Imagine that, Senator Boseman wants to buy a baby, by political influence and talk of how she financially helped support the child buying him clothes and by paying for a babysitter. There are laws against such things, however with more and more pressures on judges and public officials to grant rights currently unafforded to same sex couples justice turns her head and people such as Julia Boseman are given custody rights to children when it is against the law.
Today at around 3:30, three judges, Chief Martin, Bryant, and newly elected Beasley, sitting on the NC Court of Appeals, will hear Melissa Jarrell's attorney plea for justice, allowing the mother, Jarrell, sole custody of the child that she gave birth to by denying Senator Boseman's parental rights.
Link
9 comments:
I wish I would have known earlier I would have chartered a bus and carried a bus load of Church ladies up there to sit and stare at the bench.
Chief Martin is from Durham County. Wonder if that will influence his decision. Looks like it might be politics as usual.
Bryant is from Southport and of course this is more than likely Beasley's first day on the job since she was just elected because of the straight democratic ticket.
I will be getting an impartial report shortly on how it went.
So what happened in court?
Impartial report? that's the most ridiculous statement ever posted on this blog, and you have posted some pretty ridiculous statements.
Maybe that's why I haven't posted the report as yet, hard to find someone impartial to a case involving screwing up an innocent child's life by making false claims of parental rights when she and everyone else that has studied this case knows it is an illegal adoption. The biased reports are that Boseman's attorney got his ass handed to him by Chief Justice Martin. Ate him up. But then that is just from someone with a highly prejudicial opinion. BTW the fundraiser was also a flop, just like the other one in Raleigh.
Clean it up, I like hearing the biased report on the hearing. When will the judges publish the ruling?
The AOC site says the appeal was denied. http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/sc/pc090320.htm
Does this mean Julia is still the parent?
It looks like the Supreme Court denied it because the Court of Appeals hasn't made their decision yet.
§ 7A‑31. Discretionary review by the Supreme Court.
(a) In any cause in which appeal is taken to the Court of Appeals, except a cause appealed from the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the North Carolina State Bar pursuant to G.S. 84‑28, the Property Tax Commission pursuant to G.S. 105‑345, the Board of State Contract Appeals pursuant to G.S. 143‑135.9, or the Commissioner of Insurance pursuant to G.S. 58‑2‑80, or a motion for appropriate relief or valuation of exempt property pursuant to G.S. 7A‑28, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, on motion of any party to the cause or on its own motion, certify the cause for review by the Supreme Court, either before or after it has been determined by the Court of Appeals. A cause appealed to the Court of Appeals from any of the administrative bodies listed in the preceding sentence may be certified in similar fashion, but only after determination of the cause in the Court of Appeals. The effect of such certification is to transfer the cause from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court for review by the Supreme Court. If the cause is certified for transfer to the Supreme Court before its determination in the Court of Appeals, review is not had in the Court of Appeals but the cause is forthwith transferred for review in the first instance by the Supreme Court. If the cause is certified for transfer to the Supreme Court after its determination by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court reviews the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Except in motions within the purview of G.S. 7A‑28, the State may move for certification for review of any criminal cause, but only after determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals.
(b) In causes subject to certification under subsection (a) of this section, certification may be made by the Supreme Court before determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals when in the opinion of the Supreme Court:
(1) The subject matter of the appeal has significant public interest, or
(2) The cause involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State, or
(3) Delay in final adjudication is likely to result from failure to certify and thereby cause substantial harm, or
(4) The work load of the courts of the appellate division is such that the expeditious administration of justice requires certification.
(c) In causes subject to certification under subsection (a) of this section, certification may be made by the Supreme Court after determination of the cause by the Court of Appeals when in the opinion of the Supreme Court:
(1) The subject matter of the appeal has significant public interest, or
(2) The cause involves legal principles of major significance to the jurisprudence of the State, or
(3) The decision of the Court of Appeals appears likely to be in conflict with a decision of the Supreme Court.
Interlocutory determinations by the Court of Appeals, including orders remanding the cause for a new trial or for other proceedings, shall be certified for review by the Supreme Court only upon a determination by the Supreme Court that failure to certify would cause a delay in final adjudication which would probably result in substantial harm.
(d) The procedure for certification by the Supreme Court on its own motion, or upon petition of a party, shall be prescribed by rule of the Supreme Court. (1967, c. 108, s. 1; 1969, c. 1044; 1975, c. 555; 1977, c. 711, s. 5; 1981, c. 470, s. 2; 1981 (Reg. Sess., 1982), c. 1224, s. 17; c. 1253, s. 1; 1983, c. 526, s. 3; c. 761, s. 189.)
Post a Comment