1 Cuban girl in exile, 2 dads....

"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:16:55 -0700, "0:-]"

Not quite so simple a case as krp would have us believe by his lying
babble about what I said in my post...simply asking a question about
children's rights v parent's rights. Child versus adult.

krp failed to answer the question as I asked. That is, to point to law
that supported any claim other than equality...the US Constitution, or
case law.

He has not done so.

Yes I did Kane, you only WISH I had not.

But in the course of his rambling common lies as method of debate,
he's brought up some interesting points.

Claims I pretend to be an expert, of course, are easily dismissed by
simply reading my post. I referred only to the article, and asked a
pointed question about children's rights...since this little girl did
express herself in the matter and has no shown any attachment to the
father.

Shall we REPLAY your claims of KNOWLEDGE of the bus system in Cuba?
Where tzxi stands are located? Where internet cafes are located and ALL the
rules associated with their use by both Cubans and tourists? Or your claims
of knowledge of law? Of child psychology? International child custody law?
The list is endless Kane.


Being fair minded and preferring, even when debating a confirmed
habitual and energetically predisposed liar, to argue from facts, I
looked this story up.

It's much more than it's been presented as, up to this point:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/51491.html

Just like assholes, since everyone has one, so to has everyone and
opinion:

U.S.-Cuba custody fight brews over girl
An international custody battle over a Coral Gables girl is quietly
playing out in Miami-Dade County's juvenile courthouse.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER

Related Content

* Custody hearing set in Cuban girl's case

A 4-year-old girl living in Coral Gables is at the center of an
international custody dispute between the United States and Cuba over
who will raise her: her father who lives in Cuba and wants her back,
or a family acquaintance who Florida child welfare administrators say
is more fit.

Because of a secrecy order, the battle over the youngster has played
out quietly in Miami-Dade County's juvenile courthouse in Allapattah.
But three sources with knowledge of the case say state child-welfare
workers have asked Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen to grant long-term
custody of the girl to an acquaintance of the girl's family.

Not NOT a long term "FATHER" figure but an "ACQUAINTENCE" of the family.

The girl, whose identity is being withheld by court and child-welfare
administrators, was taken from her mother by the Florida Department of
Children & Families about a year ago, sources said, after an
investigation into charges that the mother's severe mental illness
made her an unfit parent.

DCF also took custody of the girl's older, preteen brother. The
children, who have different fathers living in Cuba, came to the
United States legally two years ago. The boy's father agreed to
surrender his parental rights, sources said, so there is no dispute
about his staying in the United States.

KANE NOTE!!! KANE NOTE!!! KANE NOTE!! The BOY's father (n ot the
GIRL'S who is the subject here) had GIVEN his permissionfor the boy to
remain here. And the GIRL's father KANE holder of ALL knowledge??????????
????? Huh kane?

The girl's father, though, is pressing to gain custody. His lawyer is
Ira Kurzban, a prominent immigration attorney who has represented the
Cuban government in the past.

Cohen, who presides over child-welfare, foster-care and adoption
cases, has closed all proceedings in the case to the public and
ordered all parties involved not to discuss it. It is not known when
she will make a decision in the case.

A source said DCF administrators, who recently announced a new push to
improve the agency's transparency, did not request that the
proceedings be held behind closed doors.

THE BATTLE LINES

The Miami Herald has interviewed several people who have knowledge of
the custody battle. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they outlined
key aspects of the case.

DCF is represented in the case by Jason Dimitris, a former state and
federal prosecutor recently named chief of staff for agency head Bob
Butterworth. The family who is taking care of the children is
represented by Alan I. Mishael, a prominent family and juvenile-court
attorney and children's advocate.

A NEWSPAPER'S OPINONS ARE NOT FACTS EITHER KANE!

There are similarities and differences between this case and that of
Elián González, whose custody dispute made international headlines and
sparked raw emotions in South Florida, where communities -- and even
families -- were torn by heated arguments over where he belonged.

The main similarity: The new dispute involves a young child in Miami
with a father in Cuba seeking custody, a case that once again could
have political and emotional repercussions in South Florida and
Havana.

The differences: Elián fled Cuba on a boat and was rescued at sea
after his mother drowned. The mother of the girl in this case, who
succeeded in bringing her child to the United States, is alive but was
ruled unfit to care for her children. And there are no Miami relatives
caring for the girl, as there were in Elián's case.

In Cuba, the mother of the girl had a short-lived relationship with
the father, a source said. They were not married. The relationship had
ended by the time the woman and both her children entered the U.S. two
years ago.

Has NO bearing on CUBAN LAW.

Within about a year of the mother's arrival, however, she stopped
taking psychiatric medication, and long-term parenting problems
emerged, several sources said.

Following a call to the state's child-abuse and neglect hot line, DCF
investigators took custody of the two children.

Like most parents who enter Florida's child dependency system, the
mother was given a chance to improve her parenting skills and regain
custody. She failed, however, and after losing custody of the two
children is no longer involved in their lives, sources said.

Both children are now living with a Cuban-American family in a Coral
Gables home.

As is customary in cases involving juveniles, The Miami Herald is not
revealing the identity of the family that is caring for the children
to protect the youngsters' privacy.

The girl's father has asserted his rights to the child. While the
dispute has proceeded in court, a source said, he has been allowed
weekly phone calls with his daughter.

NOT ALLOWED IN U.S.

The father has been denied permission by the U.S. State Department to
enter the country to appear in court, a decision that has hindered his
ability to fight for custody of his daughter. Though state law does
not require his presence to grant him custody, many judges insist they
meet and scrutinize potential caregivers before agreeing to give them
custody.

Nice trick isn't it Kane?

DCF attorneys are arguing in court that the father in Cuba is unfit to
have custody because he took no action to safeguard the daughter from
her mother's abusive behavior while she lived on the island, a source
said.

Proof????

State workers have not suggested the father himself was physically
abusive to the children.

Isn't that SPECIAL!

At one point, the girl's mother told child welfare workers she would
prefer that the girl live with her father in Cuba rather than in
foster care, two sources told The Miami Herald.

And that dfoesn't copunt - WHY Kane?

To help the judge determine the father's fitness to have custody,
Miami's private child protection agency asked an independent,
international agency to conduct a review of the man's living
conditions in Cuba. Such ''home studies'' are routinely conducted
before a court decides whether to grant custody of a child.

Though the home study was generally positive, sources say DCF
administrators remain skeptical because they fear representatives of
the Cuban government were present during the evaluation and may have
influenced its outcome.

Yeah right. Excuse 23,477!

''This was not a valid home study,'' a source said.

Seven years ago, Elián González was returned to his father in Cuba
after he was forcibly removed from the home of his Miami relatives by
federal agents. Sources said the history of the Elián case weighs on
those involved with the new proceedings, and has much to do with the
quiet and cautious handling of the dispute.

And by all accounts is THRIVING!

Miami Herald staff writers Scott Hiaasen, Frances Robles, Monica Z.
Leal, Alfonso Chardy and Pablo Bachelet contributed to this report.


Copyright 2007 Miami Herald Media Co.
All Rights Reserved

'''
I'd say some excellent reporting by the above journalists. And tough
decisions to make, and a well qualified judge. Look up her CV, krp.

Why?


Nothing like your phony one you claim someone made up.

I'm still looking for any evidence of an MA in Child Development,
awarded to Kenneth Pangborn, as you claimed. And I know where to look.
Why can't I find it? Did you matriculate under another name?


Yeah you are you infallible SOURCES KANE. MS not MA...

"0:-]" wrote in message
...

Another point concerning the rights of this child, is that she has a
brother that is likely to become a legal resident of the U.S.

His father, different than the girl's, has given up his custody and
the same family he is with, also has the girl as a foster child.

So?
Thus, the one constant person in this girl's life to date, her brother
will be lost to her, likely forever, should she be placed with her
father, who was not married to her mother, and according to claims in
another media release, was accused of not coming to the child's rescue
when the mother was endangering the child.

Wait it was the "OTHER FATHER" wqhen you started this. To be specific
"the ONLY father the child has ever known/" What will it be tomorrow Kane?

Such a complicated case.

Only if you choose to make it so based on idelology.

And still, the child has rights, does she not?

Not independently of her parents Kane. Even your own SOURCE says even
the mother wants the child with HER REAL FATHER! In any SANE system that
shoudl END the debate.But this is all diven by ideology, blind hatred of
Fidel Castro. Whom I am NOT defending here. But damn it Kane, he was 100%
RIGHT on the subject of Elian and Cuba is 100% right here too!

Will the father feel emotional loss, for a child, that it appears he has
never parented?

Your questions Kane are NEVER really questions. They are claims hiding
behind a question mark.

Compared to the child losing both the family she has lived with for
two years, and her brother, a lifelong, for her, constant in her life?

Sorry Kane not for 2 years IF you closely read the aryicle. Just a few
months. And your logic is an old threadbare one, let me lay it out for you.

John Jones gets a new Rolly Royce in 2001. Later the month after be
purchased it, the car is stolen. The theives abandon the car in Ohio.

In 2002 Jim Smith finds the abandoned car in his Ohio farm field. He begins
to use the car to haul feed for his chickens. At what point does he have the
ability to make a LEGAL CLAIM that he has had possession of the car so long
it is now HIS car? If wer can'tr do that wven with an inanimate object how
the hell can you seriously make that claim with a HUMAN BEING?? A child!

Who would like to play God here, krp? You? A fat lying pig turd wants to
claim he knows best for this child?

Kane the world wrenched though these issues and decided them following
WW-2 when there were MILLIONS of displaced persons and children all over
Europe. Germany claimed hundreds of thousands of "ARYAN" children from lands
it took by military means.. The USSR took millions of children in the lands
they took when defeating the Nazis. The WORLD decided Kane that the children
had a RIGHT to their familie sand their homelands, even ones we HATED.

Of course I could be wrong about you, as you may not have seen the
later releases by the press.

Maybe now you see that the father has less investment than the child
does.

Exactly why IS he pursuing this, when he apparently never parented
this child? Could it be Fidel, who you once expressed some negative
concerns about, and now seem to be supporting?

Kane that the mother had mental problems and chose to make herself dead
to the child has zero to do with the father. Kane you are a man of very
limited intellect that is unable to fathom that my support for the father in
this case is not a ringing endorsement of Fidel Castro or his government.
You also would probably not understand that my criticisms of the Cuban
system do not eman I condemn it whole cloth. In YOUR world it ia all or
nothing as with any brain dead idealogue. You miss the fine points Kane it's
the ADD thing.

Suddenly he wants a child he did not before?

And your PROOF that he did not want the child before?

YOU are playing politics, krp, not I.

No Kane you are doing what you always do - taking CPS's side over the
parent. Any parent taking advice from YOU is sleeping with their enemy!

I am still focused on both father and child and their relative
interests here, and you have addressed NEITHER, other than to babble
about the father in terms of "blood" rights.
Kindly stick your head back up your butt and see if you can devine the
perfect solution.

Perfect solution is to send the girl to her father absent a showing he's
evil.


The Miami Herald (Florida)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
June 28, 2007 Thursday
SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS
ACC-NO:
20070628-MI-0628-Ruling-orders-hearings-open-in-child-custody-case
LENGTH: 680 words
HEADLINE: Ruling orders hearings open in child custody case: A Miami
appeals court has overturned a judge's order closing hearings in an
international child custody battle
BYLINE: Carol Marbin Miller, The Miami Herald
BODY:

Jun. 28--A Miami appeals court ordered a juvenile court judge
Wednesday to open to the public all hearings in a child-custody
dispute between a Cuban national and a Cuban exile family that wants
to raise the man's 4-year-old daughter.

The Third District Court of Appeal overturned Circuit Judge Jeri B.
Cohen's April 20, 2006, order that all hearings in the case be closed.
The Miami Herald appealed Cohen's order in March.

SHAME isn't it Kane? Can't be done in SECRET!

In its three-page ruling, the appeals court did not rule on a separate
order from Cohen that bans all courtroom participants from speaking
about the case.

The Herald did not specifically appeal the so-called gag order.

"Under Florida law, the trial court may close any dependency hearing
to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare
of the child is best served by doing so," the appeals court wrote.
"However, such a determination must be supported by competent
substantial evidence. The evidence presented to the trial court fails
to satisfy this requirement."

Eunice Sigler, a spokeswoman for Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit,
which encompasses Miami-Dade County, said the ruling was not yet
final, pending a possible appeal by either the girl's caregivers or
the Guardian-ad-Litem Program in Miami, which sought the closing of
the hearings.

LEGAL ENTRY

The little girl's mother immigrated legally to the United States in
2004 and, after living for a short while in Houston, moved with her
two children to Miami. Shortly after, the mother became despondent and
attempted to kill herself by slashing her wrists. The girl and her
now-12-year-old brother were sheltered by the Department of Children &
Families.

The brother, who has a different father than the girl, went to live
with a Cuban-American family in Coral Gables with the consent of his
father.

Hmmmmm remember that CONSENT thinbg I metioned a few days ago you put down?

The 4-year-old also lives with the family, under the supervision of
DCF and a privately run foster care agency under contract with the
state.

The girl's father in Cuba has pressed for custody, arguing that he is
a fit parent and should be given an opportunity to raise the girl. DCF
workers have claimed he is not fit to raise her.

Based on WHAT evidence?

The father has traveled to Miami with the permission of the U.S. State
Department for court hearings, and to help his lawyers prepare their
case. A full hearing on the father's fitness as a parent is set for
August.

The Herald has not named the children, their mother nor the children's
caregivers, in order to protect their privacy.

"We're pleased with the decision," said Sandy Bohrer, the Herald's
Miami attorney. "We think it is the correct one.

"We argued that no evidence was presented sufficient to deny the
public's right to access," Bohrer said. "The District Court of Appeal
agreed. Now, the public will get to see how justice is being done in
this case."

DCF, which oversees the girl's care, joined the Herald's petition to
the appeals court as part of a recent initiative to improve the
agency's openness and accountability.

On Wednesday, DCF Secretary Bob Butterworth praised the appeals
court's ruling, though he declined to discuss any details of the case,
citing Cohen's gag order.

'RIGHT DETERMINATION'

'In this case, I do believe the appeals' court made the right
determination, whether this is appealed to the Florida Supreme Court
or not," said Butterworth, a longtime state attorney general whose
tenure ended due to term limits. "We will see what happens."

Hillary Kambour, an attorney for the Guardian-ad-Litem Program in
Miami, which had sought the closure of proceedings, declined to
comment on the order, also citing Cohen's order prohibiting any
discussion of the case.

And the showing that the father is UNFIT????? Even the mother says HE
should have custody., That SHOULD end it!

"torresdD" wrote in message
nk.net...

" krp"

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9ynQH63IF0U


Delores you and I almost never agree. On Elian and this girl we do! Don't
abuse it.

KANE - WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON CUBA AND INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW
"0:]" wrote in message
...

1 Cuban girl in exile, 2 dads
In the first public hearing on the fate of a 4-year-old girl whose
father wants her to return to Cuba, a frustrated judge called for
calm.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
In terms of rights, whose should be honored in this conflict...the
long absent father, or the girl's current relationship with the man
she views as her father?
Long absent father?
Why did you delete from your reply what I actually said, past that
question above, krp? So that you could set out on another vile lying
attack and think you wouldn't be seen for what you are?
Oh so NOW you claim PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

You now lie again? I've expressed no personal knowledge of this case.
Only what I read.

Asshole - does it EVER slow you down, just a little, to think that
YOU the GREAT KANE - might not be seeing everything? NO! Not for a
picosecond! You KNOW EVERYTHING!! Don't ya weenie? ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING!!!!

No, I have an opinion, and I look for more information. I comment based on
what I have, not what I wish I had, or what I will pretend the other
person has said.

No you arrogant ass you believe you **KNOW** everything! You swagger
like a bullcock with your STRIDENT opinions Kane.

You are a liar.

No that's YOU whenever you get cornered!

in addition to your EXPERT STATUS on international Child custody law.

I'm not. Are you claiming you are and that makes your opinion superior
to mine?

` SURE you are! Ask anyone. Kane knows IT ALL! Just ask him! I know a
whole BUNCH more than you Kane.

That's nice, and I've asked you to share. What is this little game to
protect your flaccid ego about, "nyah nyah, I've got a secret and you
don't know it?" Like a fourth grader?

Hey ADD boy you're the one with ego here. I've NAILED your ass on the
issues of LAW.

I have actually participated in
international child custody cases, AND dip**** - been ASKED to provide
testimony to Congress on the subject,

That would be in the congressional record. I can find no reference to any
Kenneth, Ken, or K. Pangborn in that source.

You are TOTALLY full of **** Kane. I gave LIVE testimony in 1984. You
might see a nice little exchange between myself and Senator Long of the
Judiciary commitee. But then we have such a GRAND liar like you.

Please show a link to your testimony.

Golly Kane they didn't LINK it back then the INTERNET that YOU invemted
by yourself was just in infant states in 1984. EXECPT in your basement with
your CRAY supercomputer that YOU invented in your spare time!

Are you JB Pangborn, on autism? Or Bernard Pangborn on the same subject?

Nope. Try looking under Child Custody / Child support etc. You make up
**** faster than anyone I know Kane.

Lexus Nexus seems devoid of any Congressional testimony bearing your name.
But then, you could point to it for us, right?

Kane hate to tell you this but not EVERY hearing is on LEXUS NEXUS for
every hearign ever held. EXCEPT in your basement on your SUPER SUPER SUPER
computer with MORE info than the Library of Alexandria on it by zillions!

But I BOW to the GREAT KANE who knows EVERYTHING! ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
about international law. You know the hague treaty baclward and forward
and can cite ALL the relavent law from every couuntry in the world on
it, RIGH KANE???????

I don't recall claiming I was an expert on law, international or
otherwise.

Oh SURE you do Kane, don't play modest with us now. NMOBODY knows aven
..0000000000000001% as much as YOU DO! YOUY wrote ther book! ALL of them!
Just take credit for all your GREAT GREAT accomplishments! Sole invention of
the internet, sole invenmtor of the computer, legal expert, psychological
expert, super spy for the Air Force, world traveler, raconteur, bin vivant!
You're prtending modesty duits you ill ALL HAIL KANE!

Are you saying that other than you a person may not cite or refer to law
when YOU claim knowledge and ask you for a link to support your claim?
This makes them a pretend expert, does it?

You ahven't cited LAW kane just demanded that your OPINION be taken as
gospel as if chiseled in a tablet next to a burning bush! That's all!

Stop dancing, krp, and point to the international law YOU claim applied in
parenting and child custody.

I pointed specificly to cas elaw from the Federal Courts. Santosky v.
Kramer, Stanley v. Illinois., Mabra v. Schmidt to name just 3 of HUNDREDS of
cases on the subject of parental rights VERSUS your fukkkkkkin GETAPO CPS
mentality!

Please clarify.

It's simple Kane - your comments on the subject are merely you
blowing it out of your ASS!!!

Your response is not the one I asked for...for you to support your claim.
You said there was international law regarding parenting rights. I asked
you to give us a reference for it that can be checked out...and feel free
to quote if you wish.

Oh I did you keep ignoring it. And you continue to blow your arrogance
out of your ass Kane You're TOTALLY full of **** and you are desperate to
hide it. But eventually you'll have top admit it sheepishly like you have
before.

Or it may be that your screeching up above is nothing but blubbery ****.

SO - since you KNOW firsthand,

How would I do that? And you?

Because Kane you know EVERYTHING! Not pon;ly do youi klnow MORE
about Cuba than ANY Cuban anywhere in the world . VASTLY MORE, you know
LAW, you know psychology, medicine and you even know broadcast
electronics plus being a DOUBLE NAUTGHT SPY!

I have questions about those things and asked you, who claim to know of
international law pertaining to parenting rights, to let us know.

Look at the HAGUE treaty on international child custody DIP****!

Are you going to, or are you going to blubber **** for a dozen or so more
posts until I tire of your bull**** dodges?

You're the one throwing the bull**** I have to dodge Kane!

tell us the date and PRECISE TIME to the second the last time the CUBAN
(biological)
(REAL) father saw his child.. Tell us WHERE it took place andf how many
times he beat or sexually molested the child on that day Kane!!!

I have not heard, nor claimed I heard, or claimed I know that he did
any such thing.

Yes you claimed he "abandoned" his child and had not even TRIED to
see her in YEARS! Yeha you did Kane.

I made neither claim. I said he had not seen her. I did not say he didn't
try to, nor that he abandoned her.

Yes you did AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN and I attached that comment but
oddly it seems to disappear when you dig your toe into the hot lineoleum and
say "who me?"

What I have done, recently, was post an article that establishes that he
was not a parenting father, but simply what appears to be a sperm donor.
He was not married to the mother.

What a class act you are SLEAZE! You TRY to paint yourself as all
innocent and free of an agenda yet the way you say things reveals who you
REALLY ARE! A "sperm donor" eh? Your PROOF????

Please stop ranting and making a larger fool of your lard ass self.

No Kane I am again making a fool of YOU! A internet BLOWHARD who
claims expertise on subects he knows NOTHING about! You are armed ONLY
with your strident and wrong opinions.

You seem to be describing yourself to a tee, krp.

POOR INOCENT KANE labels the man merely a "SPERM DONOR!" ANd yet the
gREAT KANE pretends he is OBJECTIVE! Bull**** CPS KANE!

You claim you know of international law pertaining, but refuse to produce
it.

No Kane I produced several US Supreme Court cases that deal with
parental rights.

Now you DISHONEST little ****.... WHo often claims that "NO SUCH CASE
EXISTS" form my Lexus Nexus SEARCH on my BAZOOM computer data base...
Here's the info on that case.

SANTOSKY ET AL. v. KRAMER, COMMISSIONER, ULSTER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.



No. 80-5889.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



455 U.S. 745; 71 L. Ed. 2d 599; 50 U.S.L.W. 4333; 102 S.

Ct. 1388



Argued November 10, 1981



March 24, 1982



Read it ans weep jerkoff! It sets out basic parameters for interfering
in parental relations and like Stanley V. Illinois declars they BASIC
RIGHTS.. Some of us would say basic HUMAN RIGHTS against your fukking
GESTAPO CPS!


So, let us see how you start right off with lies.

When the child is "snatched" from him?

How do you know she was "snatched?" You don't even know if he had
custody of her in Cuba. If he had, would the mother have left alone?
No, she'd have been a couple with him and both would have won the visa
lottery as a couple.

No comment? So you are going to claim the child was snatched but you
aren't going to say how you know that. As always, the lying lard ass.

AGAIN your VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST EXPERTISE on Cuba
is astounding Kane. You bloated jackass. First of all under Communism in
Cuba FEW marriages are formal. For decades the churches were padlocked.
Religious mariages all but forbidden. Civil marriages drifted into also
being relatively rare. People just live together - make babies and CALL
themselves "married."

That's nice.

Your ignorance is astounding Kane. Your refusal to process any
information that might tell you that your Empreror is NAKES is remarkable.

HOWEVER you CLOWN - Cuban LAW (I know you consider yourself the LEADING
EXPERT on the planet on that subject)

I've never even referred to Cuban law, but I will now.

The GREATR CUBAN LAW EXPERT KANE will now entertain us!

Please provide citations from Cuban law that support your claims above.

UP YOURS fumble but I just gave you US law which is where the case is.
NICE TRY at a diversion.

dictates that both parents must give permission to remove a child from
Cuba. Meaning the FATHER in this case. The pleadings so far made public
make it clear that the mother did NOT obtain the permission. BUT when
shall we be treated to your magnum opus on Cuban LAW Killer Kane?

Since I have not made any claims about Cuban law, but have asked you,
never.

Oh come on Kane we all KNOW that YOU are the final authority on ALL LAW
in the world! YOu and your LEXUS NEXUS!

As for the pleadings made public, then you would not have any difficulty
in pointing to this public source for us to read them and see that one,
Cuban law does actually require permission of both parents when they are
not legally married, and two, that she did not obtain his permission to
take the child out of the country.

Golly Kane your own sources support what I am saying. The original and
the followup stories. Even the MOTHER has said the child shoul be with her
REAL dad! Only YOU and your CPS pals say otherwise. And of course the family
hand selected by CPS!

My take would be, though smile I'm not expert, that the US would not
issue an entry visa for a child the parent could not prove she had legal
custody to bring into the country.

Oh Kane you are STUPID as ever. All the had to do to get the visa to get
"parole" in the form of the visa was submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing
her to be the mother! The permission to LEAVE Cuba is between the mother and
Cuba. Sadly one can either BRIBE the immigration folks in Cuba to allow them
out, or just trust that whoever is on duty doesn't give a ****. AGAIN your
VAST PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of Cuba might tell you that many people who work in
immigration are in sympathy with those who CAN leave. Kane for all your
ARROGANCE you are so damn CLUELESS.

In fact is it not true that Cuba requires those leaving the country to
obtain an exit visa, for all parties, children included?

Not necessarily nfants Kane. BUT as I said often folks don't look too
closely. They see a plane ticket and visas and a packet, they don't look at
the fine points. For a price Kane you can get almost any document in Cuba
you wish.

Possibly you, who claims to have the knowledge in this matter can
enlighten us.

I could by why bother YOU KNOW EVERYTHING you should enlighen us with
your Lexus Nexus from Cuba!

To obtain an exit visa for a child is it required that the unmarried
father of the child, or unmarried mother for that matter, provide
permission for their opposite to get their permission to exit?

Pretty much YES Kane, Said that now - what? A dozen times? Kane want to
know why that is? Look at Fidel Castro's PERSONAL history having a child
yanked out of the country. YOU ARE CLUELESS! And impossible to educate
because you think you know everything!

"The youngster, whom The Miami Herald is not identifying to protect
her privacy, entered the United States legally in March 2005 when her
mother won a visa lottery. By the end of that year, however, she had
been sheltered by the Department of Children & Families, which had
asked Cohen to declare the girl's mother unfit."

Kane was the FATHER consulted for his permission to abscond with the
child out of Cuba?

I have no idea.

Then STOP shooting your mouth off you buffoon!

Well, was he, or was he not? 0:]

Was he or wasn't he WHAT?

Nor was that the issue and my question, which
doubtless you have deleted yet again. So that you can pursue a line of
debate I had not agreed to participate in. Just so you can dodge my
actual question. I'll post it again, later in this missive.

Kane what you seem UNABLE (ADD) to get is that your original claim that
the father had "ABANDONED" his daughter "and had not even tried to see
her for years" was BULL****!

I didn't make that claim. I simply said he had not seen her. Which is
plainly in the media descriptions of the case. And now we know, and I
quoted, and LINKED to the article, that he was not married to the child's
mother. Nor parenting the child.

NO Kane you said he "ABANDONED" his daughter - - - AND - - - he had
made NO effort to see her in YEARS!"

Makes no difference what THE GREAT KANE agrees to
participate in. It is a matter of FACTS!

I've asked you for them, but rather than supply them you simply attack my
requests pretending they are claims.

You IGNORE the facts you don't like.

You know those pesky things they insist on in courts?

You got any?

You keep ignoring any that don't suit your BULL****.

" krp"

will respond to any and all messages on the internet that make reference to
him.

krp wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:16:55 -0700, "0:-]"

Not quite so simple a case as krp would have us believe by his lying
babble about what I said in my post...simply asking a question about
children's rights v parent's rights. Child versus adult.

krp failed to answer the question as I asked. That is, to point to law
that supported any claim other than equality...the US Constitution, or
case law.

He has not done so.

Yes I did Kane, you only WISH I had not.

You are lying. Point us to the post where you cited Constitution or case
law showing the parent's superior rights over the child's rights.

But in the course of his rambling common lies as method of debate,
he's brought up some interesting points.

Claims I pretend to be an expert, of course, are easily dismissed by
simply reading my post. I referred only to the article, and asked a
pointed question about children's rights...since this little girl did
express herself in the matter and has no shown any attachment to the
father.

Shall we REPLAY your claims of KNOWLEDGE of the bus system in Cuba?

Sure, if you use MY words instead of your claims of my words.

Where tzxi stands are located? Where internet cafes are located and ALL the
rules associated with their use by both Cubans and tourists? Or your claims
of knowledge of law? Of child psychology? International child custody law?
The list is endless Kane.

I cited Cuban source, krp on the former, and I obviously know a great
deal about child psychology that you do not.

I've made NO claims about international law whatsoever, other than to
challenge YOU who made the claim that international law is in favor of
the parent's rights over the child's rights.

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate your expertise and cite the specific
law or laws, quote them, and link to some source for them other than
your babbling lying spew.


Being fair minded and preferring, even when debating a confirmed
habitual and energetically predisposed liar, to argue from facts, I
looked this story up.

It's much more than it's been presented as, up to this point:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/51491.html

Just like assholes, since everyone has one, so to has everyone and
opinion:

U.S.-Cuba custody fight brews over girl
An international custody battle over a Coral Gables girl is quietly
playing out in Miami-Dade County's juvenile courthouse.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER

Related Content

* Custody hearing set in Cuban girl's case

A 4-year-old girl living in Coral Gables is at the center of an
international custody dispute between the United States and Cuba over
who will raise her: her father who lives in Cuba and wants her back,
or a family acquaintance who Florida child welfare administrators say
is more fit.

Because of a secrecy order, the battle over the youngster has played
out quietly in Miami-Dade County's juvenile courthouse in Allapattah.
But three sources with knowledge of the case say state child-welfare
workers have asked Circuit Judge Jeri B. Cohen to grant long-term
custody of the girl to an acquaintance of the girl's family.

Not NOT a long term "FATHER" figure but an "ACQUAINTENCE" of the family.

Explain how someone that has acted as the child's father is not a
"father figure" to that child?





The girl, whose identity is being withheld by court and child-welfare
administrators, was taken from her mother by the Florida Department of
Children & Families about a year ago, sources said, after an
investigation into charges that the mother's severe mental illness
made her an unfit parent.

DCF also took custody of the girl's older, preteen brother. The
children, who have different fathers living in Cuba, came to the
United States legally two years ago. The boy's father agreed to
surrender his parental rights, sources said, so there is no dispute
about his staying in the United States.

KANE NOTE!!! KANE NOTE!!! KANE NOTE!!

Peeing yourself again?

The BOY's father (n ot the
GIRL'S who is the subject here) had GIVEN his permissionfor the boy to
remain here. And the GIRL's father KANE holder of ALL knowledge??????????
????? Huh kane?

You are beyond hope. I made the very point myself, krp. I am the one
posting the information, not you, idiot.

Did I make any claims about the father of the girl giving or not giving
any permission?

Are you still claiming, despite your OWN claims to the contrary, that
the Cuban government gave permission for this child to leave the country
without the father's permission?

The girl's father, though, is pressing to gain custody. His lawyer is
Ira Kurzban, a prominent immigration attorney who has represented the
Cuban government in the past.

Cohen, who presides over child-welfare, foster-care and adoption
cases, has closed all proceedings in the case to the public and
ordered all parties involved not to discuss it. It is not known when
she will make a decision in the case.

A source said DCF administrators, who recently announced a new push to
improve the agency's transparency, did not request that the
proceedings be held behind closed doors.

THE BATTLE LINES

The Miami Herald has interviewed several people who have knowledge of
the custody battle. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they outlined
key aspects of the case.

DCF is represented in the case by Jason Dimitris, a former state and
federal prosecutor recently named chief of staff for agency head Bob
Butterworth. The family who is taking care of the children is
represented by Alan I. Mishael, a prominent family and juvenile-court
attorney and children's advocate.

A NEWSPAPER'S OPINONS ARE NOT FACTS EITHER KANE!

Then we have nothing to discuss, have we krp?

Or do you have an insider source that you won't reveal? 0:]

There are similarities and differences between this case and that of
Elián González, whose custody dispute made international headlines and
sparked raw emotions in South Florida, where communities -- and even
families -- were torn by heated arguments over where he belonged.

The main similarity: The new dispute involves a young child in Miami
with a father in Cuba seeking custody, a case that once again could
have political and emotional repercussions in South Florida and
Havana.

The differences: Elián fled Cuba on a boat and was rescued at sea
after his mother drowned. The mother of the girl in this case, who
succeeded in bringing her child to the United States, is alive but was
ruled unfit to care for her children. And there are no Miami relatives
caring for the girl, as there were in Elián's case.

In Cuba, the mother of the girl had a short-lived relationship with
the father, a source said. They were not married. The relationship had
ended by the time the woman and both her children entered the U.S. two
years ago.

Has NO bearing on CUBAN LAW.

Which would be, in this matter?

And please, stop asking us to take the word of a known habitual liar,
krp. Provide verifiable proof with a link to the source. Thanks.

Within about a year of the mother's arrival, however, she stopped
taking psychiatric medication, and long-term parenting problems
emerged, several sources said.

Following a call to the state's child-abuse and neglect hot line, DCF
investigators took custody of the two children.

Like most parents who enter Florida's child dependency system, the
mother was given a chance to improve her parenting skills and regain
custody. She failed, however, and after losing custody of the two
children is no longer involved in their lives, sources said.

Both children are now living with a Cuban-American family in a Coral
Gables home.

As is customary in cases involving juveniles, The Miami Herald is not
revealing the identity of the family that is caring for the children
to protect the youngsters' privacy.

The girl's father has asserted his rights to the child. While the
dispute has proceeded in court, a source said, he has been allowed
weekly phone calls with his daughter.

NOT ALLOWED IN U.S.

The father has been denied permission by the U.S. State Department to
enter the country to appear in court, a decision that has hindered his
ability to fight for custody of his daughter. Though state law does
not require his presence to grant him custody, many judges insist they
meet and scrutinize potential caregivers before agreeing to give them
custody.

Nice trick isn't it Kane?

What? He's currently in the country and has been for some weeks. Resides
with a someone that has a swimming pool that he has been granted
unsupervised visitation with his daughter to go swimming in.

DCF attorneys are arguing in court that the father in Cuba is unfit to
have custody because he took no action to safeguard the daughter from
her mother's abusive behavior while she lived on the island, a source
said.

Proof????

Good question. You have proof they don't have proof?

State workers have not suggested the father himself was physically
abusive to the children.

Isn't that SPECIAL!

Well, in the context of you claiming the girl herself behaved toward him
as though he was abusive, and you claimed that was because of alienation
of the child by worker and the foster parents, yes, it is sort of
"special," krp.

At one point, the girl's mother told child welfare workers she would
prefer that the girl live with her father in Cuba rather than in
foster care, two sources told The Miami Herald.

And that dfoesn't copunt - WHY Kane?

Well, tell you what. Look at the reason for removal from her care and
custody, krp, and get back to me.

To help the judge determine the father's fitness to have custody,
Miami's private child protection agency asked an independent,
international agency to conduct a review of the man's living
conditions in Cuba. Such ''home studies'' are routinely conducted
before a court decides whether to grant custody of a child.

Though the home study was generally positive, sources say DCF
administrators remain skeptical because they fear representatives of
the Cuban government were present during the evaluation and may have
influenced its outcome.

Yeah right. Excuse 23,477!

Oh? I hadn't heard any until now, but you know of 23,476 others?

Where?

YOU, krp, made the point this was a "politically" driven charade. Are
you claiming the Cuba would be unlikely to participate in the politics?

''This was not a valid home study,'' a source said.

Seven years ago, Elián González was returned to his father in Cuba
after he was forcibly removed from the home of his Miami relatives by
federal agents. Sources said the history of the Elián case weighs on
those involved with the new proceedings, and has much to do with the
quiet and cautious handling of the dispute.

And by all accounts is THRIVING!

Whose accounts?

I didn't know we had a news link within Cuba that let's us receive news
that's unfiltered by the Cuban government. Wow, the things you know,
krp. I'm so very impressed.


Miami Herald staff writers Scott Hiaasen, Frances Robles, Monica Z.
Leal, Alfonso Chardy and Pablo Bachelet contributed to this report.


Copyright 2007 Miami Herald Media Co.
All Rights Reserved

'''
I'd say some excellent reporting by the above journalists. And tough
decisions to make, and a well qualified judge. Look up her CV, krp.

Why?

Because the have a lot of information that helps clarify what is going
on, and shots your bull**** full of holes, krp. No other reason. AS for
the judge, well, the answer is ...

Nothing like your phony one you claim someone made up.

.... and of course, I like to rub your nose in your lies.

I'm still looking for any evidence of an MA in Child Development,
awarded to Kenneth Pangborn, as you claimed. And I know where to look.
Why can't I find it? Did you matriculate under another name?

Hold your breath, everyone. I think KPR IS FINALLY GOING TO ANSWER A
DIRECT QUESTION.

Yeah you are you infallible SOURCES KANE. MS not MA...

Awwww.....I was wrong again. 0:]

Proof your MS exists then, krp?

I didn't search by M 'A' just "masters degree" being quite familiar with
the existence of both a 'science,' and an 'arts' master's program.

Very familiar.

So, you have managed to lie your way through yet another round of
bull**** dodging by you.

Enough crappola that you think you can now claim you answered me as per
the law, as I requested, on the question of showing how children have
less rights than adults under our system of laws.

Yet I know, and any reader that's followed knows you did no such thing.
You quoted NO laws. You quoted NO constitutional provisions or
amendments pertaining.

You are still consistently, as you have been for years, simply a liar.

But don't change for us. We love you the way you are, krp.

0:]

krp wrote:
"0:-]" wrote in message
...

As to your claim that she responded to the bio father as if he was
abusive: "''She had a very strong emotional reaction to that,'' Vigil
said. ``She cried and yelled at him, and said she had one father and she
loved that father.''

Seems she recognized her foster father as 'father.' And fails to
recognize the bio dad. Would that suggest he parented her?

This same little girl also said, sorting things out rather neatly, that
she had two fathers, one on each shoulder.

More balanced, loving, and understanding, as well as fair, than the
adults around her, apparently.

Another point concerning the rights of this child, is that she has a
brother that is likely to become a legal resident of the U.S.

His father, different than the girl's, has given up his custody and
the same family he is with, also has the girl as a foster child.

So?

See the word, "thus" below? It means that there is more to my statement
to follow. Isolating a portion of a poster's comments and basing your
comeback on it alone shows your lack of ethical debating. As usual.

Thus, the one constant person in this girl's life to date, her brother
will be lost to her, likely forever, should she be placed with her
father,

The answer to your question, "so?"

See? So.

who was not married to her mother, and according to claims in
another media release, was accused of not coming to the child's rescue
when the mother was endangering the child.

Wait it was the "OTHER FATHER" wqhen you started this. To be specific
"the ONLY father the child has ever known/" What will it be tomorrow Kane?

Change of subject from the primary point of the poster, krp, as in:
"accused of not coming to the child's rescue when the mother was
endangering the child."

No, it was not "the other father" in regard to coming to the child's
rescue IN CUBA, krp.

Such a complicated case.

Only if you choose to make it so based on idelology.

My ideology (what's a idelology?') is not.

My question was to the law. And it was about children's rights. And you
still haven't supported the rant you gave us, rather than the laws
pertaining, on child's rights being inferior to parents rights unless
the parents is proven unfit.

It was nonsense when you screamed it, and it's still nonsense -- and
ideology. Yours.

The child's rights aren't based on the parent's performance. The
EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT of the child's right are.

The rights are the rights.

All Constitutional reference to "the people," refer to (except in that
always confounding 2nd amendment) as the individual citizen.

Is a child not a citizen, just as all other human beings in the US are?

If you believe so, please support your argument with specific laws that
pertain to the child having LESSOR rights.

The anti-CPS folks have argued based on THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to be
with their parent. YOU have, just recently, argued that barring
unfitness of the parent the child has no special rights over the parent.

That puts you out of step with the anti-CPS crowd. Do you wish to be
seen that way?

Remember, the constitution makes NO mention of separating the child out
from human society in any way, pertaining to recognition of rights.


And still, the child has rights, does she not?

Not independently of her parents Kane.

Now there is where you are wrong. The absence of ANY mention in the
constitution of children leaves the child just like all other human
beings, regardless of their capacity to demand their rights...as a full
citizen with rights.

Even your own SOURCE says even
the mother wants the child with HER REAL FATHER!

krp, once again you are making things up. That is NOT what she said.


In any SANE system that
shoudl END the debate.But this is all diven by ideology, blind hatred of
Fidel Castro. Whom I am NOT defending here. But damn it Kane, he was 100%
RIGHT on the subject of Elian and Cuba is 100% right here too!

Will the father feel emotional loss, for a child, that it appears he has
never parented?

Your questions Kane are NEVER really questions. They are claims hiding
behind a question mark.

If I have a position, a bias, I do NOT pretend I do not. I have stated,
when you dodged the question, that I hold that the child has rights
equal to the parent.

You say she does not.

I say prove it.

My proof is that nothing in our laws based on our Constitution and it's
amendments, separates the human child out from the human adult as
pertaining to rights.

We do have laws that pertain to ENFORCEMENT as differing between them,
based on the child's capacity and the caregivers failings or lack there
of, and the needs of each being different.

Other than that there IS no difference. A child has rights independent
of the parent.

Your turn. Use law. Use the absence of pertinent claims IN the law to
show your argument is supported. Use something besides blowing hard.

Compared to the child losing both the family she has lived with for
two years, and her brother, a lifelong, for her, constant in her life?

Sorry Kane not for 2 years IF you closely read the aryicle. Just a few
months. And your logic is an old threadbare one, let me lay it out for you.

Show your work product on the "Just a few months" claim."

John Jones gets a new Rolly Royce in 2001. Later the month after be
purchased it, the car is stolen. The theives abandon the car in Ohio.

In 2002 Jim Smith finds the abandoned car in his Ohio farm field. He begins
to use the car to haul feed for his chickens.

Unh uhn. NO way. Just like a child left alone the observer would KNOW
that this either belongs to (car) or custody is held by (child) someone.

Bad analogy.

At what point does he have the
ability to make a LEGAL CLAIM that he has had possession of the car so long
it is now HIS car?

Never.

If wer can'tr do that wven with an inanimate object how
the hell can you seriously make that claim with a HUMAN BEING?? A child!

Precisely because the child IS human, and has rights cars don't. And
goes to my original question you still are not answering.

Argument to MY point exactly. That is that the CAR is not a human entity
with rights of it's own, nor issues of human development based on who
has cared for the car the longest. Or at all.

You are comparing not just apples and oranges, which are both fruit, but
humans and cars, which have no known matching characteristics, by the
car, of humanity on its part.

Your metaphor fails on the point of extreme dissimilarity. Sorry.

And just to get your attention: how many years would pass before you
would think it NOT proper for the parent to legally claim the "child
left in the field for the farmer to find," to mix your metaphors just a bit?

Could he come back when she was say, 16, or 17, and demand the state
return his child to her, from her now adopted family?

You'd go for that? If not, please explain.

Who would like to play God here, krp? You?
A fat lying pig turd wants to
claim he knows best for this child?

Kane the world wrenched though these issues and decided them following
WW-2 when there were MILLIONS of displaced persons and children all over
Europe.

Yep. The trick is to look at the word "displaced" and think what it
means, and how it does not apply in this instance, with the child from
Cuba. She is not displaced.

Nor would any of those children, if they were with one of their parents,
as this child was. Again, with lousy metaphor. You have so many.

Germany claimed hundreds of thousands of "ARYAN" children from lands
it took by military means.. The USSR took millions of children in the lands
they took when defeating the Nazis. The WORLD decided Kane that the children
had a RIGHT to their familie sand their homelands, even ones we HATED.

No, the 'WORLD' did not decide any such thing. What international law
was written concerning that?

Which countries did the USSR and Germany take children from that we
hated by the way?

Do you have some cases you would like to present to support your claims?

In fact, what is your claim about the above as fits this particular
case, or my question about the children's rights?

The US didn't take this child away from Cuba. Just from the mother.

Of course I could be wrong about you, as you may not have seen the
later releases by the press.

Maybe now you see that the father has less investment than the child
does.

Exactly why IS he pursuing this, when he apparently never parented
this child? Could it be Fidel, who you once expressed some negative
concerns about, and now seem to be supporting?

Kane that the mother had mental problems and chose to make herself dead
to the child has zero to do with the father.

Ah, did you erase your claim that the mother had died, krp, and are not
working up a cover story for when I confront you with it again, and you
are going to claim that "I said, 'dead to the child'?"

Tsk, krp. Tsk.

Kane you are a man of very
limited intellect

Ah, don't you wish.

that is unable to fathom that my support for the father

I know exactly what your support for the father is about. You thin
pocketbook. You are attempting to create an image of yourself as a
father's rights advocate.

Your skill in debate, however, shows any reader that you would be a ****
poor one.

in
this case is not a ringing endorsement of Fidel Castro or his government.

That's nice, but not my claim. Goes to lack of relevance to the case
issues under discussion.

You have done both, in fact, when it suited you. Criticized the Cuban
government, and applauded the Cuban government....this time by
pretending it would not be involved in this case as Florida authorities
believe it was.

You also would probably not understand that my criticisms of the Cuban
system do not eman I condemn it whole cloth.

I understand well enough to recognize waffling for dollars, krp.

In YOUR world it ia all or
nothing as with any brain dead idealogue.

On the contrary. Take the case of my question.

I am not supporting one has rights OVER the other, as you have. I am
asking you to support your claim, and I fully admit that my claim is
that there IS no law, US, OR international that puts any adult rights
over any child's rights.

You are free to prove me wrong.

You miss the fine points Kane it's
the ADD thing.

Actually my dissection of your bull**** down to it's fine points is what
has you gasping for breath on the ropes, krp.

Suddenly he wants a child he did not before?

And your PROOF that he did not want the child before?

That he allowed the child to leave with the mother. Had he wanted her he
could have withheld permission to the mother.

Now if the government gave an exit visa without asking him, or against
his expressed wishes, we have a government, Cuba, interfering in the
parent's rights. Then logically they are now using him.

If they gave permission over his wishes, or without consulting him (you
claimed they had to have his permission, didn't you?) then you have
quite a problem with some of your argument.

So, which is it, krp? Did he withhold permission and the Cuban
government overruled him, or that he was not told the child was leaving,
which would be, if you are to be believed, against Cuban law?

The article says they parted company when she left, suggesting he KNEW
the child was leaving.

YOU are playing politics, krp, not I.

No Kane you are doing what you always do -

There is very little, sans breathing, that I always do, krp. And
certainly not in matters of family rights.

taking CPS's side over the
parent.

I am taking sides with the child AND the parent, krp.

I've no investment in the CPS position, though I suspect it's more in
the direction of reuniting the child and father. We have seen NO
suggestion otherwise. All of this bunkum is from THE COURT and state
officials NOT controlled by CPS.

Did you see me protesting the judge giving him longer, and unsupervised
visitation to go swimming at his current residence with his daughter?

If they can bond I'm perfectly happy to support that.

I would have done much more than the judge, by the way, to promote that.
I would have promoted a 'transition,' something that all long time CPS
workers know about. The trained ones, at any rate.

First you have a visit in the child's current residence. Short, simple,
maybe a meal together, with the "foster's" and the parent visiting as
much as the parent interacting with the child...may none of the latter
at first if the child seems unwilling.

Then maybe a trip all together to the local park or activity center
appropriate to the child's age.

Then a short trip for a meal, like to McDs, with just the child and the
parent. Then a longer one to a park or other activity that tends to
involve parent and child.

Possibly supervised up to that point, but not necessarily.

Then the kind of visits that the judge just ordered. A visit to the
residence of the parent...eating, swimming, reading together, whatever
works to bring the two into closer contact, and that without supervision.

I'd expect there to be a number of those based on the child's response.

Then some overnighters, with dad tucking the child in and any rituals
that attended bedtime in their prior life, even if the child has no
"conscious," memory of it. Prayers, or a bedtime story, or a bit of
review of the day.

That is roughly the 'transitioning' that is done in adoptive placements,
and in returning children to parents long out of the picture.

You and I as adults might put up with abrupt changes of place and people
without much trauma (at least that we know of) but children, old folks,
and folks with disabilities related to mental capacity do NOT.

The judge is trying to do the right thing.

Any parent taking advice from YOU is sleeping with their enemy!

No, krp, they'd be in safe, cautious, truthful company. The good stuff,
and the hard stuff, would all be laid out for them. So they can make
decisions based on the most information possible. The facts. Not your
bilious bull**** uninformed lies.

I would not suggest they attend to politics, and I would suggest they
keep in mind the best interests of the child balanced against their own
interests.

I've a hunch, just a hunch, mind you, that the Cuban father had a little
talk with a Cuban government official that told him, in effect, "you
best come back with that child...or kiss your sorry-assed job goodbye,"
and "we have a nice soft berth for you and the child, with a bit of
press coverage over the years, when you return with her. You won't have
to fish for a living any more."

You think not? If so, what would be your logic to support that the
Cubans aren't deeply involved in this case?

I am still focused on both father and child and their relative
interests here, and you have addressed NEITHER, other than to babble
about the father in terms of "blood" rights.
Kindly stick your head back up your butt and see if you can devine the
perfect solution.

Perfect solution is to send the girl to her father absent a showing he's
evil.

And leave her brother behind? How does that work out to "perfect?"

Apparently you didn't root far enough into your butt, little man.

The Miami Herald (Florida)
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News
June 28, 2007 Thursday
SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS
ACC-NO:
20070628-MI-0628-Ruling-orders-hearings-open-in-child-custody-case
LENGTH: 680 words
HEADLINE: Ruling orders hearings open in child custody case: A Miami
appeals court has overturned a judge's order closing hearings in an
international child custody battle
BYLINE: Carol Marbin Miller, The Miami Herald
BODY:

Jun. 28--A Miami appeals court ordered a juvenile court judge
Wednesday to open to the public all hearings in a child-custody
dispute between a Cuban national and a Cuban exile family that wants
to raise the man's 4-year-old daughter.

The Third District Court of Appeal overturned Circuit Judge Jeri B.
Cohen's April 20, 2006, order that all hearings in the case be closed.
The Miami Herald appealed Cohen's order in March.

SHAME isn't it Kane? Can't be done in SECRET!

It isn't anyway. Just not PUBLIC.

It looks like Cohen wanted the exiles OUT of the picture.

As per the Ilian case that got into such a melee, publicly.

Smart judge. Stupid Third District Court of Appeal.

Not trial in the US, little man, is 'secret.'

If you were a trial consultant of any skill, or knowledge, you'd know
that is a bogus claim. The results and progress of all trials are
recorded, and open to authorized individuals to review and even take
action on.

How, idiot boy, would a trial, say in family court, ever go to appeal if
it was truly SECRET?

In its three-page ruling, the appeals court did not rule on a separate
order from Cohen that bans all courtroom participants from speaking
about the case.

The Herald did not specifically appeal the so-called gag order.

"Under Florida law, the trial court may close any dependency hearing
to the public upon determining that the public interest or the welfare
of the child is best served by doing so," the appeals court wrote.
"However, such a determination must be supported by competent
substantial evidence. The evidence presented to the trial court fails
to satisfy this requirement."

Eunice Sigler, a spokeswoman for Florida's 11th Judicial Circuit,
which encompasses Miami-Dade County, said the ruling was not yet
final, pending a possible appeal by either the girl's caregivers or
the Guardian-ad-Litem Program in Miami, which sought the closing of
the hearings.

LEGAL ENTRY

The little girl's mother immigrated legally to the United States in
2004 and, after living for a short while in Houston, moved with her
two children to Miami. Shortly after, the mother became despondent and
attempted to kill herself by slashing her wrists. The girl and her
now-12-year-old brother were sheltered by the Department of Children &
Families.

The brother, who has a different father than the girl, went to live
with a Cuban-American family in Coral Gables with the consent of his
father.

Hmmmmm remember that CONSENT thinbg I metioned a few days ago you put down?

You ****ing full time liar.

I did not put any such thing down. I FIRST POSTED THAT INFORMATION. And
said nothing about it other than to point out later that the girl had a
12 year old brother.

The 4-year-old also lives with the family, under the supervision of
DCF and a privately run foster care agency under contract with the
state.

The girl's father in Cuba has pressed for custody, arguing that he is
a fit parent and should be given an opportunity to raise the girl. DCF
workers have claimed he is not fit to raise her.

Based on WHAT evidence?

I have no idea. Has it been presented? If not then their claim is bogus.

That does not preclude the child having rights they may be protecting.

My understanding is that they know he did not come to the girl's aid in
Cuba (possibly he admitted as much) when the crazy mother was failing to
parent her safely.

Possibly because he did not petition the US government for her when
notified she'd been removed for cause from the mother.

And popped up ONLY when custody and permanent placement came up.

Can't say, but that appears to be the chain of events.

The father has traveled to Miami with the permission of the U.S. State
Department for court hearings, and to help his lawyers prepare their
case. A full hearing on the father's fitness as a parent is set for
August.

The Herald has not named the children, their mother nor the children's
caregivers, in order to protect their privacy.

"We're pleased with the decision," said Sandy Bohrer, the Herald's
Miami attorney. "We think it is the correct one.

"We argued that no evidence was presented sufficient to deny the
public's right to access," Bohrer said. "The District Court of Appeal
agreed. Now, the public will get to see how justice is being done in
this case."

DCF, which oversees the girl's care, joined the Herald's petition to
the appeals court as part of a recent initiative to improve the
agency's openness and accountability.

You seemed to miss that DCF wanted an open court, krp?

How come....kind of run crossways to your rant about CPS?

You wouldn't want to be caught recognizing CPS doing the right thing,
the thing YOU think they did not, right?

On Wednesday, DCF Secretary Bob Butterworth praised the appeals
court's ruling, though he declined to discuss any details of the case,
citing Cohen's gag order.

'RIGHT DETERMINATION'

'In this case, I do believe the appeals' court made the right
determination, whether this is appealed to the Florida Supreme Court
or not," said Butterworth, a longtime state attorney general whose
tenure ended due to term limits. "We will see what happens."

And the former AG agrees with openness? Miss that too?

Hillary Kambour, an attorney for the Guardian-ad-Litem Program in
Miami, which had sought the closure of proceedings, declined to
comment on the order, also citing Cohen's order prohibiting any
discussion of the case.

What might the GAL know that she would not want public? Who can say. Not
you. So don't bother with insinuation.

And the showing that the father is UNFIT????? Even the mother says HE
should have custody., That SHOULD end it!

Why?

And did it come in a moment of lucidity with her drug regimen finally
working again?

Is she fit to make such a decision herself? If not, why isn't she simply
making it? Nothing to stop her, if she is found sane and capable.

....
At one point, the girl's mother told child welfare workers she would
prefer that the girl live with her father in Cuba rather than in
foster care, two sources told The Miami Herald.
....

Notice that "at one point," krp?

Was she lucid and able to make decisions independently at that point, or
would you insist that we NOT pay attention to the wishes of a child, but
that we DO of someone who is suicidal and has failed to take her
meds...or barring knowing that the meds actually work or not work?

So if it's an adult, a compromised one mentally, we should take her
advice, right krp?

"That SHOULD end it!?"

Really?

Then why didn't it?

0:]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 14:48:53 GMT, " krp" wrote:

KANE - WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON CUBA AND INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW
"0:]" wrote in message
...

1 Cuban girl in exile, 2 dads
In the first public hearing on the fate of a 4-year-old girl whose
father wants her to return to Cuba, a frustrated judge called for
calm.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
In terms of rights, whose should be honored in this conflict...the
long absent father, or the girl's current relationship with the man
she views as her father?
Long absent father?
Why did you delete from your reply what I actually said, past that
question above, krp? So that you could set out on another vile lying
attack and think you wouldn't be seen for what you are?
Oh so NOW you claim PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

You now lie again? I've expressed no personal knowledge of this case.
Only what I read.

Asshole - does it EVER slow you down, just a little, to think that
YOU the GREAT KANE - might not be seeing everything? NO! Not for a
picosecond! You KNOW EVERYTHING!! Don't ya weenie? ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING!!!!

No, I have an opinion, and I look for more information. I comment based on
what I have, not what I wish I had, or what I will pretend the other
person has said.

No you arrogant ass you believe you **KNOW** everything! You swagger
like a bullcock with your STRIDENT opinions Kane.

No, I do not. I'm not screeching and yelling. You are.


You are a liar.

No that's YOU whenever you get cornered!

Sorry, your lies are proven over and over again, just as I have in
this thread.

in addition to your EXPERT STATUS on international Child custody law.

I'm not. Are you claiming you are and that makes your opinion superior
to mine?

` SURE you are! Ask anyone. Kane knows IT ALL! Just ask him! I know a
whole BUNCH more than you Kane.

That's nice, and I've asked you to share. What is this little game to
protect your flaccid ego about, "nyah nyah, I've got a secret and you
don't know it?" Like a fourth grader?

Hey ADD boy you're the one with ego here. I've NAILED your ass on the
issues of LAW.

No, you haven't. You changed the subject on the law. You provided
citations of cases that did NOT address the issue of children's rights
versus parent's rights, but parent's rights versus the state.

I've no problem at all with that case law as it stands, and for what
it stands, but it did not address CHILDREN'S RIGHTS versus parent's
rights.

Please try to keep up.

I have actually participated in
international child custody cases, AND dip**** - been ASKED to provide
testimony to Congress on the subject,

That would be in the congressional record. I can find no reference to any
Kenneth, Ken, or K. Pangborn in that source.

You are TOTALLY full of **** Kane. I gave LIVE testimony in 1984.

You made no mention of 1984 in your original claim.

You
might see a nice little exchange between myself and Senator Long of the
Judiciary commitee. But then we have such a GRAND liar like you.

Post it.

Please show a link to your testimony.

Golly Kane they didn't LINK it back then the INTERNET that YOU invemted
by yourself was just in infant states in 1984. EXECPT in your basement with
your CRAY supercomputer that YOU invented in your spare time!

Then pull up your copy of the testimony and post it here. We trust
mmmphhhh you here.

How could I, as you claim, "might see a nice little exchange" if it's
not available via the Internet.

Are you JB Pangborn, on autism? Or Bernard Pangborn on the same subject?

Nope. Try looking under Child Custody / Child support etc. You make up
**** faster than anyone I know Kane.

I'm asking questions, not making things up. Though I suspect you are.

Lexus Nexus seems devoid of any Congressional testimony bearing your name.
But then, you could point to it for us, right?

Kane hate to tell you this but not EVERY hearing is on LEXUS NEXUS for
every hearign ever held. EXCEPT in your basement on your SUPER SUPER SUPER
computer with MORE info than the Library of Alexandria on it by zillions!

I don't have a CRAY available presently.

Are you going to stand by your claim you can't access and link to your
testimony on line?

In fact, krp, there is an index to it as far back as 1983. 0:]

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cri/index.html

And with your encouragement, 0:], I have looked for more resources.
Thanks. Let's see what you actually did say, and if it proved your
ignorance about child development and child psychology.

.....well, nope, nothing.

NO doubt you did testify though, krp, so how's about sharing with us?

You know to support your sideways diversionary claim that avoids the
actual issue under discussion...this case, and my related question
about the law.

Testifying doesn't prove a thing about your knowledge or the facts,
krp. Note Greg Hanson's testimony to the HWAMC full of bull****,
errors, and the usual hyperbolic spewings from you guys.

But I BOW to the GREAT KANE who knows EVERYTHING! ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
about international law. You know the hague treaty baclward and forward
and can cite ALL the relavent law from every couuntry in the world on
it, RIGH KANE???????

I don't recall claiming I was an expert on law, international or
otherwise.

Oh SURE you do Kane, don't play modest with us now. NMOBODY knows aven
.0000000000000001% as much as YOU DO! YOUY wrote ther book! ALL of them!
Just take credit for all your GREAT GREAT accomplishments! Sole invention of
the internet, sole invenmtor of the computer, legal expert, psychological
expert, super spy for the Air Force, world traveler, raconteur, bin vivant!
You're prtending modesty duits you ill ALL HAIL KANE!

Which of course does not go to my request. You know, for the
international law you claim pertains to child and parent rights, as
per each other.

Are you saying that other than you a person may not cite or refer to law
when YOU claim knowledge and ask you for a link to support your claim?
This makes them a pretend expert, does it?

You ahven't cited LAW kane just demanded that your OPINION be taken as
gospel as if chiseled in a tablet next to a burning bush! That's all!

I haven't CLAIMED law, krp. YOU have.

Nor have I asked that anyone believe my questions...they are, after
all just questions.

Answer or not, but know that your failure to do so, and your constant
claims, met by challenges, that you then dodge as you just have, marks
you as at the least, disingenuous, of not an outright pathological
liar.

Stop dancing, krp, and point to the international law YOU claim applied in
parenting and child custody.

I pointed specificly to cas elaw from the Federal Courts. Santosky v.
Kramer, Stanley v. Illinois., Mabra v. Schmidt to name just 3 of HUNDREDS of
cases on the subject of parental rights VERSUS your fukkkkkkin GETAPO CPS
mentality!

You said, "International law," krp, and you did not POINT, you simply
claimed.

Point with a link, krp, as we always ask you, so hopefully but with
mounting disappointment.


Surprise us one day. Actually provide a link so we may evaluated your
claim and your claimed support.

Are your cases you refer to above about the comparative rights of
children versus parents....my ONLY question, or are they about
parent's rights and the state? ( I know them well, so don't bother to
lie).

AS I said to you recently, I have no argument with those, beyond
points of logic and other case law that may conflict, but I'm not
interesting in debating that issue at present.

I'm still waiting for you to debate, with facts, with support for
those facts, with support linked to for verification of their
existence and application to my question: Do children's rights take
the inferior position to parent's rights?

If so, from law, post YOUR PROOF. YOU said they do, citing APPLICATION
AND EXECUTION rather than RIGHTS themselves.

Of course there is a difference in application, but that does not mean
a lessor right to the child.

Show an answer to the question I asked, krp. One that is supported by
law.


Please clarify.

It's simple Kane - your comments on the subject are merely you
blowing it out of your ASS!!!

Your response is not the one I asked for...for you to support your claim.
You said there was international law regarding parenting rights. I asked
you to give us a reference for it that can be checked out...and feel free
to quote if you wish.

Oh I did you keep ignoring it.

No, I point out you did not answer my question. You answered, as
always, to something else that you think is an answer to my question.

You show that either you do not know what my question was, or that you
know you cannot answer it, so run off in another direction screaming,
"look here, look here," hoping we don't notice the trail of drizzling
**** you've left behind you.

And the question I asked, not some "question" you've picked so as to
ignore my question.


Try citing what is IN the case law, rather than claiming "it's there,
it's there," with no proof, and no means to verify if you are telling
the truth or not, beyond every reader's knowledge of you being a
continual liar in the past.

And you continue to blow your arrogance
out of your ass Kane You're TOTALLY full of **** and you are desperate to
hide it. But eventually you'll have top admit it sheepishly like you have
before.

I've not admitted to any such thing, unless I was absolutely wrong and
the evidence was unquestionably true. I am right a lot of the time
because I rely on facts, logic, and sources I can and DO cite, quote,
and link to.

And YOU took the one time I 'admitted' that someone else's title for
their review article was not consistent with the content of the
article, as "my" admission of error. It was simply agreeing with that
small part. The were inaccurate. And that has NO effect on the
content.

You ran with that, going back to it repeatedly as a way to avoid
dealing with the content of the scientific report on research. Cute.
But a blatant lie on your part.


Or it may be that your screeching up above is nothing but blubbery ****.

SO - since you KNOW firsthand,

How would I do that? And you?

Because Kane you know EVERYTHING! Not pon;ly do youi klnow MORE
about Cuba than ANY Cuban anywhere in the world . VASTLY MORE, you know
LAW, you know psychology, medicine and you even know broadcast
electronics plus being a DOUBLE NAUTGHT SPY!

I have questions about those things and asked you, who claim to know of
international law pertaining to parenting rights, to let us know.

Look at the HAGUE treaty on international child custody DIP****!

Happy to. Put it up here. I didn't make a claim it exists, you did.

When will you post the content, and when will you show that it gives
rights to the parent that it denies the child?

Are you going to, or are you going to blubber **** for a dozen or so more
posts until I tire of your bull**** dodges?

You're the one throwing the bull**** I have to dodge Kane!

No, I asked a relatively simple question, krp, and it was not ****. It
is central to child welfare and child custody issues in the part that
pertains to the child's rights.

So far, nothing from you, but a denial the child has rights that are
equal to the parent.

tell us the date and PRECISE TIME to the second the last time the CUBAN
(biological)
(REAL) father saw his child.. Tell us WHERE it took place andf how many
times he beat or sexually molested the child on that day Kane!!!

I have not heard, nor claimed I heard, or claimed I know that he did
any such thing.

Yes you claimed he "abandoned" his child and had not even TRIED to
see her in YEARS! Yeha you did Kane.

I made neither claim. I said he had not seen her. I did not say he didn't
try to, nor that he abandoned her.

Yes you did AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN

Then you'd have no trouble posting my exact words and pointing to
where they say "ABANDONED HIS CHILD." Would you?

and I attached that comment but
oddly it seems to disappear when you dig your toe into the hot lineoleum and
say "who me?"

krp, at the risk of bogging down the internet (joking of course) I've
not removed a single word of your posts throughout this thread.

It's all there. You have not quoted me, nor quoted and linked to the
post I am alleged to have said, "abandoned his child."

You are reduced now, to your usual impotent bald faced lies.

Amusing, but not too much so. You are so predictable there is less and
less pleasure in exposing you for what you are.

But then, someone has to do it, eh?

What I have done, recently, was post an article that establishes that he
was not a parenting father, but simply what appears to be a sperm donor.
He was not married to the mother.

What a class act you are SLEAZE! You TRY to paint yourself as all
innocent and free of an agenda yet the way you say things reveals who you
REALLY ARE! A "sperm donor" eh? Your PROOF????

They seemed to part with little effort. He did not try to keep his
child, and you claimed, did you not that Cuba would be involved
legally in her leaving with the child.

In fact you intimated that she snuck out with the child....something I
find ludicrous given how carefully Cuba tracks all citizens, young and
old.

Please stop ranting and making a larger fool of your lard ass self.

No Kane I am again making a fool of YOU! A internet BLOWHARD who
claims expertise on subects he knows NOTHING about! You are armed ONLY
with your strident and wrong opinions.

You seem to be describing yourself to a tee, krp.

POOR INOCENT KANE labels the man merely a "SPERM DONOR!" ANd yet the
gREAT KANE pretends he is OBJECTIVE! Bull**** CPS KANE!

Well, is there anything in actual testimony that would suggest other
than that, krp? He shows up rather late in the game, does he not?

Why didn't he keep the child in Cuba?

You claim you know of international law pertaining, but refuse to produce
it.

No Kane I produced several US Supreme Court cases that deal with
parental rights.

Yes, krp, you claimed INTERNATIONAL LAW, and you did it again, but did
NOT produce anything but a name.

The US SC cases are also devoid of any quotes, and certainly of any
links so we might check.

And my question DID NOT PERTAIN SOLELY TO parental rights, krp. You
know that.

I can find cases on children's rights, most likely, but unless they
are cases on "parent's rights versus children's rights" they would not
be addressing my question.

Please answer the question I actually asked. And include links to your
sources. Failure to do so will firmly establish you are a liar.

Now you DISHONEST little ****.... WHo often claims that "NO SUCH CASE
EXISTS" form my Lexus Nexus SEARCH on my BAZOOM computer data base...
Here's the info on that case.


SANTOSKY ET AL. v. KRAMER, COMMISSIONER, ULSTER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.



No. 80-5889.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



455 U.S. 745; 71 L. Ed. 2d 599; 50 U.S.L.W. 4333; 102 S.

Ct. 1388



Argued November 10, 1981



March 24, 1982



Read it ans weep jerkoff! It sets out basic parameters for interfering
in parental relations and like Stanley V. Illinois declars they BASIC
RIGHTS.. Some of us would say basic HUMAN RIGHTS against your fukking
GESTAPO CPS!

Which would answer my question, had I asked it, which I did not, "what
are the parental rights versus the state.

I asked, and still ask, what are the parental rights versus the
child's rights.

Are you intending to dodge yet again?

Where will you dodge this time? More screeching, foot stomping, and
yowling ad hom?

Or will you finally either admit there IS not case law, nor
Constitutional law that gives parents right's over children's rights?


So, let us see how you start right off with lies.

When the child is "snatched" from him?

How do you know she was "snatched?" You don't even know if he had
custody of her in Cuba. If he had, would the mother have left alone?
No, she'd have been a couple with him and both would have won the visa
lottery as a couple.

No comment? So you are going to claim the child was snatched but you
aren't going to say how you know that. As always, the lying lard ass.

AGAIN your VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST EXPERTISE on Cuba
is astounding Kane. You bloated jackass. First of all under Communism in
Cuba FEW marriages are formal. For decades the churches were padlocked.
Religious mariages all but forbidden. Civil marriages drifted into also
being relatively rare. People just live together - make babies and CALL
themselves "married."

That's nice.

Your ignorance is astounding Kane. Your refusal to process any
information that might tell you that your Empreror is NAKES is remarkable.

What am I supposed to draw from your information above, that would
demonstrate to me that you have proven something?

She left. He didn't try to keep the child of their union, if he is in
fact the biological father.

(Let's hope that's been established. She, after all, is mentally ill.
Might she not name the wrong man? And in fact, isn't it, given the
casual nature of coupling you refer to, not even KNOW who the father
really is?)

Or do you have proof she snuck out, and that Cuba let her take a man's
child without his permission?

HOWEVER you CLOWN - Cuban LAW (I know you consider yourself the LEADING
EXPERT on the planet on that subject)

I've never even referred to Cuban law, but I will now.

The GREATR CUBAN LAW EXPERT KANE will now entertain us!

In other words, you have no cogent argument. We know, krp. You don't
need to resort to your usual screeching hyperbole to dodge.

Please provide citations from Cuban law that support your claims above.

UP YOURS fumble but I just gave you US law which is where the case is.
NICE TRY at a diversion.

You brought up Cuban law, little man. On the issue of marriage.

So, show us US law then. And when you cite it, cite those passages
from the findings that support your claim. Just posting the title
suggests strongly that you did not understand the question, or are
dodging by posting something that does not go to that question.

dictates that both parents must give permission to remove a child from
Cuba. Meaning the FATHER in this case. The pleadings so far made public
make it clear that the mother did NOT obtain the permission. BUT when
shall we be treated to your magnum opus on Cuban LAW Killer Kane?

Since I have not made any claims about Cuban law, but have asked you,
never.

Oh come on Kane we all KNOW that YOU are the final authority on ALL LAW
in the world! YOu and your LEXUS NEXUS!

Please quote the "pleadings so far" that make it clear the mother
didn't obtain permission. And provide a link.

As for the pleadings made public, then you would not have any difficulty
in pointing to this public source for us to read them and see that one,
Cuban law does actually require permission of both parents when they are
not legally married, and two, that she did not obtain his permission to
take the child out of the country.

Golly Kane your own sources support what I am saying.

What sources?

The original and
the followup stories.

They do not support what you are saying or have said.

Even the MOTHER has said the child shoul be with her
REAL dad!

She is mentally ill. At this date, I believe, under state care in a
facility. If not, she is never the less, proven to have been unable to
manage her own meds. That's what got the children taken away.

Do you think someone that's recently attemped suicide is in their
right mind, decision making wise?

Only YOU and your CPS pals say otherwise.

I presume there was a psychiatric Dx on the mother.

And of course the family
hand selected by CPS!

The family was an aquaintence of the boy's father. Did CPS introduce
them originally?

In Cuba, where they came by their knowledge of each other most likely?

My take would be, though smile I'm not expert, that the US would not
issue an entry visa for a child the parent could not prove she had legal
custody to bring into the country.

Oh Kane you are STUPID as ever. All the had to do to get the visa to get
"parole" in the form of the visa was submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing
her to be the mother!

Father's aren't on birth certificates there?

The permission to LEAVE Cuba is between the mother and
Cuba.

The statement was made that they parted company, mutually...the
relationship didn't work out. Did he attempt to parent the child after
that?

Sadly one can either BRIBE the immigration folks in Cuba to allow them
out, or just trust that whoever is on duty doesn't give a ****. AGAIN your
VAST PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of Cuba might tell you that many people who work in
immigration are in sympathy with those who CAN leave. Kane for all your
ARROGANCE you are so damn CLUELESS.

I made no claim one way or the other. Mostly just questions. Thanks
for the information, and show where it impacts my questions by giving
actual answers.

If the mother left with the child against the father's wishes, why did
he not petition the US for her to be returned? Then?

Now, when a change in custody has come up, suddenly he takes interest?
Why?

In fact is it not true that Cuba requires those leaving the country to
obtain an exit visa, for all parties, children included?

Not necessarily nfants Kane. BUT as I said often folks don't look too
closely. They see a plane ticket and visas and a packet, they don't look at
the fine points. For a price Kane you can get almost any document in Cuba
you wish.

Tsk. But you still have avoided my central question.

All this babbling about this case, does not answer my question
concerning children's rights versus others.

If you can't answer, or know that I'm right, that children have equal
rights to parent's rights, then simply say so. You can relax, and not
get the spastic tic you seem to suffer from.

Possibly you, who claims to have the knowledge in this matter can
enlighten us.

I could by why bother YOU KNOW EVERYTHING you should enlighen us with
your Lexus Nexus from Cuba!

Or why bother, since you are lying, krp.

If you could and you were right, you'd be johnny on the spot to post
it.

You have failed. My question was this:

....In fact is it not true that Cuba requires those leaving the country
to obtain an exit visa, for all parties, children included? ...

To obtain an exit visa for a child is it required that the unmarried
father of the child, or unmarried mother for that matter, provide
permission for their opposite to get their permission to exit?

Pretty much YES Kane, Said that now - what?

Then the father gave permission, yes?

A dozen times?

Not one, krp. Not a single time.

Kane want to
know why that is? Look at Fidel Castro's PERSONAL history having a child
yanked out of the country. YOU ARE CLUELESS! And impossible to educate
because you think you know everything!

Well, if an exit visa is required, even for a child, then the father
is mostly likely to have known the mother was leaving with the child
and given permission, according to your statement above.

If he did not protest her leaving, and with near zero probability he
would ever see her again (Cuba is NOT going to become the 53rd state
very soon) why did he not protest then and attempt to keep the child
in Cuba?

If making babies is as casual as you claim then THAT is the problem
with this case. He didn't care. His society has trained him not to
care. Is that not most likely?

But NOW, for some inexplicable reason, a women's child that legally
immigrated from Cuba to the US, is now being claimed by a father than
didn't apparently do all that much to claim her in Cuba.

I see the cold clammy hand of Cuban authority mixed in here, don't
you?

"The youngster, whom The Miami Herald is not identifying to protect
her privacy, entered the United States legally in March 2005 when her
mother won a visa lottery. By the end of that year, however, she had
been sheltered by the Department of Children & Families, which had
asked Cohen to declare the girl's mother unfit."

Kane was the FATHER consulted for his permission to abscond with the
child out of Cuba?

I have no idea.

Then STOP shooting your mouth off you buffoon!

Well, was he, or was he not? 0:]

Was he or wasn't he WHAT?

Your tic is acting up again, and you are losing the capacity to see.
Do something about it.

From four comments up, krp, "Kane was the FATHER consulted for his
permission to abscond with the child out of Cuba?"

So, was he or wasn't he consulted? Did he give permission, or did he
pass? Or did he try to keep the child in Cuba?

Nor was that the issue and my question, which
doubtless you have deleted yet again. So that you can pursue a line of
debate I had not agreed to participate in. Just so you can dodge my
actual question. I'll post it again, later in this missive.

Kane what you seem UNABLE (ADD) to get is that your original claim that
the father had "ABANDONED" his daughter "and had not even tried to see
her for years" was BULL****!

I didn't make that claim. I simply said he had not seen her. Which is
plainly in the media descriptions of the case. And now we know, and I
quoted, and LINKED to the article, that he was not married to the child's
mother. Nor parenting the child.

NO Kane you said he "ABANDONED" his daughter - - - AND - - - he had
made NO effort to see her in YEARS!"

I have asked you to post my exact words.

The first time you made that accusation I had posted but ONCE to the
thread. And I, in my reply to your accusation, posted the entire
portion of my post that addressed the issue. Nothing that I said
include the words, nor the implication he had abandoned.

That's your creatively ****ing someone else's posted words, rapist.

Makes no difference what THE GREAT KANE agrees to
participate in. It is a matter of FACTS!

I've asked you for them, but rather than supply them you simply attack my
requests pretending they are claims.

You IGNORE the facts you don't like.

Nope. I attempt to answer every claim you make if it's relevant to the
issue at the point in the debate we are at. It's you that skips long
passages of my challenges to you, and then when you do respond, it's
simly to dodge, by answering a question I did not ask, and often YOU
made it up yourself claiming I said something I did not.

I never claimed the father abandoned his child, but I do question if
he in fact claimed her as his with even the least amount of energy now
being expended...for some odd reason.

He likely didn't abandon her. He more likely, based on YOUR
description of Cuban society and it's casual attitude to child making,
just didn't care.

You know those pesky things they insist on in courts?

You got any?

You keep ignoring any that don't suit your BULL****.

On the contrary.

I asked if you could defend your claim of the child having no rights,
barring the parent's failure to parent.

I asked you to cite the law.

You cited law on parent's rights versus the state, not the child.

Please repond to the actual question asked.

And in the matters pertaining specifically to this case, the Cuban
born child, support your claims with authoritative sources that you
link to for our access to verify.

Thanks. Kane 0:]

You are a fat old bag of wind, you are nothing but a liar, a swindler
and you have the emotional development of a 13 year old , go fu*k
yourself kennyboy, your done here.
We have all seen who you are.
Firemonkey



krp wrote:
KANE - WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON CUBA AND INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW
"0:]" wrote in message
...

1 Cuban girl in exile, 2 dads
In the first public hearing on the fate of a 4-year-old girl whose
father wants her to return to Cuba, a frustrated judge called for
calm.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
In terms of rights, whose should be honored in this conflict...the
long absent father, or the girl's current relationship with the man
she views as her father?
Long absent father?
Why did you delete from your reply what I actually said, past that
question above, krp? So that you could set out on another vile lying
attack and think you wouldn't be seen for what you are?
Oh so NOW you claim PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

You now lie again? I've expressed no personal knowledge of this case.
Only what I read.

Asshole - does it EVER slow you down, just a little, to think that
YOU the GREAT KANE - might not be seeing everything? NO! Not for a
picosecond! You KNOW EVERYTHING!! Don't ya weenie? ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING!!!!

No, I have an opinion, and I look for more information. I comment based on
what I have, not what I wish I had, or what I will pretend the other
person has said.

No you arrogant ass you believe you **KNOW** everything! You swagger
like a bullcock with your STRIDENT opinions Kane.

You are a liar.

No that's YOU whenever you get cornered!

in addition to your EXPERT STATUS on international Child custody law.

I'm not. Are you claiming you are and that makes your opinion superior
to mine?

` SURE you are! Ask anyone. Kane knows IT ALL! Just ask him! I know a
whole BUNCH more than you Kane.

That's nice, and I've asked you to share. What is this little game to
protect your flaccid ego about, "nyah nyah, I've got a secret and you
don't know it?" Like a fourth grader?

Hey ADD boy you're the one with ego here. I've NAILED your ass on the
issues of LAW.

I have actually participated in
international child custody cases, AND dip**** - been ASKED to provide
testimony to Congress on the subject,

That would be in the congressional record. I can find no reference to any
Kenneth, Ken, or K. Pangborn in that source.

You are TOTALLY full of **** Kane. I gave LIVE testimony in 1984. You
might see a nice little exchange between myself and Senator Long of the
Judiciary commitee. But then we have such a GRAND liar like you.

Please show a link to your testimony.

Golly Kane they didn't LINK it back then the INTERNET that YOU invemted
by yourself was just in infant states in 1984. EXECPT in your basement with
your CRAY supercomputer that YOU invented in your spare time!

Are you JB Pangborn, on autism? Or Bernard Pangborn on the same subject?

Nope. Try looking under Child Custody / Child support etc. You make up
**** faster than anyone I know Kane.

Lexus Nexus seems devoid of any Congressional testimony bearing your name.
But then, you could point to it for us, right?

Kane hate to tell you this but not EVERY hearing is on LEXUS NEXUS for
every hearign ever held. EXCEPT in your basement on your SUPER SUPER SUPER
computer with MORE info than the Library of Alexandria on it by zillions!

But I BOW to the GREAT KANE who knows EVERYTHING! ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
about international law. You know the hague treaty baclward and forward
and can cite ALL the relavent law from every couuntry in the world on
it, RIGH KANE???????

I don't recall claiming I was an expert on law, international or
otherwise.

Oh SURE you do Kane, don't play modest with us now. NMOBODY knows aven
.0000000000000001% as much as YOU DO! YOUY wrote ther book! ALL of them!
Just take credit for all your GREAT GREAT accomplishments! Sole invention of
the internet, sole invenmtor of the computer, legal expert, psychological
expert, super spy for the Air Force, world traveler, raconteur, bin vivant!
You're prtending modesty duits you ill ALL HAIL KANE!

Are you saying that other than you a person may not cite or refer to law
when YOU claim knowledge and ask you for a link to support your claim?
This makes them a pretend expert, does it?

You ahven't cited LAW kane just demanded that your OPINION be taken as
gospel as if chiseled in a tablet next to a burning bush! That's all!

Stop dancing, krp, and point to the international law YOU claim applied in
parenting and child custody.

I pointed specificly to cas elaw from the Federal Courts. Santosky v.
Kramer, Stanley v. Illinois., Mabra v. Schmidt to name just 3 of HUNDREDS of
cases on the subject of parental rights VERSUS your fukkkkkkin GETAPO CPS
mentality!

Please clarify.

It's simple Kane - your comments on the subject are merely you
blowing it out of your ASS!!!

Your response is not the one I asked for...for you to support your claim.
You said there was international law regarding parenting rights. I asked
you to give us a reference for it that can be checked out...and feel free
to quote if you wish.

Oh I did you keep ignoring it. And you continue to blow your arrogance
out of your ass Kane You're TOTALLY full of **** and you are desperate to
hide it. But eventually you'll have top admit it sheepishly like you have
before.

Or it may be that your screeching up above is nothing but blubbery ****.

SO - since you KNOW firsthand,

How would I do that? And you?

Because Kane you know EVERYTHING! Not pon;ly do youi klnow MORE
about Cuba than ANY Cuban anywhere in the world . VASTLY MORE, you know
LAW, you know psychology, medicine and you even know broadcast
electronics plus being a DOUBLE NAUTGHT SPY!

I have questions about those things and asked you, who claim to know of
international law pertaining to parenting rights, to let us know.

Look at the HAGUE treaty on international child custody DIP****!

Are you going to, or are you going to blubber **** for a dozen or so more
posts until I tire of your bull**** dodges?

You're the one throwing the bull**** I have to dodge Kane!

tell us the date and PRECISE TIME to the second the last time the CUBAN
(biological)
(REAL) father saw his child.. Tell us WHERE it took place andf how many
times he beat or sexually molested the child on that day Kane!!!

I have not heard, nor claimed I heard, or claimed I know that he did
any such thing.

Yes you claimed he "abandoned" his child and had not even TRIED to
see her in YEARS! Yeha you did Kane.

I made neither claim. I said he had not seen her. I did not say he didn't
try to, nor that he abandoned her.

Yes you did AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN and I attached that comment but
oddly it seems to disappear when you dig your toe into the hot lineoleum and
say "who me?"

What I have done, recently, was post an article that establishes that he
was not a parenting father, but simply what appears to be a sperm donor.
He was not married to the mother.

What a class act you are SLEAZE! You TRY to paint yourself as all
innocent and free of an agenda yet the way you say things reveals who you
REALLY ARE! A "sperm donor" eh? Your PROOF????

Please stop ranting and making a larger fool of your lard ass self.

No Kane I am again making a fool of YOU! A internet BLOWHARD who
claims expertise on subects he knows NOTHING about! You are armed ONLY
with your strident and wrong opinions.

You seem to be describing yourself to a tee, krp.

POOR INOCENT KANE labels the man merely a "SPERM DONOR!" ANd yet the
gREAT KANE pretends he is OBJECTIVE! Bull**** CPS KANE!

You claim you know of international law pertaining, but refuse to produce
it.

No Kane I produced several US Supreme Court cases that deal with
parental rights.

Now you DISHONEST little ****.... WHo often claims that "NO SUCH CASE
EXISTS" form my Lexus Nexus SEARCH on my BAZOOM computer data base...
Here's the info on that case.

SANTOSKY ET AL. v. KRAMER, COMMISSIONER, ULSTER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.



No. 80-5889.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



455 U.S. 745; 71 L. Ed. 2d 599; 50 U.S.L.W. 4333; 102 S.

Ct. 1388



Argued November 10, 1981



March 24, 1982



Read it ans weep jerkoff! It sets out basic parameters for interfering
in parental relations and like Stanley V. Illinois declars they BASIC
RIGHTS.. Some of us would say basic HUMAN RIGHTS against your fukking
GESTAPO CPS!


So, let us see how you start right off with lies.

When the child is "snatched" from him?

How do you know she was "snatched?" You don't even know if he had
custody of her in Cuba. If he had, would the mother have left alone?
No, she'd have been a couple with him and both would have won the visa
lottery as a couple.

No comment? So you are going to claim the child was snatched but you
aren't going to say how you know that. As always, the lying lard ass.

AGAIN your VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST EXPERTISE on Cuba
is astounding Kane. You bloated jackass. First of all under Communism in
Cuba FEW marriages are formal. For decades the churches were padlocked.
Religious mariages all but forbidden. Civil marriages drifted into also
being relatively rare. People just live together - make babies and CALL
themselves "married."

That's nice.

Your ignorance is astounding Kane. Your refusal to process any
information that might tell you that your Empreror is NAKES is remarkable.

HOWEVER you CLOWN - Cuban LAW (I know you consider yourself the LEADING
EXPERT on the planet on that subject)

I've never even referred to Cuban law, but I will now.

The GREATR CUBAN LAW EXPERT KANE will now entertain us!

Please provide citations from Cuban law that support your claims above.

UP YOURS fumble but I just gave you US law which is where the case is.
NICE TRY at a diversion.

dictates that both parents must give permission to remove a child from
Cuba. Meaning the FATHER in this case. The pleadings so far made public
make it clear that the mother did NOT obtain the permission. BUT when
shall we be treated to your magnum opus on Cuban LAW Killer Kane?

Since I have not made any claims about Cuban law, but have asked you,
never.

Oh come on Kane we all KNOW that YOU are the final authority on ALL LAW
in the world! YOu and your LEXUS NEXUS!

As for the pleadings made public, then you would not have any difficulty
in pointing to this public source for us to read them and see that one,
Cuban law does actually require permission of both parents when they are
not legally married, and two, that she did not obtain his permission to
take the child out of the country.

Golly Kane your own sources support what I am saying. The original and
the followup stories. Even the MOTHER has said the child shoul be with her
REAL dad! Only YOU and your CPS pals say otherwise. And of course the family
hand selected by CPS!

My take would be, though smile I'm not expert, that the US would not
issue an entry visa for a child the parent could not prove she had legal
custody to bring into the country.

Oh Kane you are STUPID as ever. All the had to do to get the visa to get
"parole" in the form of the visa was submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing
her to be the mother! The permission to LEAVE Cuba is between the mother and
Cuba. Sadly one can either BRIBE the immigration folks in Cuba to allow them
out, or just trust that whoever is on duty doesn't give a ****. AGAIN your
VAST PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of Cuba might tell you that many people who work in
immigration are in sympathy with those who CAN leave. Kane for all your
ARROGANCE you are so damn CLUELESS.

In fact is it not true that Cuba requires those leaving the country to
obtain an exit visa, for all parties, children included?

Not necessarily nfants Kane. BUT as I said often folks don't look too
closely. They see a plane ticket and visas and a packet, they don't look at
the fine points. For a price Kane you can get almost any document in Cuba
you wish.

Possibly you, who claims to have the knowledge in this matter can
enlighten us.

I could by why bother YOU KNOW EVERYTHING you should enlighen us with
your Lexus Nexus from Cuba!

To obtain an exit visa for a child is it required that the unmarried
father of the child, or unmarried mother for that matter, provide
permission for their opposite to get their permission to exit?

Pretty much YES Kane, Said that now - what? A dozen times? Kane want to
know why that is? Look at Fidel Castro's PERSONAL history having a child
yanked out of the country. YOU ARE CLUELESS! And impossible to educate
because you think you know everything!

"The youngster, whom The Miami Herald is not identifying to protect
her privacy, entered the United States legally in March 2005 when her
mother won a visa lottery. By the end of that year, however, she had
been sheltered by the Department of Children & Families, which had
asked Cohen to declare the girl's mother unfit."

Kane was the FATHER consulted for his permission to abscond with the
child out of Cuba?

I have no idea.

Then STOP shooting your mouth off you buffoon!

Well, was he, or was he not? 0:]

Was he or wasn't he WHAT?

Nor was that the issue and my question, which
doubtless you have deleted yet again. So that you can pursue a line of
debate I had not agreed to participate in. Just so you can dodge my
actual question. I'll post it again, later in this missive.

Kane what you seem UNABLE (ADD) to get is that your original claim that
the father had "ABANDONED" his daughter "and had not even tried to see
her for years" was BULL****!

I didn't make that claim. I simply said he had not seen her. Which is
plainly in the media descriptions of the case. And now we know, and I
quoted, and LINKED to the article, that he was not married to the child's
mother. Nor parenting the child.

NO Kane you said he "ABANDONED" his daughter - - - AND - - - he had
made NO effort to see her in YEARS!"

Makes no difference what THE GREAT KANE agrees to
participate in. It is a matter of FACTS!

I've asked you for them, but rather than supply them you simply attack my
requests pretending they are claims.

You IGNORE the facts you don't like.

You know those pesky things they insist on in courts?

You got any?

You keep ignoring any that don't suit your BULL****.

You are a fat old bag of wind, you are nothing but a liar, a swindler
and you have the emotional development of a 13 year old , go fu*k
yourself kennyboy, your done here.
We have all seen who you are.
Firemonkey



krp wrote:
KANE - WORLD'S GREATEST EXPERT ON CUBA AND INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL RIGHTS LAW
"0:]" wrote in message
...

1 Cuban girl in exile, 2 dads
In the first public hearing on the fate of a 4-year-old girl whose
father wants her to return to Cuba, a frustrated judge called for
calm.
BY CAROL MARBIN MILLER
In terms of rights, whose should be honored in this conflict...the
long absent father, or the girl's current relationship with the man
she views as her father?
Long absent father?
Why did you delete from your reply what I actually said, past that
question above, krp? So that you could set out on another vile lying
attack and think you wouldn't be seen for what you are?
Oh so NOW you claim PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

You now lie again? I've expressed no personal knowledge of this case.
Only what I read.

Asshole - does it EVER slow you down, just a little, to think that
YOU the GREAT KANE - might not be seeing everything? NO! Not for a
picosecond! You KNOW EVERYTHING!! Don't ya weenie? ABSOLUTELY
EVERYTHING!!!!

No, I have an opinion, and I look for more information. I comment based on
what I have, not what I wish I had, or what I will pretend the other
person has said.

No you arrogant ass you believe you **KNOW** everything! You swagger
like a bullcock with your STRIDENT opinions Kane.

You are a liar.

No that's YOU whenever you get cornered!

in addition to your EXPERT STATUS on international Child custody law.

I'm not. Are you claiming you are and that makes your opinion superior
to mine?

` SURE you are! Ask anyone. Kane knows IT ALL! Just ask him! I know a
whole BUNCH more than you Kane.

That's nice, and I've asked you to share. What is this little game to
protect your flaccid ego about, "nyah nyah, I've got a secret and you
don't know it?" Like a fourth grader?

Hey ADD boy you're the one with ego here. I've NAILED your ass on the
issues of LAW.

I have actually participated in
international child custody cases, AND dip**** - been ASKED to provide
testimony to Congress on the subject,

That would be in the congressional record. I can find no reference to any
Kenneth, Ken, or K. Pangborn in that source.

You are TOTALLY full of **** Kane. I gave LIVE testimony in 1984. You
might see a nice little exchange between myself and Senator Long of the
Judiciary commitee. But then we have such a GRAND liar like you.

Please show a link to your testimony.

Golly Kane they didn't LINK it back then the INTERNET that YOU invemted
by yourself was just in infant states in 1984. EXECPT in your basement with
your CRAY supercomputer that YOU invented in your spare time!

Are you JB Pangborn, on autism? Or Bernard Pangborn on the same subject?

Nope. Try looking under Child Custody / Child support etc. You make up
**** faster than anyone I know Kane.

Lexus Nexus seems devoid of any Congressional testimony bearing your name.
But then, you could point to it for us, right?

Kane hate to tell you this but not EVERY hearing is on LEXUS NEXUS for
every hearign ever held. EXCEPT in your basement on your SUPER SUPER SUPER
computer with MORE info than the Library of Alexandria on it by zillions!

But I BOW to the GREAT KANE who knows EVERYTHING! ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING
about international law. You know the hague treaty baclward and forward
and can cite ALL the relavent law from every couuntry in the world on
it, RIGH KANE???????

I don't recall claiming I was an expert on law, international or
otherwise.

Oh SURE you do Kane, don't play modest with us now. NMOBODY knows aven
.0000000000000001% as much as YOU DO! YOUY wrote ther book! ALL of them!
Just take credit for all your GREAT GREAT accomplishments! Sole invention of
the internet, sole invenmtor of the computer, legal expert, psychological
expert, super spy for the Air Force, world traveler, raconteur, bin vivant!
You're prtending modesty duits you ill ALL HAIL KANE!

Are you saying that other than you a person may not cite or refer to law
when YOU claim knowledge and ask you for a link to support your claim?
This makes them a pretend expert, does it?

You ahven't cited LAW kane just demanded that your OPINION be taken as
gospel as if chiseled in a tablet next to a burning bush! That's all!

Stop dancing, krp, and point to the international law YOU claim applied in
parenting and child custody.

I pointed specificly to cas elaw from the Federal Courts. Santosky v.
Kramer, Stanley v. Illinois., Mabra v. Schmidt to name just 3 of HUNDREDS of
cases on the subject of parental rights VERSUS your fukkkkkkin GETAPO CPS
mentality!

Please clarify.

It's simple Kane - your comments on the subject are merely you
blowing it out of your ASS!!!

Your response is not the one I asked for...for you to support your claim.
You said there was international law regarding parenting rights. I asked
you to give us a reference for it that can be checked out...and feel free
to quote if you wish.

Oh I did you keep ignoring it. And you continue to blow your arrogance
out of your ass Kane You're TOTALLY full of **** and you are desperate to
hide it. But eventually you'll have top admit it sheepishly like you have
before.

Or it may be that your screeching up above is nothing but blubbery ****.

SO - since you KNOW firsthand,

How would I do that? And you?

Because Kane you know EVERYTHING! Not pon;ly do youi klnow MORE
about Cuba than ANY Cuban anywhere in the world . VASTLY MORE, you know
LAW, you know psychology, medicine and you even know broadcast
electronics plus being a DOUBLE NAUTGHT SPY!

I have questions about those things and asked you, who claim to know of
international law pertaining to parenting rights, to let us know.

Look at the HAGUE treaty on international child custody DIP****!

Are you going to, or are you going to blubber **** for a dozen or so more
posts until I tire of your bull**** dodges?

You're the one throwing the bull**** I have to dodge Kane!

tell us the date and PRECISE TIME to the second the last time the CUBAN
(biological)
(REAL) father saw his child.. Tell us WHERE it took place andf how many
times he beat or sexually molested the child on that day Kane!!!

I have not heard, nor claimed I heard, or claimed I know that he did
any such thing.

Yes you claimed he "abandoned" his child and had not even TRIED to
see her in YEARS! Yeha you did Kane.

I made neither claim. I said he had not seen her. I did not say he didn't
try to, nor that he abandoned her.

Yes you did AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN and I attached that comment but
oddly it seems to disappear when you dig your toe into the hot lineoleum and
say "who me?"

What I have done, recently, was post an article that establishes that he
was not a parenting father, but simply what appears to be a sperm donor.
He was not married to the mother.

What a class act you are SLEAZE! You TRY to paint yourself as all
innocent and free of an agenda yet the way you say things reveals who you
REALLY ARE! A "sperm donor" eh? Your PROOF????

Please stop ranting and making a larger fool of your lard ass self.

No Kane I am again making a fool of YOU! A internet BLOWHARD who
claims expertise on subects he knows NOTHING about! You are armed ONLY
with your strident and wrong opinions.

You seem to be describing yourself to a tee, krp.

POOR INOCENT KANE labels the man merely a "SPERM DONOR!" ANd yet the
gREAT KANE pretends he is OBJECTIVE! Bull**** CPS KANE!

You claim you know of international law pertaining, but refuse to produce
it.

No Kane I produced several US Supreme Court cases that deal with
parental rights.

Now you DISHONEST little ****.... WHo often claims that "NO SUCH CASE
EXISTS" form my Lexus Nexus SEARCH on my BAZOOM computer data base...
Here's the info on that case.

SANTOSKY ET AL. v. KRAMER, COMMISSIONER, ULSTER COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ET AL.



No. 80-5889.



SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES



455 U.S. 745; 71 L. Ed. 2d 599; 50 U.S.L.W. 4333; 102 S.

Ct. 1388



Argued November 10, 1981



March 24, 1982



Read it ans weep jerkoff! It sets out basic parameters for interfering
in parental relations and like Stanley V. Illinois declars they BASIC
RIGHTS.. Some of us would say basic HUMAN RIGHTS against your fukking
GESTAPO CPS!


So, let us see how you start right off with lies.

When the child is "snatched" from him?

How do you know she was "snatched?" You don't even know if he had
custody of her in Cuba. If he had, would the mother have left alone?
No, she'd have been a couple with him and both would have won the visa
lottery as a couple.

No comment? So you are going to claim the child was snatched but you
aren't going to say how you know that. As always, the lying lard ass.

AGAIN your VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST EXPERTISE on Cuba
is astounding Kane. You bloated jackass. First of all under Communism in
Cuba FEW marriages are formal. For decades the churches were padlocked.
Religious mariages all but forbidden. Civil marriages drifted into also
being relatively rare. People just live together - make babies and CALL
themselves "married."

That's nice.

Your ignorance is astounding Kane. Your refusal to process any
information that might tell you that your Empreror is NAKES is remarkable.

HOWEVER you CLOWN - Cuban LAW (I know you consider yourself the LEADING
EXPERT on the planet on that subject)

I've never even referred to Cuban law, but I will now.

The GREATR CUBAN LAW EXPERT KANE will now entertain us!

Please provide citations from Cuban law that support your claims above.

UP YOURS fumble but I just gave you US law which is where the case is.
NICE TRY at a diversion.

dictates that both parents must give permission to remove a child from
Cuba. Meaning the FATHER in this case. The pleadings so far made public
make it clear that the mother did NOT obtain the permission. BUT when
shall we be treated to your magnum opus on Cuban LAW Killer Kane?

Since I have not made any claims about Cuban law, but have asked you,
never.

Oh come on Kane we all KNOW that YOU are the final authority on ALL LAW
in the world! YOu and your LEXUS NEXUS!

As for the pleadings made public, then you would not have any difficulty
in pointing to this public source for us to read them and see that one,
Cuban law does actually require permission of both parents when they are
not legally married, and two, that she did not obtain his permission to
take the child out of the country.

Golly Kane your own sources support what I am saying. The original and
the followup stories. Even the MOTHER has said the child shoul be with her
REAL dad! Only YOU and your CPS pals say otherwise. And of course the family
hand selected by CPS!

My take would be, though smile I'm not expert, that the US would not
issue an entry visa for a child the parent could not prove she had legal
custody to bring into the country.

Oh Kane you are STUPID as ever. All the had to do to get the visa to get
"parole" in the form of the visa was submit the BIRTH CERTIFICATE showing
her to be the mother! The permission to LEAVE Cuba is between the mother and
Cuba. Sadly one can either BRIBE the immigration folks in Cuba to allow them
out, or just trust that whoever is on duty doesn't give a ****. AGAIN your
VAST PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of Cuba might tell you that many people who work in
immigration are in sympathy with those who CAN leave. Kane for all your
ARROGANCE you are so damn CLUELESS.

In fact is it not true that Cuba requires those leaving the country to
obtain an exit visa, for all parties, children included?

Not necessarily nfants Kane. BUT as I said often folks don't look too
closely. They see a plane ticket and visas and a packet, they don't look at
the fine points. For a price Kane you can get almost any document in Cuba
you wish.

Possibly you, who claims to have the knowledge in this matter can
enlighten us.

I could by why bother YOU KNOW EVERYTHING you should enlighen us with
your Lexus Nexus from Cuba!

To obtain an exit visa for a child is it required that the unmarried
father of the child, or unmarried mother for that matter, provide
permission for their opposite to get their permission to exit?

Pretty much YES Kane, Said that now - what? A dozen times? Kane want to
know why that is? Look at Fidel Castro's PERSONAL history having a child
yanked out of the country. YOU ARE CLUELESS! And impossible to educate
because you think you know everything!

"The youngster, whom The Miami Herald is not identifying to protect
her privacy, entered the United States legally in March 2005 when her
mother won a visa lottery. By the end of that year, however, she had
been sheltered by the Department of Children & Families, which had
asked Cohen to declare the girl's mother unfit."

Kane was the FATHER consulted for his permission to abscond with the
child out of Cuba?

I have no idea.

Then STOP shooting your mouth off you buffoon!

Well, was he, or was he not? 0:]

Was he or wasn't he WHAT?

Nor was that the issue and my question, which
doubtless you have deleted yet again. So that you can pursue a line of
debate I had not agreed to participate in. Just so you can dodge my
actual question. I'll post it again, later in this missive.

Kane what you seem UNABLE (ADD) to get is that your original claim that
the father had "ABANDONED" his daughter "and had not even tried to see
her for years" was BULL****!

I didn't make that claim. I simply said he had not seen her. Which is
plainly in the media descriptions of the case. And now we know, and I
quoted, and LINKED to the article, that he was not married to the child's
mother. Nor parenting the child.

NO Kane you said he "ABANDONED" his daughter - - - AND - - - he had
made NO effort to see her in YEARS!"

Makes no difference what THE GREAT KANE agrees to
participate in. It is a matter of FACTS!

I've asked you for them, but rather than supply them you simply attack my
requests pretending they are claims.

You IGNORE the facts you don't like.

You know those pesky things they insist on in courts?

You got any?

You keep ignoring any that don't suit your BULL****.