Lisa Miller case

General Christian Theology
temporal1

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by temporal1 »

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:48 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:19 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:54 am 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.
.. .. 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.

:arrow: Or most defendants get railroaded.

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

Psychological warfare. Bullying. Abuse of the legal system.
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:48 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 1:19 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Sun Mar 07, 2021 9:54 am 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.
We can discuss the need for criminal justice reform. You are correct, that is much of the motivation behind the Black Lives Matter movement. And much of it is based on legitimate concerns.

Or we can discuss the current reality facing Lisa Miller, which is a different topic entirely.

As for most defendants getting railroaded? I have a very good friend from college who spent 20 years working as a public defender in California. At one of our reunions I asked him how many clients he has had who he thought were actually innocent. He thought about it for a minute and then said that in 20 years he didn't think he ever had a client who was 100% innocent and arrested due to mistaken identity or something to that effect. They are mostly all guilty of something, but are often over-charged by the police and district attorneys and it is his job to help sort out which charges they are guilty of and which they are not. He also said that probably 90% of his cases involve drugs or substance abuse of some sort. Either outright drug offenses. Or property crimes committed by criminal seeking drug money. Or violent crimes and cases of abuse that were fueled by substance abuse. It was the rare case that didn't in some way trace back to drugs or alcohol abuse.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Josh »

Not sure what that has to do with anything. Lisa Miller isn’t a drug abuser or dealer.

She’s going on trial for protecting her daughter from a child abuser. According to you, she’ll be found guilty, and apparently that’s a good thing. Why don’t you choose the side of justice for a change instead of blithely telling us “this is just the way things are”?
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:54 pm Not sure what that has to do with anything. Lisa Miller isn’t a drug abuser or dealer.

She’s going on trial for protecting her daughter from a child abuser. According to you, she’ll be found guilty, and apparently that’s a good thing. Why don’t you choose the side of justice for a change instead of blithely telling us “this is just the way things are”?
The point of the example is that most defendants are, indeed guilty. And that their best option is usually to take a plea deal. Which is why only 2% of Federal cases actually get taken to trial. And why less than 1% of them result in acquittal. The courts sometimes do convict innocent people. But it is pretty rare and more the stuff of TV than real life.

As for Lisa Miller? I don't know whether she is guilty or not. All I have read is the news reports. But she is facing a legal system that is strongly tilted towards negotiating plea deals for defendants who don't have an obvious pathway to acquittal. You claim she was protecting her daughter from a child abuser. The courts examined that accusation and found it to be without merit. Is that a defense she is going to resurrect and present in court? I have no idea and I doubt anyone here does either. I would think it would almost certainly mean putting her daughter on the stand to testify on her behalf so we can hear all the details. I expect that would create an enormous media circus if they did so. Which is why I would expect they won't go down that road and we will probably never hear the real story.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
temporal1

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by temporal1 »

Ken:
.. The courts examined that accusation and found it to be without merit. ..

According to your legal math, and, unfortunately, what the public witnesses in courts, rulings like, “without merit,” and, “not guilty,” do NOT equate to “innocent” (of charges). No adult is truly innocent. These lesser+common rulings are often due to minor, even unrelated, legal minutia not being fully met in the court’s eyes. Victims often suffer terribly as a result. As RZehr pointed out, somewhere, it’s a legal system, not a justice system.

JJ has not been found innocent of charges, so far as i know.

While you coolly assess LM’s potential legal choices to be of your understanding of her legal earthly options, i don’t.

i believe she and those others involved, directly, indirectly, directly through prayer, are focused on obeying Jesus Christ, relying on the Holy Spirit to guide and protect. True Power. The greatest power. The only everlasting power.

As an outsider, i see both sides.

i grieve for pagan humanists and secularists.

i, too, pray for God’s will, strength, guidance.

i grieve that so many parents, guardians, loved ones, now “next friends,” deliberately take their babies+children to courts of human law for selfish reasons. power, control, money. it’s tragic. children are harmed. some murdered in disputes.
not all damage is physical. “thousands of little cuts” to children’s senses. children have no escape.

much of this could be avoided if Jesus was the common center, not human law.
human law is a pagan idol. it will disappoint.

Jesus does not fail. no court ruling can cause Jesus to fail.

as an outsider, i pray for believers not to be overwhelmed by humanist bullies. to see matters with clarity. to not be confused by courtroom and public psychological warfare. to follow Jesus - - without needless suffering.

to be joyful in faith at all times.
now seeing faces of LM and Isabella in photos, joy radiates. priceless. no matter rulings, Jesus has them.

Matthew 10:16
https://biblehub.com/matthew/10-16.htm
Sheep among Wolves
15Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

16Behold, I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

17But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues.…

This particular ruling, while being downplayed to “go unnoticed,” i believe is bound to affect future rulings of many descriptions. The very legal definition of “parent” continues to be redefined. There are children in my life i would love to parent! - i cannot be a legal parent or guardian by osmosis, by being in the same room. By saying, “i want” .. if JJ prevails, this may come to be. Further dilution of legal definition of “parent.”

:arrow: The strategy of bullying through “lesser” cases in order to establish GOLDEN “LEGAL PRECEDENT” has become an established pattern of organized political blocs all over the world. Lesser courts are deliberately sought after;
bullies seek out weak targets, on school playgrounds, and in the USSC, whenever possible.

It’s wise to recognize tactics, patterns.
This prevents being needlessly overwhelmed by undeserving unscrupulous bullies.

Jesus sacrificed Himself. He was FULLY aware of what was happening. He was not uneducated, primitive, naive.
His murderers were. He grieved for them.
1 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 12078
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Robert »

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 11:54 pm She’s going on trial for protecting her daughter from a child abuser. According to you, she’ll be found guilty, and apparently that’s a good thing. Why don’t you choose the side of justice for a change instead of blithely telling us “this is just the way things are”?
Well, the accusations of abuse were not proved in court, so it is hard for the court to use that as reason when it is just hearsay. My three boys have two mothers. They have a biological mother and a legal, adoptive mother who has loved and raised them.

I am not saying that Lisa was wrong to protect her child, but I have seen many cases of one parent claiming abuse in divorces that never happened.

There are two tracks here. The legal track and the moral track. I never have expectations of the legal system being moral. One can not legislate morality very effectively.

The issue really goes back to Vermont legalizing marriage of same sex partners. This does give both parents legal standing equally. So Lisa withholding the child for the other legal parent is breaking the law. She may be justified, but it was not proven in court. This makes he claims hearsay and not a legal reason to act. She acted outside the law. The law is not just. She will have to accept the consequences of living outside the law. I can understand why she did. The legal system will not see what was being done to the child as abuse. We do. This makes our perception outside the law.

One can not serve two masters, but there are times the two masters require common ground. This is not one of those times. We need to be honest that we see the need for Lisa to act outside the law since the law was set by people who see parenthood differently. Both parents do have legal rights unless one is removed BY THE COURTS. I may not like it, but thems are the facts.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
temporal1

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by temporal1 »

In the ABC report earlier in this thread, JJ is described in one court as “next friend.” Not Parent A, B, C.
There are questions.

There is no question LM disobeyed a court order. She will face it.

That does not equate to changing by default JJ’s legal status from next friend to Parent A, B, C.
As far as i can understand.

“Next friend” status may be very important to any child who has no willing+able legal parent present.
It’s an important, useful label. Not “parent.”

- - -

Law-abiding folks are shocked about disobeying court orders. It’s serious.
It’s important to see the distinct parts of this case, to not become so flustered with “she disobeyed a court order”
so as to believe it’s ALL that matters. It matters. It’s not all that matters.

- - -

“Consent to IVF: what happens if your relationship breaks down?”
https://www.withersworldwide.com/en-gb/ ... reaks-down

the science and laws are new and largely untested.
it will take time to get to where any ruling can be honestly viewed as “established,” no matter what anyone wants.

Robert,
i know you have a lot of first-person experience with courts and custody. i respect it. a lot.
i know the political bloc is wholly invested in appropriating ALL existing legal language possible to suit their goals.

it’s important to say, “wait just a moment, there!” to let FAIR investigation of these situations to be revealed.
fairness is the LAST thing these lobbies/blocs are interested in. pushing, bullying, grabbing, is it.
“the end justifies the means,” has served them very well.

LM very likely has a particularly intimate inside knowledge of what is at stake: the motives+tactics.
my speculation.
Last edited by temporal1 on Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Ken »

temporal1 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:10 am
Ken:
.. The courts examined that accusation and found it to be without merit. ..

According to your legal math, and, unfortunately, what the public witnesses in courts, rulings like, “without merit,” and, “not guilty,” do NOT equate to “innocent” (of charges). No adult is truly innocent. These lesser+common rulings are often due to minor, even unrelated, legal minutia not being fully met in the court’s eyes. Victims often suffer terribly as a result. As RZehr pointed out, somewhere, it’s a legal system, not a justice system.

JJ has not been found innocent of charges, so far as i know.
It's not my legal math. That is the correct language. As far as I have read from the coverage of this case, there were allegations of child abuse late in the custody fight that were investigated by the authorities and found to be without merit. In other words, there wasn't any evidence to proceed with additional criminal investigation and prosecution. Most jurisdictions take allegations of child abuse seriously. I haven't seen any evidence that Vermont did not do that.

As for the legal case against Lisa Miller. She doesn't seem to have any prima facia legal defense against the charges she is facing. There are mountains of evidence that she did indeed flee the US with her daughter and to a country with no extradition treaty. I don't think anyone disputes that. So if she wants to fight the case it would seem that her only real defense is to argue that her actions were necessary due to extenuating circumstances. Here is where things get muddled. At times her supporters argue for a religious justification for her actions. At other times they make an argument about child abuse and child welfare.

I doubt the religious liberty defense will hold up. The government is not going to want to create a religious liberty exception to custody agreements that allows any mixed-faith couples to violate custody agreements with impunity because of religious differences. I don't see that happening. There are millions of mixed faith couples in this country. Where would it end? Could a Baptist spouse deny custody to a Mormon spouse over religious differences? The battles would be endless. That leaves the child abuse defense. That would mean putting the daughter on the stand in a giant media circus to testify in detail about the allegations of child abuse. Unless there are other eye witnesses to the alleged abuse, the whole defense would hinge on the daughter's testimony. Is that enough to win her an acquittal in front of a jury? I have no idea. But I do expect it would turn into a national media circus for which I doubt either of them are really prepared. Is she going to want to do that to her daughter? I suspect not, which is why my guess is that this ends in some sort of plea deal and they quietly move on with their lives as best as possible.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ernie

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Ernie »

0 x
Josh

Re: Lisa Miller case

Post by Josh »

Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:51 pm Lisa Miller pleads guilty.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdny/pr/vi ... ernational
May God have mercy on the souls who rendered this judgment that they may someday repent before it is too late, and they find themselves before the righteous Judge.
1 x
Post Reply