"Mike Sullivan" <sul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g11ohc$c8h$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Diana" <dianaiad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:q3VYj.6665$bG1.6612@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Mike Sullivan" <sul@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:g109c4$8sp$2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Diana" <dianaiad@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:61MYj.16588$4K5.16504@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Nancy" <heartforisrael@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:8109-48336656-1020@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> snip
>>> 1. The fraudulent phone call doesn't legally affect what CPS found
when
>>> they got there.
>>> They found ample evidence to pull children out according to existing
>>> law.
>>
>> Had they not deliberately used the fraudulent phone call, they could
not
>> have gone in. This should bother you. This should bother you a lot. It
>> especially should bother you given your objection to warrantless wire
>> tapping.
>
> If it can be demonstrated in a court that CPS officials knew the
> call was fraudulent and went in anyway, then heads should roll.
I think that it will be proven that this is so; it's pretty common
knowledge
now. In fact, the Texas CPS is tacitly acknowledging it, claiming that it
doesn't matter anyway.
>>
>>> 2. This was a child protection action, not a criminal complaint.
This
>>> is the nature
>>> of CPS, Diana, which you still are ignorant of in spite of your
concern
>>> here.
>>
>> The nature of CPS is that they have to abide by their own standards,
>> which in Texas requires "ongoing AND imminent danger of abuse." Except
>> for the underaged post pubescent girls, none of the children, even by
CPS
>> own admission, were in imminent danger of abuse. Quite the contrary.
>>
>
> Which is the statement I used in the very early posts on this subject
> to claim that the State of Texas would get hammered by a great many
> lawsuits
> and rightfully so.
Yep.
And the men are still free, and Texas is still screwing up.
>>> By law, CPS is compelled to remove children from *****uous, or
***ually
>>> predatory
>>> environments. I agree with you about how the men in power should be
>>> prosecuted,
>>> (I would like to personally castrate them), but the law requires
>>> evidence.
>>
>> And Texas has, quite probably, completely tainted any evidence that
they
>> gathered. My question is this: if this abuse is so heinous and so
>> obvious, why did Texas use a fake call to obtain it? Dont you see a BIG
>> problem here?
>
> Child protection laws are very different than criminal law. We
discussed
> this
> back in April. CPS laws in general are likely to be unconstitutional
> from a
> strict Scalia type view of them, particularly "innocent until proven
> guilty".
Yes...and we need to take a very strong look at them as a result. There
are
quite a few people who have had brushes with the CPS...it's like being
thrown into a shredder, frankly.
> I see a huge problem here. This is a cult that systematically uses
young
> girls
> as *** toys for older men of power, and the structure of the cult is set
> up
> as such to be otherwise a functioning society. This cult has had
> decades
> to figure this out.
And I'm not defending this practice of theirs, sir. It seems to me,
though,
that if it was as bad as everyone is claiming, then Texas could have, and
definately SHOULD have, used a different method to deal with it. If it was
that blatant--then the evidence to arrest the MEN should be used to arrest
and prosecute them.
I'm sorry...but what Texas did is quite obviously not about preventing
young
girls from being forced into ***. If it were only about that, they would
have gone about this in a different way, and the rapists would now be in
jail. The fact that the men are NOT in jail, but are free to do as they
please and go where they wish, is rather strong evidence of something
else;
the danger to the girls may have been the stated excuse, but the REASON
was
simply to destroy a group of people who are 'other.' Texas doesn't give a
damn about the men having *** with underaged girls. The Baptists and
fundamentalists among 'em just didn't like this strange group of people in
their midst, being 'other.'
What they should have done, and COULD have done according to their own
guidelines, was to kick the men off the ranch with restraining orders.
Voila---possibility of abuse gone. Everybody in one place so that the
investigations could be handled more efficiently. The perpetrators of the
statutory rapes would be in jail by now.
Ah...but the culture of the FLDS would remain intact, that way; they might
have to change their ways so that the women couldn't 'marry' until they
were
18, but all the other oddities would remain the same. The state could have
issued orders to ensure that the boys HAD to remain in the custody of the
ranch until they were 18, as well. But....the culture and religion of the
FLDS would have substantially remained the same. And that, Mike, was
unacceptable to their neighbors. The FLDS folks were just too strange, and
too new; unlike the Amish, they weren't even tourist attractions.
> The CPS has correctly gone in and used the power of it's authority to
> try and protect the next generation of girls. In this act, they have
> likely trampled
> on the rights of many individuals in the group, which the state will
> undoubtedly
> pay for.
Big time, I hope. They would have accomplished the same level of
protection
another way, a legal and customary way....but they chose THIS way.
>>> If the
>>> CPS can collect evidence through this procedure they'll hand it to the
>>> DA.
>>
>> And the defendant's lawyers will have a field day. Texas screwed up.
>
> So said I right from the first.
But you are defending it now.
>>> 3. The case has dragged on because the FLDS women lied to authorities
>>> requiring
>>> them to have to do DNA tests to determine parentage. The results are
>>> still weeks away.
>>
>> ....and you get this information from whom? The CPS claims that these
>> women were lying? Well, it is turning out that in a bunch of cases,
they
>> weren't. The CPS accused them of lying by saying that (for example) a
15
>> year old was claiming to be 22, and daring to attempt to prove it by
>> handing over her birth certificate and state issued driver's license. I
>> mentioned last month that one woman was accused of forging birth
>> certificates in order to prove that several children were hers--as if
she
>> could have pulled that off in less than a day. You can understand, I
>> hope, that when the CPS accuses these people of wholesale lying given
>> THESE cir***stances, it might be wise to wonder which side is doing
most
>> of the lying.
>
> In the raid, CPS officials got hundreds of conflicting statements over
> parentage
> and unclear do***entation.
According to CPS. As it turns out, that 'unclear do***entation' consisted
of
things like driver's licenses and birth certificates issued by the various
states of birth. I don't quite know what's so 'unclear' about that.
>> I don't LIKE the FLDS marriage practices. I do not like the way they
>> treat women. I am not defending the FLDS. I am saying the obvious; CPS
>> tells us that the children were not being ***ually or physically
abused.
>> They have informed all the families that the liklihood of their getting
>> their children back before next April is negligable, and they haven't
>> given the families any reason to hope that they can get their children
>> back AFTER that, either. They have separated siblings so far apart that
>> any plan given to the parents to get them back is guaranteed to fail;
the
>> parents can either spend all their time (and non-existant funds)
>> traveling from place to place to satisfy court mandated visiting
>> rights--and not have jobs, thus failing that requirement, or they can
not
>> visit their children in order to earn money--and be charged with
neglect.
>> It is a particularly nasty catch 22 the courts have these women in.
>
> Yes it is, and they are each represented by council, and council is
> fighting hard for the advocacy of each of them. That's how the legal
> process works.
And the judges are unilaterally dismissing almost EVERY request and appeal
any of those lawyers have made. The only exception that any of them have
made so far is in the case of the most egregious stupidity...that of the
22
year old wife of the 14 year old man, a couple who lived in thier own home
on the ranch with their children. They are not polygamists...but CPS
insisted that SHE was really 15 or 17 (depending upon who was looking) and
took her and her children. When they had to admit that she was an adult,
they took her children from her. Finally CPS had to admit that they had no
reason to remove their children, but all they would do was to permit her
to
live with her kids in foster care. Neither she nor her children can see
HIM.
And there is no reason for this decision. At all.
>
>>
>> And the men are free.
>>
>> And the men will stay free, because the state will not be able to
>> prosecute them.
> Probably.
And that should bother everybody; What IS it that y'all want, anyway? If
it
truly is to stop the abuse of underaged girls, then arrest the men. The
cheering I hear is not about preventing this--it's about the destruction
of
an entire culture, and all the families in it. It's not the abuse, at all,
is it? Because if it was THAT, then the men would be out of the ranch and
in
jail, and the women and children would be home, and together.
>>> 4. Families in FLDS will likely reap settlements from the state of
>>> Texas in this case, because
>>> the complexity and depravity of a predatory cult like this is not
>>> anticipated by our current laws.
>>
>> That is the only hope I have, that the FLDS will sue, and sue, and sue,
>> and sue...and win. Not that it will do them or their children any good;
>> the CPS, in a year, will have turned them all into good little Stepford
>> Texans, complete with video games, Baptist educations, and member****p
in
>> either the Bloods or the Crips. Either that, or they will be medicated
to
>> their wee little FLDS eyeballs, just like 60% of the rest of the Texas
>> foster kids.
>
> Isn't that the sort of thing you right wingers like to call collateral
> damage
> which is acceptable as long as SOMEbody thinks they are doing the
> right thing?
Stop that, Mike. I've never been a fan of 'collateral damage.' In fact, I
think I'm one of the few people talking about this who is NOT being a
hypocrite.
>
> I told you from the start CPS is a pretty brutal bureaucracy that has
> little chance of doing good for people. At best it can only mitigate
the
> damage that some of the dregs of society do to their children.
Yes it is. So I wish that those who see it would speak up. I realize that
it
is risky; I am constantly being accused of defending pedophilia, and of
defending the actions of the FLDS in forcing young boys out and young
girls
into ***ual intercourse before they are adult--because I object to the way
Texas handled the situation. I wish someone else would see what I see;
this
isn't about underaged ***. It's about something else entirely.
>>> Our current CPS laws are based upon failed or amoral individual
parents,
>>> not upon a culture
>>> that will systematically exploit young girls at the whims of men
who've
>>> gained power within the
>>> cult, and set up an otherwise functional society around that
perversion.
>>
>> I see. You want the CPS and the government to enact and enforce laws
>> aimed at specific subgroups, not individual families.
>
> I don't know how to rewrite laws to protect children from a predatory
> cult. I told you from the first that I predicted CPS laws were going
> to be inadequate to do the best thing for all, so I expect to see
> CPS nail who they can, help who they can, and get sued by the rest.
We don't NEED to rewrite laws to protect children from a predatory cult.
The
laws we have are fine. All such laws must be applied as they were meant to
be applied; on an individual family basis. That's one of the reasons this
raid was such a stupid thing to do.
>>> 5. I don't know about this particular branch, it's only been there a
few
>>> years, but the Colorado
>>> City foundation of the cult systematically collected state and federal
>>> funds by claiming single
>>> mothers, and collected state educational funds.
>>
>> Wrong group. The Texas ranch was completely self sup****ting. It wasn't
>> the FLDS that did the welfare fraud. That was a different group.
However,
>> that group doesn't allow women under 18 to marry, so that should be
>> perfectly acceptable to a good liberal heart.
>
> No, it's not the wrong group. The Texas FLDS ranch was bought
> by money from the Hilldale/Colo City FLDS and leaders moved there.
>
> Notice the name "Jeffs" among the Texas FLDS?
>
> The Utah/Az FLDS thrived on welfare fraud, there is no evidence
> of it in the Texas group.
I'm not going to pretend that polygamist groups do not use government
welfare extensively. However, if you talk about fraud, think more along
the
lines of the Kingston clan, not the Jeffs group. As you say, the Texas
group
did not use government welfare. They do now, of course; they have no
choice.
>>>> If they will handle the FLDS in this manner, who will they do it to
>>>> next?
>>>
>>> This is sadly disingenous considering the crimes you accept from the
>>> Bush administration
>>> and from the history of your church.
>>
>> Careful, your hypocrisy is showing. You CANNOT rail against warrantless
>> wiretapping and sup****t this.
>
> How is it hypocritical for me to insist that State of texas pay for any
> mistakes it has made in this legal action?
It is hypocritical of you to criticise me for my opinions in this matter,
given that you agree with me on most of them.
>
> Your claim of my hypocrisy on this one is completely baseless. Now
> examine
> yours.
No hypocrisy here, Mike. Remember, I'm not all THAT happy with Bush.
|
