ParadiseLost
Well-known member
I am amazed. if a grand jury couldn't be convinced to indict that must have been some real shaky evidence.
He was the landlord of a lady in a child custody battle.
They charged him with child kidnapping on the basis of him being noncooperative with police who came looking for his tenant.
Charging someone for accessory to child kidnapping for that is of course ridiculous and evidence of how the government attempts to suppress the rights of people who don't immediately bow to its bureaucracy.
This is also more or less why I'm not a fan of the way the government charges parents who keep their children longer than their supposed to in custody battles; calling it kidnapping is ludicrous.
Its also why the way newspapers and journos treated the case was unethical and malevolent. There's a reason why none of them really listed any details about why he was being charged with kidnapping, they wanted people to fill in the blank they'd created with imaginations of him being some kind of child predator.