TEN is 3 Today

TEN is 3-Years Old Today!


Thanks To You We Have Grown Up In A Very Short Time.

So much has happened in the past three years it is hard to decide where to start. How about from the beginning?

Three years ago today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the reauthorization hearing for the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). After denying preeminent authorities on partner violence even a seat at the hearing, they rubber stamped the authorization for the institutionalized destruction of the American middle class, families, marriage, parenthood, and our children.

That day was our call to order and what started with a meeting of less than 200 people, is now an organization of almost 50,000 members, with field offices in 32 states.

Today our eNewsLetter is read by over 160,000 subscribed readers, up from the 300 we had in our early months. We are hated and cursed by both men and women's groups, members of the United States Congress, and even some of our own affiliates. Speaking the truth is a dangerous thing to do, together learned this the hard way.

Just as when we started, True Equality Network represents the most abused constituency there is; parents. You have stood strong as we have seen each other forced to pay the actual costs of being cheated of our natural rights, having our children stolen from us for the enrichment of others, stood to be ridiculed by our peers, mocked by our opponents, and lied to on a regular basis by those who are elected to represent us, while they treat us like a disease.

Dispite all that, those who oppose us and enjoy knowing of our suffering are loosing their own battle as awareness of their breach of the public trust grows by the minute. Given how far we have come, against such odds, in such a brief period it is assured that we will continued to grow together in size, knowledge, and commitment, while our opponents begin to choke on their own lies.

Thank You for Your Support!

Yours truly,
Terri Lynn Tersak
President & C.E.O.
True Equality Network


Equal Protection Under the Law is True Equality

The Murder Paradox: Working At The Speed Of Hate

An observation of some very perplexing dynamics.

"... Over the years, assorted presentations of the statistical analysis of the IPH trends have played tricks on public perception due to advocacy groups playing tricks with the statistical data to create their own reality. The saddest part of this story is; after thirty years they have actually created their own reality and as a result in some victim classes more women are being murdered by their intimate partners than thirty years ago ..."

Congressional Guidelines For Abusing Women

Our public report covering our abuse shelter investigations is getting broad distribution. We have already done the first of nine scheduled shows. Last Friday, March 21st, we were on the “The Chuck Baker Show,” KWYD 1580 AM in Colorado Springs CO along with Dr. Charles E. Corry of the Equal Justice Foundation.

Since the adaptation of welfare reform and the passage the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the social policies and civil liberties of the United States have collapsed with regard to family law, causing our legislatures and courts to become the shills of radical ideologues.

This report is a blunt exposé of how women are being physically and emotionally abused and forced into sexual servitude by shelter workers in order to be permitted to stay in the shelter. This report contains links to candid video testimony by victims of abuse who experienced even greater abuse at the hands of the shelter staff.

The report contains content and links that are not suitable for children and younger teen readers.

A great deal more findings exist than this public version of the report discloses. Those omitted details have been reported to the United State Congress and applicable law enforcement agencies. We have been advised by those agencies and our legal counsel not to disclose the names of the shelters we infiltrated and investigated, which states they are in, or the names of specific individual perpetrators.

Note that VAWA was enacted supported by studies, abet based on false and fabricated statistics, using samples sets of 5 to 15 thousand. There were over 1.5 million TRO’s issued by the states annually prior to VAWA. That is sample sets ranging from .33% to 1.00% of the cases.

There are approximately 18,000 shelters in the US, we investigated 417 of them to date, and that is 2.31% of them. By years end we will have completed the investigation, which will have then infiltrated and investigated 1,200 shelters or 6.67% of them. Even at one third of the way completed, our investigation is already using a sample set twice of what the largest study VAWA used to justify spending billions of tax-dollars to abuse and rape women.


Our women either paid the per diem charges to stay at the shelter as residents or donated the equivalent amount under fake names to the shelter where they stayed. The True Equality women who were employed at the shelters donated their entire paycheck (under fake names) adding the funds needed to equal their gross pay from the shelter. Thus, we did not use once cent of tax dollars to conduct this investigation.

Although we thank the major corporations and individuals for their generous donations to the shelters, we must warn them that unknown to them they are helping to fund the abuse and rape of women. We advise them to look closely at what their generosity is being used for, noting our investigation reveals that many of the shelters are doing anything but protecting women from abuse, providing training and helping them escape from eternal victimhood. In fact, many of the women we interviewed during this investigation returned to their abusive relationships because they felt safer there. As example one women conveyed to us that, "At least while I was at home the neighbors could hear me screaming. Here, even the social workers are abusing me."

The message women are getting from the shelter's staffs is;

Have sex with the staff or get out!


Read the report online: Congressional Guidelines For Abusing Women

Download a copy of the report in PDF format here.

Torture in America's Jails Evidenced

Due to popular request publication outlining and evidencing egregious breaches of the public trust is available in book format. ("The Pubic Trust: Statement of Fact", 188p, spiral bound) Cost per copy is $49.99 plus $5.95 Shipping and Handling. Payments by most credit/debit cards via the PayPal Buy Button. Buy your copy today!

Copyright 2005-2007 by CrookedCivilServants.com. All Rights Reserved. All opinions expressed remain justified by the editors and Board Members of CrookedCivilServants.com. No reproduction of this site allowed without prior written permission of CrookedCivilServants.com.

Gitmo at Home: DV Courts in America

By David Heleniak

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Domestic violence is a very real and significant problem in America. This month would be a good time to address the attempt of state governments to combat domestic violence through the issuance of temporary and permanent restraining orders.

In the wake of the attack on the World Trade Center and our nation’s response to terrorism domestically and abroad, there has been a flurry of negative reaction in the press to the subjecting of suspected terrorists to trial by military tribunal without the constitutional protections afforded other criminals. As John F. Kearney, III, put it in the March 24, 2003 issue of the New Jersey Lawyer, “All of us want as much done by government as possible to protect us from more Sept. 11 attacks or worse. None of us wants to be nuked, poisoned or fall victim to a suicide bomber. But none of us should want, either, to give away our hard-won liberties.” While the legitimacy of using military tribunals to try accused terrorists is getting well-deserved attention, the media has been largely silent on a related topic, the legitimacy of trying defendants accused of a crime, domestic violence, in brief restraining order hearings in the family court, where defendants are denied virtually all of the due process protections afforded defendants in the criminal court. These systems have been in effect much longer than the anti-terrorism measures, and affect many more people, yet one hears very little about them.

Under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, for example, ten days or less following the entering of a temporary restraining order (TRO), a final restraining order (FRO) hearing is held. At the hearing, required by the Act to be a summary proceeding, a Chancery Division judge is authorized to make a finding of fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act of domestic violence, defined as one of fourteen enumerated crimes that include assault, burglary, rape and even murder. Having made such a finding, the judge may bar the defendant from seeing his kids and from ever setting foot in a particular house again, yet can make him pay the mortgage; make him provide monetary support to the plaintiff; force him to see a psychologist or psychiatrist at his own expense, who can in effect interrogate him and then write a report to the judge that can be used against him in a subsequent proceeding, such as a child visitation hearing; temporarily give the plaintiff exclusive possession of the defendant’s car, checkbook, and other personal effects (which could include a beloved pet); bar the defendant from ever speaking to any individual that the plaintiff does not want him to speak to (which could include a beloved friend or relative); force him to turn any firearms he has into the hands of the proper authorities and bar him from ever possessing another firearm in his life; and make the defendant pay a “civil penalty” of $500.00. If the defendant does not comply with any aspect of the judge’s order, he can be tried for contempt and imprisoned. Lastly, his name is put on a list of domestic abusers known as the New Jersey Judiciary’s Domestic Violence Central Registry.

The potential for abuse of the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act is tremendous. A spouse willing to commit perjury can spend months or even years with his or her lawyer planning to file a domestic violence complaint at an opportune moment in order to gain the upper hand in a divorce proceeding and preparing the presentation of his or her case, while an accused spouse is given ten days or less to prepare a defense. Ten days is not nearly enough time to prepare for an FRO hearing. It is not even enough time for most defendants to fully understand the gravity of the situation they’re in. The lack of time is compounded by the stress, alarm, and confusion caused by suddenly and without warning being thrown out of their homes by armed law enforcement officers.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Upon the initial enforcement of a TRO, which was based on an allegation of physical abuse, a husband/defendant is thrown out of his house without so much as a toothbrush. He is allowed to take his wallet with him but is prohibited from taking his checkbook because the police officers fear that he might maliciously exhaust the marital assets. He isn’t given a place to shower or sleep, and only has enough money in his wallet for a few meager meals. During this period, when his main concerns are about his physical survival, he is told that there will be an FRO hearing ten days from the filing of the complaint. Having no legal background, he has no inkling of the consequences of this hearing or of the goings on of a courtroom. He has not been advised he has the right to have an attorney represent him, and doesn’t realize he needs one. He couldn’t afford one if he did, but he has no right, unlike a criminal defendant, to be provided with free counsel. He arrives at court on the hearing day woefully unprepared, tired, unshowered, unkempt, and disheveled.

During the hearing, our hypothetical plaintiff introduces hearsay and alleges prior bad acts. Unfamiliar with the law, the defendant does not object to the judge’s consideration of the improper evidence, but simply insists that it’s untrue. He is surprised when she brings up events that were not alleged in the complaint, and taken out of context and twisted so as to only be partially true, the introduction of this evidence hurts his defense. He hasn’t thought of these events for years and, caught off-guard, cannot articulate to the judge what really happened.

After a few short hours of testimony, the judge declares that the defendant committed the acts charged in the complaint, effectively labeling the defendant a wife beater. He is forbidden from returning to the marital home and from seeing his children, and is ordered to pay large sums of money periodically to his wife. Since he could not afford an attorney for the FRO hearing, he certainly cannot afford one for an appeal, and, not knowing the first thing about the appellate process, does not appeal the ruling. He wants desperately to see his children but he is baffled by the procedural labyrinth facing him and doesn’t know what steps to take. At a subsequent proceeding regarding visitation, he is instructed to attend and participate in counseling. The court-appointed psychologist, having pre-judged him to be an abuser, continually advises the court not to grant visitation. He does not know when he will ever see his children again.

In ten days, the hypothetical husband has gone from having a normal life with a wife, children and home to being a social pariah, homeless, poor, and alone, trapped in a Kafkaesque nightmare.

A report put out by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) entitled “An Epidemic of Civil Rights Abuses: Ranking of States’ Domestic Violence Laws” (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Ranking-of-States-DV-Laws.pdf) ranks New Jersey’s domestic violence statute as one of the laws “most likely to violate the civil rights of persons accused of domestic violence.” Nevertheless, New Jersey’s statute is not an anomaly, as a review of the report and another RADAR report, “Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Perverse-Incentives.pdf), reveals. Political scientist Stephen Baskerville’s online report “Family Violence in America: The Truth about Domestic Violence and Child Abuse” (http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/familyviolence.pdf?docID=641) makes it clear that false allegations of domestic violence and the legal system that rewards them is not only a national problem, but an international one as well. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, confirms this. Just released by Cumberland House, it cites as an example of the national problem a shocking statistic put out by the Department of Justice: “a restraining order is issued every two minutes in Massachusetts.”

Big Media probably won’t report on the problem anytime soon. It’s therefore up to bloggers, podcasters, and You Tubers to expose the due process fiasco that media silence has allowed to persist.

Note: This article is an adaptation of my Rutgers Law Review article “The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.”

Nifong and HRES 590

By David Heleniak

The Nifonging of the three lacrosse players from Duke University did not rise out of a vacuum. Rather, it was the product of two systemic problems in America, the tendency amongst many prosecutors and judges to replace the concern for justice with the concern for self-promotion and career advancement, and, in cases of certain politically charged crimes, anti-male bias.

Illustrative of the bias, on September 25, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on domestic violence, HRES 590, that stereotypes men as wife-beaters. A thorough analysis of the resolution by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) found that 18 of its 23 statements are either misleading or simply wrong. Two in particular unfairly smear fathers:

• "Whereas 40 to 60 percent of men who abuse women also abuse children."
• "Whereas according to one study, during court ordered visitation, five percent of abusive fathers threaten to kill their spouses, 34 percent of abusive fathers threaten to kidnap their children, and 25 percent of abusive fathers threaten to physically hurt their children."

With the passage of HRES 590, savvy prosecutors and judges will clearly perceive the political winds as blowing against men, as they have been for some time.

In the April 24, 1995 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, a judicial training program on domestic violence caught on tape was recounted. The program openly encouraged judges to ignore constitutional considerations in granting temporary restraining orders. “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order,” they were advised. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’” Attendees were given additional advice: “If you’ve got any hint whatsoever there’s a problem, sign the TRO. Don’t take the chance;” “Quite frankly, the standard really is by a preponderance of credible evidence. That’s what the law is. But what he’s saying to ya, ‘Don’t make that mistake at three o’clock in the morning.’ You may be a little tired. Err on the side of being cautious;” and “So don’t get callous about the fact that these people are pestering you again. You know, grant the restraining order. It’ll be the one time that you don’t grant the restraining order that you’ll be tomorrow’s headlines.”

Similarly, in “Criminal Law Comes Home,” Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk reveals that in Manhattan, the vast majority of “domestic violence” cases do not involve serious physical injury, and many do not involve any physical injury. But “[e]ven as the ‘violence’ of DV has been defined down,” to the point where harassment is considered violent, these cases “trigger application of a ‘mandatory domestic violence protocol’ different from other crimes.” As Suk explains, “[t]he uniform application of a mandatory protocol in every case represents the prosecutorial response to a paradigm story in which DV victims can turn into murder victims overnight. In the oral culture of a prosecutor’s office, a misdemeanor DV defendant has the potential to turn out to be an O.J. Simpson.” Indeed, reminiscent of the warnings given to the New Jersey judges, “[r]ookie prosecutors are warned that their DV misdemeanors are the cases that could get their names in the newspaper for failure to prevent something serious.” Consequently, “every case is treated as a potential prelude to murder.”

In light of the legal culture that has developed around the issue of domestic violence, it is no wonder that rape cases are sometimes prosecuted despite the absence of good evidence to support them. The actions of DA Nifong in the Duke rape case should not be viewed as the actions of a “rogue prosecutor,” but as a predictable result of years of prosecutors being encouraged to zealously prosecute crimes involving women, and of judges and prosecutors being discouraged to respect the due process rights of men. What makes the Duke case unique is defendants with the resources to vigorously and successfully defend themselves. Can anyone doubt that there are innocent men in prison right now who simply did not have the ability to oppose a rush to judgment?

Legislatures must tell the executive and judicial branches that Nifonging is unacceptable. Repealing HRES 590 would be a good start.

Shocking Report on Domestic Violence By the CDC

Here are two must read pieces.

Psychiatric News
Volume 42, Number 15, page 31
3 August 2007

American Psychiatric Association
Clinical & Research News

Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence
By Joan Arehart-Treichel

and

American Journal of Public Health 941-947
May 2007, Vol 97, No. 5

American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD

The graphic below displays the horrifying facts.



It is way past time to rethink our policies on domestic violence. We need to scrap the system and start over.