Father to plead GUILTY for KIDNAPPING
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
On Fri, 28 May 1999 09:19:14 -0500, ig...@Algebra.Com (Igor) wrote:
>Father to plead guilty to kidnapping daughters in 1979
>
>May 27, 1999 Web posted at: 9:19 p.m. EDT (0119 GMT)
>
>BOSTON (CNN) -- A father accused of kidnapping his two young daughters
>20 years ago and moving them to Florida plans to plead guilty Friday,
>according to the district attorney in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
>
>Stephen Fagan, 57, is seeking a plea bargain to replace a possible
>10-year jail sentence with probation and a fine. He is currently free
>on $250,000 bail.
>
>Fagan disappeared in October of 1979 along with his daughters, then ages
>two and five. He hid the true identities of the girls and himself and
>over the past two decades posed as a law professor, a psychiatrist and
>a CIA agent.
>
>He maintains that he was trying to protect the girls from their mother,
>Barbara Kurth -- his then-wife -- who he says was a neglectful alcoholic.
>
>Mother hopes for reunion with daughters
>
>Kurth has said she only appeared to be drunk because she suffered from
>narcolepsy -- a condition that causes a frequent and uncontrollable
>desire for sleep. And Kurth said Fagan knew about her medical condition.
>
>Kurth, now a biologist at the University of Virginia, plans to be in
>the courtroom Friday, hoping the agreement will facilitate a reunion
>with her daughters, her attorney said.
>
>"My only true wish is that they will come someday to realize that I have
>always loved them, and that I always will," Kurth said.
>
>Her daughters, raised as Rachel and Lisa Martin, have refused to have
>any contact with their mother.
>
>"I have to judge the facts based on the man I know. The man who made
>me feel secure, happy, and important," Rachel Martin has said about the
>charges against her father.
>
>"I firmly believe what happened with my sister and I some 19 years ago,
>happened for a good reason. My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy,
>healthy, and strong," said Lisa Martin.
>
>Judge rejected previous plea agreement
>
>While hiding out in Florida -- where he was finally arrested last year
>when a relative tipped off authorities -- Fagan re-invented himself as
>Dr. William Martin. He married into money, lived in a mansion and told
>his daughters that their mother had died in a car accident.
>
>This will be the second attempt at a plea bargain. A judge rejected a
>proposed settlement in February as too lenient. It is possible that the
>judge will reject this plea agreement as well.
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>I hope they throw the book at him.
>
Er..Perhaps you should find out about the entire case first.
(Whoever wrote the story, did not bother finding out the whole facts
first..)
Originally, the children were taken aaway from the mother BY the
courts because she was an alcoholic. (And no it wasn't becasue they
thought she had a sleeping disorder, please, even in the 70s doctors
could tell the difference between nacroplesy and alcoholism..)
However, the judge in that case didn't award custody to the father but
ordered the children placed in a foster home while the mother went
through an AA program. Naturally, the father was pissed and decided
that he could do a better job than some foster parents and kidnapped
the children. Personally, I am rooting for the father. He should have
been given the girls in the first case, not punished just because he
was a man. (Can you even imagine a court telling a woman that her kids
are going to be placed into foster care because HER husband is an
alcoholic, and he is going through AA?)
The man did not kidnap the kids from their mother but from the state.
Allister H.
Victoria Lee
before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
I wrote what I did.
Victoria Lee
Wilbur Streett
>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>I wrote what I did.
>
>Victoria Lee
Care to explain how a man that rescues his children from foster can is a
criminal?
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
Philip Lewis
|Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
|before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
|I wrote what I did.
Funny how even his own DAUGHTERS do not see it that way - but then you do
strike me as one of those anti-male bigoted feminists who would support the
Mother no matter what the circumstances!
--
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
|
|Victoria Lee
|
|On Sat, 29 May 1999 06:55:19 GMT, hug...@idirect.com (Allister H.
|Huggins) wrote:
|
|>On Sat, 29 May 1999 01:27:23 GMT, hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee")
|>wrote:
|>
Ted W.
Victoria Lee wrote:
>
> I hope they throw the book at him.
I hope he gets the same treatment a woman in his shoes would get.
Speed Thomas
You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
You are only worried about being 'politically correct'???????
So sad.
--
TNT
Philip Lewis <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7ior7f$5kp$1...@lure.pipex.net...
FathersRus
>Father to plead guilty to kidnapping daughters in 1979
I fail to understand why anyone would plead guilty esp. after 20 years i.e.
the statute of limitations on this would have only been seven years.
Anne Marie
FathersRus wrote in message <7ip0pu$ref$1...@remarQ.com>...
Wilbur Streett
>I don't believe there is a statute of limitations on kidnapping.
Well, I have had first hand experience of how the police don't care AT ALL.
I sat on a train and realized that a non-custodial drug addict mom had gone
up to Boston to demand more money from the father, (Her own words), and
when he wasn't their taken the young boy sitting next to her in the train
away from the housekeeper.. She was so stupid that she explained all of
the details to a total stranger that she was sitting next to. She even
went so far as to say what stop of the train she was getting off at. Point
Pleasant.
I got off the the train and called the Point Pleasant police, and they told
me point blank that they would not get involved in that sort of matter. I
told them I would drive down and be there as a witness when she got off the
train in 35 minutes. They told me that it didn't matter, that they didn't
do anything in that sort of matter.
That added a lot more weight to my ex-wife's claims of "just disappearing".
So when people approach me claiming that are looking for donations to help
in child kidnappings, I tell them to get lost.
florid...@hotmail.com
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>>I wrote what I did.
>
>>Victoria Lee
>
>snip.....
>
>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
There is absolutely nothing surprising about the daughters defending
their father and wanting nothing to do with some stranger who turns out
to be their mother ... he had the past twenty years to feed them his
version of reality. However, at some point both those young women
are going to have to confront the fact that their father is a LIAR - not
only did he kidnap them, he created a false reality for them. There
probably will be consequence for the daughters that are not going to be
very pleasant.
Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
married money and lived in a nice big mansion. Would people feel the
same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>all....
>
>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>for the years she supposedly lost....
The mother is in a hopeless situation... she lost her kids, probably
forever. Nothing can make up for those lost years of parenthood.
Suing to make them visit is foolish; some attorney must have thought
that one up. As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no
control over that - if the crime is on the books and if there is no
statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
offender if he/she is found.
All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
what a rotten thing their father did .... she cannot regain the years
she was cheated out of by her former husband.
The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
Floridanewbie
Philip Lewis
Speed Thomas wrote in message <7iotsk$e...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
|Phil.....
|
|You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
|fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
|
In that case what happened to her "fair mindedness" on this occasion?
|You are only worried about being 'politically correct'???????
|
You are only avoiding the issue - tactic spotted - hard luck.
|So sad.
Cheer up - it might never happen. :-o)
|--
|TNT
BILDO
this man had done.
Her case, though, is much different for the reasons that only she can say.
Do not condemn her for her feelings. I don't see why this man should go to
jail forever, but I don't see through Lee's eyes either. For what she has
gone through, she does deserve respect, as does any parent that was wronged
in a divorce.
I would hope to see that even though there are many seperate opinions, that
we will take a moment to try and understand what makes a person have such
strong feelings on any one subject.
As far as to Lee, You know of my 12yo coming to live with me for good mid
june. She has been living with a drinking mother. I have been watching and
listening to my daughter for a long time to be sure she was not in danger
from a drunk mother. If at any time I would have been convinced of my
daughter was in danger, I would have done close to the same as the man you
seem to feel digust for. Does that mean you would be digusted in my
behavior?
Bildo
Philip Lewis <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
7ipg1q$rhr$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Speed Thomas
Why don't you ask her??????? I'll bet you get your ass handed to you.
I don't avoid issues.....this just isn't an issue that concerns me at
this time.
I can make it one though.
--
TNT
Philip Lewis <phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:7ipg1q$rhr$1...@lure.pipex.net...
Victoria Lee
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Speed Thomas wrote in message <7iotsk$e...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
>|Phil.....
>|
>|You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
>|fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
>
>In that case what happened to her "fair mindedness" on this occasion?
>
It's called experience. My ex did the same thing to me except that my
son was never involved with welfare or taken by the court. He, too,
went so far as to tell him I was dead.
I also know first hand what kind of emotional damage that can do. I
was lied to about my family history and didn't find out what really
happened until I was almost 30. It does something to you when you
find out that the parent that you have trusted for years has spent
your entire life lying to you.
Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
he chose to become a fugitive. and now claims it was because his wife
was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
considered unfit to raise the girls?
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<sth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Phil.....
>
>You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
>fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
It won't do any good. It's standard fare for certain types of
fanatical posters. If you disagree with them, it's not possible that
you merely have a different opinion because of what you personally
have experienced. They believe have that opinion because you are a
_________ (fill in their particular name calling vocabulary) and
because you differ with them they then feel they have the right to
call names. Think back to grade school and you'll get the picture.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>>I wrote what I did.
>
>>Victoria Lee
>
>snip.....
>
>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
cover to protect their abusive parents.
This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>all....
>
>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>for the years she supposedly lost....
I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
happens.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
wrote:
>
>
>Victoria Lee wrote:
>>
>> I hope they throw the book at him.
>
>I hope he gets the same treatment a woman in his shoes would get.
I wish EVERY parent who kidnapped a child and took off would get
mandatory jail time.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<Fathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Igor wrote in message ...
>>Father to plead guilty to kidnapping daughters in 1979
>>Judge rejected previous plea agreement
>
>I fail to understand why anyone would plead guilty esp. after 20 years i.e.
>the statute of limitations on this would have only been seven years.
But when would the statute of limitations ended - from the day he
kidnapped them or from the last daughter's 18th (21st) birthday?
Technically he would have still been guilty of kidnap until the last
one was of age.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
wrote:
>I can see why Lee is so emotional about the issue. She was a victim of what
>this man had done.
>Her case, though, is much different for the reasons that only she can say.
>Do not condemn her for her feelings. I don't see why this man should go to
>jail forever, but I don't see through Lee's eyes either. For what she has
>gone through, she does deserve respect, as does any parent that was wronged
>in a divorce.
Actually I have the dubious pleasure of seeing it through two views.
Not only did I have my son taken, but I was also raised with lies
about my parentage from people I loved and trusted. For me personally
it took a while for it to hit, but when it did it nearly destroyed me.
What happens is you realize the person(s) you have loved and trusted
your entire life has intentionally deceived you and created a false
past usually you find out for very selfish motives. The emotional
issues it brings up are enormous. It's like emotional quicksand. The
very foundation of who you are is stripped away.
I found out later talking to people who also had been there and to
therapists that my reaction was the norm. What many probably don't
understand that if either of these girls saw their mother or admitted
that their father was in error (even slightly) they would also have to
start dealing with their feelings.
>I would hope to see that even though there are many seperate opinions, that
>we will take a moment to try and understand what makes a person have such
>strong feelings on any one subject.
THANK YOU!
>As far as to Lee, You know of my 12yo coming to live with me for good mid
>june. She has been living with a drinking mother. I have been watching and
>listening to my daughter for a long time to be sure she was not in danger
>from a drunk mother. If at any time I would have been convinced of my
>daughter was in danger, I would have done close to the same as the man you
>seem to feel digust for. Does that mean you would be digusted in my
>behavior?
Would you have lied to your daughter and told her that her mother was
dead? If you would answer yes, then my answer would be yes. That's
my big problem with this man. His daughter aren't children anymore.
Why hadn't he told them the truth if his motives were so pure? If he
was right in his actions there would have been no reason not to tell
his daughters the truth.
Victoria Lee
Philip Lewis
Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <3751365...@news.netdirect.net>...
|On Sat, 29 May 1999 20:21:37 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
|<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
|
|>Speed Thomas wrote in message <7iotsk$e...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
|>|Phil.....
|>|
|>|You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
|>|fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
|>
|>In that case what happened to her "fair mindedness" on this occasion?
|>
|It's called experience. My ex did the same thing to me except that my
|son was never involved with welfare or taken by the court. He, too,
|went so far as to tell him I was dead.
|
|I also know first hand what kind of emotional damage that can do. I
|was lied to about my family history and didn't find out what really
|happened until I was almost 30. It does something to you when you
|find out that the parent that you have trusted for years has spent
|your entire life lying to you.
It is now evident that your judgement of this issue has been deeply coloured
by your individual experience - that is somewhat understandable , but you
must be aware that you have also no justification for assuming the worst
about the father.
|
|Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
|he chose to become a fugitive.
No doubt he was aware how fathers are generally treated in family courts.
and now claims it was because his wife
|was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
|considered unfit to raise the girls?
Thats a VERY good question - especially when you consider the words of his
own daughters:-
"I have to judge the facts based on the man I know. The man who made
me feel secure, happy, and important," Rachel Martin has said about the
charges against her father.
"I firmly believe what happened with my sister and I some 19 years ago,
happened for a good reason. My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy,
healthy, and strong," said Lisa Martin.
Phil
(Politically Incorrect And Proud Of It)
|
|Victoria Lee
Philip Lewis
Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37533be1...@news.netdirect.net>...
|On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
|<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
|
|>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
|>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
|>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
|>>I wrote what I did.
|>
|>>Victoria Lee
|>
|>snip.....
|>
|>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
and
|>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
(on
|>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
|>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
|>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
|
|What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
|want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
|
|But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
|protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
|know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
|cover to protect their abusive parents.
|
|This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
|
I really think you should stay out of this debate because your above
comments demonstarte again that you have a deep bias in this issue, the
above is nothing less than a groundless attack against the integrity of
three adults i.e. the Father and the two grown up daughters.
|>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
|>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
|>all....
|>
|>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
kidnapping
|>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
|>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
mother
|>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
|>for the years she supposedly lost....
|
|I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
|road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
|father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
|happens.
Exactly what do you KNOW the Father "did" that makes you think the daughters
have something to "get over"?
Also I'd like to know why you are assuming the mother is the better parent
in this instance?
|
|Victoria Lee
--
Philip Lewis
Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37573e92...@news.netdirect.net>...
And you would like your "pound of flesh" - no matter that the evidence
available demonstrates he did what he did in his daughters best interests!
Even his now grown up daughters still want NOTHING to do with their mother
and are still full of praise for the way their father has taken care of
them.
Wilbur Streett
>I also know first hand what kind of emotional damage that can do. I
>was lied to about my family history and didn't find out what really
>happened until I was almost 30. It does something to you when you
>find out that the parent that you have trusted for years has spent
>your entire life lying to you.
Oh gee, your parents lied on occasion. Perhaps they thought that they had
a good reason.
>Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
>he chose to become a fugitive. and now claims it was because his wife
>was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
>considered unfit to raise the girls?
You missed the part about how the children where in foster care.. because
the court had decided that she was unfit.
My bet is that the wife made some sort of false accusation against the
father, "If I can't have them, because you told the court, I'll make sure
you don't either."
Paul R
It's all those years in the People's Republic...
Paul R
Ted W. <spa...@bit.bucket> wrote in article
<374FEB62...@bit.bucket>...
Speed Thomas
You need to read my original post again......I told Phil that this
case was not a concern for me at this point in time.....I don't have
children.
I did say that I thought Victoria to be a fair minded person. That's
all.
How you can assume that I take one side or the other based on the
above is beyond me. I am not trying to offend you Allister.......I
hope that this makes my 'position' clear. I do not have a position on
this subject at this time.
At this time in my life I am only interested in alt.support.divorce.
Unfortunately, too many people cross-post and now and then I am
exposed to posts that I am not interested in. When I see a statement
that I disagree with, I usually speak up. So, if Victoria is indeed
fair minded as I know her to be, then just maybe there is another side
to the issue at hand.
Gee.....I didn't think that I insulted you or thought that you would
insult me. If I did either, then I apologize.
How do you know that you are not in alt.feminism??????? :):):)
If I need to apologize for my original post, then so be it.
--
TNT
Allister H. Huggins <hug...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:375089de...@news2.idirect.com...
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 19:11:12 GMT, hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee")
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 29 May 1999 07:33:54 -0700, "Speed Thomas"
> ><sth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Phil.....
> >>
> >>You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the
most
> >>fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain to me why she thinks the father
> deserves th book thrown at him?
>
> >It won't do any good. It's standard fare for certain types of
> >fanatical posters. If you disagree with them, it's not possible
that
> >you merely have a different opinion because of what you personally
>
> Speed, Victoria, I'm a new poster here so please excuse my
> ignorance but exactly why should the father be punished for
kidnapping
> his kids FROM the state? The original courts NEVER said that he was
an
> unfit parent, it just said that the mother was unfit and thus by
> default he was unfit. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint
> here but frankly it makes little sense.
>
> >have experienced. They believe have that opinion because you are a
> >_________ (fill in their particular name calling vocabulary) and
> >because you differ with them they then feel they have the right to
> >call names. Think back to grade school and you'll get the picture.
> >
> I was the original respondent to the thread. I have _NEVER_
> insulted either you, Victoria or Speed so I fail to see how you are
> reaching the conclusion that I would insult you because of what you
> believe in. I might disagree with it, but I haven't insulted you. I
> even asked for more information about this in email to you Victoria
> and my email was not hostile.
>
> Allister H.
> (are all the people in this ng this damn suspicious? Man, I feel
like
> I am back in alt.feminism..)
Marg Petersen
<florid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>>>I wrote what I did.
>>
>>>Victoria Lee
>>
>>snip.....
>>
>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>
>their father and wanting nothing to do with some stranger who turns out
>to be their mother ... he had the past twenty years to feed them his
>version of reality. However, at some point both those young women
>are going to have to confront the fact that their father is a LIAR - not
>only did he kidnap them, he created a false reality for them. There
>probably will be consequence for the daughters that are not going to be
>very pleasant.
I agree with you. It doesn't matter WHAT his original intentions
were (good or bad), he lied their entire lives. He told them
their mother was DEAD. She wasn't.
>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>married money and lived in a nice big mansion. Would people feel the
>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
No, they probably wouldn't. Since what he did turned out to be
a *positive* situation (money, nice house, kids seeminly well
cared for), some think it was okay what he did. I don't.
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>all....
>>
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>
>The mother is in a hopeless situation... she lost her kids, probably
>forever. Nothing can make up for those lost years of parenthood.
That's for sure.
>Suing to make them visit is foolish; some attorney must have thought
>that one up. As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no
>control over that - if the crime is on the books and if there is no
>statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
>offender if he/she is found.
Agreed.
>All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
>want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
>what a rotten thing their father did .... she cannot regain the years
>she was cheated out of by her former husband.
>
>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
Again I agree. The father was scum, clear and simple. It may
take a long time, but eventually they will come to realize that
the lies he told them were just that, lies. How can one have
any respect for a parent that lies? Especially to tell kids
that their other parent is dead? I feel for these girls AND
their mother.
>Floridanewbie
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
perriganwhite
.... she cannot regain the years
> she was cheated out of by her former husband.
Any how many million fathers have been cheated out of how many years of
their childrens lives?
>
> The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
Nor does any person that does not respect the right of all parents to
have a mininmum of 50% of their childrens care and support....perry
>
> Floridanewbie
Max Burke
>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>I wrote what I did.
>Victoria Lee
snip.....
Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
all....
So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
for the years she supposedly lost....
---------------------------------
# The American Dream has run out of gas. The car has stopped. It no longer
supplies the world with its images, its dreams, its fantasies. No more. It
’s over. It supplies the world with its nightmares now: the Kennedy
assassination, Watergate, Vietnam . . .
J. G. Ballard (b. 1930), British author. Interview in Métaphors, no. 7
(1983; repr. in Re/Search, San Francisco, no. 8/9, 1984).
--
mlvb...@replaceme.co.nz
When replying replace the obvious with ihug
Visit my Sony Mavica Digital Camera Photo Gallery at :
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mlvburke/ - FD91 portfolio
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Square/6008/ - FD7 portfolio
The Mavica Digital Camera's Info Exchange :
http://www.mavican.nu
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>I wrote what I did.
>
Perhaps I'm missing something here..You _AGREE_ with the
original court's decision that since the mother was UNFIT, the
children should have been placed in foster care instead of being given
to their father? Why? What did he do wrong (other than having a baby
with an alcoholic)?
Allister H.
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>On Sat, 29 May 1999 07:33:54 -0700, "Speed Thomas"
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>>>I wrote what I did.
>>
>>>Victoria Lee
>>
>>snip.....
>>
>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>
>What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
That doesn't seem unnatural. They did not want to see their
mother in the first place and now she is charging their father with
kidnapping, what do you expect them to do? What else can they do?
>
>But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>cover to protect their abusive parents.
So you think that he molested/abused them? Why? What makes you
think that? In the entire case, I have never even heard of a sniff of
abuse. Did you read/see anything that makes you think these two girls
were abused?
>This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
Agreed but have you considered that it might actually be true?
From all accounts and from the evidence of his daughters' performace
at school, the man was an excellent parent.
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>all....
>>
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>
>I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>happens.
>
Ok..Please explain exactly what did their father do to them?
Do you think that he abused them?
Allister H.
Kim
Philip Lewis wrote:
>
> Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37533be1...@news.netdirect.net>...
> |On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
> |<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
> |
> |>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <374fd18...@news.netdirect.net>...
> |>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
> |>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
> |>>I wrote what I did.
> |>
> |>>Victoria Lee
> |>
> |>snip.....
> |>
> |>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
> and
> |>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
> (on
> |>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
> |>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
> |>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
> |
> |What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
> |want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
> |
> |But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
> |protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
> |know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
> |cover to protect their abusive parents.
> |
> |This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
> |
>
> I really think you should stay out of this debate because your above
> comments demonstarte again that you have a deep bias in this issue, the
> above is nothing less than a groundless attack against the integrity of
> three adults i.e. the Father and the two grown up daughters.
Seems to me Lee is a perfect person to involve in this "debate." Is the
problem that you don't want to discuss this with someone with her
experience and levelheadedness? You'd rather discuss this with those of us
who, thank God, have NOT had experiences of this nature? This isn't a
"win" or "lose" situation, Phil. Just opinions. I respect Lee's opinion and
her experience. Since I've not read postings of yours, I've not formed an
impression of your slant on things. Yet.
Kim
>
> |>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
> |>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
> |>all....
> |>
> |>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
> kidnapping
> |>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
> |>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
> mother
> |>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
> |>for the years she supposedly lost....
> |
> |I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
> |road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
> |father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
> |happens.
>
> Exactly what do you KNOW the Father "did" that makes you think the daughters
> have something to "get over"?
> Also I'd like to know why you are assuming the mother is the better parent
> in this instance?
>
> |
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>In article <37503f73...@news.flatoday.infi.net>,
> <florid...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
>><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
<snip>
Below is the story. I got some of my facts mixed up.
http://www.seattletimes.com/news/nation-world/html98/bill_042898.html
>>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case, and
>>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother (on
>>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>>
>>There is absolutely nothing surprising about the daughters defending
>>their father and wanting nothing to do with some stranger who turns out
>>to be their mother ... he had the past twenty years to feed them his
>>version of reality. However, at some point both those young women
>>are going to have to confront the fact that their father is a LIAR - not
>>only did he kidnap them, he created a false reality for them. There
>>probably will be consequence for the daughters that are not going to be
>>very pleasant.
>
>I agree with you. It doesn't matter WHAT his original intentions
>were (good or bad), he lied their entire lives. He told them
>their mother was DEAD. She wasn't.
Ok, this I agree with. He should have told them the truth that
their mother was an alcoholic/sick. Who knows why he told them a lie.
Maybe he thought he was protecting the girls? It might be hard on a
kid to learn the reason why your mother is not around is because she
was an alcoholic.
>>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>>married money and lived in a nice big mansion. Would people feel the
>>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>
>No, they probably wouldn't. Since what he did turned out to be
>a *positive* situation (money, nice house, kids seeminly well
>cared for), some think it was okay what he did. I don't.
Marg, have you read the entire story. What was the guy was
supposed to do? Let the courts take the kids NOT because he was a bad
parent, but because the mother was? Where is the justice in that?
>>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>>all....
>>>
>>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>>
>>The mother is in a hopeless situation... she lost her kids, probably
>>forever. Nothing can make up for those lost years of parenthood.
>
>That's for sure.
*blinks*..Are you forgetting that she originally LOST the kids
to the court system? They were actually placed in foster care and then
returned to the mother.
>>Suing to make them visit is foolish; some attorney must have thought
>>that one up. As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no
>>control over that - if the crime is on the books and if there is no
>>statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
>>offender if he/she is found.
>
>Agreed.
False, the DA did not have to do anything. the DA simply could
have simply ignored the case or reasoned that the case was not worth
prosecuting. The only way this case reached trial is either
1. The DA took a personal interest in it.
2. The DA's bosses ordered the DA to prosecute this case to the full
extent.
>>All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
>>want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
>>what a rotten thing their father did .... she cannot regain the years
>>she was cheated out of by her former husband.
>>
>>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
>
>Again I agree. The father was scum, clear and simple. It may
>take a long time, but eventually they will come to realize that
>the lies he told them were just that, lies. How can one have
>any respect for a parent that lies? Especially to tell kids
>that their other parent is dead? I feel for these girls AND
>their mother.
>
Let me see if I got this right. The court tells him that
because his wife is an alcoholic, they will be placed in foster care.
The court doesn't care that he is willing to be a parent. Marg,
Victoria, you would actually allow some court to tell you that and let
some strangers raise your kids? No offense, I find that hard to
believe.
Allister H.
Max Burke
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>I wrote what I did.
>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
and
>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
(on
>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
That's NOT my recollection of the programs and interviews I saw on TV. Can
you provide a cite or news item where they have stated that?
>But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>cover to protect their abusive parents.
So now you are suggesting he's abused them!!!!
I sincerely hope you have a: factual evidence to back that up; and b: That
his and the daughters lawyers dont read these Newsgroups, otherwise you
might require a lawyer in a hurry....
Let's see how he has 'abused' his daughters...
From all accounts he has :
Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so they can
get the best education possible;
Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope to
have;
What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of their
parents was an alcoholic....
I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the girls, or
someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
Exactly what they ARE saying; they ARE adults after all, and being adults
they have and adults opinions and more importantly the RIGHT to decide for
themselves what they want to do, and what THEY think of their father....
You're not suggesting they DONT have that right are you????
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>all....
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
kidnapping
>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
mother
>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>road.
And what would be 'down the road' for these girls....
Let me tell you what I think is happening RIGHT now.....
This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks she
has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
> Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>happens.
Lets rehash (yet again) what exactly he HAS done to them....
From all accounts he has :
Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so they can
get the best education possible;
Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope to
have;
What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of their
parents was an alcoholic....
I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the girls, or
someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
Sure he shouldn't have deceived them about her existence but lets face it,
the way she is acting, and what she is now demanding of her daughters, just
maybe he was right to protect the two girls from the true nature of their
mother; You can be damned sure those two girls ARE getting a large dose of
the reality that their father was in fact protecting them from the serious
problems their mother has by NOT telling them what she is really like.
I find it strange that you can defend the actions of this woman WRT to what
she is demanding of her daughters; I guess it must be because she's a woman
huh...
As for the kidnapping charge that should only be between the state and the
man, with the status of the daughters counting in HIS favour (they
certainly cant be seen as your normal run of the mill kidnap vitims, that's
for sure)...
Do you consider the alternative for them if they HAD remained in foster care
as better for them to what the have now, and if so be specific and tell us
why?
-----------------------------
# Americans, indeed, often seem to be so overwhelmed by their children that
they’ll do anything for them except stay married to the co-producer.
Katharine Whitehorn (b. 1926), British journalist. Observations, “Suffer How
Many of the Little Children?” (1970).
Max Burke
snip.
>>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>>married money and lived in a nice big mansion. Would people feel the
>>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>No, they probably wouldn't. Since what he did turned out to be
>a *positive* situation (money, nice house, kids seeminly well
>cared for), some think it was okay what he did. I don't.
Well that's NOT surprising.....
>>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults
and
>>>all....
>>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
kidnapping
>>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
mother
>>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up
the
>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>>The mother is in a hopeless situation... she lost her kids, probably
>>forever. Nothing can make up for those lost years of parenthood.
>That's for sure.
So I guess that's why she's trying to force visitation and or the
requirement on her ADULT daughters that they live with her...
>>All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
>>want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
>>what a rotten thing their father did .... she cannot regain the years
>>she was cheated out of by her former husband.
>>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
And no doubt the state will prosecute him for that crime; I sincerely hope
the status and quality of life his daughters have had as a result of his
kidnapping them is offered in mitigation to the alternative the faced from
the states original actions in placing them in foster care because of their
alcoholic mother...
He certainly deserves praise because from all accounts he has :
Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so they can
get the best education possible;
Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope to
have;
What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of their
parents was an alcoholic....
I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the girls, or
someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
But, in line with Marg bigoted sexist views of men in general and fathers in
particular she claims he deserves NOTHING..
>Again I agree. The father was scum, clear and simple. It may
>take a long time, but eventually they will come to realize that
>the lies he told them were just that, lies. How can one have
>any respect for a parent that lies? Especially to tell kids
>that their other parent is dead? I feel for these girls AND
>their mother.
And I see I didn't need to prove her bigoted sexism towards men and fathers,
she (as usual) is quite happy to do that herself....
In the end it's just another ME TOO!!!! post from Marg...
---------------------------------
Speed Thomas
news:3750A1...@yahoo.com...
> florid...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> .... she cannot regain the years
> > she was cheated out of by her former husband.
>
of
> their childrens lives?
I don't know.....how many million(s)????? I suppose that you will
tell me.
> > The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
>
> Nor does any person that does not respect the right of all parents
to
> have a mininmum of 50% of their childrens care and support....perry
Can we get that in writing??????
> > Floridanewbie
>
Speed Thomas
news:7iq9mj$21j$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
> >Victoria "Lee" wrote in message
<37533be1...@news.netdirect.net>...
>
> >On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
> ><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
> >before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the
reasons
> >I wrote what I did.
>
> >>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the
case,
> and
> >>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the
mother
> (on
> >>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again
they
> >>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support
their
> >>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>
> >What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
> >want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>
> That's NOT my recollection of the programs and interviews I saw on
TV. Can
> you provide a cite or news item where they have stated that?
What....you tape everything.....as if a 'cite' will help you verify
anything....pleeeeeeease!!!!!
> >But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
> >protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity
to
> >know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie
and
> >cover to protect their abusive parents.
>
> So now you are suggesting he's abused them!!!!
Where exactly do you see that!!!! You are assuming now.....what a
jackass.
> I sincerely hope you have a: factual evidence to back that up; and
b: That
> his and the daughters lawyers dont read these Newsgroups, otherwise
you
> might require a lawyer in a hurry....
No more so than you do.......again, what a jackass.
> Let's see how he has 'abused' his daughters...
>
> From all accounts he has :
>
> Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
> Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so
they can
> get the best education possible;
> Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
> Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope
to
> have;
HE did not provide any of this.....the only thing that HE provided was
lies....you fucking asshole!!@!!! He didn't have a job.....he leached
off his wife....get real. The best parent possible?????????????????
I pity your kids!!!!@!!
>
> What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>
> Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of
their
> parents was an alcoholic....
You don't like the system...then work to change it.....I believe that
kidnapping is still illegal....at least in the States it is.......
> I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the
girls, or
> someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
How the fucking hell would you know.....something that you would like
to tell us???????????
>
> It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>
> >This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to
say?
>
> Exactly what they ARE saying; they ARE adults after all, and being
adults
> they have and adults opinions and more importantly the RIGHT to
decide for
> themselves what they want to do, and what THEY think of their
father....
> You're not suggesting they DONT have that right are you????
The jury is still out.......we'll see........assume what YOU want
asshole...
>
> >>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide
for
> >>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being
adults and
> >>all....
> >>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
> kidnapping
> >>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced
orders
> >>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow
the
> mother
> >>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to
make up the
> >>for the years she supposedly lost....
>
> >I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
> >road.
>
> And what would be 'down the road' for these girls....
>
> Let me tell you what I think is happening RIGHT now.....
>
> This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she
thinks she
> has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let
alone
> forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
Who cares what the fuck you think.....I know that I don't....are you a
parent????
> > Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
> >father did and they will need all of the help they can get when
that
> >happens.
>
> Lets rehash (yet again) what exactly he HAS done to them....
>
> From all accounts he has :
>
> Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
HE hasn't provided them with jack shit!!!!!! Let's make this
clear...the guy is a real loser.......he married rich......is that
what you identify with???????
Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so
they can
> get the best education possible;
> Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
> Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope
to
> have;
>
> What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>
> Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of
their
> parents was an alcoholic....
Again, if the system is flawed, fight to change it......don't take the
law into your own hands!!!!
>
> I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the
girls, or
> someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
But the point is....YOU ARE NOT.......but you think that you
are.....what a jackass!!!!!!!
>
> It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>
> Sure he shouldn't have deceived them about her existence but lets
face it,
> the way she is acting, and what she is now demanding of her
daughters, just
> maybe he was right to protect the two girls from the true nature of
their
> mother; You can be damned sure those two girls ARE getting a large
dose of
> the reality that their father was in fact protecting them from the
serious
> problems their mother has by NOT telling them what she is really
like.
So you admit that he is a jackass....but you can still make excuses
for his actions. Simply amazing!!!!!!! Remind me to NOT be a kid of
yours.
>
> I find it strange that you can defend the actions of this woman WRT
to what
> she is demanding of her daughters; I guess it must be because she's
a woman
> huh...
Go back to alt.feminism.......you have serious problems that only that
group can appease.
>
> As for the kidnapping charge that should only be between the state
and the
> man, with the status of the daughters counting in HIS favour (they
> certainly cant be seen as your normal run of the mill kidnap vitims,
that's
> for sure)...
What the hell is a 'normal run of the mill kidnap vitims'?????? Ever
have your kids kidnapped?????? Was it run of the mill??????? Why do
I fucking bother???????
>
> Do you consider the alternative for them if they HAD remained in
foster care
> as better for them to what the have now, and if so be specific and
tell us
> why?
What???? Are you writing a thesis on this????? Don't have any
original ideas?????? Just trying to change the subject???? I have a
feeling that there are a lot of guys out there that are great
advocates for fathers rights....YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM. YOU do them
a great disservice.
Ted W.
Paul R wrote:
> I knew you were an old softie at heart.
Well sure, maybe he can get a bill of attainder just like
that other child kidnapper Elizabeth Morgan.
> Ted W. <spa...@bit.bucket> wrote
Wilbur Streett
>HE did not provide any of this.....the only thing that HE provided was
>lies....you fucking asshole!!@!!! He didn't have a job.....he leached
>off his wife....get real. The best parent possible?????????????????
>I pity your kids!!!!@!!
Oh let's see, he managed to marry a rich women, so he must have had
something to offer her..
Care to support your assertions about either party?
Victoria Lee
Huggins) wrote:
>>>You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
>>>fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
>
> Then perhaps you can explain to me why she thinks the father
>deserves th book thrown at him?
>
>>It won't do any good. It's standard fare for certain types of
>>fanatical posters. If you disagree with them, it's not possible that
>>you merely have a different opinion because of what you personally
>
> Speed, Victoria, I'm a new poster here so please excuse my
>ignorance but exactly why should the father be punished for kidnapping
>his kids FROM the state? The original courts NEVER said that he was an
>unfit parent, it just said that the mother was unfit and thus by
>default he was unfit. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint
>here but frankly it makes little sense.
If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
court?
>>have experienced. They believe have that opinion because you are a
>>_________ (fill in their particular name calling vocabulary) and
>>because you differ with them they then feel they have the right to
>>call names. Think back to grade school and you'll get the picture.
>>
> I was the original respondent to the thread. I have _NEVER_
>insulted either you, Victoria or Speed so I fail to see how you are
>reaching the conclusion that I would insult you because of what you
>believe in. I might disagree with it, but I haven't insulted you.
This was posted to me and this is what I responded to, "You do
strike me as one of those anti-male bigoted feminists." Since you are
new I think you need to be aware of things. Just because you start a
thread doesn't mean all of the following responses are to you or about
you.
>I even asked for more information about this in email to you Victoria
>and my email was not hostile.
Yes, you did and you are correct your e-mail was not hostile. I
simply don't have the time to answer e-mails of everyone wishing to
take a online discussion to e-mail UNLESS it's personal. Your's
wasn't. It was just a continuation of this thread.
>(are all the people in this ng this damn suspicious? Man, I feel like
>I am back in alt.feminism..)
I don't think anyone is suspicious. And exactly what newsgroup are
you referring to? You cross posted to several newsgroups?
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>It is now evident that your judgement of this issue has been deeply coloured
>by your individual experience - that is somewhat understandable , but you
>must be aware that you have also no justification for assuming the worst
>about the father.
I have as much justification as you do to assume the best. In fact I
have more. What experience are you bringing to this discussion?
>|
>|Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
>|he chose to become a fugitive.
Half truth. He also chose to make his daughters fugitives. And also
decided that his daughters had no right to grow up knowing about their
mother.
>No doubt he was aware how fathers are generally treated in family courts.
Of course, I am. But how men are treated in general does not justify
handling this case with kid gloves.
> and now claims it was because his wife
>|was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
>|considered unfit to raise the girls?
>
>Thats a VERY good question - especially when you consider the words of his
>own daughters:-
>
>"I have to judge the facts based on the man I know. The man who made
>me feel secure, happy, and important," Rachel Martin has said about the
>charges against her father.
>
>"I firmly believe what happened with my sister and I some 19 years ago,
>happened for a good reason. My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy,
>healthy, and strong," said Lisa Martin.
It's not over for them, but you don't understand that. I would love
to hear what they have to say 10 - 15 years down the road. From the
cases I know about and from what I have experienced their regard for
their father will change dramatically. At some point these girls will
have to face that their father, a man they trusted, lied to them.
What you may not realize is if they meet their mother and she is a
decent kind loving woman then they will have to face what their father
took from them. They haven't got there yet and God help them (and
him) when they do.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>|>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
>and
>|>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
>(on
>|>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>|>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>|>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>|
>|What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>|want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>|
>|But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>|protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>|know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>|cover to protect their abusive parents.
>|
>|This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
>
>I really think you should stay out of this debate because your above
>comments demonstarte again that you have a deep bias in this issue,
I have experience in this kind of situation and you don't. You're
making an unfounded guess based on YOUR biases.
> the
>above is nothing less than a groundless attack against the integrity of
>three adults i.e. the Father and the two grown up daughters.
Just the opposite. I was a foster mother and had 25 foster children.
I have also done volunteer work with organizations helping abused
children. What I am describing isn't unusual or groundless. Don't
take my word for it. Go talk to therapist, social workers, police,
judges, etc. It is not unusual for children to try to protect their
parents even when they are the abuser.
This man lied to his daughters about the very foundation of who they
were and about their mother. This is something they will have to deal
with.
In addition, I edited depositions for years when I worked for a court
reporter. If you think deals/threats/bribes like I am suggesting
above don't happen you are very naive.
>|>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>|>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>|>all....
>|>
>|>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
>kidnapping
>|>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>|>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
>mother
>|>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>|>for the years she supposedly lost....
>|
>|I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>|road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>|father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>|happens.
>
>Exactly what do you KNOW the Father "did" that makes you think the daughters
>have something to "get over"?
Because he lied to them all of their life about who their mother was
and who he was.
>Also I'd like to know why you are assuming the mother is the better parent
>in this instance?
I'm not. You are assuming that that's what I think. It's not.
Who was the better parent 20 was never decided and never will be
decided now. He ran away rather than take his chances in court.
I do know that lying to his daughters for all of those years doesn't
say much about the kind of what kind of father he was and what kind of
man he is.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
Huggins) wrote:
>>What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>>want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>
> That doesn't seem unnatural. They did not want to see their
>mother in the first place and now she is charging their father with
>kidnapping, what do you expect them to do? What else can they do?
The point I was making is it would seem that the attorneys for the
father is using the possible relationship with the mother as a weapon.
Seems odd that a devoted, loving father would use his daughters'
affection in such a way.
>>But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>>protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>>know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>>cover to protect their abusive parents.
>
> So you think that he molested/abused them? Why? What makes you
>think that? In the entire case, I have never even heard of a sniff of
>abuse. Did you read/see anything that makes you think these two girls
>were abused?
I think he has most definitely abused them emotionally. He has lied
to them for most of their life about a matter of fundamental
importance. Even when they reached legal age he did not tell them the
truth. That is abuse of trust.
>>This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
>
> Agreed but have you considered that it might actually be true?
>From all accounts and from the evidence of his daughters' performace
>at school, the man was an excellent parent.
This reminds me of those who lie to their spouse then profess love for
their spouse. You don't lie especially about such an important matter
to someone you love and to someone who trusts you.
>>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a kidnapping
>>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the mother
>>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>>
>>I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>>road. Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>>father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>>happens.
>>
> Ok..Please explain exactly what did their father do to them?
>Do you think that he abused them?
Read above.
Victoria Lee
Victoria Lee
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37533be1...@news.netdirect.net>...
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 1999 06:29:30 +1200, "Max Burke"
>><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>>before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the reasons
>>I wrote what I did.
>
>>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
>and
>>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
>(on
>>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>
>>What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>>want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>
>That's NOT my recollection of the programs and interviews I saw on TV. Can
>you provide a cite or news item where they have stated that?
I believe I read it in the Palm Springs newspaper.
>>But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>>protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>>know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>>cover to protect their abusive parents.
>
>So now you are suggesting he's abused them!!!!
>I sincerely hope you have a: factual evidence to back that up; and b: That
>his and the daughters lawyers dont read these Newsgroups, otherwise you
>might require a lawyer in a hurry....
Don't be absurd. The "factual evidence" has been plastered all over
the media. He was the person they trusted in their life more than
anyone else and he lied to them about who they are and about their
mother. That in my book is abuse.
>
>Let's see how he has 'abused' his daughters...
>
>From all accounts he has :
>
>Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
>Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so they can
>get the best education possible;
>Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
>Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope to
>have;
>
>What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>
>Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of their
>parents was an alcoholic....
>
>I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the girls, or
>someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
You would have ran rather than first tried to win custody legally
through court? Interesting.
>It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
Yes, it does.
>>This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
>
>Exactly what they ARE saying; they ARE adults after all, and being adults
>they have and adults opinions and more importantly the RIGHT to decide for
>themselves what they want to do, and what THEY think of their father....
>You're not suggesting they DONT have that right are you????
>
>>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>>all....
>>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
>kidnapping
>>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
>mother
>>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>
>>I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>>road.
>
>And what would be 'down the road' for these girls....
Facing the fact that the person who cared for them and they trusted
growing up is a liar, con, and someone who took from them the right to
know their mother.
>Let me tell you what I think is happening RIGHT now.....
>
>This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks she
>has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
>forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
It's the only "communication" route she has.
>> Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>>father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>>happens.
>
>Lets rehash (yet again) what exactly he HAS done to them....
Lied to them about a fundamental part of their past - a part they
(especially as adults) had ever right to know. Which part of that do
you not understand.
Victoria Lee
Wilbur Streett
>> Speed, Victoria, I'm a new poster here so please excuse my
>>ignorance but exactly why should the father be punished for kidnapping
>>his kids FROM the state? The original courts NEVER said that he was an
>>unfit parent, it just said that the mother was unfit and thus by
>>default he was unfit. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint
>>here but frankly it makes little sense.
>
>If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
>court?
Because the Courts had already demonstrated that they were not be trusted.
They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
Based on the lack of prosecution of Perjury, and the lack of a basis in the
law for the actions that I have had taken against me by the "Family Court"
I have little trouble in going along with the idea that they are earning
the public distrust that they are experiencing.
<snip>
Wilbur Streett
>It's not over for them, but you don't understand that. I would love
>to hear what they have to say 10 - 15 years down the road. From the
>cases I know about and from what I have experienced their regard for
>their father will change dramatically. At some point these girls will
>have to face that their father, a man they trusted, lied to them.
"to protect them" from the horrible truth of what he had to take them and
flee from.
Wilbur Streett
>Just the opposite. I was a foster mother and had 25 foster children.
>I have also done volunteer work with organizations helping abused
>children. What I am describing isn't unusual or groundless. Don't
>take my word for it. Go talk to therapist, social workers, police,
>judges, etc. It is not unusual for children to try to protect their
>parents even when they are the abuser.
YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT..
How typical, the Judges and everyone else in the system claims to be
PROTECTING the children no matter what the truth is.
Wilbur Streett
>I think he has most definitely abused them emotionally. He has lied
>to them for most of their life about a matter of fundamental
>importance. Even when they reached legal age he did not tell them the
>truth. That is abuse of trust.
Who are you to define what constitutes the appropriate levels of trust
between a father and his daughters?
And BTW, that has nothing to do with the charged against him.
Wilbur Streett
>Don't be absurd. The "factual evidence" has been plastered all over
>the media. He was the person they trusted in their life more than
>anyone else and he lied to them about who they are and about their
>mother. That in my book is abuse.
Well, according to the numerous "parenting conferences" in the State of New
Jersey that divorcing parents are required to attend, saying ANYTHING
negative about the ex is considered abuse.
Now which is worse:
1) mommy is a pathological liar, drunk, and abuser. She is a psychopath,
and since being a psychopath is considered heriditary, you're probably
messed up also. The courts were out of control, they took you away from
me, the parent that loves you. You'll have to spend your whole life being
in hiding, never telling anyone else the truth, and you'll away's wonder
about whether you are whole and sane.
I took you away in order to protect you..
or
2) Mommy is dead.
SRoweCanoe
one) that:
> She is a psychopath,
>and since being a psychopath is considered heriditary,
Actually "psychopath" is not a current diagnosis; nor was it ever considered
heriditary when it was a diagnosis (20 years back or longer).
Steven R
Philip Lewis
|On Sat, 29 May 1999 21:55:52 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
|<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
|
|>It is now evident that your judgement of this issue has been deeply
coloured
|>by your individual experience - that is somewhat understandable , but you
|>must be aware that you have also no justification for assuming the worst
|>about the father.
|
|I have as much justification as you do to assume the best. In fact I
|have more.
Again you are making an assumption without any knowledge of my experience in
these matters.
What experience are you bringing to this discussion?
Anecdotal - just like yours, however you are missing the point - your
assumption that the father has harmed the children flies in the face of the
actual evidence - his own daughters (now adults!) still maintain that he was
a wonderfull father, what amuses me is that I have a very strong feeling
that had the sexes been reversed (i.e. the mother had run away with the
children.) you would not be implying that the daughters have either been
"coerced" or that they have been "brainwashed".
|
|>|
|>|Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
|>|he chose to become a fugitive.
|
|Half truth. He also chose to make his daughters fugitives.
Consider the following definition of the word "fugitive":-
Source http://www.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?fugitive
1. fugitive, runaway -- (someone who flees from an uncongenial situation;
``fugitives from the seatshops'' )
2. fugitive, fugitive from justice -- (someone who is sought by law
officers; someone trying to elude justice)
In the first sense of the word - the daughters were NOT runaways although
they were being taken from an uncongenial situation, since the daughters had
done nothing wrong they cannot be considered fugitives either.
In the second sense of the word - it is clear that the only fugitive was the
father.
|And also
|decided that his daughters had no right to grow up knowing about their
|mother.
Evidently he decided that knowledge they had of this particular mother was
more than enough!
|
|>No doubt he was aware how fathers are generally treated in family courts.
|
|Of course, I am. But how men are treated in general does not justify
|handling this case with kid gloves.
Putting a man in jail for 10years because he sincerely had his daughters
best interests at heart is not treating him with "kid gloves" either, had it
been the other way around (a mother charged under similar circumstances)
"kid gloves" would indeed have been the order of the day!
|
|> and now claims it was because his wife
|>|was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
|>|considered unfit to raise the girls?
|>
|>Thats a VERY good question - especially when you consider the words of his
|>own daughters:-
|>
|>"I have to judge the facts based on the man I know. The man who made
|>me feel secure, happy, and important," Rachel Martin has said about the
|>charges against her father.
|>
|>"I firmly believe what happened with my sister and I some 19 years ago,
|>happened for a good reason. My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy,
|>healthy, and strong," said Lisa Martin.
|
|It's not over for them, but you don't understand that. I would love
|to hear what they have to say 10 - 15 years down the road.
Perhaps they have not yet listened to enough feminists !!
| From the
|cases I know about and from what I have experienced their regard for
|their father will change dramatically.
I have deep suspicions about your so-called "experience" as it is in
contradiction to NON-ANECDOTAL research and statistics which demonstrate
that children in the care of their biological fathers fare BETTER than
children in the care of their biological mothers alone.!
| At some point these girls will
|have to face that their father, a man they trusted, lied to them.
These girls are now adults - they are aware of all the facts and the
so-called "lies" yet their supprt for him could not be more positive!
|
|What you may not realize is if they meet their mother and she is a
|decent kind loving woman then they will have to face what their father
|took from them. They haven't got there yet and God help them (and
|him) when they do.
It's about time you grew up Victoria - there are MANY "she-devils" out there
just as there are bad fathers, live with it.
|
|Victoria Lee
Shawn Larsen
Ted W. wrote:
> Well sure, maybe he can get a bill of attainder just like
> that other child kidnapper Elizabeth Morgan.
>
> > Ted W. <spa...@bit.bucket> wrote
> > > Victoria Lee wrote:
> > > > I hope they throw the book at him.
> > > I hope he gets the same treatment a woman in his shoes would get.
Maybe he'll get a movie made about him too. It can be called "A Fathers
Right: The Stephen Fagan Story." After all, in 1992 a movie was made
called "A Mothers Right: The Elizabeth Morgan Story."
I bet the same woman who produced the Morgan movie would be willing
to produce the Fagan movie. It would be an easy task, since she only
only has to get Stephen Fagan's side of the story. If she's asked why she
didn't seek input from Fagan's ex-wife (Barbara Kurth), she can give the
same response she did when she was asked why she didn't seek input
from Morgan's ex-husband (Eric Fortich). She can say, "I wasn't
interested in Barbara Kurth's side of the story. I was interested in
the truth."
Marg Petersen
>>>ignorance but exactly why should the father be punished for kidnapping
>>>his kids FROM the state? The original courts NEVER said that he was an
>>>unfit parent, it just said that the mother was unfit and thus by
>>>default he was unfit. I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint
>>>here but frankly it makes little sense.
>>
>>If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
>>court?
>
>Because the Courts had already demonstrated that they were not be trusted.
>They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
If the children were placed in foster care, there was obviously
some question as to HIS suitability as the custodial parent in
the first place.
>Wilbur
>
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Victoria Lee
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <375347de...@news.netdirect.net>...
>|On Sat, 29 May 1999 21:55:52 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
>|<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>|
>|>It is now evident that your judgement of this issue has been deeply
>coloured
>|>by your individual experience - that is somewhat understandable , but you
>|>must be aware that you have also no justification for assuming the worst
>|>about the father.
>|
>|I have as much justification as you do to assume the best. In fact I
>|have more.
>
>Again you are making an assumption without any knowledge of my experience in
>these matters.
>
>
>What experience are you bringing to this discussion?
>
>
>Anecdotal - just like yours,
You have lived through the kidnapping of your child? And you have
found out as an adult a fundamental lie about your parentage that you
had been told your entire life by your "parents?" Please elaborate.
>however you are missing the point - your
>assumption that the father has harmed the children flies in the face of the
>actual evidence - his own daughters (now adults!) still maintain that he was
>a wonderfull father,
Actually you are missing the point because you haven't been there.
It's not over for these girls.
>what amuses me is that I have a very strong feeling
>that had the sexes been reversed (i.e. the mother had run away with the
>children.) you would not be implying that the daughters have either been
>"coerced" or that they have been "brainwashed".
Well, your feeling couldn't be more wrong. I don't care what sex the
parent is - lying to a child about something this fundamental is WRONG
and abusive.
Victoria Lee - tired of going over the same territory. If you can't
read, don't bother posting.
Victoria Lee
<phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37573e92...@news.netdirect.net>...
>|On Sat, 29 May 1999 08:20:14 -0700, "FathersRus"
>|<Fathe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|
>|>Igor wrote in message ...
>|>>Father to plead guilty to kidnapping daughters in 1979
>|>>Judge rejected previous plea agreement
>|>
>|>I fail to understand why anyone would plead guilty esp. after 20 years
>i.e.
>|>the statute of limitations on this would have only been seven years.
>|
>|But when would the statute of limitations ended - from the day he
>|kidnapped them or from the last daughter's 18th (21st) birthday?
>|Technically he would have still been guilty of kidnap until the last
>|one was of age.
>
>
>And you would like your "pound of flesh" - no matter that the evidence
>available demonstrates he did what he did in his daughters best interests!
>Even his now grown up daughters still want NOTHING to do with their mother
>and are still full of praise for the way their father has taken care of
>them.
If you are going to post please pay attention to what being/been
posted. I was merely answering the person's question.
Victoria Lee
Max Burke
>>Max Burke <mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:7iq9mj$21j$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
>> >Victoria "Lee" wrote in message
><37533be1...@news.netdirect.net>...
>> >Er, perhaps you shouldn't assume I don't know about the entire case
>> >before I posted. I knew about the case and that's one of the
>> >reasons
>> >I wrote what I did.
>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the
>>>case, and when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and
the
>>mother (on different programs) the daughters have stated time and time
again
>>they absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support
>>their father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>> >What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>> >want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>> That's NOT my recollection of the programs and interviews I saw on
>>TV. Can you provide a cite or news item where they have stated that?
>What....you tape everything.....as if a 'cite' will help you verify
>anything....pleeeeeeease!!!!!
I take it that's a no???
>> >But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>> >protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity
>> >to know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie
>> >and cover to protect their abusive parents.
>> So now you are suggesting he's abused them!!!!
>Where exactly do you see that!!!! You are assuming now.....what a
>jackass.
What part of the word abuse dont you understand???
>> I sincerely hope you have a: factual evidence to back that up; and
>>b: That his and the daughters lawyers dont read these Newsgroups,
otherwise
>>you might require a lawyer in a hurry....
>No more so than you do.......again, what a jackass.
Say's someone who hates people disagreeing with them so much that they
revert to name calling.... :-)
Guess it proves who the REAL jackass is huh.....
>> Let's see how he has 'abused' his daughters...
>> From all accounts he has :
>> Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
>> Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so
>>they can get the best education possible;
>> Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
>> Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope
>>to have;
>HE did not provide any of this.....
Yet again where is your PROOF for that statement?
>the only thing that HE provided was
>lies....you fucking asshole!!@!!! He didn't have a job.....he leached
>off his wife....get real. The best parent possible?????????????????
>I pity your kids!!!!@!!
So you have none.... Why am I NOT surprised????
>> What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>> Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of
>>their parents was an alcoholic....
>You don't like the system...then work to change it.....I believe that
>kidnapping is still illegal....at least in the States it is.......
So we're talking about the kidnapping now.....
That will be decided in a court of law, NOT in this venue....
>> I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the
>>girls, or
>> someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
>How the fucking hell would you know.....something that you would like
>to tell us???????????
I appear to know a lot more about it than you.....
>> It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>> >This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to
>> >say?
>> Exactly what they ARE saying; they ARE adults after all, and being
>>adults they have and adults opinions and more importantly the RIGHT to
>>decide for themselves what they want to do, and what THEY think of their
>>father....
>> You're not suggesting they DONT have that right are you????
>The jury is still out.......we'll see........assume what YOU want
>asshole...
I do, why do you have such a problem with that????
Or do you also believe these two women dont have the right to make their own
decisions even when adults????
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide
>>for themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being
>>adults and all....
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
>> kidnapping conviction of the father but is also trying to get court
enforced
>>orders made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow
>>the mother visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to
>>make up the for the years she supposedly lost....
>> >I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>> >road.
>> And what would be 'down the road' for these girls....
>> Let me tell you what I think is happening RIGHT now.....
>> This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she
>>thinks she has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her
let
>>alone forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
>Who cares what the fuck you think.....I know that I don't....are you a
>parent????
Well I have to ask why you are so 'upset' about what I think if you DONT
care about what I think....
Or do you also swear and curse in your normal everyday conversations.....
:-)
>> > Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>> >father did and they will need all of the help they can get when
>> >that happens.
>> Lets rehash (yet again) what exactly he HAS done to them....
>> From all accounts he has :
>> Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
>HE hasn't provided them with jack shit!!!!!! Let's make this
>clear...the guy is a real loser.......he married rich......is that
>what you identify with???????
And your proof is?????
And if he did 'marry rich' so what, aren't men allowed to marry rich....
Either way the girls got a luxury lifestyle, education, etc, etc, etc....
I guess you dont think they should have had that huh.....
>>Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so
>>they can get the best education possible;
>> Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
>> Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope
>>to have;
>> What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>> Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of
>>their parents was an alcoholic....
>Again, if the system is flawed, fight to change it......don't take the
>law into your own hands!!!!
Well going by your attitudes and beliefs that these girls did NOT deserve to
have the lifestyle they DO have then the system you want them to live under
would definitely be flawed....
>> I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the
>>girls, or someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
>But the point is....YOU ARE NOT.......but you think that you
>are.....what a jackass!!!!!!!
No. it's you who thinks I am, I just stated my OPINION. It's a shame you
have to 'go ballistic about opinions you disagree with...
Are you getting treatment for you 'net rage' problem???? :-)
>> It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>> Sure he shouldn't have deceived them about her existence but lets
>>face it, the way she is acting, and what she is now demanding of her
>>daughters, just maybe he was right to protect the two girls from the true
nature of
>>their mother; You can be damned sure those two girls ARE getting a large
>>dose of the reality that their father was in fact protecting them from the
>>serious problems their mother has by NOT telling them what she is really
>like.
>So you admit that he is a jackass....
No I dont... You are the ONLY one who feels the need to be 'abusive' in
this venue....
>but you can still make excuses for his actions. Simply amazing!!!!!!!
Remind me to NOT be a kid of
>yours.
The feeling is mutual trust me.... No kid of mine would act like you that's
for sure.....
>> I find it strange that you can defend the actions of this woman WRT
>>to what she is demanding of her daughters; I guess it must be because
she's
>>a woman huh...
>Go back to alt.feminism.......you have serious problems that only that
>group can appease.
And what problems would they be????
Oh yeah, you and the fact you have a seriuos personality disorder, and a
severe case of 'net rage'..... :-)
Sorry, you're not MY problem.....
>> As for the kidnapping charge that should only be between the state
>>and the man, with the status of the daughters counting in HIS favour
(they
>> certainly cant be seen as your normal run of the mill kidnap victims,
>that's for sure)...
>What the hell is a 'normal run of the mill kidnap vitims'?????? Ever
>have your kids kidnapped?????? Was it run of the mill??????? Why do
>I fucking bother???????
Why DO you, that IS the question I have to ask.....
>> Do you consider the alternative for them if they HAD remained in
>>foster care as better for them to what the have now, and if so be specific
and
>>tell us why?
>What???? Are you writing a thesis on this?????
No, I'm writing one on 'net rage' and you are providing an excellent
example.... :-)
> Don't have any original ideas??????
Yeah, sometimes.....
>Just trying to change the subject????
I am???? Cant you keep up??? :-)
> I have a feeling that there are a lot of guys out there that are great
>advocates for fathers rights....
Of course there are.....
>YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM.
What makes YOU think I am; I have NEVER claimed to be and advocate for
fathers rights.....
> YOU do them a great disservice.
And you think I need to concern myself with your opinions?
Not if this post of yours is an example of your opinions I dont...
-----------------------------
# Americans, indeed, often seem to be so overwhelmed by their children that
they'll do anything for them except stay married to the co-producer.
Katharine Whitehorn (b. 1926), British journalist. Observations, "Suffer How
Many of the Little Children?" (1970).
--
Max Burke
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 15:01:56 +1200, "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>>What I find is interesting is that they have stated that they don't
>>>want to see their mother UNTIL the charges are dropped.
>>That's NOT my recollection of the programs and interviews I saw on TV.
Can
>>you provide a cite or news item where they have stated that?
>I believe I read it in the Palm Springs newspaper.
OK.
But again that WASN'T what the two daughter said on the Larry King
interviews or in the documentary I saw...
>>>But actually what you are describing isn't that unusual. Children
>>>protect their parents - at least the ones they have an opportunity to
>>>know. Sexually abused children or beaten children will often lie and
>>>cover to protect their abusive parents.
>>So now you are suggesting he's abused them!!!!
>>I sincerely hope you have a: factual evidence to back that up; and b: That
>>his and the daughters lawyers dont read these Newsgroups, otherwise you
>>might require a lawyer in a hurry....
>Don't be absurd. The "factual evidence" has been plastered all over
>the media. He was the person they trusted in their life more than
>anyone else and he lied to them about who they are and about their
>mother. That in my book is abuse.
OK, now given that they now both KNOW the full situation WRT the mother,
their kidnapping, and there fathers lying about their mother, and what their
mother want's from them, why do YOU suppose they are STILL supporting their
father 100%, and refusing to have ANYTHING at all to do with their mother...
IMO your claims about them simply dont wash; On Larry King they seemed VERY
certain of what they wanted and not the LEAST abused by their fathers
actions....
Being adults, do you accept they have the right, can and have made up their
own minds about their lives and what they want to happen WRT their mother,
father and lives????
If not I would like to know on what grounds you think two adults in the USA
can be forced to have a relationship with someone they want nothing to do
with, and what laws in the USA allow such a thing to happen to people in
that country...
>>Let's see how he has 'abused' his daughters...
>>From all accounts he has :
>>Provide both girls with a luxury lifestyle and all that entails;
>>Put them both through exclusive expensive schools and colleges so they can
>>get the best education possible;
>>Made it possible that they will never have to want for anything;
>>Done all that is possible to be the best parent they could ever hope to
>>have;
>>What was the alternative they faced before the 'kidnapping'?
>>Removal from BOTH parents and placed in a foster home because one of their
>>parents was an alcoholic....
>>I sure as hell know what life I would chose if I was one of the girls, or
>>someone who had to make the choice for the girls...
>You would have ran rather than first tried to win custody legally
>through court? Interesting.
Answer me this : He was/is their father. Why should he have to gain custody
in the courts for his OWN children????
>>It sure does sound like he has been abusing them all along huh....
>Yes, it does.
In YOUR opinion....
>This man's freedom is on the line. What would you expect them to say?
>>Exactly what they ARE saying; they ARE adults after all, and being adults
>>they have and adults opinions and more importantly the RIGHT to decide for
>>themselves what they want to do, and what THEY think of their father....
>>You're not suggesting they DONT have that right are you????
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>all....
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
>>kidnapping conviction of the father but is also trying to get court
enforced orders
>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
>>mother visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make
up the
>>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>I think the mother is doing this because she knows what's down the
>road.
>>And what would be 'down the road' for these girls....
>Facing the fact that the person who cared for them and they trusted
>growing up is a liar, con, and someone who took from them the right to
>know their mother.
More like protecting them from what she was and IS really like...
But dont let her alcoholism; their placement in a foster home rather than
with their father, and the mother trying to force them into a relationship
they dont want get in the way of a mothers rights....
Trust me, their mother will NEVER have any sort of relationship with her
daughters if she wins her court case that forces them to associate with
her.... It's NOT the way to repair the damage done is it....
>>Let me tell you what I think is happening RIGHT now.....
>>This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks
she
>>has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
>>forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
>It's the only "communication" route she has.
And you see that as justification for her having the right to force two
other adults to associate with her when they have stated categorically they
want NOTHING to do with her?
> Sooner or later these girls will have to deal with what their
>father did and they will need all of the help they can get when that
>happens.
It appears to me they ARE dealing with it NOW; The know ALL the facts yet
continue to support their father 100% and refuse to have anything to do with
their mother, what more proof do you need that they are dealing with it...
>>Lets rehash (yet again) what exactly he HAS done to them....
>Lied to them about a fundamental part of their past - a part they
>(especially as adults) had ever right to know. Which part of that do
>you not understand.
And now that they know that, do we see them rejecting their father in any
way at ALL?
No not in the slightest, in fact it is the exact opposite; With ALL the
facts they continue to reject any relationship with their mother and support
their father 100%....
What part of that dont YOU understand.
I think YOU need to deal with the problem YOU are having in accepting two
adults are entitled to decide FOR THEMSELVES what they want to do with their
lives...
---------------------------------------
# Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can never
fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of providing
emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred—it is the amphetamine of
its believers.
Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950), Greek author. The Female Woman, “The
Liberated Woman? . . . and Her Liberators” (1973).
Max Burke
<37503f73...@news.flatoday.infi.net>...
>>Well, perhaps you can explain in a recent documentary I saw of the case,
and
>>when Larry King interviewed the daughters and the father, and the mother
(on
>>different programs) the daughters have stated time and time again they
>>absolutely want nothing to do with their mother, and fully support their
>>father in the way he had raised them for most of their lives....
>There is absolutely nothing surprising about the daughters defending
>their father and wanting nothing to do with some stranger who turns out
>to be their mother ... he had the past twenty years to feed them his
>version of reality. However, at some point both those young women
>are going to have to confront the fact that their father is a LIAR - not
>only did he kidnap them, he created a false reality for them. There
>probably will be consequence for the daughters that are not going to be
>very pleasant.
Well let's see.... Both of them know ALL the facts...
That their father kidnapped them...
That he lied about their mother...
That she was an alcoholic....
That the were placed in foster care rather than placed in their fathers
custody (why did THAT happen???)
That their mother is taking court action to force them to associate with
her....
And yet the STILL support their father 100%, and refuse to have anything at
all to do with their mother....
It seems pretty clear to me that they are facing up to the situation NOW,
and have made up their minds about what THEY want to do....
Taking all of the above into consideration, do you believe these two ADULT
women should be subject to legal action that will force them to change their
minds and make them associate with their mother when they dont want to, and
that they have to stop supporting their father???
If so tell me why..
Be specific; cite ANY US law that can EVER make that happen....
>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>married money and lived in a nice big mansion.
And you think the alternative was preferable; That they lived with an
alcoholic mother or in foster homes all their lives just to ensure they
continued to have a relationship with their alcoholic mother????
>Would people feel the
>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
How do you associate that with the way they WERE cared for....
The logic 'escapes' me....
>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>all....
>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
kidnapping
>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
mother
>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>The mother is in a hopeless situation...
And that justifies what she is trying to force her daughters to do how????
>he lost her kids, probably forever. Nothing can make up for those lost
years of parenthood.
And she needs to face up to that fact.....
Forcing her daughters to associate with her certainly isn't going to reverse
that situation is it....
>Suing to make them visit is foolish; some attorney must have thought that
one up.
Obviously....
>As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no control over that -
if the crime is on the books and if there is no
>statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
offender if he/she is found.
What of the mitigating circumstances; Of him being the father, why wasn't HE
awarded custody rather than placing them in foster care, and the way he has
cared for his daughters, no one can claim they have NOT been cared for to
the best of his ability.
>All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
>want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
>what a rotten thing their father did
Taking legal action to force them to do that has pretty well ensured that
will NEVER happen...
> .... she cannot regain the years she was cheated out of by her former
husband.
Much like men in the same situation as this woman when they get forced out
of their children's live because of the personal problems they have.... Why
this woman should be seen as a different or special case has yet to be
proved...
>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
For all that he has done to care for and raise his daughter he does......
Speed Thomas
Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we start
over????
--
TNT
Max Burke <mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote in message
news:7iti5e$3d9$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz...
Max Burke
>>It is now evident that your judgement of this issue has been deeply
coloured
>>by your individual experience - that is somewhat understandable , but you
>>must be aware that you have also no justification for assuming the worst
>>about the father.
>I have as much justification as you do to assume the best. In fact I
>have more. What experience are you bringing to this discussion?
You have the right to post your opinion like the rest of us.....
Justification for your attitudes is another matter and something we can
debate...
I've Just heard he has received probation and a $100,000.00 fine....
>>|Instead of going through court and regaining custody of his children
>>|he chose to become a fugitive.
>Half truth. He also chose to make his daughters fugitives. And also
>decided that his daughters had no right to grow up knowing about their
>mother.
In your opinion....
>>No doubt he was aware how fathers are generally treated in family courts.
>Of course, I am. But how men are treated in general does not justify
>handling this case with kid gloves.
Anymore than the mothers that treat THEIR kid's the same way????
>> and now claims it was because his wife
>>|was an alcoholic. If this was proven in court then why was he
>>|considered unfit to raise the girls?
>>Thats a VERY good question - especially when you consider the words of his
>>own daughters:-
>>"I have to judge the facts based on the man I know. The man who made
>>me feel secure, happy, and important," Rachel Martin has said about the
>>charges against her father.
>>"I firmly believe what happened with my sister and I some 19 years ago,
>>happened for a good reason. My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy,
>>healthy, and strong," said Lisa Martin.
>It's not over for them,
Why NOT! After all aren't YOU the one suggesting they have been abused by
their father? They DONT sound abused to me, and as I have had to repeat
several times, as they are adults we just have to accept that what they are
telling the world is the truth wont we.... Unless that is, you consider
they have NO right, as adults, to disagree with your opinion....
>but you don't understand that. I would love
>to hear what they have to say 10 - 15 years down the road.
I like what I here from them today, let alone what we'll here from them 10 -
15 years down the road if their mother continues with her legal attempt to
force them to associate with her.....
What's going to happen if/when these women get married and have kid's of
their own... Do you think they will allow their mother to have any sort of
relationship with her grandchildren if she continues the legal harassment of
her daughters the way she is at the moment????
>From the
>cases I know about and from what I have experienced their regard for
>their father will change dramatically. At some point these girls will
>have to face that their father, a man they trusted, lied to them.
It appears to have escaped your notice they have faced the actions of their
father ALREADY. They know WHAT he did AND why he says he did it. Going by
their responses (see above) they still appear to trust him completely. It's
a pity and a shame you have to reject that and a bit silly when you are
basing it on 'what YOU know'....
>What you may not realize is if they meet their mother and she is a
>decent kind loving woman then they will have to face what their father
>took from them.
When she's trying to obtain a legal ruling FORCING them to associate with
her??? That SURE sounds like a decent kind loving woman..... NOT!
And they HAVE faced what their father DID; They KNOW about the kidnapping
and that he lied about their mother; It's a shame you cannot see that.....
> They haven't got there yet and God help them (and him) when they do.
In your opinion.....
I would love to see you tell them that to their faces......
Get over it Victoria you are taking this case FAR to personally IMO.....
------------------------------------------
# Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can never
fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of providing
emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred—it is the amphetamine of
its believers.
Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950), Greek author. The Female Woman, “The
Liberated Woman? . . . and Her Liberators” (1973).
Max Burke
>On Sun, 30 May 1999 19:59:48 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
><phil...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
snip....
>>however you are missing the point - your
>>assumption that the father has harmed the children flies in the face of
the
>>actual evidence - his own daughters (now adults!) still maintain that he
was
>>a wonderfull father,
>Actually you are missing the point because you haven't been there.
>It's not over for these girls.
Well then, Just WHO IS IT over to?????
We ARE talking about them and their stated desire to have nothing to do with
their mother are we not?
If we are then a restatement of a crucial fact appears to be in order :
The are both adults Victoria, and being adults the a free to chose who they
wish to associate with or not.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that in the USA there are laws that will
force them to associate with someone they have NO desire to associate
with....
Perhaps you can enlighten the group and cite such a law....
If you cannot do that, than we need to consider just why you continue to
insist these women are wrong in freely deciding for themselves who they wish
to associate with....
>>what amuses me is that I have a very strong feeling
>>that had the sexes been reversed (i.e. the mother had run away with the
>>children.) you would not be implying that the daughters have either been
>>"coerced" or that they have been "brainwashed".
>Well, your feeling couldn't be more wrong. I don't care what sex the
>parent is - lying to a child about something this fundamental is WRONG
>and abusive.
No one is claiming otherwise; WHY he lied is why we are having this debate
is it not..... His daughters have apparently accepted
a.) That he lied.
b.) The reasons why he lied.
The bottom line is what they accept is the REALITY of the situation; In the
end no matter what any of us say or believe about it doesn't matter, they
have made their decision and the rest of us are just going to have to accept
it even you Victoria....
-------------------------------------------
Max Burke
>Hey Max.....time out.....
>Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
>sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we start
>over????
Well maybe if you fix your Newreader you'll be able to follow through the
responses to the crap you posted in the first place....
But it doesn't surprise me you dont know how to use your computer
properly....
---------------------------------
# Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can never
fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of providing
emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred—it is the amphetamine of
its believers.
Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950), Greek author. The Female Woman, “The
Liberated Woman? . . . and Her Liberators” (1973).
Speed Thomas
TNT
> >Hey Max.....time out.....
> >Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
> >sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we start
> >over????
>
Pat Winstanley
<hax...@scican.net> writes
>>This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks she
>>has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
>>forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
>
Does anyone know what reasons the daughters have given for not wanting
to meet their mother?
I have seen mention here about not wanting to do so until the charges
are dropped, but who has actually brought the charges? If the girls were
in foster care then they weren't kidnapped from her but from the state.
Is he charged with kidnapping from her or from the state?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>the media. He was the person they trusted in their life more than
>>anyone else and he lied to them about who they are and about their
>>mother. That in my book is abuse.
>
>Jersey that divorcing parents are required to attend, saying ANYTHING
>negative about the ex is considered abuse.
>
>Now which is worse:
>
>1) mommy is a pathological liar, drunk, and abuser. She is a psychopath,
>and since being a psychopath is considered heriditary, you're probably
>messed up also. The courts were out of control, they took you away from
>me, the parent that loves you. You'll have to spend your whole life being
>in hiding, never telling anyone else the truth, and you'll away's wonder
>about whether you are whole and sane.
>
>I took you away in order to protect you..
>
>or
>
>2) Mommy is dead.
3. Mommy is ill and can't take care of you, so we'll have to make the
most of it just the three of us for the time being. Hopefully Mommy will
be better in few months and then we can all see her again, but for now
it's better she doesn't have any contact with any of us, because she'll
get better quicker that way.
Giving them false identities and LYING that their mother is dead is NOT
the way to do it.
If the guy was the good father in other ways that he has apparently
proved to be, at least as a material provider, what made him think the
girls wouldn't be placed in his custody fairly quickly if the mother was
going to be long-term rather than short-term unsuitable?
No, he had no right to tell them their mother was dead. No right at all.
Pat Winstanley
Victoria Lee
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>There is absolutely nothing surprising about the daughters defending
>>their father and wanting nothing to do with some stranger who turns out
>>to be their mother ... he had the past twenty years to feed them his
>>version of reality. However, at some point both those young women
>>are going to have to confront the fact that their father is a LIAR - not
>>only did he kidnap them, he created a false reality for them. There
>>probably will be consequence for the daughters that are not going to be
>>very pleasant.
>
>Well let's see.... Both of them know ALL the facts...
>That their father kidnapped them...
>That he lied about their mother...
>That she was an alcoholic....
Assumption. Actually all I have seen is his statement that she was an
alcoholic.
>That the were placed in foster care rather than placed in their fathers
>custody (why did THAT happen???)
That's what I want to know. If this man was so wonderful and a
Harvard professor then why didn't he receive at least temporary
custody of them.
>That their mother is taking court action to force them to associate with
>her....
>
>And yet the STILL support their father 100%, and refuse to have anything at
>all to do with their mother....
>It seems pretty clear to me that they are facing up to the situation NOW,
>and have made up their minds about what THEY want to do....
So what's your problem?
>Taking all of the above into consideration, do you believe these two ADULT
>women should be subject to legal action that will force them to change their
>minds and make them associate with their mother when they dont want to, and
>that they have to stop supporting their father???
Not at all. Actually their behavior is very logical given the abuse
they suffered.
>If so tell me why..
>Be specific; cite ANY US law that can EVER make that happen....
>
>>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>>married money and lived in a nice big mansion.
Because he lied to them. Which part of that phrase don't you
understand?
>And you think the alternative was preferable; That they lived with an
>alcoholic mother or in foster homes all their lives just to ensure they
>continued to have a relationship with their alcoholic mother????
"all their lives" Why wasn't the father considered fit to raise them?
>
>>Would people feel the
>>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>
>How do you associate that with the way they WERE cared for....
> The logic 'escapes' me....
Your lack of logic isn't my problem.
>>>And lets NOT forget both daughters are now old enough to decide for
>>>themselves [legally] what they want to do, what with them being adults and
>>>all....
>>>So we have to ask just why this mother is not only pushing for a
>kidnapping
>>>conviction of the father but is also trying to get court enforced orders
>>>made against the daughter forcing them to at the very least allow the
>mother
>>>visitation, at worst wanting the daughters to live with her to make up the
>>>for the years she supposedly lost....
>
>>The mother is in a hopeless situation...
>
>And that justifies what she is trying to force her daughters to do how????
>
>>he lost her kids, probably forever. Nothing can make up for those lost
>years of parenthood.
>
>And she needs to face up to that fact.....
>
>Forcing her daughters to associate with her certainly isn't going to reverse
>that situation is it....
Actually it might reverse a lot of damage, but before the girls could
face seeing her they would have to face the fact of their father's
behavior.
>>Suing to make them visit is foolish; some attorney must have thought that
>one up.
>
>Obviously....
>
>>As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no control over that -
>if the crime is on the books and if there is no
>>statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
>offender if he/she is found.
>
>What of the mitigating circumstances; Of him being the father, why wasn't HE
>awarded custody rather than placing them in foster care, and the way he has
>cared for his daughters, no one can claim they have NOT been cared for to
>the best of his ability.
>
>>All the mother can do is make herself available to the daughters if they
>>want to communicate with her somewhere down the road when they realize
>>what a rotten thing their father did
>
>Taking legal action to force them to do that has pretty well ensured that
>will NEVER happen...
>
>> .... she cannot regain the years she was cheated out of by her former
>husband.
>
>Much like men in the same situation as this woman when they get forced out
>of their children's live because of the personal problems they have.... Why
>this woman should be seen as a different or special case has yet to be
>proved...
What exactly were her personal problems. All I have ever read was
ALLEGED alcoholism.
>>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
>
>For all that he has done to care for and raise his daughter he does......
He raised them in lies and even when they because "adults" he still
chose to LIE. Why? Why was this man so afraid of the truth?
Victoria Lee
Wilbur Streett
>>Because the Courts had already demonstrated that they were not be trusted.
>>They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
>
>If the children were placed in foster care, there was obviously
>some question as to HIS suitability as the custodial parent in
>the first place.
and obviously they were wrong.
Wilbur
Wilbur Streett
>Actually you are missing the point because you haven't been there.
>It's not over for these girls.
Yes, it is. They are WOMEN now.
>>what amuses me is that I have a very strong feeling
>>that had the sexes been reversed (i.e. the mother had run away with the
>>children.) you would not be implying that the daughters have either been
>>"coerced" or that they have been "brainwashed".
>
>Well, your feeling couldn't be more wrong. I don't care what sex the
>parent is - lying to a child about something this fundamental is WRONG
>and abusive.
Try to answer my post about the subject.
Wilbur Streett
>>Now which is worse:
>>
>>1) mommy is a pathological liar, drunk, and abuser. She is a psychopath,
>>and since being a psychopath is considered heriditary, you're probably
>>messed up also. The courts were out of control, they took you away from
>>me, the parent that loves you. You'll have to spend your whole life being
>>in hiding, never telling anyone else the truth, and you'll away's wonder
>>about whether you are whole and sane.
>>
>>I took you away in order to protect you..
>>
>>or
>>
>>2) Mommy is dead.
>
>3. Mommy is ill and can't take care of you, so we'll have to make the
>most of it just the three of us for the time being. Hopefully Mommy will
>be better in few months and then we can all see her again, but for now
>it's better she doesn't have any contact with any of us, because she'll
>get better quicker that way.
Three is #1 in sugar coating. If things had changed, he could have told
the girls that he was protecting her..
But the courts made sure that he had to flee and hide.
>Giving them false identities and LYING that their mother is dead is NOT
>the way to do it.
So leaving them in foster care is? Sorry, I disagree with you.
>If the guy was the good father in other ways that he has apparently
>proved to be, at least as a material provider, what made him think the
>girls wouldn't be placed in his custody fairly quickly if the mother was
>going to be long-term rather than short-term unsuitable?
Let's see.. if you don't hvae the money to get an attorney, the state can
appoint one for you. Oh, you made more than $10,000 last year, we won't
appoint one for you. Got news for you, getting custody about the time that
we're talking about for a male was almost IMPOSSIBLE and easily cost about
$20,000. Given the descriptions of his ex wife, I have little doubt that
he was broke. Between the burden of dealing with what was going on, the
medical debt, and the legal fight, I'm sure that he had a boatload of debt,
and no options.
>No, he had no right to tell them their mother was dead. No right at all.
And the court had no right to take his children away from him, forcing the
issue.
Speed Thomas
I'm going to fix my 'Newreader' while I 'learn to use my computer
properly'.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
--
TNT
Kim <kgi...@micron.net> wrote in message
news:3753EDC9...@micron.net...
> Speed, I was going to ask the same thing....but geez. After you got
your
> arm cut off for it, I decided to back off. Must be one of the
> anti-Stalinist feminist people. TOUCHIEEEEEEE!!!
>
> :::tossing some bandages & a cute nurse to Speed:::
>
> Kim
>
> Max Burke wrote:
> >
> > >Speed Thomas wrote in message
<7itr6j$j...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
> > >Hey Max.....time out.....
> > >Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
> > >sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we
start
> > >over????
> >
> > Well maybe if you fix your Newreader you'll be able to follow
through the
> > responses to the crap you posted in the first place....
> >
> > But it doesn't surprise me you dont know how to use your computer
> > properly....
> > ---------------------------------
> > # Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can
never
> > fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of
providing
> > emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred-it is the
amphetamine of
> > its believers.
> >
> > Arianna Stassinopoulos (b. 1950), Greek author. The Female Woman,
"The
> > Liberated Woman? . . . and Her Liberators" (1973).
florid...@hotmail.com
<sth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>That's OK Kim......
>
>I'm going to fix my 'Newreader' while I 'learn to use my computer
>properly'.
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
<snicker>
At least you do not have an 18 line sig file ...
Floridanewbie
Ted W.
Victoria Lee wrote:
> If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
> court?
I don't know, why did escaped christians run rather than face the
lions at the coliseum?
Ted W.
violate the constitution once more and write a second bill of attainder.
Can you imagine all this for a male who has kidnapped his child?
Philip Lewis
Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <3754c075...@news.netdirect.net>...
|On Sat, 29 May 1999 22:08:34 -0000, "Philip Lewis"
I did indeed "pay attention" and I still maintain that the argument I
responded to is a "pound of flesh" argument.
|
|Victoria Lee
--
florid...@hotmail.com
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
I wonder why psychiatrists, psychologists and other counselors have
soooo many people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even 60s trying to deal
with problems traced to their early childhood memories and training.
If what you suggest is the correct model of human behavior, once people
reach adulthood, they should have no mental health issues with which to
deal.... the evidence speaks otherwise. We accumulate a lot of baggage
in life but it may take some event/trigger to unleash the effects down
the road. We have no idea what problems, if any, these women will
face once the reality of their situation sinks in.
There are female incest victims who still love and support their fathers
because they have that despicable behavior confused with love.... and
no, I am not suggesting any such abuse occured in this case.
Some parents expend a lot of thought on whether to let Santa Claus or
the Tooth Fairy into their children's lives because they worry those
innocent "lies" may somehow come back to haunt them once the child
learns the truth. This daddy had no problem with a much bigger lie.
Not long ago some TV program (perhaps 60 Minutes) did an expose on
missing children in South America ... not where parents had kidnapped
kids but where authorities grabbed children of poor people and gave
(sold) them to wealthy people to raise as their own. These kids grew
up in nice houses, had all the advantages and got good educations which
prepared them to join the upper class ... Since you seem to equate
material well-being/advantages to good parenting, I guess you would
have to applaud this despicable practice as also being in the best
interests of the children.
>Taking all of the above into consideration, do you believe these two ADULT
>women should be subject to legal action that will force them to change their
>minds and make them associate with their mother when they dont want to, and
>that they have to stop supporting their father???
>
>If so tell me why..
>Be specific; cite ANY US law that can EVER make that happen....
I have already said this was ill-advised... in fact it was downright
stupid. I have to wonder at the lawyer who would file such a case.
Even when parents are not divorced, there is no way to compel adult
children to do such a thing.
>>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>>married money and lived in a nice big mansion.
>
>And you think the alternative was preferable; That they lived with an
>alcoholic mother or in foster homes all their lives just to ensure they
>continued to have a relationship with their alcoholic mother????
You must be following this case a LOT more closely than I have followed
it and have information I have not seen ... If the father had no
problems and was a fit parent, I find it hard to believe those children
would have been left in foster care for their entire lives.... but we
will never know that since he grabbed them and ran.
How many cases do you know where one parent is deemed fit and the other
is deemed unfit where the children are put into permanent foster care
rather than custody being granted to the fit parent? Is New Zealand
that much different from the US?
>>Would people feel the
>>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>
>How do you associate that with the way they WERE cared for....
> The logic 'escapes' me....
He grabbed the kids and ran ... the kids lucked out in that he was able
to get into a desirable situation and provide them with what appears to
be a wonderful "Father Knows Best" upbringing. He just as well could
have wound up an embittered, broken man who was incapable of caring for
the kids in any fashion the rest of us would admire .. had that
happened, he would not be the poster boy for father's rights. What he
did (running) was wrong!
<snip>
>>As for the kidnapping charges, the mother may have no control over that -
>if the crime is on the books and if there is no
>>statute of limitations, the State has no choice but to prosecute the
>offender if he/she is found.
>
>What of the mitigating circumstances; Of him being the father, why wasn't HE
>awarded custody rather than placing them in foster care, and the way he has
>cared for his daughters, no one can claim they have NOT been cared for to
>the best of his ability.
Yes indeed... WHY were the kids put into foster care instead of his care
or the care of a stable relative? So far I have yet to see anyone
address this issue. As biased as the courts were and are, fathers in
the US generally get custody if they want it if the mother skips out or
is deemed unfit.
You are looking at how things turned out twenty years later, not at
whatever the facts were in 1979. Since I have no idea what went on
back then, I cannot comment other than to be suspicious there is a whole
lot more to the story than has been told.
<snip>
>>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
>
>For all that he has done to care for and raise his daughter he does......
Can we apply this as a general rule to all custody cases? The parent
with the strongest feelings gets to grab the kids and take off, cutting
the other parent out of the loop forever?
If this cannot be the general rule, then something is wrong here and I
stand by my assertion that the father in this case does NOT deserve
praise.
Floridanewbie
Wilbur Streett
>
>I wonder why psychiatrists, psychologists and other counselors have
>soooo many people in their 30s, 40s, 50s and even 60s trying to deal
>with problems traced to their early childhood memories and training.
because they need clients.
Often to the point where they attempt in inject memories of events that
didn't happen, etc..
Everything is the parents fault, no matter what..
and that has NOTHING to do with this situation. What makes you think that
the children would have had a healthy childhood in FOSTER CARE? Subjected
to a mother that is so stupid and vindictive as to try to jail the father
of her children at the same time that she is trying to FORCE them to spend
time with her? Destroying their privacy, subjecting them to specious court
actions?
Pat Winstanley
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes
>What does THAT tell you about them and him????
It says they love him.
But why should that prevent them from seeing their mother?
(Which was the question I asked - why don't they want to even *meet*
her?)
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes
>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37557db...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:43:27 +1200, "Max Burke"
>><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>Well let's see.... Both of them know ALL the facts...
>>>That their father kidnapped them...
>>>That he lied about their mother...
>
>>>That she was an alcoholic....
>
>>Assumption. Actually all I have seen is his statement that she was an
>>alcoholic.
>
>from the home 20 years ago, after they received concerned reports from
>neighbours having to feed the girls.....
>
>What does that TELL you.....
>
>Even if she wasn't alcoholic but was ill then that as well should have been
>enough to investigate the problems of the girls being left to wander the
>neighbourhood and being fed by the neighbours....
>
>
>>>That the were placed in foster care rather than placed in their fathers
>>>custody (why did THAT happen???)
>
>>That's what I want to know. If this man was so wonderful and a
>>Harvard professor then why didn't he receive at least temporary
>>custody of them.
>
>bureaucracy....
>
>You know, that fathers dont make good primary care givers....
Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
step in to look after them instead?
Pat Winstanley
Marg Petersen
Max Burke <mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>Marg Petersen wrote in message <7is9vg$pen$1...@kira.peak.org>...
>>In article <37516d81....@news.monmouth.com>,
>>>>court?
>
>>>They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
>
>>If the children were placed in foster care, there was obviously
>>some question as to HIS suitability as the custodial parent in
>>the first place.
>
>
>In fact there is no evidence to suggest any such thing....
Oh, and you would know his how? Why were the *girls* not
placed in HIS custody rather than being placed in foster
care?
[snip of rest of attempted insults directed at me]
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~goddess
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
Marg Petersen
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <7iu6sb$7sa$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>, Max Burke
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes
>>Victoria "Lee" wrote in message <37557db...@news.netdirect.net>...
>>><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>>Well let's see.... Both of them know ALL the facts...
>>>>That their father kidnapped them...
>>>>That he lied about their mother...
>>
>>>>That she was an alcoholic....
>>
>>>Assumption. Actually all I have seen is his statement that she was an
>>>alcoholic.
>>
>>from the home 20 years ago, after they received concerned reports from
>>neighbours having to feed the girls.....
>>
>>What does that TELL you.....
>>
>>Even if she wasn't alcoholic but was ill then that as well should have been
>>enough to investigate the problems of the girls being left to wander the
>>neighbourhood and being fed by the neighbours....
>>
>>
>>>>custody (why did THAT happen???)
>>
>>>That's what I want to know. If this man was so wonderful and a
>>>Harvard professor then why didn't he receive at least temporary
>>>custody of them.
>>
>>bureaucracy....
>>
>>You know, that fathers dont make good primary care givers....
>
>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>step in to look after them instead?
Very good questions, Pat. And ones that some here would
prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
for the level of care that their children are receiving,
not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
children were put into foster care, would suggest that
NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
his kids.
>Pat Winstanley
Stephen Lajoie
Victoria Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 29 May 1999 07:33:54 -0700, "Speed Thomas"
> <sth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Phil.....
> >
> >You couldn't be more wrong.....Victoria is probably one of the most
> >fair minded individuals that I have had the pleasure to meet.
>
> It won't do any good. It's standard fare for certain types of
> fanatical posters. If you disagree with them, it's not possible that
> you merely have a different opinion because of what you personally
> have experienced.
Nope, not at all. Where you're wrong is assuming that the solution toyour
situation should be applied to all situtations, even those that
don't resemble yours.
> They believe have that opinion because you are a
> _________ (fill in their particular name calling vocabulary) and
> because you differ with them they then feel they have the right to
> call names. Think back to grade school and you'll get the picture.
>
> Victoria Lee
Stephen Lajoie
Speed Thomas wrote:
[snip]
> How you can assume that I take one side or the other based on the
> above is beyond me.
Rather obvious, either you were reading her post and called it"fair
minded", meaning you agree - or you weren't reading her
post and just fired one off in the middle of a thread without knowing
what the issues are - in which is a mild violation of usenet ettiquette.
> I am not trying to offend you Allister.......I
> hope that this makes my 'position' clear. I do not have a position on
> this subject at this time.
Why are you posting? I think this is a bit of a dishonesty. You're
notpassive agressive are you? Are you one of those who tries to please
everyone?
Wilbur Streett
>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>step in to look after them instead?
>
>Pat Winstanley
Gee, my bet is that he was trying to work enough to pay the bills that she
ran up during the incident when the neighbors feed the kids and child
welfare was called.
Wilbur Streett
>Very good questions, Pat.
No, they are not.
>And ones that some here would
>prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
>for the level of care that their children are receiving,
>not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
>that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
>And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
>care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
>that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
>children were put into foster care, would suggest that
>NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
>to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
>would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
>poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
>his kids.
The father demonstrated that he was able to care for his kids, no matter
how much you want to pretend otherwise.
Wilbur Streett
> True, I agree with Marg. However there is a slight flaw in
>your argument Marg and that is you forget the parents had divorced.
>She was given custody of the kids. It is safe to assume that he was
>not living in the same house with the children else, the entire thing
>would have been moot.
Which goes further to prove that the Family Court messed up seriously with
their actions.
Marg Petersen
Allister H. Huggins <hug...@idirect.com> wrote:
>On 31 May 1999 12:32:33 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3e3uhLAj...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>>Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>>>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>>>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>>>step in to look after them instead?
>>
>>prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
>>for the level of care that their children are receiving,
>>not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
>>that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
>>And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
>>care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
>>that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
>>children were put into foster care, would suggest that
>>NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
>>to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
>>would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
>>poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
>>his kids.
>>
>your argument Marg and that is you forget the parents had divorced.
And? I mean HIS parental rights had not been terminated, right?
He was STILL the father and had visitation? If not, why not?
>She was given custody of the kids. It is safe to assume that he was
>not living in the same house with the children else, the entire thing
>would have been moot.
It doesn't matter *where* he was living if he still had parental
rights and responsibilities. The kids should have been placed
with him, as the *other* parent, IMO. UNLESS, of course, there
was some reason for that not being the case. Was there?
>Allister H.
perriganwhite
>
> In article <7ittpf$ftj$1...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>,
> Max Burke <mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
> >>Marg Petersen wrote in message <7is9vg$pen$1...@kira.peak.org>...
> >>In article <37516d81....@news.monmouth.com>,
> >>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> >>>hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee") wrote:
> >
> >>>>If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
> >>>>court?
> >
> >>>Because the Courts had already demonstrated that they were not be trusted.
> >>>They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
> >
> >>If the children were placed in foster care, there was obviously
> >>some question as to HIS suitability as the custodial parent in
> >>the first place.
> >
> >Because it's NOT obvious at all.
> >
> >In fact there is no evidence to suggest any such thing....
>
> Oh, and you would know his how? Why were the *girls* not
> placed in HIS custody rather than being placed in foster
> care?
Posted from a "woman's" point of view. You have assumed that the courts
are fair and just toward fathers and always determine the best interest
of the children. By extention, you assume that the left arm of the
court, the police, have the best interest of society in mind when they
stop blacks based on racial profiling. By extention, you assume that it
was in the best interest of society to have America's first segregated
bathrooms, drinking fountains, and cafaterias in the White House in
Washington,D.C.
Continue, by all means, to snip what you call insults but what I call
laziness in pursuit of knowledge and lack of empathy and support for
your fellow human beings....perry
>
> [snip of rest of attempted insults directed at me]
>
> >mlvb...@replaceme.co.nz
>
Marg Petersen
>wrote:
>><snip>
>
>>> True, I agree with Marg. However there is a slight flaw in
>>>your argument Marg and that is you forget the parents had divorced.
>>
>>And? I mean HIS parental rights had not been terminated, right?
>>He was STILL the father and had visitation? If not, why not?
>
>
> That is true. He had visitation rights but as the article
>states, this _WAS_ the height of the "tender years" doctrine where
>even if there were extenuating circumstances, the chances of the
>father winning custody were very slight.
I don't and never have agreed with the "tender years" doctrine.
And if indeed this father had some visitation (at least) and was
using it, he should have been able to discern a problem with
the kids, IMO.
>>>She was given custody of the kids. It is safe to assume that he was
>>>not living in the same house with the children else, the entire thing
>>>would have been moot.
>>
>>It doesn't matter *where* he was living if he still had parental
>>rights and responsibilities. The kids should have been placed
>>with him, as the *other* parent, IMO. UNLESS, of course, there
>>was some reason for that not being the case. Was there?
>>
> Hmm..well apparently, the day after the neighbours had to feed
>and clothes the children, he tried for full custody.
>She been accused of being an alcoholic and was suffering from
>nacroplesy.
I think you mean "narcolepsy".
The courts gave custody for 3 days and then ordered the
>children placed with Child services who then gave back the children to
>the mother. (Ok, now i'm getting pissed off at the idiotic judge in
>this case. What the hell was the judge thinking by placing the
>children with child services? Obviously, nothing was wrong with the
>father otherwise he wouldn't have had custody for the 3 days.)
That seems very peculiar to me as well. Why didn't Children's
services leave the kids with the mother?
> The kids were considered to be well-cared for and had no signs
>of abuse. (Well, a nacropletic does not have time to abuse children,
>so of course there is no abuse, and as for being well-cared for, well
>duh, the mother had the neighbours)
> If anything, this whole mess probably could have been avoided
>by giving custody to the father in the first place. If he had custody,
>he would have had no reason to run. The mother could see her kids
>during her visits. The family should sue the judge. (Which judge in
>their right mind, gives _BACK_ custody to an accused alcoholic and a
>woman with nacroplesy when the children are only 18months and 5 years
>old? ). Frankly, I don't see this case happening today since judges
>actually _think_ about what they are doing.
One would definitely hope so. Of course, the kids eventually
wound up in foster care, no? Was that a temporary thing at
least until the father could get legal custody (through the
court)? I mean it does take some time but not forever to get
one's child OUT of foster care. I know of some fathers who
have done so.
> Custody prior to the 70s - Father gets custody based on the
>belief that since he provides an income, the children are better off.
No, actually, not. Moms got custody because of the tender years
doctrine no matter HOW bad the mother was, UNLESS she was unfaithful.
(I know, my next door got custody of their 3 kids. She was a terrible
mother, IMO. This was 1955 and HE was the unfaithful spouse.) It was
more about who committed adultery than who was the better parent.
> Custody in the 70s - Tender years doctrine. Children are best
>left with their mother.
> Custody in the 90s - What would be in the best interests of
>the child.
> Hey, at least we are making progress....
Well, progress will be, IMO, when BOTH get joing custody *because*
they BOTH were caregivers for their kids.
>Allister H.
Max Burke
>In article <37516d81....@news.monmouth.com>,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
>>hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee") wrote:
>>>If he had nothing to hide then why did he run rather than face off in
>>>court?
>>Because the Courts had already demonstrated that they were not be trusted.
>>They had taken the children and put them into foster care.
>If the children were placed in foster care, there was obviously
>some question as to HIS suitability as the custodial parent in
>the first place.
Because it's NOT obvious at all.
In fact there is no evidence to suggest any such thing....
But knowing you, it doesn't pay to let the facts get in the way of you
posting your sexist bigotry to this venue....
You, like pargeon, should read up on the facts BEFORE trying to tell the
rest of us what ACTUALLY happened....
---------------------------------------------
# Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can never
fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of providing
emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred—it is the amphetamine of
Max Burke
>In article <37574ea8...@news.netdirect.net>, Victoria "Lee"
><hax...@scican.net> writes
>>>This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks
she
>>>has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
>>>forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
>>It's the only "communication" route she has.
>Does anyone know what reasons the daughters have given for not wanting
>to meet their mother?
>I have seen mention here about not wanting to do so until the charges
>are dropped, but who has actually brought the charges? If the girls were
>in foster care then they weren't kidnapped from her but from the state.
>Is he charged with kidnapping from her or from the state?
That is just their lawyer and New Media reporting, I cannot find anything on
the web of them specifically saying this.
From www.cnn.com
BOSTON (CNN) -- Rachael and Lisa Martin, two young women whose father is
accused of kidnapping them as children in a custody dispute and telling them
their mother was dead, reaffirmed on Monday their love, respect and support
for him.
Stephen Fagan was "the best mother, father and friend anyone could ask for"
Rachael Martin told reporters at a Boston hotel. It was the daughters' first
public statement since their father was arrested earlier this month.
The women, who were 2 and 5 years old when they were taken from
Massachusetts in 1979, said they were proud of Fagan, would stand by him and
described their father as a loving man whose full-time job was to raise
them.
On Monday, neither women made specific mention of their mother.
But both daughters indicated they believed their father's version of events.
"I can only hope that if I ever find myself in the same position that he
found himself ... that I will once again have the strength to follow in his
footsteps," Rachael said.
Lisa said she is certain that what took place 19 years ago "happened for a
good reason."
"My dad wanted us to be safe, to grow up happy, healthy and strong."
Here is what They had to say about their father at his trial on the 28th
May....
"For the past two decades, he has foregone his identity, profession and the
comfort of family and friends for our well-being," daughter Rachel Martin,
25, said. "Our father has dedicated his life to raising us and instilling in
us the knowledge, values and goals necessary to become independent women."
"We want the court to know that if we could retroactively give our father
the consent needed to take the action he did 20 years ago, we would do so
without hesitation," she added.
"By pleading guilty to these charges, our father has once again sacrificed
his own interests for us," Lisa Martin read from her statement. "He knows
that this trial, with the media attention that has accompanied it, would
place our lives in the public eye, denying us any privacy what-so-ever."
Lisa Martin, 22, also expressed gratitude to the district attorney's office.
The 'debate' over this case is yet another indication of the double standard
fathers are supposed to abide by; the over whelming complaint appears to be
HE had no right to lie to his daughters no matter what his motives was.
It is interesting to note that women the in the same position in the USA
(lose custody of their children to the father) apparently have an 'unground'
network specifically designed to kidnap their children; I would like to know
what these women tell their children when they start asking about their
absent fathers...
The FACTS are :
He LIED to them.
They KNOW that.
They BELIEVE his motives for the kidnapping and WHY he told them their
mother was dead.
They STILL support him 100%.
They STILL want nothing to do with their mother.
What does THAT tell you about them and him????
According to some they dont know what they want;
That he is controlling them as all fathers seek to do (guess who... pargeon
of course);
That in the years to come they will come to realise the 'truth', whatever
that may be since it is obvious they already know ALL the facts and motives,
and end up 'loving' their mother and hating their father....
Max Burke
>In article <37574ea8...@news.netdirect.net>, Victoria "Lee"
><hax...@scican.net> writes
>>>This woman (the mother) has serious problems with reality if she thinks
she
>>>has the right to force two adults to accept visitation from her let alone
>>>forcing them to actually LIVE with her....
>>It's the only "communication" route she has.
>Does anyone know what reasons the daughters have given for not wanting
>to meet their mother?
From what I have seen in a TV program (June/July last year) she was trying
to legally (in a court case) compel them to :
a.) force them to accept visitation or
b.) requiring them to live with her
I dont know if she is still trying to do this or if it even was possible for
her to bring such a case but if she was, it makes me wonder just how sincere
she was/is about her daughters and the decisions they have made....
Kim
arm cut off for it, I decided to back off. Must be one of the
anti-Stalinist feminist people. TOUCHIEEEEEEE!!!
:::tossing some bandages & a cute nurse to Speed:::
Kim
Max Burke wrote:
>
> >Speed Thomas wrote in message <7itr6j$j...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
> >Hey Max.....time out.....
> >Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
> >sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we start
> >over????
>
> Well maybe if you fix your Newreader you'll be able to follow through the
> responses to the crap you posted in the first place....
>
> But it doesn't surprise me you dont know how to use your computer
> properly....
> ---------------------------------
Max Burke
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 21:43:27 +1200, "Max Burke"
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> wrote:
>>Well let's see.... Both of them know ALL the facts...
>>That their father kidnapped them...
>>That he lied about their mother...
>>That she was an alcoholic....
>Assumption. Actually all I have seen is his statement that she was an
>alcoholic.
It was enough of a concern for the welfare authorities to remove the girls
from the home 20 years ago, after they received concerned reports from
neighbours having to feed the girls.....
What does that TELL you.....
Even if she wasn't alcoholic but was ill then that as well should have been
enough to investigate the problems of the girls being left to wander the
neighbourhood and being fed by the neighbours....
>>That the were placed in foster care rather than placed in their fathers
>>custody (why did THAT happen???)
>That's what I want to know. If this man was so wonderful and a
>Harvard professor then why didn't he receive at least temporary
>custody of them.
Probably because of court and welfare agency bias or more likely
bureaucracy....
You know, that fathers dont make good primary care givers....
>>That their mother is taking court action to force them to associate with
>>her....
>>And yet the STILL support their father 100%, and refuse to have anything
at
>>all to do with their mother....
>>It seems pretty clear to me that they are facing up to the situation NOW,
>>and have made up their minds about what THEY want to do....
>So what's your problem?
You are the one saying they are wrong to have made these decisions NOT me,
so it would seem it's YOU that has the problem with THEIR decisions and my
opinion. Why do YOU suppose that is.....
>>Taking all of the above into consideration, do you believe these two ADULT
>>women should be subject to legal action that will force them to change
their
>>minds and make them associate with their mother when they dont want to,
and
>>that they have to stop supporting their father???
>Not at all. Actually their behavior is very logical given the abuse
>they suffered.
Only if we accept they have in fact suffered abuse at the hands of their
father; Plainly they say no, and show NO indication of being abused. So in
the end it's just your supposition, bias, and opinion against their real
knowledge of the facts and the decisions THEY have made based on that
knowledge.... Guess who *I* believe.....
>>Regardless of the gender, it is wrong for a parent to kidnap a child and
>>build their lives on a false foundation. It is too bad he was not
>>caught long before now - the damage is done, no fine makes any
>>difference and now daddy is being presented as a wonderful, caring
>>parent who only did what was best for his children, in part because he
>>married money and lived in a nice big mansion.
>Because he lied to them. Which part of that phrase don't you
>understand?
They know he lied to them, I know, YOU know.
Yet they still support him 100%. Why do YOU suppose that is......
>>And you think the alternative was preferable; That they lived with an
>>alcoholic mother or in foster homes all their lives just to ensure they
>>continued to have a relationship with their alcoholic mother????
>"all their lives" Why wasn't the father considered fit to raise them?
How do you know he WASN'T?
What fact's of the case do YOU have that no one else has?
>>>Would people feel the
>>>same way if he had joined a cult, lived in poverty and had physically
>>>abused the kids all in the name of doing what he felt was best for them?
>>How do you associate that with the way they WERE cared for....
>> The logic 'escapes' me....
>Your lack of logic isn't my problem.
It's your lack of logic being discussed, my logic is not an issue you need
concern yourself about.... :-)
>>Forcing her daughters to associate with her certainly isn't going to
reverse
>>that situation is it....
>Actually it might reverse a lot of damage, but before the girls could
>face seeing her they would have to face the fact of their father's
>behavior.
Yeah right.
BTW they are NOT girls. The oldest is 25 and in Law school, they younger one
is 22 and at College.
They are women, Victoria, AND adults....
snip....
> .... she cannot regain the years she was cheated out of by her former
>husband.
>>Much like men in the same situation as this woman when they get forced out
>>of their children's live because of the personal problems they have....
Why
>>this woman should be seen as a different or special case has yet to be
>>proved...
>What exactly were her personal problems. All I have ever read was
>ALLEGED alcoholism.
Enough of a concern for the welfare agencies to take the girls into care
twenty years ago because of the neighbours concerns....
>The father in this case does NOT deserve praise.
>>For all that he has done to care for and raise his daughters he does......
>He raised them in lies and even when they because "adults" he still
>chose to LIE. Why? Why was this man so afraid of the truth?
He's afraid of the 'truth'? Just what is the 'truth' he's afraid of
Victoria?
Do YOU know something about this case that no one else knows???
They KNOW he LIED and kidnapped them, yet still support him 100%
---------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
The 'debate' over this case is yet another indication of the double standard
fathers are supposed to abide by; the over whelming complaint appears to be
HE had no right to lie to his daughters no matter what his motives was.
It is interesting to note that women the in the same position in the USA
(lose custody of their children to the father) apparently have an 'unground'
network specifically designed to kidnap their children; I would like to know
what these women tell their children when they start asking about their
absent fathers...
The FACTS are :
He LIED to them.
They KNOW that.
They BELIEVE his motives for the kidnapping and WHY he told them their
mother was dead.
They STILL support him 100%.
They STILL want nothing to do with their mother.
What does THAT tell you about them and him????
According to some they dont know what they want;
That he is controlling them as all fathers seek to do (guess who... pargeon
of course);
That in the years to come they will come to realise the 'truth', whatever
that may be since it is obvious they already know ALL the facts and motives,
and end up 'loving' their mother and hating their father....
----------------------------
Kim
the Oldone.
Hmmmmmmm.
Kim
Speed Thomas wrote:
>
> That's OK Kim......
>
> I'm going to fix my 'Newreader' while I 'learn to use my computer
> properly'.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
> --
> TNT
> Kim <kgi...@micron.net> wrote in message
> news:3753EDC9...@micron.net...
> > Speed, I was going to ask the same thing....but geez. After you got
> your
> > arm cut off for it, I decided to back off. Must be one of the
> > anti-Stalinist feminist people. TOUCHIEEEEEEE!!!
> >
> > :::tossing some bandages & a cute nurse to Speed:::
> >
> > Kim
> >
> > Max Burke wrote:
> > >
> > > >Speed Thomas wrote in message
> <7itr6j$j...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>...
> > > >Hey Max.....time out.....
> > > >Why don't you erase everything in this post and start over. I am
> > > >sorry.....I can't tell what was said by whom anymore.....can we
> start
> > > >over????
> > >
> > > Well maybe if you fix your Newreader you'll be able to follow
> through the
> > > responses to the crap you posted in the first place....
> > >
> > > But it doesn't surprise me you dont know how to use your computer
> > > properly....
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > # Feminism is an evershifting horizon, a total ideology that can
> never
> > > fulfil its promises. . . . It has the therapeutic quality of
> providing
> > > emotionally charged rituals of solidarity in hatred-it is the
Allister H. Huggins
wrote:
>In article <3e3uhLAj...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>>step in to look after them instead?
>
>Very good questions, Pat. And ones that some here would
>prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
>for the level of care that their children are receiving,
>not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
>that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
>And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
>care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
>that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
>children were put into foster care, would suggest that
>NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
>to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
>would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
>poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
>his kids.
>
True, I agree with Marg. However there is a slight flaw in
your argument Marg and that is you forget the parents had divorced.
She was given custody of the kids. It is safe to assume that he was
not living in the same house with the children else, the entire thing
would have been moot.
Allister H.
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>>prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
>>for the level of care that their children are receiving,
>>not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
>>that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
>>And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
>>care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
>>that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
>>children were put into foster care, would suggest that
>>NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
>>to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
>>would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
>>poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
>>his kids.
>
>how much you want to pretend otherwise.
If the father was caring for his children adequately, how come they at
the ages of, what, 5 and 2, were being so neglected that the neighbours
were having to feed them?
Why didn't he KNOW they were being neglected because their mother wasn't
able to care for them at that time? Why was it the neighbours who had to
alert the 'welfare' people? Why didn't *he* do so?
Or did he?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
>On 31 May 1999 12:32:33 -0700, god...@kira.peak.org (Marg Petersen)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3e3uhLAj...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
>>Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>>>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>>>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>>>step in to look after them instead?
>>
>>prefer to ignore. Parents, BOTH of them, are responsible
>>for the level of care that their children are receiving,
>>not just one of them. The responsibility to see to it
>>that their children are NOT neglected falls on both parents.
>>And if SHE was unable (or unwilling) to provide proper
>>care for their children, the onus was on HIM to see to it
>>that proper care was made available. The FACT that the
>>children were put into foster care, would suggest that
>>NO ONE was caring for the kids properly. Again, one has
>>to ask the question, "Where was dad?" Of course, Max
>>would prefer to believe that the "system" was against
>>poor old dad and that he had NO choice but to kidnap
>>his kids.
>>
>your argument Marg and that is you forget the parents had divorced.
>She was given custody of the kids. It is safe to assume that he was
>not living in the same house with the children else, the entire thing
>would have been moot.
And how often did he see them?
Could he not see they were distressed and neglected when he had time
with them?
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> writes
>Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Why was *he* allowing them to be neglected? Why wasn't *he* there
>>looking after them while their mother was ill? Couldn't he see that (for
>>whatever reason) she wasn't able to care for the children properly and
>>step in to look after them instead?
>>
>
>Gee, my bet is that he was trying to work enough to pay the bills that she
>ran up during the incident when the neighbors feed the kids and child
>welfare was called.
And what odds do you give your bet?
Pat Winstanley
Max Burke
><mlvb...@deleteme.co.nz> writes
>>What does THAT tell you about them and him????
>It says they love him.
>But why should that prevent them from seeing their mother?
No.
>(Which was the question I asked - why don't they want to even *meet*
>her?)
I cannot find anything they have said about it, but one thing is certain
that they DONT want to have anything to do with her at the moment.... A
few years down the track who knows, IMO I dont think it will ever happen....
A telling point is that the daughters and their mother were both at his
sentencing court appearance, they sat on opposite sides of the courtroom and
the daughter apparently did not even acknowledge that their mother was
present; In a written statement the handed to the judge they made no mention
of their mother, they just restated their FULL support for their father and
what he had done for them...
-----------------------------