« Monkey Mail | Main | MensNewsDaily Turns Jaks Into A "Victim" »

February 05, 2004

Fathers' Rights Advocates Support Jaks Kidnapping Son

Update - March 4, 2004: Alec Jaks has been found in the Dominican Republic and is back with his mother. Lowell Jaks is in custody and will shortly be extradited to California.

-----

It didn't take long for the supportive posts to roll in. Here are excerpts from the mailing list for the American Union of Men. These men are cheering that Lowell Jaks kidnapped his son, and took him away from his mother who had been raising him. All posts have been edited to delete e-mails. They have also been snipped for space.

These men give good dads a bad name. No one should praise a man who would kidnap his own child just to get out of paying a high child support debt.

--__--__--

From:  "Bob" < deletia >
Date:  Tue Feb 3, 2004  6:55 pm
Subject:  Re: Lowell Jaks' Wanted

     --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Streett wrote:
>
> (02-02) 07:57 PST RIDGECREST, Calif. (AP) --
>
> A parents rights advocate is wanted by police, suspected of abducting his
> own son, officers said.

It is not possible for a father to "abduct" his own son. The police
and courts are terribly wrong and a gross insult to law and order.
They ought to be ridden out of town on a rail by decent men.

Elian [sic] Jackson ought to find herself down some mine shaft. Then let
her sue for "custody" (a radical feminist legal myth).


Bob

> Lowell Anton Jaks, 52, has a $100,000 felony warrant out for his arrest
> after Alec Norman Jaks disappeared last Tuesday morning on his way to
> Pierce Elementary School.
>
> Elaine Jackson, Lowell Jaks' ex-wife and the child's mother, had asked for
> a protective order on Jan. 21, when she first started suspecting her
> husband intended to take her child away.

[snip]

--__--__--

From:  "Bob" < deletia >
Date:  Tue Feb 3, 2004  6:56 pm
Subject:  Re: Here's more on Lowell Jaks Wanted

     --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Streett wrote:
> Quite honestly, I am surprised that we don't see more of this. I not only
> support him, but applaud his efforts.
>
> Eric

A year or so there was a report from Austrailia that one men's group
had started a "safe house" for children who the femernment was
trying to abduct from their fathers.

Bob

> From: http://www.thebakersfieldchannel.com/news/2813325/detail.html
>
> Boy Allegedly Abducted By Father
> School Failed To Notify Mother Of Child's Absence

[snip]

--__--__--

From:  "Bob" < deletia >
Date:  Wed Feb 4, 2004  3:37 pm
Subject:  Re: Here's more on Lowell Jaks Wanted

     --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, masculistman < deletia > wrote:
> Yeah,right,let's contact the police immediately < sarcasm >

That actually is a good suggestion. It won't hurt and may do some
good to phone the gun thugs on their business number, ask for the
Chief, and express your opinion as a concerned citizen.

I've even gone to their pig pen and loudly expressed my concern as a
law abiding citizen, that people were being treated unfairly.

Bob

> --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Wilbur Streett < deletia > wrote:
> > Quite honestly, I am surprised that we don't see more of this.
I
> not only
> > support him, but applaud his efforts.
> >
> > Eric

Posted on February 5, 2004 at 09:42 AM | Permalink

Comments

So much for what they believe constitutes shared parenting huh? Jaks had his son every single day didn't he? Why do I think there is more to this story????

Posted by: chief at Feb 7, 2004 6:21:33 PM

its been 2 and a half yrs since ive seen my son...i have tried everything even court and THAT didnt lead me anywhere.please send me any information dealing with finding missing children...i really miss him. thank you

Posted by: marc at Mar 10, 2004 3:39:58 PM

Hi Trish, Tom Smith here of The American Union of Men. I'm sorry that you so misinterpreted the nature of my list and the posters on this particular subject and remind you that much worse is said on feminist lists on this subject as well as others. The two posters you quoted here are the more provacative in the group and certainly don't speak for the group. There's also a disclaimer at the end of each post that the posters don't "necessarily" represent the views of the group. It's a ligthly monitored discussion group. That being said, there still isn't much that is provacative that was said in those discussions. It was stated at the beginning who Jaks was and that he was "suspected" of abducting his son. That's all any of us knew and the following conversation was relatively lame and probably didn't get that much attention.

Maybe you should cool out a bit?

Tom Smith

Posted by: Tom Smith at Sep 14, 2004 1:46:03 AM

Tom, disclaimers are meaningless and so is your backpedaling. Your list is only one where fathers' rights activists were giving support to Lowell Jaks. You can try to dance around that as much as you like but there you have it. ANCPR and Jaks have been getting lots of attention and support for many years. One of ANCPR's primary missions was to help men avoid their child support obigations because Jaks was trying to do that himself. He kidnapped his son and took him out of the country just to get back at his ex-wife. It's about time he and ANCPR fell down hard, and anyone who supported them deserves to fall down just as hard. That includes the people who had supported him and ANCPR on your mailing list.

Posted by: Trish Wilson at Sep 14, 2004 10:39:20 AM

I'm sorry that you so misinterpreted the nature of my list and the posters on this particular subject and remind you that much worse is said on feminist lists on this subject as well as others.

I can't see where she misinterpreted those posters. Their words speak for themselves.

The two posters you quoted here are the more provacative in the group and certainly don't speak for the group. There's also a disclaimer at the end of each post that the posters don't "necessarily" represent the views of the group. It's a ligthly monitored discussion group. That being said, there still isn't much that is provacative that was said in those discussions.

Perhaps you should be more selective in who you grant permission to post then. LOL I personally wouldn't let it go unchecked if I didn't agree w/ them, but that's just me. However, since it is your list, you could have certainly given your views regarding their posts and their position and perhaps you did. And you can certainly state it now. Matter of fact, I'll ask you. Do you support Jaks and what he did?

It was stated at the beginning who Jaks was and that he was "suspected" of abducting his son. That's all any of us knew and the following conversation was relatively lame and probably didn't get that much attention.

Oh give it a rest why don't you. They don't issue Amber Alerts just because. Jaks planned all of this ahead of time. You know it, I know it and now everyone knows it. I "suspect" some on your list probably knew ahead of time. So what? Jaks got what he deserved don't you agree?


Maybe you should cool out a bit?

I, for one, hope no one would "cool out" about this type of issue. Obviously, you and your group think otherwise.

When you and your group start putting the children FIRST and FOREMOST above your "rights" then we'll talk.

Posted by: at Sep 14, 2004 11:16:36 AM

I found this post about this Smith on his
own group. Similar disclaimers seem to be
available where ever the more serious men's
activists debate and he tries to intrude
in their enclaves. Apparently he is
considered a joker by others in the men's
movement. I would imagine that he is out
simply to push the buttons of others.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/message/14721

Posted by: Art Lemasters at Oct 15, 2004 8:39:38 PM