Women Stage Protest at Larimer County...

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#21 Sep 27, 2007
Educated wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah and he's definately NOT sharing...lol!
Sorry, I ended up answering one of your posts twice with similar wording, because the first one didn't show up. So I answered it again, and then the other one was there too.I'm not going senile. Really.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#22 Sep 27, 2007
Marine Corps Vet wrote:
<quoted text>Okay, you're probably going to think I'm a real jerk for this, What do you think?
I don't think anyone thinks that you're a jerk, but I don't think you're grasping the full scope of the situation.

“Semper Fi baby!!”

Since: Aug 07

Arvada Colorado

#23 Sep 27, 2007
Kaelynn wrote:
<quoted text>The one story has absolutely nothing to do with the other. And it was NOT just harrassment. Did you read the original story? I know, there ARE a lot of women out there who are just out to make the Ex husband's life a living hell out of anger. There are a lot of men who get taken for a ride and $crewwed over who don't deserve it. But there are a LOT MORE women out there are really suffering, who are being raped and then ignored when they try to file charges because they aren't taken seriously, and who are too afraid to stand up for themselves. They needed an advocate and if this woman is willing to do that then more power to her. Again, this isn't something she's doing just for herself because of her own situation. Did you see the original story on the news when they interviewed her in person? Did you read the original article where she spoke of everything he had done to her? She isn't lieing.
Boy I knew I was opening a can of worms here! I haven't seen the stories you're referring to. I've only read the story you pasted into this thread above, and the one that was posted last week. They both essentially said the same thing. My comments came from that information, along with the experiences of my friends. If this woman was being physically abused and emotionally traumatized by this guy and the judge is forcing them to meet face to face alone, then he's an idiot, and of course I don't agree with that. I'm not so obtuse that I turn a blind eye to this ongoing problem (spousal abuse)in society, but I also know that people will tend to exaggerate for personal gain. The bigger the gain, the bigger the exaggeration. That is a fact. It may not be the case here (and definitely not the case with everyone), but it is a fact. Don't get me wrong here, I'm by no means standing ground one way or the other, merely stating another possibility.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#24 Sep 27, 2007
Educated wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe harassment is the only thing she could prove? That doesn't mean there's not something more serious going on.... what if he's threatened to kill her or something? We don't truly know what the harassment charge was for.
Plus, the story said he PLEADED GUILTY to domestic abuse harrassment. That doesn't mean he wasn't charged with something worse. Most likely he was charged with battery or something and it was pleaded down. They will plead just about anything down to get a guilty plea and get it overwith. That doesn'tmean it wasn't much worse than they made it sound.

“Semper Fi baby!!”

Since: Aug 07

Arvada Colorado

#25 Sep 27, 2007
Kaelynn wrote:
<quoted text>Plus, the story said he PLEADED GUILTY to domestic abuse harrassment. That doesn't mean he wasn't charged with something worse. Most likely he was charged with battery or something and it was pleaded down. They will plead just about anything down to get a guilty plea and get it overwith. That doesn'tmean it wasn't much worse than they made it sound.
I said that in my other post.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#26 Sep 27, 2007
Marine Corps Vet wrote:
<quoted text>Boy I knew I was opening a can of worms here! I haven't seen the stories you're referring to. I've only read the story you pasted into this thread above, and the one that was posted last week. They both essentially said the same thing. My comments came from that information, along with the experiences of my friends. If this woman was being physically abused and emotionally traumatized by this guy and the judge is forcing them to meet face to face alone, then he's an idiot, and of course I don't agree with that. I'm not so obtuse that I turn a blind eye to this ongoing problem (spousal abuse)in society, but I also know that people will tend to exaggerate for personal gain. The bigger the gain, the bigger the exaggeration. That is a fact. It may not be the case here (and definitely not the case with everyone), but it is a fact. Don't get me wrong here, I'm by no means standing ground one way or the other, merely stating another possibility.
It's all good. And you're right. There are plenty of nutty women out there. "Hell hath no fury"

“Change... It's a good thing!”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, CO

#27 Sep 27, 2007
Marine Corps Vet wrote:
<quoted text>Boy I knew I was opening a can of worms here! I haven't seen the stories you're referring to. I've only read the story you pasted into this thread above, and the one that was posted last week. They both essentially said the same thing. My comments came from that information, along with the experiences of my friends. If this woman was being physically abused and emotionally traumatized by this guy and the judge is forcing them to meet face to face alone, then he's an idiot, and of course I don't agree with that. I'm not so obtuse that I turn a blind eye to this ongoing problem (spousal abuse)in society, but I also know that people will tend to exaggerate for personal gain. The bigger the gain, the bigger the exaggeration. That is a fact. It may not be the case here (and definitely not the case with everyone), but it is a fact. Don't get me wrong here, I'm by no means standing ground one way or the other, merely stating another possibility.
I agree with you 100%... if you look at the other thread about this story, there is information in there that this guy barricaded himself with a handgun away from police... why does he have ANY custody at all??

Since: Jul 07

Littleton, CO

#28 Sep 27, 2007
Ok, gotta add my two cents worth since I already got into it deep on the other thread. First of all, if I remember correctly, they stated that this judge ordered such communication FOUR times. I can only imagine he's had hundreds of these cases. So it would indeed appear that he is finding this appropriate in only select cases. Second, found out that ex husband has joint custody, already knows where she lives, and communicates through her current husband's email. So it may be that the judge found no threat and that direct commuincation is better for the child. And as I stated in the last post, I consulted a psychology professor I know who worked for years with battered women, and was one herself. She said in joint custody cases she routinely would have them meet in person after they had completed generally 36 weeks of DV counseling. So such meetings when kids are involved do appear absolutely normal. And this story even admits this is common practice. And while it could be argued that the entire legal system has it wrong, this psychologist was NOT a judge or attorney, was a professional in this filed with far more knowledge of the issues than these protestors, and she personally and normally had the victims meet in person with their abusers. So I'll stick with my position on the original thread, that it may be that in some cases this meeting is appropriate and indeed in the best interest of the child, which is the paramount concern.

Since: Jul 07

Littleton, CO

#29 Sep 27, 2007
By the way, I also read in the Rocky Mountain News that the ex has only supervised visitation of the child, the order is for 10 hours of parenting classes, so NOT alone with eachother, and the email and phone number was becasue the ex still had a right to be able to contact his son. Just FYI on more info.

“Semper Fi baby!!”

Since: Aug 07

Arvada Colorado

#30 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
Ok, gotta add my two cents worth since I already got into it deep on the other thread. First of all, if I remember correctly, they stated that this judge ordered such communication FOUR times. I can only imagine he's had hundreds of these cases. So it would indeed appear that he is finding this appropriate in only select cases. Second, found out that ex husband has joint custody, already knows where she lives, and communicates through her current husband's email. So it may be that the judge found no threat and that direct commuincation is better for the child. And as I stated in the last post, I consulted a psychology professor I know who worked for years with battered women, and was one herself. She said in joint custody cases she routinely would have them meet in person after they had completed generally 36 weeks of DV counseling. So such meetings when kids are involved do appear absolutely normal. And this story even admits this is common practice. And while it could be argued that the entire legal system has it wrong, this psychologist was NOT a judge or attorney, was a professional in this filed with far more knowledge of the issues than these protestors, and she personally and normally had the victims meet in person with their abusers. So I'll stick with my position on the original thread, that it may be that in some cases this meeting is appropriate and indeed in the best interest of the child, which is the paramount concern.
Rick! How the heck are ya' buddy? I didn't know if you'd find all of us rational people over here. When 9News dropped the link, we all met up here. So far, we've avoided most of the haters. Welcome. Somehow, I knew you'd find this thread. I even mentioned you in an earlier post.

Since: Jul 07

Littleton, CO

#31 Sep 27, 2007
Additionally FYI: out of all the outrage at having to give her email address, I note that on MSNBC, Rocky Mountain News, and 9News, Sara Blom requested other women contact her with their stories at her email address mother4justice @yahoo.com. So one, she obvioulsy doesn't have a problem publishing her email address, and two, the name of the email address appears more like an advocacy group than just a mom being abused by the system. Not that such a thing makes her a liar, just that ther may be more of an agenda here than just her looking out for herself and her son. Just a thought.
WHAT

Denver, CO

#32 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
Ok, gotta add my two cents worth since I already got into it deep on the other thread. First of all, if I remember correctly, they stated that this judge ordered such communication FOUR times. I can only imagine he's had hundreds of these cases. So it would indeed appear that he is finding this appropriate in only select cases. Second, found out that ex husband has joint custody, already knows where she lives, and communicates through her current husband's email. So it may be that the judge found no threat and that direct commuincation is better for the child. And as I stated in the last post, I consulted a psychology professor I know who worked for years with battered women, and was one herself. She said in joint custody cases she routinely would have them meet in person after they had completed generally 36 weeks of DV counseling. So such meetings when kids are involved do appear absolutely normal. And this story even admits this is common practice. And while it could be argued that the entire legal system has it wrong, this psychologist was NOT a judge or attorney, was a professional in this filed with far more knowledge of the issues than these protestors, and she personally and normally had the victims meet in person with their abusers. So I'll stick with my position on the original thread, that it may be that in some cases this meeting is appropriate and indeed in the best interest of the child, which is the paramount concern.
I was wondering if you would make it over here.... Let's try this again & see if we can end civil like! I accept the professionals opinion that you are giving us but I also put a quote on this thread from a professional that would disagree with yours. Just like these forums professionals are going to have differing opinions & all these cases are going to be different so I don't think there will ever be a correct set of rules to follow. What I think is that there should be more education & maybe experience in a shelter or somewhere that the judge is off the bench - whether it is a male or female judge. I'm not saying in all cases it is wrong to put them together for the sake of custody but in most cases that I have heard personally it is just not going to be in the best interests of the children to witness the father treating the mother like an abuser treats the abused. There are several cases of murdered women who were not protected by the courts from their abusers - that's what I want to stop. Not at all the good men who are being falsley accused.

“Change... It's a good thing!”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, CO

#33 Sep 27, 2007
Kaelynn wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I ended up answering one of your posts twice with similar wording, because the first one didn't show up. So I answered it again, and then the other one was there too.I'm not going senile. Really.
'S ok no worries ;)
WHAT

Denver, CO

#34 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
Additionally FYI: out of all the outrage at having to give her email address, I note that on MSNBC, Rocky Mountain News, and 9News, Sara Blom requested other women contact her with their stories at her email address mother4justice @yahoo.com. So one, she obvioulsy doesn't have a problem publishing her email address, and two, the name of the email address appears more like an advocacy group than just a mom being abused by the system. Not that such a thing makes her a liar, just that ther may be more of an agenda here than just her looking out for herself and her son. Just a thought.
Seems logical to me that her mother 4 justice address is not her normal email address & was set up for this cause. I wouldn't want to have to change my personal email address - it's used for usernames on a lot of things - how confusing! Maybe her agenda is to unsure that all the women too scared for their live or their childrens lives to stand up & shout about their own stories have a voice?

Since: Jul 07

Littleton, CO

#35 Sep 27, 2007
WHAT wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wondering if you would make it over here.... Let's try this again & see if we can end civil like! I accept the professionals opinion that you are giving us but I also put a quote on this thread from a professional that would disagree with yours. Just like these forums professionals are going to have differing opinions & all these cases are going to be different so I don't think there will ever be a correct set of rules to follow. What I think is that there should be more education & maybe experience in a shelter or somewhere that the judge is off the bench - whether it is a male or female judge. I'm not saying in all cases it is wrong to put them together for the sake of custody but in most cases that I have heard personally it is just not going to be in the best interests of the children to witness the father treating the mother like an abuser treats the abused. There are several cases of murdered women who were not protected by the courts from their abusers - that's what I want to stop. Not at all the good men who are being falsley accused.
That may be true, but I think judges that do DV cases know more about the issue than you give them credit for. And my original point, which is not so pronounced here because clearly the tone of this thread is different, but it was the complete demonizing of this one judge. When clearly the practice is endorced by at least some professionals, and from this story is also common in the judiciary everywhere. So while some people may still want to change that, there is clearly no reason to attack this particular judge with venom for doing what appears to be something that is commonplace in these cases. I also fear the over zealous nature of these cases, where these women groups would have the man killed, and he would never see his child again. Well the law, that the judge is duty bound to uphold, doesn't see it that way. He still has rights as a father. So the court must consider things that no doubt are going to infuriate the victim. And again, to repeat, I do not have all the details on this case, I originally just didn't like the massive assumptions being made about this judge. The fact alone that he may have only ordered such a class a total of four times does suggest he is selective and is much more aware of the details of this and all of his cases than the advocacy groups. If every judge got thrown off the bench becaue one of the parties believed his ruling to be outrageous, we'd have no judges.

Since: Jul 07

Littleton, CO

#36 Sep 27, 2007
WHAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems logical to me that her mother 4 justice address is not her normal email address & was set up for this cause. I wouldn't want to have to change my personal email address - it's used for usernames on a lot of things - how confusing! Maybe her agenda is to unsure that all the women too scared for their live or their childrens lives to stand up & shout about their own stories have a voice?
Hey, I have no problem with her advocacy. Just that earlier there was mention of the mental abuse that could be used over email, well, he still could communicate with her on this one too. I also just have an issue that even a complete pig still has some rights with his child, and communication may be one of them.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#37 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
Additionally FYI: out of all the outrage at having to give her email address, I note that on MSNBC, Rocky Mountain News, and 9News, Sara Blom requested other women contact her with their stories at her email address mother4justice @yahoo.com. So one, she obvioulsy doesn't have a problem publishing her email address, and two, the name of the email address appears more like an advocacy group than just a mom being abused by the system. Not that such a thing makes her a liar, just that ther may be more of an agenda here than just her looking out for herself and her son. Just a thought.
I kind of thought that she had just created that address as a result of this situation, and that it wasn't her original private e-mail address.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#38 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true, but I think judges that do DV cases know more about the issue than you give them credit for. And my original point, which is not so pronounced here because clearly the tone of this thread is different, but it was the complete demonizing of this one judge. When clearly the practice is endorced by at least some professionals, and from this story is also common in the judiciary everywhere. So while some people may still want to change that, there is clearly no reason to attack this particular judge with venom for doing what appears to be something that is commonplace in these cases. I also fear the over zealous nature of these cases, where these women groups would have the man killed, and he would never see his child again. Well the law, that the judge is duty bound to uphold, doesn't see it that way. He still has rights as a father. So the court must consider things that no doubt are going to infuriate the victim. And again, to repeat, I do not have all the details on this case, I originally just didn't like the massive assumptions being made about this judge. The fact alone that he may have only ordered such a class a total of four times does suggest he is selective and is much more aware of the details of this and all of his cases than the advocacy groups. If every judge got thrown off the bench becaue one of the parties believed his ruling to be outrageous, we'd have no judges.
I agree with you on that. It said that this was a nation wide practice, at some point in one of the stories, and shouldn't have really targeted this one judge, which I didn't hear at first.

Since: Aug 07

LaLa Land

#39 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, I have no problem with her advocacy. Just that earlier there was mention of the mental abuse that could be used over email, well, he still could communicate with her on this one too. I also just have an issue that even a complete pig still has some rights with his child, and communication may be one of them.
I would agree with that, IF he hadn't at one point been weilding a weapon. At that point, I would be more worried about the safety of the children than the rights of the father.
WHAT

Denver, CO

#40 Sep 27, 2007
CO Rick wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true, but I think judges that do DV cases know more about the issue than you give them credit for. And my original point, which is not so pronounced here because clearly the tone of this thread is different, but it was the complete demonizing of this one judge. When clearly the practice is endorced by at least some professionals, and from this story is also common in the judiciary everywhere. So while some people may still want to change that, there is clearly no reason to attack this particular judge with venom for doing what appears to be something that is commonplace in these cases. I also fear the over zealous nature of these cases, where these women groups would have the man killed, and he would never see his child again. Well the law, that the judge is duty bound to uphold, doesn't see it that way. He still has rights as a father. So the court must consider things that no doubt are going to infuriate the victim. And again, to repeat, I do not have all the details on this case, I originally just didn't like the massive assumptions being made about this judge. The fact alone that he may have only ordered such a class a total of four times does suggest he is selective and is much more aware of the details of this and all of his cases than the advocacy groups. If every judge got thrown off the bench becaue one of the parties believed his ruling to be outrageous, we'd have no judges.
LOL - you're right about the we'd have no judges comment - I think we'd see the turnover rate in any profession skyrocket if that was doable. I'm not at all surprised that the magistrate is the one being attacked here - he is the final say - with that robe comes a huge responsibility & you'd better have your ducks in a row because you are dealing with peoples lives. With that being said none of us know the whole story so I guess we need to have faith (I use that loosely) in the system & hope they evaluate this judge based on the "claims" and either deem them false or true. I have never said even on the other thread that he should be removed & burned at the stake - I'm sure he got there by being good at what he does - I think more education &/or interaction would be adequate if it is confirmed that these claims are founded. And it's not necessarily that I am not giving him credit for knowing DV cases - I don't think he is stupid - but I do think that the abuser or alleged abuser can be a lot smarter & more vindictive that people give them credit for. The fact that he has only ordered this a few times is likely relevant but it only takes one mistake to jeapordize a life.... I'm trying to stay more civil on this thread & not take it to a personal level like I did on the other one but I will fully admit I am very skeptical.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 38 min EdmondWA 37,246
last post wins! (Feb '11) 1 hr _FLATLINE-------- 25,969
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 4 hr tbird19482 23,539
District 2 cops 7 hr Go Blue Forever 16
Event Rents {poor guest service/employee morale} 8 hr Hunter 41
Display Rainbow Flag? 8 hr Jyanita 8
New talent on spicyfreecams Sat roxpoxy 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages