Father sexually assaults his daughters and still gets visitation rights.

Indie

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Shaklo me7tel. Didn't see any tears when he 'cried' on camera.
We should not assume the man is guilty. In fact, I hope for the little girls' sake that he is not. Psycho women do exist...or she could be lying to ensure that her children aren't taken away at the age of 7 or 9, as the law dictates...who knows who is lying, at this point...we can't know.

The main issue is how the religious courts handle these cases, and the little trust people have in them because of their terrible track record.

If there is a rape investigation on the father, unsupervised visitation should be temporarily revoked until he is cleared of the charges. There is no excuse, whatsoever, that justifies the ruling of the first judge. Whether it's the judge's fault, personally, or "just a flawed system," it doesn't matter.

And if the mother is lying to prevent a future separation from her children, it's still the religious courts which are to blame, for continuing to rule through backward laws, and putting women in desperate situations.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If you have the full transcript, you could post the new judgement in here, the immoral ones will need to be updated on the new evidence.
    The copy of the latest judgement was posted in the same tweet where this Zannoubia made her claim. All I did is take the time to read.

    Father sexually assaults his daughters and still gets visitation rights. - The Orange Room - Lebanon's number one political & social discussion forums

    For 1: Laws and judicial procedures are supposedly your department. Irrespective of mamas words, you should know/expect/take it for granted that any procedure involving custody cases requires the judge to inform himself with a certain minimum of information about the involved. Even if it doesn't explicitly say so in his text book. Common sense you know, when young defensless children are involved. (My main and only question mark about the judge's integrity and cleaness).
    As the expert that you want me to be, I already explained times and times again, that ongoing procedures and facts, are not the same as what some would want them to be. There was never a "custody case" to start with. There was just an injunction plea. And again and again, injunctions orders are issued all over the World by all sort of courts according to specified procedures, which are the same as those implemented in Lebanon, which the Jaafari judge followed in a legal and just manner.

    Now imagining that you are in a different procedure and in a different type of case, then blaming the judge for not following the rules you believe should be followed for this different imaginary case is hardly constitutive of any sort of argument, let alone a fruitful discussion.

    For 2: The factual outcome is just the same, the custody verdict is retracted until further investigations are conducted, and this is what actually matters for both the daughters and the immoral ones in here.
    Not at all. The injunction was not retracted or declared illegal. The injunction was declared fallen technically because it passed its lifetime delay. The law declares any injunction of any type as fallen and no more existent, if the injunction is not put into effect within a delay of 1 month. This is just pure procedure. Period. And there is certainly nothing in the new decision even close to stating that the injunction was being " retracted until further investigations are conducted". Again. This is another imaginary story. Not related to either truth or facts.


    Still fact remains, that the mother who appeared on TV to blame the Jaafari judge and the Share3 for issuing his decision, came back later during the appeal to say that the Jaafari judge who issued the injunction order, did it without being made aware of various procedures before different judicial instances. Eh Laken 3ala Shou Kell Hal 3eher against the man?

    I already said earlier...7abl el Kezb Assir...And that mother and the presstitute behind her are now proven to be liars (Time will show to which extent)
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Shaklo me7tel. Didn't see any tears when he 'cried' on camera.
    Everything is possible.

    Still fact remains, that the mother who appeared on TV to blame the Jaafari judge and the Share3 for issuing his decision, came back later during the appeal to say that the Jaafari judge who issued the injunction order, did it without being made aware of various procedures before different judicial instances.

    Doesn't sound like a truthful and honest woman.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Where was it proven to be a lie? Not in this thread, en tout cas.
    Mbala it was proven to be a lie earlier in this thread, by the copy of the injunction decision. And it was proven once again to be a lie, by the copy of the appeal judgement, in which, the mother herself admits so.

    Bass you just don't want to read. That's not our fault en tout cas.


    No one is entirely good or entirely bad :)

    I simply disagree with @Dark Angel 's assertion that "making a killing being a lawyer" immunizes you from bias.

    Quite the contrary. A successful lawyer argues his case with as much bias as possible.
    Shou Baddik Be Hal 7akeh Wka Indie. I'm a bad boy. I always was since I was a little kid, and will always be.


    So these people all went in front of this judge, and the mother, who desperately wanted to prevent the father from having access to the children, "forgot" to mention that he was being investigated over rape allegations?

    Either you think the woman is an idiot, or you think we are.
    "these people"?..."all went before the judge"?...REALLY?....You don't even know anything about the whole subject and you're here making claims, inventing scenarios and judging people?...lol
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The copy of the latest judgement was posted in the same tweet where this Zannoubia made her claim. All I did is take the time to read.

    Father sexually assaults his daughters and still gets visitation rights. - The Orange Room - Lebanon's number one political & social discussion forums



    As the expert that you want me to be, I already explained times and times again, that ongoing procedures and facts, are not the same as what some would want them to be. There was never a "custody case" to start with. There was just an injunction plea. And again and again, injunctions orders are issued all over the World by all sort of courts according to specified procedures, which are the same as those implemented in Lebanon, which the Jaafari judge followed in a legal and just manner.

    Now imagining that you are in a different procedure and in a different type of case, then blaming the judge for not following the rules you believe should be followed for this different imaginary case is hardly constitutive of any sort of argument, let alone a fruitful discussion.



    Not at all. The injunction was not retracted or declared illegal. The injunction was declared fallen technically because it passed its lifetime delay. The law declares any injunction of any type as fallen and no more existent, if the injunction is not put into effect within a delay of 1 month. This is just pure procedure. Period. And there is certainly nothing in the new decision even close to stating that the injunction was being " retracted until further investigations are conducted". Again. This is another imaginary story. Not related to either truth or facts.


    Still fact remains, that the mother who appeared on TV to blame the Jaafari judge and the Share3 for issuing his decision, came back later during the appeal to say that the Jaafari judge who issued the injunction order, did it without being made aware of various procedures before different judicial instances. Eh Laken 3ala Shou Kell Hal 3eher against the man?

    I already said earlier...7abl el Kezb Assir...And that mother and the presstitute behind her are now proven to be liars (Time will show to which extent)

    An injunction is "a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, e.g., to make restitution to an injured party."

    How can a judge give such an order without questioning the party who is "invading the right of another" (in this case the mother not respecting the father's visitation rights) as to why she is doing so?
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    An injunction is "a judicial order that restrains a person from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the legal right of another, or that compels a person to carry out a certain act, e.g., to make restitution to an injured party."


    How can a judge give such an order without questioning the party who is "invading the right of another" (in this case the mother not respecting the father's visitation rights) as to why she is doing so?
    Indie...I'm certainly not going now, to discuss with you the "how" and "why" injunctions are made...lol
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I always end up out of arguments when faced with experts...Mesh 3ayb.
    You can take this way out if you wish.

    My contributions in this thread are twofold.

    1 - Figuring out why the judge gave the order he did.

    2 - Objecting to you and @Dark Angel immediately dismissing the idea that the judge could possibly have done something wrong, as if it's an impossibility, and berating those of us who are questioning his motives.

    However, I am not attached to a particular stance. I only argue based on what makes the most sense according to the information I have.

    If you can convince me otherwise, then I'll change my stance; but, so far, you haven't
     
    !Aoune32

    !Aoune32

    Well-Known Member
    You can take this way out if you wish.

    My contributions in this thread are twofold.

    1 - Figuring out why the judge gave the order he did.

    2 - Objecting to you and @Dark Angel immediately dismissing the idea that the judge could possibly have done something wrong, as if it's an impossibility, and berating those of us who are questioning his motives.

    However, I am not attached to a particular stance. I only argue based on what makes the most sense according to the information I have.

    If you can convince me otherwise, then I'll change my stance; but, so far, you haven't
    The judge takes his stance due to the environment he lives in. Lebanon is a male dominated society so he will support the male no matter what. Not sure what else you need to know?
     
    Top