Friday, September 26, 2014

The "Letter" Part II

The Letter Part II

First and foremost. The anonymous letter holds no signature and/or copy right marks. It was sent to me via United States Postal service. It appears to be an orginal copy, which therefore makes it my legal property. I can only assume that the letter came from one particular family and/or person, because the writer purports to be a direct eye witness of the events that they outline in the letter. The writer appears to make quite a few assumptions of their own, so therefore, it only stands to reason that I am also allowed to draw my own inferences in response.

In order to bring social context to the letter,I am including empirical research by Dr.Robert Briffault and I will also make commentary within the letter itself to clarify either the truthfulness of or erroneous information. I am reproducing the letter here in it's original language, spelling, syntax and grammatical errors will not be omitted. Though I have decided to not reproduce the entire letter due to the extremely negative language that it expresses.

Robert Stephen Briffault (1876 – 11 December 1948)
was trained as a surgeon, but found fame as a social anthropologist and in later life as a novelist.
Briffault is known for what is called Briffault's Law:
"The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191"
In other words;
1.Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2.Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3.A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

With that said, I present "The Letter";

The following text is protected under copyright by myself "Eugene C Stevens" as the rightful owner. It is not protected under the fair use doctrine and it is not public domain. Any use of this text must be pre-approved by the myself. Names will be omitted for obvious reasons to protect the innocent party or parties who were or may be affected by its content.

"The letter" Begins on the wrong note, as it is addressed to my wife and I. Her name is misspelled, which lends credence to the fact that the person or persons who authored the anonymous letter either did not know us very well and/or failed to take the time to contact us to come to an understanding or to discuss the matter.

Begin Text

Name withheld (NMW) &; Gene Stevens,

It is my understanding that today 11/15/13, NMW came into the halls of the Lake county court House and made a public statement that NMW will not allow him to see his children. If this is true, it is an intentional lie, MNW has only followed the court orders as written and served to the parties.


As in any divorce proceeding, the divorce decree was drafted by legal counsel and it was served. But then my son was called into a public venue where his ex-wife and other multiple family members present and he was pressured into signing divorce papers under duress. The decree violated his rights and he was not allowed any type of judicial over-site and could not afford competent counsel. The decree removed all rights to his children, did not ask for any support of his children and gave sole custody to his ex-wife.


NMW left his family with no knowledge of his location nor any support of any kind. After over nine months without contact or child support of any kind he showed up to retrieve the car tools NMW had "purchased" and stored in her leased garage. NMW had left them there rent free for nearly a year. When he arrived he brought his first support offering for his children, a jug of HI C fruit punch. He loaded the nine hundred dollar tool into a vehicle collected the money for selling it poured each of the boys a Dixie cup of juice --- then took the remainder of the bottle and the cash and once again disappeared. When the boys asked for a little more on a hot summer day NMW had to explain the (Dad) took it with him. (Not one dime for the tool storage was repaid).


There is serious error within the timeline of this statement. Preceding the months before my sons divorce, his wife had been assigned to work in Ohio by her employers and during the several months of absence he was sole care taker and responsible for their care. He had also allowed his mother in law to move into his home. During this time I spoke frequently with him. During the alleged disappearance. They had already separated as a couple. As many people know, the economy had taken a serious turn and my son moved to Michigan for a few months to secure employment. I see no reason as to why he had to communicate his whereabouts to someone who had the intention of taking sole custody of his children as it was.


Gene states that he again in law enforcement his (life's calling) I am told by life long friends both serving and retired (US Marshals, Internal Affairs Officers, and Lieutenant on the Sheriff's Police that all swear an oath to serve an protect the people at all times in all ways possible. (Which means deliberately stabbing a mom in the back on publicly viewed sights is a travesty of justice --- with or without names. People can read between the lines.)
If Gene is a law officer we the family question his lack or professional attitude, NMW has been caught and had reports filled against him for ----

Breaking rental contract -- confiscating his roommates half of the rent then leaving the state
driving without insuarnce - driving without proper plates -reckless driving
Driving a vehicle with grass and other substances on board concealing various drugs in his tools boxes at work and home (which he did not pay for, but traded for labor)
He refused to appear in court for family benefits and rulings on issues at hand and has never paid any kind of child support of any kind yet has money to commute from Michigan to Racine Wisconsin to see not his children (that he claims to miss so much) but to spend the weekend party timing with a new girlfriend.

Why has Gene not brought him in?


The previous paragraph is very telling. It serves to not only threaten me by evoking other peace officers, who's integrity they tarnish and use for their own delusional purposes. It also indicates that I was being monitored (as I always have been by former family) and both my son and myself were the subjects of ongoing character assassination. Furthermore, as Police Officer, we are trained to respect all of the bill of rights as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, including the first amendment which gives us all the right of free speech. I am also a paid published Writer by "profession" which places my work in the light of the first amendment.

The paragraph also indicates that they not only knew of my sons whereabouts, but were acting as spies monitoring and attempting to control his actions. They knew that they could accomplish this and manipulate him because of his ADHD. They then go into a laundry list of alleged crimes that he committed. These are things that I was never privileged to. They never spoke to me, they never allowed me to see my grand children they never called me, never sent me an email and barely said hello. But if they did have intimate knowledge of crimes, they should have called the police themselves. Furthermore, Their inherent misunderstanding of the law enforcement profession and criminal law itself, leads them to believe the wrong things. I have no jurisdiction and no authority where any crimes are committed except for the place that I am employed. During the short few times that I encountered person(s) associated with this "family" I found that they were also substance abusers and seemed to intoxicated on a regular basis. It was due to this that my current wife and I decided to steer clear of these persons, as we do not drink and do not use drugs, we wanted to raise or children without this influence around. The very first time that we spent  an hour with them, they became drunk and engaged in a domestic dispute. It was later that I learned that they had separated as well. To answer the question ... "Why has Gene not brought him in?" I offer this challenge, if your daughter commits a crime .. will you turn her in? No you won't you will defend in the same way.. right or wrong .. just as you did in this letter. Isn't adultery a crime? I Illinois it is.


One day he states that no real Mom would not let dad see the kids, the next day he states that maybe she isn't asking for support because he's not the dad. This bi-polar attitude makes all people reading his comments which way he  is going. Does he not believe in Jeremy or do you just not have any faith in his masculinity. Did someone else have to service his wife.


The above paragraph is more indication that we were being monitored. However the above statement is extremely filthy in nature. The facebook post that this pertained to, dealt with paternity fraud. A sad fact that many American men have been subjected to by the feminist movement. Family courts throughout the United States have forced men to pay for children that they did not father. The message it sends also uses typical shaming tactics employed against men. The very nature of the statement is the very model of "gaslighting" or attempting to label a person as "crazy or insane"  (or in the writers case stating that I am "Bi-polar) to redirect blame back onto the person identifying a problem or a crime that has been committed.  If you don't like what I have to say... stay off my facebook page.


NMW reached into her pension and took out thousands of dollars for a man that was fired nine times.


This fact is very comendable and should be applauded, however marriage is a two street. Money and property in marriage is considered "marital property". It is true that my son had lost multiple  jobs, many of which he quit and was not fired, for multiple reasons, but in hind site, I now know that it was due to his ADHD and or probable aspergers syndrome (as we have now come to realize, played a part in this).

The night the child was born NMW was supposedly looking for car parts on her lap top computer at the hospital. When he left to go home he set it on the roof to unlock the door and drove off with the lap top on the roof of the car, never seen it again. Needless to say he never replaced that for NMW either.


I am extremely sorry that I could not have been there to help my son sort through the many thoughts and hardships that he may have gone through on the night that his child was born. Unfortunately I was not invited, I was not called and told that my grand child was born. But on another note, marital property is marital property, laptops are extremely expensive, especially for people that work for substandard wages as he did at the time. I would also call this an "accident or a mistake" Not something that needed to stored as weaponry for a divorce. There is no legal expectation to replace or fix broken, lost or stolen items in marriage, not even the marriage itself. This is a lost idea in the 21st century. Men and women are equal and pay for their own stuff. This is not 1850.

A real law man would protect an innocent woman trying to provide for her children, would understand that she is following the instructions from family laws of the state. He would honor her for trying to make a life of her own. And would applaud a young man that says I love this "Lady" and her children. Now she has a real man in her life.


A "real law man" examines evidence, listens to all sides, (note the word listen) and makes an informed decision. No one has the right to demand my respect or honor for someone who has not earned it. The fact that a person is male or female, mother or father (and which is the entire basis of your letter) does not automatically place them in a superior position to demand immediate and unearned respect. If this were the case, and if we lived in an equal society like so many people say we do, then my son would instantly have your unearned  and or demanded respect for being a father. But as we all know, here in the United States, being a man and a father means being a target for angry vindictive people and the slave of the family courts. And "Briffaults Law now applies" where one benefit has faded, a new one has arrived to replace it, until such time, that the new benefit falters. Then it's onto the next phase. More shaming tactics. I feel for the new real man should ever be fired, laid off due to the economy. He will follow suit and wander into the male wasteland which is "Briffualts Law"

In court today the topic was the children and their best interest, yet NMW had to be reminded constantly that the court time was not about him or his girlfriend. His constant. reply is I can't afford that.


No clearer truth has ever been spoken. Millions of men, including men like Thomas Ball, Chris Mackney and Robin Williams tried to say the same thing .. and all three were destroyed by their wives who were granted "superior class social status" by the law of the land and now of them are dead. All from suicide. And the numbers of men killing themselves because of family court grow by the thousands every day.


If you are a Christian man you claim to be then stop throwing verbal rocks at a woman trying to survive with her children.


It was due to my efforts and the fact that  I reviewed my sons divorce decree and discovered that both her (my son's ex-wife) and my son had been mislead by the lawyers and the family court. both had allowed a terrible injustice to over take both of their lives. They took money for court expenses and fee's and never thought about child support until we petitioned everyone back into court. My son now has limited visitation with his children and he pays child support, something that the legal experts left out of their divorce decree, simply to see that ego and pride were satisfied and the female was granted "sole custody"... don't believe me? Ask me for a copy, I will fax it to you!

No comments: