HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:53:49 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <mc@VICORP.COM>
Subject:      1993: Year of the Divorced Father

How about it? It would look good immediately following "Year of the Woman",
don't you think?
For those that might prefer "Year of the Father", or "Year of the NCP",
realize that a "Year of the Divorced Father" would focus attention on issues
relative to just "Fathers" and "NCPs" as a matter of course (laws are always
gender-neitral, and any focusing on the plight of divorced fathers would
automatically shine light on fathers in general).

What does it take to declare a "Year of...?"

--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:03:05 EST
From:         Byron=Bollas%HQ%Rational@VINES1.RATSYS.COM
Subject:      re: Paul Vixie's advice

Amen to everything. I learned early on that no matter what your opinion is of
your ex you need to state it calmly and UNEMOTIONALLY. Anything other that
this tactic works against you, in my opinion.

Byron
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:13:37 EST
From:         Byron=Bollas%HQ%Rational@VINES1.RATSYS.COM
Subject:      re: Guardian Ad Litem advice

Re: David Garrod's comments...

I have a hard time with this one. I know in my own case I was repeatedly asked
what good points my ex had, and at the beginning I also refused to come up
with any. That did me no good at all. They told me it made me look like
vengeful and spiteful. Remember your X2B is a woman -- she is already looked
upon as the victim in the eyes of the court. You need to overcome that
advantage.

It was pointed out to me by the last evaluator, (the one whose report finally
got me custody of the kids) that I married this woman. She told me there had
to be some good points to my ex or I never would have married her in the first
place. It made me realize what she was looking for was my ability to put aside
my anger and try to see something objectively, not emotionally. I scored big
points when I was able to prove I could do this. You need to show that you can
provide a BETTER environment for the child.

Anyway, I tend to agree with (I think it was) Rama. He said put down stuff
like, "she was a good cook", etc. In my opinion you need to list something but
it should ONLY be mundane things. List no good qualities that have to do with
the care of the children.

Byron
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:00:27 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <vicorp!mc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: GAL advice needed

Paul
Thanks for your thoughts. It's sort of what I knew to be true but had to hear
it from someone else. Problem is, the details of the actual breakdown and
separation are black and white. It's a pure case of one person abusing
another and intentionally taking advantage of the system to do so (put
a restraining order on me, move 50 miles away.) To explain the circumstance
does require a bit of information. So far my answers take up 5 or 6 typed
pages.
As far as giving negative conclusions about her character, one of the
questions asks for specifically that. Naturally I can write a book in response
to that question; but I'm unsure what to write in answer to the question
about what her good traits are. At this time, I can honestly find nothing
good to say about the person who is attempting to strip me of my fatherhood.
Should I list her good traits anyway, such as they used to be?

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:36:30 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <vicorp!mc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      RE: 1993: Year of the Divorced Father

Michael sez:

> I think that fathers who are CP's are at least equal in
> unfair treatment to the women. I am just understanding the NCP
> situation (my daughter moved into her mother's after 5 years)
> So I would strongly support year of father.  just my 2c

Exactly! That is why if the focus was on year of the father, any legislation
resulting in a public relations campaign would be geared toward helping
divorced fathers, and sice laws are written to be gender-neutral, they
would be worded in terms of NCP and CP. Thus the situation would be
made more equitable. We all agree that the basic problem is the disparity
of power between CPs and NCPs, and focusing on divorced fathers, who probably
make up 95% or so of NCP, the results are what we want.

--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:36:30 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <mc@VICORP.COM>
Subject: Re: Statistics

>     Does anyone have any statistics for Massachusetts regarding
>sole custody female vs. male.  etc.

Believe it or not, when I asked George Kelly from Concerned Fathers (in Mass)
hee told me that this bit of information cannot be revealed. My memory is a
little foggy on it, but he said "we" (Concerned Fathers) had tried to get
it released but they were prevented by social feminists with political
muscle -- or something along those lines.
I know, it sounds bizarre to me too. Maybe it's not true...

Oh, by the way, on a related topic, when in answer to my outrage about how
on restraining orders here the complainant does not need to sign their name
under a clause acknowledging it's a crime to make false statements, he told
me that they been trying to get that changed with the legislature too.
But same story: opposed by social feminists with political muscle.

---Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 10:17:51 EST
From:         kalrark%phu020.cis.smithkline.com@SMITHKLINE.COM
Subject:      Re: Sexual Discrimination

>Is it unreasonabe to incorporate such a goal into the mission of divorced
>fathers's rights groups?  If 52 class-action lawsuits  were filed
>simultaneously in the states and territories, the courts and the media
>would have to sit up and take notice.  And maybe, at last, the charade
>would be exposed for what it is:  sexual discrimination.
>
>Comments, anyone?
>
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
>

Class action suits are difficult and expensive to file.  Instead of 52 class-
action suits only one in a carefully chosen state would suffice.

We have to study the anotomy of some of the other grass-root movements.

One thing is given, and that is "law of numbers".

Other movements, like abortion rights and gay rights, are organized at state as
well as national level.

They orgaize demonstartion in DC to get media attention.  That is where the
media is, not in state capitals.

These movements do not work quietly and construtively. I am not suggesting
destruction, just saying that these people let their feelings know by active
demonstrations.

"Even Mothers (not like the ones we know as our Xs or X2bs) do not feed quiet
babies"

"Squeaky wheel gets the oil"



Unfortunately, the fathers are put into a very difficult situation by the legal
unprofessionals.   The support payments are high so fathers do not have the
money to fight back.  Catch-22 situation.  I think not.  There has to be
determination that we will not give into slavery and extortion, legal or
 illegal.

Unless fathers, collectively, are willing to fight back, nothing is going to
change.  Once in a while, only in extreme circumstances, we will get a used bone
thrown at us.  Fathers do get custody sometimes, but do they get support like
mothers do?

I know we are all busy and do not have any money.  That is why is more important
to work collectively and may be file one such case of discrimination and a very
strong one.  I think it should be filed in a Fedral court against one of the
states.  You need just one such precedent setting case to start with.

I remember in one of the Supreme Court cases it was determined that in such
situations one only has to show the discrimination by its effect not by its
inention.

Any ideas along the same lines?
Which state?
Which attorneys?
Funding plans?
Filing plans?
Procedures?
When?

Lets JUST DO IT!

Rama Kant Kalra
A Custodial Father from Pennsylvania
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:26:50 CST
From: MJ <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Subject: Re: E-Mail to Clinton

In article <9301251433.AA13395@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu>, David Garrod
<garrod@ECN.PURDUE.EDU> says:
>
>     I have tried now several times to send e-mail to supposedly
>Clinton`s e-mail address.
>75300.3115@compuserve.com
>
>Every time it has come back as undeliverable because of full mail box.

That is because the person running it is just starting to look for
his office and his PC as of yesterday.  I expect that when he is
up and running, it will clear out.  You *do* have the right
address.  Give it a week.  It's the same system and address
that was operational during the campaign.  It will take a while
to get it up again.
>
>Question:  Has anyone verified that this is Clinton`s or a Whitehouse
>mailbox?

It is!  Promise.

MJ

>garrod@ecn.purdue.edu
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| M. Jacobs            |   This is MY view   | Discontent is the first  |
| U45301@UICVM         |    not the view     | necessity of progress.   |
| U45301@uicvm.uic.edu |     of the "U"      | --  John Steinbeck       |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:54:36 CST
From: MJ <U45301@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Subject: Re: email for Clinton/Gore

The address for the Clinton E-mail is:  75300.3115@compuserve.com

It starts up again tomorrow.  But the reader is already full now,
so you will get your mail bounced if you send it in immediately.
Wait a week or so and try.

They are just getting it all together now.

MJ

In article <FREE-L%93012213530971@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>, PAUL BRUCKER
<BRUCKEPJ@SNYCENVM.BITNET> says:
>
>   I tried the Clinton/Gore E-mail address...it did not work.
>   Something about an "unknown listserv address."
>
>
>                          Paul
>                        bruckepj@snycenvm
From: mcg2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Marc Gabriel)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Subject: LymeNet subscriptions
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:59:26 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University


   I submitted the following announcement a few days ago to this board.
Unfortunately, due to technical difficulties, some subscription requests
submitted on Sat. (1-23) and Sun. (1-24) were not processed.  If you
subscribed and did *not* receive confirmation of your subscription from the
list server, please re-subscribe.
   Sorry for the problems.
   The first issue of the LymeNet Newsletter will appear later this week.
   Here is the original announcement...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing...

******************************************************************************
*                The Lyme Disease Electronic Mail Network                    *
*                               LymeNet                                      *
******************************************************************************

Lyme Disease is now the fastest growing infectious disease in the United
States.  In 10 short years, this little known bacterial infection has claimed
half a million victims and the number of new patients continues to spiral
upward with no relief in sight.  It is estimated that in 1991, 100,000
Americans contracted this dangerous disease.  If left untreated, LD can cause
permanent nerve, musculoskeletal and cardiac damage.

Unfortunately, many in the medical and political arenas have not given this
epidemic much thought.  Self appointed experts in the academic community have
declared that LD can always be cured with short courses of simple antibiotics.
However, as the number of cases rise, doctors on the front lines are
discovering that LD is more serious that previously suspected, requiring longer
treatment therapies and more complex combinations of medicines.  The battle
lines have been drawn.

And the battles continue at LD conferences, and in the various State
legislatures where insurance companies, terrified at the high cost of LD, are
attempting to short change patients.  Estimates show that the average cost of
treatment for chronic LD patients ranges from $60,000 to $100,000 per patient.

MAILING LIST:
To keep up with the latest developments, including new treatment protocols,
research news and political events, we introduce the Lyme Disease Electronic
Mail Network.  LymeNet, in association with the Lyme Disease Network of New
Jersey, Inc., with provide you with a periodic newsletter with the latest
information.  All you need is an Internet- accessible e-mail address.

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS INCLUDE:
      * LD patients
      * Friends or family of LD patients, who may wish to forward the
        newsletter to an LD patient
      * Interested members of the medical community
      * Interested members of the press


To subscribe, send a memo to Internet address  listserv@Lehigh.EDU
In the body type:

subscribe LymeNet-L <Your Real Name>

Please send problem reports to mcg2@Lehigh.EDU.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:36:35 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <vicorp!mc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject: Re: Finally, I got the primary custody.

Rama, what a great way to start the week, reading about your success in court.
Speaking for myself, it is extremely encouraging to hear tales of success
intermimgled with all the tales of despair.

Congratulations on your victory! You worked hard for it. I hope to be joining
the ranks soon.

--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:01:16 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <vicorp!mc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: Sexual Discrimination

Alan sez:
> There's a guy (I left his name at home) from the National Organization
> of Men, who is trying to get Massachusetts to release statistical
> information on the number of paternal custody awards, verses the number
> of uncontested divorces with kids and the number of contested custody
> divorces. Needless to say, the state is not cooperating. He claims the
> real number of paternal custody awards here is closer to 1% than the
> 10% figure cited nationawide. That wouldn't suprise me.

Alan

Would you mind finding this guy's name/number and either posting it or
sending it to me?
Thanks
--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mts: smtp
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:02:33 -0500
From:         finger@ADRA.COM
Subject:      Re: Sexual Discrimination

Oz writes:

> You're right!  It seems only logical and fair that we take this step.  I mean,
> we wouldn't want for there to be any sexual discrimination going on, right?

> It seems so simple (in theory) that I am skeptical.  Will it really work?  Can
> it be done?  To whom do I send my money (such that it is) to support this
 idea?
> Should we get the ACLU involved?  NOW (wouldn't that be great!)?

There's a guy (I left his name at home) from the National Organization
of Men, who is trying to get Massachusetts to release statistical
information on the number of paternal custody awards, verses the number
of uncontested divorces with kids and the number of contested custody
divorces. Needless to say, the state is not cooperating. He claims the
real number of paternal custody awards here is closer to 1% than the
10% figure cited nationawide. That wouldn't suprise me.

The trick is in gathering the data when the state has a vested interest
in keeping it from you.

  - Alan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:31:03 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <mc@VICORP.COM>
Subject:      GAL advice

Thanks to all of you for the advice on how to handle guardian ad litem
investigations. I wanted to make two points.

First off, I notice that postings of a personal nature -- about a member's
specific case -- are in the minority.  I'm wondering if there is a policy on
this? With regards to my topic, I feel confident that this type of anecdotal
information is extremely helpful to all parents in custody battles. I hope that
noone considers such personal postings a waste of bandwith.

Though what I will eventually submit has certainly benefited from the
information gleaned from the responses and the reading I've done ("Mom's House,
Dad's House", "Divided Children" by Michael Wheeler), I'm still in a quandary
over this basic dilemma:
  On the one hand, typical advice for fathers is "you *must* take the high
  road". Don't rag too much about your ex as you may be seen as shrill etc.
  I have heard this from virtually all quarters, so I believe there must be
  more than a kernel of wisdom to this advice. However, on the other hand,
  it is also true that courts are most likely to give custody to fathers ONLY
  IN CASES WHERE THE MOTHER IS SEEN AS "UNFIT".  It seems that the father
  *has* to denigrate his spouse, at least to the extent that she be perceived
  as "unfit".

So in the case where the mother is a fit mother by conventional standards,
but a horrible human being otherwise -- particularly in how she abused the
system to get temporary custody etc -- which path should a father take?
My take on this so far is to try and accomplish both but wording it all so
that potential damage to oneself is minimized, but to make sure that I get my
story heard.

It is worth mentioning that Rama posted that his written response to the
GAL questionnaire ran 160 pages. He won the custody battle. Though I don't
see myself producing that big a volume, I can easily see myself submitting
30 pages (including appendices).

Did those of you who suggested keeping the responses short and sweet have
successfull results, or has your opinion been formed because you were
informed that 'it would've been better if you didn't....' etc, etc after the
fact?

Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:04:32 -0500
From:         David Garrod <garrod@ECN.PURDUE.EDU>

I found the following posted in misc.legal
                                          David Garrod
Article: 39361 of misc.legal
From: matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt)
Subject: Status-based Law is Alive and Well
Summary: Proposed Maryland law will hold grandparents liable.

We have seen here in "misc.legal" the argument that Status-based law
is a relic of the Middle Ages, on its way out, an anachronism.  Well,
that's not so in Maryland.

Just today, Governor William Donald Schaefer proposed to the Maryland
General Assembly a bill that would hold parents of minor children
liable to pay child support for those children's children.  That is,
these grandparents would have to support their grandchildren solely
because they *were* their grandchildren.  That's an obligation based
on their Status as flesh-and-blood grandparents of their flesh-and-blood
grandchildren, not on any "contract" or "consent," or even upon their
having committed any "intentional" or "negligent" tort.

It's pure, Status-based law; it's as new as 1993; and it will have
no trouble getting through the Assembly.  Reports of the imminent
demise of Status-based law are highly exaggerated.

                                        -- Matt Rosenblatt
                                        (matt@amsaa.brl.mil)

Editorial comment (D.K.G.)

What`s new about this?  It has been common practise in most
states I have studied.  Basically, on the principal that the
parents of a minor are financially responsible for the obligations
of the minor.
I trust the new law does not state that the obligations of the
grandparents extend into the period after the age of minority
of their own child.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:51:36 EST
From:         Mark Charalambous <vicorp!mc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Subject:      Re: Sexual Discrimination

Rama sez:

>Unless fathers, collectively, are willing to fight back, nothing is going to
>change.  Once in a while, only in extreme circumstances, we will get a used bon
 e
>thrown at us.  Fathers do get custody sometimes, but do they get support like
>mothers do?

>I know we are all busy and do not have any money.  That is why is more importan
 t
>to work collectively and may be file one such case of discrimination and a very
>strong one.  I think it should be filed in a Fedral court against one of the
>states.  You need just one such precedent setting case to start with.

>I remember in one of the Supreme Court cases it was determined that in such
>situations one only has to show the discrimination by its effect not by its
>inention.

>Any ideas along the same lines?
>Which state?
>Which attorneys?
>Funding plans?
>Filing plans?
>Procedures?

I agree that it is more feasible to mount one attack. And speaking purely
selfishly, I would love to see it in the state that I am currently suffering
in: Massachussetts.
As arguments for Mass, I can say that it is considered one of the most
progressive states with regard to women's issues. The governor is a feminist
who believes, like our new President, in draconian measured to prosecute
"deadbeat dads". The feminist tradition runs deep here, particularly in
western Mass, the home of Smith College, birthplace of Emily Dickinson,
and the place where "Lesbianville, USA" (Northampton) if located.
The veritable "belly of the beast", as it were...

BTW, I apologize if this seems to be a bit of woman-bashing rhetoric.
Like most of the men I know, I believe in fairness and equality for both
sexes. I have nothing against feminism per se, except for where it violates
my rights as a man. Then it becomes sexual discrimination.

Let's do it.

--Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
content-length: 722
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:51:09 PST
From:         Michael Condry <Michael.Condry@ENG.SUN.COM>
Subject:      Re: email for Clinton/Gore

Did anyone try this?
> From @PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU:FREE-L@INDYCMS.BITNET Fri Jan 15 11:08:19 1993
> Subject:      email for Clinton/Gore
> X-To:         uunet!pucc.Princeton.EDU!FREE-L%INDYCMS.BITNET@uunet.UU.NET
> To: Multiple recipients of list FREE-L
 <FREE-L%INDYCMS.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
>
>                          email for Clinton/Gore
> REGARDING: email for Clinton/Gore
>
> A friend sent me the following email address for the president:
>
>
> > In case you're interested in sending a message/request:
> >
> >    75300.3115@compuserv.com
> >
> > I haven't tried it yet, but I heard that their staff replies fairly
> > quickly. Pass the address on!
>
> Should we invite them to join our list?
>
> -Oz
>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-Cc: HRL
X-VMS-To: IN%"FREE-L@INDYCMS.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.free-l
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:02:00 EDT
From:         HRL@PSUARCH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Finally, I got the primary custody.

Rama: Congratulations!  However, you are generous in allowing so much
      summer visitation with your X.  6 weeks at the most is thegeneral
      agreement that the CP would grant the X, depending on the age of the
      children.  This was my experience based on California law. Howard