Movie about the 'system' - Aug 2nd! / Your FEEDBACK on Tom Cruise

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Murtari (
Date: Sun Jul 29 2012 - 15:52:28 EDT

AKidsRight.Org - All the information in our messages if FREE for reuse as you desire.  Subscribe/unsubscribe info at end of this message.

Good People & People of Faith,

This message contains info on a movie premier and your
FEEDBACK from our last message:

*1. World Premier (online) of movie about reform*
I know the Producer of this film, Mr. Angelo Lobo, and he includes my
story along with those of many others across the country.  I watched
an early release with friends and people in my community -- even
though they hadn't been 'through it' -- this film made them
understand!  Don't miss it!

Submitted by:

There is less than a week for the WORLD online premiere of the movie
Support? System Down -- August 2nd!

Subscribe today to see the full movie-FREE.
Go to

The much anticipated documentary film Support? is set to be released
for free, online, for 10 days only starting August 2,2012. This
eye-opening documentary captures the everyday issues of stress,
family, struggle and suffering that families experience when put
through the detrimental, winding maneuvers of the family court
systems, which are flooded with more cases than the labor force can
handle or chooses not to handle. Those interested in socially changing
films, parental alienation, and divorce and custody issues in America
are urged to watch this.

SEE VIDEO OUTTAKES from the movie here:

*2. Your FEEDBACK*
Original Message:  Tom Cruise - Fit & Equal Parent?

For those of you unfamiliar with our FEEDBACK format, a brief
explanation:  Our list is moderated to avoid a LOT of email traffic.
The message editor (in this case me - John Murtari) tries to reply
to everyone and sometimes ask for clarification.

In FEEDBACK we include your original message ">", our response,
and then your reply, if any, with ">".

--- Rox McAllister <>

 > What do you know about Scientology?  Do you have any family
members that you almost lost to that cult?

 > Scientology is ANTI family if you try to break away from them. If a
 > spouse leaves the Org, than the rest of the family is instructed to
 > have no contact with the traitor.  Also, if you are an adult, and
 > your family doesn't approve, you are instructed to lie and hide from
 > them.

 > I know because I almost lost my daughter to the Chicago Org! We got
 > to her just days before she was going to "ship out" to New York
 > City.

 > Now, if you don't know about these crackpots and what they believe,
 > please don't comment on the fact that they are not dangerous! They
 > are and there are many who tell of abuse within the ranks.
I don't think I said they weren't dangerous, or that I agree with
their beliefs.  The real question was, it is no illegal to be a member
of their Church and is just a parent being a member of a Church enough
to justify restricting their right to raise their child?

I'm assuming if you were a Judge in this case you would consider
Cruise's Church affiliation not to be "in the best interest" of his
child and limit his contact?
 > Cruise is not "just a member", he's is a high level!  And yes, I'd
 > have to think more than twice about letting him have unlimited
 > access to the children!

 > I saw the "org" in Chicago rip off an old women, and reported it.  I
 > know what they believe from speaking to people who managed to escape
 > from them.  They are NOTHING to play with! Cruise is not "just a
 > member", he's is a high level!  And yes, I'd have to think more than
 > twice about letting him have unlimited access to the children!

 > I saw the "org" in Chicago rip off an old women, and reported it.  I
 > know what they believe from speaking to people who managed to escape
 > from them.  They are NOTHING to play with!

--- F. Christensen <>

 > Well written comments, John. You might find one of my essays on
 > rights vs. interests of interest (attached).

/I really liked what you wrote and want to share it with the group and
post it to the website for wider distribution./

and slightly badly formatted: <>

--- Mark Hansel <> "Fathers Canada"

 > I wanted to comment on your news letter, first off Tom Cruise is in
 > a cult that is dangerous to children. The man has people in his cult
 > following his ex-wife and kids while using intimidation on them. If
 > you did research on his group, you would know they are not a very
 > sound group that should be anywhere near children.

 > I'm not surprised at the lack of outrage from both Father's &
 > Parent's groups on this one. I don't blame dads in the least for not
 > wanting to comment on this. The Church of Scientology is a cult that
 > destroys people, so it needs to be exposed.

 > Sorry I am not buying this one.. as there are better stories to
 > comment on where dads, parents are being trashed over.
I had someone else write in with a similar opinion. The real question
was, it is not illegal to be a member of their Church and is just a
parent being a member of a Church enough to justify restricting their
right to raise their child?

I'm assuming if you were a Judge in this case you would consider
Cruise's Church affiliation not to be "in the best interest" of his
child and limit his contact? Even though their could be NO evidence
that he was every trying to harm his daughter....

You saw the formulation for Parental Rights that I had.  I know you
have thought about these issues.  What would you see as a basis for

 > While it is not illegal to be a member of any church in order to
be a parent to ones kids or kid, the issues are of Tom Cruise's
behavior and it's members behavior of this cult like church.  > I have
spend to much time and have researched this so called fake church and
there is real serious issues that should be looked at, in order to see
that child is not going to be brainwashed. You know what parental
alienation does and is and what it does to children, that is what Tom
is trying to do with this group or cult you want to call a church.

 > As I said, having the cult church's members spying and following his
 > wife and kids is really creepy and is what is called stalking and
 > criminal harassment, and is another form of controlism that is being
 > used, which is what this cult Tom belongs to does, in order to get
 > what he wants. Total control over the kid while shoving the mother
 > out of the picture.

 > Tom's actions on invading the privacy of those he supposed to have
 > loved, doesn't show concern as a good parent, he wants to force his
 > church's belief's and his belief's on his child, that is going to
 > far and in light of that, I don't see him as willing to except the
 > fact, this is not going to help him in the least.

 > Research that group. As I said they are dangerous to children, no
 > matter how much you want to defend Tom's so called church or
 > belief's.

 > If I were a Judge in this case, I would have to consider Cruise's
 > cult church affiliation in this case, and in it's members actions,
 > in following and spying on his kids and wife, as I don't see how
 > that is "in the best interest" of his kid. Do you John?

 > John, I have been in the fathers rights movement for over 20 years
 > and have helped dads get their kids, full custody of kids, but at
 > the same time have seen a lot of abusive dads who shouldn't even be
 > around kids. This issue of Tom Cruise isn't something worth
 > defending, it takes away from what you are doing in order to promote
 > fatherhood.

--- Tom Miller <>

 > Good points, John!

 > If the state can rule one religion bad then they can control and ban
 > the rest, one by one.  Oh, they do already.  Thus the state now IS
 > our religion and controller of most religion, as banned by the 1st
 > amendment and the whole constitution.  If a religion does not
 > violate the constitution (as the state surely does) then the state
 > needs to butt out.  BTW, our constitution is deeply and 100% rooted
 > in the real religion of God's own natural law (which even He is
 > bound to as well), as stated by so many of our forefathers. that is
 > why it is the source of equal accountability and not changing the
 > rules as we go and writing up endless new law and regulations which
 > do just that.

 > "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It
 > is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams

 > Most people don't get his quote and how much sense it makes because
 > they were never taught the foundations of what's behind our
 > constitution and the original meaning of our constitution which
 > revisionist historians can make "mean different things, anything or
 > nothing at all."  Once we truly understand the constitution, its
 > origins and how our forefathers practiced religion in relation to
 > govt (most would be shocked to learn the truth of this) and govt
 > according to the true intent of the constitution, you realize you
 > can't have a separation of church and state but can only keep govt
 > from controlling or prohibiting free religious practice as per
 > conserving our constitution.  We must remember that this likewise
 > means a religion is fully allowed to be involved in govt as long as
 > it does not destroy and tear down our constitution in doing so (once
 > people realize this, it takes all their worries away concerning
 > falling into a likewise tyrannical theocracy), as IS happening today
 > with our own govt as theocracy now that govt has so heavily
 > recruited among clergy to uphold govt programs...  That IS
 > perversion and corruption of our constitution and a violation of the
 > 1st amendment (read it now).  Most of we the sheeple think that we
 > are preventing religion from running govt but have been tricked into
 > thinking the opposite of this reality is true.

 > God's own law of the land (our constitution) is our only true
 > standard of true liberty, justice and equal accountability for
 > all. No force, just equal and unchanging standards and equal
 > accountability for all, as per our constitution.

--- Edward Kruk <>

 > Forget about your "rights"...focus instead on children's NEED for
 > both Parents, and the OBLIGATIONS of society to support parents in
 > the fulfillment of their parental responsibilities.

 > A rape victim does not talk about his or her "rights."

 > And by the way rights have NOTHING to do with responsibility. The
 > more one talks about rights ("why is her piece of the pie bigger
 > than mine?"), the less one is concerned about responsibilities.

 > I like this though:
 >> Alec Baldwin - yells at and make degrading remarks to daughter - FIT 
 >> Tiger Woods - adulterer - FIT & EQUAL
 >> Eline Nordegen - clubs Tiger / Domestic Violence - FIT & EQUAL
 >> Janine Landmuller - porn star - FIT & EQUAL etc...

 >> freedom and equality = harm reduction

/Your remarks were brief and I'm not sure where they lead?  You saw the
  definition of Family  Rights that I had below and I'm sure you know I
see that as fundamental to any family law reform effort.
      What do you see as fundamental for reform - what legislation would 
incorporate your ideals?
 > I support a rebuttable legal presumption of equal parenting
 > responsibility (children living equal amounts of time in each
 > parent's household when both parents want their kids living with
 > them and are in dispute).


 > Since his wife "Pre-legally-planned" the divorce, I believe he was
 > locked in to the offer or suffer exorbitant legal fees.  She planned
 > - he didn't .../

Yes, they may have had some type of agreement, but barring that I
assume you agree he should have been FIT & EQUAL.


 > The difference between Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes and the celebrities
 > that you have listed below is that they have MONEY and money buys
 > influence!  Thank you for sharing!

As you know some of those celebrities didn't to well in 'family'
court.  Alec Baldwin wrote a book about how he was treated (not too
differently than some of us).  But the question was about Tom Cruise
having his daughter taken (and people nodding their heads because of
his strange 'religion') -- is that okay?

 > I think it has alot to do with the Courts not wanting to involved
 > with the issue of religion? My impression is that Tom Cruise agreed
 > to the custody arrangement.

--- Cletus Kremmel <>

 > You are standing in quicksand.  Please don't use Tom Cruise as the
 > poster child for fathers rights, children's rights, or anything to
 > do with family law reform.  The courts had nothing to do with their
 > settlement.  Tom Cruise obviously has something BIG to hide and
 > Katie coerced him into signing away his right to be a parent. The
 > courts did nothing to him or had no influence on him in any way.

 > He chose to keep his little secret a secret, and I doubt it had
 > anything to do with Scientology.  This particular case has nothing
 > to do with the struggle and misery that the rest of us suffer at the
 > hands of the family courts and everything to do with protecting his
 > image. He settled! Nobody took his rights away except for Katie, and
 > he agreed.

 > Do you really believe that Tom Cruise would not have shared custody
 > if that is what he truly desired?
Not sure this is one is that different than what the 'little people'
go through.  I've heard a lot of people talk about divorces and see a
lop-sided judgment and say, 'there must have been something going
on..???'  More importantly on your last question about what Tom would
have wanted and if he would have been EQUAL.  I remember another big
divorce involving Alec Baldwin and he had all the money & lawyers in
the world, and he didn't get what he wanted.

The real point of the message was, shouldn't Tom have been considered
FIT & EQUAL and how can the public be so passive about a child being
taken by the other parent, and use 'religious' reasons as
justification?  If the 'public' (me & you) see that as okay -- why
would we think any different in our own lives?
 > My only point re: Tom Cruise is that the system did not take Suri
 > away.  He negotiated his child away to protect whatever strange
 > secret that he wants his ex to keep out of the press. He didn't have
 > a hearing where a social worker with a high school education or an
 > eighty year old judge decided that the mother should have full
 > custody.

 > Tom Cruise is a jerk who gave his rights up (sold his rights to his
 > child to protect his image), Alec Baldwin is a whole other story
 > with ugly details that I don't care to remember, but I do know he
 > too should not be the poster child for father's rights nor should
 > Charlie Sheen. On the contrary they should be the poster children
 > for mother's rights- One doesn't give a sh@t, The other was at the
 > least a drunken verbally abusive parent, and the third, what can I
 > say about Charlie that you don't already know.

 > My children and I had our rights to access each other stripped away
 > many years ago, I know how it works and on my second failed marriage
 > I got smarter and I have a shared custody agreement.

 > I do however agree with your message and appreciate your work..
 > Thank you and keep up the good work.


                                        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!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Jan 21 2013 - 18:34:19 EST