Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #1 


News Release

 

August 9, 2006

 

 

Contact: Rebecca Colton, Assistant to Chief Justice, (515) 281-8205

 

Chief Justice Reacts to Judicial Questionnaire

 

Des Moines, Iowa, August 9, 2006——Chief Justice Louis Lavorato, Iowa Supreme Court, responded to a plan announced by a conservative special interest group to send questionnaires to judges to solicit their views on specific cases and politically charged issues.

 

"There are important considerations that judges must keep in mind when deciding whether or not to announce their views on legal and political issues," said Chief Justice Lavorato.  "If a judge announces a position on an issue, which the judge has every right to do, the judge's impartiality may be called into question and the judge may have to decline handling cases involving that issue."

 

"For this reason, the public should be wary of voting for a judge who promises to rule a certain way.  In our system of government, we expect judges to rule according to the law regardless of their personal views.  We also expect them to make decisions free of political intimidation and influence."

 

"I appreciate the public's desire to learn about judges who are on the retention ballot and recommend that voters study the judicial evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association," said Chief Justice Lavorato.  "This highly informative evaluation—called the plebiscite—rates judges on a wide range of professional qualifications and skills.  It will be available in October.  Voters can also find information about judges and judicial retention elections at http://www.judicial.state.ia.us."

 

# # #

2006

 

Iowa Supreme Court

1111 East Court Avenue

Des Moines, IA  50319

 

515-281-5174

 

 


http://www.judicial.state.ia.us


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #2 

I guess they didn't like our survey...

 

  

 

 

 

 

Non-custodial parents networking together to make a difference!

 

 

August 7th, 2006

 

 

Dear District Court Judge,

 

Your name has been identified by numerous individuals and there now exists a rebuttable presumption that as a judge, you refuse to grant Joint Physical Care during a dissolution of marriage or during a petition for custody. Please complete the following survey and return in the self-addressed stamped envelope so that this presumption may be overcome and your judicial record verified:

 

  1. Since July 1, 2004, how many child custody cases have you presided over?

 

  1. How many of these cases involved married couples?

 

  1. How many parents of these cases requested joint physical care?

 

  1. Regarding these joint physical care requests, how many times did you award joint physical care?

 

 

 

  1. In how many cases did you award primary physical placement to the mother?

 

 

  1. Likewise, in how many cases did you award primary physical placement to the father?

 

 

Thank you for participating in our survey.  If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address below or via email at support@IowaFathers.com.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Bryan Iehl

Founder

 

 

P.O. Box 2884 œ Waterloo, Iowa œ 50704-2884

support@IowaFathers.com

 

 

 

Quote:
In our system of government, we expect judges to rule according to the law regardless of their personal views.  We also expect them to make decisions free of political intimidation and influence.

If judges ruled according to the law, there would be no need for appeals or political influence!  As it stands, there are too many Activist Judges and the Supreme Court of Iowa refuses to hold them accountable. 

 

In his State of the Judiciary Address, the chief justice reminded the audience of appropriate checks on judicial power, including a partyfs right to appeal a court ruling to a higher court, the legislaturefs right to amend a statute to prospectively change the impact of a court decision interpreting the statute, and the peoplefs right to amend the Constitution when they disagree with a courtfs interpretation.  This is exactly what IowaFathers.com is doing through legislative reform and through our judicial retention process.

 

IowaFathers.com has the attention of the Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, and Executive Branch of government!!!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #3 

Quote:
I appreciate the public's desire to learn about judges who are on the retention ballot and recommend that voters study the judicial evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association," said Chief Justice Lavorato.  "This highly informative evaluation—called the plebiscite—rates judges on a wide range of professional qualifications and skills.  It will be available in October.

It is impossible for the Iowa Bar Association to have an unbiased report regarding judges.  Every attorney and legislator I've spoken with today agree with me on this aspect. 

 

FYI: October is too late for concerned citizens to view this report.  This report should be made available and updated year round along with ALL Judicial Records for citizens to analyze and view. This approach would truly allow the public to make an educated decision regarding judges. However, I know this will never come to be because judges and attorneys act as a "Paternity" and protect each other!!!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #4 

Want proof they are in BED TOGETHER...Read below:

 

THE IOWA STATE BAR ASSIATION

115 Third Street, S.E., Suite 500

PO Box 2107

Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52406-2107

(319) 365-9461

FAX (319) 365-8564

e-mail khc@shuttleworthlaw.com 

Kevin H. Collins, President

 

April 26, 2004

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Governor of Iowa

State Capitol

1007 East Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50319

 

RE:  HF 22 Joint Physical Care

Dear Governor Vilsack:

On behalf of all Iowans, I respectfully urge you to veto HF 22 – Joint Physical Care.

At its meeting on April 16, 2004, the Family Law Section of the Iowa State Bar Association considered the Act, formerly known as HF 22, which has been passed by both houses and awaits your determination.  The Family Law Section voted unanimously, except for one member, to recommend a veto of this legislation.    The committee’s view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.  

The best interest of a child is essentially a legal question of  "what does this child need and how can these parents contribute to this child’s needs?"  By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar.  Physical care is in reality an award of the right to maintain a child’s primary residence.  Certainly a child needs two parents after divorce.  Joint physical care does not assure that right in any particular regard.  Where parents are able to maintain two primary residences, consistent schedules, shift the quantity of time between homes as a child’s needs, activities and stages of development require, shared physical care certainly is a good option for parents who have good communications.  

Shared physical care ought to be an option that the courts should approve if reached by agreement between the parents.  There was a concern under current judicial practice that judges were rejecting joint physical care even though the parents had agreed.   The Family Law Section believes that a parenting plan which provides for joint physical care ought to be approved by the court unless a court finds it contrary to the best interest of a child to order shared physical care.  


HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care.   This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.

The Family Law Section and the ISBA urges a veto of this bill.  

You should be aware that the Family Law Section intends to take up a careful review of parenting plans and the appropriateness of joint physical care and, hopefully, make recommendations to the 2005 legislative session.

This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.

Very truly yours,

KEVIN H. COLLINS

khc@shuttleworthlaw.com

KHC:mwk


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #5 

Quote:
The committee’s view is that the Act creates a passive presumption of shared joint physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child.

 

Quote:
By creating a presumption of joint physical care, there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar.

Funny how the Iowa Bar Association and Governor Vilsack (HF22 Letter from Vilsack) stated it created a presumption of Joint Physical Care when House File 22 passed but the Supreme Court states it doesn't.  Just more proof that attorneys and judges have a "Paternity" and look out for monetary benefits instead of the intent of the legislation and the "Best Interest of the Child."

 

Let us discuss that Iowa Bar Association's opinon of "Weekend Visitation" if "Joint Physical Care" makes the child a calendar!  Joint Physical Care is SHARED PARENTING and VISITATION is the illegal restricting of access to our children!!!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #6 

Quote:
This legislation is not beneficial to Iowans and I urge your veto.

No, this legislation was a WIN for ALL children and parents.  It also just happens to reduce the potential for monetary gain to all divorce attorneys!!!


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #7 

Here is a PLAN...EVERYONE email this messageboard link to the following newsmedia outlets and let us start a National Campaign to remove ALL Judges that refuse to award Joint Physical Care:

 

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News:

Oreilly@foxnews.com

 

Dateline NBC:

dateline@nbc.com

 

20/20 on ABC:

2020@abc.com 


__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
Will

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Chief Justice Louis Lavorato, Iowa Supreme Court, responded to a plan announced by a conservative special interest group to send questionnaires to judges to solicit their views on specific cases and politically charged issues.

Chief Justice Lavorato does not get it...CHILDREN are NOT a "Politically Charged Issue!!!" As a non-custodial parent, the judicial system illegally and unconstitutionally stole my children from me and placed them with their mother.  The judicial system did so without any justifiable reason.  I've never broke the law nor have I ever committed any spousal or child abuse.  I'm a law abiding citizen that only wants equal access to my children!

This movement is not going away and will only grow stronger so the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch had better wake-up or you will ALL be REPLACED!!!

__________________
Children Need Both Parents
MARKKLEIN

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #9 

Simply no doubt my getting 52% of the vote on Ted Sporer's presidential straw before I got booted made a big impression on Iowa's political and judicial elites.

 

I'll be in Iowa with my team September 9th to attend the Iowa Christian Alliance meeting in Clive. Plan to spend several days here to meet with supporters to plan for the August 2007 Iowa straw poll in Ames followed by the caucuses in January, 2008.

 

If Iowa's NCPs get organized, I could take Iowa which the GOP seriously consider giving me the presidential nomination. My very strong showing on Sporer's poll clearly demonstrated how weak the "annointed" potential candidates are.


__________________
MARK KLEIN
Will

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 104
Reply with quote  #10 
Thank you Dr. Mark Klein!!!  I'm fed up with our broken, corrupt, biased, and greedy legal system.

In fact, the more I think about it, isn't Chief Justice responding and making statements such as "I appreciate the public's desire to learn about judges who are on the retention ballot and recommend that voters study the judicial evaluation conducted by the Iowa State Bar Association," and "This highly informative evaluation—called the plebiscite—rates judges on a wide range of professional qualifications and skills" an opinion that warrants consideration regarding his impartiality as a judge on judicial retention/discipline?

__________________
Children Need Both Parents
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Did you know that the Democratic Party is doing a Push Poll right now in Black Hawk County and one of the questions asked voters is "What is your opinion of the organization IowaFathers.com?" - quote from Winston50703

I find this very interesting and a sign that Democratic legislators are worried about our movement (and they should be) given their roadblocks on Joint Physical Care over the past several years. Eventually, the Democrats legislators WILL jump out of bed with the Iowa Bar Association. I'm just hoping it is sooner rather then later for our children's sake!

 

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of our members.  Has anyone else experienced this push poll yet?


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #12 

Ted Sporer has been a great asset to our movement!  He is one attorney that does beleive in Joint Physical Care and supports this type of legislation, despite the Iowa Bar Associations lobbying efforts against it.

 

 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #13 

Quote:
"There are important considerations that judges must keep in mind when deciding whether or not to announce their views on legal and political issues," said Chief Justice Lavorato.  "If a judge announces a position on an issue, which the judge has every right to do, the judge's impartiality may be called into question and the judge may have to decline handling cases involving that issue."

Chief Justice Lavorato, according to your above statement, Judge Artis Reis should never hear another child custody case after issuing the following statement to the Des Moines Register regarding House File 22:

 

  • Judge Reis went public against the new joint physical care bill (HF22), Des Moines Register, June 20 2004 article talks about HF22 before it was signed by Governor Vilsack.

    Polk County District Court Judge Artis Reis, who has presided over numerous family law cases, doesn't think the new law will make much of a difference. She said judges already consider joint physical care when requested by divorcing parents. The new law simply requires judges to state their reasons if it's denied.

    "We've had many cases where joint physical care was initially granted, and then a year later, they're right back in court because it hasn't worked," Reis said. "Certainly, judges would recognize the need for maximum and ongoing contact with both parents. That may not mean that it's in the best interests of kids to pack their bags every other day and stay in one place one day, and the next place the next day."


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #14 

Quote:
I'll be in Iowa with my team September 9th to attend the Iowa Christian Alliance meeting in Clive. Quote from Dr. Klein.

Dr. Klein, I look forward to attending this event with you.  I have a few Board Members that are interested in attending also.  Networking will eventually change our broken judicial system.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Peter

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #15 

It is apparent Judge Reis's remarks on joint physical care take a political position. It is obvious that the rules don't apply to judges otherwise she would not be hearing custody cases. This is just the tip of the ice burg of discrimination parents face from the Iowa court system.


__________________
"Part of ending sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent ‘visitation’ to his or her own child" -- Karen DeCrow, past president of NOW.
mweichers

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 63
Reply with quote  #16 

Ok I have read this letter from this blow-hard Kevin Collins at the bar “ass”ociation to Governor Vilsack several times now and I am still amazed at what he is saying in this letter!!!!

 

This is the way I see it…He is essentially telling Governor Vilsack to veto this legislation because they don’t like it. They provide no research and no coherent reason why he should veto it…. just that he shouldn’t sign it into law.

 

There is a very good reason they cannot give a clear explanation as to why vetoing it is the right thing to do, here is how he worded it:   

     

 HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care.   This does not allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review.”

 

 Please allow me to interpret: 

 

“HF 22 created a passive presumption of joint physical care. This does not allow us lawyers to come before the court and waste thousands of dollars of our client’s money making stupid arguments usually based on false premises. This is one sweet deal for us lawyers and we certainly don’t want this bank roll to end, so for god sake don’t sign this bill into law”

 

I love how in one paragraph joint physical care is perfectly acceptable but only when parents can “communicate” (no money to be made). But the rest of the time they need to allow the court to inquire appropriately into the best interests of a child and make a good determination based on a careful fact review. (More money).

 

Oh and I couldn’t help but laugh when I read the part about “there is an implied idea that a child is a calendar” Ok so I guess that every other weekend the child isn’t a calendar but magically they become a calendar when a parent wants roughly half of the available parenting time.

Matt


__________________
Romans 5:3-5
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
mweichers

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 63
Reply with quote  #17 

Bryan I did receive one of these push poll calls yesterday! I thought it was just a standard political questionnaire, and I just about fell out of my chair when he asked about iowafathers.com He was from the North American Research Group and was paid for by the Democrats and Bob Kressig.

 

I am assuming that the democrats and Bob Kressig are polling people to find out what position to take on this issue. Let me give them a hint………

 

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS

 

 

Democrats and Bob Kressig save your money that is being spent on polling and contact me directly via email: matt@iowafathers.com we can help you form a new message.


__________________
Romans 5:3-5
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
change

Member
Registered:
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #18 

I feel this must be pointed out.

 

The one thing both the proponents of HF 22 and the opposition of the bill did agree upon, when the bill was being lobbied by both sides, was should it become law, it would create a presumption for joint physical care. This is supported by then president of the Iowa Bar Association, Kevin Collins, letter to Governor Vilsack dated April 26, 2004 requesting his veto. In the letter Mr. Collins states, " The committee's view is that the act creates a passive presumption of shared physical care and that passive presumption is not consistent with the standards of best interest of a child."

Diane Dornburg, head of the legislative committee of the Iowa State Bar Association at that time is quoted in the May 20, 2004 Des Moines Register article, "Vilsack Signs Custody Bill" as saying, "It introduces the idea joint physical care is the best arrangement for a child and we don't agree that should be presumed."

It is obvious by Mr. Collins letter and Diane Dornburg's statement the legal minds of the family law section of the Iowa State Bar Association to have felt the bill, should it become law would create the presumption of joint physical care.

In the June 20, 2004 Des Moines Register article, "New Law Offers Divorced Fathers Hope" Mr. Collins is quoted saying "Many in fathers rights groups feel that this gives them automatically a presumption that they will get shared custody. I think they're going to be very disappointed when they test that in the courts. The legislation says what the court has always had the power to do." When Mr. Collins and the legal minds of the Iowa Bar Association wanted the bill vetoed they felt it created the presumption of joint physical care. When the bill became law all of a sudden they had the opposite view.

It is no wonder so many Iowans are fed up with the family legal system and many who work within it. It's funny how all of a sudden after Governor Vilsack signed HF 22 the bar association did a complete reversal on their interpretation of the bill once it became law.

My point is, HF 22 intended to create a presumption for joint physical care. No one disagreed when it was a bill, should it become law it would create a presumption. The opposition didn't dispute this when the bill was being lobbied. They admit it in Mr. Collins letter they believed it created a presumption. Governor Vilsack felt the bill created a presumption for joint physical care as he stated so in his letter upon signing HF 22 into law.

 

Unfortunately,the higher court didn't understand the intent of the law and have ruled otherwise. This is why we are still here!

jmposts

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 121
Reply with quote  #19 
Quote:
Posted by Will:
Chief Justice Lavorato does not get it...CHILDREN are NOT a "Politically Charged Issue!!!" As a non-custodial parent, the judicial system illegally and unconstitutionally stole my children from me and placed them with their mother.  The judicial system did so without any justifiable reason.  I've never broke the law nor have I ever committed any spousal or child abuse.  I'm a law abiding citizen that only wants equal access to my children!


This movement is not going away and will only grow stronger so the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch had better wake-up or you will ALL be REPLACED!!!


Not only do judges not get it, neither do some legislators. Sadly, common sense clearly establishes the problem and its called "Gender Bias" or "De facto discrimination" on the part of the judicial branch.

This movement is not going away and I'll tell you why. We are Patriots!  We are law-abiding citizens! We ARE the PEOPLE!  We are a group of networked non-custodial parents (male and female) who have nothing to loose because the courts have already stripped us of our children.  In doing so, you are depriving us of freedom, family, and our pusuit of happiness and this is the exact reason our Fore Fathers stood up against the British as described below:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton





Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #20 

Quote:
Originally posted by change:

My point is, HF 22 intended to create a presumption for joint physical care. No one disagreed when it was a bill, should it become law it would create a presumption. The opposition didn't dispute this when the bill was being lobbied. They admit it in Mr. Collins letter they believed it created a presumption. Governor Vilsack felt the bill created a presumption for joint physical care as he stated so in his letter upon signing HF 22 into law.

 

Unfortunately,the higher court didn't understand the intent of the law and have ruled otherwise. This is why we are still here!


Exactly and it all comes down to politics within the judicial branch!!!  If you are a judge, you simply ignore the law or the intent of the law and write new law from the bench. You have nothing to fear and you will NOT be held ACCOUNTABLE. When you get caught, and by this I mean after your 1000th appeal of not awarding Joint Physical Care, you simply blame the legislators for not clarifying the intent of the law you are off the hook.

 

Most Democratic legislators and some Republican legislators are just ignoring what is going on. Despite our efforts, when brought to your attention, you simply state that judges aren't following the intent of the law and in your mind you think you are off the hook!

 

GUESS WHAT?  Non-custodial parents are tired of the finger pointing so we ARE going to do something about it.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #21 

Quote:
Posted by mweichers:

Bryan I did receive one of these push poll calls yesterday! I thought it was just a standard political questionnaire, and I just about fell out of my chair when he asked about iowafathers.com He was from the North American Research Group and was paid for by the Democrats and Bob Kressig.

 

I am assuming that the democrats and Bob Kressig are polling people to find out what position to take on this issue. Let me give them a hint………

 

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS

 

 

Democrats and Bob Kressig save your money that is being spent on polling and contact me directly via email: matt@iowafathers.com we can help you form a new message. 

Wasn't it Bob Kressig that made a big deal about Push Polling a few months ago? 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #22 

DEMOCRATS - Don't get it.

 

JUDGES - Stick their heads in the sand and hope for the best and avoid their positions as the "Gatekeeper."

 

FEMINAZIS/DHS/CSRU/Social Workers/and many lawyers - Profit

 

CHILDREN - LOSE

 

_________________________________________

 

The judges don't like this law because both parents have to work together to make it work.  They are correct.  And without sanction against the unwilling party they instead revert to mother only custody.  Amazing how that works since the mothers are the ones subverting Joint Physical Care.  They get financially rewarded and exact revenge on their ex-husbands at the same time.  So, Judges are continuing the problem of fatherless children while absolving themselves of the blame.

 

The logic is very close to the double stardard applied to the Israelis.  The Arabs attack and the Israelis respond to defend themselves.  Yet, the court (THE UN) accuse the Israelis of being the aggressor?  Peace would work if the Arabs had a world standing up to their manipulations and making it clear aggression will not be tolerated. 

 

Our judges have the same shortsighted eyesight.

KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #23 

Additionally,

 

I want to welcome Dr. Mark Klein to our message board as the first ever Presidential Candidate for his recognition of our website and movement.  The Iowa Supreme Court, Feminists, Social welfare establishment, trial lawyers, Democratic Party have all recognized us - but in negative ways. 

 

Dr. Klein is a positive in a sea of negatives and an indication which way we are moving.

 

For the record, Ted is for Joint Physical Care as long as it can be done.  If not, the offending party should not be rewarded - a critical difference between he and the Democrats. 

Peter

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #24 

I would like to thank Chief Justice Louis Lavorato for his reaction to our Judicial Questionnaire. Because of this reaction a significant donation has been made today. This donation in itself will more than provide enough yard signs in a district to remove at least one corrupt, activist judge. Which judge will get the honor? A few should be quite concerned. Stay tuned and Iowa Fathers.com will decide who gets the "bench boot". Drum roll please.

 


__________________
"Part of ending sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent ‘visitation’ to his or her own child" -- Karen DeCrow, past president of NOW.
mweichers

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 63
Reply with quote  #25 

Ken get your checkbook ready!


__________________
Romans 5:3-5
Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #26 

It is really sad that the Supreme Court of Iowa has not done its job of Policing the District Court Judges and that citizens were forced to take matters into their own hands to correct the judicial bias by the method of Judicial Retention. 

 

In my opinion, this does not speak very highly of the Iowa Court System.  I believe our movement will draw national attention when one of our many biased judges is not retained.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #27 

I will gladly write that check!  Although, I still like the idea of us publishing our fundraising as I truly believe it will generate far more donations!

Anonymous donations by a few passionate members can't compete with the organization I believe we will become.  In the meantime, my $1000 matching will be nice to make sure we bounce at least one judge in November.

Feminism

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #28 

Ok...I have been following this website for several weeks and decided that it was time to comment. 

 

The Feminism movement did not happen over night and neither will this cause. In our movement, many organizers paid a steep price for their dedication and beliefs.  Are you really ready and willing to do the same?  I suspect that many fathers say they will but will falter when push comes to shove! 

 

I've see this many times over the years with male legislators who cave into our every whim.  Understand, we have beaten down legislators with domestic abuse and they will never be persuaded to change for fear of us uniting and kicking them out of office.   

 

Oh yes...we have brainwashed the judges and legislators and rightfully so. Good luck with your cause because you are going to need it.  Just remember boys...all we have to do is yell abuse, testify with teary eyes, and your guilty because the courts buy it every time.

Peter

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 218
Reply with quote  #29 

Are you my x-wife Feminism? Either way I will pray for you.


__________________
"Part of ending sexism involves eliminating the inhuman practice of awarding a parent ‘visitation’ to his or her own child" -- Karen DeCrow, past president of NOW.
Feminism

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #30 

No, Peter but thanks for asking but I will let you in on a little secret... Our biggest victory was the no fault divorce because now we control you as puppets.

 

 

Hawkeye

Avatar / Picture

Facilitator - Cedar Rapids
Registered:
Posts: 611
Reply with quote  #31 

Perhaps, if some judges would come down from their hilltop and see what we see, we ALL would have some progress.

 

I could go on and on, but since I don't know a thing about some of these judges, I will not comment, other than the above.

 

 


__________________
http://www.hughesforgov.com

"All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind." - Robert Kennedy Jan 22, 1963
Feminism

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #32 

Want to know why your goal will never get achieved?  We have federal monies to combat your ideas and you don't.  You pay child support along with alimony and we collect.  We got organized years ago, are networked nationwide, and you have only begun.  We buy legislation while you complain about fairness and judicial rulings. We worked our way to the University level and dictate what material is taught to future social workers. Its a tough world out there so I figured I'd clue you gentlemen in on a reality check.

 

Here are a few of my favorite sites by the way:

 

http://feminism.eserver.org/

 

http://feminism.meetup.com/

 

http://www.feminist.org/

 

 

Feminism

Avatar / Picture

Member
Registered:
Posts: 20
Reply with quote  #33 

I agree that you should remain silent Hawkeye unless you intend to applaud judges for a job well done.

 

Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:

I've see this many times over the years with male legislators who cave into our every whim. Understand, we have beaten down legislators with domestic abuse and they will never be persuaded to change for fear of us uniting and kicking them out of office.

Oh yes...we have brainwashed the judges and legislators and rightfully so. Good luck with your cause because you are going to need it. Just remember boys...all we have to do is yell abuse, testify with teary eyes, and your guilty because the courts buy it every time.


I would like to personally thank you Feminism, for bringing this great tragedy that occurs on a daily basis in our court system to the attention of all judges reading these posts. Many of these judges are in denial that a mother would be capable of such a preconceived notion. Again, thank you for your honesty from the bottom of my heart!

I would also like to thank you for your honesty concerning legislators and rest assured, your message will be shared with them loudly.


__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
Winston50703

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 271
Reply with quote  #35 
Quote:
Want to know why your goal will never get achieved? We have federal monies to combat your ideas and you don't. You pay child support along with alimony and we collect. We got organized years ago, are networked nationwide, and you have only begun. We buy legislation while you complain about fairness and judicial rulings. We worked our way to the University level and dictate what material is taught to future social workers. Its a tough world out there so I figured I'd clue you gentlemen in on a reality check.

Thank you again Feminism, for your honesty. You see I disagree with you. As a taxpayer, I have the right to make sure that tax dollars are not spent on such an endeavor as you are claiming. This will be valuable information to share with legislators and grant writers.

As far as the buying of legislation, with all the scandals going on in Des Moines this past year, just the presenting of this post should convince legislators to listen to our proposed legislation for a change, unless they are on the take.

__________________
"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America" – former President William Jefferson Clinton
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #36 

Feminism, we think we know who you are.  It is so ironic that Ken got a crazy email from a banned member the same day you started posting your agenda of trying to beat us down and discourage this movement.

 

KNOW THIS: Our movement will not stop until there is a rebuttable presumption of joint physical care that can only be denied when the court meets the criteria of a compelling interest.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #37 

Femmy, (new nom de guerre for ?????? you only get one guess ?????)

 

We couldn't make up this stuff up in the way you manage to tie everything together.  (conjure - thought you might like that word but brew seems also appropriate were the words that really cast a spell on things but I settled for the more common words instead)

 

If not for the email from Witchymama somebody might accuse us of making a demon to justify our reaction to this very unjust system.

 

Thanks for reminding us we will continue to deal with an unreasonable person devoid of understanding and unwilling to stick to the topics at hand. 

 

Just stay away from personal attacks and understand we are not going to debate you on every point because proving ourselves to you is like

 

"casting my pearls before swine."

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #38 

I have to post about the feminist movement.  Anyone that is a true feminist would support our cause for equality and here is why.

 

fem·i·nism   Audio pronunciation of "feminism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fm-nzm)
n.

  1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
  2. The movement organized around this belief.

(Source of information: Dictionary.com)

 

 

 

I am unsure of the term feminist. I live in the country, and love having children, and taking care of my husband and family. I don't believe that I have to talk back, or be rude to get my way, and I feel very safe letting my husband run the household. Many women here are confused about there roles, and I feel content. But is this a feminist role, or what is the opposite of feminist?

If you go to the dictionary, a feminist is someone who supports the full social, political, and economic equality of all people. Essentially, it's a movement that wants to make sure that each person has enough information, and enough access to resources to be able to make choices about their own individual lives. Feminism isn't so much about what choices people make--i.e. being a homemaker, being a president of a company--but what matters is that women can make these choices rather than presume roles in life.

This goes for men, too. Men shouldn't presume to have to be the breadwinner anymore than women should presume to be protected by the men in their life.

Feminism is about making sure that each individual can be just that--their own person. Of course, feminism doesn't want anyone to be rude in the process, but sometimes there is no alternative. In the name of feminism, here's to hoping that whatever you are doing, you are doing because you want to rather than feel like it was your only choice.


Amy

 

(Source of information: http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/fem151.html)

 

 

 

This is not a personal attack but rather a clarification of what feminism is truly about.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #39 

My research leads me to believe that many of these supposed "Feminist" who are not for father equality in the judicial branch are actually a "Misandrist," which is defined below.

 

mis·an·drist
Pronunciation: 'mis-"an-drist
Function: noun
: one who hates men —compare MISOGYNISTmisandrist adjectivemis·an·dry /-drE/ noun plural -dries

(Source of information: Dictionary.com)



__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
jmposts

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 121
Reply with quote  #40 
Where did Femmy come from?  Is this witchy in disguise? 

Have we heard from any of the judges that received the questionnaire? 

What is our donation total up too?

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #41 

Not yet.  To be honest, I would be surprised if we did get a response.  Rest assured, one way or another, we will obtain this information. 

 

Christopher Rants (The Speaker of the House) has already made it known in the past that he does not like judges writing law from the bench or them disregarding current statutes. With his support, I believe we can get a new law passed mandating that the judicial branch file quarterly reports releasing child custody statistics.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
griebs1

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #42 

Just a little history about the control the feminists have in our government. There was a time when the feminist movement had a common sense message, which once was “Equality for all”. I was a big supporter of that message and I still am today. Unfortunately that message has changed. The comments from Feminism give me the impression that she is worried. Feminism is right, the feminist do receive federal and state funds and the hard working taxpayers are flipping the bill for their radical beliefs.

 

I was present at the 2004 Fathers Initiative meeting at the Drake University. In that meeting representatives from the Fathers Initiative group stood up one by one and spoke the same message, to teach fathers how to be better fathers, to teach fathers how to find work so that they can pay their child support and here is how you can get federal aid to start a chapter in your state. Half of those in attendance were people interested in starting a chapter and the others were from the Iowa Child Support Recovery. It didn’t take me to figure out this meeting was not geared on helping fathers but rather it was to help the special interest spend money. So Feminism is right they are everywhere BUT she is wrong to believe they hold all the cards. The feminist, the Bar Association and the Courts failed to stop Governor Vilsack (an attorney) from signing HF22.

 

Even though the Feminist do have money and power they began to lose momentum the minute they switched their message from equality to choice. Choice goes much farther than abortion rights; it includes the choice to brake up an in-tacked family without just cause and with the courts blessings.                                                            

 

Feminism is wrong when she stated that we are just beginning. Although the father’s movement didn’t exist when I was a child some 40 years ago, the movement had already begun. Today’s parents are yesterday’s children of divorced families. Today’s Grandmothers who once took advantage of the system now have to witness their sons and grandchildren be abused by the courts.

 

We just need to stay the course and not allow people like Feminism to ruffle our feathers. Let them and the divorce industry continue to self-destruct as we continue to expose them for who they really are. One thing is for certain; we will never stray from our beliefs, which is “Equality for all”.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mark Griebel

Chairman, Children Need Both Parents

http://www.cnbp.info

 

KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #43 

The feminist movement lost a lot of credibility afters they achieved equality but didn't stop until they had it all.  They don't have a defense for the current practice of mother only custody but are in "mopping up mode" and many can't believe there is a movement to resist them.  The articulate ones are waiting for us in legal and political systems.  We will not restore children to both parents unless we win this battle in the political arena where the free exchange of ideas is open to the public. 

 

How then does the "current" feminist argument work?  Their current argument is that mothers should get everything without accountability.  However, their previous argument was that mothers should get equal treatment - something we all agree is good. 

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #44 

My grandmother always said the feminist movement began the downfall of our country.  She always stated, that we, as a society, never had the social problems with children that exist today back in the 40's and 50's when the mother stayed home to raise the family.  She always pointed out that overall, families are no further ahead today with two parents working compared to when only one parent worked.  Ironically, her biggest complaint is when mothers started holding government positions and she swore this would destroy our country.  My grandmother passed away this past year but the more I look at her logic and society today, the more it makes sense. 


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #45 

I am for the record for equality, but the fem movment has gone way too far things like forcing the pro sports to let women play in the mens leag, men are not allowed to play in the womens leage so why the reverse. in the end they will only hurt themselves as school programs will cut womens sports saying well they can play with the men. this will eventually happen in all aspects.

Oh by the way having to go to work was the PUNNISHMENT for Adam if the women want to accept our punnishment then I'm all for it after all it was Eves idea to eat the apple.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
KenRichards

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,895
Reply with quote  #46 

Joking aside - the Eve and Apple issue actually had feminists a little angry in the past. 

Interesting thoughts - sin introduced thru Eve but she did not know it was sin when took it.  Eve knew sin and gave it anyway to Adam so as to have a companion in sin.  Adam, seeing Eve in her state took the apple to join her.

 

Yet, the modern feminist movement is so angry at men, not to mention greedy, they are willing to discard their children's welfare as long as it gives more money and power to women.  I do see satan's work in the feminist movement.  Any woman that believes in the literal Bible and accepts Jesus as savior cannot be an ardent feminist in the manner of the modern movement with the following attributes:

 

  • Abortion on Demand (paid by the state)
  • Mother only custody every time
  • Fabrications of pay disparity and custody statistics
  • Increases of the Welfare state
  • Export of above practices to the world

 

 

Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #47 

ROUND 2:

 


News Release

 

September 13, 2006

 

Contact: Rebecca Colton, Assistant to Chief Justice, (515) 281-8205

 

 

Chief Justice: Special Interest Groups Trying to Undermine Fair Courts

 

Des Moines, Iowa, September 13, 2006— Yesterday, in Oskaloosa, Iowa, Supreme Court Chief Justice Louis Lavorato criticized special groups for trying to convince the public that judges should act like politicians and take positions on hot-button political issues.  Lavorato said, "The purpose of these tactics is to politicize our courts so that judges serve popular ideologies and special interest groups rather than the law."

 

Chief Justice Lavorato was in Oskaloosa to help dedicate a newly renovated courtroom in the Mahaska County Courthouse.  Mahaska County supervisors, local judges, state legislators, lawyers, court staff and others were on hand for the occasion. Oskaloosa resident, Judge James Blomgren, Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, also spoke at the event.

 

"I commend the leaders and citizens of Mahaska County for preserving this majestic courthouse.  By doing so, you have preserved more than an architectural gem, you have preserved a symbol of this community's cultural and legal heritage," said Chief Justice Lavorato.

 

"While much about our court system has changed in many ways over time, one constant remains:  the values that guided courts in the past, guide them today—our courts are fair and impartial, accountable to the law and the Constitution, and in this way our courts are always accountable to the people." 

 

"In our system of government, we expect judges to be neutral and to rule according to the law regardless of their personal views or public opinion.  We also expect them to make decisions free of political intimidation and influence." 

 

# # #

2006

 

Iowa Supreme Court

1111 East Court Avenue

Des Moines, IA  50319

 

515-281-5174


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #48 
Friday, September 22, 2006 12:11 PM CDT

 

 

Justices made first-rate choice with Ternus as first female chief

Congratulations to Marsha Ternus, the Urbana native and Vinton High School graduate recently chosen by her colleagues on the Iowa Supreme Court to be its first female chief justice.

Ternus, 55, became only the second woman appointed to the state's highest court when tabbed by then-Gov. Terry Branstad in 1993. The University of Iowa graduate with a law degree from Drake University gives the impression she doesn't know what the fuss is about as a "first female" and that she's just an accidental jurist.

"It's just me doing what I love to do," Ternus said Monday at a press conference. "It's always been surprising to me when people react or respond to me in that way, singling out the fact that I'm a woman."

She said when she went to college she could "not even dream that I could be a lawyer, let alone a judge, let alone a chief justice. I never really dreamed that I would be in this position."

But she is definitely among a pioneering group of women in the judiciary. In 1990, Iowa had only 18 female judges and magistrates. There are now 76.

We have firsthand reason to believe that the other justices who voted for her to succeed Chief Justice Louis Lavorato at the end of this month made an excellent choice. Lavorato, who must retire as chief justice at 72 but is remaining on the bench, has called Ternus a "brilliant jurist."

When the Iowa Supreme Court heard the 2003 case involving the right of Courier editors not to disclose their sources while pursuing an open meetings law violation against Hawkeye Community College, Ternus right out of the gate politely but firmly peppered attorneys on both sides with incisive questions that cut to the heart of the matter. (Ternus did not write the unanimous decision in support of the Courier).

With justices constantly under attack for supposedly making the law instead of interpreting it, her assessment is to the point.

"I think judges are being criticized not for failing to follow the law, but because they don't follow the (issues) of a particular interest group," she said.

Indeed, it is imperative the justices remain independent from political pressures.

As chief justice, Ternus' responsibilities are as much administrative as legal. She has stated she will continue Lavorato's efforts to reform child-welfare disputes, with more judges involved.

Her dealings with the Legislature could cause her the most angst, given ever-tightening pursestrings. Indeed,

Lavorato became frustrated when his reform measures to save money by downsizing some district court operations put him in the political crossfire.

After the Legislature decided to cut $5 million from the court budget in 2001, Lavorato devised a plan to consolidate the clerks of court offices in 99 counties into 28 service areas. He also would have reduced the state's eight judicial districts to five.

He was on the right track in trying to rein in an excessive bureaucracy, but his plan failed because of the political fallout from rural county officials and legislators.

That battle between excessive government entities --- and the higher taxes associated with it --- and the Legislature's demands for cost constraints undoubtedly will continue. It will be a test of Ternus' lobbying skills if she decides to pursue the same tack.

We would be remiss not to praise Lavorato for the technological innovations he implemented. Both the legal community and the public now can do more timely research online. Fines can be paid online. Not only was Lavorato an early advocate of allowing cameras in the courtroom, but under his guidance, the public can now watch oral arguments before the Iowa State Court via video streaming.

By comparison, the U.S. Supreme Court, which doesn't allow radio or TV broadcasts, is far behind the openness curve. It announced last week it is putting same-day transcripts of oral arguments online. Audio is made available long after the fact, if at all.

Lavorato also was able to oversee the move of the high court from the Statehouse to its own three-story building.

He has left big shoes for Ternus to fill.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #49 

I'm in the process of drafting a letter to the new Chief Justice outlining the concerns non-custodial parents have towards our judicial system. I'm also going to include a survey on joint physical care, child custody, divorce, child support and visitation, so that we may obtain her positions on this subjects.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #50 

As our VIP Members already know, we recently contacted the Chief Justice about the way Pro Se litigants are being treated by the Clerk of Court's Office. We also grabbed the attention of every judge and legislator this year after they have repeatedly ignored our requests for equality and forced us to target the retention of a judge.

 

With that being said, I found it extremely ironic and a strong sign of our movement towards equality, that the Chief Justice is going to discuss "children and the courts" and "pro se litigants" as described below in her news release:

 

 
News Release
January 3, 2007
 
Contact:
 
Rebecca Colton, Assistant to Chief Justice, (515)281-8205
Steve Davis, Court Communications Officer, (515) 725-8058

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STATE OF THE JUDICIARY MESSAGE — JANUARY 10
 
 
Des Moines, January 3, 2007—On Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 10 a.m. in the Iowa House of Representatives, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus of the Iowa Supreme Court will address a joint convention of the General Assembly on the State of the Judiciary.  In her first message to the assembly, the chief justice will discuss children and the courts, jury service, self-represented litigants and online access to court records.  
 
Members of the media may obtain advance copies of the speech at 8:30 a.m. in the supreme court courtroom at the Capitol.  The message will be posted on the Iowa Judicial Branch website http://www.judicial.state.ia.us at 10:30 a.m.   

__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!