Sunday, October 26, 2008

Censoring this blog

I am purging this blog of all text that was censored by Cmr. Joseph's order on Friday. If I understand him correctly, it just affects the postings on Dec. 3 and June 29.

My ex-wife also complained about these pictures and the postings on Dec. 13, Jan. 8, Jan. 9, Jan. 27, Feb. 7, Feb. 25, July 30, Aug. 8, and Aug. 24. Cmr. Joseph said that I do not have to remove these.

Julie, please let me know if I have made any mistakes.

Cmr. Joseph himself says that he is not allowed to view my blog, but he has admitted that he has an employee who has reported to him about it. So whoever you are, please tell me directly if you think that I have failed to censor anything that your boss wants censored.

Also on Friday, this blog and other Blogger blogs were banned in Turkey by a Turkish judge. No relation to Cmr. Joseph, as far as I know.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting and I'm awaiting the next installment. Hope you win.

Anonymous said...

Win what? He just surrendered.

Inspector Javert said...

I wish you hadn't. This would be a good first amendment test.

Anonymous said...

Have you thought about contacting the ACLU, or perhaps the Institute for Justice?

Doesn't sound like Mr. Joseph would like the scrutiny or publicity.

Anonymous said...

I've reviewed your blog and it looks like time and time again the court has ruled in favor of your ex-wife. Perhaps all of the experts might know more about what is best for the children than you.

Perhaps you are just trying to punish your ex for leaving you for a man she preferred?


You need to take a long, hard look at your life and ask yourself why would the courts rule against you again and again. These people have years or training and education and are dedicated to protecting women and children from abusive men. You need to let go of the paraniod delusion that everyone is out to get you.

Also, only a sick person would spend so much energy trying to ruin the life of his ex and her new husband.

I wish the best for everyone involved but you really need to get a grip!

Inspector Javert said...

Above Anonymous is trying to pretend she is new with a comment like "I've reviewed your blog and..." but then she uses phrases similar to a previous post about taking a "long hard look at your life". It's the same demeaning poster. Don't give up, friend. You have people in your corner, at least in spirit.

Anonymous said...

He is getting ruled against over and over again because Marxist/Feminist have taken over the court system. They are basically batting 1000 when it comes to all issues of child support/custody. Judges who don't follow suit are run outta town. A judges convention in NJ had one leading judge state that it was all about money and that Fathers didnt matter. It's a fact that single mothers raise children that do far worse in life than if raised by their Fathers. Save your pathetic shaming language for people with weak minds.

Anonymous said...

One more thing. How could you side with a Woman who had an affair, got caught, ran off, took his children away, bankrupted him, and now seeks to destroy him even further? What a disgusting person you must be. Sexist pig. This system has ruined families and they call this progress.

Anonymous said...

Where's the abuse protection from? She's got all his money, she's got full custody. She had an affair and got rewarded for it. First off, Bruce is pitiful. Any man who takes on anothers seed just for a little sex is a loser in my book. Secondly, Julie is not seeking protection. She's seeking destruction. Hardly the acts of a scared or abused Woman. Real abused women would be too scared to call 911 or go thru this. Lastly, their has been no evidence of abuse. All women claimn it, it's a leverage tactic. Funny, how in the late 60's the feminist said they wanted to abolish marriage. They are doing a great job of it, eh?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I stand by my original comments.

When I read this blog all I can think is that this is just another man trying to avoid his responsibilities to his children and his ex-wife. Typical man.

Wake up! We aren't living in the 1950's anymore and women are not subservient to men! We have options and have the right to seek happiness and safety elsewhere if our pertner doesn't measure up. men have this right also so don;t act like it's a one way street here.

That being said, even if a woman must leave her marriage it doesn't mean that the man doesn't still have responsibilities to her and the children.

Todays men need to STEP UP and be men.

Anonymous said...

"even if a woman must leave her marriage it doesn't mean that the man doesn't still have responsibilities to her and the children."

I'd disagree. If a woman chose to break her marriage contract, why should the man be liable for her? And as for any children, hasn't she brought poverty on them? Very often the level of child support has nothing to do with how much a child needs as to how much his ex needs and that is wrong.

Anonymous said...

If women aren't subserviant to Men anymore than they sure do seem to need our money huh? Oh brother, the ole not the 1950's argument anymore. You mean when women didn't have 4 times the rates of STD's, didn't smoke and die of lung cancer (leading cause of cancer now with women), didn't die earlier due to spending decades in the workforce, not serving in the military, and on and on. We are dying. The angry Lesbians have destroyed our families. We now have so few babies we are depopulating as are most western nations. If you think this is a better way, then you have my symphathy. But this grazy train will come to end soon. It has to, we can't afford it anymore.

Anonymous said...

What responsibilities is he avoiding? God you people are so dangerous to this world and you don't even realize it. You are just projecting. At no point has he been hauled into court because of funds. He keeps getting dragged back into court cuz he wants to see his girls (heaven forbid). His ex is now re-married and that clown should be the sole supporter. George has done everything he was forced to do. Could you please list some specifics next time? You rotten, sexist, illinformed, monster. Men should just not get married, under no circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Hey "George", are you going to come out with YOUR name? You've posted court case numbers, you've posted your ex wife's name, you've posted the city... I know who YOU are, Google and other websites are friends to the curious. You've got plenty of money, ye old Mom is a famous conservative politician. Your posts are deceitful regarding the money issues. The regular folk here start identifying with you, but the truth is you're rich! Your ex has asked only for you to support your kids and their education. Will the family trust funds carry to your two girls, or are you going to freeze them out for SPITE? I bet you went to private schools, nothing but the best for Georgie. Why be stingy and deceitful, "George"? What does you Mom think of you trying to cut off your children?

And as far as the courts keeping you from the kids, it's obvious you have issues that need professional help. It took you forever to find a psychiatrist to evaluate you. Are you undergoing treatment, or firing up the stove to cook a few more frogs? You run your ex's name through the mud -- but you hide. A coward. A frog boiling coward. Actually I hope you don't come out with your real name. I'm more concerned about your children's privacy than you.

I think you have "math brain", aspergers, what-ever-you call it. I think family confuses you, the real needs of little girls mystify you. I think you are important to your two girls, for the simple fact that you are their father. I wish you'd shut down this damn blog, get a good therapist and_just_put_some_effort_ in. You're a smart guy, analyze it. Maybe cooking a frog in front of two little girls isn't what most people would do. Most people would stop and listen to two girls crying. Stop and listen. Obtain feedback. Alter plan. Turn off the stove. See? Easy. You may be able to learn some skills and have a relationship with your children. Or you can keep pretending this is a father's rights issue. It's not. Believe it or not, "George", most fathers wouldn't even think of boiling a frog in front of their 5-9 year old daughters.

Anonymous said...

The above post was proof that the others were placed there by the same bitter group of Julie's friends. Whoever they are, they still list no facts whatsoever. Just slander slander slander. The only thing they have told us is that George is rich. At no point has George been taken to court over lack of financial support. He even paid for his ex wifes law degree which she is using to help make the world a better place......sarcasm. I have been reading this blog for years now and the only thing her people can speak of is boiling a frog (ohh the horror).

A woman who let's a man educate her, lays with another man then drags her children thru her shame and selfishness should be incarcerated. I know I know, a woman has a right to seek out happiness huh? How great, even if it causes destruction to all those around them, including little girls. The people that stick up for this monster should all be exiled.

George, please don't give in. Fight cencorship to the end, fight Comm. Joseph forever, and please, fight people like this monster who believes its ok to destroy Men, children, and this nation just because they got a little bored and meet a guy with a little less grey in his hair.

Anonymous said...

"A frog boiling coward"

Not only that, someone with aspergers and very smart! Such malice from the fairer sex. Of course, no doubt she truly believes his ex of being purer than driven snow. Somehow, I doubt that given his ex's behaviour. Bet the writer of the previous post has issues, is divorced or on her way to a divorce and a life living with little dogs or cats.

Anonymous said...

"George" posts stories about ex wives getting money for horses, or that his support payments have been doubled, suggesting he is in financial hardship. In this thread a poster said 'she's got all his money...". Actually all the blog has said is child support and some spousal support early on. But, the interjected stories from other divorces lead readers to other conclusions. It's purposefully misleading.

The trust funds and private school comments were guesses -- which given his reaction ("exiled"? lol), must have been spot on.

"George" is not naive. He knows anyone can find out who he is with the info he has given out. He knows exactly what he is doing. What's ironic is: I was sympathetic to "George" when I first started reading the blog. No more.

PS: Aspergers is a syndrome, not a swear word.

George said...

If you know who I am, then you probably also know how to verify what I say. What is misleading? If something is inaccurate, then go ahead and say so.

I give my opinions here. I do not expect everyone to agree with me.

Anonymous said...

Isn't George paying several thousand dollars a month in child (spousal) support? If Julie can't cover the cost of a private school with that I don't know what to tell you. It reminds me of Heather Mills getting 40 million from Sir Paul and complaining about not being able to put her daughter on first class flights. Sounds like Julie the Princess wants the whole kingdom, and all she is getting now is a shill named Bruce.

Anonymous said...

"What's ironic is: I was sympathetic to "George" when I first started reading the blog. No more."

Complete and utter lie. Do you really believe we are this naive to think that you aren't an insider to all this? Come on now...

Anonymous said...

Women are entitled to receive half of the pre divorce family income as Alimony BEFORE any child support. Otherwise men could hold women as economic hostages. Im agine being faced with the choice of having to chose between staying in a loveless marriage to financial security or leaving to be with the man of your dreams but being broke. Horrible choice.

If a man fails to deliver in the marriage and a woman has to turn to another man for fulfillment ITS THE HUSBANDS FAULT! Perhaps if you men would turn off the sports, help around the house, actually show some emotion and treat the women in your lives the way they deserved you could actually keep a woman.

Anonymous said...

I got a better idea, don't get married, don't let a woman move in with you, never give any help to a woman's children and then it won't be anyones fault. Right?

Anonymous said...

Stay with it George. She's cracking, her whole clan is, look at the commments. Like children who are used to getting their way, but now someone is telling them no.

Anonymous said...

"men could hold women as economic hostages"

Errr..... excuse me..but aren't women empowered and able to earn their own income? In the light of this, how could she possibly be held as an economic hostage?

Anonymous said...

Well, she could be in a real pickle. I mean she was with George and he was flipping the bills for everything. She says hey, I can be an attorney..I mean, I'm not working, not really doing anytihng, it will be a breeze. George, get the checkbook out. But wait, now she sees another Man and wants him. Not really caring who gets hurts, broke, destroyed, man woman or child she gets in the affair. Now, she has a decision to make. Stay with George and have him continue to pay for everything and do everything while she continues her shameless affair. Or, leave George, blame him for everything (all the times he stood in his hallway and set the alarm clock) shack up with Bruce and be entitled to all his stuff and drain George outta every dime and still feel slighted in the process. Wow, you can clearly see what an economic hostage she would be in all this now, right?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the logic of those defending this guy.

He's refusing to pay his child support and alimony and he's deliberately slandering his ex wife and accredited professionals such as Commissioner Joseph, Bret Johnson and Sally Mitchell.

He needs to be in jail as do all men who refuse to support their families. I don't care if you get to see your kids or not, that doesn't erase you obligations. If the courts say someone could pose a danger to their kids they still need to pay support. As long as young kids, especially girls, have Mom everythings fine anyway. Moms usually do the bulk of the housework and child rearing anyway while dad watches sports.Fix your situation and then re apply for visitation, jeessh.

Anonymous said...

Exactly what evidence do you have that he is refusing to pay child support. I'm sure we would all love to see it. The only person I see slandering anyone is you. Clearly you are trying to use shame, lies, and slander to discredit George. Unless you can provide even a sliver of evidence to the contrary you will be in the wrong. Housework and wiping runny noses doesn't pay the bills sweetheart. Quit with the low-brow pro Feminist nonsense. Everyone knows they are just a group of obese women who hate men for not showing them any attention. Your abuse is not wanted here and your slander and shaming tactics will not work here.

Anonymous said...

Statistics have shown over an over again that children raised by Mothers have higher teen pregnancy rates, more troubles at school, higher incarceration rates, and deeper psychological issues. Also, it is a fact that more Mothers have committed child abuse than Fathers. This is amplified when you have Mothers of low character who tend to engage in affairs and parade the boyfriend of the month club in front of their children. Women are essentially being left to their own devices with guaranteed tax free income. Our women are a mess because of it.

Anonymous said...

"He needs to be in jail as do all men who refuse to support their families."

As far as I can see, he was supporting his wife and family until SHE decided to leave. It was her choice so I fail to see why he should be ordered to pay her anything other than a reasonable sum to support two children. It appears that the ex is being unreasonable by demanding a sum far in excess of what two children need so she can support HER lifestyle to which she has no real entitlement. Shared custody of course would go a long way to resolving child support issues and leaves his ex to truly have an equal share in child support and the opportunity to support herself, well unless she really is the greedy grasping individual she has shown herself to be.