Domestic Violence – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

How do Red Flag Gun Laws REALLY Work denying MEN’S Rights?

Red Flag Gun Law are promoted as a means to prevent illegal use but in effect are designed to usurp Constitutional protections of individuals and due process rights. Many oppose these as a violation of the Second Amendment, which it is, but the intent isn’t specifically to prevent you from possessing a firearm as it is a means of government control of your individual actions and result in violation of many of your rights established under the Bill of Rights. While many think these are relatively new, those of us advocating for parental rights have been fighting these unjust “Red Flag” laws enacted under the guise of protecting women and children which are now being spread to a greater portion of society.

The first problem with Red Flag Laws is a denial of due process. The initial filing occurs ex parte, meaning the person seeking the order files it with a Judge without the targeted person allowed to present a counter argument in court. The filing is considered a civil matter and as such the standard of proof is greatly reduced to a preponderance of the evidence (51% for) but with no rebuttal and opposing argument it isn’t difficult to see that the person filing can reach that level of “proof.” Further Judges are reluctant to deny a request for an order as there are few, if any, repercussions to the Judge for issuing the order (He’s acting based on the “evidence” and further has judicial immunity from being sued). However, if he doesn’t issue an order and the firearms are sued illegally the Judge (many of these elected positions) faces public notoriety and backlash for not preventing the crime. The government is stealing your property without you being charged with a crime of given a chance to even address the allegations against you.

A discussion of standards of proof is needed to understand how this process violates the US Constitution. As a police officer I was supposed to establish a suspicion (usually an allegation by a person) that a crime was, or was about to be, committed before investigating a person. Next I had to develop evidence giving me a reasonable belief that this person committed a specific crime and I could present this to the court who, finding probable cause, would issue a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. While it could be argued that the process for “Red Flag” Laws is similar to this it ignores the fact that the processes for a “civil” matter do NOT rise to the same level of scrutiny that criminal matters do and it is the one sided allegation with no investigation which is presented to the civil judge.

Once issued the order needs to be enforced and here the “civil matter” is turned into a criminal matter as the police are the enforcers of the order and it is violation of the order itself which makes it a criminal matter. So possession of a firearm itself is not per se a criminal matter, but you failing to abide by the order (criminal contempt or contempt of court depending on jurisdiction) is the violation of law. Remember, the targeted person has no idea the police are about to show up at his door and seize his legally held firearms. And armed with an order that says he is a danger to himself or another is bound to cause the police (like the Judge) to err on the side of safety and respond in an aggressive manner.

An argument for these Red Flag Laws, which must here be rebutted, has been to prevent mentally ill people from harming themselves or another with a firearm but in these instances the government already has a process in place. A police officer who has probable cause (a preponderance of evidence) a person is a danger to themselves or the public can take them into custody on mental health grounds (again varying on jurisdiction) and deliver them to a health facility for evaluation, said facility able to hold them for 72 house for evaluation and if it is found they are a danger then the process to enforced mental health treatment starts. This an action totally separate for government criminal enforcement. One does wonder that if a person is a danger to themselves or another why it is reasonable to seize their firearms and then let them free to avail themselves of the multitude of ways one person can harm themselves or another?

There are many instances of Red Flag Order confiscations going awry but the fact is that most people, when presented with a court order and armed police officers, comply with the seizure and look to use the system to right the wrong. Many jurisdictions give a 2 week return date for a hearing but in practicality the 2 week return is a preliminary hearing only where people are advised of their “right” to “prove their innocence” and obtain legal representation towards this. And we can see that the government has moved the burden of proof, which criminally lies with the government and civilly lies with the petitioner, onto the defendant/respondent. The entire Bill of Rights has been turned on its head with you guilty until proven innocent. Pray tell, how does one PROVE that they are not going to commit an act in the future? Perhaps the government will develop a “Precrime” division with some “Pre-Cogs” to tell us all what we’ll do tomorrow?

Government regulation of individuals started with government regulation of fathers through (anti) family and divorce courts and the issuance of Orders of Protection (OOP). Initially (anti) family/matrimonial civil OOP’s were limited to persons married and those having a child in common, like above the civil action given to criminal enforcement. This was expanded to “persons in an intimate relationship” as defined by the person filing with ex parte filings allowed. But not allowing enough of the population to be controlled the ability to file for “civil” protective orders enforced by rule of criminal law the authority to file needs to be expanded and the persons filed against also. So the preferred government filers are “police, teachers, and mental health professionals,” the government controlled professions already interfering with parental rights and brain washing children, many of them gun control and advocates arguing no citizen should carry a firearm.

Like persons facing allegations of Domestic Violence (DV) we can expect the “Gun Red Flag” civil laws to work the same developing a data base of alleged violators. If arrested and found not guilty you can have your record expunged but allegation of DV exist in a data base in which you can NOT have allegations expunged. These allegations exist in perpetuity are used as a means to determine future violations and so allegations then become the basis of the preponderance of evidence used to deny you a Constitutional Right. The data base of allegations is used to determine “primary aggressors and future violators” and we can expect the same tactic to be used on legal gun owners. The fear is not government but is fear of your fellow citizens, brain washed friends and family members, and the public at large who will file complaints followed up on by “professionals” with no adjudication. Every anti gun person becomes a government agent just as every single date becomes an “intimate relationship” if she says so, subjecting you to government control.

Advocates for Red Flag Laws will tell you that OOP’s work, ignoring the fact that the crimes they are “preventing” carry higher sentences than violating the OOP does. So in effect if an OOP is issued the only person it will work on is the person who was not likely to commit the crime “prevented” in the first place. We can expect the same padding of statistics to occur in states which add Red Flag Gun seizures. And can anyone explain why we need to seize firearms from a man who is dangerous but then return the man into the public to harm himself or another with other than a firearm? If a piece of paper stopped a criminal from committing a crime we would not need to get bail on arrestees as a piece of paper would work against repeat offenders. We see how well that works in “no bail” states where repeat offenders run rampant.

I am a life member of multiple 2A Organizations and a 25 year parental rights activist in addition to being a 33 year (retired) Law Enforcement Officer and PBA Representative and have been writing kindred (or which should be kindred) organizations, Republican’s and Democrats, and civil rights organizations since the 1990s about the continuing encroachment upon due process of law and the US Constitution with no response. I was also victimized by this system, my story here. I also advocated for many parents going through this process, many with valuable gun collections which were seized, hunters and target shooters restricted from their recreation, and many police officers who were placed on “the rubber gun squad” being restricted from carrying a firearm and placed on desk duty, among others. Most spend thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, lost time and money from work, a public assault on their character which takes months, if not years to adjudicate.

With intimate partners and gun owners subject to “pre-crime” orders restricting our conduct I can only guess which class of people will be the next subjected to a Red Flag Law? Continue to ignore the warnings and you could be the next one subjected to tyranny and loss of liberty under the guise of “protection”.

Lt. James H. Hays (Ret)

Retired En-Con Police Lieutenant, past Investigator Governors LI Solid Waste Task Force, En-Con Police Officer NYS DEC DLE, Past SUNY University Police Officer, Past NYS Park Police Officer, Past Municipal Police Officer, Past Military Police Officer and Civilian Liaison with Killeen, TX Police Department, 33 years LE experience.

Founder, NYMAN (nymensactionnetwork.org), Co-founder and Past President of The Coalition for Fathers and Families NY, Life Member, American Coalition Fathers and Children, Life Member National Coalition of Free Men, Past President FRA Capital District Chapter, Past Board Member FRANYS, Founder and Past Treasurer NY Men’s Action Network PAC.

Life Member NRA, Life Member NYSRPA, Life member NAGR, Life Member 2A Foundation, Life member of Gun Owners of America, Life Member NYS Conservation Council.

Retired Member PBA of NYS, Past Chief Steward, En-Con Police Officers and Supervisors, NYSCOPBA, Past Executive Board Member Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO.

Member and Past regional representative for the NY Conservation Officers Association.

Certified Critical Incident Stress Management with 1000+ contact hours in individual and peer support for fathers and families in crisis.

Bachelors in Family and Society, SUNY ESC, AS Business Administration, AS Environmental Conservation and Law Enforcement, En-Con Police 8th Basic Academy, Certified Police Special Topics Instructor, (Domestic Violence, EVOC, ATVEOC, SEAVOC, Solid Waste Identification and Enforcement), En-Con Supervisors Academy, University Police Basic Academy, Military Police School, NCO Training School

The idiocy of Orders of Protection and seizure of firearms

The DOJ is asking SCOTUS to overturn a decision overturning a federal conviction for felony possession of a firearm due to restrictions by an order of protection (OOP). Zackey Rahimi had agreed to a civil OOP after a physical altercation with his girlfriend which according to 18 United States Code 922 prevented him from possessing firearms as it “prohibited” him from harassing, stalking, or threatening her or their child. Police later found him in possession of a rifle and a pistol and he was charged with a federal felony. On appeal his conviction was overturned as it conflicted with the SCOTUS Bruen Decision and the Second Amendment.

The left wing is in turmoil over this decision with many a headline shouting “domestic abusers” have a right to own firearms. The anti gun crowd has always worked in concert with the liberal feminists who perceive men as dangerous, and those with guns even more dangerous. A search of “female domestic violence use of firearms” reveals a bevy of left wing, anti gun (including government) sites framing the debate from the gynocentric perspective of female victims and male perpetrators. The anti gun lobby would like to make this into a public health debate and is willing to vilify men as dangerous perpetrators of violence to justify restrictions on firearm ownership.

The ignoring of male victims of domestic violence and abuse with the one sided portrayal of woman as victims and men as perpetrators has been pushed by not only the political left but also the political right with “white knight” TradCons stepping up to “protect women” at the expense of the rights of individual men. None of the national Second Amendment organizations, indeed no conservative or justice organization at all, advocate on behalf of men who are daily subjected to false allegations of abuse which restricts their right to possess firearms issued by biased judges in biased courts systems. Issued on the flimsiest of allegations of fear and based upon no evidence of actual violence the OOP’s remove mens Second Amendment Rights without due process.

It appears that Rahimi isn’t a good poster boy to argue the injustice of seizing firearms which occurs daily in the US under OOP’s and Temporary OOP’s but the case supports the argument that the only person limited by these orders are the people who would not violate them to begin with. It also shows how a civil matter can be made into a federal case and expanded into a felony. 18 USC 922 makes it a felony to possess a firearm if an OOP is in place prohibiting harassing, stalking, or threatening a “significant other” and it has been shown there is a reasonable fear of bodily injury. Civil cases are determined based upon a preponderance of evidence, often defined as 51% in favor. While entitled to a hearing, this low threshold allows a judge to believe a woman making a claim of fear in a he said, she said situation with no other corroborating evidence.

Rahimi agreed to a civil protection order in Feb 2020. In regards to harassing, etc. the mother of his child, it appears there were violations of the OOP with charges filed for violating the court order. However, in December of 2020 and into January of 2021 it is reported that Rahimi had at least 5 incidents involving a firearm, shooting into a residence after a narcotics deal, shooting a driver of a vehicle he got into an accident with, shooting at a Constable, and shooting into the air at a restaurant after a friends credit card was denied. When serving an arrest warrant he was found to possess a rifle and pistol in his residence and was charged with a felony and convicted under 18 USC 922, said conviction overturned under appeal.

There is no mention of Rahimi’s conviction for any of the multitude of firearms incidents that he had allegedly committed. In the ruling overturning his conviction it is noted that Rahimi is “hardly a model citizen,” however, he was not a convicted felon. It appears, for whatever reason, the decision was made not to pursue state charges which were at a felony level, at least at the time of prosecution under 18 USC 922 (g)(8). Conviction of a domestic violence misdemeanor for violating the OOP by approaching his ex (18 USC 922 g9) or conviction of a felony in state court (18 USC 922 g1) would have subjected him to enforcement under these federal regulations.

The actions of Rahimi post acceptance of his OOP shows that the OOP is pretty much a worthless piece of paper which does not prevent a person from committing violence as the violent acts themselves carry more punitive punishments than violating the order (if properly charged and convicted of the violence). What the OOP’s do is subject a person in a civil matter who is not inclined towards violence to criminal charges under the vague term of “harassing.” Many Temporary OOP’s are issue ex parte, often on exaggerated or outright false allegations to gain leverage in divorce or family court.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Ho found 922(g)(8) difficult to justify because it disarms people based upon civil protection orders and not criminal proceedings. This has long been a problem with OOP’s issued in matrimonial and family courts as the preponderance of evidence standard requires much less evidence than guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Further, trial by jury is mandated only in criminal cases thus people are subjected to the biases of the judge. Once an OOP is issued actions, such as a verbal disagreement over custody, can result in criminal charges against a man who is charged criminally with a domestic violence misdemeanor for which he has to spend time and resources to avoid incarceration and loss of his right to possess firearms. A second “violation” results in felony charges.

This I know from personal experience. At a custody dispute I was charged with 2 simple violations (akin to traffic tickets), charges so low I did’t even have to notify the police agency I worked for, I had a “temporary” OOP issued which seized my firearms and put me out of work for months until I cut a deal to carry a firearm at work but was otherwise restricted (Lets red flag unconstitutional red flag laws). Faced with a lifetime order of protection I agreed to plea to one simple violation and paid a $50 fine. Her repeated false allegation of “reaching where I keep my gun” and the one year OOP prevented me from accessing my children due to the possibility of arrest for a felony. And my story is not the exception but the norm.

As previously mentioned search “female – DV – firearms” and up pops #1 the Brookings Institute, 2 is The Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence which is now the John Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 3 is National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and on and on. Liberal anti male, anti gun organizations form a loose coalition all advocating for restrictions to your second amendment rights by arguing that gun ownership is a public health and safety issue. They would use incidents like Rahimi to blame all men and blame all guns and gun owners ignoring that Rahimi is an exception to how most gun owners conduct themselves. Justice is undermined under the guise of doing good by ignoring the innocent persecuted individuals.

In its Writ of Certiorari the AG’s office argues that the Fifth Circuit decision “misses the forest for the trees” but we can see in their argument the same biased “men are abusers of women” argument adding that guns add to the danger in domestic violence situations. Supporting the argument they are biased and gynocentric is the statement that “the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” It is the AG’s Office which misses the forest for the trees ignoring both male victims of domestic violence and persons involved in mutual violence. They also ignore the fact that civil matrimonial and family court do NOT provide due process, indeed, many are “courts of equity” not bound by the standards of criminal courts and often the “defendant” is forced to operate without legal counsel as none are provided free of charge as they are in criminal court.

If national gun rights organizations, conservative organizations, and individual justice organizations are serious about upholding the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially due process for individuals they need to seriously look at their handling, or lack thereof, of persons (the vast majority men) who are denied due process and railroaded by government policies and government agencies which believe they can violate your rights under the guise of doing good. As to why they do so I close with a quote from C.S. Lewis, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Written testimony to the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls

Call for inputs (deadline Dec. 15, 2022) https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children

I am writing in response to your call for inputs regarding custody cases and parental alienation. You can find my personal story of alienation here, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2022/12/a-story-of-parental-alienation/ but I submit not as an individual but as an advocate for parents suffering in the current (anti) family courts. I include my bona fides at the end of this testimony.

First I must call out your bias in this review. You focus on violence against women and children, specifically violence in the home, ignoring the fact that what is occurring in family courts is the violent removal of one parents rights and the violent removal of a child from one parent and that parents family tree. It is the sole custody decree which causes this. This focus on false allegations of parental alienation (PA) ignores the fact that PA occurs to both mothers and fathers. It also ignores that men are also the victims of domestic violence. I ask is there a Special Rapporteur on violence against men? If not, why not?

My (former) organization, FaFNY, was an educational and advocacy organization working towards shared parenting arrangements to be the norm in NYS. Based in Albany, NY we were the umbrella organization for various father, mother, grand parent, and children’s organization. In fact my earliest introduction to PA was by “Elizabeth” who was with the NYC Chapter of the Children’s Rights Council. An alienated mother herself, she explained to me that my ex was using alienating actions similar to what her ex had done to her.

I also attended the Battered Mother Custody Conference (BMCC) which was held annually in the Albany area and am familiar with the discussions around their opposition to PA. I noted there that many of the non custodial mothers were the victim of PA in their personal cases. I note for the record that PA is NOT recognized in NYS Courts. That said, individual actions to undermine the other parents relationship with the child can be entered as evidence of a need for primary physical possession with one or the other parent. This is what happened to the NY mothers who lost custody of their children, many involving multiple false allegations of child sexual abuse which were determined by the courts to be false, the parent put on notice to stop, and when they didn’t then a change of custody occurred.

If shared parenting was the norm we would not have an issue of a parent denied access to their children. And in our proposed presumption of shared parenting legislation in NYS the evidence of child or spousal abuse was a listed factor in denying shared parenting and awarding sole custody to one parent. I believe this evidenced based method is the best way to determine the need for placement with one parent over the other and absent a showing of abuse the presumption of shared parenting should be used in the best interest of the child.

Many of the earlier pioneers in researching PA did not advocate a change in the custodial arrangement unless the actions were severe and harmful to the child and instead advocated for family counseling by professionals to reduce the conflict between parents and decrease and eliminate any negative impacts to the child. Exaggerated and outright false allegations run rampant in family courts which never punish for even the most egregious provable cases. In my years of advocacy I know of no cases where an allegation of abuse resulted in a loss of custody of children.

Those opposed to PA claim that it is a ruse used by abusive fathers/husbands to gain custody and I am sure that there are cases where an abusive spouse, husband or wife, attempts to use the legal process to exclude the other parent. My personal case of three years of litigation to deny me access to my children by a physically abusive spouse provided anecdotal evidence of this. Again the solution to this problem is evidence based family court decisions and absent a showing of abuse or neglect on the part of one parent, a presumption of shared parenting.

My attendance at the BMCC revealed that many attendees advocated for ignoring the rulings of family courts and some even openly talked of custodial interference and development of an “underground” support network. About half of the attendees who suffered loss of custody suffered that fate due to the fact NY is a sole custody state and their spouses happened to be among the 15% of fathers who win custody. They would have been helped by a shared parenting law.

A 1986 study on bias against women in the courts found blatant bias against MEN with well over 80% of custody awarded to mothers. Using the family courts own report I was able to determine that 80% of Orders of Protection (OOP) were dismissed or withdrawn with many of the remaining OOP’s mutual orders of conduct against both parties. False allegations of child and spousal abuse run rampant in family courts, the solution, as it is for PA, is proper adjudication of the evidence in the case.

As a victim of physical abuse I was again victimized when my reports were ignored. I was then victimized by multiple false allegations of abuse which were never sanctioned and thus continued and I was further abused by PA, incessant bad mouthing and denigration of me to my children. Ironically, even given all that I would not have restricted my ex to our children and would have been satisfied in a shared parenting arrangement.

Given the biases against men in custody awards I expect that a portion of the men who win custody use tactics, such as PA, to gain an advantage. So even if we dismiss fathers who are alienated from their children, the fact that mothers are similarly situated and alienated would dismiss any and all theories that PA is a male sex linked activity to abuse women.

A Story of Parental Alienation

I hung up the Waving Santas which I made with my young daughters in 1991. Little did I know then that by Christmas 1998 the Waving Santas would be a reminder of children that had been alienated from me, the primary caregiving parent. The “we’ve grown apart” and the “I don’t know if I want to be married” discussion in 1995 was to turn into 3 years of domestic violence and abuse through hellish litigation with me fighting to be a father and my ex fighting to exclude me. The $30,000 I paid in “child support” offset the (estimated) $50,000 spent to remove me from my child’s life.

Middle aged with 2 pre teen daughters, we had focused on my career and now settled my ex went back to school and then working as a nurse. She then began to denigrate and insult me, often disguised as humor, fat, don’t make enough money. I became the primary caregiver as she was in school and now with both working full time expected equal help around the house, which I didn’t get. She then announced that my money was to pay the bill, hers was hers. She started dressing up and going out to night clubs staying out late, drinking and smoking weed.

She opened up a bunch of store credit cards and ran up bills to the point I paid them off and then cut them up. She then began to run up the joint credit card we held for “emergencies.” She was spending a lot on personal items, to great excess such as 15 pairs of jeans. A year into the split a friend advised she was using the “Divorce War” strategy, the book “Divorce War: 50 strategies every woman needs to know to win” which was the number one seller of books on divorce by women. I got a copy and realized I had been duped, fighting to keep my marriage together while she was plotting the divorce.

When the marriage was breaking down we were arguing incessantly about her appearance of infidelity (she claimed none) and one evening she punched me in the lip, a right cross, and then doubled up with a roundhouse right to the ribs leaving me with a fat lip and a bruise on my side. I stated we were done and told her the next day I was going to get an attorney and suggested she do the same. I met with my attorney but she went to (anti) family court and got an ex parte “temporary” Order of Protection (OOP) and a temporary child custody order. When served by the local police I complained of my Domestic Violence injuries which were apparent and was told “we don’t take counter complaints.” My children were removed and I was denied access for months.

I’m a police officer and as a condition of employment had to maintain a home office in my area of assignment. I had “settled” the custody and visitation in (anti) family court. I started in family court with an attorney but when I ran out of money discharged him, an incompetent waste of time and money he was anyway. I went pro se and managed to get my kids dropped off each weekday where I brought them to school. Unfortunately my ex moved to an adjoining school district and the kids start times were an hour apart but I toughed it out and spent 2 hours each weekday getting them to school. I also had them every other week on my days off which rotated.

About a year into the process my ex got a new steady boyfriend. Unknown to me at the time, the attorney’s relied on a “how to” manual by a local attorney in which he advised if your client didn’t have a solid chance at full custody to agree to a liberal access order with them as “primary physical possession” and then cause conflict as the courts would eventually award custody to the “custodial” mother. “Primary physical possession” is government double speak for custody. She started causing conflict including marching into my house and threatening me. I started recording EVERY interaction with video cameras and voice recorders, plainly visible which prevented her from causing conflict but in effect had me as a prisoner to the fear of false allegations.

She escalated and began to call the police and allege I had threatened her “reaching behind where he keeps his (off duty) gun,” but the local and state police would just make a blotter entry of the provable allegations and refer us back to family court. Filings in family court were continuous and I was forced to counter file to protect myself and the status. One day she picked up and was in the car in the driveway and waited until I turned off the video camera and came back to the door, opening it she threw a bunch of papers at me and then refused to leave the porch, putting her face on the screen and daring me to “go ahead and hit me” and to “make her leave” as she berated and swore at me. Luckily a neighbor saw the encounter and agreed to testify on my behalf.

I ended up with an OOP against her and the current custody arrangement was continued. The DV Advocate, by policy, was forced to interview me. She stated that being a 6’ 220 Lb.+ police officer who carries a gun I shouldn’t be afraid of her. I asked if I could arrest me ex? No. Can I beat her up? Of course not! Can I shoot her? Absolutely NOT! “Then how is being a 6’ 200 lb. policeman with a gun going to prevent her from abusing me? She just walked away at that point. Over a year and a half of litigation resulted in her gaining no leverage towards alienating me. I had battled the unjust leviathan to a stalemate.

By the custody order the children had to remain in their present school district, upheld by the recent litigation in family court. I had filed for divorce, unbeknownst to me she had also begun divorce filings but in hers she asked for a temporary ruling allowing the children to be moved to an adjoining county which her boyfriend lived in. She had listed about 10 items she didn’t gain in family court such as $2000 toward her attorney fees while I was forced to go pro se. The preliminary conference turned into a fiasco as the court clerk went down her bullet item list and I said no to each and every item as I had just spent 2 years litigating them in family court. The conference ended with my ex and her attorney both hollering at me and me asking the clerk how long I had to endure the abuse.

In the Judges chambers in 2 weeks, he obviously mad at the pro se trouble maker where I again refused to negotiate and advised i wanted a trial. He then ordered me to pay her attorney $2000 and lifted the custody order allowing the children to be moved and just like that the past litigation was thrown out as was stability for my children. But here’s where it gets even weirder. My girlfriend lived about 2 miles from my ex’s boyfriend, and she knew this. But then she moved into a rental kitty corner across the street from my girlfriends. I tried to enforce my OOP but it had no distance listed in the “stay away from.”

Due to my employment I couldn’t change my residence to my girlfriends and transferred into an open sector 20 minutes away from them to get closer. I no longer had the kids in the morning before school but as I was at my girlfriends unless actually working I made the best of it and would walk them to the bus each morning. My ex tried to get an OOP forcing me to drive “away from her residence” and not use the common walking trails to no avail. What she did do was to deny me my time with the children when there was a change in my normal day off schedule (which occurred often as I was on salary).

Multiple complaints of custodial interference were filed by me with the state police and DA’s office declining to prosecute or even take a report, referring me back to family court. One day when she denied my custodial time I was standing in the front yard and she drove by with the kids so I walked to the end of her driveway with my ever present voice recorder running. I calmly asked for the kids and she declined yelling “I’m calling the police” to which I replied, “Please do.” I waited for their arrival expecting the same do nothing and referral back to family court.

When the police car came down the road my ex’s boyfriend started getting my kids out of the car and I walked 10’ down the driveway and told him to get away from my kids. I was then slammed forward onto the trunk of the vehicle by the state trooper with my ex’s boyfriend pushing me from the front. The trooper asked if I had a firearm and I told him my off duty was on an ankle holster and I held up my leg and told him to go ahead and take it, which he did. I started to complain of his treatment and he then told me to shut up or he would arrest me to which I replied I should arrest him for interfering with my court ordered custodial time. Another car arrived and he said we should go to the barracks to straighten things out, which I agreed to thinking it to just be referred back to family court.

There were about 3 troopers and a station commander when I arrived and I was seated at one of the desks calmly talking about my continued custody battle with my ex and her multiple false allegations of abuse which ended up with me getting an OOP. The original trooper came in and told me to shut up stating “you don’t have any rights to your kids.” A Lt. from my outfit had arrived and I looked at her and said, “with that I say nothing without an attorney.” My Captain and Lt. arrived and was meeting with the station commander and the trooper and then the trooper walked back into where I was and gave me 2 appearance tickets to appear in court for simple trespass and simple harassment, charges so low I was not required by policy to notify my agency of.

He went out and returned throwing my wallet on the desk and when I looked inside my badge and ID were gone so I walked into the meeting room and asked my Captain my status and he advised I was suspended without pay. So, tickets in hand I headed towards the door of the station intending to walk the 10 minute trip back home but was grabbed and asked where I thought I was going. I have he appearance tickets and I’m walking home I answered but was then advised the tickets were being pulled and I had to go for an immediate arraignment.

I wrote of my “red flag” law treatment here, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2021/04/lets-red-flag-unconstitutional-red-flag-laws/ and refer you there for that part of this story.

I was only charged with simple violations as I would not be entitled to a jury trial. And when I advised I had a tape recording to refute the ex’s statement the Judge advised he wasn’t going to allow it into evidence. I heard through the grape vine that the Judge was going to find me guilty and sentence me to consecutive 15 day in jail terms, 30 days in county jail and to be place in population followed with a lifetime OOP restricting firearm possession and putting me out of work. The system was going out of its way to prevent me from showing the system was a sham and any injustice to silence me was acceptable to them.

The temporary OOP put me out of work as I couldn’t legally carry a firearm. I was in both divorce and criminal court and hired an attorney for each with the last of the money I could scrape together and then filed for personal bankruptcy. I had the clothes on my back and a few changes, $20 in my pocket, no income, and a borrowed vehicle. The deal to get out left me with an OOP for a year but allowed carrying a firearm at work. A violation of the OOP would be a felony charge and put me out of work again. Given her past false allegation and the fact I was now a “convicted” abuser any future allegations would be added to the others on record and I would be sent away to prison.

And so 1998 was the first Christmas without my kids, the Parental Alienation having worked. I tried to get the divorce Judge to order exchange at a neutral location but she said no, in effect denying me the ability to get my kids. To add salt to the wound she ordered me to pay another $2000 to my ex’s attorney, arguing my recent bankruptcy “freed up credit” to pay him. I told my ex she could send the kids down the road at any time and she responded that I had to get them at her place, or not at all. I said I wasn’t going to risk another false allegation and arrest and she said, “I guess you’ll never see your kids again”. She was right. Within a couple of month’s she moved away.

Of course friends and family blamed me for “losing” my kids. I was supposed to not fight the system and just pay the “child support,” shut up, and visit my kids when allowed. Even other fathers, beat dead and disenfranchised, would pass judgement on me for not getting my kids when “I had the chance” as most don’t understand the two questions of fatherhood, fatherhood by whose definition and fatherhood at what cost? And for me the every other weekend visiting dad (no parental rights) didn’t justify the cost (risk of prison) with expected continued litigation costs to boot. Correspondence by mail continued for 3 month’s but slowly faded over a year as it was one sided, not a call or card in return, and I suspected not reaching them.

The hardest part is watching your kids ripped apart by a system which denies one parent their parental rights, forcing a parent to fight to be a part of their child’s life. Not a day goes by where you don’t wonder if just giving up and walking away is healthier for your children. But I expect in the long run the fight for your rights conveys to them that you care, even if they have to suppress those thoughts under the sharp tongue of an alienator. The narcissistic alienator having no such thoughts or care for their children are willing to use the kids to abuse you as the only way the abuser can get to you is through the kids. The abused alienated parent if forced to either walk away from the abuse or fight it and ultimately end up losing anyway, at least knowing you did what you could.

I heard through the grape vine that work might argue that I was mentally unable to continue as a police officer so I decided to apply the old adage of “I’m more sane than you as I have papers to prove it.” So off to the psychologist I went and at the 3rd visit he summed up my plight as, “with all the injustice you suffered it’s a wonder you didn’t lose it and kill somebody.” I was then diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome from government persecution and he advised I needed to get out of the system. He didn’t understand, the system is designed to put a box around you, floor, four walls, and a lid to keep you as a beat dead, driven dead broke, disenfranchised dad who has been denied your parental rights without cause. At least now I’m sane and I have papers to prove it.

I lived on 35% of my gross pay for 10 years, paying “child support” and attorney garnishments, until they both hit majority. When people would inquire abut my kids I would initially try to explain the Parental Alienation and they would inevitably respond with a “when they are older they’ll come back,” the feel good statement which isn’t true. Ironically similar to my first which was a stillborn with people responding “it’s probably for the best,” in both instances masking their own inadequacy if faced with the same circumstance. Eventually I got tired of the people passing judgements about me and just started stating “they’re dead” as they are dead to me and which served to stop the asking in short order.

And yet, year after year I put out the Waving Santa’s now 25 years without a response. You can only change the things that you can change and accept the things that you can’t change, including your kids. But I suppose it is important as a parent, on the off chance it might occur, to convey to your children that the door is open and always has been, holding onto that slight sliver of hope while accepting the inevitable no show.

The problems with Domestic Violence: an Interview with Erin Pizzey

A shout out to the Center for Male Psychology for the interview, which can be viewed here, https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/an-invisible-hero-for-invisible-victims-an-interview-with-domestic-violence-pioneer-erin-pizzey.

And I have been rendered voiceless except to throw in a Hear, hear and an Amen.