Russell Arrested 3/17/08

[RussellsEx]

Kola,

That is a good question...to be honest, I was wondering that myself earlier today. I suppose that should be left to Russell and I to sort through. I don't have to ask for anything less than is due, but certainly have witnessed smaller settlements, and believe that to be more the way this case would go. What you may not understand is that I have already tried to work with Russell...years ago...on negotiating reasonable terms. But he seems to be diverting from the real issue, and will most likely make his child support arrears political.

[kola]

Kola,

That is a good question...to be honest, I was wondering that myself earlier today. I suppose that should be left to Russell and I to sort through. I don't have to ask for anything less than is due, but certainly have witnessed smaller settlements, and believe that to be more the way this case would go. What you may not understand is that I have already tried to work with Russell...years ago...on negotiating reasonable terms. But he seems to be diverting from the real issue, and will most likely make his child support arrears political.

I see. So then you can probally assume that(most likely) you will not get any money from him.

If he decides not to give you anything then will you be content with him serving jailtime?

Kola

[RussellsEx]

I am not only not content...but have had a hard time sleeping. This isn't 'good' for anyone. If I could have my way, he never would have gone to jail in the first place, but would have come to terms with his obligations prior.
Some on here have insinuated that I have all this 'power' to release him...at this point, I have no power. Its been out of my hands since the first pmt was overdue. I suppose you all will now rant about the evil state again...

[Lex]

I just think it's pretty cruel to make a person pay for kids that they are not allowed to see. If you can't afford to raise the kids let Russell raise them, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't ask you for any child support.

[John Edward Mercier]

Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

Evidence, please!  Over the years I recall seeing a number of studies showing that married people actually live longer and are healthier than those who are single.

Of course, the same is said about having cats vs not having cats, and I don't see how that is possible.  I would guess that an appreciable number of elderly cat owners trip over their cats and end up with a broken hip, leading to a premature demise.  

It has to due with a pyschological phenomena and is statistically proven. Long term married couples generally have found a balance that reduces stress... the same way the cats do.

[malcolm]

Most marriages that do not lead to divorce are stifling, sexless, oppressive living arrangements that leave a man bankrupt, obese, psychologically taxed and prone to depression.

Evidence, please!  Over the years I recall seeing a number of studies showing that married people actually live longer and are healthier than those who are single.

Of course, the same is said about having cats vs not having cats, and I don't see how that is possible.  I would guess that an appreciable number of elderly cat owners trip over their cats and end up with a broken hip, leading to a premature demise.   

It has to due with a pyschological phenomena and is statistically proven. Long term married couples generally have found a balance that reduces stress... the same way the cats do.

I'll get a dog, then (I'm allergic to cats).  A dog won't criticize my attire, give me lists of weekend make-work, prevent me from getting sex when I want it (with whoever I will), or raid my retirement account.  Same benefit as a marriage, none of its attendant liability.

[SamIam]

Hello Everyone,

I've emailed Marc Stevens from Adventures in Legal Land, and he is willing to work with Kat to file the appropriate motions with the court. I'm raising $300 to this end, and I would really appreciate your support. This is not a legal defense fund, but a way to force the court into answering some of the questions we want to ask related to jurisdiction, standing, and authority. It's a win if it gets Russell out sooner, and it's a win if the court responds/ignors our request, it exposes the PR game to the people.  I see a lot of value in either outcome. In any case it should help, "Free Russell Kanning".

We already have $50 raised towards the $300. Please show your support for Russell, help us work outside the system to ask questions a court approved lawyer would never consider. Please use this link to contribute:
http://www.chipin.com/mywidgets/id/c1d2e4a9a872ec26

If you can post this somewhere others would see it, that's another way you can contribute.

Thanks for reading,

SamIam

[Friday]

My family and Russell's were very supportive when our marriage ended. His parents helped me confront Russell. In his own words, with them as witnesses, he looked straight at me, and said, "I'm going to kill you." He had to be physically removed by his dad.

If I recall correctly, at least one of Russell's parents has posted on this forum before.  Sure would be nice if they'd log in and confirm/deny this.

[Jacobus]

We already have $50 raised towards the $300. Please show your support for Russell, help us work outside the system to ask questions a court approved lawyer would never consider. Please use this link to contribute:
http://www.chipin.com/mywidgets/id/c1d2e4a9a872ec26

That link takes me to a "Promote This ChipIn" page and not the actual chipin where I can give money.

[RussellsEx]

Friday, I welcome their input here...

[Tom Ploszaj]

I'm looking at Russell, Mindy and their children problem as this......

I have been corrected before in my confusion of freedoms and liberties during my thought  transition coming from the Connecticunt socialistic state to the FSP movement.  I hope I do not offend anyone, no sides are taken in examining and comparing the facts of this. Please correct me if I am off base in my reasoning......

Persons who believe in freedom and liberty: 1.are responsible for themselves, 2.are responsible for their own actions, 3.do not take from others, 4. give of their labors of their own free, 5.do not expect others to take care of them, 6.honor their contracts.  In these they expect the same in return.

It appears from this forum that: 1.Russell and Mindy are able and capable to be responsible for themselves, 2.Russell and Mindy in time ended up accomplishing things they are responsible for, 3.Russel nor Mindy claims theft, 4. Russell and Mindy worked and decided how to disperse of their labors, 5. Russell nor Mindy claims to receive stolen funds (gov. money), now it comes down to #6. honoring their contracts.

The two of them contracted marriage, contracted on raising children and in those actions of theirs are responsible for the expenses occurred. Now they decides not to honor those contracts.  Who actually broke the marriage contract does not factor in on the responsibility towards the children's care which Mindy and Russell had to make. It appears that Mindy ended up with the expense and responsibilities of the children by default due to Russell not being there to help or also to also leave and let a third party assume the responsibility of their actions and the children which they contracted into.

There are expenses with children and how the expenses are divided should be between the parents but when someone is not responsible for their actions, contracts and expenses they fall unjustly onto others and by these actions is one way the state gets its opportunity to assume power.

One analogy is if a 1.capable person is allowed to use someone's land under contract and 2. agrees to be responsible for how they use the land, 3. paying rent every month they occupy the land and 4.not forced to do extra than what was contracted for but 5. then brings onto that land, placing and leaving three to four leaking barrels of toxic substance on the boundary of an adjacent land owner and then the capable person decides to vacate the property going elsewhere surrounded by friends for mutual support and protection leaving the landowner with all the cleanup and expenses dealing with it and the adjacent landowner while the capable person claims 6. no contract was broken and no monetary redress is expected since all rent was paid as the day they left and no contract was broken since it wasn't spelt out about not poising the land.
So in the above does the landowner have a case for expenses occurred?  What recourse does the landowner have if the capable person refuses to help with expenses? What obligations do the friends of that capable person have with mediating the situation? Hasn't violence been done to the landowner? Does the landowner have the right to make a compact with others for mutual protection and redress in retrieving the value of his property?

[planetaryjim]

This is the saddest thing I've read here. I hope you do not have children. How is a  3 or 4 or 5 or 6 ......year old child supposed to be responsible for their own-well being? 

By asking an adult for help.  By undertaking learning and work on his own. 

I had chores at age five, and worked in a garden from age 4.  What is this absurd idea that children may do no work, that children have no responsibility for their own actions?

When my second eldest brother was four, he threw blocks in class.  My mom was called.  She said, "Ken, we don't throw blocks in school."  He responded, picking up and throwing a wood block, "Oh, yes we do!"

Now, whose responsibility is it?  Who did the act?

If you insist on not taking children seriously, then at what magical age are you ready to stop having people be absolved of all individual responsibility?  Homeland Security wants Real ID for everyone under 44.  You cannot be president under age 35.  You can't be a Senator under age 30.  You can't be a Congresscritter under age 25.  You can't get decent insurance rates under 25.  You can't drink under 21, legally, you can't get tobacco or vote under 18, you can't get into certain types of exciting films under 17, and you can't get a decent price for a seat over age 13. 

I've met ten year olds in Africa who carried rifles and served in the military.  You want to explain to one of them how he's not an adult, doesn't deserve a ration of food, shouldn't be held responsible for shooting enemy soldiers?

This nanny-state ideology is idiotic, and I won't have anything to do with it.

[Barterer]

We already have $50 raised towards the $300. Please show your support for Russell, help us work outside the system to ask questions a court approved lawyer would never consider. Please use this link to contribute:
http://www.chipin.com/mywidgets/id/c1d2e4a9a872ec26

That link takes me to a "Promote This ChipIn" page and not the actual chipin where I can give money.

True.  The widget doesn't seem to go anywhere, even with scripts enabled.  I like Marc Stevens and I think he can be of service here.  He does have a simple Paypal donaton button on the homepage of adventuresinlegalland.com.

Samlam, see if you can sort out the chipin widget. If not, ask Marc if we can just go through his Paypal account and add something like "resolve Russell/Mindy Kanning problem" or something like that as a memo.  Either way, put me down for 100 squares of toilet paper USD.  That plus the $50 and kola's $100 should get us pretty close.

[Lex]

If Mindy wanted to have Russell released what would be her options to do so? How can she do it?

[Barterer]

I think she already stated that it's out of her hands now.. so it'll take some lawyering, regardless..