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.
Wow, you would have strung up Abrahan, Isaac and Jacob, wouldn’t you?
How about Charles Lindberg the famous aviator...should we remove any honors he might have received as well?
“They are not dummies. They are crafty/conniving/sneaky as hell.”
Remember what Sigmund Freud said about people who make such a big protest about other people’s alleged characteristics.
“It’s been painful to watch the number Freepers who are perfectly willing to throw out Constitutional protections because they don’t like the group involved.”
Bet the ancient Persians thought it was really grand when Mohammed’s forces crushed the eastern Roman empire — it wasn’t so cool when the Muslims then turned their sights on the Persians.
“I made the assumption that they were doing the same thing in Texas without any evidence.”
Well, you joined a huge club. I was a member myself for a while.
It’s interesting that the opponents of the FLDS have been trying to prevent them from getting work contracts with businesses or the government and then at the same time comdemn those polygamists who do turn to government assistance.
Well is sounds like they took some kids, along with mothers, away from the ranch the day after they first raided the ranch.
The FLDS wouldn't allow authorities to enter the Temple and they basically had to force their way in on the second day.
At some point they expanded their warrant based on what they had found on the ranch.
It would have been hard for them to know if the warrant for Barlow was baseless right away because the FLDS were denying them access to parts of the ranch, and lying to them about the identities of some of the children.
They may have had increasing suspicions that the call was bogus, but wouldn't the original warrant still have been valid unless they knew it was baseless before the executed it? If they started feeling very suspicious of the validity of their warrant do they need to stop searching even if the find evidence of a crime that allows them to expand it?
As I said, the appeals court says that, whatever they think they saw, it wasn’t enough to remove the children.
They knew that the warrant had problems, not because they didn’t find Barlow on the ranch, but because they were in contact with Barlow and his attorney and parole officer in Arizona.
“I thought the court ruled they had no legal basis for their actions?”
I thought the appellate court ruling was , after reviewing the evidence and testimonies, that removing all the children was not justified.
There was a legal basis for removal of all the children, but the CPS didn’t meet the requirements to keep the children in custody.
It was the Judge’s decision that they were overruling.
Not the action of the CPS in taking all the children.
The CPS followed the law, and their ‘rules’ in taking all the children.
Keeping them , at the order of the Judge, is what the appellate court overruled.
If I’m wrong, tell me.
“It’s interesting that the opponents of the FLDS have been trying to prevent them from getting work contracts with businesses or the government and then at the same time comdemn those polygamists who do turn to government assistance.”
I wasn’t aware anyone had tried (before the raid) to prevent them from getting government contracts.
They are currently under contract to produce parts for Military Aircraft.
“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.”
Which part was a fabrication?
“With those you can get away with anything.”
Yep. Tell that to Wesley Snipes.
Or Pellicano.
Or Spitzer.
OTOH, if you are Hillary....(and she doesn’t use money to keep out of trouble)
“Yep. Tell that to Wesley Snipes. Or Pellicano. Or Spitzer.
OTOH, if you are Hillary....(and she doesn’t use money to keep out of trouble)”
Didn’t Wesley just bond out? Spitzer resigned for breaking a law but hasn’t been prosecuted.
Do you really want a list of all the folks of wealth that have gotten off scot free?
Meanwhile, the man who supposedly raped and abused “Sarah” in Texas was actually living in Arizona. Before the raid, officials issued an arrest warrant for Dale Barlow, who served 45 days in jail last year after being charged with sexual misconduct in 2005 for marrying and impregnating his third wife when she was still 16.
But after interviewing Barlow in Arizona on April 12, Texas officials declined to arrest him. Barlow, who is still on probation, told reporters he hasn’t set foot in the Lone Star State since 1977.
There was a bed but it was never used or intended for the purpose they released to the media. We were led to believe it was part of the chapel and used to immediately consummate the marriage.
The only fact that was real was there was a bed in the building.
“It’s been painful to watch the number Freepers who are perfectly willing to throw out Constitutional protections because they don’t like the group involved.”
But it’s those Constitutional protections that made sure they had custody hearings, and that they had the right to appeal.
And it worked, so far.
They knew Barlow wasn't at the compound and never was at the compound before they even served the warrant. Before they served the warrant they knew that Barlow could not have been the been the correct person named in the warrant.
What did CPS and Texas say about it? "Oh Sarah Jessop probably just didn't know the name of her 'husband' and got his description wrong too". Yea right.
BTW two months later and still no Sarah Jessop either.
“Do you really want a list of all the folks of wealth that have gotten off scot free?”
Nope. I already got plenty to read just trying to keep up on this thread.
That scenario makes a lot of sense.
Heck, as long as we're speculating, it may have been even more devious than that. Suppose they deliberately chose to send a bunch of very young-looking adult women who would easily be mistaken for underage mothers...
That's probably a bit much. But I don't believe it's at all unreasonable to speculate that they expected a raid at some point, and made sure to cover their behinds accordingly.
The sheriff has said in interviews he talked to barlows the day of or the day before the raid ask him his license number for over the phone id and did not followup till after the raid.
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.