It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Grounding too harsh, court tells dad

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HippieontheHill
reply to post by tezzajw
 

If I were that father, I would swear out a warrant against the Judge for promoting " Child Pronography " on the internet - with the Royal Mounted Canadian Police Service.


WHAT THE HELL!
you are a genius!
i mean if a child can walk in to a law office and whine about trivial events then a parent should easily be able to have a case against the judge.
i really like your thinking.
we need more people with that think like you.
thanks i actually feel alot better now!




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Judges that use up court time for cases like this, need to be relieved of their duty, without pay, while they search for a job in the real world.

Lawyers that waste the court's time pushing for cases like this, similarly, need to be deregistered.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who's angry about this type of crap that fills up the courts.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Grounding too harsh, court tells dad


www.news.com.au

A CANADIAN court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the internet.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Wow, a court doing something to actually uphold a young person's freedom, rather than restrict it? I am pleasantly surprised!

Sure, the parents should have the final say above and beyond the court. But as a matter of principle, it is nice to see the girl "triumph" over her apparently overly conservative and reactionary parents. Their old-fashioned sort of thinking it what lets the lawyers and politicians rule us in the first place.



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Heh, myself I'd book a day off work, wait till she goes to school change the lock on the door and leave her belongings outside in a garbage bag lol... Always wanted my own library in the home
... if she wants to live by her own rules she can get her own apartment, or go live with her mother.

Then again I have no kids :/



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by shipovfools
 


You must not have kids. The dad was protecting his child, not opressing her. You dont let your 12 year old kid post innapropriate pics of herself on the internet. The girl was setting herself up for child abduction, exploitation, rape, and possibly death. There is no question that he did the right thing. The courts have failed this girl by ruling on her behalf. You are entititled to your opinion, but I have a feeling you are just too young to undestand the implications here.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I agree with the ruling. On a side note, my parents took away my Marilyn Manson CD when i was 14 and I would like to be compensated.


: )



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by skoalman88
I agree with the ruling. On a side note, my parents took away my Marilyn Manson CD when i was 14 and I would like to be compensated.


: )


i have no doubt that under some court somewhere you may be awarded reparation for your loss, though i dont know it might have been in your best interest. To much marilyn manson can cause cancer im pretty sure. LOL



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lynn112
 
THE MORE CRIMINALS WE HAVE THE JUDGE WILL ALWAYS HAVE A JOB THE MONEY WILL KEEP COME IN



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
The reason courts can do this is because of the fact that by entering a courtroom and swearing an oath you are contracting with the courtroom thus you have to abide by the rules set forth in the courts.

Civil courts are not mandatory. The only exception is when its a criminal courtroom. Cases such as these is destruction of property.. injury causing bodily harm.. anything that basically causes a person harm.

Most people have no clue how courts work because they are either to lazy or ignorant to actually learn the laws. In reality the reason people need lawyers to represent them is because the courtroom only has jurisdiction over people who practice law (lawyers) and by appointing yourself a lawyer you just agreed to the courtrooms terms.

Contract law is the only real law you need to learn about. I suggest everyone check it out.



[edit on 6-20-2008 by CPYKOmega]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
Most people have no clue how courts work because they are either to lazy or ignorant to actually learn the laws.

No, I don't accept that at all and I find it somewhat insulting to make that suggestion.

Most people don't have the time, memory or intelligence to spend six years (or more) learning intricate, convoluted laws, when they have their lives to live.

Courts, lawyers, lawmakers and judges have precluded MOST normal people from ever knowing the law, due to the fact that it would take years of study to read the rules.

The law is riddled with crap and deliberately so, with the intent to prevent the common person from trying to understand it. The law is a game that's made by powerbrokers to protect their interests. Powerbrokers pay lawyers to learn the rules better than the average person in the street, so that they can use the rules to get what they want.

Cases like this prove that the law is a joke. Twist it however you like, but I'm not falling for any justification that the law has any authority to deny a parent's well-meaning authority over their child's welfare.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I have started learning the law and no it does not take years. I have learned more online in a few short months the I would have ever dreamed.

It IS the ignorance and laziness of people that prevents them from learning pure and simple. You can come up with excuses all you want. It is not hard to download the bill of exchange act and criminal code here in Canada and skim through the important parts.

Nor is it hard to learn the basic fundamentals of contract law. All it takes is a little patience and willingness to try new things.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   
You don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars when you can learn it all on your own terms in your own spare time with simple online searches. All it takes like I said earlier is a little patience and the willingness to learn.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CPYKOmega
I have started learning the law and no it does not take years. I have learned more online in a few short months the I would have ever dreamed.

A few short months, hey? How many people can SPARE a few short months to learn a little bit of the law? The average, common person can not do this, they're lucky to manage a few spare hours in a week full of work, family and children.

Good for you, though. I hope you put aside all common sense and take those laws to heart.



Nor is it hard to learn the basic fundamentals of contract law. All it takes is a little patience and willingness to try new things.

For the average person, I also dispute this. I knew someone who was advancing in contract law along with copyright law. To the neglect of his family, he barely managed to pass an exam that he spent MONTHS studying for, which nearly cost him his health, as he worked long hours while studying on the side. Note - he was a smart person too, smarter than the average person in the street with an income to match.

Don't tell me how easy it is for the average person to learn the rules to a game that is rigged against them.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


I agree that I have more time then the average person as I live on my own. But again this person you speak of was going to school. I do not believe in schools as I believe each person should learn things for themselves on their own.

The best teacher is yourself.

Anyways back to the topic. The only reason this girl did this was for attention as her parents are in a 10 year custody dispute. I still don't think the courts have the authority over the dads grounding as its none of their business... but that only validates my previous points that by contracting with the court over their divorce/custody claim they gave the courts full authority.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I may get flamed for saying this, but before passing judgement on mother and child I would like to know what specifically the custody arrangement was between the mother and the father. If the girl lives with her mother most of the time, and the mother is responsible for her schooling, then the dad doesn't have the right to preclude that. Some people may cry 'it's not fair,' but like parents once told their children... life isn't fair.

I would also wonder what exactly the definition of inappropriate pictures is here. That differs widely from parent to parent... some would think it is inappropriate for their children to post their picture online, period.

I just don't feel that all the facts are here, and while I do think the parents were irresponsible in letting this go to the point that it had to go to court, I see the potential that either parent could be the instigator. Most people are quick to cry 'vindictive ex wife,' but hesitant to apply the same to the father. I think, honestly, if a child is going to be fought over this much, it would be in the child's best interst that one parent is awarded sole custody over the other. The benefits of having two involved parents are completely negated if that comes at the cost of being a pawn between two bickering adults.

Just my .02



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by shipovfools

Originally posted by tezzajw

Grounding too harsh, court tells dad


www.news.com.au

A CANADIAN court has lifted a 12-year-old girl's grounding, overturning her father's punishment for disobeying his orders to stay off the internet.

The girl had taken her father to Quebec Superior Court after he refused to allow her to go on a school trip for chatting on websites he tried to block, and then posting "inappropriate" pictures of herself online using a friend's computer.
(visit the link for the full news article)





Wow, a court doing something to actually uphold a young person's freedom, rather than restrict it? I am pleasantly surprised!

Sure, the parents should have the final say above and beyond the court. But as a matter of principle, it is nice to see the girl "triumph" over her apparently overly conservative and reactionary parents. Their old-fashioned sort of thinking it what lets the lawyers and politicians rule us in the first place.


Are you mental? Sorry, wrong way around, you ARE mental.

You have no idea of consequences.

If i were the father, I would have pulled out my phone, rang my ISP and cancelled my account there and then, and explained to the judge that she is grounded and he can lump it.

Putting "pictures" of herself up means she sent dirty pictures to some guy asking for them. End of story.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join