9.26.2013

APA: Fathers who batter their children's mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children

Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force On Violence And The Family

ISSUES AND DILEMMAS IN FAMILY VIOLENCE


Issue 5

WHEN PARENTS SEPARATE AFTER AN ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, SHOULDN'T FATHERS HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT AS MOTHERS TO BE GRANTED PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF AND VISITATION RIGHTS WITH THEIR CHILDREN?

Tensions exist between children's need for contact with their father and their need to be protected from the physical, sexual and psychological abuse that is common in families where there has been other forms of violence such as woman abuse.

Although most people believe that fathers should have equal access to their children after the termination of a relationship between the parents, the equal-access option is based on the assumption that the fathers will act in their children's best interests. However, that is a naive assumption in situations where family violence has occurred.

Fathers who batter their children's mothers can be expected to use abusive power and control techniques to control the children, too. In many of these families, prior to separation, the men were not actively involved in the raising of their children. To gain control after the marital separation, the fathers fight for the right to be involved. Often children who have been exposed to violence in the family are frightened to confront their father's negative or abusive behavior, and mothers cannot protect them. Sometimes the father tries to alienate the child from the mother by using money and other enticements, negative comments, or restricted access to the telephone during visitation with him. Other times, fathers may threaten or actually kidnap the child to punish the mother for leaving, or to try to force her to return.

Most people, including the battered woman herself, believe that when a woman leaves a violent man, she will remain the primary caretaker of their children. Family courts, however, may not consider the history of woman abuse relevant in awarding custody. Recent studies suggest that an abusive man is more likely than a nonviolent father to seek sole physical custody of his children and may be just as likely (or even more likely) to be awarded custody as the mother. Often fathers win physical custody because men generally have greater financial resources and can continue the court battles with more legal assistance over a longer period of time.

Family courts frequently minimize the harmful impact of children's witnessing violence between their parents and sometimes are reluctant to believe mothers. If the court ignores the history of violence as the context for the mother's behavior in a custody evaluation, she may appear hostile, uncooperative, or mentally unstable. For example, she may refuse to disclose her address, or may resist unsupervised visitation, especially if she thinks her child is in danger. Psychological evaluators who minimize the importance of violence against the mother, or pathologize her responses to it, may accuse her of alienating the children from the father and may recommend giving the father custody in spite of his history of violence.

Some professionals assume that accusations of physical or sexual abuse of children that arise during divorce or custody disputes are likely to be false, but the empirical research to date shows no such increase in false reporting at that time. In many instances, children are frightened about being alone with a father they have seen use violence towards their mother or a father who has abused them. Sometimes children make it clear to the court that they wish to remain with the mother because they are afraid of the father, but their wishes are ignored.

Research indicates that high levels of continued conflict between separated and divorced parents hinders children's normal development. Some practitioners now believe that it may be better for children's development to restrict the father's access to them and avoid continued danger to both mothers and the children.

Last Page Table of Contents Next Page


About Public InterestConferencesExecutive Director Messages
Public Interest Home Page
Program AreasPublicationsStudent Information
American Psychological Association
Public Interest Directorate
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
E-mail: publicinterest@apa.org


�1998 American Psychological Association
APA Home Page . Search . Site Map

8.27.2013

Dombrowski et el V. U.S.A, 2007 -- PETITION # 664-07 International Commission Human Rights (IACHR)

This case is still pending at the IACHR. We expect a ruling any day. The last that we heard the commission had asked for more information from the petitioners that request can be seen Follow up request from the commission 2013. I supplied the requested information of my part in February 2013. I have also started a file that can be viewed here related to the IACHR.

Since the information is no longer available via the stop family violence website,  a reconstruction of that site is here.

####

Full Text of IACHR Petition. On May 11,2007, just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Their petition claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children.

2007 May 11 IACHR Entire PETITION Mother's File International Lawsuit
Dombrowski et el V. U.S.A, 2007
International Commission Human Rights
PETITION 664-07

http://claudinedombrowski.blogspot.com/2013/08/dombrowski-et-el-v-usa-2007-petition.html

Failures of U.S. Courts Forces Mothers to Turn to International Law - See more at: http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/8-news-action-alerts-press-release/46-failures-of-us-courts-forces-mothers-to-turn-to-international-law#sthash.mPqmwjGP.dpuf

Full Text of IACHR Petition. On May 11, 2007 - Just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimize... by AnotherAnonymom

8.25.2013

Shared Custody Issues in the Context of Domestic Violence

Written by Barry Goldstein

Sunday, 25 August 2013 08:52

THIS IS what  MANDATORY SHARED Parenting does. KILLS

source: NOMAS

In a Queens New York custody case, the court appointed a prominent psychologist to evaluate a young couple. The psychologist was frequently used as an expert in the New York courts despite a fathers’ rights bias that included a quotation in a New York Times article supporting shared parenting. Throughout his testimony supporting the abusive father, the evaluator could not respond to any of my questions asking for research to support any of his claims. Finally I asked him if there was any research to support his belief that children benefit from a 50-50 division as compared to 70-30. He cited Judith Wallerstein, but could not cite a particular book or article. A colleague put me in touch with Ms. Wallerstein who sent me an email for my continued cross-examination of the evaluator. She said that earlier research had indicated shared parenting might be beneficial in cases where the parents are able to cooperate, but more recent research has demonstrated that shared parenting is in fact harmful to children. One of the problems in our custody courts is that this psychologist, like most experts relied on by the courts does not have the knowledge of up-to-date research or the ability to apply it to custody cases.

Shared custody, sometimes referred to as joint custody involves joint decision making by the parents and sometimes also requires something close to a 50-50 division of time with each parent. The equal time division is often important to parents wishing to avoid paying child support. Proponents of shared parenting say it is only fair that parents have the same rights to parenting time with their children and courts claim that they must treat each parent that comes to court equally. This seems fair unless we understand the unstated part that parents should be treated the same regardless of the quantity and quality of time each parent spent with the child before the separation. Research about primary attachment is not controversial and demonstrates that a child’s primary attachment figure is more important to the well being of a child than the other parent. Furthermore, although research supports the belief that children benefit from having both parents in their lives, this is not true if one of the parents is abusive. Nevertheless many courts think it is their obligation to treat each parent the same even when one is much more valuable to the child.

Custody When Neither Parent is Abusive

The concept of shared parenting was supported by an initial study that found a favorable response. Courts were delighted to support shared parenting because it served as a way to compromise a difficult issue and could remove many cases from an already crowded calendar. Abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship strongly supported shared parenting as a way to avoid child support and maintain access and control over their victims.

The initial study was based on a very limited population and most favorable circumstances that included parents who enthusiastically supported the use of shared parenting, were able to cooperate and lived close together. Later studies that included larger populations and more long term effects of the arrangement demonstrated shared custody to be harmful to children, but these studies failed to dampen the enthusiasm for shared custody in the legal system and by abusers.

The studies found that children with two homes in reality had no homes. Children forced to bounce back and forth between their parents’ homes were denied a sense of security and continuity. They could not spend the time with friends that they wanted and often could not participate in a variety of activities because they had to be with the other parent when some of the events occurred. Children were often embarrassed when articles they needed for school or other activities were left in the wrong home. In other words, even when parents were able to cooperate, the shared custody arrangement placed added pressure on the children and made their lives more difficult. Their success in academic studies and social interaction was negatively impacted by the shared custody arrangement.

Shared Custody in Domestic Violence Cases

Many of the laws and proposed legislation seeking to promote shared custody purport to contain language to create an exception for domestic violence cases and sometimes for other cases in which the parties are unable to cooperate. There is a good reason to treat domestic violence cases differently as shared custody is particularly harmful to children when one of the parents is an abuser. A parent cannot co-parent with an abuser because it is unsafe to challenge him and compromise is impossible when there is unequal power. The fundamental problem, too often missed by courts is that abusers are willing to see their children harmed in order to maintain what they believe is their right to control or punish their partner. Most contested custody cases that courts mistakenly label “high conflict” are in reality domestic violence cases in which fathers use the common abuser tactic of seeking custody to maintain control of their partner or punish her for leaving. Children who witness domestic violence (including non-physical abuse) are more likely to engage in dysfunctional behavior when they are older. Depending on their age when they witness his abuse, their stage of development is disrupted. All batterers have been found to engage in harmful parenting practices including undermining the relationship with the other parent, teaching bad values (sexism) and providing a bad example. In other words, up-to-date research establishes that abusers are not appropriate candidates for custody or shared custody.

The benefit of an exception for domestic violence is limited because of the widespread failure of courts to recognize domestic violence in custody cases. Thirty plus years ago when domestic violence first became a public issue there was no research available. Courts, like other bodies developed practices and approaches to consider domestic violence without knowing what worked. At the time domestic violence was mostly focused on physical abuse. The assumption was that mental problems and substance abuse caused domestic violence and that women’s behavior contributed to their partner’s abuse. Courts therefore chose to use mental health professionals as experts although they had no training in the dynamics of domestic violence. Courts assumed that children were not harmed by domestic violence unless they were directly assaulted and his abuse would end once the parties separated. Up-to-date research demonstrates that all of this and many other assumptions still relied on by many professionals in the custody court system are wrong.

There is now a specialized body of knowledge about domestic violence, but too often judges and the professionals they rely on are overconfident in their own understanding of domestic violence and fail to consider up-to-date research. Judge Mike Brigner wrote in his chapter for DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY that when he trains judges they often ask him what to do about women who are lying. When asked what they mean, they cite women who return to their abusers, fail to pursue petitions for protective orders, don’t have police reports or hospital records and the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation (in reality this occurs only one-two percent of the time). None of these behaviors indicates the women are lying and in fact this is often the safest response they can make particularly when still living with their abuser. Similarly inadequately trained professionals often cite the fact that the children did not seem afraid of the alleged abuser when they observed them as proof the allegations are false. The children understand what the “experts” don’t that the abuser is not going to hurt them in front of others and in fact they could be punished if they demonstrated fear in public. Many professionals in the court system believe they have the ability to determine who is lying just from observation. In fact research shows that aside from a very few elite CIA and FBI agents, no one has been shown to possess this skill. Accordingly these professionals through this belief become more susceptible to abusers who are skilled manipulators. While the unqualified professionals often discredit allegations of abuse for these and other invalid reasons, they fail to look at the pattern of controlling and coercive behaviors that would help them see the pattern of abusive behavior.

The result of this and many other mistakes by professionals in the custody court system is that thousands of children are being forced to live with abusers and many protective mothers, who are wrongly dismissed as disgruntled litigants and denied any meaningful role in their children’s lives. Legislatures and courts should be focusing on using the available up-to-date research to protect the safety and secure the potential of children caught up in domestic violence custody cases. Today, shockingly, courts are getting a majority of domestic violence custody cases wrong. This is one of the reasons we recommend that all professionals receive not just general domestic violence training, but specific training in Recognizing Domestic Violence, Gender Bias and The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children. Until courts have and apply this information, our children will not be safe when courts decide their fate.

In domestic violence custody cases, the use of shared parenting does not save court time and resources, but rather only postpones extensive litigation at great expense to the parties and harm to the children. Abusers eventually contrive incidents as an excuse to seek sole custody or protective mothers are forced to seek custody because the abusers are hurting the children. Abusive parents with limited parenting skills use shared parenting to get their foot in the door while continuing to harass and abuse their former partners. Court professionals often pressure protective mothers to accept shared custody with their abusers and punish them for trying to protect themselves and their children. Over forty states and many other court districts have sponsored gender bias commissions that have found widespread gender bias. Gender bias is particularly hard to overcome because judges and other professionals engage in gender bias without realizing they are doing so. The studies have shown that in custody cases, mothers are given higher standards of proof, less credibility and are blamed for their abuser’s behavior.

When mothers seek to limit contact between their children and their abuser for safety reasons and courts routinely treat this as if she is trying to interfere with the relationship between the children and abusive father, this is an example of blaming mothers for the father’s behavior. Instead of courts pressuring the abuser to stop his controlling and threatening behavior, protective mothers often face retaliation and punishment for trying to protect their children. This is particularly common when courts fail to recognize domestic violence and then punish mothers who continue to believe their abuse allegations. Provisions in shared custody laws that purport to make an exception for domestic violence will continue to be ineffective as long as there is widespread failure to recognize domestic violence and to take it seriously. Accordingly shared custody laws are not beneficial in cases where the parties can voluntarily cooperate and create serious danger to children in domestic violence cases

 

See more at: http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org/ampp-article-library-family-court-custody-abuse-dv/5-family-criminal-law-and-research-abuse-dv-child-custody/94-batterers-revenge-punishment-and-continued-abuse-via-court#sthash.OhT2CBag.dpuf

shared parenting disaster

THIS IS what
MANDATORY SHARED Parenting does.
KILLS

Barry Goldsteins Representing the Domestic Violence Survivor

Shared Custody Issues in the Context of Domestic Violence
by Barry Goldstein NOMAS

           In a Queens New York custody case, the court appointed a prominent psychologist to

evaluate a young couple.  The psychologist was frequently used as an expert in the New York

courts despite a fathers’ rights bias that included a quotation in a New York Times article

supporting shared parenting.  Throughout his testimony supporting the abusive father, the

evaluator could not respond to any of my questions asking for research to support any of his

claims.  Finally I asked him if there was any research to support his belief that children

benefit from a 50-50 division as compared to 70-30.  He cited Judith Wallerstein, but could not

cite a particular book or article.  A colleague put me in touch with Ms. Wallerstein who sent me

an email for my continued cross-examination of the evaluator.  She said that earlier research had

indicated shared parenting might be beneficial in cases where the parents are able to cooperate,

but more recent research has demonstrated that shared parenting is in fact harmful to children. 

One of the problems in our custody courts is that this psychologist, like most experts relied on

by the courts does not have the knowledge of up-to-date research or the ability to apply it to

custody cases.

Shared custody, sometimes referred to as joint custody involves joint decision making by the

parents and sometimes also requires something close to a 50-50 division of time with each parent.

The equal time division is often important to parents wishing to avoid paying child support. 

Proponents of shared parenting say it is only fair that parents have the same rights to parenting

time with their children and courts claim that they must treat each parent that comes to court

equally.  This seems fair unless we understand the unstated part that parents should be treated

the same regardless of the quantity and quality of time each parent spent with the child before

the separation.  Research about primary attachment is not controversial and demonstrates that a

child’s primary attachment figure is more important to the well being of a child than the other

parent.  Furthermore, although research supports the belief that children benefit from having

both parents in their lives, this is not true if one of the parents is abusive.  Nevertheless

many courts think it is their obligation to treat each parent the same even when one is much more

valuable to the child.

Custody When Neither Parent is Abusive

            The concept of shared parenting was supported by an initial study that found a

favorable response.  Courts were delighted to support shared parenting because it served as a way

to compromise a difficult issue and could remove many cases from an already crowded calendar. 

Abusive fathers who had little involvement with the children during the relationship strongly

supported shared parenting as a way to avoid child support and maintain access and control over

their victims.

The initial study was based on a very limited population and most favorable circumstances that

included parents who enthusiastically supported the use of shared parenting, were able to

cooperate and lived close together.  Later studies that included larger populations and more long

term effects of the arrangement demonstrated shared custody to be harmful to children, but these

studies failed to dampen the enthusiasm for shared custody in the legal system and by abusers.

The studies found that children with two homes in reality had no homes.   Children forced to

bounce back and forth between their parents’ homes were denied a sense of security and

continuity.  They could not spend the time with friends that they wanted and often could not

participate in a variety of activities because they had to be with the other parent when some of

the events occurred.  Children were often embarrassed when articles they needed for school or

other activities were left in the wrong home.  In other words, even when parents were able to

cooperate, the shared custody arrangement placed added pressure on the children and made their

lives more difficult.  Their success in academic studies and social interaction was negatively

impacted by the shared custody arrangement.

Shared Custody in Domestic Violence Cases

            Many of the laws and proposed legislation seeking to promote shared custody purport

to contain language to create an exception for domestic violence cases and sometimes for other

cases in which the parties are unable to cooperate.  There is a good reason to treat domestic

violence cases differently as shared custody is particularly harmful to children when one of the

parents is an abuser.  A parent cannot co-parent with an abuser because it is unsafe to challenge

him and compromise is impossible when there is unequal power.  The fundamental problem, too often

missed by courts is that abusers are willing to see their children harmed in order to maintain

what they believe is their right to control or punish their partner.  Most contested custody

cases that courts mistakenly label “high conflict” are in reality domestic violence cases in

which fathers use the common abuser tactic of seeking custody to maintain control of their

partner or punish her for leaving.  Children who witness domestic violence (including non-

physical abuse) are more likely to engage in dysfunctional behavior when they are older. 

Depending on their age when they witness his abuse, their stage of development is disrupted.  All

batterers have been found to engage in harmful parenting practices including undermining the

relationship with the other parent, teaching bad values (sexism) and providing a bad example.  In

other words, up-to-date research establishes that abusers are not appropriate candidates for

custody or shared custody.

The benefit of an exception for domestic violence is limited because of the widespread failure of

courts to recognize domestic violence in custody cases.  Thirty plus years ago when domestic

violence first became a public issue there was no research available.  Courts, like other bodies

developed practices and approaches to consider domestic violence without knowing what worked.  At

the time domestic violence was mostly focused on physical abuse.  The assumption was that mental

problems and substance abuse caused domestic violence and that women’s behavior contributed to

their partner’s abuse.  Courts therefore chose to use mental health professionals as experts

although they had no training in the dynamics of domestic violence.   Courts assumed that

children were not harmed by domestic violence unless they were directly assaulted and his abuse

would end once the parties separated.  Up-to-date research demonstrates that all of this and many

other assumptions still relied on by many professionals in the custody court system are wrong.

There is now a specialized body of knowledge about domestic violence, but too often judges and

the professionals they rely on are overconfident in their own understanding of domestic violence

and fail to consider up-to-date research.  Judge Mike Brigner wrote in his chapter for DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY that when he trains judges they often ask him what to do about

women who are lying.  When asked what they mean, they cite women who return to their abusers,

fail to pursue petitions for protective orders, don’t have police reports or hospital records and

the myth that women frequently make false allegations of abuse to gain an advantage in litigation

(in reality this occurs only one-two percent of the time).  None of these behaviors indicates the

women are lying and in fact this is often the safest response they can make particularly when

still living with their abuser.  Similarly inadequately trained professionals often cite the fact

that the children did not seem afraid of the alleged abuser when they observed them as proof the

allegations are false.  The children understand what the “experts” don’t that the abuser is not

going to hurt them in front of others and in fact they could be punished if they demonstrated

fear in public.  Many professionals in the court system believe they have the ability to

determine who is lying just from observation.  In fact research shows that aside from a very few

elite CIA and FBI agents, no one has been shown to possess this skill.  Accordingly these

professionals through this belief become more susceptible to abusers who are skilled

manipulators.  While the unqualified professionals often discredit allegations of abuse for these

and other invalid reasons, they fail to look at the pattern of controlling and coercive behaviors

that would help them see the pattern of abusive behavior.

The result of this and many other mistakes by professionals in the custody court system is that

thousands of children are being forced to live with abusers and many protective mothers, who are

wrongly dismissed as disgruntled litigants and denied any meaningful role in their children’s

lives.  Legislatures and courts should be focusing on using the available up-to-date research to

protect the safety and secure the potential of children caught up in domestic violence custody

cases.  Today, shockingly, courts are getting a majority of domestic violence custody cases

wrong.  This is one of the reasons we recommend that all professionals receive not just general

domestic violence training, but specific training in Recognizing Domestic Violence, Gender Bias

and The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children.  Until courts have and apply this information,

our children will not be safe when courts decide their fate.

In domestic violence custody cases, the use of shared parenting does not save court time and

resources, but rather only postpones extensive litigation at great expense to the parties and

harm to the children.  Abusers eventually contrive incidents as an excuse to seek sole custody or

protective mothers are forced to seek custody because the abusers are hurting the children. 

Abusive parents with limited parenting skills use shared parenting to get their foot in the door

while continuing to harass and abuse their former partners.  Court professionals often pressure

protective mothers to accept shared custody with their abusers and punish them for trying to

protect themselves and their children.  Over forty states and many other court districts have

sponsored gender bias commissions that have found widespread gender bias.  Gender bias is

particularly hard to overcome because judges and other professionals engage in gender bias

without realizing they are doing so.  The studies have shown that in custody cases, mothers are

given higher standards of proof, less credibility and are blamed for their abuser’s behavior. 

When mothers seek to limit contact between their children and their abuser for safety reasons and

courts routinely treat this as if she is trying to interfere with the relationship between the

children and abusive father, this is an example of blaming mothers for the father’s behavior. 

Instead of courts pressuring the abuser to stop his controlling and threatening behavior,

protective mothers often face retaliation and punishment for trying to protect their children. 

This is particularly common when courts fail to recognize domestic violence and then punish

mothers who continue to believe their abuse allegations.  Provisions in shared custody laws that

purport to make an exception for domestic violence will continue to be ineffective as long as

there is widespread failure to recognize domestic violence and to take it seriously.  Accordingly

shared custody laws are not beneficial in cases where the parties can voluntarily cooperate and

create serious danger to children in domestic violence cases.

Barry Goldstein is a nationally recognized domestic violence speaker, author and consultant.  He

is co-editor with Dr. Mo Hannah of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY.  For more

information see Domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com

7.24.2013

Announcement for all Protective Mothers

Announcement for all Protective Mothers

Due to recent revelations by Janice Levinson and Lundy Bancroft of Protective Mother's Alliance, as a contributor to this blog, I hereby denounce JL, LB and PMA. I do not support either of them, the organization with which they are affiliated, and in fact do believe by Levinson's recent actions that both are needlessly and shamelessly throwing TRUE victims of horrendous abuse under the proverbial bus. If you decide to align with either Levinson or Bancroft, please do so with caution.

http://thetruthaboutthefamilycourt.blogspot.com/2013/07/announcement-for-all-protective-mothers.html

http://claudinedombrowski.blogspot.com/2013/07/reply-to-lundy-bancroft-change-is-here.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2013/07/due-to-recent-revelations-by-janice.html

http://bx.businessweek.com/open-government/janice-levinson-using-the-blood-of-battered-mothers-and-children-for-her-personal-gain/7420065467279087640-54223d6685f4e599a8d5d17d4bb694b9/

7.20.2013

AMPP – American Mothers Political Party

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty.org

MR PRESIDENT WE MOTHERS WANT LIBERT NOW! Portrait Of Baby, Father And Their Hand; Shutterstock ID 78972478; PO: aol; Job: production; Client: drone

 suffragistsa1 wmh woah 10327_161731115714_5827792_n 11379_597172786963244_784610867_n 184618_10150149218200229_1932585_n 379636_10151736966820229_1843872143_n 735094_561289047218285_629927505_n  857156_10151552436770229_2078753747_o

6.04.2013

Bill Windsor Sexual Deviant, Homeland Terrorist and His Cult Group Lawless America

Courtesy of the joeys’ – head over and read the comments as Billy boy implodes.
http://joeyisalittlekid.blogspot.com/2013/05/sexual-deviant-bill-windsor.html
Sexual Deviant Bill Windsor

So Bill tried to co-op a real reporters story on rape and incest.  Bill used it as an opportunity to seek out people to tell him their stories involving rape and incest.  He can no longer be bothered by women with custody issues, but he is more than happy to hear a detailed sordid story of rape or incest.  He sent out this plea:
DO YOU HAVE A STORY OF SPOUSAL RAPE OR INCEST?
I am communicating with a newspaper writer who is researching a story on spousal rape and incest. He is particularly interested in speaking with survivors whose abuse allegations were handledeither in criminal or family courts. If you would be interested in sharing your story, please email nobodies@att.net with the subject in all caps: RAPE.
Well this started a fire-storm as one woman named Jan, rightfully gave the direct contact info to the real reporter doing the story, telling the lemmings to bypass the creepy old man trying to get in the middle.  Bill then lashed out at her Lawless America Hey Jan, go away. You must be one of the sickos.
Then her friend Lynn stuck up for her saying that she said nothing that was either on the order of a liar or a sicko.  So bill then lashed out at her saying all kinds of sexist and delusional things, Bill asked for stories about rape, but instead he exposed himself as being a liar and a perverted fraud:

  • Lawless America Lynn, you are a liar and a slanderer. Go away. Cease and desist the slander and stalking. I have helped many true victims, not you liars. No one named Lynn Buss has ever em ailed me nor is there a Lynn Buss in my database. You are one of the pathetic liars out there.

    54 minutes ago

  • Lawless America I am asking anyone with information about Jan Halley or Lynn Buss to contact me. I want to expose these people.

    51 minutes ago

  • Lawless America No, Ardith Cunningham. Lynn Buss never emailed me anything. She appears to be a serial liar...as you likely are. You say you know, well, put up or shut up. Paste the proof right here for all to see. I won't ban you for an hour to give you the opportunity. You have libeled me with your comment here, so I demand an immediate apology and retraction. Absent that, I shall see you in court.

    46 minutes ago

  • Lawless America I didn't lose a damn thing. You are a libeler, slanderer, and liar, and your associates are the same. You aren't in my email or database either -- just another scumbag in my opinion. You have 50 minutes. Show us the proof you hav4e "right there on your computer."

    42 minutes ago

  • Lawless America I am sick and tired of all the women who lie their a$$e$ off. Anyone with information about Jan Halley, Lynn Buss, and Ardith Cunningham are encouraged to contact me at nobodies@att.net. I am interested in speaking to former spouses or significant others in the case of some.

    39 minutes ago

  • Lawless America You are a real sicko, Ardith Cunningham. You are a liar, a serial liar, and I look forward to pursuing you and all the liars in court and with law enforcement.

    32 minutes ago

  • Lawless America Horse manure. I don't know Lynn Buss. She's a liar. The only thing I care about with her is exposing her as a liar. If she has an ex, I want to talk to him or her. My experience is that anyone who would lie about contact with me will damn sure lie claiming abuse. It's a disease among a bunch of you that severely damages the efforts of honest women who have been abused.

    27 minutes ago

  • Lawless America Ardith Cunningham is probably a fake identity being used by someone like All Lie