Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (78699)	4/23/2000 10:22:00 AM
From: Constant Reader	Respond to of 108807

Yes, your interpretation of my post was off-base.

To: Ilaine who wrote (78699)	4/23/2000 1:45:00 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

No, I am not an attorney. Perhaps I misunderstand the facts. These are the facts as I understand them: Divorced mother departs Cuba with son aboard boat. Boat sinks and most aboard, including mother, drown. Child survives two days at sea and is rescued by passing fishermen. Relatives living in Miami are awarded temporary custody of child while his fate is decided by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Father requests that child be sent to father's home in Cuba. Child did not live with father while in Cuba. Father obtains legal counsel to enforce his parental rights. INS reviews the case and determines that, in the opinion of the INS, the best interests of the boy will be served by returning him to his father, still resident in Cuba. The temporary custodians of the child, his closest resident relatives, disagree with the INS determination, obtain counsel, and file suit to protect the right of their ward to not be repatriated against his will or against his better interests. A court rules in favor of the INS and orders the boy returned to his father in Cuba. The legal custodians of the boy file an appeal, as allowed by law. The INS asks the appeals court to dismiss the appeal as being without merit. The appeals court rules that the case DOES have merit and that the child may not be forcibly removed from the United States. The court remains silent about who should have custody of the child - one of the points at issue in the appeal. The INS repeats its demand that the boy be handed over to them for delivery to the custody of the father, now resident in the United States. The current custodians of the child reply that until the Appeals Court makes its decision, the government's right to remove the child from their custody is open to question, that the court had the opportunity to order the surrender of the child while awaiting that decision but chose to remain silent. The family believes that silence is open to interpretation and requires further litigation to determine who is right. During this entire sad, sorry personal tragedy, the media attention creates a spectacle of great magnitude exacerbating the situation and heightening tension. The Attorney General of the United States of America orders the armed invasion of the home to enforce what she believes to be the law. No court order or permission is deemed necessary for this invasion of a private home. Negotiation fatigue and unsubstantiated rumor are sufficient cause. I am sure that you, or ten others, will enlighten me on the parts I have misunderstood. BTW, I think both the father and the relatives have the best interests of the boy at heart despite the fact that their solutions differ. They deserve their day in court to present their arguments on behalf of the child. Yes, I do think the process was abused by the Attorney General. I have long thought Janet Reno incompetent. She has done great damage to the integrity of her office, and undermined respect for the rule of law during her tenure. I do fear that her corrupt and incompetent stewardship will encourage future administrations to engage in even more egregious, highly-politicized, selective application of the administration of justice.

To: Ilaine who wrote (78699)	4/23/2000 3:45:00 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

MEA CULPA. This post was poorly worded and, as written, an unintended insult to many people. I wrote: I thought it had everything to do with Janet Reno's need to prove her manhood - a very boring and unnecessary routine that has harmed far more than it helped. The post was originally written with Madeleine Albright's infamous comments about "cowardice not cojones" in mind. I edited that as being tasteless - what I came up with instead was infinitely worse. I do NOT believe that women in positions of power have a need to prove their "manhood." I DO believe that Janet Reno has made numerous bad decisions, some with disastrous results, to prove her "mettle." I think of that as a throwback to a previous era that I had hoped we had left behind. I apologize for the insult (and the apparent Freudian equation of mettle with manhood).