Good Guys and Gals in Politics

Support for pro-abuser bills S.J. Res. 16 and H.J. Res. 42

2010-09-14T18:51:00.000-07:00

S. J. Res. 16 reads:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:

`Article--

`Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

`Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

`Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

`Section 4. This article shall take effect after the date of ratification.'.

H.J. Res. 42 reads:

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article--

‘Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

‘Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

‘Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.’.

Well-meaning individuals think this will keep the government from interfering with your rights as parents to educate your child how you see fit, this is a back door for those who abuse mothers and children to continue to abuse. Think it cannot happen? When a court gets it right and protects a mother and child from being abused by husband/boyfriend/dad, this same abuser will claim his rights under SJ Res 16 or HJ Res 42 and will be able to get the courts out of HIS life, and as such have the ability to continue abusing the mother and possibly even children. This will be because the courts are a state (read government) entity and as such should not and can not be able to interfere with his parental rights.

Is this what we intended when this bill was created? If an abused mother tries to assert any rights under state or federal law protecting her rights to be free from abuse, the father can then simply assert his rights under these resolutions. Who wins in this situation?

Now who supports these bills? Who does not? We will not engage in finger pointing, we will simply alert the voting public as to who is NOT supporting these bills, possibly for the very same reason we give. You can draw your own conclusion as to who is supporting by simple elimination :-)

Now the subsequent posts on this will be below this article for you to read. When I have completed each state's post, I will post links to each individual post in this article.

HR Res 42: Non support in Florida

2010-09-14T18:15:00.000-07:00

These are the representatives from Florida who have used half a brain and thought out what this resolution will mean to abused women and children:

1. Allen Boyd (D)
2. Corrine Brown (D)
3. Cliff Stearns (R)
4. John Mica (R)
5. Alan Grayson (D)
6. Gus Bilirakis (R)
7. C.W. Bill Young (R)
8. Kathy Castor (D)
9. Adam Putnam (R)
10. Connie Mack (R)
11. Kendrick Meek (D)
12. Robert Wexler (D)
12. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D)
14. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R)
15. Ron Klein (D)
16. Alcee Hastings (D)
17. Suzanne Kosmas (D)
18. Mario Diaz-Balart (R)

All of these seats are up for grabs on November 2, 2010, so please get the word out and let these politicians know that you support their decision (even if they are unaware of said decision) to NOT support HJ Res 42.

SJ Res 16: Non support in Florida

2010-09-14T18:00:00.000-07:00

The Senate is easy to show who has thought out there actions and support. There are NO senators who do NOT support this Resolution.

Judge Alan Kay Rocks! (Honolulu, Hawaii)

2010-04-08T19:52:00.001-07:00

Judge refuses to dismiss suit against army in case involving 5-year-old girl murdered by custodial father (Honolulu, Hawaii)

I admit it. When you do a crime blog dealing with child abusers, killers, indifferent bureaucrats, and corrupt judges, you get a bit cynical at times. But that doesn't mean I won't recognize some gutsy bravery and integrity when I see it.

Judge Alan Kay--YOU ROCK!

Judge Kay is refusing to dismiss a suit brought by a non-custodial mother whose daughter was murdered by her custodial father NAEEM WILLIAMS who was serving in the U.S. Army. It seems the Army "missed" plenty of opportunities to intervene before the child finally died from the abuse, and wants to wiggle out of any responsibility. Hence their attempt to get the suit dismissed. Judge Kay has defied the U.S. Army in defense of a poor murdered 5-year-old girl and her mother. That is definitely cool in my book.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100408/BREAKING01/100408022/Judge+refuses+to+dismiss+suit+against+Army+in+child+abuse+death

Updated at 3:01 p.m., Thursday, April 8, 2010

Judge refuses to dismiss suit against Army in child abuse death

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed against the Army by the natural mother of a little girl who died of child abuse while living on military property here in 2005.

The suit was filed by Tarshia Williams, mother of five-year old Talia Williams, who died while in the care of her father and stepmother in an apartment at Wheeler Air Field.

The U.S. government argued that the case should be dismissed because federal employees could not be found liable under federal or state law for Talia's death.

In a 42-page decision today, U.S. Senior District Judge Alan Kay ruled that federal child care workers who had contact with Talia before she died had behaved properly but that legitimate questons exist about the role of military police in the case.

Trial is scheduled to begin in January.

Criminal charges are still pending against Talia's father, Naeem Williams, and the federal government has said it will seek the death penalty if he is convicted.

Stepmother Delilah Williams pleaded guilty to murder in a 2006 plea agreement with prosecutors which requires her to testify against her husband in return for a sentence of 20 years rather than life in prison.

Judge Kay's ruling cited the findings of a military investigation of the little girl's death which said the tragedy might have been avoided.

"United States Army Major General Benjamin Mixon concluded that 'the death of Talia Williams followed a series of missed opportunities to potentially prevent the death of the child,'" Kay wrote in his decision.

The government argued that responsibility for protecting the child fell to state officials.

But Kay found that "Good Samaritan" provisions in state law also may place responsibility with federal authorities.

In a witten statement today, Mark Davis, lawyer for Tarshia Williams and for the estate of Talia Williams, said Kay's ruling "holds the United States government accountable for conducting a reasonable and competent investigation of child abuse charges."

In certain instances, the Army "has substituted its own child abuse bureaucracy for the state machinery designed to protect our children from abuse," Davis said.

The Army had "a duty to act with reasonable care" and if it had done so, "this tragedy would have been averted," said Davis.

Texas State Senator Bob Deuell: Working To Protect Children from Porno-Loving Parents (Randall County, Texas)

2010-04-08T18:47:00.000-07:00

State Senator Bob Dueell
This is a duplicate post of the one below about District Attorney James Farren, however it bears repeating so that all the good guys have their day. I know many protective parents want to know who will be in their corner fighting hard to keep our precious children safe. Too bad we have so few. I am issuing a challenge to all elected officials:

Get on our list. We might be a brand new website but we will publish the good actions you take. We do vote and we do discuss politics with our families and friends. So please do right by the children and be here. We want the good guys and gals in office, not the bad.....

With that here is the rerun of the article and KUDOS to you Senator Dueell!!!

The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case so the law changes. She has the backing of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, who has said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the 2011 legislative session.

DA seeks new strategy to prosecute porn case

A district attorney in the Texas Panhandle says he is exploring a different theory to try to prosecute a father accused of forcing two young daughters to watch pornography despite a state attorney general's opinion allowing him to proceed.

Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a ruling Friday saying that Randall County District Attorney James Farren can prosecute the Amarillo father under a Texas public indecency law because bringing charges "is within the prosecutor's substantial discretion." Farren, who had asked for Abbott's opinion because the law apparently protects the father, said he believes he can't get a conviction, but that he is exploring ways of prosecuting the man. "While we have been waiting for this opinion, we haven't been sitting still," Farren said. "We have not decided not to file the case. We have decided we are going to continue this investigation under a new theory of prosecution."

He declined to elaborate a possible strategies. "If the evidence bears out what I suspect, then I believe there is a way to prosecute this case," Farren said. The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who want to teach their children about sex education. It states clearly that parents can't be prosecuted for showing "harmful material" to their children.

The father is accused of showing hardcore online pornography to his 8- and 9-year-old daughters in his Amarillo home early last year. The father has not been charged with a crime.

Police reported the incident to Farren's office after one of the girls told a counselor in June that her father made them watch adults having sex on his computer at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and at the time shared custody.

The girls' mother, Crystal Buckner, said Monday she won temporary custody in September. Her girls' visits with their father are now supervised, she said. She said she would support Farren prosecuting her ex-husband. "I know that he is outraged about the loophole in the law, and as long as he is willing to move forward I'm in Dallas here to support him," she said. "I'm pretty confident he's going to keep fighting."

She has said she doesn't want to keep parents from teaching sex education to their children but believes there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case so the law changes. She has the backing of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, who has said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the 2011 legislative session.

Buckner said the incident happened early last year. Her three children were watching a movie, though the youngest one had fallen asleep. Buckner said the girls' father was at his computer and told the girls to come look at what the screen. She said she "was outraged" when she first learned of the allegation. "I was shaking," Buckner said. "I just couldn't believe my 8- and 9-year old daughters know more than teenagers know about sex."

District Attorney James Farren: Working To Protect Children from Porno-Loving Parents (Randall County, Texas)

2010-04-07T20:13:00.000-07:00

Randall County District Attorney James Farren

Note: Farren ran uncontested on the Republican ticket in the recent primary elections, so he will be on the ballot for the general election this fall.

DA seeks new strategy to prosecute porn case

A district attorney in the Texas Panhandle says he is exploring a different theory to try to prosecute a father accused of forcing two young daughters to watch pornography despite a state attorney general's opinion allowing him to proceed.

Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a ruling Friday saying that Randall County District Attorney James Farren can prosecute the Amarillo father under a Texas public indecency law because bringing charges "is within the prosecutor's substantial discretion." Farren, who had asked for Abbott's opinion because the law apparently protects the father, said he believes he can't get a conviction, but that he is exploring ways of prosecuting the man. "While we have been waiting for this opinion, we haven't been sitting still," Farren said. "We have not decided not to file the case. We have decided we are going to continue this investigation under a new theory of prosecution."

He declined to elaborate a possible strategies. "If the evidence bears out what I suspect, then I believe there is a way to prosecute this case," Farren said. The law apparently was meant to protect the privacy of parents who want to teach their children about sex education. It states clearly that parents can't be prosecuted for showing "harmful material" to their children.

The father is accused of showing hardcore online pornography to his 8- and 9-year-old daughters in his Amarillo home early last year. The father has not been charged with a crime.

Police reported the incident to Farren's office after one of the girls told a counselor in June that her father made them watch adults having sex on his computer at his home in Amarillo. The parents of the girls, and their 7-year-old sister, are divorced and at the time shared custody.

The girls' mother, Crystal Buckner, said Monday she won temporary custody in September. Her girls' visits with their father are now supervised, she said. She said she would support Farren prosecuting her ex-husband. "I know that he is outraged about the loophole in the law, and as long as he is willing to move forward I'm in Dallas here to support him," she said. "I'm pretty confident he's going to keep fighting."

She has said she doesn't want to keep parents from teaching sex education to their children but believes there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. The Associated Press typically does not publish the names of parents if it could identify children who might have been abused, but Buckner is seeking publicity about the case so the law changes. She has the backing of state Sen. Bob Deuell, a Republican from Greenville, who has said he's planning to push for a change in the law in the 2011 legislative session.

Buckner said the incident happened early last year. Her three children were watching a movie, though the youngest one had fallen asleep. Buckner said the girls' father was at his computer and told the girls to come look at what the screen. She said she "was outraged" when she first learned of the allegation. "I was shaking," Buckner said. "I just couldn't believe my 8- and 9-year old daughters know more than teenagers know about sex."

Keep Johnny Shaw in Tennessee

2010-04-06T20:07:00.000-07:00

Representatives - TN General Assembly - Johnny Shaw

We must commend Johnny Shaw on a job well done!

He saw that a bill being passed the way it was written was a loss for children in the state of Tennessee and he spoke out about it. Kudos to Johnny Shaw!

“I am on that committee to do what’s best for the children of this state. And equal parenting is not what’s best, in every case, for the children.”

The entire article and (link):

Equal Time Parenting Pulled from Committee
Tuesday, April 06th, 2010, by Joe White
A bill in the Tennessee legislature meant to give divorced parents equal time with their children is off the table. The measure was yanked out of committee by its sponsor Tuesday.
Republican Mike Bell of McMinn County says his bill was always intended to give children of divorced parents an equal opportunity to know them both.

Fellow Republican Donna Rowland amended the bill to give disgruntled dads only “maximum opportunity” instead of “equal time.” Bell withdrew his bill.

“Mr. Chairman, with this amendment added, I think that it doesn’t do anything to change the current law, and it would, in fact, it might even give some people false hope that we’ve done something productive.”

The push for equal time is backed by organizations made up largely of fathers who say they are shortchanged by the current system. William Fain of “Families United” says they will likely revive the issue next year.

While the law won’t change this year, the attention paid to custody rights has made waves around the state. Members of the House Children and Family Affairs Committee say some family courts have changed local rules that had given mothers an advantage in custody battles.

The bill is HB 2916 Bell/SB 2881 Bunch.

Rowland, a Murfreesboro Republican, had crafted an amendment that took out the “equal time” provisions and said the court should strive to give each parent “maximum opportunity” to be with the child or children. Bell tried to change the wording back, had his amendment rejected, and immediately withdrew the bill from consideration.

Committee member Johnny Shaw, a Madison County Democrat, was unhappy with the Children and Family Affairs Committee having been a venue for unhappy divorced parents.

“I am on that committee to do what’s best for the children of this state. And equal parenting is not what’s best, in every case, for the children.”

The bill focused on “he said, she said” testimony for several weeks until committee members called a halt and asked for more information from the courts themselves on the disposition of custody cases.

Now write in and thank him for a job well done - a true child advocate!