Lisa Miller case

[Josh]

mike:
.. “but the parental custody and gay marriage laws are already on the books.”

maybe, maybe not. states vary.
federal law doesn’t always supersede state law .. for instance, some states have legalized marijuana use. reportedly quite popular. but law isn’t supposed to reflect mob rule. which the mob adores. time passes, mobs do not change.

my question here is, how does JJ get to claim parenthood? she is not the bio or adopted parent. why not? why did she not see to her legal claim to the child? (it’s entirely possible, she did not want potential obligation for child support.)

regardless, JJ has no legal claim to parenthood - the courts label her as “next friend.”
“next friend” could be crucial to the welfare of some children (who do not have willing+capable legal parents).

frankly.
from what i’ve seen - not everything -
it appears JJ and the bloc taking up her legal side, are attempting to force the public AND courts to “gift” rights to JJ based solely on her lesbian life. (super citizen mindset.) bullies.

if this is the case, the legal system is in far worse trouble than was known.
“i’m homosexual, i can do as i please, or not, yet demand to prevail in courts, whether or not i’ve done my duty (required by courts).” in this case, JJ could have, but did not, secure any legal obligation to the child.

it’s safe to presume, “next friend” is the strongest legal label money could buy for JJ.
after all these years, the reference in this thread is the FIRST time i’ve known of it used in this case.
(“why media reporting cannot be trusted.”)

i would appreciate knowing this question of JJ’s “parenthood” was addressed in courts BEFORE any further action of any description. it appears there is serious legal bulldozing going on by powerful+monied political blocs.

the courts need to be wise.

There’s so much misinformation or lack of understanding in the dialogue that swirls around this case. Your question about how JJ can claim to be a parent is a perfect example. A child born to parents in a legal marriage is legally the child of both parents. This applies even if the biological father is not the one who the woman is married to. So if same sex marriage was legal, and just as legitimate in the eyes of the law as any other marriage, then the same would apply in this case. Likewise, a person who raises a child as their own, provides for them, and so on, usually has a legitimate issue in custody cases.

The reason why LM tried to have the case transferred to Virginia was because they had outlawed same sex marriage at this point. The idea was if the marriage wasn’t legit then JJ also didn’t have parental rights.

Your assertion that this case is purely about ‘I’m a homosexual, I can do as I please’ is rather dismissive.

Your assertion that JJ didn’t do the paperwork so she wouldn’t have to pay child support is a bit strange because she did pay child support.

Every time this case comes up I get frustrated with people’s arguments because too often they end up saying things that dismiss non biological parents as illegitimate. The number of adoptive families in anabaptist circles should make people realize that biological parents are not the only way of being a ‘real’ parent. I often wonder how adoptive parents feel when they read comments from Mennonites about this case.

It is impossible for a child to have two mothers.

[Josh]

It would seem she has two choices. Pursue some sort of plea deal. Or take the case to trial and try to mount some sort of religious liberty defense and risk a much longer sentence.

I would be curious how you would see her getting a longer sentence? the max as stated by the legal release was 5 years or are you simply suggesting she would get 5 years rather then say 2 or three?

The whole point of plea bargaining is to get a shorter sentence, otherwise no one would do it and everyone would roll the dice and take their cases to trial because there is nothing to lose.

By taking the case to trial she wouldn't get a longer sentence than the 5 year statutory maximum. She would get a longer sentence relative to what her attorneys could likely negotiate through a plea bargain. Judges also tend to be harsher in sentencing for defendants that took their case to trial as opposed to plea bargaining. Especially if a shorter sentence was offered.

If the government even offers a plea deal (sometimes they don't) then the plea deal is almost by definition going to be a reduced sentence relative to what she would face by taking the case to trial. That is the incentive to take the plea.

Plea bargains are a giant racket that is a travesty of justice. Cases should go to trial and get decided by a jury.

If someone wants to plea guilty, they should do so and serve the sentence. If the sentences are too harsh and too long, then the laws need changed around sentencing.

I still can’t believe you think a mother should go to jail for protecting her child from an abuser.

[Josh]

In exchange for my daughter being free from alleged abuse or raised in a Christian environment, I'd do 5 years gladly.

I think that is going to end up being the primary outcome that the secular world would seek to raise the penalty.

Five years in prison isn't going to get the job done. You will still need to take the child and flee the the country for some destination without an extradition treaty with the US until the child turns 18. That might mean a decade or more living overseas.

Not many people are going to do that. And the ones who do are mostly going to be dual citizens or immigrants with international family ties, who are going to abduct their children and flee back to Iran or Saudi Arabia or some such place. I don't see many Americans with no international ties doing what Lisa Miller did. That's an enormous step.

Some of us would give up our very lives to protect our children from an abuser. Apparently, you wouldn’t.

[RZehr]

It is impossible for a child to have two mothers.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/us/throu ... index.html
CNN says a child can have three dads.

[temporal1]

It is impossible for a child to have two mothers.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/us/throu ... index.html
CNN says a child can have three dads.

see mike’s post on Page 5.

attempting to rule by godless human reasoning alone will not work out.
in the U.S., separation of church from state was never intended to be interpreted as, “rule by atheists, humanists, et al.”

unfortunately, by now, even many professed Christians have bought right into it.

“be careful what you wish for.”

[Ken]

Plea bargains are a giant racket that is a travesty of justice. Cases should go to trial and get decided by a jury.

If someone wants to plea guilty, they should do so and serve the sentence. If the sentences are too harsh and too long, then the laws need changed around sentencing.

I still can’t believe you think a mother should go to jail for protecting her child from an abuser.

Why do you feel the need to make every post into a personal attack?

This isn't about me or what I think. I have no control over the criminal justice system and I don't have any influence over the Lisa Miller case. It's just a comment on how the criminal justice system actually works as opposed to the wishful fantasy thinking from some here that the Federal courts are going to revisit 15+ year old custody agreements from Vermont state court.

In terms of plea bargains in general. Most criminal defendants are, indeed guilty. Talk to any public defender and they will tell you that. If you wanted to take every single case to trial you'd have to either increase the budget of the criminal justice system 25-fold to hire thousands more judges, DAs, public defenders, bailiffs, clerks, and build hundreds of new courthouses. Or you'd have to dismiss the charges against 90% of current criminals who get arrested. Which would you rather see? Massive tax increases to cover all those new trials? Or massive releases of criminals who can now act with impunity?

In the Federal court system where Lisa Miller is currently under indictment, 90% of defendants take a plea deal, 8% of cases are dismissed, and only 2% actually go to trial. That's right. Only 2% of Federal defendants are ever tried in front of a jury. This is the actual reality that Lisa Miller faces in the Federal courts:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... nd-guilty/

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system – and acquittals are even rarer.

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

Most defendants who did go to trial, meanwhile, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge. (Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.)

Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

[temporal1]

Why do you feel the need to make every post into a personal attack?

Josh poses direct questions to adults, rather than speaking in euphemisms, or choosing passive aggressive methods -
on the other hand, you would never resort to cheap side-swipes, etc., right?

Example of passive power:
Part of the vast power the ACLU has is its ability to project FEAR before it ever arrives on the scene:
“YOU’LL NEVER WIN against the ACLU” is priceless power. But, the ACLU does NOT always win.

This case has aspects others do not. It cannot be fairly lumped in with Pew Study stats, etc.

But, when fear mongering is all you got - have at it. (“Yawn. She doesn’t stand a chance.”)

Realize, not all will fall down before you, at least not without first recognizing what’s at stake, and why.

Real prayers of many across religions and national borders have contributed, and continue.
Prayers for God’s Will to be done. Against this, fear-mongering is understandable: God is great.

Isabella is now a healthy legal adult. That is an answer to many prayers.

[mike]

A website which appears to be taking donations for Lisa is also posting letters from her on a blog, which also features letters from Philip Zhodiates.

[temporal1]

A website which appears to be taking donations for Lisa

is also posting letters from her on a blog, which also features letters from Philip Zhodiates.

.. Isabella can return to the U.S. when she is 18 and would need support for school and living expenses.
419 Fund has created a Funding Opportunity to support Isabella when she returns to the United States free from the courts.

If you would like to contribute, 419 Fund and Lisa and Isabella would be very grateful.

i’m glad to learn about choices in funding sites.

[Josh]

Plea bargains are a giant racket that is a travesty of justice. Cases should go to trial and get decided by a jury.

If someone wants to plea guilty, they should do so and serve the sentence. If the sentences are too harsh and too long, then the laws need changed around sentencing.

I still can’t believe you think a mother should go to jail for protecting her child from an abuser.

Why do you feel the need to make every post into a personal attack?

This isn't about me or what I think. I have no control over the criminal justice system and I don't have any influence over the Lisa Miller case. It's just a comment on how the criminal justice system actually works as opposed to the wishful fantasy thinking from some here that the Federal courts are going to revisit 15+ year old custody agreements from Vermont state court.

In terms of plea bargains in general. Most criminal defendants are, indeed guilty. Talk to any public defender and they will tell you that. If you wanted to take every single case to trial you'd have to either increase the budget of the criminal justice system 25-fold to hire thousands more judges, DAs, public defenders, bailiffs, clerks, and build hundreds of new courthouses. Or you'd have to dismiss the charges against 90% of current criminals who get arrested. Which would you rather see? Massive tax increases to cover all those new trials? Or massive releases of criminals who can now act with impunity?

In the Federal court system where Lisa Miller is currently under indictment, 90% of defendants take a plea deal, 8% of cases are dismissed, and only 2% actually go to trial. That's right. Only 2% of Federal defendants are ever tried in front of a jury. This is the actual reality that Lisa Miller faces in the Federal courts:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... nd-guilty/

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system – and acquittals are even rarer.

Nearly 80,000 people were defendants in federal criminal cases in fiscal 2018, but just 2% of them went to trial. The overwhelming majority (90%) pleaded guilty instead, while the remaining 8% had their cases dismissed, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data collected by the federal judiciary.

Most defendants who did go to trial, meanwhile, were found guilty, either by a jury or judge. (Defendants can waive their right to a jury trial if they wish.)

Put another way, only 320 of 79,704 total federal defendants – fewer than 1% – went to trial and won their cases, at least in the form of an acquittal, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Or most defendants get railroaded.

I mean, we had protests for months last year about this very thing.