Pro Bono Paralegal Mind Sharing

Not plageurizing. Prompted by this article: https://people.com/where-are-ruby-franke-jodi-hildebrandt-now-8733975

Ruby Franke. Charged with Child Abuse. Confessed. Serving time. A very provocative case. Her partner-in-crime: Jodi Hildebrandt. Same charge. Same situation. Did the system fail them? Is this justice or another case for a legal mind to use as an example of a Conflict of Interest between Human Rights and The Constitution of the United States of America? Both. This is why I wish to share my paralegal mentality for a defence for the two women aforementioned.

Why does this case bother me? Why should I care about two women I've never met and have nothing to do with? I'm not getting paid to defend them. I'll tell you why. It bothers me because both sides are wrong and two wrongs don't make a right or a rite, but maybe my little article or a defense with the truth about this case might. Is it wrong and a crime to abuse children? Absolutely. Is it wrong and a crime to imprison citizens for practicing their rites under the constitution? Yes. I believe as an American citizen, born in the U.S.A., that is also wrong.

The children have human rights. They deserve to be loved, protected, and free to learn, grow, and eat. If their rights are violated, they have legal protection. However, the parents have rights also. They have the right to discipline under the Freedom of Religion constitutional right. They have the right to run their household anyway they want to, under ownership legalities the same way a private business has the right to deny membership or entrance to anyone they choose to. If a homeowner or parent can not run their family or household the way they choose to, there is no "Freedom of Religion" and there is no "Ownership" rights.

Seems complex, doesn't it? The right to "Freedom of Religion" includes abusing children? It's a terrible truth to chew on. I don't want children to get abused or neglected. Why do you think there are compassionate people who work for DCF or Runaway Shelters? They don't want the children to suffer or think suicide is the only way out. However, one of the convicted criminals in this case did state "We were disciplining the children in a way to teach them to make their own choices." Seems strange doesn't it? I suppose these parents "believe" that the children had a choice: Stay and take the abuse, or run away.

So the children ran away. They made a choice. But then they reported the abuse. Ok. Fair enough. The criminals confessed. Now who's rights are being violated? Revenge was NOT the answer. Telling two women they may be facing 30 years in prison for the practicing of their religious beliefs is not Constitutional. They already got punshished. They already lost their children and their reputation as Advisors and Mothers. Case closed.

Punishing the already punished is not justice. It's not even "an eye for an eye" type of equivalent. It's just another case of anger and justice duking it out in the courtroom with people who don't have their eyes on any ball, especially not humanity or the Constitution.

Who is fit to judge? The mother? The father? The child? The person holding the gavel in the courtroom? All of the above?

We all have two eyes and two ears. We all have one brain and one heart. Can all of us read the Constitution? Does the Constitution still matter?

I say it does. I say release those two women, they've suffered enough for their failed mothering and their abuse crimes. I say never let them near those children again. I say that's punishment enough.