EJF Newsletter


| EJF Home | More newsletters | Get EJF newsletter | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? |

Issues The Equal Justice Foundation Deals With

| Civilization | Emerson story | Families, and Marriage | Courts & Civil Liberties |

| Prohibition & War On Drugs | Vote Fraud & Election Issues |


Condoning Slavery Under Color Of Law — Part III

January 4, 2006

Email from Colorado State Senator Steve Johnson,

On Tuesday, 3 January 2006 at 14:27:33 hours MST you sent me the following composite email apparently from several sources. My response follows your message

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.


"You have contacted my office regarding SB181 and misinformation about the bill which came as a result of an incorrect Denver Post story, which is partly my fault.

You have been mislead by some unmoderated message board or email subscription list that is forwarding incorrect information. They have been notified of their error.

Is not true, and the purveyors of this misinformation have been informed, but they'd rather keep you in the dark.

The bill doesn't prohibit DNA information, in fact, We DID NOT change current law on the DNA--we only ADDED more opportunities to where men should be informed because once was insufficient.We want DNA testing to be used, and to be used early in the process, so innocent people aren't abused by the process.

It is unfortunate your email group isn't more informed before they spread lies, They are really hurting our case.

I hope you will contact them and ask them to stop spreading misinformation.

Here is a response I received from the State Dept. of Human Services:

Sen. Johnson,

Cindy asked me to forward the side-by-side the Department prepared for SB 05-181. This gentleman certainly has the bill all wrong,. Of course, it doesn't help that the Post printed an article that is factually inaccurate. As you may recall, the bill was very carefully crafted to give advisements to the father with respect to genetic testing, but certainly did not outlaw genetic testing as both the Post and these people have asserted. The Post is merely wrong.

Please let us know if we can provide any further information.

Attached to this email is a comparison of the law before and after SB181 showing the additional opportunities for DNA testing notification to be given early in the process.

I think this is an improvement over current law, it may not be everything you would like to see (by the way, I supported Rep. Sinclair's earlier bill requiring DNA testing to establish paternity).

If this clarifies things, can you help by forwarding this so the obscene emails I am receiving can at least contain informed responses. Thanks!

I welcome your constructive thoughts as always..."

Sen. Johnson


Reply by Dr. Corry on Wednesday 4 January 2006 at 16:23:56 hours MST

Dear Senator Johnson,

At a fairly early age I learned that if someone older and better educated than I was trying to tell me something it behooved me to pay attention. You do not appear to have learned that lesson and it would likely be of value to you to read through Condoning Slavery Under Color of Law — Part II again.

Further, I think it was Will Rogers who said that: "If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging." You are still digging.

As an internationally-known scientist I am insulted by the lies, fabrications, and distortions in your response to me and many others. When writing about your bill SB05-181 I first read it online and then printed it out and highlighted pertinent portions that I referenced or quoted. I have since read through the attachment you sent out (available in PDF format) that only confirms my statements.

You and your co-sponsors seem to dwell in a fairy-tale world where everyone is married, adultery is rare, family courts are functional, perjury and subornation of perjury are not tolerated, judge shopping doesn't occur, and everyone is notified of hearings and trials. Here at the foot of Pike's Peak that world doesn't exist, nor anywhere else in Colorado that I'm aware of.

• Today only about 15 of every 100 children are born into and reach age 18 in an intact family whose parents are married;

• 35 out of every 100 children are born out of wedlock and the percentage is much higher in some communities, particularly inner-city ghettos (matriarchies);

• 30 of every 100 paternity tests will show the man is not the father of the child in question;

• Perjury is virtually never punished and subornation of perjury is commonplace;

and so on.

Into that milieu you have made it easier and financially rewarding for a woman to commit adultery and commit paternity fraud without any possible punishment. Under SB05-181 it becomes impossible for a man to even stop such fraud once it is discovered.

Now I am quite aware that traditionally, the law presumed a husband to be the father of any child born to his wife during the marriage or within 300 days after it was terminated, and for good reason. And if your fairy-tale world existed then SB05-181 would make sense. And readers may be interested in the reasoning behind this historical approach as given in the recent Florida case of Parker v Parker.

However, technology and the emerging matriarchy you support make it clear to everyone, except perhaps you, that world doesn't exist.

Let me put forth a fairly common scenario:

Mary is having an affair of which husband Bob knows nothing. She becomes pregnant, or already has a child or two, and is quite sure the father is Jack (many times there are several candidate fathers).

She wants to end the marriage and gets a victim's assistance handbook from a (taxpayer funded) shelter, victim's advocate, or an attorney that tells her exactly what she needs to do and say (subornation of perjury) to get Bob arrested and charged with domestic violence.

One 911 call and she has the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, anything else she wants, and Bob is permanently out of the house (but still has to make mortgage payments). Bob is also under a <http://www.dvmen.org/dv-7.htm>mandatory restraining order that prohibits him from seeing his kids except perhaps under supervised visitation (no chance to get DNA samples of kids).

Jack soon moves in with Mary while Bob continues to make the house payments. The divorce becomes final and child support is now established (based on "imputed" income, a magic number the judge makes up that has no relation to his real income) long before Bob gets off probation and the mandatory restraining order is lifted.

He may, or may not then be allowed to see his kids again. But in your matriarchal socialist paradise even though Bob finds out one or more of the kids are not his once he is allowed to see them again, he is still obligated to support Jack's (or whoever's) kids under SB05-181.

Now in these cases it is likely (80% chance) that Bob will lose his job and professional licenses. As a result he can't make the child support and house payments. So he either goes into hiding or into debtor's prison under the Bradley Amendment. Either way Mary needs more money.

So she files for child support from Jack, who may (or may not) be the real father, but she cleverly makes sure he isn't served with the hearing notice (and SB05-181 makes it plain how to avoid service) just in case. Or maybe Jack is in the military and is now in Iraq (or some other fun spot that is helping to make Republicans unpopular). In any case, Jack never gets served and a default paternity judgement is entered against him. Now Jack's wages are being garnished for child support as well for the same child(ren). And since he never contested the paternity action (how could he?) under SB05-181 there is nothing he can do about it.

And in many cases Mary has 3 or 4 kids by different dads and, with a bit of judicious judge shopping (pun intended), she can be collecting child support for all the kids from all the men, even men who haven't fathered any of her children. And you've made legal recourse impossible for any of them.

Nor in these cases is there really any need to prove the existence of the child(ren), or the child(ren) may have died (or been murdered), been put in foster care (and disappeared), given to the grandparents or other relatives, abandoned, run away, or may even be living with the father. He still pays child support and if he complains he can expect more false allegations against him.

In my world this is slavery.

I do hope I've made the logic simple enough that you can follow it. If not, by chance I had a brief discussion with Senator Ed Jones last night about your bill and the effects as I've described. Perhaps he can explain to you why slavery is a bad thing and how you've facilitated and legalized it together with adultery?

Or you've contacted Democrat Cheri Jahn previously to have her explain your bill to you (see www.dropthegop.com/index-idiot-temp.htm) and perhaps she can now explain to you how SB05-181 furthers the radical feminist goal of destroying marriage and families and instituting a matriarchy.

I think I've done my best to enlighten you so I'll retire from the fray at this point. Readers may reach Senator Steve Johnson at repsjohnso@comcast.net. Please do be polite if you write him but it is worthwhile to point out that he and his ilk are the ones doing harm to children, marriage, families, as well as the Grand Old Party in Colorado and the nation.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.



| EJF Home | More newsletters | Get EJF newsletter | Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? |

Issues The Equal Justice Foundation Deals With

| Civilization | Emerson story | Families, and Marriage | Courts & Civil Liberties |

| Prohibition & War On Drugs | Vote Fraud & Election Issues |