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

Skip to comments.

Oppal confirms Canadian children seized in Texas
CTV, Canada ^ | Fri. Apr. 18 2008 10:10 PM ET | CTV.ca News Staff

Posted on 04/18/2008 7:34:25 PM PDT by Chief Engineer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-176 next last
To: ican'tbelieveit; mouser

They had a valid warrant. They entered on the basis of that. They saw evidence of other crimes being committed. They sought, and received, another warrant based on what they saw and then acted on that.

Now, can someone PLEASE tell me which “rights” were violated? The only thing different about this case vs. other child abuse cases is that there are so many children involved. This is standard for handling child abuse cases.


41 posted on 04/19/2008 10:33:35 AM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mouser

When the warrant was issued, no one knew it was a crank call. Anonymous calls are often made by neighbors or even victims who fear retribution from the perps if their names are known. If a name IS known, it is usually put on the warrant, and the perps’ lawyers will know who it was.

Everyone who has seen the warrant believes (as far as it goes) it was a valid warrant. Whether the case will stand up in court or not is another matter.


42 posted on 04/19/2008 10:36:27 AM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

I just have to add—there was NO warrantless search.


43 posted on 04/19/2008 10:37:31 AM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

A valid warrant based on an anonymous phone call that may now be questionable at best. That should not be allowed in this country.

When will it be your neighbor calling you in for eating some banned food. And when the police break down your door at 2 a.m. with that “warrant,” and find out that you not only had that banned food, but you had a more serious violation.

INNOCENT until proven guilty. Based on an anonymous phone call, they had no grounds to enter to begin with. Much less take all of these children out and traumatize them even further.

We need to demand that our government get back to its foundations of treating us with basic respect and not viewing all of us as criminals that they just need someone to drop an anonymous complaint on.

And, when and if you do get an anonymous complaint, you need to investigate to see if there is actually a crime committed. Not rush in and then find your proof.

I know that the emotional response to what is happening to the kids in that situation are overwhelming, but we can’t dictate how people raise their kids. If there is an assumption of child abuse, then you need to prove the child abuse, then remove the abused child, and prosecute the abuser. But, if you don’t have evidence 400+ children were each abused, and all of the adults were guilty of abusing them in that situation.

So yes, I certainly see that rights to a warrantless search and seizure were violated because the grounds for the warrant were false, at best, if not outright criminal by the government.


44 posted on 04/19/2008 10:42:37 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
When the warrant was issued, no one knew it was a crank call.

and that is the problem they never tried to determine the truth

well time for me to go check horses and help friends load some wood have a nice day

45 posted on 04/19/2008 10:42:38 AM PDT by mouser (run the rats out its the only hope we have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

It wasn’t a warrantless search, period. The courts looked at it and decided it was valid. Maybe you should wait awhile before taking the bar exam, because this is how it’s done in the U.S. They had a valid warrant, they acted on it. What else would you have had them do?

And yes, “innocent” people can have their homes searched, too. It’s part of the process. They simply cannot determine if these people are guilty or innocent until they investigate the matter. They can’t investigate the matter as long as the alleged victims are with the alleged perps.

As for evidence, they have proof that girls way under age were being raped by these sick old men, some, according to what I’m reading, as young as 12 with this group, but among other similar groups, as young as 10. The evidence was right there in front of the investigators when they entered: 13 year old mothers are a real giveaway.

And finally, I COMPLETELY AND VEHEMENTLY disagree that people can “raise their kids as they wish.” They can to a degree—but they are NOT allowed to pimp them out for drooling dirty old men, nor are they allowed to physically abuse them as they do with the waterboarding of their babies.

Frankly, I am just STUNNED that people here will stand up for this kind of behavior.


46 posted on 04/19/2008 11:22:25 AM PDT by MizSterious (The Republican Party is infected with the RINO-virus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
A child protective agency investigator and a sheriff went over to the camp. They saw all that was needed for the warrant. Then they got a warrant. Then they served the warrant.

The "call" doesn't play a part in this.

47 posted on 04/19/2008 11:29:09 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
Rape conflicts with secular beliefs, of course. I oppose rape. Apparantly you don't.

Lucky you.

48 posted on 04/19/2008 11:30:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wita
WITA, as much as folks have gone over this with you, the "alleged perp" wasn't the subject of the initial investigation and visit. They came to see "Sarah". They were told there was no Sarah there (which, BTW, turned out to be a falsification of the facts ~ lots of Sarahs there).

While there they observed pregnant underage females.

BINGO!!!! ~ Probable Cause.

Affidavit written. Warrent obtained. Raid, as it's been called, undertaken.

The question of the "perp" is a criminal matter being handled by different people. The welfare of the children is a civil matter and is not subject to the rules you normally find in criminal law.

So, next time they come to the gate and ask for Sarah, tell them the truth. It'll all be better in the end.

49 posted on 04/19/2008 11:35:21 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner

There were underage pregnant females. THat’s your “evidence”. Now live with it.


50 posted on 04/19/2008 11:37:01 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote

You’re tracking down their URLs aren’t you? For followups?


51 posted on 04/19/2008 11:43:41 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: mouser
I think that Michael Devlin already tried that defense to keep the cops from taking away the Hornbeck and Ownby boys he'd kidnapped.

It doesn't work. That's why he's in jail for a very long time.

52 posted on 04/19/2008 11:47:25 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit
There was no "warrantless seizure". First of all, no one was "seized" ~ minor children were removed from a site with obvious sexual assault risks ~ you could see the victims walking around pregnant in fact.

This is a civil action. Now, if the real parents will open their mouths for the swab we'll get on with this and find out whose kid is whose and that part will be over.

The husbands looking to get back their child brides might have to wait a tad longer ~ like 16 years to life in a convenient prison, but that part comes later.

53 posted on 04/19/2008 11:51:05 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit
Your post is less than worthless; it's pure propaganda.

Doesn't Warren have anything better to do in prison than write garbage? Shouldn't he be getting on with building himself a butt shield or something ~ he's gonna' be in there for a doggone long time.

54 posted on 04/19/2008 11:53:22 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Little correction there ~ let's get this straight ~ the babies were not "waterboarded". Rather they were subjected to a form of "water torture". Given enough waterboarding you learn how to deal with it ~ after all, it's not torture.

No need to lose the benefits of waterboarding just because a bunch of perverts torture babies.

55 posted on 04/19/2008 11:55:40 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I saw the article about the court hearing. The CPS “investigator” was so SHOCKED by the underage girls pregnant. That has to be a good enough reason to seize the other 400 children. Maybe she should walk into any big city middle school or highschool. Maybe those underage teenage girls need to be ripped from their families because they are pregnant.

Why is it so shocking for this cult to do this and we have to take their children, yet we foster (as a society as a whole) this behavior in other arenas.


56 posted on 04/19/2008 1:25:24 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bonfire

Thanks for the ping.

Larry King asked him if he had ever been to the compound in El Dorado.

He answered he had flown over it, while looking for his ‘daughter.’

It struck me as very strange. I might fly over a ranch looking for a cow or a dog, but I think if I lost a daughter I’d call Law Enforcement.

It sort of left me with the impression that capturing other sects pawns (children) is the name of the game.


57 posted on 04/19/2008 1:25:46 PM PDT by Pebcak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
site with obvious sexual assault risks

There was an anonymous accusation that this was going on. There was nothing OBVIOUS about it. There was not an "investigation" until after the children were SEIZED!!!!!!! Yes, they were SEIZED!!!!

You should really take your emotions out of this case and look at it constitutionally.

58 posted on 04/19/2008 1:27:06 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

My post is a defense of our rights as Americans, guaranteed under the constitution. Are you afraid of that?


59 posted on 04/19/2008 1:28:28 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Pebcak

I agree, kind of a strange comment!

This case just gets more interesting (and perverse).


60 posted on 04/19/2008 1:30:16 PM PDT by bonfire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-176 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