10 Americans charged in Haiti with kidnapping
Posted in the Rosenberg Forum
#1 Feb 4, 2010
Each was charged with one count of kidnapping, which carries a sentence of five to 15 years in prison, and one of criminal association, punishable by three to nine years. Coq said the case would be assigned a judge and a verdict could take three months. In Washington, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid said the U.S. government was still waiting for a report from its Embassy.
"But the 10 are accused of violating Haitian law and the case is proceeding under Haitian law through a transparent judicial process," Duguid said.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. was open to discuss "other legal avenues" for the defendants, an apparent reference to the Haitian prime minister's earlier suggestion that Haiti could consider sending the Americans back to the United States for prosecution.
But it's unlikely the Americans could be tried back home, according to Christopher J. Schmidt, an expert on international child kidnapping law in St. Louis, Mo. U.S. statutes may not even apply, he said, since the children never crossed an international border. That is "True".The Constitution and the bill of rights do not protect us.It is all in our rights.They threw our rights away.Due Process Of Law.Hope they make examples of these kidnappers.Have any idea how much money Social Security would pay for these Needy International Adopted,Oh excuse me Stolen children.Why not keep the family all together?Pay for it themselves,"Guardianship ".NO $$$$$$$$$$money in that.Talk about welfare.Puketh.
#2 Feb 4, 2010
The "Constitutional Right" to Be a Parent
Below are excerpts of caselaw from state appellate and federal district courts and up to the U.S. Supreme Court, all of which affirm, from one perspective or another, the absolute Constitutional right of parents to actually BE parents to their children.(Parents to their children means children "BORN TO" the Natural Genetic Parent's)
The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan,(1985).
The several states have no greater power to restrain individual freedoms protected by the First Amendment than does the Congress of the United States. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S Ct 2479; 472 US 38,(1985).
#3 Feb 4, 2010
Loss of First Amendment Freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Though First Amendment rights are not absolute, they may be curtailed only by interests of vital importance, the burden of proving which rests on their government. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S Ct 2673; 427 US 347,(1976).
Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or a heavy hand" was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356,(1886).
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs. Santosky v. Kramer, 102 S Ct 1388; 455 US 745,(1982).
Parents have a fundamental constitutionally protected interest in continuity of legal bond with their children. Matter of Delaney, 617 P 2d 886, Oklahoma (1980)..
The liberty interest of the family encompasses an interest in retaining custody of one's children and, thus, a state may not interfere with a parent's custodial rights absent due process protections. Langton v. Maloney, 527 F Supp 538, D.C. Conn.(1981).
Parent's right to custody of child is a right encompassed within protection of this amendment which may not be interfered with under guise of protecting public interest by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within competency of state to effect. Regenold v. Baby Fold, Inc., 369 NE 2d 858; 68 Ill 2d 419, appeal dismissed 98 S Ct 1598, 435 US 963, IL,(1977).
Parent's interest in custody of her children is a liberty interest which has received considerable constitutional protection; a parent who is deprived of custody of his or her child, even though temporarily, suffers thereby grievous loss and such loss deserves extensive due process protection. In the Interest of Cooper, 621 P 2d 437; 5 Kansas App Div 2d 584,(1980).
Add your comments below
|Albert Salazar||29 min||Heaven||1|
|Carol Longoria Salazar||42 min||Truth||1|
|Lonely housewives? (Aug '14)||Apr 16||Junction||2|
|'Cartoonish' sketch helps police identify suspect||Feb '18||Pardon Pard||1|
|Two people have been charged with the capital m...||Feb '18||Walter glen stock...||4|
|Six Houston-area Luby's cafeterias to close (Nov '09)||Jan '18||FART GRIND||3|
|Overcharging phone company let off hook (Jul '09)||Jan '18||FART SUPPLIERS||2|
Find what you want!
Search Rosenberg Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC