Blowback on Darren Mack
June 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: On numerous occasions over the past year I have condemned the June, 2006 actions of Darren Mack. Mack is a wealthy Nevada father who was involved in a divorce when he stabbed his estranged wife to death and then executed a well-planned murder attempt on a Nevada judge.
Mack shot and wounded the judge but failed to kill him. According to the Reno Gazette-Journal, when police searched Mack's residence they found he "had bombmaking materials in his bedroom" as well as "several boxes of firearm ammunition."
At the time of Mack’s murder spree, I wrote:
“I condemn without qualification the crimes allegedly committed by Darren Mack in Nevada last week. Mack was angered by his divorce and custody case. Some on the not insubstantial lunatic fringe of the fathers' rights movement see Mack as some sort of freedom fighter. Most of the commentary by other fathers' rights advocates seem to be of the ‘he couldn't take it anymore and snapped’ variety.
“I don't buy it. Though everyone is focusing on Mack's attempted murder of a judge, everyone seems to forget that he first stabbed and killed his estranged wife. After murdering her, he shot the judge through the judge's third-floor office window with a sniper rifle from over 100 yards away. That's not ‘snapping’--that's premeditated murder. Mack is not a good man trapped in a bad system. He is a bad guy. Because of men like him the system had to create protections for women, and unscrupulous women have misused those protections to victimize countless innocent men. Men like Mack aren't the byproducts of the system's problems--they are the problem.”
Since it was the one-year anniversary of Mack’s murder spree recently, I posted my commentary from June of last year on my blog, with the comment “In reading it again now, I can't say I'd change a word.”
MensNewsDaily.com blogger “The Gonzman” didn’t like my blog post and posted an extensive response to it on MND called “Darren Mack II: A Response to Glenn Sacks.” In it Gonzman details his own miserable experience with the family law system and the way it often allows mothers to destroy the loving bonds children share with their fathers.
A few points:
The Gonzman’s main point in his criticism of me is that I do not have the right to criticize Mack because I’ve never walked in his shoes (i.e. I’m not a divorced dad). There are several problems with this argument:
1) When Gonzman writes of Darren Mack, he doesn’t see Darren Mack, he sees himself—himself and all of the decent loving fathers whose lives were manhandled by the family law system. Gonzman is assuming that Darren Mack is a good man victimized by the family law system. This is very speculative, particularly when you consider the terrible violence that Mack wreaked upon his estranged wife and those around him.
It is, of course, possible that Mack was mistreated by the system, but from what we know it sounds far more likely that he was the problem, not the victim. There are plenty of bad women out there, but there are also plenty of bad men out there. Mack is one of them.
2) "Only those who have been victims can judge” is a very flawed and dangerous line of thinking—a line of thinking feminists and misguided women’s advocates use against men every day. Much of the feminist movement and the anti-male laws and polices it has successfully promoted are based on the idea that only (female) victims can truly understand the enormity of the (male’s) crime. Women and their advocates are the only ones who should get to make the rules and everybody else (i.e. men) must shut up and take it.
For example, the criminal justice system has become very stacked against men accused of rape. One of the reasons is the deference of male legislators and judges to the pain of women who claim they’ve been raped.
Another example--male judges hand out restraining orders to any woman who cries, destroying innocent men’s lives along the way. This is in part because feminists promote the idea that a (male) judge doesn’t know how a battered woman feels and what she needs—how dare he refuse her what she says she needs?
(A personal note: No, I’m not a divorced dad, but I’ve received tens of thousands of letters from divorced dads, and I have a pretty good idea of how they feel and their pain. I’ve also spent an unfathomable amount of time answering these letters and trying to direct fathers towards help or offer advice.)
3) We’re often frustrated with the way the feminist movement and the media excuse women's misdeeds. There are countless examples of this. When Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub, Patricia Ireland, the former president of the National Organization for Women, blamed it on the patriarchy. When Gilberta Estrada murdered three of her four children, the media shifted blame onto her allegedly abusive ex.
Whenever a woman does something evil, the feminists and the mainstream media always seem to have some reason why she’s a victim, or it’s really a man’s fault. If we excuse or sympathize with Darren Mack, are we any different?
4) The Gonzman is outraged that I “put something out like this when Father's Day is mere hours away from us” and asks “What the HELL were you thinking?”
I didn’t put it out for Father’s Day—I put it out because it’s the one year anniversary of Mack’s murder spree, and numerous media outlets (including CBS and several Nevada newspapers) are covering the anniversary.
5) John Dias, a commenter on MND and on Gonzman’s post, wrote:
“How sad it is that Glenn feels he has to be so trapped in a rhetorical box that he can't even extend sympathy.”
I’m not “trapped” on Darren Mack—I had no need to even mention him, much less feel “trapped” into condemning him. I condemned him because it’s the right thing to do.
(As an aside, after Mack’s murder spree I was offered the chance to go on a couple of major television shows and take the point of view that “I condemn the murders but can sympathize with the pain that drove him to it.” I declined, because I don’t sympathize with him, and I believe such sentiments are bad for the movement. Others in the movement went on the shows instead.)
6) I can’t go into great detail on this, but while Mack was on the run after his murder spree he tried to bring in/corral certain leaders of the fathers’ movement to defend him in the media and explain away what he did. In other words, Mack was willing to publicly drag our movement through the mud and set us back 25 years over his case and his violence. I can’t imagine anything more selfish.
One final point—it is said that you can judge a movement by who its heroes are. Any modern movement which chooses to make a hero out of (or sympathize with) a murderer might as well pack up and go home right now--it will never go anywhere.
Gonzman’s criticism of me can be seen on MensNewsDaily here.
"));
19 queries. 0.367 seconds.
June 25th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
The feminists are busy defending April Griffin and her apparent abuse of her husband, children, and the judge, because it's important to them never to admit any of them are wrong.
Murder is murder.
Darren Mack can rot.
And I say that both because it's right and also out of selfishness: the Darren Macks of the world are a big reason that Fathers' Rights Groups have such a bad reputation.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I disagree...NOW, women's studies depts. and feminist groupthink are the reasons why Father's Rights activists enjoy the reputation we do. Almost no-one has any real direct exposure to MRA's, only filtered through a feminist lens.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Gonzman summed it up well in calling you out Glenn. You have never experienced the injustice that is Family Law.
Jerry too is incorrect. It will only be the occurrences of more individuals LIKE Darren Mack which will eventually swing this pendulum the other way, not people who sit & type on a keyboard.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:51 am
In response to Eddie:
Direct action is one thing - I have no problem with people such as Matt Connor making a pain in the arse of themselves by climbing buildings - but murder is just murder.
Leaving aside the dubious morality of celebrating his cold-blooded killing of two human beings, one from a considerable distance, think about how this plays into the hands of the other crazies out there - the feminist organisations like NOW.
It may be rank hypocrisy on their part, but they WILL exploit situations like this to make the erroneous observation that only men are violent, that we're the problem not women, and that legislation should continue to be tailored to suit their worldview.
It mat be tempting to think that picking up a gun, or using other extreme measures, will right all our wrongs, but it's political pressure that will actually achieve what we want. Some of that will grow from (the right sort of) direct action, but an awful lot more will stem from "people who sit & type on a keyboard" like Glenn.
June 26th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Glenn, try not to run away from this area of the issue. This is the most important part of the issue because these are the lives that can never be fixed. Do it in memory of the victims, future victims and innocent lives already lost. Work it out, you can do it! -HD
June 26th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Frankly, I think it's a testament to the strength of the MRM, that two luminaries of the movement (no modesty necessary here) can disagree on such a seemingly fundamental issue - publicly - yet still work together towards a common goal while showing the other respect. I personally tend to lean more to Gonz's way of thinking, whenever someone tells me how I should feel or the "proper" response to a thing. I tend more to Glenn's side of this issue strictly on the basis of murder being wrong in any case, and by all accounts Darren Mack was a dick. I can see how otherwise good men would be driven over the precipice, and I definitely see the potential for the "revolution" some people are pining for, but I can't get behind Mack on this.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:35 am
Darren Mack is certainly not a hero.
But he is an evidentiary "exhibit". He is evidence of the undeniable fact that a certain percentage of people -- mostly men -- are being driven to snap by the decisions being forced upon them by "family" courts.
For each one who does something illegal in response to what they perceive to be an unfair decision, how many thousands of (men) are suffering indescribably while they do nothing illegal, but rather sit alone with their sorrows and pain, and continue to suffer for decades after the "family" court does what it does so often to men?
If society accepts that there are a certain number of potential "Darren Macks" in our society, a possibly relevant question is that of whether our country really wishes to allow the continued unchecked crushing of families by "family" court, when among all the other silent victims, we also will unavoidably have these not-so-silent, and highly violent, individuals' responses inflicted upon us.
It is statistically certain that more events like this one will occur as a consequence of family court decisions in America. It is also statistically likely that this horrible deed will not be the most horrible one witnessed in our country. How many more tragedies need to happen before our government starts to listen to the people's clearly expressed beliefs that shared custody and shared parenting -- and not lawyer-facilitated economic looting of one parent by the other -- is what can and should happen in America when families break up?
June 26th, 2007 at 11:36 am
"Mack was willing to publicly drag our movement through the mud and set us back 25 years over his case and his violence."
Too bad Mary Winkler doesn't seem to have set the woman-firsters back any. She was simply Darren Mack in a dress.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I'm with Glenn on this one, but that isn't surprising.
If we're going to put Dads on pedastals, how about Mark Harris?
Jailed for waving at my daughter -- Daily Mail
June 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I agree with Glenn about Darren Mack. From Chris_C's link:
"Two months after she left, she asked if he would take her back. Mark was too hurt to contemplate that. Instead, he launched divorce proceedings.
'At that point, it didn't even occur to me that access to the children would be an issue. I was granted unrestricted access - but later I discovered that even then my wife was seeing a solicitor, with a view to having my time with them reduced. She said it was confusing for them to see me.'
THE FAMILY court agreed, and his access was reduced to three times a week, then to once a week and finally to once a fortnight. Mark was stunned to discover he was powerless to resist. 'I petitioned the judge every time, but there was nothing I could do,' he says. "
It's an outrage. It must stop. When will it stop? I hold these judges in contempt. Let them start to feel uncomfortable about what they do.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I agree with the Anonymous poster about the evidentiary exhibit, and I believe that being intellectually honest demands an acknowledgement of this phenomenon, regardless of one's feelings about it. The more that laws progress towards injustice, the greater the number of just people that will break those laws. Extremists, both men and women, will always justify their actions with appeals to suffering injustice, and the fact that any portion of society can accept a defense of the killings he did is a testament to how unjust the laws are, not how much injustice he suffered personally. Once he was a man that people would call normal, fitting in to society: after being processed by the family court system, this man who once blended into society became a killer. That is tragic in itself, and is one thing all mens' rights and fathers' rights people should be able to agree on.
William Heatherington qualifies as a martyr under even the strictest ethical interpretations, like Martin Luther King who explained "When a country has laws that are unjust, a perfectly just man can be found in prison." (That's paraphrased, by the way.) Suffering a long time, whether in silence or not, is the province of martyrs and saints. Darren Mack could have suffered silently, but chose instead to lash out. When the time came to choose, he proved himself more of an animal than a saint.
John Milton wrote that "Dying for your cause is easy; living for that cause, long days in and longs day out, unrewarded, and losing hope of achieving it, and still living for that cause without surrender, that is by far more difficult." (Also paraphrased.)
June 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
A side note-
Glenn: I agree that "Only those who have been victims can judge” is not the way to go. From reading you for some time, I am certain you are grateful that you have never been in the hot seat before a judge. There is something though, a feeling, that goes beyond intellectually knowing, beyond sympathizing and trying to empathize, when a judge dismisses your humanity with a gavel or a curt comment. I wouldn't wish you to know that feeling, ever. But feeling that is different from knowing about it. You probably know that, too, but acknowledging it in print from time to time wouldn't hurt. It is a subtle difference from the way you have said it in the past, but worth noting.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I've never been to family court, but I'm still incredibly outraged and angry with family court judges, and how they treat parents, women as well as men.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Anonymous. It reminds me of how the Columbine killings created an immediate awareness of the problems of bullying in schools. You don't have to feel sympathy for the individual(s) to appreciate that there are injustices in our society that need to be addressed.
June 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Gonzman's walk-a-mile-in-my-shoes argument is ultimately self-refuting. If it's necessary to have walked a mile in his shoes to understand him, why is he bothering to communicate what it was like walking in his shoes? Only those persons who have walked in his shoes could possibly understand him--and ultimately that means only himself. It's a solipsistic position to take.
A Gonzman with a walk-a-mile-in-my shoes philosophy seems to have a predictive theory of human behavior. A beautiful idea, only there is no predictive theory of human behavior. People may behave irrationally under pressure--so what? It seems that Darren Mack wasn't exactly a paragon of moral rectitude. The relation between internal feelings and behavior isn't understood well enough to predict how one person is going to behave based on how he feels. So walking a mile in Gonzman's shoes isn't going to shed much light on anything. Reading Gonzman's story is another matter altogether.
The internal feelings one might experience walking in Gonzman's shoes might lead one to do all kinds of things. But whatever those feelings are, they lie completely outside the moral spheres. The things one might do, under the influence of Gonzman-feelings, lie within the moral sphere. And morality and the law should be applied impartially to all persons. We don't need to make exceptions for the Darren Macks or the Gonzmen of the world, on account of the internal feelings they experienced walking in their shoes. Their behavior is at issue.
June 26th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Mack was a cold-blooded killer, not a hero. He left his kids without a mother.
I don't buy the "Walk-A-Mile-In-My-Shoes" argument. I haven't been to Iraq, but I still have a right to an opinion on the Iraq war.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:35 am
It's clearly not a solipsistic position when MANY men are experiencing situations extremely similar to Darren Mack.
I worked @ Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church rectory from the age of 18 - 21. I challenged Monsignor Evans as to why he was dumbing down his sermon for the people. His reply... Ed, you have to know the audience to whom you are addressing.
Op Ed is clearly self-aggrandizing himself through his words which do not serve to offer any truth to the injustice that is clearly occuring to men.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Jeff:
Some children might fare better left without lying, cheating, whores for which to call mothers.
Luke 8:
19Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."
21He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."
June 27th, 2007 at 4:22 am
A friend of mine was subpoenaed to a chancery court to testify on behalf of a woman whose husband violated a restraining order against him. In this case it was deserved--the divorce was several years and several wife-beatings in the making. But the point is that my friend was horrified by the incredibly punitive child support judgments against the defendants of the various cases that were being heard.
The judge, who was continually filling out forms and rarely looked away from her paperwork, asked a hulking heavy lifter in a cut-off tee shirt if he could manage to pay $5000 a month. My friend said this guy probably wouldn't see that kind of money in a year. Case after case was like this. An elderly black woman was present with her minister; she owed $30,000. The minister couldn't do anything. A twenty-five year old woman was summoned to the court on account of back child support--she had been out of work. Her boyfriend was present. The judge even asked the boyfriend if he had any money. When he said he did not, the woman was led away in handcuffs.
The point is that it isn't necessary to walk in their shoes to see the injustice of a system in which child support is structured as a fine that has to be paid to the court. An Egyptian businessman was present who had paid his wife $2000 directly. It didn't count: it had to be paid to the court.
So much for the theory that you need to walk a mile in those person's shoes. Saying otherwise is an absolute insult, whether intended or not: normal humans are born with an innate sense of fairness. Even chimpanzees know when they are being cheated.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It will be interesting to see further details of the Chris Benoit incident unfold. My wager is the wife was talking divorce and this guy snapped.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Why is Chalmers a tragic figure but Mack is a vile villain? I have walked in his shoes and I understand how Mack felt. I would never kill anyone but the frustration you experience in the system is hard to imagine until you have been through it. There is a joke about the guy goes into the dentist and says I'm in a big hurry just pull the tooth forget about the anesthia I don't have time to wait. The dentist thinks who is this brave guy and the guy looks at his friend and says "well tell him which tooth you need pulled."
June 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Fine: you win. It's pointless to listen to anyone's hard-luck story because in order to imagine what it's like, you have to walk in their shoes. In that case, I'm not interested.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Darren Mack isnt necessarily a freedom fighter for the movement but his defiance certainly represents the justified outrage at the feminist movement and the judicial conspiracy against mens civil rights. I consider this situation facing us to be a national security issue and we should be using war powers to effectively remove feminists, marxists and subversives from the government if necessary. Right now the radicals enjoy complete imunity from prosecution or investigation and have created a clique that impedes justice deliberately because they are using their own version of asymetrical warfare to eliminate our civil rights. This is a low intensity war, but it is a war nonetheless and we need to come to terms with that fact.
June 27th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
There are many valid points being made on all sides here, despite the injustices we face. I would like to agree with Eddie when he says"---individuals LIKE Darren Mack which will eventually swing this pendulum the other way, not people who sit & type on a keyboard." I cannot , however. Such isolated actions only serve to cause the shysters and judges to impose further persecution, as they fight to completely subdue and subjugate us. A more valid approach is that to which Marlon Brando's character in "Apocalypse Now" refers when he says, "Given a hundred such men, I could win this war." There must be a plan and direction before action can have a chance to succeed. One more point is that of morality, for which I will quote a sailor who was killed at the age of 17 in 1943: "God must grant us a special dispensation for the terrible things that we must do in war." As for me, I will think a lot more than twice before going to war again, and willl try doing everything short of it to change this situation, but I am becoming increasingly pessimistic. Speak not lightly of war, but neither condemn those who have been pushed into it by a system which is persecuting them far in excess of what King George IV did to Patrick Henry, Thomas Jeffersn, et al before July 4, 1776!
June 28th, 2007 at 6:18 am
We should recognize the reasons for Macks behavior. Not to condone his behavior. Glenn made some strong points at the reactions to be recieved by such behavior.
However, in support for "Anoynmous" I believe that there will be more "martyr's" out there. Is mack a CRAZED lunatic, and bad person, I don't know him? However he well understood what he was doing and obviousley for what reason! So he isn't CRAZY, however a bad person, well he killed, and delibartly hurt another person. Yes, I guess he is not a good person. He did have a strong motive. So that we should recognize, Not to condemn him in his motive. Just condemn his reaction!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I don't agree with every single word that Glenn utters. If I did, he wouldn't be worth reading! That said, must we have died to talk about our view of death? Must we have been to war to have valid opinions about it? The answer is that we no more have to have experienced these events than to have been through a divorce to hold valid opinions and make insightful observations about it and them. Glenn is doing a great job. He is often a moderate voice, as well as a politically astute tactician in his arguments. I absolutely understand the argument that you must have experienced it to really feel the depths of emotion. To go outside of divorce, I never really felt my father's fellings about war, nor talked to him in depth about it, until I returned from one. Still, my opinion about what we should do in that war changed very little, as I was a college graduate when I was drafted and had studied it and talked to returning friends, yet that still did not give me the depth of emotion that being there did! Keep up the good work Glenn, and please don't become a "divorce veteran" yourself!
July 21st, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Mr. Sacks I feel that we do not need to fight among ourselves, but together to try and fix a system that has gone amuck against FATHERS and their rights, and this is foe the future of this nation. The need that childern have a good Father in their lives has been ignored in the family courts and systems that are there for the benefit of chilren. It seems that the system does not believe that a FATHER has any influnece on their children, and until FATHER'S groups, children's groups and other groups interested in equality in families the children, our future, will pay the price. Thank You Cariel Dobbs
October 25th, 2007 at 12:01 am
[...] My remarks caused some controversy within the fathers' right movement--to learn more, click here. [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 12:34 am
[...] Blowback on Darren Mack (A response to a MensNewsDaily.com writer's criticism of me) [...]
February 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
[...] Blowback on Darren Mack (A response to a MensNewsDaily.com writer's criticism of me) [...]
February 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Glenn,
I had hoped to respond to this last week. However various members of my organization had pressing matters that warranted my immediate attention, hence my delayed response in voicing my opinion in this forum.
Being a recipient of your newsletter, you may recall that I replied back in support of your assessment of "Murderous Mack" as a 'perpetrator', and not Mack as the 'victim" whereby he so ineptly attempted to deceitfully cloak himself as during his trial.
I incorrectly assumed that my response would be brief. That was until I read the posts in this thread as well as that of, "The Gonzman." Prior to undertaking this long-winded "Italian missive" I must be honest and admit that I didn't read "The Gonzman's" piece in its entirety. This wasn't for lack of time, but rather for a lack of interest. As he wrote, his words quickly lost credibility in my opinion.
To enjoy reading the works of others, their writing must engage my intellect. "The Gonzman's" attack on you in his futile attempt to rebut you lacked significant merit. Furthermore, it tormented my mind as would that of a 'radfems' misandry at worst, or as unfounded and baseless whining and complaining at best.
Please do not misconstrue this as an attack on The Gonzman as it's not that at all. He's paid to write because of his obvious gifted ability. However, the pen is mightier than the sword, and I hope that what "The Gonzman" swung at you Glenn is not what I interpreted it to be; An attack on Glenn as a person rather than a rebuttal to his position as a writer.
Should I be correct in the assumptions I've made, may I humbly suggest that The Gonzman "sleep on" the next article that, "hits too close to home." It's my humble opinion that he lost all objectivity as a writer when he attacked not Glenn as an author, but Glenn as a Father.
Please allow me to explain. To discount Glenn's ability to offer, "meaningful insight" regarding Murderous Mack's possible motive because he has never been "victimized by the system" isn’t an innocent comment, it’s patently offensive and deserving of an apology in my humble opinion.
The fault in The Gonzman’s logic is painfully obvious. If Glenn isn’t, "capable" of offering meaningful insight about Darren Mack’s case due to his lack of stripes as a "beaten down dad", then was Judge Weller capable of hearing Mack’s divorce case if he wasn’t beaten down in a divorce trial himself?
Were the jurors who determined Darren Mack’s fate (after all, life in jail is very serious penalty) qualified to render a fair judgment if they themselves (the men of course) weren’t, "legally raped" and "taken to the cleaners" through divorces of their own? How could they possibly render a fair decision if they weren’t bankrupted by a child support order, and/or forcibly kept away from their children themselves by a biased and out of control family court judge?
I am a Father who was, "legally raped" by, "the system." In almost 4 years of trials, one, ONE motion was ruled in my favor, that’s out of almost 40 total. At age 37 I had a six figure portfolio, had perfect credit, was readying to buy my fourth piece of real estate. I would have had a net-worth of between $1.5 and $2 million between the ages of 55 and 60.
Today at age 41, I’m bankrupt. I am facing foreclosure on my last two properties, my utilities are set to be disconnected for non-payment, I was terminated by my last employer (this past December) when the "Fugitive Warrant Unit" came to my former place of employment (to arrest me) not once but, TWICE.
Why was there a warrant out for my arrest? I "refused" to pay my half of court costs for my divorce as ordered to by the court. I was indigent because the State of Ohio stole so much of my net pay for, "child support."
Like a fool, I assumed the Magistrate would show me some mercy when I presented a foreclosure notice at my contempt hearing that was demanding $4500 by August 1, 2007. The trial took place on or about July 7, 2007. I further explained to the Magistrate that I was overdrawn by $600 in my checking account. In his ruling devoid of empathy and compassion the magistrate said, "The Defendant argues an inability to pay, however he is employed."
In exercising mercy he sentenced me to 30 days incarceration. In a further act of compassion, the judge added 30 more days for a total of 60 days incarceration for my, "refusal" to pay court costs. When I didn’t "purge my contempt" by paying the $600 I didn’t have, my local Sheriff’s, "Fugitive Warrant Unit" went to my former place of employment in an attempt to arrest me. My employer in turn fired me for it, and my claim for unemployment was denied.
The Fugitive Warrant Unit was successful in arresting me after they pointed a gun at me (I didn’t have my contacts in but knew it was a gun when the laser beam hit the wall I was standing next to) and after they knocked the window out of my front door to break into my home and arrest this, "criminal."
So not only did the court bankrupt me through my child support order, they took away my means to support myself (by causing me to be terminated from my job), as well as the means to pay court costs. Next, they incarcerate me for my "refusal" to pay. As I sit typing this, I’m trying to figure out how I can get some gas money to drive to a sibling’s house on my expired license plates. Both of my vehicles have expired tags because I obviously can’t afford to renew my plates.
During Darren Mack’s trial, I was fortunate enough to still be employed. I would go to my company’s fitness center at lunch and watch the trial while I worked out. I did this for 7 – 10 days. I personally heard Judge Weller’s testimony, and you know what I was thinking? "I wish I had a judge as fair as he." I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what Darren Mack was so angry about. Not only was he not, "getting taken to the cleaners" (in my humble opinion of course) I felt that Judge Weller actually leaned in Mack's FAVOR!!
I remember becoming angry at Mr. Mack for having the audacity to complain about, "mistreatment and prejudice" when by all accounts, it seemed to me that Judge Weller may have been slightly biased TOWARDS him!
He didn’t "snap!" I know Fathers who have, he planned and carried out murder and attempted murder! Glenn, I applaud you for having the courage to speak the truth! I whole-heartedly stand behind you and commend you for all you’ve championed for us "downtrodden Fathers" even though you, "drink from a silver cup." To those who insulted Glenn for standing upon his convictions, maybe you should consider apologizing? After all, who says you’re correct in your assumptions, you?
To The Gonzman, I say this. "Glenn may not have the "experience" as a "beaten down deadbroke Dad," but when it comes to fighting for Fathers Rights here in America, I challenge you to produce just one other Father who has been so instrumental, so influential, so passionate and so effective in fighting for Father’s Rights as Glenn Sacks has. Please sir, name for me just one and I will stand corrected.
Tony Fantetti
President
The Ohio Council For Fathers Rights
http://www.ocffr.org/blog
http://www.ohiofathersrights.com
http://www.cincydads.org
Phone: +1.513.662.6237
Email: tony.fantetti@ocffr.org
August 11th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Rethinking Fathers’ Rights
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151724