I have met and heard the tragic stories of many parents. PA is a function, by and large, of a custodial ex-partner, although some alienation can start while the couple is still together.

This blog is a story of experiences and observations of dysfunctional Family Law (FLAW), an arena pitting parent against parent, with children as the prize. Due to the gender bias in Family Law, that I have observed, this Blog has evolved from a focus solely on PA to one of the broader Family/Children's Rights area and the impact of Feminist mythology on Canadian Jurisprudence and the Divorce Industry.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Ex-UC Davis Campus Violence staffer under new scrutiny in embezzlement probe

The Domestic Violence Industry targeting all men as violence perpetrators is a multi-billion dollar industry across the USA funded in large part by your governments at the federal and state level with assistance from politically correct gullible companies and naive men who want to appear chivalrous and "feminine".  This person is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg that no one wants to explore as it might explode feminist myths about patriarchy and heaven forbid open the door to female violence against men. (Tiger Woods, Mary K. Blige slugging hubby while opening a DV shelter for women only, and the missing info on Chris Brown getting clubbed by a stiletto  heal before he overreacted. Did Charlie Sheen actually do that to his wife or was he set up by false allegations?)  Watch the Tyra Banks show on Thursday this week to see more about men getting abused every 38 seconds.MJM


JOSE M. OSORIO / Bee file, 2000

Jennifer Beeman, ex-director of the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program, is seen in her former office. Beeman retired from UCD before allegations surfaced that she had inflated rape statistics.

Published: Friday, Jan. 1, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 4B

A former University of California, Davis, employee whom officials have accused of inflating crime statistics may have funneled university money into a private account and paid her mortgage with it, campus police said in a court document released this week.

As part of their embezzlement probe of Jennifer Beeman, investigators also raised the question of whether she had appropriately paid $540,000 to a Bay Area woman and her companies over a seven-year period.

Reached at home Thursday, Beeman declined to comment.

Police detailed their suspicions regarding Beeman, the former director of the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program, in court papers filed as they sought a search warrant in early December.

Yolo Superior Court made the statement available this week.

In it, UC Davis Police Sgt. Paul Henoch wrote that Beeman, 52, first came under scrutiny in September 2008 for overstating her travel expenses.

Further investigation showed that she had asked for reimbursement for airfare to San Diego when her ticket had already been paid for by an outside group. She had also submitted travel mileage for meetings she did not attend, Henoch wrote.

University officials requested an internal audit and placed Beeman on administrative leave.
In February 2009, the audit concluded that Beeman had improperly submitted travel expenses of more than $1,000.

In October, campus officials said she had repaid $1,372 and retired in June.
On the same day, they also revealed Beeman had grossly inflated the number of forcible sexual offenses in three years of mandatory reports to the federal government. No reason was given.

Administrators also said in October that police were pursuing a second investigation into Beeman's finances.

Details of that investigation were spelled out in a Dec. 1 statement by Henoch. He wrote that investigators had learned in early 2009 that Beeman had a "secret" checking account for a campus program called Take Back the Night.

Beeman told a co-worker that she had paid her home mortgage from the account, he wrote.
The account was located in July at the USE Credit Union, with Beeman listed as the only signatory, the police sergeant said in his statement.

Auditors found that nearly $12,000 in university funds had been deposited into the account, and Beeman had withdrawn $5,400 for personal use between January 2002 to March 2009, Henoch wrote.

The auditors also found that Beeman had authorized $25,000 in payments of federal grant funds to a company run by a woman named Granate Sosnoff to produce a campus anti-violence guide that was never completed, he wrote.

In November, Henoch said he discovered that the Campus Violence Prevention Program had paid Sosnoff and various media and marketing firms that she controlled more than $540,000 between May 2000 and April 2007.

"At this time it is unknown what type of relationship Beeman and Sosnoff have over the years," he wrote, "if it is strictly business or if monies have exchanged hands between them."

Sosnoff, who lives in Oakland, did not respond to a phone message Thursday.
The 47-year-old woman developed a series of acclaimed rape awareness posters for the university that were paid for with federal grant dollars.

The striking posters for the campaign, called "Voices Not Victims," were featured in Ms. magazine and sought by other universities and the Ford Foundation's office in Africa, according to a university press release from 2001.

The search warrant approved in December by Yolo Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner sought bank records for both Beeman and Sosnoff.

UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza said Thursday that, to her knowledge, the banks have not yet returned the requested records.

No decisions about whether to charge Beeman or Sosnoff will be made until they do, she said.

"This is an open investigation," Spicuzza said. "We're going to look at everything."


Open records ruling goes against county

This man's advocacy certainly is getting attention in his community and he is staying out of jail while bringing the problem of Family Court bias and corruption to the public. His use of graphics is state-of-the art and designed to get attention.  It looks like he has built a box on a trailer to hold the posters. The Family Court workers involved including the Sherrif's people don't even seem to understand their involvement in the corruption of the law and due process. It has the appearance of a siege mentality on their part.MJM

Sunday News
Jan 03, 2010 00:19 EST
Lancaster, PA

By GIL SMART, Associate Editor

Ben Vonderheide spends a lot of time at the Lancaster County Courthouse, pursuing fathers' rights and inconveniencing local officials in the process.

As such, Vonderheide said, he's been tossed out of many a county office and courtroom. But his ejection from one courtroom this fall prompted him to request copies of the surveillance tapes for his records.

The county refused to provide the tapes, saying it would constitute a security breach.

The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records disagreed. In a Christmas Eve ruling, appeals officer Lucinda Glinn ordered the county to turn them over to Vonderheide.

The state's "final determination" may still be appealed by the county; officials involved with the case said the county has not decided whether it will appeal.

But Vonderheide was claiming at least partial vindication. "I finally had time to file the paperwork to request [the video] before they were erased like all the past incidents," said Vonderheide, who says he's been "thrown out of court more times than I can remember for unspecified [and] illegitimate reasons over the years" as he agitates for fathers' rights and against a system he believes is biased.

Vonderheide runs a Web site called DaddyJustice.com and has been a vocal critic of retired family court Judge Wayne Hummer. He's been involved in a lengthy custody battle with Wendy Flanders, a former girlfriend who was convicted of felony perjury in 2008 for claiming that Vonderheide had assaulted her during a 2004 custody exchange.

He also owned the Conestoga apartment building that former state Rep. Thomas Armstrong turned into a halfway house for sex offenders in the spring of 2008.

He's a ubiquitous presence both on the sidewalk outside the Lancaster County Courthouse and inside as well, often with his video camera in hand. But Sept. 9, he left the video camera at home; he was at the courthouse to keep a "close eye" on an assistant district attorney who handles protection-from-abuse cases. (Vonderheide had what he calls a phony PFA complaint filed against him in the course of his custody dispute.)

Vonderheide, in an e-mail, said he entered the courtroom of Judge Donald Totaro where "immediately the deputy rushed me, aggressively stating, 'You are not allowed in here.' " Vonderheide said he responded by asserting that he's a fathers' rights advocate, but the deputy said, " 'I don't care — you are NOT allowed in here.' "

Women's and mothers' rights advocates are routinely allowed to remain in the courtroom, Vonderheide said. Nonetheless, he said, the deputy "put his hand through my belt from behind and the other sheriff joined in. They both put their hands on me again and forcibly threw me out the door."

Vonderheide said he later got a call from court personnel stating that it had all been a misunderstanding and that Totaro was not part of the effort to bar him from the courtroom.

Lancaster County Deputy Sheriff Mark Reese, one of the deputies on duty that day, declined to comment on the case, saying the county had yet to decide whether it will appeal the state's ruling.

Attempts to reach Assistant County Solicitor Nicole Decker, who is handling the case, were unsuccessful.

But Vonderheide said the county sheriff's office is claiming he entered the courtroom while the judge was rendering a decision or witnesses were testifying, and that the judge ordered him tossed out of the courtroom.

Video from the surveillance cameras mounted in county courtrooms will disprove that, Vonderheide said. So he asked the county for it.

But the county refused that request, along with his request for additional surveillance video from Oct. 23, when Vonderheide claimed a deputy sheriff ripped his video camera from his hands and accused him of "smuggling" it into the courthouse, and written reports about the two incidents.

Vonderheide then appealed to the state, asserting that he needed the video and records "to show how he was treated, to show an alleged pattern of wrongful behavior," according to Glinn's ruling.

Decker's response to the appeal included an affidavit, notarized and signed by Reese, in which the deputy sheriff "attests that any video footage would show the areas not covered by cameras, and is thus reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm" to the "personal security of an individual."

Reese also asserted that releasing the footage "is reasonably likely to jeopardize public safety."

Decker's response to Vonderheide's complaint concurred, stating that the video records "would reveal the capabilities and scope of the county video surveillance system in the courthouse, and would jeopardize the ability of the sheriff's office to provide protection within the courthouse," according to the state ruling.

But the state knocked down that argument, with Glinn ruling that "the release of video records that are obtained for security purposes does not automatically constitute a reasonable likelihood of risk or harm to security." The video, she wrote, is of areas open to the public, and just because a video record is used for security purposes doesn't automatically mean its release would jeopardize public safety.

Glinn then went on to deny Vonderheide's request for incident reports related to the two confrontations, noting that records relating to a noncriminal investigation including notes, correspondence, reports, complaints and other investigative materials are indeed protected, and can be withheld.

The ruling is binding on both parties; Glinn ruled that the county must turn over the video footage to Vonderheide within 30 days of the Dec. 24 decision, though either party may appeal to Lancaster County Court.

"This attitude of aggression against my efforts to expose corruption in Lancaster County comes from the top and has been ongoing for years," Vonderheide asserted.

"These aren't the worst examples," he said, "just the most recent."

Gil Smart is associate editor of the Sunday News. E-mail him at gsmart@lnpnews.com, or phone 291-8817.


Women Who Beat Their Men - Every 38 seconds a man is being abused at the hands of a woman!

This is unfortunately far too common but the MSM just ignores it. In the past short while we have seen Chris Brown get clubbed with a stiletto heal (who got charged?), Tiger Woods with a 9 iron to the head, and Mary K. Blige the hypocrite who started a DV shelter for women only punch out her hubby at a night club. None of these women were charged but look what happened to Charlie Sheen and his wife has recanted.Coming up on Thursday this week.MJM

// added January 02, 2010 // 21 comments // 333 views

Thursday, January 7th

Domestic abuse takes a surprising turn. In the past, men have been the ones under fire for being abusive in relationships. Now, as more and more victims of domestic abuse are speaking out, a new trend in the violence is surfacing. We're talking to women who've admitted to hitting, punching, even kicking (in stilettos) their boyfriends and husbands. Tyra also talks to a newlywed bride whose sex life is dwindling because of her husband's weight gain.


It may show up here later if missed http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Tyra-Banks-Show-Full-Episodes