Second motion to gag AVfM filed

Tina Taylor Kirk and her team of pro bono attorneys have filed yet another motion regarding the information published on A Voice for Men about the Kirk vs Kirk divorce and custody dispute.

This motion references the fact that we have expressed the opinion on these pages that Ms. Kirk is an “abusive alcoholic.” While this is unfortunately embarrassing for Ms. Kirk, it is nonetheless a conclusion rooted in the well documented fact that she abuses her children and drinks heavily. Her intoxicated, abusive rampages have been extensively recorded on audio and video. Her behavior was also reported by the children to the court, who also informed the court of the many occasions Ms. Kirk drove with them in the car while impaired from drinking.

Ms. Kirk submitted evidence to the court that she was undergoing treatment for her drinking during the trial. She was also ordered to place a breathalyser interlock on her personal vehicle by the first judge on the case. Ms. Kirk removed that device without permission from the court and was held in contempt.

And now Ms. Kirk, through her attorneys, is asserting the idea that making this information available to the public is damaging to her, and to her children…the same children she has been documented to abuse while drinking, and the same children who Judge Lori B Jackson has ordered into continued vulnerability from their abuser.

Ms. Kirk’s attorneys also contend that AVfM releasing the fact that Ms. Kirk has been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder “is an invasion of her privacy, embarrassing and has the ability to tarnish her reputation on a global scale.”

They also express concerns over the privacy of the children.

AVfM’s position on this matter remains unchanged. The information and documents published on this site were transmitted to AVfM legally, and now that they are in our possession, publishing them is a Constitutionally protected act. The family court presided over by Judge Lori B. Jackson does not possess the injunctive authority to instruct us to stop publishing the documents or to remove anything that is already on the site. We will vigorously defend against any attempt by the state to censor us or otherwise interfere with our Constitutional freedoms. And we will publicize those efforts on this website and other places as they happen.

The overarching concern in this matter is that the children remain in the unsupervised care of an individual who has routinely inflicted emotional, psychological and physical abuse on them.

While the public display of this family’s misfortunes is uncomfortable, it could have been avoided with responsible decisions by either the court or the children’s mother, or both.  Had the court, including the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem, followed the mandates of West Virginia statutes governing family courts by immediately reporting the abuse to children’s protective services, and by moving expeditiously and decisively to act in the children’s best interest, this scenario could have been avoided.

However, competent decisions made in the children’s best interest have still not been made, and they remain vulnerable to the abuse the court was supposed to stop.

We find it incredible that this is also the court now entertaining motions to instruct AVfM to stop publicizing the plight of these children.

Tina Kirk motion

The West Virginia Record has also begun reporting on this story, indicating it may be gaining traction in other media outlets.


Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/NurdyDancing?feature=mhee Nurdy Dancing

    Aww… see , she’s embarrassed you big meanies should just leave that woman to abuse her kids in peace!

    • Raven01

      Watch for a new poster/handout to be made available this weekend to drive traffic to that petition.
      Anyone else is free to try their own take on, “Do you have 2 minutes to stop child abuse?” posters. I may get the odd decent idea now and again but, I am routinely floored by the level of talent in the MRM pool.

  • bowspearer

    It’s an interesting catch-22. Were justice being done, then I would be against the publication of such information in the interests of avoiding jury tainting.

    However justice is not being done. The fact is that were it not for this information being leaked, then this abhorrent case of court-enabled child abuse would have been covered up like so many other instances.

    Considering that the court is not letting justice prevail, I say, let everyone see just what kind of a demonic (in mentality and actions towards her children), child-beating, egg donor and incubator she is (contributors of genetic material is the only just way to describe “parents” like this and in the interests of equality for any feminists reading this, I would be describing an equally abusive father as a “sperm donor” were the gender roles reversed) and let her face the public scrutiny and trial by social media she deserves.

    Honestly, if it drove her to suicide then it wouldn’t even begin to come remotely close to the horrors she’s inflicted upon those poor, innocent children!

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Agreed. If justice were being done, we would have no reason to discuss this case at all.

  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz

    Huh. And I was slacking off today. Guess I’d better get busy. First email – Ken at Popehat. He just loves stories about free speech and the internet.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I am changing your name to FTSuzU :)

  • Kimski

    “is an invasion of her privacy, embarrassing and has the ability to tarnish her reputation on a global scale.”

    She doesn’t need our help to do that. She’s been doing a pretty good job for herself all along, going back to before she married Lt. Col. Kirk.

    • http://beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com Rick Westlake

      I don’t get it. How can you ‘tarnish’ a turd?

  • Codebuster

    Paul, it is not a fair inference to suggest that just because Ms Kirk abuses her children and drinks heavily, she must be an abusive alcoholic. By calling her an abusive alcoholic, you’ve trapped her in her role. You’ve defined her being. You’ve forced her to identify herself with an activity and an attitude. But an activity is something that someone does. An attitude is something that someone has. An activity is not the person. An attitude is not the person. I think that you’re being very unfair. You are ignoring all those brave people trapped in bodies from which they are trying to break out, to discover new horizons and new sexualities and new ways of being.

  • Iron John

    Tarnish her reputation? With all that she has done up to this point? They have to be joking! How could it be any more tarnished?

    • andybob

      Well, we wouldn’t want the skank magnets at the mechanical bull bar to think ill of her now, would we? After all, a gal’s entitled to her free drinks.

  • White Tiger

    “Throughout the interview the children are referred to by name with a complete disregard for the children’s interests or privacy.”

    Did I miss this when I listened to the interview? I must admit being able to identify subjects of conversation are easier by name than pro-nouns and I was listening for them. I don’t recall ever hearing the children’s names though.

    • lensman

      You didn’t miss anything. I listened to the interview again today. The children were never refered by name. Only Tina Kirk and Lori Jackson were. So yeah they are openly and blatantly lying.

      • Kimski

        Not a single name mentioned, beyond the parents’ and the sister.
        Un-f-ing-believable. These idiots just keeps tripping over their own feet, and can’t even bother with getting their facts straight, before telling obvious lies that are easily disproven.

        • Iron John

          What’s more, the lawyers seem to be claiming that her reputation would be harmed by her friends and family members discovering the information about her on the internet. This makes no sense to me. If they are her friends and family members, wouldn’t they already know this information?

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        I have listened again. One family member mentioned the name of one child, once, which was audible. Since I cannot edit the show, I have removed it.

        • Kimski

          I stand corrected.
          I listened to the recording again the day before yesterday, and didn’t recall any of the childrens names being mentioned.
          Feel free to remove my comments.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            Nah. No need. It was barely noticeable, but enough that I think it warranted pulling the show off the record.

        • bowspearer

          Paul, can the show be saved as an audio file? If so, email me it or link me to it and I might be able to edit out the name using audio editing software.

        • TheBiboSez

          Just as “Tina” is short version of “Martini”, so too did she name the kids “Gina” and “Tonic”.

  • Turbo

    From the first motion to suppress information

    “The children in this proceeding have suffered greatly and should not have their names and confidential statements published on the world wide web where anyone can read their disclosures and hear their grief,” Snead said.

    There you go, it is official, The Family Court does not want anybody to hear their grief. We must not allow anybody to hear these children grieve.

    That tells us all we need to know, not that we didn’t know already.

    I think we have stumbled onto a new slogan for Family Courts throughout the Western World.

    “Suppression, such that none shall hear their grief”

  • echofoxtrot

    Does anyone here have contact with Tami Pepperman? She would know exactly how to handle this. Her email address is tamikay23@hotmail.com

  • echofoxtrot

    Maybe we could go to the cops, and ask that they be charged with conspiracy to commit child abuse?

  • selfactualized man

    WTF she is committed a crime! Forget her public image her own children stated that she drinks and hits them. Maybe if the court cared about the kids as much as their mother. But what the court really cares about is protecting themselves.

    This is not just a fight over men’s rights, there are two kids who need help here. We can not let them get lost in this scuffle. We just have to dig in a keep pushing.

  • Roland3337

    What happens when you walk into a dark room with roaches, and then turn in the lights? No need to answer. We all know. Free speech was meant to deal with such metaphorical vermin.

    And that is what we are dealing with. The worst kind of vermin. The more publicity this atrocious situation gets, the brighter the lights for the roaches.

    Yeah. They’re pissed. And they’d eat us alive, if only it was dark enough.

    Tough titty tina.

  • Mr. XY

    Quick judge Jackson, the West Virginia Record article made reference to “the children of Joel and Tina Kirk”. Clearly that public reference was not in best interest of the children either. Gag them…GAG THEM ALL!
    And hey, counsel Thomas G. Smith and Afton L. Aman, you just gonna just stand there? You did such a great job managing your crazy client, now make yourself useful…..her drink isn’t gonna mix itself.

    • echofoxtrot

      That’s another thing that can be done…file an official complaint with the WV Attorney Regulation office against those two ambulance chasers.

  • lensman

    If Tina is reading this, I want her to know this:

    You are not simply, “An Abusive Alcoholic”. You are not simply “sick”. To call you these things would be a great injustice to genuinely sick people who suffer through addictions and simply can’t help themselves.

    No, what you are is quite plainly a twisted manipulative arrogant princess who just can’t grasp the incredible destructiveness of her actions on her own children, on their very own family and on their own country. I have called you “evil” before, but “evil” is not a strong enough word to describe you. I would describe you as “solipsistic” but I doubt you even know what the word means. No, the right work in your case is “parasite”. You prey on people’s sense of honour and compassion, you suck the happiness out of their lives, you destroy their relationships with everyone around them and you leave them empty to get commited, or kill themselves.

    So, this publicity hurts you and your image? Good! Every person around you needs to see exactly what sort of person you are. You don’t need sympathy, you need “consequences”. We are not going to shut up and we are not going to go away.

    • Iron John

      I agree lensman. I have called her evil as well. And after learning all that I have about her, I cannot form any other opinion.

    • Darryl X

      Yes, they are evil. Sociopaths and malignant narcissists. They do NOT suffer mental illness. Their behavior is a choice.

      They are lazy and have an inflated sense of entitlement and an incomprehensibly vast legal, political, social and financial machine to help them realize it. They have an underdeveloped sense of remorse, shame, guilt, empathy and conscience. They lack analytical skills, sense, reason and logic. They have a propensity for compulsive pathological lying, deception, manipulation, parasitism and opportunism. They’re short-sighted and unable to plan for the future. They are delusional and use money and the children they traffic and the fathers they enslave to satisfy their addiction to power and control, destabilizing our economy by transferring wealth from the most responsible to the most irresponsible for profit. And they have ascended to the highest offices of government because they have no other skills but making themselves look good by making innocent men look bad. Any appeal to or complaint about them based upon practical and objective reality is interpreted by them as evidence of their success in oppressing and persecuting men and children and only encourages them to impose even more.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    The duty of the press is to do this kind of work. This is the sole reason for the First Amendment, exposing corruption and incompetence, especially when manifested in and by our servants.

    An attack on the First Amendment is an act of terrorism. It is evidence that the attacker “hates our freedoms” and intends to undermine our republican form of government.

  • Tawil

    Speaking of freedom of speech, let me just say that TINA TAYLOR KIRK HAS BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER.

    Borderline Personality disorder is the No.1 loathed disorder by all therapists, even moreso than psychopaths, and a huge number of people in the helping professions, particularly psychology and psychiatry, refuse to have BPDers on thier case lists. Even law enforcement personel are trained to identify and beware of these women, and for good reason…. these people are abusers, and the children in thier care need to be (at minimum) placed in the care of sane people and ‘if’ they are to have contact with a Borderline that contact needs to be monitored by the minute.

    The judge who diregarded these concerns -in the face of concerning evidence no less- is placing the children in great danger.

    • Tawil
      • http://angiemedia.com/author/rob Rob

        I’ve read the first two books on your list. Understanding the Borderline Mother is really good, particularly the famous cases outlined and the BPD analytical model the author (Christine Lawson) has developed to help understand Borderline behaviors. This link I provided also talks a bit about other topics in that book and the Surviving the Borderline Parent book such as an estimate that about 30 million people in the US are affected daily by Borderlines.

        Tina Kirk seems to fit into Lawson’s BPD “queen” category and often morphs into a BPD “witch”. These are very different than the hermit and waif categories because they tend to be much more domineering and confident and focused on controlling and harming others using threats, violence, and abuse.

        Tina Kirk is an interesting example of a Borderline because she reportedly frequently exhibits “acting in” self-harm behaviors (alcohol abuse, a reported obsession with food and exercise), “acting out” behaviors (false allegations, abuse against other including verbal, physical, and emotional), and behaviors that are both at the same time (drunk driving).

        The “acting in” behaviors are in my view easier to try to protect against while maintaining some privacy. The court ordered her to put the alcohol testing ignition interlock on her car, and if she had left it on the car that should have helped protect the kids and public from her drunk driving. Ignoring an order intended to protect the physical safety of others from her “acting in” behaviors should have earned her a week long trip to jail and weekly police inspections of her vehicle’s ignition interlock for which she should have to pay.

        The “acting out” behaviors are almost impossible to defend against short of ensuring that everybody who comes into contact with this family knows what Tina Kirk is like. The public, particularly anybody who is around any of the Kirks, must be informed they should assume everything Tina says is a lie that is probably being said to manipulate them. This is one of the major reasons why gagging information about this case is irresponsible. On the contrary, the court should be writing a two-page flyer about Tina Kirk’s behavior problems and ordering it to be distributed widely in the community including specifically every school, medical care provider, therapist, child care provider, and police department that might have contact with the children and the Kirk parents.

    • Theseus

      I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with one of these lunatics.

      It was extremely difficult for me to listen to the audio of Tina Kirks rampage; I can only imagine what those poor kids are going through.

      Tawil, I have a question: Since sociopathy is characterized by narcissism and a lack of empathy for others, and since these characteristics are similar to the one’s displayed in a borderline personality, can BPD be considered – at least in some cases – a form of sociopathy?

      • Tawil

        Damn, sorry to hear you got mixed up with one of these freaks, but good to hear you are free now.

        BPD and sociopathy are very different… BPDers tend to swing in and out of empathic awareness, and are not especially narcissistic like sociopaths. What drives the BPDer is a delusional hatred against target people.

        What they do have in common is a tendency to cause “interpersonal disruption” – a hightone phrase meaning sociopaths and borderlines typically turn people’s lives upside down.

        Comparing them is similar to comparing an alligator and a rattlesnake – two different animals but both capable of immense destruction.

        • Theseus

          Thanks for clearing that up bro’! I have a limited knowledge of psychiatric disorders.

          • Tawil

            You have good intuition about people anyways Theseus, comes through strongly in your posts.

            FWIW, I described BPD on an AVfM thread last year…. here’s most of it, cut n pasted:

            Here’s how I describe the disorder. Superficially it looks the same as bipolar disorder in the sense that the person swings from one extreme behaviour to another. But unlike bipolar where the poles are mania and depression, the poles of BPD are love and hate, or if you prefer psychobabble ‘idealization’ and ‘devaluation’. What this means is that the woman with BPD will one minute adore everything about you and want to shower you with gifts, and in the next moment will want to burn your house to the ground- literally. Love and hate. The duration of cycling between these poles usually usually lasts several hours to a few days, then changes into it’s opposte. Whilst you are being idealized and loved by the BPD, nothing feels nicer- they are tuned into your emotions, the sex is symbiotic, they think you are a wonderful human being in every way, they have a look of adoration and respect in thier eyes… it feels wonderful to bask in such praise and this is how we get captured- like those Greek sailors who sailed to thier deaths at the sound of the Sirens’ songs.

            The core problem IMO, and the one Paul Elam was fleshing out is their famed propensity for “triangulation” which leads to false accusations and subsequantly social and professional chaos. BPD triangulation works like this: There are three people, one of which is the BPD, and the latter “loves” or “idealizes” one of the other two persons, and “hates” and “devalues” the third person in the triangle. The BPD enlists the loved person to help destroy the hated third person – by false accusations, lies, etc. Massive chaos. But then comes the twist….. the BPDer suddenly swaps the roles of the loved and the hated others, making the previously loved ally the despised one, and the previously despised one now the loved ally who is enlisted to help destroy the former. You get all that? She’s pulled the ol’ switcheroo.

            This is also what happens to most professionals who are stupid enough to work with them- the BPD pits one professional against another, claiming malpractice and the like.

            In short if you get involved with these freaks you will end up being damaged for life and could end up getting PTSD yourself (or more accurately Post traumatic relationship syndrome). And as stated in the above article, this disorder is NEVER cured- but everyone gets fooled when these crazy bitches flip into thier loving idealizing pole….. people think they are all better now. Big mistake, as the hate is just two days away.

          • Theseus

            Yup Tawil, that pretty much describes my (ahem) “friend” to a T. What I also noticed, was an unquenchable thirst for revenge against people that dared to stand up to her because she fucked them over.


          • Darryl X

            Great analysis, Tawil. Except that I have given up a long time ago referring to these behaviors as symptoms of a disorder or mental illness because they are choices.

            People who truly suffer from mental illness have no real choices in their behavior. People as you’ve described are the way they are precisely because of the choices they have and continue to make.

            They don’t suffer mental illness. They are evil. I used to cut people like the ones you’ve described a lot of slack because I used to feel sorry for them. I don’t feel sorry anymore.

            They make bad choices but in today’s culture they are not held accountable for the consequences of their choices and they have no internal locus with which to hold themselves accountable.

            They are lazy and cowardly and don’t develop the skills and the discipline with which to make responsible choices. It’s not that they can’t. But they choose not to. That choice makes them evil.

        • http://angiemedia.com/author/rob Rob

          In practice it may not be all that useful to try to distinguish between sociopaths and Borderlines so far as the “acting out” varieties (roughly Lawson’s queen and witch types) of Borderlines are concerned.

          When you look at the DSM-IV criteria for Axis II Cluster B personality disorders and consider how these appear in real people, you see there is a huge amount of overlap between many of these disorders.

          DSM-V tries to start viewing personality disorders in a more quantitative way, with certain traits being measured along a continuum. Ultimately that sort of model may be much better able to precisely denote how a person behaves because it avoids the problem with the Borderline label encompassing some very different kinds of behavior sets that probably should not have been lumped together with a single label.

          However, the DSM-V changes are confusing for those familiar with DSM-IV and some are saying that DSM-V “does away with” personality disorders including NPD and HPD. By the way, here’s a helpful quote from Dr. Tara Palmatier in that linked article that shows that she also views many of the Cluster B personality disorders as being sociopathic in nature:

          Interestingly, I was lambasted a few months ago for stating on the old Shrink4Men WordPress blog that many narcissists, borderlines and histrionics exhibit sociopathic traits. A group of self-identified BPDs and their cohorts cyber-bullied and harassed me for several weeks as a result of what I viewed simply as a statement of the obvious. It would seem that the DSM committee agrees with my viewpoint, at least in this case.

          Over the years, I myself have come to believe that it is useful to think about people with personality disorders who engage in the “acting out” behaviors (false allegations, frequent abuse, frequent lying and distortions and manipulations, etc.) as sociopaths.

          In my view, “sociopath” is best used as a broad term to denote relatively “polished” but abusive people who appear sane to most people. They usually seem superficially charming to people who don’t know them well until they reveal their true natures by doing something really nasty.

          I use “psychopath” to refer to people who appear crazy to most and also do horrible things. In this view, sociopaths are like psychopaths who have put on a reasonably good costume to hide their true nature.

          The Borderlines who are mostly hurting themselves, such as via substance abuse or cutting or suicide attempts, are much different than the sociopathic variety. They often appear more “crazy” than the sociopathic ones, even though they are arguably much less dangerous to others.

          By the way, many victims of extended sociopathic abuse end up seeming somewhat “crazy” to others even when they do not engage in any pattern of harm against others. This unfortunately often ends up aiding the sociopaths at further abusing them. Both children, like the Kirk kids, and adults, like Joel Kirk, are at risk for this.

          In fact in the GAL report (page 18) claims that Joel Kirk has some “general personality disorder”. If you look at DSM-IV there is no such thing. What I think is meant by this imprecise label might be explained by two observations.

          The first is that years of Tina’s abuse may have pushed Joel Kirk towards developing Complex PTSD. Many Borderlines are said to have Complex PTSD, but suffering Complex PTSD or symptoms of it does not mean you are a Borderline. Although Complex PTSD is fairly widely accepted, it isn’t in DSM-IV so maybe the evaluator thought he had to note that Joel Kirk has some psychological problems of his own and so labeled them as a “general personality disorder” because they do not fit the classical PTSD that is in DSM-IV. If he had listed PTSD, then he may have been concerned that it would misportray the problems because PTSD is so often associated with military service in a combat environment but what he observed in Joel Kirk was not PTSD from combat.

          Classical PTSD is associated with one or a small number of highly traumatic incidents, such as seeing your friends being blown to bits by a bomb. Complex PTSD is associated with chronic exposure to trauma, but each individual traumatic incident is not severe enough to cause PTSD itself. For instance, a child who is beaten with a belt many days and yelled and screamed at most days may developed Complex PTSD after years of such abuse. Since that is what the Kirk children are reported to experience, I for one will not be surprised if they are later diagnosed with Complex PTSD or worse because of their mother’s actions against them.

          If this is what the evaluator was trying to get it, it should have been expressed much more clearly. It would be much more clear to say that Tina Kirk is so abusive that she appears to have caused psychological damage to Joel and therefore the children are at even more risk because of their youth and undeveloped minds.

          Secondly, people who are not in the military who are put in a position to sit in judgment over people who are (or have been) in the military often comment on them being controlling and overly concerned with discipline or rules. Well, you can often thank the military for that as these people have usually had such behaviors drilled into them by legally abusive boot camp instructors who aimed to crush their individuality and make them into obedient killer slaves. Of course that experience is going to have some impact on your personality. Without knowing the background of the evaluator, it is hard to say how such observations would influence the evaluator’s conclusions.

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            It might surprise you to learn that there are at least some sociopaths out there that would disagree with you. If you look at some of the most in-depth and respected studies on sociopathy/psychopathy, it turns out that the main diagnostic criteria is a very blunted or complete lack of any ability to feel empathy. This appears to be tied in some way with a very diminished response to pain and fear.

            Now what is interesting is that the vast majority of people with this particular condition–it may not even be classifiable as a mental illness–may not, if they are highly intelligent and also raised properly, be at all dangerous. A lack of any ability to feel guilt, remorse, or empathy does not lead one to being violent, and arguably, makes things like sadism just about impossible–to be a sadist you must enjoy the vicarious thrill of someone else’s suffering. In the extreme manifestation we are discussing here, a true psychopath would not be sadistic because, just like guilt or remorse, that’s just not something they can feel. It’s like a form of color-blindness.

            What some who’ve studied this condition have said is that we are mistreating it. If a person is genuinely born without this mental capacity for empathy (and thus also lacking any sense of guilt), like being color-blind, then, it’s not something you can fix, but it is something you can address. An intelligent sociopath who is self-aware, or has the proper intervention, can actually be coached out of negative behaviors by invoking rational self-interest: you cannot make them feel guilty (they have no such capacity) but you can make them understand that bad things happen if they habitually lie, cheat, and steal. They are fundamentally narcissistic by nature (lacking any capacity to care about anyone but themselves) but because they really don’t care what other people think, they have no need to impress people either. And no urge to sadism: whatever for? Whipping a small animal or a small child would give them no more pleasure than whipping a rock or a door. Why do it? Waste of energy.

            As odd as this sounds, from this perspective, a non-sociopathic narcissist is potentially far more dangerous than a clinical psychopath; the narcissist feels an incessant need for approval and an endless need for affirmation, and will develop a Rationalization Hamster of Herculean strength and speed. A rational sociopath can just be told: “Look, if you keep this up, X, Y, and Z will happen to you sooner or later, because these behaviors always come back to you eventually, sometimes years later–which is why the better strategy is to develop habits A, B, and C.”

            There is even some reason to suspect that sociopaths are highly effective in certain careers, IF they don’t let their narcissism get away from their common sense. A sociopathic surgeon, for example, might be the best surgeon you could possibly have; he won’t cry a bit if he accidentally kills or injures a patient, but he will be FURIOUS IF THE OPERATION WENT WRONG and will do everything possible to prevent it happening again. A sociopathic detective might be much better than a non-sociopathic one precisely because he will not let any sense of fear or pity for the victim, or the perpetrator, cloud his thoughts.

            Some who study the phenomenon of sociopathy have said that one of the main reasons a lot of prison rehabilitation programs fail is that they fail to notice the socipaths and realize you have to have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TREATMENT MODALITY for them. No, they aren’t monsters–you just aren’t going to get anywhere with them, ever, trying to invoke any sense of pity or guilt. In fact, if you try that, they’ll just become more deceitful, learning to “talk the talk” by feigning emotions they don’t have. Whereas there is some reason to believe that a high-functioning intelligent sociopath can simply be talked into better behavior by constantly and endlessly invoking rational self-interest.

            Note that this requires taking the controversial position that you can actually be born without any sense of empathy in the same way that you can be born without the ability to see the color red. But if this is true, and it can be identified early in a child, then early intervention could turn out potentially completely non-dangerous, potentially extremely useful members of society. They might, in fact, wind up being more honest, diligent, and hardworking than the average person, because they never need to rationalize anything, they always know exactly why they’re doing whatever they do, and if they choose the path of honesty and integrity because they calculate that it is in their interests to do so, they can pursue honesty and integrity better than a person whose emotions might get clouded by things like “denial.” (Why would a sociopath have any emotional denial? Over what?)

            I guess this is off-topic, but there’s a particular sociopath whose blog I am utterly fascinated by: SocipoathWorld. Run by a real live sociopath. And while at first he badly, badly creeped me out, the more I started thinking, “huh, this is an utterly fascinating individual who isn’t in denial and has figured out a functional value system for himself.” If you’re interested, you might want to read him:


            At first I thought it was nothing but rationalizations but he makes an in-depth case for a lot of things, even considering socipathy a form of “neurodiversity” not too far removed from autism spectrum. And he often says, classic narcissists are often far more dangerous and difficult to deal with than sociopaths.

            I’m not advocating anything on his behalf by the way, except that I’ve corresponded some with him and found him extremely rational and pleasant. And he admits it, he has no greater attachment to any human being than a favorite toy or shoe. He also sees no reason at all to hurt anyone unless they hurt him first, and then his only goal is to hurt them back in such a way so they never do it again. Otherwise, even the idea of revenge is foreign to him. “You upset me or my plans, so I needed to make sure you didn’t do that again. Once I did, I was done thinking about you.”

            I am fascinated by sociopaths in many ways because I’m the polar opposite; I’m empathic in the extreme, and I’ve at times found emotions like guilt almost crippling. I suppose the allure of someone literally incapable of such emotions is not all that strange. He also made me understand it was impossible for me to become a sociopath.

            Blah blah, woof woof, but it’s worth considering: it may be that how we deal with sociopaths is half the problem. If we understand how their brains tick, there is no real reason to be afraid of them. (Unless they’ve proven too stupid to stop doing certain things.)

          • Theseus

            Hmmmm, interesting. I saw a program a while back about serial killers. According to several of the mental health professionals on the show, a common characteristic that these killers shared was a lack of any conscience. In the words of one psychiatrist, they “looked at the rest of humanity like paper dolls” with no remorse or empathy for their victims; which, given my limited knowledge, sounds like a sociopath to me. Several of them (like Ted Bundy) could be quite charming and manipulative as well.

            So Rob, are you saying that these serial killers would qualify as sociopaths but not psychopaths because they were able to hide their true nature? Just curious.

            BTW, I think it’s a given that Joel and the Kirk children have suffered psychological damage. What person wouldn’t with a lunatic like that for a wife and a mother?

          • Theseus

            Holy shit. Okay Dean, now I’m confused. Your definition of sociopathy is the way that I understand it, and I certainly can see sociopaths able to function in society based on rational self interest. However if I understand you correctly, you are saying that a narcissist that takes sadistic pleasure in murdering and torturing their victims cannot be a sociopath because it takes empathy – which sociopaths don’t have – to enjoy the suffering of others.
            Phew. did I get that right?

            So….. a lot of serial killers would be considered sadist/narcissists, but not sociopaths?

          • Darryl X

            @ Rob –

            Yeah. I gave up a long time ago distinguishing between those with personality disorders and psychopaths (sociopaths). Those with personality disorders are for all intents and purposes psychopaths. Any clinical psychologist who has tried to convince me of a difference has failed.

            Which brings me to another matter. I’m not a clinical psychologist but I associate with many. My background is in quantitative psychology. Although there are some genuinely good and effective and well-intentioned clinical psychologists, most will pathologize anything to make a dollar. If you are sad, you are depressed. If you are angry, you have an anger management problem. If you are happy, you are manic. Etc…

            I think sometimes that’s why so many in our psychiatric or mental health communities split these pathologies into such small groups. So they can make more money refining a diagnosis of their patients.

            Anyone (mostly women) who I know and has been “diagnosed” with a personality disorder or bipolar or something else like them aren’t really distinguishable by any criteria. And I’m pretty observant. (But I’m not clinical, I’m quantitative.) When it comes down to it, none of these “disorders” are really treatable. And since the distinction among many of these “disorders” seems to be in a treatment approach, then I have not found it even remotely practical to distinguish among them. I just lump them all into psychopaths.

            Or an even larger category – malignant narcissists. For the most part, their behaviors are about the same and so are the consequences of their behaviors for everyone else. So I lump them into the same category. Malignant narcissists. And I even expand on that and just call them evil. The determinations are praxiological after all. Since their dispositions are choices and not even disorders over which they exercise no control. It’s not like schizophrenia which has a physiological and genetic cause. Personalities are exactly that.

            They are personalities which have developed over time and are a function of choices a person has made. If a person has a genuine physiological condition that would impair their ability to make responsible decisions, then you would observe a broad range in decisions and their results for them and everyone else. But these people with personality disorders do not demonstrate this broad range and variation in outcomes. Their behaviors and results of them are consistently destructive to everyone else and self-serving for them. Evil. Not a mental illness. A choice.

            These people are simply addicted to power and control and will do anything to satisfy their addiction. No more complicated than that. They manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. And they have a vast psychiatric / mental health community to oblige them and indulge and reward their victimhood. Instead of being sent to a clinical psychologist, these people should be sent to prison where they belong.

            It’s the only reason I’m against inclusion of parental (paternal) alienation in the DSM. It’s not a mental illness. These women are just evil and should be sent to prison for child abuse. Not a shrink.

        • Tawil

          @Rob: “By the way, here’s a helpful quote from Dr. Tara Palmatier in that linked article that shows that she also views many of the Cluster B personality disorders as being sociopathic in nature: ‘Interestingly, I was lambasted a few months ago for stating on the old Shrink4Men WordPress blog that many narcissists, borderlines and histrionics exhibit sociopathic traits’.

          I don’t want to get too deeply into diagnostic minutae (don’t want to bore everyone to death with it), but there’s a few quick observations worth making about the word sociopath. The word is employed in two main ways, general and specific. In the general sense it refers to any behaviour that creates social troubles, in similar sense to the term antisocial. In the more specific sense sociopath is considered equivalent to the diagnostic category psychopath.

          I assume Tara was intending the second meaning when she mentioned some disorders exhibited “traits” of sociopathy. Traits however fall far short of claiming they all have one and the same nature.

          On the point of Joel Kirk having some general personality disorder it is clear that it is not a formal diagnosis because its not placed in capital letters (unlike Tina’s which is – Borderline Personality Disorder) and under current diagnostic categories such a generalised disorder simply doesn’t exist – as you say. Obviously it was intended as an informal characterisation of Joel’s distress.

          @Dean, great expose on the nature of the psychopath…. you’ve obviously done your homework on this one and cut through the popular stereotypes.

          • http://angiemedia.com/author/rob Rob

            I am replying to Tawil, Dean, and Theseus. For some reason the “reply” buttons do not appear on the responses from Dean and Theseus. Maybe it is due to a nesting limit on the comments?

            I’d say that serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer could be called both sociopaths and psychopaths. They could look convincing enough to get people to let them get away with crimes, which is the sort of thing a sociopath does. But their worst crimes are really extreme and seem to have little motive other than satisfying their own urges to kill and engage in sexual weirdness which is more like a psychopath. It is hard to argue that Dahmer regarded eating his victims as a means of obtaining a food source and it doesn’t look like either Bundy or Dahmer got any financial gain out of killing people. But Bundy did reportedly get most of his material possessions by shoplifting, so killing people wasn’t his only criminal habit. Bundy seemed to have zero guilt about what he did, but it is notable that Dahmer expressed guilt and tried to reinvent himself as a Christian in prison before his death. Was it real guilt or just a play act to try to manipulate others? With people like these, I would tend to say it is more likely an act because they are pretty keen observers of people and know that people often can be manipulated to treat them more favorably if they act a certain way such as playing the victim or playing up how they regret what they did.

            This one paragraph from Wikipedia on Bundy says a lot about how confused even the experts are regarding how to “diagnose” a person like him:

            While other experts found Bundy’s precise diagnosis equally elusive, the majority of evidence pointed away from bipolar disorder or other psychoses,[294] and toward antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[295][296] Such people (identified at that time as “sociopaths”, and prior to that as “psychopaths”) are outwardly charming, even charismatic; but beneath the facade there is little true personality or genuine insight.[296] “It’s like … a storefront that’s attractive and lures you in,” a DES co-worker told Michaud. But … inside … the merchandise is sparse.”[297] Most sociopaths can distinguish right from wrong and are not psychotic, but such ability has minimal effect on their behavior.[298] They are devoid of feelings of guilt or remorse,[296] a point readily admitted by Bundy himself. “Guilt doesn’t solve anything, really,” he said in 1981. “It hurts you … I guess I am in the enviable position of not having to deal with guilt.”[299] Other hallmarks include narcissism, poor judgment, and manipulative behavior. “Sociopaths,” prosecutor George Dekle wrote, “are egotistical manipulators who think they can con anybody.”[300] “Sometimes he manipulates even me,” admitted one psychiatrist.[301]

            Dean made some very good points that not all sociopaths are the same. I have run across the sociopathworld.com website and am aware of it although I don’t particularly agree with much of what they have to say. Particularly alarming to me is the sort of reasoning some of them use to claim that sociopaths are “better” than “normal” people because they are more capable of getting what they want and “normal” people are weak and unwilling to do necessary things. It is kind of like arguing that one should behave like a hyena because it is better for your “success” to be the predator than the prey.

            The notion of some people being born sociopaths or psychopaths is backed up by the article Can You Call a 9-Year-Old a Psychopath?. Tara posted a link to that a few months ago. What is unusual about that article is that it appears the child who is the main focus of the article is a sociopath but was not abused and has a more or less healthy family life. This is very different than what you more often see with childhood abuse leading to sociopathic behaviors as an adult. Clearly this suggests that there is something at work in developing sociopaths other than just bad environment.

            There is a lot of variation to how sociopath and psychopath are used and some of the variations have good reasons behind them. This wide variation renders the terms useless except as broad categories because you cannot be sure what is meant when they are used. So if you are stuck with the terms being broad and imprecise, you might as well use them that way.

            By convention, it seems the most general use of both terms have to do with people who often hurt other people in rule-breaking types of behaviors in part because they don’t care about the rules or the people.

            What Dean describes, people with no emotional response (no empathy), strikes me as being fundamentally different than what you see in many people who are conventionally identified as sociopaths. It is more “asocial” whereas sociopathy is more “antisocial.” A rather unusual personality disorder that might match up with some of these people is Schizoid Personality Disorder. This is viewed as one of the least common personality disorders.

            The comparisons with autistic spectrum disorders are interesting. I have met some kids with these disorders (particularly Asperger’s) and they can appear sort of normal until they get upset and then they can go ballistic with their anger. This seems like more of a loss of control than actual conscious intent to harm others. You don’t see them plotting how to kill somebody and get away with it, have somebody arrested using false allegations, or scheming to turn a community against their victims. So I think there’s a big difference between ASD and sociopathy at least as far as intent goes.

            I don’t think it makes sense to call somebody a sociopath just because they don’t have emotional responses like other people and so have taken to classifying behaviors into “acting in” (self-harm) and “acting out” (harm to others) behavior sets. In my way of thinking, a Borderline or Narcissist who acts to harm others is a sociopath whereas one who engages in only self-harming behaviors is not. So some of the people calling themselves on sociopathworld.com in my view might not be sociopaths.

            Some people have given me a fair amount of animosity (calling me a hateful person with a vendetta against sociopaths, for instance) for my opinions. I’ve advocated that the best way to deal with a sociopath is to avoid the person entirely as there is so much risk because society does not deal with these people appropriately by putting in protective shields around their victims and protective victims that might enable some other option. One guy is going on about how sociopaths just need more “love” to help them.

            DSM-IV says that NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) has a diagnostic criteria of “Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others”. But in Dean’s writing above, this matches with sociopathy yet he differentiates between narcissism and sociopathy. I don’t think there is a clear distinction and that a sociopath could in fact also be a narcissist.

            The proposed DSM-V for a time eliminated NPD, but later in 2011 added it back with one of the criteria being:

            2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):
            a. Empathy: Impaired ability to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others, but only if perceived as relevant to self; over- or underestimate of own effect on others.
            b. Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by little genuine interest in others’ experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain.

            Both Narcissists and Borderlines do experience emotions, particularly fear. They seem to have a highly sensitive fear response to perceived slights and threats and this often triggers their adverse behaviors. They also seem to be keenly tuned in to the emotional states of others, but only use that awareness to aid their attempts to control and manipulate others rather than to restrict themselves to behaviors that are not overly upsetting to them.

            Tina Kirk seems to be fearful of loss of control, attachment (i.e., can’t stand to be alone), and of responsibility. This drives her to engage in affairs, substance abuse, and trying to control others (kids and ex-husband) via extreme fear-mongering tactics such as her rages. I think these taken as a whole are sociopathic behaviors and not just simple loss of control.

            Regarding the differentiation between sociopath and psychopath, my view is that psychopath could be viewed as a more severe degree of obvious dysfunction than sociopath. The maladaptive behaviors are more extreme and more like what you would see in classical Antisocial Personality Disorder.

            Robert Hare’s checklist for psychopathy includes “Lack of remorse or guilt, Emotionally shallow, Callous/lack of empathy”. That sounds a lot like what Dean’s comments say about sociopaths.

            Many use psychopath and sociopath as if they are the same thing. A mental health professional once told me “you married a psychopath, don’t let it happen again” but also talked about my ex as a Borderline, including some detailed analysis as to narcissistic and paranoid traits that fit into BPD, but did not state a firm diagnosis of BPD. When threatened by my ex, the mental health provider resorted to distortions to avoid conflict with her. If the mental health provider had been at all honest in what she had been saying before she got put on the spot with talk of a lawsuit, what she later said was an attempt to skirt around the issue to become less of a target.

            From such experiences, I have learned that you cannot trust many mental health providers when it comes to dealing with people who have sociopathic behaviors. They know they may end up being sued, attacked, defamed, or worse if they go on record with their opinions. The would rather throw the existing victims under the bus and escape themselves. The one person who went on record in writing about suspected BPD probably now regrets it because my ex has hounded her and her family for years.

            When I compared the behaviors I saw for many years to the various personality disorders, Borderline, Narcissistic, and Antisocial all look like reasonably good matches with Borderline being the best given that the only one of the 9 BPD criteria without many examples (category 5 about self-harm behaviors) is the single attempt at suicide. Another mental health professional also contends she likely suffers from BPD.

            Since many of the traits of Axis II personality disorders are highly similar, applying diagnostic labels becomes very confusing even for a mental health professional who has access to many examples of a person’s behaviors that are obviously out of the ordinary compared to how most others would behave.

            Somebody here put me on to the TruthNeverTold videos and I have been watching them. One of them gets into psychopathic behaviors found in broader society (outside of family law court) and how the psychopaths in government and finance are particularly dangerous because they can and do kill millions of people and destroy economies. Most of what the maker of those videos has to say makes a lot of sense, but occasionally he trips into using anti-male-biased examples (bad boyfriend examples portraying the women as victims) or incorporates video clips that some contend were doctored (Obama kicked open a door after a speech). I’d say look at the big picture and try to gain from that, realizing that there may be some debate about some the details. The same goes for the use of sociopath. In the big picture, the word sociopath is useful. It is not useful at all in terms of details.

            At this point, after having read thousands of pages of books on personality disorders and talked with many mental health professionals, I don’t believe the precise personality disorder really matters all that much because there will always be room for debate to contest the precise diagnosis. Some may call the behaviors full-blown BPD whereas others may call them “narcissistic and borderline traits” or something else. And that just provides room for the person who is acting this way and hurting others to argue her or his way out of the diagnostic hole by portraying all of the people trying to diagnose her or him as incompetent because they can’t agree on a label.

            What matters more than the precise diagnostic label is overall tendency for self-harm versus harming others. Look at it this way, would you feel safer sitting in a room with somebody who was set on killing herself or somebody who was not going to kill herself but would be perfectly happy falsely accusing you of trying to kill her?

            Overall, psychology and psychiatry are still in their infancy. A lot of the terminology arguments are kind of distractions, sort of like arguing over whether Pluto is a planet or a dwarf planet or something else. The label or term is just a communication and thinking tool, it is not truth itself.

          • Darryl X

            Actually, I would like to hear your take on the diagnostic minutiae.

    • http://patricestanton.com/ Patrice Stanton

      Pursuing a few links from the above article I found this one, “How to Spot a Girl with Borderline Personality Disorder” [ http://voices.yahoo.com/how-spot-girl-borderline-personality-disorder-1434611.html ]. I listened to a portion of the interview with Col. Kirk a couple (?) weeks ago but had to stop before the end because as he spoke the red-flags within the early relationship just kept getting so big I couldn’t bear to hear more (yes, wimp).

      The stages in the article seem very similar to his recounting of his history with T.K. so if any men here are dating anymore it seems like it might be of use…

    • Tom
    • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

      Most Borderlines are nothing more than self-pitying sociopaths in that they expect their victims to feel sorry for them. That is their hook. The moment you feel sorry for them, watch your back. Typically, that’s when they plunge the proverbial knife in and twist.

      No good deed ever goes unpunished with a Borderline.

  • http://shortendedstick.wordpress.com Aaron

    I haven’t looked back on the posts yet but did this site post confidential medical information?

    • TPH

      It posted facts from a court case in which the information is deemed public information. With the exception of the children’s names, court documentation including ad litem information (children’s names redacted), police reports, and court transcripts are public information unless there is a compelling reason to gag (Death threats against witnesses, jurors, defendants).

      Publishing the details of the court case and the kafkaesque situation of Lt. Col, Kirk are protected under the First Amendment.

      With concerns to medical information, once the information is in the public record in court, HIPAA and other protections on medical information are rendered mute. Need an example? Look at the case for that psychotic asshole that killed a lot of people in a movie theater. His psychological medical condition has been splashed all over the media and dissected by a bunch of talking heads on prime time TV.

      The gag motions in play against AVFM are merely a reaction to us shining a blinding light on a really, really corrupt judge who had placed children into the care of a woman who has been evaluated as physically abusive, violent, and chemically dependent. A perfect 3 ingredient cocktail for serious physical harm of the children involved.

      The more we expose the system and it’s deep rooted misandry, the more resistance we will get. This is to be expected. Free speech is something I have never taken for granted. There will always be someone willing to censor speech and thought that does not conform with what the folks in power want.

      And that is why AVFM must stay the course and continue coverage of cases such at Lt. Col Kirk’s. The more we shine a light on public corruption that demonizes males and promotes misandry, the more traction we gain in getting a real public discourse on Men’s rights.

      • optimusprime

        Do you have the references in case law for any of the above? Maybe you could post some of that for us to read as well especially the Supreme court stuff.

      • http://shortendedstick.wordpress.com Aaron

        That’s what I was wondering; so long as they only drew attention to publicly available information I’m all for what’s been going on and support it completely.

        I just wanted to make sure.

      • optimusprime

        As I understand it the LtCol put in several motions to prevent the children from being subjected to psych evals for fear that if they got admitted to the court they would be public record. I understand that concern. What if the shrink said both kids are ADD or mentally disabled. It could have lifelong reprocussions in public view.

        His ex apparantly unconcerned about what might happen if the kids got diagnosed with some disorder, fought vigorously to have them tested anyway. This would prove that they were lying and being manipulated (really shows her taking responsibility doesn’t it?). She was willing to throw them under the bus. Apparantly, the testing went and the results validated everything the LtCol said and the children were deemed credible and un manipulated. Now in the “best interests of the children” they don’t want that “confidential information” out.

        My guess is nothing in the kids reports could damage the kids at all. My guess is their mother wants them gagged because the reports will expose even more succintly what the Judge and the lawyers ignored and what Ms. Kirk lied about. We shall see. I will bet if they were not in Mr. Kirks favor they would have no concern about the “interests of the kids”.

        I heard that there is much more and that gagging the LtCol at this point will do nothing as he is not the source. I guess the arrows have already left the bow. I just wonder how much more they want to hear I hope they are pretty sure they know what he has or they could look really stupid at this point.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      This site posted nothing confidential at all. Everything we have posted is a matter of court record that was transmitted to us legally by one of the individuals involved who had legal possession of that material and who had no laws or court orders preventing them from placing them in our hands.

      • http://angiemedia.com/author/rob Rob

        Third parties can get a hold of court files. That is because court files are generally public record in most jurisdictions. At least part of the intent of this is to allow the public to know what the courts are doing as an added safeguard against abuse.

        Family courts are now often maintaining “public” and “confidential” sections of files.

        Some case files are entirely gagged from view by anybody in the public. You would have to be a court employee, attorney, or litigant to be allowed to see them.

        But some sections of court files are not even available to the parties in the case. This is common for psychological evaluations. There should be very real concerns about this because it makes it hard to even discuss a psychological evaluation if you are not allowed to read it or have a copy of it. It is a direct challenge to your Constitutional rights to confront your accuser and to see the evidence against you.

        Sometimes there is a legitimate intent to keeping court documents secret. For instance, the court knows that one or both of the parties will use the psychological evaluation for purposes of defamation just as they used written police reports for purposes defamation and so the court wants to help protect the victim.

        Both the legitimate and illegitimate reasons for hiding court documents are usually described as being “in the best interests of the children” because that phrase is viewed as giving judges the power to do whatever they want with little opportunity for recourse.

        But secrecy breeds corruption. The founders of the US knew this well.

        A much better way to deal with this would be to make nearly all court files public and accessible via the Internet except for information that could be used to commit identity theft crimes. That kind of information — such as social security numbers, precise addresses, etc. — can easily be redacted from the public version.

        Sociopaths know how to abuse the current system well. They know they can lie to cause government agencies to record their lies in a convincing format. They know they can get copies of these lies on government written paper. And they know they can then distribute these documents to schools, churches, friends, family, and anybody else they want to manipulate to help them harm their victims.

        The way the courts work today, these manipulated people will likely never see the evidence that what is being shown to them is a lie intended to cause them to believe false things and in some cases to induce them to engage in abuse on behalf of the sociopath showing them the documents. Even if they wanted to verify what they are being shown, the courts may charge them fees or put restrictions on them that make it onerous to be able to verify the facts via the court files. This plays right into the hands of the sociopaths who want to control the information flow so they can makes lies appears to be facts.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Razlo5000?feature=mhum Raz

    “shut up”
    -Fuck you!
    “Seriously, shut up!”
    -Seriously, FUCK YOU!

  • wondering woman

    To Lensman and Iron John–I agree with both of you, and since first coming across this case on AVfM, my heart has gone out to those children. They are probably not as vulnerable to physical abuse as they were when they were younger, but the emotional and psychological abuse is probably even more intense. It’s likely that by now they have withdrawn and won’t talk to anyone about their situation. They are casualties of a failed system. If Tina Kirk truly cared about them, she would voluntarily return them to their father full time and step away until such time as they want to see her. And since she started all this by making false charges and false claims against Col. Kirk, she might reclaim her “reputation” and show her goodwill by renouncing all financial support from the Col. Oops, I forgot, with no-fault divorce these days it’s all about getting what you can, and for a BPD, it’s about “winning” everything.

    • TheBiboSez

      In some ways, older children can be MORE at risk from BPD mothers than younger kids.

      Very young kids are protected by Neoteny (the mammalian “cuteness” of youth), which fades gradually as the kids age. As they become more socially mature and their worldviews expand, kids can be more and more damaged psychologically by disturbing parental actions.

      As kids gain more and more adult agency, they become more obvious targets for BPD abuse. That’s one of the reasons why with each passing day it becomes more and more urgent to get those kids away from the harpy Kirk – God forbid that one of them asks her “mommy, why do you say such bad things about daddy?”

  • http://commonmanmedia.blogspot.com TCM

    “Tina Taylor Kirk and her team of pro bono attorneys have filed yet another motion…”

    Spelling error in the first line. The text should read “pro-bonehead.”

  • http://men-factor.blogspot.com/ ScareCrow

    Links to the audio and video evidence?

    Do they exist?

    Might be wise for as many people as possible to have such things in their possession…

  • Gamerp4

    She is just a victim of evil men, First it was Col.Kirk Now its the big buggers of AVFM.

    Judge Lori (Although she shouldn’t be called with the label of Judge because its inappropriate that this baboon sits on her throne and abuses family and children almost everyday) you better start showing your victim card along with Ms kirk because there is no way you’re gonna stop Freedom of press and expression in this case because we are doing it for the “Best interest of the children” (I love this phrase).

  • scatmaster

    I did a search on register-her and she is not listed.
    Is there a reason for this? If an application needs to be made to JTO to have her added and she is not been held back for some reason I would be happy to attempt to do so.

  • Zarathos022

    My answer to the first gag order still stands: