Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists' kids 3 minutes ago
AP via Yahoo ^ | 5/22/08

Posted on 05/22/2008 10:46:31 AM PDT by ElkGroveDan

SAN ANGELO, Texas - A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient" under Texas law. They did not immediately order the return of the children.

Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to become future perpetrators.

The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: betterthancrispy; biggovernment; constitution; cpswatch; cultists; donutwatch; duplicate; fascism; feminism; firstamendment; flds; freedomofreligion; governmentnazis; jeffs; kidnapping; longdresses; mobrule; molesters; mormon; patriarchy; polygamy; property; ruling; statistapologists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 1,321-1,331 next last
To: eleni121
The fundamental question is whether polygamy is legal in the US or not. if it is not and I suspect it is, then the polygamists should go to jail.

There is a lot to wonder about here. Our society allows (and promotes) various "lifestyles" and "lifestyle choices". Three women and a man can cohabitate and have as many children out of wedlock amongst themselves as they want and the state has no interest. Two men can live together and adopt children and the state has no interest. A person can engage in random sex with many and the state has no interest. Same sex marriages are on their way to being sanctioned.

One must wonder why, in this age, people have so much focus on this particular "lifestyle choice" over and beyond all others.

Perhaps it is because this one is "religious" in nature and religion is frowned upon. Perhaps it is because these people are not "hip" to using modern PR, lobbying, and lifestyle choice activism.

I wonder what would happen if two men had abused their adopted child and the authorities raided San Francisco and removed all adopted children from all gays in a swooping raid because "of reports". I suspect it would not go over well.

I think there is a fundamental unfairness involved here specifically because these people are backwards, ignorant, fundamentalist, and easy media targets. While I disapprove of them....I have to be very concerned about the double standard applied....and more importantly...why it is applied.
1,041 posted on 05/23/2008 9:41:50 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Block Watchers

And a new lexicon is born. Good job on this thread BE!

1,042 posted on 05/23/2008 9:42:09 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Heller: The defining moment of our Republic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

No clue.


1,043 posted on 05/23/2008 9:43:22 AM PDT by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1038 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Now you are showing what you think this is all about.

Fair enough, if polygamy in Texas is illegal, and it is punishable by jail time...

Then the State of Texas needs to charge the alleged polygamists, try them before a jury of their peers. If they are CONVICTED, then they should serve the punishment laid out by law.

Now, that wasn’t so hard, was it?


1,044 posted on 05/23/2008 9:43:54 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1028 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

Here’s a link to the VIDEO of the interview with Three of the FLDS women.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21231/flds-polygamy-6


1,045 posted on 05/23/2008 9:49:55 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I reserve the right to misinterpret the comments of any and all pesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 984 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

No need to apologize. Minor digs here and there aren’t a problem, I apologize for a minor stab myself. You, of course never called people child rape supporters and polygamists and accused people of being Mormons when they are not.


1,046 posted on 05/23/2008 9:50:57 AM PDT by commonguymd (Let the socialists duke it out. All three of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

The second part of the court’s statement was that the CPS brought no convincing evidence to the court of actual abuse; the part about under-age distinctions is where the CPS authority ends and therefore the DA should have brought that to court if it existed.

Since they are still being held by CPS the children are too young (under 17) to go out unattended while the rest should be free to go right now.


1,047 posted on 05/23/2008 9:52:23 AM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

If they lied to the judge to get the warrant, or withheld relevant information, then I think the warrant would have been invalid from the beginning. I think they may have already had the warrant when they found out that Barlow had never been in Texas. BTW, that was confirmed, not just by Barlow, but by Barlow’s Arizona parole officer.

Here is what I think happened. They went in the first time, using the fake phone call/Dale Barlow warrant. I don’t know whether they knew at the time they executed that first warrant that it was fishy. We may learn that they had information undermining that initial warrant before they ever set foot on the ranch. But they almost certainly knew that the first warrant was fishy before they seized the children.

After gaining access to the ranch the first time, they used the fact that they saw some girls who appeared to be pregnant teenagers as an excuse to go back again and again and seize children.

But the appeals court clearly said that the mere presence of a pregnant teenagers — if they indeed were teenagers — is not proof of “abuse.” And it is certainly not proof that all other children are in imminent physical danger, as the law requires.

Then, when these jerks got to the hearing, they put on evidence — not of physical abuse or physical danger. Rather, they put on “experts” to testify that the teaching of the FLDS religion to the children was “abuse,” sufficient to justify taking away each and every child. IOW, they wanted to punish these people for their beliefs, because those beliefs might, sometime in the future, cause some of the kids to participate in illegal acts. And that judge bought it. Because she is probably an idiot and because she almost certainly wanted to buy it.


1,048 posted on 05/23/2008 9:53:01 AM PDT by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; All

Does anyone think that this might be a set up on the part of the FLDS?

Lets look at the overall picture first. We have a vilified, persecuted, group of people whose leader is in prison. This group is no stranger to The Law and Court Rooms, they have been fighting the legal system for many, many years. They send a high profile, hand picked, well funded group of followers to Texas where they build a huge Temple and compound. This is a very visible statement.

The group is instructed to obey all of the laws of Texas especially regarding underage girls. Then they wait for the inevitable raid by the authorities. The basic plan was probably to simply demonstrate that there were no illegal activities going on, that will put the Texas authorities on the defensive and make them reticent to bother the FLDS again. The inside informant may very well have been a double agent, truthfully reporting to the Sheriff, as instructed by the FLDS leaders.

Now that the CPS has grabbed all of the children, I can almost see the FLDS lawyers salivating. They probably never imagined that something like this might happen, this is almost like winning the lottery. The CPS are probably dumbfounded right now that they don’t have a hundred cases of rape, incest, bigamy, murder, kidnapping, etc. and all the young girls lining up to testify against their torturers. The CPS seems to have simply acted on the assumption that if they grabbed everyone then they would be able to find enough cases of abuse to justify their actions.

I wonder what the odds were of the CPS finding no statutory rape cases? I am almost beginning to feel sorry for the CPS. Who would have guessed that the FLDS compound was not a cesspool of rape and incest based on everything that has been reported about the FLDS.

The CPS is facing a big dilemma right now. If they don’t appeal they will look like idiots giving the children back to the FLDS. If they appeal and lose, they will be facing a permanent diminishment of their agencies power and possible lawsuits ranging into the hundreds of millions. This is high stakes poker and I am beginning to think that the FLDS have a few aces up their sleeves.


1,049 posted on 05/23/2008 9:53:34 AM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 954 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy; Peter Libra

And here is three of the FLDS men.

And they are their own worst enemy.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21235/flds-polygamy-7


1,050 posted on 05/23/2008 9:55:27 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (I reserve the right to misinterpret the comments of any and all pesters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 984 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2020282/posts?

AUSTIN – Texas Child Protective Services will ask the state’s highest court to keep a polygamist sect’s children in state custody, following a Thursday appeals court ruling that ordered the youngsters be returned to their homes.

Texas Supreme Court spokesman Osler McCarthy said attorneys for the state called Friday morning and said they’d be “filing an action in this court” later in the day.


1,051 posted on 05/23/2008 10:00:13 AM PDT by deport ( -- Cue Spooky Music --)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

You are going off on tangents. We are talking about polygamy. Not a lifestyle. Polygamy. Overturned in Reynolds. Read the decision.

As for the creepies in Texas, go after them on welfare fraud, child molestation, polygamy whatever. Put them out of business. Totally.

Deny them every hidden niche they can conjure up behind their “religion”.

If Texas/FEDS don’t have the cojones to do that, get ready for human sacrifice...of course based on one’s “religion”.


1,052 posted on 05/23/2008 10:05:17 AM PDT by eleni121 (EN TOUTO NIKA!! +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

“If that turns out to be the truth, then I would agree.”

IF? I thought the court ruled they had no legal basis for their actions?

Unless you have lots of money and a very good lawyer you don’t seem to have any rights these days. With those you can get away with anything.


1,053 posted on 05/23/2008 10:05:51 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1035 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

LOL

well I do have a SIG P229


1,054 posted on 05/23/2008 10:08:43 AM PDT by manc (a normal natural marriage is between a man and a woman, MA has a perverted sham marriages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 951 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

“Without finding any evidence, or just without accumulating enough evidence to attain a warrant before this? “

I assume they are one and the same. If he had evidence of a crime than he would be able to get a warrant. If all he had was suspicions then he wouldn’t be able to get a warrant (except in CA).

Seems pretty obvious what happened. They didn’t like this screwball and were looking for a way to bring him down. They had an out of state call telling them of a crime by a person they KNEW had never been in their jurisdiction. They used that flimsy excuse to stomp on these peoples religious freedom, property rights, parental rights, and on and on. Then once they obtained access to the site they sought to use material found to justify their illegal entry.

On top of that they tell us about the chapel bed used to celebrate marriages with the young girls. Never mind this was a complete fabrication.


1,055 posted on 05/23/2008 10:11:23 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1039 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
Then, when these jerks got to the hearing, they put on evidence — not of physical abuse or physical danger. Rather, they put on “experts” to testify that the teaching of the FLDS religion to the children was “abuse,” sufficient to justify taking away each and every child. IOW, they wanted to punish these people for their beliefs, because those beliefs might, sometime in the future, cause some of the kids to participate in illegal acts. And that judge bought it. Because she is probably an idiot and because she almost certainly wanted to buy it.

I would posit this: The people who took the children are the same who believe that motherhood *in general* is a trap. I think that they believe that any woman who chooses motherhood and family over college and carers are "brainwashed" and hasn't been "liberated" via the feminist movement. In their mind, a group of women who choose a conservative lifestyle must be abnormal.

1,056 posted on 05/23/2008 10:13:36 AM PDT by Marie (Why is it that some people believe everything that happens is the will of G-d - except Israel?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1048 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
You are going off on tangents. We are talking about polygamy. Not a lifestyle. Polygamy. Overturned in Reynolds. Read the decision. As for the creepies in Texas, go after them on welfare fraud, child molestation, polygamy whatever. Put them out of business. Totally. Deny them every hidden niche they can conjure up behind their “religion”. If Texas/FEDS don’t have the cojones to do that, get ready for human sacrifice...of course based on one’s “religion”.

I think you miss the point of my post. That point being....why is the "lifestyle choice" of polygamy singled out when so many other similar "lifestyle choices" are ignored, condoned, or promoted?

One really does have to ask that question whether they agree with that "lifestyle choice" or not. I suspect it has to do with a combination of the fact that it is based in an unapproved religion and that its practitioners are too dumb to join the liberal alliance.


1,057 posted on 05/23/2008 10:14:24 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Yes...and justafiably so. I find it interesting that the court would rule that, in essence, there was no legal right or reason to take the children, but did not order them returned.

It is clear that the entire basis for the warrant and raid were, as many saw early on, a sham and hoax, so why then not return the vast majority of the children to their mothers?

This has not finished paying out by a long shot...but I believe the state of Texas is going to pay heavily financially for this...and I believe that there are those who should also pay criminally for it.

The real shame is that, IMHO, they have made it much more difficult in the future, should true evidence and defendants come forward, for the State to address those issues with this group or others should they arrise.

1,058 posted on 05/23/2008 10:18:50 AM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
You are going off on tangents. We are talking about polygamy. Not a lifestyle. Polygamy. Overturned in Reynolds. Read the decision.

To this point I say....sodomy is also illegal in many places yet those laws are unenforceable. You are using a law on the books to say that polygamy is not a "lifestyle choice" when there are laws on the books against other "lifestyle choices". The difference you propose is not a difference.

So again I ask...why is polygamy cracked down on when other things that also have laws on the books against them are not? The reason is that some are "approved/tolerated" and some are not "approved/tolerated". Some laws are judged archaic and some are not. Why? What is the difference? The addition of religion to the mix is one....not being part of the liberal alliance is another....and not being media/PR savvy is another.


1,059 posted on 05/23/2008 10:20:28 AM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

They are not dummies. They are crafty/conniving/sneaky as hell. I’m sure they have reat the best legal advice - ACLU, Muslim groups, Libertarians, secularists, etc. That is what I gathered from the King interview with them last night. Scary not dumb.

As for other lifestyle choices...such as homosexual marriage/adoption my only response is that states get goofy.

We need a SC packed with Alitos and Scalias and Thomas to right those injustices.


1,060 posted on 05/23/2008 10:22:31 AM PDT by eleni121 (EN TOUTO NIKA!! +)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 1,321-1,331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson