|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:46 PM June 22nd, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This article will be the subject of this Sunday's Hisside. The authors of this column declined the invitation for debate--the punks--so Gloria Allred will defend this indefensible lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:00 PM June 23rd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Courts focus instead on the supposed evil of making a charge that, by its very nature, is extremely difficult to prove.
"Supposed evil"? How about vicious evil? Women regularly make false sexual abuse charges, precisely because they are "extremely difficult to prove," or to disprove. So spineless judges cowardly cave and give women primary custody in the vast majority of cases. That has to change. Good decision, judge. Another million or so like it and we'll be approaching gender equity in child custody decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many years ago, it would have been difficult to prove that certain crimes occurred because the techniques and technologies to solve those crimes did not exist. However, people were still innocent until proven guilty. Just because a claim/accusation is difficult to prove doesn't mean it's true. The authors of that article are very illogical and unethical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judges in New York and other states have adopted a bizarre rule that a mother alleging sex abuse in a custody dispute is guilty until proved innocent: If her abuse charge is not supported by overwhelming evidence, she will lose custody for making an accusation that "poisons" the relationship between father and child.
Okay... so what we've established is not that (paraphrase) "mothers alleging sex abuse are guilty until proven innocent", but that the fathers who the abuses are alledged against are innocent until proven guilty. Note the word proven. Of course the mothers have to back up the claims with "overwhelming evidence", for reasons that should be common sense to everyone... do they expect a justice system to, as a default, side with females regardless of proof? OH SNAP, they already do. Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:53 PM July 1st, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
On July 3rd last year when my sons mother died of cancer, his facist grandparents kidnapped him and comitted social security fraud in his name as a part of their religious jihad against my wife and I becuase we are not catholics.
Despite the fact I have done nothing wrong, have zero criminal record, am a well respected financial advisor in cumberland county for 24 years, and a model father county Judge Edgar Bayley ignored both Pa and federal law and gave legal custody of my son to his kidnappers. He also barred me from even seeing my child who is a student at the Milton Hershey school whose corrupt adminstrators assisted the kidnappers after the fact.
Please read my story at http://www.luckiestmanonearth.com and share it with others you think it will intrest. The constitutional right of all parents to raise their child as they see fit free of interference of family or the state was validated again in 2000 by the US supreme court in Grantville vs troxell, yet Pa courts routinely ignore this law of the land.
Your prayers for the success of my pending legal appeal to regain custody of my child before the Pa superior court are most appreciated.
God Bless you and be grateful everyday your family is normal by comparison.
Michael "Woody" O'Brien
Mechanicsburg Pa
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
