Posted on 05/15/2008 7:37:59 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
AUSTIN - Lawyers for the state conceded in court today that the woman from the polygamist sect who gave birth this week while in the state's custody is not a minor and said she is free to return to her home in West Texas or remain with her three children -- including the newborn -- under protective care.
WRONG! Our Country was founded on FREEDOM, any Law under our system of government, was supposed to be weighed against how it impacts our FReedom. A point lost on some (FReepers no less). Founded on Law's? What a crock. We've been Law'd to death. Blackbird.
The US Constitution says:
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.
The Texas Constitution says:
no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
A warrant based on "evidence" from someone not known to the person swearing the Oath or making the affirmation, is no different than not having an sworn affidavit at all. "Somebody said" is not evidence, nor probable cause.
If the LE hurried over to my house at O Dark thirty, and were not real polite about serving that warrant, they might not like the reception they'd get, and neither would I, I'm sure.
They couldn't have served the search warrant during normal daylight hours? Was there *imminent* danger, as opposed to "potential" danger. IOW, could it have waited until morning? I think the answer is obvious.
It also shows no due diligence that they did not even check phone records to see where the call originated.
That said.. the kids were taken because of what CPS saw after they entered.
Be that as it may, if the warrant is later deemed to be "bad", then all the evidence collected thereafter will probably be deemed fruit of the poisoned vine, and not admissible. So if there were crimes committed, the perpetrators will either never be charged, or they'll skate because of that bad warrant.
Now if there is imminent danger to person(s) or property or an LEO observes a crime in progress, no warrant is needed. But it needs to be clearly imminent danger, or a crime in progress, not some "out there" accusation from a voice on the phone.
They are part of the state government, and they must follow the state constitution just like any other governmental entity. The State, and federal constitutional protections both speak of “seizing” “persons”, and neither mentions crimes, law enforcement, or “peace officers”. Are not children persons? Of course they are, thus the CPS must follow the same rules as LEOs, which I agree they are not, when it comes to serving warrants or making seizures sans warrants.
Brilliant comment! Go to the head of the class!
As for me...I've seen injured children. My take is...do your (CPS) job and do it right. If you think the kids are in immediate danger do something. If you are just on a power trip or remove them because you are afraid of future what ifs then be prepared to get sued , big time by the parents.
Time will tell if CPS called it right. Right now they are looking like they have a stronger case than the "parents" though. We'll see.
What do you think the Constitution is. We need certain laws to protect our freedom. I do agree that we are being lawed over this day in time though.
gitty up. true.
http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Child_Protection/About_Child_Protective_Services/parentguide.asp
Excerpt: State law requires anybody who believes that a child has been abused or neglected to make a report to the Child Protective Services (CPS) program of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) or to a law enforcement agency. The law requires CPS to investigate reports of child abuse or neglect for the primary purpose of protecting children.
Yes, I am well aware that tv is not real life...geesh. I was trying to insert a little levity into the conversation.
LOL! It's a framework for our government, "Laws" for them, not US. Hint? It's called the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Laws. What Law protects our FReedoms? There's not a single Law that will "protect" you from anything. Laws are reactive, not proactive. That's my take on it, your mileage may vary. Blackbird.
Clearly you don’t understand how our laws work in these cases and your analogy is flawed. The best I can tell you is to pay attention, and we’ll see how this thing works its way through the courts.
susie
Excuse me.
How your laws work has been demonstrated very well.
What you don’t understand is that the laws are not supposed to work the way they are working in TX.
The laws in TX are Texas’ business. If you don’t like them, and you are a Texan you are free to try to change them.
susie
Are you certain the law is being followed or is the law being abused.
To make it simple, like the speed limit law can either be enforced fairly or used as a speed trap to nail tourists with out of state plates.
In this case, there are religious overtones.
For instance, if the news media is correct, there are already religious restrictions on the sect members.
That is something to worry about.
I can remember when all you had to do in the South was mention the Catholic religion (of which I am not a member) and every preacher in earshot would practically froth at the mouth.
Are we going to ban certain religions? If so, I would like to submit my list.
What...the CPS didn’t hop on the opportunity to cut the child out of her womb before it was born!? Must be getting lazy.
Aha, I see where you’re coming from. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here (and this comes from a former Catholic who grew up in the south and in TX and lived right smack dab in the Bible Belt).
Clearly the judge believes she is following the law, but we’ll see what happens to the case in court. I see nothing in this whole mess that reeks of religious bigotry, any more than I would see religious bigotry in a case involving say, honor killing of a Muslim woman. When someone does things that are already illegal in the name of religion, they don’t get a pass. And, I think letting them do so is a far slipperier slope than the one people are concerned about here.
BTW you mentioned religious restrictions on sect members. Can you clue me in to those because this is the first I’ve heard of it (admittedly, I was out of town over the weekend and am a little behind.)
susie
I saw it on FR. I did not bookmark the link.
However, only yesterday it was on the news and in the papers that everyone was strictly forbidden from mentioning Jeffords name in front of the children.
Tonight, there is this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2019458/posts
Which has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with the thin evidence.
I have an idea you are pretty young.
Find an old Catholic who lived in a remote area of the South in the 1940’s and 1950’s and ask him how the “real” Christians treated them.
There is a thing called body language and it exists in the written word as well as in life on the street and I see in a lot of the stories about this situation connotations or body language, if you will, that indicate religious persecution.
Now there are a lot of religions I don’t agree with: Snake handling, just to make an example, but the fact is that the government is forbidden to get into that.
If a felony has been committed, that is one thing but even then the cops are supposed to have the evidence before they arrest.
They can’t even arrest Drew Peterson even though they know he killed two wives because they do not have proof.
And that is the way it should be.
I am not a lawyer, but if I had been, it would have been a criminal defense lawyer even though much more money is made in civil law.
Because it is the cops duty to follow the law, dot every “i” and cross every “t”.
Otherwise, you end up with cops just pointing their finger at you and off you go.
Breaking up families and traumatizing children on nothing more than an anonymous crank call is way over the edge.
Even a crank call requires some level of investigation, but the investigation must come first, not last.
No, I’m probably older than you are (but I’m flattered!). I find that most people will treat you with the amount of respect you give them, and I’m pretty outgoing and friendly. While I got the occasional odd question, and of course, they ALL tried to convert me, I don’t take that as disrespect. In fact, if you care about someone and you think they are in dire need of saving, you will try to save them. That’s how I saw it.
As for your point about the govt not getting into religions, they will and should when laws are being broken. Calling something a religion does not let you get away with breaking the law.
And, they have not arrested anyone yet.
Have a great day! I’m going to go take more pictures of dragonflies, they are everywhere here!
susie
When the cops seize the children and tell their parents that they can not retrieve the children, that the parents can not leave with the children, you are essentially imprisoning the parent because that parent can not leave with the children.
In other words, it is sort of like a loose version of house arrest in that you may not be in jail, but then neither can you call yourself free to come and go.
It is a text book case of cops abusing the public.
IF they had found a crime and arrested the person or persons who committed the crime, OK.
But you can not put everyone under some sort of judicial restraint (not able to leave with the children, not able to mention Jeffords by name, threats that they must give up their religion or association with that church; all amount to some sort of judicial restraint or penalty.
It would be the same as if you as a Catholic were put under all sorts of restraints because you had a priest that was accused but not convicted of pedophilia.
You are supposed to penalize the person who committed the crime and leave every one else alone.
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.