Abolishing “Heart Balm”: Jack Anthony - 1935

 

FULL TEXT: Jack Anthony is engaged in the very tangled business of trying to get justice, as he sees it, for the many husbands who have run afoul of the alimony laws.

 

He heads the Alimony Reform League of New York state, organized to aid the estranged, but still-paying-the-bills husbands of New York. However, "SOS" calls from other stales never fail to gain his sympathetic ear.

 

He feels jubilant over this year's legislative freshets which are wiping out opportunities for women to collect under beach of promise or alienation of affection lawsuits.

 

"Heart balm laws today," he says, "simply give freedom for the most part to women who want money or publicity from wealthy men, or from men with prominent positions.

 

~ A 'Chivalrous' Law ~

 

"If a show girl wants to break into print what better way has she than to bring a heart important and have been sued by people they have never even seen.

 

"Maybe many, many years ago there was sonic justification for payment of money by a man to a girl whom he suddenly decided to leave at the altar.

 

"The legal theory behind the breach of promise law in the beginning was that of contract. It originated in the fine, old ideal of chivalry. Woman was the weaker vessel, and needed the protection of man.

 

~ Men’s Turn to Struggle ~

 

"But women have achieved equality, and now it's the men's turn to struggle for a new equality in the courts.

 

“Under breach of promise suits the damages were assessed, first, for the intangible losses suffered by the woman; and second, as a punitive gesture against the man.

 

~ Trousseau Compensation ~

 

“When you think of it, a man can he just as much heart by a broken promise to marry as a woman. But do the men go into court and demand money? Not much. They may commit suicide, or they may shoot the other man, but they don't demand money.

 

"There are cases, of course, where two people love each other sincerely, but can't marry for some reason or other. Money won't compensate them hurt their feelings.

 

"And I'll grant if a man promises marry a woman, and she goes out and invests quite a sum in a trousseau, she should be reimbursed for the expenditure, just as in any other contractual relationship. But that is quite a different matter from these quarter-million and half-million dollar sums which are demanded.

 

"The present drive against heart balm suits is just an opening wedge for the laws which must be enacted before men, involved in martial tangles, can enjoy justice in the courts. he crowd. Some day I hope we can empty the n on the thrilling star!! alimony cells in prisons."

 

[“Love’s Old $weet $ong - Or, Is It Goodbye to Heart Balm?; Alimony Expert Speaks,” Harrisburg Telegraph (Pa.), May 2, 1935, P. 13]

 

***

 

***

 

***

 

 

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

 

***

[2094-11/21/21; 2580-1/26/22]

***

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”: Quotes

The “Heart Balm Racket” is what the wide-spread and highly remunerative misandric practice came to be called. It is was the extortion scam practiced by predatory women who would, under false pretenses charm a well-heeled man and coax a man to give her written marriage proposals – written, so they could be used later in court, and in a minimum quantity of three, to satisfy evidentiary requirements – and then, after she had gotten her valuable court-ready documentation would then use all her art to make herself so unattractive a prospective wife that her suitor would retract the offer. They called these women “gold diggers”; the grounds of their law suits was termed “Breach of Promise.” These women were, in essence, highly sophisticated and dishonest-to-the-bone, blackmailers.

Nowadays, the practice of allowing predatory women to be remunerated – or given other advantages, such as lighter prison sentences – for falsely representing themselves as victims when in fact such women are cunning sociopathic con artists, is again institutionalized and legalized under the guise of feminism (cultural Marxism). It is instructive for us to look at, and learn from, past examples of scams run by predators of the “victimized sex” such as the Heart Balm Racket, the Badger Game, the Alimony Racket, the military Allotment Racket, and, finally, the worst of the worst, the “Black Widow” serial killing, women who married men and then murdered them, frequently for insurance pay-offs.

**

QUOTES – from historical articles included in The Unknown History of MISANDRY:

JUDGING by the falling marriage rate in the United States, American women seem less interested in wedlock than the women of European countries; yet no others complain so loudly nor so publicly when their hopes of wedded happiness are thwarted, and no others demand – nor receive – such expensive poultices for injuries to their pride, affections and expectations of comfortable support. …

The judgments rendered and the amounts awarded in this Land of the Free for breach of promise, alimony and alienation of affections are the wonder and amusement of Europeans, and are not equaled in any other country. When a woman is bereft of the love of an American man, she has, in the opinion of his peers, lost something of almost incalculable value, and great should be her compensation. – Mary Day Winn 1930 (source)

***

Breach of promise suits largely degenerate into extortion suits against unwitting, unsuspecting and wealthy males.

Many students of social welfare and relations believe present laws are archaic and nothing more than weapons to enforce revenge, retaliation or collect a nice stipend for the enjoyment of life. That the racketeering should be stopped is the belief of many lawmakers and, with Indiana leading the way, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania Legislatures may soon be considering revisions of their statutes that will take heart balm off the gold basis. – John L. Coontz – 1935 (source)

***

Wretches who moan that love is fickle

-- Here is the point about these squaws –

None of them ought to get a nickel!

Curb this Cupid-ity! pass some laws!

-- To A Legislator.” 1935 (source)

***

Thousands and thousands of dollars are being taken by unscrupulous packleg lawyers in such cases and it’s up to us to give a woman a chance to see how it will work. It is a start in the right direction and it will overcome the filchers.”

Senator Leo N. Smith of Indianapolis asserted that 999 out of 1,000 breach of promise and alienation of affection suits were nothing but “shakedowns.”

Let’s eliminate this evil from the good old state of Indiana,” he thundered.”-- 1935 (source)

***

In that period from the “Gay Nineties” until the beginning of the depression in 1929, the United Slates courts witnessed a miniature “Thirty Years War” of their own. It was no bloody strife over religious or economic issues, but the prolonged battle of the breach of promise suit. – Theodor Apstein 1935 (source)

***

CHECKLIST

“A Word for Men's Rights” - 1856

Chivalry Justice & the Heart Balm Racket in 1866

The Heart Balm Racket & Feminist Rhetoric in 1869

The Heart Balm Racket in 1872 - (Holman-Earle ruling)

The Heart Balm Racket in 1901: Jail Time for Loss of Love

The Heart Balm Marketplace in 1911; 2 cases

Chivalry Justice & The Heart Balm Racket – 1912

Baroness von Kalinowski Wanted Big Money (Heart Balm Racket)- 1913

Edith Ransom & the Heart Balm Racket - 1922

Predatory Females of the Heart Balm Racket Get Their Payoffs Tax Free – 1923

Violent Bernice Day, “The Acid Bride” & Her Forgiving Victim - 1927

MGTOW in 1929

 

Abolishing "Heart Balm": Jack Anthony - 1935

The Love Racket (AKA: Heart Balm Racket) - 1930

The Art of Predatory Femininity, for Fun and Profit – 1930

Female Lawyer to Help Victims of Gold-Diggers -1930

Predatory Women Cut Off at the Pass (Heart Balm Racket) -1935

One Misandric Racket Ends (But Others Will Follow) - 1935

Kathleen Norris on the Heart Balm Racket - 1935

The Heart Balm Racket Under Attack, Again - 1935

Anti-Misandry Legislator: Blanche Hower - 1935
 

Anti-Misandry Legislator: Roberta West Nicholson - 1935

The Long-Flourishing Heart Balm Racket: A Men's Rights Activist Tells Its History - 1935

Predatory Women are Innovative Entrepreneurs - 1935

Legalized Extortion: Tool of Predatory Women in Iowa - 1937

Katherine Foley’s War Against “Love Racketeering” - 1938

***

[2564-6/5/21]

***

Edith Ransom & the Heart Balm Racket - 1922

FULL TEXT: Miss Edith L. Ransom, a twenty-three-year-old Richmond, Va., beauty filed papers in a suit in Supreme Court for alleged breach of promise against John B. Woodward, an executive and part owner of a Chicago newspaper. He is a widower, about sixty years old, and while in New York lives at the Dearborn Apartments in West 55th Street, Miss Ransom lives nearby in the Hotel. No. 147 West 55th Street.

In her complaint filed by her counsel, Thomas J. Stapleton of No 305 Broadway, Miss Ransom alleges that Woodward asked her to be his wife while they were a dinner in the Hotel Majestic, on June 20, 1920, and that he renewed this promise in October of the same year while the were at a sanitarium in Summit, N. J. Now, she avers, that recently he withdrew his promises to marry and $100,000 damages.

Woodward was served with a summons in the suit in his offices in the Times Building on Wednesday

In a letter to her lawyer, included in the complaint, Miss Ransom writes:

“After several quarrels Mr. Woodward told me that he did not intend to marry me as he had discovered that I had a very jealous nature, and that I got on his nerves at times when I became hysterical after his quarreling with me.

“Due to the disappointment and heartache and worry over the compromising position in which I have been placed I fell seriously ill last summer in the Edgewater Beach Hotel and can secure proof from people in Chicago that Mr. Woodward introduced me to his friends and paid all my expenses while in Chicago at his fiancee.”

Among various letters submitted by tin plaintiff in her complaint is on the letterhead of a Chicago newspaper, saying in part:

“Dear Edith: You have great versatility in letter writing. In almost every letter you write you show it. Sunday you pictured me as a your big wonderful man. Tuesday I was a shrimp, not it to continue as your devoted pal, that on my return to New York  I was not to speak to you Wednesday I was to prepare for the Wedding March and on Thursday I was a cold-hearted villain who had forsaken his Princess and was rushing widows and vamps. Your letters are always interesting and I enjoy them immensely.”

Affidavits are submitted to Mrs. Margaret Ott, superintendent, and nurse, at the Esther [?] Erbach Dr. Reinie’s sanitarium, Summitt, N. J., declaring that Woodward and Miss Ransom spent ten days in adjoining rooms of the sanitarium and that she held Miss Ransom out as his fiancée and it was understood they were to be married next December.”

Miss Ransom is an orphan, her parents having died when she was an infant. She was reared in the .Masonic Home in Richmond, Va. During the war she was secretary to George Creel, Director of the Bureau of Public Information. It was while she was Mr. Creel’s secretary that she first met Mr. Woodward.

[“‘About 60’ Asks 23-Year Beauty To Be His Bride; And So Miss Edith L. Ransom Sues John B. Woodward for $100,000 for Heart Balm.” The Evening World (N.Y.), Aug. 4, 1922, p. 3]

***

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

[469-9/17/21]

***

The Heart Balm Racket in 1872 - (Holman-Earle ruling)

FULL TEXT: The Homan-Earle case, a noteworthy sensation of last year, is made fresh in public recollection by the argument on the appeal to the General Term of the City Court. This matter is amusing, contemptible, or important, according to the point from which it is vowed. It is a paradox of human nature that the passion of all others commands sympathy – what is technically termed the “tender passion” – is as often the occasion of mirth as of sadness. It would be curious to know whether more tears or laughter have been bestowed by disinterested persons on the woes of lovers. The line which here divides tragedy and comedy is very indistinct. Certainly there are no elements of the former in the Holman-Earle case. A mature maiden sues a maturer widower for damages for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. There is nothing tragically respectable in this. Shinplasters cannot mend a broken heart, even if a broken heart were among the possibilities in these circumstances. In the dramatic picture we cannot see a distressed creature, wan, woeful, forsaken, on the edge of suicide, perhaps, but certain to die somehow of a perpetual pang. We only see a thrifty person disappointed of a comfortable settlement, and resolved to repair the loss, if possible, by securing a good round sum of money. This is only amusing where it is not contemptible. The contempt provoked by the scandal is by no means confined to the plaintiff. Putting aside her allegations and the testimony by which she sought to sustain them, the admissions of the defendant, the facts conceded by the clever, but excessively low toned speech of his counsel, published yesterday, are enough to cover the defendant with ridicule and with scorn of the moat contemptuous kind. If, on the one hand, the plaintiff has incurred the sneers and derision of the public by seeking a moneyed compensation of the wounding of sensibility that ought to be nursed in delicate privacy, on the other hand the confessed behavior of the defendant is such not, indeed, as to “bring his gray hairs in sorrow to the grave:” that would be dignified and decent, but to make him a laughing stock wherever he goes and whenever he appears.

Beside these special amusing and contemptible aspects of the case it presents an important legal question. At the trial Judge Neilson held that even where there was no express promise to marry an engagement of marriage might be inferred from circumstances. This has been regarded as a new departure in marital jurisprudence. The able jurist who announced the rule expressed himself with customary clearness and emphasis. So far as any leaning was shown by the General Term yesterday it would seem that Judge Neilson’s associates are scarcely prepared to accept his doctrine. Leaving them to dispose of the question formally the public will still have its own opinions on the morality of the proposition. In favor of the rule it may be said that its tendency will be to make men and women more prudent and circumspect in their social intercourse. A forethoughtful young man will be extremely careful about approaching a young woman with amiable warmth or with the faintest show of kindly regard, if his genial overtures are to conclude him in a promise of marriage, despite a precautionary and positive disavowal of matrimonial intent. Such a rule of law, rigidly enforced, would make cordial companionship among other than people already married unsafe; and that universal and more or less charming activity described by the elastic term “flirtation” a pursuit ranging from the absolutely innocent to the extremely perilous would be limited to other men’s wives and other women’s husbands. This might be of doubtful advantage. But upon the whole it would work no harm were there something more of restraint imposed on the social intercourse of single people of opposite sexes. This is what might be gained morally by the proposed new rule. On the other hand it may be said that such a rule would impair the gravity and delicacy of the marriage contrast. To say that it is one of the most serious of contracts is to repeat one of the most hackneyed of truisms. So is it to say that it ought not to be lightly entered upon, that it should be thoughtfully made, and with the fullest consent and the clearest understanding of both parties to it. It is to be feared that if Judge Neilson’s ruling were relentlessly reduced to practice not only many “implied” engagements would be made lightly but life-long responsibilities would be assumed unintentionally and unconsciously. The thought might be amplified. Indeed it amplifies itself, and forces us to the conclusion that there would be no social safety save in the absolute non-intercourse of unmarried men and women. The decision to be pronounced by the General Term of the City Court is therefore very important and will be awaited with interest not free from anxiety.

[“The Breach of Promise Case.” The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (N. Y.), Oct. 30, 1872, p. 2]

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

The Heart Balm Racket & Feminist Rhetoric in 1869

FULL TEXT: The New York Times of several days and other journals of this City contain articles on Amanda Craig’s modest suit for damages for breach of promise, while the reports of Women’s Rights meetings, tell us much of the often repeated “Degradation of Woman.”* There is, no doubt, a great deal of degradation, and, perhaps, there is no greater self-degradation, and, perhaps, there is no greater self-degradation of woman than these shameless, loathsome suits for “damages for blighted affections.” No law, except the English and American law, knows of such suits. A modern English Judge has said that these suits are well founded. A girl who, under a promise of marriage, loses other opportunities of a fair settlement, is entitled to damages for the loss of time. Is this the vaunted chivalry, romance, civilization of our “advanced age?” The twelve men who awarded $100,000 to the lady with the loving name must have considered her affections worth a great deal, even after she had shown, by suing Mr. Sprague, of what dimensions they must be. It is high time that, bylaw or State Constitutions, this legal coarseness and Anglican barbarity were totally abolished.

Equally self-degrading are those suits for damage for seduction, which are instituted by the seduced. The woman degrades herself in these cases to a simply passive being, as if she had no self-government, in the sense in which the old theologians – Baxter** and those great writers took their own translation of autnomy.

Nor do the men degrade woman less by the almost impunity they accord to the worst criminals among women. No female prisoner, however fiendish, but is pardoned, because it is so hard to execute a weak woman! As though a penal trial and penal punishment were a trial of strength! The impunity extended to woman deprives her of moral responsibility and degrades her in this point, even more than the former slave was, for slavery, full of contradictions as it was, exhibited also this glaring inconsistency: that, while it declared the negro a thing to be sold and bought, it nevertheless ascribed moral responsibility to him, and made him liable to penal trials, such as they were, and sure to suffer the penalties awarded him.

History, from the most distant times, and the daily occurrences around us, show that woman can be quite as criminal, quite as fiendish, quite as bent on iniquity, as man, and all the sickly stuff about the poor, weak creature, when she has committed a crime, is simple degradation of her, when those very men who would pardon every female convict declare her infinitely superior to man in point of morality. Let us be done with this hypocricy; let us honor woman as our equal, wholly and fully, in morality, in religion, in responsibility and in immortality; let us truly honor her, and in order to do this, among other things, let us abolish civil suits asking for damages for breach of promise, and punish the female criminals. It ought be claimed as a right by women themselves to be held responsible. – E. L.

[E. L., “The ‘Degradation of Woman,” The New York Times (N. Y.), Jul. 29, 1869, p. 5]

***

* “Degradation of Woman.” – A phrase apparently popularized in 1848 by American Quaker feminist Lucretia Coffin Mott (1793-1880): “The world has never yet seen a truly great nation because in the very degradation of women the very foundations of life are poisoned at their source.”

** Baxter – Richard Baxter; 1615 – 1691; American Puritan theologian promoted the idea of individual agency.

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

[514-1/24/21]

***

Baroness von Kalinowski Wanted Big Money (Heart Balm Racket) - 1913

By Nixola Greeley-Smith

FULL TEXT: New York, May 29. – Testimony is now being taken in New York in the suit brought by Baroness Ursula von Kalinowski against Michael J. Hurley, paint manufacturer of St. Louis, for $2,500,000 damages for blighted affections.

Affection to the value of two and a half million dollars is certainly SOME affection even when you consider that it was lavished upon the fickle and unworthy Hurley by a high-born German baroness.

In her deposition the noblewoman said that she had followed Hurley from one city to another in Europe and finally across the ocean in response to telegrams in which he promised to marry.

I think nearly all women FEEL the same way about breach-of-promise suits, to-wit, that they are sordid, disgraceful, and that no really self-respecting woman is ever involved in one.

But if we accept the logic of the present economic status of woman we simply cannot THINK as we FEEL on the subject.

A woman like the Baroness Kalinowski has NO ACTUAL VALUE.

Without either trade or professional training, her economic worth is represented by zero. She has nothing to give anyone save the problematical quantity called “affections.” Now affections when they are offered for sale are worth precisely what you can get for them.

The baroness thought she had arranged a life transfer of that exceedingly perishable commodity to a man worth millions. If the buyer backed out of his contract assuming there was one then the baroness is damaged to the full value of her blighted hopes.

Admitting that the woman who puts a commercial value upon her love sets herself before the world as livestock. she is entitled to damages nevertheless, just as any other prize animal is damaged in reputation and saleability if the man who has arranged for this purchase refuses to complete the bargain.

There is no getting away from the fact that so long, as sex is generally regarded as something which women have to sell and men to buy, we shall have breach-of-promise suits, the known as alimony and all similar social weeds which owe their noxious being to the economic dependence of women.

Until women regain the eugenic choice of which she alone among all females is deprived, she has the right to set a value in money upon her alighted affections.

Her affections are the tools of her trade, her means of livelihood. Damage to them is the most serious injury she can receive. So long as she profits by their disposal she must be damaged by their rejection.

The Baroness Kalinowski, and other women like her, are just a little more logical, a little more cold-blooded, if you like, a little more sordid than millions of their sister women, the pitiful peons of sex.

[Nixola Greeley-Smith, “Woman Asks $2,500,000 Heart Balm,” The Day Book (Chicago, Il.), Jun. 2, 1914, p. 10]

***

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket” 

***

[558-2/4/22]

***

Poking Fun at the Infamous Heart Balm Racket: "To a Legislator" - 1935

In this 1935 Valentine’s Day offering, the famous political cartoonist Herb Block –awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1942 – epitomized public sentiment in support of reform efforts to curb the “love rackets” promoted by lawyers which lined the pockets of tort  lawyers specializing in domestic relations and their predatory female clients popularly known as “gold diggers.”  The ditty show how the three separate “Love Rackets” – Alimony, Heart-Balm, and Alienation of Affection – were seen as all of a piece. The famous novelist Theodore Dreiser called the combined group “The Infernal Racket.”

***

To A Legislator.

This is a verse of love that’s phoney

A song of women whose hearts are cold;

Of breach-of-promise testimony

By girls who are out to get the gold;

Ladies with tidy little packets

Of letters loaded with phrases hot –

Letters employed in heart-balm rackets 

For putting boy-friends upon the spot.

This is a cry of loud objection

Against those ladies who fake their tears

Alienation of affection

And alimony-ous buccaneers!

Wretches who moan that love is fickle

– Here is the point about these squaws –

None of them ought to get a nickel!

   Curb this Cupid-ity! pass some laws!

***

["To a Legislator," The Laredo Times (Tx.), Feb. 12, 1935, p. 8]

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

Chivalry Justice & the Heart Balm Racket in 1866 England

FULL TEXT: The English Solicitor-General [Sir Henry Bovill] said in the House of Commons, upon the subject of juries and Breaches of Promise: “When a tall and pretty lady was set before them as having been deluded, there was no holding them in. He remembered hearing an old gentleman who had been a barrister in India tell the story of a Circasian slave who had murdered the master of the harem there. The counsel said: ‘Put on your best dress, the more transparent the better; set her before the jury, and I’ll answer for the result.’ And the result was exactly what he predicted. She had stabbed the man, but the jury pardoned the crime for the sake of the interesting woman they saw before them. So in the case of an action for breach of promise. A young and interesting woman will get damages; but if a man was ever so young and interesting he got no damages, but has to pay costs and get scouted besides. Why it happened he could not say; but his experience in courts of justice was, that in actions for breaches of promise for marriage the women had it their own way and the men had no chance. The lady was well got up, placed in a conspicuous place, and the attention of the jury directed to her, and of course she was generally in tears. If she was placed in the witness-box and cried under cross-examination, as they always did, it will be all over with the men. The jury, to show their chivalry, their admiration for the fair sex and their contempt for their own, would immediately return a verdict for him.”

[“Juries and Breaches of Promise,” The Columbian (Bloomsburg, Pa.), Sep. 1, 1866, p. 1]

***

“In 1866, Sir William Bovill, PC, FRS (26 May 1814 – 1 November 1873) was appointed Solicitor General, an office which he vacated on becoming Chief Justice of the Common Pleas in succession to Sir William Erle in November of the same year.” [Wikipedia]

***

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***

[627-3/30/22]

***

Chivalry Justice & The Heart Balm Racket - 1912

An early example of women on juries – in Washington state.

***

FULL TEXT: A young and pretty woman sued one of the handsomest men in Seattle for breach of promise recently.

The plaintiff’s counsel-in-chief was a woman lawyer, famed locally for the persuasive quality of her eloquence.

There were seven women on the jury.

The plaintiff asked for damages of $27,500 and received but $1,500, which sum, in the opinion of the jury, was a correct expression in terms of dollars and cents of the value of the young man’s affections, and a sufficient balm to heal the young woman’s heart.

What’s the answer?

Did the feminine majority on the jury have so small an opinion of the worth of a handsome man’s affection? Or was it lack of sympathy for the fair plaintiff?

The plaintiff was Miss Ethel Peterson. The defendant was Ross L. Phillippi. Mrs. Leona W. Browne was counsel-in-chief for Miss Peterson.

The complaint sets forth that Phillippi and Miss Peterson became engaged to be married on December 15, 1908; that the defendant subsequently postponed the marriage day several times, and finally, in October, 1911, definitely refused to marry her.

The plaintiff’s counsel had 180 letters from Phillippi to Miss Peterson, though only part of them were introduced in evidence, one of them acknowledging the engagement.

On April 12, 1912, Phillippi married Miss Bernice Smith. Judge Tallman made no comment on the verdict of the jury scaling down the claim from $27,500 to $1,500.

[“Heart Balm Greatly Reduced By Women Jurors,” The Day Book (Chicago, Il.), Nov. 21, 1912, p. 13]

***

***

For more on the Heart Balm Racket, see:

Predatory Women & the 20th Century Extortion Scam Called the “Heart Balm Racket”

***

For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***

[429-3/12/21]

***