Wilsons running from New Mexico

Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Please explain!

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Please explain!

Clarify what you wish to have explained.

And consider doing some research on your own, such as simply reading the
material already presented by the media and my, and other's responses to
you.

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Greg wrote
Please explain!

Kane wrote
Clarify what you wish to have explained.

Please explain why somebody who makes
such an "agreement" cannot rescind it.

Kane further wrote
And consider doing some research on your own,
such as simply reading the material already
presented by the media and my, and other's
responses to you.

How would that explain your illogical assertion
that people who voluntarily ""agreed"" to placement
could not rescind their agreement?

Doesn't YOUR state require a COURT removal
order within 72 hours if a child is removed for
IMMINENT DANGER?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

Greg wrote
Please explain!

Kane wrote
Clarify what you wish to have explained.

Please explain why somebody who makes
such an "agreement" cannot rescind it.

Please explain what purpose our question serves, since you have failed
to support nearly every claim you have dreamed up about this event.

I did not claim they could or couldn't.

Now explain to us what difference it would make if they could rescind it.

And then what the outcome would be if they couldn't.

All agreements can be rescinded, but with consequences. In this case, if
they did rescind 'it' they did so by taking the children and leaving to
avoid an examination.

Kane further wrote
And consider doing some research on your own,
such as simply reading the material already
presented by the media and my, and other's
responses to you.

How would that explain your illogical assertion
that people who voluntarily ""agreed"" to placement
could not rescind their agreement?

How would you explain that I made no such claim.

Doesn't YOUR state require a COURT removal
order within 72 hours if a child is removed for
IMMINENT DANGER?

Irrelevant. We do not know at this point if there was or wasn't a court
order.

You are creatively pretending to claim their either was or wasn't.

Show us where there was no, or where their was by the evidence presented
so far.

Then explain why you would continually ask, other than your pathological
tendency to lie by diversion, a question not relevant for lack of any
possible answer from the information available to us.

When you are done explaining that, explain to us how you can think that
claiming to pretend that you can train a cat to do dog tricks would be
relevant to the court in a child protection case.

Now THAT we DO have evidence of having been claimed and presented to the
court.

0:-



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greegor wrote:
How would that explain your illogical assertion
that people who voluntarily ""agreed"" to placement
could not rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
How would you explain that I made no such claim.

You said "Nope." thereby indicating that the people
could not rescind their agreement.

I quote that interaction below:

-----------------------------------------

Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

----------------------------------------

Greegor wrote:

Greegor wrote:
How would that explain your illogical assertion
that people who voluntarily ""agreed"" to placement
could not rescind their agreement?
Kane wrote
How would you explain that I made no such claim.

You said "Nope." thereby indicating that the people
could not rescind their agreement.

I quote that interaction below:

-----------------------------------------

Greg wrote
And they can't rescind their agreement?

Kane wrote
Nope.

And shortly after that, which you creatively aborted, I also said in the
same context, "It is. If it exists. We don't know if it does or not. You
are guessing. I'm playing your guessing game with you."

You asked if "it" was a contract.

You can't rescind what doesn't exist. My take, given the media hasn't
given us a single thing that would suggest that such a "contract"
exists, is that it doesn't. It may have been nothing more than verbal
agreement.

You seem to be struggling rather hard to move this from a flight to
avoid a sexual abuse exam, to one about whether or not they were
restricted from leaving.

Simple logic would tell you that all of that matters not a whit...if
they are being charged with what they are being charged with...failing
to show up for that appointment.

Okay, now what?

You keep running from the central point to argue side issues that have
no bearing on the central point.

The mind of the criminal is a marvelous thing, Greg. I see it in you,
and I see it in others here in your their convoluted thinking to avoid
any issue you cannot deal with.

Now where did you develop such thinking patterns?

So tell us, why does the issue of the family traveling out of state
supersede an order to present the children for an exam?

It would not matter if they were five states away. The appointment was
the issue, not travel. They could have hopped, if they just had to
travel, on a plane and had the children back for the exam.

It was missing the exam that mattered. Now isn't that so, Greg?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
You can't rescind what doesn't exist. My take, given the media hasn't
given us a single thing that would suggest that such a "contract"
exists, is that it doesn't. It may have been nothing more than verbal
agreement.

Need I remind you that it was YOU who suggested that
such an agreement might have been made, supposedly
in place of a COURT REMOVAL ORDER.

Remember we are talking about 24 days of removal
with no court order.


Kane wrote
You seem to be struggling rather hard to move this from
a flight to avoid a sexual abuse exam, to one about
whether or not they were restricted from leaving.

They could not be guilty of INTERSTATE FLIGHT
TO AVOID PROSECUTION if they were not aware
of any COURT action.

Then again, can a Family Court ever ""PROSECUTE""?

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
You can't rescind what doesn't exist. My take, given the media hasn't
given us a single thing that would suggest that such a "contract"
exists, is that it doesn't. It may have been nothing more than verbal
agreement.

Need I remind you that it was YOU who suggested that
such an agreement might have been made, supposedly
in place of a COURT REMOVAL ORDER.

NO, asshole. It was YOU that brought up court order, and I responded to
your bull**** with best answer I could muster up to help you THINK
instead of **** in the street.

Remember we are talking about 24 days of removal
with no court order.

Remember that I DID NOT START THIS BULL**** "COURT ORDER" CRAPPOLA, you
piece of diversionary ****.

Kane wrote
You seem to be struggling rather hard to move this from
a flight to avoid a sexual abuse exam, to one about
whether or not they were restricted from leaving.

They could not be guilty of INTERSTATE FLIGHT
TO AVOID PROSECUTION if they were not aware
of any COURT action.

Were they so charged? Or was that a diversion by you to skirt the issue,
the only one in question according to the information we DO have, of
having NOT presented the children for the investigation?

And who says they had to be "aware?" Such a court order could be issued
POST FLIGHT, YOU STUPID ****.

You do remember that ignorance is NO excuse for law breaking, right?

Any normal human being in this society KNOWS that if you are ordered by
proper authority (and CPS IS A PROPER AUTHORITY TO ORDER A MEDICAL EXAM
AS IS LAW ENFORCEMENT) skipping out of state can easily result in a
charge of "interstate flight to avoid prosecution."

Just how ****ing stupid ARE you?

You take me back to the days I worked with incarcerated felons and such.
They tried these same dodges. Pretending that the law was not the law,
and that their ignorance of it was an excuse to not be subjected TO it.

Then again, can a Family Court ever ""PROSECUTE""?

What do YOU think?

You want them disbanded, isn't that right, Greg? YOU want people to be
able to ****, torture, brutalize, and otherwise mistreat human children
because you are a ****ing pervert, is that not so, Greg?

Otherwise you would not go on these mindless denials of reality. Is that
not right, Greg?

To you Greg, children are little more than animals to be trained and
used for your needs and neurotic self indulgence, isn't that correct, Greg?

0:-


--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Greg wrote
Then again, can a Family Court ever ""PROSECUTE""?

Kane wrote
What do YOU think?
You want them disbanded, isn't that right, Greg? YOU want people to be
able to [f], torture, brutalize, and otherwise mistreat human children
because you are a [f]ing pervert, is that not so, Greg?

Why is it so hard for you to admit that Family Court
can not ever ""PROSECUTE"" any crime?

Do you think this sort of temper tantrum isn't OBVIOUS?

Greegor wrote:
Greg wrote
Then again, can a Family Court ever ""PROSECUTE""?

Kane wrote
What do YOU think?
You want them disbanded, isn't that right, Greg? YOU want people to be
able to [f], torture, brutalize, and otherwise mistreat human children
because you are a [f]ing pervert, is that not so, Greg?

Why is it so hard for you to admit that Family Court
can not ever ""PROSECUTE"" any crime?

Because it's not relevant to this discussion, or your claim. You went
afield with it.

Show the relevance, stupid.

Do you think this sort of temper tantrum isn't OBVIOUS?

It's not a temper tantrum. It's a challenge to you to defend the
indefensible in your usual ****assed way.

And you did.

You have drug in everything you could think of to move AWAY from my
challenge to your claim that the family can't be prosecuted for taking
off...but, of course that was NOT the claim and never was. It was YOU
dreaming up one of your fantasies.

They were caught for NOT showing up at the exam with the child. Taking
the child them.



--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)