Reform Myth: an American Revolution/ Outrage for Britney!

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: John Murtari (
Date: Thu Dec 20 2007 - 10:56:02 EST

Good People & People of Faith,

1. Britney - no Christmas with the kids for you?
2. Myth - we need another American Revolution!
3. Your FEEDBACK - worst of the year!

1. Britney - no Christmas with the kids for you?
I've fallen a little (okay, a lot) behind both at work and with group
activity getting ready for Christmas. My son is coming for about 10
days.  We started some remodeling work over the summer and Dad
promised he'd finish part of the job before Christmas -- of
course, Dad waited till the last minute!  What a pleasant problem.

What about many members of the group.  You don't have to worry about
getting ready to see your kids for Christmas -- the Judge said you
won't!  Or a former spouse will just not let you see them....what
a gut-wrenching experience.  Even more frightening -- you've had so
many Christmases apart, it doesn't even bother you any more?  You
got used to it and have come to just accept it.

I don't normally follow the 'stars', but I was bothered by the way
Britney Spears has been treated. One 'mantra' of our group, that goes
along with our goal is: "Good, Average, and Poor parents are all FIT &
EQUAL parents!"  I've collected some news clips and some email
postings below for your review and comment.  My thoughts are between
[brackets].  Yours are welcome.

   The singer has been looking forward to spending Christmas morning
   with her sons. But those few hours of toddler time could be in
   jeopardy now that her ex-hubby Kevin Federline's lawyer is
   threatening to ask a judge to take away her visitation privileges.

   On Wednesday, Brit blew off a grilling that K-Fed's attorney, Mark
   Vincent Kaplan, was due to give her in the couple's child custody
   battle. Sure, she's done that before, but this was her first
   court-ordered deposition.

[Wow, I never realized it was a 'privilege' to spend time with your
own kids for Christmas -- till I got involved with our bizarre legal
system.  How many times have we seen denying contact between parents &
children used as a two-edged sword when a parent 'disobeys' some type
of order.  Isn't it simple?  If she disobeyed the order, hold her in
contempt and throw her in jail for a while.  If you are not willing to
do that -- stop interfering with family....]

   In October, a LA judge presiding over the custody battle ruled that
   Britney is a "habitual, frequent and continuous" user of alcohol
   and controlled substances.  Lost custody of her kids.

[ Is she really guilty of all this?  Was she given the opportunity of
a criminal trial and real evidence and a unanimous jury conviction?
Of course not -- this is 'family court'.  How many similar types of
words were used describing many of us? ]

   But the pop star, 25, is now facing more accusations of child abuse
   -- just one month after she was cleared of similar allegations by
   the Los Angeles County Department of Child and Family Services.

   The DCFS was responding to an anonymous complaint which had been
   submitted to authorities in July, accusing Spears of damaging her
   children's dental hygiene and affecting their eating and sleeping

[ Child 'protective' services!?  Gave the kid's too much candy, forgot
to tell them to brush at night?  I have to admit a first, bad dental
hygiene and we can take your kids away! 

Please, understand. Does this mean I approve of what she has done? No.
Is she a poor parent right now in her life?  Probably.  But how many
other parent/child relationships have gone through those types of
phases?  Isn't that part of life and family?  Is Britney a Bad/Unfit
parent -- I would only agree with after she is found guilty in a
criminal court of causing actual serious harm to her kids while acting
with malintent, with the unanimous verdict of a 12 person jury of her
peers. http://www.AKidsRight.Org/approach.htm

Here are some of your thoughts below. Also, in later news it has been
reported that she will be given the 'privilege' of seeing her kids
Christmas day -- how nice of them!? ]

--- left anonymous

> I think Britney by her actions has proven herself to be a danger to
> her children and thus an unfit parent at this moment (which is not a
> term I throw around lightly).

> And while I agree this might be a good place to gather eyes, I don't
> think that it is a case where pushing "shared custody" would be
> appreciated by much of the public.  I would hope that even advocates
> of shared custody would admit that when there is an imminent and
> real threat to the safety of a child shared custody should not apply
> (the case of Mary Winkler comes to mind).

> ... Taking half of her income or more and/or separating her for a
> prolonged period from her children helps neither her nor her kids.
> It may take them out of harm's way for a while, but I believe they
> need both parents in the long term.

> Therefore, any separation should be presumed as temporary and the
> goal of the courts should be to rehabilitate the unfit parent into a
> fit parent.  Discrimination is not remedied by affirmative action,
> and majority sole custody by the mother is not remedied by majority
> sole custody to the father.  I look forward to a new system, not an
> old system where the faces at the top change.

[ I couldn't believe the above was from a 'reformer'.  She already has
'shared' custody, she gets an occasional 'bite of the apple' -- isn't
that sharing? Was she really 'proven' to be a danger to her children
-- in what criminal courtroom?  The goal of the court should be
'rehabilitation' -- isn't that the essence of the present system? ]

--- "Jeremy Swanson"

> Regardless of the negative social behavior of the Mother we
> appreciate that in cases like this the children always lose the
> most. No-one should ever lose custody of their children. Neither the
> Mother or the Father... We make it clear that we support equal
> parenting and that children belong in the custody of their Mother
> AND their Father.  What has happened in the Britney Spears case is
> all very tragic and unfortunate. For the children.

> As casual observers and like most parents we don't care much for the
> Mother and her social difficulties as she is but we recognize that
> her children love their Mom and they need her. Just as they need
> their Dad. Just as all our children have needed us....

> ... Canadian Fathers have no rights at all when it comes to being
> divorced or separated parents. The reality is we are 24 hour parents
> one day and then twice-a-month 'soon-to-be-strangers' the next
> day-all at the bang of a Gavel. We deserve to be the parents we
> became when our children were born, Canadian Mothers deserve no
> less.          So does Britney Spears.

[ Very sound words! ]

--- Kenyatte Hay  -

> It was weird I had a dream of 100 F4j Members dressed as Britney
> spears parading around downtown showing support for the newest court
> sponsored NCP. NCP mothers broke the F4J website downloading
> membership applications effectively ending the illusion of the
> Gender war. Right became right and wrong became wrong as society had
> an epiphany politicians really didn't belong in the family without
> proven abuse and Due Process.

[ This one hits at a good point.  Many of the father-in-the-name
groups say they are equal opportunity.  Where are the protests for a
mom, for Britney?  The real sad part is I've seen some commentary from
men along the line of "Too bad for her. Now she get's to experience
how dad's have been treated.  I don't really care what happens to

Just as bad, many of the mother-in-the-name groups are also steering
clear of Britney.  As many of the mom's who are members of our group
have been treated by them -- those groups say, "We like the present
'bias' in the system. You [mom] may have gotten hurt by the system --
but the 'greater good' for the rest of us is still being served!  ]

--- Lew Rockwell

> Amidst cable TV's version of the two-minute hate (the two-week
> peeping-Tom), this time aimed at Britney Spears, I notice that no
> one questions this: that the fate of her children should be
> determined by a government judge. That is, everyone seems to agree
> that the government owns all children, and it is up to parents to
> petition it for custody.

[ Exactly. ]

2. Myth - we need another American Revolution!
Perhaps many of you have noticed some revolutionary terminology in
list messages.  I don't really worry about talk that we need a social
revolution or a revolution in how we view family rights.  We do need
all those things.

But I get worried when I hear wording similar to what you read in
history books about the American revolution: We need to throw off
tyranny!  Let's take action like our Founding Fathers! These people
(Judges, Lawyers, etc...) are guilty of treason!

In those types of 'revolutions' people are shot & killed -- is that
what some parents in 'our' reform groups want to do? I'm sure many of
you have read similar types of comments posted to various groups.  Do
some of us really see that as the solution to helping us be equal
parents to our kids?  What makes these people different from the
lunatic terrorists?  Here is an example:

> ... as a nation we are long overdue for a revolution.

> Thomas Jefferson opined that "His reliance upon the good sense of
> the people to rectify abuses in a proper manner was so strong that
> he deemed an occasional rebellion a desirable event, inasmuch as it
> afforded the best evidence that this sense was active and vigorous;
> to enlighten it, then, was the only thing necessary to ensure a
> favorable result....

> Rebellion then is part and parcel of the protection of our liberty
> however if we allow the "uniformed gov't" to intimidate us, back us
> down off the steps, and succeed in quieting our voices, then they
> will have succeeded yet again, in violating the very rights they
> swear to uphold. If ... there is no "elected official" interest in
> the woes of the people then perhaps it is time for the good sense of
> the people to rise up and throw off the oppressors...

> It is short sighted to disregard or show disdain for those that
> display militant determination, in the end it may be the only thing
> that will succeed in effecting the desired change.

I once shared a ride with someone who expressed similar views.  I
asked them a simple question, "Who are you going to shoot first?"  Of
course, in these PC and 'big brother' times he back peddled by saying,
"I don't want to kill anyone..."  Future American's fighting in the
revolution killed a lot of people.  But more specifically, if you had
asked someone back then, "Who are you going to shoot first?"  The
answer would have been simple, "A British soldier."  You would get
very similar answers now from members of our Armed Forces, "the enemy

We have all seen the types of 'shootings' that go on right now
involving family law -- who did those people choose to shoot first?  A
spouse, their children, a judge, a lawyer, and very many --
themselves. What a foolish, foolish waste that accomplishes nothing.
In all these selfish acts, expressions of hopelessness.

The next time you see a discussion thread where an over-heated parent
is starting to promote armed revolution -- calmly ask them, "Who are
you going to shoot first?  What's different between your motivations
and methods -- and a terrorist killing innocents for what they believe

3. Your FEEDBACK - worst of the year!
Feedback is usually printed with names/email addresses.  I don't
believe anonymity has any role in our reform efforts as a group.  But
-- here are some remarks where I removed the address. There is some
twisted thinking out there....  Why don't the politicians listen to
us?  Why do they consider us a political liability?  Below.


> Mothers are the family's MOST VIOLENT family member !  As a matter
> of record, if you "Fathers" look and read your State's statistical
> reports on "Child Abuse", then you can see and perhaps will agree
> that the political notion of "Joint Custody" is no good with such a
> mother.

> Always ask the Court for "Sole Father Custody" of your own children,
> post divorce.


> I would ADD, that judges who do not grant a jury trial to any NCP held
> more than 2 days for Child Support, or related issues, shall be
> guilty of TREASON, if convicted of TREASON for denying JURY TRIAL,
> penalty to reach from forfeiture of all pension, salary & up to and
> possibly including death by hanging or firing squad, and that said
> Jury Hearing a TREASON charge against a judge should contain at
> least 50% non custodial parents or grandparents.  Jury to decide
> final penalty, not the judge hearing the TREASON case against a
> Judge.


> I can not support a female who has been caught in the feminist
> "support" web.  We need to have "Affirmative Action" in C$
> enforcement.  We need to see females cast into jail until they make
> up for the historic discrimination against men.  When the total
> number of females in jail for C$ equals the number of men who have
> been jailed over the past decades, then let us know.


> Alienation is Child Abuse.

[ This is the double-take comment.  It almost makes sense, BUT, you
are FIT & EQUAL parents.  In that environment I don't care how you
feel or talk about the other parent.  It's a free country!  In an
equal environment the children can decided for themselves what to
believe since they have extensive contact with both parents.. ]


> INDEED.  Lincoln was a great President.  The man responsible for the
> murder of thousands of brothers against brother for the sake of some
> fiction union.  And now the new world order.
> No better than the current bastard called Bush in the "white" house.
> Nice words meaning NOTHING.  From a charlatan and deceiver and
> lawyer.  So personally, I could care less what he said.  Anymore
> than I care what bush says today.

                                       John Murtari
Coordinator                            AKidsRight.Org
jmurtari@AKidsRight.Org                "A Kid's Right to BOTH parents"
Toll Free (877) 635-1968(x-211)        http://www.AKidsRight.Org/
A Kid's Right to Both Parents!
Newsletter mailing list  subscribe/unsubscribe info below:

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jan 06 2008 - 03:12:01 EST