> We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here

Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.

The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.

The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo.

And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either.

The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.

> The point of due process is to construct such a record.

Right a lack of records is itself an indicator due-process wasn't provided.

So in this case, a common saying does not apply: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!