Re: OT
- From: the 3rd Man <sir_der05@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:53:38 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 15, 9:47 am, the 3rd Man <sir_de...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:43 am, Mo <borgk...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To: SpinL...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kshep...@xxxxxxxxx, fitz...@xxxxxxxxx,
patrick.fitzger...@xxxxxxxxx, modelt1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
jdra...@xxxxxxxx, lett...@xxxxxxxxxxx, Jgerberd...@xxxxxxx,
len...@xxxxxxxxxxx, michael.c...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
conn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, executive-edi...@xxxxxxxxxxx, managing-
edi...@xxxxxxxxxxx, news-t...@xxxxxxxxxxx, the-a...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
biz...@xxxxxxxxxxx, fore...@xxxxxxxxxxx, me...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
natio...@xxxxxxxxxxx, dv...@xxxxxxx, brigidcalla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,
t...@xxxxxxxxxxx, ubi...@xxxxxxxxxxx, m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
campb...@xxxxxxxxxxx, jhornber...@xxxxxxx, thomas.car...@xxxxxxxxx,
thomas.r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kur...@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
georgew...@xxxxxxxxxxxx, hor...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
commissioner....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cohencol...@xxxxxxx,
FalNie...@xxxxxxx, bransfi...@xxxxxxxxxxx, vtsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
o...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
scott.mur...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, governor.r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
attorney.gene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, randall.samb...@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: fran...@xxxxxxxx, dr-ahmadine...@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
eugenerobin...@xxxxxxxxxxxx, hor...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
bmil...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, t...@xxxxxxxxxxx, rastr...@xxxxxxx,
billcurr...@xxxxxxxxx, thomas.car...@xxxxxxxxx, amcgui...@xxxxxxxxxxx,
rjmur...@xxxxxxx, paulcraigrobe...@xxxxxxxxx,
sidney_blument...@xxxxxxxxx, criminal.divis...@xxxxxxxxx,
karla.dobin...@xxxxxxxxx, christopher.chris...@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: DCF kidnapped a baby that did not test positive for
marijuana- They lie to the courts.
Date: Feb 15, 2008 10:41 AM
The CT DCF kidnapped Meredith Inkel's baby after they lied to the
judge about
a positive marijuana test that was not positive. They also judge
shopped and tried
three times to get the order to kidnap the baby. The then kidnapped
baby was tortured
and beaten by the foster carer and had to be brought to the MD for the
examination
and treatment of her genital injuries and beatings:http://www.actionlyme..org/ENTRAPMENT_DCF_CHILD_ABUSE.htm
I called in this report of the beatings, injuries, and sexual torture
of the Inkel
children by the DCF foster "carer."
It autoplays on this page so you don't even have to download it:http://www.actionlyme.org/070508.htm
So don't believe any of this BS about babies born with drugs in their
system.
DCF makes up this data and lies to the court, not to mention the fact
that you can't
verify any idiot bullshit crap that happens in any lab, especially in
Corrupticut.
Since idiot bullshit lab games is the entire Lyme Cryme Game.http://www.actionlyme.org/PRIMERSHELLGAME.htm
not to mention the Coptards who spend time on private eye cases in the
State Crime
Lab.
No. Take all care of other people's children out of the hands of duh
DCF since
they're all clearly retarded liars:http://www.actionlyme.org/DCF_HIDING_THE_FACT_THAT_DON_DICKSON_IS_A_M...
Examine for yourselves, duh DCF's obvious mental retardation.
Kathleen M. Dickson
=============================
http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1202980556...
Law puts some new mothers in jail
Thursday, February 14, 2008
DAVE PARKS
News staff writer
Shekelia T. Ward gave birth Jan. 8 at Andalusia Regional Hospital, and
the next
day she was arrested, jailed and charged with chemical endangerment of
a child,
a felony.
The reason: Ward and her newborn both tested positive for cocaine, and
the hospital
reported the information to authorities as evidence of possible child
abuse.
Ward's experience is the product of a new law that has some
prosecutors, particularly
in southeast Alabama, arresting new mothers who test positive for
illicit drugs.
The prosecutors began filing these charges after the state Legislature
in 2006 made
it illegal to "chemically endanger" a child.
The new law and how it is being applied is raising a multitude of
legal, ethical
and medical issues.
Gregory L. Gambril, prosecuting attorney for Covington County, said
his office has
charged about 10 new mothers with chemical endangerment of a child
since the law
was passed. Two of the cases involved deaths of newborns caused by
methamphetamine
abuse, he said.
Gambril said children need protection, and the new law is there to do
that.
"The unborn children are not making the choice," he said. "It's
the mothers who are making the choice to do it to them."
But he acknowledged the law has some problems and needs clarification.
It was originally
proposed to prosecute parents who exposed children to toxins
associated with methamphetamine
production, and has no mention of pregnant women or their babies.
"It's obviously a close call under the law," Gambril said. "We
would like the matter cleared up with a statute."
Gambril said his prosecutors are focusing on pregnant women who are
addicted to
methamphetamine, but other drug exposures are being decided case by
case. It's
all being done properly, he said.
"We do it hand in hand with pediatricians here, the OB-GYNs here, with
the
doctors," Gambril said. "Everybody seems to be consistently on board."
He said cases are settled when mothers agree to go into treatment.
"We are doing this for the sole purpose of trying to make sure both
the mother
and the child have a healthy pregnancy," he said. "We're not trying
to throw these women in jail. That's absolutely not the goal of it."
Big bond:
Still, 28-year-old Ward remained in jail this week. Her bond was set
at $250,000.
"For whatever reason, Covington County is notorious for having high
bonds,"
said Corey Daniel Bryan, a public defender representing Ward. "With
this law
being fairly new, the judges have taken a hard stance."
Bryan said Ward's newborn is in the custody of a grandparent. "The
baby's
health is fine," he said.
He said the chemical endangerment statute is badly flawed, though the
intent of
the law was good - get children away from methamphetamine production.
"Of course,
what always happens with these type things is the Legislature writes a
general,
vague law, and the district attorneys grab hold of it and start
charging everybody
with it."
These prosecutions are based upon the premise that a fetus is a
person, something
that runs contrary to federal court rulings. "That is going to have to
be taken
up at some point," Bryan said. "It's just a matter of it getting to
the higher courts."
Other lawyers raise the issue of the practicality of courts
micromanaging a woman's
pregnancy, and whether doing so is in the best interest of the baby.
In Dale County, prosecutors last year charged a new mother from
Daleville, Sheila
Denean Cox, with chemical endangerment after a hospital reported that
she and her
newborn tested positive for marijuana.
Donna Coon Crooks, a Daleville defense attorney for Cox, said that was
taking chemical
endangerment too far, and that the law casts such a wide net that it
is impossible
for a reasonable person to know whether he or she has violated it. The
charges were
reduced to a misdemeanor, Crooks said.
Studies have found that as many as 10 percent of pregnant women test
positive for
some illicit drug, and that's not counting those who drink alcohol or
smoke
cigarettes - behaviors that clearly put fetuses at risk.
In fact, an Arkansas legislator in 2006 suggested a law making it
illegal for a
pregnant woman to smoke. Then-Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is running for
president,
said such a law made sense from a health standpoint.
Enough already, Crooks said.
"If we allow the courts to jump in and regulate every aspect of our
lives,
we're opening up a whole new can of worms," she said. "I think the
intentions are good, but my gosh, the prisons are full now. Are we
going to put
every pregnant mother in?"
She said health care workers, child welfare officials and prosecutors
ought to consider
whether a baby was seriously harmed by a chemical exposure.
"If they see something that's wrong with the child, I can see their
interest
in testing the child to see what's what," she said. "But as long as
the child seems normal, I don't know what business it is of theirs."
High court rules:
The new law also raises questions about patient privacy, unreasonable
searches and
the relationship between law enforcement officials and health care
providers.
In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that a
Charleston, S.C.,
hospital had violated the rights of new mothers by testing them for
illicit drugs
and turning the information over to prosecutors. Thus, the hospital
and staff members
left themselves open to lawsuits, the court ruled.
In its decision, the court noted that there was a near consensus in
the medical
community that these types of programs were potentially harmful to
children because
fear of prosecution could prevent pregnant, drug-addicted women from
seeking prenatal
care.
The Supreme Court said hospital workers have a duty to report possible
child abuse,
but they can go too far by becoming extensions of law enforcement,
even if it is
being done to coerce women into drug treatment.
"The court reasoned that, when physicians are acting at the behest of
the state
to collect evidence, they have a special obligation to inform their
patients of
their constitutional rights," according to an analysis of the case
published
in the January issue of Virtual Mentor, American Medical Association
Journal of
Ethics. "The court acknowledged that the invasion of patient privacy
in this
case was severe due to the deceit involved in the testing and the
unauthorized dissemination
of confidential medical information to the third
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- References:
- OT
- From: the 3rd Man
- OT
- Prev by Date: Re: OT- Way Down In The Hole (dedicated to 3rdman and puppets over this Sarah Harassment)
- Next by Date: IGNORE KRAZY KATHLEEN'S OFF TOPIC GARBAGE SPAM DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND SCROLL ON BY
- Previous by thread: OT
- Next by thread: Re: OT
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
