Poll...Christines---Jail yes/no!

CourtTv.com ^ | 7-17-2002 | CourtTV

[f.Christian]

Trial was months ago---tape delay!

[f.Christian]

Vote now!!

[f.Christian]

Christines to jail?

49.5% Yes
50.4% No

[f.Christian]

Vote... here!

[headsonpikes]

Loading...SLOW!

Voting...NOT!

[f.Christian]

Interesting how emergency room workers..."had to leave the room"---when a band aid was taken off Lydia's head!

Telling!

[f.Christian]

49.9% Yes
50.0% No

[f.Christian]

50.2% Yes
49.7% No

[f.Christian]

The Defense's Case

Unlike the prosecution, which downplays the yearlong dispute between the defendants and the Oregon Department of Human Services, defense attorney Edgar Steele insists that the actions of the State of Oregon triggered the events of August 1, 2001.

Steele, in fact, hoped to be allowed to argue a "choice of evils" defense in this trial — a plan that was ultimately thwarted when Judge William Lasswell ruled against him.

Nevertheless, the defense hopes to convince the jurors that Brian and Ruth Christine were forced to act only after they struggled for a year with a governmental system prejudiced against them.

That is, of course, if the Christines were actually involved in the carjacking at all — a concession that the defense is not willing to make.

Despite all the facts that appear to support the state's charge that Brian and Ruth planned and carried out the events of August 1, Steele insisted that it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christines were indeed the people who took back their children from the state's custody. Not surprisingly, Steele argues that there is insufficient evidence for jurors to so find.

Most of the defense case, in fact, is built around evidence purporting to show that Brian and Ruth Christine are gentle people, good Christians and loving parents who would do anything to protect their children.

The defense challenges the SCF allegations that Bethany, Lydia, and Miriam were abused or malnourished at the time they were taken into protective custody. Photographs taken at the time show three young children who appear to be quite thin, but the defense argues that the children merely reflect the genetic makeup of their parents, who are both tall and slender.

And the Christines, both vegetarians who are raising their children to be vegetarians, deny that they ever withheld food from the girls — although they do admit that the family sometimes fasted as a religious practice.

Besides arguing the facts, the defense in this case disputes the law. Attorney Steele insists that the two top counts, robbery and kidnapping, have been overcharged, and are wholly inappropriate to the circumstances at hand. Brian and Ruth, for example, stand accused of stealing the state's van as well as personal belongings of Terrance Nelson and Jennifer Barrett — but the van and belongings were found only a few miles away from where they were taken, untouched and undamaged, with their value intact.

The defense refutes the kidnapping charges as well, arguing that neither Nelson nor Barrett were actually taken hostage against their wills, but merely directed to move a few feet up and out of the van. This action, according to attorney Steele, comes anywhere close to the definition of "kidnapping" as it is normally understood.

Steele also contends that the state cannot prove that the Christines intended to do anything on August 1, 2001 other than to rescue their wrongly-taken children and reunite their family.

The couple has many supporters who protested outside the Roseburg, Ore., courthouse and regularly appeared in the courtroom as observers, representing a wide spectrum of viewpoints and political positions.

Some were supporting Brian and Ruth's actions out of a specific frustration with the actions of Oregon's Services to Children and Families, a system they feel is corrupt. Others, leaning toward the camp of the political right, apparently have wider-ranging anti-government views, seeing the Christines as victims of overzealous and over-reaching government authorities. And some believe the Christines are religious martyrs, struggling against an aggressively secular system of government that has forsaken Christianity.

[f.Christian]

Strange case.

If the state...a bank---bounced your checks---seized your assets---put you through an audit---asset forfeiture...

prosecuted you for trespassing---bank property--bags(not money/chidren)...if you 'robbed' the bank to get your money(family) back...

wouldn't that tell the state case was weak---fictitous/wrong in the 1st place.

Who are the criminals here?

[f.Christian]

Strange case.

If the state...a bank---bounced your checks---seized your assets---put you through an audit---asset forfeiture...

prosecuted you for trespassing---bank property--bags(not money/chidren)...

if you 'robbed' the bank to get your money(family) back...

wouldn't that tell the state case was weak---fictitous/wrong in the 1st place.

Who are the criminals here?

Armed trespassing...removing tellers from their appointed stations---jobs?

This is a hit on the customers--patrons!

Ruth and Brian Barrow!

[f.Christian]

Pharisees - separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Matt. 9:14; 23:15; Luke 11:39; 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; 26:4, 5).

There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Matt. 5:20; 15:4, 8; 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Matt. 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Matt. 9:11; Luke 7:39; 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Matt. 12:39; 16:1-4).

From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.

[AppyPappy]

Who are the criminals here?

The people who pled guilty?

[f.Christian]

Two ply embossed toilet paper...your world!

[f.Christian]

Only lead foil can save us now...

if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---

the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism/pc-liberalism) is gone...

this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning---

NUCLEAR SOCIAL ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

When this thread is translated into English, please give me a call.

[f.Christian]

Good News For The Day


‘…The large crowd listened to him with delight. As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law.’ (Mark 12:3, 38)

Towards the beginning of this century, when Christianity was trying to thwart the advance of the evolutionary threat, an archbishop organized a conference of scientific persons, with a view to formulating a statement of the faith that would help maintain confidence. The meeting broke up without achieving its aim. Disappointed, the archbishop candidly stated, ’The religious faith of these men, real and deep as it is, will not go into articles and propositions.‘

At the latter end of the twentieth century, most people can still not house their faith in articles and propositions. The greater number of people do not, cannot think in categories familiar to theologians. A mother was reading Bible stories to her toddler; now and then she interrupted herself to give an explanation. Suddenly, the child turned to its mother and said, ‘I can understand it if you don't explain it.’ Not the facts, but the explanations of Christianity are a stumbling block to most people.

The witness given by New Testament Christians was remarkable in its simplicity. It consisted in the recital of certain facts, known by the disciples through their contact with Jesus. Many followed in the Way, on the strength of those facts. They discerned by reason of the witness of Jesus that religion could be interesting and vital. Before Jesus, they had moved around religion with discomfort. They thought that the religious world was not for them. But in Jesus they found what they could understand and easily follow. He was absolutely germane, apt. They could relate to him because-to use a modern expression-he was where they were at.

Christians must recall that the doctrines and creeds were built up as replies to persistent and subtle attacks on the gospel. They are there only as helps. If you or your non-Christian friends are not helped by them, they ought to be discarded. In the meantime, attach yourself to Jesus the best way you know how.

There was once a Lord Chesterfield who, in retirement, wrote concerning himself and his friend Tyrawley: 'Tyrawley and I have been dead two years, but we do not want it known,’ he said. There are some church doctrines that have been dead for years and the church has conspired to keep it secret. But common people are not deceived. They know a corpse when they see one. The discipline of high learning has its part to play in God's scheme.

There was a man who kept all of his wife's love letters. He made notes about each of them and put a synopsis on each envelope before tying them all together in neat bundles. What those arid synopses were to the messages of love inside each letter, so are interpretations to the real gospel. Explanations make many things clearer, but love left unexplained is clearer still.

Christ is his own evidence, his own explanation. As long as the Church bears witness to him, he will make himself known to men and women. They will understand him and adore him.

May it be so for you.

[f.Christian]

Some were supporting Brian and Ruth's actions out of a specific frustration with the actions of Oregon's Services to Children and Families, a system they feel is corrupt. Others, leaning toward the camp of the political right, apparently have wider-ranging anti-government views, seeing the Christines as victims of overzealous and over-reaching government authorities. And some believe the Christines are religious martyrs, struggling against an aggressively secular system of government that has forsaken Christianity

[dighton]

Voices in head .... DIAL TURNED TO 11 OUT OF POSSIBLE 10! TOTALLY MAXED OUT!

Haldol .... NO GOOD! KILLS FRIENDLY VOICES! ARE MY ONLY COMPANY!

[f.Christian]

bttt

[2sheep]

Anyone who votes "Yes" will go to jail or a camp with them.   Here's the promise:

Re 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.