Posted on 05/07/2008 9:06:11 AM PDT by Politicalmom
Two prominent Utah legal minds say there is little members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church can do to stop the momentum of Texas' investigation. In other words: The train has left the station.
The main reason is that states typically give broader powers to state officials regarding child welfare than criminal investigations.
"We tend to view this as a criminal investigation, but the authorities down in Texas are involved in a child welfare action," said former federal judge and University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell.
Cassell said when it comes to making sure children are safe, the court will want to review any evidence possible to ensure what it's doing is in the best interest of the children.
Challenging such evidence within a child welfare case is difficult. Unlike a criminal action, the legal standards for throwing out evidence is much lower. "It's the law in many jurisdictions that you cannot suppress evidence in a child protective action," Cassell said.
That's not to say that the case won't turn into a criminal one. If that happens, Cassell said attorneys for FLDS members can then challenge its admission.
One common question surrounding this saga has been the basis for the search warrants. The raid on the YFZ Ranch was prompted by phone calls by someone claiming to be a 16-year-old named Sarah Barlow. The teen said she was pregnant and in an abusive, polygamous marriage to a man.
During the raid, Texas authorities didn't find Sarah, but say they uncovered signs of abuse and a judge ordered all of the children removed and placed in state protective custody.
Authorities in several states are now investigating a Colorado woman, who, they say, has a history of posing as abused young women. They now suspect this woman may have posed as Sarah.
But wouldn't that invalidate the search warrant?
Not necessarily, says Cassell.
"The government doesn't always have to be right with the search warrant, it just has to be reasonable," Cassell said.
Salt Lake defense attorney Greg Skordas agrees, saying as long as law enforcement is acting on "good faith" that the information they are acting on is correct, the warrant is valid.
Cassell said history can also play a part. For example, if police act on information that a man with a court history of drug dealing is dealing out of his home, that can be taken into consideration in supporting their reasons for a warrant even if that information later turns out to be bogus.
In this case, FLDS members have been charged and convicted in the past for arranging underage marriages to young girls. That can play a part in Texas upholding its search warrants as valid.
During its investigation, Texas authorities have said they have uncovered evidence of physical and sexual abuse among children. Cassell said courts have upheld that if law enforcement sees evidence — even if it's evidence of a completely different crime than what the search warrant suspected — that evidence can still be used in court.
"They don't have to avert their eyes of evidence of other wrongdoing," Cassell said. "They have to show probable cause to be pulling up fish, but if they're looking for a bass and they find a salmon, they don't have to throw the salmon back."
Cassell said courts have allowed state agencies to share information, meaning evidence gathered in a child welfare investigation can later be used in a criminal one.
FLDS members will have a chance to challenge the evidence if criminal charges are filed. But Cassell and Skordas both say that will be the last thing to hit the courts. The most immediate thing the courts are concerned about is the safety of the children and establishing some sort of permanency.
"You can't fight city hall," Skordas said. "The FLDS haven't done themselves any favors either because they're so secretive."
Skordas said the best thing FLDS members could do right now is fully cooperate with authorities in their investigation, because that would likely result in getting their children back sooner.
He doesn't make any a single substantiated argument that their rights are being violated. He just strings together a rant saying that a series of their rights are being violated. There's not one remotely sound argument in that post. Feel free to read my response to him for more details.
They overlook that there were monogamous relationships at YFZ and other “compounds”.
Well, let's just assume that people are overlooking that, what's your point? The crimes of child rape, statutory rape, and arranging for the rape of a child don't really depend on if those taking part are monogamous or not.
In fact, they have gone as far as to lay guilt on non-affiliated LDS members, as well.
There are a few that have. So your response to people lumping LDS members in with FLDS members is to lump anyone who disagrees with you in with those attacking the LDS? You're doing what you are accusing other of doing, and then accusing everyone else that demands that your arguments make sense of being a lynch mob.
Normally sound-minded conservatives have turned into a zombie-like lynch mob BEFORE ALL THE FACTS ARE IN.
Interesting that you are more than happy to support those attacking the authorities in Texas with arguments that are logically unsound.
They are counting those men still waiting for their second wives as “monogamous”. None of them have ever said they won’t ever take more “wives”.
The children has temporarily been placed in custody because they have found credible evidence of abuse.
Bull, the children were placed into government custody BEFORE any police investigation was done. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because if you cannot even acknowlegde this, there really is no point in going further. Your bias prevents you from being objective. Thanks for wasting your time with me. My appologies for not reviewing everything you took the time to write to me.
You and the other anti-Constitutionalists believe that it is OK for the government to seize your children without charging you with a crime. I do not believe this should ever be allowed, under any circumstance. The notion that the state can kidnap your children and then conduct an investigation is the vileist, most disgusting violation of a persons constitutional rights (short of killing them) that I can think of. Most people would do ANYTHING to get back their kidnapped child. And I mean anything. Lying, is minor compared to just the personal situtations that I have witnessed when this has happened. Texas and constitution hating Republicans had better prepare themselves for president Obama. Because the anti-Mormon b.s., and that's what this really is for most of these posters, imo, has completely turned me off to the Republican party. The anti-Constitution folks on this thread show a southern state flag in their bio nearly every time I check a different poster. Imagine that, the Huckabees are still at it.
They were only "excellent points" if people are interested in baseless arguments. Lies and hyperbole might make good debating points for fLDS when talking to non-fLDS, but the rest of us prefer facts.
I’m not “anti-Constitutionalist”. The Constitution AND Texas law have been followed in this case.
You’d love the state to rush and blow this case, wouldn’t you?
Raped little girls are meaningless, right?
And your anti-Southern bigotry is noted.
Put down the bong and step away from the keyboard.
So because they were placed in custody before the investigation was COMPLETED, they couldn't have placed them in custody based on evidence that they had gathered up to that point?
Here's how the process went.
The police got the anonymous phone call and based on it, and the fact that similar crimes had been committed by FLDS members, they got a warrant.
They then raided the ranch, with CPS on hand. They found that they had a number of very young pregnant women. The adults and the children both kept changing their stories and telling them different ages and names for the children.
Based on the evidence that child rape seemed likely to have occurred, and the general obstruction by the people there, they apprehended the children.
They then had to justify that apprehension before a judge. They presented the evidence they had so far to the judge. The judge heard objections from the parent's lawyers. The judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence that the children might be in danger that they should remain in temporary custody of the state.
There have been various motions filed, but the next main step will be the actual custody hearing. Between now and then the CPS needs to try and determine who the parents are of those children, notify them of the pending custody hearing, and give them a chance to respond to the allegations. They are also continuing to investigate during that time.
So where exactly does your allegation that they were placed in temporary custody based on evidence come from?
I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because if you cannot even acknowlegde this, there really is no point in going further.
Why should I acknowledge something that the facts obviously contradict?
Your bias prevents you from being objective.
You haven't presented a single substantial argument to support your assertions, and I'm the one that is biased?
You and the other anti-Constitutionalists believe that it is OK for the government to seize your children without charging you with a crime.
You haven't made a singe substantial argument that their constitutional rights have been violated. Just because you seem to not have a clue about what those constitutional rights really mean doesn't mean I'm an anti-Constitutionalist.
You and the other anti-Constitutionalists believe that it is OK for the government to seize your children without charging you with a crime.
Are you really suggesting that even if there is evidence that a crime has been committed against these children, and that their parents either actively participated or passively allowed it to occur, those children should be left in those parents hands until the case can be built and they can be charged?
The simple fact is that the bar for taking temporary custody is lower than it is for brining criminal charges, and sometimes, in a large and complicated case like this, it is going to take a couple months before they can reasonably know who should be charged and who shouldn't. However, they do have substantial evidence that children there were sexually abused, and they should not ignore that evidence and leave the children in the custody of those parents.
They do need to make every effort to move this case forward as quickly as possible so that the custody hearings can be held, though the FLDS' obstructions aren't helping that any. They are not required to cooperate, but the more they obstruct, the longer it will take to resolve this.
Bet, you'll be waiting a long long time.
Now Froufrou, don't overlook panaxanax's brilliant point. If there was a monogamous couple on the ranch somewhere...just one...then child rape couldn't have occured and there is no need to investigate. Also monogamous couples can not be accessories to a crime - didn't you get the memo?
How can you argue with such stellar reasoning?
panaxanax If you feel these words don't represent what you said...go back to fourth grade English. I am not going to cut any slack to people trying to keep children in the custody of adults who use them for sexual purposes.
Unless there is a double wedding all marriages start out monogamous. What are the couples ages? Any older couples in the group?
Any woman above 18 that has enabled abuse of a child should be arrested right along with the men.
That is an entirely irrelevant point. The YFZ Ranch is an exclusive community bound by their common allegiance to the FLDS church. Polygamy and underage "spiritual marriages" are a doctrine of the FLDS church. No one lives there that isn't part of the church and by being part of the church they tacitly accept and approve of church doctrine. Since criminal actions are a part of accepted church doctrine that makes every adult member living there an accomplice to and knowledegable of all those crimes committed there.
If your husband is a thief and you know it and you see the piles of stolen property he brings home and sells and you take calls from his fence and pass messages between them you can't claim "All I do is fix his meals and wash his laundry. I don't actually steal the stuff." You're an accomplice to the crime.
Thanks TE, very well said. Of course though making sense on an FLDS thread is dangerous. you may get called all kinds of names....trust me.
If I say much at all I’ll get flak from one side or the other.
>>”Please show the proof and the source. Thanks.”<<
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9165683
You’re welcome....panax
It is just a matter of math that they would have some monogamous couples.
So what do you think it means the court should do in the custody of the children?
Well you know you have to start with one wife & earn your next one. It reminds me of a farmer trading cows for sheep. Its vile & its disgusting that underage girls are passed around like animals. Hmmm Maybe if you are a big shot's son you could marry twins. Theres a thought.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the pregnant minors they found at the ranch and the evidence of statutory rape that they represent.
Besides, since from the second wife on, their marriages were *spiritual* marriages, there would be no record of a legal marriage beyond the first one. So it would technically allow them to say that there were indeed monogamous couples living at the ranch while in practice, there would be very few, if any.
Basically, it would allow them to lie and back it up. But it would still be a lie.
And every adult who lives there and accepts the acts required to make that way of life and church doctrine a reality is complicit. Example: how many adults in that infested place have stood by and allowed teenage boys as young as 14 to be put out on the streets, some their own progeny.
Those people whining and screaming about the 'violation of their constitutional rights' might instead be giving us some facts about where all the boys went. How about the rights of those boys?
No "and" about it. That is exactly what I said.
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.