Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Jackson ordered to pay ex-wife's lawyer fees

Michael Jackson Debbie Rowe Custody Case Jackson Children 2006

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#41 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 05:29 PM

View Posttrikay, on Sep 16 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

But who will have custody...or have to share it at the very least is in dispute.

No, she is asking that someone change something that she signed away. He has custody and all the rights that go along with it until he is told by a court otherwise.

Quote

She started the legal proceedings to gain some custody rights or full custody and he left the country rather than deal with it.  Which meant that he likely is fearing that he will lose them to her.

Do you know that for a fact, or are you making an assumption? Have you spoken to Jacko directly? Have you given him a lie-detector test?

Quote

Wait, are you talking about financially paying for or emotionally paying for?

Financially.

Quote

Just because she now feels that she made a mistake in the past does not now mean that it can not be fixed.

But she gave her word. Shouldn't she be good enough to honor the word she gave?

Quote

I'm not sure how her parental rights were reliquished....if it involved a court proceeding or if it was just a personal agreement.

They were relinquished in court 3 years ago.

Quote

But every child has a right to know both parents.

I've read the constitution several times and I don't know any such mention of such rights. Could you clarify this for me?

Quote

These children will someday ask where their mother is...

I'm sure Jacko lets them watch TV.

Quote

and whatever answer he gives them can destroy them..

Lots of adopted children cope with such information every day.

#42 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:00 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

Um....I believe you answered your question your very own self, as Nonny pointed out. :p :p :p Custody is disputed.

Rhea, let's say I went to court challenging Jacko for custody. Would you say that the custody is in dispute? Of course not. His ex-wife gave up rights years ago; she's in the same position I am. She may want custody and she may try to get custody, but he has custody. The custody as it stands today is not in dispute.

When you go from one city to another, you see a city marker. Most were put up years ago. These boundaries are not in dispute. If someone realizes that it would be easier or better to move a marker, he may ask others to make a change; he may suggest ways to make the change; he may start a petition. But the boundary is not in dispute - it is what it is until it is changed.

I'm going to say this one more time and this is the last conversation on the subject I will have with you. Children are not chattel, or city boundaries - they are human beings.

Often between divorced parents circumstances change and new custody agreements and forged and reforged in court. Nothing is written in stone unless one of the the biological parens turns out to be abusive or a criminal, and sometimes not even then.

A custody agreement is exactly that - an agreement forged at a specific moment in time and subject to challenge and revision as circumstances change. And it is very much in dispute, and has been for some time.

Michael Jackson should never have been allowed to take those children out of the country while there was a pending custody case. Period. If he weren't a celebrity his kids would be back by now and his ass would be in jail for contempt. You just don't walk away from a custody case. Period.

Edited by Rhea, 16 September 2006 - 09:20 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#43 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:31 PM

View PostRhea, on Sep 17 2006, 01:00 AM, said:

I'm going to say this one more time and this is the last conversation on the subject I will have with you. Children are not chattel, or city boundaries - they are human beings.

That fact is irrelevant. What I'm trying to explain to you is that custody is black and white. You've either got it or you don't. When a couple is going through the process of divorce, the custody is in dispute; they both have an equal standing until it's decided in court. Jacko's childrens' custody has been decided in court. It's not in dispute. Someone wants to change that, but until that happens, Jacko has custody and is free to do with his children what he pleases.

Quote

Often between divorced parents circumstances change and new custody agreements and forged and reforged in court. Nothing is written in stone except unless one of the the biological parens turns out to be abusive, and sometimes not even then.

Who said anything about stone? Who said that things couldn't change. We're talking about here. We're talking about now. And here and now, at this point in time, Jacko has custody. Until a court decides otherwise, that fact is not in dispute.

Quote

A custody agreement is exactly that - an agreement forged at a specific moment in time and subject to challenge and revision as circumstances change. And it is very much in dispute, and has been for some time.

They're arguing about a future state, that is what will be or should be. At this point in time, Jacko has custody and that is not in dispute.

Quote

Michael Jackson should never have been allowed to take those children out of the country while there was a pending custody case. Period.

Nonsense. He has custody and until he's told otherwise, he can do as he pleases. Has the court told him otherwise? No; they haven't. If he was in some violation, we would have heard about it. He would have an arrest warrent sworn out on him. He has custody. He's allowed to do what he thinks is right. Period.

Quote

If he weren't a celebrity his kids would be back by now and his ass would be in jail for contempt.

In contempt of who or what?! There is no court order telling him that he or his children has to remain in this country. How many times has he been on trial now? The courts have told him repeatedly that his celebrity means nothing within the bounds of the court. They wouldn't even need testimony from others. They have proof that he was out of the country! If it wasn't legal for him to do that, he would have been arrested.

Quote

You just don't walk away from a custody case. Period.

Should he put his entire life on hold because someone disagrees with something that he did or said? What kind of life is that?

#44 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 08:59 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 03:19 PM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 16 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

What you said was, "Can you explain to me how something that has been decided in court can be in "dispute"? She's arguing ...."  You asked how this could be in dispute, then went on to supply the answer: an argument is involved.  You did this all your very own self.   :)

The argument she is making is who should have custody.
Yes, and that is what is in dispute.   :)

Quote

As I have said several times, the person who has custody is [/b]not[/b] in dispute.
Then that's not where the dispute lies, is it?   :rolleyes:

Quote

Quote

With a father like that, it's the kids who are paying.   :(

It sounds to me like your argument is still biased based on who the person is who is involved, rather than the simple reality of a woman who signed away her rights.
Um, hate to break this to you, but this dispute is between the persons involved.  My bias is based on my analysis of the behavior of the parties, and not on race, religion or any other insignificant features.  Your bias OTOH seems to be based on a misperception that this is a simple matter.   :oh:

BTW the woman involved is a person too, which you seem to doubt.

Nonny

Sure hope I finally fixed the quote tags, cuz if not, I give up.   :pout:

Edited by Nonny, 16 September 2006 - 09:16 PM.

Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#45 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 09:06 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 03:23 PM, said:

View PostRhea, on Sep 16 2006, 03:48 PM, said:

Um....I believe you answered your question your very own self, as Nonny pointed out. :p :p :p Custody is disputed.

Rhea, let's say I went to court challenging Jacko for custody. Would you say that the custody is in dispute? Of course not.
Correct, because you have no standing in the matter.  

Quote

His ex-wife gave up rights years ago; she's in the same position I am. She may want custody and she may try to get custody, but he has custody.
No she isn't.  She's the mother.  You aren't.  

Quote

The custody as it stands today is not in dispute.
Sure it is.

Quote

When you go from one city to another, you see a city marker. Most were put up years ago. These boundaries are not in dispute. If someone realizes that it would be easier or better to move a marker, he may ask others to make a change; he may suggest ways to make the change; he may start a petition. But the boundary is not in dispute - it is what it is until it is changed.
Placement of stones is not in dispute here.  Custody of children is.  Placement of stones would be a different court.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#46 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 09:12 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 16 2006, 03:29 PM, said:

View Posttrikay, on Sep 16 2006, 04:58 PM, said:

But who will have custody...or have to share it at the very least is in dispute.

No, she is asking that someone change something that she signed away. He has custody and all the rights that go along with it until he is told by a court otherwise.
And that is why this matter is in dispute.   :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#47 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 16 September 2006 - 09:22 PM

What Nonny said (thanks, Nonny!)  :D
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#48 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:51 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 01:59 AM, said:

Yes, and that is what is in dispute.   :)

Nonny, when people say that the custody is in dispute, then they're saying that we don't really know who has legal custody. In this case, we do know.

Did you see the Simpsons episode where they followed Snowball 2 out of the house one day and found that she was going to another house and spending time with another family? Both families wanted the cat. What would settle their problem? Well, if the Simpsons had a sales receipt or an adoption receipt, then they could prove that the cat is theirs. The ownership would be clear and would not be in dispute.

Jacko has court documents that show that the mother gave up her rights. Custody is clear. There is no dispute.

Quote

Um, hate to break this to you, but this dispute is between the persons involved.  My bias is based on my analysis of the behavior of the parties, and not on race, religion or any other insignificant features.  Your bias OTOH seems to be based on a misperception that this is a simple matter.   :oh:

I disagree. Also, I have no bias in this case, as I have clearly demonstrated.

Quote

BTW the woman involved is a person too, which you seem to doubt.

You may now either show a quote where I made any such assertion or retract that statement. You cannot read my mind and have no idea what I do or do not doubt.

Again, you're making an assumption, this time about me, based on bias.

#49 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 07:54 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 02:06 AM, said:

Correct, because you have no standing in the matter.

And neither does his ex-wife! She gave up custody!

Quote

No she isn't.  She's the mother.  You aren't.

Irrelevant. We're both people who have no custody rights. She wants them, but she doesn't have them. Being her biological mother doesn't make her any better a parent for those children than me.

Quote

Sure it is.

Um, is not.

Quote

Placement of stones is not in dispute here.  Custody of children is.  Placement of stones would be a different court.

Um, it's called an analogy. I noticed that the people who disagree about custody just dismiss the example without even arguing it. The example destroys their case.

#50 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 08:13 AM

Actually, she is contesting the original Custody Agreement, which is a common occurrance. Just because Jackson has Custody, it is subject to change based on the outcome of the current case.

Does this definition fit better, Broph?

Basically is is arguing Sematics at this point. The Case was in the hands of the court when Jackson chose to leave the country. This leads people to believe he is trying to avoid the battle.

http://www.findartic...26/ai_n16437973

Quote

A key issue Rowe is fighting about: Jackson taking their children Prince and Paris to live in Bahrain without her permission, reportedly using faked passports allowing them to travel overseas.

BTW: Even though she signed away her rights 5 years ago, A judge re-established them in February, therefore, many of your points have been disproven. Debbie Rowe does have parental rights and Jackson has denied her those rights in his flight.

http://www.sfgate.co...p;entry_id=5509

A little background:

http://site2.mjeol.c...hp?storyid=2120

Quote

Jackson and Rowe, who was a nurse in the office of Jackson's dermatologist, were married in 1996. Rowe gave birth to Prince Michael Joseph Jackson Jr. in 1997 and to Paris Michael Katherine Jackson in 1998. In 1999, Rowe filed for divorce.

Jackson got custody. Rowe received an $8 million settlement, along with a house in Beverly Hills. At first, she also had the right to visit the children every 45 days, but in 2001, she went back to court and asked the private judge, Stephen Lachs, to terminate her parental rights.

She said she felt like ``an intrusion on their life, and they're going to have enough intrusions as it is,'' according to a transcript. ``I'm absolutely around if Michael ever needs me, if the children need me for a liver, kidney, a hello, whatever, I will always be around for him.''

But she added, ``These are his children. I had the children for him.... They're his kids. They're not my kids.''

http://www.tmz.com/2...n-custody-case/
http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/4718818.stm
"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that donít even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)

#51 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:06 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 17 2006, 05:51 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 01:59 AM, said:

Yes, and that is what is in dispute.   :)

Nonny, when people say that the custody is in dispute, then they're saying that we don't really know who has legal custody. In this case, we do know.
Yes, and now it's in dispute.  

Quote

Did you see the Simpsons episode where they followed Snowball 2 out of the house one day and found that she was going to another house and spending time with another family? Both families wanted the cat. What would settle their problem? Well, if the Simpsons had a sales receipt or an adoption receipt, then they could prove that the cat is theirs. The ownership would be clear and would not be in dispute.
OMG first stones, now cats, and not real cats, but TV cats, and not even real TV cats, but cartoon TV cats!   :rolleyes:

Quote

Jacko has court documents that show that the mother gave up her rights. Custody is clear. There is no dispute.
And now there is.  

Quote

Quote

Um, hate to break this to you, but this dispute is between the persons involved.  My bias is based on my analysis of the behavior of the parties, and not on race, religion or any other insignificant features.  Your bias OTOH seems to be based on a misperception that this is a simple matter.   :oh:

I disagree. Also, I have no bias in this case, as I have clearly demonstrated.
No bias?  Sure you do, as you have clearly demonstrated.  

Quote

Quote

BTW the woman involved is a person too, which you seem to doubt.

You may now either show a quote where I made any such assertion or retract that statement. You cannot read my mind and have no idea what I do or do not doubt.
Here goes:

Quote

It sounds to me like your argument is still biased based on who the person is who is involved, rather than the simple reality of a woman who signed away her rights.
According to you in post #39 above, only one of the parties involved is a person.  

Quote

Again, you're making an assumption, this time about me, based on bias.
And that is the function of bias.  You choose your bias to assist listeners/readers to make the assumptions you want them to make.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#52 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:17 PM

View PostNatolii, on Sep 17 2006, 06:13 AM, said:

Actually, she is contesting the original Custody Agreement, which is a common occurrance. Just because Jackson has Custody, it is subject to change based on the outcome of the current case.

Does this definition fit better, Broph?

Basically is is arguing Sematics at this point. The Case was in the hands of the court when Jackson chose to leave the country. This leads people to believe he is trying to avoid the battle.
http://www.exisle.ne...ages/centre.gif
Align Center
http://www.findartic...26/ai_n16437973

Quote

A key issue Rowe is fighting about: Jackson taking their children Prince and Paris to live in Bahrain without her permission, reportedly using faked passports allowing them to travel overseas.

BTW: Even though she signed away her rights 5 years ago, A judge re-established them in February, therefore, many of your points have been disproven. Debbie Rowe does have parental rights and Jackson has denied her those rights in his flight.

Thanks for the information, Natolii.   :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#53 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 17 September 2006 - 01:25 PM

View PostBroph, on Sep 17 2006, 05:54 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 02:06 AM, said:

Correct, because you have no standing in the matter.

And neither does his ex-wife! She gave up custody!

Quote

No she isn't.  She's the mother.  You aren't.

Irrelevant. We're both people who have no custody rights. She wants them, but she doesn't have them. Being her biological mother doesn't make her any better a parent for those children than me.
Parents have standing in custody matters.  Outsiders, like you, do not.  You have no standing in this matter; the mother of the children does.  

Quote

Quote

Sure it is.

Um, is not.

Quote

Placement of stones is not in dispute here.  Custody of children is.  Placement of stones would be a different court.

Um, it's called an analogy. I noticed that the people who disagree about custody just dismiss the example without even arguing it. The example destroys their case.
We have no need to dispute your stone vs kids analogy because it doesn't work.  As an example, it damages your case, as do your self vs mother and cartoon cats examples.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#54 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 06:02 AM

View PostNatolii, on Sep 17 2006, 01:13 PM, said:

Actually, she is contesting the original Custody Agreement, which is a common occurrance. Just because Jackson has Custody, it is subject to change based on the outcome of the current case.

Does this definition fit better, Broph?

The point being that until he's told otherwise, as far as I've heard, he has custody and can do as he pleases.

Quote

Basically is is arguing Sematics at this point. The Case was in the hands of the court when Jackson chose to leave the country. This leads people to believe he is trying to avoid the battle.

If he took a walk in the park, would that lead people to believe that he was walking in the park to avoid the battle? People have all sorts of reasons for doing things. I'd say that the trial he had just been through was reason enough for him to want to leave the country. He's probably been to Bahrain many times before and knew how he'd be treated there as opposed to here.

http://www.findartic...26/ai_n16437973

Quote

A key issue Rowe is fighting about: Jackson taking their children Prince and Paris to live in Bahrain without her permission, reportedly using faked passports allowing them to travel overseas.

And do we have only her word for this? Has she seen the passports? Can't airport personnel see fake passports and with someone as high-profile as Michael Jackson, wouldn't there have been some sort of an alert saying he shouldn't be travelling outside the US with children, especially as he announced his intention to do so weeks before he actually travelled?

Quote

BTW: Even though she signed away her rights 5 years ago, A judge re-established them in February, therefore, many of your points have been disproven.

1) Nothing that I said earlier has been disproven given the facts up to the point of my statements.

2) Respectfully, it would be nice to have a better source than a blog that gives a rather vague summary of what they think may or may not be the situation.

BTW, I love the quote from the other article: "But she added, ``These are his children. I had the children for him.... They're his kids. They're not my kids.''

#55 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 06:09 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, and now it's in dispute.

No, it is not. So far, I've asked all my friends except for 2 lawyers that I know and not a single person has agreed with you. That's what I call the sniff factor.

Quote

OMG first stones, now cats, and not real cats, but TV cats, and not even real TV cats, but cartoon TV cats!   :rolleyes:

See, you won't even consider examples that oppose your viewpoint. When you see other examples, you see how clear things are, but you don't seem to be willing to even consider them.

Quote

And now there is.

Nope. He has custody, regardless of what a vague blog said.

Quote

No bias?  Sure you do, as you have clearly demonstrated.

Just saying that doesn't make it true. I've weighed the facts of the case without bias.

Quote

Here goes:

Quote

It sounds to me like your argument is still biased based on who the person is who is involved, rather than the simple reality of a woman who signed away her rights.
According to you in post #39 above, only one of the parties involved is a person.  

Since when are women not people? When I talk about Jacko as a person, I'm talking about evaluating him as the person he is; it wouldn't be valid to evaluate him as a man in this person. Calling his wife a woman is identifying her, it's not calling her a non-person.

I'm sorry, but your statement doesn't pass the sniff test.

Quote

And that is the function of bias.  You choose your bias to assist listeners/readers to make the assumptions you want them to make.

Oh brother. I'm sorry, but your statement is complete nonsense.

#56 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 06:12 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 06:25 PM, said:

Parents have standing in custody matters.  Outsiders, like you, do not.  You have no standing in this matter; the mother of the children does.

And as far as the law and courts go, she is no longer the mother.

Quote

We have no need to dispute your stone vs kids analogy because it doesn't work.  As an example, it damages your case, as do your self vs mother and cartoon cats examples.

LOL. That's funny. You don't actually explain your position, you just dismiss it as if it weren't there and pretend that my statements actually work against me, without a shred of support for your own statements.

If you want to state your opinion, that's fine, but when you argue the facts, there needs to be support for what you're actually saying. My examples showed support. Thus far, you haven't supported your arguments. I think all you've done is wasted my time.

#57 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:17 AM

View PostBroph, on Sep 18 2006, 04:12 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 06:25 PM, said:

Parents have standing in custody matters.  Outsiders, like you, do not.  You have no standing in this matter; the mother of the children does.

And as far as the law and courts go, she is no longer the mother.
I'd like to see some proof that there is a court in this country that goes farther than denial of custody and proclaims denial of parenthood to an actual biological parent.  

Quote

Quote

We have no need to dispute your stone vs kids analogy because it doesn't work.  As an example, it damages your case, as do your self vs mother and cartoon cats examples.

LOL. That's funny. You don't actually explain your position, you just dismiss it as if it weren't there and pretend that my statements actually work against me, without a shred of support for your own statements.
No, I'm dismissing yours.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#58 Broph

Broph
  • Islander
  • 6,671 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:27 AM

View PostNonny, on Sep 18 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

I'd like to see some proof that there is a court in this country that goes farther than denial of custody and proclaims denial of parenthood to an actual biological parent.

Nonny, we're not talking about biology. We're talking about custody and law. A court can't proclaim that an eagle is not an eagle, but it can proclaim that an eagle's home may or may not be protected.

Quote

No, I'm dismissing yours.

Actually, that's not what you said. You said "it doesn't work". You made a statement, making a proclamation of the validity of a statement, yet you failed to support that statement, and you pretended that my examples damaged my position, again completely failing to actually support your statements.

Add that to the fact that you are inconsistent on the idea of custody in the abortion thread and I'll have to say that your position doesn't pass the sniff test.

#59 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:37 AM

View PostBroph, on Sep 18 2006, 04:09 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, and now it's in dispute.

No, it is not. So far, I've asked all my friends except for 2 lawyers that I know and not a single person has agreed with you. That's what I call the sniff factor.
You haven't asked the lawyers?   :suspect:   The real sniff factor here is that you are trying to present the putative opinions of a nonrandom sampling of personal friends as some kind of evidence.   :rolleyes:

Quote

Quote

OMG first stones, now cats, and not real cats, but TV cats, and not even real TV cats, but cartoon TV cats!   :rolleyes:

See, you won't even consider examples that oppose your viewpoint. When you see other examples, you see how clear things are, but you don't seem to be willing to even consider them.
I considered your examples and found them wanting.  That's hardly the same thing.   :rolleyes:

Quote

Quote

And now there is.

Nope. He has custody, regardless of what a vague blog said.
He has full custody, and now it is in dispute.  

Quote

Quote

No bias?  Sure you do, as you have clearly demonstrated.

Just saying that doesn't make it true. I've weighed the facts of the case without bias.
Have you not shown an inclination or preference toward one of the parties in this dispute?  

Quote

Quote

And that is the function of bias.  You choose your bias to assist listeners/readers to make the assumptions you want them to make.

Oh brother. I'm sorry, but your statement is complete nonsense.
It is not.
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#60 Natolii

Natolii
  • Islander
  • 1,246 posts

Posted 18 September 2006 - 10:37 AM

Would be nice if you have examples that actually pertain to the situation. Ownership of pets and inanimate objects is not the same as the custody of children, TYVM. As a parent, I actually resent that such a case could be so blithely compared as such.

Also, while I did link in blogs, I also linked in Legitmate New services such as the BBC. So you may chose to disregard at your own leisure. But then that would be pot calling the kettle black, eh?

Fact remains, Debbie Rowe's parental rights were re-established in Feburary according to the BBC link I provided. Thus Jackson had No right to take those children out of the country without her permission. THAT is a violation of her current rights as a parent, Broph.

Oh, BTW, I can do you one better. How about the actual Judgement reestablishing Ms. Rowe's Parental Rights. Would you prefer Word or PDF format? I found these at Findlaw.com. Handy little service ;)

Word Version (Will queue Download)

PDF Format

So in this case, Michael was indeed wrong to take those children out of the country in violation of Debbie Rowe's Rights as a Parent. I say this as a parent, because even though my ex has joint custody of our child, he still needs my permission to even bring her through Canada on the way to Michigan, and Vice Versa. That is the CURRENT law that is now being enforced more stringently due to 9/11, not due to custody issues...

View PostBroph, on Sep 18 2006, 07:09 AM, said:

View PostNonny, on Sep 17 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

Yes, and now it's in dispute.

No, it is not. So far, I've asked all my friends except for 2 lawyers that I know and not a single person has agreed with you. That's what I call the sniff factor.

Quote

OMG first stones, now cats, and not real cats, but TV cats, and not even real TV cats, but cartoon TV cats!   :rolleyes:

See, you won't even consider examples that oppose your viewpoint. When you see other examples, you see how clear things are, but you don't seem to be willing to even consider them.

"I have on this board written pages and pages pointing out the science, and I will be dammed if I am going to attempt to reach closed minds that donít even know how to use a reference library." -emsparks (Fenton E. Magill, dec. 1/25/07 - Love you Dad)



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Michael Jackson, Debbie Rowe, Custody Case, Jackson Children, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users