Marriage Of Ramirez

Court of Appeals: Jorge L. Ramirez (Jorge)[1] appeals from a judgment annulling his second marriage to Lilia Llamas (Lilia), following a bifurcated trial in which the court found the marriage void due to fraud. The trial court found the first marriage between Jorge and Lilia was a void attempt at a Mexican marriage performed in California. It found the second marriage void because of fraud, relating to the fact Jorge married Lilia even though prior to the second marriage he had begun a love affair with Lilia’s sister that he intended to continue. Jorge appeals the judgment of nullity, and the finding that Lilia was a putative spouse. We affirm.

Jorge, an immigrant from the State of Michoacán, Mexico, lived in the United States and sought legal residence here. His mother was a permanent resident and sponsored Jorge in his application for that status. He began his application process in 1994 or 1995 but because his mother was not a citizen herself, the process took many years.

In 1999, Jorge and Lilia were married in a religious ceremony in Moreno Valley, California. The ceremony was performed by a priest or other official from the State of Jalisco, Mexico, and an “Acta de Matrimonio” was issued. No marriage license was issued by the State of California. In 2001, Jorge and Lilia became aware that the 1999 marriage was invalid because Lilia’s prior divorce had not been final for 300 days prior to the marriage. Additionally, because it was made to look as though the parties were married in Mexico, the Mexican marriage certificate would prevent Jorge from getting his green card because it would make it appear that he had not been in continuous residence in the United States.

The parties were remarried in 2001 and obtained a confidential marriage license. After the death of Jorge’s mother, Lilia assumed the position as Jorge’s sponsor to pursue his application for permanent residence and citizenship. In 2004, after she signed a document related to his immigration status, Jorge informed Lilia that it would be the last one. Two weeks later, in May 2004, he took Lilia out to dinner and asked for a divorce because he was in love with someone else and always had been. In June 2004, Jorge moved out.

That same month, Lilia found out who the other woman was when she overheard a conversation between Jorge and Lilia’s sister Blanca. Jorge had begun an affair with Blanca prior to the 2001 marriage, and it lasted until 2005. The intercepted conversation occurred in 2005. Lilia asked her teenaged son Victor to call Blanca, who babysat for Jorge and Lilia’s daughter, on her cell phone to inquire if she would be joining them for lunch with the child. Blanca, at a restaurant with Jorge, had the cell phone in her purse. Instead of pressing the stop key, she pressed the button to answer the call, so the conversation she was having with Jorge was overheard on Victor’s cell phone, which Lilia and Victor listened to by activating the loudspeaker. In this conversation, Jorge professed his love for Blanca, assured her that they would be together once he got his share of money and property from Lilia, *755 and told her that he had only married Lilia to gain permanent resident status. This conversation occurred after Jorge had moved out…

The court also found the second marriage was void because Jorge perpetrated a fraud on Lilia by carrying on an extramarital affair with Blanca. The court found that Jorge did not marry Lilia because he was worried about his immigration or work status; instead, the court found Jorge made false statements to Blanca about his reasons for marrying Lilia, including a need for a green card, to string her along and to delay having to make a commitment to her. Thus, the fraud related to Jorge’s marrying Lilia while carrying on a sexual relationship with Blanca which he intended to maintain. The court concluded Jorge wanted to “have his cake and eat it too” by carrying on sexual relationships with both women at the same time.

Posted in Marriage | Leave a comment

Hollywood Gedolim!

Chaim Amalek writes: “HOLLYWOOD GEDOLIM! Just think how much less expensive it would have been for all concerned had the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts found a place for one more student a century ago, a lad from Linz. A similar opportunity confronts you now.”

Posted in Chaim Amalek | Leave a comment

Why Not A Jew-Friendly White Nationalism?

Generally, I don’t think Jews should run for public office in goyisha lands. The goyim should rule their own countries, but in emergencies there are exceptions. I want to wake up the goyim to look after their people.

I was born and raised a goy and I can speak to goyim about their own interests. I want to apply the craft of the Jew to the plight of the white.

I wonder how many votes I would get if I ran for political office on a good will towards all but a preference for one’s own, Jared Taylor-style white nationalism (meaning that whites should take as much pride in their heritage as Jews do in theirs, Chinese do in theirs, Latinos do in theirs, Blacks do in theirs, and that whites should organize in their self-interest just like other groups do, I would seek nothing more for whites than I would want for other groups to organize in their interest)?

A friend says: “Well here’s the good news. In our lifetime White Pride will become a significant part of the cultural landscape. This will be good for White people, good for the country, good for everyone.”

Mass immigration is bad for our citizens, particularly the poor and relatively unskilled. It’s bad for blacks. The death of segregation meant the death of the black community, wrote a black woman (the late Elizabeth Wright).

There are many points in common between Zionism and White nationalism, and between Torah Judaism and racism. Torah can be used to make white nationalist racial thought politically respectable. “When you criticize Racism, you are really criticizing the JEWS. So what are you, you anti-semite?”

A sage says: “YOU could be the historic bridge, linking Whites and Jews in their common struggle against the dusky folk of the world.”

It is my destiny. Yidden! There is a new breed of goy coming, and he cares not for our past sufferings as he has had many of his own. Let us bar the door to him and so limit our dealings to the goyim we know, from der alte heim.

I need a logo. A Star of David with three line segments protruding from one of the triangles.

I could drive the advocates of race mixing from Hollywood because I have friends in the San Fernando Valley who can make videos eroticizing endogamy (Jews should procreate with Jews, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, latinos with latinos, etc).

U.S. Senate is my destiny. Easy job. You get to hire pretty young women and date them. Great benefits.

Los Angeles used to be the most Anglo-Saxon city in America. Sigh. WASPs are my favorite goyim. They’re so nice. They’re easy to maneuver.

A friend says:

The downside for you is that absent a large racist hassidic block you would have problems with the Jews.

It is different in NY, where all recognize that the Hasids are a profoundly racist bunch who naturally understand from the earliest age that there are different kinds of people in the world.

Your natural political base in CA is 1. dispossessed whites 2. black men left unemployed by the Mexican invasion 3. young white women looking for white men to look up to.

My fellow goyim, I was once one of you. Then I learned the craft of the Jew. Goyim! You must wake up. You are being dispossessed from your land. I want to save you from your moral slumber. You goyim have a long record of looking to a Jew for guidance: Jesus, Marx, Freud, Betty Friedan, Alan Greenspan, etc. Now listen to me.

I write to Yggdrasil (pen name of John Gardner): “I read your entire section on white nationalism. As a religious zionist, I see striking similarities. Do you?”

Yggdrasil responds:

Of course I see similarities! However, zionism is based on the idea that Jews are special and exceptional. If you take the right of Jews to their ethnostate and generalize that into a universal human right for all identifiable groups of humanity including white Europeans – you are advocating a model for the world that most diaspora Jews would find terrifying.

The fact that their fears are irrational is utterly beside the point. They have power, and the longer the irrational fears inform the exercise of that power, the more compelling the case for non-Jews to confront and contain that power.

That is the nub of it: all the rest is mere commentary.

After reading your web site, I conclude that you have either (a) accomplished what I never though possible, namely transforming flattery of Jewish vanity from what I had always considered a lowly craft into a rarified art form (and I mean that as a compliment) or (b) concealed from your readership the fact that you are a remarkably devious rascal.

Chaim Amalek says:

All you need to make this work is control over The Ring of Power…

Then your first vicious enemy is made clear: The Yellow Peril woman, who dreams of becoming a human banana.

Who will separate the Yellow Woman from the White Man, especially the Jewish man? Only the love of a shiksa can defeat this great peril to our race.

I note that the yeshiva boys of American yeshivas all wear white shirts. Let us borrow from them and ourselves become known as the “White Shirts”. Leave brown shirts behind as morally unclean.

Let our salute be the fist swung against the heart. “Greetings, White man! Greetings, White woman!”

Will there be any room in this new White organization for stunted, swarthy, traditional Yidden like me?

We shall need a new song. Something like the Horst Wessel Lied, but without its maudlin homoeroticism. Have we any songwriters here? I’m thinking an unemployed older gay person who may have had a modicum of success composing jingles in the 70s. I’m thinking something like the theme song from “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, but more clearly aimed at White people.

Posted in Jared Taylor, Jews, Personal | Leave a comment

Orthodox Jews, Muslims Oppose Gay Marriage

Chaim Amalek: Religious Jews and Muslims have an important role to play in preserving traditional notions of marriage because in each case, the orthodox among them 1. condemn homosexual conduct because their sacred texts condemn homosexual conduct, offering no wiggle room on the topic; and — this is the key thing — 2. each group is politically untouchable in America. Religious Jews are untouchable because they are Jews, and the Jews who have so much control over our media and culture dare not permit criticism of fellow Jews, not even over this issue. Muslims are untouchable because they are Muslim, and because they generally have brown skin. So let religious Jews and Muslims get together to fight Hollywood and those who would overthrow 6,000 of precedent. Otherwise, we shall soon see the rise of polygamy here.

Posted in Marriage | Leave a comment

The Thru-Line From National Review To Revilo Oliver To William Pierce

Robert S. Griffin writes in his biography of William Pierce: Revilo Oliver was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society and wrote a number of pieces for William Buckley’s magazine National Review in its early years. Oliver and the Birch Society parted company when Oliver’s publicly stated racial views made its leadership uncomfortable. Oliver was said to have made an observation in a speech he gave to the conservative Daughters of the American Revolution to the effect that the pre-Castro Cuban government under General Batista was probably as good as one could reasonably expect in an island largely populated by mongrels.2 Oliver’s overt anti-Semitism made him similarly persona non grata at the National Review. At one public meeting, Oliver reportedly referred to the thought of the “vaporizing” of the Jews as a “beatific vision.”3

Oliver’s writings have been collected and published in a book called America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative.4 The book was published in London. It is doubtful that what Oliver has to say in the book would be acceptable to the publishing and distribution industries in this country. In the introduction to the collection, Sam Dickson, an American lawyer and revisionist historian (on the far right, the term “revisionist” refers to someone who is bucking what they see as the official Jewish liberal party line on World War II in general and the Holocaust in particular) refers to Oliver as a “leader of the racial nationalist movement.”5 Dickson makes the point in his introduction that Oliver focuses on racial self-love among whites rather than animosity toward blacks or Jews. Dickson says that Oliver believes that whites would do well to emulate the loyalties that Jews demonstrate toward their own people and traditions.6

In order to understand racialists such as Oliver and Pierce, one must keep in mind that they look upon the human being as an animal like any other animal in nature. To them, the human being is a species of animal, with the races being sub-species or breeds. That is to say, they don’t see simply one human race. They see one human being, or human animal, and a number of human races. Oliver writes: “Liberals are forever chatting about ‘all mankind,’ a term that does not have a specific meaning, as do parallel terms in biology, such as ‘all marsupials’ or ‘all species of the genus Canis,’ but the fanatics give to the term a mystic and special meaning… [that imposes a] transcendental unity on the manifest diversity of the various human species.”7 Liberals, Oliver argues, engage in “frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human sub-species and between the individuals of a given sub-species.”8

“I reached the conclusion,” Oliver reported in one of his writings
included in America’s Decline, “that our race [those of northern European background], including specifically the Americans, was a viable species, and that therefore, like all viable species of animal life, it had an innate instinct to survive and perpetuate itself.”9 He believed that those of his race do not realize their precarious status on this planet: “Aryans [Indo-European, Nordic, non-Jewish] are a small and endangered minority on this planet, but how many members of our race seem to have even an inkling of that fact?”10

Are Aryans superior to other races of men? It depends on what
values you bring to answering the question, said Oliver. “We must
understand,” he argued, “that all races naturally regard themselves as superior to all others….We are a race as are all the others. If we attribute to ourselves a superiority–intellectual, moral, or other–in terms of our standards, we are simply indulging in a tautology. The only objective criterion of superiority among human races, as among all other species, is biological: the strong survive, the weak perish. The superior race of mankind today is the one that will emerge victorious whether by its technology or its fecundity–from the proximate struggle for life on an overcrowded planet.”11 Oliver contended that the quality of human beings cannot be judged by the intelligence, academic record, or proficiency in a profession alone. He pointed to “mattoids,” as he called them, to make his case. These are individuals who are geniuses in some areas and imbeciles in others. Examples of mattoids Oliver listed were Shelley, Einstein, Lenin, Trotsky, and Mao.

Posted in National Review, Politics, Race, William Pierce | Leave a comment

The Way Forward On Marriage

F. Roger Devlin wrote:

Within the family, the provider must control the allotment of his wealth. The traditional community of property in a marriage, i.e., the wife’s claim to support from her husband, should again be made conditional on her being a wife to him. She may run off with the milkman if she wishes—leaving her children behind, of course (a woman willing to do this is perhaps an unfit mother in any case); but she may not evict her husband from his own house and replace him with the milkman, nor continue to extract resources from the husband she has abandoned. Until sensible reforms are instituted, men must refuse to leave themselves prey to a criminal regime which forces them to subsidize their own cuckolding and the abduction of their children…
Harassment accusations should be a matter of public record. This would make it possible to maintain lists of women with a history of making such charges for the benefit of employers and, far more importantly, potential suitors.
Women might eventually reacquaint themselves with the old-fashioned idea that they have a reputation to protect.
Universal coeducation should be abandoned. One problem in relations
between the sexes today is over familiarity. Young men are wont to assume that being around girls all the time will increase their chances of getting one.
But familiarity is often the enemy of intimacy. When a girl only gets to socialize with young men at a dance once a week, she values the company of young men more highly. It works to the man’s advantage not to be constantly in their company. Men, also, are most likely to marry when they do not understand women too well…
Traditionally, a man has been expected to marry. Bachelorhood was positively forbidden in some ancient European societies, including the early Roman Republic. Others offered higher social status for husbands and relative disgrace for bachelors. There seems to have been a fear that the sexual instinct alone was inadequate to insure a sufficient number of offspring. Another seldom mentioned motive for the expectation of marriage was husbands’ envy of bachelors: “Why should that fellow be free and happy when I am stuck working
my life away to support an ungrateful creature who nags me?”

Posted in Marriage | Leave a comment

Why Are Modern Orthodox Rabbis Lining Up Behind A Sex Offender?

From FrumFollies:

As bad as Zauder’s crimes were, perhaps, more disturbing for the community, is that when it came to the sentencing, many Modern Orthodox leaders lined up to write personal pleas for leniency. Major figureheads, including senior leaders of Yeshiva University, were keen to support an egregious Orthodox sex offender. They include:

Rabbi Kenneth (Kenny) Brander, Yeshiva University Vice President

Dr. David Pecovitz, Gwendolyn and Joseph Straus Chair in Psychology and Jewish Education at the Azrieli Graduate School of Jewish Education and Administration at Yeshiva University. He is also special assistant to President Richard M. Joel.

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, Rabbi, Congregation Bnei Yeshurun or Teaneck New Jersey (Exhibit 34)

Rabbi Ezra Schwartz, Rosh Yeshiva, Yeshiva University (Exhibit 36)
Rabbi Reuven Taragin, Dean Yeshivat HaKotel (Exhibit 42)
Rabbi Baruch Taub, Rabbi Emeritus of Beth Avraham Yosef of Toronto Congregation

Posted in Abuse, Modern Orthodox | Leave a comment

Parenting From The Inside Out

From Daniel Siegel’s book:

1. What was it like growing up? Who was in your family?

2. How did you get along with your parents early in your childhood?
How did the relationship evolve throughout your youth and up until
the present time?

3. How did your relationship with your mother and father differ
and how were they similar? Are there ways in which you try to be
like, or try not to be like, each of your parents?

4. Did you ever feel rejected or threatened by your parents? Were
there other experiences you had that felt overwhelming or traumatizing in your life, during childhood or beyond? Do any of
these experiences still feel very much alive? Do they continue
to influence your life?

5. How did your parents discipline you as a child? What impact
did they have on your childhood, and how do you feel it affects
your role as a parent now?

6. Do you recall your earliest separations from your parents?
What was it like? Did you ever have prolonged separations from
your parents?

7. Did anyone significant in your life die during your childhood,
or later in your life? What was that like for you at the time, and
how does that loss affect you now?

8. How did your parents communicate with you when you were happy
and excited? Did they join with you in your enthusiasm? When
you were distressed or unhappy as a child, what would happen?
Did your father and mother respond differently to you during
these emotional times? How?

9. Was there anyone else besides your parents in your childhood who
took care of you? What was that relationship like for you? What happened to these individuals? What is it like for you when you let
others take care of your child now?

10. If you had difficult times during your childhood, where there
positive relationships in or outside your home that you could depend on during those times? How do you feel those connections
benefited you then, and how might they help you now?

11. How have your childhood experiences influenced your relationships with others as an adult? Do you find yourself
trying not to behave in certain ways because of what happened to you as a child? Do you have patterns of behaviors that you’d like
to alter but have difficulty changing?

12. What impact do you think your childhood has had on your adult
life in general, including the ways in which you think of yourself
and the ways you relate to your children? What would you like to change about the way you understand yourself and relate to others?

Posted in Psychology | Leave a comment

My Famous Irish-Australian Rebel Ancestor – Michael Dwyer

My famous Irish-Australian rebel ancestor was on my mum’s side. The Ford side comes from a bloke who stole a coat in 18th Century England and his Royal Majesty was so concerned about this guy’s health that the thief was sent to the temperate climes of Australia for his crime. I understand that Protestants spell it “Ford” and Catholics spell it “Forde” so my ancestors are Protestant Australians for at least six generations (not sure about the religious leanings of my great-grandfather on my dad’s side who was Chinese, he got buried with the Jews and other unbelievers in Townsville).

Posted in Australia, Personal | Leave a comment

Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives, and the Biology of Political Differences

I had a friend in shul the other day encourage me to post more uplifting material, but with my own spin on things. So here go some excerpts of this new book:

Across a range of topics, the mean responses of liberals consistently favored the new experience, the abstract and the nonconforming. Conservatives just as consistently favored traditional experiences that were closer to reality and predictable patterns. Conservatives, for example, preferred their poems to rhyme and fiction that ended with a clear resolution. Liberals were more likely to write fiction and pain, or attend a music concert. Experimental, arrhythmic verse, amorphous story lines, and ambiguous endings just do not trip the triggers of many conservatives and, perhaps relatedly, they are less likely to be performers…

People who score high on openness [liberals], for example, tend to like envelope-pushing music and abstract art. People who score high on conscientiousness are more likely to be organized, faithful and loyal…

A liberal likely sees a moral wrong when an individual is being, say, socially ostracized. A conservative is more likely to take into account communal considerations in formulating a moral judgment. Is that guy being ostracized because he is not one of us? Because he was disloyal? Because he broke the rules or thumbed his nose at the accepted way of doing things? If the answer to these sorts of questions is yes, maybe he had it coming.

Liberals wanted dogs that were gentle and related to their owners as equals. Conservatives wanted dogs that were loyal and obedient…

The left is characterized more by a desire for the new and novel, a commitment to individual expression, and a tolerance of difference; the right by a desire for order and security, a commitment to tradition and group loyalty.

I notice the authors tiptoing up to some controversial issues.

Even without a tumor pressing on their orbitfrontal cortex, individuals have varying densities of chemical receptors at key areas in the brain, differently shaped neural organs, and neurotransmitter levels in synapses that are highly variable. The effectiveness of drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac makes it clear that decisions and behaviors are biological. If artificially adjusting chemical levels in the brain affects attitudes and actions, naturally occurring variations would have the same effect…

The only way for society to function may be with a legal system that, except in the most egregious of cases, denies it is biologically more challenging for some people “to do good” and that asserts that all nonclinical people are the same in terms of their ability to know right from wrong.

The authors don’t touch on biological racial differences.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment