Banned From the Library
- How to frame men through false accusations. -
This page was last updated on Sunday, July 28, 2013
The Immoral Equivalent
The Springstown Library had two books, Defending our Lives by Susan Murphy-Milano and When Violence Begins at Home by K. J. Wilson. Both authors encouraged women to make false claims of abuse. For an example (they wrote) - Wait until your husband has left home. Dial 911, scream and throw the phone through a window. If their scream did not work, a dead telephone connection would guarantee a quick police response. However, that would prove that they were the abusers but these librarians demanded that I protect the rights of those who would falsely accuse others. That is why these women had claimed that my work was 'one-sided', and not 'clinical’ and that is the immoral equivalent to making a victim apologize to their abuser.
That is why these women can use the law to wrongfully evict their husband from his home. Then she steals her husband’s identity to ruin his credit rating and run up the bills. So she does this so that she can continue her unseemly secret illicit relationships that may also include other criminal activity. The other reason that the number of false claims of domestic violence is so high is that nearly every conceivable thing that a man might do is or would be considered unlawful. For an example, his reading a newspaper in the morning or hugging his kids. These women claim that only they are the sole determiners what is and what is not abuse. So this librarian decided that she was the sole determiner of what people could read. This is why an uncountable percentage of the claims brought by women for domestic violence are false while in nearly every instance, the State never prosecutes those false claims.
No Proof is Necessary
That is why that most women would rather bring a false charge of spousal abuse because it gives them more leverage in court. Moreover, abuse is simple to claim without ever having to prove it. The husband did it and no other proof is necessary. So the authorities ignore the evidence and invoke the mandatory arrest doctrine that surmises guilt based on scanty or even nonexistent evidence. However, many false charges are simply shams to hide unfaithfulness, the most prevalent cause of divorce and false claims of abuse.
That is why that most women would rather bring a false charge of spousal abuse because it gives them more leverage in court. Moreover, abuse is simple to claim without ever having to prove it, the husband did it and no other proof is necessary. So the authorities ignore the evidence and invoke the mandatory arrest doctrine that surmises guilt based on scanty and even nonexistent evidence. It is simply mere conjecture without proof and women have made many false charges of abuse to hide their own unfaithfulness and lawlessness. These are the most prevalent excuses for divorce and false claims of abuse. This is why only a very few women are in jail for lying, the courts nurture it and that is why their perjury nearly always prevails. While in San Diego, California prosecutor admitted that if he prosecuted everyone who lied on the witness stand, then every one of them would go to jail. Nevertheless, he added that he never had any desire to prosecute women who had.
Many states began adopting mandatory arrest laws in the 1980's that required the police to take the suspected perpetrator into custody. So every time someone reported abuse, The law required the police to make an arrest and so they would simply arrest the husband. The problem was that the police found that the so-called victim was more violent than the accused but they continued in arresting the wrong person. This resulted in the largest mandated theft of property and funds in history because the law was a blueprint for fraud. Erin Pizzey warned that the women she saw were far more violent than the men that these women had accused and the proof of this is simple. Go to a home that a woman had ransacked to accuse her husband of abuse. Yet law enforcement still refuses to collect evidence to disprove spousal abuse. Who gets the husband’s home and his property? Its value is not ‘chump change’ but the courts devalue it anyway so that women would not have to pay taxes. The evidence and the results are the proof that these women are corrupt and present national policy supports this corruption. That is why it makes no sense for a man to report abuse, especially when it leads to his mandated arrest. At the last count, twenty-two states encourage or enforce mandatory arrest laws that are aimed solely at men. Yet many police agencies still refuse to use DNA testing to prove or disprove guilt.
Preparing the Groundwork
An accusation is not evidence but it leads to the mandatory requirement to arrest a man on the mere word of a woman who has just lied. The problem is that the mandatory arrest doctrine ignores the likelihood that a law-abiding man would not likely change. Yet a person who has brought false allegations against their husband has. This means that all anyone had to do is to decide what the accuser would or had gained to have falsely to accuse their spouse or partner. So the accuser is a guilty person who has something to hide. This means that the husband cannot keep his personal property until courts resolve the matter. By that time, she has stolen them and moved away. So her false claim of abuse was only a ruse and that is the subject of this essay. It is the mandatory requirement to arrest without evidence that a crime did occur.
Most of us who have been writing about false claims against men have noticed very little variation in how women lie. So it seems that someone has coached these women in a particular kind of behavior that produces a desired result. Soon after, she calls a number and a local judge issues a restraining order against her husband without a hearing. Then he learns that a court has signed an order that evicts him from his home without notice to him. This becomes apparent when arrives home and the police arrest him for violating an order that he never knew existed. Some call this the ‘silver bullet’ because it quickly solves a problem. The common evidence standard for domestic violence restraining orders is "preponderance of the evidence," often understood as a greater number than the other or as a mere 51/49% likelihood of guilt. This is not always true because a corrupt influence can change the balance and that is why many women falsely claim abuse. So the level of proof should be 'clear and convincing evidence' thus leaving 'reasonable doubt' for trials.
Edward Steven Nunes
When Violence Begins at Home - K.
J. Wilson, Hunter House Publishers; First Edition (November 1997);
Defending Our Lives - Susan Murphy-Milano, Getting Away From Domestic Violence, ISBN-10: 0385484410; ISBN-13: 978-0385484411