We received a tip on this story from source personally familiar with the common abusive and criminal behaviors of San Diego judges. Before reading the documents and only knowing they concerned San Diego Judge DeAnn Salcido, I anticipated it was going to have something to do with Salcido’s deceitful political antics a few months back regarding her accusations and law suit against other San Diego judges as a ploy to boost her popularly in the June 2010 election. While that is in part the case, the documents contain some surprises. The 21 page long formal complaint against Salcido reveals an arrogant and superficial judge who shows contempt for the law, her judicial office, litigants, attorneys, court employees, and common decency. Salcido’s 75 page long response further shows her apparent contempt for judicial canons and the law. Yet Salcido has the audacity to berate, insult, and threaten a litigant who she thinks shows disdain for her. Judging from her reported actions in numerous incidents, Salcido is entirely worthy of immense disdain by virtually anybody appearing in her courtroom.
Particularly alarming is that the complaint was kept secret by the Commission on Judicial Performance until after the June 2010 balloting which re-elected her. If the public had known the quantity and severity of complaints regarding Salcido, it is likely that some voters would have voted differently. Read more…
If you are like some of our readers, you may have been wondering why we show your IP address in the control bar on the website. Some of our readers feel their privacy is being violated by this. On the contrary, it is intended to assist them in preserving their privacy. Here’s why.
Widespread Monitoring Of Your Computer Usage
Every time you use your computer to access a web site, there are several, likely even dozens, of pieces of software running on computers spread across the Internet that log bits and pieces of information about you. Such information typically includes your IP address as the unifying element to glue it all together. Other bits of information include the web browser your are using, the operating system your computer is running, web sites you visit, comments you post, email addresses you use, and questions you answer in surveys of demographic information that may not seem at first glance to be related to your web browsing at all. They might be software registrations, surveys for “free coupons”, “free email newsletters”, or something else. Your IP address can be used to tie it all together, to track your “Internet identity” and the usage of the Internet associated with it. Such information is being collected about you all the time. Every day, it is bought and sold routinely as a matter of regular business practice by many of the top brand names in the Internet world.
Have you installed any of those popular browser toolbars from Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft? Such software can log similar information about your usage, too. So can Flash, Java, and other apps that are common on many popular websites.
Your Internet Service Provider (Cox, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc.) probably logs a substantial amount of this type of information and retains it for multiple years. Some countries actually have laws requiring this. Even if they don’t, the ISP and hosting providers for any websites you visit log and save similar information for years, too. Your web browser also retains such information, too, and it will persist for months or years unless you take steps to erase it. Even if the company, organization, or people running the website you are visiting go to great effort to discard that information, virtually nobody else is going to do likewise. Like it or not, you are creating a great big trail that others can use to find and track you, be it for reasonable or very hostile purposes. Your IP address is often the single most important piece of information typically used to glue together the bits and pieces of your Internet trail into a cohesive whole that somebody can portray as representing you, rightly or wrongly.
Why We Show Your IP Address
We show you your IP address for two primary reasons: Read more…
Karen Lebow of the Southern California Parents of Alienated Children’s Network has announced that an all-day conference on parental alienation is planned for Saturday, November 13, 2010, from 8am to 5pm, at California State University as Northridge near Los Angeles. Admissions prices range from $60 to $75.
Once someone like Stephen Doyne, ill-reputed San Diego custody evaluator, or many of his Associate Family Court Dismantlers recommend a restraining order between two parents, the divorce industry is on its way to milking profits from yet another family. The Honorable Judge is highly likely to rubberstamp such recommendations. Why? We suspect many, perhaps most, have been receiving unpublicized Election Campaign Donations from such people. Such judges know how to support their financial backers.
As soon as the restraining order is issued, if mom or dad tries to communicate on any level, it will be considered a crime! No collateral contacts of any type are allowed — no priests, no friends, no family members of any side, no direct or indirect contact or any US mail or email or phone communications from any parent is allowed. Why? The divorce industry wants to isolate the parties from each other, sticking themselves in the middle where they can be sure to encourage the parents to fight until they exhaust their funds by limiting, monitoring, and controlling all communications.
The court then finds itself justified to make the next move by ordering a “mediator” such as Doyne & Associates. Stephen Doyne and those like him charge for back and forth phone communications between parents because it is now illegal for parents to communicate by any means by order of the court. Every phone call is about $75 or more to each parent. The more phone calls claimed, the richer the dismantlers become. Even if there is a simple inquiry about food for the children, instructions for medication, or questions about a school assignment, with a restraining order on board the divorce industry profiteers will be the only ones making the calls. They make a fat check from back and forth phone calls between them and both parents, turning a few minutes direct conversations into claims of several phone calls. The court won’t allow verification of such calls, so families should be rightly wondering just how many of them were actually placed and how long they took.
Imagine this order is enforced for a few years. Would this order alone pay the evaluator’s or mediator’s house payments? Would this order compel such dismantlers serving the court order to more generously contribute secretive judicial election campaign funds? Read more…
Sweden seems like a progressive country to the uninformed. It has parental leave policies for both genders. While mothers have always availed themselves of such leave, fathers seemed reluctant. So the parental leave laws have changed over time to encourage fathers to take time off of work after the birth of a baby. At present, two months of the 390 leave days allocated for parents must be used by the father or they are lost.
Consider contemporary family life in Sweden. In the past, new parents split 390 days of paid leave however they liked—monthly, weekly, daily, and even hourly. Women used far more of it than men. But today, new fathers no longer rush back to work, leaving the mother to raise little Sven all by herself. The reason for the change? Smart public policy.
In 1995, Sweden passed a simple but revolutionary law: couples would lose one month of leave unless the father was the one who took it. A second use-it-or-lose-it month was added in 2002, and now more than 80 percent of Swedish fathers take four months off for the birth of a new child, up from 4 percent a decade ago. And a full 41 percent of companies now formally encourage fathers to go on parental leave, up from only 2 percent in 1993. Simply put, men are expected to work less and father more.
By altering the roles of the Swedish father and the Swedish worker, Sweden’s paternity-leave legislation has, in turn, rewritten the rules for Swedish men (and, by extension, women). “Swedish dads of my generation and younger have been raised to feel competent at child-rearing,” writes Slate’s Nathan Hegedus, an American who experienced the system firsthand. “They simply expect to do it, just as their wives and partners expect it of them.” If a man refuses time at home with the kids, he faces questions from friends, family, and, yes, other guys. Policy changes produced personal changes—and then, slowly but surely, society changed as well.
On the surface, this sounds quite progressive. The United States lacks similar leave policies and American men often feel discouraged from taking time off from work for family matters. They fear they will be looked down upon, ridiculed, or passed over for promotions if they take more than a short time away from work for a new baby.
But the reality is that Sweden’s progressiveness is merely a veneer over a solid core of the same false feminist male-bashing that predominates in the Western world. Children in Sweden, you see, are treated as property of the mother. If the mother doesn’t want to share, she simply starts making false abuse allegations. No proof is required, obviously a mad mom’s word is more reliable than all the evidence in the world. She will be quickly and easily rewarded with sole custody, marginalizing the father to no more a few days per month with the children.
Many fathers quickly see even this small amount of contacted whittled down to just a few hours of supervised visitation, supervised because obviously fathers cannot be trusted with children if the mother says so. In Sweden, as in the United States, men are guilty upon accusation and must struggle to prove themselves innocent, a task which is effectively impossible in many cases. After all, if you are a man who was accused of some crime that nobody else saw and there is no evidence of it occurring or not occurring, how are you to prove that you didn’t do it when a mom says you did? You can’t, so her lies win.
If a father fights for equal child custody, Swedes will consider him a brute. If he is beaten senseless by false accusations from a malicious mom, his life in tatters, he will suffer in many ways including by very limited contact with his children. Then Swedes will consider him a deadbeat. Being a father in Sweden is a losing proposition, the only chance of success is at the whim of a woman. But if she changes her mind, for any reason — her affair, her drug abuse problem, etc. — the father is instantly a degenerate who should be banned from seeing the children without the watchful eyes of the state closely monitoring his every move.
This is no different, really, than the United States and many other nations in which men are not even second-class citizens in all matters involving families and children. Not only is this extremely unfair, it contributes to a wide range of social problems including gender conflict, parental alienation child abuse, and harming children’s educational attainment and mental health.
To their credit, many women understand these issues very well and fully support equal rights. Some of them are strident enough about it to actively support both the father’s rights movement and going to significant effort to ensure their own ex-partners stay involved in their children’s lives. Unfortunately, there are more than a few naysayers remaining. Some of them are quite intent on not only denying equal rights but going so far as to even any messages that advocate for changes they do not approve.
Amnesty International Shows Its Sexist Bias
A lot of children in Sweden are upset about deprivation of access to a loving parent, generally their fathers. Four Swedish high school students, Sara Sivesson, Jerry Wallén, Sandra Atas, and Oskar Krantz, set out to expose Sweden’s human rights crimes against children and fathers to the world. They produced a video which they submitted to Amnesty International for a human rights video contest. Their video explains what happens to so many Swedish fathers who long to spend time with their children but who are prevented from doing so by the typical false feminist tool of false accusations.