lori vallow in court
and laughing and smiling and all made up like she was on candid camera ....... and the judge reduced her bail from $5M down to $1M and ordered an ankle monitor.....ohh the horror ??????...she disappears kids, flees off to hawaii, and they finally bring back to court where she says NOTHING and the "judge" cuts her a ton of slack.....for NOTHING...from the supreme court down to the local level our "justice" system is a disarrayed failure........
3
-
spasmcreeksrun said:the presumption of common sense has died
If it turns out her kids are alive and well, will the arrest and incarceration have been justified?0 -
Don, the logical conclusion of your position would be that no one could be arrested for anything until they've been convicted of it - which is ludicrous.
The fact is that Ms Vallow has had numerous means to verify the location and condition of those kids - through her attorney as one example - and have it remain in complete confidence. That she has not taken any of those opportunities provides the court with probable cause. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.
0 -
That is not the logical conclusion at all, Rocky. The logical conclusion is that the standard of probable cause must be met for any charges that are filed. She has been charged with child abandonment and non-support of a child. The fact that she will not tell government where they are is not evidence of either of these. Were there a law in Idaho that you must present your children for inspection anytime the government asks, she could certainly be charged with a violation.Rocky Raab said:Don, the logical conclusion of your position would be that no one could be arrested for anything until they've been convicted of it - which is ludicrous.
The fact is that Ms Vallow has had numerous means to verify the location and condition of those kids - through her attorney as one example - and have it remain in complete confidence. That she has not taken any of those opportunities provides the court with probable cause. I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I see it.
There is something amiss here, I agree. The problem I have is that even though it looks like something is wrong, I do not believe that government should charge someone for something without evidence that something has even occurred.0 -
While my gut feeling is that this lady and her current (5th) husband had something to do with 2 or 3 adult deaths and most likely the death of her children, I tend to think the judge was bound by the state/federal statutes as well as the Constitution (8th Amendment).
$5M would be appropriate if they had any evidence of murder or manslaughter. However, they only have her on Child Abandonment and Contempt of Court Order (to the best of my knowledge). I think he most likely was bound to set bail to reflect those charges.
Do not get me wrong...I think this woman's cheese done slid of her cracker and those kids will never be seen alive.0 -
She looks good in orange. 0 -
It doesn't make any sense to me either, FCD, but then if people could be prosecuted when they did things that don't make sense to me, the streets of the U.S. of A. would be a lot less crowded.Flying Clay Disk said:@Don McManus DM, in reading your posts, I do understand where you are coming from and in some respects I don't disagree completely with you. However, the nagging question I have is...there are abundant causes one could choose to take a stand on against society, so why would someone decide their 'line in the sand' is simply proving whether their own children are alive and well? This makes zero sense to me.
She's not being demanded to send them to public schools, or force them to be vaccinated, or any number of a myriad of other things. She's only being asked to evidence they are alive and well. Doesn't seem too overly difficult to me...unless of course... they're not.And here's the thing; if her love and devotion to her children is so great that she feels compelled to conceal their well being, then she should also realize all this attention to the matter is effecting the real possibility that her children may well now be taken from her by social services when and if they are found to be alive and well. This would not have been the case had she just given evidence of their well being at the outset. Not even Randy Weaver, nor Cliven Bundy, nor even David Koresh felt compelled to adopt this approach.I get the whole civil liberties and constitutional angle, but there needs to be a stated purpose or underpinning principle for her actions, and to the best of my knowledge Lori Vallow has not identified such a cause. And, "Meh" is not a stated cause or purpose, not when it comes to minor children, not by any legal standard. Therein lies the difference.The legal standard for the distinction between a 'Minor' and an 'Adult' is, fundamentally, a "minor" is considered (legally) not to be able to look out for their own well being without the supervision of a legal adult guardian. In the United States we have chosen this demarcation line between minor and adult to be 18 years of age. I'm pretty sure this applies in Idaho too.Right or wrong, if a parent takes a pregnancy full term to birth, then this person has a legal responsibility to provide for the well being of the child until the age of 18 years. That, or put them up for adoption, or relinquish their legal right to be a parent and make the child a ward of the state. Lori Vallow has chosen none of these options publicly, and that is not legal in the state of Idaho.You've talked about constitutional law in many of your posts on this subject, and I share many of those underpinning principles. However, in this case, you cannot simply ignore State law which you seem to be doing. That is, unless, you are adopting an absolutist Constitutionalism doctrine.The bottom line is pretty much this...if Lori Vallow has been more than a day without 'parenting' her minor children then she, as their sole guardian, needs to provide evidence of how they are being cared for. Heck, they could be at 'band camp' for all we know...or...they could be dead. As their legal guardian, she has the responsibility to say which it is."Do you know where your kids are?"
(that was a rhetorical question by the way)
All of your points are valid, and yes, the obvious and probably best thing for her children (if we assume they are still alive) would have been to not have them break contact with the grandparents and to provide proof of their well-being when asked.
You mention that I am ignoring State Law. I am unsure if that is correct. I confess to not having read the actual statutes in Idaho of Child Abandonment and Failure to support a child, but one would assume the language in the statute has something to do with abandoning or failing to provide support for the child. We have no evidence of either of these things. We can speculate as to her motivation for doing what she is doing (and I think we both share a suspicion that there is something very dark involved in that motivation) but should we prosecute for a crime absent evidence because of those suspicions.
Many on the far left believe that the desire to own a firearm is sufficient reason to prohibit ownership. A prejudgment based upon suspected motivation. I am struggling with finding where the line in this Vallow case should be, but my gut tells me that while I suspect something, the answer at this point is not incarceration for the reasons stated.0 -
If you have a suspicion, then by the reasonable man test, the state can go to a judge, which was done in this case.
And the rest is going to be public knowlege.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
37 comments