First Darren Mack, Now Herbert Chalmers--More Radical Fathers' Rights Idiocy
February 10th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesRadical fathers' rights advocate Steve Hutchings wrote the following comment to the Rocky Mountain News as a response to my recent co-authored column 'Duped dads' bill could foster closer ties (2/7/07):
"'Child support' is code for alimony. Custodial egg donors and State Attorney Generals hide behind law enforcement to steal money by proxy. They are all cowards and racketeers. What upsets me more though is how many Fathers tolerate it, and how much money they waste on futile legal efforts (attorneys = racketeer) when they should take matters into their own hands.
"Unfortunately the only way to protect our children and next generation of fathers from bondage and restore justice is through a zero tolerance approach (bloodshed), like fallen hero Herbert Chalmers did when Attorney General of Missouri refused to stop stealing (known as garnishing) his wages for children that were not his. Every Father that fights, refuses and resists injustice ..... is part of the solution..."
Great--the mentally-imbalanced "radicals" at the extreme end of the fathers' rights movement have a new hero.
First it was Darren Mack, a despicable Nevada father who, unhappy with his family law case, stabbed and murdered his estranged wife and attempted to murder a judge. Now it's Herbert Chalmers, a child support obligor who went postal after being treated horribly by child support enforcement in Missouri.
Chalmers killed several people before killing himself. Chalmers certainly had reason for his rage but what he did was inexcusable under any circumstances, and hardly makes him a "fallen hero."
Who's the next "hero" for these loonies--Tony Camacho?
"));
19 queries. 0.332 seconds.
February 10th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Some people will believe that it's okay to discriminate against fathers because some men are potentially violent like Darren Mack and Herbert Chalmers. These people will say that men like Steve Hutchings are proof of their belief. On the other hand, although some mothers kill their children, people rationally do not consider women in general as dangerous to their children.
Fathers' rights as an idea is tarnished by men like Steve Hutchings.
Notice how Steve Hutchings gets press, meanwhile there is no debate about Shared Parenting.
February 10th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Glenn--
If you were as old as the Geezer, you would recall the early days of the wimmin's movement, when their bomb-throwers said about the same sort of inflammatory rhetoric. Early stage movements need the "way far out" folks to bring attention to the issue.
Unfortunately, this guy could be more eloquent, but it does make you think, even if he did not tie it together too well.
Government needs to seriously assess the "risk premium" that is attached to unjust garnishments, extreme CS orders, and other egregious actions. The risk they fail to see is the two guys, who I know you despise, but who clearly demonstrate what happens when guys are pushed too far.
Losing your entire hard build life savings, or being assessed CS for a kid that is not yours, that they admit is not yours, is not easy to take for those whose sociialization is less than ours, and they lash out, even kill people.
Until the gub'mint recognizes the obvious results of their egregious policies, these unfortunate incidents will continue, at even a greater rate.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:28 am
"Early stage movements need the “way far out” folks to bring attention to the issue."
Yes, and Fathers 4 Justice can be commended for their non-violent, attention-getting actions.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
test1
February 15th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Although I cannot get behind any violent actions taken against others. I can see where some one can be pushed over the edge. The only diifernece is we fathers are not considered important enough for government to care...hell all we are are ATM's to them...
February 17th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Dear Glenn,
I applaud your website for the rights of disenfranchised fathers. However, I must respectfully disagree with you on some of your views.
You condemn the actions of disenfranchised fathers that have been backed into a corner, judicially bankrupted and deprived of contact with their children until they exploded. Even the Diamondback Rattlesnake will avoid confrontation until cornered. ONLY then will it respond with deadly force.
I am not a violent person, and I followed the Fathers For Equal Rights guidance called the "Clean Hands" philosophy. My ex got regular support increases, which kept her and her "revolving door" abusive ex-convict boyfriends (MUCH more sexy than ME!) in drugs, yet she still managed to alienate my children from me. Somehow she succeeded in convincing them that I didn't pay child support. However, when the check for 75% of my wages arrrived. "IT''S PARTY TIME!". Yet I HAVE LOST MY CHILDREN!
I take offense when you condemn those that respond with violence. If you stepped on a rattlesnake and it bit you, I would burst into laughter when you cried "WHY did it DO that?"
THINK about that last statement! (Don't Tread On Me!)
Sincerely,
Bill Trusty
March 7th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Glenn--- I agree with The Geezer's post. Violence has a time and a place, even though it is never pleasant or welcome. Time and again you have highlighted the inflexibility of selected womens' rights activists or advocates. If those most inflexible individuals did gain absolute power, other avenues of protest would disappear, and eventually violence becomes a last resort. You yourself have remarked on the fact that these results are sometimes expected. This fellow with a letter you labelled stupid may not write well. But remember: Patrick Henry and Malcolm X both advocated violence, and both were well-regarded in their times, and beyond. And garnishment under false pretenses is theft. He may not be totally right, but I don't think he's totally wrong either.
March 20th, 2007 at 10:38 am
quote "Notice how Steve Hutchings gets press, meanwhile there is no debate about Shared Parenting.
There is always the possibility that someone with an agenda could be using a signing with a man's name.
It's an old publicity trick, fooling the press into giving free publicity to further your cause. It has sold alot of records., too.
It's concievable that a feminist radical would gain from painting men as terrorists waiting to happen.
There is so much distortion of truth and justice in these issues, I don't underestimate what could be next.
It's already off the charts for decades now and the system and feminists are getting away with it, so what would be suprising anymore?
Targeted Father
April 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Chalmers may not be a hero, but he is certainly a dead victim of the beast of family law and possibly a martyr to our persecution.
June 14th, 2007 at 12:50 am
[...] Do I Even Need to Say This? (6/19/06, see below), Thomas Jefferson Murdered Women? (6/26/06), First Darren Mack, Now Herbert Chalmers--More Radical Fathers' Rights Idiocy (2/10/07), and Darren Mack and the Presumption of [...]
February 29th, 2008 at 6:14 am
Glenn it is unreasonable to expect anyone to stand still and allow themselves to be unjustly raped of their children, home and money and then condemn them when they fight back the only way they can...
February 29th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
DaPoet--Darern Mack had joint custody of his daughter, one week on/one week off. He had a good arrangement, one which most divorced dads would envy.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:16 am
Radical problems require radical solutions. No father has saved himself from exploitation by family court officials by being passive and cooperative .
May 20th, 2008 at 2:19 am
For what it is worth, I am not an advocate of a person taking the law into there own hands, however I can honesly say that I understand how a person could feel that there is no other solution. I have not spoken nor have I seen my 9 year old son in more than 6 months. I had 12 days a month with him for the first 8 years of his life and could not have imagined a better father/son relationship than the one we shared. Since I reside in my ex-wife's home town and mine is on the oposite coast, he and I shared every hour of those 12 days together with the exception of the time that he was at school. In November of last year his mother was granted full custody based on an Order To Show Cause that she filed with the court and my self and all members of my extended family have been prevented any contact at all. The reasons that she listed were all fictitious 3rd party statements and the order was granted without question! After several thousands of dollars in attorney fees and several court visits over the past 6 months, I am no closer today than I was when this began to re-establishing contact with my son. The most disturbing thing is that there was never and still is no legal, moral or ethical reason why this child is being prevented his biological right to have equal time with both parents. Why a mother and a family court would allow any child to go 6 months without contact from any member of one parent and their extended family should be a concern to each and every adult in this country. He has not even been allowed to know his now 2 year old sister during this time either. If you think that this can not happen to you, you may be next! I welcome any comments and would be very willing to discuss this matter in detail with anyone who might be naive enough to believe that this could not happen without cause.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 am
I'm sure someone has brought it up before, but in case not .........
Do people realize that the terms "family court" and "family law" are oxymorons?
ALL of the money and time and resources spent involved with something that, by definition, does not legitimately EXIST
????????