Posted on 05/30/2008 2:00:59 PM PDT by Utah Girl
SAN ANGELO, Texas — Lawyers for Child Protective Services have made a proposed agreement to return hundreds of children taken from the Fundamental LDS Church's YFZ Ranch.
The agreement is being discussed by lawyers for mothers, children and child welfare authorities in a hearing underway that is in response to a Texas Supreme Court ruling that the children should be returned to their parents.
A copy of the order, obtained by the Deseret News, seeks to have children returned to their parents beginning Monday. The proposed agreement also requires parents to complete parenting classes and cooperate with an ongoing investigation into allegations of abuse and negect on the YFZ Ranch.
"CPS has access to the residence of the subject child for unannounced home visits during the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.," the agreement says.
Parents must provide the address of the residence and the names of everyone living in the home.
The proposed agreement also seeks to prevent the families from leaving the state of Texas. It applies to approximately 139 children belonging to 41 mothers, but Judge Barbara Walther said in court she expects it will be expanded.
"The court thinks this ruling would be the same for each and every child," she said.
is there any proof yet that Jeffs married 12 year olds at this compound....i heard they wanted his DNA for this....to comopare how I wonder.
boy...what a tar pit
Think about the fact that before the women turn 18 they are victims of a cult, and "brainwashed". The very second they turn 18, these "evil acts" are suddenly transmogrified into constitutionally protected religious beliefs.
If an 18 year old woman has the religious belief that it is her duty to God to sleep with an older man and bear his children, along with even dozens of her peers, this is protected by the constitution. Putting her on a bus at gunpoint and hauling her off against her will has got to be big trouble.
There was NO MEXICO in 1703 either - just Spain, and NO TEXAS either.
Technically I suppose the location had other names and ways of referencing it, don't you!
BTW, not only "things you forget" but "thinks you can't read" - and to think you want to be a spelling nanny!!
Which is why other, more modern statutes were drawn up to apply the principles to current situations and institutions.
That way folks wouldn't have to constantly re-litigate the application of that particular civil rights statute.
Anyone who ever blew the whistle on a cabinet level official knows all about it - you should try it sometime.
I rather wonder if the state of Arizona is going to allow "The Trust" to pay any of the F(lds) members lawyer fees.
The only recent example I can think of is Waco, and LE skated because most of the victims died.
What examples do we have of mass kidnappings by LE in the past few decades?
But the F(lds) are going to be up to their thighs in criminal cases eventually anyway, so the question won't even be pursued.
I wouldn't be so certain of that. When you get right down to the bottom of it, the "perps", if LE can find any, are middle-aged men. CPS knew this going in.
The ones CPS "took away" were children and young female adults. What justification do they have for kidnapping the ones they claim are "victims"?
My thinking is that CPS and LE are going to be in such big legal trouble for kidnapping young adult women, with proper and valid ID, that they are not going to be able to prosecute any of the men.
Kindly cite those Statutes.
Thanks in advance.
L
Remember, in the good old days when they busted the brothels they took away the madames, not just the girls and their johns.
I see no difference in what needs to be done here.
First you have to get someone / some court to agree to prosecute that provision.
Good luck with that in this socialist society.
And no; I am not being sarcastic.
It is a problem.
The adult women they "took", kidnapped, forced into vehicles at gunpoint and held against their will, were mostly 18 to early 20s. One was 27.
Now explain to me how even a 22 year old woman "grooms" even the oldest of her children, who will be 7 in the most extreme case, for early marriage to an older man.
Explain how they make that stick in court? Even a drunk defense attorney will be able to poke holes in the testimony of a seven year old, and some of these women had an oldest child who was still a toddler. There are going be 5 to 10 cases of CPS taking adult women by force and holding them against their will under circumstances that would be kidnapping if anyone else had done it.
Now even if there are women who were "grooming" their children for improper relationships, the problem with your theory is that this has not been charged. Even if it is a valid complaint, which I doubt you will find, CPS and LE can't hold people indefinitely without filing a charge against them.
The rights of these people have been so trampled that I doubt any charge can stick.
Except for that niggling little matter of no criminal charges having been filed anyway.
L
Said that, didn't I?
Technically I suppose the location had other names and ways of referencing it, don't you!
Something like "mouth of the Rio Grande. There wasn't much there on either side of the river before what is now Matamoros was founded. Or many people, even Indians, to refer to it.
Original sentence fragment:
it's been in America since 1703 near Brownsville TX
I would gig you on 1703 and "America" but the two continents were called that in 1703, well before in fact. But there was no Texas, probably not even a Tejas, (the word comes from the Caddo Indian language, meaning Friends or Allies) Not much action that far north in New Spain in 1703 though. Too much nasty dry territory to cross to get there, from either direction. Even today there isn't much between the Corpus and Brownsville areas, and there's a whole county (Kendy), 50 miles, with no place to stop and buy gas or get water along US 77 between Sarita and Raymondville. Flat and very bleak, once known as the Wild Horse Desert. You might see a cow along that 50 miles, or you might not not, even the cows are pretty thin on the ground there, plus they tend to blend into the scrub.
There are other areas with similar "founding histories" - the US East Coast. By 1609 there'd already been 30 permanent European settlements made North of Carolanna (now the Carolinas). Jamestown wasn't the first - it was the 31st. However, it had good backing, some records were kept, and we know about it.
There was even a Portuguese colony established in what is now Labrador by 1530. The Spanish disbanded it in about 1538 (when they took over Portugual).
To a substantial degree most of these earlier settlements were simply year round fish drying stations, or places where whalers brought blubber to boil down to wax and oil.
Same with the COTFB in 1703 - there's not a lot of information on it, but the Spanish used candles and lamp oil. It's not surprising they might tolerate a permanent whaling camp. Might well be long overdue for someone to find the site of that settlement - just like the 30 earlier settlements on the East Coast that are not yet under study.
NOTE: Within the last year or so they discovered the actual site of the fort at Jamestown (lost since a flood in the early 1600s) and the location of the Spanish settlemment on a bend in the James River (above Jamestown) just about Hopewell. A Senior Cruz wrote in his diary about being invited to leave Hopewell as it was shut down by the Spanish to be relocated to Jamestown as it was opened up by the English. I believe he became Mr. Crews as well. An older Huguenot settlement in the area was eventually accreted to Carter's Grove Plantation - it was initially settled by a fellow with what appears to be the same surname as other Huguenots known to have lived in other early settlements on the East Coast. Not sure on what the Spanish called their "mission" at Hopewell, but it was located well above the tidewater and had year round fresh water, something not then available below the falls at what is now called Richmond.
It’s not all that serious a problem if, in fact, it’s a problem at all. Divorces frequently result in changes of custody and yet that sort of thing gets done without either party (OR 50 or so if F(lds)) being charged with a crime.
You are attempting to leap into a totally different item for disccussion. There’s a leadership elite among the class of women in the F(lds). They are older. They’ve groomed young girls to perform coitus with older men.
Actually, you are the one who keeps changing the subject.
My point is that CPS and Texas LE kidnapped adult women at gunpoint and held them against their will. Adult women who have not been charged with any crime.
As much as you think other adult women at the ranch may be guilty of a crime, the ones who were kidnapped and held by CPS and LE have not been charged with any crime. However, the fact that they were taken at gunpoint and held against their will is a very serious crime committed by individual members of CPS and LE.
Not only should the individual members of CPS and LE face charges of kidnapping, enhanced by their use of a dangerous weapon, these criminal charges will go a long way toward impeaching their credibility in any charges against any other member of the group.
If there is a bank robbery, does LE take all of the tellers in the bank away and hold them for weeks without any charge?
If a crime has been committed, the perp should be arrested, not just anyone who happens to be in the vicinity.
At this point the only crimes we are certain of at the ranch are those committed by CPS and LE.
Now you are in here pretending the women didn't lie about their ages.
Now, about kidnapping children, you have a single unclaimed kid left on hand at the courthouse when this is over you are all going to jail for it, ya hear?!
I do understand, in fact, it is quite clear....our government is out of control.
The fact you refuse to accept that doesn’t mean it’s not so.
What planet are you living on?
The adult women told the truth about their ages and even produced birth certificates and Driver Licenses to prove their ages.
CPS and LE refused to accept these documents and kidnapped them at gunpoint.
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.