Yellow journalism is a type of journalism that presents little legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell newspapers. It simply involves the creation or the propagation of a lie and that is why we call it propaganda. So if a news organization wanted to increase its circulation, then it might just print a lie to accomplish that goal. This is exactly how these women figuratively and literally grabbed the public’s attention with their lies of abuse on Super Bowl Sunday, January 1993. The real reason for this is that The Super Bowl is one of the most widely viewed television events every year. That is why these women’s groups reported that Super Bowl Sunday is one of the worst days for women in the home. It was not, because many men and women were watching the Super Bowl and enjoying the event. So the claim that these petulant women made was false.

The ‘recovered memories’ scheme was in full tilt in the 1980's and women used them to accuse men of abuse, especially sexual child abuse. The data shows that as mandatory prosecutions had increased, the rate of false allegations of abuse also has increased. That is why false allegations remain a woman’s weapon’s of choice and prosecutors refer it that way. In their parlance, attorneys call it a slam dunk because both of them continue to retain legal immunity. Moreover, they afford women privacy in the news media while they smear men.

Since the 1970's, American newspapers had emphasized unsubstantiated stories and outright hoaxes about men. These included recovered memories and false statistics created to garner support for a newly created industry, blaming men for the acts of women. Among these acts were rape, child abuse, sexual child abuse, spousal abuse, and lying. As a result, they had conned Congress into believing that men were abusing women by ratios that exceeded one in three. This is probably why Congress had decided to provide tax-free funding to support their misandrious agenda. Moreover, men were forced into paying taxes to support those organizations whose sole goal was to deprive them of their rights, their freedom, and their property.

Mandatory Arrests

The mandatory male arrest doctrine was based on the flawed assumption that men were more violent than women. The problem was that subsequent studies had revealed that women were far more violent and far more abusive then anyone had previously believed. So after these researchers found that women were abusing their children and then accusing men of spousal and sexual child abuse, they disowned their flawed doctrine. However, the damage was already done and the government did nothing to make any reparations.

These draconian policies required that the police detain a man when probable cause existed that a domestic assault may have occurred, despite the evidence to the contrary. Probable cause consists of the belief that a crime has been committed and more likely than not that the male assailant had committed it. The problem was that these policies resulted in far more false arrests than for any other crime. This, in turn, had lead to mandatory prosecutions that went on without any evidence, except the unproven accusations of a female accuser.

The problem was that subsequent studies revealed that these women were far more violent and abusive than anyone had believed. Yet the evidence was in front of them and the studies ignored it. More than 90 percent of men did not beat their wives and children were far safer with their father.

Other research revealed that women were far more likely to accuse their husband of sexual child abuse. However, the real issue was not about the child but about the tax-free money that the primary custodial parent would receive. By the 1980s, DNA testing had sufficiently evolved to become a primary asset in matters determining guilt or innocence. So then women's groups resorted to yellow journalism to increase circulation and profits at the expense of innocent men. This term is still used to describe this kind of infamous bigoted reporting. Later, its meaning included the deliberate spreading of lies and ideas to help or damage another identifiable group, men.

These women wanted to change the public’s attitude toward men so that they could spread their own poison of hate through the media. The problem was that the news media encouraged this behavior by printing false accounts as if they were real and so they became substance of lies, scandals, and creative reporting. This was not the first time that the news media had propagated lies for profit. I do not expect it to be the last.

In May 2003, a county coordinator for a rape crisis and domestic violence shelter and four staff members boycotted a meeting. They had objected to a report that appeared in a segment of '20/20', a news program carried by the ABC television network. The subject of this broadcast is that women abuse men and she objected to that fact. She said that this subject undermined her work when the county's priorities are not properly aligned with ‘our’ center (my emphasis added).

The potential rewards for a female who makes a false allegation are enormous while the risks are very small. So a woman who victimized her husband can steal his possessions, home, savings, contact with his children, and his job. Also, many employers will not hire a person with an arrest record for a violent crime though a court found that person to be factually innocent. Moreover, government agencies can require to bear the blame because he has to reveal his being arrested although he was innocent and a court has sealed or destroyed the records.

American taxpayers support the Violence Against Women Act and other woman’s domestic violence programs at a rate of one billion dollars a year. The problem is that most women’s shelters operate under the shield of privacy and so they are not accountable to the taxpayer. All they have to do is to take in a woman who merely claims abuse. According to current information, most states permit a woman to stay in a shelter without filing a complaint of abuse. So if she wants to stay longer, she has to lie.

The problem is that most states define abuse so broadly that nearly any behavior may qualify as abuse or violence. This is how most states have made it easy to claim by ignoring the evidence. For an example, very few states require DNA testing and often allow prosecutors to prevent witnesses to testify. In divorce, the mere claim of abuse and violence is sufficient to prove guilt and that is a powerful incentive to play the ‘abuse’ card.

Although judges who heard these cases and knew the claims were false, they did nothing to stop it. By doing so, they encouraged the perjury and this is why false allegations of rape and domestic violence are the tactical weapons of choice. This is why divorce attorneys call them silver bullets and slam-dunks and policy makers have as much incentive to continue the fraud as those who started it. That is why false claims entitle women to years of tax-free child support money and a range of federal subsidized benefits. That is why falsely accused men have become the chattel of women and the state.

Double Standards and the Scams

Men faced other problems such as material alterations to court documents. These are changes to the text in a legal instrument that significantly changes its legal effect, and may thus invalidate it. This is why some court officials have altered those documents after the litigant had signed them and so the abuses by women and their courthouse toadies continue. When I write about and for abused men, this is my subject and when I write about women, they are my subject. The double standard is this. Most newspapers will print the name of a man accused of domestic violence or rape but do not print the name of the woman who has accused him.

Adding to this, most law enforcement agencies will release their own or the woman’s version of the alleged event rather than providing only the facts. So others have proposed to grant anonymity to men until they have been found guilty or innocent of a crime. However, many women’s groups have objected to these proposals because they believe that maligning a man’s reputation is better than telling the truth.

Although "political correctness" dictates that a female’s unproven claim must be true, the failure to consider that she may be lying eradicates the presumption of innocence. This is especially significant because the crimes of rape and spousal abuse do not require corroborating evidence for conviction in many jurisdictions. The guilty often conjure false claims to exclude possible witnesses and the physical evidence.

So the case must hinge on the credibility of an accuser who has everything to gain and nothing to lose. This was so simple that no one had to the scene of the alleged abuse and the ‘victim’ does not have to wait. It is similar to going to the nearest court or police station and she has it her way. She gets his bank account, the house, the kids, the car and almost anything else. That is how it is done.

So the reason that some women lie about rape or abuse is that they know that the state will never prosecute them. While penalties for perjury exist, the state never enforces them to protect men. Moreover, in some jurisdictions, a female has to admit that she lied about her false accusation before state can exonerate the defendant. So another matter arises. Filing a false report of rape or spousal abuse is only a misdemeanor in many states and very few states prosecute women who had lied.

The Shield Laws

A shield law limits what a defendant may ask about the behavior of a purported female victim unless those questions are relevant and essential for a fair trial. Most of the time, a female purports that she is the victim and so the shield laws are often used to prevent a male from receiving a fair trial. So she is really not a victim but an accuser with no evidence. Sometimes legislatures design these statutes to keep juries from hearing very convincing evidence about a female’s guilt or a male’ innocence. The reasoning is that such evidence is so inflammatory that a wrongly accused defendant (male) would have an overwhelming advantage in court. The other reasoning is that some courts do not want to hear evidence that would smear a female’s reputation though it is true. This has kept juries from hearing evidence about the innocence of the accused and the guilt of the accuser.

For an example, a woman had falsely claimed that someone raped her many years ago. Now she claims that another man raped her, but that evidence might not be admissible in court. The reason for this is that each case must stand on its own merits. So if she waited until the evidence had dissipated then and has waited until evidence had dissipated now, that too might also be inadmissable. Moreover, if she had written about her passion and her desires, those messages could be inadmissible because they too were about her sexual conduct. How does anyone perceive a woman who initiated sexual intercourse then claimed rape? If her sexual conduct was that of a woman who falsely claimed rape in the past, how does anyone prove that she had not consented now? If she did not consent, would not a man simply conclude that interlude and would not this be the end of it?

Some women want to feel that they are no longer in control and they see this as a rejection when she believes that only she the right of refusal. Egocentrism is an important characteristic in matters of false allegations of abuse or rape. This is why some women use false allegations to satisfy their own urges of personal conquest. This is why the shield laws are causing more harm by concealing this truth.

Before the 1980's, a rape defendant could do very little to prove his innocence. In fact, a mere accusation was often sufficient to prove rape unless he had believable witnesses that would testify otherwise. Yet the problem was that a woman could make up a story that the accused raped her and he would have no witnesses for his defense.

So the evidence for the defense should be the passage of time because the exclusion of the facts would violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. In the same vein, a man could do to prove his innocence of spousal abuse. He had to have believable witnesses that would testify. The problem was that no one wanted to become ‘involved’. Moreover, the states had enacted illegal mandatory arrest laws so that she could steal his property and ruin his reputation.

So it did not make any difference that he was a model citizen and beyond reproach for his entire life. The mere lie of his wife could send him to jail without evidence or cause. So why would anyone want to employ a man, no matter how competent, if had a criminal record? This is why no laws truly protect men from false claims made by women. In effect, the making of a false allegation by a female is not a crime because unspoken laws give them the right to lie. That is what the shield laws have done.

The Continuing Fraud

I do not always expect everyone to support my view but I do expect to find them strongly supporting freedom. So each of us should pause and reflect on this question, what has the Violence Against Women Act done for everyone of this nation? It has done little and has measurably failed. According to its supporters, the state does not prosecute 90% of all family violence defendants. This is a lie because a person cannot be a defendant unless the state is prosecuting them.

So they wrote the Violence Against Women Act such that women can never be defendants. This is a result of the mandatory arrest rules against men. Moreover, a man cannot obtain a restraining order against his wife until she gets one against him. So it is gender preference and not the facts that drive the process. If she refuses to appear, the prosecutors will treat her as a victim and not what she really is. She is a creature who preys on others to satisfy her lust for self-gratification.

The VAWA programs have been ineffective in reducing partner abuse and placed those women at a greater risk of violence. So the supporters of the VAWA decided to falsify the numbers by substituting their own statistics. This became evident when their totals exceeded 100 percent. Of course their most striking statistic included men who were dead.

In 2005, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Reauthorization of the VAWA. When they discovered that the most knowledgeable experts in the world would likely attend, the committee membership decided to prevent them from testifying. Most people did not know that the committee diverted more money to the VAWA. So the question I would ask is this, does this make anyone safer today than before? It did not and it does not.

There is No Penalty for Women who Lie

The domestic violence industry falsely claims that 95 percent of the victims are women when in fact, these women are more likely to lie. Moreover, we pay them to do so. A billion dollars a year or more is a large amount of money and the spin-offs are lucrative. That is why they arrest male victims of domestic abuse and denied the services that they deserve. The result was that men were considered guilty until proven innocent and no one was rushing to find truth. Billions of dollars have been spent on the Violence Against Women Act but nothing has really changed for the better. Guess who campaigned for that law? From personal experience, I know that women are far more likely to lie because the state rarely prosecutes them.

More recent studies (2010) have shown that women who watch other women abuse men become sexually aroused by it. The experts call this sadism, in which they obtain gratification through the infliction of mental cruelty and physical pain. So as a group, these women are more likely to initiate abuse and are just as likely to lie about it. The reason for this is that these women are addicted to the sexual thrill that is the core of their behavior. So it is no surprise that a survey sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) revealed that 71 percent of the instigators of violence were women.

However when men report these incidents, they are ones whom the police must arrest while their abusive wife or partner goes free. So the taxpayers had paid more than twenty billion dollars to arrest and jail the wrong people and the cost to these victims is far more than that. It is immeasurable and the law is ass backwards.

This section, 'No Penalty for Women who Lie', was sent to the editor of the Vallejo Times-Herald on or about March 8, 2012 and it was published on or about Thursday, March 22, 2012. The following is Ms. Heize's letter in reply.