DairyGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,205
- Reaction score
- 46
I thought her passion was cleaning peoples colons? A jane of all trades I guess.
AZ - Gabriel Johnson, 8 months, 26 Dec 2009 - last seen in Texas - #2
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
I thought her passion was cleaning peoples colons? A jane of all trades I guess.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 31,303
- Reaction score
- 87,597
I so have no idea. LOL Maybe tomorrow I'll be able to dig into that. A little birdie told her to start deleting stuff so I'm focused on her social networking sites right now.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 31,303
- Reaction score
- 87,597
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 31,303
- Reaction score
- 87,597
however, he did say that he helps micromanage her business locations, so I guess he's the jack-of-all-trades
hohoho
[I'm only amusing myself aren't I]
[don't answer that]
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 31,303
- Reaction score
- 87,597
Yep, I think that bothers pretty much everyone, except their defenders. Anyone I know would be devastated, regardless of whether it was their baby or not. The fact that they even wanted to be involved in Gabe's life should make this a very trying time for them, notwithstanding all the legal trouble. Any normal person would be worried sick, esp. when they were already calling Gabe their new son etc.
DairyGirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2009
- Messages
- 5,205
- Reaction score
- 46
It makes me think that the reason they aren't worried about him is because they know he is alright.
I don't know about other people but if I heard that I was a person of interest in a case that that involved kidnapping and possibly murder I would find an attorney to do the talking for me. They seem to have a pathological need to be seen as some kind of saviors, maybe they think they will be rewarded with the baby of some unwed mother they impress on tv.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2009
- Messages
- 31,303
- Reaction score
- 87,597
blech
martyrs w/o a cause
baahaa I'm so laughing at my own jokes tonight
time for bed!
Marigold
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2009
- Messages
- 571
- Reaction score
- 1
If you find anything of interest, you might want to email it to Mike Watkiss, a local news reporter. I haven't watched his news reports for a while (I usually check their site instead), but he was pretty hard hitting the last time I watched him. Fwiw, he was instrumental in digging up a lot of information that led to the prosecution of the polygamy cults in northern AZ. Here's his info:
http://www.azfamily.com/on-tv/bios/60046022.html
Here's a story he wrote about baby Gabriel:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Couple...-Gabriel-now-person-of-interest-80948977.html
This little boy looks to be 12+ months IMO. Don't think it's him.
coopzoo
Whoever is trying to bring you down is already bel
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 3
On GMA this morning: The Smiths are "persons of interest." Police believe they know Gabe's whereabouts and that he IS alive and well.
Keeping fingers crossed this is true and he's home soon!
Keeping fingers crossed this is true and he's home soon!
momtective
Lifetime WS Non-Mod
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 11,995
- Reaction score
- 31
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/s...issing-Tempe-baby/xgsbK2cK80iD5ZWBC0ifjg.cspx
"We should have been persons of interest from day one," said Jack Smith. "We are persons of interest. We were probably the last people to see Gabriel before he left town."
The Smiths had apparently tried to adopt the 8-month-old from mother Elizabeth Johnson last month, but Gabriel's father, Logan McQuary refused to sign the adoption papers.
"When Gabriel dissapeared, they said basically, if you really care about your son and you want him back, and you want Elizabeth to bring him back, that you'll sign the paperwork and then she'll bring him back to us, and you'll know he's safe," said McQueary. "And I said, no, I'm not signing any paperwork."
The Smiths said they were just relaying messages from Johnson to McQueary after she had taken off with the baby.
"Let's do this paperwork, and maybe she'll tell us where the baby is," said Tammi Smith. "It's not legal anyway, but does she have to know that? I mean, I'd rather get the baby back and sign the phony papers, but I guess the detectives don't want us to do that."
Despite reports that they wished to adopt Gabriel, the Smiths now say they have nothing to hide, and that they're doing all they can to reunited Gabriel with his father.
"We were actually just thinking of maybe just getting a dog," joked Tammi Smith. "It seems to be a hard process adopting, and I don't know that we want to go through this again, unless the courts said, here's a baby and the parents both signed. That's different."
Elizabeth's twin brother, Robert Johnson, said he doesn't believe his sister's story, but also said he has to support her.
"She's stubborn and hard headed. If she doesn't want Logan to have the baby, she will do everything she can to keep Gabriel from Logan."
"We should have been persons of interest from day one," said Jack Smith. "We are persons of interest. We were probably the last people to see Gabriel before he left town."
The Smiths had apparently tried to adopt the 8-month-old from mother Elizabeth Johnson last month, but Gabriel's father, Logan McQuary refused to sign the adoption papers.
"When Gabriel dissapeared, they said basically, if you really care about your son and you want him back, and you want Elizabeth to bring him back, that you'll sign the paperwork and then she'll bring him back to us, and you'll know he's safe," said McQueary. "And I said, no, I'm not signing any paperwork."
The Smiths said they were just relaying messages from Johnson to McQueary after she had taken off with the baby.
"Let's do this paperwork, and maybe she'll tell us where the baby is," said Tammi Smith. "It's not legal anyway, but does she have to know that? I mean, I'd rather get the baby back and sign the phony papers, but I guess the detectives don't want us to do that."
Despite reports that they wished to adopt Gabriel, the Smiths now say they have nothing to hide, and that they're doing all they can to reunited Gabriel with his father.
"We were actually just thinking of maybe just getting a dog," joked Tammi Smith. "It seems to be a hard process adopting, and I don't know that we want to go through this again, unless the courts said, here's a baby and the parents both signed. That's different."
Elizabeth's twin brother, Robert Johnson, said he doesn't believe his sister's story, but also said he has to support her.
"She's stubborn and hard headed. If she doesn't want Logan to have the baby, she will do everything she can to keep Gabriel from Logan."
You have got to be kidding me!!! WTH?!?!?!?! She is treating this situation like a baby is just an object and nothing more.
Don't get me wrong, I love my pets like they are my children, but there is a huge difference between a random dog and a child you are suppose to bond with and parent.
Was so hoping to log in this morning and read that someone had dropped off baby Gabriel somewhere safe. It worries me now that this is not happening.
Not sure if that was really the ex-husband posting that comment but I think some of us have sleuthed the previous family already and did know that his name is spelled odd IE instead of EI. Maybe it was him or maybe someone who has sleuthed him and trolled a comment page.
IMO I think we should avoid discussing them by name until they break out in the media. If they want to drag themselves into this for their 15 minutes I'm sure we'll be hearing from them soon.
Very interesting article about the stepson and his experience with losing custody of his daughter. It makes total sense that the bio dad of their adopted child is their step child and not the mother. I'm sure it would have been easier to co-erce the girlfriend to give them her baby and for her to just disappear from their lives. They probably both lived in Nashville at the time. The Smiths did too.
I'm curious as to when the surrogate attempts start coming forward. These people have had dealings with other young women...you can count on it. Now if one of these attempts actually resulted in a child and the Smiths don't have that child now...well then this thing is huge.
Not sure if that was really the ex-husband posting that comment but I think some of us have sleuthed the previous family already and did know that his name is spelled odd IE instead of EI. Maybe it was him or maybe someone who has sleuthed him and trolled a comment page.
IMO I think we should avoid discussing them by name until they break out in the media. If they want to drag themselves into this for their 15 minutes I'm sure we'll be hearing from them soon.
Very interesting article about the stepson and his experience with losing custody of his daughter. It makes total sense that the bio dad of their adopted child is their step child and not the mother. I'm sure it would have been easier to co-erce the girlfriend to give them her baby and for her to just disappear from their lives. They probably both lived in Nashville at the time. The Smiths did too.
I'm curious as to when the surrogate attempts start coming forward. These people have had dealings with other young women...you can count on it. Now if one of these attempts actually resulted in a child and the Smiths don't have that child now...well then this thing is huge.
danni
You are reinforcing my inherent mistrust of strang
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2009
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 147
I know I am a little late in the game on this but for whatever its worth...
My take on the California/military wife being a surrogate for them is this, this is what wiki has to say about surrogacy laws in CA
"California is generally accepting of surrogacy agreements, particularly when the couple seeking surrogacy has contributed some of the genetic material. While the state has no statute directly addressing surrogacy, state courts have used the Uniform Parentage Act to interpret several cases concerning surrogacy agreements. In fact, one of the most influential cases regarding surrogacy rights (Johnson v. Calvert) was decided in in California. In 1993's Johnson v. Calvert, the California Supreme Court held that the intended parents in a gestational-surrogacy agreement (an agreement in which the carrying mother had no genetic relationship to the baby) should be recognized as the natural and legal parents. Since the intended mother donated the egg but the surrogate mother gave birth, the court decided that the person who intended to procreate should be considered the natural mother. A 1998 case, Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, addressed the issue of traditional surrogacy agreements in which the surrogate mother has been artificially inseminated. In this case, a surrogate mother was impregnated using her egg and anonymous sperm. In other words, neither of the intended parents had a genetic link to the child. The court found that when a married couple uses non-genetically related embryo and sperm implanted into a surrogate intended to procreate a child, they are the lawful parents of the child. Another similar 1998 case, In Re Marriage of Moschetta, dealt with the same issue, except that the intended parents had separated. In that case, the court awarded legal parent rights to the intended father and surrogate mother. It is unclear what result would come from a same-sex couple attempting to use surrogacy in California to start a family. California seems to rely heavily on the "intent of the parties," but the Buzzanca case only speaks to married couples and Moschetta seems to emphasize the importance of a committed relationship, if not a marriage, between the intended parents. A bill, AB25, signed in 2001 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis extending domestic partner rights may strengthen same-sex couples' rights in the surrogacy context. California Family Code § 7540 (2001); Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (Cal. 1993); Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1998); In Re Marriage of Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1994)."
Kinda long sorry. And the part about being a military wife, I don't know ONE military wife who does not have a Power of Attorney for their husband. EXP wifes whos husband has been overseas. I know we were MADE to get one (actually other than the general I had three or four for different stuff) before our husbands left for Iraq. Which would make doing things while the husband is away A LOT easier. But then again since this is such a life changing even I don't know that a poa would work on his behalf if they needed a signature for whatever reason.
By the way, AZ laws are very MUDDY to say the least you can read more about each state and their surrogacy laws by going to [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy[/ame] and scrolling down to the state you are looking for!
My take on the California/military wife being a surrogate for them is this, this is what wiki has to say about surrogacy laws in CA
"California is generally accepting of surrogacy agreements, particularly when the couple seeking surrogacy has contributed some of the genetic material. While the state has no statute directly addressing surrogacy, state courts have used the Uniform Parentage Act to interpret several cases concerning surrogacy agreements. In fact, one of the most influential cases regarding surrogacy rights (Johnson v. Calvert) was decided in in California. In 1993's Johnson v. Calvert, the California Supreme Court held that the intended parents in a gestational-surrogacy agreement (an agreement in which the carrying mother had no genetic relationship to the baby) should be recognized as the natural and legal parents. Since the intended mother donated the egg but the surrogate mother gave birth, the court decided that the person who intended to procreate should be considered the natural mother. A 1998 case, Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, addressed the issue of traditional surrogacy agreements in which the surrogate mother has been artificially inseminated. In this case, a surrogate mother was impregnated using her egg and anonymous sperm. In other words, neither of the intended parents had a genetic link to the child. The court found that when a married couple uses non-genetically related embryo and sperm implanted into a surrogate intended to procreate a child, they are the lawful parents of the child. Another similar 1998 case, In Re Marriage of Moschetta, dealt with the same issue, except that the intended parents had separated. In that case, the court awarded legal parent rights to the intended father and surrogate mother. It is unclear what result would come from a same-sex couple attempting to use surrogacy in California to start a family. California seems to rely heavily on the "intent of the parties," but the Buzzanca case only speaks to married couples and Moschetta seems to emphasize the importance of a committed relationship, if not a marriage, between the intended parents. A bill, AB25, signed in 2001 by Democratic Gov. Gray Davis extending domestic partner rights may strengthen same-sex couples' rights in the surrogacy context. California Family Code § 7540 (2001); Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (Cal. 1993); Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1998); In Re Marriage of Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 4th 1994)."
Kinda long sorry. And the part about being a military wife, I don't know ONE military wife who does not have a Power of Attorney for their husband. EXP wifes whos husband has been overseas. I know we were MADE to get one (actually other than the general I had three or four for different stuff) before our husbands left for Iraq. Which would make doing things while the husband is away A LOT easier. But then again since this is such a life changing even I don't know that a poa would work on his behalf if they needed a signature for whatever reason.
By the way, AZ laws are very MUDDY to say the least you can read more about each state and their surrogacy laws by going to [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy[/ame] and scrolling down to the state you are looking for!
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 86
- Guests online
- 989
- Total visitors
- 1,075