What happened to Darren Mack between then and June 12, when, according to police, he stabbed Charla Mack to death and shot Family Court Judge Chuck Weller with a high-powered rifle? Hindsight is 20/20, but my opinion is that this "family man turned hit man" was cracking under the strain of trying to hold onto his business, his assets and his daughter while navigating a misguided Family Court system that only poured gasoline on an already incendiary situation.
Tong also sought to place blame on Charla Mack, whom Mack had stabbed to death.
He claimed his wife and her very aggressive and competent attorney were drumming up a story to gain the upper hand in their demands for custody and assets. To wit: If she was so scared of him, why did she drive to his townhome the morning of June 12 without an adult witness by her side?
That's right. Blame a dead woman for her own murder.
I'm not surprised that Dean Tong would create excuses for what Darren Mack had done. Lots of father's rights activists are taking the "the system is to blame!" approach. Let them. It makes them look like they are making excuses for Mack's murder, shooting, and flight, which is exactly what they are doing. Tong had written that Mack "was cracking", as if his contentious divorce was to blame for him stabbing his wife to death and shooting Judge Weller.
Tong represents men who claim they have been falsely accused of abuse. That's how he makes his money. He has no training to do what he does. He is trained as an Emergency Medical Technician. As I had written in my earlier post about Tong, the test that Tong uses is the penile plethysmograph test, which is unreliable in ascertaining child sexual abuse. This test measures male sexual arousal. This test has many problems, including that it is not admitted in court under Daubert, which means that the test is scientifically unreliable. The test is "subject to fakery and voluntary control by test subjects..."
Here is one of Tong's recommendations in his op-ed for divorces to supposedly prevent contention:
Joint custody should be the preferred option. Even though the rule of law is "the child's best interests," too often it is interpreted as, "the father should get the shaft and the mom should get everything."
Tong neglected to point out that Charla and Darren Mack had joint custody. It obviously did not inspire them to get along for the sake of their children. Joint custody did not prevent Darren Mack from "cracking". It's so nice of him to write the inflammatory statement "the father should get the shaft and the mom should get everything." That makes him look petty and vindictive - not the way you want to look when talking about a man who had stabbed his wife to death, shot the judge who was hearing his case, and then fled to Mexico.
Dean Tong is a favorite amongst father' rights activists and "false allegations" supporters. He, like most of the fathers' rights activists who have written about the Mack case, continues to blame "the system" for a murder and a shooting. What Dean Tong is doing is damage control. Fathers' rights activists have made their opinions clear on message boards where they have supported Mack shooting Judge Weller. They also blame "the system" for Mack's downfall. Fathers' rights activists do not represent good men. Good, decent men who are going through divorce should not look to those groups or the individuals in them for help.
Posted on June 30, 2006 at 04:05 PM | Permalink
| Comments (12)
I Just Handed In An Article
I had finished it yesterday, but I just handed it in a few minutes ago. The article is about Tantra. I enjoyed writing it very much.
Posted on June 30, 2006 at 01:18 PM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
I've Had An Op-Ed Published At Reno Discontent
My op-ed about fathers' rights ugly support of Darren Mack has been published at Reno Discontent. It's about time the truth about the ugly nature of fathers' rights activists gets out for the public to see.
I've sent the same op-ed to other newspapers. If it's printed, I'll let everyone know.
Update: This is the op-ed that was published.
Father’s Rights Groups Let Their True Colors Show
by Trish Wilson
Darren Mack, a wealthy resident of Reno, Nevada, stabbed his wife to death and shot the judge hearing his divorce case. This case has been the talk of fathers’ rights forums. Fathers’ rights groups state that they are only concerned with helping dads see their children. Their comments on Internet forums have shown the public the truth - that these men blame the court system for when angry men harass, attack, and murder. These men also blame feminism and ex-wives for supposedly setting up a system that discriminates against men.
Fathers’ rights activists lobby for presumptive joint custody (a. k. a. shared parenting). They also seek to reduce protections for battered women. They want laws that would lower their child support obligations. They claim that courts discriminate against fathers. The court system may discriminate in isolated cases against men, but overall it does not. Most divorcing couples settle their cases without needing a judge to make their decisions for them. These couples agree that the mother should have sole custody of the children because they recognize that she had been the primary caregiver of the children from the beginning. In the cases where fathers make an issue of custody, they get some form of it more than half the time. Most of the time they get joint legal custody, but there are more cases today where fathers are able to get joint physical custody. These contested cases make only about 10% of all divorces, but they include "problem" cases like domestic violence and child abuse, power and control issues, personality disorders, mental problems, and alcohol and drug abuse. This minority is not representative of most divorces.
Fathers rights activists have supported and excused what Darren Mack had done. The message they are sending is that if their demands are not met, there will be more violent episodes. These statements from Internet forums need to be shown so that the public knows that fathers’ rights activists are not concerned with children or with fair outcomes in divorce.
Randy Dickinson is vice-president of the Coalition of Fathers and Families in New York. This group supports a presumption for joint physical custody, a. k. a. shared parenting. A recent shared parenting bill had died in committee, much to the consternation of fathers’ rights activists. Dickinson had written a letter to legislators about fathers’ rights. He included an Associated Press story about the Mack shooting. In his letter, he quoted John F. Kennedy, saying that, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver took this as a threat, and the State Police were called. Dickinson tried to excuse what he had done, but he spoke another threat. He said "they cannot continue to ignore our issues and refuse to provide any relief or accommodation, without encouraging violence from those more inclined to express their frustration and anger in that manner." The quote, he said, "was meant to emphasize that one of their own heroes and an icon of the Democratic Party warned them that the lid cannot be kept on people’s passions forever, without expecting trouble."
The messaqe is loud and clear - do what we demand or face the consequences.
The following message, from Nevada Parent, who is a leader of a Nevada fathers’ rights group, wrote "The NEW TERRORISM! Judge Chuck Weller of Washoe County Family Court has people (both men & women) running from his courtroom in TERROR. He threatens to take your children, your freedom, your property! Weller uses whatever tactics to force you to submit to his imperial demands and tyrannical orders. Every story from each person that I have talked to in my investigation has similar experience. They are terrorized and don’t understand why he is being so aggressive when they’ve done nothing wrong. Does Weller ever rule on the law or does he just rule on his whims? Contact Nevadans for Equal Parenting by clicking the link or by email to begin a dialog in Washoe County […]"
Angry men are also posting at the fathers’ rights Usenet group alt.child-support. One had commented that "[y]ou start persecuting men, you’re only asking for trouble. Maybe all these CS agency workers should start wearing bullet proof vests to work?" Another had written, "Why? Headshots are harder. Much more satisfying I’ll grant you, but much, much harder to get on a first shot." A third commenter had written, "My guess is that for every one that actually goes through with a shooting, there are many thousands who have considered it, and probably quite a few who actually locked & loaded only to back down at the last moment. Makes you wonder how many of these maggots wearing the black robe have come about as close to death as one can get and haven’t a clue."
Men at the fathers’ rights forum Stand Your Ground had also written in support of Mack, saying that when fathers’ rights demands aren’t met that the public should expect such violent reactions. One of the most unsettling comments applauded Mack’s actions. The commenter wrote "I applaud these kinds of actions. Men and Fathers are at war with their respective governments. If the "enemy" is to sit up and take notice, there must be casualties. Very few of the enemy have suffered casualties; most deaths on our side have been in their jails, or through suicide from those that have surrendered. Those that experience collatoral damage end up homeless and/or in Rescue Missions. I’ve thought of the violence angle; violent fathers and such and I don’t believe that applies in judge shootings. These incidents make it more expensive for these black robed thugs to operate their fiefdoms. Now they have to buy bullet proof glass. Darren Mack, if you are the shooter, I salute you. Any law enforcement officials reading this; while I support these actions against black robed thugs and jack-booted cops, I don’t encourage any father/husband to waste their own life in this fashion. I would be proud if you were to add my name to any "Patriot" database maintained by your department." Another commenter sought to blame feminism for the shooting. He wrote, "Repeating my favorite mantra here: "…Feminism made this happen. Feminism made this happen. Feminism made this happen. Feminism made this happen. Feminism made….." But repeating the mantra isn’t enough. In all such cases, one must ascertain exactly HOW feminism made X happen, so that it can be made known to the rest of the world at the same time that you are chanting the mantra. As it is written:"By their fruits ye shall know them." We must be able to identify the Fruits of Feminism, and say exactly WHY they are the Fruits of Feminism, and…establish the linkage in the public mind — clearly and distinctly. And not just the DNA continuity of the ideological fabric, but the actual causitive nexus — the actual agents and operators. For example, the situation we are discussing here (apparently) grows straight out of the Bradley Amendment of 1986, which was a direct outcome of efforts made by people clearly identifiable as feminist ….wasn’t it? Thus, the Bradley Amendment, and the Reno courthouse situation, are both clearly identifiable as the Fruits of Feminism….aren’t they? I think that we must train ourselves to think this way."
The Alliance For Non-Custodial Parents blog also included supportive statements. ANCPR was founded by Lowell Jaks, who spent time in jail for kidnapping his son. ANCPR included a statement demanding shared parenting and no child support to prevent such actions from happening in the future. The following message was posted at ANCPR:
"Extreme prejudice against the spouse or parent who earns the most income may well be the common factor in this shooting in Reno Today. We talked to members of the same Fathers Rights group of Reno, which Darren Mack belonged to, and they all agreed, that this kind of violence would NOT happen, ifSˇ IFSˇ
1. Judges gave Both parents equal time with their children,
2. No involuntary child support was ordered, because each
parent would ∏support∑ the child when they had the child."
Here is a small sampling of the comments that were left on the ANCPR blog by fathers’ rights activists:
The fact that judges have immunity from prosecution is criminal and a complete farce.
These scumbag judges act under the color of law knowingly violating the Constitutional rights of the litigants. Only when someone becomes completely despondent that they take the law into their own hands and serve justice on their tormenters.
There∂s only one wat to stop this nonsense! Stop paying!
The harder the courts pushes people the harder they will push back. This bastard judge lived - this time. Next time he will not be that lucky. And there will be a next time because he is a bigot. Eventually, he∂ll push another person to the brink and they will kill him. Unfortunately, this is the only way a victim of this the family court can get justice - by killing the judge.
This judge all like him get absolutely no sympathy from me. Here∂s a solution: Have judges in family court (now there∂s a contradiction in terms) only limited to five year terms and and for every complaint against them such as violating someone∂s due process because it helps the custodial parent then they aren∂t allowed to work for a year; hey, better yet, sned the jackass/bitch to jail for three months for each and every violation accrued to be run consequetively. Then maybe they won∂t be so eagar to assholes.
I do not condone this type of retaliation. However ∏you reap what you sow∑ and evidently this judge had it coming. I am in this very situation in Tennessee. I am paying $1005 per month to the child∂s mother whom I was not married to, while she does not work but fishes and hunts 10 to 18 days per month. (Yes she∂s a lesbian now.) All the while I have the child more than half the time??? I am being rail roaded as we speak. I will fight it tooth and nail until it is settled fairly. I will not however shoot the judge. God∂s vengeance will be much worse than anything I could do.
Of course it∂s not justifiable. I don∂t think it∂s absolution WarriorPoet, but rather it∂s ∏I told you do∑ Or ∏it∂s been in the making∑. People have been telling people that this type of thing is going to happen. Men have snapped over the system and have lossed everything and have gone to extreme ways of veangance.
Judges and attorneys should take note and watch their backSˇThis is only the beginningSˇIt takes this kind of extreme to deal with another extremeSˇAnd for those dirty judges and cock roach vampire attorneys who look upon men/fathers as only a paycheck, not people with ∏rights∑ hahaha/just mention rights and the law in a court and see how fast you are told to pay moreSˇ You assholes (and you KNOW who you are) that make up the law as you see fit, this could just be your future coming to a place near you soonSˇvery soonSˇ and more oftenSˇ.
The real glitch is that justices will hand out even more PFA∂s like candy now. Soon to be ex husbands will be considered armed and dangerous. Incidents like this can and might have an adverse affect on allot of us men out here.
The public needs to know how harmful fathers’ rights activists really are. These men are not concerned with the welfare of children. They are angry and vindictive. They recommend that domestic violence protections be gutted with claims that women frequently fabricate false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. Bona fide false allegations are rare; no more common in the context a divorce or custody case than they are in the general population. Fathers’ rights activists also promulgate the myth that men and women are equally abusive. The vast majority of victims of domestic violence are women. Fathers’ rights activists seek to get out of paying child support, which they claim is too high. In fact, on average, fathers contribute only 19% of their incomes to their children’s households. It should be made clear to reasonable people that anyone who supports what Darren Mack had done does not have the best interests of children in mind. Fathers who need help in their divorces and custody cases should steer clear of fathers’ rights groups. Those groups only incite anger. Good fathers deserve better than that.
Posted on June 30, 2006 at 11:33 AM | Permalink
| Comments (30)
It's French Movie Friday!
I'm finished my writing for the week. It's the weekend! Time to play!
I wanted to enjoy some good movies. I ordered some French New Wave and other French movies from Netflix. I just finished watching "Jules et Jim", which I haven't seen since I was in college. I enjoyed it very much. Now, I'm watching "French Twist", which I also haven't seen in a long time.
Here are other movies on my Netflix queue:
The Last Metro
A Woman Is A Woman
The 400 Blows
Bed and Board
Love on the Run
(Obviously, I'm on a Francois Truffaut kick right now.)
Les Salades de L'amour
What movies have you watched lately, and what you do plan to watch this weekend?
Posted on June 30, 2006 at 10:46 AM | Permalink
| Comments (23)
Friday Cat Blogging
Cute Cat Alert!!!
You MUST see these adorable cat videos. The first one will blow your mind.
More Funny Kittens
Just check out the main site, and click on the images to the left. These are a riot.
Posted on June 30, 2006 at 08:23 AM | Permalink
| Comments (2)
June 29, 2006
Father's Rights Activists And Darren Mack - Let The Backpedaling Begin
I'm not surprised that since Wendy McElroy has engaged in damage control over what she likely knows are supportive comments regarding Darren Mack made by fathers' rights activists, that those activists are now backpedaling like crazy. Her article is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201251,00.html
Glenn Sacks also engaged in damage control. He mentioned the "not insubstanial lunatic fringe" to explain away those comments. In one of his newsletters, he wrote: "Darren Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of the "he couldn't take it any more and snapped" variety." As I said in a previous post, Sacks had admitted there that there is a substantial number of fathers' rights activists who act in such a heinous manner. He tried to downplay that fact by calling them "not insubstantial." That means substantial.
These guys are not the lunatic fringe. They are the fathers' rights movement. They are the mainstream and most active and vocal members of the movement. Now, the public is getting a heavy dose of how angry and antagonistic the people in that movement can be.
I have already seen evidence of fathers' rights activists backpedaling on what their own kind have said in supporting Mack. Two of the guys from Stand Your Ground continue to post in my comments, saying they don't condone what Mack had done, yet they continue making excuses for Mack and blaming his ex-wife for her own murder. There are also other comments defending Mack in my comments, but I suspect that those are more trolls. I know that my blog has been targeted for trolling. It doesn't really matter that those people may be trolls. Their comments are heinous. They are defending Mack and blaming his ex-wife for Mack's rage.
I am not fooled.
Fathers' rights activists are on the record with their supportive statements. Some of them endorsed shooting Judge Weller. They can't backpedal on their previous comments just because Wendy McElroy and Glenn Sacks are doing damage control. Oh, I'm sure some will come here and will post elsewhere saying that those horrid people do not represent the fathers' rights movement. Some organizations and individuals will appear out of the woodwork to say that they don't condone what Mack had done. Some of them may make caveats saying that they understand what he did, because they believe "the system" works against fathers. That's just an excuse. They will try to distance themselves from the people and groups that made those comments, calling them the "lunatic fringe". Of course the people who made those comments represent the fathers' rights movement. They are at the heart of the fathers' rights movement. They are not fringe.
This whole business reminds me of when Fathers' Manifesto first went public about a decade ago. Father's Manifesto is a misogynistic web site that sought to repeal women's right to vote. It attacked feminism. It attacked women. It created the first "fatherlessness" statistics that denigrated single and divorced mother homes. It demanded sole father custody with no exceptions. It sought to end child support, alimony, and all transfer of assets to ex-wives. Fathers' rights activists had blasted John Knight, the founder of Father's Manifesto, on Usenet. However, backchannel they endorsed his Manifesto and participated in his mailing list. They wrote letters to him in support of his Manifesto. What they didn't expect was for John Knight to take all of that private backchannel information and e-mails, and to post them very publicly on an extensive web site. When that happened, fathers' rights activists were outed. They backpedaled like crazy. They insisted the never e-mailed John Knight. They insisted they never endorsed Fathers' Manifesto, even though their full names, organizations, addresses, and other information were included on the Manifesto web site. They claimed that John Knight had added their names without their permission. They demanded to be removed from the Manifesto signatory list.
I called bullshit then, and I call bullshit now.
They couldn't hide their involvement with Fathers' Manifesto. They were outed. In a similar manner, fathers' rights activists are now outed with their supportive comments about Darren Mack. They can't backpedal. They can't engage in damage control. They are on the record with their ugly and hostile comments. Fathers' rights activists in Internet forums have blamed "the system" for what Darren Mack had done. They can't dance around that fact.
Posted on June 29, 2006 at 04:55 PM | Permalink
| Comments (19)
June 27, 2006
Darren Mack May Have Commented On My Blog
Update: You know what is really freaky about this? I wife-killer may have been reading my blog. Ick, ick, ick.
I found this at Legal Reader. It looks like Darren Mack may have posted at that site as well as my blog. Here's the message from Legal Reader:
Yesterday morning I was contacted by a homicide detective from the Reno Police Department, and shortly thereafter by a Special Agent of the FBI's Reno office. They both thought that Mack might have been posting comments to this website, and that he might be continuing to monitor the comments on this site.
They identified two comments that they thought Mack might have left (see below), which were both posted by someone using the name "Mark". I determined that these two comments were posted from the IP address 126.96.36.199. That IP address is assigned to the "Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry" -- which includes Mexico.
In one of the comments, the author starts off refferring to Mack in the third-person, as "Darren" or "he", and claims to have detailed financial information that he had seen from "bank records" that Mack had shown him. But at one point, the author slips into the first-person, writing: "Can't tell the bank [that Judge] Weller said I don't have to pay [interest due to the bank]." Hmmmm . . . .
I showed the Special Agent and the Detective how they could monitor who was currently accessing my website using SiteMeter, which they presumably did from then on.
Were those comments actually posted by Darren Mack? I may never know, but it looks pretty likely to me. Because Mack ultimately turned himself in, I don't think his postings to my website contributed to his apprehension. But they potentially could have . . . .
Here are the two messages "Mark" posted at Legal Reader:
Here is the real numbers as was given to me in documents by Darren himself. Don´t let the fancy BS done by the attorneys fool you in the court motions. Remember most if not all has been falsely documented. I saw the real financial and bank records myself.
The order said¨.
15,000 income taxes that no-one remembered that had to be taken out. Remember income taxes?
29,000 left after taxes
10,000 spousal support as per Weller´s order
19,000 left after spousal support
14,000 all those items that were listed on the order by Weller but not put into dollars. Just the 2 morgages were 9,000 a month. I have seen the bank records.
5000 left after paying all the bills ordered to be paid by Weller.
849 child support for one child
1000 child support to the previous wife for another child.
3151 left after child support
6000 in interest paymts and other expences that Weller did not address in his order but had to be paid. Can´t tell the bank Weller said I don´t have to pay.
-2849 left after bills that must be paid that Weller did not address.
15000 a month for attys fees to fund a war that he tried to settle many times rather than go BK.
-17,849 left after attys fees. Remember Darren has yet to spend $1 on rent, food, gas, car, support one child full time that lived with him and one child that lived with him half time.
6000 a month for all the above. Darren had a minus cashflow of
$-23,849 per month
based on Judge Weller´s order. Live with that for 2 years!! and see if you need to file BK. Get a grip people.
So here it is in simple form. Weller a man making $44,000 a month to pay $61,849 before he got $1 to live on himself and to take care of his children when they lived with him. You make your own conclusion of fairness.
Remember criminals like Charla´s atty Shawn Meador and bought and paid for Judges can make anything look reasonable in court docs. The real test is how does it play out when you have to write the check and balance the checkbook. Don´t be fooled by the surface level BS. I have seen the bank records.
Posted by: mark at June 21, 2006 07:53 PM
And this one:
That is just one order. The first financial order that was posted is just one of 20 or more things that were Nazi like against Darren. By the way anyone who understands the law would know that he couldn't appeal until the entire case was finished including custody and the divorce decree issues. That is why those two things were stratigically put off by Shawn Meador into the future so as to keep Darren from any protection from another court. It is my understanding that he was in the middle of an emergency writ but those are very rarely issued.
They make up rules and they are the umpires so when they are crooked like in this case one has absolutely no chance at coming out without being robbed broke, put into BK, jailed, extorting the people around you, and then kidnapping your children. There is one place where one has no constitutional rights and that is in the 4 walls of the divorce court. It is just legalized organized crime.
It was not just with Darren but read fatherunite.org and you will see hundreds of stories of the crimes that divorce industry are inflicting on mostly men thoughtout this country. They are plain out crimes. Read them and weep for crimes being waged against mostly men in this country.
Posted by: Mark at June 22, 2006 11:11 AM
"Mark" had come here to my blog, and posted the first comment here in the comments to this post, The Legal Reader On Judge Weller, Part II. I didn't notice that slip into the first person until Legal Reader pointed it out. The e-mail address he used is email@example.com. I found no results for that e-mail on Google, but I did find an "anisangah" who is a 13 year old Malaysian girl. No connection as far as I can see.
I checked the IP address, and it is the same one - 188.8.131.52. I'll ran a Whois search on the IP address. This is what I found:
OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry
Address: Potosi 1517
NetRange: 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11
NetType: Allocated to LACNIC
Comment: This IP address range is under LACNIC responsibility
Comment: for further allocations to users in LACNIC region.
Comment: Please see http://www.lacnic.net/ for further details,
Comment: or check the WHOIS server located at whois.lacnic.net
OrgTechName: LACNIC Whois Info
I'm going to contact the Reno police and let them know that Darren Mack may also have been monitoring my blog. This is very interesting. I know that I have been at the top of Google lists for searches for Darren Mack. I've also been at close to the top of Google lists for searches for "Dean Tong" and "Darren Mack". I've always known that my blog is watched closely by fathers' rights activists, but I had no idea that Darren Mack may have been monitoring my blog while he was a fugitive.
If Darren Mack had indeed been monitoring my blog, that second comment of his seals it that he's been involved with father's rights groups. He recommended Fathers United. He was a member of Nevadans For Equal Justice, even though a leader of that group who has also commented here tried to brush that off as if Mack had only been to a meeting or two. It's clear that if in fact Mack had commented here and at Legal Reader, he is a father's rights activist, supporter, and member.
Posted on June 27, 2006 at 07:34 PM | Permalink
| Comments (74)
California Spousal Rape Bill
There is an excellent spousal rape bill sitting on the Governor's desk now in California. It was sponsored by Shiela Kuehl. It reads as follows:
SB 1402, Kuehl Spousal rape.
Existing law defines spousal rape as an act of sexual intercourse accomplished by menas of force or violence, when the victim is at the time unconscious, or by threats of retaliation or use of public authority against the victim. Existing law provides, however, that no prosecution will be commenced under these provisions unless the violation was reported to other specified persons within one year of the violation, unless the allegation is corroborated by independent evidence, as specified.
This bill would remove provisions requiring that an allegation of spousa rape has been reported previously or corroborated by independent evidence in order to be prosecuted.
Of course, fathers' rights activists are chomping at the bit over this bill. As usual, they complain that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are rampant, when in fact bona fide false allegations are rare. They claim that the new spousal rape law will give vindictive wives a weapon to be used against their husbands in court. The abusers and wife rapists naturally don't like this new bill, because it won't let them get away with their behavior.
I look forward to the Governor signing this bill. This bill will make the law easier for raped wives to get the protection they need.
Posted on June 27, 2006 at 02:30 PM | Permalink
| Comments (5)
Give Me Chemical Brainwash, Now!!
The only thing bothering me about airport security confiscating a bottle of Viagra that Rush Limbaugh was carrying - and the bottle was not in his name - is that I have this horrible image of Rush with a boner in my mind that I can't get out. Need... chemical... brainwash... NOW.
Posted on June 27, 2006 at 01:47 PM | Permalink
| Comments (5)
Complaints Lead To Upheaval Of New York Court
Litigants complained about treatment they had received in matrimonial court. Several women complained about a court system employee's comments about "10583 Syndrome," which was "a reference to Scarsdale's zip code. He was talking about the mentality of stay-at-home mothers in upscale communities having a sense of entitlement to huge divorce settlements from their wealthy husbands."
The court has since been shaken up, and new people are hearing divorces now. It looks like women have been able to get fair representation in that matrimonial court.
Westchester's matrimonial courts undergo shakeup
By JONATHAN BANDLER
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: June 23, 2006)
WHITE PLAINS — A review prompted by complaints of unfair handling of divorce cases has led to a shake-up of Westchester's matrimonial courts, the state court system announced yesterday.
Surrogate Anthony Scarpino was named supervising judge of the divorce courts and several judges handling matrimonial cases were reassigned. The role of special referees who mediate divorces will also be curtailed, said David Bookstaver, a spokesman for the state Office of Court Administration.
The review began in March in the wake of a feud between Westchester County Judge Francis Nicolai, the administrative judge of the 9th Judicial District, and special referee James Montagnino. Court officials announced yesterday that Montagnino has been transferred to the 3rd Judicial District in Albany.
Montagnino, a former county prosecutor and longtime court system employee, had been accused by several litigants of treating them unfairly. Several female plaintiffs took particular offense at a lecture he gave at Pace Law School two years ago in which he discussed the "10583 Syndrome," a reference to Scarsdale's zip code. He was talking about the mentality of stay-at-home mothers in upscale communities having a sense of entitlement to huge divorce settlements from their wealthy husbands.
Montagnino insisted that the comment was taken out of context from a discussion of the distribution of assets and that he was not biased against women and treated all litigants appropriately. He questioned the timing of the investigation, saying it was in response to his own criticism of Nicolai.
The shake-up led to the removal of state Supreme Court justices W. Denis Donovan, Bruce Tolbert and Richard Liebowitz from the matrimonial courts. Justices Linda Jamieson and Lewis Lubell will now handle divorce cases and Justice William Giacomo will continue to handle matrimonial trials, but will be reassigned to another court, Bookstaver said.
Posted on June 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM | Permalink
| Comments (24)