Adderall online Cialis online Viagra online
Payday loans

Harry Crouch

War of the Roses, MAGIC 92.5 FM, is your man cheating on you?!

December 3rd, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

Bob Y. wants you to know that…

In Jagger and Kristi’s War of the Roses radio segment on MAGIC 92.5 FM (San Diego) exclusively makes men the bad guys. Gender discrimination, especially when it’s defamatory, is wrong, regardless of which gender is being bashed. 

The website says…

“Do you suspect your man might be cheating on you? We have a way to find out!We’ll make him think he’s won a dozen red roses, to be delivered to anyone he chooses. He’d better pick you! But, if he doesn’t…well, that’s when The War of the Roses begins!Want to test your man? Fill out the form - and remember, you can’t tell him about it, because then it won’t work!”

Please contact these gentlemen and ask them to call women, not just men, and show that guys aren’t the only gender that cheats. (Or, if you think nobody should get this treatment, suggest that if it is wrong to do this to a woman, then it’s wrong to do it to a man, too.) The Programming Director is Fred Rico fredrico@magic925.com and the VP is Gregg Wolfson gwolfson@lmasandiego.com . Consider this text for your message: In your program, War of the Roses, men are always the bad buys. It’s wrong to discriminate against men or women. Please stop that. Either start calling women half the time, or stop treating men this way. Consider a public apology.  By the way, some of these guys apparently were not in committed relationships, or any continuing relationship with women that had you call them. Have you ever considered that you could be a tool for a form of stalking. If you think women would accuse you of that, then why is it OK to do it to men? It’s time you made a choice: include women or exclude everybody. Thank you Bob Y. for letting us know about this garbage. Now let’s clean it up.

Bookmark and Share

Happy Holidays… we’re having a party!

December 3rd, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

santa-harry.jpg

Well… it’s that time of year again. I’ll soon be sliding down your chiminey with gifts gallor. Don’t forget to put out the cookies and rum and coke! Plus, you can join us for some really good grub and drink, Wednesday evening, beginning at 6:30 p.m., December 8 at our Men’s Center in San Diego’s East Villiage at 932 C Street. There will be niffty gifts for the first so many people brave enough to show up. Santa’s helper (the real Santa) Ed Bartlett from Maryland (and the North Pole) will be here to tell us about SAVE’s incredible work targeted at reforming the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Elf Enrique Monteagudo should be here too to share information about the just released draft version of California’s child support guideline review report, the gift that just keeps on giving… If you are more interested in the draft report than the present you will receive when you show up for our little gettogether well…err, you can read it and make comments here http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/invitationstocomment/ . Regardless, have the best of holidays and don’t forget my rum and coke… and, it would really be nice to see you next Wednesday so please join us.

Santa Harry

Bookmark and Share

How we got one judge to change her wicked ways

October 21st, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

CLICK HERE

Bookmark and Share

Female Sex Offenders and Pedophiles– an overview

October 15th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch, Sexual Assault/Rape

http://californiamenscenters.org/files/Female_Sex_Offenders_and_Pedophiles_100710.pdf 

Bookmark and Share

Amicus Brief M.B.J and J.P.J. vs THE MONTANA FOURTH DISTRICT…

September 9th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch, discrimination against men

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM) in conjuction with the Men’s Health Network filed an amicus brief in the above case opposing a putative father registry. NCFM was asked by a Montana District Court Judicial Staff Attorney to submit the brief. We then asked the Men’s Health Network and others to participate. Unfortunately, time constraints prohibited the MHN from being named in the final document. However, Ron Henry of MHN found attorney Andrew Freiheit who was the principle author of this incredible document, a documnet which should be read by anyone and everyone interested in civil rights, parental rights, and especially father’s rights. NCFM member volunteer attorney Al Rava assisted. Cooperatively working together with volunteers such as these is what helps make the world a better place for all of us. Click here to go to the page containing the link to the brief, look for “Brief - Amicus (National Coalition for Men) SEND UP WITH FINAL REPLY.”

Bookmark and Share

Should women pay child support, even if they are going to college?

September 7th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

One of our National Coalition For Men (NCFM) members is studying to be a Paralegal. His classes are steeped in radical feminist ideology as are most of his classmates (all female but one) and his instructors. His assignment is to prepare a legal memorandum discussing relevant CA and Fed law and defenses for contempt of non payment of child support. Here’s the scenario:

Our firm has been hired to represent Carmen Leake in an upcoming contempt hearing in family court. Last year, Carmen was ordered by the court to pay child support for her two children who live with her former husband. However, Carmen has not paid any child support since the divorce was final on September 1, 2009. She is a full-time graduate student, completing her Ph.D. in paleontology, and her only source of income are the student loans she lives on, and the fees she charges tutoring undergraduates for final exams. She says she is unable to work at a regular 9-5 job because her profession requires her to make frequent trips to other countries to do research relevant to her dissertation.

Carmen’s ex-husband has filed an Order to Show Cause (OSC) for Contempt to enforce the support order.

Prepare a legal memorandum discussing any defense to contempt for nonpayment of child support. We are concerned because case law indicates that the courts are willing to impose criminal sanctions for nonpayment of child support where a parent’s inability to pay is due to unwillingness to work. Please prepare a legal memorandum discussing relevant CA and Fed law.

So, I asked through one of our email distribution lists whether recipients thought Carmen should or should not pay child support from a legal or non legal viewpoint. Apparently, some of the female students are arguing that women are a protected class, have been historically discriminated against, do all the work from conception to birth, and payback is a bitch. I’ve included the more interesting responses below. If you have a comment please send it my way for inclusion on this list.Thanks
Harry Crouch
___________________________________________________

I have looked into going to school. If I had quit a job to go back to school I could be assessed the child support based on my previous earning capacity. The act of quitting a job to go to school was voluntary. In my case I was laid off.

Say I could not find employment at the same compensation level and went back to school any grants scholarships any money that you do not have to pay back is considered income and support can be ordered on that.

The CA law says income from any source can be used to calculate support that includes say a parent whose parent is paying their rent for them.

I have thought that CA courts are gender nuetral. So I would say that to go along with that public policy Carmen should pay support.

She has skills that she can use to earn an income. The parents first responsibilty is to provide for their children not improve themselves.

This is Carmens choice she needs she new the consequences and the law so she just needs to do the right thing

Joe

I had to pay child support during my entire time as an undergraduate student. It only made sense that I worked a part-time job during this time so that I may support my son (financially). Then my final year of school when I had to quit my part-time job due to my internship, DCSS said that I was capable of making the amount at my previous job and that ongoing support continue during this time. I know DCSS can be a pain due to their bureaucracy, but rules have to apply across the board (not just men)!

Eric

Damn right she should pay. If women want equality, this goes with it. Title 9 should not discriminate here. If the genders were reversed, the man would be paying, even if he was living out of his car, or worse. Enforce these laws and make women feel the pain men have been going through for years. Only then will things change to a more reasonable level. Also, I could easily come up with more legal reasons for the courts, should you desire…..

John

I have some personal experience with this one. My attorney when I was charged for contempt for failure to pay child support said that to be found guilty, the charge must be able to show that there must be a) a valid court order, b) the citee must have knowledge of the order, c) ability to comply, and d) willful failure to comply.

Assuming there is a valid court order and that she knows about the order, I’m not sure Carmen has a defense at all since she has an income (ability to comply) and can be found in contempt for willfully failing to comply by not offering at least a partial payment towards the support order.

In Moss v Superior Court (1998) 17 C4th 396 415, 71 CR2d 215, Moss was a father who had been unemployed for 4 years and the court held that his failure to find a job or pay fell within the fraud exception to the constitutional prohibition of imprisonment for debt which essentially translates to failure to have a job is no reason for not paying your child support, if you are capable of generating an income.

Clearly, Carmen is capable and is actually generating an income which leads to the 4th element, willful failure to pay.

In order to show that her failure to pay is willful, an accused who wishes to defend on the ground that the disobedience was not willful must raise that issue as an affirmative defense (citing Moss v Superior Court) meaning that she is unable to pay. If Carmen is able to argue successfully that she was unable to divert any of her student loan income, research grant income, tutoring fee’s, etc., towards even a partial payment of child support, then the only difference between Carmen and Moss is that she is a woman, and as a woman payment towards her living expenses takes precedence over her obligation toward supporting her child and that is not fraudulent avoidance of paying her support.

This would be a violation of the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution of course.

I honestly don’t think she has a valid defense unless she makes some kind of payment prior to the contempt trial otherwise, she should consider a settlement of some sort. If an unemployed father was held in contempt (Moss), why should a women who has an income while working toward future employment be held to a different standard, especially one that violates the 14th amendment equal protection?
Just my 10 cents…

Bob

Damn right she should pay. If women want equality, this goes with it. Title 9 should not discriminate here. If the genders were reversed, the man would be paying, even if he was living out of his car, or worse. Enforce these laws and make women feel the pain men have been going through for years. Only then will things change to a more reasonable level. Also, I could easily come up with more legal reasons for the courts, should you desire…..

John

For those of us who have children, parenting them is the most important thing we’ll ever do, and there isn’t a close second. I can’t quote any statutes or case law, but it’s clear that child support laws reflect this value and that if a non-custodial parent is capable of working and earning money to support their children, then they are obligated to do so. If a career in paleontology (or anything else which precludes providing for one’s children) must be put on hold or done on part-time basis, so be it. Obviously, there should be no distinction between the mother and the father in this regard.

James

In Kentucky women here who are in contempt are taken to court by their exs and ordered to pay and often fined too. In my opinion that is how it should be. If Mr. Leake didn’t pay and she had custody he should pay… Gender of the parents is not even an issue.

Lea

Pardon my French but what a bunch of shit. I’m a Ph.D. student living off of a disability check, student loans, and a measly part-time job and that hasn’t stopped the bastards from stealing my money. In fact, I was laid off from my pt job over the summer, spent THREE MONTHS fighting to get unemployment (the EED Appeals court just informed me yesterday that I’m going to get something), my daughter is BRAIN DAMAGED because of what LA did to her, LA County’s Chief Counsel’s Office just refused AGAIN to give me ANY documentation on their fraudulent child abuse charges against me (they are now demanding that I sign a “declaration” that they will submit to the corrupt LA County Superior Courts on “my behalf” even though there were NO COURT PROCEDINGS OF ANY KIND when they maliciously and fraudulently accused me of molesting my now brain-damaged daughter. My ex refuses to attend school functions (I just went two open houses this week - 120 mile roundtrip both times and she didn’t attend), I’ve spent thousands in the past year alone on attorneys to protect my kids during IEP meetings.

In the past month alone, LA County garnished my disability check for the first time in ten years (I’ve always been told that they couldn’t touch that), stole money from two VERY small unemployment checks that the state just sent me and when I returned to my pt job, they STOLE MORE MONEY from that. As a result, LA County stole MORE THAN DOUBLE the amount the court order says I’m supposed to pay and I can’t get them to stop (I’ve already sued them three times).

The student should tell the feminist morons in his class to go do something vulgar to them. Protected class? Protected class? What about all of the minority men who have been screwed for so long (the Navarro case is one example).

Sorry but I’m worn out - I’m going to the bankruptcy attorney AGAIN next week because I can’t pay my bills and LA County won’t let up. I DESPARATELY NEED an attorney to help me file against LA County for the records they have refused to turn over to me for so long.

Jeff

Women should never have been designated as a protected class, because, historically, they have been no more discriminated against because of their sex than men have. Men have a long list of oppressions too, http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=16416.0 and if we are going to award protected status based on that then men (as a group) should be in line ahead of women. It is time for the “Titanic effect” of chivalry (men relinquishing seats in the lifeboat to women) to be buried in courts of law and all other social institutions. It is past due for all the big feminist lies to end.
True equal protection under law requires equal treatment under law, regardless of sex. If women are ever to be considered as truly equal to men in the workforce, then fathers should not be denied the right to be child support receiving, custodial parents and women should not be denied the right to be mothers who are breadwinners, commiserate with the obligation to pay child support. In marital dissolutions, where the mother works and the father primarily cares for the children, the father should be awarded custodial parent status and the mother should be obliged to pay child support. Until child support is firmly enforced in such situations, talk of equality: in the courts, in the workforce, and in the home is just feminist bologna. Women who take work less than ability to earn a wage should have their income imputed for child support purposes, as has been the precedent for fathers. Again it is a matter of equality before the law regardless of sex.

Ray

Tell those women to show in the books where they are a protected class, and show where the laws say payback is a bitch. Actually, payback is a bitch that is why that woman should pay child support. If she wasn’t so self-centered, she would have shared custody, supporting them 50% of the time herself, and there would be no child support. So, her payback is a bitch, it really is.

Todd

As we know to be true! The courts views it the same way Carmen and her other feminist friends do. I would love to see the answer that the judge gives as to why that holds true.

Thank you,

Wayne

This is not about whether women are a protected class. It’s about whether children are a protected class.

That which we allow we encourage. If we allow dead beat Mom to place a higher priority on her own education than on assuring her own child is able to eat, we encourage child neglect and abandonment by example.

Ignoring a valid court order is against the law. If we allow someone to break the law, we encourage everyone to break the law, and we live with anarchy in the streets.

If the work from conception to birth is a problem, use birth control.

As for payback being a bitch, no one promised anyone that parenthood would be easy, for either gender.

Dean

Bookmark and Share

CALL TO ACTION, we need voices to be heard

August 24th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in False Accusation, Harry Crouch, discrimination against men

“The National Coalition for Men and numerous family-friendly organizations have long fought against our nation’s abuse of power as presently exercised under the guise of ‘protecting children’. One such recent action, taken by San Diego County and documented in this CAll to ACTION, offers a public view into how misguided Federal programs, inspired by Radical Feminism and mandated on local government, then incentivized by lucrative Title IV-D financial reimbursements (our ‘missing’ Social Security money), act to destroy families and to bring children under governmental parentage…” NCFM member John Van Doorn asks for those who oppose such things to join him when he next testifies before the San Diego Board of Supervisors. If you can join him or want more information please contact him at jvandoorn@cox.net .

First, read the CAll to ACTION. If you are not familiar with the recent CPS intrusion you should be. Please notice the total disregard given to the family, the total lack of evidence to substantiate anything, and the pressure to remove the father from the family for not one shred of anything other than a misguided belief in feminist driven ideology. And, consider, if the ”System” can rid the family of the caring father the system can then tag him with child support payments as well as the cost of the social workers who intruded in the family. Once child support payments are levied the system earns incentive money from the federal government. The incentive money pays for more social workers to intrude into more families. It’s a lose-lose system of concentric circles with ever increasing reach for ever increasing money simply to propagate the system of circles and the soft jobs therein. The only true solution is to stop the money.Only through the loud voices of the disenfranchised will we ever overcome such corruption. Legislative reform by its nature is “compromise” and generally sets the stage for more injustice and litigation while resolving little.Please read the the information here and if able join us as requested. We are working with national and local organizations to build a coalition of voices that can be heard. If you are interested in more information please contact Harry Crouch at 619-231-1909.

Bookmark and Share

NPR Gives Raped Males The Unworthy Victim Treatment

June 30th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Domestic abuse/violence, Harry Crouch, Sexual Assault/Rape, discrimination against men

FYI, IMPORTANT request below my signature block. Please help by contacting NPR…

Harry Crouch

California Men’s Centers

National Coalition For Men

IMPORTANT: The National Coalition For Men (NCFM - www.ncfm.org ) is qualified to accept donations from United States government and military personnel worldwide through the “International” Combined Federal Campaign (http://www.opm.gov/cfc/). If you are a U.S. Federal employee please consider donating to NCFM. Our CFC# is 17785, please pass it on. If you are not a federal employee please encourage your federal employee friends and acquaintances to donate to NCFM through the CFC.

Join NCFM on facebook http://facebook.ncfm.org - and pass it around so others can join too! ____________________________________________________________________________

Please contact NPR’s Morning Edition, per the alert below, if you have the time.  Thanks.

RADAR 2

RADAR ALERT:NPR Gives Raped Males The Unworthy Victim Treatment

Last week, June 23, Attorney General Eric Holder missed the deadline for issuing standards to prevent prison rape.1

Men being raped in prison is so accepted by mainstream America that Saturday Night Live’s writers saw nothing wrong with doing 4-1/2 minutes of ass-rape jokes in a sketch called “Scared Straight” that ended with Betty White saying emphatically, “Wizard of Ass”!2 Blogger Scott Starnes states the attitude explicitly. Under a graphic stating “Ass-Rape: It’s Always Funny,” Starnes asks: “Who honestly cares about criminals being ass-raped in prison?”3

Ignorant callousness is an obvious problem for reformers trying to eliminate prison rape. But an even more insidious problem is the media’s treatment of male victims as unworthy of concern, as NPR’s Morning Edition recently did.4. NPR chose to ignore the fact that 90% of incarcerated individuals are male, and instead focused their story solely on a female-prisoner’s experience of prison-rape. This form of bias is so subtle that most listeners won’t even notice it. But it is a classic example of the very media bias described by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book Manufacturing Consent5, in which they write:

“Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.”

NPR’s decision to focus solely on a female victim’s experience demonstrates that they view female rape victims as “worthy” and male victims as “unworthy.” And their mischaracterizing the issue will inevitably lead to stronger protections for female inmates and weaker or non-existent protections for the vast majority of inmates – the male inmates.

Society’s indifference to male victimization helps explain why the Department of Justice can’t get its act together to come up with standards that are already pretty well known. Columnist Robert Franklin summarizes the DoJ’s cynical attitude about missing the deadline as, “Why bother? It’s mostly men who are abused, right?”6

Cultural assumptions play an important role in the creation of public policy. And a subtly biased story coming from a mainstream media outlet like NPR is far more effective in propagating and perpetuating bias than anything an obviously biased blogger like Scott Starnes could come out with. Therefore, efforts at exposing subtle bias and trying to correct it are essential to RADAR’s mission to reform the nation’s domestic violence laws.

Kindly contact Morning Edition

http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx?sid=1

and ask them to do a follow-up story on the DoJ’s failure to issue standards for the prevention of prison rape. Let them know that their listeners want them to treat male victims as equally worthy of sympathy as female victims. In Chomsky and Herman’s words, the suffering of male victims should be featured prominently and dramatically, the male victims should be humanized just as NPR’s stories have done for female victims, and stories on male victims should give sufficient detail and context to generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion.

When you contact NPR, please be polite.

 


 

1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lovisa-stannow/attorney-general-misses-h_b_622777.html

2 http://www.hulu.com/watch/147971/saturday-night-live-scared-straight

3 http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/doj-lead-by-ag-eric-holder-is-worried-about-ass-rape-in-prison-system

4 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127376570

5 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufac_Consent_Prop_Model.html

6 http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4841


Date of RADAR Release: June 29, 2010

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org

 

Bookmark and Share

Flyer re men as a voting block to be distributed to Congress

June 25th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

On Monday, June 28, 2010 the flyer “So what about men: America’s single most important voting block” will be distributed to Congress, though you can get a sneak preview by clicking on the link above. Feel free to print and distribute as many as you like too!

 Harry Crouch

President

National Coalition For Men

Bookmark and Share

The best description of radical feminism ever written

June 12th, 2010
By Harry Crouch
Article Source
Posted in Harry Crouch

 Another long time advocate and friend sent me the following quote for Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrug”. It occurred to me that it is perhaps, inadvertantly, the best description of radical feminism ever written. I thought I’d share that perception with you. Not only that, I’ve created an 11″x 8″ rendering of the saying suitable for framing and hangingin your bathroom or office (the latter takes courage and is not recommended if you work for anyone other than yourself and have no employees). To print out a copy click here: the best description of radical feminism ever written

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be
much easier to deal with.” (’Atlas Shrugged’ 1957) {WMail Issue #23}

Enjoy… particularly if you agree and do nothing to change it.

Harry

Bookmark and Share




Site Meter