Initially Guy say:
This sounds like a jim Crow case from the 50s in the deep south. Unfortunately, it is happening in a state that just elected its second black senator. Seems the judiciarary (SP) is still in Jim crow mode.To which I reply:
Based on what I've seen of this case, it appears more like the lawyers are gobbling up the money and that is one of the motives for this miscarriage of justice. One of the commenters on my site made the connection with the Terry Schiavo case wherein it looks like the lawyers and one side of the case are holding out for money. While the cases aren't all that similar, the motivation could be...To which Guy says:
Ms. Schneider would disagree with me, but I don't think race has much to do with this. Rather, I think the money is the primary motivator in play here.
That may be why the guardian parents are fighting, but why did the judge take only half the children away in the first place? That sounds exactly like race. It quacks waddles and swims, it is a duck.And now for my rebuttal:
The judge in this case can NOT take AJS's black children because they aren't the children involved in the case. This isn't a matter of Social Services coming in and taking children; this is a matter wherein AJS's family were already taking care of her white children BEFORE the black children were even born.
The judge can't simply come in and take all of her children. The system doesn't work that way. The judge can only take action on the case in front of him.
All of which is why I contend that race is not the motivator behind the judge's actions. Whether or not the judge is getting financial or political reward MIGHT be on the table, but race and Jim Crow laws aren't it.
This is exactly why I think "AJS's Fight Against Racism and Segregation" is a TERRIBLE name for her cause. It conjures up images of Jim Crow laws and racism that aren't a factor in the case itself. It's misdirection from the facts of the case. AJS's charges of racism and segregation could be levelled against her family, she probably has sufficient evidence to make that case; but against this judge - she hasn't proven it to me and I came in to it with a pretty open mind. The burden of proof is on the accuser...
3:50 PM Update
A very interesting response from a reader calling himself "Concerned Citizen" from the same forum:Mr. Hurley, I think you have done a wonderful job in exposing this case, but you are wrong. I live in Skokie and I have been an attorney in Illinois for over 32 years. I have seen all of the changes in the family court system including the so-called 1997 improvements ("Welfare Reform Act"). The Judge in this case has "jurisdiction" over any child in the State of Illinois if the child is in imminent danger, regardless of how it came to the Court's attention. In this Schneider case, Judge Webber has used a provision of the IL Marriage and Dissolution Act--improperly I might add--to remove the children from their mother 'for their safety.' Removing two children from Ms. Schneider and leaving three is an overt ruse. My experience has been that most local lawyers are afraid to cross a judge in a situation like this. If you notice, most of the time when a judge is outed, the media brings it to the public's attention. In my opinion, this is clear racism and peer monetary reward. Two-hundred thousand dollars is ridiculous and this whole matter should be investigated. If anyone is waiting for the Macon County IL bar to correct this mess, keep dreaming. Any attorney that wants to continue earning a living in the relatively small community of Macon County will steer clear of the wrongs and possible crimes in the Schneider case. I must sadly confess that I would not take on Judge Webber in lieu of providing for my family.As I say in the comments below, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on the Internet, so it is entirely possible (and likely) that I am wrong about some of the legal details. But I assert that AJS has not proven, at least not to me anyway, that racism is a motivational factor in this judge's decisions.
Message to Concerned Citizen: Please email me. I have some questions for you and we can go either on or off the record if you like... I've been pestering all the lawbloggers for assistance and haven't gotten anywhere...you're the first lawyer to jump in with something useful to say...
4:20PM Update
Going back to saomething "Dr Guy" said earlier:That may be why the guardian parents are fighting, but why did the judge take only half the children away in the first place? That sounds exactly like race. It quacks waddles and swims, it is a duck.We're not talking about the same judge. The judge that originally awarded custody of AJS's white children to her family is NOT Judge Webber. Custody was decided by McLean County Court Judge Luther Dearborn as part of the original divorce decree. Amy agreed to allow family members to have custody of her white children shortly after the divorce because she was going to college and had little money. From my interview with AJS:
My oldest sister, who lived in Washington State, was barren and did not have any children. My Mother and sister offered to have my children visit my sister, which would give me a chance to get on my feet after my divorce.This battle has been going on for TEN YEARS and there have been several judges involved. I keep hearing about vast conspiracies, but I think this would really take the cake.
In July or August 1993, my two children went to Washington to stay with my sister Christine. In November 1993, my mother sued me on behalf of my oldest sister for “guardianship” of my two children. Now remember, I had very little money and my mother and sister had intimate knowledge of my financial situation.
