Where was it stated that the Potter family's noble status is a result of baby-Harry killing Voldemort?

Something curious happened in canon, where the Death Eaters knew enough about #12Grimwald Place to set up a vigil around it, but they couldn't enter until one of the keepers actually showed them in, so Harry et al had to stand at the very edge of the wards and apparate everywhere. What's curious about this is that it means Snape told them enough (or maybe it was Creacher? Hm.) to narrow down its location, but not enough to get in, and this never set off "Snape is hiding something" alarms among the Death Eaters. Which tells me that the naive interpretation where the secret dies with the original keeper was the common interpretation, but the Order of the Phoenix knew that it was much less secure than that and everyone who knew the secret became co-keepers on the original's death. This also begs the question of what happens when all the keepers die (what happened with Godrick's Hollow? The magical Graffiti implies that the Fidelius was broken altogether, not just by Voldemort).

So, according to canon, it's still possible to lay siege to a place under the Fidelius, and the Death Eaters eventually broke in because Yacksly was grabbing Hermione when the trio made a return trip (How would that work with a small animagus, I wonder? Tracing wards probably wouldn't work--the trace on underaged magic apparently wasn't enough to get anyone in to any of the locations under Fidelius in Canon).

Are there notable instances of wizards stealing gold (or other precious objects) from other wizards and/or muggles? If there are, are any of them every cursed due to the inherent act of theft?

Fostering her out would be insurance against defeat. Placing her with pure-blood allies would not suffice for that eventuality, as such allies would most likely be going down with the ship too. Placing her with muggles takes her out of the war entirely, and the trace means she gets back into the wizarding world 11 years later no matter what happens..

Uhm. This is spookily compatible with Canon. For a girl with supposedly loving parents, she spends an inordinate number of holidays at hogwarts and the burrow. Worse, we never actually meet said parents at all in canon. We are told. By Hermione, that they get shipped to Australia with a case of amnesia. And I mean, "my parents are dentists" is exactly the kind of lie a clever 11 year old orphan might tell people to get them to iose all interest in further enquiries. So, basically, her family could oh-so-easily be entirely fiction in-universe.

In HPMoR, Moody says-- regarding casting AK-- that it's easier to do after the first time, and that might be interpreted as saying that only the first time you cast it do you have to muster up a deep, personal hatred. Afterward, a more generalized hatred seems to work, which would be the case for any of the examples above. He DOES say that you need hatred, though. Again, it seems like a parallel to the Patronus Charm, since that also seems to be easier to cast once you've done it once.

Side note: what characters have been seen to cast both Patronus and AK? Snape does it in canon I think? Does he ever cast his Patronus after he kills Dumbledore?

I realize that doesn't particularly help my argument that AK's casting requirements might prevent its use on infants and it can't be taken as any kind of explanation for how AK is shown to work in canon. But I think you do still need to want the target to be dead, and that might be a higher bar to reach with an infant.

I just wanted to point out that we don't really have a lot of data on how AK works or if it works on infants specifically. So in order to explain what we see as an anomaly (an infant surviving the unsurvivable Killing Curse), we don't necessarily need an explanation like a mother's love protecting the infant or an unknown and mysterious new Deathly Hallow. The AK having a built-in protection against its use against infanticide is no more complicated than any of those explanations. Rather than settling on any of those explanations, I wanted to encourage people to keep thinking, because none of them sound completely right!

Therefore what Voldemort would actually be interested in, given access to all of Rianne's memories, is Snape's own interpretation of the prophecy, or even any hints at it.

But didn't Voldemort already get that when he Legilimized Snape, when Snape originally told him the prophecy?

How would you distinguish this from a spell which merely tests if one has been exposed to the Dementor's Kiss?

Um.. I feel like I'm in the out-group now. What does this (and the stuff below) mean?

You could legalize eating tiger. This will prevent tiger extinction in the same way it prevented cow extinction, result in sending some guys with rifles into the jungle that you don't even pay for, and if that's not enough, you can still send guys with rifles to finish off the wild population, and they still will be less likely to go extinct than if you do nothing.

Wait, can you use a time-turner to go back, pick up something and return to the present? In that case you can keep something permanently hidden outside of time, except for a minute every 6 hours as you pick it up and drop it off.