Marley Greiner
10-29-2003, 06:26 PM
"nancy" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:q7r0qv83t9siektptt2nlfi7fi1ms3096q@4ax.com... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:20:56 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:38 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:>You're certainly not the only person who's said it, I'm pretty sure I>said it myself a few years back. It's fairly well-known and has made>the rounds here. In my post the other day, I was probably referring>to your "it was in the paper" statement.Right. The whole institution of adoption in general pissesme off, but I'm not uniformly pissed off at any oneparticular group of major players (adoptees, bmoms, oraparents). I'm really not articulate enough to always makeclear who or what is pissing me off at any given moment, butI'll try to set the record straight once again: it wasnever meant to be a slam on the intelligence of bmoms, itwas part of my litany on the flawed promises made to bmoms.Okay. The promises may have been "flawed" in some nit-picky legalsense that people want to use *now* to invalidate promises made*then*. What bugs me is that those wishing to do this don't seem tohave the capacity to come right out and say, "Yes. Those promiseswere, in fact, made. They were made by the appropriate people andthey were made under the legal authority we gave them to make them."
If you want to go that route, take a look a retroactively sealead records,
such as Oregon had. Nobody can ever promise that a law won't change. Nmoms
were simply lied to. So how do we demonstrate this? It seems there's nothing in writing to document that these promises were legal and binding. If there were, someone would have come up with it by now and heads would be rolling.
There is nothing. NCFA and it's minions haven't come up with anything in
over 20 years of screwing adopted persons. The courts haven't bought their
argument in TN or OR. Names are out all over the street. It's high-time
everybody realized that adoption is nothing but a back of lies.<snip>>>I understand believing authority and doing what you're told>>out of trust. Can you accept that that's my position?>>Sure. But let's not forget believing the judge - more than a simple>authority, the actual representative of the law and the state.Oh no, we shan't forget the judge in all this.Then why the "it wasn't legal - it was just social workers!" argument? I guess because there's nothing tangible to document that these promises were bind
They weren't binding, and couldn't be because the legal mechanism didn't
exist to make any of this secret or confidential or anything else. From
what activist nmoms, and just plain pissed off nmoms say no promises were
ever made, or were seldom made. Sometimes,though they were promised that
records would be available to their grown-up sprog, and in one case I know
of, according to the nmom, she would get her kid back when he turned 18. Not
sure what she thought she could do with him--stuff him into a bunny suit?
****, GR, when I was adopted, the bmoms didn't even go to court as a rule. My father was the only party to my adoption who even appeared, and the whole thing took about 20 seconds and voila! I had a whole new identity. My bmom was only represented by her paperwork. Of course, this was in the bad old days, but no one ever promised my bmom perpetual anonymity; rather, they threatened her with consequences if she didn't henceforth butt out of my (and my aparents') life.
I've got one of Gladney's old relinquishment papers. The nmom signed off
all rights to counsel and turned her legal business over to Gladney's
lawyer. She was out of the picture totally. Funny thing is that any other
relinquishment paper I have is just a fill-in-the blanks; only Gladney went
out of it's way to screw the nmom out of everything.
BTW, the new Gladney campus houses Adoption Museum. Anybody been there?
Marley
news:q7r0qv83t9siektptt2nlfi7fi1ms3096q@4ax.com... On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:20:56 GMT, GR <gragain@earthlink.net> wrote:On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:10:38 -0700, nancy <me@privacy.net> wrote:<snip>I wrote:>You're certainly not the only person who's said it, I'm pretty sure I>said it myself a few years back. It's fairly well-known and has made>the rounds here. In my post the other day, I was probably referring>to your "it was in the paper" statement.Right. The whole institution of adoption in general pissesme off, but I'm not uniformly pissed off at any oneparticular group of major players (adoptees, bmoms, oraparents). I'm really not articulate enough to always makeclear who or what is pissing me off at any given moment, butI'll try to set the record straight once again: it wasnever meant to be a slam on the intelligence of bmoms, itwas part of my litany on the flawed promises made to bmoms.Okay. The promises may have been "flawed" in some nit-picky legalsense that people want to use *now* to invalidate promises made*then*. What bugs me is that those wishing to do this don't seem tohave the capacity to come right out and say, "Yes. Those promiseswere, in fact, made. They were made by the appropriate people andthey were made under the legal authority we gave them to make them."
If you want to go that route, take a look a retroactively sealead records,
such as Oregon had. Nobody can ever promise that a law won't change. Nmoms
were simply lied to. So how do we demonstrate this? It seems there's nothing in writing to document that these promises were legal and binding. If there were, someone would have come up with it by now and heads would be rolling.
There is nothing. NCFA and it's minions haven't come up with anything in
over 20 years of screwing adopted persons. The courts haven't bought their
argument in TN or OR. Names are out all over the street. It's high-time
everybody realized that adoption is nothing but a back of lies.<snip>>>I understand believing authority and doing what you're told>>out of trust. Can you accept that that's my position?>>Sure. But let's not forget believing the judge - more than a simple>authority, the actual representative of the law and the state.Oh no, we shan't forget the judge in all this.Then why the "it wasn't legal - it was just social workers!" argument? I guess because there's nothing tangible to document that these promises were bind
They weren't binding, and couldn't be because the legal mechanism didn't
exist to make any of this secret or confidential or anything else. From
what activist nmoms, and just plain pissed off nmoms say no promises were
ever made, or were seldom made. Sometimes,though they were promised that
records would be available to their grown-up sprog, and in one case I know
of, according to the nmom, she would get her kid back when he turned 18. Not
sure what she thought she could do with him--stuff him into a bunny suit?
****, GR, when I was adopted, the bmoms didn't even go to court as a rule. My father was the only party to my adoption who even appeared, and the whole thing took about 20 seconds and voila! I had a whole new identity. My bmom was only represented by her paperwork. Of course, this was in the bad old days, but no one ever promised my bmom perpetual anonymity; rather, they threatened her with consequences if she didn't henceforth butt out of my (and my aparents') life.
I've got one of Gladney's old relinquishment papers. The nmom signed off
all rights to counsel and turned her legal business over to Gladney's
lawyer. She was out of the picture totally. Funny thing is that any other
relinquishment paper I have is just a fill-in-the blanks; only Gladney went
out of it's way to screw the nmom out of everything.
BTW, the new Gladney campus houses Adoption Museum. Anybody been there?
Marley
