From: "Bill Mattox" 

To go from there to calling the family "kidnappers" based upon
this ruling is quite a leap. The general consensus was that the
administration lost in that ruling when it granted Elian his day in court.
Even they thought as much, which is why Clinton was so adamant about
accomplishing the raid ASAP.

It is important to understand that the executive branch is not "THE
LAW", but rather the enforcer of law, so merely making a claim does
not necessarily give it legal weight. The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals had ruled specifically on preventing Clinton from returning the
child to Cuba until Elian had exhausted his legal options and left the
_JUSTICE_ departments' request to surrender the child as a pending matter
before the court based upon an earlier ruling.

IOW, that matter was still in dispute, the result of which was a legal
matter... not necessarily one of enforcement.

If anything, a case can be made that it is now the Clinton administration
in violation of at least the spirit of the appeals court ruling insofar as
they are not allowing Elian's legal representation access to him.

"Richard Hong"  wrote in message
news:39058cfe{at}w3.nls.net...
> >> What court order are you referring to?
>
> Bill,
>
> The relatives attempted to get a court to issue an order which would have
> prohibited the INS from returning Elian to his father.  They lost,
although
> the court granted a prohibition on Elian leaving the country.  But this
does
> mean that a court ruled, in effect, that Elian's father could assume
> custody.  That the relatives refused to immediately abide by this order,
> even though it prevented Elian from leaving the U.S., is evidence of their
> bad faith.
>
> Rich
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5