Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Stars and Stripes)   Judge who threatened to have deployed sailor arrested if he didn't show up for child custody case now claims she didn't know he was deployed, coincidentally after government reminded her about this little thing called federal law   (stripes.com ) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

16164 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2014 at 9:40 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



147 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-25 07:34:01 PM  
But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?
 
2014-06-25 07:44:31 PM  

strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?


go for it!  I'll buy some beer for the participants . . . . . .

/beer!
 
2014-06-25 07:52:49 PM  
SO glad to see this followup; the original story had my blood boiling. No, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case, but the judge seemed like a prejudiced idiot who had no intention of giving this guy a fair shake.
 
2014-06-25 07:59:10 PM  
Man, child custody cases are a nasty nasty business.
 
2014-06-25 08:12:16 PM  
All she asked was that her word be obeyed like unto The Word of God, is that so bad?  She isn't wearing that dumb-ass robe because she just got out of the shower...
 
2014-06-25 08:20:53 PM  

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: SO glad to see this followup; the original story had my blood boiling. No, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case, but the judge seemed like a prejudiced idiot who had no intention of giving this guy a fair shake.


America!
 
2014-06-25 08:28:14 PM  

strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?




Be my guest, I live in her jurisdiction, she is an idiot

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: SO glad to see this followup; the original story had my blood boiling. No, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case, but the judge seemed like a prejudiced idiot who had no intention of giving this guy a fair shake.


Pretty much, she is one of those judges who almost always makes decisions in favor of the mother in custody issues. A woman pretty much has to be a crack whore caught on tape for here to approve joint custody
 
2014-06-25 08:57:49 PM  
I thought I had read an article that she told the lawyers that "she didn't care" about the Federal Law and wouldn't let him appear by Skype.

I was hoping that the lawyers had an appealate judge on speeddial ready to stay the ruling. I wonder if someone *did* have a stern talk for her to have a "come to Jesus" moment.
 
2014-06-25 09:01:22 PM  
Read this story last 2ek and immediately said "Soldiers and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1950". When I ran a Family Court we required an affidavit  that the defendant was not in the military or not deployed before you could even file motions like this
 
2014-06-25 09:21:01 PM  
Yeah, this judge sounds like a real winner.
 
2014-06-25 09:45:45 PM  
img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-06-25 09:50:15 PM  

Magorn: Read this story last 2ek and immediately said "Soldiers and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1950". When I ran a Family Court we required an affidavit  that the defendant was not in the military or not deployed before you could even file motions like this


Wanna bet the ex-so-bad-she-lost-custody filed while he's deployed just to cause trouble.

I predict she gets found in contempt for embarassing the judge.
 
2014-06-25 09:50:35 PM  

strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?


Things would be so much better if this was still in practice.
 
2014-06-25 09:53:58 PM  
So this judge is pleading ignorance as an excuse?

[excusemewhileilaughevenharder.jpg]
 
2014-06-25 09:54:16 PM  

strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?


You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.

What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.
 
2014-06-25 09:57:45 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: I was hoping that the lawyers had an appealate judge on speeddial ready to stay the ruling. I wonder if someone *did* have a stern talk for her to have a "come to Jesus" moment.


yup..have a feeling that judge just got an ass reaming.
 
2014-06-25 09:58:03 PM  

wildcardjack: Magorn: Read this story last 2ek and immediately said "Soldiers and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1950". When I ran a Family Court we required an affidavit  that the defendant was not in the military or not deployed before you could even file motions like this

Wanna bet the ex-so-bad-she-lost-custody filed while he's deployed just to cause trouble.

I predict she gets found in contempt for embarassing the judge.


A previous article said she filed last year. Courts are just sloooooooow.
 
2014-06-25 10:00:54 PM  

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: SO glad to see this followup; the original story had my blood boiling. No, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case, but the judge seemed like a prejudiced idiot who had no intention of giving this guy a fair shake.


its family court the guy never gets a fair shake no matter what
 
2014-06-25 10:01:16 PM  
memoriasdeunmorlock.com
 
2014-06-25 10:03:09 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.

What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.


FWIW, I am a woman with a uterus and I think custody should be 50/50 as often as feasible. My not so CSB is I had 100% custody as it was NOT feasible, but I gave him open visitation and I gave him an open door policy to drop in any time, and I was amenable for her spending summers with him when he could swing it. Also, I waived child support completely because he was having his own issues and I did not think he needed that over his head while he was trying to get his shiat together. I don't know why parents need to be adversarial just because they are no longer married. My daughter and I often spend major holidays with my ex at his parents house because we are still a family, just not the traditional kind.
 
2014-06-25 10:03:37 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.
What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.


On what do you base your assumption? Spent a lot of time in family court, have you? I did--12 years. And you're wrong.
 
2014-06-25 10:05:26 PM  

mr lawson: OtherLittleGuy: I was hoping that the lawyers had an appealate judge on speeddial ready to stay the ruling. I wonder if someone *did* have a stern talk for her to have a "come to Jesus" moment.

yup..have a feeling that judge just got an ass reaming.


From who?  She's a county judge, which means in all likelihood she's elected, and she probably doesn't have a "boss" per se.  She is the boss.  Unless she's one of several judges, and there is a hierarchy, but even then,  I doubt she got an ass-reaming.  Not that she doesn't deserve one.
 
2014-06-25 10:06:21 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.

What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.


It's in the hospital system too, at least up here. When I delivered my baby last winter and my loving SO was present, we were given two folders. One was written for the mother and described the wonders of holding the baby and feeding him and watching him grow. The folder for the fathers encouraged them to at least get their GED and try to find a job in the service industry (as in automotive, hvac, etc) so that they could financially support the baby. There was nothing in the dad folder about emotional support or how to care for the child.
 
2014-06-25 10:07:10 PM  
 
2014-06-25 10:09:13 PM  
See, this is why we need feminism. It's 2014 and the female partners of serving members still don't have the same family law monopoly rights as their sisters who are partnered to non serving members.

This is clear evidence that the military is a patriarchal institution at heart, which give special protections and rights to men. These special rights and protections must be completely removed to allow all womyn everywhere to have equal rights before the law.

Of course, if you are a misogynistic pig who doesn't believe in equality for all womyn, feel free to fark off and die in a cancerous fire.
 
2014-06-25 10:10:34 PM  

zzrhardy: See, this is why we need feminism. It's 2014 and the female partners of serving members still don't have the same family law monopoly rights as their sisters who are partnered to non serving members.

This is clear evidence that the military is a patriarchal institution at heart, which give special protections and rights to men. These special rights and protections must be completely removed to allow all womyn everywhere to have equal rights before the law.

Of course, if you are a misogynistic pig who doesn't believe in equality for all womyn, feel free to fark off and die in a cancerous fire.


You joke, but this is actually how feminists see it.
 
2014-06-25 10:11:54 PM  

zzrhardy: See, this is why we need feminism. It's 2014 and the female partners of serving members still don't have the same family law monopoly rights as their sisters who are partnered to non serving members.

This is clear evidence that the military is a patriarchal institution at heart, which give special protections and rights to men. These special rights and protections must be completely removed to allow all womyn everywhere to have equal rights before the law.

Of course, if you are a misogynistic pig who doesn't believe in equality for all womyn, feel free to fark off and die in a cancerous fire.


images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-06-25 10:12:17 PM  

mr lawson: dittybopper: From who?

http://www.jag.navy.mil/


Military doesn't have jurisdiction for county judge ass-reaming.  They can merely tell the judge "Look, if you do this, it will be appealed and reversed so fast your head will spin, and it might possibly give an opponent a campaign issue", not that people really pay that much attention to family court judge elections.

Hardly an ass-reaming.

And she's got immunity for her official actions, so she can't be legally sanctioned for it.
 
2014-06-25 10:12:50 PM  

strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?


I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.
 
2014-06-25 10:15:48 PM  

dittybopper: And she's got immunity for her official actions, so she can't be legally sanctioned for it.


see, that is the part I am not so sure about. Willfully ignoring federal law even by a sitting judge might have consequences.
/not a lawer
 
2014-06-25 10:16:28 PM  
can't spell either...lol
 
2014-06-25 10:16:59 PM  

Ambivalence: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.


Actually, no, it isn't:  Honey doesn't rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation
Because of its unique composition and chemical properties, honey is suitable for long-term storage, and is easily assimilated even after long preservation. Honey, and objects immersed in honey, have been preserved for decades and even centuries.
 
2014-06-25 10:23:50 PM  

mr lawson: dittybopper: And she's got immunity for her official actions, so she can't be legally sanctioned for it.

see, that is the part I am not so sure about. Willfully ignoring federal law even by a sitting judge might have consequences.
/not a lawer


IANAL when the distaffbopper lets me, but judges have absolute immunity for acts within the scope of their official duties:

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/AbsoluteImmunity.html
 
2014-06-25 10:24:04 PM  

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: SO glad to see this followup; the original story had my blood boiling. No, I don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case, but the judge seemed like a prejudiced idiot who had no intention of giving this guy a fair shake.


/ya think? Good to see her get reminded that even though she hates men, there are still some laws to protect them. So suck it judge, suck it long and hard.
 
2014-06-25 10:25:17 PM  
With 20 years in the military I've seen plenty of nasty divorce/custody issues. And I can tell you that if an active duty member gets custody then the other spouse is an absolute disaster. And hey, big surprise! The mom has prior legal/abuse issues. Could have guessed that.

Of all the divorced parents I knew in the service - and it was a *lot* - only two had custody and that was because both their ex wives were drug addicts with arrest records.

And being active duty does not equal an unstable home life. If that's what this case is about, I really hope dad wins this. He has a right to be a parent too.
 
2014-06-25 10:25:53 PM  

dittybopper: mr lawson: dittybopper: And she's got immunity for her official actions, so she can't be legally sanctioned for it.

see, that is the part I am not so sure about. Willfully ignoring federal law even by a sitting judge might have consequences.
/not a lawer

IANAL when the distaffbopper lets me, but judges have absolute immunity for acts within the scope of their official duties:

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/AbsoluteImmunity.html


yeah..i check it out...you are right.
 
2014-06-25 10:26:27 PM  
Yay for the serviceman. Custody battles can be a biatch, speaking from experience. When I was suing for my son, my ex didn't give it any credence. I took the"Don't talk about it, just do it approach". I paid my lawyer, and she mat as well put up a fight with a wet paper bag. When I neede a loan for the lawyer, went to USAA, they thought of it as pocket change. Got him full custody, plus child support. Never asked for a dime, didn't get one, 12 years of court ordered support. The judge said it was nice we resolved the issue so amicably. I told him:"If you only knew".
 
2014-06-25 10:28:23 PM  
Guess what.

You make a baby with a psycho, you're going to have trouble later on when both of you fight it out in court.

Or put another way, its on you you're in this mess, hero.
 
2014-06-25 10:28:35 PM  

dittybopper: mr lawson: OtherLittleGuy: I was hoping that the lawyers had an appealate judge on speeddial ready to stay the ruling. I wonder if someone *did* have a stern talk for her to have a "come to Jesus" moment.

yup..have a feeling that judge just got an ass reaming.

From who?  She's a county judge, which means in all likelihood she's elected, and she probably doesn't have a "boss" per se.  She is the boss.  Unless she's one of several judges, and there is a hierarchy, but even then,  I doubt she got an ass-reaming.  Not that she doesn't deserve one.


She got appointed by then-Governor Jennifer Granholm, and immediately went on to rule in several cases that featured her former clients - and ruled in their favor. Likewise, she has a big history of automatically ruling against men, even when the women in question have been convicted of child abuse and neglect, like in this case. I suspect her rationale is that the man drove her to do it, and therefore a woman must be completely blameless for the evil acts she commits.
 
2014-06-25 10:30:06 PM  

zzrhardy: See, this is why we need feminism. It's 2014 and the female partners of serving members still don't have the same family law monopoly rights as their sisters who are partnered to non serving members.

This is clear evidence that the military is a patriarchal institution at heart, which give special protections and rights to men. These special rights and protections must be completely removed to allow all womyn everywhere to have equal rights before the law.

Of course, if you are a misogynistic pig who doesn't believe in equality for all womyn, feel free to fark off and die in a cancerous fire.


Thank you Rachel Maddow...now go back to the green room and slap Chrissy Matthews around some more....
 
2014-06-25 10:30:50 PM  

dittybopper: Ambivalence: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.

Actually, no, it isn't:  Honey doesn't rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation
Because of its unique composition and chemical properties, honey is suitable for long-term storage, and is easily assimilated even after long preservation. Honey, and objects immersed in honey, have been preserved for decades and even centuries.


It doesn't spoil, but it can be (and is) consumed by micro-organisms which causes it to degrade.  That's how they make mead.  Yeast eats the honey and creates ethanol.
 
2014-06-25 10:31:48 PM  
I swear to Elvis, there are some absolutely retarded moos sitting on benches, especially in Family Court.  A while back, I was on an endorsement committee during election season and we got to hear from the judges/candidates seeking our endorsement.  Jesus Fark, it was a goddamn freak show.  The judges I saw were, with a few exceptions, complete morons.
 
2014-06-25 10:32:02 PM  

LesserEvil: dittybopper: mr lawson: OtherLittleGuy: I was hoping that the lawyers had an appealate judge on speeddial ready to stay the ruling. I wonder if someone *did* have a stern talk for her to have a "come to Jesus" moment.

yup..have a feeling that judge just got an ass reaming.

From who?  She's a county judge, which means in all likelihood she's elected, and she probably doesn't have a "boss" per se.  She is the boss.  Unless she's one of several judges, and there is a hierarchy, but even then,  I doubt she got an ass-reaming.  Not that she doesn't deserve one.

She got appointed by then-Governor Jennifer Granholm, and immediately went on to rule in several cases that featured her former clients - and ruled in their favor. Likewise, she has a big history of automatically ruling against men, even when the women in question have been convicted of child abuse and neglect, like in this case. I suspect her rationale is that the man drove her to do it, and therefore a woman must be completely blameless for the evil acts she commits.


Wow, sucks to be the guy.

Here's a thought - don't make a baby with a psycho b*tch in the first place. Too tough too avoid? Too bad. Now stop clogging up the courts with your nonsense you idiot mens rights people and pay your damn support. You made the damn baby in the first place. Asshats expect us, the taxpayers, to help you dumb farks solve your dumb custody problems.
 
2014-06-25 10:32:12 PM  

cryinoutloud: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.
What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.

On what do you base your assumption? Spent a lot of time in family court, have you? I did--12 years. And you're wrong.


It seems we have two equally opposing anecdotes, yours from your alleged experience in child court and mine from the reams of reporting on the issue. As such, barring a statistical breakdown of the matter from a reputable party, I will continue to keep my own counsel on the matter, thanks.
 
2014-06-25 10:33:06 PM  
Better article with more of the facts.
The best part? The mom had to file her most recent motion herself because her lawyer fired her for not paying her bills and the mom was supposed to pay CPS to come out to do a evaluation before she could even be considered to have unsupervised visitation over night but since she could not afford it Judge Noe waived this evaluation.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140621/NEWS06/306210036/Adrian-Navy-c us tody-battle
 
2014-06-25 10:33:09 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: I swear to Elvis, there are some absolutely retarded moos sitting on benches, especially in Family Court.  A while back, I was on an endorsement committee during election season and we got to hear from the judges/candidates seeking our endorsement.  Jesus Fark, it was a goddamn freak show.  The judges I saw were, with a few exceptions, complete morons.


moos?  Jesus.  Mofos.  Muthafarkers.  The common clay of the New Bench.  You know...
 
2014-06-25 10:37:34 PM  

Ambivalence: dittybopper: Ambivalence: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.

Actually, no, it isn't:  Honey doesn't rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation
Because of its unique composition and chemical properties, honey is suitable for long-term storage, and is easily assimilated even after long preservation. Honey, and objects immersed in honey, have been preserved for decades and even centuries.

It doesn't spoil, but it can be (and is) consumed by micro-organisms which causes it to degrade.  That's how they make mead.  Yeast eats the honey and creates ethanol.


So in essence, honey never goes bad.
 
2014-06-25 10:43:38 PM  

Snarfangel: Ambivalence: dittybopper: Ambivalence: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.

Actually, no, it isn't:  Honey doesn't rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation
Because of its unique composition and chemical properties, honey is suitable for long-term storage, and is easily assimilated even after long preservation. Honey, and objects immersed in honey, have been preserved for decades and even centuries.

It doesn't spoil, but it can be (and is) consumed by micro-organisms which causes it to degrade.  That's how they make mead.  Yeast eats the honey and creates ethanol.

So in essence, honey never goes bad.


Nope, it goes very good

//is a meader...mead-maker?  what the fark am I...I uh, make mead.
 
2014-06-25 10:47:16 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

You should do it anyway, The mother served time for abuse, for God's sake. And the judge doesn't care, she's a woman, she sees the mother and a sperm donor, and is chomping at the bit to give the child back to be beaten some more.

What is it about judges that they are all hell-bent on farking the child over by disregarding everything else and giving kids to their mother? What is it about fathers that is so bad that they consistently get completely farked over? Having a uterus should not be the determining factor for custody.


Ermahgerd, the MRAs are rampaging!  Damn you, Seth Rogen!
 
2014-06-25 10:48:32 PM  

dittybopper: Ambivalence: strangeluck: But the big question is, do we still get to tar and feather the judge? Or is that like, on hold?

I don't think they use tar anymore, they use honey.  It's biodegradable.

Actually, no, it isn't:  Honey doesn't rot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Preservation
Because of its unique composition and chemical properties, honey is suitable for long-term storage, and is easily assimilated even after long preservation. Honey, and objects immersed in honey, have been preserved for decades and even centuries.


And the sentence after.
The key to preservation is limiting access to humidity. In its cured state, honey has a sufficiently high sugar content to inhibit fermentation. If exposed to moist air, its hydrophillic properties will pull moisture into the honey, eventually diluting it to the point that fermentation can begin
 
Displayed 50 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report