« Fathers' Rights Advocates Support Jaks Kidnapping Son | Main | Music Uru Fans May Like »
February 05, 2004
MensNewsDaily Turns Jaks Into A "Victim"
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.
-----
Unbelievable.
Jim Untershine, who sees himself as some kind of hero who exposes "Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country" (!!!) has written a real whopper about Lowell Jaks for MensNewsDaily.
Get a barf bag before you read that editorial. The smarmy tone is going to make you want to hurl.
He wrote -- get this -- "Lowell Jaks of the ANCPR may be attempting to seek asylum outside California to avoid slavery."
He even feigned concern for the boy's mother, since she does not know his whereabouts. Even though he wrote he has "fear for young Alec's safety," (yeah, sure he does) his main concern is that "the only complication that may prove a threat would be overzealous intervention by authorities attempting to apprehend a father in pursuit of his freedom and that of his son. It may be time to dust off the Emancipation Proclamation, to see if it mentions the Executive branch helping slaves attempting to secure their freedom."
Oh, come on. How much more transparent can he be? Jaks pulled an abusive power play when he kidnapped his son. Stop pretending he didn't. Any sane person who has visited the ANCPR web site and read posts on its mailing list knows damned well that Jaks isn't "a parent, who has inspired so many to fight within the system and to lobby peacefully for changes in the law."
Untershine played up Jaks as a victim of the system. Here's an excerpt, wondering why this fabulous dad would stoop to such a low as to kidnap his own son.
|
This kidnapping is not about Jaks feeling that his son was not being properly taken care of. It's an abusive control maneuver to get back at his ex-wife. Nothing Untershine or any other fathers' rights activists who wax poetic about Jaks's "slave status" and "victimhood" will make that any different.
These guys do not ... DO NOT ... represent good fathers.
Posted on February 5, 2004 at 10:17 AM | Permalink
Comments
I stick to pukey light-hearted fare on my blog because it bootstraps me through the long days and weeks and months. Plus, when I get angry, I write like shit. These posts you have done on Lowell and his movement have inspired me. Thanks.
Posted by: Catherine at Feb 6, 2004 6:42:48 AM
Thank God people like Untershine are so in the minority.
Father's Rights activists like Untershine only prove what Trish (and others) have been saying all along. They are not for shared parenting and children's rights and in my opinion, do not represent father's who truly are involved in their child's life. Anyone who aligns w/ this type of activism is only hurting their self and ultimately their child.
I found this little sentence in Untershine's article interesting and I quote:
"As a long time (non-paying) supporter of the ANCPR, I can attest to the fact that the ANCPR is focused on demanding that shared parenting be ordered by the court to parents who choose to accept it."
Anyone else catch this? Read it closely and you'll see the real truth.
If parents choose to accept "shared parenting" there's no need to "demand" it. Untershine and his comrads want to force it against the will of the parent who resists it.
Yep, they sure are all about "sharing" aren't they? Substitute "controlling" for "sharing" and you have their real truth.
Let the flames begin!!!
Posted by: chief at Feb 6, 2004 9:49:59 AM
Jaks' own website says he has DAILY VISITATION WITH HIS SON. What is this guy's beef? Lots of nc parents, especially nc moms who find their visits constantly blocked by abuser/control freak dads, would love to see thie children on a daily basis. Makes me think this guy is far from the poor, put-upon daddy that he complains he is. He's got the absolutely ideal situation from the standpoint of an nc parent, and still he whines. It's not enough. Apparently his REAL agenda is that mom has to be locked out of the picture permanently. But wait--I thought he was sympathetic to both parents being involved. A child needs a mommy and a daddy, etc. etc. Guess none of that means a thing when daddy wants total control. When we say a child needs a mommy and a daddy what we REALLY mean is that a child just needs daddy. Especially a daddy like Jaks with a case history of domestic violence and abuse. Just what we need. A generation of thoroughly disfunctional, screwed-up kids!
Posted by: jan at Feb 6, 2004 11:19:11 AM
"This kidnapping is not about Jaks feeling that his son was not being properly taken care of. It's an abusive control maneuver to get back at his ex-wife."
Lowell Jaks did not pay his ex-wife support.
Lowell Jaks saw his son every day and had overnites UNTIL the EPO of January 29,2004. There was a hearing to be held on this scheduled for February 11, 2004.
Is Lowell Jaks in arrears on ANY child support?
Wonder what Untershine will come up with next in support of Lowell Jaks.
Oh. and one more thing. Who is the owner, treasurer and secretary of ANCPR? According to Nevada records, Lowell Jaks.
Posted by: chief at Feb 7, 2004 7:40:42 PM
The above responses are empty words from feminist phrase manuals. A feminist has no right to talk to a man about the anger that comes from the loss of his home, job and children at the hands of the feminist court system. A feminist has nothing to say about this. Nothing. They understand male anger as only a primitive destructive physical force. Men hear over and over how anger is going to "eat your soul" and that they must let it go. Anger kills the soul of a man only when he does nothing with it. Anger leads a man to violence if he chooses to go in that direction. Anger can be as much a creative and liberating force as a destructive one. It depends on what I do with the energy generated by the anger.
Feminists do not expect to be told the truth and almost consider it an insult when a man breaches protocol and lays it out on the table. There is a saying that most women think that truth is an irrelevant triviality whose only purpose is to confuse men. This is not surprising when one realizes that the formation of a woman's mind and character usually consists in many people telling her a series of lies about what she is to expect of and in life. The lies and the telling of lies are so ingrained in a woman's consciousness that she is truly not aware of her fraudulent delusions. Men dislike women who don't understand them, and women dislike men who do. It is interesting to note that as more men become increasingly aware of the pervasiveness and dangers of the Great Gender War, more feminists are giving themselves permission to pursue younger and younger men. The child support police state will see to it that these boys pay the price when they graduate from high school and beginning collecting a paycheck.
It is frustrating and exasperating to engage feminists in a discussion of gender issues, especially those related to careers and families. I hear the same deceptions, the same denials, the same double-standards, the same twisting of words and ideas over and over. I think there is much confusion in the minds of thoughtful men and women about the philosophy and ideals of feminism and the actual feminist laws, government policies and media messages that are the day to day reality of our society. We could discuss the meaning and goals of feminist philosophy and probably find substantial areas of agreement. But when I go into a courtroom to seek parenting time with my children or look for government funding for Men's Shelters or watch an evening of network sitcoms (for research purposes only) I will see children being used as pawns and property for the enrichment and empowerment of women, I will find no government help for men who are in dangerous domestic situations and I will receive hateful message after hateful message that men are thoughtless fools. This is the practice and reality of feminism. Women cannot wash their hands of it and say they had nothing to do with it. If you have never written a letter to a government official or a media representative protesting what I described above then you have contributed to the harming of children and to the us vs. them polarization of men and women. This is not meant as a harsh criticism or attack directed at you women personally. It is just meant to alert you to the reality and consequences of the actions of some very selfish and greedy women (and men) who stole the ideals of feminism and implemented a very destructive and corrosive set of laws and policies that are destroying all of us.
Posted by: Ray at Feb 12, 2004 8:47:15 PM
My two cents: when I was a child, the state of California decided to give custody of myself and my sister to a man already charged with child abuse (for leaving a six-inch circumference bruise on my arm). Who allowed this? The state of California. My mom fought very hard to get us back and only suceeded after we'd suffered four years of abuse and neglect in another state; my sister was kicked out and I willingly moved back two days after my high school graduation. I repeatedly told the courts about the abuse but I was ignored. As a child, shouldn't I have had a voice? Shouldn't I have had some rights as well?
So, yes, the lawmakers and those who enforce the laws aren't perfect. It's a sad but true fact.
I now have a child of my own. I fought with my son's father to have him be involved in our son's life. After a while, I just stopped. I've never dangled our son in front of him and said "Pay me and you get to see him". But you know what? I'm a single mother, on welfare, and while my son's father makes $20 a week at a full time job he *still* tells me he can't make ends meet and he won't pay child support. I'm sorry, but if someone should be defended and helped in the two above cases, it's obvious it's the mothers.
I know men who never get to see their children, and it's not by their choice. But for someone to kidnap their own child...it's illegal. And for the one left childless, that's not fair; there had to be some sort of reason why that parent was given custody. And I'm sorry that I'm a feminist and that it may influence my views, but all I care about is the best interest for any child involved in a situation like this, and I don't think the father having the child is in that child's best interest.
Posted by: Ragna at Feb 13, 2004 3:42:55 AM
what are this mans allegations and rationale for doing what he's done? i don't understand why he's doing this, except to "stick" his wife one last time and give it the good twisting.
he got to see his child regularly right? and why would any court -inclined to go male or female- give this man full custody when he makes threats about running off with the kid, started and heads an organization such as he does, and gives advice on how to get out of paying child support? while already doing just that on a previous marriage and child?
i personally know a man who should have full custody of his kids and yes, his ex is wretched. he never abused her, she cheated on him. but...that does not mean that he believes he has the right to pack up the kids and leave the country. it's not what's best for the kids, and he knows it. he's going thru the legal system. you know, actually giving it a try.
this isn't a "feminist" issue. that's a crock of shit. women get screwed over too, but the children get even more screwed over than anybody. and THEY are the ones who are most important. you bring them into this world, they are your frigging responsibility.
if allegations of abuse are proven in any case, then the child should never be in full custody of the parent who is the abuser or who is involved w/ the abusers. ever. if it is deemed that the mother's home is more stable for this kid, for whatever reason, whether is abuse or so he gets to stay at his same school w/ his same friends in his same home, or whatever...there are a lot of different factors that play into these cases and it's not just because they favor the woman. sure, there's the stereotype -like so many other stereotypes- that the woman is the better caregiver and more nurturing. no, that's not always true. but what are the grounds for divorce in the first place?
this isn't about "feminist" issues, this is about the law. he did "kidnap" their child, it is not just "his" son and he had no right or rational reason to do what he did. apparently he got to see his son all he wanted. he just wanted to reverse the courts decision himself, and hurt his ex-wife as much as he could. i'm sure he's proud. regardless, he's now broken the law. he KIDNAPPED their child. there's no two ways about it, and all of these men would be saying that's what she did, if she claimed he was horrible and decided to flee the country with their son first.
and WHAT ABOUT THE BOY? does anyone give a damn about him? a child needs both parents (unless one of them is abusing them physically/sexually/mentally, god forbid). screw this machismo bullshit and all these accusations of "feminist" court systems. adults always seem to forget the most important issue, while their doing their tit-for-tat and blame game and power struggles...they forget about what's best for the child.
screwing with a kids life is not activism. it's assholism.
Posted by: amy at Feb 13, 2004 3:41:20 PM
and by the way...i'm very well aware that many courts do have a reputation for leaning more in the favor of the woman rather than the man. but that can vary from court to court and state to state. i think these things should be determined case by case and on the basis of why the couple is divorcing and i also believe that the children should be heard. more often than not, i bet those kids would say they want to see both their mom and dad, regularly.
my personal experience, that i mentioned above, is hearing those kids involved say they thought 50/50 was fair. neither would be at all happy if they were completely taken away from either their mother or father. they may have their druthers where they would rather "live" most of the time...and in the state their in, the kids can decide when they're 12 or 13 where they would rather live full-time.
it sucks, but my overall point is, i do not believe we have a feminist court system. that's a very vast generalization and women get screwed six ways from sunday depending on what we're talking about here. there's also the rationale out there that the major bread-winner should get the kids -usually, by proxy, that means the man- and that too isn't necessarily the best for the kids. our system is inundated w/ these cases though and it sucks. because we should have more time and resources to sort these things out because (again) this isn't about "us and them" (men and women) this is about the kids. and i think people tend to forget that and think more about what they want and need and less about what the children need. causing the kids even more undue stress than a divorce and changes that come with it is bad enough. putting them through such wicked and spiteful things (which both men and women do) is just beyond my being able to fathom.
kids are not pawns, they are not things to be used to get back at one another. and if you believe that, then i believe you should realize that jaks is wrong and should not have taken this child the way he did. he is, in effect, using his kid. no matter what he wants to call it. she may have done the same in the past, i have no idea nor do i claim to know, but his kidnapping and stealing the child away to a different country is taking that to whole new level and it's just plain WRONG.
Posted by: amy at Feb 13, 2004 4:16:05 PM
>"And for the one left childless, that's not fair; there had to be some sort of reason why that parent was given custody. And I'm sorry that I'm a feminist and that it may influence my views, but all I care about is the best interest for any child involved in a situation like this, and I don't think the father having the child is in that child's best interest".... Ragna
You are a simple-minded bigoted sexist. Lowell Jaks did what was necessary. The feminist exploitation and manipulation of children has resulted in a mass epidemic of childhood obesity, diabetes, learning disorders and behavior problems. How? They ignore the children that the courts reflexively give to them and then they abuse them with excessive amounts of carbohydrates, sugars and videos.
The time for a dialogue of reason and respect between men and women expired long ago. Men attempted such a dialogue when the persecution of fathers first began in earnest about 10 years ago and men found themselves, as the result of a divorce, homeless, penniless and with no access to their own children. This was accomplished by suspending due process and equal protection of the law for men in divorce cases. The calm and reasoned protests of men were met with lies, doublespeak and shrill shouts from networked women in the middle of a feeding frenzy on assets taken from men. Submissive men mislead by the lies formed a protective supportive circle around the gorging, gagging women when they learned how to get a double reward by feeding off the discarded financial scraps while at the time being humiliated by the derisive verbal flatulence of the female child killers who claimed they were victims of depression, bad karma, toxins, retained water or misaligned crystals. To all men I say: No more listening and talking to these fascists! They will not reason. Take back your homes and children. If a woman asks for a conversation firmly push her away because she only wants to manipulate you and make the lesser seem the better cause. Her world is coming down. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.
Posted by: Ray at Feb 13, 2004 10:25:15 PM
"Lowell Jaks did what was necessary." Ray
Necessary for whom? And why? I'd honestly like to know the answer to this.
Posted by: Trying to Understand at Feb 14, 2004 10:23:39 AM
"The above responses are empty words from feminist phrase manuals." Ray
Post a link where one can purchase these manuals. I'm looking for fresh ways of saying new things myself!
"A feminist has no right to talk to a man about the anger that comes from the loss of his home, job and children at the hands of the feminist court system. A feminist has nothing to say about this. Nothing." Ray
Unless, of course, the person is in agreement/empathic with you, right? Then they have all the "rights" in the world?
"They understand male anger as only a primitive destructive physical force. Men hear over and over how anger is going to "eat your soul" and that they must let it go. Anger kills the soul of a man only when he does nothing with it. Anger leads a man to violence if he chooses to go in that direction. Anger can be as much a creative and liberating force as a destructive one. It depends on what I do with the energy generated by the anger..."Ray
Here's a suggestion... Spend your time researching Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I think you will find that far more helpful than reading FR propaganda. All that other stuff you are reading is just fueling your anger and is leading to your own personal self-destruction.
Posted by: Chief at Feb 14, 2004 10:46:30 AM
"..Here's a suggestion... Spend your time researching Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). I think you will find that far more helpful than reading FR propaganda. All that other stuff you are reading is just fueling your anger and is leading to your own personal self-destruction....Chief"
lol... when a self-righteous liberal isn't indulging his/her high moral sensibilities with secular platitudes they amuse themselves with pompous invocations of psycho(tic)-babble.
Your suggestion that I seek some psychological guidance is just one short step away from having apparatchiks sending resisters to the rightness of the state away to a gulag for psychological evaluation and re-education. Lenin and Stalin are smiling at the irony of one of their favorite methods for dealing with dissidents finding such a comfortable home in the good old U.S.of A.
Posted by: Ray at Feb 14, 2004 8:31:55 PM
Ray, you are full of it. I am a woman who divorced a man who has, of this date, not held a job in 13 years. He is perfectly healthy, not discabled, but just doesn't like to work. He owns a home, as several vehicles, and collects child support from me. I inherited his debts. You think only men are getting kicked. get over it. At least you don't get dirty looks from people assuming you are some sort of crackhead. He is just very good at smearing and lying. Don't tell me about anger. I know all about it. But I don't justify kidnapping and violence.
Posted by: at Feb 28, 2004 7:41:25 PM
From A divorced dad, to the unfortunate divorced mom posted above..."nah, nah, na-nah, nah!"
Now you know the world of 95% of divorced dads out there...it's a bitch, isn't it?
Posted by: Divorced Dad at Feb 29, 2004 8:40:58 PM
>Ray, you are full of it.
That's an understatement. ;) However, Ray has since left, probably to troll other areas, so he's not an issue here anymore.
Question: why are you paying child support? Does your ex have custody?
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 1, 2004 7:08:21 AM
I thought people reading these posts that support Lowell (my father) would like to hear a little insight from one of his adult children! He has a daughter the same age as Alec's Mom. Then he married my Mom and had me and my younger brother before he remarried and had Alec. He never or barely child support for me, and barely/sorta paid for my brother. He also threatened to abduct us from my Mom when we were about the same age as Alec is now. He gave up any interest in that close relationship he rants and raves to be necessary between children and father when we were about Alec's age. I had honestly predicted that he would go offer and start a new family and forget about Alec like he had us. But, sadly for Alec, I was wrong. He has always been verbally and mentally abusive, and was definitely physically abusive of my Mom and me (at least one time I clearly remember). Does this really seem like a man who cares so deeply about his children? Mr Jaks has stated that children need the love of their father not his money (basically), but I know we didn't feel that way when my Mother had to work extra hours and be gone longer, leaving us with no parent, or depending on the Welfare system.
Mr Jaks is highly intelligent and equally unstable. He has serious anger management issues among other psychological problems.
When the court was to decide custody and visitation for Alec in Ca, I was living in Co. Alec's mother and her wonderful new husband asked me to testify on Elaine's behalf. I chose not to testify for fear of permanently severing the realtionship with my father. Now, I wish I would have testified and I wish it would have helped. It may not've reduced his visitation, but maybe it would've shown Alec that someone other than his Mom can testify as to his father's destructive nature.
I talked to Alec a few days after he got back from the Dominican Republic. He has obviously been VERY strongly swayed by our father toward his worship. Alec said his Dad "took him on a month vacation without homework!" It was sad to hear Alec's attitude regarding the horrible, controlling, manipulative, abusive thing his father had done. Alec's Mom and I hope this is some sort of coping mechanism Alec has devised to deal with his father's illness.
I have a son of my own and I even fear his safety at times. I had tried to regain a relationship with my father in the summer of 2003. I was expecting my first child and felt the pull toward family, even if just for my son to know his Granddad. I flew to Ca from Chicago to visit Mr Jaks. Our relationship was surviving because he wasn't as zealous about his ancpr-type ideas as usual. I planned a 3 week stay with him, but after 1 week, I was frantically packing my bags to leave. The extreme, woman-hating man in Mr Jaks reared his ugly head around day two, but I let the comments and sick opinions roll off of my back for a few days. At my boiling point, I spoke back with my opinion. This was unacceptable to him,probably especially since I am a female. (I'm not exaggerating to make him look worse, he does a fine job of that on his own!)
Perhaps, other readers would be interested in knowing that my younger brother has not been on speaking terms with Mr Jaks for some time now because my brother decided he would no longer tolerate Mr Jaks' verbal and emotional abuse.
Mr Jaks has always tried to control his children, though he never provided for them... never provided in anyway, including emotionally, spiritually, physically, OR financially.
I believe he adopted his philosophical abhorance of the cs system after he didn't want to pay... not after he felt it separated him from the love of his children. During our heated argument when I was packing to leave his home, I posed this theory. He was furious and claimed that that is what the system would have me think. Alas, I have been duped! Or have I? Maybe I touched a little too close to the truth.
When someone falied to reflect the beautiful man Mr Jaks yearned to see back at him, he relinquished his pursuit for a relationship with us. Alec adores his father, so Mr Jaks keeps him as close as he can. If Alec realizes what a dangerous, awful man Mr Jaks is, Alec too will be relinquished from Mr Jaks pursuit. It's just so sad that Alec had to endure the life-changing event of parental abduction for Mr Jaks' sick personal benefit.
I implore anyone who's "on my father's side" to contact me if they think I have unfairly portrayed him. I can give plenty of details and anecdotes to support my claims and opinions, as do many members of my family!
Posted by: Nicole JAKS at Mar 4, 2004 4:43:44 AM
Thanks so much for the update, Nicole. I just wrote to Elaine. I'm glad to see that Alec is finally back home. I'm sure some deprogramming will be necessary. I'll update more about this between now and the weekend.
Posted by: Trish Wilson at Mar 4, 2004 9:05:57 AM
