Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

Mandatory Arrest is a False Arrest

This page was last updated on Thursday, February 14, 2013

The source for this data is the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV). The title of the document is Comparison of VAWA 1994, VAWA 2000, and VAWA 2005 Reauthorization Bill (1/16/06). Other sources may appear at the end of this essay. However, this topic has been the subject of debate since its inception and many have collectively written hundreds of papers on this topic.

The Violence Against Women Act was first enacted in 1994. Congress authorized $1.6 billion that was to be spent from Fiscal Year 1994 through the year 2000. These funds were supposed to be for the investigation and the prosecution of certain crimes against women, including rape, battery, and spousal abuse. Many others wanted to require mandatory DNA testing for women who have made those claims to ensure that those claims were authentic. Moreover, many wanted to ensure that the funds would go to those who were victims of abuse and would not go to supplementing the coffers of the local political bosses. This has not happened and nothing much has been done about it. So from its inception, local authorities had doomed this act to become a catchall for harebrained legislation.

It would prohibit notification of an accused batterer without the victim's consent when they register an out-of-state order in the new jurisdiction where he now lives. The problem is that how can anyone obey a secret order? Moreover, a secret accusation is exactly that, it is an unproved accusation. So government grants to encourage mandatory arrest policies from FY 1995 through FY 2000 amounted to $214 million. The expenditures for the FY 1999 ($34 million) and FY 2000 ($34 million) were appropriated without authorization. So the Government used STOP Grants to train (indoctrinate) law enforcement, prosecutorial, and victim service personnel. The lowest amount was $26 million for FY 1994 and the highest amount was $174 million for FY 2000. These grants amount to at least $800 million. Each small state received at least $500,000 and another 4 percent was set aside for native tribes.

This legislation also imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those persons convicted of abuse. It also established the Office on Domestic Violence Against Women, the Department of Justice. Congress expanded the Act to include other forms of violence against women. However, the shield laws do not provide any penalty for those women that lied to deprive their husband of his property. That is the path to extortion.

Domestic Violence Defined - The Substantive Issues

Many authors do not make the distinction between actual assault and battery. In most law, assault is a crime that causes the victim to apprehend violence (becomes afraid) but does include physical contact. This means that no physical injury or contact has to occur to prove assault. The specific definition of assault varies between jurisdictions but the closest notion is that of a threat. For an example, if a wife threatens her husband with a knife, that is assault and if she stabs him, that is battery.

Domestic violence refers to the abuse of family, household members, or squatters. However, spousal abuse only refers to people who are married to each other. So a family or household member may be any person who lives in the home. This is why domestic violence can involve unrelated individuals. The issue is that many false accusations involve several persons acting together to achieve a common goal and that is a conspiracy. The law ignores the fact the only person who is entitled to live in a home is the person who bought it or rented it with their own separate money. This is why both married and single people can purchase and have separate property of their own.

Most false allegations of abuse are simply the means to steal another person’s property. The real victim loses his home and his possessions and the police and courts do nothing about it because the mandatory arrest policy does not apply to women. So there goes the Bill of Rights and this is exactly how many veterans had lost their home. So if we start putting more women in jail for lying about abuse or abusing others, less of them would be lying about abuse.

Most of us know that Congress designed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to deprive men of the hard earned property and rights. So the drafters designed this legislation to punish men for what they did not do nor could do. For an example, women and the courts have charged men with violating orders that did not nor ever existed. So this legislation simply provides the ways, means, and the funding to disenfranchise men. Nearly a billion dollars a year is not chump change especially when Congress uses it to disenfranchise an entire gender.

Vice President Biden recalled that when the VAWA was first passed, its opponents had warned that women would misuse it in divorce. The opponents were right because false allegations are often used to deprive men of their rights and property, while the real perpetrator lies and remains free. Moreover, no one has ever punished a woman for lying about child or spousal abuse. That is why many have called this legislation the ‘silver bullet’, it gives women nearly complete primacy in matters of controversy. So forget what he says, she is always right. This is the reason that many women do not appear at trial. These women are guilty and it is about them getting a free ride at their husband’s expense. Nearly a billion dollars a year is not chump change, especially when women use it to nullify an entire gender. This is why any woman who claims abuse must have to prove it or face criminal consequences.

Congress created a provision that prohibits anyone from notifying the so-called abuser that the presumptive victim has moved into the area where they now live. The law requires the victim’s consent to register an out-of-state order in the new jurisdiction where the accused lives. So how can anyone obey a secret order that is a result of an unproven accusation? This means that the accuser can follow their victim across state lines and then take advantage of a secret order.

Article IV in the Constitution simply says that Full, Faith, and each state must give Credit to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. The issue is not this at all, the issue is about stalking and the Violence Against Women Act seems to support it. Moreover, the authors of this legislation have created a dualistic standard to perpetuate the myth they serve justice by sticking their head in the ground. This is exactly what Congress has to avoid or else revisit the equal protection provisions of Amendment Fourteen. In fact, it should.

In the 1980's, the states began passing "mandatory arrest" laws so that police officers would no longer have to decide who was abusive, they simply arrested the husband. This had an unexpected side effect, the number of intimate partner murders was much higher in those states that had mandatory arrest laws. The reason for this was that the police were arresting the wrong person for the wrong reason.

The Mandatory Arrest policy was supposed to add a cost to those who had allegedly battered their spouse or other household members. But the real reason for this policy was to ensure that his accuser would get his home and his property. In other words, the mandatory arrest policy was simply an exercise in subterfuge and artifice. The gender discriminating language in the laws illustrates this by the deliberate use of the masculine pronoun, when they should have used the feminine pronoun.

However, the real issue is based on the legal notion of probable cause. For an example, when someone says that something is probably true, that means that the evidence is strong enough to establish that what they say is true. On the other hand, no proof exists that evidence is true. So ‘probable’ means ‘likely’ but not necessarily true but it is still a requisite element for arrest. However, the actual standard in matters of rape and abuse is that the female accuser is always right although her proof does not and never did exist.

The real issue is that women use restraining orders to gain a tactical advantage in court and that explains their precedence to treachery. Her papers are always in order while his are not and this is so to ensure (a virtual guarantee) that she has that tactical advantage. No one knows the exact prevalence of false allegations of spousal abuse made by wives. Current statistics on the percentage of false claims by women exceeds 80%. The problem is that the number of false claims of spousal abuse could be much greater because women lie and the courts rarely punish them. So in this vein, Gerry Spence expressed this notion about police, if they do not have a clue, they charge the husband. This is why more than 80 percent of claims of spousal abuse are false and their objection to DNA testing is the proof.

In May 2003, a county coordinator for a rape crisis and domestic violence shelter and four staff members boycotted a meeting after making a pubic statement. She objected to a presentation that appeared in a segment of '20/20', a news program carried by the ABC television network. The subject of this broadcast is that some women are perpetrators of domestic violence and she objected to this fact. She said that eighty-five to 90 percent of the victims are women and the county's priorities "are not properly aligned with our center." Once a woman lies about an important fact, then it is probable she would lie about nearly anything as it suits her. The potential rewards for a female who makes a false allegation of abuse are enormous and the risks are almost nonexistence.

So a man victimized by a woman’s deceit can lose his home, possessions, savings, contact with his children, and his job. Some employers and government agencies require that a person reveal arrests though they are innocent and a court has sealed or destroyed the records. In addition, many employers will not hire a person with an arrest record. This is true though a court found him factually innocent and apparently this is what the county coordinator wanted.

Unbelievable. In the past four decades this was the response that many abused men faced when they reported abuse by their wives. It did not make any difference that he always told the truth and had a good reputation. It did not make any difference that he was a laborer, factory worker, cop, physician, or a man engaged in any other honest work. The prevailing myth of these individuals was that men were rapists, child molesters, drunkards, or wife beaters and most that women were honest, forthright, and without evasiveness. So her being bawdy, repugnant, and a liar did not make any difference; she was a woman and women could do no wrong.

Over these years, the Violence Against Women Act has received billions of dollars in funding. Most of that funding did not go to proving guilt or innocence. It went to deprive men of their homes, savings, and liberty. So when a man reported spousal abuse to local law enforcement, the predictable response was mandatory arrest. That meant that he cannot possess any firearms or other weapons, so who got those weapons? His wife got them along with all of his other possessions. So the police began to realize that they were the targets of those who received Federal funding. The government was taxing men so that women could easily and falsely accuse them of almost anything including vagrancy. However, that is only true after the fact.

In 2005 a New Mexico woman convinced a judge to issue a restraining order against a famous person whom she never met. Still, the judge stood by his ruling and his excuse was simple. He claimed that the lawmakers did not intend to protect men and their property. Moreover, they do not require proof to protect women. So he followed the law. That is the connection between false claims of rape and abuse, it is about funding and arrest without proof.

The chain of custody refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence. Since a lawyer may use this evidence in court, the technician must handle it carefully to avoid allegations of tampering or misconduct. The reason for recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime.

Current law allows female rape victims who are too afraid or ashamed, to go to the police, to undergo a Jane Doe forensic rape examination. The cost of the rape kit ranges from 800 to 1500 dollars but the victim does not have to pay the bill. A certified technician gathers the evidence and keeps it in a seal envelope until the victim decides to press charges. Nevertheless, one of several problems with this procedure is that only the self-purported victim can decide that someone raped her. That she can make decision days, months or years later and that is a prelude to extortion.

Rape is one of those crimes that the law can easily solve if the claimant cooperates. This means that claimant has to go to a medical center or hospital where the professionals use a rape kit to collect the evidence. The chain of custody continues until the evidence is processed and stored in a secure area. Meanwhile, other persons will be collecting additional evidence that other experts will compare with the fiduciary evidence.

If the evidence matches without unresolved problems, the matter can go forward. It is simple especially when investigators collect other evidence to support the findings of the investigation. The point is that some women lie for other personal reasons that may have nothing to do with the person that she accused. In addition, it is common knowledge that prosecutors rarely prosecute females for lying. One the other hand, males are nearly always considered guilty before the evidence is collected and analyzed.  Most people do not know that anyone can easily solve spousal battery when the claimant cooperates. The process is the same as with the rape kit and the reason for this is that protocols for both battery and rape are nearly the same. They include, continuity testing, false color marking and transfer DNA.

A technician may use transfer DNA testing (touch DNA) to find out whether a person has had physical contact with another. Continuity testing confirms that images recorded at different times are consistent with each other. If a bruise appears on the body of the ‘victim’, its position should remain the same in subsequent photographs taken days later. Moreover, the infrared photographs should reveal changes in the heat signature as healing takes place. Now, false color marking is another technique where technicians portray a structure in a false color to enhance its viewing without affecting the presentation other structures. In other words, this method fills the missing data with different hues and intensities until the picture is recognizable.

Sometimes investigators may us Transfer DNA testing (touch DNA) to find out whether a person has had physical contact with another. So they use continuity testing to confirm that images recorded at different times are consistent with each other. If a bruise appears on the body of the ‘victim’, its position should remain the same in subsequent photographs taken days later. Moreover, the infrared photographs should reveal changes in the heat signature as healing takes place. False color marking is a technique where a technician portrays a structure in a false color to enhance its viewing without affecting the presentation other structures. So in this way, the false coloring is a fiduciary representation that is not supposed to change, the experts call this continuity.

Due Process, The Legislation, and Lowering the Bar

When Congress first enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), some had believed that a new federal law that was unnecessary. Their reasoning was that every state had made assault and battery a crime. Nevertheless, the framers of this act wanted to ensure that every man would suffer severe penalties although they were innocent. That was the genesis of the mandatory arrest laws and the ‘no drop’ policy.  In do that, Congress designed the policy to produce the greatest transfer of wealth in history. As a result, many women profited immensely because all they had to do was to lie; no questions asked. The law protects her and the arresting officer through the tacit doctrine of gender immunity and mandatory arrest. This is the reason that mandatory arrest and the deprivation of men could not exist without the other.

So the no-drop policy means that a woman cannot withdraw her claim although it is false and leads to false arrest. It also means that if she refuses to appear in court, the prosecution can ‘prove’ their case by her mere absence, phoney photographs, and dubbed tapes. The prosecutor takes the ‘Fifth’ and that is an admission of probable guilt. Of course the defendant never gets a chance to confront his accuser and that is his 'due process' right that supposed to be guaranteed by the court under the Fifth Amendment.

Due process refers to formal legal proceedings that occur regularly according to previously established rules and the precepts that support those rules. It also requires that the laws do not contain provisions that result in unfair or unreasonable treatment of any person. Since the government created the problem of false allegations, its victims are entitled to receive substantive due processes. That is why probable cause is the required element for arrest.  However, this also means that any increase in the number of false allegations lowers any standard that depends on probable cause as a required element of arrest. So by increasing the number of arrests, the legal standard for probable cause becomes lower. So at some point, the police could arrest persons for being male.  This is why arrest reports should be authenticated by the arresting officer and the alleged victim under penalty of perjury because the proof must lay with the accuser and not with the accused.

The proof lays with the accuser and not the Accused

The mandatory arrest law requires no proof and the authorities can arrest a man on the mere word of a woman who had lied. So this arrest doctrine ignores the likelihood that a man who has been law-abiding has not changed while his wife did because she had something to hide. So by falsely accusing their husband of abuse, these women could continue their illegal activities.  The problem with the mandatory arrest laws is that they only apply to men. Moreover they do not encourage the collection and the analysis of physical and biological evidence (DNA). In other words, some women claim abuse but there is no real evidence to support her claim. This is why these women should be on trial because they must prove their claim, But if the prosecutrix quashes that proof, it proves her guilt.

As a result, the mandatory arrest laws require men to prove their innocence and that is much more difficult than proving guilt. So the issue is that she made an allegation of abuse and so she should have to prove it. Yet, the courts do not see it that way because they claim that she is not on trial and they are wrong since she is the accuser and not the defendant. This is especially true when real victim cannot confront their accuser although this is a Fourth Amendment right. So the issue becomes a matter of equal protection under the law and this is the edict is that the prosecutors are trying to impair.

False Allegations

Now some people speak of statistics as if they are real when in fact, they are generalities that statistical surveys have harvested from many people. So the image we get is simply a general composite that represents nothing. That is how selfish women have portrayed themselves as victims. The real issue is that these women are diverting funding and vital services away from those who need them.

The other problem is with our judges and prosecutors for they might as well live on another planet. A woman may falsely accuse a man several times and these persons will do nothing about it. According to ‘SAVE’, a woman filed more than thirty false accusations of domestic abuse and the courts did nothing. Prosecutors generally do not prosecute these cases. That is how these women manage to get a generous settlement. It would be criminal extortion if the prosecutor tried the case. This is how the system views false allegations in civil and criminal cases.

The accuser is a person who makes an allegation and the respondent is the person who answers it. Usually the person who gets to the courthouse first becomes the accuser but that is not always true. Local authorities have arrested men to prevent them from getting to the courthouse first. So that how false allegations are used to get that tactical advantage.  However, the problem with false allegations of abuse is that there usually no witnesses and even if they were present, they would not notice any abusive conduct. The reason for this is that the instigator is not going to abuse their spouse in the presence of others. Yet if they do, most people would believe that the victim deserved it, especially if he is male, and that is the problem with the mandatory arrest laws. They do not encourage the collection and the analysis of the physical and biological evidence (DNA).  and the truth becomes secondary.

Although Congress has spent billions of dollars to vilify men, the proof of guilt always remains with the accuser and not with the person that they had falsely accused. It is an individual’s choice that determines their behavior and that is why these women must be on trial and not those they have falsely accused. The point is that lying about abuse is a lucrative vocation. She gets the money and the property and no one will cover the loses.

However, according to the IRS, if a person steals property, they must report its fair market value as part of their income in the year that the stole it. However, if they had returned it to its rightful owner in the same year, the thief does not have to pay taxes on it. So why did the government fail to tax these women for that money that they have owed?  Tell that to the men whose wife and the courts have stolen their home.  Meanwhile, the courts have washed their hands in abject denial. Now, how inane and servile can anyone be? Congress did not design the VAWA to protect women. Instead it produced the greatest transfer of property in history. With a mere false accusation, a woman can deprive a man of his property, wealth, and freedom simply by falsely claiming abuse or rape.

Most court ordered evictions are a result of a restraining order obtained under false pretenses and this is how it works. The wife goes into court and claims that husband abused her and the court automatically issues a restraining order that evicts the husband from his own home. Moreover, the order usually restricts what he might take. So he cannot take anything of significant value that he might own. In other words, she has everything of value that is his, including his home.  This is the classic case of extortion and the courts are part of the gang working toward unlawful ends. This brings forth the problem of illegal transfers of technology. The U.S. government controls the export of certain technologies and commodities to other countries. A violation of these export controls is an illegal technology transfer and that transfer is a criminal act and a security concern. The product itself might be legal but only certain persons can possess it because it incorporates a trade secret.

So if anyone wanted to find a good source of false information, the American Bar Association (ABA) has seemingly devoted its entire energies to creating ‘falsity’. That is not a tribute, it is the truth. The common knowledge is that the government nearly never prosecutes most women for lying. So it seems that only in our courts that a woman’s lies are not considered perjury even when the Glass Slipper does not fit nor ever existed.

Edward Steven Nunes