11-11

thank you! i did not know this

carmencita

Believe it or not Pedophiles have Lobbyists. "“I first met up with what I had come to call ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby’ in 1977 at The British Psychological Society Conference on Love and Attraction, Swansea, Wales,” she said. “I delivered a research paper on child pornography in Playboy 1954-1977.” The rest of this article will make you explode with anger. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia EDIT: It also mentions MAP minor attracted persons. The nerve.

carmencita

It is so frustrating to see these laws that are not only wrong, but when changed, they become worse, in favor of the abuser, not the child. The only way we can change this is to draw attention to the people that are in favor of trying to pass "bogus" laws. Laws that are foolers. They are worded in such a way that convinces the public that it may be a good thing, when it is not. Also the Pedophiles have Lobbyists that lobby for them. YES. Believe it or not they do. It is hard enough passing a good law but having to fight big money lobbyists is unfair, imo.

Factfinder2

Let's call out the lobbyists. Do you have specific leads?

2impendingdoom

Thanks for these links and bringing this up. The courts are able to hide all of this because of the policy to seal cases involving juveniles and applying gag orders. I haven't read them yet but Mark Harmon Snow has written two books exposing the corruption in the family courts, one, focusing on Connecticut, is called "In the Worst Interests of the Child". I haven't met Mr. Snow but from his TED talk and other work I believe he has honorable intentions.

The amount of systemic abuse that is perpetrated by the judiciary is mind-boggling.

Factfinder2

Mind-boggling indeed. I had no idea of the depth of the problem. Regarding the sealing of cases and gag orders, the article I linked addresses this but actually provides some hope for change:

"In 2005, The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges voted approval of presumptively open hearings with discretion of courts to close. This isn't yet law, but it's a big step in that direction."

I still need to determine whether there's been any movement on that front since 2005.

2impendingdoom

Discretion of the courts is still a big hurdle. If it comes down to individual judges ordering closed cases it will be MORE difficult to unseal the cases, because the "standard policy" excuse is gone. I do not trust any of them to make things more just.

Factfinder2

Excellent point.

carmencita

The CPS is not about keeping our children safe nor serving their best interests. Where is the law that allows them to be taken and offers monetary compensations for placing the children. I have often thought it is in Obamacare, but not sure.

2impendingdoom

I think this was a Bill Clinton law, someone here posted details about it. where the Fed gov. give $4K for every child taken but the foster home only gets $750 so where does the rest of the money go? (judges and lawyers is a good bet) And the rate is higher for disabled kids which is why babies are being prescribed anti-psychotic meds.