Posted on 08/22/2002 6:45:01 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers
August 22, 2002
By Roger F. Gay
America's Most Wanted put it like this:
Catalino Morales is wanted for the attempted homicide of five deputy sheriff’s in Allentown, Pennsylvania and for failure to pay back child support.On Saturday, morning, December 9, 2000, eight deputies in Lehigh county Pennsylvania broke into Catalino Morales' home to serve an arrest warrant charging him with failure to make child support payments. According to the deputies, Morales barricaded himself in a second-floor bedroom and fired two shots through a closed door. He then shot out a back window, jumped onto a flat roof, and onto the ground where it is alleged that he shot at a deputy. The deputy returned fire but no one was injured. Morales escaped the immediate area.
Police say Morales then entered a house in the neighborhood and held a family of four hostage for several hours. The standoff ended when one of the residents managed to wrestle the gun out of Morales’ hands and Morales fled the scene. A massive hunt ensued, including search dogs, helicopters, and Allentown police; to no avail.
On the night of June 20, 2001 a SWAT team in Hartford, Connecticut surrounded Morales in a housing complex and shots were fired. No policepersons were injured in the encounters. Morales was hit by three of 25 police bullets, permanently damaging his hand and his leg and endangering the lives of the nearby residents.
He is a father. He is a man. He is allegedly behind in making "child support" payments.
It is unlikely that the child support system will be put on trial in defense of Catalino Morales, but it should be. Under heavy influence from a profit-driven collection industry the process of determining the amount of child support ordered and enforcement practices have changed dramatically within the past fifteen years. Political corruption is rampant and obvious not only to those who have studied the system closely but to many fathers who have been forced into subjugation by it.
Millions of men are treated arbitrarily and unfairly to a degree that compromises or destroys their chance to maintain themselves, let alone get on with a normal life. Many cannot do what the system requires them to do. Add to that years of harassment and threats from a long list of strangers, including half-witted pimple-faced high school drop-outs trying to collect to make a commission and female bureaucrats, possibly former welfare mothers, who revel in the opportunity to emasculate men. There is no escape, no reason. Every politician says so. Men and women with more power than moral character constantly remind them that this is what fatherhood is all about.
Then other strangers arrive with guns and invade their homes with the intent of taking them prisoner. They are experiencing the horror of a dictatorial police state.
Catalino Morales is one of many canaries in the child support coal mines. Year after year we watch the canaries die yet the workers are not allowed to leave. Those among us who have the opportunity to communicate are morally obligated to pass the word. This system must be abandoned as quickly as possible whether the masters wish it or not.
In the early 1990s, millions of fathers first experienced the suspension of constitutional law in domestic relations courts and the transition to enforcement of arbitrary en masse central political decisions. The new system seems designed to ruin men's lives. Decisions are arbitrarily based on statistical projections that have no basis in reality. State governments are encouraged to take as much from fathers as possible in order to increase the amount of federal funds they receive. "Public-private partnerships" formed with private collection agencies that benefit from higher child support awards and greater debt. Industry representatives control much of the policy making process, including the design of most formulae used in setting child support amounts.
With so many people involved, there has been a predictable variation in reaction to the change. The early 1990s saw the rise of the fathers rights movement, class-action lawsuits, a surge in the number of appeals filed against child support orders, and new national conferences on fathers issues. State and federal politicians were lobbied constantly to fix or abandon the new laws. Members of the Washington State Legislature received thousands of pairs of baby shoes from fathers trying to make a point.
There were also reports of increases in suicide and violence. The early 1990s saw news reports of the first of the early morning raids on communities to round-up hundreds of dads to cart them off to jail. It saw shootings in courtrooms, lawyers and judges taken bloody to ambulances, and fathers barricaded in their homes surrounded by police.
In Dallas, a lawyer representing himself in a divorce case pulled a semi-automatic weapon from his briefcase and opened fire. While one father was barricaded in his home threatening suicide if police came too close, he was telephoned by a reporter who wanted to turn the conversation over to a police negotiator. Feminist groups protested, saying the government must not negotiate with terrorists. News coverage on such incidents ended. Billions of dollars were spent increasing security in courthouses.
Despite the best efforts of ordinary citizens, the system got worse. Fathers rights advocates were largely cut off from making their appeals through traditional media that continued an enormous propaganda effort against the so-called "deadbeat dads." By the mid-1990s politicians were confident that the public couldn't get enough. Child support was on the political agenda in every election year. Politicians in both parties continually promised to make life tougher for fathers and passed law after law to do so.
By the late 1990s life had become so desperate for a few divorced men (in more than one country) suffering psychologically from the loss of their children and constant harassment that they took guns into day-care centers and held children hostage. Do you now understand how it feels, they asked before being gunned down by police snipers.
Due to the enormous weight of one-sided reporting on the child support issue, many people are still quite unfamiliar with the problem. It is easy to find people who believe that errors can be corrected and orders adjusted to circumstances by a quick visit with a family court judge or through some simple administrative process. They have been brainwashed into believing that men generally avoid what are presumed to be fair and reasonable obligations to their children. It is difficult for them to understand that millions of ordinary citizens are fighting for their survival in the midst of a constitutional crisis.
The Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the states define a system of checks and balances. Unreasonable orders are to be corrected on appeal. Unconstitutional laws are to be overturned by the judiciary. These are necessary safeguards against harmful, intrusive, and corrupt government behavior. But during the past twelve years the system has not functioned as designed. Everyone in government connected with child support, including judges, receive financial rewards for maintaining the centrally planned system and courts and prosecutors have cooperated to an amazing degree. This has created a situation in which no legal remedy for arbitrary and oppressive orders and overly zealous enforcement measures exists.
Some orders are so high as to be life threatening. They do not leave the person who is ordered to pay with sufficient income to support himself. Lives have been lost. But to create the order is not enough. Once bound, the system constantly threatens and harasses fathers who are unable to meet their arbitrarily assigned "obligations." Just give the situation more than two seconds thought. If you do not think that the system caused Catalino Morales to fire a gun and run for his life you do not pass elementary applied probability. You do not understand humans.
Unless the corruption in the system is dealt with and those abusing power and influence arrested and jailed, there will be more gunfights and more men brought down in the war against fathers. Some will no longer have the compassion for life that Catalino Morales displayed. Their instinct to fight when threatened will win out over flight. They will aim at police before firing and not relinquish their weapons to hostages. We will all be guilty if we do not hold those responsible for the child support system as we know it today guilty of conspiracy.
Copyright © 2002 Roger F. Gay
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. He has also been an intensive political observer for many years culminating in a well-developed sense of honest cynicism. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found at Fathering Magazine and Men's News Daily.
"IE, anything the commies came up with just has to be bad."
Don't be silly. We know that law "borrowed" from dictatorships is good. Why, just look at the GCA68, lifted almost word for word from the Nazi gun control law found on the books requested from the Library of Congress by the legislator (hmmm, Dodd, wasn't it?) who wrote the draft.
The mind boggles that a "conservative" would attack someone for pointing out that an abusive unconstitutional law was based on something copied from a communist dictatorship.
Have you no shame?
Are you implying something? If so, don't beat around the bush like a feminst troll, just spit it out.
"It is obvious that you've never had any direct contact with "the system", and are getting your "facts" from the feminist propaganda mills."
"Whilst you get your factiods from anti-femanist propaganda mills, which is no more accurate.
Interesting that you did not refute my point, but stood your ground and used it as a starting point for your attack.
Not that I ever doubted that you were a proud feminist, of course. Non-feministas don't as a rule go spouting feminist agitprop, after all.
But I digress, Mz. Lightly. The fact is, my observations, which you demean as "factoids", are based on my own personal experience. And in the case of my comments regarding how the divorce court meatgrinder assaults businessmen, my observations are based on what was done to my business. A business, by the way, which existed long prior to the divorce.
So much for your "creating a small business" tripe about "a well known evasion ploy".
You disgust me. That's not news. You disgust anyone who does not have a vested interest in the further erosion of the family unit and the cultural basis of the USA.
But, as you've acceded to the fact that you are a feminist, that is no surprise. And, as you've stepped into the breach to openly support communist inspired laws, it's likewise no surprise that you would express such contempt for the idea of a private citizen owning a business.
I seem to recall that when last I researched "the origins of those resources", I found a variety of hard core left wing organizations, radical feminists, radical lesbians, and socialist "religious" organizations (of the "liberation theology" variety favored by Hillary Clinton and her IPS buddies), and various and sundry other parasites surviving off of "free money" exacted from the taxpayers in an insidious form of creeping socialism.
Your point?
Oh, that's right. You're here to defend those enemies of America.
"So it is okay to use armed resistance against preceived injustice by goverment over what amounts to money decreed for your children. I thought this attitude was what hurt the fatehrs movement in the first place with begatuve mainstream media coverage"
OK, noted. I'll put you down in the, "Yes, I do support a dehumanizing abusive system that destroys men, children, and families, with the goal of creating a Socialist Utopia in the USA" column.
Thank you for going on record with your position.
Very true, and all the more so because such are not representative of the majority; thus, for the sake of the rights of all the good fathers out there, those relative few who degenerate into violence should and must be disenfranchised in no uncertain terms and without hesitation or excuse.Yet those who support such nonsense will never grasp that concept. I honestly believe Roger takes up the cause of the indefensible just to see his name repeated.
I have not read but a few posts on this thread, but I would say that excusing immoral behavior is supposed to be a liberal trait, not a conservative one.I find that most of those who scream father's rights and take up causes like those Roger chooses to be liberal minded. And after discussions with these very same ppl on this issue for many years, I begin to associate the same with the word hypocrite. You can usually turn what they say right around on them and they don't see the correlation.
I am in favor of fathers rights where the fathers are good men, as the majority of fathers are.
For this article to portray someone who willfully degenerated into violence as a martyr is an insult to countless millions of good fathers worldwide, and to their legitimate social-legal-judicial right to parent.I've tried that. They don't see how they insult the group they claim to be for. If they're truly concerned with what's right and/or wrong, they'd see that by lauding a man who would act in such a way only lauds that which is wrong.
Thorazine. More, if you're already on it. Your florid "imagination" is awe inspiring, in a sick kind of way.
"Which is why I made my comment regarding suicide by cop. Your posts have a martyr tone to them."
See above. I interpret your twaddle as a cry for help. Sort of a "someone stop me before I post again" plea.
I'm sorry, I can't help you in that department. All I can do is point out how delusional you are. Until you want to change, you won't be able to be helped.
And with disturbing frequency, demonized here on a conservative forum.
Well, at least now we know why the feminists and lefties in this thread are supporting that system.
Really now, you don't say!
Um, not to disturb the voices in your head too much, but if you get the chance to put a word in edgewise, could you ask them which one of my friends they're talking about? I can't seem to recall having any criminals for friends.
Or perhaps they've got me confused with someone else?
Thanks for posting. FreeRepublic is filled with a lot more people of common sense and decency such as you than it is with the liberal whiners, applauders, and excusers of bad behaviors.You're welcome CJ. My husband reads FR regularly and often shares some of the threads with me, but I've never piped in before because I have enough of my own boards to keep up with. I've been speaking against Roger's brand of deadbeat defense for many years, and have certainly noted that it seems more likely I'm just arguing mostly against liberalism. The two seem to run in the same circles.
Obviously not.
You missed the point. First, "based on" and "borrowed from" are two different things. Throwing out "the commies did it first" is simplistic, especially as the differences between the commmie model & the Wisconsin model are ignored, not to mention the rest of the picture. I see you ignored my questions. Finally, throwing in *which* model, when many states use other models is merely inflamitory rhetoric & doesn't add to his argument, but instead detracts from it.
Are you implying something?
About you? Not at all. lol I'm speaking about the nature of the beast, business startups. I'm speaking of real ones, not those created on paper. I have a great deal of disdain for paper companies.
"It is obvious that you've never had any direct contact with "the system", and are getting your "facts" from the feminist propaganda mills."
"Whilst you get your factiods from anti-femanist propaganda mills, which is no more accurate.
Interesting that you did not refute my point, but stood your ground and used it as a starting point for your attack.
I'm sorry. I didn't know I needed to spell it out for you, Mr. Cleo. You *know* the party you adressed never had any direct contact with "the system" & got their "facts" from from the feminist propaganda mills, how? You didn't make a point, so refuting it was er, pointless.
Not that I ever doubted that you were a proud feminist, of course. Non-feministas don't as a rule go spouting feminist agitprop, after all.
Course you don't doubt it. You see what you want to see & no more.
The fact is, my observations, which you demean as "factoids", are based on my own personal experience.
As are *some* of my observations, Mr. Don. I know how to look beyond my own experiences & it includes people from all sides of the issue, all walks of life. I don't know any child who's mother was given primary placement by the court. I personally know many with joint placement. I tried addressing that to Roger. He tossed in his spin about the Wisconsin model & from my POV, without knowing how it works on ground level.
And in the case of my comments regarding how the divorce meatgrinder assaults businessmen, my observations are based on what was done to my business. A business, by the way, which existed long prior to the divorce.
I think you are mixing subjects. Settlement & child support are seperate issues. BTW, we started ours with $20, so your argument about *needing* start up funds just didn't wash with me.
So much for your "creating a small business" tripe about "a well known evasion ploy". Cept, you assumed I was speaking about you, though I wasn't.
But, as you've acceded to the fact that you are a feminist, that is no surprise.
I did? Where? ROTFL
And, as you've stepped into the breach to openly support communist inspired laws, it's likewise no surprise that you would express such contempt for the idea of a private citizen owning a business.
Mr. Don, you are good at putting words in people's mouths & then responding to your own creations. It's a silly ploy. Don't you think?
Most passionate pro-lifers are against bombings; the strength of their passion and resolve does not incline them to violence.
Most passionate Fathers Rights advocates are against shooting at policemen; the strength of their passion and resolve does not incline them to violence.
Very parallel.
By the way, I've noticed that while custody and financial issues are deeply conflated; there are two kinds of fathers rights advocates: those primarily interested in advancing equal parenting/custody rights, and those primarily focused on child support.
The first kind needs/deserves more press; it seems like most threads here focus on the latter.
Financial issues are interesting, and personally I'm against employing "imputed income" math, and suspending licenses, and jailing obligors, ostensibly if indirectly for debt, and the lack of accountability for funds spent. Those who are on future threads discussing such are more than welcome to ping me.
All the same, the central issue in the Fathers Right movement has to be the equal right to custody of all children of two biological parents, between those two biological parents, save where one parent can be proven criminally unfit in a court of law.
Most passionate pro-lifers are against bombings; the strength of their passion and resolve does not incline them to violence.
Most passionate Fathers Rights advocates are against shooting at policemen; the strength of their passion and resolve does not incline them to violence.
Very parallel.
By the way, I've noticed that while custody and financial issues are deeply conflated; there are two kinds of fathers rights advocates: those primarily interested in advancing equal parenting/custody rights, and those primarily focused on child support.
The first kind needs/deserves more press; it seems like most threads here focus on the latter.
Financial issues are interesting, and personally I'm against employing "imputed income" math, and suspending licenses, and jailing obligors, ostensibly if indirectly for debt, and the lack of accountability for funds spent. Those who are on future threads discussing such are more than welcome to ping me.
All the same, the central issue in the Fathers Right movement has to be the equal right to custody of all children of two biological parents, between those two biological parents, save where one parent can be proven criminally unfit in a court of law.
I seem to recall that when last I researched "the origins of those resources", I found a variety of hard core left wing organizations, radical feminists, radical lesbians, and socialist "religious" organizations (of the "liberation theology" variety favored by Hillary Clinton and her IPS buddies), and various and sundry other parasites surviving off of "free money" exacted from the taxpayers in an insidious form of creeping socialism.
They should not recieve tax payer support. Not all of them do, but I don't think you want to hear that. Your point?
....was obviously missed on you. Oh, that's right. You're here to defend those enemies of America.
Defend? Keep going. What else do I think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.