This ruling by a Florida Judge giving custody of Anna Nicole Smith’s body to her lawyer/boyfriend/parasitical life form, Howard K. Stern, was a joke really, a travesty of our legal system and a spit in the face of every biological mother in this country. This Stern character has been sponging off Anne Nicole Smith for years. I even believe he’s the one who ‘stole’ those items from the house he’s squatting in and sold them himself to make money from her death. I don’t believe for a minute that there was any break in when he was in Florida. That was just another lie he made up to throw suspicion off himself when those items hit the market.
This Stern character is a parasite, plotting to keep custody of that poor kid to try to siphon a share of the Marshall fortune from that baby’s inheritance. Even though this parasite has been sponging off a drug addicted Anna Nicole Smith for years now, he was given the moral equivalence pass by those in the media, who keep talking about Anna Nicole Smith's mother accepting a plane ticket from a magazine to fly to the Bahamas. As if that was equivalent to Stern’s ten years of leeching off her daughter.
Newsflash idiots, where do you think a retired grandmother is going to get the money from to be jet setting all over the world to try to look after the interests of her granddaughter. From her pension fund??? As it is, it’s a miracle she’s been able to finance that whole Florida court fiasco up to now. She’s probably spending her retirement fund to do it.
The entire legal proceedings were a farce actually, pretending to be about the best interest of the child. Interestingly enough, when they were starving that poor woman,Terry Schiavo, to death in Florida a few years back, they had to rigorously follow every law as written, no deviations or wiggle room for interpretation. Even the President of the United States couldn’t save Terry Schiavo, as it was the law and it had to be followed to the letter, no deviations. Although her husband had been living in a common law marriage with another woman for almost ten years, even had two children with this new wife and clearly did not have Terry Schiavo’s interests at heart anymore, yet he had to remain as her guardian since that was the law.
That’s what was said then.
NOW, of course, forget the law as written, let’s just interpret it any which way to get the desired outcome. Even though the law clearly said a spouse, a child OVER 18 or a parent is the next of kin. So clearly Anna Nicole Smith’s mother was next of kin according to Florida law. But forget the law when we have any dispute involving mens rights to get their paws on some poor kid’s inheritance.
After all, Anna Nicole Smith’s presumed wishes to be buried in the Bahamas next to her son overrode the law according to this Judge. Anna Nicole Smith probably never even heard of the Bahamas, until she decided to move there to beat the legal system in the United States. The entire relocation was nothing but an attempt to defraud Larry Birkhead out of his legal rights. Her son was there for ONE night before dying. She lived there for five months, most of it apparently in a drug induced haze if her video and the testimony of most of the witnesses were to be believed. So why in the heck would she be given any creditability whatsoever regarding anything she presumably 'said' to a co-conspirator in this fraud no less? Clearly her son should be moved and re-buried along with her in the US, where he lived his entire life. That would have been the proper decision, both morally and legally.
Anyway this Judge should be disbarred and the GAL never hired again to represent the best interests of any children. As giving a kid to someone, who was, if not the instigator at least an active participant in defrauding a child of her US citizenship, as well as the company of her blood relatives, should be grounds for termination of your professional license.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed that at least the Bahamas legal system will see through this travesty of justice and have the sense to jail this guy Stern for immigration fraud, along with the dozens of other frauds he’s probably been involved with. Custody should be given to Anna Nicole Smith's mother until such time as that child is back in the US where she belongs and paternity can be properly established.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Mothers Should Not be Forced into Drastic Action to Establish Their Rights
Whether or not it’s 51% or 47% of women living alone with no husband, the bottom line remains essentially the same. Millions of women are essentially going to be spending a good part of their lives alone. So in recognition of this fact, public policy must begin reflecting the way we actually live today. We cannot continue ignoring this reality.
Thus, we need to begin making our society welcoming to these millions of single women if they wish to become mothers. Women shouldn’t have to go to all these extreme measures, such as being forced to spend thousands of dollars to establish themselves as custodial in the legalized version of a dog and pony show, or be forced to renounce their US citizenship ala Anne Nicole Smith. All of this in an attempt to establish legal rights to our own children; to establish rights which should belong to every mother automatically. Not something subject to litigation in order to keep our children out of the hands of greedy recreational sperm donors.
Nor should these women be subjected to vicious fathers’ rights propaganda after they have their children, trying to guilt trip them about what horrible people they are because they decided to become single mothers. This is nothing but spin to enable men to undermine the natural rights all mothers have always had to their own children.
It’s simply out-freaking-rageous that this be allowed to go on today.
Sadly the so-called advocates of womens’ rights have ignored these issues, too busy focusing on ways to further their own career ambitions. In their attempts to social engineer a gender neutral society, feminism has signed away the rights of mothers to their children. A right I might add far older then both feminism and the courts of men combined and a right I might add which was not theirs to give away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/opinion/11pubed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Can a 15-Year-Old Be a ‘Woman Without a Spouse’?
By BYRON CALAME
Published: February 11, 2007
The opening paragraph of the article sounded like grown-up stuff: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”
It was a statistic that put the story on a fast track to the front page, providing a noteworthy benchmark for a well-established trend. But the new majority materialized only because The Times chose to use survey data that counted, as spouseless women, teenagers 15 through 17 — almost 90 percent of whom were living with their parents.
Major newspapers and broadcast and cable news programs picked up on this tipping point, spotted by Sam Roberts, a veteran Times reporter who writes frequently about census data. A few media outlets stopped to question the logic of including teenage females, before going on to discuss the Jan. 16 article’s interesting exploration of the “newfound freedom” for women that was reflected by the new majority.
Several readers, including some who perceived the article as an attack on family values, challenged the inclusion of 15-year-olds, in e-mails to me and in comments posted on the Web version of The Times. “The article is a little deceiving because it is based on the percentage of women 15 and older who are not married,” wrote one reader, noting that “it’s not even legal to marry at 15” in many states. I couldn’t agree more.
Common sense would also seem to have called for telling readers how many women above high school age were living without spouses in 2005. Simply subtracting the numbers for the A.C.S.’s 15-to-17 category from the total provides the data for females 18 and older. It shows that 48 percent of them were living without husbands — short of the 51 percent reached when high-school-age females were included — a fact that merited equal billing in the article. Eliminating all teenagers and counting only women 20 and older would have shown that 47 percent were living without a spouse in 2005, according to my math.
After dealing with three weeks of questions from readers and from me, Mr. Roberts on Monday expressed a little less certainty about the new majority trumpeted in the first paragraph of his article. He wrote to me: “I think the essence of the article remains accurate: that, depending on how one adjusts the census’s definition, about half — maybe a little bit more, maybe a little bit less, depending on the age group —of American women are living without a spouse at any given time.”
Thus, we need to begin making our society welcoming to these millions of single women if they wish to become mothers. Women shouldn’t have to go to all these extreme measures, such as being forced to spend thousands of dollars to establish themselves as custodial in the legalized version of a dog and pony show, or be forced to renounce their US citizenship ala Anne Nicole Smith. All of this in an attempt to establish legal rights to our own children; to establish rights which should belong to every mother automatically. Not something subject to litigation in order to keep our children out of the hands of greedy recreational sperm donors.
Nor should these women be subjected to vicious fathers’ rights propaganda after they have their children, trying to guilt trip them about what horrible people they are because they decided to become single mothers. This is nothing but spin to enable men to undermine the natural rights all mothers have always had to their own children.
It’s simply out-freaking-rageous that this be allowed to go on today.
Sadly the so-called advocates of womens’ rights have ignored these issues, too busy focusing on ways to further their own career ambitions. In their attempts to social engineer a gender neutral society, feminism has signed away the rights of mothers to their children. A right I might add far older then both feminism and the courts of men combined and a right I might add which was not theirs to give away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/opinion/11pubed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2
Can a 15-Year-Old Be a ‘Woman Without a Spouse’?
By BYRON CALAME
Published: February 11, 2007
The opening paragraph of the article sounded like grown-up stuff: “For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.”
It was a statistic that put the story on a fast track to the front page, providing a noteworthy benchmark for a well-established trend. But the new majority materialized only because The Times chose to use survey data that counted, as spouseless women, teenagers 15 through 17 — almost 90 percent of whom were living with their parents.
Major newspapers and broadcast and cable news programs picked up on this tipping point, spotted by Sam Roberts, a veteran Times reporter who writes frequently about census data. A few media outlets stopped to question the logic of including teenage females, before going on to discuss the Jan. 16 article’s interesting exploration of the “newfound freedom” for women that was reflected by the new majority.
Several readers, including some who perceived the article as an attack on family values, challenged the inclusion of 15-year-olds, in e-mails to me and in comments posted on the Web version of The Times. “The article is a little deceiving because it is based on the percentage of women 15 and older who are not married,” wrote one reader, noting that “it’s not even legal to marry at 15” in many states. I couldn’t agree more.
Common sense would also seem to have called for telling readers how many women above high school age were living without spouses in 2005. Simply subtracting the numbers for the A.C.S.’s 15-to-17 category from the total provides the data for females 18 and older. It shows that 48 percent of them were living without husbands — short of the 51 percent reached when high-school-age females were included — a fact that merited equal billing in the article. Eliminating all teenagers and counting only women 20 and older would have shown that 47 percent were living without a spouse in 2005, according to my math.
After dealing with three weeks of questions from readers and from me, Mr. Roberts on Monday expressed a little less certainty about the new majority trumpeted in the first paragraph of his article. He wrote to me: “I think the essence of the article remains accurate: that, depending on how one adjusts the census’s definition, about half — maybe a little bit more, maybe a little bit less, depending on the age group —of American women are living without a spouse at any given time.”
Sunday, February 04, 2007
No More Mr. Nice Mom
Well it didn’t take long for this to travel from Europe to the US. We will gradually see over the next decade or so, laws criminalizing use of anonymous sperm donors throughout the U.S. This strategy, along with the recent changes to adoption laws, will make it more and more difficult for the so-called ‘Choice Moms’ to continue sticking their heads in the sand.
BTW, I love the pure selfishness of these “Choice Moms”. The Mary Chaneys of the world self-righteously informing all the women who struck their necks out and took the recriminations and the direct hits, so that women like her could have a choice to be a mother if they wished. Only to be told now “This is a gift from God, my baby.”
Right. God’s the reason you were allowed to become a single mother and raise the child you’ll bear. God. Right.
I hate to tell you this lady. But that right you have is a gift from other single mothers who blazed the trail before you, who argued and lobbied and fought for changes in laws and public policies, so that you could have that choice. Yet due to your short-sightedness and selfishness young women probably won’t have the same option in their future.
Maybe it’s for the best. As these “Choice Moms” were a small elite group of mothers anyway. They avoided the legal horrors inflicted on other mothers and children by ensuring men had no rights to a mother’s children before the child was even born. Well guess what ‘Choice Moms” those days are coming to an end.
Going forward this probably means women will have to recognize they is no easy way around these vicious assaults on motherhood which selfish men have embarked upon. Their propaganda has to be directly confronted, as will their allies who have infested our family court system.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20070128-112620-5486r.htm
Bill would end anonymity of future sperm donors
By Dena Potter
RICHMOND -- A Republican lawmaker is sponsoring General Assembly legislation that would make Virginia the first state to prohibit anonymous sperm donations.
Delegate Robert G. Marshall, a Christian conservative from Prince William County, is sponsoring the House bill.
Mr. Marshall also is the General Assembly's foremost author of legislation to curb abortion and regulate birth-control methods. He said he filed the bill to protect donor-conceived children and that he feels for those who don't know the identity of their father.
Mr. Marshall said he recently saw a child wearing a T-shirt with the words: "My dad's name is Donor," then thought, "That's pathetic."
Australia and a few European countries have banned anonymous sperm donations. In each country, donations have dwindled and the cost of fertility services has increased.
Opponents warn about the same result in Virginia.
BTW, I love the pure selfishness of these “Choice Moms”. The Mary Chaneys of the world self-righteously informing all the women who struck their necks out and took the recriminations and the direct hits, so that women like her could have a choice to be a mother if they wished. Only to be told now “This is a gift from God, my baby.”
Right. God’s the reason you were allowed to become a single mother and raise the child you’ll bear. God. Right.
I hate to tell you this lady. But that right you have is a gift from other single mothers who blazed the trail before you, who argued and lobbied and fought for changes in laws and public policies, so that you could have that choice. Yet due to your short-sightedness and selfishness young women probably won’t have the same option in their future.
Maybe it’s for the best. As these “Choice Moms” were a small elite group of mothers anyway. They avoided the legal horrors inflicted on other mothers and children by ensuring men had no rights to a mother’s children before the child was even born. Well guess what ‘Choice Moms” those days are coming to an end.
Going forward this probably means women will have to recognize they is no easy way around these vicious assaults on motherhood which selfish men have embarked upon. Their propaganda has to be directly confronted, as will their allies who have infested our family court system.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20070128-112620-5486r.htm
Bill would end anonymity of future sperm donors
By Dena Potter
RICHMOND -- A Republican lawmaker is sponsoring General Assembly legislation that would make Virginia the first state to prohibit anonymous sperm donations.
Delegate Robert G. Marshall, a Christian conservative from Prince William County, is sponsoring the House bill.
Mr. Marshall also is the General Assembly's foremost author of legislation to curb abortion and regulate birth-control methods. He said he filed the bill to protect donor-conceived children and that he feels for those who don't know the identity of their father.
Mr. Marshall said he recently saw a child wearing a T-shirt with the words: "My dad's name is Donor," then thought, "That's pathetic."
Australia and a few European countries have banned anonymous sperm donations. In each country, donations have dwindled and the cost of fertility services has increased.
Opponents warn about the same result in Virginia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)