Can he be brought before the Juvenile Court for "experimenting" with a bomb? I doubt his chemistry teacher would approve of this experiment. In Britain he'd get an ASBO, for what that's worth...

JJ, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that C.A.I.R. is watching us. They search the internet every day to find out what we know about Rifqa. Even a little blog like this one has no privacy. Unfortunately I had computer trouble recently, and in the process I lost your e-mail address. That's why I have to write to you here. So I hope you understand what I'm writing. We've decided that it isn't a good idea for me to act as an intermediary as I'm not directly connected to Rifqa any more than you are, so I'm just an extra layer of possible misunderstanding. However, my informant has invited you to write to her directly. She would be willing to tell you the same sorts of things that she tells me.

Well, I don't have the copyright on them. My only hesitation concerns the remark about putting people in jail. I didn't read that in the newspaper; someone closer to the situation told me. I wasn't strictly told "in confidence," but I'm aware it's something that might not be generally known. Everything else I've said is public knowledge, should the public care to look for it.

JJ, Thanks for your reply, which I only found five minutes ago. Firstly, the dates. Yes, it was before 19 January that Goodrich forbade any evidence of abuse or anything about Islam to be introduced to her courtroom. She did this in response to two motions filed by Omar Tarazi (briefly mentioned in the press). 1. That no evidence be admitted of anything that had happened in the Bary home more than 24 hours before Rifqa ran away. 2. That Islam not be mentioned. Both motions both were granted. Second, what Goodrich actually said was that Islam was not to be discussed even if it could be shown to be relevant to the case, and that anyone who tried it, she would put in jail. No, I don't know if this specifically precludes a proffer. And I don't know whether Rifqa's lawyers could have contested it. But it does sound to me as if they took fright at this point. We KNOW that Rifqa’s witnesses have been intimidated. Beverly Lorenz indicated last October (in public) that she knows FAR more about this intimidation than has been revealed at Atlas and Jawa. Of course Islam was not on trial. What was on trial was whether Mohamed Bary was the kind of person who was likely to take certain Islamic teachings literally. This was directly linked to the issue of domestic violence: both were raising the question of whether Rifqa would be safe in her parents’ home. What the lawyers are claiming is that Goodrich never gave them a chance to demonstrate that Islam might be relevant to this question. So I become rather annoyed with people who praise the “wise and compassionate Judge” for saving Rifqa at the last minute where her negligent lawyers failed. On the contrary, it seems to me that this Judge’s refusal to find “abuse, neglect, abandonment or similar cause...” derived directly from the legal fiction of her own making. She failed Rifqa dramatically last January, and only produced a fairly small amelioration on 5 August. I am not questioning that the lawyers could have fought Rifqa’s case harder. But it is unfair to contrast the “bad lawyers” with the “good Judge” when in fact there are a lot of questions we should be asking the Judge. Diana

JJ, I agree we should be very miffed with SOMEONE. First, with Mohamed Bary and his friends at the Noor Mosque for their extreme anti-social behaviour. Second, with whoever sabotaged the case that might have been mounted against them. But do we know yet who that second party was? You say that the Judge did not gave "the magic words" because she did not hear the evidence of abuse. But it was actually the SAME JUDGE who refused to admit any evidence of abuse into her courtroom. Despite the intimidation of some of the witnesses, other witnesses were still willing to risk testifying. But the Judge forbade them to speak. Why would the Judge do anything so partisan? Biased? Bribed? Threatened? I don't know, but it's definitely the question we should be asking. Could the lawyers have defied the Judge and introduced the forbidden evidence anyway? You're the lawyer; you can comment on that. SOMETHING stinks here. I just want to keep an open mind about what it is.

CGiM, I think this was a shorthand way of referring to the fact that Rifqa's case plan (that disastrous plan that aimed to reunite her with her parents) also included plans to help her go to college. This would be a normal goal for a girl in her final year of high school, so it was a standard part of the in loco parentis role of F.C.C.S. I could be wrong, but I believe no real effort was made to help Rifqa apply to any college. This was possibly because it was already too late by the time she returned to Ohio last November. So it is likely that the special scholarship offer she received from this Christian college is the only offer she received, ever. Therefore a deliberate obstruction of Rifqa's college application was a deliberate refusal to follow the case plan. Yet Margaret Shirk remained committed to the "reunification" aspect of the plan! Now I come to think of it, wasn't Margaret Shirk the person who WROTE the case plan? What was her game??

Happy birthday, Rifqa! You are loved on high and on earth, and we will stand by you in prayer and in deed.

Canasia, the point of S.J.I.S. is that if Rifqa submits her application before Tuesday, as I hope she has, then she can stay in the U.S.A. until she is 21. As I understand it, what might still go wrong at this point is (1) her application could be refused point-blank, or (2) it could be still undecided by the time she is 21. But she won't be liable to instant deportation as soon as she is 18. I'm sure she is only too well aware that she needs to watch her back. There are plenty of people willing to help her, thanks to the publicity that Pamela and others gave to her case. I just hope she recognises whom she can trust.

JJ, the lawyers' plan all along was to move Rifqa from temporary to permanent dependency and thence to S.J.I.S. This went wrong when Judge Gill insisted that (1) Rifqa stick to the case plan and work on reconciliation and (2) there was no need for a hearing on immigration. In the end, the 3 August hearing was not granted to Rifqa but to her parents, who were presenting yet another of their silly petitions. This gave Rifqa's lawyers a last-minute opportunity to present their petition too. We don't know whether the lawyers would have been granted a last-minute hearing anyway. Perhaps they would have been, and perhaps they had a good reason to count on this all along. But from this end, it looks to me as if Rifqa was entirely dependent on her parents' malice. If they had kept quiet, Rifqa would have been unheard. God has a rather black sense of humour. Not only does He leave everything to the last minute, but He turned the tables rather dramatically on Mohamed Bary. There are a few other things we could all say, but I think we should wait a few days. Rifqa might be able to say them herself on Tuesday.

Walter, the problem with Rifqa's legal team is practical, not legal. It's pretty well impossible to contact Rifqa. If you have something to say to her, you need to communicate via her G.A.L., Bonnie Vangeloff. But Ms Vangeloff is not obliged to return your calls. Indeed, she is probably so inundated that she can't even read everything the public sends her about Rifqa. The good news is that Ms Vangeloff does seem to be genuinely concerned for Rifqa's welfare. But you will have an uphill battle to attract her attention. You need to have a concrete suggestion ("James Smith, address, telephone number, email, because he is qualified to X and will achieve Y") and not just a vague idea. Or you can send Rifqa an encouraging card, which Ms Vangeloff will probably pass on in due time, provided you don't write anything controversial.

Sue, that is one positive in all this. Rifqa has already been "prophet to the nations" beyond her wildest dreams. She is only seventeen, yet the whole world knows her story. Her detractors have already bitterly complained about her possible future. As an adult, she will be a celebrity Christian who can dine out on her story for years to come. We can reasonably expect that she will now have the opportunity to apply her (considerable) verbal talents in whatever way she likes to as wide an audience as she likes for as long as she likes. This is realistic IF, of course, she escapes deportation, incarceration, forced marriage and murder right now.

BTW, I've checked out the counsellors. They are real people who really counsel! Mohamed and Aysha are seeing Chris NEMETH (not "Neumath"), who is a social worker. His office is in Dublin, i.e. near their mosque but not particularly near their home. Rifqa's counsellor is Jennifer Dorn, whose office is in the Columbus High Street. I can't specifically work out whether she is a psychologist, but she probably is as she is also licensed for clinical counselling, i.e. mental illnesses. Dorn is also licensed as a school counsellor.

Rifqa's birthday is definitely 10 August. I doubt her lawyers are being paid off by CAIR. Perhaps they have made mistakes, but I don't question they are on Rifqa's side. The Judge cannot rule on any issue unless a motion is filed. Judge Gill is setting a priority of reuniting the family because the immigration issue has not yet come before her court. That is what Angela Lloyd was trying to do today. It's difficult to see how the family can be reconciled unless the domestic violence issue is addressed. Jennifer Dorn seems to know about this, but again, it hasn't come before the court. Is there any chance Rifqa can apply for a work or study visa? That wouldn't solve her immigration problems but it would buy her time. Surely there's some Bible college out there that would grant her a scholarship?

This is cut-and pasted-from 11 March, because we missed the party on that discussion. JEdgar wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pam and everyone, Someone should marry Rifqa. Has anyone thought of that? I'd volunteer, absolutely, but I'm 51 years old. If someone would marry her, she could stay in the States, be defended by our Constitution, and be free of Islam forever. Marry Rifqa Bary! Posted by: JEdgar | Friday, March 12, 2010 at 11:56 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, I have real trouble logging on to Atlas, possibly because of my location (outside the U.S.A.). It seems to be working today, and today was the first time in about six weeks. Anyway, this was my reply to JEdgar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JEdgar, I'm sure many people thought of this. If Brian Williams had married her instead of driving her to the bus stop, he would have been liable for a small fine for acting without her parents' permission... and then the whole thing would have been over. He would have been her guardian, she would have been safely in Kansas, and she would have been fast tracked for American citizenship. She would also have made a very good pastor's wife. But Christians take marriage seriously. People like Brian and Rifqa don't perjure themselves by entering fake marriages. They would consider it unethical and distasteful to enter even a "real" marriage for reasons of mere legal convenience. So let's tweak your idea a little bit. Can Rifqa apply for a work or study visa on the grounds that she's a fit person to work or study? That is only a temporary solution, but it will buy her time while her asylum applion is being processed (or until some American Christian guy decides he wants to marry her for the "right" reasons). Does Rifqa's trust fund contain enough money to finance her through a nursing or medical course (which is what she wants to do)? Would the I.H.O.P. grant her a scholarship? Lawyers... Can we have feedback on this one?

J Edgar, I'm sure many people thought of this. If Brian Williams had married her instead of driving her to the bus stop, he would have been liable for a small fine for acting without her parents' permission... and then the whole thing would have been over. He would have been her guardian, she would have been safely in Kansas, and she would have been fast tracked for American citizenship. She would also have made a very good pastor's wife. But Christians take marriage seriously. People like Brian and Rifqa don't perjure themselves by entering fake marriages. They would consider it unethical and distasteful to enter even a "real" marriage for reasons of mere legal convenience. So let's tweak your idea a little bit. Can Rifqa apply for a work or study visa on the grounds that she's a fit person to work or study? That is only a temporary solution, but it will buy her time while her asylum applion is being processed (or until some American Christian guy decides he wants to marry her for the "right" reasons). Does Rifqa's trust fund contain enough money to finance her through a nursing or medical course (which is what she wants to do)? Would the I.H.O.P. grant her a scholarship? Lawyers... Can we have feedback on this one?

Poor Rifqa. What she SHOULD have said was, "A friend gave me a lift to the bus station. I don't want to give the name because that would place my friend at risk." But she faced her interrogators without the legal counsel that she had requested. She had nobody to explain to her how to tell the truth without betraying her allies. So when they mentioned the word "hitch-hiking", she went along with this suggestion. (Perhaps she told her conscience that "asking a friend for a lift" was much the same thing as "hitch-hiking". But it isn't; it wouldn't have stood up in court.) I remember thinking when I saw the video of the F.D.L.E. interview that the "hitch-hiking" line didn't sound convincing. I suppose the Lorenzes felt they had to go along with Rifqa's story. If they had stopped to think, they might have remembered to say, "We were not eyewitnesses; only Rifqa knows that part." All lies are wrong, but not all lies are equal. Some people tell lies to save innocent lives. Other people tell lies to save their faces. And others again lie out of malice, because they are plotting murder.

JJ, thanks for such a coherent and detailed reply to all my questions. I'm glad to hear that the cancellation of the real trial implies more in Rifqa's favour than it does against her. We can't know, of course, but I found your comments reassuring. No, I didn't mean to imply that C.A.I.R. has been deliberately intimidating witnesses. I only meant that if there is no trial, the witnesses cannot speak. The media can buzz, but nothing is legally proven. Can Rifqa's lawyers begin a new case to plead her civil right to normal social intercourse? Or is it legally possible for the court to initiate a cancellation of some of the isolation orders without the lawyers needing to do it? I hope you are right that this case has done something to expose C.A.I.R.'s real agenda, but I don't know how seriously the chatter of a few blogs has been taken. Once again, nothing is legally proven against them. We still have no LEGAL proof that they ever plotted against Rifqa's life.

Yes, it could be much, much worse. While I don't understand American law, however, I found the whole account rather disturbing. Why was next week's "long" trial cancelled? Given the prosecutor's claim that this was "not abuse", this suggests the Barys were afraid of what Rifqa's witnesses might say. They have found a way to silence them legally. It remains true that "no credible threats have been FOUND" [because nobody was looking in the right place]. And now they won't be looking. Just what is meant by counselling? Will Rifqa be forced to accept whatever the court orders or will it be professionally organised? Will it be family or individual counselling? Will the counsellor(s) be Christian, Muslim or Atheist? Will Mohamed's need for anger management therapy be addressed, or is it only Rifqa who "needs" a counsellor? Is Rifqa to have a new foster home? Her parents (and C.A.I.R.) know the address of her old one. Is Rifqa to live under normal foster conditions, with the foster parents making the rules? Or is she still bound by court orders that allow her no school, no visitors, no telephone, supervised internet and heavily censored correspondence? Why does Heageny want us to believe that it is "over"? So that the media attention is off, the reputation of C.A.I.R. remains intact, and Rifqa's fate is unremarked? We must not lose interest in - or media coverage on - Rifqa. She is not necessarily out of danger. Nor are hundreds of other potential honour victims.

Pamela, this is a long shot, but has anyone considered the possibility that the person who copied Rifqa's birthday card to the Barys' lawyers was BRIAN SMITH? This occurred to me when I re-read Pastor Lorenz's affidavit of 29 December. If Mr Smith were willing to go to this extreme to attack Rifqa, it would throw an interesting light on his determination to discredit the Lorenzes. It would also mean that there is no need to suspect Rifqa's lawyers, G.A.L., case worker or foster parents of treachery.