Comments on: In Kentucky, a blank check for child snatching

By: SPO

SPO — Tue, 14 May 2019 18:18:26 +0000

In reply to MattS. Maybe, but pre-printed signatures aren't much different from robo-signing.

By: MattS

MattS — Tue, 14 May 2019 13:23:28 +0000

In reply to SPO. Yes, unless the judge gave CPS an autopen with a master of his signature so they could put his signature on the blank forms themselves, in which case, robo-signing would be appropriately descriptive.

By: SPO

SPO — Mon, 13 May 2019 23:29:22 +0000

Is it too cheeky to refer to this process as “robo-signing”?

By: Chuck

Chuck — Mon, 13 May 2019 15:00:11 +0000

In reply to Bi. Not amazing at all. Judges are supposed to be a check on overzealous cops, prosecutors, and other state agents. They have been consistently failing at this for decades,accepting the word of police that anonymous "trusted informers" provided information and failing to punish obvious perjuries when they are exposed. Far too many judges see themselves as being on part of the same team as law enforcement, with resulting decay of any meaningful oversight.

By: cecil

cecil — Mon, 13 May 2019 13:50:15 +0000

but they were doing it “for the children”…

By: SPO

SPO — Sun, 12 May 2019 16:47:22 +0000

And let’s see how the Kentucky Supreme Court deals with the wayward judges here . . ..

And what of the DCFS lawyers who bought into this nonsense . . . .

and as for the instance where more than one kid was grabbed? Isn’t that kidnapping? Hmmm. Shouldn’t that be prosecuted.

And if the sheriffs knew about this? Shouldn’t there be prosecutions too?

By: Bi

Bi — Sun, 12 May 2019 16:36:30 +0000

What I find most amazing is that the judges have colluded in this. Surely signing blank removal orders is serious misconduct on their part.