http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/elian1.html

Reno, INF, had no "choice"? "Had" to do this? If you think the INF has been straight up about this, I can show you three judges who don't think so, chastizing the INF for not even inteviewing Elian....READ the whole story above, or shaddup with your uninformed opinions.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 22, 2000

Answers

And your opinion is the only one that matters, right FF? Why don't you start a FF Opinion Board?

Obviously you have a problem with debate unless it agrees with your research and your interpretation the facts that you've found.

You felt it necessary to start a whole new thread telling people to shaddup?

ROFL!!

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 22, 2000.

A few more words about this incident.

Question: Is this really for "for the father"? I think not, this is for politics. There are considerations for a childs interests in deciding whether immigration should be allowed, please read the court document linked above.

Question: Are you near a large city with illegal immigrants? I am, more than 15,000. How many white vans with federal INF "commando's" have you seen raiding a house to take on "illegal alien" from it? I have seen none, our city try's to help these people with hospital and other services.

Question: Have you seen the Justice Department up in arms about kids who have been taken out of the country by their foreign fathers, against court rulings, and away from their U.S. mothers? I have not. But here we see them send in the stormtroopers for political purposes, for a singe "alien". No politics, huh?

Question: Have you seen a judges ruling as to the fitness of the father? The mother died escaping Cuba, and Elian almost did as well. Maybe we SHOULD let the family courts decide, not the INF or guns.

Question: All of this federal government involvement, from the highest levels of the Justice Department, all the pseudomilitary activity and the raid....this is somehow claimed NOT to be political??? Yeah, right.

Question: If you were Solomon, in all of his wisdom, would you turn him over to a father and country his mother died escaping from without even trying to learn about what the person you are going to give him "back to"? I don't think you would. That's why this kid deserves a fair hearing by an impartial judge in a court that would do just that. The INF and guns ain't a fair hearing.

I strongly believe in parental rights, but I just as strongly believe in the rights of this kid and his caretakers to a fair hearing in a fair court.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 22, 2000.

doomer, just curious, did you read the document linked above? If you have, I would be glad to discuss the subject. But your ignorance of the subject is showing for now...

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 22, 2000.

FactFinder is right, shut the FUCK up!

-- Fernando (pissedoff@miami.com), April 22, 2000.

Doomer Stomper, are you capable of intelligent discussion? Say something intelligent or you risk being viewed as dumb as your post.

-- LOL at Doomer Stomper (DoomerStomper@IsAnInbreed.com), April 22, 2000.

What's to discuss FF? The injunction is to permit him to stay in the US until his asylum hearing. The Miami relatives no longer had custodial rights to the child. The US government took him by force from these relatives when they refused to surrender him to his father who DID have rights to the child.

what's your point?

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 22, 2000.

Not a very good summary Doomerstomper, but I do appreciate you reading part of it at least. Did you miss the part about the INF not even interviewing or considering his petition for immigration? Or did you conveniently leave that out on purpose? THATs the point.

The US government took him by force from these relatives when they refused to surrender him to his father who DID have rights to the child. Think about this statement of yours doomerstomper, since WHEN did the INF get into the child custody enforcement business??? What court detemined what the fathers rights were in this case? NONE. Usually, it's your local sheriffs office who enforces custody judgements, but wait, there WAS no custody determination hearing, was there?

Those are my points, take them or leave them.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

FF:

I read the court ruling. It speaks to two issues:

1. Does the application for asylum have merit?

2. Should the boy remain in this ocuntry until the issue is decided?

On both the issues, the 11th Circuit Court ruled in the affirmative. This, however, is a seperate issue from what happened today. The INS (I'm assuming that's what you mean by INF) has the right to determine custody of a minor while on "parole" awaiting hearing. The Justice Department and the INS both determined that custody should be given to the boy's father. The Miami relatives refused to comply with this custody change. The family was given numerous opportunities to comply and they continued to refuse. The action today transferred custody to the father. He remains bound by the 11th Circuit ruling until the case is heard.

Here is the INS web site that has a chronology of of some the events:

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/ElianG.htm

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 23, 2000.

Tell you what FF -- how about you write every word of the document for us. Since it is in jpg format, it is impossible to copy/paste. The boy will get his hearing. The government is not denying him that right.

The father has the right to speak for the child, or the child himself, if the court deems him able to understand what he is seeking (asylum) as he is a 6 yr old child.

You seem to have a problem with that. If you're trying to bait me into a flame war, you're wasting your time. I don't find you that interesting.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 23, 2000.

Hey Fact Fucker you must spend all day,

Putting spin on things in your own way.

Its important you know,

Youre an idiot bro,

You should listen to what others say!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 23, 2000.

Thanks for the link.

What struck me was the court's SPECIFIC order that "all officers, agents and employees of the United States, including but not limited to officers, agents and employees of the United States Department of Justice, are ENJOINED to take such reasonable and lawful measures as necessary to prevent the removal of Plaintiff, Elian Gonzales, from the United States."

In plain English: the Justice Department has, in effect, been ordered to PREVENT his removal until Elian's case can be heard in court. I fail to see how siezing the child and handing him over to Cubans (even within this country) aids this injunction.

If this was any other administration, we could have a jurisdictional (or even constitutional) crisis on our hands. But don't ever bet against Slick Willy (besides, the latest polls indicate that most Americans think Elian SHOULD be returned to Cuba).

Actually, the best theory I've heard is that Castro has privately threatened to stage another Mariel Boat Lift if Elian isn't returned.

(Remember that one? Castro loaded 125,000 criminals and mental cases onto boats and launched them toward then-president Jimmy Carter. It tied up INS for YEARS, and they'd do ANYTHING to prevent that from happening again.[g])

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), April 23, 2000.

Jim:

I read the document in its entirety as well. It made NO references to the transfer of custody to Elian's father while awaiting the asylum hearing except to say that it was outside the interests of THAT particular court to decide anything. As stated in the conclusion, this document asks more questions than it answers, but it clearly addresses only the two items you mentioned.

The only custody document I've found was the one allowing Lazaro temporary custody until March 6 since his father was not in the country. The Federal Government got involved in this because Elian is NOT a U.S. citizen. State courts have no jurisdiction over custody issues involving an illegal alien.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

Fact Finder you should run for president!!!!!!

-- Let's Draft Factfinder (Hawk@vice.president!), April 23, 2000.

FactFucker is an idiot.

-- FactFucker is an idiot. (@ .), April 23, 2000.

Was this kid in imminent danger? Not from the family, but he was from the INF. An idiot? Possibly for other reasons, but am I an idiot for thinking that this kid was done a lot of harm without due cause or process? I do not think so in this case. Did anyone see CNN this morning? A Senator and others are making the same points I have made. Perhaps we are all idiots.

Again, I make no argument that the kid should be with the family or the father, I am not qualified to determine this and neither are you OR the INF who never even spoke to the kid (as the families lawyer has clearly stated and as the three judge applealate panel said). What I object strongly to is putting the lives and well being of all the kids in that house in grave danger for purely political reasons.

No court order, no court, just Clinton, Reno, and the INF decicded this course of action, and you can't hide the truth of the horror shown below (photo by AP):

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Fact read your own links first, then tell the rest of us how to read. and for the record, why dont you shut up? Oh yeah, you cant because you are a genius and nobody else is allowed to post their opinions.

-- BLAHBLAH (FAXONLY@XYZ.net), April 23, 2000.

This picture is all that you see,

On the news its all over tv,

The dude with the gun,

Has turned the fisherman,

Into a big time celebrity!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 23, 2000.

Jim, I appreciate your correcting my "INF" error, of course it's the INS.

I agree with your interpretation of the issues, but add the following: The court makes the point (very strongly empasised in the document) that the INS never interviewed the child himself. In a family court, the judge would have certainly wen't to great lenghts to award custody based on investigation and interviews. There was obviously no thoroughness in the INS decision here, only political expediency.

Another point that substantiates the above is that the INS refused to even (i)consider(/i) the boys application for immigration, so how could this be a fair "hearing" of the matter by the INS??? Again, so much for "due process".

You state that the INS has the right to determine custody while awaiting a hearing. This may be the case, but I would like to see the legal statues for this (or other legal sources) just the same. Assuming this is correct though, did the INS give fair consideration of all issues (childs desires, the reasons the mother left Cuba, the fathers full background and relationship with the deceased mother, etc.). The reading of the 11th Circuit judges injunction cleary indicates the answer is no, for the reasons cited above (from the injunction).

It is claimed elsewhere in this thread that I am an idiot. Possibly, for other reasons such as my INF/INS brain lapse, but am I an idiot for thinking that this kid was done a lot of harm without due cause or process? I do not think so in this case. Did anyone see CNN this morning? Senator Bob Smith (R, New Hampshire) and others are making the same points I have made. Perhaps we are all idiots. Or perhaps some of us see this as a huge injustice and life threatening action to Elian and the family that cared for him, including the other childeren that were in that house. Elian had been with the family four or five months, waiting a little longer for the hearing would have been the correct course of action, and visitation by the father should have been provided for.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder:

I'd be the last one to call ANYONE an idiot for having a different opinion on this one than I. It IS true that INS didn't speak to Elian, but they DID speak to his father on Dec 13th and Dec 31. At that time, Juan Miguel produced a certificate of birth for Elian and the conversations led the INS representatives to believe that their relationship was a close one. In January, the INS and Ms. Reno determined that Juan Miguel was the ONLY person that could speak for Elian. This was upheld in a March 21st ruling by Judge Michael Moore in a US District Court of Southern Florida decision. As your link suggests, another court questions whether Elian [as a 6-year old] can represent his OWN desires. Obviously the INS and Ms. Reno didn't find 6 years as being old enough to make mature decisions as outlined in the Hague Convention. Cuba did not sign the Hague Convention document, but the U.S. DID.

Juan Miguel has been worried about his son at the home of these distant relatives for quite some time. He wrote a Letter to Janet Reno expressing his concerns and asking that HIS uncle be the temporary guardian rather than these relatives he feared. The same link containing Juan Miguel's letter contains opinions on the constitutionality of making Elian a citizen of the U.S. against the wishes of his father. Just a question up for discussion, but do you think it appropriate that distant relatives should be able to decide whether Elian may never visit his grandparents in Cuba, or someday be perhaps forced to fight in a war against his family?

BTW, I didn't see horror in the photo you presented. I saw a scared kid crying, but my kids would have cried at age 6 if I shoved them in a closet and a man wearing goggles, helmet, etc. opened it.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

Anita, thanks for bringing up some points for discussion, I appreciate your research, please allow me time to look over your links and respond to your comments.

This comment I will respond to now: BTW, I didn't see horror in the photo you presented. I saw a scared kid crying, but my kids would have cried at age 6 if I shoved them in a closet and a man wearing goggles, helmet, etc. opened it.

Let me get this straight, the kid was "shoved" in a closet, so, the guy who took Elian to the closet is the "bad" guy here? And the "goggles" and "helmet" were the frightening objects?

I respectfully submit that there may be the slight possiblity that the fear on Elian'face just may have come from the INS agents bursting in cursing and shoving with BIG MACHINE GUNS drawn.

And the nasty old guy who "shoved" Elian in the closet just happens to be Donato Dalrymple, one of the two fisherman who rescued Elian from the sea and saved his life.

Fact: Reno ordered this, Clinton concurred, and the INS carried out the raid and carried in the guns. You guys can try to blame it on someone else, but remember, no judge issued an order for this "child custody transfer", it was Reno, Clinton, and the INS, period. Debate who ORDERED this action if you wish, but please, don't use the lame "there was no other choice", for their WERE other choices.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

FactFinder -

Couldn't have said it better myself.

-- Debra (good@job.com), April 23, 2000.

FactLoser said:

"No court order, no court, just Clinton, Reno, and the INF decicded this course of action, and you can't hide the truth of the horror shown below (photo by AP)"

So what. These people were disobeying the law. They do this same thing many times a day to bust dope smoking parents. Where's your outrage for those thousands of transgressions?

As for whether it had "an emotional impact" on the boy, what about the "emotional impact" being suffered daily by millions of starving, abused, diseased children all over the world? Give me a break.

-- (@ .), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder:

"Let me get this straight, the kid was "shoved" in a closet, so, the guy who took Elian to the closet is the "bad" guy here? And the "goggles" and "helmet" were the frightening objects?"

I never implied that the person who shoved Elian into the closet was bad. I DO question why the fisherman who plucked him from the sea is spending the night in his room with him.

"I respectfully submit that there may be the slight possiblity that the fear on Elian'face just may have come from the INS agents bursting in cursing and shoving with BIG MACHINE GUNS drawn."

Again, we're discussing subjective interpretations of photos. Neither you nor I have any clue WHY Elian was crying. He may very well have been crying simply because he was scuttled into a closet.

"And the nasty old guy who "shoved" Elian in the closet just happens to be Donato Dalrymple, one of the two fisherman who rescued Elian from the sea and saved his life."

I'm quite aware of this. WHAT is he doing living with Elian NOW?

"Fact: Reno ordered this, Clinton concurred, and the INS carried out the raid and carried in the guns. You guys can try to blame it on someone else, but remember, no judge issued an order for this "child custody transfer", it was Reno, Clinton, and the INS, period. Debate who ORDERED this action if you wish, but please, don't use the lame "there was no other choice", for their WERE other choices."

I understand that you feel the current administration is the most immoral ever. I understand your desire to focus blame on Reno and Clinton. I'd prefer to concentrate on the international laws already in place as well as the laws already in place regarding immigration and naturalization in the U.S. As interested bystanders, WE seek these laws on the internet, and grow tired of reviewing them after an hour's time. YOU assume that the INS and Ms. Reno have no access to these laws or access as limited as our own. *I* don't make those assumptions.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

Fact Fucker Ill give you an answer,

The fish guy is humping the Aunt sir.

Shes been licking his lizard,

Doesnt take a real wizard,

To see what hes doing with her!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 23, 2000.

Don't you get it Ra? FF is a zealot. He will beat this to death until ever-patient Anita throws up her hands in despair.

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 23, 2000.

Again, we're discussing subjective interpretations of photos. Neither you nor I have any clue WHY Elian was crying. He may very well have been crying simply because he was scuttled into a closet.

Amusing, good for a horselaugh, but not worthy of serious discussion.

Fact Fucker Ill give you an answer, Don't you get it Ra? FF is a zealot.

Now there's a couple of intellectual discourses, lol. Hint: When discussing a subject, try reasearching the subject, which allows for a knowledge based discussion. Namecalling, while fun and easy, really doesn't contribute much to the learning curve...

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder:

I was quite aware of the bias of the source of the letter to Janet Reno. I linked from their site. Where else, however, would we obtain this letter? Of course Janet Reno knows what SHE received.

You didn't mention the Hague Convention document. Any opinions? The Hague Convention document mentioned the maturity necessary to DECIDE country of preference, but the Immigration/Naturalization laws define the arguments that must be presented by the person defending his/her position regarding asylum. I reviewed some of these arguments today and I don't see a 6-year old capable of this. The Immigration/Naturalization laws are exhaustively lengthy [as you might imagine.] I'm sure any reasonable search engine could point you in the right direction on those. I don't have much more time to spend on this. I have an interview tomorrow and really SHOULD be spending my time reviewing arcane topics such as CICS syncpoints and where they should be placed.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

I reviewed some of these arguments today and I don't see a 6-year old capable of this.

I do not waiver in my opinion that a fair end to this would be in a US court of law that considered the interests of the child and the laws of the US. If the Hague Convention is pertinent, a court is the appropriate place for that to be addressed.

And I certainly respect the need to break from this issue for a while, I myself will do just that for a bit.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Hey FartCatcher - you gonna join the work stoppage Tuesday?

-- (@ .), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder:

No...I don't consider the mother's choice in this matter a worthy one. It's not clear at ALL that she died in an attempt to bring her son to a country more worthy than her homeland.

Different strokes

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 23, 2000.

. Hint: When discussing a subject, try reasearching the subject, which allows for a knowledge based discussion

FF- where do you get off accusing ppl of not reading your link? Because you disagree with their interpretation of the findings? None of us have anything valid to say, because our style is not diarrhea of the mouth? Short and sweet can get the point across so well. You ought to try it sometime.

Also, if you're going to copy/paste --get it right. Don't lump my comments with the one calling you fat fucker = Fact Fucker Ill give you an answer, Don't you get it Ra? FF is a zealot.

Maybe you are a fat fucker -- I don't know :-)

-- (doomerstomper@usa.net), April 23, 2000.

Doomerstomper, Tell you what, when you can discuss the issue without namecalling, even those that are "short and sweet", I'll give you credit for having the ability to discuss the issue intelligently.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Oh sorry Anita, I forgot to address this comment of yours: Regarding the trauma Elian "suffered", folks act like he's never seen a drawn gun before.

Let me check your logic out- the kids seen a gun drawn before (on TV or somewhere), so why the hell should he be afraid of a few commando's breaking down the door wearing full battle gear and shoving a machine gun in his face?

ROFLMAO, you're kidding here, right??? That skewed kind of illogical thinking, politics over children, combined with Reno's trigger happiness, and we wonder about all the violence in this country???

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 23, 2000.

Factfinder:

I read the articles you presented. The first, which provided a more detailed description than the article *I* presented, is similar in content to dozens more I've read just today. The second certainly stated that the fisherman was NOT sleeping in Elian's room. Thank you for that correction. It may be that YOU would make an offer to share your abode with one of the fishermen involved with your child's rescue, but *I* would not.

The rest of your posts consisted of extrapolations of intent. It actually did my heart good to see someone basically accuse me of being a government "shill" again. It brought back memories of Y2k and the old forum.

Clearly, you disagree with my stand on this whole issue, which is simply based on upholding the laws involved. You seem to feel that a 6 year old is capable of making lifelong decisions. Having raised three children, I do not. Throughout this whole Elian soap opera, we've heard "He doesn't want to." Children oftentimes "don't want to." It's the role of the parent to deal with this recalcitrance. It is NOT the role of community groups or distant relatives to cajole these same children. As your article stated, the entire "rescue" mission took less than 3 minutes. I consider 3 minutes of "terror" [your word, not mine] to be less damaging than the 5 months of constant indoctrination that the boy seems to have received since he was fished out of the sea by the OTHER fisherman, and certainly less damaging than the DAYS at sea to which his mother exposed him.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 24, 2000.

FF:

"A total of 131 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service agents and 20 U.S. marshals......caravan of three white Dodge vans, two pickup trucks and four sports utility vehicles "

By my calculations, that means 151 federal agents arrived at the scene in 9 vehicles. That's about 16 agents per vehicle. It must have been a mite crowded in there.

My point is that there has been a lot of wrong information already published and I expect that there will be even more before it's over. I'm trying not to pass judgement on some of the issues in this case until I can get some verifed facts. As your name suggests, you've been pretty good about doing the same in the past and I'm suprised to see you not doing so now.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 24, 2000.

While being interviewed by media Fisherman stated "I heard big bangs at the door and I asked the AP guy, where do I go? (AP guy and he was in the house for what????photos, thank u.) The AP guy said "donado I dont know," FISHERMANS OWNS WORDS, I saw it!!!!

Only reason he was NOT in closet = quite simple, he couldnt make it into the closet in time.

The FACTS from the 'horses' opps 'Fishermans' mouth.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 24, 2000.

Jim, I appreciate your comments, on this subject and many others. There certainly are a lot of conflicting reports, like most incidents, it takes a while for the actual facts to come out. If you're point is that by taking everything at face value or "as claimed" at this point is not wise, I agree wholehartedly. In the beginning of this incident, I had no hard opinion one way or another. As I began researching it, the actions of Reno and the INS were looking more and more political the deeper I looked. I have found nothing to change my mind about that at this point, and I believe that I am closer to the facts and have done more research than most posting about this subect - I sincerely doubt that ANYONE here had read the 11th Circuit Court document until I posted the link here. Therefore I disagree withou you that I have done "poorly" with the facts, for while I am certain that I am not the sole "possessor" of facts, I have worked harder to get them than many here. (I also think Anita has researched this more than most as well).

Regarding your comments on the numbers of agents involved, it's quite obvious that they weren't all in the vehicles listed. Other reports have stated that undercover agents had been on the scene for days, and that night outnumbered others in the yard (by a 3 to 1 margin, I think was claimed). So I presume that these agents were there by other motive means ;) Also, from the story, I don't think that it necessariliy implies that all of the agents were at the scene, they may have been, but who knows at this point, it's one article.

But tell me, does this in some way take away from the point that the federal government put enormous resources into this one boy's case? I think not, and I think that's a fact :)

Best wishes,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 24, 2000.

Anita, Rather than argue this subject in the forum forever - the arguements are more political now, and no one of course will agree on politics. I decided to use my time more wisely and sent emails to my Senators expressing my concerns in how this "raid" uneccessarily placed the boy's life in danger for political reasons. I also urged them to support holding hearings into the matter so the true facts can be known.

If anything new in this matter develops, I make speak to it, but for now will slow down on this "debate".

Best Wishes,

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 24, 2000.

Factfinder:

Sounds good to me. I finally found the March 21st order today and read all 50 pages of it. [WHAT a snoozer.] I also read TONS more, and listened to more than half of Elian's cousin's audio-video press conference about HER demand to see Elian and how he couldn't survive without her. I finally turned it off when it became clear that she was strictly appealing to emotionalism.

May 11th isn't so far away. I'll be curious to see the decision made there. This one could go on for MONTHS...even YEARS...with appeal after appeal. It seems that the Miami relatives have filed yet another suit using yet another angle. They won't pursue it, however, until after the May 11th decision.

With any luck, I'll have a job soon and no longer have time to even THINK about this. I had a great interview today, and learned I am the ONLY candidate. [grin] It'd be pretty awful if the only candidate didn't win, dontcha think?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 24, 2000.

Anita:

Best of luck with this job.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 25, 2000.

FF:

I have also appreciated many of your posts and calm logic in the past, hence my last missive.

My only point about the number of agents and vehicles quoted in the article is that something was wrong - either the numbers were wrong, there were people already there, or there were a lot more vehicles. My experience is that there are many errors in news articles about breaking stories, some small and some significant. I didn't mean for you to get the idea I was accusing you of handling the facts poorly but only that you have been rather too quick to make assumptions based on things in the press that weren't proven to be facts, and, in some cases, later turned out to be wrong. I suppose some this is inevitable in times of passion but holding your breath and counting to 10 before posting is still a good idea :^)

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Factfinder:

Thanks for the best wishes on the job.

I'd read previously about Marisleysis stating what she did about not simply having cameras in the house, but I read this again this morning. The truth could eventually come out, dontcha think?

Why did the INS go in with guns?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.