Following is a true story of domestic violence. As hard as it may be to believe, it is an account of domestic violence against men.
"Male victims are often ashamed that others will perceive them as weak or less of a man. There is also a belief that the police will not take the allegation seriously or that they (the man) will be arrested because *only men* are the abusers."
"Domestic violence (also known as domestic abuse or spousal abuse) occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate another. Domestic violence often refers to violence between spouses, or spousal abuse but can also include cohabitants and non-married intimate partners.
Domestic violence occurs in all cultures; people of all races, ethnicities, religions, sexes and classes can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by both men and women.
Domestic violence has many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. Violence can be criminal and includes physical assault (hitting, pushing, shoving, etc.), sexual abuse (unwanted or forced sexual activity), and stalking. Although emotional, psychological and financial abuse are not criminal behaviors, they are forms of abuse and can lead to criminal violence. There are a number of dimensions including mode - physical, psychological, sexual and/or social; frequency - on/off, occasional, chronic; and severity – in terms of both psychological or physical harm and the need for treatment – transitory or permanent injury – mild, moderate, severe up to homicide.
Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement in the 1970s, as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands gained attention. Awareness and documentation of domestic violence differs from country to country. Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the United States and the United Kingdom. In other places with less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower. According to the Centers for Disease Control, domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, or more than 10% of the U.S. population.
Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence. However, with the rise of the men's movement, and particularly men's rights, there is now advocacy for men victimized by women."
Legal bias is not the only reason that male victims are often reluctant to seek restraining orders. There have been reports of abused men who, upon requesting help from law enforcement officials, found themselves accused of being the perpetrator.
In one case, a woman severely bit her husband on the shoulder and chest. After showing the judge pictures of his injuries, the man was granted a restraining order. The next day the woman went before the same judge and, even though she had suffered no injuries, she claimed to be in “fear” for her life, saying that the man was the real abuser. On the basis of that unsubstantiated allegation, the judge reversed the original order against the wife and issued an order against the husband.
As family violence expert Murray Straus put it, “There are a growing number of complaints that attempts by men to obtain police protection may result in the man being arrested.”
-- Without Restaint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders (mediaradar.org)
In more than one court of law, the husband placed his hand on the Bible and replied, "Yes."
Spousal abuse by the wife upon her husband began including sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation,
economic deprivation and threats of violence.
Over time, the wife's abusive behavior escalated into physical violence against her husband.
The husband's younger brother, physically attacked his older brother.
The wife's fits of rage intensified.
During one of the wife's violent outrages, a neighbor summoned the Township Police.
The Township Police erroneously assumed the male was the aggressor. Though the husband did not resist in anyway, shape or form, the police inappropriately restrained the husband sending him to the emergency room. The wife, a nurse, drove her husband for treatment.
The wife's growing need for control resulted in increased episodes of punching, hitting, pushing, throwing objects, etc.
The wife physically attacked her son.
The wife physically attacked her son, again.
The wife abandoned the house, husband, and children.
The wife returned to the house in the middle of the night taking money and other valuables that were not hers. Again, she left the children behind.
The wife filed a false police report.
The husband and son attempted to file a legitimate police report.
The Township Police refused to take the son's complaint of physical abuse.
When the husband recounted the night the Township Police sent him to the hospital, two Township Police detectives threatened his life.
The husband called 911 and the State Police to report the threats.
The wife filed for a false PFA (Protection From Abuse) order.
The wife arrived at the house with The Township Police, and in a terrific scene, had her daughter seized. Her son refused to go. Because of the son's age, the police did not take him.
The wife hired an attorney and filed for divorce.
The wife, through her lawyer, filed papers that fraudulently state that there had been attempts to reconcile the marriage.
The wife and the lawyer published personal identity information about the husband.
Her husband and son were forced to hire an attorney to defend against the PFA and custody motions.
The husband and children filed for, and received, a PFA against the wife/mother.
The son recanted the accounts of the physiological and physical abuse to his attorney.
At the PFA hearing, the husband's and son's attorney informed them that the Township Police were going to purger themselves in their testimony. Once the wife found out her son was going to testify against her, she decided to settle the case. The agreement gave the father 50% child custody.
The husband contacted the Township Police's Sergent of Arms in an attempt to report the prior threats by the detectives. Additional threats were made by the police toward the husband.
The husband contacted the Chief Of Police, the Township Manager, the Township Solicitor and the District Attorney to report the potentially criminal activities of the Township Police.
An agreement was made that the wife could have her personal belongings removed from the house. The wife's personal items were packed and stored outside the residence by the husband and children.
The wife arrived at the house with a caravan of mini-vans filled with her friends, as well as, a multitude of riot-gear clad Township Police, and unnecessarily insisted on gaining entry into the husband's residence.
The daughter was with her husband in his residence under the court ordered custody agreement. However, once again, the wife and the police removed the daughter (against the court order and after creating a terrifying scene.)
At that time, the house was clearly posted that the police were not to enter the residence, and that they should contact the District Attorney should they have any questions.
The wife and the police attempted to gain entry into the husband's residence, anyway.
The husband called 911.
Through the 911 negotiator, the husband agreed to speak with the police. However, the wife's (and the Township Police's) reign of terror abruptly ended. The caravan of vehicles packed up and left
after having abducted the daughter. The wife took all of her personal items which had been packed and placed outside.
The wife took the daughter to the husband's younger brother's house. The husband/brother invoked their mother to negotiate the release of his daughter. The brother refused to abide by the court order.
The wife and her lawyer filed more emergency petitions based on false allegations.
The wife inappropriately had her husband's assets frozen, and with the help of her lawyer, started looting the children's college savings accounts.
The wife seized her son against his will and attempted to take all custody away from her husband.
Because the husband's and children's attorney only felt competent in handling the PFA proceedings, the husband was forced to hire a divorce attorney causing additional financial strain.
A custody evaluation was ordered and the husband complied.
A confidential meeting between the husband and his minister of the Church, was leaked to the wife by the minister.
Then, the wife attempted to use the minister in the custody evaluation and court proceedings. The husband's complaints to the hierarchy of the church were met with retaliations against the husband.
The husband acquired a roommate that also happened to be going through a divorce.
The wife's lawyer leaked the court sealed custody evaluation to the husband's roommate's wife's lawyers. Although the wife didn't even know the roommate, she testified against him at his custody hearing.
The wife insisted on the sale of the husband's current residence and the children's lifelong domicile. Though the husband is a licensed real estate agent in the state of PA and attempted to buy-out the wife's position in the real estate, the wife insisted the property be sold through Realtors to a third party. The wife did this despite knowing that her husband and Quinn & Wilson had been involved in prior litigation.
The wife and her lawyer refused to go along with their court order custody evaluation. Against the children's wishes, the wife and her lawyer had the husband's visitation rights limited to supervised visitation.
All PFA's expire.
Having found no assistance through the Township Police, Township Management, nor the District Attorney, the husband spoke out publicly. The husband was supported by the oldest brother,
mother, father and friends. (The court went on to approve them as supervisors for the husband's visitation.)
The wife and her lawyer filed more emergency petitions trying to silence the husband, relatives and friends, using techniques, such as, threatening his custody and visitation.
The husband's younger brother and his wife also hired an attorney in an attempt to silence his two older brothers and their supporters.
Due to the financial hardship placed upon the husband, he was forced to release his attorney.
The wife and her lawyer showed up at yet another custody hearing. This time the wife's lawyer hired her own lawyer.
The judge refused to let the wife's lawyer testify, as well as, prevented the lawyer's lawyer from participating in the custody hearing.
The wife and her lawyer forced the children to testify against their mother.
The judge honored the husband's First Amendment Rights and declared the children "delightful."
The wife and her lawyer filed an emergency petition to have the husband evicted from the house claiming the husband was preventing the sale. (After many, many months, the house was eventually sold at a
fraction of the original asking price and below what the husband had offered.)
Though there had been no contact with her husband, in yet another abuse of the system, the wife and her lawyer again filed for another PFA. Once again, the judge upheld the husband's First Amendment Rights. The husband was allowed to continue to speak out about the spousal abuse, child abuse, and legal abuse of the wife and her attorney.
In their ongoing attempt to silence the truth, the lawyer and one of the wife's friends (involved in the above referenced abduction of the daughter), filed criminal complaints against the husband alleging that the freedom of speech was harassing.
In an ill-gotten search warrant, the husband's residence was raided by the Township Police and items owned by the children, the roommate and customers of the husband's business were taken.
Upon returning to the residence the husband believed his house had been burglarized and called 911. He requested that the Township Police NOT respond to the call.
The Township Police arrived, anyway. They did not attempt to investigate the break-in. Instead, they attacked the husband, drew their loaded weapons on him and put him in restraints. The result was
medical treatment at the emergency room for the husband. The oldest brother drove him to the hospital and reported the incident to the State Police.
The Police did not serve the PFA papers as they had been instructed by the sheriff's department. The husband attended the preliminary PFA hearing where he was served the PFA papers.
During the previous search and seizure (based on the bogus harassment charges), the police claimed to have seen "rifles of unknown caliber."
The Township Police again raided the husband's residence and seized the son's toy guns that were clearly marked with fluorescent orange tips.
The husband was taken into custody on weapons charges in another county and chained to a wall by the State Police. Though the State Police wanted to release the husband, the Township Police insisted he be held.
During this raid of the residence, the husband's new (third) attorney arrived. The Township Police held a gun to his head.
Two detectives from the Township Police arrived at the State Police barracks. They took the husband, handcuffed him, placed him in the back of a police cruiser and inappropriately question him
during the two hour ride back to Montgomery County.
At the PFA hearing, another judge honored the husband's First Amendment Rights, again allowing him to write about the wife's and her lawyer's abuse of the system, himself and the children.
The ruling from the eviction hearing came out and the husband was evicted from his residence.
The husband's younger brother and his wife filed a civil lawsuit against his older brothers, friends and corporation.
The wife's lawyer joined the civil lawsuit against her client's husband and corporation.
A third judge honored the husband's First Amendment Rights, again, allowing him to speak out publicly about the wife and her lawyer's abusive behavior.
During this suit, the wife, the wife's lawyer, the younger brother and his wife, and their lawyers, subpoenaed the son and his grandmother to testify.
The attorneys attempted to question the son knowing his legal counsel was not present.
The wife/mother took the son from the courthouse and physically assaulted him in the automobile. The son jumped from the auto and ran the distance back to the courthouse where he requested to be reunited with his father. The sheriff's deputies refused his plea and threatened to incarcerate the boy.
The suit is later settled out-of-court without eliminating the husband's First Amendment Rights.
The son, not wanting to be in the custody of his mother, attempted to run away. The wife/mother called the local police on her son. The police interrogated the son and determined it was in the son's best
interest to be reunited with his father.
The son has been living, happily ever after, with his father since that time.
CONCLUSION
These are just some of the highlights (or lowlights) to the tragic story. No victim of abuse likes to talk about it. Who wants to relive the abuse? However, some good did come from it. Though the wife and her attorney tried to separate the children from their father and his relatives, they were unsuccessful. The son, daughter and father do get to spend time together living like a family. And, though the wife and her lawyer tried to silence the husband from standing up for justice and attempting to offer support to others in a similar situation, they failed. As you can see, you are reading about it -- the husband's First Amendment Rights were upheld in at least 7 civil and criminal court cases in front of at least 4 different judges. Just say NO to domestic violence.
Hopefully, spreading the word will help other families and victims of spousal and child abuse.
These events inspired a theme song, Oh, Well. Many attempts were made to silence the anti-domestic violence song. The Whitpain Township Police tried to squash the song inside and outside of the courtroom. The abusing wife took the matter to court on 7 different occasions; however, justice triumphed. Now, the song is being used to help others.So, how do you feel? Swell?