Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Without having the article to read, I must initially temper my anger.
     I have always known that Duke was an arrogant SOB.  This just
    reinforces my fellings about him.  There are 3 branches of government
    in our society, the Legislative branch, the Executive branch, and
    the Judicial branch.  Each is supposed to be a check on the other.
     When the Executive branch can run so rough-shod on the Judicial
    branch, I become very frightened.  What is to stop Duke from going
    after an innocent person?
    
    I don't know the circumstances of why the person took his children
    from Illinois, but I agree with the judge.  Let the woman come to
    this state and plead her case.  If she has grounds, then she should
    get her children back.  If not, then she should be required to abide
    by the court ruling.  This may even be one for the federal courts,
    insofar as it involves inter-state issues.
    
    It would seem that if she had grounds to get custody in Illinois,
    then she would also have grounds here, possibly.
    
    Regardless, what Duke did was just pure arrogance and it really
    scares me.  I hope I understand the situation better when I read
    the article.
    
    Ed..
    

    I would want to read the article, and then find some independent
    source (such as the newspaper) before engaging in Duke-bashing.
    Sounds to me like only part of the story is here.
    
    				Steve

re: .2
>    Sounds to me like only part of the story is here.
    
.0>    Dukakis, based soley on the evidence provided by the mother thru
.0>    the state of Illinois overrulled his own judge, without a hearing,
.0>    and forced the father to give up his children.

If this is true, which I have no reason to believe otherwise, what more
of the story do you need to form an opinion of Dukakis' actions?

He clearly appears to have overstepped his bounds.

Kip

    RE 3
    
    I don't think it is fair to make a judgement on this until you
    know the reasons why he made his decision.  The evidence provided
    to him by the mother thru the state of Illinois has not been
    provided yet.  Based on that fact, any judgements shouldn't
    be made until all of the facts are in.
    
    Personally as a rule I don't beleive that politicians (no matter
    what office they hold) should interfere with the justice system.
    The judge was the person to make the decisions.  The judge was
    the person who has a formal training to handle such matters.
    But again, I don't believe it is fair to come down on the
    govenor before you know all of the facts of the case.  Afterall,
    He had access to all of the facts and this is what he based his
    decision on.  Whether his decision was right or wrong is another
    issue.  By the way who makes the decision on right or wrong?
    It would seem to me that that is clearly a matter of opinion.

    Re: .3
    
    I'd want the real story, not a paraphrase of what appeared in
    a lobbying group's newsletter.
    
    Please note that I am not suggesting the story is false, but I prefer
    to have my facts in front of me before I start passing judgement.
    This is a painful subject, but to automatically assume the worst is
    inappropriate.
    
    Can anyone provide references to newspaper (preferably Boston Globe)
    or magazine reports of this decision?
    
    				Steve

    
    	RE: .4
    
    	 You say that should be a matter for the legal system, but then
    	defend the Duke for butting his nose in? Which is it? I'm sure
    	the judge that ruled the mother didn't have a case had access
    	to the same information the Duke did. Why shouldn't the Duke
    	have stayed out of it and let the mother present her case in
    	the court in Massachusetts like the judge ruled. It does seem
    	the Duke felt he was a better judge of what is right or wrong
    	than the judge in the case.

    re. 6
    
    I did not "defend the duke for butting in".  I said that I believe
    that fundamentally the 
    matter is for the legal system to decide.  However, since he decided
    to make his own decision (this is a fact not a defense) we should
    (like the judge and the duke) not make a judgement without all
    of the facts.  You stated that both the judge and the duke had
    access to the same information.  All I am trying to say is that
    we should not make a judgement until we too have access to the
    same information given the judge and the duke.
    
    It is not my decision to make to decide whether or not what the
    Duke did was right or wrong.  I am not trying to defend anyone.
    I am trying to make the point that judgement should not be passed
    without all of the facts.
    make the decision (this is a fact, not a defense) we should not
    pass judgement until all of the facts are given to us.

   
    From the author:
    
    I agree in part to what Steve is saying.  Even though I strongly
    support F.A.I.R. , they are not un-bias in their reporting as, let's
    say [cough!!] the Globe.  You, as a reader have to decide for yourself
    how much is literary fact or slanted bias.  I made my decision after
    reading it and responded by sending a letter directly to Govorner
    Dukakis.  
    
    The only facts that were presented in this article were those that
    were submitted by the Father.  The article was not written based
    upon what the father told F.A.I.R. but on written documents he
    presented to their attourneys.  
    
    This article puts the Duke in such a blantantly compromising situation
    [regarding his goveratorial powers against the judicial branch]
    that I decided not to transcribe the article in fear I may mis-write
    the article as written by F.A.I.R.
    
    This is why I have offered a copy instead.  You can read it word
    for word and do what you want with it and make whatever assumptions
    you want.  I'm sure if you called F.A.I.R. they would welcome you
    questions.
    
    I think this would be a great conference to have, after many of
    you interested in this article have read it.
    
    BTW:  I have 8 requests all of which are being sent interoffice
    today.  I will be logging off the system after 1:00pm EST and be
    back on MOnday for those who want copies sent today send mail to
    my secretary who after reading the article agreed to distribute
    this to anyone asking.
    
    Her node is CIMNET::PUPILLO.
    
    One thing I failed to mention in my base note is that this father's
    attourney apparantly screwed up as well.  There is inuendo alluding
    to collusion with the attouney generals office.  It was vague but
    it looks like the guy fired his lawyer and has hired a F.A.I.R.
    lawyer to help him.
    
    Good reading to all.
    
    Bill
    

I haven't read the article yet so I don't have those "facts" to base
an opinion on this particular case.

However, I do have one apparent "fact", and that is that Gov. Dukakis
usurped the judicial authority empowered to the judge handling this
issue, who presumably had all the facts before him when he made his
initial decision.  The Governor was clearly out of line no matter how
good his intentions were at that moment.

That's all I meant in .3.

Kip

    Since when do noters start getting "all the facts" before passing
    judgement?
    
    Dwight

Re:
>However, I do have one apparent "fact", and that is that Gov. Dukakis
>usurped the judicial authority empowered to the judge handling this
>issue, who presumably had all the facts before him when he made his
>initial decision.  The Governor was clearly out of line no matter how
>good his intentions were at that moment.

I'm not arguing, just curious:

From your statement above, it appears that you advocate removing
governors' rights to grant pardons, grant stays of execution, etc,
since these things counteract the decision of the judge and jury
who originally came up with the verdict and sentence, and hence
"usurp the judicial authority."

Unless you do advocate this change in the powers currently given to
states' executive branches, how was the governor "clearly out of line"?
If you do, in fact, advocate such a change, where are the checks and
balances of such a system?

    
    Re: -.1   There is no capital punishment in Mass!  And yes!  I agree
    personally that Gov's. [as presidents] have the right, in certain
    criminal situations to grant pardons.  I agree with the intent not
    necessarily with the specific action.  Remember Nixon's pardon?
    
    Anyway.  This is not a criminal situation.  This is a social issue
    that was made into a criminal situations.  It made the father a
    criminal subject to arrest and extradition even though a Mass Judge
    had granted him custody of his children.
    
    Bill

re: .11

.12 said it quite well, thank you.

(I'm waiting for the info to arrive via inter-office mail.  Perhaps when
I've read it I'll add more to this discussion.)

Kip

 
Re: .12    
>    Re: -.1   There is no capital punishment in Mass!  And yes!  I agree

Does it matter if there is or isn't capital punishment in Mass? My
questions were about the powers granted governors of states--PLURAL,
meaning states in general, and therefore meaning governors in
general. Your statement leads me to believe that this argument might
largely be due to the continuation of election-oriented Dukakis
bashing. Or do you think that no other governor in the country has
ever intervened in a child-custody case? (I have no evidence either
way. For all I know, if you believe this, you could be right, although
I find it quite unlikely.)

Your point about the differences between criminal and civil cases
is interesting, though. Do you then assert that that overiding the
decision of the judicial branch in civil cases "usurps" judicial
authority, but in criminal cases, overiding the decision of the
judicial branch does not "usurp" judicial authority? If so, I don't
understand how you can justify this distinction.

    RE: .14, there can be a great difference between granting a stay-of-
    execution and using your power to force your own version of justice.
    In NYC, Governor Cuomo has openly stated that if the Legislature
    will over-ride his veto of a death penalty bill, he will commute
    any death sentence. This is overstepping the bounds. If Dukakis's
    actions are as represented here (and knowing the Duke, I wouldn't
    be surprised), he WAY overstepped his!
    
    Eric

    My respect for Mario Cuomo has just increased a great deal.
    
    -- Mike

    If his personal beliefs are above the people of the state, then
    something is wrong. But what do you expect fronm a NYC Governor
    who didn't carry ANY county north of Westchester (and I'm not sure
    he carried that).------FLAME OFF---
    
    The point of this is that Governors have no right to interfere with
    the judicial process EXCEPT in those areas which are their's (pardons
    and so forth). They do NOT have the right to abuse their political
    powers to further personal beliefs.
    
    Eric

    
    Re: .14  The thought never entered my mind that The Duke might have
    "legally" overstepped is authority over the judicial system in this
    matter.  Whether governors [in general] should/should not overrule
    the judicial branch in [any] matters is a topic for another topic.
    I would be glad to volley with you over mail on this and assert
    my personal opinion.
    
    This note however, does pertain to a specific case in Mass.  The
    fact is that this governor did exercise his [legal?] powers by issuing
    a governor's warrant therby usurping the courts decisions.  If a
    noter in this conference feels strongly for/against these types
    of actions [in general] than that would add fuel to the fire based
    upon the [factual] content of the article.
    
    The bell that rang in my head on this issue was one of linking children
    with mother's regardless of what the courts say to the contrary.
    If a different bell went off in your head around goverortorial powers
    than that's your issue, clearly not mine nor one I wish to continue
    on this base topic.
    
    Bill 

    If the Governor has the legal authority to commute a sentence (such as
    the death penalty), then he is perfectly within his rights to use that
    authority.  If the people of New York state want to take that authority
    away, let them change the state constitution.  Otherwise, as long as he
    has the authority, then he is free to use it.
    
    Mario Cuomo shows considerable courage in taking a politically
    unpopular stand in order to prevent a barbaric, medieval practice from
    taking place, and I respect him for it.  If he were to avoid using his
    legitimately granted authority to prevent an immoral act from taking
    place, then he would himself be just as guilty of commiting the moral
    crime. 
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .19, since this discussion (governor's personal views vs legal
    and political responsibilities on the death penalty and so forth), is 
    taking a tangent (which is much my fault as anyone else's), I'm going 
    to let this particular discussion end here. This seems more of a
    Soapbox type area anyway, so I may start a new topic there (when I
    don't get the infamous "insufficient resources" msg).
    
    Eric

    
    I agree.. We now should get back to the original topic.  It will
    be interesting to log on DEC 5th to see the replies to those of
    you who have asked for and read the article.  I forgot that the
    timing [untimliness] of this base note puts me on vacation next
    week but rest assured it will not be the focal point of my thoughts.
    
    Be sure and send mail to CIMNET::PUPILLO for those still wishing
    copies [interoffice] on this subject.
    
    Ceao
    
    Bill

Well, I just read the article and it appears to me that Dukakis jumped
to the wrong conclusions and made a bad move when he granted the mother
custody of the children despite the _fact_ that the father's innocence
was a matter of public record.

Quote: While Illinois Gov. Thompson was presented invalid court orders
and a fraudulent chronology of facts, amazingly, Gov. Dukakis signed an
arrest warrant ordering the father to be extradited to Illinois on the
charge of "child abduction" despite the fact that the father's innocence
was a matter of public record.  The father documented the fact that he
was not in Illinois at the time he allegedly committed this crime and that
the children, who he had legal custody of, were sent to Massachusetts by
the mother."

Quote: "It is apparent from documentation received by F.A.I.R. that Gov.
Dukakis' intent in signing a Governor's Warrant based on information
known to be fraudulent was to coerce Drummond (the father) to surrender
his children to the non-custodial parent thereby exerting his will over
two judges who awarded the father custody."

Kip

Ps- thnx, Bill, to you and your secretary

    So what's the point to all of this?  Are we supposed to write to
    the Gov. and if so what do we tell him?  The only way to make changes
    is to write to elected officials and let them know what we
    think.  It isn't enough to wait until next election.  Besides, it
    may not be such a good idea to elect or reject someone on a single
    issue (even though many people do just that).  

>    So what's the point to all of this?  Are we supposed to write to
>    the Gov. and if so what do we tell him?  The only way to make changes
>    is to write to elected officials and let them know what we
>    think.  It isn't enough to wait until next election.  Besides, it
>    may not be such a good idea to elect or reject someone on a single
>    issue (even though many people do just that).  

I think that the point of this whole issue is arrogance.  The governor 
has displayed this kind of arrogance time and again, and it cuts 
across all issues.  

In 1985, the governor pulled foster children out of a gay couple's 
home because he was unhappy about unfavorable press and because he 
personally did not believe that gay people were as qualified to be 
foster parents as strate people.  He also instituted a foster-care 
policy that is largely based on his own beliefs about parenting and 
qualifications.  Despite almost unanimous condemnation of the policy 
by profession social-service people (his own appointed commission 
voted to throw out the foster-care policy), he stubbornly insisted 
that his policy was the best one.

What I just described is not only a gay rights issue.  It is not only 
a children's rights issue.  It is an issue of arrogance, an arrogance 
that is so strong that the Duke ignores professionals and commissions 
that he appoints just to get his own way.  What does it say about a man 
who he feels that he knows more about child care than child care 
professionals?  What does it say about a man who feels that he can go 
against court rulings to re-award custody of children?  What does it 
say about a man who refuses to take the advise of his running mate, of 
his political advisors, and his political party to get off the high 
horse and to get on the offensive against George Bush?  What would it 
be like if this man were President and ignored the advise of his 
cabinet because "he knows better, darn it!"  

How would the teenagers say it?  I think Mike has got a 'tude problem.
Anyone got any ideas on how to adjust it?


						--Ger

re: .24
>  In 1985, the governor pulled foster children out of a gay couple's 
>  home because he was unhappy about unfavorable press and because he 
>> personally did not believe that gay people were as qualified to be 
>> foster parents as strate [sic] people.

Well, at least he and I agree on _one_ thing.

Kip

>How would the teenagers say it?  I think Mike has got a 'tude problem.
>Anyone got any ideas on how to adjust it?



Yes, don't re-elect him as Governor (or any other political office), then he
can have any kind of "tude he wants.

    
    What's the point?  [I'm back]  The underlying issue here IS ATTITUDE
    equals ARROGANCE.  Not just on the Duke's part.  But on the the
    entire system in general.  Imagine having to work through the system
    the way this guy did and having to deal with the underlying attitudes
    of Judges, lawyers, social workers, etc. who believe in their [hearts]
    that children belong with their mothers and that fathers [in general]
    are not good [equal] providers.
    
    The fact that this child custody/support issue is so slanted towards
    mothers is BECAUSE of this attitude.  An attitude that permeates
    throughout the judicial and social systems.  Regardless of how slanted
    the laws are written/interpreted.
    
    He was a guy that went ALL THE WAY [thru the system] and "IT DIDN"T
    MATTER!".  The point of this whole base note is to show this example.
    
    The only way it is going to change is by putting heat [in a united
    way] on these kinds of issues.  Baraging Senators, Governors, etc.
    with [fan] mail is one way.  So is protest marching.
    
    When was last time you saw a group of non-custodial fathers and
    their supports participating in an organized protest march.  When
    was the first?  And backed by a national lobby organization.
    
    Although equality through awareness may not have been achieved for
    many minorities, and I include women and gays in this general
    statement; MUCH has been achieved through these means.
    
    I think that fathers have felt they were an underclass for most
    of this time and that a wave is beginning to build.  It is happening
    know.  Its issues like this base note that get people aware [by
    example] of what IS FAIR and WHAT is NOT.
    
    I, for one, will volunteer to march.  I did it in the 60's for what
    I felt was wrong.  I'll do it again today for the discrimination
    I feel being a non-custodial father.
    
    Bill

    About Duke's attitude.  If the earlier replier believes this, as
    I hope he finally sees, then WHY DID HE VOTE FOR HIM?  It never
    ceases to amaze me that the people of this state are so blind as
    to reelect such persons as Duke and the state legislators, even
    when they time and again do things that hurt the state and the
    population.
    
    It is time we spoke with our votes.  Things will not change until
    the people change.  It is situations like this that make me feel
    that we should put a cap on the number of terms a person is allowed
    to serve.  To try and eliminate the arrogance.
    
    Ed..

>    About Duke's attitude.  If the earlier replier believes this, as
>    I hope he finally sees, then WHY DID HE VOTE FOR HIM?  

For me to vote for someone else, the "someone else" should be a better 
candidate.  The Duke's arrogance has been annoying to me, but I can 
live with that.  However, if Ray Flynn runs, I will have someone 
to vote for whom I feel is better than the Duke.


							--Gerry

    This is probably inappropriate for this topic, but what do you see
    in Ray Flynn that is different from Duke.  They both seem to be
    liberal big spenders.  Flynn seems to whine a little more than Duke.
     Such as always going to the state and asking for more money for
    Boston.  Flynn has done little to improve the services in Boston,
    such as water and transportation (roads, etc.).  Flynn has even
    proposed tapping the water supplies of the suburbs for the city.
     That is unreasonable.  Flynn, and many other Bostonians, have
    complained that the commuter does not pay enough to support the
    city compared to what they get out of it.
    
    I would like to see many different people throw their hats in the
    ring for governor, except Duke of course.  I prefer someone more
    on the conservative bent.  Someone who will finally do something
    about our big spending ways, other than raise the sales tax from
    5% to 7% (talk about arrogant!!!).
    
    Ed..
    

    
    I hope this note doesn't turn into Duke bashing.  Let's stick to
    the base note.  I think a case in point relevent to this note is
    Sen Moynahan [NY].  He made a comment recently [public record] that
    basically said he was in support of jailing father's who were deliquent
    in support payments [regardless of the cause] and that they should
    be jailed without a hearing.  Even common criminals get hearings.
    And when pressed he reaffirmed his statement.
    
    F.A.I.R.; through its members baraged Moynahan with a series of
    telegrams dealing with father's rights but not specifically addressing
    his statement.  A few months later he issued a statement softening
    his earlier views.
    
    I believe this is yet another example of attitude = Arrogance.
    
    If Dukakis were baraged with letters and telegrams asking him to
    step forward and defend his actions in this matter maybe, just maybe
    his attitude might change toward a future similar situation?
    
    Bill
    
    RE. -.1 Were you referring to me as a Duke yes voter?

    No, I was referring to the earlier reply who said he voted for Duke.
    
    I agree that in normal situations sending letters would make a
    difference, but with a state government as arrogant as the one we
    have, they seem to do no good.  I have heard countless statements
    of sending letters which were never even acknowledged with a simple
    note saying - I received your letter.
    
    I am still amazed that so many people are Duke fans, after all that
    he has done to this state.  But then I guess I am just Duke-bashing
    and so I don't count.  Please excuse that slight bit of sarcasm.
    
    8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    Ed..

    
    I sent the Duke a letter demanding he either defend his actions or admit
    he acted hastily and without all the facts.  It will be interesting
    to see if I get a reply.
    
    I believe that every little bit counts.  That letter writing might
    be bits but so are moquito bites.
    
    Does anyone else have comments on the article?  I sent out at least
    12?

    
    The December issue of American Fatherhood had a rebuttal on this
    article issued by a Minneesota FAIR member who asked that he be
    removed from the mailing claiming the article was false.
    
    FAIR responded with the following facts:
    
    1.  FAIR is in the possession of the documentary evidence reported
    in the article.
    2.  Gov Dukakis was notified that he would be wrongfully signing
    a gov. warrant, in writing, a month before he signed it.
    3.  Gov Dukakis was once again notified of the facts reported in
    the articl on Sept 19th and invited to reply.
    4.  Neither Gov Dukakis or any memeber of his staff many any comment
    or attempt to controvert the fact reported.
    5.  American Fatherhood first learned of the case a few days after
    the OCT deadline and therefore ran it in Nov.
    
    We do not beleive that running for President in any way immunizes
    a gov. from public scrutiny, nor do we fell that the interests of
    the public are served by executive editors of news services who
    feel otherwise though they failed to check the facts.
    
    Apparantly this guy was an editor of a Minn news service.
    
    I guess I souldn't hold my breath for the Duke to respond to me!
    
    

    Yeah. He'll talk to you right after he talks to the victims of Willie
    Horton.
    
    Mark