TX has completely screwed up Polygomist Cult Investigation

[Nbadan]

State is fucking up the investigation and running up a monumental legal bill by separating kids from all their parents and putting them in state foster care (yeah, they won't be molested there) and denying everyone due legal process....whatever your opposition to polygamy...polygamy...polygamy....this is really about attacking communal living and alternative lifestyles in red Texas...

Custody hearing for sect's kids progresses slowly
Lisa Sandberg and Terri Langford
Hearst Newspapers


SAN ANGELO – With one objection following another following another, the biggest child custody case in Texas history is unfolding at a glacial pace as a judge decides the fate of 416 children removed from a polygamist sect’s ranch.

The hearing, which was briefly recessed Thursday morning, reconvened with numerous attorneys for the children and for their parents repeatedly contending that their clients have been denied their due process rights.

The state wants to the children to remain in its custody, while parents want the children to be returned to the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ compound.

After numerous objections, state District Judge Barbara Walther allowed the medical records of three girls to be admitted into evidence and turned to a discussion of whether family and school records found in a safe should be allowed.

Objections range from contentions that members of the breakaway Mormon sect are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs to an assertion that the records might be spiritual documents.

One document is entitled the "Bishop’s record," and an attorney for one of the children taken from the compound said it should be reviewed by a special master to be appointed by the court before being introduced as evidence by the state.

"The church is not in front of the court today. The parents and children are before the court today," Walther said. "What I’m trying to get to is if these children should be returned to their parents."

At least one attorney said outside the courtroom that one solution might be for the men to be ordered to leave the ranch, with the women and children returning there under the supervision of state Child Protective Services officials.

During the court proceeding, names were read aloud from a document called the father’s family information sheet.

At least eight of the 10 men whose names were read had 16- or 17-year-old wives at the time their names were recorded on the sheet in March 2007, according to the document. The men ranged in age from their late 20s to their mid-50s. Some had children.

A sign of the effort to impose order on the unwieldy court process is the fact that the children taken from the Yearning for Zion ranch have been divided for purposes of the hearing by age, sex and whether teen-age girls are pregnant.

Each bloc of children has been assigned a color, and the judge is hearing objections by bloc.

The attorneys representing various categories of children wear their assigned color on their required court badges. Purple, for example, is assigned to lawyers representing girls between ages 5 and 11. Orange is assigned to lawyers representing underage girls who are pregnant.

Attorneys announce their color before speaking in court.

"There is nothing normal about this case," Walther said.

She said she was obliged under state law to grant the children a hearing within 14 days of their removal, and the number of cases made it impossible to schedule individual hearings.

The immense crowd has required the hearing to be carried in a live video feed to a city hall auditorium near the courtroom. Walther this morning called a recess to allow lawyers for the children to examine documents filed by the state, and papers had to be carried from her courtroom to attorneys in the auditorium.

The case involving the sect has raised questions about the type of proof needed to take children from their homes.

Hundreds of attorneys began arriving at 8 a.m. at the courthouse and auditorium for the 10 a.m. hearing before Walther. Dozens of the children’s mothers in long, old-fashioned dresses were seen lining up to get into the courthouse.

State social workers and their lawyers hope to convince a state judge that all the children were either sexually or physically abused or at risk of being abused. CPS officials want the children to be placed in foster care.

The parents deny any abuse, saying they want their children returned to their families and a place where they are safe from the dangers of the outside world.

The case began when CPS investigators and law enforcement officers raided the Yearning for Zion ranch – where FLDS members have lived a heretofore reclusive life -- on April 3.

The raid occurred after officials said a girl named Sarah called a San Angelo women's shelter on March 29 and 30. The girl told a hotline counselor that she had been forced to be a wife and mother at the age of 15 and that she had been raped and beaten by her 50-year-old husband, according to the state.

CPS investigator Angie Voss took the stand this afternoon and told the court how she and 11 other investigators went to the YFZ Ranch that first night. She said men from the ranch met them at the gate and asked them what they wanted.

Voss said she informed them they were looking for a girl named Sarah.

"The men shook their heads and said no Sarahs lived there," Voss said.

But they allowed Voss and her team in, and the investigators asked to see all girls 17 and under. They were quickly informed there were several Sarahs living at the ranch.

Voss said that although no one was rude to the investigators, she became unnerved as she and three other investigators began interviewing girls in the schoolhouse. FLDS men were both in and outside the school

"I was afraid," Voss said. "I saw men all over. It felt like that schoolhouse was surrounded."

Several girls under the age of 18 were found to be pregnant.

CPS ended up removing 416 children, keeping them first at the Fort Concho historical park and now at the San Angelo Coliseum as part of their investigation into the children's lives at the 1700-acre ranch. The state decided Monday to separate many of the mothers from the children while they questioned them.

The FLDS mothers say they don't understand how the state can take away their children on the basis of what they see as an anonymous phone call that is likely a hoax. The FLDS members insist there was no such girl as the caller living among them, and that no one has ever been sexually abused at the ranch.

The mothers say the Yearning for Zion ranch is a world without drug abuse or domestic violence or firearms, one where children are free to roam.

"The children grow up with the freedom that it's OK to walk down the street," said a woman named Kathleen, who has five children in CPS custody and wouldn’t give her last name, "that you know you're going to be able to go somewhere and come back to your parents."

It's also a world where underage girls are sometimes married to adult men.

There's no minimum age at which girls are married, the women at the YFZ ranch say. The women, who talked to the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, said there are no very young girls who do this, but they wouldn’t say exactly how young the youngest is.

"We are law-abiding people," Kathleen said.

The mother of five children hasn’t seen some of them in 10 days, since shortly after CPS workers and law enforcement raided the ranch looking for evidence children were sexually or physically abused. She says their polygamous way of life provides the same kind of support any family provides.

"If you did have some children, don't your children enjoy the society of a grandmother? Don't your children enjoy the society of your sister's place, to make cookies, to do activities?" she said.

Did the state shut down Catholic Churches it when found priests were molesting parishioners?

Yeah, 4 more years of Rick Perry!!

:rolleyes

[Nbadan]

Oh, by the way, your paying for it all....


American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts.

<snip>

One of those businesses, NewEra Manufacturing in Las Vegas, has been awarded more than $1.2 million in federal government contracts, with most of the money coming in recent years from the Defense Department for wheel and brake components for military aircraft.

<snip>

NewEra, previously known as Western Precision Inc. and located in Hildale, Utah, also received a $900,000 loan in 2005 from the federal Small Business Administration, the data show.

The president and chief executive of the company is John. C. Wayman, identified as an FLDS leader and a close associate to Warren Jeffs, the sect’s ‘’prophet,'’ who was convicted last year as an accomplice to rape for arranging the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin.

Religion Blog (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21152/flds-64)

[ChumpDumper]

How is due process being denied?
whatever your opposition to polygamy...polygamy...polygamy....this is really about attacking communal living and alternative lifestyles in red Texas.I am opposed to cults and child abuse. If neither exists in the FLDS empire, then everything will be fine for them.

[Don Quixote]

How is due process being denied?I am opposed to cults and child abuse. If neither exists in the FLDS empire, then everything will be fine for them.

Yes, child abuse is illegal in red Texas, as it is in every state. So is forced marriage and polygamy.

This trial will, unfortunately, take a while. There are alot of thorny ethical and legal issues they're going to have to work through, of which we shouldn't expect much help from the women and children themselves. A defining characteristic of a cult is a profound distrust of the outside world, and I wouldn't expect these people to cooperate much with authorities.

[Nbadan]

How is due process being denied?I am opposed to cults and child abuse. If neither exists in the FLDS empire, then everything will be fine for them.

Yes, tell us why the women are being kept from their kids Chumpy? and the Gove'ments only 'witness' to 'child abuse' has mysteriously disappeared...how convenient....but the kids seem healthy and have nice skin...and there is a pregnant 17 year old, too bad the age of consent is 17 in Texas....now polygamism is wrong for many reasons, most way to deep for the shallow minds here, but accusations of child abuse is not child abuse....get it straight...

[Extra Stout]

You can always be certain, in any case involving the sexual predation of children, on which side Nbadan will fall.

[mrsmaalox]

Question: I have not studied the Amish extensively so I am curious. They don't send their kids to state regulated schools, right? What if one of us decided not to send our kids to school anymore, what would happen? As i understand it CPS would be quickly involved. Even the home school option is held to some kind of state mandated standards. Now while I totally understand that sexual abuse and low educational standards are 2 totally different things, aren't they both illegal? How do the Amish get around that? Same thing for those parents who refuse medical treatment due to religious beliefs; they are always hauled into court and forced to accept treatment or lose their kids! Please someone explain!

[FromWayDowntown]

You can always be certain, in any case involving the sexual predation of children, on which side Nbadan will fall.

N(AM)B(L)Adan?

[xrayzebra]

Oh Dan you are just jealous. You know you want to join the
Mormons and get you some of those "wives".


By the way, when did you get your Law degree? And how do you
like San Angelo?

[Don Quixote]

Oh Dan you are just jealous. You know you want to join the
Mormons and get you some of those "wives".


By the way, when did you get your Law degree? And how do you
like San Angelo?

First of all, these are not true Mormons. They're adherents to a strictly fundamentalist sect of the broad LDS movement.

Second, have you seen these women? I wouldn't want one for my wife.

And third, I love San Angelo and West Texas.

[Don Quixote]

Dan=Don

Take that back! I am not a pedophile nor a polygamist, nor a defender of those who practice it. These cultists (the men, anyway) need to be locked up. I'm disagreeing with BasketballDave.

[Don Quixote]

let me rephrase:

Dan=Don?

How about Dan does not = Don. Much better. :toast

[Don Quixote]

No, I do not, you doofus.

I knew full well the message from Zebra was for BasketballDan. I felt the, um, misguided need to clear up a couple of facts in that message.

(And it's just a vowel difference anyway. Forgive me if we occasionally screw them up. In Hebrew, there are no vowels!)

[Don Quixote]

don = jewish?

No, 100% Gentile! Christian by religion. And I can read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew.

[desflood]

Question: I have not studied the Amish extensively so I am curious. They don't send their kids to state regulated schools, right? What if one of us decided not to send our kids to school anymore, what would happen? As i understand it CPS would be quickly involved. Even the home school option is held to some kind of state mandated standards.
It depends upon which state you live in. Here in Texas, homeschooling is considered a form of private school and the state has no say in it whatsoever. CPS can come to your door, truancy officers can come knocking, but you're under no obligation to let them in or even answer their questions. I don't think any other state is so lenient :lol I discovered all of this recently when I decided to pull my second grader out of school because he was assaulted by five older kids in the bathroom and the teacher didn't even bother to report the incident. I'll homeschool him for the rest of this year and next year he'll be attending a small private school.

Your other questions are more of a gray area for me. I'll leave those to the self-proclaimed experts.

[Don Quixote]

I'll leave those to the self-proclaimed experts.

You are too kind. :toast

I consider myself more of a semi-educated half-wit.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, tell us why the women are being kept from their kids Chumpy?You're kidding right? It needs to be determined whether the mothers are comlpicit in the abuse. Even a math major can understand that.
and the Gove'ments only 'witness' to 'child abuse' has mysteriously disappeared...how convenient....but the kids seem healthy and have nice skin...and there is a pregnant 17 year old, too bad the age of consent is 17 in Texas....now polygamism is wrong for many reasons, most way to deep for the shallow minds here, but accusations of child abuse is not child abuse....get it straight...That's what investigations and trials are for. Get it straight.

nice skin = no abuse?

You're a nutbag.

[Nbadan]

CPS says they separated the kids from their moms so that the kids could testify freely (to abuse, if it happened) without the parents looking over their shoulders

at first I was pissed that the state would do that. but it seems like a standard procedure...cold, but necessary

but i'm torn whether state care of kids is any better than them growing up on the ranch

Were there any accusations against the mothers? Not that I've heard. Has the state found any evidence of young children being abused? Not that I've heard....seems to me that some people are forming opinion before the facts...but that's really not surprising given that some people in this forum love to chode on dick before all the evidence is heard....

[Nbadan]

cps testified yesterday that a 13 year old was pregnant..does she count as a child or a mother?

At what rate do 13 year old girls get pregnant? Do we blame entire families or society? No we blame the person....so why are we treating this cult as if they have been facilitating child rape?

[TeyshaBlue]

You're kidding right? It needs to be determined whether the mothers are comlpicit in the abuse. Even a math major can understand that.That's what investigations and trials are for. Get it straight.

nice skin = no abuse?

You're a nutbag.

Usually, the investigations run before the trials. What we have in this case is the state moving in, without a single verifiedcomplaintant, seizing and removing women and children (why not go after the perpetrators, if any?) then packing them into the San Angelo coliseum to wait for their hearing.
Get this straight.......
Yeah, this is going really, really well.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/phone-call-alleging-abuse-at-yfz-was.html

[xrayzebra]

i think they're trying to figure that out during the trial

cps testified yesterday that a 13 year old was pregnant..does she count as a child or a mother?

I believe at that age she would qualify as both as Child
and Mother.

[Nbadan]

Yep, in fact all the evidence I have read points to the mothers being just as victimized as some of the kids....now the state wants to victimize them again and put the kids in foster care where who knows what will happen to them....

[ChumpDumper]

Yep, in fact all the evidence I have read points to the mothers being just as victimized as some of the kids....now the state wants to victimize them again and put the kids in foster care where who knows what will happen to them....Yes, dan's math degree has also made him a lawyer as well as a demolitions expert. Again, it has to be determined whether any abuse occurred and whether the mothers were complicit. Unfortunately the best way to get the child's testimony is to separate them from their mothers. Now if there is such widespread abuse in the foster care system, that's a separate issue and I'm sure dan is an expert in that field as well.

If the mothers didn't do anything wrong they will get their kids back. If they did do something wrong, many of them will probably have diminished capacity defenses or whatever the lawyers call it these days. It will definitely take time, but cults are fucked up things, and the FLDS did themselves no favors by being secretive, insular and threatening to whoever came near their land..

[Clandestino]

N(AM)B(L)Adan?

LMAO!

[Clandestino]

and of fucking course dan will side with the fucked up... just as he loves terrorists, he loves polygamists...ecoterrorists...etc...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

BC-APNewsAlert,0034

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- A judge has ordered that all 416 children taken from a polygamist compound remain in state custody and be subject to DNA testing.

(Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

APTV-04-18-08 1941CDT

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, dan's math degree has also made him a lawyer as well as a demolitions expert. Again, it has to be determined whether any abuse occurred and whether the mothers were complicit. Unfortunately the best way to get the child's testimony is to separate them from their mothers. Now if there is such widespread abuse in the foster care system, that's a separate issue and I'm sure dan is an expert in that field as well.

If the mothers didn't do anything wrong they will get their kids back. If they did do something wrong, many of them will probably have diminished capacity defenses or whatever the lawyers call it these days. It will definitely take time, but cults are fucked up things, and the FLDS did themselves no favors by being secretive, insular and threatening to whoever came near their land..

No, no Chump. Allegations that children are being sexually abused are just allegations. Until they're proven otherwise, there's no justification whatsoever for separating the children from their parents!! If there actually has been sexual abuse and it continues while the investigation into the allegations is ongoing, that's just the price that we pay for living in a free society. There's absolutely no reason to act on the behalf of children by presuming (for purposes of assessing the best interests of the children) that the allegations might be true and protect the children accordingly.

Make the government prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt before the children can be protected -- that's the American way!!

[Mr. Peabody]

How is due process being denied?

You have one judge reviewing the cases of over 400 children. How can he possibly make individual determinations and findings of fact for each child?

The kids are being are being placed into large groups and assigned a color to represent their large group. The attorneys make their arguments when the assigned colors are called. This is due process?

Furthermore, the kids are being denied access to their parents while they are being questioned. While some may argue that the separation is necessary to limit influence from the parent, my question is whether someone is there preventing influence from the person asking the questions? Kids are impressionable, easily influenced, and in my experience, aren't very reliable when they are being questioned in the absence of someone they trust.

[Nbadan]

Furthermore, the kids are being denied access to their parents while they are being questioned. While some may argue that the separation is necessary to limit influence from the parent, my question is whether someone is there preventing influence from the person asking the questions? Kids are impressionable, easily influenced, and in my experience, aren't very reliable when they are being questioned in the absence of someone they trust.

Now quit being logical Peabody, it's much easier and safer to be a illogical reactionary idiot....

[Nbadan]

No, no Chump. Allegations that children are being sexually abused are just allegations. Until they're proven otherwise, there's no justification whatsoever for separating the children from their parents!! If there actually has been sexual abuse and it continues while the investigation into the allegations is ongoing, that's just the price that we pay for living in a free society. There's absolutely no reason to act on the behalf of children by presuming (for purposes of assessing the best interests of the children) that the allegations might be true and protect the children accordingly.

Make the government prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt before the children can be protected -- that's the American way!!

I'm really disappointed because FWDT is usually a rational poster...look, the law requires individual adversary hearings....if the State didn't want to handle 416 individual hearings, they should have been more selective in who they removed. Since they identified 5 victims, they could have limited the removal to 5. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not accept any justification of railroading children's Constitutional & human rights because it's inconvenient to the State to comply with the law.

[Nbadan]

Not only that, the original complainant is likely also a hoax...

So here's where we are:


No complaining victims exist and the original abuse allegations were fraudulent, pumped up in the media by anti-polygamist activists.

No pregnant girls were found at the YFZ Ranch who were under 16 (the legal marriage age in Texas, with parental consent).

The most troubling outstanding claim: A CPS investigator testified one FLDS woman "may" have given birth as young as 13, which of course also means she "may" not have done so. The same CPS investigator, Angie Voss, also testified yesterday that an FLDS woman told her "Sarah" does exist and does have a baby, something all FLDS sources deny, and which we now know is likely not true.

More than 400 kids have been removed from their homes at state expense as a result of this fraud, generating court proceedings that are presently descending into farce.

Can the Judge put a stop to this now, please? Identify any individual cases that can be actually proven (I doubt there are any; five pregnant girls between 16 and 19 does not an abuse case make) and send the rest of the group and their lawyers home with the thanks and apologies of the court.

Link (http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/phone-call-alleging-abuse-at-yfz-was.html)

Ready for all the chicken-littles to start apologizing - Yeah, that's gonna happen!

[Nbadan]

Rangers confirm probe of Springs woman's calls
By Kirk Mitchell
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/19/2008 12:52:01 AM MDT

R
ozita Swinton was arrested on a charge of false reporting in February. (Colorado Springs Police)
Related

Texas officials confirmed Friday that a Colorado Springs woman is a "person of interest" regarding telephone calls placed to a crisis hotline before a massive child-protection raid on a polygamist compound.

Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8971925)

TX is opening proceedings to permanently remove 400 children from parents who aren't guilty of anything but bad lifestyle choices.....hope some of you are happy....

[xrayzebra]

this is what i get for giving the state the benefit of the doubt

You have never, never, given anyone or thing the benefit of
the doubt. Well except the dimm-o-craps.:nope:lol

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm really disappointed because FWDT is usually a rational poster...look, the law requires individual adversary hearings....if the State didn't want to handle 416 individual hearings, they should have been more selective in who they removed. Since they identified 5 victims, they could have limited the removal to 5. I'm sorry, but I cannot and will not accept any justification of railroading children's Constitutional & human rights because it's inconvenient to the State to comply with the law.

My point had nothing to do with the procedural issues associated with the hearings and everything to do with the propriety, in the first instance of removing the kids from their homes on the report of abuse. Perhaps I'm short-sighted, but it makes sense to me for the State to remove kids from the home -- at least temporarily -- when there is a report of abuse to allow some time for an investigation while ensuring that there will be no abuse during the time of the investigation.

I balked at the suggestion that the State was wrong to remove the children from the situation in the first place. I don't think it should take proof beyond a reasonable doubt to step in and protect kids where there is an allegation that should be investigated.

But there should also be two steps to the process: investigation and then prosecution (if warranted).

You're talking more specifically about the procedural safeguards associated with the hearings that follow the investigation and, on that front, I'll agree with you that the procedures employed here are hideously unfair. The thing that struck me about the original story was the passage explaining that the State hopes to prove facts sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. Could have been a poor sentence by the story's writer, but I'm not sure that should ever really be the state's goal. More specifically, even if the State is going to try to terminate parental rights -- a draconian penalty if there ever was one -- it had damned well better have first conducted a full investigation that develops facts indicating that it is more likely than not that the child has been abused. And then, it should have to prove its case as to that child and (I would think) do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

I certainly agree that putting children into large groups and trying to hear what should be individualized cases in some sort of en masse fashion is beyond scary. To do so without the initial step of a full investigation (I've heard virtually nothing about an investigation and a whole lot about the State moving quickly to terminate parental rights) is suggestive of an agenda that should be alarming to anyone.

[xrayzebra]

My point had nothing to do with the procedural issues associated with the hearings and everything to do with the propriety, in the first instance of removing the kids from their homes on the report of abuse. Perhaps I'm short-sighted, but it makes sense to me for the State to remove kids from the home -- at least temporarily -- when there is a report of abuse to allow some time for an investigation while ensuring that there will be no abuse during the time of the investigation.

I balked at the suggestion that the State was wrong to remove the children from the situation in the first place. I don't think it should take proof beyond a reasonable doubt to step in and protect kids where there is an allegation that should be investigated.

But there should also be two steps to the process: investigation and then prosecution (if warranted).

You're talking more specifically about the procedural safeguards associated with the hearings that follow the investigation and, on that front, I'll agree with you that the procedures employed here are hideously unfair. The thing that struck me about the original story was the passage explaining that the State hopes to prove facts sufficient to warrant termination of parental rights. Could have been a poor sentence by the story's writer, but I'm not sure that should ever really be the state's goal. More specifically, even if the State is going to try to terminate parental rights -- a draconian penalty if there ever was one -- it had damned well better have first conducted a full investigation that develops facts indicating that it is more likely than not that the child has been abused. And then, it should have to prove its case as to that child and (I would think) do so beyond a reasonable doubt.

I certainly agree that putting children into large groups and trying to hear what should be individualized cases in some sort of en masse fashion is beyond scary. To do so without the initial step of a full investigation (I've heard virtually nothing about an investigation and a whole lot about the State moving quickly to terminate parental rights) is suggestive of an agenda that should be alarming to anyone.

The state has certainly taken on quite a task. And the
judge in the case has quite a task. Can you imagine
one lawyer for each child. I just don't see how this can
be resolved in a timely and fair fashion. To the children
or to the State. I am curious where all the money is
going to come from to handle the cost of lawyers, courts,
housing, on and on and on. The county certainly can
stand the gaff and CPS budget wont handle it. This
thing is going to cost millions maybe tens of millions
before it is all over with.

[word]

Not producing the so called' informant' and then having someone arrested in Denver for filing a false report doesn't help. Do I think it's a cult ? Yes, if not certainly 'cultish'. Do they molest children ? I don't know. Many of this is about sociol mores conflicting with commonly held beliefs. I side with society more on this but what the hell.

This rarely happens but I was listening to pags on the radio for aboot 1/2 minute and he said this: 'I don't care how we got here ( talking about the fake witness ) I'm just glad we are.' ( meaning...I'm all for the prosecution )

Okay...I'm 'part' of the way with him but I *do* care about how they 'got there'. I'm in the 1% it seems, that feels that 'the system' and all that constititution 'crap' is more important than 'how we got here'.

Given that, it seems the state of Texas didn't have their ducks in a row here and once again, did what they wanted. It is reminiscent of Waco. Another sitation where I can't agree with the group and it certainly does not fit my belief system but I have another belief that supercedes that belief and is more of a 'core belief'. It's called the Bill of Rights. You either believe in it, or you don't.

At Waco it was about guns and the whole assault rifle ban thing was under way but ultimately they used 'molestation' as their reason when they got burned as the 'fall back'. They (US government) did kill 33 children in that compound. YOu know, it's about the children..must protect the children...that is, when we're not KILLING them. All of those people in the BD were found not guilty by a jury trial right here in SA. Every one of 'em.

I'll go with George Carlin on this. Whenever the government or a politician says, 'oh it's about the children'.....look out !!!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

cuh-rawfl
I had been intentionally avoiding this story since the start, waiting, just waiting first to hear reports that the original whistleblower could have been fake.

Talk about mormon bashing COR-SO. Next thing you know we'll hear state reports that the compound was stocked up with guns and explosives.

[xrayzebra]

Not producing the so called' informant' and then having someone arrested in Denver for filing a false report doesn't help. Do I think it's a cult ? Yes, if not certainly 'cultish'. Do they molest children ? I don't know. Many of this is about sociol mores conflicting with commonly held beliefs. I side with society more on this but what the hell.

This rarely happens but I was listening to pags on the radio for aboot 1/2 minute and he said this: 'I don't care how we got here ( talking about the fake witness ) I'm just glad we are.' ( meaning...I'm all for the prosecution )

Okay...I'm 'part' of the way with him but I *do* care about how they 'got there'. I'm in the 1% it seems, that feels that 'the system' and all that constititution 'crap' is more important than 'how we got here'.

Given that, it seems the state of Texas didn't have their ducks in a row here and once again, did what they wanted. It is reminiscent of Waco. Another sitation where I can't agree with the group and it certainly does not fit my belief system but I have another belief that supercedes that belief and is more of a 'core belief'. It's called the Bill of Rights. You either believe in it, or you don't.

At Waco it was about guns and the whole assault rifle ban thing was under way but ultimately they used 'molestation' as their reason when they got burned as the 'fall back'. They (US government) did kill 33 children in that compound. YOu know, it's about the children..must protect the children...that is, when we're not KILLING them. All of those people in the BD were found not guilty by a jury trial right here in SA. Every one of 'em.

I'll go with George Carlin on this. Whenever the government or a politician says, 'oh it's about the children'.....look out !!!

The "San Antonio Express News" had a long story on
the legality of the search warrant this morning. What
opinion do you want? There was one from some expert
on every aspect if it was legal or not.

I listen to Fox News legal expert yesterday say that it
wouldn't be according to "many" Supreme Court
rulings, if it is based on an anonymous phone tip.

Pay your money, take your choice.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Rangers confirm probe of Springs woman's calls
By Kirk Mitchell
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 04/19/2008 12:52:01 AM MDT

R

Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_8971925)

TX is opening proceedings to permanently remove 400 children from parents who aren't guilty of anything but bad lifestyle choices.....hope some of you are happy....

this is funny
http://www.peakdems.org/obama_state_del.asp

[Nbadan]

One you start a rock rolling...


SAN ANGELO, Texas -- Buses filled with women and children today began leaving the San Angelo Coliseum where 437 FLDS children have been been held for more than two weeks.

The movement came after Judge Barbara Walther issued an order setting destinations and explaining how the children will be placed.

The judge's order came despite a request for a temporary restraining order seeking to keep any children moved within a five-county radius of San Angelo. Walther's order said the specialized needs of the mothers and children have been shared with the care providers, as well as their background and cultural characteristics. Texas Children Protection Services workers will be arranging meetings with those facilities to take care of medical and educational needs, the judge said.

Link (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9014979)

Yeah, I like how they had the stadium on lock-down so the parents and their attorneys couldn't turn it into a big tear-filled show for the media...heartless bastards...

[WalterBenitez]

Oh Dan you are just jealous. You know you want to join the
Mormons and get you some of those "wives".


By the way, when did you get your Law degree? And how do you
like San Angelo?

Remember my friend, every wife could come with an extra Mother in law :wow

[WalterBenitez]

I am a casual reader of this forum, but I am surprised about the complexity of this case.

First of all, the children's right, that's ok and perfect with me, but what about spliting families with charges that must be proven??

Second, if charges are proved what about adoption issues, what about DNA's test must run, it's pure complexity in this area.

Third, how religious enter to this case? OMG it won't be easy, because those people could easily argue they are following their religion.

At the end, I'm still thinking in those crying kids going from here to there.

[ChumpDumper]

So a couple dozen mothers appear to be minors themselves, about half the mothers choose to stay in a women's shelter instead of going back to the ranch -- and everything is fine for those kids there?

[Nbadan]

I am a casual reader of this forum, but I am surprised about the complexity of this case.

First of all, the children's right, that's ok and perfect with me, but what about spliting families with charges that must be proven??

Second, if charges are proved what about adoption issues, what about DNA's test must run, it's pure complexity in this area.

Third, how religious enter to this case? OMG it won't be easy, because those people could easily argue they are following their religion.

At the end, I'm still thinking in those crying kids going from here to there.

Welcome to the forum...the more complex problem for the state now seems to be that the original charge from the state was based on a hoax phone call, that could set this whole thing up as a mistrial if any future polygamy charges are brought against the fathers...

[ChumpDumper]

What Texas cases were declared mistrials for the same reason, counselor?

[Nbadan]

Well, if there was a case against some of the men on polygamy charges, those very well could fall apart now...


SAN ANGELO, Texas - An attorney for FLDS families in Texas challenged the state's allegations of a "pervasive pattern" of underage girls having children, saying the state's own documents show just three teenagers in custody are pregnant. Of those girls, one will turn 18 in a few months and another merely refused to take a pregnancy test, said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing families at the YFZ Ranch. "That leaves us with one," he said.

Parker also said Friday that one state document includes a woman whose first child was born more than a decade ago. He said he based his statements on a copy of a list created by an investigator for Texas Child Protective Services. "I challenge CPS to come forward with the pregnant minors," said Parker. Investigator Angie Voss submitted the chart last week during a two-day court hearing to bolster the state's contention that all children at the ranch were at risk of abuse.

<snip>

The count of children in custody rose again Friday after CPS determined that 25 girls who claimed to be adults are actually minors, said spokesman Chris Van Deusen. That group may overlap with the 20 listed in the court document as pregnant or as mothers, he said. "The only thing we can say is we're aware of 20 young girls who became pregnant when they were between the ages of 13 and 16," Van Deusen said. "That's not to say that there are 20 now, but at the time they conceived they were 13, 14, 15, or 16. "That establishes that there was some sexual abuse here," he said. Van Deusen said the court document may not include minors identified as pregnant or mothers since the court hearing. He also said he could not talk about investigative results that haven't been made public in court or otherwise.

One CPS document reviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune lists just three pregnant teenagers. The court document, also reviewed by The Tribune, includes women who became mothers before the FLDS' move to Texas or before the state raised the age of marriage, with parents' permission, from 14 to 16 in 2005. The chart does not indicate whether the women are legally married or the ages of the children's fathers. Among them: One woman, now 30, listed as having given birth to her first child in 1993 when she was 14. A reference to this situation was made by a CPS investigator without explaining when the pregnancy occurred during the two-day court hearing in which Judge Barbara Walther made her decision to keep the children in state custody.

St, Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9056589)

Parker also refuted CPS' description of an orderly, calm separation of mothers and children at the coliseum. He said it was "complete pandemonium." As the children, all younger than 5, figured out what was happening, they started screaming and CPS workers had to pry many away from their mothers. CPS also assured nursing mothers they would be able to take breast milk to their infants but, as of early Friday, had been given no information on where the children had been taken. They also were told sibling groups would be kept together but thirteen children from one family were sent to five locations...

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong city.

[Don Quixote]

From the AP ...


SAN ANTONIO — Texas child welfare officials say more than half the teen girls swept into state custody from a polygamist sect's ranch have been pregnant.

Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant.

State officials took custody of all 463 children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch more than three weeks ago after a raid prompted by calls to a domestic violence hotline.

Child welfare officials say there was a pattern of underage girls forced into "spiritual marriages" with much older men at the ranch.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352966,00.html

I guess there's a case here after all?

[Nbadan]

CPS has claimed a lot of things in the press that haven't panned out...one thing that is panning out though is that the search warrant that sparked the Zion ranch raid probably wasn't legal...


“Moreover, prior to executing the initial warrant, (Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran) was advised that Dale Barlow was in Arizona and not on the premises sought to be searched. In fact, prior to entering the premises Sheriff Doran actually spoke to Dale Barlow in Arizona by cell phone, confirming his driver license number and the fact that he was in Arizona.”

Barlow advised the sheriff that he did not know Sarah Jessop, he had not been to Texas in over 20 years, nor had he ever been to Yearning For Zion Ranch, according to the filing. Thus, Goldstein argues, law enforcement had been advised and verified that the only person suspected of posing an immediate risk to children was not located at the polygamist compound.

The later discovery that the reported abuse may have been the invention of a woman in Colorado Springs with a history of making similar false reports weakens the integrity of the Yearning For Zion Ranch raid, the legal filing states.

“The veracity of the factual underpinnings for any probable cause in support of (one of the search warrants) is further undermined by the revelation that the telephones utilized by the alleged sexually abused, pregnant, 16-year-old mother, claiming to be Sarah Jessop to the New Bridge Family Shelter ‘Crisis Hotline’ in San Angelo, Texas, have been traced back to a 33-year-old childless, African American woman in Colorado Springs, Colorado,” Goldstein states.

Aspen Daily News (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/breaking-news-aspen--0)

[ChumpDumper]

So dan, do you think anything bad has happened with this group ever?

[Nbadan]

I never said that polygamy wasn't wrong...in fact I've pointed out that polygamy is a sure means to a quick end.....my point is that TX has completely screwed up this investigation from day one...

[ChumpDumper]

You didn't answer the question.

[Nbadan]

Of course some bad things have happened, that's why the church leader is sitting in jail today, but bad things happened in Catholic Churches too and the FEDS didn't raid churches, seize their property and remove all children from attending church even were the 'bad things' happened...

[ChumpDumper]

Feds?

[FromWayDowntown]

http://www.kxan.com/global/story.asp?s=8365745

Court Grants Appeal by FLDS Mothers

Posted: May 22, 2008 12:17 PM CDT

AUSTIN, Texas (KXAN) -- The Third Court of Appeals has ruled that Child Protective Services did not have the right to remove children from the Yearning for Zion ranch last month.

The ruling comes as a result of a document filed by Texas RioGrande Legal Aid last month. The TRLA is the largest provider of legal aid in Texas, on behalf of 48 FLDS mothers that TRLA is representing in their child custody cases.

"The way that the courts have ignored the legal rights of these mothers is ridiculous," said TRLA attorney Julie Balovich. "It was about time a court stood up and said that was has been happening to these families is wrong."

In the decision, the Court ruled that CPS failed to provide any evidence that the children were in imminent danger and acted hastily in removing them from their families. According to the Court, "The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the Department's witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger."

TRLA will be holding a press conference in front of the courthouse in San Angelo Thursday at 1:30 p.m. regarding this issue.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh snap. NBADan pwned.

It hurts me to have typed that btw.

[Nbadan]

Oh snap. NBADan pwned.

It hurts me to have typed that btw.

I hurts me to have you admit that....but way to man up Manny...

Now what about the rest of you?

[clambake]

well, i have determined that texas appears to be the whacknut religious manufacturing capitol of the world.

maybe now hagee and the nuclear baby guy can hook up.

[ChumpDumper]

I expected an appeal since the action was pretty novel in the first place, and I'm not surprised at the result. I'm sure there will be more.

What exactly does this change for the kids?

[MannyIsGod]

I hurts me to have you admit that....but way to man up Manny...

Now what about the rest of you?

I haven't read much of this thread, but from the get go I didn't like the way the state approached this case. Its easy to get away with shit when everyone hates the accused.

[BradLohaus]

So if the CPS takes your kids, then you have to have to pretty much prove yourself to be a capable parent to get them back? Is that how it works?

The CPS is pretty screwed up.

http://www.childprotectionreform.org/testimony/written_testimonials.htm

[clambake]

So if the CPS takes your kids, then you have to have to pretty much prove yourself to be a capable parent to get them back? Is that how it works?

The CPS is pretty screwed up.

http://www.childprotectionreform.org/testimony/written_testimonials.htm

unless your mom is brittany spears.

[FromWayDowntown]

So if the CPS takes your kids, then you have to have to pretty much prove yourself to be a capable parent to get them back? Is that how it works?

The CPS is pretty screwed up.

http://www.childprotectionreform.org/testimony/written_testimonials.htm

Actually, I think the 3rd Court's decision yesterday says precisely the opposite. It says that if CPS takes your kids and you challenge that decision, the burden of proof is on CPS and it better have damned good evidence to support its decision or it will be undone.

[BradLohaus]

But not everybody who deals with the CPS has their case discussed in the national spotlight and gets interviewed by Larry King.

This case involving a polygamist cult is very much an anamoly; there are many CPS horror stories that we never hear about.

[Wild Cobra]

My question is this. How long before the Waco massacre has Texas been a fascist state?

[Wild Cobra]

This case involving a polygamist cult is very much an anamoly; there are many CPS horror stories that we never hear about.
Yes, too many. A local talk show host, Victoria Taft, regulary exposes them here in Portland.

[ChumpDumper]

A Portland radio host regularly exposes Texas child welfare abuses?

Whatever. In this particular case, I'm all for erring on the side of caution. I simply don't like pedophiles. If you do, that's your business.

[Wild Cobra]

A Portland radio host regularly exposes Texas child welfare abuses?
Will you ever stop jumping to unfounded conclusions?

We have a "Child Protective Service" here in Oregon too... Our local ones commit such atrocities too, they just aren't so large to receive national attention like this Texas case has. The problem partially lies in people with good intent violating the law to enforce the law as they see fit!


Whatever. In this particular case, I'm all for erring on the side of caution. I simply don't like pedophiles. If you do, that's your business.

So you would throw out the fourth amendment? There was no evidence showing that happened. Hearsay, yes. What evidence is there? Maybe there is. I just haven't heard any beyond the allegations.

Please tell me what met the fourth amendment criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.

[ChumpDumper]

Will you ever stop jumping to unfounded conclusions?Will you ever make yourself clear in a post?



So you would throw out the fourth amendment? There was no evidence showing that happened. Hearsay, yes. What evidence is there? Maybe there is. I just haven't heard any beyond the allegations.

Please tell me what met the fourth amendment criteria for a reasonable search and seizure.If the authorities are working in good faith off a bad tip, whatever they find can still be used as evidence. I'm sure Scalia will agree if it goes that far up the system.

Right now it's a matter of finding the ages of the mothers and determining the paternity of the kids. I don't know how long that process will take.

But if you want to protect pedophiles with technicalities, that's your business.

[Wild Cobra]

If the authorities are working in good faith off a bad tip, whatever they find can still be used as evidence. I'm sure Scalia will agree if it goes that far up the system.

There are constitutional standards for such a thing. I disagree to your conclusion. I have seen no good faith effort here. What is it? All I see is personal ideals over law. The age of consent for this case is 16 years old. Did they find any younger? As far as I know they didn't. Only unfounded allegations say any were younger than 16.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Was the "tip" up to the standards of an "oath or affirmation?"



Right now it's a matter of finding the ages of the mothers and determining the paternity of the kids. I don't know how long that process will take.

And what legal precedent is there to blatantly make such a violation of these peoples rights? What right does the state have to tell the mothers they must see who the father of their children is?



But if you want to protect pedophiles with technicalities, that's your business.

I would have all pedophiles executed if it were up to me. I am not for protecting any. There still needs to be a reasonable standard before taking action. This clearly did not happen. I hope the judge issuing the warrant is disbarred.

I know the media has said such a thing in regards to pedophilia. Does that make it fact? No. In fact, you are 100% wrong in making such a statement. Pedophilia is the sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children. These girls have gone through puberty!

You don't seize evidence to make a case. You make a case before you can seize evidence, at least to a reasonable standard. It is not reasonable to take the word of an unknown or unreliable witness! You must find collaborating evidence to a reasonable standard still.

We fought for our independence from such governmental tyranny, and now you wish to bring tyranny back?

We cannot allow our law enforcement to break the rights of the people just to ensure perpetrators do not escape justice. In this case, the violations committed by CPS, the police, and judge are far bigger chimes than any the FLDS may have committed. If the FLDS committed any crimes, they were civil crimes. Texas violated the constitution in this case!

[ChumpDumper]

There are constitutional standards for such a thing. I disagree to your conclusion. I have seen no good faith effort here. What is it? All I see is personal ideals over law. The age of consent for this case is 16 years old. Did they find any younger? As far as I know they didn't. Only unfounded allegations say any were younger than 16.So now they can determine how old they are.


Was the "tip" up to the standards of an "oath or affirmation?"They usually aren't, but that doesn't stop the authorities from investigating.



And what legal precedent is there to blatantly make such a violation of these peoples rights? What right does the state have to tell the mothers they must see who the father of their children is?I'm sure there is quite a bit of precedent for CPS being called to investigate child sex abuse charges. Quite a bit.



I would have all pedophiles executed if it were up to me. I am not for protecting any.Except when you do.
There still needs to be a reasonable standard before taking action. This clearly did not happen.CPS is not at liberty to divulge all the results of their investigation. From what I have heard of the appellate ruling, there are some instructions that the lower court could follow to have many of the children removed again.
I hope the judge issuing the warrant is disbarred.Nah. It's not like a child was raped or anything.


I know the media has said such a thing in regards to pedophilia. Does that make it fact? No. In fact, you are 100% wrong in making such a statement. Pedophilia is the sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children. These girls have gone through puberty!:lol

Webster's definition is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object." Now if you want to keep trying to support pedophiles on the basis of technicalities, that is again your choice. I find it disturbing.


You don't seize evidence to make a case. You make a case before you can seize evidence, at least to a reasonable standard. It is not reasonable to take the word of an unknown or unreliable witness! You must find collaborating evidence to a reasonable standard still.So someone reports anonymously several gunshots coming from a house. No other report comes in. Your argument is no one should go to the house. Brilliant.

We fought for our independence from such governmental tyranny, and now you wish to bring tyranny back?


We cannot allow our law enforcement to break the rights of the people just to ensure perpetrators do not escape justice. In this case, the violations committed by CPS, the police, and judge are far bigger chimes than any the FLDS may have committed. If the FLDS committed any crimes, they were civil crimes. Texas violated the constitution in this case!You are saying that child rape is a civil crime?

What the hell is wrong with you? You are posting the stupidest shit I have ever seen you post.

[Wild Cobra]

So now they can determine how old they are.

What right do they have to do so?

Should I order a DNA test on you because someone said your mother was only 25 years older than you, rather than your real birth mother, and I wanted to see if it was true without a clear evidence the accuser was truthful?

Should I break into your house just because I wish to see if someone's anonymous allegation you have a third person's missing camera is true or not? Is that reasonable?

I'll tell you what. Give me your real name and address and I'll make some anynomous tips. We can see if the local police break into your residence, or try to find reasonable cause first through investigation.



They usually aren't, but that doesn't stop the authorities from investigating.

I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate. They should. You just don't blatently violate the constituition to do so. If you have to go that far, the likelyhood is the aleged crime is a bit diminished, isn't it.



I'm sure there is quite a bit of precedent for CPS being called to investigate child sex abuse charges. Quite a bit.

Sure, but again. Was there enough evidence for a search to be reasonable? I say no.



CPS is not at liberty to divulge all the results of their investigation. From what I have heard of the appellate ruling, there are some instructions that the lower court could follow to have many of the children removed again.

There are some things they cannot devulge for the protection of minors. In this case, they are not protecting the minors, at least from what I see.



Nah. It's not like a child was raped or anything.

Where is the evidence anyone was raped?



Webster's definition is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object." Now if you want to keep trying to support pedophiles on the basis of technicalities, that is again your choice. I find it disturbing.

And the definition of "child (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/children)" of the same dictionary for this case is:


2 a: a young person especially between infancy and youth b: a childlike or childish person c: a person not yet of age
Definition C: is not specific, but to me it is reasonable to assume the age of consent. If you follow the term "youth" you find it indicating befor maturity which is "full development." Isn't this normally considered to be the time of puberty?



So someone reports anonymously several gunshots coming from a house. No other report comes in. Your argument is no one should go to the house. Brilliant.

Break in from the anonymous tip? No. Call the house, knock, etc... yes. Get specifics and investigate, yes. You know, modern sound systems sure are realistic!

Wasn't something similar the initial cause to go into the Davidian compound? The use of a legal firearm within their compound? Miscommunications and assumptions lead to the assault on the compound. There was no Machine Gun fire. It was a legal weapon modified with a legal device. There were no illegal weapons found if I recall right. Assumption were used and a massacre occurred because law enforcement violated people fourth amendment rights. The people of the compound rightly fought tyranny and lost. Our government killed innocent people who were forced to protect themselves.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the Davidians. I simply acknowledge their rights as free people. Same with the FLDS. I will not take away their rights because I don't like them. I don't have a black heart like you apparently do.



We fought for our independence from such governmental tyranny, and now you wish to bring tyranny back?

It is you acting like the fascist. I am standing up for what makes this America. I may not agree with other peoples lives and what they do, but I will defend their rights. Why wont you? You cannot rightly prosecute or punish free people before a crime can be shown to occur. Too often an anonymous source is lying out of spite. That is why it doesn't fit the part of fourth amendment saying "supported by Oath or affirmation." This would require some kind of legal accountability or the one making the claim.



You are saying that child rape is a civil crime?

I don't know at what point it is more. It may be higher than a civil crime, even a felony. Still, it is not as severe as violating the constitution by those sworn to uphold it. You still didn't tell me what evidence there was of statutory rape or child molestation. Forget pedophilia. That is really a stretch without showing the first two.



What the hell is wrong with you? You are posting the stupidest shit I have ever seen you post.

I would say the same about you. You are letting your personal convictions cloud what law is suppose to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You willingly tear down the fourth amendment for this, but aren't you opposed to the patriot act, which does act with reasonable searches?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate.Well, there you go.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I'll tell you what. Give me your real name and address and I'll make some anynomous tips. We can see if the local police break into your residence, or try to find reasonable cause first through investigation.So you want to commit crime yourself to prove a point on a message board?

You are a fucking pathetic piece of shit with no respect for the law.

[xrayzebra]

What right do they have to do so?

Should I order a DNA test on you because someone said your mother was only 25 years older than you, rather than your real birth mother, and I wanted to see if it was true without a clear evidence the accuser was truthful?

Should I break into your house just because I wish to see if someone's anonymous allegation you have a third person's missing camera is true or not? Is that reasonable?

I'll tell you what. Give me your real name and address and I'll make some anynomous tips. We can see if the local police break into your residence, or try to find reasonable cause first through investigation.


I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate. They should. You just don't blatently violate the constituition to do so. If you have to go that far, the likelyhood is the aleged crime is a bit diminished, isn't it.


Sure, but again. Was there enough evidence for a search to be reasonable? I say no.


There are some things they cannot devulge for the protection of minors. In this case, they are not protecting the minors, at least from what I see.


Where is the evidence anyone was raped?


And the definition of "child (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/children)" of the same dictionary for this case is:


Definition C: is not specific, but to me it is reasonable to assume the age of consent. If you follow the term "youth" you find it indicating befor maturity which is "full development." Isn't this normally considered to be the time of puberty?


Break in from the anonymous tip? No. Call the house, knock, etc... yes. Get specifics and investigate, yes. You know, modern sound systems sure are realistic!

Wasn't something similar the initial cause to go into the Davidian compound? The use of a legal firearm within their compound? Miscommunications and assumptions lead to the assault on the compound. There was no Machine Gun fire. It was a legal weapon modified with a legal device. There were no illegal weapons found if I recall right. Assumption were used and a massacre occurred because law enforcement violated people fourth amendment rights. The people of the compound rightly fought tyranny and lost. Our government killed innocent people who were forced to protect themselves.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the Davidians. I simply acknowledge their rights as free people. Same with the FLDS. I will not take away their rights because I don't like them. I don't have a black heart like you apparently do.


It is you acting like the fascist. I am standing up for what makes this America. I may not agree with other peoples lives and what they do, but I will defend their rights. Why wont you? You cannot rightly prosecute or punish free people before a crime can be shown to occur. Too often an anonymous source is lying out of spite. That is why it doesn't fit the part of fourth amendment saying "supported by Oath or affirmation." This would require some kind of legal accountability or the one making the claim.


I don't know at what point it is more. It may be higher than a civil crime, even a felony. Still, it is not as severe as violating the constitution by those sworn to uphold it. You still didn't tell me what evidence there was of statutory rape or child molestation. Forget pedophilia. That is really a stretch without showing the first two.


I would say the same about you. You are letting your personal convictions cloud what law is suppose to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong. You willingly tear down the fourth amendment for this, but aren't you opposed to the patriot act, which does act with reasonable searches?



WC, CPS has gotten some grief here in Texas about
children that they have not taken away from abusive
families.

Also, I really don't think you could call them taking children away from homes, when in all reality this is a cult, and
commune style living arrangement.

CPS has been damned if they do and damned if they
don't. It may have been just easier to charge a few
men with bigamy and possibly sexual exploitation of a
minor than take the approach that they did.

It is going to cost Texas a bundle, it is in reality a full
employment exercise for lawyers and they are going to
make a bundle for their efforts, especially those that are
already drawing up lawsuits to sue Texas for unlawful
acts. And the bad publicity Texas is getting, witness your
attitude, and others.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think it's funny that a law-and-order guy like Wild Cobra thinks that dictionary definitions of "child" should supplant the definitions of that term that exist in Texas law.

Webster's FTW!

[ChumpDumper]

He's going off on some weird tangents lately.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, CPS has gotten some grief here in Texas about
children that they have not taken away from abusive
families.

We have the same problems here in Oregon. It doesn't make it right to violate the constitution though.

It is just as bad, maybe worse to remove children from loving families using unfounded allegation. Parents from years back were abusive at times with their children, especially by today's standards. I don't mean sexually, but discipline wise. I wont say it's right, but with your age I'm sure you've seen plenty. How many families would CPS have separated if they existed back then? Did those disciplined in a hard way turn out any worse than today's children with no discipline? I would say not.



Also, I really don't think you could call them taking children away from homes, when in all reality this is a cult, and
commune style living arrangement.

And by calling it a 'cult.' does it makes them people below the need of constitutional protection?

Without sufficient evidence, it is also possible that there is nothing bad going on. We don't need to agree with their lifestyle to demand they have constitutional protection.

Can anything be shown they have done something illegal? Don't throw the polygamy thing out there because they are community church weddings. Not ones recognized by the USA for how a marriage is recognized in US law.



CPS has been damned if they do and damned if they
don't. It may have been just easier to charge a few
men with bigamy and possibly sexual exploitation of a
minor than take the approach that they did.

Yes, that would have been a prefered way to do it. I'll bet they had no evidence there either. I didn't follow this story from the start, or this thread because I knew it could end up either way. Many times, there is a proper justification to remove children from their familes. This became a clear case that the government violated the constitution.

Oregon has done terrible things to kids in the guise of protection. It's not until their actions were exposed that they straiten up a bit. They have some pretty broad power that they regularly abuse.



It is going to cost Texas a bundle, it is in reality a full
employment exercise for lawyers and they are going to
make a bundle for their efforts, especially those that are
already drawing up lawsuits to sue Texas for unlawful
acts. And the bad publicity Texas is getting, witness your
attitude, and others.

It appears to me from what I saw in the interviews that the people of the community just want their children back. I don't think they have the desire to go for a big lawsuit lake they can go for.

[Wild Cobra]

He's going off on some weird tangents lately.

I'm not the one pretending we have no constitutional protections.

[Wild Cobra]

I think it's funny that a law-and-order guy like Wild Cobra thinks that dictionary definitions of "child" should supplant the definitions of that term that exist in Texas law.

Webster's FTW!
I just try to use words correctly. Law may define things differently from state to state, and that causes problems. My state is guilty of such things as well. You can read the law and think you are legal in something until you read the definitions they use for common words. Modern dictionaries sometimes makes these changes as well. I am against such practices. Law at least, should use the words as intended. I will not argue the term pedophile for Texas may include children who have gone through puberty. It simply is not a good thing to misuse words in law. Once a girl becomes a young woman, the physical difference become the distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape.

Words mean things. When I heard the stories of pedophilia going on, I'm thinking these people are really screwed up. Worse than their view of religion. When I hear the word though, I'm thinking of young children. Not 16 year old girls who are of the age of consent with the parents consent.

The media needs to report the truth in clear concise ways that we all understand. Instead, they use words that are less proper, for impact over truth. That is one reason why I didn't jump right into this thread. I didn't have the time to seek the truth on a story that I knew could amount to sensationalism over truth.

[FromWayDowntown]

I just try to use words correctly. Law may define things differently from state to state, and that causes problems. My state is guilty of such things as well. You can read the law and think you are legal in something until you read the definitions they use for common words. Modern dictionaries sometimes makes these changes as well. I am against such practices. Law at least, should use the words as intended. I will not argue the term pedophile for Texas may include children who have gone through puberty. It simply is not a good thing to misuse words in law. Once a girl becomes a young woman, the physical difference become the distinction between pedophilia and statutory rape.

Words mean things. When I heard the stories of pedophilia going on, I'm thinking these people are really screwed up. Worse than their view of religion. When I hear the word though, I'm thinking of young children. Not 16 year old girls who are of the age of consent with the parents consent.

The media needs to report the truth in clear concise ways that we all understand. Instead, they use words that are less proper, for impact over truth. That is one reason why I didn't jump right into this thread. I didn't have the time to seek the truth on a story that I knew could amount to sensationalism over truth.

In Texas, there is no crime identified as pedophelia. Thus, nobody in the FLDS compound would be charged with pedophelia (though those individuals might arguably be called pedophiles in broader society).

There are crimes for sexual assault of a minor and/or molestation (of a minor) -- the operative bases for seeking removal of the children and termination of the parental rights in this case -- and the use of the term "minor" is the most significant word in that sentence. There is no doubt that sexual assault of a minor would encompass sexual assault upon anyone under the age of 18, which is consistent with dictionary definitions AND legal definitions.

That you chose to define the crime in a different way does not change the fact that in the state in question (and in just about every other state in the Union, I'm sure) it is clearly against the law for an adult (someone who is over the age of 18) to engage in sexual conduct with a person who is a minor (someone who is under the age of 18).

The questions concerning the propriety of CPS's actions in this case, however, have nothing to do with how the crime is defined and everything to do with the lack of evidence to support any allegations that such crimes were being committed.

[Wild Cobra]

In Texas, there is no crime identified as pedophelia. Thus, nobody in the FLDS compound would be charged with pedophelia (though those individuals might arguably be called pedophiles in broader society).

I think most states call it something else. As a medical condition, and accurately describing the condition and act, the line is at puberty.



There are crimes for sexual assault of a minor and/or molestation (of a minor) -- the operative bases for seeking removal of the children and termination of the parental rights in this case -- and the use of the term "minor" is the most significant word in that sentence. There is no doubt that sexual assault of a minor would encompass sexual assault upon anyone under the age of 18, which is consistent with dictionary definitions AND legal definitions.

You forget that the age of consent in Texas is 16 years old with parental consent. That changed from 14 in 2005 (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600128490,00.html). The news accounts of women now conceiving and giving birth at 14 are likely true. However, that happened when the legal age was 14. Where is the crime? Please explain that to me. I am at a loss to see any wrongdoing other than us imposing our view upon others.



That you chose to define the crime in a different way does not change the fact that in the state in question (and in just about every other state in the Union, I'm sure) it is clearly against the law for an adult (someone who is over the age of 18) to engage in sexual conduct with a person who is a minor (someone who is under the age of 18).

I try to check my facts before making incorrect statements. How about you? Again, the age of consent is 16 and was 14.



The questions concerning the propriety of CPS's actions in this case, however, have nothing to do with how the crime is defined and everything to do with the lack of evidence to support any allegations that such crimes were being committed.

Correct. Their actions were a form of fascism. Authoritarianism taken too far for a free society. They know the law and ignored it over their sense of right and wrong.

[Nbadan]

The sad parallels between the Texas polygamy raid and Guantanamo
By Dahlia Lithwick


For those of you who haven't been following the many legal twists and turns of the Texas polygamy story, today's news of a state appellate court ruling that child welfare officials impermissibly seized hundreds of children from a polygamist ranch over three days in April will be shocking. It seemed an open-and-shut case of child abuse, right? Young girls married to much older men, trapped on a compound, bearing babies. The question was not so much why the state removed 465 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 3 but, rather, what the heck took them so long?

More recent reporting has shown that the legal apparatus intended to protect abused children in Texas was strained to the breaking point by what turned out to be one of the largest child welfare cases in American history. Earlier today, attorneys for Child Protective Services confirmed that 15 of the 31 "child" mothers placed in foster care were actually adults. One is 27. A 14-year-old removed as a child mother apparently has no children. The state had raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hotline saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband, but that girl has not been found. And interim custody placements made parental visits difficult, if not impossible. Seized children were not even permitted to hear sect prophet Warren Jeffs' name. The original custody proceedings had been hasty, chaotic, and confused. And estimated court costs were being projected at $2.25 million (before lawyers' fees).

In other words, what was intended as a noble effort suddenly got mired down in tricky factual disputes, cultural and religious clashes, and the practical necessity of warehousing hundreds of human beings for an indefinite period of time. If this sounds a whole lot like the Bush administration's fruitless, costly, and ultimately cruel exercises in mass justice at Guantanamo Bay, that's because the parallels are hard to miss. In both cases, government actors hurled themselves at a problem with the best of intentions. The prospect of averting just one more terror attack, or protecting just one more molested child, has a way of making all those technical legal details seem trivial. But both cases have been plagued by glaring errors of fact and identification: Names and ages and associations were all jumbled up, hearsay and double hearsay piled up in place of real evidence. At the time, it probably seemed like all the who's and where's could eventually be sorted out later. But there were real costs to surging forward ahead of the legal niceties.

The most important parallel between the seizure of the 465 children from the Yearning for Zion Ranch and the warehousing of 775 alleged prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in 2002 is that legal processes are slow and careful and cautious—or, at least, they trend that way over the long haul. That makes them poorly suited to exigent situations in which the rights of hundreds of different individuals are at risk. It also makes them poorly suited for grand political gestures.

Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2191009/)

[boutons_]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/03/flds.price/index.html?eref=rss_latest

... or, how extremely incompetent, fat, untrained, trigger-happy chair-warmers with too-tight uniforms and fascist powers can terrorize citizens, and ask questions later (if ever). And this cult is all ... whiteys! :lol

Will the cult now counter-attack in court and really stick TX with a huge legal bill and compensation?

So, under-age girls (and why not boys? Since when do men with absolute power NOT use it?) are still getting fucked and Nancy Grace has months of mind-numbingly boring, repetitive material.

[Wild Cobra]

The sad parallels between the Texas polygamy raid and Guantanamo
By Dahlia Lithwick

Yep, good liberal propaganda.

How can anyone be taken serious that compares and unlawful raid to the detention of prisoners of war.

You liberals are really losing it.



Will the cult now counter-attack in court and really stick TX with a huge legal bill and compensation?

I don't think they will, but they should. I don't agree with polygamy, or marrying the young women off as soon as they are at the age of consent, but I have yet to see anything credible that anything illegal took place.



So, under-age girls (and why not boys?

I haven't heard of any cases of under aged girls, or boys. They were all of age. What facts do you have? Maybe you should have gone there to testify. I'm sure Children's Services would have treated you nicely to testify for them. Five star hotel and all. They are in serious need of redemption. I'm sure they would pay nicely for a star witness.



Since when do men with absolute power NOT use it

Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

I don't see this as anything more than the bigotry of the people who abused the government powers they hold. I see no evidence that the FLDS abused anyone. Again, what evidence other than propaganda do you have?

[ElNono]

I just find it hilarious that a Bush supporter is standing for privacy rights and strict law interpretation. This from the same folks that brought you Guantanamo Bay, the Military tribunals, NSA wiretaps, the CIA leak, the 'preemptive action' doctrine, etc.
But you know what, I'm with Cobra on this one. God forbid one day we find out how many of our civil liberties have been trampled in the name of 'protect the children'...

[Wild Cobra]

I just find it hilarious that a Bush supporter is standing for privacy rights and strict law interpretation. This from the same folks that brought you Guantanamo Bay, the Military tribunals, NSA wiretaps, the CIA leak, the 'preemptive action' doctrine, etc.
I respect president Bush, I agree with most his policies. I dislike the spending under him and his idea of 'comprehensive immigration reform.'

Why would a Bush supporter not stand for civil rights and law enforcement? Tribunals are authorized in the constitution with congressional support. The NSA wiretaps are completely legal for the executive office to order without warrant. The fourth amendment protects from UNREASONABLE actions. There is nothing unreasonable to listen in on a conversation with a known terrorist. The CIA is a separate entity, and they have really fucked up. There is nothing wrong with preemptive actions. It does get tricky however. This Iraq war has proved just how tricky it can get.


But you know what, I'm with Cobra on this one. God forbid one day we find out how many of our civil liberties have been trampled in the name of 'protect the children'...

Thank-You. I do consider the NSA wiretaps reasonable, but not the actions against the FLDS members.

This is really what needs to be discussed in cases like this. What is reasonable, unreasonable, and where do you draw a line in the huge gray area?

[ElNono]

I respect president Bush, I agree with most his policies. I dislike the spending under him and his idea of 'comprehensive immigration reform.'

Why would a Bush supporter not stand for civil rights and law enforcement? Tribunals are authorized in the constitution with congressional support. The NSA wiretaps are completely legal for the executive office to order without warrant. The fourth amendment protects from UNREASONABLE actions. There is nothing unreasonable to listen in on a conversation with a known terrorist. The CIA is a separate entity, and they have really fucked up. There is nothing wrong with preemptive actions. It does get tricky however. This Iraq war has proved just how tricky it can get.


The trick with the tribunals, is that the determination of who is an 'enemy combatant' is entirely at the discretion of an agency. I mean, if they could at least challenge in a federal court their status, including all the benefits of due process, and still be found 'enemy combatants', then I have no problem with the tribunals. But as it stands right now, somebody somewhere decides you're a bad guy, and tough luck. You're going in and you have no rights.
We discussed the NSA wiretaps extensively, and we obviously don't agree. But as long as congress doesn't grant immunity to the telcos, there's still hope that, once this guy leaves, a court will be able to actually rule on it's legality.
And as far as preemptive actions go, you could argue that what the state did in this case was a 'preemptive action'. Obviously, the whole doctrine wouldn't pass the justice test, so that really tells you how sound it is.



Thank-You. I do consider the NSA wiretaps reasonable, but not the actions against the FLDS members.

This is really what needs to be discussed in cases like this. What is reasonable, unreasonable, and where do you draw a line in the huge gray area?

I don't think it's that big of a gray area. Once you get to court, you either have evidence or you don't. Hearsay can't win a criminal case for you.
But like I said, I think a lot of politicians of both parties take advantage of the 'protect the children' mentality. They love to tack other crap on laws like this one, and since it's about the children, they pass uncontested. It's really sad how they game the system like that.

[Wild Cobra]

The trick with the tribunals, is that the determination of who is an 'enemy combatant' is entirely at the discretion of an agency. I mean, if they could at least challenge in a federal court their status, including all the benefits of due process, and still be found 'enemy combatants', then I have no problem with the tribunals. But as it stands right now, somebody somewhere decides you're a bad guy, and tough luck. You're going in and you have no rights.

The benefits we know of in our due process go beyond what the constitution requires. These are not just people suspected of a crime. They were taken from the battlefield. All but a few. I think you can count on one hand those who were seized otherwise, and there is very good evidence.



We discussed the NSA wiretaps extensively, and we obviously don't agree. But as long as congress doesn't grant immunity to the telcos, there's still hope that, once this guy leaves, a court will be able to actually rule on it's legality.

Hope for what? To line the trial lawyers pockets? In the end, do you really think it would do anything other than cost businesses trying to do things right anything but time and money? What good would it serve? The government would just spend more money to accomplish the same thing.



And as far as preemptive actions go, you could argue that what the state did in this case was a 'preemptive action'. Obviously, the whole doctrine wouldn't pass the justice test, so that really tells you how sound it is.

That is a very poor comparison. Preemptive action against the FLDS was unwarranted, based on bigotry and peoples values who thought they were more important than to uphold the constitution. Preemptive war is different. Waging war is a given function of the Commander in Chief's role, and also authorized by congress. Congress passed a bill some time back, and president Clinton signed it. A bill authorizing regime change in Iraq. The removal of Saddam Hussein. UN resolutions were being flagrantly violated. There were other reasons too. I would hardly call it preemptive, but then I'm a 11 year veteran too. Attacking Iran would be preemptive.



I don't think it's that big of a gray area. Once you get to court, you either have evidence or you don't. Hearsay can't win a criminal case for you.

Agreed. There was no evidence here. I say all officials involved should be jailed. They were looking for evidence to enforce their sense of morality. Take it one step farther, and they would have fabricated evidence.

Oh wait... It appears they did! Now how may other cases were improperly processed.

This case not only makes them look bad, but look at how many cases may be reopened!



But like I said, I think a lot of politicians of both parties take advantage of the 'protect the children' mentality. They love to tack other crap on laws like this one, and since it's about the children, they pass uncontested. It's really sad how they game the system like that.

This is where any reasonable person would challenge the enforcement. Officials are sworn to uphold the constitution. Any of them knowingly violating other peoples rights should be dealt with harshly. We cannot allow the people involved the opportunity to violate our rights again.

[Nbadan]

Have a hankering to control the blossoming individuality of your children?


http://fldsdress.com/order/images/baby_bloomer_dress.jpghttp://fldsdress.com/order/images/teen__princess_seam_dress_w_burst_pleats.jpg
Get your today, cause tomorrow may be too late!

Believe the world is filled with the presence of Satan, and want to protect your little ones from his pernicious influence?

Or do you just like to see little girls swelter in head-to-toe pastel polyester?

Then you're in luck. Now the tubes offer one-stop shopping for all your kiddy kult apparel needs.

....

FLDS women for the first time are offering their handmade, distinctive style of children’s clothes to the public through the Web site fldsdress.com.

Launched initially to provide Texas authorities with clothing for FLDS children in custody, the online store now is aimed at helping their mothers earn a living.

Link (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21720/flds-sells-cult-fashion-online-ex-member-helps-flds-victims)

Note: Sorry ladies, styles are not available in red. That color is forbidden in any way, shape or form by the FLDS fundies...