Lisa Miller case

[nett]

This case is about nothing more than the fact that it involved the child of a same-sex union. And the fact that Lisa Miller came to regret that fact and used the resources of her church to violate the custody agreement.

This case isn't about which parent was the biological parent. There are millions of non-biological parents with custody in the US. There are 1.5 million adopted children in the US alone. So millions of non-biological parents have custody of children in the US. That is exceedingly common and common even among the members of this forum.

This case isn't about civil unions vs. marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of common law marriages and civil unions in the US that generate children and then have to work out custody agreements when they dissolve. And marriage isn't a necessary criteria for custody fights anyway. Many unmarried couples have custody fights and custody agreements and they sometimes also involve non-biological children. Again, that is utterly common and mundane.

This case isn't about child abuse. There was no child abuse claimed or entered into evidence by Lisa Miller's defense. In this entire case she didn't make any arguments or claims about child abuse at all.

The only thing it is about is same-sex marriage. And the fact that Lisa Miller and her church wanted to unwind the same-sex marriage that she had voluntarily entered into. But divorce is almost ALWAYS messy and infinitely more so when children are involved. And messier still when the courts get involved to resolve disputes.

So Ken, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict Lisa and Ken?

[Ken]

This case is about nothing more than the fact that it involved the child of a same-sex union. And the fact that Lisa Miller came to regret that fact and used the resources of her church to violate the custody agreement.

This case isn't about which parent was the biological parent. There are millions of non-biological parents with custody in the US. There are 1.5 million adopted children in the US alone. So millions of non-biological parents have custody of children in the US. That is exceedingly common and common even among the members of this forum.

This case isn't about civil unions vs. marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of common law marriages and civil unions in the US that generate children and then have to work out custody agreements when they dissolve. And marriage isn't a necessary criteria for custody fights anyway. Many unmarried couples have custody fights and custody agreements and they sometimes also involve non-biological children. Again, that is utterly common and mundane.

This case isn't about child abuse. There was no child abuse claimed or entered into evidence by Lisa Miller's defense. In this entire case she didn't make any arguments or claims about child abuse at all.

The only thing it is about is same-sex marriage. And the fact that Lisa Miller and her church wanted to unwind the same-sex marriage that she had voluntarily entered into. But divorce is almost ALWAYS messy and infinitely more so when children are involved. And messier still when the courts get involved to resolve disputes.

So Ken, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict Lisa and Ken?

There wasn't a trial. She pled guilty.

If I was actually serving on a jury on a case like this I would do my best to consider the evidence and provide a fair verdict. Most people here on this forum, yourself included, would be excluded from (or thrown off) the jury on a case like this for obvious bias. Unless you blatantly lied and committed perjury during the voir dire process when you were questioned by the prosecution about your opinions and ability to render a fair judgement.

[temporal1]

Per Pablo Yoder: Lisa’s sentencing is scheduled for next Tuesday, May 24, at 12:00 noon at Federal Court in Buffalo, New York, before the Honorable Richard Arcara. It appears likely that she may be released on time served.

Thanks for the update.
We all need to be in prayer that the judge will be lenient and she will be released.

in the event of a jury call, i believe “most on this forum” would refrain as a general faith belief, or, regarding this specific case, would RECUSE himself/herself, out of honesty. [something JUDGES should do more often before accepting cases.]

[nett]

This case is about nothing more than the fact that it involved the child of a same-sex union. And the fact that Lisa Miller came to regret that fact and used the resources of her church to violate the custody agreement.

This case isn't about which parent was the biological parent. There are millions of non-biological parents with custody in the US. There are 1.5 million adopted children in the US alone. So millions of non-biological parents have custody of children in the US. That is exceedingly common and common even among the members of this forum.

This case isn't about civil unions vs. marriage. There are hundreds of thousands of common law marriages and civil unions in the US that generate children and then have to work out custody agreements when they dissolve. And marriage isn't a necessary criteria for custody fights anyway. Many unmarried couples have custody fights and custody agreements and they sometimes also involve non-biological children. Again, that is utterly common and mundane.

This case isn't about child abuse. There was no child abuse claimed or entered into evidence by Lisa Miller's defense. In this entire case she didn't make any arguments or claims about child abuse at all.

The only thing it is about is same-sex marriage. And the fact that Lisa Miller and her church wanted to unwind the same-sex marriage that she had voluntarily entered into. But divorce is almost ALWAYS messy and infinitely more so when children are involved. And messier still when the courts get involved to resolve disputes.

So Ken, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict Lisa and Ken?

There wasn't a trial. She pled guilty.

If I was actually serving on a jury on a case like this I would do my best to consider the evidence and provide a fair verdict. Most people here on this forum, yourself included, would be excluded from (or thrown off) the jury on a case like this for obvious bias. Unless you blatantly lied and committed perjury during the voir dire process when you were questioned by the prosecution about your opinions and ability to render a fair judgement.

That wasn't an answer. Should I take your lack of answer as indication that you'd convict?

[Ernie]

The question is whether Lisa was guilty of breaking US law, God's law, or both. I think the answers are obvious.

[nett]

The question is whether Lisa was guilty of breaking US law, God's law, or both. I think the answers are obvious.

Elaborate?

[Ernie]

Vermont law says same sex partners have the same rights as heterosexual partners.

God tells parents to bring their children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Lisa couldn't do that under the circumstances. So she took her child to a place where she could.

[Ken]

So Ken, if you were on the jury, would you vote to convict Lisa and Ken?

There wasn't a trial. She pled guilty.

If I was actually serving on a jury on a case like this I would do my best to consider the evidence and provide a fair verdict. Most people here on this forum, yourself included, would be excluded from (or thrown off) the jury on a case like this for obvious bias. Unless you blatantly lied and committed perjury during the voir dire process when you were questioned by the prosecution about your opinions and ability to render a fair judgement.

That wasn't an answer. Should I take your lack of answer as indication that you'd convict?

Not at all. I’ve never served on a jury. But if I ever was on a jury I would do my best not to bring my pre-conceived notions into the courtroom and simply listen to the evidence and testimony presented. Whether she is guilty or not is actually not the issue if you are on a jury. We have a presumption of innocence in this country and the prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So you aren’t actually determining guilt or innocence on a jury, you are judging whether the prosecution made their case. Since we didn’t actually have a trial I have no way of knowing whether they could or would have done so, and what the defense would have been. So absent actually holding a real trial I don’t know how I personally would have voted.

What I wouldn’t do is ignore the actual evidence presented and vote to either convict or acquit based on pre-conceived notions of the case. Someone who does that has no business being on a jury.

[RZehr]

There wasn't a trial. She pled guilty.

If I was actually serving on a jury on a case like this I would do my best to consider the evidence and provide a fair verdict. Most people here on this forum, yourself included, would be excluded from (or thrown off) the jury on a case like this for obvious bias. Unless you blatantly lied and committed perjury during the voir dire process when you were questioned by the prosecution about your opinions and ability to render a fair judgement.

That wasn't an answer. Should I take your lack of answer as indication that you'd convict?

Not at all. I’ve never served on a jury. But if I ever was on a jury I would do my best not to bring my pre-conceived notions into the courtroom and simply listen to the evidence and testimony presented. Whether she is guilty or not is actually not the issue if you are on a jury. We have a presumption of innocence in this country and the prosecution has to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So you aren’t actually determining guilt or innocence on a jury, you are judging whether the prosecution made their case. Since we didn’t actually have a trial I have no way of knowing whether they could or would have done so, and what the defense would have been. So absent actually holding a real trial I don’t know how I personally would have voted.

What I wouldn’t do is ignore the actual evidence presented and vote to either convict or acquit based on pre-conceived notions of the case. Someone who does that has no business being on a jury.

I think jury nullification would have been the correct outcome, had this gone to a jury, and had the jury had any moral compass. Judges "legislate" from the bench; this jury should have done likewise.

[ohio jones]

The only thing it is about is same-sex marriage. And the fact that Lisa Miller and her church wanted to unwind the same-sex marriage that she had voluntarily entered into. But divorce is almost ALWAYS messy and infinitely more so when children are involved. And messier still when the courts get involved to resolve disputes.

What church was Lisa affiliated with? I don't remember that ever being discussed.