I am relatively pleased to read this. I say relatively on the bases that Mark Byron’s situation with the courts is still saddening and disgusting; however at least he’s human worth won’t be further eroded by serving jail time for what I strongly consider a perfectly legal act.

This is obviously good news in many ways... It's a plus-one for freedom of speech, it's good to see the MRM portrayed positively by the media for a change, it's good that this man who hasn't committed any crime won't face jail-time, and much more.

In short, this is good!


It's just a shame that the courts are nothing short of archaic bullies.



ps - added the original AM article to sources, so people can track it... not sure why it was excluded?

As I said in other posts, this is how movements and causes make their way onto the political landscape. This man has made a very critical decision and I hope it goes the way of restoring justice for him and his children. Part of the decision is to adopt a civil rights stance along with other complaints, and this is a tactic long attended by a risk of backlash from the bench. On the other hand, I have evoked the Bill of Rights far more than once in my own time served in this battle, and have not regretted it. But again, does all of this move anyone any closer to a proper resolution of the matter of the children's well-being, or does this epic departure from the relevant question of the child's future obfuscate and extend the volume of the issues and create a prejudicial environment in which his case, now cases, will be heard?

“I decided to stand up for our freedom of speech,” Byron wrote on his Facebook page last week after deciding to withdraw the court imposed apology.

“Civil rights matter.”

“In the course of history, there have been many champions of the First Amendment,” Judge Sieve said after his verdict today. “You, sir, are not one of them."

“You have, in fact, thumbed your nose, figuratively, at the court system.”

The case is set for a June 27 trial and Byron encourages concerned people to donate to his legal defense.

This could wind up as a watershed, landmark case, or it could result in another man doing the child-support, pickup-dropoff thing and be forgotten over time. Whichever outcome, I wish our brother well in the spotlight, and justice for his and all our fatherhood.




antimisandry.com http://antimisandry.com/articles/ohi...#ixzz1pgWGI3He

“Civil rights matter.”

“In the course of history, there have been many champions of the First Amendment,” Judge Sieve said after his verdict today. “You, sir, are not one of them."

“You have, in fact, thumbed your nose, figuratively, at the court system.”

More men should do the same.

Exactly what would this judge know about civil rights when he is a judge in the anti-father family court system?

What he wrote on his facebook wall is something that is taught every semester by women'' study's professors guided by the now-academically-acceptable version of neo-marxism called "critical theory"

It appears what's good for the goose is prohibited for the gander in the kangaroo-cages of some out-of-control magistrate. Once this case makes it to the court-room of a judge who actually attended law school -- no matter how indoctrinated in critical theory may be the real judge -- constitutional protections will prevail and comments in the third-person collective plural voice about the standing of various classes in our courts will be recognized for what it is - constitutionally protected speech. If those protections fail, we can consider our constitution to have been voided.

The only setback to the passions in your argument is the fact that people who have attended law school work in a factory producing rulings and verdicts. Anything holding up procedure, quite often including civil rights issues attendant to cases, is removed from the production line on a daily basis. These issues then depend on the persistence of litigants and the willingness of attorneys to pursue them, or they are forgotten. Or worse, they become bugs in the ear of judges, prosecutors and juries in future related cases, and what can be portrayed as using the venue of a court proceeding for purposes of activism becomes a courtroom liability for the justice-seeker.

This is unfortunate as seen from the outside but my too-long experience in courtrooms tells me that the United States Constitution, with all its good intentions and plain language, is the least of the daily concerns down on the shop floor. It hangs in the air as a symbol just as the flag hangs beside the bench, and the constitutionality of law before lower courts (and most certainly a judge's exercise of authority) is assumed, not argued, in that setting.

To assert that a judge is violating one's civil rights is a whole different case, argued in different courts with different kinds of attorneys at a different time. Meanwhile, judges and attorneys, defense and prosecution alike, in line to handle or have an interest in these heightened-profile cases are reading up on them like say, here, and forming opinions. And so with prospective jurors, journalists, bloggers, etc, and the games begin...

Introducing Constitutional civil rights issues into a case is an art, not a science. I have done it and seen it done, mostly with success, and it is achieved by tying a specific right such as freedom from self-incrimination to a specific point of law or procedure, such as by declining during proceedings for one case to discuss another case, on Fifth Amendment grounds. The result is not a summary overthrowing of feminist domination over the known universe, but rather a brief nod and an "I'll allow it" from one slightly more-impressed judge, and testimony proceeds, down a long road that leads to our children and the terms of our future fathering of them.

In terms of down-on-the-ground procedure, one prevails in courts both civil and criminal as much by means of rapport, courthouse demeanor, choice of attorney, clarity of arguments, being well-informed and prepared, and an indestructible and undefined human factor that no activism or groundswell can reform away, as one does only by knowing one's rights, or believing oneself to.

Admitting to a crime twenty-six times and then evoking the Constitution, in existing courthouse culture, could not only discredit a defendant and his case, but also create a cry-wolf setting where he has a hard time being taken seriously the next time he truly needs to assert his civil rights in a courtroom.