Washington DV Press

FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — A Texas woman who caused her lover’s shooting death by falsely crying rape was convicted Friday of involuntary manslaughter.

Tracy Denise Roberson, 37, cried a bit when the verdict was announced. The punishment phase was set for Monday, and she faces two to 20 years in prison.

In late 2006, Darrell Roberson came home from a late-night card game to find his scantily clad wife with another man in a pickup truck in the driveway. Tracy Roberson was with her lover but cried rape, and her husband fired four shots into the truck as Devin LaSalle drove off, killing him.

Darrell Roberson initially was arrested, but a murder charge was later dropped and a grand jury indicted Tracy Roberson instead.

During her three-day trial, defense attorneys called no witnesses but blamed LaSalle’s death on Darrell Roberson’s jealousy and rage.

But prosecutors placed all the blame on Tracy Roberson, showing evidence of the affair with LaSalle, 32, and a text message in which she invited him to her house that evening.

Today, April 25th, is Parental Alienation Day. Hmmm, what does that have to do with Domestic Violence? It’s quite simple really - the United States Department of Justice Domestic Violence Website states that keeping a child from their parent is Domestic Violence. Parental Alienation is one parent either keeping a child from their parent, or working to undermine their relationship in a danger game that is damaging to the relationship between children and their parent. Sounds like Domestic Violence to me.

Yet, when we hear from agencies such as the YWCA of Pierce County testifying in front of our Legislature with regards to shared parenting bills, they always testify that Domestic Violence Abusers are the only ones seeking shared parenting, and it is so they can continue to abuse the other parent. Yet, the very notion of keeping these other parents from their children is a form of Domestic Violence. So, who is abusing whom here.

I personally would call the YWCA a perpetrator of domestic violence for this stance, along with the others that take the same stance - the Eastside Domestic Violence Center, and members of Washington Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The non-profit agencies benefit from the federal and state dole that that they use to promote this very bias against loving fathers and mothers that have lost custody of their children, and work diligently to promote the idea that only abusers could want custody of their children. You might be right - only the abusers of the DV laws, the Parental Alienators - those are the abusers that seek to control the other parent.

The sad thing is their stand only dilutes the cause for real victims of domestic violence - the children, who are left with a bifurcated family, a parent that tries to control the other parent through their children, and ensures the outcome for the children will never be what it could have been.

The DV Industry of Washington State needs to get it’s priority straight. DV is a serious issue that effects both men and women. The rest of the non-sense is a distraction that only hurts innocent people - men, women and more importantly - CHILDREN.

Today is Parental Alienation Awareness Day. Please consider making a donation to a worthwhile cause - one that is trying to stop the damage to children. Take that donation for a DV agency and send it to one that is working to end Family Abuse.

RADAR ALERT:

Over the past three weeks, a notable public faceoff occurred in the Washington Post.

An editorial1 by David Levy, Executive Director of the Children’s Rights Council, commenting on a recent tragic incident in Maryland, pointed out that child custody battles can incite domestic violence by driving parents “nuts.”

The following week the Post ran an opposing editorial2 by Joan S. Meier, faculty member at George Washington University Law School. The op-ed contains numerous one-sided statements and fabrications about child abuse. She repeatedly uses the phrase “dangerous fathers” and “violent and abusive fathers,” without ever mentioning the problem of “violent and abusive mothers.”

According to the US Administration for Children and Families:

Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to kill their children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure4_2.htm
Mothers are more than twice as likely as fathers to abuse their children: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure3_5.htm
Without providing any research evidence, Meier goes on to make the improbable claims that most custody disputes “arise in the context of mothers seeking to end abuse or protect their children” and “mothers have few means of protecting their children from dangerous fathers”. Meier’s statements represent a serious misrepresentation of a well-known government statistics, and are highly defamatory of fathers.

Meier’s falsehoods violate George Washington University’s research misconduct policy3 which states:

“Research misconduct includes, without limitation, fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research or in reporting research results. All employees or individuals associated with The George Washington University should report observed, suspected, or apparent misconduct in research to the Associate Vice President for Health Research, Compliance and Technology Transfer.”

George Washington University is in a unique position to influence Congress, including the upcoming VAWA renewal. We ask you to take a few moments of your time to contact the two following individuals at George Washington University with a polite note urging GW Law School to take action about the numerous fabrications and misrepresentations by Professor Joan Meier in her April 13 editorial in the Washington Post, as well as her formal articles and law papers:

Frederick Lawrence, Dean of the GW Law School:
Email: flawrence@law.gwu.edu
Anne Hirschfeld, Associate Vice President Office of Health and Technology Transfer:
Email: resanh@gwumc.edu

1 David Levy’s original editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402922.html

2 Joan Meier’s response: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103152.html

3 GW University Research Misconduct Policy: http://my.gwu.edu/files/policies/ResearchMisconductPolicy.pdf

Date of RADAR Release: April 21, 2008

Want to improve the chance that they’ll pay attention to your letter? Click here.

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation’s approach to solving domestic violence. http://www.mediaradar.org.

A former counselor for Sound Mental Health says he was fired after Seattle Municipal Court officials retaliated against him for sworn testimony he gave in a domestic-violence hearing by threatening to withhold lucrative referrals from his employer.

Sound Mental Health, the nonprofit agency that hired Richard Clairmont to be its domestic-violence counseling supervisor, decided it had “no option” and fired Clairmont on Nov. 29. Clairmont, a 20-year veteran counselor, responded by filing a federal lawsuit last month against Sound Mental Health and a municipal court probation supervisor, Joni Wilson, alleging wrongful termination and violation of his First Amendment rights. The lawsuit claims Clairmont was subpoenaed to testify, did so truthfully and was then fired for it.

City officials, however, say Wilson also was exercising her free-speech rights and her duties as a court employee when she went to Clairmont’s bosses to complain. It wasn’t merely his testimony that was troublesome, said Assistant City Attorney Erin Overbey, who represents Wilson. She said there are “broader issues concerning whether Mr. Clairmont was appropriately carrying out his duties” as a domestic-violence counselor. She declined to elaborate, except to say that Clairmont “wasn’t monitoring attendance” in his counseling sessions.

“It’s an interesting case — it’s speech vs. speech,” she said.

Legal and ethics experts say the allegations of retaliation for testimony are unusual. It’s a crime to attempt to coerce someone’s testimony, but there is nothing in the criminal statutes specifically addressing retaliation for testimony after the fact, said David Boerner, a Seattle University law professor, legal ethicist and former prosecutor.

“I’m not sure anyone has anticipated those circumstances,” he said.

Clairmont’s attorney, Jesse Wing, alleges in the lawsuit that Clairmont was wrongfully fired by Sound Mental Health in violation of “public policy.”

Speech offered under oath in court is generally considered protected, and Wing notes that a witness cannot be sued for anything said on the witness stand.

A similar analogy would be that an employer cannot discriminate against a worker who is called for jury duty or military service, Wing said.

“It’s our belief that the same principle applies here — that Mr. Clairmont could not be fired for compelled testimony,” he said.

Sound Mental Health is the largest provider of mental-health and counseling services in King County, serving more than 7,000 clients every year, according to its latest annual report. Many of those are referrals from courts, and those referrals generate significant revenue for the business, which had revenues in 2006 of more than $30 million.

Clairmont is a registered counselor who was hired by the nonprofit in 2005 to run its domestic violence (DV) program. Most DV offenders are referred to counseling as an alternative to prosecution or jail time.

In October, Clairmont was subpoenaed as an expert witness by public defender Karen Baker to testify in a case in which the Seattle Municipal Court’s probation department — where Wilson was a supervisor — was attempting to send someone back to jail for failing to complete counseling.

Baker called Clairmont to ask whether he thought her client’s actions warranted having his probation revoked.

“I asked him a hypothetical question,” said Baker. “He answered with his opinion — and in this case, the answer was no, which is not what the probation department wanted to hear.

“It was a difficult position I put him in,” she said. “He answered to the best of his ability.”

According to the lawsuit, Wilson allegedly went to Clairmont’s supervisor and said that “so long as Mr. Clairmont remained employed at Sound Mental Health, the Probation Unit would no longer refer patients to Sound Mental Health.”

Three weeks after his testimony, the lawsuit alleges, Clairmont was called into his supervisor’s office and given a termination letter “signed by or on behalf” of Sound Mental Health executive director David Stone. It said, in part, that the probation union had complained about his “performance and program management.”

“The unit reports that they have lost trust in the integrity of the program and consider that the situation is not salvageable. The program is in jeopardy,” the letter stated. “They have proposed stop-referral beginning immediately. This leaves Sound Mental Health no option but to terminate your employment … .”

Stone declined to comment, except to say that “there is more here than meets the eye.”

Judy Roberts, a counselor and ethics consultant for the Washington Mental Health Counselor’s Association, said counselors have to feel they can be free from influences when they are called to testify.

“You need to be able to say that you believe and what is true,” she said. “The courts and the clients deserve that.”

Otherwise, she said, “what you have is a conflict of interest, and that violates the foundational element of our professional ethics code.”

By Attorney Lisa Scott

August 24, 2005
NewsWithViews.com

VAWA funds billions of taxpayer dollars to combat violence against women, principally domestic violence (DV). The definition of DV touted by victim advocates runs the gamut from jokes and insults to murder, with “power and control” being the overriding characteristic of the man’s behavior towards the woman. Real violence is rarely at issue.

When women commit violence against men, VAWA and the DV industry go AWOL. Despite the federal government’s own statistics showing nearly 40 per cent of domestic violence victims are men, VAWA persists in its monolithic response.

In the same way that some minority groups argue they cannot be racist because they aren’t in power in society, gender feminists contend women cannot commit DV because they can’t assert power and control over men. Any violence committed by women is, by definition, either de minimus (it could not possibly have hurt him), or self-defense (SHE is the victim of HIS abuse).

All interactions between partners are subject to this twisted logic. When the relationship sours, the woman has an easy out: “I am a victim of domestic violence and can do no wrong.” VAWA supports and maintains female supremacy. It should be re-titled Victory Assured for Women Act.

VAWA’s gender bias permeates law enforcement response to domestic conflict. All it takes is a woman calling 911 to summon three squad cars, teeming with police officers eager to carry out today’s “tough” domestic violence laws. The centerpiece of the system is “mandatory arrest.” Every domestic disturbance call must result in arrest, usually the man.

Domestic violence is whatever the man does that the woman doesn’t like. Declaring he is going to file for custody of the children is a “threat.” Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is “abuse.” Unknown to most men, such interchanges often precipitate false charges of DV. In my 17 years as a family law attorney, I have seen this pattern occur over and over.

Even when the facts clearly show the man is not an abuser (and perhaps the woman is), prosecutors refuse to drop charges. “No-drop” policies are a great publicity tool, and a way to ensure more funding. Charges that would never see the light of day if they happened between strangers on the street (accidentally bumping against someone when walking by), are routinely charged as DV “assault.” (But only if the man does it to the woman; a man can be bleeding from a head wound and he won’t be considered a victim).

Indiscriminate charging clogs the system with minor transgressions, yet ensures a steady stream of cases justifying more taxpayer money at budget time.

Both spouses are usually at fault when a marriage ends. Many women have discovered a surefire antidote against taking any responsibility: playing the domestic violence victim. While the husband is reading the newspaper and relaxing after work, the wife is contacting the domestic violence hotline, getting step-by-step instructions on what to say: “His abuse is escalating,” “I’m fearful for my safety.”

VAWA funds battered women’s shelters and their misandrist staff, always ready to welcome another customer for their anti-male, anti-father and anti-family agenda. Ask a victim advocate what causes domestic violence, and she will immediately blame our “patriarchal society,” ensuring that only men get the blame. One might ask what causes women to abuse children. Presumably, the patriarchy by proxy. VAWA gives short shrift to child abuse, which is most often committed by women. Indeed, VAWA earmarks a paltry $7000 per year to develop home visitation projects to look for signs of child abuse or neglect.

To assure victory in the divorce/custody case, the woman claims the man is an abuser, no matter how good a husband and father he is. Whatever wrongs he has committed, from leaving the toilet seat up to not making enough money, failure of the marriage is his fault. “No-fault” divorce laws really mean “no fault unless it’s the man’s fault.” In other words, the Oprahization of family law.

What we really have is MAWA: Men Annoying Women Act. The man is either a relentless abuser or a hopeless wimp. Any modern man not terrified of being in a relationship with a woman has not been paying attention.

The government seems unable to define gender bias except as “bias against women.” Title IX forces college sports programs to spend equal amounts of money on men’s and women’s sports, despite the fact that the vast majority of athletes are men. Even though 1/3 of domestic violence murder victims are male, not one dime of VAWA’s largesse is devoted to prevention of violence against men.

Men are far more likely than women to be victims of violence overall, yet there’s no Violence Against Men Act. Men also comprise nearly all workplace injuries and deaths, but try to find a Male Workplace Injury Prevention Act.

VAWA is not about stopping violence. It is about greedy special interests slopping at the federal trough, perpetuating gender supremacy for women. If proponents were truly concerned about helping victims, they would demand that all intervention and funding be gender neutral and gender inclusive.

The existence of male victims threatens gender feminists because it knocks the underpinnings out of their theory, that the “patriarchy” causes men to abuse women. The DV industry has succeeded in creating the “victimarchy.” With VAWA in their corner, women win no matter what: victim or abuser, they can do no wrong.

© 2005 - Lisa Scott - All Rights Reserved

——————————————————————————–

Lisa Scott is a Bellevue, Washington attorney practicing in the areas of family law, divorce and domestic violence. She is also a founding member of TABS, Taking Action against Bias in the System,

Recently, emails were sent to Washington States Department of Personnel about a page they had that was advertising a domestic violence course. The page stated that 95% of domestic violence happened to women.

Of course, this is hogwash. It’s simply not true, and reflects the misleading facts that radical feminists push. Certainly, many at DSHS fit this bill and push this agenda still today.

To the credit of the Director of the Department of Personnel, it has been taken down and they will research the course material and correct it. We thank them and congratulate them on their sensibility, and hope that others, like DSHS will start to do the same thing.

The following opt-ed article by Mark Mahnkey was posted in the Everett Herald in October of 2007. It’s an excellent article and points out the problem with these misleading and misguided facts.
—————————————
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The month is designed to increase awareness of how to make our homes safe from partner violence. So what is the truth about intimate partner aggression? Nearly 200 scientific studies point to one simple conclusion: Women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.

Irene Hanson Frieze, in Psychology of Women’s Quarterly, says “Research indicates that women can be just as violent as their partners.” Don Dutton from the University of British Columbia notes that “Recent evidence from the best designed studies indicates that intimate partner violence is committed by both genders with often equal consequences.” And the Journal of Family Psychology in 2006 tells us that “Differences were observed in the rates of male and female partner violence, with female violence occurring more frequently.”

A 2007 survey sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control of young adults found that 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. A national survey of married and co-habiting partners found that 8 percent of women engaged in severe partner violence, while only 4 percent of men were involved in severe violence.

The result of this recent peer-reviewed and published research is much different than you have been led to believe, but you are not alone. Many researchers have noted lately that the results of their research are much different than they expected.

Men often suffer injuries from their wives or girlfriends. According to a 2000 analysis by John

Archer, men suffer 38 percent of all injuries arising from partner aggression. But men often endure their pain in silence and don’t report the incident. As a result, the media and others often present a one-sided and distorted view of the problem.

Domestic violence industry advocates often make claims such as “95 percent of DV victims are women.” These false statements only make the problem worse because:

- Abusive women can’t get the help they need.

- Male victims are denied services.

- False allegations of abuse escalate partner conflict and families are harmed.

- Aggressive domestic violence laws short-circuit due process and create a presumption of “guilty until proven innocent.”

Recall two recent incidents to illustrate the problem.

One evening Warren Moon, then a National Football League quarterback, got into a fight with his wife. Police were called and Mr. Moon was arrested. Against Mrs. Moon’s wishes, the case went to trial. Placed on the witness stand, Mrs. Moon admitted that she was the one who had started the fight by throwing a candlestick, and that her husband had only acted in self-defense. Warren Moon was acquitted.

A judge in New Mexico granted a restraining order against David Letterman for sending messages over the television to a woman in that state. The judge was quoted as saying “if they fill out the paperwork correctly, I always grant the restraining order.”

If the domestic violence industry really wanted to prevent harm, they would support legislation to prosecute false accusers, and attempt to help all victims, both male and female. While they claim to offer service to men, that service is primarily offering “treatment” courses, which are majorly ineffective. These courses have no objective criteria for completion, other than requiring a statement that the dispute was exclusively the alleged perpetrator’s fault, with not an iota of responsibility or accountability on the part of the “victim,” disregarding the research that shows most intimate partner violence to be mutual. There is a continuing, solid resistance to making all restraining orders mutual, even though that would greatly decrease the chances of the parties interacting and make both parties accountable for their behavior. Lastly, they would encourage prosecution of false accusers, allowing the real victims the attention and services they need.

The domestic violence industry often complains about “blaming the victim,” but in the face of the new research and evidence, they now not only continue to blame the half of the victims that are male, but to incarcerate him as well.

Thirty-some years ago, there was a thankfully successful campaign to get rape of females taken seriously. Now is the time to get violence against men by female partners taken seriously.

Mark Mahnkey served on the faculty at Washington State University and is director of Public Policy for the Washington Civil Rights Council. He can be reached at 425-329-6656.

Recent emails have been sent to Washington’s DSHS Assistant Secreatry Cheryl Stephani, head of Children’s Administration regarding a piece of literature on their site that is so blatantly biased that it must be taken down and replaced with something gender neutral. The document “What you should know about your Abusive Partner” is written with every reference to a person stated as him or he. The document doesn’t even try to hide it’s bias by making one statement of her, or she, or they, or them.

Several letters have been written to Ms. Stephani at her email address of StephCS@dshs.wa.gov asking that he document be removed from their website. Apparently, there has been no response from her to date. We are encouraging everyone to write her a letter and ask that it be removed, or replaced with a gender neutral document.

This website is dedicated to reporting news on Domestic Violence in Washington State - with a twist. Our goal is to expose the Domestic Violence industry as an industry that uses its power and control from State and Federal grants to manipulate the Laws and Courts of Washington State.

We can all agree, Domestic Violence is a social ill that we must rid ourselves of. However, we also know the DV industry in Washington State uses their feminist agenda to destroy families with false allegations of Domestic violence as a method of getting child custody, punitive revenge, or numerous other acts that are socially unacceptable.

Washington’s DV industry is ran by radical feminists that like to spread incorrect facts, such as the much debunked statement that 95% of the victims of DV are women, when in reality, that is far from the truth. The DV industry likes to influence the Legislature and Courts of Washington State, and are partially responsible for the failure of families in Washington State. Their stance that only violent fathers want custody of their children is not only patently false, but it is insulting and abuse in and of itself, as it keeps loving fathers from having the necessary relationship they want and need with their children. Everyone must remember, most of these organizations are run under State and Federal Grants that are paid for by your tax dollars, and although they can provide much needed services to those in need, they often times far exceed their calling and use their radical, feminist voice to take away the rights of others.

Are you aware that the US Department of Justice Domestic Violence web site states that keeping a child from their parent is a form of domestic violence? It is also child abuse since it involves a child. Will you tolerate further domestic violence and child abuse to children of Washington State, or will you work with us to expose bad laws, policies, and bias in the State Government, Courts, and Laws of our State?

We hope you find this site educational and engaging, and we hope you come back often, whether you support our opinions or not - we want to hear yours.