« California Spousal Rape Bill | Main | Father's Rights Activists And Darren Mack - Let The Backpedaling Begin »

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 201.121.174.67. 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¨.

44,000 income
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 anisangah@rgb.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 - 201.121.174.67. I'll ran a Whois search on the IP address. This is what I found:

OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry
OrgID: LACNIC
Address: Potosi 1517
City: Montevideo
StateProv:
PostalCode: 11500
Country: UY

ReferralServer: whois://whois.lacnic.net

NetRange: 201.0.0.0 - 201.255.255.255
CIDR: 201.0.0.0/8
NetName: LACNIC-201
NetHandle: NET-201-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: Allocated to LACNIC
NameServer: NS.LACNIC.NET
NameServer: NS2.DNS.BR
NameServer: TINNIE.ARIN.NET
NameServer: NS-SEC.RIPE.NET
NameServer: SEC3.APNIC.NET
NameServer: NS1.AFRINIC.NET
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
RegDate: 2003-04-03
Updated: 2005-12-05

OrgTechHandle: LACNIC-ARIN
OrgTechName: LACNIC Whois Info
OrgTechPhone:
OrgTechEmail: whois-contact@lacnic.net

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

Oh wow, Trish, that's creepy. Very creepy.

Posted by: Violet Socks at Jun 27, 2006 10:00:21 PM

fucking egomaniac


so he's a killer AND a troll.

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 27, 2006 10:44:15 PM

Do you think he's sitting in jail, astonished that people just don't get what he's saying?

Posted by: Dennis at Jun 28, 2006 2:04:00 AM

I come back from vacation to this?? Aaaack.

What a snivelling, pathetic freak. This piece of garbage and his ilk is who so-called father's rights folks defend. Wonderful.

And they wonder why they have no credibility.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 28, 2006 9:58:43 AM

Maybe I should have a new slogan for my blog:

The Countess: Where Wife-Killers Go To Hang Out

I'm not as seriously weirded out as I was yesterday, but the Creep Factor is still there.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 28, 2006 10:30:23 AM

How completely narcissistic. "What's everyone saying about ME?" The guy couldn't have kept his mouth shut long enough to stay in hiding anyway. No wonder he turned himself in. Now he can keep blabbing about himself, and how unfair it all is to him, and bla bla bla. Cry me a river. Wah, Wah, Wah.

I read somewhere that he turned himself in because he misses his kids SO MUCH. He should have thought of that before he murdered their mother. I hope he never sees his kids again. Why on earth would they want to see him?

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 28, 2006 11:09:10 AM

Damned idiot. As long as the Father's Right crowd sees feminists, humanists, and socialists as enemies (praise be to the Jesus-freaks, rightwing pundits, and a Republican-owned, capitalistic media empire), they'll continue to see their ex-lovers and judges as threats, and therefore targets for their frustation.

These boneheaded lunatics need to wake up and realize that both their ex-lovers/wives and the judges (the latter being nothing but a corporate tool, of course) are more usefull to them alive rather than dead and that they're having their emotions plucked like the strings of a fiddle all in a contrivance to keep Fathers' Rights activists and Woman's Rights activists fighting with other so that the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" widens more and the rich capitalistic, bourgeois elite (and their children) get to run off with all the spoils of the "war".

Posted by: Sizemore at Jun 28, 2006 3:30:40 PM

Sizemore. I just want to realise that you posting on a site that does exactly what saddens you.

Posted by: Rizla at Jun 28, 2006 3:51:21 PM

You really do need better trolls, Trish.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 28, 2006 4:41:04 PM

I know I'm being trolled now. I think they're Yahoo trolls. I agree I could use some better ones. These ones are boring.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 28, 2006 4:48:51 PM

Yeah, they're from Yahoo message boards. They don't bother me. I'll keep them under control.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 28, 2006 4:51:25 PM

Even if Mack wasn't a FRA/MRA member, it's obvious (if he wrote those posts) he felt he would find sympathy within their ranks. And he was right.

It's funny, but when the NY joint custody bill was in committee, local opponents-- mostly NY-NOW members-- complained they were getting threatening e-mails and phone calls from anonymous MRAs. The MRAs denied it, claiming it was all a feminist plot to paint them as violent and crazy.

Well, now it appears we have a bona fide MRA who is undeniably violent and crazy. What's more, he has other MRAs cheering him on. I wonder if the MRAs will try to blame feminists (or women-- we're pretty much all the same to them) for orchestrating this entire episode.

I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by: Helena at Jun 28, 2006 5:47:45 PM

Interesting...

Posted by: Alex Greenwood at Jun 28, 2006 9:44:48 PM

Actually very scary stuff.

It suddenly occurred to me tonight that Mack is really a "well-rounded" versatile killer (I can't think of a better term). He pulls off an over-kill "passion" killing with his own child upstairs. And he pulls of a cold-blooded assassination attempt from quite a distance (three football fields) and scores a "hit" though not a "kill." Why is it that something is not computing right? Not to get heavily into conspiracy theory, but somehow I think that various others, FRs, were involved in planning the assassination attempt. Maybe in actually helping. Who knows? I'm not a criminologist per se, but I thought killers tended to fall into certain profiles. Mack is all over the board. What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: silverside at Jun 28, 2006 10:53:39 PM

I am curious, What do you all think about this guy paying for the mortgage and ALL the bills on this 1.2 million dollar house, in addition to giving the woman 10,000 dollars a month alimony? That and he wasn't allowed to enter the house.

I am in no way excusing what he did, but...

I mean wow, do you guys think, paying entirely for the ex to continue to live in the house PLUS giving her 10,000 a month in spending cash is any way equitable in this situation?

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 4:25:12 AM

GregA, for starters, two things:

Saying, "I'm not in any way condoning what he did BUT...." is bullshit. You ARE condoning what he did by citing that he paid all the bills and wasn't allowed to enter his own house. Except he didn't pay all the bills. He declared bankruptcy to avoid paying bills for his own kid, and he was abusive to his wife.

Try again.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 29, 2006 8:08:59 AM

Puhleeze! MRAs and feminists can be enemies if you will. But labeling all MRAs because of one sick rotten apple is even beneath you trish. Murder is wrong, no matter what was happening to him. He is a killer, plain and simple. Was he abused by a broken system? Sure in hell was! Does that give him the right to take a life? Hell no. No matter what, what he did was wrong, and to imply that he is somehow an example of what MRAs are is rediculous.

TMOTS

Posted by: TheManOnTheStreet at Jun 29, 2006 8:09:25 AM

GregA, Darren Mack is said to be worth $9.4 million. He can afford to pay what he's been ordered to pay. The wife he stabbed to death was a stay-at-home mom. The problem is that he hasn't been paying. Nearly every weekend he traveled around the world and continued with his swinging lifestyle while his wife was left trying to get money together to pay the bills. At one point, the judge had to order him to pay $2,000 to turn the electricity back on in the house - the house where his children were living. It was all about money for him.

This was a weathy family that lived a wealthy lifestyle. Why should she not continue to live in a wealthy manner because she wanted a divorce? Plus the children - including Mack's child with her - were also living in that house. They had joint custody, an every other week arrangement. Should the kids live comfortably with dad while live wondering how the bills were going to be paid with mom?

Why is it always about the money with fathers' rights activists? It was certainly all about the money with Mack. So much so that he stabbed his wife to death while his 8 year old child was upstairs in the house, and he shot a judge and the judge's administrative assistant. Even the one comment on my blog, purported to be from him, was a complaint about money.

The wealthy are different from the rest of us, that's for sure.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 8:17:41 AM

TMOST, I know you guys at Stand Your Ground have made excuses for what he had done, and you condoned it. Stop pretending. Now go back to Stand Your Ground and bash me there.

Here is one thread. Now stop backpedaling on what you guys have already said. You're statements are known and you can't get around that.

JoeFin
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 677
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:47 pm
Post subject:
$10 the wife hired a hitman
_________________
Resident Sh!! house attorney at large


ill001
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 14
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:52 pm
Post subject:
Quote:How do they KNOW it was a MAN? Because the attacker HIT the intended target. JK.


gwallan
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 747
Location: Arse End of the World
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:59 pm
Post subject:
JoeFin wrote:$10 the wife hired a hitman If she only gave him a tenner there must have been something else on The menu.
_________________
In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence,and future, as a species


Dr EvilUS
Joined: 15 Sep 2002
Posts: 4818
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 4:11 pm
Post subject:
This from an email from William Wagener: http://www.onsecondthought.tv/index2a.html


Peter
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Posts: 655
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:39 pm
Post subject:
_________________
They asked for equality. Let them have it.


Galt
Joined: 19 Sep 2002
Posts: 5503
Posted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 10:47 pm
Post subject:
Quote:
... where he claimed Judge Chuck Weller was ordering him to pay twice ormore money than he earned, and he is apparently already in bankruptcy court. Sounds like it may be an "imputed income" kind of thing. It's just unbelievable that family court has gotten so draconian against men. I don't know about this guy's case, but there ARE men out there who have the stress of doing everything they can to earn money, but are still faced with jail because they can't earn enough, due to an order based on "imputed income". In the cases where an ex-wife's boyfriend is paying for her anyway, and the ex-husband is living hand-to-mouth and constantly facing jail time, it's almost inhumane.


Sir Percy
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 2342
Location: Hobbiton
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:14 am
Post subject:
Quote:but still lives after 4 shots Was it one bullet or four? If the latter it must have been a fast automaticof some sort to break the window and be followed by three more before he hitthe floor.
_________________
Evil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in thename of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.


gwallan
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 747
Location: Arse End of the World
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:30 am
Post subject:
A system where all public officials, particularly justice system officials,are "elected" is just begging to be corrupted. Too much depends on how much money the various candidates can "raise". Anyone who thinks that all the donors are doing it "out of the goodness of their hearts" and without any expectations is living in a fantasy world.
_________________


Men's Rights Activist
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:16 am
Post subject:
Quote:"Judge shot in courthouse"
What part of the anatomy is the "courthouse?" I know where the "caboose" is.
_________________
Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all(including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial.Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology"Declared" - Here & Now!


Men's Rights Activist
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 1550Location: Los Angeles
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:20 am
Post subject: Quote:"...and a woman on his staff hit by shrapnel"
Uh, was that an exploding shell or a bullet? Wasn't she just hit by flying glass? Okay, I know, it's only the mainstream media. I shouldn't expect accuracy from such simple minds.
_________________


PAGE TWO, SYG
http://www.standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9885&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
Author
Message


Fidelbogen
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 207
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:46 am
Post subject:
Okay, let's get this straight. If a happily married couple sticks together, but falls upon hard financial times and is barely able to scrape by from check to check, but manages to keep the young 'uns just barely cared for.....no judge, no court system, is gonna come down on their necks with demands for payment, "imputed income", threats of jail, suspended driver's licenses, and the like...... But if the couple splits up, then....it's "different". Heaven help the NCP!! Where is the logic here? Where is the consistency? Where is the rationale? Where the hell is the friggin' justice? It escapes me....
_________________
How many albatrosses can we hang around feminism's neck?


Peter
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Posts: 655
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:01 am
Post subject:
Galt wrote: Sounds like it may be an "imputed income" kind of thing. I do not understand how American judges got such powers to make arbitrary, even illegal, decisions and "court orders". This good lady has a lot to say about the American legal system: [Trish's note - the links are to Phyllis Schafly's Eagle Forum articles.]
The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It by Phyllis Schlafly (Hardcover - Jul 2004)
_________________
They asked for equality. Let them have it


K9
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 249
Location: NE Ohio
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:02 pm
Post subject:
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.
_________________
I am strong. I am invincible. I am in your face. I am woman. I am pregnant. Brother can you spare a dime?


Gungerassa
Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 42
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 2:08 pm
Post subject:
Fidelbogen wrote:Okay, let's get this straight. If a happily married couple sticks together, but falls upon hard financial times and is barely able to scrape by from check to check, but manages to keep the young 'uns just barely cared for.....no judge, no court system, is gonna come down on their necks with demands for payment, "imputed income", threats of jail, suspended driver's licenses, and the like...... But if the couple splits up, then....it's "different". Heaven help the NCP!! Where is the logic here? Where is the consistency? Where is the rationale? Where the hell is the friggin' justice?
It escapes me.... I know....It makes no sense. And why aren't WOMEN held financially responsible? Instead, they get welfare. Where is the "Justice for all"??? Even criminals from Mexico (affectionately referred to as illegal aliens) can pop out babies and our tax money supports them.....Our goverment doesn't go looking for those fathers.
_____________________


Somebody else
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 223
Location: WA USA
Posted: Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:02 pm
Post subject:
Watching one of the many talking head "news" shows, someone actually brought up the idea that this could be a case of a man pushed to the brink of desperation and beyond by the family court system and was left thinking he had nothing more to lose in taking this action since he had lost everything in the divorce court.
_________________
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.

Fidelbogen
Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 207
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:28 am
Post subject:
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.
_________________
How many albatrosses can we hang around feminism's neck?

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 8:25:33 AM

Another quote that shows how FRsters are supporting Mack and making excuses for what he had done.

This was posted by Lowell Jaks 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, if… IF…

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."


You guys have made your opinions known, and it isn't good.


Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 8:27:24 AM

GregA, Darren Mack is said to be worth $9.4 million. He can afford to pay what he's been ordered to pay.

He could afford that and *then* some. What he was ordered to pay didn't make a dent in what he'd make on the interest of that $9.4M. Jeez. It's pretty telling that he'd rather the kids live in squalor.

And the judge did insist that his ex (now murdered) wife had to cooperate in the sale of the $1.2M home. Which meant he wouldn't have to pay the mortgage forever, though they may have had to drop the price a bit for the market, since fewer and fewer people can't pay $1.2M for a house (or more, one assumes the value accrued). You'll have to pardon me if I don't bleed for entitled rich pricks, thanks.

Yeah he wasn't allowed to just walk into the house. HE DIDN'T FUCKING LIVE THERE ANYMORE. And seeing as how he killed his estranged wife with his child in the house, this was done for good reason.

Exactly how is such a man a good father?

I partially agree with you Trish--it was about the money. It was also about the control, because only a fucking narcissistic sleazebag would fuck over his kids and traumatize them that way, and only a thug would kill someone over support. This was about abuse, entitlement, and control.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 29, 2006 9:58:51 AM

"I am in no way excusing what he did, but...

I mean wow, do you guys think, paying entirely for the ex to continue to live in the house PLUS giving her 10,000 a month in spending cash is any way equitable in this situation?"

My question to you, GregA, is: why does my answer matter?

You are absolutely excusing what he did, or at least you are trying to partially excuse it. Why else would you ask the question? What difference does it make? Why is the support order relevant to this discussion, if not to at least partially excuse what Mack did?

People like you think Mack was (at least partially) justified in his actions, because he was forced into bankruptcy by a grasping bitch of an ex-wife and a corrupt family court judge. That's why you keep bringing up the money. That's why legislators get e-mails from MRA groups referencing the Mack case and threatening more violence if their pro-MRA bills don't get passed.

If you are an MRA (I'm assuming you are) you should be running as far away from this guy as you can. You know that you should, but you can't. You can't help yourself-- you think he's the Bernie Goetz of family court and you desperately want others to see the nobility of his cause. But no one outside of your little hate group sees it, and they never will.

Keep it up. People like you do more damage to the MRA movement than any feminist blog ever could.

(No offense, Trish!)

Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 10:29:33 AM

The Countess

I am not saying what he did was anything like right. I am not excusing anything he did. He was a narcissistic jerk. He murdered in cold blood the woman and tried to do the same to the Judge.

However, the wife in particular knew this to be the case, and her friends say she thought he was capable of this and that she "Feared for her life". The danger he presented was obvious. So why was she in that house? Forget the law for a second, at what point does self preservation take prioirity over a 1.2 million dollar house and a 10,000 dollar a month cash stipend?

I am not asking you to feel any sympathy at all for this ass hole, so stop pretending that I am.

Also, mark my words, when we find out the details of this guys life in the court case, I bet we find out he was heavily in debt. I bet all that wealth was part of his control illusion.

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 10:38:39 AM

Helena,

Lol, I feel no desperation at all. I hope he gets the chair(or do they inject people in Nevada?).

My point is, everyone who knew this guy thought he was capable of this. Do you avoid people like this? Or do you try and antagoinize people like this? Gender politics has nothing to do with it. For me, I avoid people like this out of a sense of self preservation.

How about you?

Posted by: at Jun 29, 2006 10:49:32 AM

Greg, you present here a basic dilemma for any battered woman. Stay, where you might have some forms of support from family and friends, at least the appearance of stability for your children, and the hope that you can weather it out. Or take to the road? Realize that she already had a custody agreement with this guy: one week on/one week off (so much for him getting hammered on matters of the custody. This is the equality that FRs "say" they want, but are never satisfied with). So she would have been held in contempt of the custody agreement had she run. She would have had to have gone into hiding. This guy might have tracked her down anyway. And if he hadn't quite managed to do so yet, she would have been labeled an "alienator" and/or paranoid, and unfortunately, she might have risked jail herself. Frankly, weighing the relative dangers of either plan is something every abused wife has to make. That's why some never leave at all. They know that "leaving" is just an illusion, and that it might work out better (as Machiavelli once warned) to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. Might be better to have him where you can second guess his moods rather than live in paralysis and fear somewhere else that he'll coming busting through your bedroom window some nights. Lundy Bancroft has emphasized that it's very difficult for people who do not have intimate experience with the abuser in question to second guess what to do. The experts are the ones who have lived with them. I suspect that Charla evaluated the dangers and felt that her chances were better staying where she was, hiding in plain sight, rather than try to hit the road with a wealthy ex with potential access to PIs and the like. Honestly, I suspect she did the very best she could in a horrible situation. I give her credit. And I do not blame her. Again, let's not muddy the issue about what the victim of a violent crime SHOULD have done, especially when that person is murdered in their own home.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 29, 2006 10:59:38 AM

"My point is, everyone who knew this guy thought he was capable of this. Do you avoid people like this? Or do you try and antagoinize people like this? Gender politics has nothing to do with it. For me, I avoid people like this out of a sense of self preservation.

How about you?"

Is that your point, GregA? Because I thought your point was that she was sucking too much money from him. I see we've moved to Justification, Part B: She Should Have Left Town.

Assuming she was afraid (she's dead, so she won't be giving interviews), what was she supposed to do? She couldn't leave without the kids or she would have been in violation of the custody order. Leave without the kids? Hardly, although that's what Mack undoubtedly was after.

You continue to make things worse for yourself. Are you seriously arguing she deserved it because she didn't leave her own house... that she should have known he would murder her in cold blood, in her own house, with her child present? And if you're not arguing that, then I'll ask you once again: why does it matter? Why are you asking?

Also, I'm curious... what did she do to "try to antagonize" him?


Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 11:15:52 AM

I don't have anything to add to what Sheelz, Silverside, and Helena have said.

I will say this. I wonder how many fathers' rights activists will now try to backpedal on all the supportive comments they have made about Mack since Wendy McElroy and Glenn Sacks have called for them to not stand by him? I'm sure both of them know about those supportive comments. I can see it now - lots of "we don't support him!" Lots of "the ones who did are part of the 'not insubstantial fringe element.'". Fathers' rights activists made excuses a decade ago when all the support they gave to Fathers' Manifesto became public. You can't jump ship in mid-stream. Your supportive comments are out there for all to see.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 12:33:50 PM

Helena,

Make things worse for myself??? LOL, Puuuhleese!

It wasn't her house. She was staying in it before it was sold, as ordered by Judge Weller. Charla Mack was ordered not to interfere with the selling of the house. It has been over a year since the house was ordered sold, still not sold. Why is that?

Additionally, Charla Mack had 250,000 thousand dollars worth of jewlery, which as far as I know is part of the marital estate. She was trying to claim that it was not marital estate, that it was somehow seperate.

At the time of the seperation, Darren Mack took out a loan for $500,000 cash. Is that the action of someone who is flush with cash? As far as I can tell, $100,000 of that money was paid to the lawyers in this case.

Darren Mack Filed for Bankruptcy.

On one family members blog there is some concern that the daughter was perhaps a product of the couples swinging activities. It will be interesting to find out more details about this, because in the initial divorce complaint, Charla Mack was seeking sole custody. Then she also wanted to child to see a therapist. Hmmm what was that about? I missed the article where Darren Mack was claiming the child was not his.

Charla Mack complained that Darren Mack was estranging the two step children from her. What was that about?

So tell me again how she and Judge Weller are the honest brokers in this divorce settlement? Looks like there is bad behaviour all around to me.

So puhleese!!! Pretty please!!!! Continue on with this theory that Darren Mack was a greedy bastard with big piles of cash laying around the house with unlimited future monitary opportunities, and one day out of the blue he just snapped and started stabbing and shooting people.

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 12:54:53 PM

Interresting there Countess. My post doesnt appear to be there in your alleged "full" thread copy.... both pages even.... Funny how my post, where although I have issues with the additional parts of the story referenced, I CONDEMNED MACK for his actions.

Now how did you miss that one? Must have been a glitch in 10111011010101's eh?

TMOTS

Posted by: TheManOnTheStreet at Jun 29, 2006 1:16:18 PM

TMOTS, commenters at Stand Your Ground on are on the record condoning what Mack had done. Fathers' rights activists had also condoned what Mack had done on other sites. You can't dance around that. All the backpedaling in the world won't change that.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 1:21:41 PM

"It wasn't her house. She was staying in it before it was sold, as ordered by Judge Weller. Charla Mack was ordered not to interfere with the selling of the house. It has been over a year since the house was ordered sold, still not sold. Why is that?"

I don't know, and neither do you. Again, we get back to: why do you ask?

"Additionally, Charla Mack had 250,000 thousand dollars worth of jewlery, which as far as I know is part of the marital estate. She was trying to claim that it was not marital estate, that it was somehow seperate."

Even if all of that is true, so what?

"At the time of the seperation, Darren Mack took out a loan for $500,000 cash. Is that the action of someone who is flush with cash? As far as I can tell, $100,000 of that money was paid to the lawyers in this case."

Even if he wasn't flush with cash... what's your point? Do you think cash-flow problems justify violence and murder?

"Darren Mack Filed for Bankruptcy."

Any divorce lawyer will tell you this is often used strategically in divorce proceedings. But let's say that here, it was genuinely necessary. Why are you bringing it up?

"On one family members blog there is some concern that the daughter was perhaps a product of the couples swinging activities. It will be interesting to find out more details about this, because in the initial divorce complaint, Charla Mack was seeking sole custody. Then she also wanted to child to see a therapist. Hmmm what was that about? I missed the article where Darren Mack was claiming the child was not his."

Ahhhh.... Justification, Part C: Charla Was A Swinging Slut. You are really grasping here. Let's marshal your proof: a blog posting, a request that the child see a therapist, and a request for sole custody. Not too impressive, Greg.

"Charla Mack complained that Darren Mack was estranging the two step children from her. What was that about?"

Uh, why don't you tell us? Aren't you guys the experts on the so-called "Parental Alienation Syndrome"? Are you trying to tell us that these claims are always suspect? Or that the alienation is usually justified?

"So tell me again how she and Judge Weller are the honest brokers in this divorce settlement? Looks like there is bad behaviour all around to me. So puhleese!!! Pretty please!!!! Continue on with this theory that Darren Mack was a greedy bastard with big piles of cash laying around the house with unlimited future monitary opportunities, and one day out of the blue he just snapped and started stabbing and shooting people."

Ah...at long last, the rubber meets the road. Let's take a look at this last paragraph of yours, because it's very interesting.

For the record, Greg, I never said anyone was an "honest broker" in anything. I did ask you, multiple times, why you felt it relevant to bring up the alleged "bad behavior." You never answered me directly, but I think we have your indirect answer above: you think if there was "bad behavior all around", then it makes Mack's actions a little less heinous. Am I right?

If I'm NOT right, will you please do me the courtesy of actually answering the question: why do you keep bringing it up in the context of this discussion?

So you think my theory (which you deride) is that Darren Mack was a greedy bastard who just snapped one day and started killing and shooting people. What's your theory, Greg?


Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 1:39:07 PM

By the way, TMOTS, you had plenty of opportunity to denounce the people on SYG who condoned what Mack had done. You posted in the thread where everyone was cheering Mack on and blaming "the system" for him supposedly snapping.

Why didn't you denounce them then, when the issue was being discussed? Why are you only backpedaling now, when Wendy McElroy and Glenn Sacks are doing damage control?

This is the only thing you had written in that thread. That was even after another commenter had written "Family Court Judge, Damned fine shot. (Not that I recommend it, of course.)"

Two simple and obvious questions.....

How do they KNOW it was a MAN?

and how did she get shrapnel if it was a bullet?

I know I know....... Why even ask.

What the hell kind of comment was that??

Stop backpedaling and making excuses. The ugly comments from SYG are there. You can't deny them.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 1:43:18 PM

The Countess,

And you are on the record claiming that Charla Mack and Judge Weller did nothing wrong as well. That they are innocent victims in all this. That Darren Mack just snapped out of the blue and started stabbing and shooting people, because he was man, and thats what men do.

Sort of like those boys in Littleton Colorado a few years ago, who just walked into a school and started shooting it up, out of the blue.

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 2:02:08 PM

Greg, I'll say the same thing to you that I said to TMOTS. Guys at Stand Your Ground are on the record for blaming "the system" for Mack "snapping". They condoned what he did. For you, it's all about the money. You can't backpedal now.

And why are you still blaming a dead woman for her own murder? I suggest you knock it off before you sink even deeper. You've already written "My point is, everyone who knew this guy thought he was capable of this. Do you avoid people like this? Or do you try and antagoinize people like this?" [That's you. You just forgot to sign your name.] So she didn't move out of the house, and it's her fault he killed her? She "antagonized" him by not moving away from him? Give me a break!

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 2:09:53 PM

"My point is, everyone who knew this guy thought he was capable of this. Do you avoid people like this? Or do you try and antagoinize people like this? Gender politics has nothing to do with it. For me, I avoid people like this out of a sense of self preservation.

If he was "like this" and everyone freaking knew it, I'd love to know why such a man--known for being volitale and violent--had any sort of custody of his children. Money talks, apparently. No, I don't think that being a parent entitles you to jack shit, and it's telling that the FR fuckwits continue to bleat on and on about Mack's parental rights when it's "known" that he was violent.

If I knew one of my friends was "like this" I sure as hell wouldn't give him or her any quarter for killing anyone. That's bullshit. No, you can't have a pony. No, you don't have the right to kill people and assault people because you didn't get your way and you've a habit of getting nasty when that happens. Grow the fuck up.

As to the $500K loan, they had a $500K home equity line of credit. The divorce got so contentious that they argeed to have their assets frozen. And Mack had a yearly income (separate from his estimated net worth) of over $500K. That plus the interest generated by his net worth is almost $1M per year, right there. And as another poster pointed out, bankruptcy is a great tool for rich people who want to duck their financial obligations.

As to the swinging thing--let's get real. That curbcrawler was out swnging while he fought any kind of child support, so to slut-bait his ex is pretty fucking rich.

Again, I'm not going to cry for a guy who's paying a proportionately small amount of his income to take care of his kids.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 29, 2006 2:39:48 PM

Greg, the person at fault is the one who did the shooting.
Not the victims.
Not society.
Not "the system."
The person who took the weapon and made the decision to kill is the person at fault.

It's NOT OK to murder people, not even if you're a rich white guy. Got it?

Posted by: joholly at Jun 29, 2006 2:41:38 PM

The Countess,

You are 100% wrong. It is not about the money. It is about the irony. This is a real life "The War of the Roses". It is a quintessential post-nuclear-family. Briliant, is the word people would use, if it were fiction. I hope every aspect of this case makes it into the media leading up to the trial. I have no issue with the truth here. You on the other hand dont seem to want to talk about Judge Weller and Charla Mack. I say, lets use the microscope of the media, and find out just what happened here.

You, Glen Sacks and Wendy McElroy all have an agenda that is something besides the truth. The truth is my only agenda. Truth be told, a lot of the MRA's said some really awful things. But saying awful things and doing awful things are entirely different. Too claim that this case is nothing more than a guy murdreing his ex, and shooting a judge, is to deny the truth of what happened here.

On the other hand, here is a guy, small business owner by all accounts, who is levied with about $18,000 dollars a month alimony. No one seems to see any problem with that at all. I say great, but for the fact that he was obviously broke. You can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Every one here but TMOTS and I seems to think you can.

Finally you accuse me of "back pedaling", ha! Give me a break indeed.

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 3:02:49 PM

I re-ask the question I posed before. Perhaps someone who knows more about guns or criminology can answer it.

If you're terribly emotional and "snap" because of all the mean and nasty pressure that family court has burdened you with, how is it you acquired a weapon capable of killing someone from a distance of three football fields and manage to hit your target, all while apparently shaking from how life is so unfair to poor little you?

How is the apparent "spree" killer, who knives his wife to death in a bloody frenzy with zero compassion for his child upstairs, consistent with the cold-blooded deliberate assassin?

Comments? I'm having trouble believing they are completely the same. Don't profilers say that you tend to be one or the other? I'm still wondering if others are involved. Maybe it comes from watching Oliver Stone movies, but there it is.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 29, 2006 3:11:11 PM

Thing is you seem to forget the countless men who have committed suicide in not that different circumstances.

The evidence shows you just don't care when that happens except when it's one of your own be it gender or the laws that favour you.

Posted by: Stella at Jun 29, 2006 3:54:38 PM

Greg, the only person backpedaling is you.

You want the "truth"? Sure you do. You want the "truth" to show that Charla Mack was a vindictive, greedy slut, that Judge Weller's corruption was only slightly exceeded by his arrogance, and that Mack was just a "small business owner" (who sold five figure gems on eBay, among other things) who didn't have two nickels to rub together, much less the $10,000 in alimony he was forced to pay.

What I am challenging you to discuss, despite your constant deflection, is what difference any of this makes in judging Mack.

If your truth is in fact the actual truth, does that lessen the atrocity of Mack's actions? And if it doesn't, why do you keep raising it?

What about it Greg? Are you going to answer the questions, or keep running away?

Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 4:04:14 PM

Well perhaps he felt driven to it Helena, perhaps mentally ill. I don't know how you would feel? Imagine a man touching me when I had already said no.

What would you do?

Posted by: Stella at Jun 29, 2006 4:43:20 PM

Mentally ill? Sure doesn't look like it. Appeared he was calm and collected enough when he took aim at the judge from quite a distance. That takes some planning and deliberate thinking. Not the same as throwing a fist after a trial.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 29, 2006 4:47:11 PM

OK.. I give. I would appear that on principal alone, as a man and part of SYG, I will be scured.

Two simple and obvious questions.....

How do they KNOW it was a MAN?

and how did she get shrapnel if it was a bullet?

I know I know....... Why even ask.

What the hell kind of comment was that??

The above comments were made RIGHT AFTER THE BREAKING STORY. No-one knew ANYTHING about ANYONE. Mack wasn't even in the news. What kind of a comment was that? It was a comment about a media that automatically assumes the shooter was a man, and then goes on further to imply that his FEMALE assistant was shot also. Then the story changes to shrapnel. Well, there IS NO shrapnel in standard bullets. It was just another ploy by he MSM to put her getting hurt even over the judge because she was a woman. When the news finally came clear, she had been "grazed".... THAT was what those comments were about.

Posted by: TheManOnTheStreet at Jun 29, 2006 4:53:59 PM

Are we equating forcible rape with excessive alimony, Stella?

Where I live, my property taxes are through the roof. They keep rising, and I can't do anything about it. I can barely afford them. Shall I go shoot my City Treasurer?

If I do, may I claim financial self-defense? I'll be sure to tell the jury you said I could.

That's a silly argument, Stella. Do you have any cogent thoughts to contribute?

Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 4:59:03 PM

Oh, stop it, TMOTS. One guy had commented "damned fine shot" before you even posted, and you said nothing. There were three total pages of comments supportive of what Mack had done. You had your chance then to say something. You said nothing. You're backpedaling now because of articles by Glenn Sacks and Wendy McElroy who are engaging in damage control.

You don't fool me. None of you do.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 29, 2006 5:00:22 PM

Jesus. Isn't it interesting that such a great daddy who was "known" to be violent had a right to custody of his child. Even though he killed her mother--while said child was upstairs. Isn't it nice to know that having a a Y chromosone and some money entitles you to plan an execution when you don't get your way. And that paying child support, according to Stella, is just like rape or sexual assault, and therefore means that planning a murder is justified. (Way to trivialize that, BTW. None of the rape or sexual assault survivors I know have ever planned to kill anyone. Go figure.)

Truly, you people are vile. No wonder the non-custodial fathers I know run from the likes of FR wackjobs. Even the guys I know who feel like they got a raw deal want nothing to do with you, because they know what a bunch of abuse and stalking apologists you are. And now you're apologists for murder.

Posted by: Sheelzebub at Jun 29, 2006 5:09:23 PM

"Are we equating forcible rape with excessive alimony, Stella?

Where I live, my property taxes are through the roof. They keep rising, and I can't do anything about it. I can barely afford them. Shall I go shoot my City Treasurer?

If I do, may I claim financial self-defense? I'll be sure to tell the jury you said I could.

That's a silly argument, Stella. Do you have any cogent thoughts to contribute?"


Now I think about you are so right, I shall stop the sexual harrasment claim right now!

Posted by: at Jun 29, 2006 5:20:26 PM

Stella, you make no sense. If you can't see that, there is really not much point in talking to you.

Posted by: Helena at Jun 29, 2006 5:37:44 PM

Helena,

Who is running away? There are a bunch of unanswered questions. I have already stated, I hope the guy gets the chair. How much more unequivocal can I get than that? Oh I know, I hope he spends an eternity in hell. (look at all my previous posts)

By the way, his alimony and child support payment was more like $500,000 if you count all his expenses since their seperation. The main house was in forclosure(that means he loses all the principal in the house btw). However the money is besides the point.

The point is, the divorce financially ruined both of them, or at least played a significant part in it. But more than that, their (both of them) miserable lifestyle coices are what ultimately what did them in. Because, even if the murder had not occured, this entire family was headed to the poor house. So much for that alimony payment.

Finally, oh the extravagant life of the pawn shop owner in a gambling state, living off of other people misery and misfortune. Oh boy, talking the lives of the rich and fabulous here /sarcasm. It is a small business. He was broke. The evidence shows that. It looks to me like he got big money, and got to keep little money. BTW. I bet if he didn't already have a gun, his pawn shop is where he got the gun.

Posted by: at Jun 29, 2006 6:24:22 PM

oops, last post was mine, I musta forgot to fill in fields

Posted by: GregA at Jun 29, 2006 6:26:57 PM

Trish,

OK, you are right, I am wrong. You win, I loose. I concede. You just see what you want to see. Even whe I agree with you that what this guy did was wrong. You ignore it. Maybe, just maybe I hadn't seen the thread until I posted? Possible right? Nope, not in your book. Because I wasn't standing there condemning Mack (actually, you Really mean, CONDEMNING ALL MEN) to your level of satisfaction. I am just non-existant, even if I agree in some manor with the general public, and you (accidentially I might add), because I am a male, father, Vet, and MRA.

Nope, can't have that... would't make for good copy for a second rate writer such as yourself. and besides, what is the fun in that right? Maybe we should go the way of MSM and ask the important questions. WHY? Why did that terrible thing happen. WHY did he "snap"? You know, ala MSM coverage of Yates. Noone cares two shits about the 5 children she killed in cold blood. Everyone is flipping stones to find some reason, other than the most fundimental, that she is a vicious killer. Just as Mack is. A wire is loose.

You call us sexist and bigoted. That miror has two faces.... one real, and one false. and YOU my dear lady, are of the first, and worst kind. Hiding behind nobility, fairness and equality. You care not about justice, equality, fairness nobility and honor. These concepts are foreign to you. You only care about slander men, proving your mantra; ala CUNT Manifesto. I am not sure you are even married. How the hell could a man live with someone that looks so downward on 50% of the population.... on him.

You are no longer worth my time and energy.

TMOTS

Posted by: TheManOnTheStreet at Jun 29, 2006 7:30:03 PM

Living with an abusive man I am learning something that I should have learned long ago. It might have saved me from the disabilities I now suffer due to his abuse. And what should I have learned you amy ask? It is that an abuser is always always always right. Even if they are dead wrong they are always right. Oh and an even more important lesson than that? An abuser will never ever ever admit when they are wrong. Nor will they ever open the floor to discussions by stating things such as: prove me wrong.

So for all the MRA's FR's SYG trolls or whatever you want to be called: You know your guy messed up beyond belief yet you will never admit it. Too bad so many of you posted in public forums where your stupidity could be seen by the light of day lol. Can we say put your thumb and finger in the shape of an "L" on your forehead? That would describe 99% of the fr's I have read.

Posted by: Ne4nna at Jun 29, 2006 8:19:56 PM

"You are no longer worth my time and energy."

except of course for those 3 paragraphs and the verbose " nu uh you bitch!".

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 30, 2006 12:49:52 AM

Greg, I love how you keep saying money is beside the point, yet you keep bringing it up. In every post.

I'm not bringing up their character, or their lifestyles. But you are. I am curious as to why, and I still don't get any answers from you. Just multiple posts saying the same thing, over and over.

Thanks for trying to educate me on foreclosures, alimony, and Darren Mack's financial affairs. I would respectfully submit that unless you are a Nevada lawyer or a close friend of Mack's, you don't really know what you are talking about. But it doesn't matter, because quibbling about the details of this couple's life is just pointless.

You can claim all you want that Mack should be punished, banished to hell, whatever... but you still can't seem to resist injecting his alleged financial pressures into any discussion about the reprehensibility of the crime.

Very telling indeed.

Posted by: Helena at Jun 30, 2006 10:35:02 AM

I want to address the frequently made comment: "It is all about the money."

It always gets thrown around by both mothers and fathers.

In this case, the mother gets $10,000 a month, plus does not have any expenses. Yet, when someone says that is a lot, the response is "IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY FOR HIM!!!" when she was the one who was asking for money.

There isnt anything wrong with her asking for money. Just as there isnt anything wrong with him saying "that is too much."

But in order for him to be bitching about money, she has to have asked for it first. I just think it is hypocritical to throw that phrase around. And I hear it from both sides on a regular basis.

Posted by: will at Jun 30, 2006 11:31:47 AM

It's very difficult for those of us who struggle from paycheck to paycheck not to get worked up about couples who can argue about money in the six figures or more. Just doesn't have much to do with us, so it's easy to get hostile and resentful depending on your
proclivities. Assuming that our country doesn't introduce steep progressive taxation (and on the contrary, it looks like we're going the other way) the issue is what is fair to the couple involved, not what seems fair to us.

Frankly, when a couple decides that one of them will stay out of the workforce and raise children, that person deserves some compensation relative to their sacrifice at the time of the divorce Frankly, being the pinko lefty that I am, I wish that all stay-at-home parents received equal and generous compensation whether they were married or not. But given that it doesn't work out that way in this country, I think that stay-at-home parents should be compensated relative to the employed person's income and ability to play during a divorce, just as they are supported relative to the employed person's income during the marriage. So getting freaked out by the numbers in the Mack case doesn't help. It's faux socialism. I might think that the steelworker and the CEO should be paid the same. But as long as they aren't, their stay-at-home wives shouldn't have to settle for the same measly amount.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 30, 2006 12:12:08 PM

It's hard to say really. My wife and I both work full time. There was a time when our daughter was younger that I stayed home and cared for her, but these days I'm the primary breadwinner.

The way I see it,it's not a sacrifice really. It's a choice. You're simply choosing which one is more important to you and acting on it. It's a trade, not a sacrifice.

I see myself as having to make a trade off in the time I get to spend with my daughter every day by having to out and work. But in the end, if I don't do that I can't give her the opportunities that I think it's my responsibility to provide.

So if you see it as the SAHP made a financial sacrifice and should be compensated on divorce, it's just as rational to say that the other parent made a sacrifice in time with the child. Following your logic, then, that parent should be compensated on divorce with MORE time with the child based on the sacrifice.

The way I see it, that reasoning neccessarily creates a paradox.

Posted by: Dirk at Jun 30, 2006 12:28:34 PM

Silverside:
You raise some good points. I do not know much about this particular case and the finances. But, I do know that someone's net worth does not necessarily equate to cash flow. That is particularly true when you are talking about the current real estate market.

But, I am really not trying to focus on the Mack's, just the general perception by both sides that the other side is just about the money. I find it humorous when the one receiving money is accusing the other person of only being concerned about the money. After all, they raised the money issue by asking for it.

However, I will repeat: Money is an important issue for both sides. But when you are receiving a fair amount of money, I think it is hypocrticial to accuse the other person of being just concerned about the money.

Posted by: will at Jun 30, 2006 12:28:55 PM

I will also say that the issue of whether one person stays at home with the children is often a source of contention.

Rarely is it a case where the parties both completely agreed that the wife should stay home with the kids for 15 years and then the husband expects her to instantly make $75,000 by going back to work.

Frequently, I see people where there was an initial decision to stay at home for a short period, and then there is a long period where the husband wants her to go back to work but she does not want to work.

With regard to spousal support, another issue is why should someone who has worked hard to become a high wage earner pay a large amount of spousal support after a short marriage? (of course, child support is a differnt matter.) Let's say the wife is a doctor. She marries a teacher. They divorce after 5 years. Prior to the marriage, she made $400,000.00 After the separation, she is making $450,000.00

Should she pay a large spousal support award for a long time?

Posted by: will at Jun 30, 2006 12:37:18 PM

Will, I think you make some good points.

Ultimately, one cannot say for a fact that everyone who has stayed home to raise children has made a sacrifice. Some have, some have not.

Some did with their lives what they absolutley preferred to do. In that case, how is doing what you've always wanted some sort of sacrifice?

For me, what I'd like to do is stay home with my daughter and write, much like Trish.

In a way, I see what I'm doing now as more like a sacrifice than if I actually got to stay home and take care of my daughter!

Posted by: Dirk at Jun 30, 2006 12:46:53 PM

Dirk:

Sacrifice is used in the context of sacrificed your ability to increase your earning potential.

Posted by: will at Jun 30, 2006 1:12:26 PM

That's why these things are decided in court on a case by case basis: Number of children, ages of the children, degree to which the stay-at-home parent is now less employable depending on number of years out of the workforce. In reality, statistics show that mothers (though not fathers) in reality pay a heavy financial price for having kids, especially if they stay at home for any length of time. Yes, those who do it frequently do so because they love staying at home with the kids. I don't blame them, I wish I could stay at home too. However, the fact is that they pay for it very often in impoverishment in their old age, especially if they divorce. As one friend put it, women tend to "frontload" their investment in marriage in the hope that an increasing family income will benefit them in the long-run. But they can get seriously burned if they are dumped back into the workplace with little or no preparation or recent experience with kids to support. Especially when hardly anyone gets alimony and child support is often inadequate (yea, it can seem like a lot if you pay it--and I in fact do--but it's not much to someone who is trying to feed and clothe a child. As it is, I pay child support and clothe my child since her father doesn't buy her clothes, but that's another story.)

Posted by: silverside at Jun 30, 2006 1:17:57 PM

I just think they're stretching what was sacrificed. In the end they chose something they valued more than their ability to earn money, correct?

For instance, if I'm an artist and decide that I love art so much that I quit my day job to pursue it full time, because I love it more than work, does it make sense later to say that I made a huge sacrifice and I deserve to be compensated?

No. I chose something I loved more than my ability to earn. If one's ability to earn is so important then why give it up?

Posted by: Dirk at Jun 30, 2006 1:20:13 PM

Yes, but making a personal choice like cutting back to be an artist or write your novel (and I have written a novel without quitting my day job by squeezing it in over three years) is different that than having children, which societies require for their long term viability. I'd like to think that the world would suffer if my novel never finds an agent and is never published. But in reality, it wouldn't be missed much. But if people gave up starting families because it just becomes too dang hard, then you see the results, especially in places like Japan (which just replaced Italy as the "oldest" country). Not even replacement level population. And A LOT of it is related to the demands we make on parents. Look at this way: as a parent, the support of my kids is largely private (I pay for it). Yet in my old age, unlike traditional societies, my support will be be "socialized" as it were. You could never have kids and still get a social security check. My kids in a sense will be paying taxes to support elderly people who never became parents or made those sacrifices. I'm not saying don't support childless old people. Not at all! But in a sense, I never get a financial "return" on that investment; it's "shared" with people who didn't make an investment.Because of the financial disaster related to the divorce and its aftermath, I know I'll be impoverished in my old age and that I'll never be able to retire. That's just the way it is.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 30, 2006 1:39:42 PM

I agree with you, Silverside. To add to what you wrote, there are opportunity costs inherent in being the children of the primary caregiver, whether or not that parent, who is most often mom, takes time off work or continues to work. It's not only about giving up salary. You can't be in two places at one time. There are salary losses, career losses, promotions and long working hours that are lost, and advancement that is lost. Today, relocation cases that forbid mothers from relocating also affect those losses in a bad way. Those losses cannot be regained. They are permanent, and they last a lifetime. That's why primary caregiving mothers, including stay-at-home moms, are compensated financially after divorce. The financial compensation doesn't make up the difference, but it contributes to recognizing the sacrifices she had made in the past and will continue to make in the future. Also, women who have been out of the work force have difficulty finding good jobs. It's not like you can take a few years off and then jump right back in where you left you. You can't. A lot of demands are made of parents, as Silverside said. Those demands should be reimbursed in some fashion, not just allow those parents - especially moms who make the biggest sacrifices when it comes to caring for their children - to founder once their children are older or grown.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 30, 2006 2:22:21 PM

After reading many news reports on Darren Mack I can only conclude that he did not snap before killing his wife and trying to kill Judge Weller. Everything leads to careful and calculated planning. He arranged to have someone at the townhouse to take the daughter upstairs, and had the weapon in the garage already. He dragged her body inside the garage and then drove her car into the garage and closed the door. He had already rented an SUV, he knew where to park the SUV to have a clear shot of Judge Wellers office and what time Weller would be in his office. That meant he had already scouted the area in the parking garage across from the courthouse. The video of the parking garage shows that he backed the SUV up to a parking spot and without hesitation got the gun out, took his shot and was gone, throwing Charlas' things out the window on his way to Sacramento. He already had the getaway money and had prepared his statements for his defense.

Cold, calculating and premeditated. This isn't domestic violence, or a crime of passion. This was a murder of the worst kind. This wasn't about shared custody, alimony or even money. This was about power and control, the belief that he could do anything he wanted to his property and there was justification and political powerbase backing his acts. I truly believe that Darren Mack was setting himself up as a martyr for the fathers rights groups and still thinks that he will walk away from these crimes a hero to other abused fathers.

Posted by: justonemom at Jul 1, 2006 12:03:17 AM

I can't believe anybody takes your comments seriously Countess.

First, "He could afford that and *then* some. What he was ordered to pay didn't make a dent in what he'd make on the interest of that $9.4M. Jeez."

I grew up in a well-to-do neighborhood flush with surgeons, small business owners, physicians, CEO's of major corporations, and retirees. My mother was an accountants to a handfull of these people. Most people with substantial wealth do not keep their money sitting in low-interest yielding bank accounts so they can collect monthly interest. They keep it in real estate, government bonds, corporate bonds, and other non-liquid assets. To say that he can afford that and then some because he can make interest on $9.4 million is telling of the fact that you, like many others who claim such things, have no idea how to grow and maintain wealth. I can't speak for him because I haven't seen his books, but for people who do have such assets, they have to liquidate them in order to have access to them. Just because someone has a net worth of $9.4 million doesn not mean they have access to it. When you start to liquidate assets you no longer have income coming in from them. At $120,000 a year ($10,000 a month times 12 months) that $9.4 million won't last long. He would have to start liquidating assets with penalties, which will take a huge chunk of their worth. Let's also not forget that this $10,000/month is not coming out of pre-tax dollars. He's taking it out of his take home pay, which means that he has less than half of his monthly income to work with. And, I don't know if this is true or not, if he has a house being forclosed upon, that is not a sign of someone who is making ends meet. I don't know of too many rich people who can't make ends meet. Sounds to me that rather than merely using legal strategies to protect his assets, he might actually be in financial trouble. But nope, not him. Not the big bad rich guy. Because he saved and invested and was responsible with his money, which from the way that you blasted him for being one of those people, he deserves to be raked over the coals. Is that about right? Did I hit the nail on the head there? Hmmmm?

Number two. Now, I'm not saying that he is justified for committing murder, but where does her responsibility come into this. If what you allege is true, that he is a cold, calculating murderer who was never crazy and has always been capable of this, where does her responsibility lay in picking a dangerous individual to procreate with? Oh noooo, it's not the woman's fault. She can't help herself when picking a man. Men are all deceitful people who hide who they truly are and the women who pick them are all such innocent people who are all duped into believing these people are friendly, upstanding inviduals. Give me a break. He's owns a pawn shop. What kind of people own pawn shops? Come on. She saw a man with money. She pounced. The only victim in this story is the child. Now the child has no parents. Way to go mom and dad. As for being too afraid to leave and not having money, that's complete crap. If your reasoning for staying with a violent individual is so that your kid can have financial security, you are as sick as the abuser. It takes nothing to leave. My mother left my dad because he physically abused her. She didn't take any money, any belongings (certainly not half a million in jewelry), or even the car. She just left. You know what she did instead of holding her hand out waiting for people to put money into like those pieces of crap on the corner? She went to work. She worked nights and went to school during the day. Sure she had help. The church folks, because they knew she was a good person, pitched in and helped us out. But it was her hard work and dedication that got her back on her feet. People who sit around and ask for handouts are simply lazy. End of story. Colonel Sanders went out and founded a major fast food chain when he was old and broke. He didn't sit down and say "Well, I'm old, I'm broke, and I don't have any valuable traits in the workforce. I might as well give up and sit on the corner with my hand out." He went out and made a new life for himself. I truly believe that every woman who asks for vaginamony is no better than the welfare lady down at the local welfare office. Get off your ass and do something. This is the land of opportunity. Go sell Avon. Do something. If you want somebody else to take care of you, go move to Canada. Are you going to take a lifestyle dip? Sure. You bet. But at least you would have the satisfaction of knowing that you weren't a leech. At least you would have self esteem. How can you truly believe in yourself if somebody else is taking care of you when you are perfectly capable of taking care of yourself. Explain it to me, please. And if you don't believe in yourself, you will not succeed. That's the truth. Again, I don't believe in violence against others, unless it is self defence. But, because of people like you Countess, people who believe that they are entitle to ANYTHING in this life, I can see how people get to this point. I can see how people who have worked all of their lives for something, only to have it taken away because of some greedy wench and the screwed up court system in this country, get to a point where they feel that they have no other choice but to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. Have a nice life.

Posted by: Anotherguy at Jul 3, 2006 5:53:44 AM

"You know what she did instead of holding her hand out waiting for people to put money into like those pieces of crap on the corner?"

Pieces of crap? Wow, you sound like a nice guy. Would you by chance be one of those guys who like beating up homeless people?

"I truly believe that every woman who asks for vaginamony is no better than the welfare lady down at the local welfare office."

Nice.

"I can see how people who have worked all of their lives for something, only to have it taken away because of some greedy wench and the screwed up court system in this country, get to a point where they feel that they have no other choice but to sacrifice themselves for a greater good."

And what is the "greater good" here? Killing the greedy wench? Maiming a judge? Or giving sick people like you something to feel good about?

You're just another MRA who thinks Darren Mack is a freedom fighter, and all women are lazy bitches. You apparently resent growing up poor, which would explain your "pieces of crap at the corner" comments.

Anotherguy, you can try to rationalize all you want, but your slip is showing. You're too obvious for words. You dislike and resent women, and incidents like the Mack case give men like you a much needed channel for your anger and hate.

Your poor mother. I'm sure she didn't raise you to have such a low opinion of her gender.



Posted by: Helena at Jul 3, 2006 10:14:02 AM

Anotherguy,

Even with a court order, Darren Mack was not paying the $10,000 mo alimony nor was he paying the house payments on the house in foreclosure (where Charla lived but he apparently made the mortgage payments on the residence he lived in), he also failed to pay the other Charla-related expenses BUT he did continue to live lavishly, taking vacations weekly, paid for prostitutes, etc. He didn't do without anything himself.

Every divorce I have seen requires a reduction in living expenses, especially when trying to maintain 2 residences. What was Darren doing to facilitate the sale of the house so he would no longer be liable for court ordered mortgage payments?

There was never any indication that Charla Mack interferred with the sale of the home, and a common tactic of a preemptive strike (what Darren did) is to officially state in a motion to the court that the wife will not interfere with the sale of the home even when there is evidence that he has done it himself. He didn't make the mortgage payments,surprise, surprise...the home is in foreclosure.

If a woman flees an abusive man with their child, currently, she is very likely to lose custody and visitation of that child. An extremely angry, narcisisstic man can drag litigation out until that 8 year old becomes 18, preventing the child from any contact with her mother. It is a matter of who has the most money and which parent will sacrifice the child to be declared winner.

On a personal note about your own family:

Are you angry that your mom left your dad and you suffered financially because of it? It must have been hard to go from living a wealthy lifestyle to complete destitution-she left without taking clothes, furniture, money and you were even without transportation. That was hard to do, wasn't it? Maybe you wondered where your dad was, why didn't he help you? If he loved you he wouldn't have left you hungry and alone while your mom worked and went to school to provide you with a minimal existance. He wasn't available to you, nor was she. What a sad lonely existance.

Maybe it would have been better for you to have had one parent willing to sacrifice personal goals and ambitions and simply be available to you. To make sure that you knew that you were loved, wanted and most important consideration during the first few rough years after the divorce. Considering that your father was physically abusive, he may not have been able to put aside his aggression long enough to see to it that you were nurtured through a very difficult time in your life.

Are you projecting your anger onto your mom (or divorced moms in general) because she wasn't available to you when you needed her the most? You were left alone when she worked nights and had to concentrate on her school work. You aren't angry at all with your father? Do you wish he would have shown some interest in your welfare? Even if that interest was to make sure that you and your mother were housed and fed while she got on her feet and could support you too?

You got burned as a child of divorce and it didn't have to happen, as obviously your father could have stepped up and helped everyone have a better outcome. Takes a real man to do that as the rewards are not monetary or immediate, but really in the respect and love the children give him as they grow into responsible and caring adults. Of course, this is just the perspective of a woman who had a wonderful dad and discovered that not all men are like my own father. Some men were harmed so deeply from childhood divorce trauma that they have a compulsion to see to it their own children repeat the same horrific experiences so they can bond in hurt, and history repeats itself. Then, I also know men of divorce who are so deeply loved and respected by their grown children that it makes me cry happy tears to see them together.

Posted by: justonemom at Jul 3, 2006 12:47:52 PM

I went to Darren Mack's 1st wedding. There were 800 people at the reception. My opinion of him at the the time was that it was ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! He was a controlling person. He told me he didn't own a pawn shop, it was a "jewelry store". He thought he was better than everyone else & I'm sure he thinks his $$ and influence will get him off. My bet is on the insanity plea. I feel sorry for the children.

Posted by: getreal at Jul 10, 2006 2:47:06 PM

You all are so wrong...

Posted by: golf4birds at Jul 13, 2006 3:12:03 AM

Well, we've been TOLD now! Golf4birds thinks we're wrong.

Posted by: ginmar at Jul 13, 2006 10:44:30 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/blog/test1idd/

good ideea

Posted by: buy fioricet at Jul 23, 2006 10:09:59 PM

"I went to Darren Mack's 1st wedding."

For me, this has been the missing piece in all this. I understand that wife #2 helped Mack take custody from wife #1. Whatever happened to her? Is she still alive? Was she left destitute in addition to being stripped of her kids? In all likelihood, marriage #1 was also affected by domestic violence. But sometimes wife #1 just doesn't say much. Like the first Mrs. OJ Simpson. Even so, there was telltale evidence of dv in that marriage too.

Posted by: silverside at Jul 24, 2006 12:35:48 PM