Nanny State anyone?

Already answered it. Once she was 18 the Court had no business doing anything to the father. His control was gone. further waiting almost a year after she turned 18 AND was actively working to meet the requirement just shows the ignorance of the order.

Real simple concepts, even YOU should be able to grasp them.

You have said nothing about the validity of the court order before she turned 18, or whether the judge should be able to enforce it. There are inferences I could draw from your statements, but then you will just accuse me of misinterpreting your statement.

You're so fucking smart. Why are you afraid to answer the questions I asked?

Don't you believe in paying due respect to judicial orders?
 
You have said nothing about the validity of the court order before she turned 18, or whether the judge should be able to enforce it. There are inferences I could draw from your statements, but then you will just accuse me of misinterpreting your statement.

You're so fucking smart. Why are you afraid to answer the questions I asked?

Don't you believe in paying due respect to judicial orders?

Are you always so dense. The order is meaningless once she is 18. If it were going to be enforced and used to arrest and jail the man it should have been done just as she turned 18 or sooner. Not a year later and not when she is actively TRYING to meet the requirements.

The Father CEASED to be responsible for his daughters actions as soon as she hit 18. That is when the Court order should have ceased to have any legal weight.

That the Court waited until she was almost 19 is even more evidence of ignorance on it's part.

I have been clear as a BELL here. After she turned 18 the Father no longer had any authority over her and no power to force her to do ANYTHING. For all we know she moved to her mother's BECAUSE he tried to make her go to school. The order should have ceased within a month of her 18th Birthday. If the Court were going to act it should have done so BY THEN. Not months later and after she was actively trying to get her GED.

Need more help understanding Counselor? Perhaps I can draw you some pretty pictures?
 
yap, yap, yap, . . .
Court orders expire either by their own terms or by operation of law. This order had not expired. You have no basis for that opinion other than your ignorance of the law. And you still haven't answered the questions.

What happened to your respect for courts and the rule of law?
 
Court orders expire either by their own terms or by operation of law. This order had not expired. You have no basis for that opinion other than your ignorance of the law. And you still haven't answered the questions.

What happened to your respect for courts and the rule of law?

I see you and Larkinn play the same game. Asked and answered. Holding someone accountable for something they legally can not be accountable for is wrong. having a court order mandating it is even MORE wrong. Enforcing said order is as retarded as it gets. But then since the order is from a Court that does not meet the criteria of our Constitution and our Justice system I can see why it would get enforced.
 
Court orders expire either by their own terms or by operation of law. This order had not expired. You have no basis for that opinion other than your ignorance of the law. And you still haven't answered the questions.

What happened to your respect for courts and the rule of law?

I think he's saying that if dad evaded the court order, then the judge loses. Can it be?
 
I think he's saying that if dad evaded the court order, then the judge loses. Can it be?

Read it again. If the Court were going to enforce the order they should have done so when the Father had actual control of the Daughter or very shortly after she turned 18. Simple concept. So simple I assumed even Lawyers could grasp it. So much for assuming, especially when dealing with Lawyers.
 
I think he's saying that if dad evaded the court order, then the judge loses. Can it be?

That's the way I read it. If I had known I could just ignore court orders at will, I might have enjoyed my legal practice more.

His rationalization for his position is utter nonsense.
 
Read it again. If the Court were going to enforce the order they should have done so when the Father had actual control of the Daughter or very shortly after she turned 18. Simple concept. So simple I assumed even Lawyers could grasp it. So much for assuming, especially when dealing with Lawyers.

This wasn't a contempt proceeding to compel the dad to get her to school. This was a conviction for contributing, based upon his failure to keep his promise to the court at a time when the order was in effect.

It is simple, but you are too simple to grasp it.
 
But we still have a valid court order in place, and the dad appears to have ignored it. Indeed, it appears to have been ignored over a long period of time. What should the judge have done?

If the order was valid, and the dad intentionally placed the girl outside of his control, why should he be allowed to evade the order that way?

What kind of message does that send to other children who would rather skip school and get knocked up? Where do you stand on personal responsibility?

I don't see anywhere it says the dad ignored a court order, nor do I see that he intentionally place the girl outside his control. I see that the law places an unreasonable burden on a parent of an older teenager, and that unless the judge's order required she live with the father that he is holding the father responsible for something he had no control over.

You're mixing apples and oranges. Let's be real. It doesn't send ANY message to other children who would rather skip school (and get knocked up). Except that maybe somebody needs to get Ohio's laws in line with the 21st century.
 
This wasn't a contempt proceeding to compel the dad to get her to school. This was a conviction for contributing, based upon his failure to keep his promise to the court at a time when the order was in effect.

It is simple, but you are too simple to grasp it.

No you are so in love with the ignorant law you see no problem when it is mis applied. And as I recall you said you were a DA at one time, another one of those hacks that does not take his oath seriously, you know the one that says get JUSTICE, not convictions.
 
yada, yada, yada, . . .

If the dad had been convicted of child abuse (a crime only if the victim is a child), and the girl had turned 18 in the meantime, would you still give him a pass?

The conviction does not say that Dad must now get her to school (thought that is a factor at sentencing), it says dad broke the law and broke his promise to the judge when she was a minor and dad had the opportunity to obey the law and obey the court order.
 
If the dad had been convicted of child abuse (a crime only if the victim is a child), and the girl had turned 18 in the meantime, would you still give him a pass?

The conviction does not say that Dad must now get her to school (thought that is a factor at sentencing), it says dad broke the law and broke his promise to the judge when she was a minor and dad had the opportunity to obey the law and obey the court order.

Now you are on to comparing real crime with imagined crime. Nice attempt but it fails. Once again read the story, he was jailed because she did not continue to to try, according to the Judge, a GED, when in fact she is doing EXACTLY that.
 
Now you are on to comparing real crime with imagined crime. Nice attempt but it fails. Once again read the story, he was jailed because she did not continue to to try, according to the Judge, a GED, when in fact she is doing EXACTLY that.

Wrong, but at least you're on point.

The story is fuzzy, but the law is not. The man was jailed for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". That means the girl had to be a minor when the acts occurred.

I imagine, in the context of the law, that the judge secured the father's promise to comply and continued the hearing to give him a chance to comply, all while the girl was under 18. Once he failed, the judge set the hearing and convicted him on the charge in the petition, which was filed when she was a minor and thus alleged only acts that had occurred before filing. Her conduct after turning 18 would be relevant only in determining whether to grant probation.
 
Wrong, but at least you're on point.

The story is fuzzy, but the law is not. The man was jailed for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor". That means the girl had to be a minor when the acts occurred.

I imagine, in the context of the law, that the judge secured the father's promise to comply and continued the hearing to give him a chance to comply, all while the girl was under 18. Once he failed, the judge set the hearing and convicted him on the charge in the petition, which was filed when she was a minor and thus alleged only acts that had occurred before filing. Her conduct after turning 18 would be relevant only in determining whether to grant probation.

As I stated previously, the judge obviously acted in accordance with the law.

The law itself is stupid. Attempting to hold parents criminally liable for 16+ years olds actions is ridiculous. Especially when 16 - 18 years old appears to be such a fuzzy area of law; which, appears to swing whichever way it chooses with no set standard.

You asked how I feel about personal responsibility. IMO, people should be held accountable for their actions. I also believe in mitigating circumstances and absurd legislation.

In this state, you cannot drop out until you are 18. You can only drive between the ages of 16 and 18 with a restricted license to-and-from-work or a special hardship case. If a child is busted for not going to school, the child is punished, not the parents.

So again, by law the ruling was just. The law itself, IMO, is not.
 
Let's try one more hypothetical.

In this case, the father made promises to the judge that he did not keep. He lied to the judge while under oath. The father also disobeyed a direct court order.

Imagine that a President of the United States was impeached but acquitted for lying to a judge while under oath and subsequently lost his law license for disobeying a direct court order.

Which former gunnery sergeant and regular contributor to this Board can no longer express his outrage at the former president without sounding like a hypocrite?

RGS: I'm talking to you. I don't recall whether gunnyL has expressed that outrage, but he is free to do so if he wishes.
 
Satan take me now, the lawyers have convinced me. The punishment may have been extreme, but the guy did disobey a court order.

:eusa_eh:
 
Let's try one more hypothetical.

In this case, the father made promises to the judge that he did not keep. He lied to the judge while under oath. The father also disobeyed a direct court order.

Imagine that a President of the United States was impeached but acquitted for lying to a judge while under oath and subsequently lost his law license for disobeying a direct court order.

Which former gunnery sergeant and regular contributor to this Board can no longer express his outrage at the former president without sounding like a hypocrite?

RGS: I'm talking to you. I don't recall whether gunnyL has expressed that outrage, but he is free to do so if he wishes.

A little more complicated than that isn't it? If I was to express outrage at the former President it would not be hypocritical of me. I was the one that looked up the law and presented it, and amended my opinion accordingly. The judge was within his right by law to hand out the sentence he did; whether or not I agree with it.

I thought redirecting the Whitewater investigation to investigating a blow job was a stupid waste of taxpayer dollars and have said so on many occasions.

However, I DO think Clinton showed poor judgement. Thus you now have almost my entire opinion on the topic.

I realize your comment was directed at RGS, I merely accepted your offer to respond.
 
Let's try one more hypothetical.

In this case, the father made promises to the judge that he did not keep. He lied to the judge while under oath. The father also disobeyed a direct court order.

Imagine that a President of the United States was impeached but acquitted for lying to a judge while under oath and subsequently lost his law license for disobeying a direct court order.

Which former gunnery sergeant and regular contributor to this Board can no longer express his outrage at the former president without sounding like a hypocrite?

RGS: I'm talking to you. I don't recall whether gunnyL has expressed that outrage, but he is free to do so if he wishes.

Not the same. The Court should not have the power to punish the parents for the actions of their children as GunnyL said at that age. Further the law punishes them while denying them any power to enforce the rules the Court places on them. Any action the father took that FORCED the child to do as told would be abuse. he can not lock her up. He can not spank her. He can not physically prevent her from going out of the house or leaving the school once he drives her there. He can not prevent her , even if he had the time to spend every moment and was allowed in the school, from just getting up and walking out.

In other words parents have no power to enforce anything on their children at that age the children do not willingly agree to. He could not even call the cops on her or HE would be punished.

The Family court system is Unconstitutional. It is illegal.
 
The Family court system is Unconstitutional. It is illegal.
I would be interested in hearing why you think a court that exists in every jurisdicion in this country is illegal.

I can make a much better case that forcing a sitting President to testify is illegal.
 
I would be interested in hearing why you think a court that exists in every jurisdicion in this country is illegal.

I can make a much better case that forcing a sitting President to testify is illegal.

How can a court be "illegal" if its created properly by statute?

As for a sitting president being forced to testify, well, that was certainly without precedent until about, oh... I don't know... 1996? 1997?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top