Michael A. Peroutka Law Practice

If you believe this, enlist in the military and go fight, unless, like Bush, you would rather let others do your fighting for you.

 

ballfan, thanks for the link I went there and found the following letter from Michael Peroutka's wife and his lawyer:

On March 17, there was an article written about my husband, Michael Peroutka. The impression this article gives is that Michael is a bad father who abandoned my children, Dawn and Holly Hubbard, born during a marriage which ended with the death of my first husband ("God, Family, Republic"). This impression you have given of my husband is absurd, outrageous, and untrue. Michael is a wonderful, devoted husband and father to our children. It was my decision as the mother of Dawn and Holly to place the girls in custody of the state.

My decision to do this was in their best interest and safety. You see, when I discovered the dishonest and morally corrupt lifestyle they were living, I confronted and rebuked them. My daughters were out of control and not taking my direction. So for their own safety I made arrangements for them to live at school, with family, and/or friends. However, the girls consistently disobeyed me, and for their own protection, I relinquished custody to the Department of Social Services.

Caught in their lies, they ran away, and then found encouragement from a Department of Social Services bureaucrat.

Subsequently, my ability to help my daughters was denied me. The hostile involvement by a DSS social worker in my family's crisis did great harm. Instead of helping my daughters to face the truth, their lies were embraced, and this continued even after a wide array of falsehoods was made irrefutably clear.

All of the incredibly difficult decisions I made in relation to my daughters born to my late husband, Dawn and Holly, were my own. The quote in this article by Dr. Paul McHugh does not describe my relationship with my husband accurately at all. My husband has always been loving, caring, and supportive in the decisions I made about my daughters. This situation occurred more than 12 years ago. Both Michael and I have forgiven Dawn and Holly and we pray for their restoration.

To my knowledge, your reporter made no effort to contact me and get my side of the story. It's clear to me that this article was written to try to discredit my husband as he campaigns for the presidency. I have been happily married to Michael for 18 years. I know him very well, and it is my opinion that God, Family, Republic is the perfect theme for my husband's campaign. He is a man of integrity, compassion, honor, duty, and love for his family and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Diane Peroutka Millersville

-----------------------------------------------

I have been Michael Peroutka's lawyer for over 10 years. Having read the recent article about him, I was surprised the reporter never contacted me. This is particularly true since the Peroutka v. Streng litigation was referenced. I was the attorney for record not only in that case, but also in the litigation in juvenile court. Had I had the opportunity to input, another side of this litigation would have emerged.

Of particular interest to the readers may have been Ms. Marsha Streng's conduct. In the summer of 1993, Dawn Hubbard told her and other members of the Baltimore County Department of Social Services that a mistake had been made. Despite having this information, Ms. Streng took no steps to share it with the Peroutka family, even though she knew the legal significance of these revelations. Her position was that it didn't matter if Dawn was abused; it was only important that she believed she was!

In October 1993, Streng prepared a status report on Dawn Hubbard for submission to the juvenile court. Although armed with evidence from both Dawn and Dr. Paul McHugh that the abuse had never occurred, Ms. Streng chose not to mention this significant, crucial fact in her report. She also knew at that time that Dawn was intending to appear on the nationally televised Phil Donohue Show to publicly recant her allegations of abuse. Inexplicably, she decided not to share any of this information with either me, the Peroutkas, or the juvenile court.

Had Dawn come forward and shared this information with the Peroutkas, and had the DSS, acting through Ms. Streng, come forward to fulfill its mandate, namely, the reunification of the family, the history in this case may have been entirely different. One has to keep in mind that charges were leveled against Michael Peroutka that jeopardized his very existence and that of his family. One also has to keep in mind that the Peroutkas had an obligation to protect their three young children from the insanity that had engulfed them. The actions that they were forced to take were the result of continued lack of candor on behalf of Dawn and Ms. Streng.

Like a judge, a reporter has the ability to comb the record and fashion a story that supports an impression he wants to leave with his readers. Better journalism is to gather all the facts and lay out both sides of the issue, fairly and squarely. Had that been done in this case, objective readers could well be left with the impression that the Peroutkas are decent, caring people who acted the way they did because there was no other choice.

Thomas A. Pavlinic

 

You should always consider the source of the articles you are reading. The article the BushBot posted on LibertyPost was from Baltimore City Paper, which is a ultra-liberal paper, known for it's sloppy journalism. In today's issue, they have a column smearing former President Reagan.

When I first read the story, I called Michael Peroutka and they answered all of my questions.

The Baltimore City Paper reminds me of the local "Orlando Weekly" here in Central Florida, that is full of homosexual personal ads and more sloppy liberal biased journalism.

 

In reading that story, it shows us once again how dangerous Leviathan has become, and that it can attempt to destroy any us who it failed to see murdered in the womb at any time.

 

Ballfan, if you want to get into a personal values war, Michael Peroutka beats George W. Bush and John Kerry in a walk. Enjoy that cheap little smear piece all you want.

But remember - what goes around comes around. So in your personal life you had best mind your p's and q's. It's rather amazing in life how the method you use to try to harm others ends up boomeranging back on yourself.

 

It amazes me that some Republicans will go to sloppy, liberal city papers and use these stories that are full of lies to attack Michael Peroutka. I would never think of using the liberal papers stories about George Bush and Robin Lowman to try to smear him or his campaign.

Let's stick to the current issues, policies and facts, and not try to attack the candidates character or family.

 

Yes, it was a terrible mistake when I voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, probably the worst vote I ever cast. I should have voted for Harry Browne or Pat Buchanan. But I will not repeat that mistake in 2004. I will vote for the best candidate this time - Michael Peroutka.

 

If you found something from a reputable source that laid out the facts from all sides, instead of posting a link to an obvious hit piece, then there might be something worth discussing. Otherwise, you're just wasting bandwidth.

 

Can you show me where I have "savaged" Bush?

 

Typical of a Demopublican. When you can't stand the truth about your own candidate, then you resort to character assassination.

That speaks volumes and is ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING to your Demopublican hero.

 

I am still waiting to see where I have "savaged" Bush?

 

Well, this is as of today. Folks, you have to realize that Ken chooses his candidate based on which direction the wind happens to be blowing that day. It wasn't that long ago that Ken jumped back to support Bush because of what he called World War III.

Pay no attention to Ken. No one knows who he will actually support until after he actually votes.

 

Jonathan,

The Bushbots consider simply telling the truth about George W. Bush to be "savaging" him.