Posts Tagged ‘responsible fatherhood intiatitives’

Battered mothers across sea to shining sea will all agree that they (abusers) are the same.  We’ve been told to take our “passion” out of speaking to the judges,  dress conservatively, don’t wear red (even though we’ve had a few rebels) act like a “lady” and then MAYBE just maybe the judge and other court personnel will treat you like a “human”.  In the perfect world we mothers like to believe that possibly one time we will be listened to, the evidence weighed carefully but most of all we hope that they will treat us like any one of them would want  their  mother, aunt, sister, cousin or daughter treated in family court as victim of domestic violence.  Battered mothers in family courts are special creatures.  You see we are the ones who, so far, have beaten the odds of being killed by an intimate partner.

The statistics show we are the “lucky” ones.  But when we enter the arena of family court we don’t often feel so lucky after all.   It’s bad when you may think to yourself that death would have been a better fate than continual litigation by your former abuser, the actual legal term is “vexatious litigation”, but don’t bother trying to use it in family court, doesn’t work that way for mothers.  Like the other favorite legal tactic by abusers the infamous PAS a.k.a. parental alienation syndrome, don’t get me started.  Point is that it can be  extremely hard for a victim to walk into the lair of family court and know who her enemy is.  I myself when I walked through the hallowed halls of Oconto County Wisconsin mistakenly thinking that people of power will protect my children and I.  Not only is advocacy needed for domestic violence victims to leave the abuser or “awareness” for those who apparently live in a delusional world where mommies don’t get hit by daddies.  They do.

The new “survivor” will need the ammunition for when she is summoned to family court by her abuser, because he’s not done with her yet.  It goes back to the abusers own “ego” where they too believed we would never leave them and when we do it’s earth shaking for a controlling asshole.  But now he has “friends” in the shape of legal personnel that will look upon you with disdain. Through the many battered mothers that have formed relationships with other battered mothers from all parts of the world we have learned that even though our stories may be different their is always the common denominator  the abuser.  If I had a dime for every battered mother that has heard other battered mothers plights of family court hell, say “sounds exactly like MY abuser”, I would have enough money in a legal fund to help millions of mothers.

During these final weeks of “Domestic Violence Awareness” month we hope to that the general public also is “aware” that after daddy loses control over mommy he goes after the children, it’s the abusers way, he’s not done with you until he says so.

The aim and dedication of this blog, and many others that have flooded the internet since 2008, are made for battered mothers who have been to hell and back, to show the world what they are doing to us.  The wheels of abuse most certainly go “”round and ’round” and only some survive.   Now that the other women are awakening with the “War on Women” we can only hope still that one day a mother can leave her abuser safely with her children.  Unlike the “cookie cutter” shape of the abuser, we are individuals but our commonality is that we are loving mothers who will stop at nothing to save our children and future generations of females and to put an end to these human rights violations.

American Mothers Political Party

Blogtalk Radio Show

Call-in Number: (347) 205-9977

7/22/10 @6pm EST

Mothers across the world are uniting to expose the criminals of family court. We demand justice and equality within the system. We will discuss the impact that Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives have done to Motherhood. We will share what we have uncovered and who has been paid off. Please join us and share your story of family court nightmares!

Hosted by:  Lorraine Tipton, Blogger, Activist/Advocate for Mothers Rights and co-founder of AMPP.  Expert in domestic violence, family court corruption and custody disputes.

Special Guest:  Alexis Moore, Founder of Survivors In Action national crime victims’ organization. Expert in cyberstalking, privacy protection, stalking, identity theft and domestic violence advocating so “No Victim is Left Behind”

AMPP is a social movement seeking justice and accountability within the family court system which includes DHHS/CPS, psychologists and other so called experts.
We as mothers demand CITIZENSHIP and our Rights to our Children. We demand that our children not be used as pawns by our abuser in a custody dispute. We demand that Mothers and Children be equally protected against court ordered visitation with an abuser. We demand that Mothers and Children be given the same rights, privileges and voice that the abuser gets in family courts!
We demand that our President take action now as can no longer afford to be silent and we won’t. We demand the same “rights and freedoms” to which all humans are entitled.
Behind the closed doors of the dirty little secret of the family court system, thousands of women each year lose child custody to violent men who beat and abuse Mothers and Children. Family courts are not family-friendly and betray the best interests of the child. Until Mothers and Childrens voices are heard we will never shut up, give up or go away!

We are coming President and Mrs. Obama…..will you listen?

Two rallies in one month regarding children being placed into the hands of their abusers and/or their Mothers abusers. What does this say to our President as he was presented last week with a silent vigil on Mothers Day. We are coming Mr. President…..will you listen?????

There have been many dodgy campaigns in the so called “rights for children”, but are in reality only there for the sole purpose of securing the child as though they were a piece of property.  Statistics can be skewed all they like, but at the end of the day most children are better off with their mothers after divorce.  Nature knows it, criminologists know it and deep down we all knew it, but because the shared parenting campaign sold as well as the renown pyramid scheme – we all fell for it.  Religious commentators might say that it was like scientists “playing god”, but in this case it was male supremacists, robbing motherhood.  In their own sense of paranoid delusions, they thought that single motherhood was an “invasion of feminism”, but its not.  Its mothers working extremely hard through all of the hate set against them to raise their children to become strong and good human beings.  That is all, no matter how one tries to paint it, there is no more.  Now, because children’s rights have never been so appalling along with women’s rights, mothers have embraced feminism like never before.  The support every year for the white ribbon campaign grows every year and more people, whether men’s groups like it or not are beginning to see through the FRs hatred and propaganda.  I can be very thankful to learn that Australians are certainly not a dumb country as much as these vial groups represent.  The more violent incidents against women and children, the more people begin to know who is the real problem.  The continued support by dads in distress, dads on air members and even fathers4equality of a known perpetrator is a statement in itself that reveals what this group is truly about: Its not about and never was about men’s rights – it was abusers rights.  The right to conceal, the right to punish victims, the right to continue their terror unchallenged and most of all: The right to have judicial authority to continue to do this.

Know that there is indeed a war on children and motherhood.

Know that a critical mass can stop this

Know that the courts are accomplices in some of the most disgusting crimes of the century beyond 9/11  If we put all of the victims of this child and mother massacre: it would be classified as the greatest act of terror and genocide by the state and its actors.

Posted via web from australiansharedparentingdebate’s posterous

Nearly 100 people protest Judge Lemkau

VICTORVILLE • Roughly 100 people gathered outside the Victorville Courthouse early Monday morning to protest against Judge Robert Lemkau, who called a mother a liar when she told him her estranged boyfriend was threatening to kill their son.

Protesters lined up on the sidewalk starting around 8 a.m. asking Lemkau to resign as T.V. cameras and photographers crowded the area.

In January, Katie Tagle warned Lemkau that her former boyfriend, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills, had threatened to kill their son, Wyatt. Despite the warning, Lemkau approved Garcia’s visitation request.

Ten days later, Garcia shot and killed the baby boy and himself.

“This is awesome. I’m really surprised — there’s a lot of people here. I’m really happy about the outcome and the support,” Tagle said.

At the protest, Tagle met mothers who told her that they were having the same problems in court that she was.

“I didn’t realize there were so many people dealing with the same judge (in Victorville) or judges in Rancho Cucuamonga or in Yucaipa or in San Bernardino, but there shouldn’t be this many problems,” Tagle said. “There shouldn’t be this many people going through the same stuff that I went through.”

Check back later for more information as it’s made available. To subscribe to the Daily Press in print or online, call (760) 241-7755 or click here.

Tomoya Shimura may be reached at or (760) 955-5368.

To read related stories, click on the headlines below:

He was my last hope, mother says of Lemkau

VV Judge apologizes to mom of murdered son

Murder-suicides leave cruel question behind

Deadly consequences: Judges rejected mom’s bid for restraining order

Click here to view transcripts from the VV hearing

Stephen Garcia’s final letter

Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook

Pinon Hills man and 9-month-old found dead in apparent murder-suicide in Twin Peaks



Whore of the court Dr. Amy J. Baker has sent greetings and tidings of the coming year and how her and her colleagues intend to milk money from the government and unsuspecting parents in family court. Here is her spiel straight from the court whore:

Seasons Greetings,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share a brief
end-of-year update on various parental alienation projects.

1) “I don’t want to choose” book and workbook were developed with Dr.Katherine Andre, designed to help middle school children resist the pressure to choose one parent over the other.

2) A school-based program “I don’t want to choose” was developed and will be launched in half a dozen schools this school year.

3) Media attention to custody battles, international abductions, and parental alienation has been high this past year including personal appearances on WABC TV, WPIX TV, Good Morning America, and in U.S.  News and World Report. Most of the clips can be viewed from mywebsite.

4) I have been hired to train New York child protection workers about parental alienation and to help develop the North Dakota custody investigation manual.

5) I have been invited to participate in a plenary panel discussion

about parental alienation at the upcoming Association of Family and Conciliation Courts conference in Denver.

I hope that the new year brings targeted parents everywhere closer to

their children and that as a professional in the field I can shed some

light on this tragic problem and help heal alienated children and

their families.

Best Wishes,

Amy J.L. Baker, Ph.D.

For those of you who do not know the AFCC read about it here

or here

I almost feel sorry for the mens and fathers groups that cling to these whores of the court, AFCC  and others that seek to milk off the teat. You do realize they only seek your money as well as federal grants?

If they only knew how they were being used as pawns in a sick and twisted game of corruption.

Just remember you reap what you sow.


Straight From The U.S. Department of Health & Human Service’s Mouth: Children are More at Risk With Fathers

As she says…this is straight from the government statistics.  The blogger Dastardly Dads did a great job on this by combing through all the statistics in the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (also known as NIS-3), put out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Why then does HHS give all these grants to father’s organizations to take custody of children from moms???

Fathers rights people often remind us that married couple families do better than single-parent households in nearly every measure of child abuse and neglect, which on the face of it is true. I suppose the public policy implication is keep everybody married with a man in the house (how we will do this is never made entirely clear–outlaw divorce?), and child abuse will lessen.

This is basically a variation of the BMW fallacy, or confusing correlation with causation. Here’s how it goes. BMW owners are nearly uniformly well-to-do successful professionals with six figure incomes who own their own homes. So–if somebody who’s low-income manages to buy a BMW, will they be financially successful?

No, they will be broke. Saddled with more car can they afford and with more financial troubles than ever.

So it is with marriage. People who are happily married tend to stay married and tend not to have families plagued with abuse, drug or alcohol issues, mental health problems, and other stuff like that. Married people who do have these problems in their relationships will tend to split up over time and form single parent households.

So the question is not comparing single parents with married households, but comparing the relative safety of father-headed households and mother-headed households, even though the numbers of these households are not the same. (And not because of the family courts. Most mother-headed families are that way by default, not by design or legal proceedings.) Hence, we convert the child abuse data from each type of household type into incident rates per 1,000 children.

So what do we have then? Let’s start by taking a peek at maltreatment (i.e. abuse and neglect) under what’s called the “harm standard.” Under the “harm standard,” children were considered to be maltreated only if they had already experienced harm from abuse or neglect. (The other standard is the “endangerment standard,” which is children who experience abuse or neglect that puts them at risk of harm, combined with kids who are alreadly harmed by abuse or neglect.)

Let’s start with overall maltreatment (abuse and neglect combined). Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their dads? 36.6 per 1,000. As NIS-3 notes, “This rate is more than two and one-third times higher than that of children in two-parent families.”

Oops. So much for the theory that keeping a dad–any dad–in the family somehow confers protection from that nasty abusive mommy.

What about abuse as such? Children living with only their moms: 10.5 per 1,000. Children living with only their dads: 17.7 per 1,000. Here’s what NIS-3 says about that: “Children in father-only families had more than twice the risk of abuse as defined by the harm standard compared to children living in both-parent families. Their risk was more than one and two-thirds that of children in mother-only families, a marginal difference in this maltreatment category. Thus, the pattern in connection with abuse essentially reflects the higher risk of children who live with only their fathers.”

Physical abuse is a subcategory under abuse. Children living with only their moms: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their dads: 10.5 per 1,000 children. Here’s what NIS-3 states: “When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households….An estimated 10.5 per 1,000 children living with only their fathers were harmed by physical abuse in 1993, which is more than two and two-thirds higher than the incidence rate of 3.9 per 1,000 for children living with both their parents. Children in mother-only families were not statistically different from those in both-parent households in their risk of physical abuse under the Harm Standard.”

Let’s turn to neglect now. Children living with only their moms: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their dads: 21.9 per 1,000 children.

Emotional neglect is one of the subcategories under neglect. What do the numbers say now? Frankly, I figured moms would get nailed on something as nebulous as emotional neglect, but I was wrong. Children living with only their moms: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.

How about severity of injury? The data was said to be statisically unreliable for Fatalities, so let’s turn to Serious Injuries. Children living with only their moms: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their dads: 14.0 per 1,000. And Moderate Injuries? Children living with only their moms: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their dads: 20.5 per 1,000.

I’m not sure if there’s enough data geeks among you to go into maltreatment under the “endangerment standard” (see definition above), but I will go into it briefly anyway. Suffice it to say that the pattern is very much the same, except with bigger numbers.

All maltreatment (abuse and neglect) for children living with only their moms: 50.1 per 1,000 children. For children living with only their dads: 65.6 per 1,000.

All abuse for children living with only their moms: 18.1 per 1,000 children. For children living only with their dads: 31.0 per 1,000.

Physical abuse for children living with only their moms: 9.8 per 1,000 children. For children living with only their dads: 16.5 per 1,000. As NIS-3 concludes, “Similar to the pattern described above in relation to Harm standard physical abuse, children who live with only their fathers are at a marginally higher risk of physical abuse than those who live with two parents. (The father-only household is associated with two and one-third times greater risk.)”

To read the whole post, please visit Dastardly Dads.



This is from the Indiana Mothers For Custodial Justice, covering the recently introduced Fatherhood Initiative Bill:

Evan Bayh is Not His Father’s Son

I heard this comment in a meeting yesterday, and how true it is. ” Evan Bayh is not his father’s son.”

In Birch Bayh’s eyes, women should be given the same chances that men have.  Women deserved equality and this was evident in his legislation.

‘Father’ Of Title IX Honored

By Richard Veilleux

Former U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, considered the “father” of Title IX, the landmark federal legislation created more than 30 years ago that greatly expanded educational and athletics opportunities for girls and women, was honored during half-time of the women’s basketball game between UConn and Rutgers on Martin Luther King Day.

Image: Former U.S. Senator Birch Bayh
Former U.S. Senator
Birch Bayh

“Thanks to Title IX, women have taken their rightful place in American education – as students, teachers, administrators, and athletes,” said U.S. Sen. Christopher R. Dodd, in joining University President Philip Austin to present the award. “Sen. Bayh’s leadership as original author of this legislation has directly impacted the millions of young women whose lives have been touched and bettered through equality in education, collegiate athletics, and opportunities for success in virtually every aspect of American life.”

Although UConn began admitting women in 1893, many publicly funded universities did not admit women, and many women who did enter universities were discouraged from studying math, science, law, or medicine, before Title IX became law in 1972, Dodd said. Perhaps the most profound change came in the area of athletics, however; and participation by women in virtually every sport has boomed since passage of the act.

“Title IX represented a major advance not just for women, but for all Americans and for higher education,” said University President Philip E. Austin. “I’m proud that UConn has a long and worthy tradition in making a university education accessible to women, and I’m especially proud of our efforts to encourage women to pursue their aspirations in fields in which they have been historically underrepresented.

“And of course, the success of our women’s sports programs and what that means for all the people of Connecticut speaks for itself,” Austin added.

Sen. Bayh also played a leadership role in many other areas and in framing two Constitutional amendments: the 26th Amendment, which lowered the legal voting age to 18, and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, which has been ratified by 35 states, including Connecticut.

Bayh, who also served in the Indiana House of Representatives, represented Indiana in the U.S. Senate from 1963 to 1981.

But for Evan Bayh, the apple has fallen far from the tree…he supports fatherhood (not parenthood)…this being sent out in preparation of the reintroduction of a Fatherhood Initiative Bill into the U.S. Senate:

Senator Bayh sent out this wonderful message for fathers on Father’s Day to the Hoosiers he represents. He missed sending out a message for mothers…tells you a lot, doesn’t it. He is up for re-election next year….Hoosiers mothers, are you paying attention?


Watch out for these bill just introduced:

S. 1309, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) and two co-sponsors.

H.R. 2979, introduced by Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7) and 27 co-sponsors.

President Obama told Senator Bayh last year he would sign the bill when he gets it.

The 2006 attempt at this bill (with U.S. Senator Barack Obama as one of the two co-sponsors) died:

The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.

This one needs to die too.


Is it fair for our government tax dollars to go help take children from mothers, to help fund a custody battle in court (among other ‘fatherly’ support things), help that is only available to fathers? These funds pay for dads to do this. All dads are not good (see Dastardly Dads).   Abusive custodial fathers are constantly in the news, such as today:  New Mexico Custodial Father Murdered Allegedly By 10 Year Old Son Who Couldn’t Take Anymore Abuse and Jon Pomeroy, Father of Seattle-area Girl, Pleads Guilty to Starving Her.  Why should we help abusers take children from their moms?  The American Judge’s Association knows this is a problem, why do you want to fund abusers to take custody of the children?

Yes, Evan, your dad took time to be with you. He didn’t seek to take your mother out of your life though, did he? Yes, this apple has fallen very far from the tree.




This one is somewhat shocking to me…but not totally.

We reposted a post from a mom’s group in Indiana which was pretty shocking….an Indiana ”shared parenting” advocate by the name of Stuart Showalter blamed a mother (Angie Warnock) for her own death when her violent husband stabbed her to death on Father’s Day in front of their children.  She had gotten a Protective Order against him three days prior because she feared him.  Stuart claimed she was practicing “parental alienation” because she went to get the Protective Order, and blamed her for her own death because she enflamed the situation by getting it.  Stuart’s view in his comment on the above post suggests any father, violent or not, deserves shared parenting.  While I have no problem with sharing parenting, I do have a problem with abusive, violent parents of either gender sharing parenting of children.

showalter“Shared Parenting” Advocate Stuart Showalter of Indiana

Stuart is “Executive Director” of the Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates and runs a “law blog.”  This is also a front for “Boone County Fathers.”  Stuart claims he has the ear of many politicians in the State of Indiana.  I wonder if they really know who they are talking to and that he is accusing dead mothers of so-called “parental alienation.”  If Indiana politicians are listening to this nutcase, God help them all.

As I always had thought and feared, many father’s rights organizations are run by violent men like this.  They are accusatory…blaming mothers for any and everything.  They are huge supporters of using the so-called “parental alienation” claim.  Their very drivel is abusive.  Unfortunately, good fathers hurting from a break in their relationship are lured into these groups, a goal of these nutcase leaders to make themselves look legitimate.  One of the commenter’s on our repost noted he was probably a neonazi…and they were right!  Yesterday, the mom’s group posted a story about it…and I thought it was just too good to let go…

Wanna see a little of Stuart’s history:

933 F.2d 573

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Stuart W. SHOWALTER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-1361.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Argued Oct. 29, 1990.
Decided May 30, 1991.

Robert M. Barnes, Susan E. Heckard, Asst. U.S. Attys., Indianapolis, Ind., for plaintiff-appellee.

Daniel J. Coffey, Indianapolis, Ind., for defendant-appellant.

Before CUDAHY, RIPPLE, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

MANION, Circuit Judge.

1 Stuart Showalter pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d). He appeals the length and conditions of his supervised release. We remand for resentencing because the length of supervised release exceeds the amount authorized by statute, but affirm the conditions of Showalter’s supervised release imposed by the district court.I.

2 Showalter headed an Indianapolis organization called the “Pure American Freedom Party,” which was loosely associated with other white supremacist “skinhead” and “neo-Nazi” groups in Indiana and around the United States. Showalter, then 20 years old, was prominently featured in a July 1989 article in the Indianapolis Monthly magazine called “Skinhead Society: Should a Local Group of Neo-Nazis be Feared, Tolerated or Ignored?” The article described the weaponry in Showalter’s apartment, and discussed the group’s potential for committing acts of violence. This publicity apparently brought him to the attention of his landlords, who sought to evict him from his apartment (in a predominantly black neighborhood) for late payment of rent and violation of the lease by having too many occupants. Showalter failed to leave on time, and was seen outside the apartment brandishing a weapon, so the police were called in to assist in his departure. When he failed to respond to their request to drop his gun and come out, the police broke in and arrested him and another occupant.

3 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Showalter pleaded guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm–a “Remington Wingmaster .12 gauge sawed-off shotgun with an obliterated serial number”–in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d). He was sentenced within the guidelines to 14 months imprisonment, followed by five years supervised release. The terms of supervised release included the condition that Showalter “shall not participate in, or associate with those who do participate in, the organization known as ’skinheads,’ or in any neo-Nazi organization.” Showalter appealed both the length and conditions of his supervised release.

4 The government concedes the district court erred in imposing a five-year period of supervised release. Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(b)(2) provides that the maximum length of supervised release for a “Class C” felony–where the maximum term of imprisonment is between 10 and 25 years, pursuant to Sec. 3559(a)(3)–is three years. The maximum term for violating 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5861(d) is 10 years. See 26 U.S.C. Sec. 5871. Thus, under guidelines Sec. 5D3.2(b)(2) (renumbered November 1, 1989 to Sec. 5D1.2(b)(2)), Showalter must receive a term of supervised release of “at least two years but not more than three years.” We remand to the district court for the purpose of adjusting the length of supervised release.

5 Showalter does not challenge the condition of supervised release that he not participate in white supremacist organizations, but does raise three related objections to the requirement that he avoid associating with other skinheads and neo-Nazis. We review the district court’s imposition of conditions of supervised release under the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard. United States v. Alexander, 743 F.2d 472, 479-80 (7th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).

6 He first contends that the condition lacks the “certainty” required by the new Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 “because skinheads and neo-nazis are not readily identifiable groups.” No case law is cited to support the contention that the Sentencing Reform Act was intended to limit the broad discretion given district courts to determine conditions of supervised release (formerly conditions of probation). See Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220, 53 S.Ct. 154, 155, 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932); United States v. Williams, 787 F.2d 1182, 1185 (7th Cir.1986).

7 The district court placed similar conditions on Showalter during the time between the guilty plea and sentencing, and Showalter had no difficulty understanding them then. At the sentencing hearing, the district court reprimanded Showalter for writing a letter espousing his white supremacist views to a newspaper in Washington state.1 Showalter responded:As regards to this happening after my plea agreement, I was under the understanding I was not to hang out with the skinheads out on the street up in Broad Ripple, so forth, have them over at my house, things like that. I wasn’t aware that it covered giving my opinion to a newspaper.

8 We hold that the condition is sufficiently clear to put Showalter on notice regarding the parameters of the court’s restriction on his associational activities.

9 Next Showalter argues that the condition of probation is not specific enough to comply with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(7), which allows the district court to order the defendant to “refrain from frequenting specified kinds of places or from associating unnecessarily with specified persons; …”. Pressed at oral argument, Showalter’s counsel did not say that these “specified persons” must be listed by name, but he did contend they must be specified to some greater, but unexplained, degree.

10 We first point out that the district court is empowered, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d), to impose “any other condition it considers to be appropriate.” That would seem to provide an independent authority for the district court’s decision here. Even so, we think the condition imposed by the district court is authorized by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3563(b)(7).

11 In Malone v. United States, 502 F.2d 554, 555 (9th Cir.1974), the Ninth Circuit upheld similar conditions of probation on a defendant who was convicted of unlawful exportation of firearms from the United States to the United Kingdom. These conditions prevented him from participating in any American Irish Republican movement, from belonging to any Irish organization, from participating in any Irish Catholic organization, from visiting any Irish pubs, and from accepting employment that would directly or indirectly associate him with any Irish organization. The court found that the conditions of probation … are not too vague and are reasonably related to the goals of probation and the accomplishment of public order and safety and … do not constitute an abuse of the Court’s discretion in the circumstances.

13Id., 502 F.2d at 557.

14 We cited Malone with approval in Alexander, 743 F.2d at 480-81, where we noted that district courts frequently were allowed to prevent defendants from being involved in different types of “gainful activity” as a condition of probation. While the restriction on Showalter’s associational activity is significant, it is no more significant than that approved in Malone, and it is justified by the court’s concern that Showalter not involve himself with those who might fuel his proclivity for lawbreaking.

15 Finally, Showalter suggests that this condition does not comport with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d)(2)’s requirement that it involve “no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to deter future criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(a)(2)(B), (C) and (D). However, the district court’s explanation of the condition adequately supports depriving Showalter of the liberty to associate with skinheads and neo-Nazis:

16 Because those groups embrace violence and the threat of violence as a method of advancing their views, I find that your association with them would create a high likelihood that you would be drawn into that same behavior, and that’s the reason for the restriction.

The court also reminded Showalter that (17) supervised release is intended to be a period of time when you’re under close supervision by the court to make sure that after you get out of prison you can abide by the terms and conditions that hopefully will keep you within a lawful groove and keep you from slipping back into your criminal behavior.

18 After reviewing the entire record, including the magazine article about Showalter and his organization, we conclude the district court was correct that Showalter needs to be separated from other members of white supremacist groups to have a chance of staying out of trouble. This condition of supervised release therefore meets the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d)(2).

19 The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering special conditions of supervised release, and that portion of the sentence is affirmed. We remand to the district court to resentence on the length of supervised release in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(b)(2), and guidelines Sec. 5D3.2(b)(2), now Sec. 5D1.2(b)(2).


1 Although the district court seemed to think the conditions placed on Showalter prior to sentencing should have at least discouraged him from writing controversial letters to newspapers, there is nothing to that effect in the conditions imposed at sentencing. This incident illustrates the importance of specificity in formulating conditions of supervised release.

Geez….I hope some people start waking up to the fact that dangerous individuals run groups like these…

Good thing Obama Sr. didn’t want custody of his son…Obama Jr. might not have turned out as good as he did with the help of being raised by a SINGLE MOTHER?!

Obama Fatherfood

Barack Obama got a basketball, his first name and ambition from his father. Little else.

The son gave back more than he received: a lifetime of ruminations about the man who abandoned the family, a memoir named “Dreams from My Father,” and endless reflections on his own successes and shortcomings as a parent of Sasha, 8, and Malia, 10.

As a candidate and now president, he’s been telling men what sort of father they should be. It’s become his Father’s Day ritual.

He’s asking American men to be better fathers than his own.

The president showcased fatherhood in a series of events and a magazine article in advance of Father’s Day this Sunday. He said he came to understand the importance of fatherhood from its absence in his childhood homes — just as an estimated 24 million Americans today are growing up without a dad.

Fathers run deep in the political culture as they do everywhere else, for better and worse. Michelle Obama has said many times how her late dad, Fraser, is her reference point and rock — she checks in with him, in her mind, routinely, and at important moments.

Obama’s presidential rival, John McCain, called his own memoirs “Faith of My Fathers,” tracing generations of high-achieving scamps. The father-son presidencies of the George Bushes were bookends on Bill Clinton, whose father drowned in a ditch before the future president was born and whose stepfather was an abusive alcoholic nicknamed Dude.

A Kenyan goatherder-turned-intellectual who clawed his way to scholarships and Harvard, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. left a family behind to get his schooling in the United States. He started another family here, then left his second wife and 2-year-old Barack Jr. to return to Africa with another woman.

His promise flamed out in Africa after stints working for an oil company and the government; he fell into drink and died in a car crash when his son was 21, a student at Columbia University.

“I don’t want to be the kind of father I had,” the president is quoted as telling a friend in a new book about him.

And in an interview Friday with CBS News, Obama said: “It was only later in life that I found out that he actually led a very tragic life. And in that sense, it was the myth that I was chasing as opposed to knowing who he really was.”

His half-sister, Maya, called his memoirs “part of the process of excavating his father.”

Obama now cajoles men to be better fathers — not the kind who must be unearthed in the soul.

His finger-wagging is most pointed when addressing other black men, reflecting years of worry about the fabric of black families and single mothers, but it applies to everyone.

Father’s Day 2007: “Let’s admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child.”

Father’s Day 2008: “Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

Father’s Day 2009: “We need to step out of our own heads and tune in. We need to turn off the television and start talking with our kids, and listening to them, and understanding what’s going on in their lives.”

He doesn’t hold himself out as the ideal dad. No driven politician can.

“I know I have been an imperfect father,” he writes in Sunday’s Parade magazine. “I know I have made mistakes. I have lost count of all the times, over the years, when the demands of work have taken me from the duties of fatherhood.”

He volunteered for those demands, as all people do when they want power. His years as a community organizer, Illinois lawmaker, U.S. senator and presidential candidate often kept him apart from family.

At the same time, he went to great lengths in the 2008 campaign to find time with his girls and wife, and now considers the routine family time one of the joys of living and working in the White House.

The new book “Renegade” by Richard Wolffe recounts strains in the marriage early this decade, arising from his absences and from what Michelle Obama apparently considered his selfish careerism at the time. The author interviewed the Obamas, friends and associates.

Obama himself attributed his “fierce ambitions” to his dad while crediting his mother — a loving but frequently absent figure — with giving him the means to pursue them.

“Someone once said that every man is trying to either live up to his father’s expectations or make up for his father’s mistakes,” he once wrote, “and I suppose that may explain my particular malady as well as anything else.” By malady, he meant the will to achieve.

Obama was a schoolboy in Hawaii when his father came back to visit. He gave his dad a tie. His father gave him a basketball and African figurines and came to his class to speak about Kenya. He was an impressive, mysterious figure whom Obama found compelling, volatile and vaguely threatening.

The visit took a sour turn when Obama went to watch “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” and his father made him shut off the TV, saying he watched too much. Obama slammed the bedroom door; a loud argument ensued among grown-ups.

Not the quality time Obama has in mind in asking dads to turn off the TV now.