All due respect, Ironlady, but you are not R.H. and the nature of your thread (or rather, the one directed against you) was rather different to this one, if we’re talking about those Glossika people.
If I remember rightly, you also got a great deal of support, or at least sympathy, from the people here, so I’m a kind of at a loss as to why you’re taking this stance now.
Because I got support or sympathy from you all, I’m not supposed to say that I think it would be better not to dig at a person directly on the board?
People only like to see their names in headlines when the headlines are carried by Ed McMahon with a big check from Publisher’s Clearinghouse. Other times are usually not all that pleasant. That’s it.
Thank you. Perhaps now this thread can return to the topic at hand.
Thank you. Perhaps now this thread can return to the topic at hand.[/quote]
If the other posters have not been cowed into silence, as I fear may be the case.
NO silence here, I have never been one to keep my mouth shut!
IL- I by no means meant to harm Mr. Hartzell’s reputation, nor did I expect for him to give details of a case which would be in detriment to his “associate’s/customer’s” legal position. I do credit Mr. Hartzell for making Taiwan a better place for foreign residents as a Human Rights advocate.
I think the comments that I raised, are in part, based in curiosity… and in part, as Sandman has said, a bit of concern for Mr. Hartzell and his “associate/customer”. The US courts, as you are aware, are no place for laymen to cut their teeth, and the claim which has been raised her does not appear to belong in the court in which Mr. Hartzell wants to file.
Therefore, my questions to Mr. Hartzell stand, as Omni says they can be answered, or they can be ignored.
These are valid legal/human rights issues and I feel they do belong on this board.
And, I sign my full name… so no one can accuse me of hiding behind my login name
Kristen Harris
Good on you, Sharky. I’m with you all the way.
But alack and alas, it seems that we are but barking at the moon.
Me 
and to end the mistery behind the big H, Mr H hasn’t posted anywhere since Dec. 2nd this thread wasn’t started till Dec. 12th. Maybe he has HiNet and his internet is down 
…
wait a minute… I have Hinet 
This did seem like a good thread till about page 3. Maybe someone can clean it up and get it back on topic.
Why are you all ganging up on Hartzell? Do you think he owes the Segue community a rundown on his agenda in regards to this case?
Although I tend to agree that this woman is not the typical cause for our much esteemed human rights activist, I think those lawyers among you should know better than to expect him to go public with this.
He evidently feels very strongly about this issue or he wouldn’t be wasting his time.
Maybe we all need to look at this from a more human perspective and stop being so judgemental. The woman is clearly in trouble, and Hartzell feels he can help her. I wish them both the best.
What the hell is this “ganging up on Richard Hartzell” all about?
We’re discussing an issue here, that’s all. We happen to know somebody who must surely know far, far more about it than has been reported in the press, because I’m sure no-one would touch it with a 10-foot pole as it stands.
He’s welcome to chip in if he wants to, or not, but no-one is “throwing stones,” “ganging up” or anything else.
Jeez! 
Richard Hartzell has certainly helped the foreign community a lot and we all should be grateful for his help in furthering the “foreigner” cause here.
But do we need to idolize him? Is it improper to want to discuss his endeavors or what he’s written? Is he or any else above being questioned? When all three English newspapers cover the story on the same day then you know that he is seeking publicity. He is a public figure. Can we not question that?
Seriously people, is this a DISCUSSION forum or isn’t it?
(okay, end of moral outrage.)
You use foul language too often, Mr. Sandman!
Your mother should wash your mouth out with soup. 
Besides, you’re not even close to being a lawyer (like Richard Hartzell), so why all the wisecracks? And, isn’t Hartzell your comoderator? Why all the venom? Are you jealous of Hartzell’s notoriety when you’re only famous for being the number one poster here on Segue?
Tsk tsk tsk~
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I was merely commenting on the report in the Newspaper.
Don’t know if the matter was misreported, but if Mr. Hartzell feels strongly enough about this matter and his chances for success to do an interview with the local newspapers, then I don’t see any problem with discussing the matter here on this forum.
Its an interesting case, but as an attorney from the US, though not California, I don’t see how his reported strategy of reliance on the Taiwan Relations Act will be successful.
No disrespect meant to Mr. Hartzell. He has revealed his ideas previously onto these boards for discussion, and sought comments. I have voiced my opinion in those threads also (most recently re the reciprocity with the US thread).
Ironlady commented regarding a statement about Mr. Hartzell’s “agenda”. Mr. Hartzell certainly has an agenda… he has disclosed it on this forum and in the newspapers and in magazines and on television and on his website. He’s an activist. Of course he has an agenda. I think most, if not all comments in this thread have been made in a constructive manner. But again, I cannot speak for others… just my feeling.
I don’t expect Mr. Hartzell to respond to any queries raised here in regard to this matter, and I haven’t raised any myself… I merely commented on the report and on the apparent inconsistencies in the woman’s story.
I would like to see mr. Hartzell respond, however, as this is an interesting case.
Point noted and duly ignored, Mr. Language Police. 
Great idea. my favourite is chicken.
Correct. Just like Richard, I’m not even close to being a lawyer. He’s also very quick to admit that he’s a layman, to his credit. The wisecracks are because I enjoy making them. So sue me.
Yes
Show me the “venom” you think I have directed at Richard.
No.
Sandman, you always have a smug, pat, answer for everything, don’t you?
In your posts you have inferenced a displeasure over Mr. Hartzell’s tactics in this case via your argument with yet another comoderator, ironlady. I suppose some of your little friends here find you amusing, but I for one, do not. You should take that stupid goatee of yours and just, stick it in your chicken soup. I hope you find a head floating around in there, and a couple of feet, too, you gadfly.
Not always, but usually.
Have I? Enlighten me, please. Curiosity, perhaps. Displeasure? Not at all.
I wasn’t aware of coercion on this board. If someone is forcing you to read posts you don’t like, you should stand up for yourself and just say no.
My goatee is handsome and makes me look debonair. It doesn’t look good caked up with chicken grease.
They’re my favourite bits, too.
[quote=“tim tam”]Why are you all ganging up on Hartzell? Do you think he owes the Segue community a rundown on his agenda in regards to this case?
Although I tend to agree that this woman is not the typical cause for our much esteemed human rights activist, I think those lawyers among you should know better than to expect him to go public with this.
He evidently feels very strongly about this issue or he wouldn’t be wasting his time.
Maybe we all need to look at this from a more human perspective and stop being so judgemental. The woman is clearly in trouble, and Hartzell feels he can help her. I wish them both the best.[/quote]
So the woman’s in trouble, but not her husband? And there aren’t two sides to every broken marriage? And the father being deprived of access to his child, who has been abducted and brought away to Taiwan with the intention of separating him from his dad, doesn’t matter? Or don’t paternal rights count?
But more importantly, this is essentially a custody case. The welfare of the child is paramount. To echo a view expressed by several other posters already, I’d trust the U.S. legal system to protect the rights of a child much more than I’d trust the local courts to do the same. I’d have thought our female posters would have a similar perspective on this. Taiwan’s judicial sytem is not exactly lauded for putting the welfare of the child above proprietorial claims on the paternal side of the family (though there are activists pushing to change the law in a more enlightened direction, and the situation is gradually changing for the better). If there are good reasons why this child should be kept in Taiwan and his custody determined by Taiwanese courts, then let them be publicly aired.
Whoa…Sandman has a goatee??
Yes he does. It goes rather well with his pierced nipples and Maori tattoos.
I guess that explains why that young Canadian kept banging on your ass the other day.
We must go for a night out in Glasgow sometime. You can wear your leather waistcoat and gold medaliion. I will bring a selection of small arms and follow at a discreet distance.