HuMANity

The National Coalition For Men Groundbreaking Selective Service Case

Introduction
Historically, the United States of America has had a male-only draft. Even though the draft hasn’t been implemented for decades, men are still required to register for Selective Service. If they don’t, they could risk legal punishment and employment opportunities. Several organizations and politicians have spend decades debating the issue of a male-only draft and its discriminatory nature. But, it’s never been a topic fully embraced by the mainstream. It was seen as a status quo that men were expected to do on a daily basis.
However, the National Coalition For Men (a men’s rights legal organization) has successfully pushed the topic into the mainstream. Much to the dismay of many women and feminist organizations. But, that backlash has not prevented the rise of the issue. Due to their persistent challenging on a legal level, and their publicly reported court cases, the mainstream media has been forced to address this controversial topic. Should required draft legislation be legal or done away with? If it remains legal, should it be male only, or should it be gender neutral. Instead of treating it as a taboo, news stations and politicians all have to give their opinions on the topic.

Anti-Draft History
In 1971, an anti-war group (The Philadelphia Resistance) gathered young men to challenge this law. Feeling their rights were being violated. In the “Rowland vs Tarr” case, the group (led by Andrew Rowland) had their first case heard by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. However, it failed due to the fact that the draft was discontinued. This group of men petitioned again in 1974 in the dubbed “Goldberg vs Tarr” case. Robert Goldberg (a medical student at Penn State) was amongst those whom objected. They attempted to get the ruling passed before the registration. However, Rostker (the director of the Selective Service System) filed an appeal and the registration began as scheduled. By 1981, Rostker vs Goldberg moved up to the Supreme Court. However, they ruled that this all-male draft was in fact constitutional.

In 2012, Michael B. Elgin and several other employees of the U.S. Department Of the Treasury, were fired for failing to register for Selective Service. In accordance to Title 5 of The United States Code, any federal executive who committed this crime is forbidden from positions of that caliber. Elgin challenged his discharge, citing the fact that the law only applies to men (and therefore only affects male employees) as a constitutional issue. An administrative judge dismissed the challenge, finding the removal legally fair and not entitled to the Merit Systems Protection Board. He appealed to The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which denied his claims. He then appealed to the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the First Circuit, but they claimed to have no jurisdiction over the matter. Finally, he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who again rejected his claim.

The National Coalition For Men Legislation
The Supreme Court constantly cited women’s legal limitations in combat roles as a reason for women not to be drafted. However, there were several crucial law changes in the 2010s. Between 2013 and 2015, the Pentagon removed several restrictions of women voluntarily serving in combat. This led the question of the all-male draft/Selective Service back into question. Women no longer being legally restricted from combat, now makes the need for a male-only registration outdated. Therefore, the law would be unconstitutional.

The National Coalition For Men (NCFM), a men’s rights legal organization, had plans to get rid of the gendered registration, by declaring a male-only draft “unconstitutional”. Despite their lack of financial resources and low lobbying power, the NCFM were actually given the time of day by legislators.

>On April 4, 2013, they filed a lawsuit against the Selective Service System in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. They argued that the Rostker vs Goldberg result was no longer applicable, due to the Pentagon’s ruling of women in combat. The court originally dismissed the case, due to the fact that women were still not completely transitioned into all combat roles (that completion happened in 2015).

>In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal citing the full transition as a reason for the case to be remanded. The case was sent back to the district court. However, the case was later moved to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the Fifth Circuit.

>The case gained so much legal traction, it got the attention of the U.S. Congress. In 2016, they created the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service. It was an independent bipartisan advisory commission tasked with evaluating the Selective Service System. They were trying to decide whether women should be required to register with the Selective Service, or if they should do away with the Selective Service System to avoid the gender inequality issue.

>On January 2019, they released an interim report outlining the various options. On February 2019, Judge Gray H. Miller (who was appointed by former president George W. Bush) issued a declaratory judgement. He ruled the male-only draft to be a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the ruling did not specify which action the government would take to resolve the conflict. Whether or not to abolish the draft or apply it in a gender neutral manner.

The Stall Of The Century
Depsite the ruling in favor of the NCFM in 2019, the government stalled the ruling and had never inacted the policy.
Since then, the Eagle Forum (a conservative organization) filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the male only draft and asking the Court Of Appeals to reverse the decision.
On the flip side a large series of organizations jumped on the bandwaggon with the NCFM by filing an amicu curiae to uphold the Court Of Appeals decision of finding the all male draft unconstitutional. The filing was done by the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, 9to5 National Association of Working Women, A Better Balance, Gender Justice, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, National Organization for Women Foundation, National Women’s Law Center, Women’s Law Center of Maryland, and Women’s Law Project.
As a result, on March 3, 2020 (at Tulane Law School in New Orleans) a 3 judge panel of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments about the appeal to the ruling. The argument for the current draft to be seen as unconstitutional was consistently the same. While the argument against it, led by Claire McCusker Murray (the 3rd ranking official in the Department of Justice) argued against the decision on the grounds of “Supreme Court deference”. In the 1981 Roster vs. Goldberg case (see “Anti-Draft History at the top of this article for more details), the case decided that only the Supreme Court has the authority to reverse the law, and not the District Court. By August 13, 2020 the panel agreed with Murray and decided to reverse the District Court judgement.

Supreme Court
Despite the recent ruling, the NCFM persisted in their efforts. On January 8, 2021 the NCFM (represented by the ACLU and Hogan Lovells) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 15, 2021 president Joe Biden weighed in on the topic, asking the Supreme Court to reject the measure. Calling the challenge “premature”. On June 7, 2021 the Supreme Court declined to review the case. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Brett Kavanaugh gave their opinion on supporting the decision. They claimed that Congress was “actively” evaluating to remove the male-only requirement of the draft through the 2016 Comission. They also cited that the Supreme Court has a long standing deference to Congress on military affairs, and claimed that they couldn’t grant a review while Congress weighs the issue.

A Short Stint
In June 2021, the Senate Armed Service Committee voted (21-5) to add women to the draft registration system. In September, the House Armed Servie Committee voted (35-24) to approve the measure. This measure was added to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 with bipartisan support. However, a small vocal group of conservatives backlashed against the measure.
Republican Senator Joh Hawley led the charge against the provision in the Senate. Other Republican senators such as Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, James Lankford, Steve Daines, and Roger Wicker joined Josh in the prevention. Republican Mary Miller (U.S. Representative from Illinois’s 15th Congressional District) introduced the “Don’t Draft Our Daughters” resolution to prevent women from being registered. Republican Charles “Chip” Roy (U.S. Representative for Texas’s 21st Congressional District) joined on the measure.
Concerned Women for America, a socially conservative women’s legislative action committee helped promote the “Don’t Draft Our Daughters” resolution on their website and urged other people to contact their politicians and influence them to fight against adding women to the registration.
Despite the bipartisan support and a successful vote, the discriminatory nature of a male only draft was stripped away from the NDAA bill due to the backlash from a loud minority of social conservatives. They blamed the “liberals” of a culture war that would “harm women”. Ummm….have they not been paying attention to the ongoing legal fight that’s been happening by the NCFM for several years? Or are they just using “liberals” as a buzzword to convince their base to fight against it? Probably the latter. Either way, it’s still immoral on their part.

Backlash
Despite this specified lack of ruling, women and feminists claimed (despite lack of knowledge) that the ruling would be applied in a gender neutral manner. Not wanting to settle for equality, they backlashed against this ruling and got angry at men’s rights activists for “forcing women to register”. Claiming that holding women to the same standard as men was “purely misogynistic” and that men’s rights activists were trying to harm/punish women.
On March 12, 2019 Kathi Valeii wrote an article called “How Men’s Rights Groups Use The Rhetoric Of Equality To Punish Women”. In the article, Kathi falsely states that the NCFM are filled with “white men” who are trying to prevent the rise of women’s programs and affirmative action. She started listing a series of women’s issues that exist (in an article that’s supposed to be about the draft). She goes on to claim that the legislation is meant to pull women down and force women to be registered as an “aha” against feminists-despite the fact that no such wording or framing of the legislation implies this at all.
On March 4, 2020 Madeleine Holden wrote an article for Mel Magazine called “Why Are MRAs So Obsessed With Making Sure Women Are Eligible For The Draft, Too?” Similar to the other article, it’s propaganda based on false assumptions. In the article, Madeleine falsely states that the NCFM is forcing women to sign up for Selective Service (of course with a lack of evidence). She also falsely asserts that feminist groups are anti-war and that the NCFM isn’t. She then states that other advocates have the best interest of powerless men at heart, while the MRM doesn’t.
On March 2, 2019 Beau Of The Fifth Column went on to make a video slandering the entire situation. He claims that MRAs was attempting to add women to the draft in order to make women more vocal about what’s wrong with the draft. His claim is completely unfounded. The NCFM has not cited the idea of women being added to the draft, nor was that in the legislation. The NCFM simply opposed a male-only selective service, calling it immoral and unconstitutional. The agreement with the NCFM has not at all went into detail about whether or not women would be added to Selective Service or whether it would be done away with altogether. So arguing against this legislation on the basis of “drafting women” is completely dishonest. He went on to make a horrible hypothetical of the Civil Rights Movement taking away everyone’s human rights instead of expanding voting rights. Again, this is a horrible comparison because the NCFM didn’t pass a law to force women to be drafted. It just passed a law saying that the all-male draft is discriminatory.

On July 28, 2022 The American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker social justice organization) had a webinar about Selective Service. They spoke about the need to do away with the draft altogether. Which sounds fine on the surface.
However, as the meeting went on the AFSC spoke about their “feminist” support and went on to slander the NCFM. One of their false claims was that the NCFM has a history of “violence against women” (30:22-30:35). They then claimed that the NCFM shifted the conversation to adding women (which again is an unfounded claim).
Essentially, this no name group which claims to be fighting against the draft altogether, falsely portrays the NCFM as “hijacking” the discussion and making it too difficult for them to get the law passed. When, in reality, this group had no real legal standing or platform on the issue to begin with. Secondly, their not even fullyy educated on the topic to begin with. As stated multiple times, the NCFM’s proposal was to make the all-male draft unconstitutional. It’s never pushed to “add women” to the draft. That was an argument between the government on how they would handle the situation before it was shot down.

AFSC Webinar

Small Support
Ever since the NCFM fought hard and nearly won the legislation, there has been a slight cultural shift in opinion on the issue. Here are a few examples.

On June 17, 2022 The Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) wrote an article called “Don’t Draft Our Daughters-or Anyone Else”. In the article the author argued that U.S. conscription serves no useful military purpose and should be done away with altogether.

On August 16, 2022 Mac Hamilton wrote an article called “Don’t Draft Our Daughters-or Our Sons”. She published it in Ms. Magazine (a historically radical feminist website). In the article she encouraged Democrats, who introduced the measure into the NDAA, to instead create a bipartisan effort to abolish the Selective Service once and for all.

On February 7, 2016 The Young Turks (a progressive news organization that infamously antagonized MRA public face Karen Straughan), agreed with the measure that women should in fact be added to Selective Service as they felt confident that a “draft” wouldn’t return anytime soon.

Conclusion
Currently, as it stands, male only registration is legal. However, the mere fact that this topic (that’s been ignored for decades) is now a common topic of discussion, is a small victory. A victory that should inspire people to keep fighting in this direction. This is a topic that can no longer be ignored and will now be apart of the political discussion, thanks to the NCFM (as well as the people who backed them up). Also people are now more open to speaking against registration altogether now that they see the possibility of women being drafted. Overall, this is a rare successful instance for men’s rights groups and they should continue to fight on this front until they get justice.

Source (s)
Rostker vs. Goldberg
Elgin vs. Department of Treasury
National Coalition for Men vs. Selective Service System
United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Kathi Valeii Draft Propoganda
Mel Magazine
Law 360
Amicus Curiae
Appeal Discussion
CNBC
The Hill

Men’s Health Facts: Heart Disease

Introduction
Cardiovascular disease, more commonly referred to as heart disease, refers to several types of heart conditions. It includes diseased vessels, structural problems, and blood clots. Heart disease is officially recognized as the leading cause of death in the United States of America. Seeing how prevelant it is amonst Americans, I ind it important to find all of the studies on how it affects the male population.

Common Types
Here are a list of common types of heart disease.

Coronary Artery Disease (CAD)-damage or disease in the heart’s major blood vessels.

High Blood Pressure (hypertension)-a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high.

Cardiac Arrest-sudden, unexpected loss of heart function, breathing, and consciousness.

Congestive Heart Failure-a chronic condition in which the heart doesn’t pump blood as well as it should.

Arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat)– a problem with the rate or rhythm of your heartbeat

Peripheral Artery Disease (peripheral vascular disease)-a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the arms and legs.

Stroke (brain attack)-damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply.

Congenital Heart Disease (CHD)-an abnormality in the heart that develops before birth.

Prevalance By Age
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that heart disese is the leading cause of male death. However, it’s interesting to note that the study heavily varies by age. It’s way more common to affect of old men than young men.
(Note: these studies were traced in 2016)

>24.2% of male deaths (of all ages) came from heart disease.

Elders
>30.3% of deaths for males 85 years or older came from heart disease (the highest cause of death for that age demographic)

>24.8% of deaths for males 65-84 years old came from heart disease (the 2nd highest cause of death for that age demographic).

Youth
>9.4% of deaths for males 20-44 years old came from heart disease (the 4th highest cause of death for that age demographic).

>2.6% of deaths for males 1-19 years old came from heart disease (the 6th highest cause of death for that age demographic).

Prevalence By Race/Ethnicity
The CDC in another study has showed that is prevalent to all races of men.
(Note: These studies were traced in 2020)

>22.7% of White men’s deaths were caused by heart disease

>21% of Black men’s deaths were caused by heart disease

>20% of Asian men’s deaths were caused by heart disease

>15.8% of Hispanic men’s deaths were caused by heart disease

>15.5% of American Indian’s deaths were caused by heart disease

Causes & Treatment
Seeing how fatal and life changing the disease can be, the average man should be eager to find ways to protect themselves. Currently, there is no known cure for heart disease. There are only ways to reduce the impacts the condition has on your body. But there are ways to lower the risk for heart disease.
In yet another study, the CDC has listed several key things you can do to lower the risk of heart disease. Just to be clear, this list is more of a recommendation, not a requirement. You don’t have to follow all of these things to perfection. But developing a pattern of these reccomendations can help with your physical health and greatly reduce the risk of the cardiovascular disease.

>Choosing a more healthy diet is a major way to help prevent heart disease and its complications.
-plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables
-fewer processed foods
-foods that are high in fiber, while low in saturated fats, trans fat, and cholesterol
-limiting salt (sodium) in your diet
-limiting sugar

>Limiting the amount of tobacco and alcoholic beverages you consume also lowers the risk.
-men should drink no more than 2 alcoholic beverages per day, as alcohol can raise your blood pressure.
-It’s recommended to either quit smoking or never start smoking, as cigarette smoking greatly increases your risk for heart disease

>Apparently, obesity is also a large factor. Carrying extra weight can put extra stress on the heart and blood vessels.
-you can calculate your Body Mass Index to make sure that your weight is in healthy range
-its recommended that you spend at least 2 hours and 30 minutes a week doing moderate-intense excercise

Source (s)
National Vital Statistics Reports
CDC-Leading Causes Of Death
CDC-Race Factors
CDC-Prevention

Studies Show That Female Teachers Are Biased

>UK studies suggest that male teachers teach all their students the same regardless of gender.

>The same can’t be said for female teachers. Female teachers give biases in favor of female students.

>Female teachers mark male students more harshly than female students.

>This also has a psycholohical effect. Having a female teacher lowered the effort of male students.

>Studies show that female students are better behaved in class and less disruptive. The researchers have used this fact as reasoning for why the teachers are giving female students better grades.

>Implying that the behavior influences the way teachers grade them. Almost a reward for good behavior versus actual performance.

>Studies also show that boys tend to be more hostile towards school and as they get older, become more disengaged.

>At the end of the day, there needs to be consequences for marking a students grade lower due to their assigned sex. It’s discriminatory and it’s a form of malpractice in an education system that’s supposed to be treating their students fairly.

Source(s)
BBC
Huffington Post UK

False Accuser: Princess Williams

>Princess Williams shared a relationship with Kenrick Thomas for about 4 months.

>The 2 of them engaged in consensual sex. Afterwards, they ended up in an argument, which resulted in one of the parties ending the relationship.

>Following the break up, Williams sent a voice note to Thomas, falsely accusing him of rape.

>She then gave him an option to pay her $10 million or else she would make a report to the police.

>Thomas reported the incident to law enforcement.

>She was found guilty of extortion and was being escorted to the police station. Put on a $100,000

>While being escorted, Williams claimed that she was feeling unwell and was taken to the Georgetown Public Hospital the following day.

>After receiving medical treatment, she asked to use the washroom. While she was alone in the washroom, she made her desperate dash for escape. Unfortunately for her, it was short lives, as she was captured soon after.

>She was then charged for escaping lawful custody and remanded to prison.

>She was found guilty and sentenced to 3 years in prison for attempted extortion of her ex-boyfriend.

>41 year old Christina Williams, mother of Princess Williams (and a total of 6 children) is not truggling financially as a result of her daughter’s actions.

>Christina is battling an illness and relied on Princess to take care of her financially. With Princess behind bars, she’s struggling to make ends meet.

Source (s)
iNewsGuyana
News Room

Sherri Papini Faked A Kidnapping

>Sherri Papini was described as a woman with multiple affairs and boyfriends. Her exes describe her as an “attention hungry” woman who made things up for sympathy. But the stunt she pulled in 2016 is something that shocked the country.

>Papini’s husband, Keith, reported her missing on November 2nd at 5:50 pm after returning home from work. She was nowhere to be found and their children were still at daycare.

>Keith then used the “Find my iPhone” app to locate Sherri’s phone. Her phone was sitting on the side of the road near their home next to her earbuds, which were tangled in blonde hair. He was suspicious, as the phone seemed to be placed and positioned strangely.

>Police searched her phone and discovered 2 men’s phone numbers under women’s names.

>The 39 year old mother of 2, was found on Thanksgiving Day in 2016. She was tied up with a broken nose, a brand on her right shoulder, and a shaved head.

>Papini told authorities that 2 Hispanic women kidnapped her at gunpoint. She even went as far as to provide descriptions to an FBI sketch artist.

>Police collected DNA samples from her clothes. They ran them against the national criminal database but found no matches. However, in 2020, they found a match: her boyfriend’s father, who’s DNA was on record with the DOJ. They then traced the sample to the ex boyfriend and he admitted to the entire hoax.

>It turns out, in reality, she was with an unidentified ex boyfriend who she asked to pick her up. The two of them set the whole storyline up.

>The pair plotted their escape on pre-paid cell phones which they used to text each other. She then spent the next few weeks at his apartment. She hired a rental car to drive her back to her family’s neighborhood.

>Since then, she has claimed $30,000 in 35 payments from the Victim Compensation Board

>She was voluntarily staying with a former boyfriend in Costa Mesa. She even committed self harm in order to support her false story.

>Even after the FBI agents confronted her with evidence proving that it was a hoax, she doubled down on her lies.

>Since 2011, Papini and 1 of the men she had on her phone had been sending flirtatious messages with for years. The other man claims that Sherri is an “attention seeker” who will do everything to get it. Sherri’s own boss said that she was good at creating different realities for people.

>In fact, when she had previously run away as a teenager and her mom contacted authorities, alleging that her daughter was self harming and trying to blame it on her.

>She faces a mail related charge which carries up to 20 years. She also faces a charge for lying to a federal officer, which is a 5 year maximum sentence.

>This entire sharade from Sherri cost time and money from the government. It also caused a panic from her family and the general public. All for attention.

Source (s)
Dailymail

False Accuser: Marianne Naughton

>Marianne Naughton, 25, from Ramsey New Jersey had sex with a man after a drunken night out in Douglas in November 2019

>She later falsely accused that man of rape.

>Naughton said that she met the man at the Nags Head pub in Douglas on November 2nd, after her husband had gone home. She claimed she did not remember how she ended up at his flat.

>She claims that she meant to take a taxi home and was unsure if she consented to sex. Planting the seeds that she was raped.

>The police arrested the man and interviewed them on November 4. The man said that at no point did Marianne suggest that she was uncomfortable. There were nof urther actions taken against the man.

>A police investigation later found that she had give false details about the incident. CCTV footage highlighted inconsistencies in Naughton’s account. She then pleaded guilty to it.

>The man who was falsely accused was reportedly hit by a colleague and lost friends as a result of the false complaint.

>She was charged with committing an act against public justice. She was sentenced to 10 months in prison. She was suspended for 18 months. She was ordered to pay £2,000 in compensation to the victim, as well as prosecution costs.

Source (s)
BBC News

False Accuser: Rebecca Palmer Falsely Accused A Soldier of Rape

>Rebecca Palmer had sex with a soldier. She was hoping to develop a relationship with the soldier. The soldier rejected her.

>Angered by this, Rebecca Palmer went on a malicious campaign, falsely accusing him of sexual assault.

>She made multiple false accusations. She sent malicious communications to the victim and his family.

>She had invented fake profiles on Facebook to create false communication and use it as evidence. She falsely claimed that the soldier had taken revenge on her by posting intimate pictures of her on Facebook.

>Rebecca even falsely claimed that she was pregnant. But claimed she lost the baby due to a suicide attempt.

>Due to this long thought out campaign, the soldier was arrested multiple times and held in custody.

>Rebecca was convicted on 4 charges of perverting the court of justice. She was jailed for 5 years

Source (s)
BBC News
Metro

False Rape Accuser: Anisah Ahmed

Anisah Ahmed (above), 33, staged her own kidnapping and stabbing in a 'comprehensive and orchestrated' revenge campaign against fellow barrister Iqbal Mohammed

Introduction
>Anisah Ahmed, female lawyer, met Iqbal Mohammed on LinkedIn.

>Mohammed is a barrister who specializes in commerical law at St Phillips Chambers. He made an appearance on BBC legal documentary “The Barristers”, a documentary that follows bar students as they took their first step into the profession.

>Ahmed and Mohammed began their 6 month relationship in 2014. Unfortunately, that happy relationship hit a bump road when she found out that he was married.

>After Ahmed found out about his marriage, she attempted to frame him as a rapist and murderer. She did an entire elaborate campaign as revenge for him not telling her that he was married.

>She sent details of the affair to his wife and colleagues. She emailed his head of chambers demanding an investigation into his integrity.

>Afterwards, she created a fake email account in Mohammed’s name and sent herself threatening messages.

>Mohammed was placed under arrest as a result of Ahmed’s fake plot. He was questioned by law enforcement for hours until he was cleared and IT found out that Ahmed had created the fake account.

>Ahmed was arrested on suspicion of harassment. Despite the serious legal ramifcations of her actions, she only doubled down on her behavior. She accused him of repeatedly raping her.

>She later recruited her ex boyfriend Mustafa Hussain to send her threatening messages to her. So that she can stage those messages to be from Mohammed.

>Becoming even more desperate, she staged her own kidnapping and asked Hussain to stab her 3 times, so that she can further frame Mohammed. When the paramedics arrived, she told them that Mohammed had done the stabbing.

>Even while she was injured, he continued her relentless campaign against him. She asked more accomplices to send her threatening letters, to further frame Mohammed.

>During her trial, her defense team tried to claim that she was suffering from “emotionally unstable personality disorder”.

>She was found guilty of perverting the court of justice and conspiracy to pervert the court of justice. She was given 4 years in prison. And her ex boyfriend, Hussain, was given 2 years in prison.

Source (s)
Daily Mail
Legal Cheek

False Accuser: Sarah Davies

Background
>Sarah Davies was in an on-off relationship with Mark Kennedy.

>Apparently, Mark received an inheritance payout. Sarah wanted Mark to use his newfound money to pay for her to get lip botox.

Accusations & Torture

>Due to his refusal, she and Steve Wynnyk kidnapped and tortured him and falsely accused him of pedophilia. She accused him of molesting her 2 year old daughter in order to get compensation from him.

>Mark was hit on the head with an iron bar. She then threatend to cut his throat and bury his body, unless he confessed to abusing the girl.

>He was tortured with cigarettes and driven in his own car with a plastic bag. They tried to get a video confession from him.

>Mr Kennedy was told to handover £10,000. They even demanded money from his mother. Instead, he went to police.

Aftermath
>He was given medical treatment for the wounds on the back of his head and scalp.

>Mark Kennedy’s Statement:
-“During my ordeal was made to do things what were horrible and degrading when I hadn’t even done anything and they used what they were saying as an excuse to start hurting me.”
-“I was terrified and remembered shaking whenever they entered the room and I kept shouting at them to stop and let me go.”
-“I pretty much had to do everything they said simply to give me some hope of escape.”
-“When they put a towel over my head I didn’t know what they were going to do next. I thought they were going to kill me.”
-“When they poured boiling water over my head it was agony and I screamed. They threatened to kill and bury me on the moors whilst I was being driven around – all I could do was think of my family.”
-“After what happened I no longer feel safe and constantly looking over my shoulder – I don’t think I will ever fully recover from this experience. I wasn’t treated as humans should treat one another.”

>Davies admitted to kidnap and blackmail. She was jailed for 6 years and 4 months.

>Steven Wynnyk has denied wrongoing in the incident. However he was found guilty of kidnap, blackmail, and assault. He was jailed for 9 years.

>Judge Mark Savill declared that the sexual assault allegations against Mr. Kennedy were untrue.

Source (s)
Daily Mail

Legal Aid For Malta Fathers Increased

>Father’s Rights groups, first garnered mainstream attention in the United States. However, as time went on, they became more prominent in other countries. In this case, Malta has a father’s group called “Flimkien Missirijiet Inqumu”.

>Father’s groups seem to have 2 major goals and objectives. Get fathers more access to their children (by combating parental alienation and advocating for shared parenting laws) and get them more legal aid.

>One of those goals have been met very recently by the Malta government. The Malta government has increased the legal aid given to fathers or civil cases. Originally, the legal aid was for fathers who had an annual income of €7,000. Solid, but pretty small all things considered. It’s risen up to an annual income of €13,000.

>They are also accounting for a person’s financial situation and creating a digital platform to access said aid. The initiative is intended to provide legal assistance to people who can’t afford proper representation in court.

>The Malta father’s group (Flimkien Missirijiet Inqumu) welcomed the initiative. However, they would also like to build on that. They are shifting their attention and priorities to 50-50 shared parenting bills in separation cases.

Source (s)
Malta Today-Legal Aid
Malta Today-Father’s Group