Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether people don't like them, think it is a scam or a set up. The fact is kids should be able to walk to and from locations when parents decide they can. Not the government.

They are young children and need supervision. As a child, your rights are different and the parents are deliberately neglecting them.

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether people don't like them, think it is a scam or a set up. The fact is kids should be able to walk to and from locations when parents decide they can. Not the government.

Anonymous wrote:If they have a pro bono lawyer, then why are they asking for money?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at Riemer's FB page and then at the mother's FB page. I don't think it's appropriate for an elected official to be publicly bashing his own constituents based on rumor (even if it's accurate, which seems possible or even likely.) But the Meitiv woman's FB page also seems troubling. She's constantly trolling for $$. And posting about fights with the school secretary about where and how her 10yo can wait for his afterschool activities.

I have similarly aged kids in nearby MCPS elementary and this kind of thing never happens. Kids leave school every day and no one checks with whom. Kids hang around at times, and as long as they're not making a scene or causing trouble, no one would blink an eye at a kid waiting for a parent or an afterschool class, inside or outside. It also happens that this is neighborhood where tons of kids roam and no police ever intervene.

So I keep coming back to the question: why do the Meitivs experience so much difficulty with authorities and their children -- when no one else does? Is it that EVERYONE else is a helicopter parent? Or is it possible that the Meitivs are, for their own warped reasons, deliberately seeking out confrontations with the police (and the school secretary) in order to promote some ideological agenda?

Very interesting about the mother's interactions with the school secretary. I just read her posts and can't help but wonder: why is her son the only one wandering around? Are the other parents taking their kids home first and then back to the school? Does she not understand legal liability to the school if her kid injured himself roaming around the school by himself?

Anonymous wrote:I'm perplexed about why they feel that others should contribute to pay their legal fees. They both have good jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm perplexed about why they feel that others should contribute to pay their legal fees. They both have good jobs.

After looking at the mom's FB page, I fear she feels she is spearheading a VERY IMPORTANT CAUSE. So in her mind, people are supporting her CAUSE, not her.

Anonymous wrote:I'm perplexed about why they feel that others should contribute to pay their legal fees. They both have good jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read his page, be sure to scroll through the comments to see where Reimer posts (a few times) that neighbors in the area have repeatedly called the cops on the family for years since they've been allowing the free ranging since the younger one was a toddler. Toddler. That's according to neighbors who told Reimer.

Talk about hearsay. There was a comment where a neighbor called the family "odd," which has been taken down. Are you referring to another comment that has been taken down?

You guys don't know what hearsay is. If it's not being offered as evidence in a trial, it's not hearsay. There's nothing prohibiting him from posting it. By your logic every newspaper every day is publishing hearsay. Think, people.

Please. Hearsay is more than just a legal term:

"unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."

And that's exactly what he did when he posted what a friend of his told him.

So what? It's only prohibited in court. Again, every newspaper publishes hearsay every day. You are spouting hearsay when you repeat what the Meitiv's say. Here's more hearsay: my kids are in bed. I'm saying it because my DH said so. So it's hearsay. If these people don't want to be talked about publicly, they should stop doing so much publicity!

Not talking about what is legal, not legal, prohibited or not prohibited. It's a question of lack of professionalism at the very least, and personally I think it's an ethical issue.. It's beneath the office of a County Councilmember to do something like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read his page, be sure to scroll through the comments to see where Reimer posts (a few times) that neighbors in the area have repeatedly called the cops on the family for years since they've been allowing the free ranging since the younger one was a toddler. Toddler. That's according to neighbors who told Reimer.

Talk about hearsay. There was a comment where a neighbor called the family "odd," which has been taken down. Are you referring to another comment that has been taken down?

You guys don't know what hearsay is. If it's not being offered as evidence in a trial, it's not hearsay. There's nothing prohibiting him from posting it. By your logic every newspaper every day is publishing hearsay. Think, people.

Please. Hearsay is more than just a legal term:

"unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."

And that's exactly what he did when he posted what a friend of his told him.

So what? It's only prohibited in court. Again, every newspaper publishes hearsay every day. You are spouting hearsay when you repeat what the Meitiv's say. Here's more hearsay: my kids are in bed. I'm saying it because my DH said so. So it's hearsay. If these people don't want to be talked about publicly, they should stop doing so much publicity!

Newspapers actually don't publish hearsay. At one time, before budget cuts, they had journalists and reporters who follow up and use names of sources, instead of a friend of a neighbor. It's called "ethics".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read his page, be sure to scroll through the comments to see where Reimer posts (a few times) that neighbors in the area have repeatedly called the cops on the family for years since they've been allowing the free ranging since the younger one was a toddler. Toddler. That's according to neighbors who told Reimer.

Talk about hearsay. There was a comment where a neighbor called the family "odd," which has been taken down. Are you referring to another comment that has been taken down?

You guys don't know what hearsay is. If it's not being offered as evidence in a trial, it's not hearsay. There's nothing prohibiting him from posting it. By your logic every newspaper every day is publishing hearsay. Think, people.

Please. Hearsay is more than just a legal term:

"unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."

And that's exactly what he did when he posted what a friend of his told him.

So what? It's only prohibited in court. Again, every newspaper publishes hearsay every day. You are spouting hearsay when you repeat what the Meitiv's say. Here's more hearsay: my kids are in bed. I'm saying it because my DH said so. So it's hearsay. If these people don't want to be talked about publicly, they should stop doing so much publicity!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read his page, be sure to scroll through the comments to see where Reimer posts (a few times) that neighbors in the area have repeatedly called the cops on the family for years since they've been allowing the free ranging since the younger one was a toddler. Toddler. That's according to neighbors who told Reimer.

Talk about hearsay. There was a comment where a neighbor called the family "odd," which has been taken down. Are you referring to another comment that has been taken down?

You guys don't know what hearsay is. If it's not being offered as evidence in a trial, it's not hearsay. There's nothing prohibiting him from posting it. By your logic every newspaper every day is publishing hearsay. Think, people.

Please. Hearsay is more than just a legal term:

"unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge."

And that's exactly what he did when he posted what a friend of his told him.

So what? It's only prohibited in court. Again, every newspaper publishes hearsay every day. You are spouting hearsay when you repeat what the Meitiv's say. Here's more hearsay: my kids are in bed. I'm saying it because my DH said so. So it's hearsay. If these people don't want to be talked about publicly, they should stop doing so much publicity!