Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Father posts bail for Ruth Christine in child kidnapping
Oregonlive.com ^ | 4/12/02 | AP

Posted on 04/12/2002 6:55:25 PM PDT by RGSpincich

The Associated Press
4/12/02 5:26 PM

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) -- Ruth Christine, accused with her husband of kidnapping three of their daughters at gunpoint from state social workers, has been released from jail after her father posted bail.

Christine was freed from the Douglas County Jail in Roseburg on Sunday after her father, Philip Medland, posted the minimum bail in the kidnapping case being tried there. He also posted the minimum in a child mistreatment case being tried in Grants Pass.

Court papers listed Christine's address as a Jacksonville post office box.

Christine and her husband, Brian Christine, have been in jail since their arrests last August in Montana, where the children were also found.

They are scheduled to go on trial April 30 in Douglas County Court in the kidnapping case.

The mistreatment case is scheduled for July 9. That case accuses the couple of abusing their three daughters in 2000 while living in a converted city bus they had driven to Grants Pass from Indiana.

Child welfare authorities took custody of the girls after the charges were filed.

Last August, after a birthday visit, Brian Christine allegedly followed the social workers driving the girls back to a foster home and kidnapped his children at gunpoint at an Interstate 5 rest stop. Ruth Christine is accused of helping her husband.

The girls have been put in the custody of her parents, who live in England.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Oregon
KEYWORDS: abandonedinoregon; christine; daddytotherescue
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last
To: Demidog
"How many Years?"

Almost 3. Hope that helps.

Okay let's do the math. July 31, 2000 to scheduled trial date July 7, 2002 = less than 2 years not almost 3.

41 posted on 04/13/2002 9:55:49 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
It was only when the state threatened to terminate their parental rights permanently that the Christines acted to take their children back by force which was exactly the manner in which they were taken from them.

That threat was present from July 2000. It was nothing new. The Christines thought they could manipulate the system with intimidation and their new found radical friends. It didn't work and that is when they decided that the threat was real. They soon discovered that they had pissed away their opportunity to legitimately get their kids back.

42 posted on 04/13/2002 10:09:55 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
with the attitude and cooperation of the parents

Again --I don't know enough about this case or exactly what happened. I don't think kids should be removed from a family for attitude or politics---but I do believe if real abuse is happening they should be removed. If it's over politics then no ---The Clintons emotionally abused Chelsea when they would sit at the table and make her cry (pretending they were preparing her for their politics) ---but no one removed her from them and Hillary pretends to be a big child advocate.

43 posted on 04/13/2002 10:27:56 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
The Christines thought they could manipulate the system with intimidation and their new found radical friends.

False friends who used and abandoned them.

44 posted on 04/13/2002 12:49:54 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
"I'm repeating Sieradzki."

No. You're not. I notice a distinct avoidance by you to acknowledge facts you've claimed were true but are in error. And a near obsession to change the subject once it has been shown you are stretching the truth if not breaking it entirely. Why is that?

Because your imagination is working overtime. Sieradzki wrote you an email citing the Xrays and further into the email he gets into the incriminating evidence from the "mouths of babes". This is in reference to the alleged bedwetting/striking incident when the youngest child made statements to the police incriminating Brian. Why do you deny Sieradzki made these statements?

45 posted on 04/13/2002 4:05:23 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
That threat was present from July 2000.

No it wasn't. That was NOT what was being said and it is not what the mission of CPS states. The Christines weren't the ones doing the intimidating no matter how badly you wish it were so.

46 posted on 04/13/2002 7:30:30 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Sieradzki wrote you an email citing the Xrays and further into the email he gets into the incriminating evidence from the "mouths of babes".

And you know this because?

47 posted on 04/13/2002 7:31:12 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
His original indictment was thrown out by a judge.

In which county?

48 posted on 04/13/2002 9:08:57 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
And you know this because?

Because you posted it.

49 posted on 04/13/2002 9:10:43 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
The Christines weren't the ones doing the intimidating..

They tried to muscle their way through the process. Placing more importance on being defiant than getting their kids back. They went to at least one important custody hearing with as many as a dozen protestors in tow, some wearing printed t-shirts with a message directed to the court and Social Services. Judge Coon refused to hear from them. Great tactic for making the news, lousy for getting the kids back. From their attorney Edgar Steele:

Brian's public defender made an unfortunate statement to the press about cutting a deal and precipitated a flood of vituperation from the people in Grants Pass who were advising the Christines all along. They loudly accused all the Christine lawyers, including myself, of selling Brian and Ruth down the river in typical lawyer fashion. Sigh. But for those people advising this young couple, they wouldn't be in jail today, with their children living in two different states. They would be an intact family unit somewhere.

I agree that the legal system, especially in Oregon, is abysmal and needs a radical overhaul. However, I am not willing to sacrifice Brian and Ruth to that objective, particularly since it would be a futile sacrifice. Those people in Grants Pass really need to figure out that they are a part of the problem in some of these cases down there; an example of creating your own opposition.

50 posted on 04/13/2002 9:48:05 PM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
. Judge Coon refused to hear from them (the protestors).
51 posted on 04/14/2002 12:52:28 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich;Demidog
"Brian's public defender made an unfortunate statement to the press about cutting a deal and precipitated a flood of vituperation from the people in Grants Pass who were advising the Christines all along." -- Edgar Steele

Those zealots used the now abandoned Christines as pawns.

52 posted on 04/14/2002 2:14:47 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
More trolling. Prove it. Nobody used the Christines.
53 posted on 04/14/2002 7:55:23 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
They tried to muscle their way through the process.

They asked for and received help and support. Steele wasn't their lawyer at the time so his statements are a bit over the top. There was no "muscling" going on. I am not surprised that you think activism is a form of intimidation or improper in some way.

54 posted on 04/14/2002 7:58:12 AM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
I am not surprised that you think activism is a form of intimidation or improper in some way.

And why were some of these so called "activists" banned from the FR?

55 posted on 04/14/2002 8:06:26 AM PDT by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Nobody used the Christines.

How much of Ruths bail money came from the Christine supporters?

56 posted on 04/14/2002 8:18:41 AM PDT by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Steele - "I am not willing to sacrifice Brian and Ruth to that objective,..."

Their friends and supporters don't have a problem exercising their roles as "activists" when the only price to pay is the loss of someone else's children.

When it's time to dig into their pockets for bail, activism is dead.

57 posted on 04/14/2002 8:32:00 AM PDT by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Their friends and supporters don't have a problem exercising their roles as "activists" when the only price to pay is the loss of someone else's children.

I wonder if they've found new victims for their "Sovereign White Citizen" poison yet?

58 posted on 04/14/2002 9:38:18 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: TruthWillWin
Which activist was banned? As I recall Micheal, who's family survived the holocaust was called a Nazi and an anti-semite (LOL) by some of the same people on this thread and JR believed them.
59 posted on 04/14/2002 4:52:14 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RGSpincich
Their friends and supporters don't have a problem exercising their roles as "activists" when the only price to pay is the loss of someone else's children.

The children had already been taken. Thus your idiocy knows no bounds apparently. The people of Grant's pass gave Brian and Ruth support and even a place to live.

The fact that they don't have 50G's or so to post bail is not an indication that they didn't support the Christines. Steele wasn't the Christine's lawyer at the time so his posturing is more than likely for the benefit of the press. You and Roscoe have accused Steele of being a neo-Nazi so I find it hillarious that you consider his statements to be credible in this one particular instance.

60 posted on 04/14/2002 4:56:30 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson