An except from the book, “How To Avoid Getting Screwed When Getting Laid” by RK Hendrick, Esq.   http://www.protectionformen.com, with permission:

An Observation of Western Culture

To be clear, I am acutely aware some men can be uncivilized animals.  After food, clothing and shelter, our primary drive is for sex.  And for some men, “sex” is always at the very top of their list!

However, to be equally clear, this is the first time in human history where the female of our species can conduct herself in an irresponsible and immoral manner and then be financially compensated for her misconduct.

A rhetorical question:  When did irresponsible procreation become socially acceptable?

Just take a look at our welfare system and the first striking statistic you will observe is the substantial number of the single unwed mothers receiving monthly welfare payments who have multiple children by multiple fathers (aka: Breeders).

Multiple children by multiple fathers is not an accident or a mistake!  Multiple children by multiple fathers is the result of irresponsible behavior by both men and women!  Be it 50 years ago or 100 years ago, if a woman had a child out of wedlock or had multiple children from multiple fathers, there were no monthly checks from the government. There was no subsidized housing or medical card.

In many non-western cultures, if a woman has a child out of wedlock or has multiple children from multiple fathers, there are no monthly checks from the government.  There is no subsidized housing or medical card.

Operative reality:  If you are a female in our western culture, it pays to be promiscuous and irresponsible.  The more children you have, the more money you get! … In the form of monthly welfare payments, food stamps, government subsidized housing and/or monthly child support payments.

To be equally clear:  A man should always conduct himself in a responsible and appropriate manner.  A man should always “Man-up!” and be a good father and financially responsible for his children.  To do anything else is unacceptable and inexcusable.

Also remember:  As a man, you must always be prepared to protect and enforce your legal rights.  Read on!

“Nick and Natalie” (An accurate scenario, the names have been changed to protect confidentiality)

Natalie and Nick became pen-pals when Nick had approximately two years left to serve at the penitentiary for his conviction for distribution of illegal drugs.  Natalie and Nick wrote each other on a regular basis and through their letters they became quite close.

Six months after being released from the penitentiary, Nick and Natalie got married.  Within their first year of marriage, they had their first child (a son).  Within four years of the birth of their son, they were divorced.

In their divorce judgment (decree), Natalie was granted custody of their son and Nick was required to pay monthly child support.  Nick was granted parenting time (visitation) with their son every other weekend, along with a midweek evening visit.

During the first few months of the new schedule, everything went reasonably well.  There were a few disagreements; however, Nick was seeing his son on a regular and consistent basis.

Approximately eight months after their divorce was final, Natalie unilaterally decided she no longer wanted Nick to have any contact with their son.  However, she still wanted Nick to continue paying monthly child support on a regular basis.  When Natalie informed Nick of her unilateral decision, Nick immediately responded and made it very clear to Natalie he was going to continue to see their son on a regular basis and pursuant to the agreed upon parenting (visitation) schedule that was set forth in their divorce judgment.

To be certain, Nick was not a violent man, he did not consume any form of illegal intoxicants and he maintained a good job working as a heavy equipment operator with the family construction company.  Nick was required to submit to frequent random drug tests (which he routinely passed).  Therefore, he had the drug test results to prove he was clean.

Upon hearing Nick intended to continue with his regularly scheduled parenting time with their son, Natalie promptly went to the local courthouse and filed a Restraining Order against Nick.

In her petition (application) for the Restraining Order, Natalie falsely stated Nick had been physically violent and verbally abusive with her when he had come to her residence to pick up their son for his parenting time.

Upon being served with the Restraining Order, Nick immediately read through its contents and realized the Restraining Order prohibited him from having any contact with their son or Natalie.

Nick immediately contacted his attorney.  Nick’s attorney promptly filed an Objection to the Restraining Order and the matter was scheduled for a hearing.

At the hearing (trial) to determine whether there was a basis to keep the Restraining Order in effect, both Natalie and Nick testified as to their version of the facts.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge informed Natalie he believed she was not credible, that her witnesses had not testified truthfully and there were many major and significant discrepancies in their testimony!  The judge promptly dismissed the Restraining Order and Natalie was ordered to allow Nick to continue his prior parenting time schedule.

Even though Nick was successful in his efforts to overturn the Restraining Order (an order that never should have been granted), Nick did encounter a rather significant and unfortunate situation.

Prior to the judge dismissing the Restraining Order and during the brief time period (approximately two weeks) that the Restraining Order was actually in effect (prior to the hearing), Nick was required to abide by the terms and conditions of the Restraining Order.  Which meant:  Nick could have absolutely no contact with either his son or Natalie.

On one particular evening (just two days prior to the hearing), Nick was at a tavern with a co-worker when Natalie walked in looking for Nick.  Natalie knew this was a place where Nick and his co-workers would often meet after work.

When Natalie saw Nick in the tavern, she walked over to him and asked him if he was going to be paying his child support on time this month.  Nick responded, “we are not supposed to be talking; however, yes, I already mailed it off to you.”

Natalie then asked Nick if he would give her $200 in cash as she was short on money.  Nick responded “no” and once again informed her they were not supposed to be talking!  Nick got up from his chair and started to leave the tavern in order to avoid any further contact with Natalie.

Nick walked towards the exit door; however, instead of immediately leaving, he turned around and went back (reinitiated contact) and asked Natalie:  “How could you do this to me?  How could you file a Restraining Order against me that is full of lies, stop me from seeing our son and then have the audacity to come in here and ask me for money?  What’s your problem?”

Nick started for the door again; however, he turned around once again (reinitiated contact a 2nd time) and went back and said to Natalie:  “The check is in the mail, if you don’t get it tomorrow, call my attorney and he’ll take care of it!  I’ll see you in court!”  He then headed for the door, left the tavern and drove home.

Three days later, which was one day after the hearing in which the Restraining Order was dismissed, (Natalie was very angry because she lost at the hearing) Natalie called the local (small town) police and reported the contact she had with Nick three days ago (at the tavern) as a violation of the Restraining Order, while it was still in effect.

The police went to Nick’s house later that evening.  When they arrived at his house, they went to his front door, knocked, informed him they wanted to talk to him and that he “needed” to come outside of his house and onto the front porch.

Nick asked if they had a warrant for his arrest.  The police informed Nick they did not have a warrant; however, he still “needed” to come outside to speak with them.

Nick refused to come outside and through the livingroom glass window, Nick showed the police a Court Certified Copy of the Dismissal Order (that was given to him by his attorney) and informed them that the Restraining Order had been dismissed.  Nick then informed the police they were not permitted on his property without a warrant and he demanded they leave immediately!

The local city police who were at Nick’s house were rookies.  Moreover, they became rather obnoxious and belligerent with Nick when he informed them they were not permitted on his property (Background information: One of the officers was a friend of Natalie’s).

Once again, the police informed Nick he “needed” to come outside of his home so they could “talk” to him.  Nick immediately contacted his attorney (at home) and his attorney promptly contacted police dispatch to report the incident.

After speaking with his attorney, Nick immediately dialed 911 and also called the county sheriff’s office to report he was being harassed by the local police who were trespassing on his property.

Upon learning (through radio dispatch) that Nick had called the county sheriff to report their conduct and also because they knew they did not have a warrant for Nick’s arrest, the local police immediately withdrew (and did not return).

Even though the Restraining Order had already been dismissed, two days after the incident with the local police, the District Attorney’s Office decided to file a criminal complaint against Nick for violating the provisions of the Restraining Order (for having contact with Natalie at the tavern) while it was in effect and filed a warrant for Nick’s arrest.

Upon learning of the criminal complaint and the issuance of a warrant for his arrest, Nick turned himself in at the sheriff’s office.  Nick thought that he would be released quickly, However, it was late Friday afternoon and he was held in custody (jail) over the weekend, until Monday afternoon (for a total of three days), until his family members were able to post bail for him.

Two months later, a hearing was held to determine whether Nick’s conduct (at the tavern) was a violation of the Restraining Order (while it was in effect).  Even though his contact with Natalie was brief, it was still viewed by the judge as being voluntary and within Nick’s control.  Therefore, he was found guilty of violating the Restraining Order.  The fact the Restraining Order was eventually dismissed did not change the fact Nick was not permitted to have contact with Natalie while it was in effect.

The judge imposed a three-day jail sentence, with credit for time served, along with imposing fines, court costs and fees totaling in excess of $500.

Morals of the story:

1)  Never, deviate from the no-contact provisions of a Restraining Order (or Release Agreement or probation) no matter what the reason.

2)  Don’t be a fool.  Think with your brain at all times.  Never allow your emotions to govern your conduct.

3)  Never underestimate the lack of morality and deviousness some women will display when it comes to placing you and your freedom in jeopardy.

4)  Always remember:  The vast majority of police officers are very good people.  However, if you are ever subjected to inappropriate behavior (misconduct) from your local police (or any other police agency), there are times when it is a good idea to immediately call 911.

Never be disrespectful towards or physically confront a police officer!  If you are being subjected to inappropriate behavior (misconduct) by a police officer, immediately contact a different police agency, such as the state police / county sheriff or 911 and keep them on the phone until the new police officers arrive from the other agency.  Remember:  In most urban and suburban areas, it is extremely awkward for a police officer to have his / her conduct reported to another police agency.  At a minimum, as a result of your phone call to the other police agency (in most circumstances), there will be an electronic record (tape or CD) of your phone call concerning the incident (misconduct).

When viewed in hindsight / commentary:

1)  Nick had the right idea when he initially decided to withdraw and leave the tavern.  His problems arose when he allowed his emotions to control his decisions and reinitiated contact with Natalie.  Remember:  As a man, if you allow your emotions to govern and control your conduct, there will be times when there will be a very heavy price to pay.  The rule:  Never have any form of contact (direct or indirect) with someone who has obtained a Restraining Order against you.

Also, please visit the facebook group:  “Friends of Protection for Men”   The largest and most active Men’s / Fathers’ Rights & Issues Discussion Group on facebook with an international membership of some very influential and brilliant members.   https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectionformen/  – RK Hendrick, Author

Tags: discrimination against men], feminism, feminist jurisprudence, national coalition for men, ncfm, r.k. hendrick, welfare