Lee Radek, Esq.Note that under the current administration, the Dept. of Justice indicts for unlawful discrimination only public officials who discriminate against women, the handicapped and non-whites. (In fairness, the Bush administration had the same policy.)
Chief, Public Integrity Section
Criminal Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Room 12100
1400 New York Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 27518 (Central Station)
Washington, D.C. 20038
202-514-1412
When I asked Janet Reno at a public meeting why the Justice Dept. had not sued or indicted even one state-court judge for systematic gender discrimination against fathers in child-custody adjudications, she responded obliquely, saying that it was a complicated issue, and there were a lot of factors to consider.
Maybe if more of us raised hell about the inaction of the Justice Dept., something would get done.
Mary Beth Style's letter [Kids need not only dads but also moms - Metropolitan voices - April 25] gives the impression that she is well intentioned, but her statements expose the hidden agenda of adoption advocates all over the world. The mere fact that The National Council for Adoption (NCA) was behind Ms. Style's letter should have sent up red-flags to all of your readers. One needs to ponder why adoption professionals consider there to be "a danger" with so many groups talking about the importance of fathers.
It is because, as NCA has pointed out time and time again, the number one "problem" in adoption is a biological father asserting his rights. This is not to say that adoption is bad, to the contrary. But it is insidiously evil, when these "professionals" seek to eliminate father's rights so that they can legally steal children from their biological parents, to farm the children out to "better parents."
"The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this Amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14." Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985).It is important to consider the agendas, both hidden and open, of people who seek to discount the importance of fathers and increase the importance of persons for whom they lobby to be able to unilaterally relinquish children.
We hope to have the entire report available by the end of the week. Currently the Minority Report by US Commissioner John Guidibaldi is already up on our homepage and the rest will follow as soon as possible.
This is a must read report for all father's, children's, and family activists.
Email to the Editor