Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[Dave Ridley]

i believe russellex is real and who she claims to be, because she registered about 3 hours after I called her and left a message.  I was trying to interview her for the ridley report last month.

[margomaps]

i believe russellex is real and who she claims to be, because she registered about 3 hours after I called her and left a message.  I was trying to interview her for the ridley report last month.

Oh.  Well, there goes that theory.   

[Seamas]

Ha, if only that were the case.  My only take away message from this very sad story is that anti-state Christians should get married in their church and not by the State.  Not that this would stop a couple from being involuntary common law spouses (depending on the state) but why make it easy for the state to nose into their personal life.  The tradition that I was raised in is that only the Catholic Church can marry a couple and that the marriage license is, at best, a formality.  Obviously, The Church's position on birth control, divorce, abortion, etc. differs from that of the government but if that's what two people want then why not have a different type of marriage as a contract between two people and their faith.  I also don't see why Mormon fundamentalists can't engage in "plural marriage" (as long as it isn't with minors).

I think divorcing the government from marriage is the best solution.  Perhaps a boilerplate standard contract, like a standard residential lease, could be made the default for a marriage license.  Perhaps also, if gays are allowed to be "contractually married" then the fact that same sex marriage threatens the unholy marriage of church and state; rather than marriage itself, will be put to rest.

This is a fascinating thread.  My own opinion is that "RusselsEx" and "stampede8" are the same person, and that person is just messing with everyone's head.  RusselsEx may in fact be a middle-aged white man living in his mother's basement.  On April 1 I half-expected someone to announce "April Fool!" and everyone would have a good laugh.  But apparently the drama/joke will go on!

[freedominnh]

Out of respect for Kat and Russell I have not followed this thread.  It is a sad commentary that no one apparently has the need to ignore these folk making uncorroborated statements and tarnishing a good person's reputation...  Russell should countersue this libelous woman.   

[coffeeseven]

Out of respect for Kat and Russell I have not followed this thread.  It is a sad commentary that no one apparently has the need to ignore these folk making uncorroborated statements and tarnishing a good person's reputation...  Russell should countersue this libelous woman.   

I have nothing but respect for Kat and Russell and I agree that "poo slingers" should be ignored HOWEVER the issue of the glorified alimony called "child support"  is larger than Kat and Russell. We might accidentally trip over some solutions by reverse engineering the problem.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

What does government force you to sign in order to have kids?

Well, lets see how many kid related documents that must be signed in the course of a lifetime.  If you adopt, you must sign.  (in the old days, agreeing to take care of someones kid or be godparent sufficed), If you give birth in a hospital, a birth certificate is created, upon which the mother is expected to place her name and the name of the father. (who would deny their own child?)  If you expect to enroll that kid in school (even private schools), you must sign certain documents attesting to your parental status, and that certain regulations concerning the public health must be met.  If you expect your child to inherit without probate, you must name him in a will.  There are many signatures required to bring a child from birth to adulthood. 

Just wanted to point out that a Birth Certificate is not a "contract" with anyone... not even the State. The only things a Birth Certificate do are record the newborn and establish the place of the birth. This is useful for many reasons (establish "citizenship" if desired perhaps; genealogy perhaps), but it does not constitute a "contract". In fact, recently for a birth certificate, even though the information of who the parents were was filled out, neither parent signed anything. Filling out residency census reports (which establish tracking the individuals) is completely voluntary (and should be avoided beyond the "required"  number & sex of residential occupants). Enrollment in the public (or many "private" {ha!}) schools is also voluntary, and any "contract" or documents needing to be signed can be avoided for those who don't believe in entering into the State's jurisdiction in that regard. The same goes for the  public health documentation... and with a little research it is easy to find out how to pass everything on to your child(ren) without requiring probate and without having to sign any agreements with the State. The State wishes everyone to believe that numerous signatures on numerous "contracts" with the State are required to bring a child from birth to adulthood. In truth, don't believe everything you've been told... 

(I'm responding to this now because I am rereading this entire thread in order to respond to other parts of it... sorry for the late response...  )

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I think many of you have an odd view of traditional marriage. The dissolution of marriage is sad for anyone. It often involves figuring out how to best help the children in the aftermath. If one party has been harmful to the kids, it only makes sense that they would not be desirable for more exposure to the kids...

Perhaps some statements on this thread can be construed as "an odd view of {traditional} marriage", but I assure you my (and my wife's) views of marriage are very "traditional". I also agree that in the aftermath of a divorce, the most important thing is "figuring out how to best help the children". However, your comments (made multiple times on this thread) about Russell being harmful to you and/or the kids demands something that you have (as of yet) not provided. Proof... I can tell you that I know how abused people can be in denial and for various reasons not call authorities to report the abuse for years... Yet there is invariably some proof of the accusations. Many courts are willing to provide restraining orders simply on a claim by the allegedly abused party, but any truly abused person will be willing and able to provide proof of the abuse. A doctor's report for medical care caused by the abusive actions is most common. If there was truly the abuse that you claim, PLEASE, provide the proof. Obviously you can redact any confidential information. I, personally, know of cases where the person stayed with their abuser for decades... even stepping in to take the abuse so the children wouldn't be harmed... and during that time truly believed that the abuser would "change" and therefore never reported the abuse. Claiming time and again, to explain the bruises, that it was "just an accident" or "I'm just clumsy". And since the children were being spared the physical harm, the doctor was under NO obligation to report the known abuse! However, later, when the split was absolutely necessary, the medical reports were PROOF that the abuse had, in fact, occurred. So again, PLEASE provide some proof of these accusations.

I do realize that many of you are close acquaintances of Russell's, and cannot imagine the difficulties I mentioned.... but how many times do you hear of someone who seemed so good, so moral..so just...who turns out to be something different...something immoral or unjust....this is my story.

I have never met Russell. I don't have a "horse in this race". I can understand the "contracts" and "gov force" parts of this thread, but... again... Proof?

Russell had the same access to legal help (free legal help) to assist him as I did. He had visitation rights that he never exercised...So, in essence, he didn't do the things he could have done...It would have been against the law for me to 'keep the children from him.' Police would have had to have been called. The children could have been forced to have been taken from me for his scheduled visitations...this never happened, because he never tried! (Again...see the public records)

Does California really enforce visitation? If so, this is most unusual since every State that I've researched, essentially does not. Also, I find these statements by you to be very contradictory:

     RussellsEx: "If one party has been harmful to the kids, it only makes sense that they would not be desirable for more exposure to the kids... "

     RussellsEx: "He had visitation rights that he never exercised..." "It would have been against the law for me to 'keep the children from him.' Police would have had to have been called. The children could have been forced to have been taken from me for his scheduled visitations..."

So did he have visitation or not? Also, as just stated, States (and Police departments) rarely get involved in (en)forcing visitation, almost universally considering it to be a "civil matter between the two parties" in the U.S.  I would really like to see the court order of his visitation schedule, especially since you stated previously:

I got a restraining order because he was close to killing our oldest son, after he'd lied (He was 8 ). Russell kicked me in the stomach while I was pregnant, and on the ground, after he'd pushed me down. He did some awful things within 3 mo of being married. But it was when he started hurting the kids in drastic ways...not just a traditional spanking, that I began to be scared.

With a restraining order against someone, it is virtually impossible for them to have any visitation. So which is it? Did he abdicate his visitation or did you get a restraining order against him because he had "been harmful to the kids" and "it only makes sense that" it "would not be desirable for" him to have "more exposure to the kids..." Which is it? The two positions in almost every instance are completely contradictory.

This all makes me sad...not angry. Many of you think my children do not have a right to  Russell's help with basic fundamental needs. The law states otherwise...and unless another clear, peaceable way to address this problem presents itself, I suppose he will be in jail. As I said earlier...he holds the keys to his own freedom.

I will wait for a response before addressing this paragraph...

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I know we will never agree on these things..but it is sad to me that the fact that Russell was negligent...and does owe something to his kids, is so overlooked. It truly costs your 'group' credibility....

I agree; this group IS losing credibility.  I feel I must respond, even if it costs me some friends.

I could write a massive amount about this thread (which I must admit, I haven't read the last several pages of; it's just making me sick to my stomach).  I'll limit myself to the following:

* RussellsEx is not the reason Russell is in jail now, no matter how you twist it.  She and Russell had a legal and religious contract with one another, years before Russell began his current "crusade" against the State.  They voluntarily chose to have a child and adopt two others. RussellsEx chose to divorce Russell.  Agents of the State chose to award her child support.  Russell has made numerous choices over the course of many years, with full knowledge of what a possible outcome of those choices was.  His choices included not making the payments to the State child support agency which it demanded, rightly or wrongly, and for at least two years now not holding down any job where his wages would be garnished to pay the child support the State says he owes.  The State has finally decided to lock Russell up for all the unpaid bills.  RussellsEx has not wronged Kat in any way.


* Russell prefers to sit in a jail cell rather than post bail.  He has demonstrated this when his bail has been far, far less than $10,000.
He has said as much on this forum.  If it were anyone else, I feel confident that the Free Stater community can, and would, find $10,000 and get one of our own out of the clink.  That is not what Russell wants.

* I believe that an able-bodied adult has a moral obligation to his/her children that he/she voluntarily brought into existence and/or adopted.  I don't believe he/she needs the State to force him to acknowledge that.  I don't believe he/she needs to profess to be a Christian to acknowledge that.  I don't believe he/she needs to profess to be a libertarian to acknowledge that.  That moral obligation includes various kinds of support: financial and emotional.

Regardless of whether or not the State is involved, or "contracts" were entered into, or "force", or religion... I have to basically agree up to this point.

* I find it really hard to believe that either the State, or Russell's ex-wife, could prevent him from having any contact with his children, if that's what he wanted.

I do have issues with this point... That is why, without getting into the "State", "contracts", "force" or religious issues, I have felt in necessary to question whether Russell was allowed to visit his children or not and whether there was actually any abuse or not. My motives are not altruistic in this regard... I know a number of (thankfully "formerly") abused individuals and I have seen how these things are handled in some courts. I can tell you that unsubstantiated allegations in order to gain the advantage in too many cases has caused a backlash against those with provable abuse claims to the point where in some cases, in some courts, even with proof the abused is re-victimized by the legal system. So... show us proof of the allegations of abuse and stop the contradictions on the claims that he had full visitation with his children.

Then, I'll be happy to respond to the issue of support obligations to the children. But only after this is contradiction is cleared up. 

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

I have sworn on my honor and by my life and my love for it that I shall never live for the sake of another, nor allow any to live for my sake.

Good. I agree. 

The fruit of my labor is mine, by right, by effort, by work, by choice.  It is not yours.  It is not your children's.

Absolutely True! Could not agree more. 

It is not my children's.

This is where you falter. Even Rand acknowledged the responsibilities of a parent to their offspring. The initial oath/creed was not in any way an absolution of responsibility to one's children. Not in any Randian writings, not in the context of the Objectivist lexicon.

Now, before anyone gets upset and goes off on a tirade... Neither Rand nor the Objectivists felt that:
1. government regulations should set an arbitrary age to which responsibilities to a child are required,
2. discussed any age to which responsibilities to a child should be met.

Why? Because, as with so many things, there is not one boilerplate rule that applies in all cases. Even in this thread we've read of people who were fairly self-sufficient at very young ages. Around 150-160 years ago in this country, a young man and young woman could go off, marry, have a family, provide for themselves and their own defense, and do so without any government approval or intervention... at 14 years of age... and often did! On the other hand, if someone has a child that is, for example, mentally handicapped, as a matter of principle based on the original oath/creed as stated against one's own children; do you then expect others to care for your offspring? Do you not believe that you have a responsibility to your mentally handicapped child (and to society as a whole) to provide for that child yourself? Or do you really believe that it is your "right" to place the responsibility for the care of this child on others and renege on your duty & responsibility to take care of your own?

[RussellsEx]

A few things that have already been posted...but let me restate, as there appears to be some confusion:

* I never refused Russell visitation. The courts ordered supervised visitation, which he mostly refused, with a few exceptions. Legally, had I not complied, he could have had a police officer come to my door to remove the children. Of course, it never got to that point, but he had recourse. (Many on here seem to assume that Russell was demanding to see the kids, and I wasn't letting him....when that is far from the truth. He occasionally would ask; I would ask him if someone would be present, and he would be enraged. The end result would be...no visit.) 

A couple of years after we separated, I received a letter from his dad, reassuring me that I was doing the right thing, insisting on supervised visitation, as they had either witnessed, or suffered, Russell's rage, while he was living with them in Wyoming. (His dad was never clear on what had occurred.) I admit, at that time, I was only confirmed in my view that he was unsafe. (Regardless of how he has changed for the better, as some have claimed....this was indeed, how he had been.)

* As to the incidents of physical abuse ( I have never claimed that Russell was emotionally or verbally abusive...although some of that goes along with the physical incidents.) Russell himself will attest to his actions, and has admitted them to a number of people over the years. This has never been a point of question between he and I, and those close to the situation, so I find it almost offensive that some on here keep raising that as an issue at all. I also have been very honest about the fact that there are no medical records. (This is where, if I wanted to be cagey...coy...or a liar...I would be...but have only been honest about this.) The police were called a few times....but the last incident (and they were increasing in frequency and cruelty) was so bad, that it scared me. I knew I could no longer 'pretend' this was going to get better....I had to step in drastically, for the kid's sake.

*To the allegation that I have contradicted myself... what are you referring to? I have only ever said that Russell had the ability to have supervised visits with the kids. I had and have sole legal and physical custody. He has just rarely exercised those visitation rights, which is not my fault.

Am I relieved he isn't around? Yes. But the kids and I pray for him regularly. There is no bitterness here...but there is a relief, that finally, after so long...something will be done to right some of the wrongs.

[RussellsEx]

There have been a number of restraining orders over the years....for those who need documentation...

[KBCraig]

There have been a number of restraining orders over the years....for those who need documentation...

Restraining orders in domestic cases are almost always automatic, and seldom require any standard of evidence other than "I'm scared".

Even if you're as truthful as Jesus himself about what happened, you have to admit that the existence of restraining orders proves nothing. The world is full of cases where men have been falsely accused of abusive behavior. It's an especially popular tactic where the accused is a hunter, gun collector, or military/law enforcement, because the second a TRO is signed it becomes a federal felony for the subject to have either actual or constructive possession of a firearm or any ammunition.

[RussellsEx]

Well, I give up...ask Russell himself...if I am so untrustworthy. He will tell you. Read my prior posts...there are many who will attest to his behaviors.

[jaqeboy]

Eminent Domain does not applying in this case...
NH Constitution is specifically eminent domain usage.

The NH constitution specifically says:

No part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.

The application of eminent domain, in this case, and in any other case of a government taking for private use, is up to the defendant and his legal team.  It seems clear that the intention is not to have the government take property from one person and give it to another person for private use.

Whether anyone applies it in the case of child support payments is not up to me.

"Domain" means pretty much just land. Property, in this document, also pretty much means land.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Well, I give up...ask Russell himself...if I am so untrustworthy. He will tell you. Read my prior posts...there are many who will attest to his behaviors.

Please don't... As I said before, I don't have a horse in this race. I've never met either one of you. I recently called someone that I know who is closer to the situation, just to get their position first-hand... after discussing this, we're in agreement in our opinions on this...

I know where my misconception came from. I felt it contradictory to have a restraining order against someone, which generally and usually prevents any contact, and also claim that that person wasn't exercising their ability to visit. I did not realize (and somehow had missed) the fact that the court had granted supervised (because of restraining orders, etc) visitation. I never said, nor meant to imply that you were untrustworthy, just my feeling that there was a disconnect between the two positions. I sincerely apologize  and thank you for clearing up my confusion. That is why I stated before that the two positions are "almost in every instance" contradictory. Obviously you have one of those instances.

I personally know of instances where there was no enforced visitation and (often through PAS) the noncustodial parent (regardless of gender, it happens to both men and women) are denied any access to their children. In some of those cases, there isn't even any abuse allegation against the noncustodial parent and yet this is allowed to continue.

However, I must emphatically state one thing... at risk of being very unpopular here. It is the duty of both parents to provide for the financial support of the unemancipated children. Hopefully, both will also be providing for the emotional and educational support as well, but... regardless, two things that are not and should not be allowed to occur are:

1. The custodial parent deciding to move away, preventing visitation from occurring; or the noncustodial parent deciding to move away while claiming denial of visitation thus insuring no visitation by their own actions. There are valid reasons for moving. Employment, other family obligations, etc. It just shouldn't be used as a tool against the other parent. In the case of a custodial parent deciding to move, IMNSHO, that parent should pay the expense for the child(ren) to visit the noncustodial parent. In the case of a noncustodial parent moving, IMNSHO, the time, effort and expense fall on them to keep in contact and maintain visitation with their child(ren).
2. No parent, without valid demonstrable medical reasons (such as an injury that prevents or hinders employment) or valid demonstrable economic reasons (such as the current recession accompanied with supporting evidence showing that employment is being sought and has not been readily available), should be allowed to reduce or hide their income in order to avoid paying support for their child(ren). The mere act of having or adopting child(ren) is a voluntary contract between the parent and the child(ren). I do not like, desire or support the government courts... there is simply too much corruption from my research and experience. I would much prefer a private system to handle these types of matters. A system whereby there is not and can not be any connection between the arbiter/judge, any needed "jury", any desired but not required attorneys, and the litigant(s) involved. Regardless of that personal belief, if someone abrogates their responsibility to the financial support for their child(ren), IMNSHO, that places the burden unduly on others (currently in many cases, "society as a whole").

It is absurd for anyone in such a situation to allow it to continue long enough for the financial support obligation to accrue to such an enormous amount that it becomes outrageously unlikely that it can ever reasonably be expected to be paid. It is not only an abrogation of responsibility to the child(ren) owed the support, but also shows complete irresponsibility towards any current obligations to any new child(ren) counting on and owed support. (In just the past few days, I've been involved with a similar situation where a man, in order to avoid his support obligations to his children from a previous relationship; moved, met, married and had a child with another woman. The new wife did not even know that he wasn't keeping up his prior obligations. He decided to quit his job, because his new wife made more money, and become "Mr. Mom". When it caught up with him, he hadn't had a job in awhile and now there is an attempt to use his NEW wife's finances to pay HIS obligation to his children from a previous relationship! Unlike Kat, this new wife is not as "loyal" and "forgiving" of his abrogation of responsibility to his other children... She's now in the process of filing for divorce in order to protect herself and her child from his irresponsibility... And I completely support her decision to do so!)

We all make decisions in our lives, many of those decisions create explicit or implicit obligations. If we renege, ignore, or abrogate in our responsibilities regarding those obligations, then we have created our own situation which we must live with. And, again IMNSHO, that has nothing to do with FSP, being a libertarian, being anti-government, being pro-government, any other politics or religious belief... it's what is just and right and fair.

(Just a side question... What is this "karma" thing on the forums and where is there a "button" that deals with it?)