment -- nothing changes and no
larger groups will form.  We have to try.

My 'complaining' is some honest feedback (just the way you passed some
on to me) -- we need to think about what we are doing.

--- Mike <>

> I've read your email critical of the F4J approach but don't see any
> solutions from you. My focus is on creating awareness of the
> problems father's face and supporting legislative changes through
> lobbying, awareness, activism, letter writing campaigns, supporting
> other fathers, where possible, from misandric organizations and
> mom's, supporting mom's who are alienated from the children by
> vengeful dads and by standing up to be counted wherever necessary as
> me - not some anonymous internet troll.  One of the areas men need to
> focus on, as is being pushed by dad's activists such as Jeremy
> Swanson, is for more of us to stand up and be counted.

> Just yesterday thousands of emails, faxes and phone calls descended
> upon Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) which had buses feature
> misleading, father-bashing ads
> <>
> purporting to address the serious issue of domestic violence.  This
> was lead by Glenn Sacks and Dr. Ned Holstein, Executive Director of
> Fathers & Families <>.  This is a
> quote from Glenn's blog today:

> */The Associated Press did an article on our protest today--it has
> run in over two dozen newspapers and TV stations and can be seen
> here
> <>
> or below. The /Dallas Morning News /version is here
> <>./*

> */There is an active discussion board at the /Houston Chronicle
> <>/
> on the article--to join in, click here
> <>./*

> */Most of the people are sympathetic to our side, but there's some
> loony over there pretending that all this is the work of what he/she
> calls "Glenn's Cult." Must be quite a cult--several thousand people
> have joined our protest, and our campaign has been formally endorsed
> by several dozen domestic violence authorities, mental health
> professionals, educators, family law professionals, and media
> figures./*

> */An added note--this campaign is also the work of Fathers &
> Families <>, with
> whom I've partnered to address this issue./*

> United is where we need to be whether our methodology differs
> somewhat or not.  I belong to Fathers-4-Justice for good reason. I
> am a father who is a victim of bias and discrimination.  We cannot
> be anything else and it would do no good to try and create a
> blending of our purpose. That can be done through the united
> approach involved in shared and equal parenting and the broader goal
> of men's rights.  What is your solution?

I think awareness actions are very necessary and useful -- but as I
said, putting the focus on Fathers when it comes to Family Rights may
be missing the mark?  I agree parents need to stand up and be counted.

When you have time, take a look at the material on Civil Rights
movements of the past at http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm -- and
let me know what you think.

--- Dillon <>

> I've written you before when you were in jail and when you got out
> wondering what it was going to take to have an effect on our legal
> system. Since then I was legally robbed of my parental
> responsibility.  Since then my son turned three in a foster home who
> wants to adopt him.  I have no legal chance for redemption.  I had a
> very unfair fact finding trial and my rights were taken from me I
> believe because I am a single father and because I am on disability.
> I love my son and want him back which will never change.  But right
> now I don't think short of a large uprising or some violent action
> that there is any recourse to a hopeless cause. Is going to jail a
> good answer?

> Drastic measures won't have a drastic effect.  Our culture doesn't
> want father's to be father's.  They want father's to pay for their
> kids.  Maybe a made for television movie about a father who lost
> custody of his kids and acted out could have an effect.  We don't
> want to get violent as an only recourse.  But the options are
> running out?  How long can you shout at a powerful government that
> refuses to even listen to you?  Just so you know I am not advocating
> violence I am just considering our alternatives. Protest, law suit,
> movie, the book has already been written.

VERY SORRY to hear what has happened to you and your son -- what a
tragedy!  Sounds like you have been on the list for a while, regarding
what needs to be done to change things -- the same level of sacrifice
that has been required to 'earn' great Civil Rights of the past.  When
you have time please check the site at
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm for some history.

Unfortunately, not many of us are willing to go that level; but if we
could act with numbers -- it would be very effective.

--- Darrick <>

> Seeing that we have went the direction of equal parenting is A
> Child's Right you can safely assume that we here have decided to
> focus on children needing both parents and parental rights. On the
> other hand there really is a war on fathers with a few mothers being
> acceptable collateral damage by the Red Neo-fems. Being that
> fatherhood is not politically correct these days we should not focus
> on fathers alone but fathers as a part of the family and parenting
> is both parents. I would be more apt to support F4J if the term was
> more like Fathers 4 Equal Custody Rights. When people are seeing
> political messages and see F4J they think that mad dads are looking
> to win court actions against their ex so that they can have sole
> custody.

2. It should be about Parents!

--- Amil <>

> I admire you greatly and I can say without reservation that you have
> a stronger will than me.  I also agree with you here.  If the focus
> of the message is not about the children then it is a wasted
> message.

I'm not so sure about the stronger will (I think I just had a lot
fewer options!).  I'm glad to hear your agreement with the words and
what our focus should be.

--- "alowe1" <>

> Have to agree John, I been pointing this out for years.  While there
> are many ways of dads dealing with fathers issues, and everyone
> wants to express their opinions' on this, the sad part is no
> government elected ("political potato head") in office is going to
> hear fathers anyhow.  The reason for this, is no fathers rights
> groups can agree on joining together for the cause, and making those
> elected to see that all groups are united, like the feminist do.

--- Joanna <>

> Greetings!  I have not written you at all for a very long time.  I
> am a divorced mother in Ohio who has shared parenting of my 11 year
> old son.  I recently had to reopen my case after years of no motions
> being filed because my ex husband has been consistently and
> willfully attempting in his every action to cut me out of my son's
> life.  We have reached a verbal agreement through mediation, but I'm
> not jumping for joy until I see it in writing with signatures.

> At any rate, I would like to respond to the topic you have brought
> up. I once joined Father's for Justice thinking they were going to
> be about equality, with gender not being an issue.  I of course was
> dead wrong about this, even though multiple members said otherwise.

> The fact is that F4J is ultimately doomed to fail.  They are clearly
> gender-biased.

--- Rick <>

> My view FWIW is that the root problem is that family court is
> political and furtive.  It behaves precisely as we were always
> warned that a judicial process not subject to public oversight would
> behave - unjustly.  By making its aims the imposition of dogma
> instead of the value of childrens' lives, it causes pain and
> suffering for everyone - fathers, mothers, grandparents, even care
> workers with a conscience.  So the constituency for change must be
> more than just fathers, even if fathers usually bear the brunt.

> I have long believed that the system would not change until women
> too stood up and demanded that children get a better deal, one based
> on the value of family life and family love. I think F4J is
> necessary but insufficient.  We may admire them (while wondering
> about the effectiveness of their methods) but we don't really
> identify.

> Gandhi started the work but Nehru finished it.  Rosa Parks started
> it but Martin Luther King finished it.  Civil disobedience works.
> More radical movements (Black Panthers, FLQ) have not demonstrated
> any significant ability to move the social dialog (at least not
> without total, violent revolution).

> We need to get better at supporting each other as disaffected, often
> alienated parents and relatives, especially in preparing for legal
> hearings and undertaking class actions.  Bureaucrats do not like
> having critical attention drawn to their cozy arrangements.  We need
> something more like the ACLU than sporadic, belated attention to
> specific cases of injustice.  IMO.  We need resources and public
> credibility, so people approach us for help before it's too late -
> and we must have practical help to offer.

> With my respect and appreciation as always,

I quite agree with what you say and what is necessary.  When you have
time please check out the material at
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm -- let me know what you think.

--- Kristi <>

> I'm shocked and pleased. I sent a friend to help support you and
> got the impression you were a SINGLE issued agenda. While I whole
> heartedly support all that you do, and what F4J does, and it is far
> better than nothing, even often makes me proud - - - I always
> believed we needed to unite on a larger platform. And now you say: 
> emphasis on "Justice for Fathers" is going to be a dead end and the
> attempt to turn Men into another victim class is a waste and a
> distraction.

> I'm thrilled. Again, I support you and all those who share your
> angle for pursuing justice, no matter what the angle, but it is but
> one part of the equation, the solution of which will not end the
> tyranny, oppression, and injustice that is pervading our children's
> tomorrow. When we all start striking at the same root of evil, maybe
> then we can actually start realizing some benefit and change. I
> embrace this new stance you appear to be implying. Justice for all
> will benefit our children at every level. At the present, there is
> not even a modicum of that.

> As to the gentleman who contemplates suicide to make a statement, I
> have had far too many conversations with people whose lives have
> been so very destroyed for no viable reason except for the
> corruption of our courts and injustices propounded on them. IF I
> knew I was on my way out and could make a statement that, at a
> minimum would cause some suffering or embarrassment for those who so
> grossly harmed my family or me, and at a maximum could bring
> attention to a plight that otherwise happens in a vacuum, I would do
> the same.

> Well, there you have my input, right or wrong. While it is not what
> I would present to the Presidential candidates, as you requested it
> be, it is of significant importance that it be presented to all
> those that think this is about gender, when it's about justice, and
> all else has us all fractured and hacking at the branches instead of
> the very strong and resilient root.

--- Fran <>

> I think the best way to win the fatherhood thing is through the
> courts, and each father should demand equal/shared primary residence
> custody.  (Shared custody without primary residence is a waste of
> time) Whoever gets to have primary residence wins all the advantages
> of being a custodial parent.  Tax credits, day care, food stamps,
> medicaid, all kinds of government help, etc.

> Men should realize they can get custody and hire a babysitter while
> they go off to work the same way a woman can hire a babysitter while
> she goes off to work.

> No, I don't think men should be victims anymore.  They should be a
> part of their kids lives the best they can.  They should make an
> effort to pay to make it equal, unless the ex steals the kid, then
> they should not pay anything and tell the judge why you are not
> paying.  Tell him you are being denied the pleasure of having your
> child be with you.  The Bible says you should suppor

I agree we need Court action and Legislative action, but as you know I
have said in the past, we also need public action.

--- Joe <>

> Interesting thoughts... mostly on the last part.

> Yet, is it not those who sacrifice all who make a cause a cause?
> (NOT that I am in any way advocating suicide as a way to make a
> point, but it speaks for the depth of emotions these issues raise in
> people).

> As a curiosity, have you studied the Civil Rights movement in the
> US?  What do you think the impact Malcolm X was?  Was he viewed as
> some crackpot not worthy of consideration?  Or did his message hit
> home, forcing action and forcing many fence sitters to help enact
> change?

> Again, NOT that I am advocating these tactics, but it is always the
> headline grabbers that cause an issue to change.  When (on any
> issue) have you seen major change enacted without some widely
> disseminated/discussed public event at its root?

This is a Civil Right struggle and the sooner we start acting that way
-- the sooner we will have reform, but it is not easy.  We have a
definite plan and some historical examples, when you have time please
check out: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm

--- Phillip <>

> After my children were abducted by the State of Florida, without
> charges of abuse or neglect, all kinds of thoughts passed through my
> head, but I carefully sorted them out by considering the effect the
> action might have on my children, and would it work.  I decided to
> go the civil route because I thought that was my only reasonable
> option.  Integrity is part of the family heritage, when that is
> forsaken, the battle is lost.  Outside of the regular politicking
> and litigating, I think a Hot-Air Balloon Race with banners and
> release of tracts over busy high-density cities would be the best
> way rise above it all, and deliver the message to the streets.

Thanks for taking the time to write and for a common sense message!
It is always good to be 'civil' -- violent acts to others or to
ourselves isn't going to convince anyone we are loving parents who had
our Civil Rights violated.

Regarding the efficacy of a 'hot-air' balloon, it sounds like fun --
but what I'd like is a historical example where that worked?  When you
have time, please check out the material at
http://www.AKidsRight.Org/civil.htm -- let me know what you think, how
much would you be willing to sacrifice for what you say you believe

   --- followup reply from Phillip

> There is a first time for everything!!!  In Houston there used to be
> balloon races from time to time, I'm certain there are organizations
> around the world that do the same.  The question is regarding
> graphics, often they like very colorful effects, like rainbows and
> Jack-O-Lantern grins, but for meaningful messages, all it would take
> is agreement to the endeavor and some art work.  I would be happy to
> contribute some fabric and art work to the cause.  Another air-born
> option are sails for ships and kites.  If we could get any
> endorsements from shipping companies, 18 wheeler billboards would
> also be effective

--- "Jeff Milton" <>

> As I watch your struggle from down here in Buenos Aires, along with
> all the other problems in the world 'up' there, I am beginning to
> see things a little differently.  This was especially true when I
> read about your upcoming court date for DWL in Nov.

> Unlike you, I have lost hope (if I ever had any in the first place)
> in reforming the FC system... i simply do not have the faith in
> people you do.  Rather, I believe that the FC systems is doinmg
> exactly what is supposed to do... remove parents rights, destroy
> families while exercising tyranny and making money in the process.
> This is why politicians, bureaucrats and judges will never be on the
> side of the victim (i.e. families), because there is nothing to
> gain.  FC, along with pretty much of most of the laws and systems
> that we live under, are not only an afront to man's freedom and
> rights, but are, in fact illegal, unconstitutional, and downright
> criminal.

> Personally, I believe the 'fight' needs to be taken to higher
> ground, challenging the whole legitimacy of many of the claims
> 'against' the people.  I am not trying to 'recruit' you:) But I
> wanted to share some writing that may be applicable in your upcoming
> case.

> Attached is a book by Mary Croft, entitled "How I Clobbered Every
> Bureaucratic Cash Confiscating Agency Known to Man... A spiritual
> economics book on $$$ and remembering who you are".  Granted, some
> of her ideas may be outside your sphere of rele4vancy, or you may
> find her perspective a bit extreme, but as I was reading it I
> thought "This may be useful for John!".

> If you find any of it valuable, then I am glad it was helpful.  If
> not, then please accept by best wishes and prayers for your success,
> which are also attached to this email :)

I can appreciate what you are saying and believe me, at times I feel
the futility of the struggle and fear what could happen to me.  I
agree with what you say about a 'higher ground' and that we need to
have clear Civil Rights goals.

3. What about suicide and not eating?


>> "The story [planned suicide in a judge's lawn] is in a class by
>> itself. It captures the essence of the victim mentality -- it's all
>> about me!"

> I disagree.  It is a father who has not seen his child despite all
> his efforts.  He in fact is a victim of the biased, sexist (family
> court) system.

--- "Melanie Kleiner" <>

> Not a good idea.  Committing suicide could send a message that the
> father was unstable after all and not allowing him to see his kids
> was a good decision.  I can't say we haven't had some desperate
> thoughts at times in our family, but we always reason it out and
> decide its not good.  And how will his kids feel someday when they
> find out?  I don't believe suicide or murder is ever a good idea.

--- "Barbara C. Johnson" <>

> Some of your answers do NOT address the 30-send blurps.  The last,
> about the terminal cancer victim, presents an action that could be
> taken.  The man would die a hero's death rather than that of a
> victim.  His death would have meaning.  The press like sleeze and
> sizzle and will NOT cover the real tragedies about the courts
> parentectomizing children by removing their fathers.  The cancer
> victim's act would be the sizzle for the press.  Of course it would
> only be worthwhile to the cause IF IF IF the man left the message
> with enough people about what he was doing and why.

... I guess we must agree to disagree -- especially over the idea of
committing suicide in front of another parent's family & children to
prove your point.....  That is no hero's death and never will be.

It's pretty much not a far stretch to the murder-suicide terrorists
acts.  We treat human life as another 'tool' to achieve a goal and
hurt innocents.  Isn't that what we are complaining about -- the
uncaring system that tears families apart trying to serve some
'greater good?'


> But what about your own refusal to take solid food during your own
> "hunger strike"? you could have easily died from that act...stop
> bashing others in the movement , this is counter-productive to say
> the least.

... you raise some good points.  Please understand what I said below
is not 'bashing' Donald or Paul, like I said below, "I certainly
respect them and admire their willingness to take action and sacrifice
for what they believe in."  More people need to do that -- but I do
question the effectiveness?

Regarding my conduct it was something I don't recommend and it wasn't
a last resort.  I"m sure you know I've been willing to sacrifice my
freedom and have spent plenty of time in jail in the past -- but,
being dragged off the street and thrown into jail was an entirely
different manner and called for a strong response.

As I think you know, it was not a 'hunger-strike', but noncooperation.
I made the experience even more painful than the system wanted it to
be.  While sudden death could have happened, I was in excellent
health, and I certainly knew that at the moment I would fall
unconscious they would have had to intervene.

While there I was not hateful toward my jailers or even the judge or
my former spouse.  I hope you can see some significant differences
between that and someone who is already terminally ill choosing to
blow their brains out in the front of a family home?

---  "Sally Broessel" <>

> You know I admire you.  BUT, is not refusing to eat a suicidal
> gesture? You are counting on them force feeding you with a tube, but
> it seems to me this is the same type of gesture.

As said above, not an easy call.

--- Mike Russo <>

> There are a lot of actions that I do not condone, but, I do
> understand them.  Just as I understand what turns Mr. Hand into Mr.
> Fist.
> There are going to be people that try to twist and spin your actions
> in the movement, no matter what or how you do it.  No matter whether
> it be another group, the media, or whatever.
> It is all in how you deal with it afterward, it seems to me.

I'm not quite sure on your message.  If you have time please explain a
bit more.

   --- follow up reply from Mike

> The actions I was speaking about is the part of your message that
> mentioned the man that was saying he was gong to hang himself.  This
> hits home. A good friend of mine hung himself (Shawn O'Banion)after
> he was set up to be state coordinator for Kansas. Although I don't
> condone his actions, I do understand them, much as I understand
> Paul's discussion with Governor Palin. That is to say that I do not
> agree with everything that everyone says 100% of the time or what
> they do 100% of the time, but I can understand it, and think I have
> a good grasp on the "why".

> Do I think that Paul could have said something different? Sure. Do I
> think that Paul said something bad or something other than the
> truth, absolutely not.  Put in his position would I have done
> better? Maybe, Maybe not. I don't think Paul should be bashed for
> saying what he said, and I feel like you took a shot at him for not
> being "unbiased?" enough. Don't like his banner? Make one of your
> own?  Paul Fisher is a true patriot and I am proud to call him
> friend.

> I am not ignorant to the fact that women/mothers are non-custodial
> parents too, and I am sure they don't deserve to be. Paul and Don
> aren't either.  The numbers don't lie though, and that is why it is
> called Fathers-4-Justice.

> I understand where you are coming from, and I understand where the
> F4J guys are coming from.

4. Other

--- "Ian Mitchell" <>

> I'm in the works to see if I can put together something similar to
> the DC Rally in my local state. Now, if Donald wants to plant
> himself at the top of a tower, I can't stop him, but I plan on
> wearing a suit and talking to my legislature. We'll see.

--- Tom Miller <>

> I think it takes a variety. I commend your efforts also. I now
> take the opportunity in almost all my letters and such to point out
> that it isn't just dads getting abused, enslaved and shammed but
> their kids even more so, and the mothers too, especially the other
> parent (often moms) coaxed, exploited and coached into making
> non-punishable false abuse allegations to "win" in a court of sheer
> madness.

> Making false abuse allegations is an integral part of parental
> alienation child abuse. You simply can't abuse the hell out of your
> kids, assisted by organized govt crime, and win - it smashes the
> falsely accusing parent too.  Sacrificing both parents and the
> children is necessary to fuel the industry.

> The only winners are the losers of the DV/divorce industry running
> families down their meat grinders for profit, pleasure and power. 
> The worst predators have always historically hunted in packs, in the
> name of government saviorism.

> It simply doesn't matter that in reality women commit more domestic
> violence and abuse and kill their children more than dads do. what
> does matter is that the industry is committing far more family
> violence than all bad moms and dads put together. Men and women
> need to unite to fight this divisive evil which pits them against
> one another.

5. In Canada - just move along!

[ This is a good action and it certainly helps -- but, what would have
happened if they decided not to 'move' for the sake of what they
believe in? Do GREAT Civil Rights require real sacrifice? ]

Submitted by: maryjaniga <>

On October 27, 2008 at 10am our group members Swayze, Mary and Ed
marched down King Street to the Hamilton Family Court house at 55 Main
Street West to protest the corruption of Children's Aid Society and
the Family Court system in Hamilton. We were joined by members of
Canada Court Watch, members of the general public and even children
were present at the protest. We had our trusty bullhorn that Swayze
pulled out and blared out at the top of her lungs.  We had a great
time talking to people and strangers that were walking on Main Street
in Hamilton and they all shared their stories of the horrors of
Children's Aid in Hamilton and Ontario. We had coffee together and
weathered the wind and possible rain that was hanging in the clouds,
but the sun remained shining. We held signs, and held a common bond
that Children's Aid Society must be held accountable for their actions
and there is corruption within the Family Court system in Hamilton and

People signed petitions for Ombudsman oversight of Children's Aid
Society and Andrea Horwath's private member Bill 93. The police were
respectful to us today and came out and say we couldn't trespass on
court property (questionable and this will be verified, as we are
taxpayers of this city/province) and we had to get off their steps and
pillars and remain on the sidewalk as long as we kept moving up and
down Main Street.

It was a successful pep rally to our evening rally which will be
taking place this evening at 6pm. We will arrive early at Carmen's
Banquet Center at 1520 Stonechurch Road Hamilton, ON at 5:30pm. Stay
tuned for Part 2 Carmen's Protest.

Posted By maryjaniga to DAY 1 and beyond The Children's Aid Society

                                       John Murtari
Coordinator                            AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org                "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211)        http://www.AKidsRight.Org/

A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
Newsletter mailing list  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 11 2009 - 03:12:23 EST