Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers
FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: childsupport; constitution; fathers; policestate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,081-1,093 next last
To: Robert_Paulson2
Did you consider that to be a given?
681 posted on 08/25/2002 12:43:29 PM PDT by Right To Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: Right To Life
I don't think it is a "requirement" for membership, if that is what you mean.

There are plenty of RC's who tithe to the church, who takes their money... and keeps them on the roles as members, who support choice.

So, if you mean that carte blanche, all a of g are pro life, like ashcroft, I cannot guarantee that. HOWEVER, it is in their training manuals at their colleges.

I am curious as to why you ask?
682 posted on 08/25/2002 12:56:46 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 681 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
I ask because all Christian churches should be pro-life; naturally I respect those that are.
683 posted on 08/25/2002 1:05:59 PM PDT by Right To Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
The question I asked you, relates to your insistence of hanging on to "moral virtues" back in #617.

"I've never been pro-life myself." you said in post 400

So you, would support a woman's right to an abortion?

You probably realize by now, that supporters of abortion rights, don't have a real big platform for speaking about "moral virtues" to a pro-life venue. You see, many of us don't think folks who support infanticide, have any "moral virtues," to begin with.
684 posted on 08/25/2002 1:09:57 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: independentmind
I don't see how "I am not pro-life" is a conservative in your view... see post #400 by same.
685 posted on 08/25/2002 1:14:06 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

Comment #686 Removed by Moderator

To: Robert_Paulson2
you say he should be ignored
Nooooooo. See this is where a lot of the trouble lies. What I actually said was "Your further ramblings of victimized fathers do nothing but detract and derail. They are best ignored." I directly referenced a particular argument of his that was to be ignored. ;-)
687 posted on 08/25/2002 3:04:29 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
Didn't you say you were pro choice??
Nope.

"I brand myself with my own title. I call myself pro-responsibility. I don't disagree with abortion for rapes or life threatening situations, where I look at it as much as a medical procedure necessary to the well-being of the paient (mother). I disagree with it's use as birth control and as a method to escape being responsible for one's own actions."
688 posted on 08/25/2002 3:08:04 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
So you, would support a woman's right to an abortion?
I'll have to tell you up front that I don't put much stock in questions asked of ppl who cannot even quote within context. I just posted the rest of that statement in response to your question above. After you whack it off at "I've never been pro-life myself", I go on to state why I don't agree with abortion for the most part. My reasonings for not agreeing with it aren't the same as the pro-life advocates. But because I don't consider myself to be pro-life also does not mean I'm pro-choice...that which you're trying to state.
689 posted on 08/25/2002 3:13:00 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Look Roger. Not a shot fired!

CHILD-SUPPORT SCOFFLAWS STUNG
Sunday, August 25, 2002

By KELLY ADAMS, Columbian staff writer
Five Clark County residents thought they were headed for Disneyland or Hawaii on Saturday morning when they showed up at the Hazel Dell offices of KWNT radio.

Instead they received an all-expenses paid trip to jail for failing to pay child support.

In an effort to track down about 120 people in the county who aren't making their payments, the Clark County Sheriff's Office set up a fake radio station, complete with a Web site and a "contest line."

Letters were sent to the last known addresses of those who owed money, but many came back marked "Return to Sender."

Of the nine who called to claim their prizes, five showed up Saturday at an office building in Hazel Dell. Once there, the "contestants" were asked to make a promotional tape for the new station. Instead of a recording engineer, they were met by a uniformed deputy who arrested them.

"Every single one of them was speechless," said Sgt. Mike Cooke, who organized the sting.

All of the offenders had something to say once they were in front of Judge Scott Anders after they were booked in the Clark County Jail. Most claimed they had only been working for a little while and were getting back on their feet.

"My life is just starting to make sense," said Brendan Latimer of Vancouver. He was accused of owing nearly $13,000 in back support to his child. Latimer said he had just started a great new job but had spells of unemployment and drug use. He's starting to work his way out of $40,000 worth of debt.

"This one doesn't go away though," Anders said, explaining that child-support obligations can't be dissolved by filing for bankruptcy. "The money will keep adding up. We'll keep bringing you back."

Anders also called on Latimer to continue on the steps to sobriety.

"Clean and sober is a good first step, but you need to deal with the wreckage of the past. We're dealing with the wreckage here."

Latimer was released on the condition that he start making payments as promised by Sept. 11. Anders suspended the one-year jail sentence with the option of reinstating it if Latimer fails to live up to the court's conditions.

Others will spend some time in jail. Tammy Maki was brought in for failing to appear in court after she got several months behind in child-support payments.

"I just want to get this behind me," she told Anders. "I'll do whatever it takes."

Anders sentenced her to spend the weekend in jail but ordered her released on Monday morning in time to get to work.

Ric Bishop, the chief civil deputy, said the $300 spent for the sting was well worth it. Officers can spend that much tracking down one person who owes child support.

"They are a very elusive group," he said.

The five people brought in owed a total of $56,586, Cooke said.

Le Ann Larson, a deputy prosecuting attorney with Clark County's child-support unit, said while all that money may not be paid up immediately, she hopes it sends a message to the more than 100 people with outstanding warrants.

Cooke agreed and encouraged those behind on their child support to make payment arrangements: "Otherwise the prize patrol might come get them."
690 posted on 08/25/2002 3:38:01 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
I have a real, pronounced tendency to ignore pro choicers, when it comes to their "moral views." Those who proudly announce they are not "pro life", usually go on my ignore list pretty quickly. Call it a character defect of mine, if you like.

You have ignored pretty much ignored the recent court rulings in several states which have found that on multiple counts, the current system is dangerously unconstitutional and illegal... per the judges and district attorneys who brought the cases. Pehaps you felt it has no bearing on the reasons as to why people go "crazy" under the duress such laws create. I suspect that it would be quite different, were YOU the target or victim of such unconstitutional laws. But, ignoring the precedents cited, makes you appear, well, ignorant.. to each his, or her own. You have a right to ignore what you will.

I also reread this entire thread several times, and I am convinced you have lied about Roger calling this guy his hero. Because, he never said that. Most of your comments to him, as well as to others who have brought up some salient points, are pretty inflamatory. It is either ignorance of how your words affect the thoughts and reason of others, or carelessness with the english language. Hey, I know, nobody's perfect. But, with me, although I am confident it matters not one whit to you, you have gone WAY past three strikes on this thread.

Upon consideration and rereading the thread, I see you have repeatedly used ad hominem attacks against several folks who did nothing to you, you launched multiple personal insults and introduced many strawmen to an otherwise civil debate. Strawmen non-sequiturs that obscure the entire point and commentary of the original posted article... Hey, it's a free country, and you can say what you want. It does affect your credibility with me, perhaps others as well. You are, according to your sign up date, relatively new here, so it could be considered bad form, to be quite so vicious and insulting your first week or two.

I do think (just my opinion of course) however that you pretty well represent what I see as the radical feminist paradigm and psyche rather well. Which pretty much renders your emotional attacks on others, who wanted to comment on the current state of the laws, moot as far as I am concerned.

I look for substance in what people post. Content. Not raw emotionalism. I go deaf whenever I hear "We're fierce, we're feminists, and we are in your face...." type of stuff. It's all too much screaming and invective for me to learn anything from.

If it makes it any easier for you... just ditto everything insulting you have said to the others, to me, if it makes it simpler for you. Sometimes, a simple "I hate you" makes folks feel better fast.

Go ahead, it saves bandwidth.

691 posted on 08/25/2002 3:44:20 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
"I don't agree with abortion for the most part"

yup.. you're a pro-choicer.... just as I thought. Good luck on the forum as a "conservative"
Good bye.
692 posted on 08/25/2002 3:48:28 PM PDT by Robert_Paulson2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Sorry, but I didn't need any "spin" to see what it says. Here is a man who shot at law engorcment officers, and who held an innocent family hostage at gunpoint for several hours. Yet, you present this article as an example of the abuses of the child support system.

Don't you think that this guy has far more serious problems? Why would you defend him?

What I hope you would see is that it is dangerous to be a "one trick pony".

693 posted on 08/25/2002 4:50:30 PM PDT by Jerry_M
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: drjimmy
What about the child molester who himself was molested as a child? By all means we must support him, because after all he was just trying to say to his victims "Do you now understand how it feels?" Catalino Morales and the others described in this article are not real men. Not even close.

I don't recall reading anything about a child molester.

Obviously you lead a sheltered or privileged life and don't know anyone in this position.

I have, and I have a son in this position, and I live in fear that some day he will give up and say "it's not worth it".

694 posted on 08/25/2002 5:07:17 PM PDT by Pee_Oui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
I have seen the recent court rulings long before they were posted here. As for ignoring them, I fail to see what, if anything at all, they have to do with why I began posting to this thread. That is because Roger writes an article lauding a man who has a shootout with cops and victimizes the guy because how dare they send cops over back child support. You and Don being the two most loudest defenders of what type of father Roger holds in high esteem so much so that he writes them as the heros of his never-ending diatribes, spew anti-female/anti-mother propaganda then post articles that you want discussed? And you see the logic in my discussing those articles? Why? Let me pose it to you this way. Were you to constantly get smacked upside the head by some guy everytime you looked at him, would you look at him if he asked you to? I think that's pretty much a no brainer. You?

The only three strikes are those the likes of you and Don choose to imagine. It is much as Don imaginging me to be a feminist or cheater. You have such great imaginations. And you even imagine all these insults. IE: Calling someone on hero-worship implied articles and others on misquoting you is insulting them. Yeah I Gotcha. ::snicker::

Of course you "go deaf", you were deaf at the outset. Or do you really need me to go back and pull up the "comment" you have given at the outset of all this?

I'll give you a small hint here Robert. If you truly want debate, you would have attempted engaging in that at the start. You did not. Now you want to turn a full circle and start pointing fingers? Good luck. You'll need it.
695 posted on 08/25/2002 5:18:14 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: Robert_Paulson2
yup.. you're a pro-choicer.... just as I thought. Good luck on the forum as a "conservative" Good bye.
Why Robert? I'm not going anywhere. You leaving? And you're claiming you want reasoned debate? LOL
696 posted on 08/25/2002 5:20:07 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: Pee_Oui
Obviously you lead a sheltered or privileged life and don't know anyone in this position.

I have, and I have a son in this position, and I live in fear that some day he will give up and say "it's not worth it".
I know several men who are or were in just that position. Not a one of them took the kind of action you guys are holding up with the hero-worship here. Each of them would want this Morales behind bars...where he belongs for shooting at cops and disobeying the law so blatantly. Each of them work with the law.
697 posted on 08/25/2002 5:23:10 PM PDT by almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 694 | View Replies]

To: amused
I do feel lucky in regards to my own father. He chose to stay very close to us, making sacrifices he did not have to in order to be a driving force in our lives not just a part of it.

Kudos to your Dad and to you for realizing what he went through. He probably didn't like the system anymore than Jon Doe, Roger or the rest of us. You were more important than his dislike of the system, though.

698 posted on 08/25/2002 6:28:39 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: Right To Life

Those who fight against court orders turning them from parents into visitors I respect greatly. Those who use violence to further their cause damage that cause no matter how just and right it is.
699 posted on 08/25/2002 6:58:58 PM PDT by Brytani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Brytani; farmfriend; Don Joe; RogerFGay
Those who fight against court orders turning them from parents into visitors I respect greatly. Those who use violence to further their cause damage that cause no matter how just and right it is.

Agreed. 100%. Without question.

700 posted on 08/25/2002 7:16:49 PM PDT by Right To Life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,081-1,093 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson