I divorced my wife due to her abusive behavior. There was no dv a all on my part. Nothing. No criminal charges, No restraining order, Nothing even remotely considered abuse. A month after I left her someone forearded me a “letter of instruction” for writing statements of how she was psychologically abused bt me. The letter outlined in a coaching manner of what to write to be as convincing as possible. I was able to find out who drafted this and the person never knew me or even met me! Our tax dollars are being wasted on this crap. The advocates get those righteous dollar bill to fund their corrupt organizations and someone who who had zero morals defrauds the gov while receiving freebies. Thanks mr touchy feeling biden.
I, And many other men I have and do know have had this thing used against them. There is zero burden of proof other than the woman saying she is scared. It is almost allways a woman who initiates this. They here it growing up. Her friends and aquaintences tell them about how easy it is.
It gives them a zero up front cost lawyer and someone to hold their hand through the whole process. The men get no chance to refute the lies, No one helps them if they cannot afford a lawyer.
The woman I talk to tell me how it's great when a father wants to be there for their child. They say most don't. How naive they are to the fact of how hard and abusive the process is to fathers. In action this act is legalized kidnapping, Children ripped from their fathers lives.
VAWA removes a person's right to defend him/herself. The entire matter is determined on the case brought by the alleged victim. There is rampant abuse of this legislation right now. The intent of this legislation is wonderful, But the execution is seriously flawed and damaging the lives of Americans more often than people realize. Everyone deserves a fair trial, So yeah VAWA is unconstitutional!
Fact of the matter is this the constitution states these rights shall not be infringed. Legal definition of infringed is 1:actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.) 2: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on. Its as simple as that now don't get me wrong things like murder and other violent crimes have black and white laws stating why there is a federal ban on guns and why you can not be in political office or why your loved ones cant own guns or have other things imposed on them. There are no solid facts that support a federal ban on guns if you ban guns you should also ban knifes verbal language and also fists.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
DOES NOT STATE MAN, WOMAN, OR CHILD!
The language of the law removes the constitutionally protected right of "innocent until proven guilty." The accused must prove his/her innocence. Within the law, provisions exist to make this very difficult. The law removes judicial discretion. District Attorneys and judges are limited when considering the merits of individual cases. If special interest advocacy leads to Congress passing laws eliminating constitutionally protected rights, it leaves the judiciary as an enforcement tool of the legislative branch. The loss of an impartial judiciary diminishes the rights and liberty of both accused and accuser.
The law removes the presumption of innocence which is protected in the U.S. Constitution. The law asserts that the accused must prove their innocence while at the same time placing obstacles in the way preventing it. In this this law individuals lose their right of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty." District Attorneys and judges are required to adhere to the law leaving them no authority to seek justice based on the merits of individual cases. If all laws were adjudicated in this manner congress would assume the proper constitutionally mandated role of the judiciary. If advocacy of a particular position becomes law without constitutionality of the law the judiciary is weakened and individual liberty is diminished.
The law advocates for outcomes instead of seeking justice within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. The accused is presumed guilty with the burden of proving their innocence. This is contrary to established constitutional law. The law creates obstacles preventing one the opportunity to defend themselves. District Attorneys and Judges are limited when making decisions about the validly or merit's of a case. Rather, they must follow a law of which they have no control. If this were the case for all offenses submitted for adjudication the congress would replace the proper role of the judiciary.
I was blindsided by DVPA in California which is based on VAWA and lost all contact with my sons via ex arte TRO for 2 months based on false claim of "harassment" during divorce. When I finally got my hearing, the court through the case out and gave me joint legal and physical custody of my sons. Could have lost them for 5 years under DVPA had I not been trained as lawyer and had 30 years law experience.
Why isn’t VAWA written as VAPA (P= "persons"?).
Despite costing the state tens of thousands from a proven false 911 call, responding officer's, processing, overnight mandated "zero tolerance" one night incarceration, 6 week's medical urine analysis, countless hours and private attorney time, and the courts media recording/audio time, records keeping.... Two months later to find an absolute lie, absolute proof of the lie, and proof the lie was a malicious, vindictive retaliatory lie... The false accuser simply gets a verbal reprimand, walks away, not even a fine?
If the current laws were working, there would be no need for the Violence Against Women Act. Women are standing up to men who abuse them, and men are not liking it. The sad situation is that on a statistical basis 1 in 3 women are abused either physically, sexually, emotionally, or mentally by their loved ones or spouses. This needs to stop immediately!
What is wrong with whomever asked that question? How on earth would this be unconstitutional? Only to men who abuse women, I suppose! Men think they have a right to beat us and rape us and we are supposed to like it or something. Morons. I am lucky in the fact that my husband is a great man. No real man would ever hurt a woman.