Posted on 07/19/2002 10:35:43 AM PDT by cherrycapital
You act as though that $6000.00 came personally from your pocket. Depending on how many people live in the state, it probably equals out to less than 1 cent from each tax payer. And she does have to pay it, so it will be paid back eventually. Quit taking that point so personally and cut the mother a little slack.
Oh, I'm sure of it. Just do the taxpayers a favor: use a private attorney or do it pro se, not the court appointed and taxpayer funded attorney for the 1983 action.
You are truly a self absorbed, vile person.
If her civil rights were violated, she has the right to be represented by an attorney. And it would serve the state right having to pay for her representation since it was the state who did wrong against her.
Messianic Judaism is Biblical Judaism with Yeshua as the Messiah.
The Bible is taught while taking some teachings from the Torah. You claimed they would refer only to the Torah. I showed you that they teach from the Bible also.
From the link that you provided.
More recently I have been bothered that some Christians are deciding to call themselves Messianics even though their belief system remains unchanged from that of Christianity.
As is probably the case with the Hensons. She is described as a pastor's wife. Pastor being a common term denoting Christian deity.
It's the other way around. The Torah is the foundation of the faith, where the B'rit Chadasha (New Testiment) is sometimes referenced.
Click below for more info.
In any event, it's NOT Christian fundamentalism by ANY stretch of the imagination.
So you choose to ignore the above statement as pertaining to the Hensons?
She can find a private lawyer--certainly with a cause so great, she can find a lawyer to do it pro bono--or represent herself.
Amazing though--you advocate spending government money for representing convicted persons in civil rights actions? You might as well quintuple the staff at the public defenders office and assign lawyers to every probation and parole office, county jail, state prison and federal prison in the nation. There will be literally hundreds of thousands of 1983 actions filed in every state in the nation. Oh, and while you're at it, quintuple the amount of federal judges and support staff, quintuple the amount of federal courthouses, and quintuple the amount of staff for each county and state in the country, as well as the Justice department. That's what you want, right?
Boy, I thought conservatives were for less government spending, not more.
So you approve of government funded legal welfare? See, that's what it is. But hey, you're the kind of person that votes for every tax increase so government can spend more money. You've probably never saw a government program you didn't like.
And yeah, I want my money back. And I want it now.
What are you talking about? Your friend feels no compunction or guilt in sucking $6,000 out of taxpayer's pockets. Rather that whining about her, why don't you hold a fundraiser for her, pay off that 6 G's and she can be free to do whatever she wants.
BTW, where are you going to post a copy of the criminal complaint and copy of the pictures you claim you saw. Is there some reason why you're withholding it?
As Brian and Ruth Christine. They're doing 12 1/2 years and 7 1/2 years respectively, with a big assist from the Gastons and their pals.
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. FL forgets to mention that none of the charges BROUGHT by the Gastons have been deemed credible and that nobody has been charged in connection with those false allegations.
The Gastons have, however, been found guilty of defaming Ms. Hazel Spees and owe her $500k and change in the judgment rendered against them. Ms. Spees continues to teach elementary school with the full support of parents and community inspite of the lies publicly aired against her by the Gastons. No record of the Gaston's alleged appeal in 9th Cicuit Court of Appeals can be found by me. The true facts of the defamation case must be present in the appeal package. That is probably why the Gastons have not pursued it or have just not published the appeal at their site.
Why do you insist on keeping THEIR little girl in environments where she has been raped, abused, and molested?
As if anybody here had any actual say in the matter. This is the same guy who says others are vilifying good families? Idealism all stacked up on one side of the issue, again. According to Gastons, Melissa was adopted in 1999 and they have no idea where she is. Praise be.
What irritates me no end is that people are taking legal advice from people who have an agenda and will prey on others to further their agenda, like Brian and Ruth Christine, Kay Henson others we don't know about yet. And, as the Christines and Henson have found out, it's a one-way ticket to jail. The Christines had their parental rights terminated on three of their children; the other two have been placed with the paternal grandmother half-way across the country, and both will be spending years in the Oregon prison system. Henson keeps getting tossed in jail by her PO and has CPS breathing down her throat. I wonder if these "advocates" make a full disclosure when they latch on to these people: people that have used these methods run the distinct risk of going to prison and having their parental rights terminated, but it's going to be you that does the time and it's going to be you that has your parental rights terminated, not me.
It's sad that people are so gullible, but it's even worse that people prey on these gullible people.
Yeah, and I want my $10 TRILLION back, and I want it NOW.
I didn't know that Dems were allowed on a conservative forum. If you take a left, you can find your way back to DU.
Uh, the Gaston's WERE NEVER FOUND GUILTY, AS THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN CHARGED. Do you have a reading comprehension deficit disorder?
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.