Sharia Law: Battlefield London (kids, document, working, issues)

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by actonbell

At what level of the American court system does the United States Constitution begin to protect it's citizens? At all levels, yes?

Tazziz v. Tazziz - Google Scholar

So let me tell you a story about Pamela a U.S Citizen who married a mussleman named Ismail Tazziz. They resided in Jordan Israel for 22 years and they had 6 children together. Pamela is a U.S. citizen and therefore her children are given their birthright to also be U.S. citizens. (liken to that of the movie, "Not without my daughter) Pamela takes her minor children Hytham, a son sixteen years old; Amanda and Melinda, daughters, respectively fifteen and twelve years old; and Amar, a ten year old son; leaves Jordon and takes up residency in Massachusetts, Barnstable on or about May 28, 1988.

On June 9th, 1988 Pamela files for custody of her minor children, in a trial court (which is a lower level court than that of an appeals court) in the state of Massachusetts. The court contacts the father about the proceedings and he arrives. Before he left Jordon however, he sets up proceedings in a Sharia Court in Jordon Israel. (all though if he actually did, this is unconfirmed by the U.S. trial court judge)

At the hearing, the judge ruled that Massachusetts did not have jurisdiction over the case; and that the Sharia Court did, even though the case was filed in the residency of the mother which is in Massachusetts. (the Trial Court upheld Shariah) Requiring mother of four children to bring family to Shariah hearing. The judge based that decision on this bases [1] The father of the minors in his brief prior to the arguments in September, 1988, contended that the Probate and Family Court clearly had no jurisdiction at all under G.L.c. 209B in this situation. (of the The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/189181.pdf )

Pamela then takes her custody case to the next level of court, to the Appeals court. or (appellate court n. a court of appeals which hears appeals from lower court decision...) The court proceeds from September 14th - 28th 1988. The appeals court, reversed the decision of the trial court, guarantee of the U.S. Constitution that protects its citizens. [3]The father has been directed to submit his passport to the Probate Court and is restrained from removing the children from Massachusetts until the further order of the court. Temporary visitation rights have been stipulated.

Now, At what level of the American court system does the United States Constitution begin to protect it's citizens? At all levels, yes? Why was the mother not protected at the trial level, why did she have to appeal it? Because the daddy shows up and throws Shariah into the mix at the trial level of court proceedings.

Strel, if I need to further simplify this, I'm sure you will let me know.
[Note Star] This case was originally decided by memorandum and order on September 22, 1988, under Rule 1:28 of the Appeals Court. See post 1112 (1988). It later was represented (in behalf of the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court) to the panel which had decided this matter, that the decision would be helpful if published as an opinion. It was decided that the suggestion was proper. This opinion in general follows the original rule 1:28 memorandum and order with an appendix added and with minor revisions. -- REPORTER.

Strel, do you need for me to show the cases where this opinion has been cited and has had bearing on multiple cases?

Jordan and Israel are two different countries. Pamela was also a citizen of Jordan. They lived as residents in Israel. Pamela didn't take her oldest to Boston. She took the youngest three, without the knowledge or consent of her husband. She takes them to Massachusetts, where she immediately begins the process of applying for sole custody of her children. Her husband files for custody in Israel, where they have been living. Her husband then flies to the United States with the oldest minor son.

In the initial hearing, the Massachusetts court considers the pending custody hearing in the jurisdiction where the family lived, not the Massachusetts home where they'd lived for a WEEK. The pending custody hearing was being heard in ISRAEL, and the particular court was a Sharia court. The Massachusetts court did not render their verdict based on Sharia or any religious beliefs, the Massachusetts court rendered its verdict on a reasonable interpretation of where the children LIVED (years in Israel, one week in Massachusetts).

The appeals court determined that the initial court gave too much weight to the father's arguments and not enough weight to the mother's argument, or to the concerns of the children. Since the welfare of the children is the primary issue for custody decisions, the appeals court sent the case back to the first court.

Sharia law was NEVER a part of the proceedings at all.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by actonbell

At what level of the American court system does the United States Constitution begin to protect it's citizens? At all levels, yes?

Of course.

So let me tell you a story about Pamela a U.S Citizen who married a mussleman named Ismail Tazziz. They resided in Jordan Israel for 22 years and they had 6 children together. Pamela is a U.S. citizen and therefore her children are given their birthright to also be U.S. citizens. (liken to that of the movie, "Not Without My Daughter") Pamela takes her minor children Hytham, a son sixteen years old; Amanda and Melinda, daughters, respectively fifteen and twelve years old; and Amar, a ten year old son; leaves Jordon and takes up residency in Massachusetts, Barnstable on or about May 28, 1988.

Gosh, this is starting to sound familiar.

On June 9th, 1988 Pamela files for custody of her minor children, in a trial court (which is a lower level court than that of an appeals court)

No kidding. I think I remember something or other about that from law school, or perhaps last week when I was doing oral argument at the District Court of Appeal.

in the state of Massachusetts. The court contacts the father about the proceedings and he arrives. Before he left Jordon however, he sets up proceedings in a Sharia Court in Jordon Israel. (all though if he actually did, this is unconfirmed by the U.S. trial court judge)

Because she punted. And the appellate court said that was wrong for her to do. That's what this case is actually about, not Sharia law. The judge wrongly determined that she had no jurisdiction.

At the hearing, the judge ruled that Massachusetts did not have jurisdiction over the case; and that the Sharia Court did

Only by default.

, even though the case was filed in the residency of the mother which is in Massachusetts. (the Trial Court upheld Shariah)

No, it most certainly did not. It made an erroneous jurisdictional ruling.

Requiring mother of four children to bring family to Shariah hearing. The judge based that decision on this bases [1] The father of the minors in his brief prior to the arguments in September, 1988, contended that the Probate and Family Court clearly had no jurisdiction at all under G.L.c. 209B in this situation. (of the The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/189181.pdf )

Pamela then takes her custody case to the next level of court, to the Appeals court. or (appellate court n. a court of appeals which hears appeals from lower court decision...)

Just stop it. Really.

The court proceeds from September 14th - 28th 1988. The appeals court, reversed the decision of the trial court, guarantee of the U.S. Constitution that protects its citizens. [3]The father has been directed to submit his passport to the Probate Court and is restrained from removing the children from Massachusetts until the further order of the court. Temporary visitation rights have been stipulated.

Yes, and? You are incorrectly invoking the Constitution here. It was a straight issue of jurisdiction.

Now, At what level of the American court system does the United States Constitution begin to protect it's citizens? At all levels, yes?

You really are thinking about this all wrong...that's not the issue here.

Why was the mother not protected at the trial level, why did she have to appeal it? Because the daddy shows up and throws Shariah into the mix at the trial level of court proceedings.

That's a serious misunderstanding of the case.

It has NOTHING to do with constitutional protections. It is a jurisdictional issue. The judge punted, and she shouldn't have, and the appellate court corrected her. Again, the system worked as intended.

Strel, if I need to further simplify this, I'm sure you will let me know.

No thanks, I actually got formal education in how to read cases from actual professionals.

Strel, do you need for me to show the cases where this opinion has been cited and has had bearing on multiple cases?

Again, no thanks. I can Shepardize all by myself.

You might want to Google that. I went to law school before things were all fancy and computerized.

The point is, you're missing the point. This case had nothing whatsoever to do with substantive Sharia law. The case is about jurisdiction. That it happens to involve a Sharia court in Israel is purely coincidental. It could just as well have been ANY other court.

The case does not mean what you think it means. I don't know how much simpler I can put that.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Strel

Of course.



Gosh, this is starting to sound familiar.



No kidding. I think I remember something or other about that from law school, or perhaps last week when I was doing oral argument at the District Court of Appeal.



Because she punted. And the appellate court said that was wrong for her to do. That's what this case is actually about, not Sharia law. The judge wrongly determined that she had no jurisdiction.



Only by default.



No, it most certainly did not. It made an erroneous jurisdictional ruling.



Just stop it. Really.



Yes, and? You are incorrectly invoking the Constitution here. It was a straight issue of jurisdiction.



You really are thinking about this all wrong...that's not the issue here.



That's a serious misunderstanding of the case.

It has NOTHING to do with constitutional protections. It is a jurisdictional issue. The judge punted, and she shouldn't have, and the appellate court corrected her. Again, the system worked as intended.



No thanks, I actually got formal education in how to read cases from actual professionals.




Again, no thanks. I can Shepardize all by myself.

You might want to Google that. I went to law school before things were all fancy and computerized.

The point is, you're missing the point. This case had nothing whatsoever to do with substantive Sharia law. The case is about jurisdiction. That it happens to involve a Sharia court in Israel is purely coincidental. It could just as well have been ANY other court.

The case does not mean what you think it means. I don't know how much simpler I can put that.

It is what it is. It is you who wishes to cause confusion so as not to out yourself. You are doing this with each and every one of your posts, I see it and my hope is that others will see that too. You first said, jurisdiction case... remember?

Tazziz v. Tazziz (1988) | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

This case involved a custody battle and the controversy over whether or not the outcome should be determined in a Sharia court. Some of the judge's sentiments to this case are expressed as follows:

"We remand the case to the Probate Court (for further consideration, if possible, by the same probate judge, after such additional evidentiary inquiry as she shall determine to be appropriate) on at least the following matters: (a) the date when proceedings were commenced in Israel and the nature and content of any pleadings there filed; (b) the nature and the composition of the Sharia Court and of the substantive law and principles which would be applied in Israel in that court ... to family custody disputes between Moslems having the nationalities of each of the parties to this case and of their minor children; (c) whether and to what extent the law which the Sharia Court should apply is consistent with Massachusetts law in respects already discussed ...."

PS: This case saw an appeals court which it should never have and it is stated why that happened.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

Jordan and Israel are two different countries. Pamela was also a citizen of Jordan. They lived as residents in Israel. Pamela didn't take her oldest to Boston. She took the youngest three, without the knowledge or consent of her husband. She takes them to Massachusetts, where she immediately begins the process of applying for sole custody of her children. Her husband files for custody in Israel, where they have been living. Her husband then flies to the United States with the oldest minor son.

In the initial hearing, the Massachusetts court considers the pending custody hearing in the jurisdiction where the family lived, not the Massachusetts home where they'd lived for a WEEK. The pending custody hearing was being heard in ISRAEL, and the particular court was a Sharia court. The Massachusetts court did not render their verdict based on Sharia or any religious beliefs, the Massachusetts court rendered its verdict on a reasonable interpretation of where the children LIVED (years in Israel, one week in Massachusetts).

The appeals court determined that the initial court gave too much weight to the father's arguments and not enough weight to the mother's argument, or to the concerns of the children. Since the welfare of the children is the primary issue for custody decisions, the appeals court sent the case back to the first court.

Sharia law was NEVER a part of the proceedings at all.

Jurisdiction on the part of the father having said he filed it in a Shariah Court, back home.

Yes the mother had duel citizenship (she was born in the U.S.), does that make her less than a U.S. citizen along with her, minor children? Never did I say she brought with her, her adult children.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by actonbell

Jurisdiction on the part of the father having said he filed it in a Shariah Court, back home.

Yes the mother had duel citizenship (she was born in the U.S.), does that make her less than a U.S. citizen along with her, minor children? Never did I say she brought with her, her adult children.

You DID say she brought all four of her minor children with her. She didn't. The OLDEST minor child came to the United States WITH HIS FATHER.

Jurisdiction because the family resided in Israel. They lived in Israel. For years. They didn't live in Massachusetts. Pamela didn't live in Massachusetts. She fled to Massachusetts, and a week later sued for custody. What are the residency requirements in Massachusetts? Her children weren't just American citizens. They only acquired American citizenship through her, they were born elsewhere, and had citizenship elsewhere. Jurisidiction is an issue when it involves multiple countries.

The father filed for custody in an Israeli court---because he and his family LIVED in Israel.

And clearly her dual citizenship didn't make her less than a US citizen, she was given full access to the American court system to hear her case. And the judge who first heard her case, and decided that jurisdiction was in Israel---WHERE THEY LIVED, WHERE PAMELA AND HER FAMILY LIVED, also put a hold on that order taking affect so that an appeal could be filed and heard. Not exactly a pre-emptive decision.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

You DID say she brought all four of her minor children with her. She didn't. The OLDEST minor child came to the United States WITH HIS FATHER.

Jurisdiction because the family resided in Israel. They lived in Israel. For years. They didn't live in Massachusetts. Pamela didn't live in Massachusetts. She fled to Massachusetts, and a week later sued for custody. What are the residency requirements in Massachusetts? Her children weren't just American citizens. They only acquired American citizenship through her, they were born elsewhere, and had citizenship elsewhere. Jurisidiction is an issue when it involves multiple countries.

The father filed for custody in an Israeli court---because he and his family LIVED in Israel.

And clearly her dual citizenship didn't make her less than a US citizen, she was given full access to the American court system to hear her case. And the judge who first heard her case, and decided that jurisdiction was in Israel---WHERE THEY LIVED, WHERE PAMELA AND HER FAMILY LIVED, also put a hold on that order taking affect so that an appeal could be filed and heard. Not exactly a pre-emptive decision.

Let the readers of this thread decide, what is.

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by actonbell

Let the readers of this thread decide, what is.

The facts are the facts.

Sharia law had nothing to do with the decisions of the American courts.

The wife fled Israel to the United States and within days of her arrival filed for custody of the minor children. She didn't live in the United States, nor did her children. Her husband filed for custody in the country they did live in. The court heard the husband's argument, that custody should be determined in the court system of the country where the family LIVED, and concurred, but also put a hold on its ruling so that the mother could file an appeal. The appeals court took into consideration the husband's argument, but felt that the wife's argument regarding the safety and well-being of her children had equal merit and was not considered by the lower court. They kicked the case back to the lower court, where the woman won. Because her argument that Israel was a dangerous country in 1988, where bombs and shootings were common, had merit, and the welfare of the children is always the primary consideration in American custody hearings.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

The facts are the facts.

Sharia law had nothing to do with the decisions of the American courts.

The wife fled Israel to the United States and within days of her arrival filed for custody of the minor children. She didn't live in the United States, nor did her children. Her husband filed for custody in the country they did live in. The court heard the husband's argument, that custody should be determined in the court system of the country where the family LIVED, and concurred, but also put a hold on its ruling so that the mother could file an appeal. The appeals court took into consideration the husband's argument, but felt that the wife's argument regarding the safety and well-being of her children had equal merit and was not considered by the lower court. They kicked the case back to the lower court, where the woman won. Because her argument that Israel was a dangerous country in 1988, where bombs and shootings were common, had merit, and the welfare of the children is always the primary consideration in American custody hearings.

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.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by actonbell

This case involved a custody battle and the controversy over whether or not the outcome should be determined in a Sharia court. Some of the judge's sentiments to this case are expressed as follows:

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.

[Randomstudent]

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."