Posted on 05/18/2008 10:05:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
““Several said the mothers were denied access to their lawyers.””
I said couldn’t find. Actually, I think it was because the lawyers went with the kids, and that is ‘how’ the interpretation came about. So still, they couldn’t find their lawyers, because they were in the other room with the kids.
It’s a question of whether you can punish people because of their beliefs, and what they may or may not eventually do because of those beliefs, rather than on actions, only.
But what would you have said about my recommendation to remain silent? Wouldn't you be questioning whether I had anything to hide? Wouldn't you have supported the taking of my children on the sole basis of my refusing to verbally claim them?
Simply knowing the identity or the parentage of any given child in this case would not have resulted in the CPS not taking the child, would it? Therefore, the silence on the part of the parents would be a most reasonable response.
If I were dealing with a government agency, they could talk to my attorney within minutes of having intruded into my life. From me they would hear nothing.
“Are you agreeing with the strategy?”
YES. It was the only way that had to get straight stories, or try to get straight stories from the kids.
Now, if the CPS did not have legal right so separate them for questioning, that’s another story.
I believe they had lawyers for the children.
I agree the witnesses, especially the three ‘hostile’ ones, said that “they lied to the mothers, as a strategy.”
I don’t know if they lied, or they just decided not to announce the fact they were going to have to split up the women and children, to a crowd of over a 1000 people, in a coliseum.
Kinda like not announcing over the PA at the STADIUM in NEW ORLEANS that there might be rapists in the bathrooms.
“It’s a question of whether you can punish people because of their beliefs, and what they may or may not eventually do because of those beliefs, rather than on actions, only.”
The CPS has taken the children based on evidence that they went that extra step, and did those very actions that are against the law.
Which is separate from the LE taking action on those who did the action.
If your view of things were correct, they would have only taken girls at or near puberty, not all the children.
“But what would you have said about my recommendation to remain silent?”
Some did, some didn’t. Those who didn’t and lied, made it worse for those who didn’t.
” Wouldn’t you be questioning whether I had anything to hide?”
They have been ‘questioned’ for both remaining silent, and lying. But, we are not a court of law, so it doesn’t matter.
Depends. Did someone phone in a complaint, or Daycare, or the Welfare Department? Did the CPS investigate and find obvious instances of child abuse?
And then did you lie and say they weren’t even yours?
Simply knowing the identity or the parentage of any given child in this case would not have resulted in the CPS not taking the child, would it? Therefore, the silence on the part of the parents would be a most reasonable response.
Silence is one thing. Speaking, then changing your story means your ‘word’ becomes distrusted.
If the CPS catches you repeatedly lying, they pretty much are gonna take the kids.
If I were dealing with a government agency, they could talk to my attorney within minutes of having intruded into my life. From me they would hear nothing.
The women and children were surrounded by more lawyers than you’ve ever seen in your life, in one place.
Give me a break.
The CPS said half of the 53 "girls" aged 14-17 were pregnant or had children. FLDS says they can prove that 26 are 18 or older. You are assuming that ALL of the actual 14-17 year olds have children or are pregnant. It is also possible that ALL the pregnant ones, or ones with children, are the 26 eighteen plus women (half of 53).
“If your view of things were correct,”
That’s not likely. You need to get to know me more, before you make such questionable speculation.
: )
” they would have only taken girls at or near puberty, not all the children.”
(wasn’t that warren Jeff’s specialty?)
You lost me. Or, I lost me. Either way, I’m lost.
What specifically would limit it to just girls?
Did I say something stupid? ( as if that never happened)
“If CPS will lie to them how do you know they’re not lying to the public also? “
If a cop pulls you over, and asks for your ID, and you ask him why, and he says “you wandered over the yellow line”, (I know, runon sentence)
and, after finding out that you aren’t the person who just robbed the bank around the corner, tells you what it is really about,
Does that mean anything?
I’ve said it many times on these threads and I’ll explain it here now for you: this is about the tens of thousands of dollars in welfare support these “single” women receive from the state and federal governments, money that their menfolk take and bank. The government’s real concern is welfare FRAUD.
The FLDS men only marry one woman legally, the rest are called “celestial brides”. Because they are considered by the state and federal governments to be single women with chidren and the father’s names aren’t stated, this makes them eligible for MONEY derived from our tax revenues. This church pays ZERO $ tax revenue because it is exempt. These children are important mostly as cash cows. FLDS loses the children - they lose money.
Now can you see more clearly exactly what is happening?
You’ve got me there, buddy.
I don’t know how I kept missing the word ‘half’ when I read that sentence, but I did.
Seems I might get my promotion from ‘complete idiot’, to ‘Major Idiot’ pretty soon, now.
“It is also possible that ALL the pregnant ones, or ones with children, are the 26 eighteen plus women”
It is possible.
If true, then things could be a real mess, as far as the sex with a minor issue, which is the primary one.
Of course, it’s a mess no matter how you look at it, and we’ll have to wait until the hearings are complete to actually know how many, how few, or if any, based on the math you did, were underage.
I think the issue is that it is questionable whether the FLDS sect members, living at the YFZ Ranch in Texas were ‘bleeding the beast’.
We know they do it in other states. We know they violate child labor laws, in other states.
what we were arguing was whether there was any ‘proof’, that JEFFS still relied upon it, when he had tons of money coming in from some private corporations with large government contracts.
IIRC, JEFFS looted, more or less, the UEP, and they are suing him over it.
Did you know that the actual sect is not set up as a religious entity therefore not taking tax exempt status?
Do you have any reports of any of these folks in Texas taking welfare?
Since the DFHS was at the YFZ Ranch, dealing with ‘welfare cases, or complaints’, and are the ones who filed a complaint with the CPS, it would seem that there might have been FLDS members on welfare.
But, how many, how much, was it legal?
We don’t have any reported factual information, at least available to the public, or on the internet, or in the media.
“Why no snide comments about the dresses of the Amish or Memmonite women?”
Because they aren’t the subject of HEADLINE NEWS.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well then, if that’s the case why didn’t we see these type of comments when the Amish were in the HEADLINES a while back after the gunman killed a bunch of Amish children in their school?
“they would have only taken girls at or near puberty, not all the children.”
(wasn’t that warren Jeff’s specialty?)
You lost me. Or, I lost me. Either way, I’m lost.
What specifically would limit it to just girls?”
* * * *
Okay, here’s the analysis. Texas can take children who are being abused or are in “imminent danger” of abuse. “Imminent danger” means it is likely to happen soon.
Everyone thinks the “abuse” relied upon by the CPS is the underage sex — an action, not a belief. As you noted, the practice is to “marry” girls as soon as they are capable of childbearing.*
Therefore, if the underage sex were the “abuse,” the only minors being abused or in “imminent danger” of abuse would be girls who are at or near puberty.
But they took them all, including boys, who were not subject to underage marriage, and little children, who, even if they were girls, would not be in “imminent danger” of underage marriage.
So, to justify taking all the children, they broadened the definition of “abuse” to include merely living and teaching the children the FLDS religion. Of course, they couched it in psychobabble terms, saying that the FLDS were “grooming” the girls to be abused, and “grooming” the boys to be predators.
This is punishing the FLDS for their beliefs, not their actions. Not all FLDS enter into polygamous “marriages.” And not all FLDS girls marry while they are underage. But CPS is saying that, because of these people’s beliefs, and the beliefs that are being taught to their children, the girls might, someday, enter into a “marriage” before they reach the age of consent, and the boys may, someday, “marry” an underage girl. The mere possibility is enough to constitute “abuse” sufficient to justify removing all the children.
Is that any clearer?
____________________
*I’ve never heard of any widespread sexual abuse of boys, and I suspect it doesn’t happen any more among the FLDS than it does in any other group.
Same with the “broken bones” argument. CPS said 41 of the 462 kids showed evidence of past fractures. That’s less than 10 percent. It seems to me that it is not unusual for 1 in 10 kids to break bones in the normal course of growing up. Both my sister and I did. That’s 100 percent in my completely non-abusive parents’ home. Of my six kids, one broke an arm playing. That’s 16 2/3 percent. Likewise, I never abused my kids.
“Although the investigation is still ongoing, the DFPS reported to the Senate Committee their preliminary findings which they state are “cause for concern”.
* There are 27 girls who have indicated that they are 14 to 17 years old. There are an additional 26 girls who have provided conflicting information about their ages, at some points indicating they are minors and at other times saying they are adults. Of these 53 girls, more than 30 have children, are pregnant, or both. Six of these girls have two children, and two have three children.
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/05/flds-children-update-given-to-senate.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.