They canceled the dance party?

For Cthulhu's sake, whatever you do, do NOT GIS "Reverse Janet Reno." Trust me on this.

So Cuba looks like a woman now?

Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

For those unaware of the appearance of Janet Reno, here is an impression of what she might look like, courtesy of SNL:

Wait, she hid the kid WHERE??

mbillips: For Cthulhu's sake, whatever you do, do NOT GIS "Reverse Janet Reno." Trust me on this.


Why not??

garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

There is no official extradition treaty between US and Cuba. So technically it wasn't a terrible idea.

garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


Meh, those people are so anti-Obama that they'd much rather live in Best Korea than accept Obama as President.

I was once at a party in my carefree youth.   Met a couple who wanted me to go home with them, and I was half-drunk and curious, so I left the party with them.   They had quite the boudoir with silk sheets, harnesses, toys, etc.   They also had a GOP Kama Sutra book.  We smoked illegal substances and tried most of the positions in the book, including the Reverse Janet Reno.   The evening came to a grisly end and a trip to the Emergency room.

Do not attempt the Reverse Janet Reno.

DubtodaIll: mbillips: For Cthulhu's sake, whatever you do, do NOT GIS "Reverse Janet Reno." Trust me on this.

[www.wonkettebazaar.com image 363x613]
Why not??

Because the search will return a lot of pictures of Janet Reno.

Yes, and Janet Reno pulled a good reverse female

I shot a man named Reno.

Resuscitated a man just to watch him live?

/ Wrong meme?

man... they are dead sexy

Devolving_Spud: I was once at a party in my carefree youth.   Met a couple who wanted me to go home with them, and I was half-drunk and curious, so I left the party with them.   They had quite the boudoir with silk sheets, harnesses, toys, etc.   They also had a GOP Kama Sutra book.  We smoked illegal substances and tried most of the positions in the book, including the Reverse Janet Reno.   The evening came to a grisly end and a trip to the Emergency room.

Do not attempt the Reverse Janet Reno.

Pics or this csb is bullshiat.

Sliding Carp: "Built a compound on a bed of ashes, and stocked it with religious nut-jobs?"

Win.

garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

Being "in the top 100, maybe" typically doest qualify you as one of the most _________ counties on the planet.

destrip: garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.


Meh, those people are so anti-Obama that they'd much rather live in Best Korea than accept Obama as President.

I'm pretty much one of the anti-Obama people myself, and while I see little difference between the way Obama WANTS to run the country (he has more than once wished he could run things like China which, while not Cuba is close enough) and the way the Castro brothers DO run the country, I do know that the Amercian system does have checks and balances to prevent the US from going full-on totalitarian.

Therefore, I maintain the plan wasn't well thought out. There are tons of places to hide out in this country where the reach of the feds is minimal & being caught is pretty negligible. And they would seem to like those types of places.

I like the name of the boat. The painted paw mark makes it "the Salty Dog."

The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.

Ha ha, they probably were banking on Cuba not handing them right back to the US. And so quickly.

garandman1a: Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

The plan seemed shaky from the beginning

Good for Cuba in returning them.

Had Reno not returned the Gonzalez kid, they may not have.

factoryconnection: Wow.  I did not see this story ending anything but with "grisly murder-suicide."

How did you come to that conclusion? Who were they going to murder? They wanted their kids back.

garandman1a:  destrip: garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?
Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

Meh, those people are so anti-Obama that they'd much rather live in Best Korea than accept Obama as President.
I'm pretty much one of the anti-Obama people myself, and while I see little difference between the way Obama WANTS to run the country (he has more than once wished he could run things like China which, while not Cuba is close enough) and the way the Castro brothers DO run the country, I do know that the Amercian system does have checks and balances to prevent the US from going full-on totalitarian.
Therefore, I maintain the plan wasn't well thought out. There are tons of places to hide out in this country where the reach of the feds is minimal & being caught is pretty negligible. And they would seem to like those types of places.

jigger: factoryconnection: Wow.  I did not see this story ending anything but with "grisly murder-suicide."

How did you come to that conclusion? Who were they going to murder? They wanted their kids back.

The kids, one of those, "If we can't have them nobody can. We'll all be together in the after life forever." deals.

garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

I think it more likely their little boat was just blown to Cubagarandman1a: Obama WANTS to run the country

Yes his secret wants and desires that you are well aware of even though almost all of his policy decisions and positions are lockstep with such communists as Nixon.

Searching for Cuban cigars?

Lovely couple. I don't know why Cuba wouldn't want them to stick around.

Why not just have more kids? Now they ave to go to jail.

is that a thumb in her butt?

brimed03: I like the name of the boat. The painted paw mark makes it "the Salty Dog."

From the caption under that picture:  "The Salty boat is moored at the Marina"

Now that Is a class-A euphemism.

Korzine: jigger: factoryconnection: Wow.  I did not see this story ending anything but with "grisly murder-suicide."

How did you come to that conclusion? Who were they going to murder? They wanted their kids back.

The kids, one of those, "If we can't have them nobody can. We'll all be together in the after life forever." deals.Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.


Yeah, A lot of information is missing about why his kids were removed and his chances of getting them back by "behaving". If someone removed my kids from me because I had pot at a protest, I'd probably take them back by force and run as well. Not saying that's what happened. I'd like more info.

/Don't have kids.

BigLuca: Wait, she hid the kid WHERE??
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 534x436]

Apparently she just put them back where she got them.

Cuba has never liked our rejects.

FC Exile: Yeah, A lot of information is missing about why his kids were removed and his chances of getting them back by "behaving". If someone removed my kids from me because I had pot at a protest, I'd probably take them back by force and run as well. Not saying that's what happened. I'd like more info.

Well, he didn't just have pot at a protest, he was smoking it in a hotel room with the kids. I think even pot heads would agree that crosses a line.  The kids were released to the grandparents custody and instead of jumping through the hoops to get them back, they tied up the grandmother and kidnapped her at gun point a after having gone missing for a year.

susler: Good for Cuba in returning them.

Had Reno not returned the Gonzalez kid, they may not have.

Cuba doesn't want harsh relations with the US as a reversal of the embargo would really help their tourist trade.  Returning kidnapped children was not only the right thing to do morally but it gets them good PR.

factoryconnection: While growing up while their violent, unfit parents are in prison isn't what I'd call "good," I was very happy to see those boys returned to their custodial grandparents.

When were they violent?  Oh that's right.  They broken into grandma's house and took their kids back and tied grandma up with zip ties.  The violence that was conducted without weapons?  That violence that resulted on no bodily harm to grandma?   So, after their kids were taken from them.

Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.

Marijuana and paraphernalia.  Kids were taken into custody because the parents "were talking out of their minds a little bit."  No shiat.  They were stoned.

We're the kids smoking the pot? The grandmother just said she "noticed he had a gun" not that he threatened her with it. Did they take the kids away permanently?

Dude was guilty of smoking pot and being an asshole on forums about the government.

Those without sin....

FC Exile: If someone removed my kids from me because I had pot at a protest, I'd probably take them back by force and run as well. Not saying that's what happened. I'd like more info.

There was no protest.  Or rally.  Detective from LA:  "Mr. Hakken, as far as we know, was not at an anti-government rally. I never made that statement and don't know where that came from."  http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/04/anti-government-couple-who-a bducted- thei

Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.

They were not even "high" when the incident occured.  They were at an anti-government rally.  You could read that as "simple protest" or even "occupy wallstreet" and they had displayed/possessed pot.  Not using it.

Go figure.

 So far the only reason for taking their kids was that the father was busted at some rally smoking weed.
Honestly I can't say I would not do the same. Seems like a BS reason for taking someones children.

Hypnozombie

Yea, I'm not the only crazy one on here.

manimal2878: Well, he didn't just have pot at a protest, he was smoking it in a hotel room with the kids.

He was high and had weed and a pipe in the hotel room with him.  I have not seen where what you stated was the case.   "He was under the influence of narcotics and also had narcotics inside his hotel room and he was speaking kind of out of his mind a little bit."

http://wgno.com/2013/04/03/slidell-police-on-the-look-out-for-florid a- kidnappers/#axzz2Q5HKVtJM

miss diminutive: They became hot?

They became women.

Sounds like they got caught with weed and crotchfruit in the same place whilst talking smack about the government and so the  government took the kids away.
Good thing this isn't the 60's.

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

Bruce Campbell: FC Exile: If someone removed my kids from me because I had pot at a protest, I'd probably take them back by force and run as well. Not saying that's what happened. I'd like more info.

There was no protest.  Or rally.  Detective from LA:  "Mr. Hakken, as far as we know, was not at an anti-government rally. I never made that statement and don't know where that came from."  http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/04/anti-government-couple-who-a bducted- thei

Well, this is more interesting than the story itself.

Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.

They were put in foster care while the father was in jail. First thing he did when he got out of jail? Threaten the woman running the foster care at gunpoint. THAT is why they lost custody- these people aren't the martyrs people are making them out to be. Kids deserve to NOT be with psychopaths.

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

1) this inst a TSA thread
2) have you seen Les Mis, people put up with alot, including facing death, before they'll face death on purpose.

I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

LeftCoast_eh: Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

um dude, she's under arrest. that picture is from when she was handed into US custody by Cuban authorities. she isn't choosing any of this

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

0/10 - not a TSA Thread. Nice try. I'm sure you'll get a few bites for those folks not paying attention.

Bruce Campbell: manimal2878: Well, he didn't just have pot at a protest, he was smoking it in a hotel room with the kids.

He was high and had weed and a pipe in the hotel room with him.  I have not seen where what you stated was the case.   "He was under the influence of narcotics and also had narcotics inside his hotel room and he was speaking kind of out of his mind a little bit."

http://wgno.com/2013/04/03/slidell-police-on-the-look-out-for-florid a- kidnappers/#axzz2Q5HKVtJM

So he somehow became high in the hotel room full of kids, pot, and drug parphanilia, but somehow it was not in the presence of the kids?

Lesson learned here:

Don't be anti-government

AHA! Blame RON PAUL!
Article has much more info on  veteran mechanical engineer Joshua Hakken.

LeftCoast_eh: Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

This is either the best post ever, or you are really dumb.

J. Frank Parnell: Well, this is more interesting than the story itself.

Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

It is.  I know someone that was an anti-government type at one point in life.  He's Secretary of State now.

bborchar: They were put in foster care while the father was in jail. First thing he did when he got out of jail? Threaten the woman running the foster care at gunpoint. THAT is why they lost custody- these people aren't the martyrs people are making them out to be. Kids deserve to NOT be with psychopaths.

That's bullshiat.  If they locked him up for a week on personal weed possession, then you sure as shiat better believe the locals there would have hit him for aggravated assault.  It's part of the framing of the story that has been given us.  There are and were no warrants for his arrest.  He may have arrived at the foster home with gun in holster, which is legal in Louisiana, as it's an open carry state.  It would also make sense that he would have it if he were just getting out of the jail that confiscated it.  It wouldn't make much sense in driving all the way back to Tampa, FL from Nawlins just to drop your gun off.

J. Frank Parnell: Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

Let's see, he is a member of Adam vs the Man and thinks Alex Jones is right on with his commentary.  I'd say anti-government is being kind.

FC Exile: I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

He and his wife have masters degrees in engineering.  His is mechanical, hers civil.

manimal2878: So he somehow became high in the hotel room full of kids, pot, and drug parphanilia, but somehow it was not in the presence of the kids?

That sounds a whole hell of a lot like speculation.  Let's see.  Most hotels have an outside area.  Most hotels have parking lots.  If he wasn't smoking it at the time the cops arrived, then you cannot say that.

Well, he didn't just have pot at a protest, he was smoking it in a hotel room with the kids. I think even pot heads would agree that crosses a line.  The kids were released to the grandparents custody and instead of jumping through the hoops to get them back, they tied up the grandmother and kidnapped her at gun point a after having gone missing for a year.

There are bathrooms with exhaust fans you know...  Just sayin.  I don't think he was blowing it in their face.

Bruce Campbell: That sounds a whole hell of a lot like speculation. Let's see. Most hotels have an outside area. Most hotels have parking lots. If he wasn't smoking it at the time the cops arrived, then you cannot say that.

Let me put this to rest for you.  I know the Hauser family.  You are wrong.

detritus: There are bathrooms with exhaust fans you know... Just sayin. I don't think he was blowing it in their face.

Assuming that is true, guess what, pot is still a controlled substance.  Use it in close proximity to your kids in a place public enough that the cops can get called on you and you are going to have problems, especially if you are acting nutty when the cops do get there.

manimal2878: Let me put this to rest for you.  I know the Hauser family.  You are wrong.

Great that puts me at ease, then.  Maybe you should share since there are more holes in any of the crap the media is releasing.  Put it to rest for me.

Yes. Please.

Also. Who is Hauser?

manimal2878: Assuming that is true, guess what, pot is still a controlled substance.

So, I'm wrong that he might not have smoked it in room with them, but we can assume it is true that he did not smoke it in the room with them?

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Or just stay out of prison.

I do hope the Cuban officials got to personally keep that 25' Morgan.

manimal2878: J. Frank Parnell: Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

Let's see, he is a member of Adam vs the Man and thinks Alex Jones is right on with his commentary.  I'd say anti-government is being kind.

Being critical of government and wanting change does not make someone anti-government. If it did, any member of the political party not currently elected could be called anti-government.

If you don't realize the distinction now, before you know it, no one will be able to disagree with the government without being arrested for being 'anti-government'.

FC Exile: Also. Who is Hauser?

The Florida resident grandparents that were granted custody of the Florida resident children by the state of Louisiana.

Bruce Campbell: manimal2878: Assuming that is true, guess what, pot is still a controlled substance.

So, I'm wrong that he might not have smoked it in room with them, but we can assume it is true that he did not smoke it in the room with them?

It's called a hypothetical.

J. Frank Parnell: manimal2878: J. Frank Parnell: Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

Let's see, he is a member of Adam vs the Man and thinks Alex Jones is right on with his commentary.  I'd say anti-government is being kind.

Being critical of government and wanting change does not make someone anti-government. If it did, any member of the political party not currently elected could be called anti-government.

If you don't realize the distinction now, before you know it, no one will be able to disagree with the government without being arrested for being 'anti-government'.

Yeah he was probably talking "irrationally" about how the government would find a way to take your kids away if you disagreed with them.

manimal2878: It's called a hypothetical.

Can't be.  You said I was wrong.  Tell me how.  Enlighten me on the things material to this situation that have not been brought to light by the media reporting it so that I can stop looking for enough to determine this guy and his wife such significant danger to his children that they needed to be removed.

Pete. Pete, is that you?

J. Frank Parnell: Being critical of government and wanting change does not make someone anti-government. If it did, any member of the political party not currently elected could be called anti-government.

If you don't realize the distinction now, before you know it, no one will be able to disagree with the government without being arrested for being 'anti-government'

You can disagree with the government all you want, but if you refuse to follow the court ordered program to regain custody, and disappear for a year, only to show up after you have ignored the judicial system and lost custody completely to kidnap the children, because you don't recognize the government legitimacy, then that might  put you more in the  anti-government column.

Bruce Campbell: manimal2878: It's called a hypothetical.

Can't be.  You said I was wrong.  Tell me how.  Enlighten me on the things material to this situation that have not been brought to light by the media reporting it so that I can stop looking for enough to determine this guy and his wife such significant danger to his children that they needed to be removed.

Assuming that he was not smoking it in front of the kids was the hypothetical retard.

Really haven't followed this story closely - but isn't this really just Chris Dorner 2, Electric Boogaloo, only replacing a black man with a white couple?

Bruce Campbell: factoryconnection: While growing up while their violent, unfit parents are in prison isn't what I'd call "good," I was very happy to see those boys returned to their custodial grandparents.

When were they violent?  Oh that's right.  They broken into grandma's house and took their kids back and tied grandma up with zip ties.  The violence that was conducted without weapons?  That violence that resulted on no bodily harm to grandma?   So, after their kids were taken from them.

Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.

Marijuana and paraphernalia.  Kids were taken into custody because the parents "were talking out of their minds a little bit."  No shiat.  They were stoned.

You forget waving the gun around at the foster home they were in before they were sent to grandma's.Yeah, I have a problem with that.

There should be another term for illegally taking your biological child away from someone else. Kidnapping doesn't sound right.
This probably has a lot to do with the Dad's relationship with the in laws.

garandman1a: he has more than once wished he could run things like China

As has every President who has had to deal with a fractious Congress. Why the special concern for him?

In other words, I hear rationalization, not a reason.

FC Exile: There should be another term for illegally taking your biological child away from someone else. Kidnapping doesn't sound right.
This probably has a lot to do with the Dad's relationship with the in laws.

I'm sure it varies by state, but in some states it's Non-custodial interference, not kidnapping.

Here's a problem I have: smoke weed in front of your kids, go to jail. Get drunk in front of your kids, nobody gives a shiat. (except neo-prohibitionists)

manimal2878: You can disagree with the government all you want, but if you refuse to follow the court ordered program to regain custody, and disappear for a year, only to show up after you have ignored the judicial system and lost custody completely to kidnap the children, because you don't recognize the government legitimacy, then that might put you more in the anti-government column.

That's just your common 'scofflaw'. If we abide by your logic any criminal would be anti-government.

If a person doesn't like or respect a particular government, yet does like another government, they are not anti-government. Anti-government is pretty specifically anarchism. To confuse the meaning of the term is dangerous.

JWideman: Here's a problem I have: smoke weed in front of your kids, go to jail and lose custody. Get drunk in front of your kids, nobody gives a shiat. (except neo-prohibitionists)

FTFM

Bombed or wired on prescribed meds is fine also.

namegoeshere: You forget waving the gun around at the foster home they were in before they were sent to grandma's.Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Yeah, look up thread.  I called BS on that already.  They threw him in jail for a week on a possession charge, but aggravated assault results in no warrants and no charges.

What were they doing during the year they had "run off for" ?

manimal2878: Assuming that he was not smoking it in front of the kids was the hypothetical retard.

I know.  It can't hypothetical if it was already incorrect.  Still waiting on the enlightenment.

J. Frank Parnell: If we abide by your logic any criminal would be anti-government.

It's not my logic its basically a self description.

Bruce Campbell: It can't hypothetical if it was already incorrect.

Is english your first language?

Bruce Campbell: Still waiting on the enlightenment.

Meditate.

No one smokes pot in front of 5 year olds.
It would just be annoying.

Bruce Campbell: namegoeshere: You forget waving the gun around at the foster home they were in before they were sent to grandma's.Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Yeah, look up thread.  I called BS on that already.  They threw him in jail for a week on a possession charge, but aggravated assault results in no warrants and no charges.

From CNN: "When police arrived, both Mr. and Mrs. Hakken were acting in a bizarre manner that alarmed officers. They were talking about 'completing their ultimate journey' and were traveling across the country to 'take a journey to the Armageddon'," the Slidell police statement said, adding, "Let it be noted that both of their children were present in the hotel room at the time."

Because of the parents' behavior and "the fact that narcotics and weapons were located inside of the hotel room," the children were taken by child welfare officers, and Joshua Hakken was arrested on drug charges, the statement said.

"Approximately two weeks later, Slidell Police were notified that Mr. Hakken had shown up to the foster family home ... with a firearm demanding the return of his children," the Slidell police statement continued. "The foster parents called 911, and Mr. Hakken fled without his children. We have heard nothing until (Wednesday)."


The foster parent called 911. He fled. A warrant was issued for his arrest. He evaded until the kidnapping.

Or:

Supreme Cuba reverses Reno vs. little-4-yr-old-boy.

kindms: garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

There is no official extradition treaty between US and Cuba. So technically it wasn't a terrible idea.

And Cuba isn't nearly the totalitarian state that corporate controlled media would have you believe.  Outside of Pants Wetting America, Cuba is a fairly popular tourist destination.

Here's a timeline of the case. The kids were temporarily removed. They never showed up to any of the court hearings to try to get them back. So permanent custody was given to the grandparents.

namegoeshere: A warrant was issued for his arrest.

No.  There wasn't.  Show me the warrant.  I checked St Tammany Parish outstanding warrants.  Nothing.  Nothing even in what you quoted.

manimal2878: J. Frank Parnell: If we abide by your logic any criminal would be anti-government.

It's not my logic its basically a self description.

Bruce Campbell: It can't hypothetical if it was already incorrect.

Is english your first language?

Bruce Campbell: Still waiting on the enlightenment.

Meditate.

You've convinced me that you have nothing more than what I have heard already.

Sounds like the Inlaws disapproved of the marijuana and saw an opportunity to use the legal system in conjuction with Joshua's penchant for talking smack about authority to steal their children for themselves. Grandpa seemed way to into it and there's probably a reason they didn't let Grandma talk.
They probably called the cops on them at the hotel in the first place.

namegoeshere: Here's a timeline of the case. The kids were temporarily removed. They never showed up to any of the court hearings to try to get them back. So permanent custody was given to the grandparents.

Timeline has 1 hearing permanently removing custody. 10 months skipped from the foster house incident till then. So where did you get the info that they never showed up?

I keep reading that as Cubs. Take that for what it's worth.

cgraves67: I keep reading that as Cubs. Take that for what it's worth.

They are suffering from the World Series embargo.

namegoeshere: Bruce Campbell: namegoeshere: You forget waving the gun around at the foster home they were in before they were sent to grandma's.Yeah, I have a problem with that.

Yeah, look up thread.  I called BS on that already.  They threw him in jail for a week on a possession charge, but aggravated assault results in no warrants and no charges.

From CNN: "When police arrived, both Mr. and Mrs. Hakken were acting in a bizarre manner that alarmed officers. They were talking about 'completing their ultimate journey' and were traveling across the country to 'take a journey to the Armageddon'," the Slidell police statement said, adding, "Let it be noted that both of their children were present in the hotel room at the time."

Because of the parents' behavior and "the fact that narcotics and weapons were located inside of the hotel room," the children were taken by child welfare officers, and Joshua Hakken was arrested on drug charges, the statement said.

"Approximately two weeks later, Slidell Police were notified that Mr. Hakken had shown up to the foster family home ... with a firearm demanding the return of his children," the Slidell police statement continued. "The foster parents called 911, and Mr. Hakken fled without his children. We have heard nothing until (Wednesday)."


The foster parent called 911. He fled. A warrant was issued for his arrest. He evaded until the kidnapping.

Gotta link with mention of the warrant?  I'm just mildly curious (and yes, lazy).  The news keeps hammering at the parents being hippie stoners to rile up the prudish prohibitionists and the NORML crowd in the hopes of getting some of that sweet, sweet "controversy" cheese and whine.

 And while I'm not particularly fond of stoner hippies, half-assed parenting, and wacky anti-government hijinks if this was a more "accepted" (conservative, more specifically christian) thing folks would be up in arms about the evil gubbmint kidnapping children.   If they were snake-handlers getting arrested for transporting venomous snakes (presumably illegally but part of their religion) while dragging their kids around, I'm pretty sure a lotta folks would reverse their current perspective on the situation.

FC Exile: Korzine: jigger: factoryconnection: Wow.  I did not see this story ending anything but with "grisly murder-suicide."

How did you come to that conclusion? Who were they going to murder? They wanted their kids back.

The kids, one of those, "If we can't have them nobody can. We'll all be together in the after life forever." deals.Tomji: The kids were taken away due to drug charges. This all really hinges on how I feel about it based on what kind of drugs.


Yeah, A lot of information is missing about why his kids were removed and his chances of getting them back by "behaving". If someone removed my kids from me because I had pot at a protest, I'd probably take them back by force and run as well. Not saying that's what happened. I'd like more info.

/Don't have kids.

While he was arrested for pot, there's more to this story:

1) Cops were called to their motel room because of a domestic disturbance
2) We're talking about "going to Armageddon with their children"
3) Huge cache of guns (can't afford an apartment, but have lots of guns?)
4) Tried to forcibly take away the kids from their foster home with a gun

Some grade A nutters if you ask me.

TheBigJerk: Gotta link with mention of the warrant?

Here's the link to all outstanding warrants in the Parish that includes Slidell, LA:

http://www.stpso.com/pdf/openWarrants.pdf

There is no warrant and there was none before he was captured.

Why has this been the top story on FARK for over 2 hours?

Are the admins asleep?

Is it because North Korea?

Greenlight somethings please, I'm bored

/Gov't job

destrip: garandman1a: Umm, they keep describing them as "anti-government", yet they fled to Cuba, one of the most totalitarian countries on the planet?

Methinks maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.

Meh, those people are so anti-Obama that they'd much rather live in Best Korea than accept Obama as President.

I've seen Farkers argue that tax rates are inversely proportional to liberty.

Which means North Korea, which doesn't tax its citizens, should be a paradise of freedom.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/04/louisiana-police-claim-hakkens-said - they

There were "weapons" in the room. That tells me nothing. Thanks police.
This includes a long post he made on a gun forum.

shortymac: While he was arrested for pot, there's more to this story:

1) Cops were called to their motel room because of a domestic disturbance  
2) We're talking about "going to Armageddon with their children"
3) Huge cache of guns (can't afford an apartment, but have lots of guns?Had a gun and a hunting knife.
4) Tried to forcibly take away the kids from their foster home with a gun Banged on a door, demanding his kids back. Left when he couldn't get in.

Some grade A nutters if you ask me.

FTFY
1) Newsflash:  Parents having an argument
2) Kirk Cameron talks about the rapture and being left behind.  He has no business having custody of his 6 kids

That is what you got wrong about the story.  Other than that, good job.

Bruce Campbell: TheBigJerk: Gotta link with mention of the warrant?

Here's the link to all outstanding warrants in the Parish that includes Slidell, LA:

http://www.stpso.com/pdf/openWarrants.pdf

There is no warrant and there was none before he was captured.

The header for that PDF;

WARRANTS BY ZONE REPORT
From Date: 01/01/70 To Date: 03/19/13

The warrant would have been issued a bit more recently than mid-March.

I'll go with the news reports.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/cuba-kidnapping -f lorida-joseph-hakken-custoday-case-tampa/2066391/

The sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/04/sheriff_says_florida_cou pl e_ki.html

The Hillsborough Sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Joshua Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

Bruce Campbell: J. Frank Parnell: Well, this is more interesting than the story itself.

Who wants to bet 'anti-government' is a term we'll start hearing a lot of in the media?

It is.  I know someone that was an anti-government type at one point in life.  He's Secretary of State now.

bborchar: They were put in foster care while the father was in jail. First thing he did when he got out of jail? Threaten the woman running the foster care at gunpoint. THAT is why they lost custody- these people aren't the martyrs people are making them out to be. Kids deserve to NOT be with psychopaths.

That's bullshiat.  If they locked him up for a week on personal weed possession, then you sure as shiat better believe the locals there would have hit him for aggravated assault.  It's part of the framing of the story that has been given us.  There are and were no warrants for his arrest.  He may have arrived at the foster home with gun in holster, which is legal in Louisiana, as it's an open carry state.  It would also make sense that he would have it if he were just getting out of the jail that confiscated it.  It wouldn't make much sense in driving all the way back to Tampa, FL from Nawlins just to drop your gun off.

Then, if he wasn't threatening the foster care worker, did she call 911 to report that he was?  The conspiracy theorists are pushing this as some sort of anti-government campaign, but that's bullshiat.  It is so hard for parents to lose their parental rights in this country that most kids stay in abusive homes.  The man is a lunatic, and as someone who was kidnapped by my father when my mom refused to give him permission to take him out us out of state, I'm glad these kids were found and are back safe with their rightful guardians.

FC Exile: http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/04/louisiana-police-claim-hakkens-said - they

There were "weapons" in the room. That tells me nothing. Thanks police.
This includes a long post he made on a gun forum.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304553/Hakken-brothers-miss in g-Truck-belonging-anti-government-parents-kidnapped-toddler-sons-aband oned-Florida-garage.html

He had a gun and a knife.

Bruce Campbell: shortymac: While he was arrested for pot, there's more to this story:

1) Cops were called to their motel room because of a domestic disturbance
2) We're talking about "going to Armageddon with their children"
3) Huge cache of guns (can't afford an apartment, but have lots of guns?Had a gun and a hunting knife.
4) Tried to forcibly take away the kids from their foster home with a gun Banged on a door, demanding his kids back. Left when he couldn't get in.

Some grade A nutters if you ask me.

FTFY
1) Newsflash:  Parents having an argument
2) Kirk Cameron talks about the rapture and being left behind.  He has no business having custody of his 6 kids

That is what you got wrong about the story.  Other than that, good job.

First off, the "foster home" part has been reported previously:

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/04/sheriff_says_florida_cou pl e_ki.html

Joshua Hakken lost custody of his sons last year after a drug possession arrest in Louisiana, and he later tried to take them from a foster home at gunpoint, authorities have said. Authorities have previously characterized the Hakkens as "anti-government."

And I have another one for you:

he sheriff's office alleges that Joshua Michael Hakken entered his mother-in-law's house north of Tampa early Wednesday, tied her up and fled with his sons, 4-year-old Cole and 2-year-old Chase.

What if Kirk Cameron had done that?

rufus-t-firefly: Bruce Campbell: TheBigJerk: Gotta link with mention of the warrant?

Here's the link to all outstanding warrants in the Parish that includes Slidell, LA:

http://www.stpso.com/pdf/openWarrants.pdf

There is no warrant and there was none before he was captured.

The header for that PDF;

WARRANTS BY ZONE REPORT
From Date: 01/01/70 To Date: 03/19/13

The warrant would have been issued a bit more recently than mid-March.

I'll go with the news reports.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/09/cuba-kidnapping -f lorida-joseph-hakken-custoday-case-tampa/2066391/

The sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/04/sheriff_says_florida_cou pl e_ki.html

The Hillsborough Sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Joshua Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

Talking about warrants for waving a gun around at the foster home in 2012.

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

Image caption FTFA:

This image shows Sharyn Hakken being processed for booking into the Hillsborough County Jail early this morning

Yeah - when you're booked, you should be allowed to keep whatever you have hidden up your ass or in your cooch. If you can get a weapon in there, you're free to use it as needed.

I'd imagine being under arrest for a kidnapping that ends with you in a foreign country would count as probable cause for a search.

RedPhoenix122: GOP Kama Sutra: World's shortest book.

Position 1: Missionary

Position 2: Wide Stance

Position 3: ?

rufus-t-firefly: The warrant would have been issued a bit more recently than mid-March.

No.  It wouldn't.  The incident involving the foster care facility happened about 2 weeks after his arrest in June of last year.

rufus-t-firefly: The sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

Stemming from taking his kids from his mother-in-law's house.  Nothing from the foster care incident.

bborchar: Then, if he wasn't threatening the foster care worker, did she call 911 to report that he was?

Because he did not want to leave the premises without his kids after being asked.  I am, by no means a conspiracy theorist.  I just see so much of this that doesn't make sense, particularly the fact that the  amber alerts were all predicated with "kids kidnapped by anti-government parents."  That makes as much sense as saying "kids kidnapped by sailing enthusiast parents."  It's irrelevant information, but for some reason it was made into part of the story.  What is still baffling to me is how LA could maintain more than emergency temporary jurisdiction over a custody case involving FL resident parents, FL resident children, and FL resident grandparents.

Silverstaff: Position 3: ?

Their favorite, rectal cranial inversion. It's a solo act.

rufus-t-firefly: First off, the "foster home" part has been reported previously:

There is no warrant.  That's the point.  He's thrown in the clink for pot possession, but committing aggravated assault results in no warrant and no charges.

rufus-t-firefly: What if Kirk Cameron had done that?

You're missing the "but for" aspect of this.  But for LA taking away his kids on account of a weed possession and talking ominously it would not happen.

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: The warrant would have been issued a bit more recently than mid-March.

No.  It wouldn't.  The incident involving the foster care facility happened about 2 weeks after his arrest in June of last year.

rufus-t-firefly: The sheriff's office has issued an arrest warrant for Hakken on charges of kidnapping and several other counts.

Stemming from taking his kids from his mother-in-law's house.  Nothing from the foster care incident.


Agreed. I missed the earlier post.

mongbiohazard: namegoeshere: Here's a timeline of the case. The kids were temporarily removed. They never showed up to any of the court hearings to try to get them back. So permanent custody was given to the grandparents.


Thank you for the facts. There's a lot of knee-jerk white-knighting going on in this thread.

But after actually looking at the facts..... yeah, I'm suprised this didn't end in murder/suicide, and these are not the folk heros a lot of us are looking for.

Which facts are those exactly. There are ten months missing in that timeline.  Why would he buy a boat to take himself and his family to Cuba just to kill them.? You make no sense.

FC Exile: [tribwgno.files.wordpress.com image 445x279]

I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: First off, the "foster home" part has been reported previously:

There is no warrant.  That's the point.  He's thrown in the clink for pot possession, but committing aggravated assault results in no warrant and no charges.

rufus-t-firefly: What if Kirk Cameron had done that?

You're missing the "but for" aspect of this.  But for LA taking away his kids on account of a weed possession and talking ominously it would not happen.

So, the ends justify the means?

I don't think kids should be taken away for pot possession...but you don't get to tie someone up and flee the country with your kids just because you're being treated unjustly.

Work within the system, you may eventually get them back. Now, there's practically no chance of that happening. And that's a shame.

FC Exile: [tribwgno.files.wordpress.com image 445x279]

I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

How about a more recent pic?

CheatCommando: Silverstaff: Position 3: ?

Their favorite, rectal cranial inversion. It's a solo act.

Oh of course, how silly of me.

If that's #3, what would self-pleasure to FOX News propaganda be?  #4?

rufus-t-firefly: So, the ends justify the means?

From my standpoint, no.  I also have not been in that situation, either.  It could be deemed a crime of passion, though.

I live 500 miles away from them and my phone went bananas 3 times in about 15 minutes from the Amber Alert message.  I can see once, but three times was a bit much.

/Should I feel guilty about turning them off?

rufus-t-firefly: How about a more recent pic?

Looks like a guy who just got his ass kicked on a boat and has been in fight or flight mode for at least a week.

My guess - the pot possession was an excuse to take the kids. The odd behavior of the parents was the real reason.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/authorities-continue-searc h- for-missing-tampa-children/2113181


The couple was acting bizarrely and talking about "completing their ultimate journey," according to information released by Slidell police Thursday.

Joshua Hakken talked about a fantasy series of books that had changed his life, called  The Sword of Truth. He said he was heading to the "Valley of Rahaan."

He had his children with him.

He also had marijuana in the room - and a gun and large knife, police say.

Police charged Joshua Hakken with marijuana possession and put his young children in foster care.

If the kids had been left with them, and then were harmed, some of the same farkers who are upset at this "injustice" would be screaming for the heads of the people who left the kids with their mentally unbalanced parents. And the fact that they ran for CUBA of all places tells you that their mental state isn't great.

Oh, yeah - and they planned suicide before they decided on kidnapping.

The documents show Hauser provided law enforcement with oral and written statements that Joshua Hakken and her daughter Sharyn Hakken had previously planned suicide but Joshua realized "they have a way out."

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/hillsborou gh -county-deputies-say-joshua-hakken-left-credit-cards-and-computer-prio r-to-kidnapping

They aren't exactly stable.

I don't think Cuba would have turned them over, It the parents were Cuban nationals

cgraves67: I keep reading that as Cubs. Take that for what it's worth.

Janet Reno was AG when the Cubs wore these:



Coincidence?

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: So, the ends justify the means?

From my standpoint, no.  I also have not been in that situation, either.  It could be deemed a crime of passion, though.

A crime of passion isn't premeditated. They did quite a bit of planning.

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: How about a more recent pic?

Looks like a guy who just got his ass kicked on a boat and has been in fight or flight mode for at least a week.

Or a guy who REALLY didn't expect Cuba to just hand him over.

Something I haven't thought of since CNN found them yesterday: Why in the hell did he admit his identity to the CNN reporter?

Josh Hakken glared through his sunglasses at the CNN reporter who found him and said nothing beyond confirming his identity.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/us/florida-children-abducted/

That seems rather counterintuitive.

"Oh, shiat, they've found me. Better confirm that I'm the guy they're looking for."

Find the different one.

rufus-t-firefly: Oh, yeah - and they planned suicide before they decided on kidnapping.

rufus-t-firefly: They aren't exactly stable.

Before or after the kids were taken away?

Also, the grandmother who eventually got custody of them said this?  Who else did?

FC Exile: mongbiohazard: namegoeshere: Here's a timeline of the case. The kids were temporarily removed. They never showed up to any of the court hearings to try to get them back. So permanent custody was given to the grandparents.

Thank you for the facts. There's a lot of knee-jerk white-knighting going on in this thread.

But after actually looking at the facts..... yeah, I'm suprised this didn't end in murder/suicide, and these are not the folk heros a lot of us are looking for.

Which facts are those exactly. There are ten months missing in that timeline.  Why would he buy a boat to take himself and his family to Cuba just to kill them.? You make no sense.

Perhaps the thought was he would kill them when he knew they were busted?

It's happened enough times before:

1. Flee from police
2. Get cornered
3. Murder and/or suicide

It's almost a trope.

rufus-t-firefly: That seems rather counterintuitive.

"Oh, shiat, they've found me. Better confirm that I'm the guy they're looking for."

He was probably thinking exactly what most people thought.  Cuba keeps murders and cop-killer safe from the reach of US custody.  What difference does it make if I tell them?

LeftCoast_eh: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x446]

Why the fark do people put up with this bullsh*t?

Is getting from here to there so important that you allow yourself to be molested? I would bet that if enough people simply said screw it and walked away, the airlines would quickly pressure the government to change things.

Sigh, the world is turning into a bunch of people who allow themselves to be herded around. No wonder the economy is going to hell, no one knows how to stand up and take a risk. They would rather just be told what to do.

/yes, yes, get off my lawn and so forth

Amazing how everyone missed the joke and are crying troll. +1

rufus-t-firefly: FC Exile: [tribwgno.files.wordpress.com image 445x279]

I've seen it as "allegedly waving a gun around". Was there an effort to arrest him for that? Was this what one person saw or many? I only seek knowledge cause it seems hinky. Guy had a nice truck and money to buy a boat. What did he do for a living?

Bruce Campbell: rufus-t-firefly: First off, the "foster home" part has been reported previously:

There is no warrant.  That's the point.  He's thrown in the clink for pot possession, but committing aggravated assault results in no warrant and no charges.

rufus-t-firefly: What if Kirk Cameron had done that?

You're missing the "but for" aspect of this.  But for LA taking away his kids on account of a weed possession and talking ominously it would not happen.

So, the ends justify the means?

I don't think kids should be taken away for pot possession...but you don't get to tie someone up and flee the country with your kids just because you're being treated unjustly.

Work within the system, you may eventually get them back. Now, there's practically no chance of that happening. And that's a shame.

Basically his wife had him tie up her out of control, kid stealing mom, so not just "somebody".
No one really gave him any reason to believe they would ever let him have his kids back, so he ran.
I still think Zimmerman should have run. (That's gonna be up soon)

"This will happen more and more as the government and police keep stepping on us.  Eventually people will choose to fight instead of run.
Then some of the people who have ganged up and appointed each other in charge. Who think they can wantonly tax, subjugate, abuse and imprison their fellow man in perpetuity without consequence, will die."  Eric Cartman

I think these guys are religious whackadoos and easily influenced by fearmongering propaganda.  But that doesn't give the government the right to take your kids away.  FFS they can't even take the kids away when their religion bars them from giving very basic life saving treatment to otherwise fatal diseases.

I've never heard of pot being dangerous to smoke around children.  I've heard of lots of people getting drunk and beating their kids though.  Seen a lot of people smoke their cigarettes all day with the kids in the room or the car.  That's a lot worse than a smoke that people tend to inhale until there is no second hand smoke.  Nobody is taking those kids away.

Everything i've ever been told about CPS is it's an authoritarian nightmare full of egocentric maniacs.  They create living hell over accusations that would be meaningless in a courtroom.  If i had to deal with them and failed to get my kids back i'd be real tempted to take them back by force.

I don't think their kids should have been taken away, but the current state of affairs makes it hard for me to think the kids should be returned.  They took bad and made it a hell of a lot worse, but they might not have had any options left.

rufus-t-firefly: My guess - the pot possession was an excuse to take the kids. The odd behavior of the parents was the real reason.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/authorities-continue-searc h- for-missing-tampa-children/2113181


The couple was acting bizarrely and talking about "completing their ultimate journey," according to information released by Slidell police Thursday.

Joshua Hakken talked about a fantasy series of books that had changed his life, called  The Sword of Truth. He said he was heading to the "Valley of Rahaan."

He had his children with him.

He also had marijuana in the room - and a gun and large knife, police say.

Police charged Joshua Hakken with marijuana possession and put his young children in foster care.

If the kids had been left with them, and then were harmed, some of the same farkers who are upset at this "injustice" would be screaming for the heads of the people who left the kids with their mentally unbalanced parents. And the fact that they ran for CUBA of all places tells you that their mental state isn't great.

Oh, yeah - and they planned suicide before they decided on kidnapping.

The documents show Hauser provided law enforcement with oral and written statements that Joshua Hakken and her daughter Sharyn Hakken had previously planned suicide but Joshua realized "they have a way out."

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/hillsborou gh -county-deputies-say-joshua-hakken-left-credit-cards-and-computer-prio r-to-kidnapping

They aren't exactly stable.

Say's the guy who just stole their children.

just in case one more peek might inspire someone to  make this into some kind of meme.

 It seems like most of the people advocating them having thier children kidnapped from them are doing so on grounds of thier politics.
Didn't they do this under some South American facsist government?
And how often do they release pictures of people getting a body cavity search like this? should it be standard practice for EVERYONE who  gets one? or maybe was this was just to humiliate them?
And of course the real question for those cheering this on. Does everyone that smokes pot or holds unpopular political views deserve to have their children taken away?

Hypnozombie

Bruce Campbell: What is still baffling to me is how LA could maintain more than emergency temporary jurisdiction over a custody case involving FL resident parents, FL resident children, and FL resident grandparents.

You don't think that children visiting Louisiana can be taken into custody while in Louisiana, due to events in Louisianna, becoming wards of the state of Louisianna?  Who could be given in temporary custody to family who were Florida residents?  An arrangement which could then be changed to a permanent arrangement at a later date?

Why so credulous?

/I suppose they could have been kept in the Louisiana foster system until they hit 18, if that would make you happier

Why so UNcredulous?

FTFM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: What is still baffling to me is how LA could maintain more than emergency temporary jurisdiction over a custody case involving FL resident parents, FL resident children, and FL resident grandparents.

You don't think that children visiting Louisiana can be taken into custody while in Louisiana, due to events in Louisianna, becoming wards of the state of Louisianna?  Who could be given in temporary custody to family who were Florida residents?  An arrangement which could then be changed to a permanent arrangement at a later date?

Why so credulous?

/I suppose they could have been kept in the Louisiana foster system until they hit 18, if that would make you happier

Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.

Bruce Campbell: Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.

UCCJEAand PKPA   are principally designed to determine which jurisdiction a trial will take place to determine which family member will get custody of a child.  It is a fundamentally different matter than determining the result of someone being a ward of the state.  Especially in the case of child endangerment, where the state may have a different standard on what represent a transient danger than you do.

But for the sake of argument, lets say the custody battle is between the grandparent and the STATE OF Louisianna, standing in loco parentis.

UCCJEA determined priority as follows:

1. The state which is the "home state" of the child, or was the child's home state within six months immediately before the commencement of child custody proceedings if the child is absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;
2. If no state has jurisdiction under #1, then jurisdiction is proper where the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state (other than mere presence), and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available in the state;
3. If no state has jurisdiction under #1 or #2 above, jurisdiction is proper in any state having an appropriate connection with the child.

If the proceedinds start while the child is in LA, then case one seems to apply, because the child is not absent from LA, and LA is by definition present in LA.

If case 1 is disputed, then case 2, the State as In Loco Parentis has an signicant connection with the State as the State of Louisianna, and there is substantial evidence of child endangerment in Louisianna.

If one disputes that cases 1 or 2 apply, then the child is foster care in Lousianna, a connection to Louisianna.

But again, I don't think this is a custody battle per-say, but a case where a state has assumed responsibility for a child for the child's protection relinquishing custody to someone the state determined was safe, the grandparents, with the full cooperation of the grandparents.  Not a trial.

Could the parents have initiated a custody battle between themselves and the grandparents that would fall under the UCCJEA?  Probably, but it'd be a new trial, not the resolution of Louisiana's interest in the matter.

/now where is my GED in law?

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: Because that is not how UCCJEA and PKPA are set up. UCCJEA grants temporary emergency jurisdiction for abandonment and abuse scenarios, but once the dangerous situation (stoned parents) is abated (no longer stoned) and the kids are no longer present in the state, which was the case, the jurisdiction ceases and the case should have been transferred to the proper jurisdiction, the home state. That is consistent across both federal Acts and both states are supposed to adhere to it.

UCCJEAand PKPA   are principally designed to determine which jurisdiction a trial will take place to determine which family member will get custody of a child.  It is a fundamentally different matter than determining the result of someone being a ward of the state.  Especially in the case of child endangerment, where the state may have a different standard on what represent a transient danger than you do.

But for the sake of argument, lets say the custody battle is between the grandparent and the STATE OF Louisianna, standing in loco parentis.

UCCJEA determined priority as follows:

1. The state which is the "home state" of the child, or was the child's home state within six months immediately before the commencement of child custody proceedings if the child is absent from the state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in the state;
2. If no state has jurisdiction under #1, then jurisdiction is proper where the child and at least one parent have a significant connection with the state (other than mere presence), and substantial evidence concerning the custody determination is available in the state;
3. If no state has jurisdiction under #1 or #2 above, jurisdiction is proper in any state having an appropriate connection with the child.

If the proceedinds start while the child is in LA, then case one seems to apply, because the child is not absent from LA, and LA is by definition present in LA.

If case 1 is disputed, then case 2, the State as In Loco Parentis has an signicant connection with the State as the State of Louisianna, and there is substantial evidence of child endangerment in Louisianna.

If one disputes that cases 1 or 2 apply, then the child is foster care in Lousianna, a connection to Louisianna.

But again, I don't think this is a custody battle per-say, but a case where a state has assumed responsibility for a child for the child's protection relinquishing custody to someone the state determined was safe, the grandparents, with the full cooperation of the grandparents.  Not a trial.

Could the parents have initiated a custody battle between themselves and the grandparents that would fall under the UCCJEA?  Probably, but it'd be a new trial, not the resolution of Louisiana's interest in the matter.

/now where is my GED in law?

Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?

And no, the parents cannot initiate a custody battle at this point. Terminating parental rights means in the eyes of the law, they are now strangers, with no rights or responsibilities to the child. The rights were transfered immediately to the grandparents. LA opened the window to the "reasonable period of time to find a permanent placement" and slammed it shut with the immediate transfer of parental rights to the grandparents. The parents can only appeal the ruling.

Bruce Campbell: Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?

No, its not that simple.

Do you think the UCCJEAcould get a child convicted of a crime out of a penal institution?

Do you think the UCCJEA could remove a child from an insane asylum after being committed as being a danger to themselves?

I don't.  I think there are custody situations that overshadow application of the UCCJEA, and protection of multiple children from a negligent pair of parents may be one.   The initial charge resulted in a temporary foster care.  Showing up at the foster home with a gun would escalate things to a new level.  Repeated endangerment.

This is not a custody case where one family member is competing with another for custody.  This is more akin to involuntary termination of parental rights..  Perhaps something from LA's  CHC 1015.

Vlad_the_Inaner: Bruce Campbell: Child custody is child custody and it doesn't matter who has initiated it or the reason for it. What do you think the temporary emergency provisions are for?

No, its not that simple.

Do you think the UCCJEAcould get a child convicted of a crime out of a penal institution?

Do you think the UCCJEA could remove a child from an insane asylum after being committed as being a danger to themselves?

I don't.  I think there are custody situations that overshadow application of the UCCJEA, and protection of multiple children from a negligent pair of parents may be one.   The initial charge resulted in a temporary foster care.  Showing up at the foster home with a gun would escalate things to a new level.  Repeated endangerment.

This is not a custody case where one family member is competing with another for custody.  This is more akin to involuntary termination of parental rights..  Perhaps something from LA's  CHC 1015.

Your first example is a criminal act. Your second example is covered by state mental health acts. None of the ground in CHC 1015 applies, and it puts the cart of terminating parental rights before the horse of stripping the parent of custody.