From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: 10MOST WANTED
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:34:53 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <17810@oasys.dt.navy.mil> 154s@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Mona Hatfield) writes:
>I heard this on my son's radio last night as I was "checking on him".
>(Too old to tuck him in he says) (12 yrs).
>
>Somewhere (I forgot which state), they are in the process of taking
>the top "ten most wanted" ***fathers***, publishing their names, pictures,
>etc., just as in the T.V. show America's Most Wanted (or something like
>that).  It *REALLY* burned me up that it will be the non-paying FATHERS,
>what about the non-paying MOTHERS???!!!  #@!^(*(*&(*^%#  (Sorry for
>the outburst).
>

Several states have attempted this same thing.  I don't know if any
have been successful or not.  In Alaska it was stopped when a judge
ruled that it was unconstitutional, it denied the father due process,
it was defamation, there was no legal defense for fathers against
this act, it could cause harm to the children to see their father
portrayed publicly in such a light, it was denigrating, dehumanizing
and uncivil.  Interesting that he used the "best interest of the
children" in his justification for stopping the adopted law in Alaska.
You know, maybe it is not in the best interest of the children to be
driving down the road on the school bus and pass a billboard with a
picture of your father on it saying something like, "This man is a
deadbeat.  This man does not care about his children.  This man is a
menace to society."  But then again, maybe the little tykes could do
with a little suffering.  Suffering is good for the soul.

Ohio almost passed a bill several months ago, Senate Bill 10, which
creates a similar list - 10 fathers for every county.  The list can be
made into billboards and be posted on any government property.
Amazingly, the Bill was killed, not because of this, but because a
Representative Jane Campbell, also known as NOW Jane, added over 150
pages to this bill, and one of her new clauses stated that for mothers
who accused man X of being the father of their child, but man X was
positive that he was one of many and fights her allegations, if he is
found to be the father, he has to pay the court costs for everything
(new paint, nice new carpet, etc.) - (It's a joke).  That killed the
Bill.   You see, Jane was trying to do her part to rid humanity of men,
but it just didn't work out this time.  She added many clauses to make
it easier for a mother to "name" a father of her children - made it
easier to establish paternity, she added many clauses to make it easier
to collect child support from fathers who are not married to the mother
of the child.  She was not at all interested in giving those fathers
any rights of access or legal rights to the child, she was after
money.  Now the House could see what she was doing, so they added lots
of clauses, albeit weak, to give these unmarried, single fathers rights
to their children -  fathers who the legislature was trying to force to
pay child support to lessen the AFDC load and get Ohio in compliance
with federal guidelines for child support collection, clauses which
gave the fathers some rights.  However, at the last moment some of the
former lawyers among the legislature noticed the clauses about making
the man pay for everything if he is found to be the father but contests
it in court and loses, and they killed the bill.  There was no
discussion nor any uproar over the unconstitutional, negative
propogandist list of deadbeat fathers.  Why should there be?  All men
are scum and all fathers are deadbeats.  So they get a little free
publicity.  Big deal.  Hang the maggots out to dry.  Murder them.  Rip
them into little bits.  After all, they have committed the worst crime
that any man can commit.  They don't have money to pay child support
or, even more heinous, they do have it and they just refuse to take
responsibilities for their children.  What scum these men are.

>I am a custodial mother, (receive no child-support because I dont want
>it).  

Mona, this is a very dangerous attitude.  If more women in this country
would just haul these scum-bag men into court and sue them for child
support, all the world's problems would be alleviated.  Fortunately, you
always have the right to go after the SOB at any time you want.  You
know, if you play your cards right, he might work himself into a good
position in society.  Then you can take him to the cleaners.  Many women
have found that the calculations of arrearages are in future dollars -
so you get much more money.  So, a few years of suffering can pay off in
the long run.

I do hope at least, that you are denying this scumbag visitation because
he is not paying child support.  Men are such violent, negative
influences on our children that the less exposure the children have to
them, the better.

Have you ever read Myriam Medzian's stuff?  If you take this last
paragraph and substitute the word "less" with "more", you get Medzian.
What is wrong with this woman?

>That really "chapps my hide".  If anyone out there has any more
>information I would be interested so that a protesting could/would be
>started.

Forget the protests.  The National Organization of Women wants men
portrayed in such a light and they are much more powerful than any
little, teeney-weeney men's group or the Constitution for that matter.
When fathers wake up to the fact that women run the world, that men are
sick, scum-eating, scum-sucking, wallowing maggots, then they can work
with women to change for the better.  Until men rise up out of this
state of DENIAL, they have no chance and should be portrayed as what
they are - the criminals, murderers and rapists of humanity.  Because
women are such empathetic creatures, they tolerate men to be the worker
bees of humankind, the wallets of society.  If it weren't for the fact
that men produce (sometimes), they would not be tolerated.

>I will also make the same request of the FREE (Father's Rights something
>or other).

Oh, the EE stands for "Equality Exchange" but those aren't important
words anyway.  What good is equality if you have to have it with
cretins.

>Mona Hatfield

Mona, this is not a flame to you.  It is a generic flame to all those
who could even consider that posting fathers faces and names all over
the country because they are behind in child support, in violation of
due process, and ignoring the state of the economy, and the negative
effects that portraying fathers in this light would have on the
children, that if it makes a few more fathers pay child support, then it
is all worth it.  It is a flame against the propoganda in the media
which attempts to portray all men as scum.  I know what you were saying
Mona - I'm glad that you recognize the violation of an individual's
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that you are
speaking out against it.  My sarcasm is one of my tools.  I've been
known to point that weapon in the wrong direction sometimes.  This time
I think my aim is true.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  187% of all young girls are sexually molested by their fathers.
		-- Me (I just made it up - sounds good though, doesn't
                      it - it really helps clarify the problem - doesn't 
                      it?)

P.P.S.  On the man X thing above:  One woman in Cincinnati recently was
told by AFDC to name the father of her child or she would not receive
aid.  She narrowed it down to 9 men.  All men were formally accused of
being the father and all were tested.  All 9 men were found to not be
the father.  Men are such scum, they will even change their blood to get
out of paying child support.

Oh, I forgot, I'm a man.  Could someone direct me to the nearest men's
blood exchange clinic?  You see, I have this problem.....