Tuesday, April 06, 2010


Internet exclusive Full Disclosure® Video News Preview (4:07)
Release Date: April 07, 2010


In a four minute video preview Full Disclosure Network® presents excerpts from the one-hour jail-house interview with Richard Fine where he succinctly describes how the judges and government officials in California have brought the entire justice system to the brink of collapse.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Family Day Rally in D.C.!

Families gathered outside the U.S. Capitol on November 20 in support of the Parental Rights Amendment. While the U.N. designated that date as International Childrens’ Day to celebrate the Convention on the Rights of the Child’s 20th anniversary, those who attended this rally recognize that nothing can be better for children than parents. The message from all of the speakers was the same: we need a Parental Rights Amendment, not the CRC, to direct American lawmakers in preserving the rights and freedoms of our families.

Speakers included Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ, right) and senior staffers on behalf of Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), all cosponsors of the Amendment. Also speaking were representatives from 8 Allied Organizations, including Heritage Foundation, National Black Home Educators, Home School Legal Defense Association, the American Family Rights Association, Eagle Forum, Stop Child Predators, National Organization of Conservative Women, and Americans for Tax Reform.

To see the full list of speakers and their biographies, click here.

In News:
Encouraging Words
Parental Rights in the News
States Watch
PRO News and Action Emails
An Update from Michael Farris
Parental Rights Needs Help in Your State
Somalia to Ratify CRC, U.S. to Stand Alone
Merry Christmas!
"Best Interests" Means Junk Food and Child Removal
Reminder: Gift Memberships Available
Full List
What's New?
Capitol Hill
Court Cases
Families in the News
Foreign News
UNCRC Updates

P.O. Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20134

Friday, November 20, 2009


An Action Item.
Your Responses to Judge Gormley's Suspension

For those of you who have been through the family courts and wondered what just happened this email contains several resources judges use to determine whether or how much time you will have with your children. There are many good judges across the nation working to keep children and parents fully engaged with each other. On the other hand statistics continue to indicate Fathers are the parent overwhelmingly relegated to visitor, non-custodial or non-primary residential status even when that Father has joint legal and/or physical custody of the children and has been a 'hands on' fully engaged parent.

Our movement needs to be aware of an influential organization located in Reno, Nevada called the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). For the better part of the past 60 years NCJFCJ has provided training and programming material for family court judges. Their influence in family law and the courts is significant. For those whose cases involve allegations of Domestic Violence or restraining orders you'll want to be aware of these two publications of NCJFCJ which address these issues and how the organization counsels judges to view your case when you come to court. Take a look at NCJFCJ's Burgundy Book and their latest Judges Bench Guide for safety involving child custody cases. There are a number of serious concerns within these documents, for example judges are instructed to ignore claims and evidence of parental alienation and strike them from the record.

Why This Matters For All of Us

The domestic violence movement wants child custody cases examined through the abuse lens. False allegations of abuse to gain advantage in divorce are recognized throughout the profession's literature. Attorneys writing in law journals complain about the practice of some colleagues who routinely file for a restraining order several weeks before filing divorce papers. Many of us recognize what's become known as the 'Silver Bullet Technique' or 'The Nuclear Option.'

On Tuesday, legislators in Suffolk county NY passed a law stating the county would now be required to establish a public domestic violence offender registry operating similarly to the sex offender registries. In passing this law the county legislators are claiming a 'first' in the nation and hope their example is replicated around the country. Thanks to Greg Fisher for passing on the vote results.
Earlier this year a legislator from Indiana sent ACFC this DV bill requesting comments. The bill passed. Financial sweeteners for the judiciary and law enforcement were included thereby assuring bill support from those communities. The result is Indiana has started establishing databases to track restraining orders on an inter and intra state basis. How long will it be before these databases become the portal for Indiana's public domestic violence registries as well? Not very. As an aside this law requires an officer to accept 'victims' statement that a restraining order exists even when proof of its existence is unavailable. What this means is immediate arrest without proof of violation.

Next year the violence against women act (VAWA) comes up for reauthorization in Congress. VAWA money funds Suffolk county and Indiana type activity around the nation. It has become very evident DV advocates intend to create databases around the nation then federalize those databases into a seamless national network, not dissimilar to the existing systems in place for child support collection.
While to some this data warehousing may sound like a good idea to protect victims of domestic violence it should raise significant red flags for citizens concerned about their ability to receive justice in our courts. There do not appear to be safeguards in place to protect innocents. Considering a judge recently ruled several West Virginia domestic violence program rules unconstitutional, an outcome similar to one last year in the California Woods v. Shrewy case and the case of Crespo v. Crespo heading to the NJ Supreme Court ever encroaching government into the private sphere of family life is a legitimate issue.

Are these victim safety or revenue generation programs? A review of Pennsylvania data reveals almost 50% (about 30,000 per year) of all restraining orders are withdrawn, dismissed or not extended on hearing. The cost to taxpayers for these orders is approximately $60,000,000 per year. Dr. Ben Foster authored this report several years ago on the cost of dismissed or false restraining orders in West Virginia. The Suffolk county DV registry program allows for going back five years from enactment to build the database and will charge 'offenders' a $25 per year fee to keep their information current.

Let's Take Action.

There is one more opportunity to stop the Suffolk county legislation. County Executive Steve Levy must sign IR 1314 for it to be effective. There is little doubt the Suffolk bill will become the model for a NY state bill in the near future. Contact County Executive Levy and politely urge him to veto the legislation. Drop us an email and let us know what you did. It doesn't matter if you're not a New Yorker, as the bill notes Suffolk County is looking to 'lead the way' and notes California, Nevada, Washington, DC and the UK are also considering these types of registries, so call or write from across the nation and let NY know the eyes of the country are on them.
County Executive Steve Levy can be reached at:
county.executive@suffolkcountyny.gov or
Tel: 631 853-4000
or Snail Mail to:
Steve Levy, County ExecutiveH.
Lee Dennison Bldg.
100 Veterans Memorial Hwy.
PO Box 6100
Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099

Your Responses to Judge Gormley's Suspension

Our last newsletter carried information on Judge Gormley's suspension from the bench in Kentucky for bias. We asked for your thoughts on the matter and received 20 pages of comments. One of the best was "It's about time gender bias is recognized as judicial misconduct." There were a number of stories related to individual problems people have with judges and cases. All of these should reaffirm our committment to reform the family court and our nation's family law systems. Read the comments here.

Thanks to all of you who continue to work these issues, we appreciate your support. Please consider a contribution so we can continue this efforts, you can donate here.


Mike McCormick
Executive Director

Tuesday, November 03, 2009


Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana
National Coalition Director

Just two days prior to the U.S. Supreme Court hearings on life sentences for youth, Michael Farris, J.D., will appear on Fox News Channel’s Huckabee’s Opinion to discuss the issue.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // November 3, 2009 // Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider two of the most prominent cases of the year this coming Monday. Constitutional lawyer Michael Farris will appear on Gov. Mike Huckabee’s Fox News show on Saturday, November 7, at 8 p.m. ET to discuss whether the Supreme Court should allow the U.N.’s controversial Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to resolve the issue.

The two cases on appeal, Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, question the authority of a state to sentence juvenile violent offenders to life without parole. Amnesty International and other global organizations have filed briefs urging the Court to apply the U.N.’s CRC to Florida law as a matter of binding “Customary International Law.”

On September 21, Farris submitted an opposing brief on behalf of 16 Congressmen which argues that this use of international law is contrary to both the facts and the law.

The members of Congress who appeared on this amicus brief are Rep. Thaddeus McCotter and Rep. Doug Lamborn, co-chairs of the House Sovereignty Caucus, and Reps. Pete Hoekstra, Phil Gingery, John Fleming, Cynthia Lummis, Trent Franks, Dan Burton, Todd Akin, Gus Bilirakis, Robert Latta, Mark Souder, Jim Jordan, John Boozman, Todd Tiahrt, and Rob Bishop.

Farris and available House members will be present for credentialed press on the steps of the Supreme Court immediately following the hearings at 12:15pm on November 9.

Farris is president of ParentalRights.org, an organization which seeks to prevent U.S. ratification of the CRC and to protect the fundamental liberty of fit parents to direct the upbringing of their children, through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Judge KOs shelter kickback scheme

By Carey Roberts
October 12, 2009

Every time we turn around, it seems, we hear of an abuse shelter being accused of discrimination, fraud, or other head-shaking irregularities. And now a judge has ruled the entire abuse shelter industry in the state of West Virginia is wracked by conflict of interest, gender bias, and financial kickbacks.

The ménage a trois involves a government agency, a well-heeled trade organization, and 14 domestic violence shelters located around the state. Here's how the scratch-your-back scheme works...Any time a couple gets married or divorced in West Virginia, they are required to cough up a $15 fee to the Family Protection Services Board. That tallies up to $380,000 each year, a tidy sum for sure. The Board then doles out the money to one of the 14 licensed domestic violence shelters around the state.

So far, so good.

And how does a domestic violence shelter become licensed? Actually, the Board doesn't set its own standards — that responsibility was outsourced to the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Now the plot thickens, because the Coalition was long ago hijacked by a radical feminist ideology. I recently visited its website at www.wvcadv.org and was jolted by this neo-Marxist cant: "violence against women is a political problem, a question of power and domination."That's right, shove aside the research showing women are just as likely as men to be the instigators of partner abuse. Forget former NFL quarterback Steve McNair, shot in the chest four times in his chest by his ex-girlfriend as he slept. Sweep under the rug the fact that alcohol abuse is linked to most cases of abuse.

In other words, the Coalition openly proclaims its belief that domestic violence is all about unfettered patriarchy. And this group is no seat-of-the-pants operation — the trade organization's annual budget of $1.2 million comfortably supports a staff of nine.

So if you're looking for objective criteria for shelter licensure, you won't find it at the Coalition. That's because the group decrees that in order to become a certified domestic violence advocate, you have to swear fealty to the feminist catechism that "domestic violence is deeply rooted in historical attitudes towards women."Whether you believe that statement is laughable, bizarre, or merely one-sided, you can't become certified in West Virginia unless you take the loyalty oath.

So the ideologically-driven Coalition establishes the certification standards. And the Board says before you can receive a penny of its money, at least one-third of shelter employees must be certified by the Coalition.

So where's the kickback arrangement?

Because all 14 abuse shelters around the state are members of and pay dues to — you guessed it! — the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

This good-ol'-girls club does not take kindly to other groups that want to partake of the state's abuse-prevention funding. So finally a group called Men and Women Against Discrimination had to file a lawsuit. The suit charged the policies of the Family Protection Services Board discriminated against male victims of domestic violence and deprived violence-prone women of access to perpetrator intervention programs.

When Judge James Stucky began to examine the case, he discovered bias pervaded the system from top to bottom. Take Judy Smith, one of the five directors of the FPSB and head of the Rape and Domestic Violence Information Center in Morgantown. Smith admitted — actually boasted — during her lawsuit deposition, "we do not shelter men in the shelter, even if it's empty."Judge Stucky found the discrimination to be so widespread and egregious that last week he issued a summary judgment, taking all parties in the case by surprise: www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/WV_Findings_of_Fact.pdf?docID=2621

Noting the state legislature did not intend to restrict domestic violence services to the members of any one sex, he found the Board exceeded its statutory authority by delegating the standard-setting to a trade organization. "In practice this rule excludes any persons who does not adhere to the gender biased fundamental beliefs of the Coalition," ruled the judge.

Appalled by the illegal actions of an organization driven by a cult-like ideology, Judge Stucky concluded the Board's policies "are null and void."Civil rights advocates across the nation were elated. "Today, men and the women who love them have reason to celebrate," notes columnist Teri Stoddard. But she cautions the fight may not be over: "lawsuits like this will unfortunately need to continue across the country."