Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

Lies, damned lies … and CHIVALRY JUSTICE.


There is nothing new about men preferring to believe lies told by women who have committed crimes and who have made false allegations against others. What is new, however, is the the phenomenon of women tending to prefer to believe lies told by female criminals.


This post is an evidence resource for the serious myth-buster.



Current – The Female Sentencing Discount


Monday, November 21, 2016

Queens of the Military Bride Multiple Marriage Allotment Check Racket

They were called “War-Marriage Vampires,” “Fake War Brides,” "Allotment Wives,” “Allotment Brides,” “Allotment Annies” and “Victory Girls” – women who married multiple young men so they could fraudulently profit from the monthly government allotment checks they would receive for each husband and, when she got lucky, would when the husband died in battle receive a bonus payment.

An article published in 1950 stated that “hundreds of Allotment Annies were convicted of preying on servicemen during and after World War II. Convictions totaled 242 in 1946 but dropped to 47 in 1950, The effects of the Korean War will not be known for some time.” [Frances Spatz, “Allotment Annies are at it again,” The American Weekly (San Antonio Light) (Tx.), Dec. 17, 1950, p. 2]


NOTE: There were thousands of scammers like this one in the United States in the World War I era. They were commonly called “War Marriage Vampires.” For an overview of the racket practiced by the defendant in the following case, see: Thousands of Fake War Brides in World War I (“War Marriage Vampires”) - USA, 1918


FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): Chicago, Dec. 2. – Mrs. Helen Ferguson Drexler, 22 years old, has confessed to having been married to sixteen men in the past three years. The young woman, who was arrested here today by Government agents, admitted having married the men,  all of whom where either soldiers or sailors, for the sole reason of securing the allotment issued by the War Risk Bureau to a wife of a man in the service.

“You men try to make me admit the marriage of ten men,” she said. “Why, that is just more than half. I had sixteen of them during my career and was going to marry another in a few days if I had not been arrested.

“The first man to whom I was married was an auto salesman, in  Boston, in 1918. After the wedding we lived together until he was called to France. Shortly afterward I got word of his death. I tried to forget, but being by myself I was soon forced to seek company, and finally married a man from New York. I was getting the allotment from the Government due me from my first husband at that time.”

“I lived with my second husband contentedly for several months. He joined the navy. I got an allotment from him. One day I met a woman who heard of the two allotments I was getting from the Government, amounting to $60 a month. She suggested that inasmuch as the money was easy I should keep it up and marry again. I could make hundreds of dollars a month by this scheme, if it worked.”

“I consented and married again, this time a soldier in the Brooklyn Navy Yard named John Kelly. He signed his allotment to me. I left him and went in search of another husband.”

“From then on life was just one husband after another. The income amounted to $500 a month. After two years I had married ten men. I can’t recall all the names. I went to Norfolk, Va., and married again. Each time I only stayed with my husband until I got the allotment signed to me and then left.

[“22-Year-Old Girl Married 16 Service Men; Collected $500 Monthly in Allotments,” New York Times (N.Y.), Dec. 3, 1921, p. 1]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): Mrs. Helen Drexler Ferguson, 2 years old, was released yesterday from Geneva jail, twelve days before the expiration of her six month’s sentence for marrying a number of soldiers and sailors estimated at from fifteen to seventeen, in order to get their allotments.

She is to undergo an operation at Aurora hospital.

Following the operation Mrs. Ferguson will be given a ticket to Washington, where her parents reside, by the Salvation Army, which has taken an interest in her case.

Mrs. Ferguson says she has no other plans fort the future than to go to some small city where she can find congenial employment.

[“Girl Who Married Soldiers For Pay Checks Released,” Aurora Daily Star (Il.), Jun. 21, 1922, p. 1]


FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): From the looks of things, Mrs. Korene Stankowich, who at last count had accumulated at least 16 husbands, won’t be charged with bigamy.

To accuse a wife of bigamy there must be at least two complaining husbands.

Thus far, there seem to be no complaints.


Such husbands of the blithe redhead, who explained it all by saying that when a woman is very much alive there is no knowing what she will do, who did get peeved about the surplus of husbands are in no position to charge bigamy. Those few divorced her and, presto, they have no official standing.

The other husbands, some of whom met still other husbands under the guise of cousins, bother or plain dear friends, have made no attempt to get their mutual wife in trouble for being too enthusiastic about acquiring men.

In fact the low man on the totem pole, Pvt. Alexander Stankowich, of the Marines, No. 16, rushed out to round up bail money from her large circle of husbands until the Navy Shore Patrol interfered with with such enterprise by putting him in custody.

Julian G. McIntosh, chief assistant prosecutor, admitted Thursday there had been no complaints and that the FBI, which has interrupted Mrs. Stankowich’s marrying career bu putting her in jail for a surplus of pay allotments rather than husbands, had not consulted with the prosecutor’s office.


Some of her husbands are overseas and while he did not say it, McIntosh hinted that it might seriously hamper the successful prosecution of the war to start bringing them back. Both the Army and Marines, not to mention Mrs. Stankowich, have kept the husbands pretty well scattered and it might slow down action on all the fronts.

Uncle Sam is not concerned with her occupation but with the fact that she accumulated $1,500 from the military coup of her domestic entourage as allotment pay. As far as the FBI is concerned, only one of her husbands should have sent her money.


Mrs. Stankowich still was in jail Thursday because her most recent mate was suppressed  before he could contact the rest of the family circle for her $4,000 bail.

The FBI also was holding her incommunicado since every time a reporter talked to her more husbands kept developing and it was feared it might become embarrassing to a large part of the general public. “You never know who might be another husband.”

[James S. Pooler, “16 Weddings Don’t Add Up to Bigamy – Officials Need Two Complaining Spouses,” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Jun. 2, 1944, p. 1]


FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): Because after 12 or more civilian husbands, Mrs. Korene Stankowich started marrying into the Army and Navy, she wound up in Federal Court here last week.

Never once was thre thirty-five-year-old redhead threatened with bigamy, although her record indicates she was opposed to divorce, but trouble hove up because she was getting pay allotments, according to the FBI, from three soldiers and a Marine.


It wasn’t until after she was brought into Federal Court that Mrs. Stankowich revealed her nonstop marriage record which pales anything covered before.  In fact, she had considerable trouble recalling husbands. Uncle Sam recalled her recent four, all military men and accused her of getting a tidy $2,500 from the Government in allotments. However, Pvt. Alexander Stankowich, of the Marines, Husband No. 16, was undiscouraged and rushed ourt to round up $4,000 bail from her circle of husbands until a Navy shore patrol stepped in and stopped him.


Mrs. Stankowich evidently sharpened up her technique on the civilians for records show that five years ago she was careening around New York pretending to be one of the famous Couzens’ family, of Detroit. None of her husbands – most are now overseas – have come forward to charge her with bigamy but one civilian, who shucked her legally in bygone years, revealed that she used the heiress gag on him.

[“Woman with Many Husbands Accused of Defrauding U. S., “ The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Jun. 4, 1944, Part 4, p. 5]





FULL TEXT: San Diego, Calif. – Go-go dancer Pandora Cooke, who allegedly married 14 servicemen for their allotment checks, has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for making a false statement to the Federal Housing Administration.

Mrs. Cooke, 29, a San Diego mother of three, wept as she was sentenced yesterday by U. S. District Court Judge Dennis F. Donovan stayed execution of sentence for two weeks and said she would be eligible for parole at any time during imprisonment.

The judge also dismissed 10 other counts against Mrs. Cooke who pleaded guilty Jan. 20 of making a false statement to obtain FHA credit for a loan on a house. She had been indicted on nine counts of defrauding the Government of $1348 in allotment checks and one count of claiming to be a Vietnam war widow to receive the benefits of a $10,000 insurance policy.

One of her husbands, Seaman Robert D. McColm, 23, testified at an annulment proceeding in Denver last October the FBI informed him Mrs. Cooke had 13 other husbands and was receiving allotment checks from them.

McColm, who said he was intoxicated when her married Mrs. Cooke in Las Vegas, Nev., after meeting her the previous night in a local bar, was granted an annulment.

The dark-haired entertainer was arrested here by the FBI last Aug. 23. She was released on $250 bail and has become the feature attraction at a San Diego cabaret.

[“Marrying Go-Go Girl Sentenced in Loan Bilk,” Philadelphia Daily News (Pa.), Feb. 17, 1967, p. 35]


FULL TEXT: San Diego, Oct. 13 – Pandora Cooke, 29, a go-go girl who allegedly had 14 husbands, mostly servicemen, was indicted on charges of defrauding the Federal Government.

Mrs. Cooke, who also used the name Anita Simons and other aliases, was charged in nine counts with defrauding the Government of a total of $1348.40 in military allotment checks.

She was accused in the 10th count of falsely claiming to be the widow of a marine killed in Vietnam to receive benefits of his $10,000 insurance policy.

The San Diego mother of three, who was arrested here by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is free on $250 bail. She is expected to be arraigned in federal court Oct. 24.

Her most recent husband, Seaman Robert D. McColm, 23, received an annulment Tuesday in a Denver court on grounds he was intoxicated at the time of the wedding. He testified he met Mrs. Cooke in a San Diego bar June 30, danced and drank that night and woke up in Las Vegas, Nev., the next morning a married man.

Most of the names of husbands were “not available,” an FBI spokesman said. But, he added, “our file is about as thick as your fist.”

[“Girl Go-Goes To Altar Often – Had 14 Husbands, FBI Charges,” The Pittsburgh Press (Pa.), Oct. 13, 1966, p. 18]






For more cases of this type see: “War-Marriage Vampires”& “Allotment Annies"


Monday, November 14, 2016

The Military Bride Bigamy Racket in 1943: Reported by Ruth Reynolds

FULL TEXT:  New York, Oct. 30. – THE “Victory girls” lovely ladies who are making careers of marrying servicemen say they are prompted by love and patriotism. Sniffing Federal prosecutor’s charge that the sole motive of the Victory girls, so named by one of them, is greed for government allotment checks. No matter whether they marry for love or money, Brig. Gen. H. N. Gilbert, director of the Office of Dependency Benefits, wants no part in trying to tell a faithful wife from a Victory girl.

While wayward wives are certainly exceptions in the long list of mates who are receiving checks from Uncle Sam, enough of them have been picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that they can’t be ignored any longer. They have, in fact, succeeded in making Congress Victory girl conscious.

That threw a scare into Gen. Gilbert. For, from the way some members of the House Military Affairs Committee were talking at a hearing on allotments, it appeared that the Dependency Bureau might be voted the responsibility of checking on the behavior of all wives and to cut off the monthly allotments for those who were unfaithful. Gen. Gilbert promptly objected to any plan to turn his bureau into a domestic relations court.

He admits that the Victory girls are a problem, but he argues that “the Army can do nothing but consider it a personal one which can be settled only by the soldier himself in the civil courts when he returns.”

Grace Vivian Reinert of Washington, D. C, who is one of the girls, says it’s really much simpler than that.

“The girls figure’ that they’re making the boys happy and that ‘ before the war is over the husbands will either be killed or glad to forget about their marriages.”

Grace speaks with authority for in her 22 years she has managed to be married four times, thrice to sailors. She married her first love, a Kansas City policeman, when she was 14. They were divorced. Her second, a West Coast seaman, C. F. Corn, was killed at Pearl Harbor. (But he had made his $10,000 life insurance payable to his mother.)

And if Nos. 3 and 4 – Machinist’s Mate Kenneth Reinert and Seaman James McKinney – wish to get in touch with her she can be found in Federal prison.


GRACE was picked up when Reinert and McKinney happened to meet and compare notes – and wives – in Washington. Each found that his allotment check was going to Grace. She was picked up and lodged in Galinger Hospital.

Before she escaped from that institution she explained the activities and motives of the Victory girls.”

“Its patriotism – for they give each husband a little happiness before he’s shipped. They don’t worry much about having more than one hundred because the sailors are at sea most of the time, and the other servicemen are shifted from camp to camp.

“When one of these girls gets into San Diego or Norfolk (big naval bases) she gets a job in a tavern first thing. That way she meets a lot of sailors, and those young kids off the farms for the first time are easy pickings.”

In spite of their preferences for “easy pickings,” Grace insists most of the Victory girls marry for love. She did, anyway. She also practiced what she preached. After her escape from Gallager Hospital she was found in San Diego – working in a taproom.

Grace was returned in Washington declaring her undying devotion to husbands. But Federal judge Matthew M. McGuire was unmoved by her emotion. He sentenced her to from one to three years for bigamy and from six to 18 months for escaping.

Grace’s claim on love, marriage, and allotment checks is as nothing compared to that of Vivian Nelms Eggers, 34, who so adored her seven Army mates that she divorced none of them. She sought to prove she was not marrying for money by pointing out that she received checks from only two of the seven.

The roster of her husbands includes:

Pvt. Thomas Knapp, married May 30, 1935, Columbus, O.; Pvt.Clifford Mayhew, May 28, 1939, Louisville; First Sgt. William R. Eggers, Oct. 30, 1939, Louisville; Pvt. Gordon H. Campbell, Dec. 17, 1942, Yuma, Ariz.; Pvt. Clarence Corsett, Jan. 17, 1943, Yuma; James D. Lucas, Feb. 25, 1943, Yuma; and Lt. Fred Donilson, June 2, 1945, Louisville.

Her case, like those “allotment wives,” came to the attention of the Dependency Bureau when someone noticed that checks for Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Eggers were being sent to the same Cincinnati address. It is conceivable, of course, that wives of two men in uniform may live at the same address, particularly in crowded cities near large posts. Nevertheless, an investigation is made to see that the two names don’t represent one and the same person. In Vivian’s case they did.


UPON her arrest and her ready confession to seven marriages and no divorces, she was whisked off to Arizona to be tried for bigamy because of her marriages to Pvts. Campbell and Corsett.

“You just get to drinking and having a good time, and you meet some one that’s kinda nice and that’s the way it happens,” is Vivian’s alibi.

But Federal Judge Dave W. Ling of Phoenix was unsympathetic.

He sentenced her to 18 months in prison for marrying Campbell, and granted her five years probation for marrying Corsett.

Pretty Doris June Shensky shows no special preference for Army, Navy or Marine Corps. She drew allotments from a soldier husband and a sailor husband and misappropriated the allotment check of a Marine lieutenant!

The busy life of this pretty 21-year-old came to light after the harried Dependency Bureau opened a branch office in Philadelphia to handle cases in that district.

Doris, the daughter of Samuel Ruckstool, a Philadelphia street car motorman, married Arnold S. Shensky, a South Philadelphia butcher, in February, 1941. They lived with the Ruckstools until Arnold became Pvt. Shensky of the 113th Infantry, stationed at Woodbine, N. J.

Pvt. Shensky, who loved Doris devotedly, made an allotment for her benefit. He bragged around camp about the way she was helping the war effort by volunteering constantly for hostess duties in Philadelphia canteens.

“Most men have inherent faith in their wives,” says Brig. Gen. Gilbert. Shensky was one of the trusting husbands.

He didn’t dream that Doris was already making merry with Seaman Russell E. Tracy of Barre, Vt., stationed at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Tracy spent many a jolly evening in the Ruckstool home. Apparently Doris’ parents thought that she had told Tracy her marital status. Anyway, they never mentioned it.

Then Tracy was transferred to California. The separation was more than he could stand. He wrote pleading letters to Doris to come to California and marry him. Doris agreed. She became Mrs. Tracy in Los Angeles on April 24, 1943

Shortly thereafter Tracy was sent to sea. He directed that a monthly allotment check be sent to Doris. She settled down for a time, in a Los Angeles rooming house. Lonely for Tracy, she decided that being near Shensky was better than nothing. But in other to get back to Philadelphia she had to have more money than she could find in her purse.

Among the letters piled on a table in the front hall of the rooming house was one addressed to Mrs. Ida L. Coleman, containing an allotment check for $170. Doris took it, cashed it, and returned to Philadelphia.

She was picked up there after Mrs. Coleman complained to the Marine Corps Allotment Office at Arlington, Va., that she hadn’t received her check.

On Dec. 13, Doris will have to appear for a hearing in Los Angeles on charges of forgery and larceny of a Government check. However, she hopes for leniency because she has repaid Mrs. Coleman’s $170, has made restitution for the allotment checks she received as Mrs. Tracy and has had her second marriage annulled.

In addition to problems posed by bigamists, the Dependency Benefits Office and the F.B.I, are now investigating servicemen’s wives who pretend motherhood in order to get additional benefits for children.

This new twist to the allotment racket was uncovered in Washington, D. C, and as a result Myrie M. McGuire is facing an appearance before a Federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy to defraud the Government.

Mrs. McGuire, 25-year-old wife of a Navy warrant officer stationed at Seattle, is charged with arranging for pre-natal care and delivery of a child purportedly hers and her husband’s.

The child, according to Washington police, is that of Catherine Samoza, 23-year-old unmarried mother, with whom, they say, Mrs. McGuire made a deal. She arranged for free hospital care at Government expense for Catherine in return for the privilege of calling the baby hers. Then she claimed dependency benefits for the child.

Records of the Navy Clinic and Hospital show that Catherine was treated as “Mrs. McGuire” and that the baby was born under the name of McGuire.

Police say that the frightened and unfortunate Catherine Samoza, who is to testify against Mrs. McGuire, will probably not be prosecuted in the conspiracy.


MOST of the servicemen are blithely ignorant of the behavior of these wives who become entangled with the law. Of the 20 women so far convicted, and the many now under investigation, husbands are involved in only a few cases.

One such husband was Cpl. Ramon Bruce Jarago of Denver.

Cpl. Jarago applied for a family allowance for “Mrs. Hope Rita Jarago,” representing her as his wife and offering as evidence of the relationship a photostatic copy of a marriage certificate for Hope Hurley and Ramon Bruce Jarago. Inquiry developed that Hope Rita and Hope Hurley were two different people.

Both the soldier and Hope Rita pleaded guilty before Federal Judge J. Foster Symes In Denver. Cpl.. Jarago was sentenced to two years in Leavenworth Prison, while Hope Rita was sentenced, to serve six months in the Denver County jail.

With such cases as these to worry Brig. Gen. Gilbert and his staff, it is little wonder that he wants civilian courts to handle the wayward wife situation.

Still another side to this question of these here-today-and-gone-tomorrow marriages for servicemen, according to a subcommittee of the House Naval Affairs Committee, concerns the number of child brides who are rushed into marriage by soldiers, sailors and marines and are then deserted on their honeymoons.

Two of these youngsters, Erma Sitler, 12, of Hillside, Md., and Betty Lou Parsley, 14, of Norfolk, wound up recently under the protective wing of New York juvenile welfare agencies.

“These are only two of the many tragedies which occur here every day,” says Mrs. Mabel P. Grange, Norfolk secretary of the Travelers Aid Society. “Something should be done to punish these men who marry children and then go away and forget about them.”

All too often these’ deserted brides, robbed of their childhood, grow up too suddenly, and take their places in the rapidly growing lists of “Victory girls.”

[Ruth Reynolds, “The ‘Victory Girls’; Bigamy Is Their Racket, Though They Claim Marriages to Servicemen Are Prompted by Love and Patriotism- Government Calls it Greed for Allotment Checks.” The Everyday Magazine (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (Mo.)), Oct. 31, 1943, p. 1]





For more cases of this type see: “War-Marriage Vampires”& “Allotment Annies"


The Military Bride Bigamy Racket in 1945: Reported by Geraldine Smith

FULL TEXT: In Newark, New Jersey, they’re suggesting that the Army ought to design a special ribbon for mothers-in-law. Newark is where the Office of Dependency Benefits functions. It’s the branch of the War Department that mails out 67 truckloads of allowance of allotment checks every day. The “first aid” to ODB’s investigating department is the mother-in-law.

Girls who marry servicemen just to get monthly dependency checks forget that for every husband they acquire, they get a mother-in-law, too. She is apt to be lynx-eyed.

“Don’t think the mothers don’t keep track of their boys,” an official of the ODB says, “and don’t think they’re going to keep quiet when they suspect the boys are sending allowances to women who don’t deserve them. It’s frequently the mother-in-law who informs us of such irregularities as bigamy. And the ODB has no record of any woman being acquitted after we have caused a charge of bigamy to be prosecuted against her.”

It is to the Federal Bureau of Investigated that the ODB turns when such serious charges as that of bigamy have to be investigated, and this was has produced a considerable quota of women who make a career of this crime.

There was, for example, the case of Mary Massengale, of Bowdon, Georgia, who was arrested in Atlanta on charges of unlawfully cashing Army allotment checks.Officials declare that she has five husbands, four of them kin service. Then there was the 19-year-old Wac private who collected one husband in the Navy and two in the Army. The FBI claims that a blonde on the West Coast married five sailor and two civilians. Recently sentenced to two years in Federal prison and fined $2000 in Korene Buckner of Michigan, who added three soldier spouses to her collection of eleven civilian husbands. She had managed to cash only one payment from her last soldier when the FBI caught her.

The polyandrous Wac is Julia Pearl Davis Steele, and the FBI says she had been absent without leave from Fort Des Moines since September 1. They also say that her history of marital adventures began a long time before she joined the Wac. At 15, Julia became the wife of Seaman James Clayton Steele of the Norfolk Navy Base.

That was in December, 1940. Eleven months later Julia switched her affections of the Army, marrying Corporal Frederick George Brown of Camp Berkeley, Texas. Corporal Brown was shipped overseas in May, 1942, and shortly thereafter Seaman Steele obtained a divorce. Eight months after that, still married to Corporal Brown, Julia went through the marriage ceremony again – this time with Army Private David Laub, at Augusta, Georgia. He was sent overseas.

Last April, Julia joined the Wac and was sent to Fort Des Moines for training, but vanished five months later. FBI agents found her, they said, living in New York with another man. The United States Attorney in Atlanta, who investigated the case, charged that Julia has collected $50 a month as the wife of Corporal Brown since June 1942, and an additional $50 a month since marrying Lamb.

Whether it was one of her mothers-in-law who pointed the finder disclosed. Nor does the FBI tell who tell who put them on the trail of Vilma Suberly, indicted in Sacramento on a charge of illegally obtaining $4600 in dependents’ allotments.

“It’s a lie!” snapped Vilma, when agents said that she changed the color of her hair with every change of husbands, becoming a platinum blonde for one man, a Titian for another and a brunette for third. “Look at my hair!” protested the girl. “It’s like corn silk.” Vilma comes from Jones Prairie, Texas. She is said to have used 28 names. H. C. Van Pelt, assistant agent in charge of the FBI in San Francisco, said the girl’s first husband was Herman Goodman, an Army private whom she married in 1938 in Galveston, Texas. The second, they say, was Herbert Edwin March, a civilian whom she married in 1938 in Galveston, Texas. The second, they say, was Herbert Edwin March, a civilian whom she married in Beaumont, Texas, in 1939.

Not all cases that the OBD investigates, with the co-operation of the G-men, reveal deliberate violations of the law. In a number of them, fraud is found to be unintentional, as the women involved are found to have obtained mail-order divorces. In other cases, the woman has in fact received an interlocutory degree and has not understood that she wasn’t free to marry again until the decree became absolute.

Such women marry soldiers or sailors, telling them that they have been divorced. Then they apply for dependency benefits, believing that they are entitled to them.

“Then, too, don’t forget that we have 48 states with 48 different marriage laws,” the Office of Dependency Benefits spokesman says.

Some problems passed to the ODB by amateur aides don’t really belong to that harassed organization at all. Its officials protest that it’s none of their business if lonely wives quarrel with service husbands – as Sarah Willemson with Leo, her spouse in the South Pacific.

“I want to marry one of these native girls,” Leo wrote, enclosing a snapshot of himself with a girl in a grass skirt, “and become king of a certain island group.” Indignant, Sarah said she wanted neither Leo nor his allotment. Then several men, perfect strangers, who read about it, wrote Mrs. Willemson to say that the grass-skirted girl was just a professional model. It was all a gag, they claimed, and Leo was only fooling!

[Geraldine Smith, “Mother-In-Law As Informer,” The Everyday Magazine (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (Mo.)), Mar. 18, 1945, p. 4]


For more cases of this type see: “War-Marriage Vampires”& “Allotment Annies"


Tuesday, November 8, 2016

The Alimony Racket – Checklist of Posts

The illustration above is taken from a 1931 newspaper article about the Alimony Racket. Are you surprised that such a sentiment would have been publicly stated back in the days when, as you have been told, the "patriarchy" was busy beating, raping and enslaving every woman in sight? We have all been conned -- big time. "Herstory" is a hoax.

If you ever took a class in school or college that offered a “herstory” of the relations between the sexes (called by Marxists “the genders”) which did not give you the sort of information that is included in the following original-source articles on the copiously documented history of the larcenous Alimony Racket* then you ought to conclude that your teacher is a con-artist, who stole your (or your family's) money and fed you lies, distortions, and half-truths. You deserve to get your money back (whether tuition or taxes).

The orthodox (politically correct) narrative is a fraud, a hoax, a sham and its promulgators are violators of human rights.

(*Alimony Racket, the term, refers not to justifiable alimony, but rather to the long-practiced rackets perpetrated by predatory women against men they deliberately schemed to make into their indentured servants through scams and frauds.)

There is an awful lot of reading material here. How to deal with such a pile of information? My humble recommendation is that if you want to join the Great Awakening and make a contribution to the growing and epic fight for liberty against tyranny, then you should shut-off the God-damned TV, skip the God-damned video games and get to work educating yourself. Quantity and details matter, especially when you are in confrontation with indoctrinated zombies.

Honest history is a weapon. Learn it well and use it well. Freedom is not a spectator sport.





Alimony Slavery in 1954 (by a female author)



Monday, November 7, 2016

The Alimony Racket: Quotations

Here is an example of a contemporary alimony reform writer who has accepted the fake history of the American family perpetuated by the universities. The history of the family is an academic subject virtually monopolized by scholars whose ideology causes them to produce a false narrative in an effort to promote present-day policy:

“While divorces in Florida are technically “no-fault,” they reflect attitudes and realities from America in the 1950s, when the divorcing husband was the sole breadwinner and always considered ‘the bad guy’ in divorce, while the wife was considered ‘the helpless victim.’
[“What’s Wrong with Florida Alimony Laws?” October 2011, Prepared by Florida Alimony Reform]

The fact is that mandatory alimony was already in the 1920s recognized by judges and a huge number of women editorial writers as obsolete. Conclusion: History Matters!



1901 ~ “[I] can see no reason why, if a woman marries again, her second husband should not support her and her first husband be relieved from paying alimony.” – Justice Henry A. Gildersleeve, Supreme Court, New York, N.Y. (source)

1909 ~ Although divorced fifty years … and although no mention of alimony was made in the decree, no divorced man is safe from payment of that peculiarly irksome obligation so long as his former wife lives and fails to remarry. … In other words – that is, in plain American language – a wife who obtained a divorce twenty-five years ago, or even fifty, according to Judge Ball, can bob up unexpectedly and, having discovered that her former spouse has become wealthy or merely well fixed, may go into court and successfully demand her “rights.” – Judge Ball ruling, Chicago (source)

1909 ~ Because she had no child as the issue of her marriage with William Welch, and wished to secure alimony from him, Mrs. Cora Welch, plaintiff in a divorce suit borrowed a baby from an orphanage in Georgetown, Wash., and attempted to palm it off on her husband and the court as her own child, born in wedlock. (source)

1911 ~  “The ‘million dollar alimony girl’— Ethel Stewart Elliott—went into bankruptcy the other day, giving as her main asset unpaid alimony amounting to $28,000. Eleven years ago as Ethel Stewart, dancing in the extravaganza ‘Chris and the Wonderful Lamp’ she danced her way into the heart of John Love Elliott, millionaire mining man. For a few years they were happy. Then came the break and – divorce in 1907. Elliott at that time, it is said, settled $1,000,000 on his wife and allowed an extra $28,000 yearly to support her and her daughter. In the years since then Mrs. Elliott satisfied her craving for fine clothes, for travel and a life of ease. The million dwindled away and now she’s ‘broke.’” (source)

1920 ~ “The matrimonial profiteer,” says Judge Graham, “is a thousand times more dangerous than the economic profiteer who can more readily be reached by law.” … “Thousands of young men in the heat of war married women who lived with them perhaps two or three days, then put in claims for alimony. I know of one case in which a woman married five soldiers and for long time collected allotments from each.” – Judge Thomas F. Graham, San Francisco (source)

1925 ~ “There stream into my court sobbing and hysterical examples who imagine that by furtive dabs to moist eyes with their handkerchiefs that they will be entitled to keep their hands in their former husbands’ pocketbooks forever. The courts now are flooded with ‘gimme’ divorces. These are the remain Shylocks without chick or child and possessed only of a great desire to keep a financial stranglehold on the husbands they have released through law.. … 
Furthermore, under our modern standards woman is no longer man’s inferior. If you would find out whether this is true ask any one of them and see what she says in reply. Yet there appear before me every day unobligated women who seek from $15 to 50 a  week from their former husbands’ earnings to add to their own comfortable salaries and for no other reason, pretext or cause than that they were once married to the men. How unfair and terrible! Heavens knows, it’s hard enough in these days trying to support one household without, being compelled by law to support two. And no childless divorced woman in good health is going to get any assistance from me from now on in continuing this injustice. Marriage is an institution and not a collection business.” – Judge Harry A. Lewis, Chicago (source)

1925 ~ Judge Strong’s decision recognizing the new situation, according to the press reports, was expressed in no uncertain terms. “Everything considered, he said, “I believe alimony should be discontinued because it keeps certain women lazy, gratifies their revenge, makes men miserable and serves no good ends.” – Judge Selah B. Strong, New York (source)

1925 ~ Judge Taulane in discharging the husband stated that he believed “that when a woman has been separated from her husband for ten years, as this woman has, and then concludes to sue for divorce, she is not entitled to alimony while her action is pending, regardless of what her allegations may be. It would seem as though she wanted to create a fund to pay the expenses of her suit.” – Judge H. Taulane, Philadelphia (source)

1926 ~ “The whole business of alimony grabbing is degrading. It cheapens the relations between men and women. I truly believe alimony keeps thousands of couples from being reconciled. The woman being supported by her husband under order of the court isn’t anxious to effect a reconciliation. She is dawling in idleness, free, irresponsible. She’s making him suffer, so she gloats.” – Judge Selah B. Strong (source)

1926 ~ “We love and honour the ladies,” Hoebert said, “but we want to leave to our descendants once more real mothers and wives, and to prevent their being killed off by the alleged emancipation of the woman.” – Sigurd Hoeberth, activist, The World’s League for the Rights of Men, Vienna (source)

1926 ~ “The feminist, hysterical and degenerate cafe scribblers have helped cunning woman to forge intolerable chains for men.” – Herr Wollner, activist, The World’s League for the Rights of Men, Vienna (source)

1926 ~ I am convinced that very few of the actions for separation with alimony by childless women are sincere; that is, based on their honest belief that they are really entitled to what they ask. – Judge Selah B. Strong, Chicago (source)

1927 ~ “With alimony from one man,” they argued. “I can just manage to exist. But if I can collect from three or four at a time then I’ve a settled income tor life.” – Soviet wives (source)

1927 ~ “[Married women] have become parasites and consumers instead of producers, taking no share in their husbands’ burdens, and are worse chattels than their grandmothers. The vast army of women seeking divorce are mainly after easy alimony from men they have ceased to love – surely one of the most despicable forms of barter that can exchange human hands.” – Fannie Hurst, novelist (source)

1927 ~ Sally thinks she’s a dear, sweet home girl. She’s not. She’s the meanest kind of a slacker and cheat. She let a man build his faith on her. She went with him into a Going Business. She tied up all he had to give of youth and ambition and love. And then, because she was too stingy of soul to do her share, she took her children and left him bankrupt of faith or hope. Some day Sally is going to hear how Ed is “carrying on” and she’s going to be perfectly furious and divorce him and feel frightfully abused if he won’t give her alimony. Would you give an absconding cashier heavy alimony? For that’s what Sally is! -- Elsie Marlowe, journalist (source)

1927 ~ “Down with alimony gold-digging. Millions for defense, but not one cent for alimony.” -- Bessie Cooley, activist, Chicago (source)

1927 ~ “I feel myself not altogether adequate to the task I have set for myself, but nobody else seems anxious to lead in the new crusade. What we really need is a new and eloquent Dickens, to write in burning words of the wrongs of the alimony slaves, and dissipate forever the idea that there is something intensely funny about a man paying tribute to a lazy, selfish, worthless woman willing to live on his bounty while denying him a husband’s rights.” – Robert Ecob, Alimony Payers Protective Organization (source)

1927 ~ “Alimony is the plague of the country. There are only two ways to beat it: have oodles of money or die.”
            “All over the country there are thousands of men in the same boat we are in – victims of designing wives.” said Gasteiger. “But we are organizing against them and will win out in the end. There is too much ‘shaking down’ of men with money. Why, there is an army of childless divorced women living in luxury on the revenue of alimony.” – John Gasteiger (source)

1927 ~ “Polite blackmail is committed every day in the name of alimony, perjured testimony is suborned in sadly too many instances; unscrupulous women, in our state of New York, have actually contracted marriages with wealthy men of wistful affections, just to bring about a speedy quarrel and collect the alimony ever after.” – Robert Ecob, activist, President of AAPPA (source)

1928 ~ “The rising tide of divorce has brought us a new industry, the ultimate refinement of golddigging, the perfection of blackmail within the law—marriage for alimony,” said Faith Baldwin, the well-known writer. “Women who do not want husbands or children have found a joker in our marriage laws by which they can establish themselves comfortably for life; free, respectable, rich, safe—without personal cost or sacrifice.
There are thousands and thousands of women who are being supported by men to whom they are no longer wives. There is no doubt that this business of alimony is getting to be a serious menace, it may be all right when a man has plenty of money. To pay a former wife a few thousand dollars in alimony may mean nothing to him. But, on the other hand, just consider how many men are forced to pay alimony who cannot afford it. You will find in the majority of cases that there is no good reason why they should pay it, either. The women are well able to take care of themselves. If they did not lack pride and self-respect, they would not accept money from men who no longer mean anything to them.” – Faith Baldwin, novelist (source)

1928 ~ “The tyranny of modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties, who are marrying men only to lead a careless, workless and childless life, or to obtain a divorce and a lifelong alimony, this shameful tyranny is the underlying cause of all evils. “Look at the insane asylum Steinhof  in Vienna. Fifty percent of the unfortunate inmates were brought to this place because of their marriage.’’ – Leopold Kornblueh, president of Justitia, Vienna (source)

1928 – Arthur J. Eyring, Cleveland Court’s alimony clerk, who has paid out alimony for many years declared that although many women are deserving in being supported by their former husbands, it is unbelievable the number of women who are receiving checks from two or maybe three misguided former husbands. He said these divorcees have developed a highly skillful technique of marrying, divorcing and suing for alimony, then remarry some wealthier man, divorcing and suing again for alimony. Where there are children, Eyring believes it is no more than light for the former married man should aid in supporting his former wife and “kiddies.” It is contended, however, that the familiar “gold-diggers” far outnumber all other alimony receivers. – Arthur J. Eyring, Cleveland Court’s alimony clerk (Ohio) (source)
1929 ~ “America is still under woman’s rule,” said the official spokesman of the league, “and it might, therefore, be embarrassing to our new members to have their names published. In America the women mistrust us because they think our object is to reestablish the tyranny of men. In reality, all that we ask for men is a fair deal.” – Secretary of The World’s League for the Rights of Men, (Weltbund für Männerrechte) Vienna (source)

1930 ~ “I’m an engineer on the B & O ,” explained Steven Wasilewski. “I’ve got two children by my first wife, and two by my second. The four live with my second wife, and my first wife had me thrown in here because I owed her $600. I can’t pay her off when I’m not earning anything — and here I got four kids and a second wife starving.”
“Christmas in jail?” he murmurs gently. “Oh, I guess I might as well get used to it. I tell you what’s wrong with this alimony business — we shouldn’t ‘a’ got married in the first place.” (source)

1930 ~ “The gold-digging divorcee hires the highest-priced lawyer obtainable. Her former husband has to pay the counsel fee, so he probably has to hire a cheap lawyer for himself." “Usually at the advice of her lawyer, she declares the man’s income to be larger than it really is, and mentions hidden assets which may not exist. The defendant may file a correct answer regarding his income, but only one in 200 ever is granted a referee’s decision. So long as he owes a dollar, he has no legal standing and cannot plead his case. Physical disability or loss of his position or business has nothing to do with it.” Temporary alimony is awarded and the case set for trial. If the man is in arrears on these payments, or has not paid counsel fees, he cannot go to trial. The trial may be delayed for years, and the ex-husband may be sent to jail in contempt of court. – Dr. Alexander Dallek head of the legislative branch of the National Sociological League, (source)

1930 ~ The youngest alimoniac ever confined in jail was 19. He met a gold-digger one week, married her the next, and the third week found him behind bars. (source)

1930 ~ Three Chicagoans who have either been cited for contempt or committed to jail for failure to pay alimony, today sought incorporation of the Alimony Club of America. (source)

1931 ~ “The alimony racket has become the great woman’s industry. A sobbing pretty woman before the court — and what chance has the husband? In many cases the amount of alimony is so large in proportion to the man’s earnings that it completely nullifies any chance of happiness or of another marriage. And why – one cannot help but ask – should a divorced man be denied the right to a normal family life?” – Ruth Brown Reed (source)

1931 ~ “Counsel states no matter how just my claims are he will not give me a chance to go to trial until I pay him the $100. His exact words were ‘You will rot in here before I will get you out.’” (source)

1932 ~ “They know that under the law when a man has been put in here neither the mayor nor the governor nor the President himself can spring him. Under certain circumstances the governor can release a convicted murderer; he can’t do anything for a delinquent payer of alimony. Neither can the judge who signs the order. It’s not contempt of court, but just plain contempt of wife! And maybe most of the little women don’t know it, but oh, what contempt!” – Adolph Wodiska, activist, President the New York County Alimony Club (source)

1932 ~ “I get letters from women all over the country charging me with being a traitor to my sex,” Mrs. Gompers said. Her young face, under a cloud of snow-white hair, into a smile. “Well, I’m certainly an enemy of gold-diggers, if that’s what they mean.” – Mrs. Samuel Gompers, activist, National Divorce Reform League (source)

1933 ~ Today New York city alone has 80 men who are imprisoned just because they cannot pay alimony. Poverty is no excuse for the law. For instance, 58-year-old John Pettet has all the earmarks of becoming an “alimony lifer.” Seven contempt-of-court orders to pay alimony accrued during his incarceration and his formerly flourishing radio business has been shattered. He has no chance of making money to get him out again. (source)

1933 ~ “There have been several instances [in California] where women have been collecting alimony from two or three ex-husbands and when they failed to pay it was jail for them. Because such practices smack of racketeering the state decided to put a stop to it. If a woman can't get by on the income of one husband she should take lessons in management and clamp the brakes down on her expenditures.” (source)

1933 ~ There is nothing in our alleged modern civilization that is so disgraceful as the fact that divorce has become just as much a racket among unprincipled women as bootlegging has among men. A large class of women as bootlegging has among them. A large class of women as bootlegging has among them. A large class of women have made a gift wrecking homes and breaking up men’s lives. They enter into the most binding of all human contracts with no intention whatever of fulfilling it. They perjure their souls without even a qualm of conscience by taking upon their lips the most solemn of all oaths that they do not even mean to keep. – Dorothy Dix, journalist (source)

1933 ~ “Even a lowly alimony prisoner has constitutional rights,” Justice Bonygne had some crisp things to say about “petticoat government” and “waspish wives.” … “Let a waspish woman pluck the sleeve of the judicial gown or nudge the elbow concealed therein,” his Honor meditated, “and … restraint is immediately cast aside and the delinquent spouse faces the possibility of unending imprisonment through successive adjudication of contempt. This carries the supposed rights of woman to absurd, not to say unconstitutional, lengths.” – Judge Paul Bonygne, Brooklyn, N.Y. (source)

1934 ~ I joined this club primarily because I wanted to see justice done, and I feel that that very often a woman can attack her own sex with more effect than can a man. I am intensely against the ‘woman chiseler’ who marries not for a home and a husband, but for alimony and a good time at some decent man’s expense. – Mrs. Rose Fox, activist, New York Alimony Club (source)

1935 ~ What do you suppose an ex-wife is thinking about when she has her husband put under the jailhouse for not paying alimony? That question has bothered thousands of former husbands who from the inside of the jail saw no rhyme or reason in it. It led to formation of the Alimony Reform League of New York, which inquired into the subject. Now the story can be told.
Such women are psychopathic cases almost every time! And they are sadistic! At least they are bordering on some kind on some on some kind of psychosis that approaches sadism.
The Alimony League got back about one-half of 2,000 questionnaires it sent out. The first three questions ran: “Why did you send him to jail? How long are you satisfied now that he is in jail? How long would you like to have him remain there? More than one-fourth of the women answering the first question declared he belonged in jail, deserved it. About 63 per cent were tickled to death with the status of everything in answering the second question. They were satisfied. About 21 per cent were sorry, the rest, undecided. (source)

1935 ~  “Alimony caused the suicide yesterday of Mrs. Faye Wegener, a wife whose husband was compelled to pay a substantial part of his earnings in a divorced wife. Police found her body and a note voicing her despair in a gas-filled apartment.” (source)

1937 ~ The alimony racket is a definite livelihood for thousands of women. And until men do something about it it will flourish like a green bay tree. – Kathleen Norris, novelist, journalist (source)

1937 ~ Women who marry that they may divorce for money are high-class chiselers who have so far got off scot-free. It’s an old con game with streamline trimmings, and even if the men are dumb enough to fall for it, the women are still responsible for it as they who put over the idealistic and romanticized picture of womanhood which still makes a man believe that the little woman really does want a vine-covered cottage when she says, “Yes.” It’s all too easy these days for a woman to reason along these lines when she is momentarily bored or angry, “Why should I go on putting up with this guy? A divorce, with alimony to take care of the money problem, and I can live my own life as I please.” – Maxine Garrison, journalist (source)

1937 ~ Missouri’s lone woman legislator has offered a bill for the “relief of alimony-ridden” men, or those in danger of being classed in that state. Mrs. Gladys B. Stewart, Republican member from Douglas-co and a former assistant district attorney, has sponsored a measure which she believes will tend to curb “alimony grabbing tendencies” of some members of her sex. (source)

1937 ~ Few people realize how easy it is to have a man thrown into jail for non-payment of money owed. A person who owes as little as $5 may be put behind the bars in New York City even before being tried and found guilty of not paying a debt. …
But let me tell you there’s nothing funny ahead for the man who is escorted to a county jail to serve three months or so just because he is unable to beg, borrow or steal enough money, to satisfy (temporarily, at least) some hysterical or vindictive woman who is his former spouse. If he has a job, he’ll probably lose it; if he has a business, it will probably go to pieces in his absence. He can’t earn any money while he is in jail, so when he is released three months later he will be broke” and jobless, and that Ol’ Debbil Alimony will catch up with him so fast that it is almost a sure-thing bet that his ex-wife will have him back behind the bars in no time.– Lois Maddox Miller, journalist (source)

1937 – “Alimony has become a racket. …After all, the theory of alimony is to protect a woman who has relinquished her ability to support herself. She deserves this protection. But like many other laws that were well conceived, the alimony law is being abused. It not only is providing thousands of undeserving ex-wives with a comfortable living, but it has been twisted into a weapon by which women vent their hatred on the men they once loved.” – Spring Byington, actress, anti-alimony activist (source)

1938 ~ While we Americans sneer at the medieval domesticity of other nations, which makes the husband the master in no uncertain terms, those other nations have laughed right back at us for our idiotic glorification of the American wife. The American husband, it is claimed, makes the money but his wife gaily tosses it away. He is expected to stick to his job, but she sloughs off her housekeeping with a flip of the dust mop and spends most of her time in beauty parlors or at the bridge table. If she decides that she wants her “freedom,” she gets not only that but enough alimony to keep her from having to lift a finger for herself. And our European cousins think that such goings-on can hardly be turned be termed marriage. – Maxine Garrison (source)

1939 ~ “Alimony often amounts to holdups with the aid of barbaric laws,” declared Doctor Katzoff, medical director and consulting psychiatrist of the San Francisco Institute of Human Relations. (source)

1939 ~ You may be young and comely when you marry him. You may still be young and comely when you leave him and file suit for separate maintenance. You may be capable of supporting yourself, yet the law provides that he be your slave for life, your husband in name and checkbook only. Woman’s present economic status no longer justifies this, Judge Joseph Sabath, dean of the divorce judges of Cook county, declared yesterday. He said that as the separate maintenance law, with its condoned abuses, stands, it is merely an open door to “alimony, alimony, alimony.” (source)

1939 ~ As for alimony, one of the profound mysteries of the world is why men, who make the laws, have not long ago done away with the cruel and unjust and medieval status that govern the whole subject of divorce and under which they suffer, whenever they find it impossible to live with their wives, or their wives get tired of living with them.
That many women marry for the sole purpose of getting divorces a matter of common knowledge. The women who practice this hold-up game marry men they don’t love. They  don’t make an effort to get along with them, or do their duty as wives in any respect, and in the course of a year or two they pick a quarrel and fly to Reno.
Then their poor dupes have to pay them enough money to live on luxuriously ever after Why should this be possible? Why should a man have to spend the remainder of his life supporting a woman who has made his life a hell on earth? Why should a first husband have to go on supporting his former wife and her second husband? Why should a poor fellow who can't pay his alimony be put in jail where he can't make any money? My own idea is that no young and able-bodied woman without children should ever be given a nickel of alimony. She took her chances on marriage just as the man did, and she should be enough of a sport to be a good loser. – Dorothy Dix, journalist (source)

1940 ~ Every woman is entitled to one mistake, but when you have a woman casting aside her second or third husband, you find she is doing it because she is seeking a better, bargain, in, the form of larger alimony allowances. … You will invariably find that each succeeding male is wealthier than his, predecessor, and consequently a better contributor to the alimony-racket. – New York State Senator Edward J. Coughlin (source)

1944 ~ And another, and a bitter and a shameful reason, why women ask for divorces oftener than men is because they have found out how profitable is the alimony racket and how easily it can be worked by any pretty woman. Thousands of women marry men for whom they have no affection, and with whom they have no intention of living, just because a marriage license delivers their husbands into their hands as the victims of the lowest holdup game ever practiced. – Dorothy Dix, journalist (source)

1946 ~ It made me consider afresh what I often have thought of alimony; that alimony is essentially unfair, and that men who make and change laws so easily, are rather stupid that they don’t regularize this one. The childless woman I quote above was about 28. It is possible that “he,” whoever he is, will be paying her $6,000 a year for more than 40 years. A quarter of a million dollars for the 24 months she spent in disillusioning him and breaking his heart. Such a woman, if I judged her rightly, will not re-marry while this golden river is rolling in. She will have her love affairs and her freedom; she will feel herself infinitely superior to the quiet girl who sticks to her bargain, keeps her man happy and secure, and raises children. – Kathleen Norris, novelist , journalist (source)

1951 ~ “After World War I, which opened up new business horizons to multitudes of women, these laws became a legal device for picking husbands’ pockets. Something must be worked out from the present hodge-podge of laws to protect children, and at the same time prevent the hard-boiled sisterhood from using marriage as a high-jacking scheme. … Men and women must be equally responsible for the support of their children – as they have always been. Any effort on the part of either to shun that duty should be punished severely. But certainly, society can no longer tolerate the parasitic woman.” – Mrs. Walter Ferguson, journalist (source)

1952 ~  “We have a man who is so mad about alimony rackets, he’s written a book. ‘Alimony, The American Tragedy,’ is the title and Dr. Charles Wilner of New York is the author. …
Dr. Wilner’s most startling charge is that alimony laws are creating an ever-growing group of American spinsters. The lawyers connive with wives to extract every last dollar from an ex-husbands purse, he contends. Thus, the divorced men can’t or won’t remarry, because they are disillusioned and hate the opposite sex.
‘Millions of women pine away in unwed loneliness, merely because predatory alimony-wives devour their prey so publicly that many men are frightened away from matrimony into bachelorhood,’ says Dr. Wilner.” (source)

1954 ~ “IT’S BAD enough to have to pay that woman more money than I can afford. She always gets it, by mail, right on the nose. But I don’t think it’s fair for her to poison my daughter’s mind against me.”
Another father says tearfully that, after he complained his alimony payments were too high, his son told him on his next visit, “I hate you, Daddy! Go away from here! I never want to see you any more!”
One other weapon the wife can, and docs, use: the Alimony Jail. Under the law, failure to meet alimony payments is contempt of court, punishable in some states by up to a year in jail. Although a jail term doesn’t solve the problem of payment (husbands, of course, can’t pay while behind bars), many wives don’t care.
“I don’t want the money. I just want him to rot in jail for what he did to me,” one woman told her attorney. – Divorced men (source)

1954 ~ Will we ever have a new Lincoln to free the alimony slave? In New York’s Manhattan telephone book you’ll still find the entry: Alimony Jail. At various times it’s been my job as reporter to interview inmates of this jail, which is at 434 West 34th Street (appropriately in the Hell’s Kitchen district). Each time I was ashamed of my sex. – Helen Worden Erskine, journalist (source)



For more revelations of this suppressed history, see The Alimony Racket: Checklist of Posts