Sociology > Education > Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means)
| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Jeff Strickland" |
| Date: |
02 Apr 2004 04:32:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
Yes, there is considerable discussion in regards to legal standing. To date,
Newdow has managed to show that he has standing despite his near total
separation from his daughter and her mother (whom he never had the balls to
marry).
Standing was an issue that was raised at least twice in the lower courts,
and Newdow managed to deflect it. Standing is an issue in every case because
a plaintif must be qualified to bring a case, or anybody could bring any
case at any time and tie up the courts making decisions that the plaintif
has no interest in.
Standing is an issue that should have shut Newdow down at the very beginning
of his suit. I have the same standing as Newdow. I could bring a suit on
behalf of Newdows child saying that I was harmed by her recitation of the
Pledge. We already know that she herself is not harmed because her legal
guardian has said so. But, that is not good enough for me, and I want to
press the issue on her (the child's) behalf because her guardian doesn't
know what's good for her. You see my lack of standing? Newdow has the same
lack of standing because he is not the child's guardian. To give Newdow
standing simply because he is the father of a child he never married the
mother of, gives him power over a woman that he should not have any power
over. If he was the legal guardian, then he could make decisions on the
welfare of the child. To give Newdow standing in this matter would be the
same as giving you or I standing on what the mother of the child thinks
should be proper way to raise a child.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
02 Apr 2004 09:04:28 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, there is considerable discussion in regards to legal standing. To date,
Newdow has managed to show that he has standing despite his near total
separation from his daughter and her mother (whom he never had the balls to
marry).
Do we know that it was his choice, her choice, or their choice not to
marry?
Standing was an issue that was raised at least twice in the lower courts,
and Newdow managed to deflect it. Standing is an issue in every case because
a plaintif must be qualified to bring a case, or anybody could bring any
case at any time and tie up the courts making decisions that the plaintif
has no interest in.
Standing is an issue that should have shut Newdow down at the very beginning
of his suit. I have the same standing as Newdow. I could bring a suit on
behalf of Newdows child saying that I was harmed by her recitation of the
Pledge.
You aren't the parent of Newdow's child and have NO rights over how
the child is raised. Newdow has rights even without custody.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
02 Apr 2004 09:22:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, there is considerable discussion in regards to legal standing. To date,
Newdow has managed to show that he has standing despite his near total
separation from his daughter and her mother (whom he never had the balls to
marry).
Do we know that it was his choice, her choice, or their choice not to
marry?
No, we don't know that. But we do know that this was the woman's second
child and no husband around for the first one... We know that she did
not become a born again Christian until AFTER the child in question
was born. We know she moved the child 3000 miles away and that Newdow
followed. And we know that Newdow has been granted joint custody.
Yet even before joint custody, the court order said that both parents were
to consult on "substantial decisions" relating to non-emergency major
medical care, dental, optometry, psychological and educational needs....
Standing is an issue that should have shut Newdow down at the very beginning
of his suit. I have the same standing as Newdow. I could bring a suit on
behalf of Newdows child saying that I was harmed by her recitation of the
Pledge.
You aren't the parent of Newdow's child and have NO rights over how
the child is raised. Newdow has rights even without custody.
See above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Goldwoman" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
04 Apr 2004 09:58:36 AM |
|
|
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404021918160.13281-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>...
<< ...we do know that this was the woman's second child and no husband
around for the first one... >>
Fascinating. Do you have a referent for this?
It suggests that this kind of lapse of morality is an established
pattern for her. Perhaps it is her standing which should be
questioned.
Ya know, some upstanding, moral citizens make it a habit to suggest
that popping out "out-of-wedlock" kids that way is unpardonable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
04 Apr 2004 11:00:36 AM |
|
|
On 4 Apr 2004, Emma Goldwoman wrote:
Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0404021918160.13281-100000@lab.oregonvos.net>...
<< ...we do know that this was the woman's second child and no husband
around for the first one... >>
Fascinating. Do you have a referent for this?
It suggests that this kind of lapse of morality is an established
pattern for her. Perhaps it is her standing which should be
questioned.
Ya know, some upstanding, moral citizens make it a habit to suggest
that popping out "out-of-wedlock" kids that way is unpardonable.
WIsh I did. There was brief mention of it in a couple articles I
read a few nights ago but nothing in depth. I'll have to try to
backtrack and keep looking.
One of the articles (I need to learn to bookmark more) also
mentioned that Newdow claimed the woman had forced herself on him.
I am also interested in the fact that she didn't become the born
again Christian until after the fact. I've tried to relate to that
in my own life... What if my husband had become a born again AFTER
we had agreed to have a family? That's a pretty significant change,
and it's quite likely had we not been married that I would not have
gone ahead and married him. Conflict regarding the rearing of
those children would have been inevitable too.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
02 Apr 2004 10:25:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Yes, there is considerable discussion in regards to legal standing. To date,
Newdow has managed to show that he has standing despite his near total
separation from his daughter and her mother (whom he never had the balls to
marry).
Standing was an issue that was raised at least twice in the lower courts,
and Newdow managed to deflect it. Standing is an issue in every case because
a plaintif must be qualified to bring a case, or anybody could bring any
case at any time and tie up the courts making decisions that the plaintif
has no interest in.
Standing is an issue that should have shut Newdow down at the very beginning
of his suit. I have the same standing as Newdow.
You are the genetic father of this child? You had a court order that said
you have the right to participate in joint decision-making regarding
psychology, education, etc., of the child? You then obtained joint custody
of the child? When did this happen, Jeff?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: "legal standing"-----(BUTTMASTER hasn't a clue what that means) |
02 Apr 2004 05:09:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Yes, there is considerable discussion in regards to legal standing. To date,
Newdow has managed to show that he has standing despite his near total
separation from his daughter and her mother (whom he never had the balls to
marry).
It takes more than a pair of balls to make a marriage. Perhaps she was
unwilling, or he was unwilling, to tie the knot. That doesn't make her
less of a mom or him less of a dad.
Where are the fathers' rights folks when you need 'em?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
