Mr. Rebates

Saturday, August 7, 2010

US Radical feminist proposal for UN ‘super agency’ wins Obama administration backing

Only way to get rid of this kind of nonsense is to vote out the present administration. The present government is in the pockets of radicle feminazi gang!

Mar 4, 2010

New York City, N.Y., Mar 4, 2010 / 06:36 am (CNA).- The Obama administration has endorsed a proposal to create a new U.N. “super agency” to advance extremist feminist ideology, the Population Research Institute (PRI) says. The organization warns the agency could engage in “cultural imperialism” in service to radical causes.

The proposed agency is supported by a consortium of feminist organizations called the Gender Equality Architecture Reform Campaign (GEAR). The proposal came at the New York meeting of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women. The Obama administration and the European Union immediately seconded the proposal, which appears to have a good chance at passage.

The existing multiple low-level U.N. offices and commissions have long discontented feminists, according to PRI.

The new agency would create one agency from four existing entities: the Office of the Special Adviser on Gender Issues and Advancement of Women, the Division for the Advancement of Women, the United Nations Development Fund for Women and the United Nations International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women.

PRI explains that the Division for the Advancement of Women has a universal U.N. mandate that would then serve the new bureaucracy. The proposed organization would be headed by a U.N. Under-Secretary General, who would report directly to the U.N. Secretary General.

The draft proposal urges the establishment of the agency before the end of the current session of the General Assembly, advocating it be dedicated to “gender equality” and the “empowerment of women.”

PRI says such concepts have been used to justify the admonishing of Belarus for celebrating Mother’s Day and the chastising of Denmark for having too few female generals in the ranks of its military.

Radical feminists reportedly believe that such an agency would give them access to both the money and power their need to advance their agenda.

GEAR representative Charlotte Bunch said a billion dollars is needed for the agency to be effective on the ground level. She said this funding would be “catalytic” and necessary only to launch the organization.

PRI president Steven Mosher said the pro-life, pro-family movement should “absolutely oppose” the creation of the agency. He said its “radical feminist goals” would undermine marriage and weaken the family.

"What is being proposed is a very powerful agency with a global mandate to restructure relations between the sexes. If the past is any indicator, it will be used to impose the lifestyle of Manhattan and Hollywood feminists on family-centered countries and cultures. It is cultural imperialism at its worst," Mosher said.

Disgraced HP CEO to get nearly $28m in cash, stock

This is sending shocks throughout the industry, late breaking news.
The reason I am posting this article is quit simple, its a case of SEXUAL HARASSMENT, need I say more.
Women makes false allegations and Mark Hurd, President, CEO and chairman of Hewlett Packard gets the royal boot. Imagine a mere HP Hostess at a party can have this power, to crush such a powerful man.

Aug, 6, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO – Lauded for making Hewlett-Packard Co. the world's biggest technology company, CEO Mark Hurd was in negotiations for a new contract worth about $100 million, according to a person familiar with the negotiations.

Instead, he's getting about a third of that to just go away.

In a stunning announcement Friday, HP said it ousted Hurd after an investigation of a sexual harassment complaint found that he had falsified expense reports and other documents to conceal a relationship with a contractor. Hurd also allegedly helped the woman get paid for work she didn't do.

In recent weeks, Hurd was in negotiations for a new three-year contract worth about $100 million when a woman who worked for HP as a host at high-profile events accused him of sexual harassment, a person with intimate knowledge of the case told The Associated Press. The person requested anonymity because this person wasn't authorized to speak publicly about the details of the case.

News of Hurd's abrupt departure sent HP's stock tumbling nearly 10 percent. Shares of the world's biggest maker of personal computers and printers have doubled in value during his five-year stewardship, and HP became the world's No. 1 technology company by revenue in that time.

Hurd's "systematic pattern" of submitting falsified financial reports to hide the relationship convinced the board that "it would be impossible for him to be an effective leader moving forward and that he had to step down," HP general counsel Michael Holston said on a conference call Friday with analysts.

"The facts that drove the decision for the company had to with integrity, had to do with credibility, had to do with honesty," Holston said, declining to elaborate.

Holston said the inaccurate financial reports related only to Hurd's personal expenses.

Hurd, 53, acknowledged there were "instances in which I did not live up to the standards and principles of trust, respect and integrity that I have espoused at HP."

High-profile Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred said she is representing the woman and "there was no affair and no intimate sexual relationship" between her client and Hurd. Allred, reached by The Associated Press late Friday, declined to comment further.

The person close to the case told the AP that the woman worked as a host for more than a dozen events for CEOs that Hurd attended between 2007 and 2009. The person said the disputed expenses range from $1,000 to $20,000 each for travel, lodging and meals.

The person said many of the expenses were for meals after the events and that Hurd insists they were legitimate business expenses. The total amount of the expenses in dispute could not be learned.

Hurd has offered to repay expenses that were incorrectly filed, this person said.

The married father of two will get a $12.2 million severance payment and nearly 350,000 shares of HP stock worth about $16 million at Friday's closing price. The company also extended the deadline for exercising options to buy up to 775,000 HP shares.

The company's chief financial officer, Cathie Lesjak, 51, was named interim CEO. She has been with the company 24 years but has taken herself out of the running to fill the position permanently. HP has set up a search committee to look for a permanent replacement.

HP's shares, which closed Friday on the New York Stock Exchange at $46.30, tumbled 9.7 percent after hours to $41.85 as investors reacted to the news released after the close of markets.

Beloved by investors for his relentless cost-cutting — and scorned by thousands of laid-off employees for the same — Hurd was seen as rescuing the company from the mess left behind by his predecessor, Carly Fiorina.

Hurd has transformed the 71-year-old company from a computer and printer maker hooked on profits from printer cartridges into a company that looks a lot like its archrival IBM Corp., a major player in technology services and other fast-growing areas.

Though their underlying stories are very different, Hurd's departure is like Fiorina's in one key way: Both were forced out with the company about to reap the benefits of sweeping changes they made at the Silicon Valley institution.

Fiorina left in 2005 in the wake of her decision to acquire Compaq Computer and an ensuing upheaval over her personality and her business strategies, but the divisive deal proved instrumental in HP's ascendance under Hurd.

By comparison, Hurd is departing after cutting tens of thousands of jobs and launching an expensive expansion, including the $13.9 billion acquisition of technology-services provider Electronic Data Systems, the $2.7 billion takeover of computer-networking equipment maker 3Com Corp. and the $1.4 billion deal for mobile phone maker Palm Inc.

To reassure investors, HP, based in Palo Alto, previewed its third-quarter results late Friday in advance of a detailed report Aug. 19.

The company said it expects to report earnings of 75 cents per share, compared with 67 cents a year earlier. Excluding one-time items, the company says results will be $1.08 per share, a penny ahead of analysts' current expectations. Revenue is expected to rise 11 percent from last year to $30.7 billion, slightly higher than analysts' expectations.

The company's forecast for the current quarter, which ends in October, is roughly in line with analysts' expectations.

No conviction for mere demand of dowry: Supreme Court (Judgement)

View the entire Judgement below.

Aug 5, 2010

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.

A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.

"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or Rs 25,000 for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.

"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.

The bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in March, 8, 1993. It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.

The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death (304B) and 498A (harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).

The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.

While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.


Click here for Judgement in pdf format


CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 854 of 2004

Amar Singh ...... Appellant


State of Rajasthan ...... Respondent


CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1411 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4389 of 2004)

State of Rajasthan ...... Appellant


Jagdish & Anr. ...... Respondents



CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 854 of 2004

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 07.10.2003

of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B.

Criminal Appeal No.816 of 1998.


2. The facts very briefly are that on 05.05.1992 Santosh

(the deceased) was married to the appellant and on

08.03.1993 she was found dead in her in-laws house. On the

same day, a written report was lodged with the police at the

Shivaji Park Police Station at Alwar, by the uncle of the

appellant, Ganga Sahai Saini, saying that while the deceased

was boiling the water she got engulfed in flames and died. On

the same day, another written report was lodged with the

police by the father of the deceased, Babu Lal, that the

deceased used to be harassed and humiliated in connection

with demand of dowry and on receiving the information that

she has died in an electric current accident, he rushed to the

spot and found the body of Santosh in charred condition. On

the basis of such information given by Babu Lal, the police

registered FIR No.53 of 1993 for the offences under Sections

498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC'). The

investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed by the

police in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

No.2, Alwar, against the appellant, Jagdish (younger brother of

the appellant), Smt. Gordhani (mother of the appellant), Khem

Chand (sister's husband of the appellant), Gyatri Devi (wife of

Khem Chand) and Girdhari Lal (father of Khem Chand). The

case was committed to the Sessions Court and tried by the

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Alwar, as Sessions Case

No.32 of 1998. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges

under Section 147, 304B and 498A IPC against all the

accused persons. At the trial, the prosecution examined 16

witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. After statement of the

accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

(for short `Cr.P.C.'), no defence witness was examined. The

Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, Jagdish

and Gordhani under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and

imposed the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment

and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer further three

months' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section

498A IPC and imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life

and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default further six months' simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 304B IPC. On

appeal, the High Court acquitted Jagdish and Gordhani but

confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A


and 304B IPC.

3. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel for the

appellant, submitted that the appellant has already served out

the sentence under Section 498A IPC and, therefore, his

challenge in this appeal is confined to the conviction and

sentence under Section 304B IPC. He submitted that the

main ingredient of the offence under Section 304B IPC is that

the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or

harassment in connection with any "demand for dowry" and in

this case the prosecution has not established that the

deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the

appellant in connection with any demand for dowry. In

support of his submission, he relied on the decisions of this

Court in Biswajit Halder alias Babu Halder and Others v.

State of West Bengal [(2008)1 SCC 202] and Durga Prasad and

Another v. The State of M.P. [2010(6) SCALE 18]. He referred

to the evidence of PW-2 (father of the deceased), PW-4 (mother

of the deceased) and PW-5 (brother of the deceased) to show

that there was no demand for dowry made by the appellant

and that the appellant only wanted Rs.10,000/- to start a


shop and this request for a sum of Rs.10,000/- cannot be held

to be a demand for dowry.

4. He further submitted that there were, in fact, material

contradictions in the testimony of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 with

regard to the demand for dowry and, therefore, their evidence

cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction of the

appellant. He submitted that in any case the evidence of PW-

2, PW-4 and PW-5 on whatever was stated to them by the

deceased regarding demand for dowry and harassment or

cruelty were at best hearsay evidence and not admissible

either under Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or

under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In support

of his submission, he cited Rattan Singh v. State of H.P. [(1997)

4 SCC 161].

5. He finally submitted that the court while recording the

statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not

put any question to enable the appellant to explain any

circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. He

relied on Latu Mahto and Another v. State of Bihar (Now

Jharkhand) [(2008) 8 SCC 395] to contend that circumstances


about which the accused was not asked to explain cannot be

used against him. According to learned counsel Mr. Sharma,

this is not a case where the prosecution has been able to

establish the offence under Section 304B IPC against the

appellant and hence the judgment of the High Court should be

set aside.

6. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned counsel appearing for the

State of Rajasthan, in reply submitted that the facts of this

case would show that the deceased did not die under normal

circumstances. He referred to the post-mortem report (Ex.P-

21) which indicated that the deceased suffered 100% burns.

He submitted that Dr. Mahendra Kr. Gupta (PW-9), who

performed the autopsy, has opined that the burns on the

deceased were after strangulation and throttling inasmuch as

there were fractures of larynx and trachea and the larynx was

found congested. He submitted that the deceased got married

on 05.05.1992 and died on 08.03.1993 within ten months of

the marriage and there was sufficient evidence to show that

she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant

and other members of his family.


7. He submitted that the evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5

establishes that there was demand for dowry of a Scooter or

Rs.25,000-/. He referred to the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 to

show that the appellant used to taunt the deceased saying

that she has come from a hungry house and that the appellant

had himself visited the house of PW-4 and demanded a sum of

Rs.10,000/-. He vehemently submitted that this is a clear

case of continuous harassment of the deceased in connection

with demand of dowry not only by the appellant but also by

his other family members. He cited Pawan Kumar and Others

v. State of Haryana [(1998) 3 SCC 309] to contend that such

taunting and teasing of a bride for not bringing dowry amount

to harassment or cruelty within the meaning of Section 304B


8. In reply to the submission of Mr. Sharma that statements

made by the deceased before PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 regarding

harassment and demand of dowry were not admissible either

under Section 60 or under Section 32 of the Evidence Act, he

submitted that this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] has held that Section


32 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the rule of

hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who

dies, provided the statement related to the cause of death or

exhibits circumstances leading to the death. He submitted

that in the present case the statements made by the deceased

to PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 related to the cause of her death,

namely, demand for dowry and therefore would be admissible

under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, even if the

deceased while making the statement was not expecting the

death. He submitted that in the present case the prosecution

has firmly established that soon before her death the deceased

has been subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant

in connection with demand for dowry and therefore the Court

has to presume under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act

that the appellant has caused the dowry death and this

presumption has not been rebutted by the appellant by

leading any evidence.

9. Dr. Singhvi finally submitted that since there were

concurrent findings of fact rendered by the trial court and the

High Court that the deceased died due to asphyxia and was

burnt after strangulation so as to make out a case of accident

and the burns on the body of the deceased were found to be

100%, this was a case of ghastly murder and therefore not a fit

case in which this Court should either set aside the conviction

of the appellant or reduce the sentence imposed on him by the

High Court.

10. We find that the evidence of PW-4 (mother of the

deceased) is that after marriage, the deceased came several

times and she also came about one month prior to her death

and she used to complain about the demand of a Scooter and

harassment by her mother-in-law Gordhani and that she had

also told that the appellant used to taunt her that she has

come from a hungry house and brought nothing and the last

time when she came she stayed for two days and returned and

one month thereafter she was murdered. Similar is the

evidence of PW-5 (brother of the deceased) that whenever the

deceased used to come home she used to complain that her

in-laws have been teasing her and she had also stated that

they demanded Scooter or Rs.25,000/- for a shop and that

one month prior to her death she came home and complained


that her mother-in-law and all other in-laws used to torture

her and taunt her that she did not bring anything and that the

appellant also used to tease her. It is thus clear from the

evidence of PW-4, as corroborated by the evidence of PW-5,

that the deceased has made statements before them that her

in-laws as well as the appellant have been demanding a

Scooter or Rs.25,000/- for a shop and have been taunting and

teasing her for not meeting the demand of dowry within a

couple of months before her death. Such evidence of PW-4

and PW-5 with regard to the statements made by the deceased

is no doubt hearsay but is admissible under clause (1) of

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act.

11. Clause (1) of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act

provides that statements made by a person as to the cause of

his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction

which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of

that person's death comes into question, are themselves

relevant facts. In the present case, the cause of death of the

deceased was a question to be decided and the statements

made by the deceased before PW-4 and PW-5 that the


appellant used to taunt the deceased in connection with

demand of a Scooter or Rs.25,000/- within a couple of months

before the death of the deceased are statements as to "the

circumstances of the transaction which resulted in her death"

within the meaning of Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence


12. In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor [AIR 1939 PC 47]

Lord Atkin held that circumstances of the transaction which

resulted in the death of the declarant will be admissible if

such circumstances have some proximate relation to the

actual occurrence. The test laid down by Lord Atkin has been

quoted in the judgment of Fazal Ali, J. in Sharad Birdhichand

Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (supra) and His Lordship has

held that Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception

to the rule of hearsay evidence and in view of the peculiar

conditions in the Indian Society has widen the sphere to avoid

injustice. His Lordship has held that where the main evidence

consists of statements and letters written by the deceased

which are directly connected with or related to her death and

which reveal a tell-tale story, the said statements would clearly


fall within the four corners of Section 32 and, therefore,

admissible and the distance of time alone in such cases would

not make the statements irrelevant. The difference in the

English Law and the Indian Law has been reiterated in Rattan

Singh v. State of H. P. (supra) and it has been held therein that

even if the deceased was nowhere near expectation of death,

still her statement would become admissible under Section 32

(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, though not as a dying

declaration as such, provided it satisfies one of the two

conditions set forth in this sub-section. The argument of Mr.

Sharma, therefore, that the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5

regarding the statements made by the deceased before them

are hearsay and are not admissible is misconceived.

13. The prosecution, therefore, has been able to show that

soon before her death the deceased has been subjected by the

appellant to taunt in connection with demand for dowry. This

Court has held in Pawan Kumar and Others v. State of

Haryana (supra) that a girl dreams of great days ahead with

hope and aspiration when entering into a marriage, and if

from the very next day the husband starts taunting her for not


bringing dowry and calling her ugly, there cannot be greater

mental torture, harassment or cruelty for any bride and such

acts of taunting by the husband would constitute cruelty both

within the meaning of Section 498A and Section 304B IPC.

14. Once it is established by the prosecution that soon before

her death the deceased was subjected by the appellant to

harassment or cruelty in connection with demand for dowry,

the Court has to presume that the appellant has committed

the offence under Section 304B IPC. This will be clear from

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act which states that

when the question is whether a person has committed the

dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her

death such woman has been subjected by such person to

cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand

for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had

caused the dowry death. The prosecution in this case had led

sufficient evidence before the Court to raise a presumption

that the appellant had caused the dowry death of the deceased

and it was, therefore, for the appellant to rebut this



15. Mr. Sharma has, however, argued that the appellant was

not given such opportunities to personally explain any

circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. But we

find from the statement of the appellant recorded under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the evidence of PW-4 that the

deceased came to her house many times after marriage and

lastly came to her house prior to her death saying that

Girdhari and Khem Chand demanded a Scooter and that the

appellant said that she came from a poor family, was brought

to the notice of the appellant but the appellant simply denied

the same. The appellant has also chosen not to examine any

defence witness to rebut the presumption of dowry death

against him under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

The trial court and the High Court were thus right in holding

that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section

304B IPC.

16. For the offence under Section 304B IPC, the trial court

has imposed the maximum punishment of life imprisonment

saying that the appellant has sacrificed the newly-wed bride

with cruelty and harshness to satisfy his lust of dowry illegally

and hence he does not deserve any mercy and considering the

nature of the offence committed by him and his conduct, he

deserves the maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The

High Court has only sustained the conviction and punishment

of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section

304B IPC. Dr. Singhvi, however, suggested that this was a

case of strangulation of a bride before she was burnt and for

this reason, the High Court sustained the maximum

punishment of life imprisonment.

17. The fact remains that the appellant was not charged for

the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC presumably

because during investigation no materials were available to

establish the offence under Section 302 IPC against the

appellant. In Smt. Shanti and Another v. State of Haryana

[(1991) 1 SCC 371] cited by Mr. Sharma, this Court has held

that where there is no evidence as to the actual part played by

the accused, a minimum sentence of seven years would serve

the ends of justice. In the present case, since there is no

evidence as to the actual role played by the appellant in the


death of the deceased, a punishment of ten years'

imprisonment would suffice in the ends of justice.

18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the

sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant under

Section 304B IPC is reduced to ten years and the impugned

judgment of the High Court is modified accordingly. In case

the appellant has undergone the period of ten years

imprisonment, he shall be released forthwith unless he is

wanted in any other case.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1411 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4389 of 2004)

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against

the judgment dated 07.10.2003 of the High Court of

Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.816 of

1998 acquitting Jagdish and Gordhani of the charges under

Sections 498A and 304B IPC.

3. The only contention raised by Dr. Manish Singhvi,

learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, is that although


the evidence on record against Amar Singh, Jagdish and

Gordhani was the same, the High Court took the view that

Jagdish and Gordhani have been implicated because they

were members of Amar Singh's family and that the charges

against them are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He

vehemently submitted that no reasons whatsoever have been

indicated by the High Court in the impugned judgment to

show how the cases of Jagdish and Gordhani were different

from that of Amar Singh. According to him, the High Court

should have sustained the order of the trial court convicting

Jagdish and Gordhani.

4. We are unable to accept this submission of Dr. Singhvi.

The evidence of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and

Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry of a Scooter or

Rs.25,000/- for Amar Singh, but demand of dowry by itself is

not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC.

What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC is

the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative

of the husband on the woman. It will be also clear from

Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that only when it is


shown that soon before her death a woman has been

subjected by any person to cruelty or harassment for, or in

connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall

presume that such person had caused the dowry death within

the meaning of Section 304B IPC. The act of subjecting a

woman to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with,

any demand for dowry by the accused, therefore, must be

established by the prosecution for the Court to presume that

the accused has caused the dowry death.

5. PW-2 (father of the deceased) has not stated in his

evidence before the Court that Jagdish and Gordhani, in any

way, subjected the deceased to any harassment or cruelty.

PW-4 (mother of the deceased), however, has stated that the

deceased used to complain about the demand of a Scooter by

Girdhari and harassment by her mother-in-law Gordhani, but

PW-4 has not stated what was the exact act of Gordhani by

which the deceased felt harassed. The evidence of PW-5

(brother of the deceased) is that whenever the deceased used

to come home she used to complain that her in-laws have

been teasing her and they were demanding a Scooter or

Rs.25,000/- for a shop and that when the deceased came

home one month prior to her death, she complained that her

mother-in-law and all other in-laws used to torture her and

taunt her that she did not bring anything, but PW-5 has not

described the exact conduct of the mother-in-law and other in-

laws on account of which the deceased felt tortured and

taunted. On the other hand, the evidence of PW-4 is clear that

Amar Singh used to taunt her that she has come from a

hungry house. Thus, there was evidence in the case of Amar

Singh about his exact conduct which caused harassment to

the deceased but there was no such evidence in the case of

Jagdish and Gordhani. A prosecution witness who merely

uses the word "harassed" or "tortured" and does not describe

the exact conduct of the accused which, according to him,

amounted to harassment or torture may not be believed by the

Court in cases under Section 498A and 304B IPC. For this

reason, the High Court has taken a view that the charges

against Jagdish and Gordhani have not been established

beyond reasonable doubt and that their case is

distinguishable from that of Amar Singh and that Jagdish and

Gordhani appear to have been implicated because they were

members of Amar Singh's family.

6. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Others [(2000) 5 SCC

207], this Court cautioned that in cases where accusations of

dowry deaths are made, the overt acts attributed to persons

other than the husband are required to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt and by mere conjectures and implications

such relations cannot be held guilty for the offence relating to

dowry deaths. In the aforesaid case, this Court further

observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all

relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of

dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the

case of the prosecution even against the real culprits.

7. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the

contention of Dr. Singhvi that the High Court should have

sustained the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhani and we

accordingly dismiss this appeal.


(R. M. Lodha)


(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

August 03, 2010.

Parental Alienation Syndrom - Alec Baldwin on CNN

Watch this video, Alec Baldwin is one of Hollywoods biggest Actors, watch is interview about Parental Alienation.
Part 1

Part 2

The Gregory Mantell Show -- Parental Alienation Syndrome

Excellent Video about how severely children are abused by PAS. I have seen childrens lives destroyed by the ignorance that still exists about PAS in our society. We need to applaud those with the courage to confront this form of child abuse in our courts and society. Please send this video to judges, attorneys, law eforcement, child psychologists and anyone working to assess the best interests in the future of a child.

Please share this knowledge to help the suffering.

Part 1

Because of the tremendous response to our first show on Parental Alienation, we take another look a year and a half later. Has there been a change in awareness by the courts or public? Plus, Ross Peterson and Lanie Adamson experienced the harm PA can cause firsthand.

Part 2

Parental Alienation Syndrome:

How to Detect It and What to Do About It

Although parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a familiar term, there is still a great deal of confusion and unclarity about its nature, dimensions, and, therefore, its detection.(1) Its presence, however, is unmistakable. In a longitudinal study of 700 "high conflict" divorce cases followed over 12 years, it was concluded that elements of PAS are present in the vast majority of the samples.(2) Diagnosis of PAS is reserved for mental health professionals who come to the court in the form of expert witnesses. Diagnostic hallmarks usually are couched in clinical terms that remain vague and open to interpretation and, therefore. susceptible to argument pro and con by opposing experts. The phenomenon of one parent turning the child against the other parent is not a complicated concept, but historically it has been difficult to identify clearly. Consequently, cases involving PAS are heavily litigated, filled with accusations and counter accusations, and thus leave the court with an endless search for details that eventually evaporate into nothing other than rank hearsay. It is our experience that the PAS phenomenon leaves a trail that can be identified more effectively by removing the accusation hysteria, and looking ahead in another positive direction.

For the purpose of this article the authors are assuming a fair degree of familiarity with parental alienation syndrome on the part of the reader.(3) There are many good writings on PAS which the reader may wish to consult now or in the future for general information. Our focus here is much more narrow. Specifically, the goal is twofold. First we will describe four very specific criteria that can be used to identify potential PAS. In most instances, these criteria can be identified through the facts of the case, but also can be revealed by deposition or court testimony. Secondly, we wish to introduce the concept of "attempted" PAS; that is when the criteria of PAS are present, but the child is not successfully alienated from the absent parent. This phenomenon is still quite harmful and the fact of children not being alienated should not be viewed as neutral by the court.


Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood.


The criteria described below are fairly easy to identify separate and apart from the court file. When there is uncertainty about any of them, these criteria can be used to guide the attorney in the deposing of witnesses as well as in their examination in court.

Criteria I: Access and Contact Blocking

Criteria I involves the active blocking of access or contact between the child and the absent parent. The rationale used to justify it may well take many different forms. One of the most common is that of protection. It may be argued that the absent parent's parental judgment is inferior and, therefore, the child is much worse off from the visit. In extreme cases, this will take the form of allegations of child abuse, quite often sexual abuse. This will be addressed in more detail in Criteria II, but suffice it to say that often this is heard as a reason for visitation to be suspended or even terminated. On a more subtle and common level, an argument heard for the blocking of visitation is that seeing the absent parent is "unsettling" to the child, and that they need time "to adjust." The message here is that the absent parent is treated less like a key family member and more like an annoying acquaintance that the child must see at times. Over time, this pattern can have a seriously erosive effect on the child's relationship with the absent parent. An even more subtle expression of this is that the visitation is "inconvenient," thereby relegating it to the status of an errand or chore. Again the result is the erosion of the relationship between the child and the absent or "target" parent. One phenomenon often seen in this context is that any deviation from the schedule is used as a reason to cancel visitation entirely.

The common thread to all of these tactics is that one parent is superior and the other is not and, therefore, should be peripheral to the child's life. The alienating parent in these circumstances is acting inappropriately as a gatekeeper for the child to see the absent parent. When this occurs for periods of substantial time, the child is given the unspoken but clear message that one parent is senior to the other. Younger children are more vulnerable to this message and tend to take it uncritically; however, one can always detect elements of it echoed even into the teenage years. The important concept here is that each parent is given the responsibility to promote a positive relationship with the other parent. When this principle is violated in the context of blocking access on a consistent basis, one can assume that Criteria I has been, unmistakably identified.

Criteria II: Unfounded Abuse Allegations

The second criteria is related to false or unfounded accusations of abuse against the absent parent. The most strident expression of this is the false accusation of sexual abuse.(4) It has been well studied that the incident of false allegations of sexual abuse account for over half of those reported, when the parents are divorcing or are in conflict over some post dissolution issue.(5) This is especially the situation with small children who are more vulnerable to the manipulations implied by such false allegations. When the record shows that even one report of such abuse is ruled as unfounded, the interviewer is well advised to look for other expressions of false accusations.

Other examples of this might be found in allegations of physical abuse that investigators later rule as being unfounded. Interestingly our experience has been that there are fewer false allegations of physical abuse than of other forms of abuse, presumably because physical abuse leaves visible evidence. It is, of course, much easier to falsely accuse someone of something that leaves no physical sign and has no third party witnesses.

A much more common expression of this pattern would be that of what would be termed emotional abuse. When false allegations of emotional abuse are leveled, one often finds that what is present is actually differing parental judgment that is being framed as "abusive" by the absent parent. For example, one parent may let a child stay up later at night than the other parent would, and this scheduling might be termed as being "abusive" or "detrimental" to the child. Or one parent might introduce a new "significant other" to the child before the other parent believes that they should and this might also be called "abusive" to the child. Alternatively one parent might enroll a child in an activity with which the other parent disagrees and this activity is, in actuality, a difference of parental opinion that is now described as being abusive in nature. These examples, as trivial as they seem individually, may be suggestive of a theme of treating parental difference in inappropriately subjective judgmental terms. If this theme is present, all manner of things can be described in ways that convey the message of abuse, either directly or indirectly. When this phenomenon occurs in literally thousands of different ways and times, each of which seems insignificant on its own, the emotional atmosphere that it creates carries a clearly alienating effect on the child.

Obviously, this type of acrimony is very common in dissolution actions but such conflict should not necessarily be mistaken or be taken as illustrative of the PAS syndrome; however, the criteria is clearly present and identifiable when the parent is eager to hurl abuse allegations, rather than being cautious, careful. and even reluctant to do so. This latter stance is more in keeping with the parent's responsibility to encourage and affirmatively support a relationship with the other parent. The responsible parent will only allege abuse after he or she has tried and failed to rationalize why the issue at hand is not abusive. Simply put, the responsible parent will give the other parent the benefit of the doubt when such allegations arise. He or she will, if anything, err on the side of denial, whereas the alienating parent will not miss an opportunity to accuse the other parent. When this theme is present in a clear and consistent way, this criteria for PAS is met.

Criteria III: Deterioration in Relationship Since Separation

The third of the criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is probably the least described or identified, but critically is one of the most important. It has to do with the existence of a positive relationship between the minor children and the now absent or nonresidential parent, prior to the marital separation; and a substantial deterioration, of it since then. Such a recognized decline does not occur on its own. It is, therefore, one of the most important indicators of the presence of alienation as well. as a full measure of its relative "success." By way of example, if a father had a good and involved relationship with the children prior to the separation, and a very distant one since, then one can only assume without explicit proof to the contrary that something caused it to change. If this father is clearly trying to maintain a positive relationship with the children through observance of visitation and other activities and the children do not want to see him or have him involved in their lives, then one can only speculate that an alienation process may have been in operation. Children do not naturally lose interest in and become distant from their nonresidential parent simply by virtue of the absence of that parent. Also, healthy and established parental relationships do not erode naturally of their own accord. They must be attacked. Therefore, any dramatic change in this area is virtually always an indicator of an alienation process that has had some success in the past.

Most notably, if a careful evaluation of the pre-separation parental relationship is not made, its omission creates an impression that the troubled or even alienated status that exists since is more or lees an accurate summary of what existed previously. Note that nothing could be further from the truth! An alienated or even partially or intermittently alienated relationship with the nonresidential parent and the children after the separation is more accurately a distortion of the real parental relationship in question. Its follow-through is often overlooked in the hysterical atmosphere that is often present in these cases. A careful practitioner well knows that a close examination is warranted and that it must be conducted with the utmost detail and scrutiny.

If this piece of the puzzle is left out, the consequences can be quite devastating for the survival of this relationship. Also, without this component, the court can be easily swayed into premature closure or fooled into thinking that the turmoil of the separation environment is representative of the true parent-child relationship. Once this ruling is made by the court, it is an exacting challenge to correct its perception.

In a separate but related issue, a word should be said about the use of experts. First, it must be understood that all mental health professionals are not aware of nor know how to treat the PAS phenomenon. In fact, when a mental health professional unfamiliar with PAS is called upon to make a recommendation about custody, access, or related issues, he or she potentially can do more harm than good. For example, if the psychologist fails to investigate the pre-separation relationship of the nonresidential parent and the children, he or she may very easily mistake the current acrimony in that relationship to be representative of it, and recommend that the children should have less visitation with that parent, obviously supporting the undiagnosed PAS that is still in progress. If that expert also fails to evaluate critically the abuse claims or the agenda of the claimant, they may be taken at face value and again potentially support the undiagnosed PAS. If that professional is not also sensitive to the subtleties of access and contact blocking as its motivator, he or she may potentially support it, thereby contributing to the PAS process. When these things occur, the mental health professional expert has actually become part of the PAS, albeit unwittingly. Alarmingly, this happens often. Suffice it to say, if PAS is suspected, the attorney should closely and carefully evaluate the mental health professional's investigation and conclusion. Failure to do so can cause irreparable harm to the case, and, ultimately to the children.

Criteria IV: Intense Fear Reaction by Children

The fourth criteria necessary for the detection of PAS is admittedly more psychological than the first three. It refers to an obvious fear reaction on the part of the children, of displeasing or disagreeing with the potentially alienating parent in regard to the absent or potential target parent. Simply put, an alienating parent operates by the adage, "My way or the highway." If the children disobey this directive, especially in expressing positive approval of the absent parent, the consequences can be very serious. It is not uncommon for an alienating parent to reject the child(ren), often telling him or her that they should go live with the target parent. When this does occur one often sees that this threat is not carried out, yet it operates more as a message of constant warning. The child, in effect, is put into a position of being the alienating parent's "agent'' and is continually being put through various loyalty tests. The important issue here is that the alienating patent thus forces the child to choose parents. This, of course, is in direct opposition to a child's emotional well being.

In order to fully appreciate this scenario, one must realize that the PAS process operates in a "fear based" environment. It is the installation of fear by the alienating parent to the minor children that is the fuel by which this pattern is driven; this fear taps into what psychoanalysis tell us is the most basic emotion inherent in human nature--the fear of abandonment. Children under these conditions live in a state of chronic upset and threat of reprisal. When the child does dare to defy the alienating parent, they quickly learn that there is a serious price to pay. Consequently, children who live such lives develop an acute sense of vigilance over displeasing the alienating parent. The sensitized observer can see this in visitation plans that suddenly change for no apparent reason. For example, when the appointed time approaches, the child suddenly changes his or her tune and begins to loudly protest a visit that was not previously complained about. It is in these instances that a court, once suspecting PAS must enforce in strict terms the visitation schedule which otherwise would not have occurred or would have been ignored.

The alienating parent can most often be found posturing bewilderment regarding the sudden change in their child's feelings about the visit. In fact, the alienating parent often will appear to be the one supporting visitation. This scenario is a very common one in PAS families. It is standard because it encapsulates and exposes, if only for an instant, the fear-based core of the alienation process. Another way to express this concept would be that whenever the child is given any significant choice in the visitation, he or she is put in the position to act out a loyalty to the alienating parent's wishes by refusing to have the visitation at all with the absent parent. Failure to do so opens the door for that child's being abandoned by the parent with whom the child lives the vast majority of the time. Children, under these circumstances, will simply not opt on their own far a free choice. The court must thus act expeditiously to protect them and employ a host of specific and available remedies.(6)

As a consequence of the foregoing, these children learn to manipulate. Children often play one parent against the other in an effort to gain some advantage. In the case of PAS, the same dynamic operates at more desperate level. No longer manipulating to gain advantage, these children learn to manipulate just to survive. They become expert beyond their years at reading the emotional environment, telling partial truths, and then telling out-and-out lies. One must, however, remember that these are survival strategies that they were forced to learn in order to keep peace at home and avoid emotional attack by the residential parent. Given this understanding, it is perhaps easier to see why children, in an effort to cope with this situation, often find it easier if they begin to internalize the alienating parent's perceptions of the absent parent and begin to echo these feelings. This is one of the most compelling and dramatic effects of PAS, that is, hearing a child vilifying the absent parent and joining the alienating parent in such attacks. If one is not sensitive to the "fear-based" core at the heart of this, it is difficult not to take the child's protests at face value. This, of course, is compounded when the expert is also not sensitive to this powerful fear component, and believes that the child is voicing his or her own inner feelings in endorsing the "no visitation" plan.


All the criteria listed above can be found independent of each other in highly contested dissolutions, but remember that the appearance of some of them does not always constitute PAS. When all four are clearly present, however, add the possibility of real abuse has been reasonably ruled out, the parental alienation process is operative. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it is succeeding in that the children are being successfully alienated from the target parent. The best predictor of successful alienation is directly related to the success of the alienating parent at keeping the children from the target parent. When there are substantial periods in which they do not see the other parent, the children are more likely to be poisoned by the process. Another variable that predicts success is the child's age. Younger children generally are more vulnerable than older ones. Also, another variable is the depth and degree of involvement of the pre-separation parent-child relationship. The longer and more involved that relationship, the less vulnerable will be the children to successful alienation. The final predictor is the parental tenacity of the target parent. A targeted parent often gives up and walks away, thus greatly increasing the chances of successful alienation.

The question remains: What if all four criteria are present, but the children are not successfully alienated? Should this failure at alienation be seen as nullifying the attempt at alienation? The answer to that should be a resounding "No!" It should be, but often it is not. It is very common to read a psychological evaluation or a GAL's report that identified PAS but then notes that since it was not successful, it should not be taken very seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any attempt at alienating the children from the other parent should be seen as a direct and willful violation of one of the prime duties of parenthood, which is to promote and encourage a positive and loving relationship with the other parent, and the concept of shared parental responsibility.

It is our feeling that when attempted PAS has been identified, successful or not, it must be dealt with swiftly by the court. If it is not, it will contaminate and quietly control all other parenting issues and then lead only to unhappiness, frustration, and, lastly, parental estrangement.

Knowledge Is Power

Daily Motivation

The more knowledgeable you are about how to achieve your goals, the more motivated you will be, due to the fact that you will have the confidence that you can get there.

Perhaps you are struggling with finding the motivation to begin to change. Instead, you could commit to simply seeking out knowledge daily. Learn how your body works, learn about the different ingredients that are in the food you eat, learn about different exercises that you could do, and how they benefit your body. You could start an experiment on yourself and keep notes, learning from experience which foods feel good and give you energy, and which ones bring you down.

Begin by collecting that knowledge. It does not matter how many times you may have tried to change, it is never too late. By gaining more knowledge, you may find yourself gaining motivation without even trying (this was my experience upon reading “You On A Diet”). If you were certain that the steps you could take to create better health and quality of life would get you there, how motivated would you be to take action and follow those steps?

All Knowledge Is Power

The most successful people in life

are the ones with the best information.

People with power are people who know how to get things done.

Knowing how to do something is sometimes

virtually the same as having done it.

Knowledge will come to you

when your eyes and mind are always open.

There is no knowledge that is not power.

Power is the product of understanding.

You’ll build the power to accomplish your goals by educating yourself.

This power comes from knowing how to do something.

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

"Knowledge is Power, but actions get things done."

Friday, August 6, 2010

IPC 498a Video's

Chief-Justice of Hindusthan Confirms that 498a and DV Act are Anti-Male

IPC 498a and other dowry law misuse by women against women

This video is in Telugu for our Telugu viewers, but there is a small part in English at the 8:35 mark by Professor SHAH of Jammu University, very interesting interview.

HC makes it tough to go back on mediation

Aug, 5, 2010

Touted as an effective tool to cut down the pendency of cases across courts, the mediation mechanism has recently hit a stumbling block as instead of ending multifarious litigation, it has often resulted in a fresh bout of cases. The Delhi High Court has recently witnessed several cases where the litigants, especially those entangled in marital disputes, have wished to reject the compromise deed executed after the mediation.

Of late many parties have been approaching the High Court asking to get their compromise deeds quashed, claiming they were made “under duress/coercion”. But, more worryingly, the retraction often comes after one of the parties has already availed the benefits of the compromise deed.

Noting a spurt in such cases, Justice S N Dhingra said a litigant complaining of coercion must be put to stringent test before the compromise is set aside. The judge further noted receipt of the benefits is a factor that should be kept in mind before quashing a deed. “One can understand the retraction of compromise, if no benefit is received. However, the compromises are retracted even after benefits are received by one party,” noted the court in its recent order.

Justice Dhingra noted that approaching the court after drawing the benefits of an agreement meant pushing the other party, who chose to comply with the terms, to a state of utmost disadvantage and hence, equity must prevail in such cases so that no injustice is done. “The party has to prove before the court by cogent evidence that the compromise was not entered into with free will and consent and the same was entered into under duress and should be ignored,” ruled Justice Dhingra while dismissing two similar petitions.

Backing the court’s views, jurists said the sanctity of a compromise deed must be maintained and not challenged by a lame allegation without substance. Retired Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi told Newsline, “The entire purpose of alternate dispute redressal system is defeated if courts entertain such pleas without concrete arguments. These deeds are the rule of the courts and must be respected.”

Balkrishna Sharma, a trial court lawyer who has attended several mediation proceedings, said any litigant should not be allowed to retract from the mediation without strong reasons. “A deed is executed only after willful agreements are arrived at and that too before a judicial officer. Nobody should be at a disadvantage only because he or she opted to follow the orders and honoured the deed.”

Mediation process

The mediator — usually a judge — makes the two parties sit across a table and help them resolve the issues amicably before a compromise deed is executed on the terms agreed by both. 

Mediation is considered very useful in cases of marital discord and issues of alimony, divorce and compensation are easily sorted out. These compromise deeds are subsequently submitted in the court trying their cases and matters are disposed of accordingly. A similar process is followed at the Lok Adalats.

Allow dowry cases to be settled outside court: SC to govt

Aug, 5, 2010

The Supreme Court has sought an amendment in the Indian Penal Code to make dowry harassment a “compoundable offence” — which would allow willing families to settle their problems outside court. The Supreme Court made the request, to be placed before Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily, in a unique manner, through a judicial order.

The amendment would relieve the courts from the “burden” of hearing dowry cases in which warring families are happy to settle, but the penal code does not allow them to do so, the Supreme Court said in a July 30 judicial order released on Wednesday.

If the court’s “opinion” actually transforms into an amendment in the IPC, dowry harassment would become an offence which can be settled by affected parties, without permission of a court of law, possibly by means of paying some money to the victim and her family.

Dowry harassment (Section 498A of the IPC) is currently a non-bailable, non-compoundable (complaint once registered cannot be withdrawn) offence under the IPC, which attracts imprisonment up to three years. As per court records, conviction rate in dowry harassment cases is hardly two per cent.

An early settlement between the accused and the victim in a dowry case could even lead to a reconcilement, a Bench of Justices Markandeya Katju and T S Thakur observed. Dowry harassment is one of several offences featured in the IPC, the court feels, that needs a re-think. “Offences punishable under Section 498-A (dowry harassment) and Section 326 (causing grievous hurt) of the IPC are currently non-compoundable. Some such offences can be made compoundable by introducing a suitable amendment in the statute (IPC).”

The court directed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to “forthwith” send a copy of the order to the Union Law Secretary and the Law Commission of India. “The Law Secretary is requested to place a copy of this order before the Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, Union of India,” the court observed in the written order.

Forwarding its suggestion to the Law Commission, the court sought the commission to examine whether a “suitable proposal” for amendment in this regard could be sent to the Union Government.

“We request the Law Commission and the Government of India to examine all aspects and take steps as may be considered feasible. Any such step would not only relieve the courts of the burden of deciding cases in which aggrieved parties have themselves arrived at a settlement,” the court said.

The Bench gave its “opinion” after finding it impossible under the present law to acquit a man from MP accused under Section 326 IPC, despite both parties involved having settled their differences.


Here is the actual PDF of the Amendment Marriage Bill, AS INTRODUCED IN THE RAJYA SABHA.

Bill in Rajya Sabha to make divorce easier

Aug, 4, 2010

NEW DELHI: A bill seeking to make divorce easier in case of "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, moved by law minister M Veerappa Moily, aims at mitigating hardships by allowing divorce in cases of complete failure of marriages.

At present, the petition for a divorce on the ground of mutual consent could be presented by the spouses together before the court under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and the Special Marriage Act 1954.

While both parties have to move a motion jointly before the court between six and 18 months of the original petition, it has been observed in several cases that one of them does not turn up.

This leaves parties desirous of obtaining decree of divorce hapless and remediless. In order to mitigate such hardships and to allow divorce in cases of complete failure of such marriages, the bill seeks to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act.

The condition of moving the motion before the court subsequent to the first petition would be done away with, it said.

However, in case the wife happens to be the respondent to the petition, she is entitled to oppose it on the ground that the dissolution of marriage would result in grave financial hardship to her.

Similarly, a provision has been made to restrict grant of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage if the court is satisfied that adequate provision for maintenance of children has not been made.

The amendment bill has been prepared on the recommendations of the Law Commission as well as the Supreme Court.

The clause of irretrievable breakdown of marriage will be in addition to the existing grounds for divorce.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

How To Tell She's About To Cheat

Cheating is rarely something that “just happens.” Often, the feelings to wander out of a relationship accumulate over time -- you just might not be aware that it’s on her mind. But you can stop yourself from being played by paying more attention to some telltale signs. Here are some things to look out for if you suspect she’s considering taking her sexiness elsewhere.

She has a case of “mentionitis”

Not to be confused with meningitis, mentionitis is when someone is afflicted with a certain person’s name that they just cannot stop themselves from dropping into conversation. It could be that your woman is constantly talking about Roger, her new partner at work, or Jordan, her personal trainer. No matter what the conversation with you entails, it seems this guy’s name is sure to pop up like an annoying internet advertisement.

You: “Honey, we should go check out that new action flick.”
Her: “Jordan saw it and said it’s great!”
You: “I am so tired lately, I think I need to start taking vitamins.”
Her: “I was telling Jordan the same thing earlier.”

See? Don’t fret if you hear the name of one of her colleagues or friends every now and then -- that’s just paranoia on your part. But if you’re hearing a little too much about some other guy on a regular basis and his name starts to appear in relation to more personal topics, it should alert you to potential danger. It’s like she just can’t help thinking about him.

She’s giving you space -- a little too much space

Just because many girlfriends become space invaders, it doesn’t mean every woman necessarily expects her man to be glued to her hip 24/7. However, if your woman is suddenly opening the floodgates to your free time and not flinching at how you two never seem to spend enough time together, this could be a red flag.

It’s one thing for her to be cool with you having personal time to do your own thing (hey, it’s healthy for your relationship), but it’s quite a different ball game if she’s nearly pushing you out the door or suggesting that you guys do your separate things too often. It could be that her hobby has become some other man.

She brings up reasons to fight

You forgot to buy a certain brand of toilet paper or you’re five minutes late in calling her and she goes nuts on you. If, lately, it seems that all she ever wants to do is pick a fight with you, this could be a symptom of an underlying problem, such as dissatisfaction in the relationship.
Dragging you into the verbal boxing ring could also be her subconscious way of wanting to get a reaction out of you. If you fight back, this probably eases her guilt for thinking of another man because you’re not a saint yourself. It levels the playing field a bit in her mind. The best thing to do is not fight back so you don’t allow her to mess with your head, and so you won’t be painted as the bad guy.

She’s more mysterious

There’s no doubt that mystery is a good thing -- but in small doses. It’s definitely not an intriguing feeling when your girlfriend is keeping too many things to herself, giving you one-word answers about her day, or making you feel that she hardly ever wants to talk with you anymore.

If she’s usually the one who’s keen to chat, but lately all she ever does is murmur through conversation without giving away too much of her day, this can be a sign something’s up. Another sign is if she doesn’t answer her phone at certain times and you see a pattern forming. An example is if she goes AWOL after work in the evenings or on a weekend day, and when she gets back to you she gives you an unclear reason for her disappearance, such as: “I just had to sort something out” or “something came up.”

She’s less affectionate

If another man is occupying her mind, chances are she’s going to be distancing herself from you physically. This could mean she isn’t so touchy-feely anymore and there has been a drop in your sex life. In other words, you’re not getting any or if you are, it’s perfunctory on her part. However, less sex doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to open up the playing field. It could be that she’s going through a sexual slump.

Keep some perspective here. The key is to look out for any drastic changes in your sex life. If your bedroom antics have changed a lot from what was normal for you as a couple, then that could be a sign of impeding doom. So, that means if there’s suddenly a lot more sex, this too could be problematic. Not that you would have thought so, of course. But, you know what they say about too much of a good thing.

NOW Questions Obama's Reluctance To Nominate Elizabeth Warren, Asks Whether Sexism At Play

It is quit amazing the Feminazi's of America accusing of all people President Obama of being Sexist, they have him in there back pocket to say it politely. This tells you one thing, that you can NEVER please the Feminazi's, they are never satisfied or grateful they are like kids having a tantrum, spoiled brats, unrelently witches.
The way these people look at it you have to keep on crying, and pardon my French, keep on Bitching, even after you get your way.

July 27, 2010

The National Organization for Women is asking whether President Barack Obama's apparent reluctance to nominate Elizabeth Warren to head a new consumer agency is due to sexism, according to an email the group sent supporters Tuesday.

The noted consumer advocate, Wall Street bailout watchdog and Harvard Law professor is one of three candidates the White House has identified as leading contenders to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency, conceived by Warren in a 2007 article, was created as part of the financial reform bill Obama last week signed into law.

Bank lobbies fought to kill the agency while it was under consideration in Congress, and have expressed concern with a Warren nomination. The agency will regulate consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards and some fear she could be too aggressive in protecting consumers from dubious lending practices, cutting off key sources of profitability for banks.

But while Obama administration officials, liberal Democrats and some Republicans are in near-universal agreement that Warren is well-qualified to run the agency, Obama, though praising Warren last week, has thus far declined to nominate her for the Senate-confirmed role. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to her nomination, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views, the Huffington Post reported July 15. Treasury Department and White House officials, while effusive in their praise of Warren, have not denied the report, despite repeated opportunities.

Now, the nation's leading women's organization alleges sexism may be at play.

"If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit," NOW wrote in its e-mail to supporters. "She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?"

The group went on to say that it hopes Obama "doesn't listen" to his top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, because of what NOW considers to be his allegedly sexist views.

"[S]ome of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities," NOW wrote. "In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, 'It does appear that on many, many different human attributes -- overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability -- there is relatively clear evidence that ... there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population.' Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women.

"Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!" the group wrote in its e-mail.

In an interview last week with a media outlet, Obama called Warren a "wonderful voice making a very simple point, which is, if you've got a set of rules and standards in place to make sure your toaster doesn't blow up in your face, you should have some rules and regulations to make sure your credit card or mortgage doesn't blow up in your face."

Obama said he has the "highest regard" for her, but that he has yet to make a decision regarding possible appointment.

"[B]ut here's my guarantee," Obama added. "Elizabeth is going to be working with me, working with Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, to help in thinking about how do we make this consumer agency as effective as possible looking out for consumers. She is going to be actively involved in that process."

One consumer advocate involved in the effort to get the financial reform bill through Congress speculated that the "guarantee" could simply be a guarantee to keep Warren involved in consumer protection without actually nominating her for the role. Something similar was promised June 16 by David Axelrod, one of Obama's top advisers.

"The President believes Elizabeth Warren is a champion for middle class families and consumers, and her work on consumer protection issues helped guide his original proposal and will continue to play an important role on this issue going forward," Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. "Though the President has not named someone to this post less than a week after signing the bill, Elizabeth Warren will continue to play a vital role regardless in ensuring the consumer agency is as effective as possible."

NOW's sexism charge is a far cry from May 10 and May of 2009, when NOW praised Obama for his separate nominations of women -- Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- to the Supreme Court.

The organization's accusation follows up a similar allegation from a member of Congress.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, wrote in a July 20 blog post on HuffPost that opposition to Warren may be due to sexism.

"The good old boy network of investors is uncomfortable around her," Speier wrote. "Is this because she is a woman in a male-dominated 'sport,' or is it that she's an advocate for middle-class families who sees nothing amusing about winning and losing with people's life savings?"

Charges of sexism in financial regulation aren't new.

In 2008, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank alleged sexism was partly at play when it came to the Wall Street bailout and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair's role in the negotiations.

Bair allegedly "annoyed the Old Boys Club," Frank said, likening the situation to several regulators "up in the treehouse with a 'No Girls Allowed' sign," according to a Politico.

In 1998, critics allege that sexism also played a role when financial regulators in the Clinton administration -- led in part by Summers -- objected to a proposal regulating over-the-counter derivatives that was championed by Brooksley E. Born, then-chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. At the time the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission were all headed by men.

However, while financial regulation has traditionally been dominated by men, there are some women in important roles today. The FDIC and SEC are both currently headed by women -- one of whom was appointed by Obama -- and two of Obama's three picks to join the Fed's Board of Governors are women.

The Treasury Department, though, continues to be led by mostly men. Of the top 20 officials Treasury lists on its Web site, just five are women.

Men also lead the CFTC, the OCC and the Fed. Of the five current Fed governors, just one -- Elizabeth Duke -- is a woman.

READ the e-mail:

Watchdog Not Lapdog Needed to Reform Wall Street, Tell Obama to Nominate Elizabeth Warren to Head Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

On July 23, President Obama signed into law a sweeping financial reform bill, which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency that would closely monitor Wall Street practices concerning credit and loans. Such an agency was originally proposed by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor and expert on bankruptcy and credit. Warren is the most qualified and most obvious choice for head of this bureau, but she's definitely not favored by Wall Street and its sympathizers in the government.

If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit. She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she's not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?

Write President Obama today and tell him that the people of the United States want a head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who will promote the interests of consumers, not the interests of big banks. Tell him we want Elizabeth Warren!


In 2007, Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Law professor, wrote an article in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas that proposed the creation of a government agency to protect consumers from duplicitous credit practices, much the same way that consumers are protected from faulty or dangerous products. Three years later, the government has taken Warren's advice and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed on July 23.

The bureau would have the power to oversee, analyze, and regulate credit and loans, including credit cards and mortgages. It would protect consumers from any abusive banking practices and would also be able to monitor Wall Street to prevent another economic meltdown. Overall, the purpose of the bureau is consumer protection, and it needs a head who will be on the side of everyday people, not the rich and superrich.

Elizabeth Warren is more than qualified to head this bureau. She is an expert on bankruptcy, a distinguished researcher and the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which monitored the Wall Street bailouts. Her background, experience, and commitment to the welfare of consumers make her the most obvious choice for head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

However, those on Wall Street and government officials who support them do not want Warren to head the bureau, as they know that she would boldly stand up for consumers and crack down on the underhanded practices of big banks. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has voiced objections to Warren, and though he's since described her as "an enormously effective leader," he still has not said that he would recommend her nomination.

Some of the president's top financial advisors, like Larry Summers, have expressed biased and blatantly sexist views about women's abilities. In 2005, Summers said, concerning women's aptitude for science and math, "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes--overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability--there is relatively clear evidence that ...there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population." Essentially, he claimed that men are innately inclined to be better at math and science than women. Let's hope that Obama doesn't listen to Summers on this decision!

The consumers of the U.S. need a strong watchdog like Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not a Wall Street lapdog.

Top 10: Mistakes Men Make In Divorce

Start with number 10

It’s easy to make mistakes at the very beginning of the divorce process, especially if you’re dealing with someone who is highly manipulative, abusive or just plain irrational. Even if you are divorcing a reasonable person, it’s tough to think clearly and make the right initial decisions. Most people are so angry, upset or anxious at the end of their marriage that they’re not thinking logically about what they should do to protect themselves or their children from an unfair settlement.

In the past, the prevailing emotions during a divorce were usually sadness and regret. Today, anger is the dominant emotion: People are angry at their spouses, their spouses’ parents, at their spouses’ new partners, etc. All this anger translates into words and deeds that make the divorce process more costly, stressful, frustrating, lengthy, and an all out war. It doesn't have to be that way, even if you are divorcing the most irrational of humans. Below are the 10 most common mistakes men make in divorce. If you can learn to place your emotions in check and avoid these mistakes, you can alleviate some of the pain that comes with any divorce.

No.10 - Using your children as pawns

Threatening to limit or deny visitation is a powerful threat, and it can terrify a parent who loves his child(ren). Often, parents who are the primary caregivers, but who lack the financial resources, feel that they must use this threat to gain sufficient financial support.

As painful as these threats are, do not respond in kind. Don’t issue threats of your own. Instead, recognize that in most cases, the truth will come out. If you've been a good, responsible parent, your spouse likely cannot deny you a chance to see your kids on a regular basis. More to the point, the court won’t allow it in most instances.

No.9 - Thinking romance first, divorce second

The most common factor that turns a normal divorce into an abnormally contentious one is bringing another woman into the mix. The situation is already potentially volatile, and all it takes is the mention that you have a new lover for your spouse to become infuriated.

There are several reasons you may want to announce your new relationship-revenge, one being to show her that someone finds you attractive and you've even found happiness. Try to keep a new relationship out of the conversations with your spouse and especially your children. The best decision is to wait until the divorce is concluded before you engage in a new relationship.
No.8 - Allowing your spouse to convince you to not hire an attorney

If your spouse has hired a lawyer, you need to hire one quickly. If you don’t, you are an amateur playing against professionals. One underhand tactic is for a spouse’s attorney to offer to represent both parties to save time and money. Not only is it unethical, but it also creates a conflict of interest.

The process is designed to be adversarial, and there is no way a lawyer can fairly represent you both. The odds are that your spouse has something to hide or something she wants, and she knows that if you hire a lawyer it will be more difficult to achieve that goal.
No.7 - Using verbal abuse

Just about everyone who gets a divorce argues. Not everyone, however, engages in continuous verbal battles in which threats and vile accusations become routine forms of communication. Being on the receiving end of this abuse is demoralizing, especially when the threats raise the possibility of physical harm to you or your children.

You need to discuss any threats of this type with your attorney, who can advise you on how to deal with them. Furthermore, if it is you who's engaging in the verbal abuse, remember that your spouse can easily obtain an order of protection and any violation of this order can land you in jail. There is a myth that men do not endure verbal or even physical abuse from their spouses, but it is just a myth. Abuse is not gender specific.

No.6 - Rubbing salt in the wound

If your goal is to avoid a court battle and the high costs that go with it, then you want to avoid any accusations of personality flaws. Be aware of your spouse’s sensitivities and avoid inflaming them. Compromise is the essence of divorce negotiations, and if you say and do things to encourage your spouse to dig in and be inflexible, you’re asking for a war.

No matter how much you despise your spouse; no matter how many ways you feel you’ve been wronged, don’t make a bad situation worse by identifying your spouse’s vulnerabilities when trying to reach a settlement. Always try to negotiate before you litigate.
No.5 - Using a difficult attorney

Lawyers can turn good divorces into bad ones and bad divorces into nightmares. It’s not just divorcing spouses that are difficult. Certain lawyers are intent on churning fees, and they can cleverly manipulate situations to their financial advantage. The result is couples who will fight over the big and little things and invariably wind up in court and broke.

Do not fall for the myth that you have to find a take-no-prisoners attorney, someone who is ruthless and will use any tactic necessary to “win” the case. When there is one difficult attorney, the odds are the divorce will be costly and unpleasant. When there are two difficult attorneys, the divorce will be a total nightmare.
No.4 - Becoming passive

The last thing you want to do when your spouse announces she wants a divorce is to become completely acquiescent. Many people are manipulative, and if they think they can manipulate you into getting what they want out of the divorce, such as money, property or custody, they will do so.

If you are stunned or saddened, you may agree to anything and everything your spouse recommends. Don’t confuse passivity with being reasonable. My experience is that the shock of divorce soon wears off, and once it does, you’re much less vulnerable to making this mistake.

No.3 - Arguing about who gets what

In most divorces where couples have been married for a number of years, disputes about property arise, and sometimes these arguments are perfectly understandable. These arguments, however, can become completely irrational and vengeance-based. I had a client say, “I would rather incur 10 times in legal fees what the painting costs than allow her to have it!”

These arguments can be draining emotionally (not to mention financially), but it helps to recognize that no matter how your spouse uses these objects in the bargaining process, the court generally divides property fairly if both parties have competent attorneys.

No.2 - Serving your spouse with divorce papers in embarrassing places

Having an officer of the law serve your spouse at home or business should be reserved for cases where they refuse to file an appearance or accept service of process, or where great conflict exists between the two parties.

There is nothing more embarrassing than having a police officer serve you with papers at work, and nothing more unnerving than hearing the doorbell ring at 2 a.m. and seeing a policeman at the door (and having your neighbors see him as well).

If your spouse uses this tactic on you, as obnoxious as it may be, remain calm.

No.1 - Responding to an impending divorce with anger

The early stages of the divorce process can be a highly emotional time when people say things they do not mean or act in unusual or uncharacteristic ways. Divorces “blow up” legally when one person responds to anger with even greater anger, creating an escalating war of attrition that otherwise would have been a brief skirmish.

Therefore, allow a bit of time to pass before you do anything. Your spouse may settle down after blowing off some steam, and you can continue to move forward in a reasonable manner.