HYPOCRISY AND OUTRIGHT LIES
By Robert Leclair
Former President Clinton and Vice President Biden were staunch promoters and supporters of VAWA. Bipartisan support for the Act was clearly voiced when introduced and
voted on. Unfortunately, most of the senators and congressman who signed the bill were clueless when it came to domestic violence or the ways to fight it. They established
an Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) to plan and wage a war to eliminate abuse and violence against women and funneled loads of tax money through VAWA.
Again, they were just as clueless as to the incurred collateral damage to children. To this day I do not believe out of the myriad of lawyers in the House and Senate, not one
lawyer has admitted to knowing what is really happening to allegations in the restraining order process. Either all lawyers are clueless or those knowledgeable remain silent.
The lawyers in the latter case are either spineless or just want to be reelected.
During the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to dispel the rumors that republicans were waging a war on women, saying
“We're all in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, there's nothing to fight about.” No attempts by democrats or republicans were made to discuss how VAWA's goal
could be achieved. Instead, they gave a “blank check” to OVW and the authority to formulate any approach without any scrutiny. Unfortunately, OVW implemented a radical
feminist ideology and approach. We now know how that is turning out and both republicans and democrats should blame themselves for failures and fiascos. The saga of
domestic violence continues as well as an unfortunate turn of events and many of the unintended consequences.
Hillary Clinton, one of the principles in this cause célèbre, prides herself as being the savior of women’s rights. Throughout the years she has supported and campaigned
for the passage and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without reservation or questions as to whether its approach was successful or failing to protect
women. She bought into the radical feminist ideology and was instrumental in the infamous hijacking of VAWA and OVW in 1994.
Why do you think the radical feminist movement and OVW were silent and even supported Bill Clinton publicly during the impeachment process? His sexual exploits and his
famous statement “I never had sex with that woman” in front of millions of parents and children would be under normal circumstances a radical feminist nightmare. Any other
man would have been mercilessly crucified. Money and power was a major factor for the hypocritical support that eventually led to the hijacking of VAWA/OVW.
In the year 2000 Hillary wrote an article which was covered nationally. The title was “CALL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WHAT IT IS…..A CRIME”. We all agree this is a
true statement and to eliminate domestic violence is a needed goal. So why can I say with absolute certainty that the statement is also insidious and hypocritical. Hillary
once represented a man who had raped a young girl in a criminal court, showing her skill and thorough knowledge of the criminal court system. She also knows very well
that civil restraining orders are granted almost 99% of the time to women based on allegations of a domestic violence crime. She knows full well that millions of women since
1979 have flooded the courts and yet fails to inform politicians and the public that civil orders are granted without due process and indiscriminately on a “better safe than
sorry” approach. Call her failure to inform the public the whole truth what it is, lying hypocrisy.
Prior to 1979, the judicial system handled all domestic violence as a crime. All cases were handled in criminal courts where due process, rules of evidence and the innocent
until proven guilty standard were all part of determining guilt or innocence. The judicial criminal process was by no means infallible, some abusers often slipped through the
cracks. The main goal was to strive for the truth in each case of domestic violence. Treating domestic violence as a crime was the essence of the criminal judicial process.
In the 70's, radical feminists were concerned that many women did not file criminal complaints of abuse because of the difficulty and horror of going through the criminal
process. Based on that concern, many states in 1979 adopted a civil protective or restraining order process in response to feminist complaints. All states eventually
resorted to civil complaints for all allegations of violence and abuse to women. Hillary was highly supportive of the process and the Clinton administration played a significant
role in supporting the judicial civil restraining order process.
The justice system established special courts to handle civil restraining orders and setup their own policies and procedures for adjudication. The standards were so low that
restraining orders were routinely awarded in 99% of the cases. Women initiated the complains 85% of the time and were granted the restraining order 100% of the time
without due process, rules of evidence or the innocent until found guilty standard. Consequently, judges essentially granted restraining orders based on a “better safe than
sorry approach” when the truth could not readily be determined or even when the allegation appeared to be false.
Unfortunately, those hurt the most by this one-size fits-all approach were the women that were truly abused and desperately in need of protection and the children of those
falsely accused. Not only has the war to eliminate domestic violence failed but it failed to achieve its main mission, protecting women from violence and abuse. It is a well
acknowledge fact that no restraining order has ever stopped a murder or suicide.
The saga of domestic violence continues… and, I will describe one unfortunate turn of events and many of the unintended consequences.
A Failed Civil Restraining Order Process and Disastrous Collateral Damage
Hillary was an educated and savvy lawyer who demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the criminal judicial system. So, why is Hillary’s statement “Call violence against
women what it is… a crime” true and yet deceitful and extremely hypocritical?
As a lawyer, an advocate and a staunch supporter of VAWA, Hillary was well aware of how the judicial process on domestic violence was handled in criminal courts versus
how allegations of domestic violence are handled in civil restraining order courts where due process is totally bypassed. The leadership of the Office of Violence Against
Women was fully aware for the past several decades that the civil process is an arbitrary process whereby judges grant all restraining orders based on allegations of a
domestic crime without any method of assessing the truth. This travesty of justice allows judges to grant restraining orders even if the allegations appear to be false or more
significantly even when allegations seem based on perception rather than reality. Restraining orders are also indiscriminately granted in all he said/she said cases when
judges themselves admit that the truth is impossible to determine.
Is Domestic Violence an Epidemic in the U.S.?
Every year Vice President Biden claims domestic violence is a serious epidemic. Every year the Office of Violence Against Women informs Congress that their efforts are
working and lowering the level of violence. The approximately 1.5 million cases of domestic violence per year in the U.S. can be lumped into two categories: the actual cases
of violence reported in the media and allegations of domestic violence handled in civil restraining order courts.
1. The first category involves the cases of domestic violence that are publicized and reported in the media. These cases account for approximately 19% of the 1.5 million
cases. The majority of these cases involve beatings, murders, murder/suicides and all the violent acts that are normally handled as crimes in criminal courts and most
involve women as victims. Case in point, the famous football player Ray Rice and the elevator knockout of his soon to be wife. Serious violations of restraining orders are
also reported in the press whereas less serious violations are mostly handled as part of the civil restraining order process and rarely reported to the press.
2. The second aspect pertains to the remaining 81% of the 1.5 million cases involve allegations of domestic violence that are handled in civil restraining order courts where
due process is completely bypassed.
Hillary in her national public article states domestic violence is a crime against all women and yet she fails to inform the public she touted and supported the introduction of
civil restraining orders based on allegations of a crime. She knew civil orders would open the floodgates for a mix of women that are true victims of domestic violence, those
who falsely accuse and those whose allegations are based on perceptions rather than reality. She knew civil restraining orders would be granted indiscriminately and
routinely by judges. False allegations or allegations based on perception were considered rare and insignificant by radical feminists, OVW and Hillary.
Hillary’s actions and statements were especially hypocritical and deceitful based on the fact that false allegations, allegations based on perception and all the “he/said
she/said” cases were decided by most judges on an arbitrary “better safe than sorry” basis rather than the truth which could only be established by due process. That may
seem like a reasonable approach to protect the public; however, think of the innocent of the criminal charges whose lives would be destroyed. And, if married with children,
the children could be permanently scarred and damaged. So, who will suffer the most from this hypocrisy and deception, the innocent children.
Hypocrisy and deceit turned into a political advantage for Hillary and OVW. Waging the war on domestic violence has become a federal political “cash cow” to justify
spending billions of tax dollars on programs that continually fail to stop the epidemic of domestic violence and to create the impression that a “patriarchal society” is the root
cause of all violence and abuse. It would be interesting to ask Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Barbara Bush, Rosalyn Carter, Megyn Kelly etc. if they consider their husbands
are part of the patriarchal society? OVW’s approach is a total disaster when women are inadequately protected and duped into a false sense of security.
Will there be serious consequences for this hypocrisy and deceit? Look at the numbers and judge for yourself. Of the 81% (about 1.2 million) of cases involving allegations
of domestic violence 99% are granted routinely in civil restraining order courts. Approximately 41% of the 1.2 million restraining orders are awarded to married women with
children. A total of 1.5 million mothers, fathers and children per year are affected by civil restraining order courts. Just consider how many more fatherless children this
situation will create and the affect it will have on their upbringing. The sheer number of children affected justifies a complete overhaul of the civil restraining order process.
Also, most of the 41% of married women with children awarded restraining orders will eventually end up in divorce court. The divorce and custody laws now include and are
linked to domestic violence law in most states. Since the civil restraining orders are arbitrarily granted 99% of the time and mostly based on a “better safe than sorry”
approach, divorces will become far more adversarial, determination of domestic violence will be far more complex and unfortunately far more damaging to children of
divorce. The flawed civil restraining order process will ultimately have undue influence on all divorces involving children.
Another catastrophic blow to the wellbeing of the children of divorce is the fact that the flawed restraining order process will ultimately stop any shared custody laws from
being enacted and implemented. Radical feminists, the Office of Violence Against Women and many lawyers and Bar Associations have voiced strong objections to shared
custody, a concept approved and endorsed in numerous professional studies.
Conclusion
The national statement by Hillary Clinton “Call violence against women what it is… a crime” and similar statements by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) are
sound bites that are true in themselves but hypocritical and deceitful. And, the full story is hidden from public scrutiny.
Here is the full story that should have been revealed by our leaders:
1. The gruesome stories about domestic violence reported in the press and media make up about 19% of the 1.5, million domestic violence cases per year in the U.S.
2. The remaining 81% of the approximately 1.5 million cases consist of allegations of domestic violence handled in civil restraining order courts.
3. 81% of restraining orders are filed by and awarded to women and, 99% of the orders are granted without due process, evidentiary hearings and without the “innocent
until proven guilty” standard, decisions are mainly based on a “better safe than sorry” approach. Is this the basis for VP Joe Biden (et al) to pontificate every year that
domestic violence is an epidemic therefore the need to expend billions of tax dollars to eradicate the plague? Yes, and Congress is always duped into granting the financing
by misleading reports.
4. Allegations of domestic violence in the civil restraining order process are handled by judges most of whom have no professional expertise in psychology or psychiatry.
That said, Hillary and the Office of Violence Against Women are hypocritical and deceitful because of their failure to divulge the whole truth of what happens in civil
restraining order courts. There are 4 types of allegations judges are faced with:
Allegations based on perception rather than reality. In suxh cases the complaint is not a lie but the allegation is still false.
Allegations in the “he/said she/said” cases when the truth is almost impossible to determine judges readily admit that it is almost if not impossible to determine
who is at fault.
Allegations that are genuine and the victim is mistreated and abused by the perpetrator, the victim must be protected from the perpetrator.
Since the above types of allegations are awarded restraining orders, the first two types of allegations are where fathers falsely accused become innocent victims and their
children suffer emotional agony and harm. The third type of allegation is where the women are given special consideration and the decision is based on a “better safe than
sorry” approach.
As far as the allegations that are genuine, the perpetrator is treated no differently than the other males except that he gets away with murder and his victim is not really
protected. This fourth type of allegation is where the process completely falls apart and does not differentiate between the first three types of allegations.
Consequences of the Hypocrisy and Deception
OVW and Hillary Clinton were trivializing and playing games with the serious problem of domestic violence in America, experimenting with a radical ideology. It is deplorable
and outrageously hypocritical that after two decades they have duped the public with this charade and knowingly have not even tried to find a solution to civil restraining
order process handling allegations of criminal behavior. It was just a ploy to make sure all women who allege violence and abuse are automatically granted restraining
orders and the defendant is in some way punished no matter whether the circumstances are true or false.
It is mind boggling to think this hypocrisy has made many innocent parents victims of false accusations and many became victims of being labeled perpetrators as the result
of a decision based on a “better safe than sorry” approach. More importantly, the sheer number of children seriously affected for the past two decades by this type of
decriminalized civil process is outrageous and indefensible.
What is totally overlooked by the public and ignored by most politicians is the magnitude of the adverse effects of the VAWA failure and the collateral damage to innocent
people and our children. The fallout has also affected the divorce process, the national economy and the role of the family, our morality and values as a nation all of which
have been seriously undermined and damaged... you can our blame leaders for hiding the truth.
By Robert Leclair
Former President Clinton and Vice President Biden were staunch promoters and supporters of VAWA. Bipartisan support for the Act was clearly voiced when introduced and
voted on. Unfortunately, most of the senators and congressman who signed the bill were clueless when it came to domestic violence or the ways to fight it. They established
an Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) to plan and wage a war to eliminate abuse and violence against women and funneled loads of tax money through VAWA.
Again, they were just as clueless as to the incurred collateral damage to children. To this day I do not believe out of the myriad of lawyers in the House and Senate, not one
lawyer has admitted to knowing what is really happening to allegations in the restraining order process. Either all lawyers are clueless or those knowledgeable remain silent.
The lawyers in the latter case are either spineless or just want to be reelected.
During the 2013 reauthorization of VAWA, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell attempted to dispel the rumors that republicans were waging a war on women, saying
“We're all in favor of the Violence Against Women Act, there's nothing to fight about.” No attempts by democrats or republicans were made to discuss how VAWA's goal
could be achieved. Instead, they gave a “blank check” to OVW and the authority to formulate any approach without any scrutiny. Unfortunately, OVW implemented a radical
feminist ideology and approach. We now know how that is turning out and both republicans and democrats should blame themselves for failures and fiascos. The saga of
domestic violence continues as well as an unfortunate turn of events and many of the unintended consequences.
Hillary Clinton, one of the principles in this cause célèbre, prides herself as being the savior of women’s rights. Throughout the years she has supported and campaigned
for the passage and reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act without reservation or questions as to whether its approach was successful or failing to protect
women. She bought into the radical feminist ideology and was instrumental in the infamous hijacking of VAWA and OVW in 1994.
Why do you think the radical feminist movement and OVW were silent and even supported Bill Clinton publicly during the impeachment process? His sexual exploits and his
famous statement “I never had sex with that woman” in front of millions of parents and children would be under normal circumstances a radical feminist nightmare. Any other
man would have been mercilessly crucified. Money and power was a major factor for the hypocritical support that eventually led to the hijacking of VAWA/OVW.
In the year 2000 Hillary wrote an article which was covered nationally. The title was “CALL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN WHAT IT IS…..A CRIME”. We all agree this is a
true statement and to eliminate domestic violence is a needed goal. So why can I say with absolute certainty that the statement is also insidious and hypocritical. Hillary
once represented a man who had raped a young girl in a criminal court, showing her skill and thorough knowledge of the criminal court system. She also knows very well
that civil restraining orders are granted almost 99% of the time to women based on allegations of a domestic violence crime. She knows full well that millions of women since
1979 have flooded the courts and yet fails to inform politicians and the public that civil orders are granted without due process and indiscriminately on a “better safe than
sorry” approach. Call her failure to inform the public the whole truth what it is, lying hypocrisy.
Prior to 1979, the judicial system handled all domestic violence as a crime. All cases were handled in criminal courts where due process, rules of evidence and the innocent
until proven guilty standard were all part of determining guilt or innocence. The judicial criminal process was by no means infallible, some abusers often slipped through the
cracks. The main goal was to strive for the truth in each case of domestic violence. Treating domestic violence as a crime was the essence of the criminal judicial process.
In the 70's, radical feminists were concerned that many women did not file criminal complaints of abuse because of the difficulty and horror of going through the criminal
process. Based on that concern, many states in 1979 adopted a civil protective or restraining order process in response to feminist complaints. All states eventually
resorted to civil complaints for all allegations of violence and abuse to women. Hillary was highly supportive of the process and the Clinton administration played a significant
role in supporting the judicial civil restraining order process.
The justice system established special courts to handle civil restraining orders and setup their own policies and procedures for adjudication. The standards were so low that
restraining orders were routinely awarded in 99% of the cases. Women initiated the complains 85% of the time and were granted the restraining order 100% of the time
without due process, rules of evidence or the innocent until found guilty standard. Consequently, judges essentially granted restraining orders based on a “better safe than
sorry approach” when the truth could not readily be determined or even when the allegation appeared to be false.
Unfortunately, those hurt the most by this one-size fits-all approach were the women that were truly abused and desperately in need of protection and the children of those
falsely accused. Not only has the war to eliminate domestic violence failed but it failed to achieve its main mission, protecting women from violence and abuse. It is a well
acknowledge fact that no restraining order has ever stopped a murder or suicide.
The saga of domestic violence continues… and, I will describe one unfortunate turn of events and many of the unintended consequences.
A Failed Civil Restraining Order Process and Disastrous Collateral Damage
Hillary was an educated and savvy lawyer who demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the criminal judicial system. So, why is Hillary’s statement “Call violence against
women what it is… a crime” true and yet deceitful and extremely hypocritical?
As a lawyer, an advocate and a staunch supporter of VAWA, Hillary was well aware of how the judicial process on domestic violence was handled in criminal courts versus
how allegations of domestic violence are handled in civil restraining order courts where due process is totally bypassed. The leadership of the Office of Violence Against
Women was fully aware for the past several decades that the civil process is an arbitrary process whereby judges grant all restraining orders based on allegations of a
domestic crime without any method of assessing the truth. This travesty of justice allows judges to grant restraining orders even if the allegations appear to be false or more
significantly even when allegations seem based on perception rather than reality. Restraining orders are also indiscriminately granted in all he said/she said cases when
judges themselves admit that the truth is impossible to determine.
Is Domestic Violence an Epidemic in the U.S.?
Every year Vice President Biden claims domestic violence is a serious epidemic. Every year the Office of Violence Against Women informs Congress that their efforts are
working and lowering the level of violence. The approximately 1.5 million cases of domestic violence per year in the U.S. can be lumped into two categories: the actual cases
of violence reported in the media and allegations of domestic violence handled in civil restraining order courts.
1. The first category involves the cases of domestic violence that are publicized and reported in the media. These cases account for approximately 19% of the 1.5 million
cases. The majority of these cases involve beatings, murders, murder/suicides and all the violent acts that are normally handled as crimes in criminal courts and most
involve women as victims. Case in point, the famous football player Ray Rice and the elevator knockout of his soon to be wife. Serious violations of restraining orders are
also reported in the press whereas less serious violations are mostly handled as part of the civil restraining order process and rarely reported to the press.
2. The second aspect pertains to the remaining 81% of the 1.5 million cases involve allegations of domestic violence that are handled in civil restraining order courts where
due process is completely bypassed.
Hillary in her national public article states domestic violence is a crime against all women and yet she fails to inform the public she touted and supported the introduction of
civil restraining orders based on allegations of a crime. She knew civil orders would open the floodgates for a mix of women that are true victims of domestic violence, those
who falsely accuse and those whose allegations are based on perceptions rather than reality. She knew civil restraining orders would be granted indiscriminately and
routinely by judges. False allegations or allegations based on perception were considered rare and insignificant by radical feminists, OVW and Hillary.
Hillary’s actions and statements were especially hypocritical and deceitful based on the fact that false allegations, allegations based on perception and all the “he/said
she/said” cases were decided by most judges on an arbitrary “better safe than sorry” basis rather than the truth which could only be established by due process. That may
seem like a reasonable approach to protect the public; however, think of the innocent of the criminal charges whose lives would be destroyed. And, if married with children,
the children could be permanently scarred and damaged. So, who will suffer the most from this hypocrisy and deception, the innocent children.
Hypocrisy and deceit turned into a political advantage for Hillary and OVW. Waging the war on domestic violence has become a federal political “cash cow” to justify
spending billions of tax dollars on programs that continually fail to stop the epidemic of domestic violence and to create the impression that a “patriarchal society” is the root
cause of all violence and abuse. It would be interesting to ask Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Barbara Bush, Rosalyn Carter, Megyn Kelly etc. if they consider their husbands
are part of the patriarchal society? OVW’s approach is a total disaster when women are inadequately protected and duped into a false sense of security.
Will there be serious consequences for this hypocrisy and deceit? Look at the numbers and judge for yourself. Of the 81% (about 1.2 million) of cases involving allegations
of domestic violence 99% are granted routinely in civil restraining order courts. Approximately 41% of the 1.2 million restraining orders are awarded to married women with
children. A total of 1.5 million mothers, fathers and children per year are affected by civil restraining order courts. Just consider how many more fatherless children this
situation will create and the affect it will have on their upbringing. The sheer number of children affected justifies a complete overhaul of the civil restraining order process.
Also, most of the 41% of married women with children awarded restraining orders will eventually end up in divorce court. The divorce and custody laws now include and are
linked to domestic violence law in most states. Since the civil restraining orders are arbitrarily granted 99% of the time and mostly based on a “better safe than sorry”
approach, divorces will become far more adversarial, determination of domestic violence will be far more complex and unfortunately far more damaging to children of
divorce. The flawed civil restraining order process will ultimately have undue influence on all divorces involving children.
Another catastrophic blow to the wellbeing of the children of divorce is the fact that the flawed restraining order process will ultimately stop any shared custody laws from
being enacted and implemented. Radical feminists, the Office of Violence Against Women and many lawyers and Bar Associations have voiced strong objections to shared
custody, a concept approved and endorsed in numerous professional studies.
Conclusion
The national statement by Hillary Clinton “Call violence against women what it is… a crime” and similar statements by the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) are
sound bites that are true in themselves but hypocritical and deceitful. And, the full story is hidden from public scrutiny.
Here is the full story that should have been revealed by our leaders:
1. The gruesome stories about domestic violence reported in the press and media make up about 19% of the 1.5, million domestic violence cases per year in the U.S.
2. The remaining 81% of the approximately 1.5 million cases consist of allegations of domestic violence handled in civil restraining order courts.
3. 81% of restraining orders are filed by and awarded to women and, 99% of the orders are granted without due process, evidentiary hearings and without the “innocent
until proven guilty” standard, decisions are mainly based on a “better safe than sorry” approach. Is this the basis for VP Joe Biden (et al) to pontificate every year that
domestic violence is an epidemic therefore the need to expend billions of tax dollars to eradicate the plague? Yes, and Congress is always duped into granting the financing
by misleading reports.
4. Allegations of domestic violence in the civil restraining order process are handled by judges most of whom have no professional expertise in psychology or psychiatry.
That said, Hillary and the Office of Violence Against Women are hypocritical and deceitful because of their failure to divulge the whole truth of what happens in civil
restraining order courts. There are 4 types of allegations judges are faced with:
- False allegations, the number of such allegations is totally unknown. It could be anywhere from 2% to 50% of all cases. We know false allegations are part of the
- equation especially when many lawyers are telling their female clients to obtain restraining orders if they want leverage in divorce courts.
Allegations based on perception rather than reality. In suxh cases the complaint is not a lie but the allegation is still false.
Allegations in the “he/said she/said” cases when the truth is almost impossible to determine judges readily admit that it is almost if not impossible to determine
who is at fault.
Allegations that are genuine and the victim is mistreated and abused by the perpetrator, the victim must be protected from the perpetrator.
Since the above types of allegations are awarded restraining orders, the first two types of allegations are where fathers falsely accused become innocent victims and their
children suffer emotional agony and harm. The third type of allegation is where the women are given special consideration and the decision is based on a “better safe than
sorry” approach.
As far as the allegations that are genuine, the perpetrator is treated no differently than the other males except that he gets away with murder and his victim is not really
protected. This fourth type of allegation is where the process completely falls apart and does not differentiate between the first three types of allegations.
Consequences of the Hypocrisy and Deception
OVW and Hillary Clinton were trivializing and playing games with the serious problem of domestic violence in America, experimenting with a radical ideology. It is deplorable
and outrageously hypocritical that after two decades they have duped the public with this charade and knowingly have not even tried to find a solution to civil restraining
order process handling allegations of criminal behavior. It was just a ploy to make sure all women who allege violence and abuse are automatically granted restraining
orders and the defendant is in some way punished no matter whether the circumstances are true or false.
It is mind boggling to think this hypocrisy has made many innocent parents victims of false accusations and many became victims of being labeled perpetrators as the result
of a decision based on a “better safe than sorry” approach. More importantly, the sheer number of children seriously affected for the past two decades by this type of
decriminalized civil process is outrageous and indefensible.
What is totally overlooked by the public and ignored by most politicians is the magnitude of the adverse effects of the VAWA failure and the collateral damage to innocent
people and our children. The fallout has also affected the divorce process, the national economy and the role of the family, our morality and values as a nation all of which
have been seriously undermined and damaged... you can our blame leaders for hiding the truth.
