Shat  terd



The hidden half of domestic violence

How to have eternal life


Miranda Rights for Terrorists

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense." Miranda vs. Arizona 

I do not doubt that most of you reading this can tell exactly where you were and what you were doing on the morning of September 11. 2001. Just as December 7Th, 1941 was the start of World War 11 for the United States , this was the start of the War on Terror for us.

In an address to Congress nine days after the attacks, President George W. Bush said, "Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." 

However, it has ended! It ended on January 20Th 2009 when our current president took office. It is now an "Overseas Contingency Operation." 

Many of us have heard President Obama's speeches in which everything is praised except the United States . It seems he has apologized for us more then he has been our Commander in Chief and POTUS. Never has he mentioned the aid given by the United
States to any disaster anywhere in the world. When the Pacific basin was struck by a tsunami just after Christmas in 2004 it was the United States that gave the most even though most of those in need were Muslim. In fact, it was Christian organizations such as Samaritan’s Purse (1) (2) that were on the ground the fastest to render aide to those in the area but we hear little about this. 

It is also common knowledge that the present administration plans to close Guantanamo Bay and move  the detainees to the United States . This move also involves giving each of them "Miranda Rights".  (I do wonder if it is in the plans to give this strategic base back to Cuba?)

It is not just those from Guantanamo Bay that are being given these rights, it is all terrorist that are captured anywhere.

The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan , according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters, (3)

I firmly believe that doing this will cost American lives. It also directly contradicts President Obama's own statement that he would NOT give them Miranda Rights. (4)

Of equal if not greater importance is that these same rights that are being given to enemies of this country are not being given to many of our very own citizens. 

Two to three million civil restraining orders are issued each year in the United States . In half of these orders, physical violence is not even alleged. Most are in violation of The Constitution of the United States in that included in the Fifth Amendment, we find: "one can not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" 

These people who have these orders placed against them have had Miranda rights given them yet they stand to lost their house, their jobs their friends and even their own children. Many do not even know an order was placed against them until they are found to be in violation of it. 

Dr Charles Corry PhD of the Equal Justice Foundation has much information on restraining orders and how they work. Although he writes about Colorado , the effects are pretty much universal. (5)

I am sure some are asking how these things can happen. Let me explain as Dr, Corry has shown: 

House/Children: If your female partner, her relatives, doctor, social worker, etc., accuse you of domestic or emotional abuse, or even the potential for such abuse, you will be served with a standard temporary protection order to stay away from her and her domicile (what you thought was your house and home). No proof or evidence is required to obtain such an order. Hearsay is admissible. Perjury and subornation of perjury are standard practice. Remember, you do not need to be violent….all she has to do is to say she is afraid of you. The orders will often be extended to include any children and will spell out the terms of any visitation or contact rights you have with any children in the relationship (usually none initially even if the children are yours and not hers). You must scrupulously obey the terms of the order, i.e., no telephone calls or birthday cards to your children.

Jobs/Friends: Typically you will also be barred from any direct or indirect contact with her friends, relatives, employer(s), or other associates or third-parties. They may have been "your" friends or associates before but after the protection order is issued any female friends are hers.  That will be more than an inconvenience should you work at or near the same location, and you can expect to lose your job in such circumstances, or go to jail for violating the order. In many cases you can expect her to attempt to arrange for you to violate the order so she can have you jailed. 

Freedom: You can be arrested and sent to jail for a violation of a restraining order even though "you" did not violate it. If the person who took it out on you know where and when you shop, she can accidentally run into you there and she can then report that you violated the order. I personally know of a man who attends church every week. His ex does not yet one Sunday morning she showed up at the church she knows he attends and then filed a violation on him. The judge did not accept it however many would have accepted it as a violation. Many cell phones have a GPS system in it which there is devices that can be obtained to track a specific phone and thus an "accidental" meeting can be arranged for which unlike the man who proved he attended the church regularly and she only once, it will be difficult to show that you did not violate the order. 

Syndicated columnist Cathy Young states "Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, warned that the ''frenzy surrounding domestic violence'' was leading to disturbing excesses: ''Restraining orders ... are granted to virtually all who apply... In many [divorce] cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage.'' Under the Abuse Prevention Act of 1978, a temporary restraining order can be issued ex parte, without the defendant being notified - much less informed of the specific charges. In theory, he can present his side at a later hearing to determine if the order should be made permanent.

With the order in effect, any contact becomes punishable by up to two and half years of imprisonment. Legally, it doesn't matter if the contact is accidental, or if it happened with the purported victim's consent or at her initiative. Fathers hit with restraining orders based on trivial or uncorroborated allegations have been jailed for sending their kids a Christmas card, asking a telephone operator to convey the message that a gravely ill grandmother would like to see her grandchildren, or returning a child's phone call." (6) Divorce lawyers often refer to restraining orders as silver bullets or slam-dunks because they are so easy to obtain and effective in winning the legal dispute. 

Issued without objective proof, temporary restraining orders require the accused to vacate the family home and restrict contact with children. The RADAR report documents how most orders are issued under the presumption of guilty until proven innocent. 

Our nation's domestic violence laws pretend that men are dangerous in the intact family and should be immediately removed for nothing more than a statement of fear, according to RADAR spokesman David Usher. Due process no longer seems to apply. 

The Report, which compiles information from law reviews and research studies, also notes that 15% of restraining orders are issued against women. The RADAR report is available at

Many researchers doubt usefulness of protection orders. 

Restraining orders are generally ineffective in preventing future physical violence. •Among unmarried partners, such orders may actually increase future violence. The Independent Women’s Forum has concluded that at best, restraining orders only “lull women into a false sense of security." The adoption of certain types of protection order statutes is associated with … increases in the number of black women killed by their unmarried partners.” – Researcher Lora Dugan Mandatory Arrest Domestic violence laws have encouraged the implementation of mandatory arrest laws for assault and violation of restraining orders. But are these aggressive law enforcement measures helping or hurting? Mandatory Arrest for Partner Assault Many states have enacted laws that require arrestor partner assault. But victims who summon the police often want the situation to be stabilized, but they don’t want their partner to be arrested. A recent Harvard University study concluded that in 15 states, mandatory arrest laws actually increased subsequent partner homicides by 60%, probably because these laws discourage victims from reporting subsequent abuse. “Mandatory arrest laws are responsible for an additional 0.8 murders per 100,000 people.” --Harvard economist Radha Iyengar (7)

Phyllis Schlafly provides a nice summary of the article in "Feminist Abuse of Domestic Violence Laws" in part states:

"Accusations of abuse and demands for an OP are extremely useful in denying child custody to the respondent. The DVA includes "a rebuttable presumption that awarding physical care to respondent would NOT be in the minor child's best interest." 

The DVA requires that a petition for an OP be expedited, and judges typically allot only 15 or 20 minutes to each case, which is not enough time to hear all the relevant evidence. Resolving a custody decision in a divorce proceeding usually requires many months. 

The Illinois Bar article concludes: "If a parent is willing to abuse the system, it is unlikely the trial court could discover (her) improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing." 

Under the divorce law, a parent is entitled to "reasonable visitation rights." But he loses those rights in an OP hearing under the DVA because the standards of evidence do not apply and the court has "wide discretion to restrict visitation." 

The greatest potential for abuse of the system is that a petitioner can circumvent the divorce law and thereby restrict visitation by the other parent. The longer a parent is able to retain temporary custody, the greater her opportunity to obtain permanent custody. " (8)

There are many questions that need to be answered.  The first is why are those that are determined to destroy the United States being give the rights that are assured our own citizens while our citizens are being denied these rights?

A second question is why is there a rush to pass stimulus and health care plans which will have to ration health care  without any debate and for which any contrasting views are being silenced?  Is it not odd that those who are asking legitimate questions are being called Fascist even though many of the advisors to our president have long histories of socialist activities and many founded Please remember "Joe the Plumber" was vetted for asking a question that was not welcomed but it seems he was right but not like most think. It appears wealth is being redistributed but not from the rich to the poor.  Many of the things we  have seen enacted recently are robbing the poor.  One example of this is the news that those on social security, some of the poorest in our nation will not be getting an increase in their checks for perhaps the next several years while Medicaid and Medicare cost will be reduced which will result in a higher out of pocket cost to those who have paid their debt to society.  

Another question to ask is why millions who are here illegally will be covered but our senior citizens will be short changed?  

Lastly, why are those who are honestly questioning the people who we elected to represent us being called "right wing" terrorist  (remember, real terrorist will be given Miranda Rights)  People such as our veterans who fought to defend our freedom, senior citizens, pro-lifers, Christians and essentially anyone who disagrees with those in power and dares to voice these concerns are now being called into question.  Many I am sure are being "vetted" just as was "John the Plumber" but the czars certainly are not being vetted.  Most of these advisors are not accountable to anyone except the POTUS nor did they have to be screened by the Senate or F.B.I. Of course, if they were, they would never be able to get a basic security clearance to have access to the lowest classified information. 

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Martin Niemoeller(1892-1984)

I contend that it is time for us all to speak up!

To conclude, I believe there is a hidden agenda behind all of this which is "Bitter Sweet", that is it sounds good...but it will turn rotten when implemented.  (9)  I also want to reassure those reading this that all of this has been predicted thousands of years ago but there is no reason to be afraid! (10)











(please click above to vote for this site)

JUNE is Domestic Violence Against Men Awareness Month

Contact us

Interactive Groups


Ken's Page

Jerusalem Daily/Shattered Men

 Read  Guest Book  Sign

Shattered Men Group