In this conversation, I sit down with longtime scholar and author Stephen Baskerville to take a hard look at modern family courts, no-fault divorce, paternal rights, and the assumptions behind shared parenting.
This invites the question: what are the courts for then?
They are eugenics courts that transfer wealth (divorce) and then extract his remaining wealth using his children as leverage (family court) and then further force him to pay child support.
It's pretty obvious what it's for.
It's a series of fake laws that breaches everyone's human rights, including and especially children, for the sole purpose of keeping men poor and in slavery, subservient and emasculated to the state.
If we dismantled them all tomorrow, the world would instantly be a better place.
We only ever need criminal courts. Family Courts are now an evidence-free extension of the CJS, again aimed at (mostly) men.
The idea that child support is just a wealth transfer is easily provable. When the child support formulas methodically overestimate the true incremental cost of raising a child, then you know the formula is fraudulent. If you do basic economic analysis and look at the support formulas, you can see that's the case. In plain sight. Yet the courts ignore that and implement the fraudulent formulas anyway.
Some good economic analayses prove this: Mark Rogers, Don Bieniewicz. Some formulas have even been invalidted on constitutional grounds, but the family courts and CSE agencies simply ignore the higher courts and implement them anyway, It is in my book, Taken Into Custody.
I totally agree. I read the studies by Mark Rogers, and the original child support study done by van der Gaag. That's what led me to the conclusion that the formulas are fraudulent. Yet the monkeys in family court keep using them.
And as the primary custodial parent, I receive child support. So my concern is not about me. My concern is about the millions of people that are being defrauded by their government.
Here's how celebrities paying $10k a month fits into the fraudulent scheme:
Family Courts need to issue support orders and collect the money...in order to get bonuses from the federal government.
Family courts know there's few $$ they can collect from poor dads, who can only pay $50 to $200 per month.
BUT....if Family court can land a whale, a dad that has high income and can be charged $10k a month....even though it's obviously far greater than the cost of raising a child....than that helps court make up for all the time issuing orders for just $100 per month.
It's about efficiency...which is one of the Title IV-D bonus requirements.
It's so simple to dismantle any argument about child support in this day and age.
When both parents work, it's redundant, and if they can't be parents and communicate, they should forfeit (promotes civilised behaviour). Placing the child/ren with one parent, then forcing the other to pay more for less time, is clearly a blatant, pervasive incentive, even if it's to (mostly) his detriment, and has nothing to do with child support and everything to do with the spending habits of men vs women.
Overall, men save, women spend, plain and simple. The elites want more of it; this is a huge revenue stream, one of innumerable. In an age of record inflation (in the UK), it's obvious what the long-term plan is. Remove the only demographic that can usurp the elites, men and boys (who will grow up to be men unless they're not raised by them)... I'll let you think about that for a while.
You bring up a fascinating point that the elites want women to have child support money because women spend and men save. That dynamic would boost the economy.
We normally blame the warped outcomes of family court on: 1. The intentional outcome of judges being biased against dads. 2. The unintentional outcome of having incompetent judges make terrible decisions for families. Both can be true at different times or even at the same time.
But you introduce a third variable that this is masterminded by people who want to generate economic outputs by transferring wealth. That's a bit of a conspiracy theory. I've heard it before. It's totally plausible and it's not crazy to suspect it. I just personally have not seen concrete evidence to prove it. But I am open to believing that because it's not far-fetched.
Ultimately, to fix the problem we have to identify with exact causes. And if your economic theory is one cause, then we have to address that, too. Add it to the 5 or so already existing major causes.
If I were an evil genius, I couldn't design a better system to cull my only opposition while profiting from it and creating generation after generation of (traumatised) customers (abused children and children without a parent).
Is this not trauma-based behavioural control? Of course it is. It's a fact, not fiction. Some quick stats from last time I checked, in the UK, 43% of children are raised by a single parent, mostly mothers. Residency and CMS stats? 90% mothers are receiving parents. Suicide stats? Hidden and covered up by not logging any data or statistics, which is a good segue into the MOJ stats, there are basic stats, no sex breakdown, strange.
At this point, there are far too many data points and strange dynamics to think it's anything but eugenics and revenue stream generation fuelling the ever-expanding wealth gap.
It's simple, look at what's missing its a breadcrumb.
In the interim until we can abolish the family court, I suggest all men boycott marriage entirely! Starve out the beast! No marriages, no divorces and the family courts should dry up and blow away
In the interim until we can abolish the family court, I suggest all men boycott marriage entirely! Starve out the beast! No marriages, no divorces and the family courts should dry up and blow away! I’ll never understand why men are purchasing the rope used to hang them…
I (a practicing civil litigator) was told early in my own divorce that "the rules of evidence don't really apply in the family courts, so don't expect to see that occur." This experiences validates the point that the family courts skirt (at best) notions of procedural due process and raise serious questions of fundamental fairness.
The idea that the rules of evidence don't apply in family court is true, but let me go deeper into how that works. Family court is a civil court where decisions are SUPPOSED to be made based on the preponderance of the evidence. That means that you're conclusion needs a 51% likelihood of being true. But, in effect, that is meaningless. A judge can look at any evidence and misinterpret it to claim a false conclusion. And when family court judges are biased and incompetent, they tend to do that routinely. And there's no stopping them.
However, I advise my audience to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as in the criminal court standard. Why? Because when you have a judge whose mission it is to rule against the father, then the father's mission is to handcuff the judge and eliminate their ability to use their discretion. It's kind of like hitting the judge over the head with a brick, with facts and evidence, so the judge can't make any other decision. You have to use your testimony and evidence to force them into a corner where they have to make the correct decision.
You have to do it assertively, politely, and with intelligence. Family court judges cannot compete with intelligent thought.
To make sure this works, I would then add, make sure you get a record of the proceeding, even if you must hire a reporter yourself. This may be the single best practical advice I ever heard.
You are so right. I spent almost $15,000 getting transcripts from my cases. Those were vital in my objections and appeals. Later on, I learned from many dads that several lower courts don't even have audio or written transcripts. But you absolutely need those to preserve the record for appeal. The idea that some lower courts don't keep transcripts is absurd. This dismantles the entire appellate process.
Worthless advice because WE KNOW the judges do anything and everything they want with impunity and what they want is to fleece fathers because they don’t fight back! Best move is to NEVER GET MARRIED!! No marriage, no more divorce-rape! STARVE OUT THE MONSTER!
"The rules of evidence don't really apply in the family courts, so don't expect to see that occur." Wow, and yes, that's my experience and research too. I'm shocked they've lasted this long. Although I suspect they'll not last much longer. I also suspect the cat is out of the bag — and by cat I mean harm all round and post-separation financial abuse and extortion.
A man must have his family as a possession. To do any less means the man will loose interest and create failed lives. We see it all around us. The driving forceof creation, the male gender, has no incentive to maintain civilization without it. That does not even begin to address failed female instinct in politics. Disaster ensues.
My statement was about human nature. Everyone here is living is a EXTREMELY shifted Overton window regarding human nature. In my perspective, all of your assumptions are derived this misunderstanding of human women. As an experienced sadistic male dom, aged 57, I find all of your solutions are missing the very dark nature of human women. As an atheist, I can say that I believe the Bible was absolutely correct about no females in authority over men. The high school mean girl is not a phase. That is exactly what a large portion of human women are. This is opinion. Facts can be found regarding female empathy vs justice. The data has been deliberately misinterpreted but is beginning to become common knowledge.
"all of your assumptions" That phrase and your whole post are one big assumption, save for your subjective experiences. Which, btw I didn't ask for, care to read, or agree with. They are not representative of wider society. This is the difference between empiricism and subjective experiences.
I don't much care for wild theories or mind-reading, I'm afraid. I didn't offer any solutions. You seem to have changed the topic.
This discussion raises an interesting idea. Just as the Family Courts created an unconstitutional feminist agenda enforcement mechanism related to families and children, Title IX created its own parallel unconstitutional version of feminist bullying in education and the work place. What we need in both cases is to restore the basic ideas of due process and constitutional law that go back to Roman times and force women to actually make their cases in such courts. The reason feminists HATE the courts is that they rarely have merit to the complaints they are making and they know it full well!
Covenant vs. contract: Stephen, you shrugged off the notion that covenant is more important than contract, concluding that covenant "should be more worthy of enforcement by the state". I can see this reasoning. But it is faulted in the very acceptance of the modern framing.
I contend that holy matrimony was craftily converted to a legal contract by the state for self-serving reasons.
In law, contract supersedes public law insofar as a contract "is valid", i.e. has the requisite elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual consent. It is fundamentally how the conversion to a foreign jurisdiction is done, via unspoken gymnastics and the presumption of consent which must be explicitly withdrawn - which is unlawful. Most things predating the general conversion of lawful-to-legal have been glossed by legal definitions (see Black's Law and others). There is a variety of types of contracts, and a proliferation of special jurisdictions. Contracts can be broken, and the terms apply.
In contrast, traditional covenants carry the strength of vows, longevity, and a higher calling than legal terms, and do not defer to legal courts. There is an expectation that covenants shall never be broken. When they are broken, the situation is dire.
There is an expectation that legal contracts may be broken, even casually, and clauses are designed specifically to cover termination. Special courts are invoked to rule whenever there is a controversy, i.e. when the parties refuse to bring forth remedy.
The problem we have inherited, and began almost immediately after the creation of the union, is the encroachment of special jurisdictions, beginning with the state and the federal governments imposing fiat rule upon the people, which was never intended (and beaten back repeatedly), dressing the acts up in philosophy meant to circumvent the constraints of the state and federal Constitutions. In fact, there are plenty of court battles that upheld the idea that men and women are not subject to state or federal jurisdictions, that the respective jurisdictions are foreign to each other.
Would-be tyrants however finally succeeded in the mental capture of the people via public education (c. 1850's), and the so-called Civil War (c. 1860's) which birthed the age of "suspended Constitution" and the unlawful conversion of people to legal Persons in commerce, aka citizens. Commerce deals in legal fictions. There are no people in commerce. The ubiquitous refrain, "We do not recognize common law," is the mantra of the courts of the age, despite the Judicature Act! Today, all crimes are commercial, very often under some mysterious contract.
How do they manage this chicanery? Hearken back to the elements of a contract, most notably CONSENT, and making a mockery of "informed" and "meeting of the minds".
Hopefully this emphasizes the huge difference between traditional holy matrimony and today's marriage contract. They are in entirely different jurisdictions. I advise men and women not to contract with the state, due to the unlawful conversion inherent in that action. When you contract with the state, you grant the state an interest in your property, meaning: land, biology, works, and mind. That's why the state behaves as if it owns you and your sons and daughters: you relinquish your rights.
This explains a lot. We have a lot of work to do to trace back each Satanic inversion of natural law, common law, equity, fairness and justice. I hope all policies must be stress tested on all known cases to see what they repeal, and simulated on all history, and into potential futures. To shake out how they benefit or dysbenefit interests past, present, and future. The family law is a bundle of crap that has the purpose of abolishing the family (Marx, Engels) and smashing the patriarchy (feminism).
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the incidence of divorce in Kentucky diminished significantly where the law was changed to a presumption of 50/50 custody in both parents (versus the highly mother-friendly approach common in many states). Prof Baskerville is correct: the law _should_ be that the party that wishes to leave the family may, but she may not take the children, money, etc. But because the feminists and bar will fight this outcome tooth and nail (until a judge is courageous enough to apply constitutional principles), even a minor fix as in Kentucky seriously disincentivizes divorce from opportunistic spouses who wish to blow up the family and profit from it (which, statistically, tend to be women).
This is such a great and revealing conversation. But it shouldn't end here. I encourage all of you to share this video with all of your state and federal legislators. Not just once. Email it to them once a month for the next 2 years until they finally begin to get it. They will ignore you as long as they can. We must outlast them.
Great stuff Tom. Baskerville one of the few with the expertise to show what an illegal, unholy racket the divorce industry is. Whatever he says or writes is always worth listening to. Like you, his Taken Into Custody helped the scales fall from my eyes when being dragged through this egregious process.
Historical organized misandry (aka, organized man-hating) like organized crime is behind the embedded anti-father and anti-male ideas embedded in family law. The first written law requiring a man to pay a "mina of silver" to have the right to divorce a wife was inscribed on a clay tablet as part of the law code of the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu thousands of years ago. The Code of Ur-Nammu created around 2100-2050 BCE has the first known mention of a "marriage contract." Organized criminal man-hating as explained in my book, "The Misandry Problem," has existed since ancient times.
The family court system is proof men can revoke female rights regardless of the rule of law. We are rapidly approaching a time where not enough men will stop us.
I am not sure I would dignify what family courts dispense by the name of "rights": "privileges" to be charitable, but more likely power and its abuse. But I get your point.
The gamma bias protects "process is punishment". It's just more domestic abuse via administrative means. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that female pathology in the home is rife due to shit testing. It's the BPD operating system women induce in their daughters since time immemorial. They act rationally if manipulation works.
They're projecting animus possession on to men. They'll fight to the death to avoid taking responsibility for their inner chaos that buckles their egos.
This invites the question: what are the courts for then?
They are eugenics courts that transfer wealth (divorce) and then extract his remaining wealth using his children as leverage (family court) and then further force him to pay child support.
It's pretty obvious what it's for.
It's a series of fake laws that breaches everyone's human rights, including and especially children, for the sole purpose of keeping men poor and in slavery, subservient and emasculated to the state.
If we dismantled them all tomorrow, the world would instantly be a better place.
We only ever need criminal courts. Family Courts are now an evidence-free extension of the CJS, again aimed at (mostly) men.
Great discussion, Tom and Stephen.
Thanks Stephen, great comment.
Thank you, Tom.
That comment was years in the making and still has a few years left both in court and academia, dealing with and exposing it.
The idea that child support is just a wealth transfer is easily provable. When the child support formulas methodically overestimate the true incremental cost of raising a child, then you know the formula is fraudulent. If you do basic economic analysis and look at the support formulas, you can see that's the case. In plain sight. Yet the courts ignore that and implement the fraudulent formulas anyway.
Some good economic analayses prove this: Mark Rogers, Don Bieniewicz. Some formulas have even been invalidted on constitutional grounds, but the family courts and CSE agencies simply ignore the higher courts and implement them anyway, It is in my book, Taken Into Custody.
I totally agree. I read the studies by Mark Rogers, and the original child support study done by van der Gaag. That's what led me to the conclusion that the formulas are fraudulent. Yet the monkeys in family court keep using them.
And as the primary custodial parent, I receive child support. So my concern is not about me. My concern is about the millions of people that are being defrauded by their government.
Correct! Some celebrities pay $10,000 per month in ‘Mommy Support’! That will buy a shit-load of diapers! Where does the rest go???? 😞
Here's how celebrities paying $10k a month fits into the fraudulent scheme:
Family Courts need to issue support orders and collect the money...in order to get bonuses from the federal government.
Family courts know there's few $$ they can collect from poor dads, who can only pay $50 to $200 per month.
BUT....if Family court can land a whale, a dad that has high income and can be charged $10k a month....even though it's obviously far greater than the cost of raising a child....than that helps court make up for all the time issuing orders for just $100 per month.
It's about efficiency...which is one of the Title IV-D bonus requirements.
That's how the fraud works. Make sense?
It's so simple to dismantle any argument about child support in this day and age.
When both parents work, it's redundant, and if they can't be parents and communicate, they should forfeit (promotes civilised behaviour). Placing the child/ren with one parent, then forcing the other to pay more for less time, is clearly a blatant, pervasive incentive, even if it's to (mostly) his detriment, and has nothing to do with child support and everything to do with the spending habits of men vs women.
Overall, men save, women spend, plain and simple. The elites want more of it; this is a huge revenue stream, one of innumerable. In an age of record inflation (in the UK), it's obvious what the long-term plan is. Remove the only demographic that can usurp the elites, men and boys (who will grow up to be men unless they're not raised by them)... I'll let you think about that for a while.
You bring up a fascinating point that the elites want women to have child support money because women spend and men save. That dynamic would boost the economy.
We normally blame the warped outcomes of family court on: 1. The intentional outcome of judges being biased against dads. 2. The unintentional outcome of having incompetent judges make terrible decisions for families. Both can be true at different times or even at the same time.
But you introduce a third variable that this is masterminded by people who want to generate economic outputs by transferring wealth. That's a bit of a conspiracy theory. I've heard it before. It's totally plausible and it's not crazy to suspect it. I just personally have not seen concrete evidence to prove it. But I am open to believing that because it's not far-fetched.
Ultimately, to fix the problem we have to identify with exact causes. And if your economic theory is one cause, then we have to address that, too. Add it to the 5 or so already existing major causes.
If I were an evil genius, I couldn't design a better system to cull my only opposition while profiting from it and creating generation after generation of (traumatised) customers (abused children and children without a parent).
Is this not trauma-based behavioural control? Of course it is. It's a fact, not fiction. Some quick stats from last time I checked, in the UK, 43% of children are raised by a single parent, mostly mothers. Residency and CMS stats? 90% mothers are receiving parents. Suicide stats? Hidden and covered up by not logging any data or statistics, which is a good segue into the MOJ stats, there are basic stats, no sex breakdown, strange.
At this point, there are far too many data points and strange dynamics to think it's anything but eugenics and revenue stream generation fuelling the ever-expanding wealth gap.
It's simple, look at what's missing its a breadcrumb.
In the interim until we can abolish the family court, I suggest all men boycott marriage entirely! Starve out the beast! No marriages, no divorces and the family courts should dry up and blow away
In the interim until we can abolish the family court, I suggest all men boycott marriage entirely! Starve out the beast! No marriages, no divorces and the family courts should dry up and blow away! I’ll never understand why men are purchasing the rope used to hang them…
The courts are a place to propagate business for the legal cartel. End of story.
I (a practicing civil litigator) was told early in my own divorce that "the rules of evidence don't really apply in the family courts, so don't expect to see that occur." This experiences validates the point that the family courts skirt (at best) notions of procedural due process and raise serious questions of fundamental fairness.
The idea that the rules of evidence don't apply in family court is true, but let me go deeper into how that works. Family court is a civil court where decisions are SUPPOSED to be made based on the preponderance of the evidence. That means that you're conclusion needs a 51% likelihood of being true. But, in effect, that is meaningless. A judge can look at any evidence and misinterpret it to claim a false conclusion. And when family court judges are biased and incompetent, they tend to do that routinely. And there's no stopping them.
However, I advise my audience to try to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, as in the criminal court standard. Why? Because when you have a judge whose mission it is to rule against the father, then the father's mission is to handcuff the judge and eliminate their ability to use their discretion. It's kind of like hitting the judge over the head with a brick, with facts and evidence, so the judge can't make any other decision. You have to use your testimony and evidence to force them into a corner where they have to make the correct decision.
You have to do it assertively, politely, and with intelligence. Family court judges cannot compete with intelligent thought.
To make sure this works, I would then add, make sure you get a record of the proceeding, even if you must hire a reporter yourself. This may be the single best practical advice I ever heard.
You are so right. I spent almost $15,000 getting transcripts from my cases. Those were vital in my objections and appeals. Later on, I learned from many dads that several lower courts don't even have audio or written transcripts. But you absolutely need those to preserve the record for appeal. The idea that some lower courts don't keep transcripts is absurd. This dismantles the entire appellate process.
Worthless advice because WE KNOW the judges do anything and everything they want with impunity and what they want is to fleece fathers because they don’t fight back! Best move is to NEVER GET MARRIED!! No marriage, no more divorce-rape! STARVE OUT THE MONSTER!
"The rules of evidence don't really apply in the family courts, so don't expect to see that occur." Wow, and yes, that's my experience and research too. I'm shocked they've lasted this long. Although I suspect they'll not last much longer. I also suspect the cat is out of the bag — and by cat I mean harm all round and post-separation financial abuse and extortion.
A man must have his family as a possession. To do any less means the man will loose interest and create failed lives. We see it all around us. The driving forceof creation, the male gender, has no incentive to maintain civilization without it. That does not even begin to address failed female instinct in politics. Disaster ensues.
I agree, but in modern society, there is little worthy of such a man.
My statement was about human nature. Everyone here is living is a EXTREMELY shifted Overton window regarding human nature. In my perspective, all of your assumptions are derived this misunderstanding of human women. As an experienced sadistic male dom, aged 57, I find all of your solutions are missing the very dark nature of human women. As an atheist, I can say that I believe the Bible was absolutely correct about no females in authority over men. The high school mean girl is not a phase. That is exactly what a large portion of human women are. This is opinion. Facts can be found regarding female empathy vs justice. The data has been deliberately misinterpreted but is beginning to become common knowledge.
"all of your assumptions" That phrase and your whole post are one big assumption, save for your subjective experiences. Which, btw I didn't ask for, care to read, or agree with. They are not representative of wider society. This is the difference between empiricism and subjective experiences.
I don't much care for wild theories or mind-reading, I'm afraid. I didn't offer any solutions. You seem to have changed the topic.
I wish you good fortune.
Gamma bias means assigning zero valence to men and children's interests. Feminism even assigns zero valance to reasonable women's interests.
The standard of a reasonable man? Replaced by the standard of a hysterical woman.
They are ABSOLUTELY at war with men! Family courts are nothing but gynocentric feminist organizations!
This discussion raises an interesting idea. Just as the Family Courts created an unconstitutional feminist agenda enforcement mechanism related to families and children, Title IX created its own parallel unconstitutional version of feminist bullying in education and the work place. What we need in both cases is to restore the basic ideas of due process and constitutional law that go back to Roman times and force women to actually make their cases in such courts. The reason feminists HATE the courts is that they rarely have merit to the complaints they are making and they know it full well!
Covenant vs. contract: Stephen, you shrugged off the notion that covenant is more important than contract, concluding that covenant "should be more worthy of enforcement by the state". I can see this reasoning. But it is faulted in the very acceptance of the modern framing.
I contend that holy matrimony was craftily converted to a legal contract by the state for self-serving reasons.
In law, contract supersedes public law insofar as a contract "is valid", i.e. has the requisite elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual consent. It is fundamentally how the conversion to a foreign jurisdiction is done, via unspoken gymnastics and the presumption of consent which must be explicitly withdrawn - which is unlawful. Most things predating the general conversion of lawful-to-legal have been glossed by legal definitions (see Black's Law and others). There is a variety of types of contracts, and a proliferation of special jurisdictions. Contracts can be broken, and the terms apply.
In contrast, traditional covenants carry the strength of vows, longevity, and a higher calling than legal terms, and do not defer to legal courts. There is an expectation that covenants shall never be broken. When they are broken, the situation is dire.
There is an expectation that legal contracts may be broken, even casually, and clauses are designed specifically to cover termination. Special courts are invoked to rule whenever there is a controversy, i.e. when the parties refuse to bring forth remedy.
The problem we have inherited, and began almost immediately after the creation of the union, is the encroachment of special jurisdictions, beginning with the state and the federal governments imposing fiat rule upon the people, which was never intended (and beaten back repeatedly), dressing the acts up in philosophy meant to circumvent the constraints of the state and federal Constitutions. In fact, there are plenty of court battles that upheld the idea that men and women are not subject to state or federal jurisdictions, that the respective jurisdictions are foreign to each other.
Would-be tyrants however finally succeeded in the mental capture of the people via public education (c. 1850's), and the so-called Civil War (c. 1860's) which birthed the age of "suspended Constitution" and the unlawful conversion of people to legal Persons in commerce, aka citizens. Commerce deals in legal fictions. There are no people in commerce. The ubiquitous refrain, "We do not recognize common law," is the mantra of the courts of the age, despite the Judicature Act! Today, all crimes are commercial, very often under some mysterious contract.
How do they manage this chicanery? Hearken back to the elements of a contract, most notably CONSENT, and making a mockery of "informed" and "meeting of the minds".
Hopefully this emphasizes the huge difference between traditional holy matrimony and today's marriage contract. They are in entirely different jurisdictions. I advise men and women not to contract with the state, due to the unlawful conversion inherent in that action. When you contract with the state, you grant the state an interest in your property, meaning: land, biology, works, and mind. That's why the state behaves as if it owns you and your sons and daughters: you relinquish your rights.
Thank you Gumm for an interesting comment and perspective. Plenty to ponder.
Yes. Don’t make the state the 3rd party to your marriage by getting a marriage license. And don’t be unequally yoked with an unbelieving partner.
Marriage is God’s institution. Godlessness allowed the state and its demonic servants, ie., BAR-barian attorneys to displace Him.
This explains a lot. We have a lot of work to do to trace back each Satanic inversion of natural law, common law, equity, fairness and justice. I hope all policies must be stress tested on all known cases to see what they repeal, and simulated on all history, and into potential futures. To shake out how they benefit or dysbenefit interests past, present, and future. The family law is a bundle of crap that has the purpose of abolishing the family (Marx, Engels) and smashing the patriarchy (feminism).
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the incidence of divorce in Kentucky diminished significantly where the law was changed to a presumption of 50/50 custody in both parents (versus the highly mother-friendly approach common in many states). Prof Baskerville is correct: the law _should_ be that the party that wishes to leave the family may, but she may not take the children, money, etc. But because the feminists and bar will fight this outcome tooth and nail (until a judge is courageous enough to apply constitutional principles), even a minor fix as in Kentucky seriously disincentivizes divorce from opportunistic spouses who wish to blow up the family and profit from it (which, statistically, tend to be women).
This is such a great and revealing conversation. But it shouldn't end here. I encourage all of you to share this video with all of your state and federal legislators. Not just once. Email it to them once a month for the next 2 years until they finally begin to get it. They will ignore you as long as they can. We must outlast them.
"No fault justice is an oxymoron". A great quote that should be shoved in the face of every legislator and judicial flunkey at every opportunity.
Great stuff Tom. Baskerville one of the few with the expertise to show what an illegal, unholy racket the divorce industry is. Whatever he says or writes is always worth listening to. Like you, his Taken Into Custody helped the scales fall from my eyes when being dragged through this egregious process.
The state has no authority for involvement in marriage. https://exiledparents.org/to_save_the_family.htm
Racist Roots of State Marriage Licenses
https://ugetube.com/videos/category/11
BAR-barians
https://www.markyoungguitar.com/music/barbarians_1.mp3
Lyrics https://www.markyoungguitar.com/barbarians.htm
Playlist: Family Court Tyranny
https://on.soundcloud.com/JqDcSxJ3DSLHHr5mLb
https://exiledparents.org/#EXPOSE
Family court violations of rights listed
Historical organized misandry (aka, organized man-hating) like organized crime is behind the embedded anti-father and anti-male ideas embedded in family law. The first written law requiring a man to pay a "mina of silver" to have the right to divorce a wife was inscribed on a clay tablet as part of the law code of the Sumerian king Ur-Nammu thousands of years ago. The Code of Ur-Nammu created around 2100-2050 BCE has the first known mention of a "marriage contract." Organized criminal man-hating as explained in my book, "The Misandry Problem," has existed since ancient times.
The family court system is proof men can revoke female rights regardless of the rule of law. We are rapidly approaching a time where not enough men will stop us.
Now that a majority of men will know about defective female empathy, things will have to change
i hope you are right!
I am not sure I would dignify what family courts dispense by the name of "rights": "privileges" to be charitable, but more likely power and its abuse. But I get your point.
The gamma bias protects "process is punishment". It's just more domestic abuse via administrative means. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that female pathology in the home is rife due to shit testing. It's the BPD operating system women induce in their daughters since time immemorial. They act rationally if manipulation works.
@Stephen Baskerville is right, it’s lunacy.
No fault required.
They're projecting animus possession on to men. They'll fight to the death to avoid taking responsibility for their inner chaos that buckles their egos.
Patriarchy is the collective consciousness projection of women's unintegrated autonomous complex of the inner tyrant.
Women must take responsibility to level up.
Or we will go extinct at 20% generation on generation exponential speed.
Is water wet?
I agree. We're manosphereans. Testudo formation! March seven times around the walls of Jericho and blow the horn.