Waco TWO?

[JuanCarlos]

And on the other side, we have rampant pregnancies among young girls, some as young as 12, all over the US. Underage teen pregnancy rates are the highest is US history. Why then, is not EVERY ONE of these teenage mothers children take away as soon as they are born? [1] Why are the parents of these young teens not jailed? Why are not all children in these parents homes, taken by CPS, since they couldn't stop one teen from getting abused and pregnant, then their other children are surely in danger of the same under the lax supervision of these terrible parents. [2] Why isn't this happening? Why is it acceptable that this happens in mainstream society, but when it happens behind the walls of a "weirdo religious compound" it requires tanks and swat teams?

Simply being the child of a teenage mother is not a sign of abuse (of the child, not the mother). So that answers 1. In fact, that assertion was silly enough that I'm not sure why I'm responding, but I'll go ahead and finish.

As to 2, we'll start with the assumption that a teenage pregnancy is a sign of a lack of supervision. It's not. All it requires is a little teenage sex, which pretty much just requires letting your daughter (or son) out of your sight for about 8 minutes. In seriousness, though, this supposed "lack of supervision" would appear to occur in a majority of homes, given median ages of lost virginity. In fact, I'll go ahead and suggest that you're insulting the parents of more than a few posters here, even some of the older ones, though I'll not ask anybody to come forward. Plus you're probably insulting many of the parents who post here, though some of them may not even know it.

The difference, to continue to respond to number 2, is that in the case of these families the parents are not just failing to stop it; they're encouraging it and in at least some cases (if the stories of ex-members are to be believed) pressuring their daughters into it.

Let me just ask this. Do you see any difference between an underage girl choosing to have sex with her teenage (possibly equally underage) boyfriend, and a girl being arranged to have sex with a 40-year-old (or even 25-year-old) man? Please don't bother responding to my post unless you're willing to answer that question.

Can't anyone see the double standard?

Nope. Not seeing it. If we were talking about in individual, non-FLDS home where the parents were found to be encouraging their 14-year-old daughter to marry an older man, I'd take their kids away (all of them) lickety split as well. It's not about the religion, or the compound, or the tanks and SWAT teams. It's about the fact that doing that to your children is wrong, because we're talking about drastic life-altering decisions you're encouraging them to make before they can fully understand them, that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

It wouldn't matter if it was one kid or, in this case, 400. The only reason the scale here is so large is because, in the context of a group communal home, you have to assess whether all the kids in that communal home are in similar danger. Well, that and because this level of double-you-tee-eff doesn't generally can't reach critical mass unless you get a large group of like-minded individuals together and separate from mainstream society a bit.

Both to keep your actions from being noticed, and to ensure that the kids don't realize you're full of crap when you tell them that they'll be forced into do drugs and make gangbang films if they venture beyond your loving, protective walls.


Oh, and to respond to your original foolishness:

Lets suppose they teach love and spiritual harmony, and are completely religiously fanatic in their beliefs. Lets suppose that they honestly and fully believe that marrying at 14 is spiritually right for them, and they are not just doing this to get "young meat" as so many have put it. They honestly believe they are doing as God instructs, and as they have been taught, no doubt by their parents, grandparents, ect. Lets suppose, that these girls, and young women, raised this way, have no problem with this, and believe they are gloifying God by having many children.

Well, it would appear that at least some of these girls come around eventually to thinking they were taken advantage of, and coerced/pressured/just plain duped into such arrangements. Or else, more than likely, we'd not hear a whole lot about these folks. And Warren Jeffs wouldn't be in jail. But, as I said before, it's not unheard of (in fact it's somewhat common) for people, upon getting a little older (late teens, 20's), to question the religious beliefs they were raised with...often abandoning them entirely. For some, this means knowing a few songs and a few lost Sunday mornings. Apparently for others it means a 50-year-old ex-husband (or possibly just a 30-year-old ex-husband that was her cousin) and maybe a few kids.

There's a reason we have minimum ages of consent, for both sexual relations and marriage. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

 

[hammer4nc]

Enlightening testimony...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIdMpRHjN4hpNKBhfYyAsR4DDo4QD904HQGG0

Texas polygamist sect is accused of indoctrinating girls

By MICHELLE ROBERTS – 15 minutes ago

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) — Girls in the west Texas polygamous sect enter into underage marriages without resistance because they are ruthlessly indoctrinated from birth to believe disobedience will lead to their damnation, experts for the state testified Friday at a custody hearing for 416 youngsters.

The renegade Mormon sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian," said Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist and an authority on children in cults.

But under questioning from defense lawyers who lined up in the courtroom aisles to have a turn at each witness, the state's experts acknowledged that the sect mothers are loving parents and that there were no signs of abuse among younger girls and any of the boys.

The testimony came on Day 2 of an extraordinary mass hearing over an attempt by the state of Texas to strip the parents of custody and place the children in foster homes away from the compound inhabited by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

A witness for the parents who was presented by defense lawyers as an expert on the FLDS disputed the state's contention that a bed in the retreat's gleaming white temple was never used to consummate the marriages of underage girls to much older men.

Instead, W. John Walsh testified, it is used for naps during the sect's long worship services.

"There is no sexual activity in the temple," Walsh said.

The children were seized this month in a raid on the desert compound because of evidence of physical and sexual abuse, including the forcing of underage girls into marriage and childbearing.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther boiled it down this way: "The issue before the court is: Can I give them back?"

Attorneys for the children and the parents appeared to be trying to show in cross-examination that their children were fine and that the state was trying to tear families apart on the mere possibility that the girls might be abused when they reach puberty several years from now.

Only a few of the children are teenage girls. Roughly a third are younger than 4 and more than two dozen are teenage boys. But about 20 women or more gave birth when they were minors, some as young as 13, authorities say.

The judge controlled the hundreds of lawyers with a steelier hand Friday than she did the day before.

Under cross-examination, state child-welfare investigator Angie Voss conceded there have been no allegations of abuse against babies, prepubescent girls or any boys.

But her agency, Child Protective Services, contends that the teachings of the FLDS — to marry shortly after puberty, have as many children as possible and obey their fathers or their prophet, imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs — amount to abuse.

"This is a population of women who appear to have a problem making a decision on their own," Voss said.

In response, the FLDS women, dressed in long, pioneer-style dresses with their hair swept up in braids, groaned in chorus with their dark-suited attorneys.

Walsh disputed that young girls have no say in who they marry.

"Basically, they're into match-making," he said of the sect, adding that girls who have refused matches have not been expelled.

"I believe the girls are given a real choice. Girls have successfully said, 'No, this is not a good match for me,' and they remained in good standing," he said.

Perry testified that the girls he interviewed said they freely chose to marry young. But he said those choices were based on lessons drilled into them from birth.

"Obedience is a very important element of their belief system," he said. "Compliance is being godly; it's part of their honoring God."

Perry acknowledged that many of the adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, "I have lost sleep over that question."

Under questioning, Perry also conceded the children would suffer if placed in traditional foster care.

"If these children are kept in the custody of the state, there would have to be exceptional and innovative programmatic elements for these children and their families," he said. "The traditional foster care system would be destructive for these children."

At that, dozens of FLDS parents applauded.

[Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, said courts have generally held that a parent's belief system cannot, in itself, justify a child's removal. He said, for example, that a parent might teach his child that smoking marijuana is acceptable, but only when he helps the child buy pot does he cross the line.

"The general view of the legal system is until there is an imminent risk of harm or actual harm, you can't" take the children, Volokh said.

The raid was prompted by a call from someone identifying herself as a 16-year-old girl with the sect. She claimed her husband, a 50-year-old member of the sect, beat and raped her. Investigators have yet to identify her among the children seized.

Jeffs is in prison for being an accomplice to rape. He was convicted in Utah last year of forcing a 14-year-old into marrying an older man.

Walsh testified that the renegade Mormon sect did not promote underage marriages until imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs took over as the sect's "prophet."

"He encourages marriage," Walsh said. "In some ways, he's indifferent to their age."

Associated Press writer Jennifer Dobner contributed to this report.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: Sayyyyyyyy what! All the hoopla over beatings, broken ribs, child slavery, marriage beds, incest, etc., has now dissolved into mere "indoctrination", by loving but stern parents????

TODAY was the opportunity for the state to trot out all the secret investigations they had going on to substantiate the charges, and...nothing. Zero, zip, nada.

The state's own "expert" testifies that foster care would be destructive, without "reprogramming". I was rebuked as a conspiracy theorist/crystal ball gazer(see post 106, page 5) for suggesting that very possibility...by a member who claims to be a career social service worker! Can't wait to hear the response to that one! (Bet he'll never show up again).

But all the unanswered questions, and backtracking doesn't matter.

As much as this case revolves around religion, belief in the wonderfullness of the state, and its swarms of agents in their endeavors, is itself a religion for some people. Criticize at your own peril.

 

[tyme]

This issue is a real mess.

Parents routinely pressure their children into or out of things. Relationships included.

However, society views sex as a form of harm that must be positively agreed to (somewhat like battery, only I'm not sure teens under 18 can consent to battery at all) before it can be legal. That clearly sets the bar higher when judging parental coercion of their children toward a relationship with much older partners... or any partner for that matter.

However, arranged marriages are a form of coercion that is accepted within society (as long as the child is above the age of consent or marriage age). This largely negates the last point when saying that society has the moral high ground in cases like this. Why should it matter that the child is now above the age of consent or marriage age if they're being coerced into doing something that generally requires positive consent? The fact that they're old enough to legally consent does not mean they are not being coerced by their culture and/or parents into doing something that would ordinarily be illegal... in extreme cultural cases, arranged marriage can mean servitude.

Going further, you have only to look to BDSM to find even more disturbing issues about legality of "consent" and relationships. The point is that the law oversimplifies areas like these. Some people may well be within the law even while having criminal intent, as long as they can get the victim to agree to certain things. In other cases, some may run afoul of the law even when they have no criminal intent and even when both the "abuser" and "victim" do not view themselves as being involved in any crime. And the "victim" later deciding that he or she was the victim of a crime doesn't necessarily make it true.

That said, find me some email or written correspondence from one of the alleged statutory rapists or child abusers where there's indication of ulterior motives for his marriage, something that goes against the beliefs of his so-called religion, and I'll side with CPS and the courts in that particular instance in a heartbeat. Or, show me such a pattern of such ulterior motives in more than a few cult members, and I'll consider the entire "religious" belief system on that compound a sham for the purposes of underage sex, and I'll consider everyone there criminally responsible.

 

[Playboypenguin]

hammer4nc

Wow, the parts of that text you chose to highlight is really alarming and very telling of your personal bent which is apparently more important to you than the safety of the children. It is very easy to see your personal bias and how you find it more important than seeing to the safety of the underaged persons involved.

To side with a leading statement by a defense attorney that raising a girl from birth to accept her fate and to not question male authorities and then placing a 13 year old girl with an adult man is "merely matchmaking" is repugnant at best. :barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

Also, you seem to be making a lot of leaps in logic to determine that the state came up with zip and that they have presented all their evidence and had nothing. I must have missed that in all the coverage I saw today and it is definitely not mentioned in the article you are citing.

 

[tyme]

Or more simply:

If society allows any form of arranged marriage, or tolerates any documented instance of parents explicitly suggesting sex partners to their children, then society should lose any ability to judge quasi-religious cults like this one, no matter how deviant they may be. Also, if society allows marriage (with parental consent) at a younger age than the age of consent, that's effectively the same thing.

 

[JuanCarlos]

If society allows any form of arranged marriage, or tolerates any documented instance of parents explicitly suggesting sex partners to their children, then society should lose any ability to judge quasi-religious cults like this one, no matter how deviant they may be. Also, if society allows marriage (with parental consent) at a younger age than the age of consent, that's effectively the same thing.

I think the idea of a marriage age (with parental consent) being different than age of consent for sex is two-fold, at least as far as I see it.

One, there's the implication that sex inside a marriage is different than sex outside a marriage. There's an actual commitment and, at least in theory, you wouldn't have a guy marry a younger girl just to use her for sex.

Two, the idea is that at 16 or 17 it is (hopefully) more a case of actual parental consent, rather than the parents choosing the husband (or wife). Basically, as I said before, a 16-year-old girl actually has a realistic chance of making it out on her own if she decides she doesn't like her chosen husband...more so than a 13- or 14-year old, at least. A 16-year-old is (in theory) more likely to actually be choosing a husband and asking the parents to sign off on the idea, rather than being arranged into a marriage.

Also it should be noted (in Texas at least, it varies) that the age of consent for sex isn't an issue for small age differences (<3 years). So in theory a 14-year-old girl can legally have sex with a 17-year-old boy. or 16/19. It's only when you add actual older men into the mix that the law throws up the big red flag.


EDIT: Agreed that the whole thing is a bit of a mess, though.

 

[toybox99615]

court ordered DNA test

Now in a few days we have a better knowledge of who is the father of these kids. I'm betting there will be a few old geezers disappearing before its test time. There might actually be some mommies supprized to find out who daddy is. And might be a few surprises when baby is the offspring of someone other than the husband. What a fiasco to try and chart.

 

[gc70]

They also had informants inside the compound and other evidence that will surface as the trial progresses

The informant's information should be interesting if it is ever introduced in court. From the April 6 affidavit by Texas Ranger Leslie Brooks Long:

On April 6, 2008, Sheriff Doran advised Affiant that, over the past four years, Sheriff Doran has worked with a confidential informant who is a former member of the FLDS; that the confidential informant has provided Sheriff Doran with information regarding the FLDS on more than twenty occasions over the past several years and, that on each occasion, the information was proven to be reliable, true and correct...

If the Sheriff failed to act on reliable information about abuse and criminal activity for four years, he was derelict in discharging his duty.

 

[gc70]

From the Denver Post: Rangers confirm probe of Springs woman's calls

Texas officials confirmed today 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.

The Texas Ranger Division of the Texas Department Public Safety said in a press release that it was "actively pursuing" an ongoing investigation of Rozita Swinton and said they accompanied Colorado Springs police when they executed a search warrant at her home on Wednesday.

They said the search turned up several items that indicated a possible connection between Swinton and telephone calls made regarding polygamist compounds in Texas and Arizona.

Flora Jessop, a former polygamist sect member, says Swinton, 33, called her posing as a young abused girl and could be the same person whose complaints led to the April 4 raid on the YFZ (Yearning For Zion) Ranch in Eldorado, Texas.

Jessop said she first received a call from a woman, since identified as Swinton , claiming to be an abuse victim named Sarah on March 30.

Authorities say a girl with the same name called a San Angelo, Texas, hotline March 29, claiming she was 16 and "spiritually married" to a man who would "beat and hurt her" whenever he became angry.

But the hotline call wasn't publicized until after authorities raided the ranch and took custody of more than 400 children.

"It does kind of indicate (Swinton) made those calls," Jessop said. "There was no press on it at the time."

Jessop, who operates a rescue mission for teenage girls trying to escape the sect, said she recorded between 30 to 40 hours of daily phone conversations with Swinton, who alternately claimed to be Sarah; Sarah's twin sister, Laura; and Laura's friend.

"She initially said her name was Sarah and she was sexually abused by her new dad," Jessop said.

Swinton would call Jessop after 8:30 p.m. at night and speak in a subdued voice because she said that is when others in the compound were sleeping.

"She was very convincing," Jessop said. "She very much thought this out." The person obviously had studied the FLDS culture, she said.

Jessop became suspicious and contacted the Texas Rangers after the same person, who sounded like a frightened young girl, called saying she was Sarah's sister and lived in Colorado City.

Jessop sent recordings to the Texas Rangers, who traced the calls to Swinton's phone.

Colorado Springs police arrested Swinton Wednesday on local charges involving calls in February in which she claimed to be an abused child being held in a basement.

Swinton also was arrested on a fugitive warrant from Douglas County relating to another false-reporting case, according to Colorado Bureau of Investigation records.

Swinton was charged June 28, 2005, with obstructing police and making a false police report. She pleaded guilty to the false-reporting charge and is currently serving a one-year deferred judgment in the case, according to Douglas County court records.

 

[Derius_T]

JuanCarlos:

First of all, as I mentioned several times, I don't agree with what is going on. I would never condone it, nor would I ever allow or encourage my girls, or any others to marry (or have sex) at such a young age. In fact, as Christians, we do our best to teach them to abstain prior to marriage. As I said several times, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Arranged marriages were and still are common in some societies throughout recorded history, including in the Bible, and for what we would consider young girls. Before the New Testament, in fact, it was common practice, and perfectly acceptable. In fact, some of the greatest men in the bible, who no doubt sit in heaven today, married, and fathered children by what we would consider to be young girls.

Just stating that PERHAPS, JUST PERHAPS, these people have similar beliefs?

To personally attack me or to make demeaning comments towards me for simply discussing both sides of the argument is kinda juvenile don't you think?

Simply being the child of a teenage mother is not a sign of abuse (of the child, not the mother). So that answers 1. In fact, that assertion was silly enough that I'm not sure why I'm responding, but I'll go ahead and finish.

Or to insinuate that I insulted, or meant to insult ANYONE by my comments, thats just plain inflamatory.

In seriousness, though, this supposed "lack of supervision" would appear to occur in a majority of homes, given median ages of lost virginity. In fact, I'll go ahead and suggest that you're insulting the parents of more than a few posters here, even some of the older ones, though I'll not ask anybody to come forward. Plus you're probably insulting many of the parents who post here, though some of them may not even know it.

Let me just ask this. Do you see any difference between an underage girl choosing to have sex with her teenage (possibly equally underage) boyfriend, and a girl being arranged to have sex with a 40-year-old (or even 25-year-old) man? Please don't bother responding to my post unless you're willing to answer that question.

And the answer is yes, I do see the difference. Do you even know what playing Devil's Advocate means?

And what if the girl "chose" to have sex with a 40 year old man? You can argue that she was coerced, or brainwashed, but then wouldn't you have to also argue that anyone who does or does not do ANYTHING, based on what they were taught (coerced, brainwashed) by their religion falls under the same catagory?

Oh, and to respond to your original foolishness:

And really, I may not be as eloquent as some, and I may not get my point across as easily as others, but I thought it was VERY CLEAR when I have said multiple times that I do not agree with what they did to these kids. I was just providing a different look at the situation.

If you are incapable of giving answers or opinions without resorting to this type of behavior, maybe you shouldn't? I mean really, we're all adults here.
I have young daughters too, and you can bet I'm just as sick and outraged as anyone else with any common decency. But you cannot ignore the fact that wether it is legally or morally right or wrong, alot of these people seriously believe that they are doing the will of God. Alot of atrocities have been commited throughout the years all by the devoutly and fanatically faithful, in the name and service of God. Look at some of the things done by the Catholic Church during the inquisition for instance.

 

[PWK]

I have been following the foolish discussion on this topic all along.
On such a board as this to hear so much disregard for the constitution, so many false assumptions such presumptuousness now this comes out:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5713823.html

"The calls to the former sect member, meanwhile, led the Rangers to Colorado Springs, Colo., where police Wednesday arrested Rozita Swinton, a 33-year-old black woman.

She was charged with falsely reporting abuse to authorities in connection with a separate incident in Colorado Springs two months ago."

Will the right thing be done or will law enforcement continue with this charade of justice? My guess is the latter.

 

[hammer4nc]

Watching the Greta Van Sustern show last night...

Apparently, Rozita Swinton, who had been previously arrested for making false calls in 2005, had also been calling an anti-FLDS activist about the same time the bogus calls in Texas were made. Very similar MO as in Texas, pretending to be an abused child/bride.

The activist started to get suspicious, and she alerted authorities, taped calls, etc.

So Greta asks the lady, "If you became suspicious, how come trained law enforcement investigators didn't take the time to confirm these calls before taking the precipitous action in raiding the ranch?

The question, of course, went unanswered. Just as it has in this thread.
Officials wanting to believe the worst, should be excused for negligence. For creating all the phony headlines, and wanted posters. After all, they were acting in "good faith".

Another boundary is pushed in redefining official immunity. Whose potential impacts could be far-reaching for all citizens.

In the end, it doesn't matter, the advocates keep telling us.

 

[gc70]

In the end, it doesn't matter, the advocates keep telling us.

If, as it now appears, the calls that triggered this case were part of a hoax, it does not mean that everything goes away, but it does mean that the legal issues become more complex.

There will undoubtedly be challenges against evidence gathered under the original search warrant that focused on 'Sarah' and her 'husband.'

The removal of the children is another issue. While I have not been able to find the actual regulations, reliable media sources (i.e. Time magazine) have reported that the first children were removed from the ranch under the authority of the Texas CPS rather than a court order. Texas CPS apparently has the power to remove children, at least temporarily, without a search warrant or court order. Therefore, any deficiencies in the original search warrant may have absolutely no impact on the removal of the children.

The case goes on....

 

[ahenry]

So Greta asks the lady, "If you became suspicious, how come trained law enforcement investigators didn't take the time to confirm these calls before taking the precipitous action in raiding the ranch?

The question, of course, went unanswered. Just as it has in this thread.
Officials wanting to believe the worst, should be excused for negligence. For creating all the phony headlines, and wanted posters. After all, they were acting in "good faith".

I’m getting really tired of these comments. You posted the Search Warrant Affidavit yourself, you should know that their entry onto the property didn’t hinge on one call from this Colorado woman...not by a long shot. Her call was one element out of many. In fact, the affidavit listed no less than nine different instances of probable statutory rape, attested to by no less than three different TX CPS workers, via their personal interviews of at least seven different children. The affidavit also listed multiple claims and the Ranger’s personal observation of massive bigamy going on in the compound. Additionally the sheriff had a Confidential Informant with 20 verified reportings. The day before obtaining the warrant the source reported claims of statutory rape. Moreover, elements of that most recent claim correspond to personal observations by the Ranger. the insinuation that law enforcement was derelict in their duty by not delving more completely into the calls made by this one individual are asinine at best. The bottom line is that law enforcement had more than enough to justify a search warrant regardless of the reports by this woman.

 

[gc70]

The bottom line is that law enforcement had more than enough to justify a search warrant regardless of the reports by this woman.

Here are the April 6th affidavits by the CPS Investigator and Texas Ranger that supported the follow-up searches and actions.

Has anyone found a source for the -original- affidavit or search warrant for the first search of the ranch that started on April 3rd?

Below are excerpts from the April 17th issue of the Eldorado Success of an interview of Schleicher County Sheriff Doran by Randy Mankin, editor and publisher of the newspaper.

Probable cause:

Mankin: Okay, let’s talk for a minute about probable cause. What was it about the raid that started on April 3rd that was different?

Doran: Well, there was a call to a family shelter hotline that was referred to Child Protective Services.

Mankin: And, what was the nature of that call?

Doran: A 16-year-old girl called to say that she was at the YFZ Ranch and that she had been abused.

Mankin: Physical abuse, or sexual abuse?

Doran: She reported being physically abused, even to the point of needing medical treatment. And, I believe there was a second call from the girl.

Mankin: Didn’t she also claim to be the mother of an 8 month old baby?

Doran: I believe that to be the case. She also said she was pregnant again.

Mankin: Okay, if she was 16 and her birthday was in early January, as described in the warrant, calculating the age of her baby and an extra nine months for pregnancy, that would make her 14 at the time the baby was conceived.

Doran: Probably.

Mankin: Wouldn’t that also indicate that there had been sexual abuse of her as a child?

Doran: I can’t argue with that.

Mankin: So, that was enough probable cause?

Doran: The request from CPS was our probable cause, but we combined that with information that myself and others have gathered over the past four years. All of that went on the affidavit requesting a warrant.

The confidential informant:

Mankin: You mentioned information you and others have gathered. Would some of that information have come from the confidential informant that was mentioned in the affidavit.

Doran: That is correct.

Mankin: Okay, on the subject of the informant. There was a bit of controversy this week when ABC News and others reported that your informant was a person inside the YFZ Ranch. Was that actually the case.

Doran: Absolutely not! You saw the affidavit. You know it said the informant was a former member of the FLDS. You and I both know that they don’t allow former members at the YFZ.

Mankin: Let me get this straight then...when the warrant was issued, the informant had never been at the YFZ Ranch?

Doran: That’s correct! To get a warrant, it takes a complaint from a victim or first hand knowledge of a crime. The informant provided an abundance of good information, but none of it was based on first hand knowledge and therefore it wasn’t enough to go to a judge with and seek a warrant.

Mankin: So the call from the 16- year-old girl was essential?

Doran: The request from CPS was essential. I suppose her call was essential to them.

And since this is a gun board:

Mankin: All right, how about weapons? Did you find any weapons?

Doran: Yes, we located some weapons, but none that were illegal.

 

[hammer4nc]

Texas CPS: Solution, or ???

Those who have advocated for this action, seem quite confident that the state action will improve the situation for these kids. Accurate? Maybe not.

If taking a microscope to the FLDS situation is warranted, perhaps an examination of the history of Texas CPS is equally appropriate. I'm no expert, here's some links I found in about 30 minutes.

1. CPS's Marleigh Meisner has been featured in the FLDS case, in this clip she admits kids are being housed in CPS offices, for lack of space.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...&q=texas+cps+&ei=eDELSO-uE5qgrAKSnvm7BA&hl=en

2. Growing Concern That Anti-Psychotic Drugs Are Being Misused On Children In Foster Care.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/eveningnews/main2104249.shtml

3. Video discussing widespread psychotropic drug abuse in Texas foster care, even for toddlers.
http://video.woai.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=55809&tf=woaiviewer.tpl

Really once you start googling this topic (foster care abuse), it is like drinking from a firehose.

Up to now, my main entry point on this story, was how the state appears to be cutting corners legally, to confiscate these kids. Basing the action on fraudulant calls that weren't properly vetted. Now, the state can't admit fault without looking totally incompetent. And, now seems to be doing everything possible to emotionally demonize the sect, to attempt to justify continued action.

As stated previously, this case plows new ground concerning police actions based on flimsy warrants. Seeking cover under specious claims of "good faith", "plain sight criteria", "emergency actions", etc. The implications are far-reaching, for all citizens.

Some on this forum have applauded the state's efforts, based on mistaken emotional premises; first, wildly exaggerating the suspected abuse within the ranch, and second, assuming that the state has something better to offer. Examining that second false assumption a little more closely, produces some disturbing conclusions. Open for discussion.

 

[Derius_T]

hammer4nc wrote:

Up to now, my main entry point on this story, was how the state appears to be cutting corners legally, to confiscate these kids. Basing the action on fraudulant calls that weren't properly vetted. Now, the state can't admit fault without looking totally incompetent. And, now seems to be doing everything possible to emotionally demonize the sect, to attempt to justify continued action.

As stated previously, this case plows new ground concerning police actions based on flimsy warrants. Seeking cover under specious claims of "good faith", "plain sight criteria", "emergency actions", etc. The implications are far-reaching, for all citizens.

Some on this forum have applauded the state's efforts, based on mistaken emotional premises; first, wildly exaggerating the suspected abuse within the ranch, and second, assuming that the state has something better to offer. Examining that second false assumption a little more closely, produces some disturbing conclusions. Open for discussion.

Anyone with any common sense can see that the action taken by CPS is illegal. The problem is that no one stans up to, or challenges the authority of CPS. After all, if you dare to do so, they say ''Well, we just have the best interests of the CHILDREN in mind...don't you?" (heard it before) and how can you fight against that statement without looking like a supreme jerk?

Anything you say against CPS practice makes you look like you agree with or sponsor child abuse, and nobody wants that label, so everyone shuts up....and the illegal activity and trampling of our rights by CPS continues unchallenged.

Now days, the abuse these children face in foster care could be just as bad, if not worse than anythig they hve experienced so far. Imagine the terror of these young kids right now. But its okay for US to cause them mental anxiety and abuse which may hurt them later in life, after all, we are doing it for the right reasons, don't you know.....

Walther on Friday continued an emergency order giving the state custody of the children after a sometimes chaotic two-day hearing in which the state argued that the teachings of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints jeopardized children.

We won't even go into the fact, again, that the state openly uses intolerance of religion as a basis for their decisions.....lets just focus on the ILLEGAL measures that were taken, and wait to see if something is done, or if it is allowed to continue unopposed.....

 

[gc70]

Anyone with any common sense can see that the action taken by CPS is illegal.

If the action conforms to Texas law, it is legal.

Texas Code, Chapter 262, Family Code

§ 262.106. INITIAL HEARING AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT COURT ORDER.

(a) The court in which a suit has been filed after a child has been taken into possession without a court order by a governmental entity shall hold an initial hearing on or before the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession. The court shall render orders that are necessary to protect the physical health and safety of the child. If the court is unavailable for a hearing on the first working day, then, and only in that event, the hearing shall be held no later than the first working day after the court becomes available, provided that the hearing is held no later than the third working day after the child is taken into possession.

(b) The initial hearing may be ex parte and proof may be by sworn petition or affidavit if a full adversary hearing is not practicable.

Other provisions of Texas law spell out the circumstances under which CPS is required to remove children... and the FLDS situation appears to meet those criteria.

 

[hammer4nc]

ACLU weighs in...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8993551

ACLU says constitutional rights threatened in Texas FLDS child custody proceedings

The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/20/2008 11:03:01 AM MDT

Posted: 11:04 AM- SAN ANGELO, Texas - The ACLU of Texas has joined the debate over the removal of 416 children from a polygamous sect's ranch more than two weeks ago.

In a statement released Friday before an order continuing state custody of the children, the organization said the situation has raised "serious and difficult issues regarding the sometimes competing rights of children and their parents."

Tom Green County District Court Judge Barbara Walther ruled late Friday that the state had proved all the children were in imminent danger of being abused or neglected by their parents, who are members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

"While we acknowledge that Judge Walthers' task may be unprecedented in Texas judicial history, we question whether the current proceedings adequately protect the fundamental rights of the mothers and children of the FLDS," said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas, in a statement.

While the ACLU "deplores" crimes against children, Burke said that "constitutional rights that all Americans rely upon and cherish - that we are secure in our homes, that we may worship as we please and hold our places of worship sacred, and that we may be with our children absent evidence of imminent danger - have been threatened" by the state's actions.

Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said officials may have violated the U.S. Constitution and state laws in the how they conducted the raid and the subsequent custody hearing.

"The government must ensure that each mother and each child in its custody receives due process of law in determining the placement of the children and other matters," the statement said.

Brooke Adams

 

[johnbt]

"Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas, said officials may have violated the U.S. Constitution and state laws..."

...but didn't say precisely how. Back to you, news at 11, headlines at 6, requests for donations to follow.

John