Date: 1995/06/03
Message-Id:
Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Stuart Miller
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
Not yet.
There was a two week continuance. The judge indicated that rather than let
me care for my son after school, that I need to pay a stranger to keep him
away from me, while the mother cannot or chooses not to. (I refused to pay
a stranger to care for my son, when I am not only willing, capable and
imminently qualified, but it is also my son's desire to stay with me.)
Anyone ever heard of Mrs. Doubtfire?
Although my ex asked that I be incarcerated for 30 days, the free lawyer
that the state provided my well-incomed ex, said that because of "who I
am" [father's rights leader], that I should be incarecerated for the
maximum 1 year. The judge agreed with her and said that it would not only
be fair and just, but would be desirable because of "the message" it would
send to other fathers. We already know "the message," fathers are bad for
children. Get the message?
Stu Miller
Subject: Stu in Jail?
From: Stuart Miller
Date: 1995/06/06
Message-Id:
Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: Stuart Miller
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
To: All
Many of you have expressed outrage at what I am going through now and have
offered assistance via several vehicles.
I am very competent and capable of handling my own defense and would
prefer that nobody write letters, protest or anything of that nature.
Every aspect of their charges against me are defective, including notice.
The complete defense is not formulated yet, but it is already spectacular
and it will end up being precedent setting.
Thank you all for your willingness to help, though.
Concentrate on Texas' Presumptive Joint-Custody Law, the HR-4 recall and
the Elizabeth Morgan Bill! Not to mention CAPTA reform!
Stu Miller
Subject: Re: Stu in Jail?
From: richard@bennett.com (Richard Bennett)
Date: 1995/06/11
Message-Id: <3rdj4u$dl0@news1.best.com>
References:
Organization: Spam Chili, I guess
Reply-To: richard@best.com
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
Stuart Miller
>Although my ex asked that I be incarcerated for 30 days, the free lawyer
>that the state provided my well-incomed ex, said that because of "who I
>am" [father's rights leader], that I should be incarecerated for the
>maximum 1 year. The judge agreed with her and said that it would not only
>be fair and just, but would be desirable because of "the message" it would
>send to other fathers. We already know "the message," fathers are bad for
>children. Get the message?
Would you have the name of that judge handy? And perhaps a residence?
Or a phone number?
A little education is in order.
RB
Richard Bennett
Cupertino, CA
Subject: Put Stu in Jail and We Kick Your Butt
From: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM
Date: 1995/06/03
Message-Id:
Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
X-Sender: fgj@electriciti.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-Ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4
Stu,
If you go to jail, we will kick their butt so hard that they will be sorry
ever messed with you!!!
Our advice to you Stuart? Please accept their "sentence" and go to
jail! You will immediately be considered a political prisoner, and we
will file a claim with the United Nations on behalf of all fathers in
America. In the mean time work on your book.
Anyone else wants to file a claim with the United Nation? Whether they
put Stu in Jail for a year or even a few hours, the Judge's reasoning is
a violation of Stu's Human Rights.
Let them know we are not a cattle of sheep out here, and we will not
tolerate our leaders to be treated this way! The judge needs to give
us a public appology!
Stu, you got our words that we will publicize the heck out of this.
>Although my ex asked that I be incarcerated for 30 days, the free lawyer
>that the state provided my well-incomed ex, said that because of "who I
>am" [father's rights leader], that I should be incarecerated for the
>maximum 1 year. The judge agreed with her and said that it would not only
>be fair and just, but would be desirable because of "the message" it would
>send to other fathers. We already know "the message," fathers are bad for
>children. Get the message?
>
>Stu Miller
----------------------------------------------------
Family Guardian Network 1-500-FOR-KIDS
PHONE: (619)689-9707 FAX: (619)566-3146
FAMILY GUARDIAN JOURNAL
P.O.Box 261824
San Diego, CA 92196
Subject: Re: Stu in Jail?
From: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM
Date: 1995/06/07
Message-Id:
Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
X-Sender: fgj@electriciti.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-Ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3b4
Hey Stu, You really thought we are going to do something for you :-)
You are in good hands.
Good Luck,
>To: All
>
>Many of you have expressed outrage at what I am going through now and have
>offered assistance via several vehicles.
>
>I am very competent and capable of handling my own defense and would
>prefer that nobody write letters, protest or anything of that nature.
>
>Every aspect of their charges against me are defective, including notice.
>
>The complete defense is not formulated yet, but it is already spectacular
>and it will end up being precedent setting.
>
>Thank you all for your willingness to help, though.
>
>Concentrate on Texas' Presumptive Joint-Custody Law, the HR-4 recall and
>the Elizabeth Morgan Bill! Not to mention CAPTA reform!
>
>Stu Miller
>
>
--------------------------------------------------
Family Guardian Network 1-500-FOR-KIDS
PHONE: (619)689-9707 FAX: (619)566-3146
FAMILY GUARDIAN JOURNAL
P.O.Box 261824
San Diego, CA 92196
Subject: Re: Stu in Jail?
From: trett@aol.com (TRETT)
Date: 1995/06/08
Message-Id: <3r66s8$ahp@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
References:
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Reply-To: trett@aol.com (TRETT)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
Stu,
Since learning of your plight a couple of days ago, we of CPF-Boston were
figuring how we could respond--then you spoil it all by saying that you
want no letter campaign or the like. OK, but keep us informed. (We'll
get back to assisting Bay Staters in jail.)
We will/would/can commit to 100 concerned citizen-letters (to whomever you
would suggest), and several hundred group letterhead "outrage" letters to
public figures, media, etc., plus some good op eds that we could blanket
around.
You have supporters.
Tom Rettberg
Coalition for the Preservation of Fatherhood-Boston
P.S. Has Robin Williams been alerted?
Subject: Re: Stu in Jail?
From: Gwen Olitsky
Date: 1995/06/08
Message-Id: <950608074758_89696787@aol.com>
Sender: "Fathers' Rights and Equality Exchange"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Reply-To: OlitskyG@AOL.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-L
I think that the support offered has two sides: One is to help Stu, the
other is that the folks who GIVE support also get something very significant
-- the ability to stay engaged, to feel like they are doing something active
to help someone else (often when they are in the midst of feeling unable to
help themselves in their own situation). As a long-time believer and trainer
in self-help, I try to encourage people to accept support as well as to give
it. Accepting support is harder than giving, but in doing this, we allow the
giver of support to "get" something, too. I hope that Stu's response was
'automatic' -- ("I don't need any help") and he will reconsider. Sharing
support can really create a stronger "brotherhood." Gwen
Subject: Re: Does Stu have a defense fund?
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.)
Date: 1995/06/03
Message-ID: <3qqvp1$in9@gw.home.vix.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
In a recent missive fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM tells us:
* *How about a letter writing campaign for Stuart Miller? That's more
*powerful and less costly. If Stu agrees and gives us the name of the
*judge and the case number, we will see that at least 50 letters will
You seem to be forgetting that the charge is contempt for failure to pay
support...any collateral attack which doesn't take this into account
will be an impotent and "angry men" sounding attack indeed.
--
I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
NOTE: Replies to my postings which are emailed to me may be posted publicly.
Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
LOOKING FOR: Lorna Taylor, anyone from The Grammar School & Woolman Hill
Subject: Re: Does Stu have a defense fund?
From: "Byron Bollas ByronB@ratsys.com"
Date: 1995/06/03
Message-ID: <9506040416.AA24102@ratsys.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Anne Mitchell writes:
>You seem to be forgetting that the charge is contempt for failure to pay
>support...any collateral attack which doesn't take this into account
>will be an impotent and "angry men" sounding attack indeed.
Anne although I understand what you're getting at here, what bothers me is
that statement is still perpetrating the idea that we MEN shouldn't act
angry... well dammit we ARE angry, we're REALLY angry and I'm getting goddam
sick and tired of the left wing media and militant feminists groups telling
me that it isn't right for me to feel or come across that way...
So much time is devoted to telling women that ANY feelings they may have are
"valid" and even more time is spent telling men that they are wrong in their
feelings of anger... its no wonder that so many people are getting hurt and
even killed in this country in domestic disputes... while I DON'T support
violence towards anyone, we've lost sight of the FACT that males are the
aggressors in our species (and most others for that matter)...
We can temper our response but we cannot (and should not) deny our basic
instincts...
Subject: Re: Does Stu have a defense fund?
From: shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.)
Date: 1995/06/03
Message-ID: <3qrdqh$20e@gw.home.vix.com>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
In a recent missive Byron=Bollas%HQ%Rational@VINES1.RATSYS.COM tells us:
*Anne Mitchell writes:
*
*>You seem to be forgetting that the charge is contempt for failure to pay
*>support...any collateral attack which doesn't take this into account
*>will be an impotent and "angry men" sounding attack indeed.
*
*Anne although I understand what you're getting at here, what bothers me is
*that statement is still perpetrating the idea that we MEN shouldn't act
*angry... well dammit we ARE angry, we're REALLY angry and I'm getting goddam
*sick and tired of the left wing media and militant feminists groups telling
*me that it isn't right for me to feel or come across that way...
*
[snip]
*
*We can temper our response but we cannot (and should not) deny our basic
*instincts...
Byron..I would never suggest that anger is not warranted or even
appropiate...only that a measured and tempered (to use your word) response is
likely to get the responding group further than not.
--
I am: mom, attorney, fathers' rights advocate, founder of F.R.E.E.(tm)
NOTE: Replies to my postings which are emailed to me may be posted publicly.
Fathers' Rights & Equality Exchange info: http://www.vix.com/free/
LOOKING FOR: Lorna Taylor, anyone from The Grammar School & Woolman Hill
Subject: Re: Does Stu have a defense fund?
From: fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM
Date: 1995/06/04
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Article Segment 1 of 2
(Get All 2 Segments)
In response to our request:
>*How about a letter writing campaign for Stuart Miller? That's more
>*powerful and less costly. If Stu agrees and gives us the name of the
>*judge and the case number, we will see that at least 50 letters will
>
Anne Mitchell wrote:
>You seem to be forgetting that the charge is contempt for failure to pay
>support...any collateral attack which doesn't take this into account
>will be an impotent and "angry men" sounding attack indeed.
Ms. Mitchell, Esq.,
We are well aware of the contempt charges, However please
pay attention to the following:
1- If what Stu Miller reports is correct and has been on record that:
The opposing counsel has used Stu's political involvement as
a justification for the ONE year sentence, and that the judge had
agreed to it, and therefore reasoned to give a message to other
fathers politically involved, then this is a little more than a contempt
charge. Don't you agree? Political speech is the most protected
speech under the first amendment.
2- If civil contempt where Stu Miller "holds the key to the jail", then the
purpose of the contempt order should only be to force him to change
his mind and pay his obligation.
On the other hand, if criminal contempt, then the jail time will be
set for a specific duration, and Stu Miller shall not "hold the key to
the jail" and will no longer be for deterrence purposes.
Therefore, if Stu Miller is ordered to a year jail under contempt orders,
where he does not "hold the key to the jail", and is not for deterrence
purposes, then it must be a criminal contempt. The question then is
whether or not the family court in an action for equity, where child
support is the equity, can hold Stu Miller in criminal contempt.
Where Stu Miller's ex-wife has requested jail time, not the state, if jail
ordered, must only be for deterrence, and Stu should "hold the key to
the jail". A year jail sentence ordered by a family court judge in response
to ex-wife's request for a set duration of ONE year without any deterrence
purposes is excessive, and in violation of his due process rights.
If a criminal contempt, it must be a separate issue at a separate hearing
before the judge, in order not to violate his due process.
-------------------------
Additionally in response to your "angry men" comment, we
must assert that most fathers are not lawyer types to digest the
above arguments --neither are we, but after a while even lawyer's
talk is not that difficult to understand-- , yet they are entitled to
their right to freedom of expression.
When 1000 fathers start writing letters in support of their leaders
(e.g., Stuart Miller) and their issues (e.g., excessive punishment),
and only when these men voice out their anger instead of follow
the instructions of those in power to stuff their valid anger in, then
it is no longer an "angry group". It is a momentum.
Movements don't start by well educated, and well reasoned law
practicioners, but by ordinary citizens who are in pain and who
have tried every path but to no avail.
Look around. 90+% of custody awards go to women! Is the legal
system working? It certainly generates huge profits for lawyers,
when fathers cannot see their kids. What incentive do lawyers have
in changing this broken and backward system?
Finally, being angry is not a crime. It is only an emotional stage,
that one does not have to remain in forever. Writing letters is
a form of therapy! For a crowd this size, it is a SOCIAL
THERAPY and a must.
Take a look at men in San Diego and how they are changing their
status, from an underdog to a champion. Men who were so angry
that they could not eat, sleep, or maintain a sense of focus at their job,
today they are one of the best writers this town has ever seen. They
personally feel relieved, accomplished, and empowered. The opposition
and the false advocates instead are starting to experience the stress
related disorders! They are actually complaining that there is no
more dad bashing in this town. Do you see our point?
Subject: Re: Does Stu have a defense fund?
From: schafer@netcom.com (Lenny Schafer)
Date: 1995/06/04
Message-ID:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
fgj@ELECTRICITI.COM wrote:
: In response to our request:
: >*How about a letter writing campaign for Stuart Miller? That's more
: >*powerful and less costly. If Stu agrees and gives us the name of the
: >*judge and the case number, we will see that at least 50 letters will
: >
: Anne Mitchell wrote:
: >You seem to be forgetting that the charge is contempt for failure to pay
: >support...any collateral attack which doesn't take this into account
: >will be an impotent and "angry men" sounding attack indeed.
: Ms. Mitchell, Esq.,
: We are well aware of the contempt charges, However please
: pay attention to the following:
[snip]
Dear Sharad,
I don't think Anne's point necessarily contradicts your take on this. If
Stu's situation is going to become a political cause, supporters need to
be very concious of the message being made.
For example, it might be effective to have the focus be not so much
"fathers screwed again-Our Stu's in the slammer--Waaaa!" but that "children
are being hurt by their fathers being treated as little more than debtors
prison fodder by the law--AND WE'RE MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT!" There is a
significant difference between the two approaches and the public will
respond differently to the two.
Is the point here to just bust Stu out of the slammer or to promote
family law which protects, rather than injures children and families?
Habeus corpus, lenny
--