U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-02-2011, 02:05 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,444,302 times
Reputation: 1407

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
The judge was directed to determine whether the findings of the Sharia court met our own standards for the welfare of the children.

You have posted nothing about what that determination was, because this case you keep posting ad nauseam did not address that issue. You continue to fail to understand this.

Really, please stop trying to practice law. You have no idea what you are talking about.
On the first paragraph, that is not what the trial judge did. If so, cite it, unless it sickens you to do so.

Second paragraph, the determination was not met at the trial level, but on the appeals level. Read [3] in the notes.
& determination:
*817
The judgment of dismissal entered by the Probate and Family Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in all respects consistent herewith. The rescript is to issue immediately. Costs of this appeal are to be in the discretion of the Probate Court.
So ordered.


Third, I am not practicing law. Nor am I too old to learn something.

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-02-2011 at 02:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2011, 02:12 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,444,302 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
I don't see what the big argument is here. The judge dismissed without doing enough research and the appeals court said (s)he did not gather enough information to do what (s)he did. This is mainly about jurisdictional issues so I am not sure where people are coming up with "creeping Sharia."
If the father (in this case) had not brought it up, we wouldn't even be looking at it, neither would the Appellate court have it on its docket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 07:25 AM
 
40,143 posts, read 24,369,621 times
Reputation: 12630
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Show where she was not a resident of Massachusetts the state in which the proceedings in the trial court in which she initiated custody June 9th, 1988 of her children began and were it states she is not a U.S citizen. In other words, where was Pamela born and did she at any time give up her birthright as a U.S. citizen?

All that is being done here is establishing Pamela's duel citizenship which the trial court had done already. These facts are not in dispute.

Same case two separate courts.
She lived in Israel. She was not a resident of Massachusetts, because she lived in Israel. She fled to Massachusetts with her three youngest children on May 28th. A few days later, she filed for custody. I never said anything about her citizenship, so you bringing it up makes no sense. I said that since she and her children lived in Israel with her husband, his custody suit in Israel had to be considered by the Massachusetts court. It was. Initially, the court gave precedence to the Israeli court, but the appeals court said that in giving precedence to the Israeli court the lower court had failed to adequately consider the mother's arguments regarding the safety and well-being of her children, which is the pre-eminent consideration of custody courts. So the lower court re-evaluated, and rather than focusing on jurisdiction, focused on the well-being of the children. Courts working exactly as they are designed to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 08:26 AM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,900,311 times
Reputation: 3192
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
On the first paragraph, that is not what the trial judge did. If so, cite it, unless it sickens you to do so.

Second paragraph, the determination was not met at the trial level, but on the appeals level. Read [3] in the notes.
& determination:
*817
The judgment of dismissal entered by the Probate and Family Court is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in all respects consistent herewith. The rescript is to issue immediately. Costs of this appeal are to be in the discretion of the Probate Court.
So ordered.


Third, I am not practicing law. Nor am I too old to learn something.
LOL

What you posted doesn't support your assertion. You are reading stuff into it that just isn't there.

I wish you would learn something, because you are reading this case very incorrectly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 9,022,835 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
If the father (in this case) had not brought it up, we wouldn't even be looking at it, neither would the Appellate court have it on its docket.
Don't you mean the mother? She was the one who brought the suit and the appeal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,444,302 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Don't you mean the mother? She was the one who brought the suit and the appeal.
Actually you can go farther back than that and say the mother was the one who brought it with her, because she was the one that came back from Israel and she brought the kids with her. You know honestly the nerve of some people. She should have just stayed there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,444,302 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
LOL

What you posted doesn't support your assertion. You are reading stuff into it that just isn't there.

I wish you would learn something, because you are reading this case very incorrectly.
Every one is entitled to their opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,771 posts, read 4,444,302 times
Reputation: 1407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
She lived in Israel. She was not a resident of Massachusetts, because she lived in Israel. She fled to Massachusetts with her three youngest children on May 28th. A few days later, she filed for custody. I never said anything about her citizenship, so you bringing it up makes no sense. I said that since she and her children lived in Israel with her husband, his custody suit in Israel had to be considered by the Massachusetts court. It was. Initially, the court gave precedence to the Israeli court, but the appeals court said that in giving precedence to the Israeli court the lower court had failed to adequately consider the mother's arguments regarding the safety and well-being of her children, which is the pre-eminent consideration of custody courts. So the lower court re-evaluated, and rather than focusing on jurisdiction, focused on the well-being of the children. Courts working exactly as they are designed to work.
If what you are thinking is true it could be cited from the case document.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:45 AM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 9,022,835 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
Actually you can go farther back than that and say the mother was the one who brought it with her, because she was the one that came back from Israel and she brought the kids with her. You know honestly the nerve of some people. She should have just stayed there.
I really don't see your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:48 AM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,900,311 times
Reputation: 3192
And also -


This case is from the 1980's. Well before Islamophobia in the wake of 9/11.

Where was the outcry over creeping Sharia then? It didn't exist, because we didn't have people getting on the Internet misreading case law out of their irrational fears.

The whole creeping Sharia thing is complete baloney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top