Posted on 06/07/2008 4:39:31 PM PDT by JRochelle
The allegations have been proven to be false. Sarah didn't exist. Now the CPS is screwed because they based everything on a nonexistent allegation. The best that they can reasonably hope for at this time is getting them for income tax evasion (imputed income). And all the CPS can do there is wait for the Feds.
[your idea of “proof” is not enough to damn these people the way you have... ]
And your proof of innocense would be? Oh, I see, just make assertions.
“We obviously aren’t speaking the same language”
Yes we are. It’s just that you keep dodging the ‘inconvenient’ questions.
I understand why.
“What do you think of this?”
It’s another loose end in this mess.
If that is what was in the affidavit, why would the LE’s go after Dale Barlow?
Maybe there was more than one complaint.
Maybe both Dale Barlow and Uncle Merrill were mentioned by abuse line callers, or maybe even by the same caller.
It may be that Dale Barlow was contacted by LE because of potential involvement in the case, but the LE may have known that he wasn’t the prime suspect.
It may be that the media ‘messed’ up in reporting the story, and once the cat was out of the bag, it couldn’t be put back.
The LE may not have gone on to clarify, because it isn’t their job.
Not a single one of us knows all the facts, nor has seen the evidence that was gathered.
I think this thing has been blown way out of proportion, but I also think there were crimes.
Once the media gets a hold of a ‘big story’ , it is usually the case that justice for all involved gets swept under the rug in the effort by the media to sell more laundry detergent.
Yes we are. It’s just that you keep dodging the ‘inconvenient’ questions.
I think I answered all of your questions. If I missed one, tell me and I will answer it.
[In a nation of laws such as ours, you are innocent until proven guilty and you have the right to be judged under individual due process by way of the constitution. Just facts. There is no need to prove innocence, because by law you are already assumed to be. ]
Actually, that is naive. The executive branch assumes you are guilty if they have probable cause, else why arrest you? It is really the judicial system that holds you innocent until judged by a jury. And even they won’t let you go without a bond, and maybe not even then.
The entire jury pool has a similar legal duty.
Perhaps I am naive as you say, but legally, in this case, there have been no charges, bonds, indictments to even consider whether one is presumed innocent until found guilty in the judicial system.
“I think I answered all of your questions. If I missed one, tell me and I will answer it.”
It has taken some time to get past the subtle slams, but I think we have done well.
Second, you did well in ignoring some of the more atrocious attacks by other posters, instead of responding in kind.
Third, I can go back, and list each time I posed a question and you dodged the answer. I am sure you could go back and find the same of my posts.
I should have called you on it when it happened, instead of bringing it up now. So, I’ll just apologize for throwing a belated dart.
So, rather than waste time, I would rather go forward, if that’s OK with you?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It would seem to me to boil down to what you believe ‘probable cause’ means.
The warrant was issued. There is no doubt about that.
The LE were there, and did witness something that they state justified getting another warrant, and taking the evidence.
The evidence was taken with another valid ‘warrant’.
Had the LE went in with a search warrant for an escaped felon, and seen the same evidence, and not found the felon, they could have come back with a warrant, and seized any physical evidence.
I can understand your point that if the first warrant was ‘invalid’, then everything gets thrown out.
I have seen that happen many times. Whether that will happen here, I can’t be sure one way or the other. You seem firmly convinced, and I get that.
CPS was justified in getting their ‘foot’ in the door, based on a complaint.
The LE was with them.
The Warrant that the evidence was taken under was not the first one.
So, will it hold up in court? You say no, I say yes.
If I’m wrong, or you are wrong, let’s hope it is because the law is being followed, and not due to political, public, or media pressure.
I am wondering if the criminal cases will go through the same insanity the temporary removal of the children did.
It will probably depend on the evidence, or lack of it, as you suggest.
I ‘think’ there is plenty of evidence, but I think it will boil down to a few prosecutable cases, and may end up with only one final case, upon which all the criminal charges will be thrown.
Only time will tell.
“The entire jury pool has a similar legal duty.”
And even though they try their best, they are human, and often do not carry out that duty properly.
But, that is how it is supposed to work, and it is the law.
Justice is Blind (meaning unbiased) but sometimes that blindness leads to tripping over unseen obstacles.
FastCoyote said: “It is really the judicial system that holds you innocent until judged by a jury. “
WT:The entire jury pool has a similar legal duty.
Yes, they would be part of the judicial system, not the enforcing executive law enforcement system, whose mandate is to apprehend and accuse people OF guilt.
If that were not the case, all laws would be moot.
Me:If, and when the arrests are made, I betcha CPS can and will go back in and take children into custody.
You: If pigs had wings they could fly.
However I disagree with the following.
I ‘think’ there is plenty of evidence, but I think it will boil down to a few prosecutable cases, and may end up with only one final case, upon which all the criminal charges will be thrown.
The only 'evidence' that the CPS still claims are 5 women in the 17 year old age range who are pregnant. We may see some charges there, but if the fathers aren't already in another State they would be incredibly stupid. With no witnesses who will testify, no DNA from the fathers, no perps to arrest, Texas has no case.
I would like it if you could convince me otherwise, but the CPS really screwed it up. I still think that the best shot at getting the FLDS now, is tax evasion, based on imputed income.
What the CPS should have done is used the warrant as an excuse to investigate. They should have taken half a dozen investigators and parked their butts in the FLDS compound for a month and done a thorough investigation, especially of the men. Certainly after a month long, thorough investigation they should have had an airtight case, been able to arrest the perps and been praised as heros.
Acting in a responsible, methodical method makes all the difference. Going in with Swat teams, armored personnel carriers, kidnapping adult women and seizing all the children based on a hoax call is a mite excessive, wouldn't you agree?
"Some of the children" This case is over, except for the lawsuits against the CPS and the State of Texas.
“Going in with Swat teams, armored personnel carriers, kidnapping adult women and seizing all the children based on a hoax call is a mite excessive, wouldn’t you agree? “
As long as you agree that taking select women and children from other states, against their will, away from their ‘fathers’ or ‘husbands’ , to the middle of the boonies, into a temple surrounded by 12’ protective walls to have sex with your cousins and brothers, is a mite excessive.
A might excessive? It is much worse than that. Texas though, because of the actions of the CPS, is going to be supporting those activities.
I suppose we can all always think we are next. Unlikely if we aren’t breaking the law.
susie
LOL
“what is the governor of Texas doing at a European business conference”
Advancing Texas business interest. This is a big economic state that does a lot business outside the US.
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.