Decision Rendered in Major West Virginia Domestic Violence Lawsuit
 

http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/W...pdf?docID=2621

Today (07 OCT 2009) in West Virginia a significant decision was released in
the case of Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD) versus The Family
Protection Services Board of West Virginia. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law contained within Judge Stucky's decision declared several
rules of the West Virginia Family Protection Services Board null and void,
stating the rules directly conflict with the express intent of West
Virginia's legislature that domestic violence programs be administered in a
gender neutral fashion while further finding the rules had a chilling effect
on MAWAD members free speech right.

Read Judge Stucky's entire decision here. Several of the findings and
conclusions include:

19. West Virginia Code 48-26-404 mandates the Board to propose rules for
programs of intervention for perpetrators of domestic violence...

20. In response to this legislative mandate the Board adopted Rule
191-3-3....

21. The promulgation of this rule forms the basis for the Board's official
position that perpetrator intervention programs should actually be and, in
fact are, administered as "batterers" intervention programs with the
fundamental premise that only men can be batterers and therefore only men
are appropriate candidates for participation in perpetrator intervention
programs.

22. The Legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide licensure
and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral;
the Board, acting on its own, has ignored this intent and created a gender
specific program that includes only men and excludes all women.

From the conclusions:

"The legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide for licensure
and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral.
The Board, acting on its own, has morphed this intent into a gender specific
program that includes only men and excludes all women...This rule conflicts
with the clear intent of the legislature and is void."

Decision Rendered in Major West Virginia Domestic Violence Lawsuit
 

It would be interesting to see how the feminists overcome this.

Phil #3


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/W...pdf?docID=2621

Today (07 OCT 2009) in West Virginia a significant decision was released
in the case of Men and Women Against Discrimination (MAWAD) versus The
Family Protection Services Board of West Virginia. The findings of fact
and conclusions of law contained within Judge Stucky's decision declared
several rules of the West Virginia Family Protection Services Board null
and void, stating the rules directly conflict with the express intent of
West Virginia's legislature that domestic violence programs be
administered in a gender neutral fashion while further finding the rules
had a chilling effect on MAWAD members free speech right.

Read Judge Stucky's entire decision here. Several of the findings and
conclusions include:

19. West Virginia Code 48-26-404 mandates the Board to propose rules for
programs of intervention for perpetrators of domestic violence...

20. In response to this legislative mandate the Board adopted Rule
191-3-3....

21. The promulgation of this rule forms the basis for the Board's official
position that perpetrator intervention programs should actually be and, in
fact are, administered as "batterers" intervention programs with the
fundamental premise that only men can be batterers and therefore only men
are appropriate candidates for participation in perpetrator intervention
programs.

22. The Legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide licensure
and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral;
the Board, acting on its own, has ignored this intent and created a gender
specific program that includes only men and excludes all women.

From the conclusions:

"The legislature has expressed a clear intention to provide for licensure
and funding of perpetrator intervention programs that are gender-neutral.
The Board, acting on its own, has morphed this intent into a gender
specific program that includes only men and excludes all women...This rule
conflicts with the clear intent of the legislature and is void."