See Rest of Article HERE: FATHERS RIGHTS AND THEIR CORRUPT JUDICIAL CRONIES.
A SHORT HISTORY OF HOW JUDGES SET UP A SECRET SYSTEM TO RIG CASES FOR MEN
Fathers Rights activists have made themselves well known. You can find some of their most influential group sites linked below. While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, while a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites shows a very different story. Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of their case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters - Gardner, Underwager and Farrell. (See Section on Published Pedophile Advocates)
Many of them, especially their leaders, are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child's natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges. While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws in their to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage. Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support. The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which is tilting toward an official policy of rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by "bitter" ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.
One important factor which the fathers rights leaders never mention is that their leading group, CRC, was set up many years ago by people who were officials of secretive judicial organizations - AFCC: Association of Family & Conciliation Courts -- established in Los Angeles in 1982 by L.A. judges and a few others, including a man named Meyer Elkin, (now deceased) who was a prison sex offender psychologist
(NAFCJ note: a profession notorious for being sympathetic to sex offenders).
But Meyer Elkin was not the only AFCC official who was also a founding official, or closely associated with the leading fathers rights group - CRC. Joan Kelly, of Marin County CA, does research and trains court professionals, is also a AFCC and CRC founding official. Several other AFCC officials or leaders are also closely associated with the fathers right groups. This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states. These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support. In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.
READ ABOUT THESE GROUPS TO COMPREHEND THE EXTENT OF THIS COLLUSION
"AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts - an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict."
Read about Meyer Elkin's role in the AFCC is discussed toward the bottom of their site AFCC: History page .
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group - Children's Rights Council. Study these people and their site carefully because it is the "blueprint" of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies. Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people. It is all done for them by the government. They get their bribes paid for them !
The AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children's Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people. While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters, which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them. Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants - people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell. CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999.. Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself. He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC. He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agency. This perversion of OCSE's agency's original legislative mission continues to-date. This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can't collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay. Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.
The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a "clearinghouse" for organized case rigging. They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner. Their scheme involves "recruiting" male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program "services" which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations. Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant for custody. The judge hearing these cases proves payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly "neutral" court evaluators. None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing).. The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments. It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples. This is what keeps their litigation game going and going. They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud. The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).
Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases. However, this doesn't stop the crooked AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child's attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling. Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC - fathers rights group - usually on the subject of Parental Alienation - which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.
Click HERE for more info. http://www.nafcj.net/