Part One: Teri Stoddard and her claim to fame in Father's Rights circles

Source Glenn’s Cult

I have been promising this article and plan to deliver several installments. I must first thank the woman whose diligence and persistence to help me has definitely paid off. I do not think I would have been able to collect half of what she has given to me any time soon. These big old hooves get in the way of typing really well and I usually use a speech to text program :-). Thank you again R for all of your hard work to researching and exposing this for all of us.

First we must ask who is Teri? Well according to her facebook page this is what she writes:

Queen of (parental) Equality: a children's advocate, day care provider turned journalist. Working for family law reform to bring due process and abolish gender-biased abuse policies. SHARED PARENTING WORKS! Free parenting plans below.

Now that is confusing to me since she has posted these kinds of things on other email groups:

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_10.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_6812.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_1470.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_641.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_6288.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_5424.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_358.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_1907.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_7891.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_5605.html

http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2009/10/teri-stoddard-real-play-or-role-play_9377.html

Now I can understand a little bit - possibly Teri WANTS women to be subservient to men? Or does she WANT to be in control of other women?

Well we will continue to explore these as options. However let's see what her parenting experience entails:

If you read this email carefully you will see that she has four children by four different men. Hmmmm Teri think you could have picked any better? Maybe then you could have gone the route of what you preach. Oh yeah I know!!!! It is do as I say, not as I do.

We have another prime example of this below:

And now we have where this anger towards women mothers has come from:

You see how she has to start getting digs on the mother of "her" grandchild? Does it get worse? You bet!

She is on a single mothers group and she whines on and on about how her son is so wonderful and the mother of her grandchild and the "other grandmother" are so awful and terrible. That group did not buy into her BS and Teri eventually left that group.

She has to post about how long she has gone without sex:

Wow oh wow! Six whole years as of 2002? Wonder if any of those lonely father's rights guys has indulged her (see earlier posts on here entitled real play or role play for that answer)?

So really what is it that has got her so upset that she flips from being a normal woman who was spurned and whose kids are not cared for by dad (read earlier picture about child support/welfare) to this crazed fanatic for men's/father's rights?

Now she is writing articles for the Examiner (claims she is a reporter now because she does this - hey I am a reporter too) :-). She also works for a nanny service (maybe this service should be warned?) and newly added to her resume is S.A.V.E. Services for Falsely Accused. R researched this issue for me (thank you again R) and with that we move to our second post.

Here is a sneak peek at what provoked R to forward all of her information to me before she was completely done with her research.

Notice the male bashing subject line (as if having a speech or protest against abuse could be considered male bashing?):

Posted by Glenn's Cult? at 9:00 AM

Labels: Teri Stoddard, Terri, Terri Stoddard

5 comments:

Teri Stoddard said...

Claudine, you have broken the Yahoo group rules by posting messages outside the group. Shame on you.

And how stupid can you be? You think I had to leave the group? I own it! hahahaha

I feel sorry for you. You must be a miserable person to lie about others in this way. You're sick.

I have never favored one gender over the other. Do you not understand the term "equal"? Guess not.

S.A.V.E. helps victims (of both genders) as well as those who are falsely accused (again, both genders). Sorry to disappoint you; but I'm not the monster you seem to think I am.

October 06, 2010 11:26 PM

Glenn's Cult? said...

I have allowed this one comment even though you did not follow my rules. You have your space with your group, I have mine here. Oh and for the record, I am not Claudine. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

I simply posted the information about who owns that website and the irony in the fact that a woman who was found guilty in a civil trial and was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars because she refused to be honest with a dv victim is now running a website geared towards weakening the assistance available to women?

Not going anywhere. I am not that is.

Oh and by the way how is Ray L? :-) You two still good friends?

October 07, 2010 12:01 AM

Glenn's Cult? said...

Oh and having read the entire appeals opinion in the Spivack case, I find that Spivack (or her lawyers or all of them) attempted to do several things.

First they attempted to paint Nataliya Fox as a criminal by showing documents from the Ukraine and Turkey.

Second they attempted to say she tried to defraud the INS with the change in her application (from marrying one man to marrying Fox).

They then tried to get credit for the settlement offered by Fox in the judgment against them.

You should really read the entire appeal. It is somewhat long but even with skimming it you get a real good picture of the character of the individuals involved.

October 07, 2010 12:21 AM

Teri Stoddard said...

Natasha's female client committed fraud. Their side only won because they had more money. Of course you would never believe that, because in your reality only men are bad, right?

You have so much energy to put towards this...why not use it for good? Stop the gender bashing and treat everyone equally. It's really not that difficult.

Now stop stealing content from my group and stop lying about me. I've written about my past, yet you never seem to get it right.

October 07, 2010 3:59 AM

Glenn's Cult? said...

That is the answer for everything now isn't? They won because they had more money. I guess the pictures shown (there must have been pictures right, otherwise how could the doctor testimony been accepted?) and that silly doctor - Nataliya must have put all those hand marks and bruises on her body? And I am sure all those jurors are just so misguided also? All TWELVE of them voted that Natasha was wrong. And the trial court judge - he was blinded too. And let's not forget the appeals court judges. No dissenting judges in that bunch. If Natasha is doing such a great job with her clients you would think she would want a better quality person than Nataliya for these men, if what YOU say is true about her. After all you are always right aren't you Teri?

October 07, 2010 7:06 AM

Post a Comment