Posted on 05/21/2008 5:50:14 PM PDT by Saundra Duffy
As long as we're breaking things down into percentages it seems to me that if there were 100+ children that couldn't be identified with certainty, and a pool of 465 to sort through, then finding 5 who turned out not to be children is a pretty small error rate.
Custody, however, remains a civil matter, not criminal. Your problem was you wanted to confound civil with criminal law and process.
Pointing that out to you is hardly slander.
Having a big hearty har har right now over your stupidity in the matter is still not slander. So, hardy har har to you Bud.
No problem. I’ve been having the same reaction to your posts on this matter since April 5th.
So when, and how many, are going to be returned?
What of the children who do not appear to have any parents at the YFZ Ranch?
Whom do we return them to?
You are relying on CPS mis-information.
I had never even thought of these things before. We live out in the boonies- (and are not a cult); my brother lives nearby and at one time my daughter and her son lived there. My other brother has the property adjoining. We are not a cult- but these places don’t have addresses. We aren’t violating any zoning laws- agriculture property.
Interesting thing is we got a visit from CPS when my daughter was going through a nasty divorce. The CPS investigator came to our house first, my daughter was here eating lunch with us. He asked to look around our house and I told him no, because my grandson did not live here. My daughter allowed him to look around her house to check for food, ect that they do when checking. He asked if we had firearms- I truthfully told him yes- he wanted to see how we had them stored- I told him no. He asked us all his questions and left and we never heard from them again. I fully expected him to come back with a warrant since I wouldn’t let him look around our house- but nothing else ever came of it.
I had no idea our houses could possibly be considered one residence- scary. We know a lot of people in rural areas that live the same- seems odd to me that they don’t have the same protection that people in apartments in town have. To me it would just be common sense for them to search the people’s house that are in question and leave the other’s alone.
I know lots of people who don’t look that age because of looking younger, but a 9 year mistake is really pushing it. I still find it hard to believe that a 27 year old could look less than 18.
I can see it with much older people, but I have a difficult time believing that large of an error at that age. That’s 1/3 of a young person’s age. From people who are used to estimating ages, I just find it unlikely, even though I recognize that it is possible.
Lots of folks in rural areas have a primary house on the lot then some trailers.
Posting a name on the trailer, and then having them put a box on the line of travel of the nearest rural letter carrier would go a long way toward establishing that this was a separate residence in every meaning of the term.
It is highly important in areas zoned agricultural (if zoned at all) that they "do something" to indicate separate residences. Stopping everybody at the main gate when you have but one address is not the sort of thing to suggest separate residences!
The Third Court of Appeals judges in Texas were obviously not well informed concerning the situation at the F(lds) camp and had something else on their minds. Maybe they were thinking of lunch. Yeah, that's it, lunch!
Enough of difficult legal questions, all of them focused on the peculiar things the F(lds) does to frustrate those who might find it necessary to investigate crimes on their property.
God help those people they ever need to call in the police to help them.
A 9 year error ain't no thang in a group where 13 year olds get pregnant with some regularity.
I could see early pregnancies and the hard life they have prematurely aging them. It's just going in the other direction that seems less likely to me.
Ain't no thang.
You go down in the hood ~ you see that. Baby daddies hanging out at the curb doing stuff. All the mothers look like mothers all the time.
These people have elected to lead dysfunctional lives with lots of random sex with near strangers.
“Whom do we return them to?”
Darn good question.
I am not a doctor, but I wonder...
Given the (alleged) inbred nature of this cult, does DNA evidence even work? I do know that usually, DNA results are expressed as probabilities - “There is a less than a one in a million chance that you fathered this child...”
What if, in this closed community, that becomes one in three?
How will that work in court?
Also, can the DNA evidence be admitted at all? Fruit of the poisened tree - the appeals court said the custody ruling was illegal, and the DNA was collected after custody was granted. In the eyes of the court, the DNA may not exist, legally.
But...how can that be? You have a child, you have proven (maybe- not sure it can be done) that the claimed mother and father have no relation, yet you have to release the child to them, because the DNA can’t be admitted? That is a legal quandry, don’t you think?
Finally - as someone mentioned on the long thread - I think most fathers would have their clocks cleaned if DNA testing of children was done universally.
One of those more harm than good things.
“Also, can the DNA evidence be admitted at all? Fruit of the poisened tree - the appeals court said the custody ruling was illegal, and the DNA was collected after custody was granted. In the eyes of the court, the DNA may not exist, legally.”
I guess it will depend on whether this apellate court ruling stands.
This whole case a a legal quandry, a legal quagmire.
Almost like the threads on here. No one gets away without some mud on them.
I agree. What a damn mess.
And you know what is the worst part of it?
CPS could have one this one, if they had planned it correctly.
They could have rescued all those kids, proven their case, and moved out in formation...
Instead, they dorked the dog. From day one.
And I STILL want to see some of them jailed, for deprivation of rights.
If you have that kind of power, you better be darn careful with it. And they weren’t.
The subject has been changed by a Texas court.
Now, you're going to tell us that your law and order stance only applies when it supports your Rambo fantasies.
View the video of Carolyn Jessups and call her a liar, if you will.
http://mobilepassages.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/escape-by-carolyn-jessup/
You're shocked by this? My brother's wife, age 29 and mother of five children was carded on a rare stop to buy a six-pack. Yes, she looked under-age. So have my daughters.
Apparently you haven't come across anyone in their late twenties who looks ten years younger (and not because of the clothes they wear).
IIntense:You're shocked by this? My brother's wife, age 29 and mother of five children was carded on a rare stop to buy a six-pack.
Every store I've been in cards anyone who looks under thirty so your s-i-l qualifies. They have the policy posted all over the place. It means nothing that they carded her.
I would never call Carolyn Jessups a liar. The problem I am having with the ex FLDS women who have written books is this: They were raised in FLDS culture and participated in all of its weird practices. Children are innocent, just doing the things their parents do, right or wrong. When she became an adult, however, she continued to practice the FLDS ways. At some point, she realized the system was wrong - I think it was when her husband took another wife - anyway, she had had it and left. Good for her! But now she writes a book and her story was used by CPS and authorities in TX to condemn an entire community. Maybe some things have changed since she left; maybe not. But how would TX authorities know? They assumed that whatever Carolyn Jessups - and other disgruntled ex FLDS - had to say was still true today and gospel.
I have always said, my main concern is that the Constitution was abused and trampled in this case.
The F(lds) is simply another corporation, not a parent, so identifications and relationships must be known objectively beyond the claims of "The Trust" or "F(lds)".
Think you can do that?
Bet you can't ~ and where that happens, you have a child who seems to not have any sort of blood or other tie to this organization.
The Appeals Court appears to have thought of the F(lds) as made up of nuclear families ~ which it isn't.
In the end there will be more than one kidnapping charge laid on several of the F(lds) members.
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.