[Vision2020] Landmark? Case

[amy smoucha]

I don't know if anyone has corrected this yet, Jackie (my hotmail was 
rejecting some messages for a day), but Ruth's case IS a landmark case.  
Here is a website that explains its importance:

http://www.ncjfcj.org/dept/fvd/Publications/?ACTION=PUBGET&Filename=Synergy_Vol7No.2.pdf

I'm no expert on this, but I know from legal services providers throughout 
the Northwest that the Drollinger case impacts states other than Montana 
because we are all in the Ninth Judicial Circuit.  If I'm not mistaken, 
litigants arguing in a state like Idaho may ask the court to take notice of 
decisions from other states, especially in cases that involve questions of 
jurisdiction between states and cases that consider both federal and state 
laws, such as laws about child custody jurisdiction.

Ruth did not exaggerate the importance of her case.  Legal services 
proivders and domestic violence advocates throughout the country were 
talking about it for months.  In addition, Ruth accomplished much by keeping 
her issues before the courts, often representing herself and always being 
extremely resourceful in getting help from legal professionals.

I am sure she will appreciate your prayers, but she also deserves our 
sincere respect.

Amy Smoucha





----Original Message Follows----
From: Jackie Woolf <jfkwoolf2000@yahoo.com>
To: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Landmark? Case
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:25:39 -0800 (PST)

Ruth;

Ruth Wrote:

"Last February I was contacted by Vera White, after winning a landmark
State Supreme Court Case, the first case in the country to test a new law
which makes child custody portable for victims of abuse. (and by the way 
your own
Steve McClure said rejected the story even though it was front page news in
various papers around the country, eventhough the law was passed in Idaho 
and
would benefit women"

 >From I remember and have read about your case, it was settled
  in Montana, not Idaho.  It dealt with a subject that has been
dealt with continueally over the past 20-30 years, making it by
no means, "a landmark case" especially when you consider your
case sited MANY other cases in order to back up your theories.
Basically, what it did was to state you had rights.  (see 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mt&vol=03&invol=254.)

Ruth, I am not even going to continue addressing your letter.  It
is obvious that you are very upset about what happened at the
meeting, but since it was NOT about what you insisted on
presenting, perhaps timing is everything.

(BTW, you were asked by the audiance to sit down,
NOT the Church or it's members. Something you need to have
said in your e-mail.)

You don't like what the church is about, perhaps leaving is your best 
answer.
You don't like what the school is about, perhaps leaving is your best 
answer.
You don't like what Pastor Wislon is about, perhaps leaving his counsel is 
the
best answer.

There are those of us for whom all of the above is working and we should be
allowed the peace you request to do so.

Prayers and well wishes are what you need and have, Ruth...not other reasons
to be in court.  Sometimes, in a lifetime,  some people need to realize
that continuely fighting windmills is just not cutting it for them or 
their's.

Peace, in the "Reason for the Season," to you and yours.  I mean that.  You
all are certainly due it.


Thank you.




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

_________________________________________________________________
Browse styles for all ages, from the latest looks to cozy weekend wear at 
MSN Shopping.  And check out the beauty products! http://shopping.msn.com