Posted on 05/21/2008 5:50:14 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
“I have know idea who stepford is,....”
For what it’s worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wives
I can’t think of anything FLDS should be proud of.
I put it out because 75% is a much larger number than 0%, which was what people were saying.
A judge held 460 kids in part because CPS insisted they couldn’t “match kids with parents”, but that was true in less than 1 out of 4 cases, and apparently mostly with fathers.
Judges: CPS improperly removed FLDS children
By Chuck Lindell | Thursday, May 22, 2008, 12:32 PM
A Texas agency improperly removed more than 450 children from a polygamist ranch in West Texas, an Austin appeals court ruled today.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services failed to prove that children at the YFZ Ranch were in danger and needed to be removed from their homes, the 3rd Texas Court of Appeals ruled.
In addition, the appellate court ruled that District Judge Barbara Walther abused her discretion by failing to return the children after three days of hearings last month.
“Even if one views the FLDS belief system as creating a danger of sexual abuse by grooming boys to be perpetrators of sexual abuse and raising girls to be victims of sexual abuse as the department contends, there is no evidence that this danger is ‘immediate’ or ‘urgent,’ as contemplated” by state law, the court opinion states.
You have changed it from mothers to fathers from your other post.
Of the 460 children and 5 adults they treated as children, only a little more than 100 of them did not have clearly identified mothers. In other words, over 75% of the children had KNOWN mothers.
One out of four, 25%, is still a very large percentage especially if we are talking about fathers given that there is only one "father" per household. What percentage of the 460 children did the FLDS initially try to prevent CPS from indentifying?
Oh, sorry but I don’t follow Hollywood or TV stuff.
Go get um!
I’m sorry. Someone earlier noted that I was talking about mothers, but that there was a larger percent of fathers that had not been matched.
I was trying to add that information so I wasn’t accused of misleading anybody, but I didn’t do so well, because as you noted I made it sound like the 75% included mothers AND fathers.
What I meant to say was “and apparently most of the fathers”, not “and apparently mostly the fathers”.
Thank you for giving me a chance to correct that error.
Whoops!
Court: Texas had no right to take polygamists’ children
SAN ANGELO, Texas (CNN) — The state of Texas should not have removed children it took from a polygamist sect’s ranch because it didn’t prove they were in “imminent enough” danger, an appeals court ruled Thursday.
In its ruling, the Texas 3rd District Court of Appeals decided in favor of 38 women who had challenged the removals and appealed a decision last month by a district judge that the children will remain in state custody.
wow - good find.
see link in 223.
“...the ruling directs Walther to remove their children from state custody...”
Oops.
The last paragraphs weren’t in the article when I made the original post. It apparently is applicable to the 38 mothers and most likely will be applicable to many if not all of the others...
From the rest of the article. I’m glad you noted it, thanks
........
Today’s ruling was sought by 38 mothers of the sect, and the ruling directs Walther to remove their children from state custody. That is about 130 of the more than 450 children now in state custody.
The ruling should apply to most of the other children removed from the ranch, said Robert Doggett with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, which filed the appeal on the mothers’ behalf.
Doggett anticipated lawyers for other affected parents to file motions asking Walther to reconsider their cases in light of the appeals ruling.
“The arguments in the opinon, and the logic of it, is going to apply to the vast majority (of children) out there. This opinion obviously has great weight … so it’s going to impact all of those custody cases,” he said.
.....
Again, you are asking for actions that are not necessarily linked to each other.
Remember when the former President of ENRON died? He had not yet been sentenced (per the criminal process). Agrieved parties said "Hey, wait a minute, no fair, send his body to jail, and what about my suit for civil damages against him"?
The answer was that he was dead and that was the end of the criminal process. He had not yet been sentenced, and any fines or other punishments (such as restitution) had not actually been ordered before then. When you're dead that's the end of your life as a criminal.
At the same time the civil damages suits could live on, although the fact that the former President had not been sentenced did weaken their cases. After all, they were claiming damages because the President of Enron had, in his criminal capacity, harmed them.
Well, TS for those suits too. You can't sue a deadman's estate for recovery from crimes he committed ~ if, in fact, he never got fully processed in the criminal court system.
Where did you ever get the idea that the only "due process of law" in this country is that involving CRIMINAL CASES? We have a vast array of civil laws, civil court process, administrative regulations, administrative processes, including appeals, etc., and they all constitute part of the "due process of law" universe.
Fur Shur they'd all have but one address. FOr the most part people in communal arrangements, or multifamily dwellings have some sort of way of differentiating the different "residences" if any.
It's up to the folks operating the system to let authorities know what those systems are so that folks who are not part of a problem are not subjected to search.
If they have no system, or refuse to identify different situations in some mistaken notion this will protect them from being searched under a warrant, they are nuts.
Addresses, btw, are a federal matter and are federally regulated. What is or is not a "residence" can be a local, state or federal matter. You'd probably get different definitions out of different courts. The final appeal would have to go through the administrative due process afforded by the Board of Geographic Names (chaired by the CIA).
Then, once administrative due process was completed, the case could go to a federal district court.
We had a case over in Arlington Virginia where the homeowner had rented out his basement to a man and wife for use as an apartment. This was in an area zoned for R-1, or 1 residence per acre.
He failed to separately identify this otherwise unlawful apartment with it's own address. Still, it was pretty obviously a "residence" for various legal purposes.
One night the cops came searching for a guy who lived in the house (upstairs). He wasn't there. They had a warrant. They went downstairs, kicked in the door of the unlawful apartment, saw a guy behind an upturned table holding a gun.
They shot him dead in a thrice.
That man, BTW, according to his wife, said he believed he was defending his home against bandits. Apparantly they didn't speak English.
This was all done with a warrant to go after a criminal. The criminal didn't happen to be home but it didn't stop the cops from shooting other people found on the premises.
Sometimes you have a "residence" because you are in full conformance with zoning codes. Sometimes your "residence" isn't really a "residence" because you are in violation of zoning.
So, yes, the cops can shoot you for breaking zoning codes. At the same time the homeowner could have put an address over the door of the makeshift apartment that said "Makeshift apartment 2" and the cops maybe couldn't break in.
I know people who number every room in their place of business. This is to conform with safety codes (local, state, and federal ~ see OSHA). This also allows the cops to get warrents specifying which rooms they want to seal and search in case a crime is commited.
Absent those room numbers, you could get a warrent to search something like Department of Commerce (a huge structure in DC) and just go through everything.
Federal judges would back you up, so it's a good reason to number those rooms.
Now, all of you who've been inside the F(lds) camp, do they have room numbers? Do they have locks on inside doors? Who has keys to the rooms?
I noticed that the court in Austin said you couldn't really consider the camp as a single residence, but they weren't forthcoming on what the system might be to single out individual residences at the site ~ since none exist, are not marked (to anyone's knowledge), and are common property of The Trust.
CPS probably should have called in an addressing systems and standards expert to address the court on this particular question.
Liberal Democrats would not and did not support the raid. AFter all, to them, it’s just about sex ~ you know that.
Muawiyah, I’m giving you the respect of understanding that when serious charges are made against individuals, their chidren are placed in the custody of the state, the wives are prevented from staying with the children, the children are forced to have vaccinations against their will, and the state has made it clear they are about to seize assetts, we’re talking about something a liitle more exotic than a simple child endangerment situation.
Criminal conduct was claimed, to support the actions that were taken. If no charges can be brought, then any justification of these actions is null and void.
No crime charged, no convinction obtained, no justification for taking the children whatsoever having been ajudicated, there’s really nothing more to bicker about here.
I appreciate the comments, but man you have to pony up at some point and admit this is wrong.
Now, concerning "returning" children to who?
Going to be a good one here ~ and then we end up with how many children who cannot be "returned" since they have no mothers or fathers who can be identified?
No doubt the Austin court will guide people in understanding just how many otherwise unidentified, unattached children can be "kept in captivity" by a cult and be protected by the courts.
Where's my popcorn!
She might have reason to not know her age. After all, there's a social order within this F(lds) society, and some of these people live only to serve!
It’s not about sex..it’s about religion...even one as whcked as the FLDS...
Notice the apeals court has ruled that the state had no right to remove ALL the children...
This case is falling apart at the seams...
The Austin court glossed over the problem. Apparantly they have a gut feeling that your typical cult can keep so many unassignable children in captivity.
Do you have a better response to that problem?
Bud, I never stated that crimes weren’t committed. I merely stated that none have been proven. I also stated that the government had screwed up the initial phase of this case, and many of you called me names or slandered me and others for having said this.
Well, today was judgement day.
Who has pie on their face now? And isn’t that honestly a real shame? I think it is.
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.