Posted on 05/21/2008 5:50:14 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
I haven’t seen a single poster on a single one of these threads that I think sees children as property. I also haven’t seen a single poster condone child abuse. You are simply a classic case of someone that when you don’t know how to make your point in an arguement you resort to attack- name calling.
I still think it is very childish to call names and I think you were way out of line with that post. It made you look ignorant- but if you don’t mind I guess I shouldn’t either.
“CPS acted under color of law, and correctly so given the information they had at the time.”
Interesting assertion - given the 27-yo that they kidnapped, who presented both her BC and DL before they took her into custody, I would love to be on the jury.
The raid on FLDS is something liberal democrats would support. Right down their alley. But so-called conservative Republicans. I am shocked to find so much support for a Janet Reno type raid on this site.
Do you want criminal trials or what? That can be arranged.
You read the search warrant posted by deport, right?
So you saw that the state agreed that there were multiple residences in the compound, right?
If the official document that led to the raid acknowledged that there were multiple residences in the community, why do you still insist they were all one residence?
Or more to the point, if (as you insist) having a single address means you are legally a single residence, why does the search warrant note they had a single address, but mention there are multiple residences?
It’s clear the CPS knew that they had to call out all the residences at that address, in order to be able to go into them. It wasn’t enough that they had a single address — that fact is meaningless in discussing how many different residences there were in the compound.
I could come back with a warrant drawn up like the ones used by CPS and the sheriff that indicated that every building on your ranch should be searched.
End of story.
Again, you are the one who decided where the "gate" was. At the same time the USPS has issued a rule that allows you, or others at your ranch, to post a box on the right of way at the side of the road and receive mail addressed to that box. They'll give you a box number (or Rural Route Identifier Code of some sort) so you can do this. That's why you sometimes see lines of mailboxes near a "gate".
In fact, if you wanted, you could probably just go post a box along the line of travel of any rural route carrier and get mail even if you didn't live anywhere near.
Rural route delivery operates under slightly different rules than City Delivery, but all the basic principles are the same (except the box on the line of travel and you don't even have a residence in the area).
Yes, this country still has Mountain Men and wanderers in the wilderness. Provided they keep the box clear of mail and don't stuff it full of rattlesnakes, everything is cool.
My guess is they simply didn’t have a copy of the search warrant for each officer in the raid. The search warrant seems to clearly call out all the residences on the property.
F(lds) could have made it easy for them but they didn't.
a lot of people said they lived in a single dorm. Because other people said they lived at the same “residence”, which is also false, but having read it, people were misled and assumed it meant they all lived in the same dorm.
There is much misinformation, some of which we are trying to correct here by pointing out that there were multiple residences on the campus, as called out in the search warrant.
No one fired a shot here.
Did you think they should have?
And Utah DL? Give me a break. They pass those things out to illegal aliens just as soon as they show up to mow grass. They're notorious.
Your response indicates that you did not read the warrant, or if you did, you did not understand it.
You should go back and READ the warrant, specifically the place where they discuss what is covered by the warrant, and compare it to what you just wrote.
Or if you want, let me know and I’ll do your work for you. Becuase it is just that important to end this falsehood once and for all.
That's not the law in this country. Children also have rights.
You remind me of a poster who refused to accept that they had the number of boys at the ranch completely wrong, because I was citing CNN as a source. Even though the CNN information was proven correct by citing other sources.
I haven’t found any pro-FLDS people yet. If I find one, I’ll ask them if they think their children are property. Nobody has said so yet that I’ve seen.
Took several hours for someone else to publish. That's why I didn't enter it as a thread ~ just made comments about the tale within the context of existing threads.
You don't believe CNN do you?
They took her into custody as a “disputed minor”, and only released her today.
As you knew, since you have been all over these threads.
And ... unless CPS has clear and convincing evidence to REFUTE her Utah BC and DL, they kidnapped her, both in fact and in law.
Death-penalty felony, you know?
There is no escape clause that allows TX to assume a Utah BC and DL are fake. None.
Having a main mail addy would make it easier to monitor
They might even have thought that without an address system no one could write up a warrant to search the place. I suspect some of their regular lawyers have been sucking them dry with advice like that.
As a complete aside - children are property, in some states.
Not that one can drown the unwanted ones in a well, or something.
But that is how the law handles them.
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.