The War on Women
Moms, Dads, Children and the Family
February 9th, 2014
Going on two decades now, I have spent a significant amount of time writing, advocating, and creating awareness on the lack of child protection in the State of Wisconsin. It seems on any given day, from local to national news, web or print, children are being put in dangerous circumstances while standing at the edge of fatality in silence at the hands of non-biological significant others.
Between 2003 and 2006 I went to Madison to co-author a child protection bill and rewrite parts of Wisconsin Family Law. To make my case with Madison lawmakers on the lack of child protections, I presented evidence-based in- concert manipulation of family case outcomes, influence peddling and what appeared to be tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal funding fraud.
During my efforts to gain knowledge on how Eau Claire County Family Courts were conducting business, individuals within Family Law were implying there was collusion taking place between Branch 5, the Court Commissioner, in-the-know attorneys, hand-picked guardian ad-items and private practice custody study evaluators.
After years of investigative research on child abuse, assaults, neglect, child fatalities and the appearance of Federal funding fraud, I was continually pointed back to the Family Courts as the source of unimaginable corruption that was compromising child protection. I had to ask myself, “Could Branch Five actually be denying the right to due process and orchestrating outcomes in chambers under the veil of institutional discrimination? As I investigated these questions further, I was able to compile significant amounts of documentation over several years and I could see evidence-based patterns and practices developing of Eau Claire county preying on shattering families.
At this point you must be asking, what does child protection have to do with "The War on Women"? For the longest time, I thought the war on biological dads was behind the lack of child protection. As new information came in, I had to unbiasedly reevaluate my theory based on facts, only to find out, I had it all wrong. There was a war on women-more specifically, single parent moms.
A document surfaced around Feb. 2004 called the “Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement”. I read and re-read this document, trying to figure out what this policy’s intent was and was it a contributing factor in “blocking” child protection? At first glance, I knew this was what Family Law and county agents kept directing me towards manipulated family case outcomes. I decided to start combing CCAP family cases with child custody challenges. What I discovered was the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement was appearing in court records in additional text (Word-for-word). As I was reviewing cross-county cases I noticed the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement was popping up in other counties. So, I did a Google search for “Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement Wisconsin” and up came Wisconsin Judicial District Ten with the exact policy on how to fix of family cases.
I knew this policy was unconstitutional and littered with civil rights and civil liberty violations. The appearance of in-concert family law case fixing across Wisconsin counties was now very real. In that moment I said to myself, Did I just uncover a Wisconsin District Chief Justice, by all appearance, involvement in a deprivation of rights and a Federal funding scheme?
Community members and elected official learning of my advocacy efforts would ask, “What do we need to know?” I would say this is what you need to know: Non-biological “significant other” child abuse, assaults, neglect, and fatalities are on the rise in Wisconsin. I would explain connecting the dots is not that simple, it is incredibly complex, like a sophisticated RICO scheme. I would say counties pursuit and case fixing of family cases for Federal matches and incentives is playing a factor in child abuse, assaults, neglect, and fatalities in the State of Wisconsin.
When I would explain to unimpeachable non-custodial parents (moms and dads) with an endangered child what I was researching, they would get frustrated because they thought I was not advocating for them or that I did not understand the immediacy of their child's plight, but I did. I knew personally how hard it is to protect children from non-biological significant other abuse. Many loving parents had no idea the internal dynamics behind Social Security Act Title IV_D and B, child support incentives (Wisconsin Chapter DCF153) and the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement being used to block child protection.
After the many years of investigative research, it was time to start asking some hard-hitting questions of some immensely powerful people within the State of Wisconsin and Eau Claire County. One of the very first individuals I confronted about my findings was the then Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. I asked Mr. Walker at a Lincoln Day Dinner in Knapp, Wisconsin if the Milwaukee county budget surplus he was touting on the campaign trail came from Title IV_D and B and DWD Chapter 44 matches and incentive payments from the Federal government? In a flash Mr. Walker left the event…why? Because he knew exactly what I was talking about.
I later confronted Mr. Walker at another Lincoln Day Dinner at an Eau Claire golf club. I asked the same question again, but this time I revealed how Title IV_D and B and DWD Chapter 44 fraud in Wisconsin was forcing children to remain in home environments where there is a high probability of child abuse, assaults, neglect and fatalities by non-biological significate others. With a nod of his head his security detail told me to walk away, so I never did get an answer from him, but I already knew that answer.
The first letter I sent in Eau Claire County was to Branch Four (Chief Justice Judicial District Ten) inquiring about the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement. Branch Four’s response was shocking. It was an absolute denial that the practice or the policy even existed. What Branch Four didn’t realize was three things: (1) I had the clerk-stamped "Standard Policy On Periods Of Physical Placement" in question from Branch Five in-hand, (2) I had recently learned that Branch One spoke out against the use of this policy in family cases and (3) This policy was in a Judicial District Ten online document which he oversaw.
This is when I realized there was something possibly criminal taking place within Eau Claire County that they did not want to get out. At this point my gut instinct told me that I was just scratching the surface. I combed through every document I had and recounted every person I spoke with to find that common denominator.
I decided to push everything out of the way, except for the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement. I needed to put a list together of who had the appearance of being in the know. Two things that were apparent, the manipulation of child custody outcomes (The People vs Judge Gerald P. Garson) and deprivation of rights of plaintiffs and respondence. The question at this point was were county supervisors working in concert with Branch 5, the court commissioner and Corporation Counsel to achieve manipulated divorce and custody outcomes for Federal funding?
I wrote to Branch One of which spoke out against the use of the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement. I had a great deal of respect for Branch One. I sent a letter not really expecting a response, but I did get one. The response back, although very guarded, was very telling. In the letter the word "often" was used to describe the use of the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement by Branch Five. Additionally, in that letter it was reaffirmed that Branch One did not use this policy but rather adhered to the rule of Wisconsin Family Law.
After receiving the return letter from Branch One, what was once big, was even bigger. It now potentially implicated Branch Five in hundreds of manipulated family cases (The People vs Judge Gerald P. Garson). I now needed to see where else this policy was being used (Rusk County, Taylor County. To my astonishment, after the denial in the first letter from Branch Four, I found it being implemented by the Eau Claire County Budget and Finance board member who happen to be a Family Law Attorney. At this juncture, about 2009, I was extremely disappointed in all the unanswered discoveries. I still did not know with 100% certainty who all was involved in total. I did know “powerful” people were at odds with each other over the use of this policy. Still I could not get my head “around” it. Clearly, many in Family Law and county agents were willing to speak out, but none “on the record”.
I set my effort aside for a couple of years and tried not to think about it. A few Family Law attorneys, county agents and elected officials on occasion were pushing me to continue. I felt I needed to step away to protect my family from the targeting and intimidation that was swirling around from the behest, of I believe, the Eau Claire County Sheriff. Why did I believe it was coming from the Sheriff? Years earlier I was warned by an Eau Claire County Sheriff Deputy… “Be careful, these people are going to hurt you”.
I did not decide to revisit it again until the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement appeared, in a couple of family cases, where both individuals I had known. What was significant in one case was that it was a high earner career mom. It was no surprise to me that she was paying child support as I had seen so many moms and dads’ names appearing on warrant list for non-payment of child support.
This is the point that two new concerns were brought to my attention, possibly hundreds if not thousands of tax intercepts on fixed outcome family cases and commitment orders with no due process in Eau Claire County. A few Wisconsin Department of Revenue agents in Eau Claire (Ancillary Claire County muscle) knew I knew of the tax intercepts being triggered by were by means of fixing family cases. I thought at this level, action would be taken, it was, against myself and businesses year in and year out for I believe the exposure.
Alarm bells going off once again... This forced me to go back and reevaluate everything. I was not happy about doing this knowing my many in-person conversations with and letters written to the Eau Claire County Sheriff Ron Cramer. I told the Sheriff on one occasion in 2009 in detail what I had uncovered, and that I wanted him to refer the case to the Eau Claire County District Attorney Richard White for review and that it was urgent.
I knew retribution would be imminent after conversations with the Sheriff and the then Eau Claire County Treasurer Larry Lokken that day. I discussed in detail with the county treasurer what I had uncovered, and could a financial audit be done? (This is the same question "I" posed to Eau Claire County Finance Director Scott Rasmussen months earlier) The county treasurers exact words to me after a very long conversation (with a beet red face) was “I will tell you everything you want to know after I retire”. My exposing the fixing of family law cases that day to the county treasurer on funding discrepancies and possibly hundreds and hundreds of commitment orders, without due process I believed fueled much of the Sheriff’s lead retribution in the days and year’s following. I believe the Sherriff and the Eau Claire Chief of Police at the time were intimately knowledgeable of my discoveries and I think they knew if what I had uncovered was revealed, it would up-end the quest for a new fifty-million-dollar jail, along side careers and reputations. Did the Sherriff, Chief of Police, District Attorney and the county treasurer assume in 2009 an internal county fraud scheme was about to be revealed? (Content between the parentheses added in 2016 - The investigation years later by Eau Claire law enforcement into the Eau Claire County treasurer was at best a quarter measure, the scope of the investigation I believe was intentionally narrowed to protect other agencies and departments that may have had knowledge and or were involved.)
Knowing I was not going to get any assistance from the Eau Claire County Justice Center, I went back to reviewing documents of what I had looked at hundreds of times previously. I still believed this policy was an integral part in generating county revenue, but I still felt there was something much more “sinister” at work. Could the deprivation of rights be the cover for institutional discrimination at the motivation of Branch 5? ( Content added between parentheses in 2015 - Leader-Telegram Feb 12th, 2015 “Judge apologizes for ‘offensive' remarks; Lenz cited Auschwitz as example of efficiency”).
Many things come to me when I least expect it and "it" finally did...like a lightning bolt. What I believe is one of many intents of the Standard Policy On Periods Of Physical Placement, is to covertly and silently strip single parent moms of equality and punish high income earner career moms from ever considering a shared 50/50 placement schedule with an unimpeachable biological father. Yet at this point, still no clear pathway to who all is involved, but there is enough evidence to establish clear and decisive agency to agency financial collusion was taking place in Eau Claire County.
How did I come to this conclusion? I was thinking about my daughters as breadwinner single parent moms being forced into the Standard Policy On Periods Of Physical Placement and how it would not only instantly impoverish them, it would also disrupt any immediate career ambitions, dreams of shattering a glass ceiling and being equal to men within the business world. If my daughters decided to a 50/50 placement schedule, they would get punished with a high child support order and every other weekend parenting schedule known as the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement. Such a blow would set them back an easy ten years or longer to establish themselves on a career path that would "afford" them an independent lifestyle they could only dream of.
I know many have said, “we have all these great state and federal programs to help single parent moms” … What they do not tell these moms with dreams and aspirations is that it will not help them out of the grasp of poverty without a solid ongoing support system. Counties know anyone being held down by these programs cannot financially get their heads above water and that this lifestyle is incredibly taxing on the emotional and mental wellbeing of recipients. Having aspiration to launch a small business, establish a solid career path, or the ability to shatter the glass ceiling takes the cooperation of a supportive co-parenting relationship that also decreases the chance of crimes against their children by a non-biological significant other.
I have worked with a few powerhouse women over the years. I know “nothing” was ever given to them, they fought and scraped during every waking moment with a determined resolve. It takes decades of conditioned focus to establish that kind of mental will and confidence. I believe that many county agencies in Wisconsin think if they coach a single parent mom long enough, poverty will envelop them like smoke in the night. They can smell it but cannot react to the speed in which it consumes their hopes and dreams.
Could we see in the future a Supreme Court case against the use of the Standard Policy on Periods of Physical Placement and how it discriminates against both single parent mom's and career mom’s? Where could this challenge of inequality come from? I believe it could come from the full-force and fury of a determined, strong-willed, self-assured, non-custodial career mom who has experienced the discrimination within this policy.
This legal challenge will not be of Wisconsin Family Law itself, but of the discovered institutional discrimination against single parent moms in the pursuit of Federal matches and incentives by Wisconsin counties.
The case argument/challenge of inequality would be difficult ignore at the Supreme Court level. I believe a decisive ruling in favor of equality of this magnitude, not seen since the nineteen sixties, would forever set an unequivocal precedent, not seen within present Family Law. This will force legal, constitutional, and academic scholars to challenge the constitutionality of decades-old Family Law decisions in Wisconsin that would shed a bright light on the Federal funding fraud that is the ignition source to Wisconsin’s child abuse, assaults, neglect and fatality crisis and the war on women, moms, dads and the family.
My goal from the beginning was to diplomatically strike the conscience of those with big titles and affluence in hopes they would make change. I could have gone to social media and outted those involved to help the cause or even brought a False Claims Act case, but I did neither. With county agencies returning to their old bad habits, I may be forced in the future to leverage both to insure child protection and equality for single parent mom’s and dad’s remains priority one over federal funding matches and incentive payments to Wisconsin counties.
This content is copyright protected. Do not redistribute, copy, duplicate, print any part and or section of the above content without written permission or consent.
