|
|
|
Your FEEDBACK & Continuing efforts in Syracuse.
From: Webmaster (webmaster@akidsright.org)
This is a message from a mailing list, members@kids-right.org Unsubscribe instructions at bottom of message. ====================================================================== Good People & People of Faith, This message contains info on: 1. Events on Monday - Sep 30th. 2. Your FEEDBACK -- on recent "Faith & Belief" messages. 3. Your FEEDBACK -- on shared custody and "best interest." If you are new to the list, today's FEEDBACKs are in response to some messages from the last week. You can review them at: http://www.AKidsRight.Org/archive/archive2002 1. Events on Monday - Sep 30th. ------------------------------- On Monday, Sep 30th, at 1PM, John Murtari will be returning to the 14th floor of the Syracuse Federal Building, outside the offices of Senator Hillary R. Clinton. It will be a continuation of efforts to get get the Senator's attention to focus on Family Law Reform and to meet with parents affected by the system. For details see: http://www.AKidsRIght.Org/actionc_syr You attendance is welcome and will help the Senator realize the importance of this issue. We had wanted to share some information on John's upcoming trial in Federal Court, Oct 9th, but he is still waiting to get the formal complaint against him. We will try to post a message with the complete info next week. More details at the link above. 2. Your FEEDBACK -- on recent Faith messages. -------------------------------------------- --- From Mike Mates <Joseph.M.Mates@bankofamerica.com> > John, I believe in what you are doing. The system, with regard to > family law, is broke, but I think you may alienate some of your > audience with the religious overtones of your messages. Some people > may be put off by that. I think it is ok to tell people to have > faith, but I would stop there and make no maintain of any particular > religion and I would leave out the religious quotes. They have not > offended me, but they make it harder for me to get to the real meat > of the message which is "what are you and your supporters doing for > family law reform". I want to thank you for bringing up the topic. You will probably be the lead message in the next FEEDBACK. I have very similiar feelings to yours and am normally pretty private about my faith. But the goal is to find people willing to sacrifice for change, that is what NonViolent Action is -- and so far the only working historic examples I have are people who were motivated by Faith, most recently Gandhi and Martin Luther King. That is the purpose of the group, the unique perspective we bring to the table in this search for reform. That personal faith is part of who I am (and it is not to hold any one particular religion as the "right one"). I would really like to find like minded people and so share my thoughts. I do think there is also an important role for a more secular approach. That chapter of this experience will be written by the first person who is able to make sacrifice without having that "Faith" you talk about. I would welcome that and there is historical precedence also. The only one I can think of now is the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who wrote extensively on stoicism, and the satisfaction of "duty" and living a "good life." > Awhile back, you sent out my name as a contact for persons in > California wishing to pursue family law reform. I was contacted by 4 > individuals. We have not begun anything yet, but we will. First I > must get through this project at work. I am not sure who I should > target, the governor or one of our senators. Any suggestions? You all can do as you wish, but I certainly recommend you first meet with the local office rep's of your US Senators. I recommend you all get together first to meet each other and talk a bit, share with them the Family Rights Act, make sure you are all pointing in the same direction before you walk in there. Right now there doesn't need to be complete agreement on the solution, but at least to say to your member of Congress, "We want you to call for hearings into the need for National reform." Please look closely at the material in the Legislative Action area of our site, http://www.AKidsRight.Org/legislate.htm -- it will help you see what others have done, you can reuse some letters, and also helps you anticipate their objections like, "It's not a Federal Issues", or "The Senator is not on the right committee." --- Steve Osborne <ozzyde@nb.sympatico.ca> Facing Trial in Canada > You have been a bit "wordy" of late, but then again anyone that > doesn't want to read it doesn't have to and the unsubscribe option > is always available. > Senator Clinton may not care one way or the other about your plight, > but what does that have to do with anything? Your actions are > designed to show her that you care, and to show her that you want > her to care, so if you haven't managed to make family law reform > important to her then you'll just have to keep on trying. I have a > little poster here next to my desk that I think applies quite well: > "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can > change the world -- indeed it's the only thing that ever has." - > Margaret Meade > I'm afraid I must admit to being another person that has not learned > my lesson when it comes to civil disobedience. Much as you > describe, I had to come to terms with the possibility (probability?) > of one day facing criminal sanction when I decided to become an > activist, and much as you describe I find myself closer to that > becoming a reality daily. Although in my case the "home team" looks > to have a much stronger case than the visitors, there is always the > chance that something will go wrong and I'll end up with a record as > well. > The best way I can offer my thoughts on this particular subject is > to go back to what I told the police the day they offered to drop > the charges if would sign a peacebond agreeing not to use the > judge's name as part of my action here: I have had my children > stolen on the basis of a known lie, my home, my life's work and my > future-imprisonment is not a credible threat to me. Having survived > despite the court's best efforts to destroy me I can now face > anything and come through stronger and more determined. > I have found that the overwhelming majority of people simply can't > understand anyone taking that position, but when you realise that > most of them haven't been put in the position I have and they just > don'thave a reference point to begin understanding from. They > haven't faced the same experience so they haven't been given the > same motivation. > I hope and pray they never have the opportunity, much as I know we > need more people out on the front line. I can't wish this on anyone > and still look in the mirror. --- Jack Jonassen <critterbytes@yahoo.com> Candidate for Florida State House > about John G.[earlier comments in >> - Ed] ... > > 1. The Senator couldn't care less about your plight. > I have to agree with him here. He is a brilliant observer of the > obvious! But I think He has missed the point. You will be heard, I > have Faith in that. You have Faith in that. And many others have > Faith in that!If you will not be heard by Ms Clinton, then it will > be by her sucessor... > > 2. Do you realize how many people you offend with the word > > "Faith" ? There are millions of people in North America that don't > > have your Faith. > Well, he got part of it right, didn't he? I suppose that Ms Clinton > is very offended with the word Faith, a few of the guards are upset > about yours, several police aren't happy about it...And, a Judge is > about to test it, again! > I would add more on this ... thoughts. Not only do millions not > have your Faith, but they have their own Faith! Faith is not the > domain of one religion, alone! So you are correct to address them > all as, "good people of Faith!" I am honored, that you do so! > > 3. Not learned your lessons on "non-violent" demonstrations, > have you > I think you have learned your lessons in Non-violent > demonstrations, well. Persistance, is the key. And, in the end, you > win! You are among the most persistant persons I have known... > > 4. Do you ever realize that you are getting very "wordy" lately? > I want you to know, I enjoy, savor, and await, every word you are > willing to put in print. We need more like you, John M., who are > willing to do what they believe is right, and are able to put their > thoughts about it into simple, and understandable print! > > Just how much longer will it take for you to > > recognize that it's VOTES that count, not petitions ? > Before a vote can take place, petitions are necessary! I'm happy > to offer John ... some simple lessons in politics. Lesson > one, polititians work for us! (Sometimes, they need a reminder of > that!) > > If I only, just for a day, I had your ability to do > > what you could do, I'd give you my right hand. > I should think, a few dollars, a kind word of support, and some non > violent behavior in his own arena, would be sufficient. Only > thieves under oppressive Islamic rule, offer up their right hands! > I think this man has attempted to steal your Faith...Good for you > John M., that it is not so easily done! > I don't have the means to run up to N.Y. to show support. But I'm > with you, "Good person of Faith", in my thoughts, and in my deeds! > Sincerely, > (LP) Candidate for State House of Representatives, FL --- Lee <leeabend@twcny.rr.com> > If I showed up with you on Thursday (Sep 19) at the federal bldg. would I > be arrested also? No, people are also encouraged to come by at the same time I am there, but just to drop by Senator Clinton's office and leave a personal letter about your troubles with the system and the importance of National Reform. Next time will be 1pm on Monday, check the site for other times. If you get their a little early, we can talk for a while before I start my walk. --- Chuck <dehartcg@earthlink.net> > Best wishes for you, your son and the courts. I would not want to > hear anything bad happen to you, but I realize you seem to have your > heart set on the civil action you take. There is not a one among us > who would ask that you go through with spending time in prison or > paying some kind of fine. You will be remembered in my prayers > tonight. The court personnel and others whose job it is to tend to > "justice" will be moved at some level. Yes, I think you are right. That experience with the Police officer made me realize it even more. If I would have "fired back", his apology (and his own self realization) would never have happened. I think you are aware of some modern counseling techniques, I think some Psychologist would have said, "Well, you should have just quietly told him he wasn't treating you well." I think that works for the easy cases where the person is stepping on your foot and doesn't know it. Regarding Court, I'm struggling a bit on how hard to "fight." I won't be paying any fines or volunteering for probation as a penalty. Just simple jail will do. > I don't know if you get messages from Murray Steinberg here in > Virginia, but I did manage to get a letter published in the Richmond > Times-Dispatch that asked the Governor to "put his money where his > mouth is" regarding keeping closer ties between non-custodial > parents and their children. I must have caught somebody's attention > because yesterday I got a two page letter from the Secretary of > Health and Human Resources, along with two studies. She does not > realize yet the ammunition I now have on hand to reply with, in a > nice way of course. In reading her words, she really does not know > what's going on and I hope I can point a few things out. No, I haven't seen very much from Virginia. If you have any summaries you would like to pass on, please send them in to webmaster@AKidsRight.Org --- William Dolan <wmdolan@hotmail.com> > You have a strong character and are a strong character. I have seen > first hand how much "justice" and "due process" that there is in > local state courts, so I worry about you. Those courts don't have > any appreciation for the first amendment, and don't care if it > exists, contrary to the oaths of office. Sometimes I think that > it's better for you and Dom and Mom if you find some nice chiquita > and start another family and not be a martyr for this worthy cause. > Anyhow, I wish you the best. I would like to find a nice "chiquita." If I had Dom nearer to me I would not be doing this, but the other side of the country has made it easy. I really do think we are very close, if just a few more people would join in we would get some serious press coverage and then I think Senator Clinton would respond -- and the whole issue could start getting some serious attention. --- Kevin Purdy <KevinPurdy@aol.com> > In reply to your statement, "...some people may think [what I am > doing] is foolish..." I think the contrary. What you are doing is > extremely significant and worthwhile. > 1. You are doing something. (Which is more than most of us.) > 2. You are doing it positively. (I never cease to be amazed at how > negative some family rights forums are.) Keep up the good work. You > are in my prayers. --- Tim & Joanne <Starkey34T@aol.com> > Dear John, I am sorry I havent showed up to help our cause.It makes > me cry every time you mention doing things with your sun. It has now > been over 4 years since I have been allowed to see my sun.When I > regain my health I will be sitting or standing beside you that is a > promise. Not only have I lost my sun now my wife has lost her > daughter and is being denied phone contact and visitation.How do > they really think this is the best for the children.John when you > see your sun please give him a bigger hug from all of us who cant > enjoy that priviledge with our kids. I will pray that you and your > mom have a splendid time and hope to enjoy the same some day soon > . Bless you John and keep up the good work some day it will pay off > I am sure. GOD BLESS YOU VERY sorry to hear things are not getting any better, especially for you wife. I was thankful for a very nice weekend with Domenic. I think a few more people will soon be stepping forward and we will be able to get some real attention to this issue from Senator Clinton. 3. Your FEEDBACK -- on shared custody and "best interest." ---------------------------------------------------------- Rich Eichinger <webmaster@AKidsRight.Org> Our webmaster! > The word "share" is the wrong word. I knew this in my gut sometime ago > and now I'm beginning to articulate this deep concept. Let me start > with Webster: > 1. share \"shar\ n : plowshare > 2. share n 1 : a portion belonging to one person or group 2 : any > of the equal interests into which the capital stock of a corporation > is divided > 3. share vb shared; sharing 1 : apportion 2 : to use or enjoy with > others 3 : participate - sharer n > Well, definition 1 doesn't fit. Now, since I'm here in Indiana, I > can speak as an authority. This thing, plowshare, has nothing to do > with raising kids. We have drawn similarities between kids and > crops. But, I object, don't go down the path of animal rights, plant > rights, kids rights ... please, lets not go there. > Now, definition 2 is the most interesting. Most people, especially > the narcissists, look at kids as property. We do not, they are human > beings, that require our human abilities to raise them. Now, it may > be true that we want to protect their liberty interests, but owning > shares in their well-being is simply not a concept that enhances our > perspective on life. > Definition 3 is the one we commonly think of when the word share is > used. My kids are brainwashed in school. When they're asked to > answer a question, the teacher will say, "Little Johnnny, please > share your answer with the class." Well, it's Johnny's answer > ... all his. He has no intention to provide a portion of the answer > to his classmates ... they can provide their own answer (and they > should be encouraged to do that) ... the answer belongs to him and > him alone. > When I parent, now, I wish to do it alone ... I don't want to share > that responsibility to parent or my authority to act as parent with > anyone else. Now, I know that my kids have another parent. That > parent has every right to parent, just as I have, and I don't want a > portion of her right to parent. > I want to exaggerate this concept because of pactical matters. You > just squared off with this other parent and dissolved everything > that you ever shared in the past. We all know that this dissolution > can be challenged again and again for as long as we live (in my > parents case, my dad is dead and buried and his estate is still > challenged). We make a decision to seperate the union. The > intention is to hold nothing jointly any longer. Why force a new > joint endeavor? You're asking for trouble (the attorneys will love > you for it ... come to think of it, shared parenting is probably > their idea). > Further, it is quite possible, in fact, to parent seperately, but > equally. I have found that it works better than it does in an intact > family. Each parent has an equal opportunity to parent and do it as > well as they possibly can. Any and all participation is > voluntary. And, when it's offered, it must be accepted. Personally, > I won't accept participation. But, I am not saying that others > should do the same. We are free, right? > Well, there's my point-of-view. I hope it's helpful. --- THARPER001@aol.com > This is in response to Alison's response regarding the primary > custodial parent being the better parent anyway. Everyone has their > own story and their own experiences to relate to. However, as my > experience has shown me, the primary custodial parent is not always > the best. And unfortunately, when that is the case, the courts do > not offer much help in getting the CHILD into the proper > environment. I believe A Child's Rights Org. does have only the > best interest of the child in mind as they fight this biased court > system. There are some of you out there that are so naive to our > court system. Basically, in this day and age, when someone takes > you to court over custody of your children, they can say almost > anything. Then it takes you years to recover or even prove your > innocence, especially when you are the father. > ... > It takes two people to make a child and should take two to raise > them, only in circumstances where the child is in danger should it > be different. But, people need to look at themselves, especially in > a divorce and be the adults to protect the child. I know it can > happen, I've seen it, but far too many times an unnecessary battle > takes place because of the bitterness of divorce. That's between > the two adults, not the children and they should not be forced from > one parent because of that. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Thanks for the message. I share in your reasonable arguments, people aren't perfect, that doesn't mean they should share being parents. The "best interest" argument sound so good, but I guess we should say, leave the "best interest" to the parents equally. The "system" only gets to decide "best interest" when a parent is found to be a danger. ================================================================== To unsubscribe from this list at anytime, send email to Majordomo@kids-right.org with the following 1 line in the BODY of the message (Subject is ignored). unsubscribe members
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 02 2003 - 03:12:02 EST |
