ALgore put on some pounds
Posted on 12/06/2006 12:44:35 PM PST by presidio9
A father embroiled in a custody dispute posted a phony ad on the Internet offering to give away his five-year-old boy to make his wife look bad, investigators said Wednesday.
The ad, written as if it were placed by the mother, listed the boy as "free to a good home" on the popular Craigslist.org website.
"I've had him now for five years. I've somewhat abused him, but I cannot control myself or him," the ad read. "I have mental problems. DCF (The Department of Children & Families) won't remove him. His father lives in California and has no contact with him. I don't make enough money to support him and myself."
Raymond Lawrence Lee, 50, of El Cajon, Calif., told detectives he was upset with the child's mother when he placed the ad the day after Thanksgiving, said Mike Ward, a spokesman for the Escambia County Sheriff's Office. The ad has been taken down.
The mother has custody of the boy. Investigators went to the mother's Pensacola home and found the child was safe. Ward said there had never been a DCF investigation of abuse of the child.
Ward said he didn't think there were any charges that could be filed against the father. He said they notified authorities in San Diego.
San Diego police spokeswoman Monica Munoz said the case had been referred to the Internet Crimes Against Children task force.
There was no phone listing for a Raymond Lee in El Cajon or for the mother, Mary Steele, in Pensacola.
We're only getting one side of the story here, as usual.
It's libel. Plain and simple. She should press charges.
"One boy! Boy for sale!
He's going cheap...
Only seven guineas,
That or thereabouts.
Small boy! Rather pale---
From lack of sleep..." *
*"Oliver" on Broadway
If she does, in fact, "somwhat abuse him," then it's not libel. Fathers get generally screwed by the courts in custody disputes, that's a fact. You should have seen the uproar when here in New Hampshire activists tried to pass a law to require the courts to mandate equal parenting time unless they could clearly demonstrate why they shouldn't.
You'd have thought they were demanding that the kids be fed into a chipper or something - the nerve to think that kids need their fathers!
I actually played Dr. Grimwig in a full scale production of Oliver.
One boy,
Boy for sale.
He's going cheap.
Only seven guineas.
That -- or thereabouts.
Small boy...
Rather pale...
From lack of sleep.
Feed him gruel dinners.
Stop him getting stout.
If I should say he wasn't very greedy...
I could not, I'd be telling you a tale.
One boy,
Boy for sale.
Come take a peep.
Have you ever seen as
Nice
A boy
For sale.
I am very disappointed that this was a hoax. I wanted to eat that baby. Get in mah belly!
"Get in mah belly!"
LOL! "I want my babyback, babyback, babyback."
ALgore put on some pounds
My comment was based on the article, which stated that there were no reports lodged with the agency against her, as was stated in the publication.
Again: THAT IS LIBEL.
Looks to me like it said "DCF won't remove him". If no complaints have been filed that is true. Not Libel
The implication is there. That is damaging to the persona. Case closed.
But you aren't a doctor, you only play one.
"I've somewhat abused him, but I cannot control myself or him," the ad read. "I have mental problems. DCF (The Department of Children & Families) won't remove him."
Unsubstantiated statements made public like this are damaging to the reputation of what appears [on investigation] to be a perfectly normal woman.
He should be castrated.
No amount of money could make me take a five year old boy!
They are awful at that age..in fact awful until about 35
It was damaging to no one's persona unless they were named.
This article states it was "written as if it were placed by the mother", but it does not say that it named her.
Additionally, in order for her to be publicly damaged the "public" had to know who it was. Even if the woman was actually named she is NOT a famous individual and there were NO remarks listed that publicly distinguished this Mary Steele from the thousands of other non-famous Mary Steeles in California then she has no case. All the above aside, the alleged libel must cause her actual damages in order for her to be awarded "damages".
You would lose your case, if you could find a lawyer stupid enough to try to take it to court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.