Make your own free website on


This is a simple reminder that too many women are using this inept system in order to involve bringing the coercive apparatus of the state - police, courts, and jails - into the home for use against fathers. When you see that family members may not even be charged with any legal wrongdoing you can begin to grasp the full horror of what is taking place and how far the family court machinery has been fashioned into an instrument of terror. As citizens of communist Eastern Europe once did, it is now fathers who live in fear of the “knock on the door.” So what can a father do to escape these vicious women? Very little, and those stupid divorce manuals encouraging fathers with advice on how to win custody are not doing them any favors. The latest wisdom informs fathers that the game is so rigged that their best hope of keeping their children is not to wait for their day in court but to adopt the techniques of mothers: If you think she is about to snatch, snatch first. “If you do not take action,” writes author Robert Seidenberg, “your wife will. If this advice is sound, the custody industry has turned marriage into a “race to the trigger,” to adopt the terms of nuclear deterrence replete with the pre-emptive strike: Whoever snatches first survives.

The petitioner/mother filed yet another motion to bring me back into court again. This time her motion was on the basis that My Son would come back to her dirty and tired. This was one of the most outlandish accusation I have ever heard. I knew that if family (kangaroo) courts were not so biased against fathers this would have been thrown out for several reasons.

1) My Son was sent to me only with the clothes on his back and nothing else. These clothes were filthy and tattered when he came to me. As soon as I got him home I would change his clothes and wash the ones he came in. Then when it was time to go back I would change him back into the clothes he came in, and return him to him mother.

2) Since I was paying child support, it is unreasonable to expect me to go out and buy clothes above and beyond my financial responsibilities and return My Son in these clothes.

3) My Son was brought to me in dirty and quite frequently tattered clothing. No amount of washing would clean or mend these clothes. Not only that but how is it that she was not required to bring him to me in clean clothes and not tired?

4) It is unreasonable to expect a child to not be tired in the evening when he has been playing all day long. Especially when its within a couple of hours of his bedtime anyway.

5) It is unreasonable to expect more from me than the other parent is giving.

6) It is unreasonable to expect children who have been playing all day to have clean clothes or be clean themselves.

The Petitioner/Mother’s attempt to claim that a child should be well rested at 7pm at night is another example of The Petitioner/Mother’s perverse sense of reality, and the malicious nature of this frivolous action. I had also made several claims against Mr. Bungi and Ms. Holman in the statements I turned in for this court date. When I got to court I found that Mr. Bungi was the one presiding over the case that day. This was clearly an activity incompatible with his public duty pursuant to RCW 42.52.020. Since he clearly had an interest that was in conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties. This is because he would have had to find himself guilty of the charges I had brought against him. When I told him that this was a conflict of interest he smiled, gave a short, quick laugh and said that he did not see any conflict and found no basis for the charges brought against him. He then proceeded to make his decision and stated he found The Petitioner/Mother’s claims credible showing his gross negligence, bias, incompetence, and wanton disregard for law. Once again making him guilty of allowing inconsistent statements pursuant to RCW 9A.72.050(1), failure of duty pursuant to RCW 42.20.100, willfully disobeying a provision of law regulating official conduct pursuant to RCW 42.20.080, unprofessional conduct pursuant to RCW 18.130.180, and official misconduct pursuant to RCW 9A.80.010(1)(a)(b). These acts are completely inappropriate, illegal, and immoral, violating both my legal and civil rights. Again I had time taken away from me and I was told that I had to make sure My Son was clean, and rested before I took him back to The Petitioner/Mother. Which was now 7pm on Sunday. My pick up time was now 6pm on Friday instead of 5pm. This extra hour that he took from me was clearly a threat designed to let me know I needed to stop with my actions or he would continue to take time from me until I was not allowed to see My Son at all.

This Page Created by AAAdvanced Engineering Concepts

Send Questions or Comments to: 

Copyright © 2003