Court Rules Women Are Moral Minors
who do not have to obey the law
How often are women ordered by the court to financially support their own children? Never. Do women pay the taxes which fund the social programs which they are so proud of? No, they as a group get $100 billion more BACK directly from the IRS than they payto the IRS in the first place, in "earned income credit" and other "deducations" and credits.
How often are women ordered to pay child support in a divorce? Almost never. Is the amount the FEW who are ordered to pay it enough to support a child? On average, it's much less than half the amount the federal government estimates that it costs to support a child, AND which the social security administration actually PAYS to support a child. Are the very few women who are ordered to pay the paltry sum in child support likely to pay it? Even though it is only a small percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support, even though the amount they are ordered to pay is only 1% of the amount some men are ordered to pay, they're four times more likely than men to NEVER pay a dime of it.
Do the courts who ordered these few women to pay a paltry sum in child support which they never pay then punish the women who violated this court order?
The courts know that women aren't going to pay it anyway, because they view women as moral minors who cannot be expected to obey the law nor follow court orders. The few courts who do order women to pay child support still view women as moral minors because even these few courts refuse to punish women who flagrantly disobey their orders, and then brag about it on public forums.
BTW: While fathers might view the decision below as being bad for fathers,
it bears far deeper consequences for the public's increasingly realistic
distrust and disrespect for Courts. Any Court which openly promotes flagrant
lawlessness brings tremendous dishonor on thelegal profession and the
integrity of the Courts, and harms the citizens of the State. The Bar
Association in Virginia should look into these judges, who should be
In February of 1999, The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Parrish v.
Spaulding [ http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1980913.txt ] that mothers
do not have to obey court orders. In that case, the mother was under an
order prohibiting her from moving with the children. She moved anyway. The
Supreme Court said "that's okay, mommies do not have to obey court orders."
In July of 2000, the Virginia Court of Appeals has once again affirmed that
mommies do not have to obey court orders and that statutes involving the
"friendly parent doctrine" and visitation rights only apply against fathers,
not mommies. In Cintron v. Long,
[ http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/2169992.txt ] the mother refused to
allow court ordered visitation. Two court-appointed psychologists also
pointed out that the mother had alienated the child against the father and
that the mother was poisonous to the child. The trial court gave custody to
the father. The Court of Appeals reversed and chastised the trial court for
changing custody "merely" because mommy never obeyed any court order.
The clear message is that only men need to obey court orders. It is also
clear that women do not need to obey court orders and hurting children on
purpose is condoned and encouraged by the Virginia Judicial hierarchy.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
C B C . C A N e w s - F u l l S t o r y :
Homolka wins appeal on all restrictionsLast Updated Wed, 30 Nov 2005
14:14:19 EST CBC News
A Quebec Superior Court judge on Wednesday lifted all restrictions
imposed on Karla Homolka, saying there is not enough evidence to justify
INDEPTH: Bernardo and Homolka
Karla Homolka (file photo courtesy SRC)
FROM JUNE 4, 2005: Judge says Homolka still poses threat, imposes strict
conditions on her freedom
Fourteen restrictions had been imposed on Homolka under Sec. 810 of the
Criminal Code of Canada after a lower court judge ruled she still posed a
risk to the community.
But Justice James Brunton overturned those restrictions, meaning Homolka
will no longer be prohibited from associating with criminals, working in a
place where she would be in a position of authority over anyone under age
16, possessing a controlled substance, or contacting her former husband,
convicted killer Paul Bernardo.
She is also permitted to contact the families of Leslie Mahaffy and
Kristen French, the two Ontario teenagers she and Bernardo were convicted of
kidnapping, torturing and killing in the early 1990s.
The ruling means Homolka does not have to tell police where she lives or
works, or notify them if she plans to move.
Tim Danson, the lawyer for the French and Mahaffy families, said his
clients are "deeply disappointed" in the ruling.
"The shock, disbelief and anguish they expressed to me over the phone was
painful to hear," said Danson. Debbie Mahaffy said she feels like she's been
"kicked in the stomach," he said.
Lower court erred: judge
Homolka's lawyers had argued that she had served her 12-year sentence and
that the restrictions, imposed by Quebec Court Judge Jean R. Beaulieu in
July, were punitive.
Brunton agreed, saying that evidence presented to the lower court judge
in July was insufficient, and failed to prove that Homolka was a serious and
imminent risk to public safety.
Beaulieu was confronted with a difficult and complex case and was acting
under the pressure of time, said Brunton, who concluded that the lower court
got the ruling wrong.
One problem with the evidence was a psychiatric test performed on
Homolka, said Brunton. He says the physician incorrectly used the test and
wrongly concluded that Homolka has a psychopathic personality.
"The possibility that Ms. Teale (a surname Homolka has gone by) might
reoffend one day cannot be completely eliminated," wrote the judge.
"However, her development over the last 12 years demonstrates, on a balance
of probabilities, that this is unlikely to occur. She does not represent a
real and imminent danger to commit a personal injury offence."
Danson said the judge was extremely thorough in his judgment, but erred
in his interpretation of dangerousness under the Criminal Code. The notion
that Homolka does not pose a risk to the public is "unacceptable" to the
families, he said.
The families believe the public is at risk now that Homolka is
unrestricted in the community, and are urging the attorney general of Quebec
to appeal the decision, he said.
Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant said he hopes an appeal will go