Yes, my girlfriend found out I was infaithful to her and used the Courts to issue a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against me, for disturbing her peace. The Order takes away the freedom of men, without the use of their Constitutional Rights, they take a real Batterer, like Oj Simpson, who terrorized hios wife Nicole, and then murdered her , Then on National Television, got off on the charges when everyone knew he was guilty .The Government vowed to never let this happen again. Our Government via Joe Biden, enacted the WAWA 1994, that is the best protection a woman could ever want; unfortunately it strips all rights of men who may just have an argument with their wife , she can run down, to the family Court fill an affidavit, DV109, 100, 120, 110, 130 the CLETS form, these forms present a primae facie Case to the Court( if unopposed it would prevail on the allegations of abuse), whetheer they are true or not. The fact that a Woman goes through the trouble of filling out the forms, is sufficient for these Courts to implement the intent of the Act , which is to prevent a battered woman from returning to continuuing abuse. All men have Domocles Sword hanging over their head, with these disparate laws, referred to in California Family Code 6200 et, seq. Section 6320 are the elements of this section ranging from disturbing the peace of another, verbal abuse, harassment and then ranging up to Physical Battering and Rape of the victim. The Courts and our Representatives have conveniently, put all these separate categories in to one section for ease of conviction of not a real batterer, but it could be a normal fight between a husband and wife, anbd the wife if she knows what to do , can get more than even with her husband for disturbing her peace. The Courts required to enforce the intention of the DVPA, even if sacrifices the freedom of all men, the motto is better a man sacrifificed than woman hurt. Most of this bombast is about future abuse, that might happen again, and the Courts are mandated to searate the parties 1-10 years, with a restraining order agaisnt the man( they really FEIGN that it is for the protection of men, that is bolderdash. IT PROTECTS WOMEN ONLY You have to distinguish between the Civil DVRO and the Criminal DVRO, they are basically the same except the Criminal guy (with criminal procedure rights) beats his wife brutally and gets the same DVRO as the Civil guy, who may have just lost a verbal argument to his wrathful wife who looks for vindication form the Courts who are happy to pass out DVROs against men,(without criminal procedure rights) its their legislative order and mandate that they do so. The real fabrications are in the statistics they cite about DV, they are as Trump states, alternative facts. The Act is a money make for the Government, both Federal and State , benefits, therapy groups, and if was put on NASDAQ, it would be a winning investment for the investor. The take home message is not that Domestic Violence should not be stopped, because it should but the way the law is written is void for vagueness, overbroad, and violates the over breadth doctrine of the Constitution, it needs to be re written to conform to the Constitution of the United States and the Human Rights Commision of 1948. It is not for the greater good as some believe( you cannot suspend a man criminal procedure and make it Civil for ease of conviction of the accused, and further the sacrifice of one innocent man and his freedom so a woman can be saved is not equal protection under the 14 th amendment. Please rewrite the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT 2013, AND THE CALIFORNIA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT SO THAT MEN ARE PROTECTED FULLY COMPLETELY AND CONSTITUIONALLY UNDER THE LAW . Not utilizing the intent of preventing future abuse as Standard for issuing a DVRO. PLEASE DO NOT EXTEND THE VAWA AFTER IT EXPIRES IN 2018, REWRITE THIS ACT AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT PROFIT FROM IT, SO THAT IT PROTECTS WOMEN WITHOUT SACRIFICING INNOCENT MEN. LONG LIVE THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AS IT APPLIES TO THIS ISSUE.

Yes, my girlfriend found out I was infaithful to her and used the Courts to issue a Domestic Violence Restraining Order against me, for disturbing her peace. The Order takes away the freedom of men, without the use of their Constitutional Rights, they take a real Batterer, like Oj Simpson, who terrorized hios wife Nicole, and then murdered her , Then on National Television, got off on the charges when everyone knew he was guilty .The Government vowed to never let this happen again. Our Government via Joe Biden, enacted the WAWA 1994, that is the best protection a woman could ever want; unfortunately it strips all rights of men who may just have an argument with their wife , she can run down, to the family Court fill an affidavit, DV109, 100, 120, 110, 130 the CLETS form, these forms present a primae facie Case to the Court( if unopposed it would prevail on the allegations of abuse), whetheer they are true or not. The fact that a Woman goes through the trouble of filling out the forms, is sufficient for these Courts to implement the intent of the Act , which is to prevent a battered woman from returning to continuuing abuse. All men have Domocles Sword hanging over their head, with these disparate laws, referred to in California Family Code 6200 et, seq. Section 6320 are the elements of this section ranging from disturbing the peace of another, verbal abuse, harassment and then ranging up to Physical Battering and Rape of the victim. The Courts and our Representatives have conveniently, put all these separate categories in to one section for ease of conviction of not a real batterer, but it could be a normal fight between a husband and wife, anbd the wife if she knows what to do , can get more than even with her husband for disturbing her peace. The Courts required to enforce the intention of the DVPA, even if sacrifices the freedom of all men, the motto is better a man sacrifificed than woman hurt. Most of this bombast is about future abuse, that might happen again, and the Courts are mandated to searate the parties 1-10 years, with a restraining order agaisnt the man( they really FEIGN that it is for the protection of men, that is bolderdash. ITS PROTECTS WOMEN ONLY You have to distinguish between the Civil DVRO and the Criminal DVRO, they are basically the same except the Criminal guy (with criminal procedure rights) beats his wife brutally and gets the same DVRO as the Civil guy, who may have just lost a verbal argument to his wrathful wife who looks for vindication form the Courts who are happy to pass out DVROs against men,(without criminal procedure rights) its their legislative order and mandate that they do so. The real fabrications are in the statistics they cite about DV, they are as Trump states, alternative facts. The Act is a money make for the Government, both Federal and State , benefits, therapy groups, and if was put on NASDAQ, it would be a winning investment for the investor. The take home message is not that Domestic Violence should not be stopped, because it should but the way the law is written is void for vagueness, overbroad, and violates the over breadth doctrine of the Constitution, it needs to be re written to conform to the Constitution of the United States and the Human Rights Commision of 1948. It is not for the greater good as some believe( you cannot suspend a man criminal procedure and make it Civil for ease of conviction of the accused, and further the sacrifice of one innocent man and his freedom so a woman can be saved is not equal protection under the 14 th amendment. Please rewrite the VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMAN ACT 2013, AND THE CALIFORNIA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT SO THAT MEN ARE PROTECTED FULLY COMPLETELY AND CONSTITUIONALLY UNDER THE LAW . Not utilizing the intent of preventing future abuse as Standard for issuing a DVRO. PLEASE DO NOT EXTEND THE VAWA AFTER IT EXPIRES IN 2018, REWRITE THIS ACT AND THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT PROFIT FROM IT, SO THAT IT PROTECTS WOMEN WITHOUT SACRIFICING INNOCENT MEN. LONG LIVE THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS AS IT APPLIES TO THIS ISSUE.

As a teacher and parent, I have seen firsthand the power of respecting all students and their chosen identities. Preserve their fundamental rights to use the appropriate bathroom facilities. Limiting this will only pave the way for further denial of human rights.

A 60% consensus of the senate will more likely ensure supreme court justices represent a broader population's values by encouraging the president to appoint a justice that will be more moderate and by encouraging the senate to vote beyond party politics. No more tyranny of the majority when appointing justices! With the present 51% simple majority required for approval, a president who controls the senate can appoint justices with extreme political bias rather than based on their understanding of the constitution. The minority senators can filibuster, but this polarizes the senate along party lines. The American people are not served well by this.

The President works for me and needs to be able to easily hear what I have to say.

The Petition Proposal is a proposal intended to encourage a dialogue for practical and money saving alternatives to the proposed deep wells of the Abeyta Settlement. We hope this proposal will evolve with input based on the needs of individual settlement parties and the greater good of the community. The Abeyta Settlement is the adjudication of Taos Pueblo's water rights and was finalized in October 2016. As First People of the Taos Valley, the People of Taos Pueblo have the most senior water rights, so the Settlement ensures that Taos Pueblo is entitled to around 12,000 acre feet of water. The concern is not with the adjudication of water for Taos Pueblo, but rather with the details of distribution and delivery of water in the Taos Valley. Primary concerns with the details of the settlement are 1) the extensive alteration of water in the Taos Valley that would be caused by the drilling at least 13 deep wells (1,000-3,000 feet deep) and 2) the unknown impacts to water quality, to the groundwater aquifers, rivers and soil of our Taos valley related to those deep wells and 3) the financial impacts of operating these deep wells which may overwhelm the finances of the acequias. The settlement plan specifies the drilling of 9 wells that are at least 1,000 feet deep near the mountains and across Taos Valley at the top of acequias near their diversions from rivers. One purpose of these wells is to mitigate any negative impacts from drought or heavy pumping of lower deep wells. If the water table drops or river water disappears, these mitigation wells would be turned on to restore water to surface water systems. We have serious concerns that these deep wells, when drilled, may perforate shallower ground aquifers and allow mixing of aquifer water layers that would impact the shallower sites where many people have domestic wells. This has already occurred with a Town of Taos 3,200’ deep well in Los Cordovas. Geologists such as Paul Bauer and Tony Benson and hydrologists such as Mike Darr have said that the ground aquifers are interconnected. Time after time, when deep wells are drilled, they dry up and impact shallower aquifers. This could, in the end, even dry up the Taos Pueblo Buffalo Pasture as water levels drop from the pumping of deep wells. Once these wells are drilled, the damage may not be possible to reverse. The chemical composition of deep well water is unknown until you drill. Each deep well is expected to cost approximately two million dollars. If the wells draw up water with high levels of toxic minerals such as fluoride, uranium, arsenic, or heavy calcium carbonates, they will need to be treated and the citizens of our area will bear that cost. The petition proposal suggests the installation of water guages (on a negotiated, case by case basis) to allow individual acequias and parties to provide real-time, objective data to avoid disputes between water-sharing parties. Guages are not suggested throughout individual acequia systems - only at shared diversions from major rivers. The purpose of guages is only to confirm that each party receives their confirmed share of water allotments as defined by the Abeyta Settlement. Although the Abeyta Settlement decree has been finalized, application for these deep well projects must be made on an individual basis. These deep wells have at present been mandated without genuine opportunity for prior public feedback. The settlement agreement provides (Abeyta Settlement, Article 13.3) for the parties to "reconvene and negotiate in an attempt to agree on modified or alternative projects or measures that are otherwise consistent with this settlement agreement" if the projects are infeasible or do not receive necessary permits. Further, if the mitigation well system fails or is not used, the Abeyta Settlement states "that the water rights owning parties shall reconvene and negotiate terms and provisions which will provide mutually acceptable alternative solutions". At this time our community should consider invoking Article 13.3 of the Settlement to determine if these deep wells make sense for our future water sustainability. Our survival in this desert depends on our precious natural water system. To alter this system without knowing what the long-term repercussions is dangerous.

I want to have a voice in my community.

Robert Pittenger's office has not been forthcoming with his schedule. Since we don't know where to find him, we've planned the event in his honor.

Mountaintop removal coal mining is linked to several public health impacts, including elevated rates of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and other deadly illnesses. A huge 2,000-acre mountaintop removal permit on Coal River Mountain in West Virginia, issued in 2008, should have terminated in 2011 in accordance with federal and state law for not starting within three years. Instead, the WV Dept. of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) retroactively extended the permit. Now, after years of litigation by Coal River Mountain Watch, the new Cabinet Secretary of the WVDEP has the permit back on his desk with the opportunity to correct his predecessor's mistakes and declare the Eagle #2 permit terminated.

Constituents have not had an opportunity to air their concerns to the Rep. in a large setting, and therefore are extremely frustrated. Rep. LoBiondo serves on the Congressional Intelligence Committee and constituents want answers about Donald Trump's connections to the Russian government, full disclosure of Trump's financials and full transparency. Constituents also need to discuss Trump Administration's reckless approach to many issues such as: ACA, Entitlements, the EPA/environment, out of control spending (ICE agents, "the wall", etc.), Immigration ban & deportation force & Trumps exorbitant travel expenses for first month. Constituents also need the ability to challenge irresponsible budget cuts proposing to eliminate Public Broadcasting & National Public Radio, by killing the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) & arts programs funded by the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts), CPB & NEA make up less than .02% of Federal Budget. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/19/trump-reportedly-wants-to-cut-cultural-programs-that-make-up-0-02-percent-of-federal-spending/?utm_term=.7e1e00281ce9

United Nations and other international aid officials have been warning that Yemen is on the brink of famine. "Donald Trump’s Shift On Yemen Risks Plunging The Country Into Famine," the Huffington Post reports, warning that the Trump Administration may be giving Saudi Arabia a green light to attack and close the critical port of Hodeidah, blocking Yemen's food imports. [1] "Yemen war causing world's worst food crisis," Vatican Radio reports. [2] "'Time running out': 1.4 million children could die from famine in Africa & Yemen, says UNICEF," RT reports. [3] But a search of recent stories on the New York Times' website only turns up wire stories, not a regular New York Times article. [4] Urge New York Times editors to press for prominent Times coverage of the UN's famine warning for Yemen, and acknowledgement of the U.S. role in bringing about the famine risk by supporting Saudi Arabia's war, by signing our petition. UPDATE 2/24: Since we launched our petition, the New York Times has run an article that reported the UN famine warning for Yemen. [5] That's a good start. Sign our petition to continue to press the New York Times for prominent coverage of the Yemen emergency. References: 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-hodeidah-yemen-famine_us_58a88970e4b037d17d28610b 2. http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2017/02/17/yemen_war_causing_worlds_worst_food_crisis_amid_widespread_/1293189 3. https://www.rt.com/news/378097-unicef-children-famine-malnutrition/ 4. https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/yemen+famine/since1851/allresults/2/allauthors/newest/ 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/world/africa/why-20-million-people-are-on-brink-of-famine-in-a-world-of-plenty.html

Paul Mitchell is a new Congressman who had to bounce district to district before finding one that he could win in. I along with my retired parents asked Paul Mitchell multiple times if he would cut Social Security and Medicare, only to have him block us on Facebook. Rep. Mitchell needs to be reminded that he works for the people of Michigan's 10th District and that it is his job to answer tough questions not to hide in his new D.C. office.