1 posted on
07/11/2002 6:32:36 PM PDT by
knak
To: All
2 posted on
07/11/2002 6:33:47 PM PDT by
Bob J
To: knak
This is SIGNIFICANT.
The entire premise of the lawsuite is null and void. The "father" had no legal authority to make the lawsuit. Further, he had to have lied as part of the lawsuit.
3 posted on
07/11/2002 6:36:40 PM PDT by
vannrox
To: knak
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said. The daughter is a regular church goer, and the mother is a Sunday school teacher.
This athiest guy is doing it to try to hurt them, not help his daughter. Now, the poor kid is hurt by it all.
Selfish ba$tard. He should be charged with purgery. He lied.
To: knak
Newdow is a legal phedophile!
To: All
did any of you see the interview with the "father" on the pulse tonight? i had no idea how creepy and stupid this guy is. he sounded completely incoherent. It would have gone worse for him if Bill O’Reilly had been quicker. The fact that Newdow conceded that atheism is a religion was a big mistake. Bill should have then said, “I thought you don’t want an established religion?” The guy would’ve had no recourse but to look like a total imbecile.
This article is further proof of that fact.
To: knak
I don't suppose that there is any chance now of actually discussing the article you posted on this thread, since those who have no sin and are qualified to cast the first stone have put the mother on trial here.
However, if anyone with legal knowledge gets this far down, I would like to know how the father could have legal standing to initiate the lawsuit if the mother has "full custody." If she has full custody, doesn't that mean that he has no right to act on the child's behalf in a court of law?
As for the rest, I think it takes a pretty disturbed mind to gang up on on the mother with this evidence before us of the father's foul manipulative use of his 8 year-old daughter to further his ideological goals. He has made her into a pawn in what is most definitely an attack on the religion in which she is being reared - that's one step from an abuser's state of mind: "The kid is a thing, that I can use as I see fit."
About the mother, we know only (a) that eight years or so ago she had sex outside marriage and got pregnant; (b) she is now an active church member and is bringing up her daughter in the Christian faith; (c) the way in which her daughter was used for anti-Christian purposes grieved her enough that she took the step of making a public statement, even though she surely knew that this would put the fact that she is an unmarried mother in newspapers all across the country and expose her to the mean-spiritedness of the self-righteous everywhere.
With that knowledge base, I would think that rushing to assume that she's a slut who has no business teaching in a decent Sunday school would risk bearing false witness against my neighbor a little too closely to be comfortable.
To: knak
She also said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling.
Hmmm, so the "father" was the one who, by his suit, actually harmed the daughter for his own ulterior motives. No wonder the woman wised up and never married him.
44 posted on
07/11/2002 9:34:09 PM PDT by
aruanan
To: knak
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said.
This pretty much sums it all up.
45 posted on
07/11/2002 9:35:25 PM PDT by
aruanan
To: knak
Maybe there's a court which could offer an opinion on the definition of "kook" so her father's status is clarified.
To: knak; JohnHuang2; dennisw
<< The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said. >>
And there stands exposed the typical self-serving, egomaniaical, psychopathological, totalitarian, socialifascist terrorist.
Who, hoist only by his own petard, stands revealed as the employer of tactics that work in precisely the same way as those employed by those equally as cravenly cowardly islamafascist terrorists who have called some of their own "refugees;" have subsequently designated a percentage, "palestinians" and; later, "jihadists" and; when they are eventually brainwashed and incited beyond imbecilic and have become manaically-maddened anonymous mass-murderers; are called "martyrs."
I guess this Evil creep; standing exposed as one willing, at dire threat to her soul and to achieve only his own ends, to have strapped the explosives on his eight year old child and to have sent her tiny body out to blow up Our Beloved FRaternal Republic; sees her as a necessary "martyr," too? And to have thus rationalized and justified his own unmitigated Evil!
God save US FRom him -- and FRom every other of Evil's manifestations.
To: knak
"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said. It's all about me me me!
No injury no case- as mentioned a week ago in another thread.
50 posted on
07/11/2002 11:46:59 PM PDT by
Kay Soze
To: knak
I believe the injured party here is the child. If I was the mother, I think I'd be inclined to sue HIM for abusing their daughter by dragging her into his fabricated lawsuit in the first place.
(Note to single women: Remember this lesson before hopping into bed with some stranger.)
I'm certain the mother will be burdened for the rest of her life, for ever sleeping with that slug!
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
