 |
4 more articles on this subject:
416 children were removed from a FLDS compound, the YFZ Ranch, after Child Protective Services provided evidence of physical and sexual abuse, on children, at the compound. After DNA samples are taken, foster homes have been found for those children
It started with a phone call that led Child Protective Services and Texas State authorities to believe that abuses were being perpetrated on children at the Yearning For Zion Ranch, in Texas.. Officials obtained permission to enter the ranch and after witnessing what they called "evidence of physical and sexual abuses, via multiple children under 17 being pregnant and/or having children already, 416 children were removed.
Although there is question about who initially placed the call, a girl supposedly named "Sarah", Texas State US Attorney Greg Abbott says that legally, "the case really doesn't hinge upon that particular 16-year-old", he goes on to add, "Once investigators, in good faith, go into the compound and determine whether or not there was any kind of wrongdoing; the case is on its own after that."
The children were removed from the compound and within 14 days, as mandated by law, Judge Barbara Walther began a two day hearing, which I documented here from day one, with updates and day two with updates, which resulted in Judge Walther, awarding Texas State the temporary custody of all 416 children.
In that determination, the Judge took into consideration the testimony of CPS officials and other expert witnesses and she has also ordered DNA testing for all the children and mothers and fathers, to try to help sort out family relationships that have confounded authorities since 416 children were taken into state custody two weeks ago.
Today reports are in that after the DNA testing on the children is complete, CPS will start moving all 416 children to foster homes and they will be keeping mothers younger than 18 with their children and try to keep siblings together , "to make these transitions as easy as possible", according to Darrell Azar, a spokesman for Child Protective Services. He continues on to say, "We want to keep them together as much as possible so they don't feel they're completely isolated from their culture or the people they know."
The child welfare agency has said that the sect encourages adolescent girls to marry older men and have children, and that boys are groomed to become future perpetrators. Sect members deny the allegations.
To that end, former sect members have began to speak out about what life at a FLDS compound is like, one of which is Les Zitting, who is the 6th son of a woman who was herself the 9th wife of one of the leaders of the FLDS in the 50s, Charles Zitting.
When he was asked what he thought of the actions of the Texas CPS in this case, his reply was, "Thank you TEXAS – but we’ll see… In time they could recover yes, but it will take months and in some cases, years. I am still dealing with my own personal emotions and this is 38 years later."
When asked about the practice, based on his personal experience and knowledge of the group, about girls being “married” before the age of 16 and asked if this was commonplace or an exception, his answer was, "I would have to answer TRUE and some even much earlier than age 12. "
When he was asked if he had any additional thoughts that weren't covered in the interview questions, his answer had more to do with the mothers of the group.
I have tried NOT to watch the news casts as these Polygamist women spoke. I knew there were LIES being spoken!!! As I watched, I asked myself, “How can you people, who claim integrity, honesty, and truth look into those cameras and tell the entire world that you don’t know of any under-aged marriages between girls under 16 to men 2 ,3 and even 4 times their age”. People need to and probably will go to prison for this. Texas has girls in their custody “right now” either pregnant or with babies and the girls are not 16 years old yet…. And the older women are saying to us all that they don’t know of this happening — they are liars !!! This has happened for DECADES !!!!
That interview was set up with coordination of Jay Beswick, who has been commenting on a previous Digital Journal thread that dealt with the forgotten children of the group, the "Lost Boys", which are children as young as 13 that have thrown out of the FLDS group, put on the streets, some for as little as kissing a girl or wearing a short sleeved shirt.
(Note- Mr. Beswick has kindly given this citizen journalist names and numbers of former sect members to interview. Those interviews will began next week, so this will be an ongoing series of interviews with former members, as well 'who knew what and when' and why nothing has been done before now to stop this type of child abuse.)
-
Some under the age of twelve when they were married off?
HOW IS it that these perverts haven't had their HEADS caved in by people with BRICKS already?
-
A couple questions, Susan. Are lawyers present for the child interviews? Or are they being subjected to 'third degree' round-the-clock interviews by well-meaning social workers who have a lot at stake here, including their careers?
FLDS members aren't the only ones capable of brainwashing to get their way, you know.
I'm not saying what you say isn't true. It may very well be. But it just popped in my mind as I read this. You remember the Fells Acres child abuse case? That happened right in my backyard. Some points of interest there.
A lot of other cases at Wikipedia, which dedicated a huge entry on the subject.
Like I said, I'm with you 99% of the way on the FLDS. But it's that 1% that looms large for me. The State of Texas and CPS are not run by angels. And their foster care system leaves much to be desired. Not to mention how much the CPS itself has riding on this. A LOT of careers and dollars are at stake here. They are not without their own conflicts of interest.
'nuff said. Look forward to your interviews. Nice scoop, BTW. But do me a favor: No Chris Matthews softballs, okay? Ask some tough questions. Don't make it personal. I know that's tough, but please, don't just probe for the answers you want to hear. Play Devil's Advocate. You already know a lot of the answers. Seek out the ones you don't, or maybe wouldn't care to know. That is TRUE investigative journalism.
I leave it to your trusting hands. Regards, TMK. -
@ Mr Garibaldi
Some under the age of twelve when they were married off?
HOW IS it that these perverts haven't had their HEADS caved in by people with BRICKS already?
No clue, but that interviewed spelled out one very important fact. This isn't new, this has been a pattern of behavior for decades within FLDS sects.
It has also gone largely ignored by authorities. -
@ Johnny Simpson
A couple questions, Susan. Are lawyers present for the child interviews? Or are they being subjected to 'third degree' round-the-clock interviews by well-meaning social workers who have a lot at stake here, including their careers?
FLDS members aren't the only ones capable of brainwashing to get their way, you know.
I'm not saying what you say isn't true. It may very well be. But it just popped in my mind as I read this. You remember the Fells Acres child abuse case? That happened right in my backyard. Some points of interest there.
A lot of other cases at Wikipedia, which dedicated a huge entry on the subject.
Like I said, I'm with you 99% of the way on the FLDS. But it's that 1% that looms large for me. The State of Texas and CPS are not run by angels. And their foster care system leaves much to be desired. Not to mention how much the CPS itself has riding on this. A LOT of careers and dollars are at stake here. They are not without their own conflicts of interest.
'nuff said. Look forward to your interviews. Nice scoop, BTW. But do me a favor: No Chris Matthews softballs, okay? Ask some tough questions. Don't make it personal. I know that's tough, but please, don't just probe for the answers you want to hear. Play Devil's Advocate. You already know a lot of the answers. Seek out the ones you don't, or maybe wouldn't care to know. That is TRUE investigative journalism.
I leave it to your trusting hands. Regards, TMK.
First, you ask questions you want answers to in your interviews, I will ask mine.
MY focus is on the children's best interest, not in speculative inquiries into whether someone has other interests...that comes secondary to the child's right to be kept safe in my mind.
One case has nothing to do with another.
There is a pattern of decades of abuse that has gone on largely ignored by authorities.
Over 20 children have been found to be pregnant, most of which are under the age of 16.
Nothing else matters in my mind but stopping that pattern.
I don't deal in conspiracies and speculation, I deal with the facts that have presented by the experts, the law and the Texas state statutes, not in what ifs, ...I will leave the what ifs and the speculation to others. -
@ Susan Duclos
No clue, but that interviewed spelled out one very important fact. This isn't new, this has been a pattern of behavior for decades within FLDS sects.
It has also gone largely ignored by authorities.
That in itself brings up other questions. Why has it been ignored for so long by the authorities? Why have they allowed it to go on as long as it has unchecked, and growing larger with passing years? Is there a possibility of dereliction of duty charges for those who were aware of the compound and the cult's activities regarding underage girls being "married" to men in their 30's, 40's, and 50's? -
@ Mr Garibaldi
That in itself brings up other questions. Why has it been ignored for so long by the authorities? Why have they allowed it to go on as long as it has unchecked, and growing larger with passing years? Is there a possibility of dereliction of duty charges for those who were aware of the compound and the cult's activities regarding underage girls being "married" to men in their 30's, 40's, and 50's?
Further questions in my mind would be about the mothers...if they were privy, and encouraged this activity are they not guilty of what Jeff's was convicted of? Conspiracy to rape?
The legal questions and criminal charges are piling up, enough of them to warrant close observation which is why I have no time for speculation.
I have plenty of speculative questions, don't get me wrong,, especially about the pending DNA results, in a compound, that is known for having two main families, the Merrills and the Jessups, it is just there are so many facts being reported almost daily, I have no time to delve into those serious questions.
Two families, 416 kids.... I will leave the ramifications of what the DNA "could" show to your imaginations until the facts are in. -
@ Susan Duclos
Further questions in my mind would be about the mothers...if they were privy, and encouraged this activity are they not guilty of what Jeff's was convicted of? Conspiracy to rape?
The legal questions and criminal charges are piling up, enough of them to warrant close observation which is why I have no time for speculation.
I have plenty of speculative questions, don't get me wrong,, especially about the pending DNA results, in a compound, that is known for having two main families, the Merrills and the Jessups, it is just there are so many facts being reported almost daily, I have no time to delve into those serious questions.
Two families, 416 kids.... I will leave the ramifications of what the DNA "could" show to your imaginations until the facts are in.
416 kids...jeeees. They weren't having families, they were breeding tribes. -
@ Mr Garibaldi
416 kids...jeeees. They weren't having families, they were breeding tribes.
What upset me about the interview I quoted was that it addressed a point Picasso had mentioned in another thread about the women having their emotions "bred" out of them.
She made a good point and I saw that the interview covered that aspect wonderfully.
Women are not allowed to have emotion, none that shows anyway because the men don't want it.
Furthermore, I keep seeing people harp on issues like, "what if" other religious groups were investigated.... and in my mind it is simple, if they aren't abusing their children, then they would welcome such investigations, the ones that complain and try to hide things, are usually those that are hiding criminal behaviors. -
Okay.
My mind is a dangerous place, I think that's been established.
416 children, all with the same last names of Merrill or Jessup.
Simply by looking at this from a logistical standpoint, either two horny old goats did nothing but lay around all day with one after another coming in and out in a revolving door situation,
OR
There's a whole lot of incest and inbreeding that's gone on there, which comes into a whole lot of problems not just emotionally, but genetically as well.
Man oh man it just gets worse and worse...
-
@ Mr Garibaldi
Okay.
My mind is a dangerous place, I think that's been established.
416 children, all with the same last names of Merrill or Jessup.
Simply by looking at this from a logistical standpoint, either two horny old goats did nothing but lay around all day with one after another coming in and out in a revolving door situation,
OR
There's a whole lot of incest and inbreeding that's gone on there, which comes into a whole lot of problems not just emotionally, but genetically as well.
Man oh man it just gets worse and worse...
I think there are other last names involved but according to the testimony and the bishop's records, MOST have those last names.
I am sure your question and others will be answered when the DNA tests are complete. -
I betcha that the DNA testing shows the second of my two scenarios...
-
Mike, the point isn't who is doing what, or who has nothing to hide and who doesn't. The point is the degree to which government can intrude on our privacies.
Take Rozita Swinton. She made a fake call in Colorado that resulted in the no-doubt rushed and frantic searches of twelve private residences. What if one of them was you, having a SWAT team break in on you out of the blue for no good legal reason but a hunch, nicely or otherwise? That's not traumatic?
Sure, those people seemed to have nothing to hide, but were not their Fourth Amendment rights violated under false pretenses? See where this all leads?
It's the same argument that if three houses on a block are known to have drugs, but it is not known which three houses they are, the other 97 won't mind being ransacked because they have nothing to hide.
Look, FLDS are scum, okay? Agreed. But you HAVE to look at the much bigger picture here. Or someday you'll be opening your door to the police whenever they want, and you shouldn't mind because you have nothing to hide. Got it?
That's how you slide down the slippery slope into dictatorship. One step at a time. Nazi Germany wasn't turned into a fascist state overnight. They had to enact a lot of draconian laws first, under the pretense of the greater good.
And I as a veteran who spent six years defending this country will speak out against it while I still can. Otherwise, what was the point? I've been in countries under martial law. I know the difference. And I know the signs.
'nuff said.
-
MadKing, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the government works on the "good faith" argument and the judge has already accepted it.
I already have no problem with the government knocking on my door because I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE.....and I am not the specualting type in public.
Mike is a veteran as well, and I understand that if the law receives a complaint, and acts on it, THEN observes enough evidence for a search warrant, then LEGALLY, the big bad government (sarcasm) has its case and the initial complaint is irrelevant. You may be willing to ignore the the law in favor of the "potential" consequences, but thank heavens the Judge did not.
Speaking of, look into the statistics, when acting in the benefit of the child, the standard is quite high for any appeals court to overturn the ruling judge in matters of sexual abuse.
I did look, so perhaps you might want to before continuing to speculate on what a higher court will do.
@ Mr Garibaldi
I betcha that the DNA testing shows the second of my two scenarios...
I don't bet unless I am pretty sure I will win....so, no thanks. -
Two key points you're missing here in addressing those very questions to me, TMK.
One, I'm a very firm and fierce supporter of the Constitution and have done my work in Constitutional Law courses in earning my political science endorsement for teaching when I got my BS in Education (my other endorsement was in history).
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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 point you are trying to argue is probable cause. The phone call established probable cause by an affirmation, probable cause was further established in the execution of the original warrant to search the compound for the girl who made the first phone call.
Do I wish to see the letter of the law followed in the prosecution of these cases? Of course I do, and, having been and active duty soldier and still considering myself to be one no longer in uniform (the oath to defend one's country is a life long oath, in my book, once a soldier, always a soldier) I would fight to the death to ensure that these people have access to the fullest accordance of due process allowed to them as citizens of the United States.
That being said, the probable cause issue came to pass in the form of the initial phone call. From what I have gleaned in following this story, probable cause existed long before said phone call and was subsequently ignored until it was no longer possible to do so as there was a complaint of record made.
Dictatorship? Those are the words men like me used in the aftermath of both Ruby Ridge and Waco, in which the government used undercover agents to set up those they were investigating in sting operations, the outcome of which, in both cases, resulted in massacres. This has been a far different incident from either Ruby Ridge or Waco. The government, in both of those cases, played an active participatory part in the sieges and deaths that resulted. In this instance, the government of Texas went so far as to sit on their hands, in a figurative manner, until they had no further recourse but to step in. -
Okay, Mike, Susan, you win. I give up.
NOT!
To be continued...
TMK
-
With all due respect Mad King, I do not go for the slippery slope argument for the most part. It is good to keep in mind the signs, but you don't stop something that is beneficial because of the slippery slope, you stop it when it is in the process of slipping.
I have worked with Children Services before here in the state of Ohio, and it is not a walk in the park. They irresponsibly placed my brother with a wonderful couple without warning them about some of the "issues" he had. They ended up calling me a few months after asking if I would take him back and I had a long talk with them. I know Children Services has an agenda.
I have also been a part of a cult, not as bad as these compounds, but bad enough that I still react a bit to the conditioning I went through. I have to say your 1% needs to be diminished to a .5% because I honestly believe these people are abusing the kids, and they aren't going to be able to coach any leading or false answers out of them, the children have been conditioned from birth to what they should say. So to put this in perspective for you, I was a part of this "cult" for only 2-3 years and I still react to conditioning, these kids have done this their whole lives, it isn't going to disappear overnight and all of a sudden they are suggestible.
Take Rozita Swinton. She made a fake call in Colorado that resulted in the no-doubt rushed and frantic searches of twelve private residences. What if one of them was you, having a SWAT team break in on you out of the blue for no good legal reason but a hunch, nicely or otherwise? That's not traumatic? Personally these types of appeals to emotion don't phase me. Traumatic? yes, understandable? Hell yes. For that matter the SWAT team is welcome at my home any time an they are also welcome to sit on my roof and scare the shit out of the kids who keep stealing stuff out of my back yard. * manic laughter*
It's the same argument that if three houses on a block are known to have drugs, but it is not known which three houses they are, the other 97 won't mind being ransacked because they have nothing to hide. Please show me where something this irresponsible happens on a regular basis. If the police ransack 97 homes they also have to pay for the damage done to innocent people. That is fiscally irresponsible and no police chief in his right mind would allow it.
So thank you for point out the dangers of the current actions, but I think with this particular case it may be a bit of an over reaction. Whether or not this 16 year old exists, the illegal activity they found there is still illegal, and still needs to be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted. -
@ Mr Garibaldi
Two key points you're missing here in addressing those very questions to me, TMK.
One, I'm a very firm and fierce supporter of the Constitution and have done my work in Constitutional Law courses in earning my political science endorsement for teaching when I got my BS in Education (my other endorsement was in history).
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
The point you are trying to argue is probable cause. The phone call established probable cause by an affirmation, probable cause was further established in the execution of the original warrant to search the compound for the girl who made the first phone call.
Do I wish to see the letter of the law followed in the prosecution of these cases? Of course I do, and, having been and active duty soldier and still considering myself to be one no longer in uniform (the oath to defend one's country is a life long oath, in my book, once a soldier, always a soldier) I would fight to the death to ensure that these people have access to the fullest accordance of due process allowed to them as citizens of the United States.
That being said, the probable cause issue came to pass in the form of the initial phone call. From what I have gleaned in following this story, probable cause existed long before said phone call and was subsequently ignored until it was no longer possible to do so as there was a complaint of record made.
Dictatorship? Those are the words men like me used in the aftermath of both Ruby Ridge and Waco, in which the government used undercover agents to set up those they were investigating in sting operations, the outcome of which, in both cases, resulted in massacres. This has been a far different incident from either Ruby Ridge or Waco. The government, in both of those cases, played an active participatory part in the sieges and deaths that resulted. In this instance, the government of Texas went so far as to sit on their hands, in a figurative manner, until they had no further recourse but to step in.
Applauding here!!! Well said and a good understanding of the law. Thanks for that comment. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
With all due respect Mad King, I do not go for the slippery slope argument for the most part. It is good to keep in mind the signs, but you don't stop something that is beneficial because of the slippery slope, you stop it when it is in the process of slipping.
I have worked with Children Services before here in the state of Ohio, and it is not a walk in the park. They irresponsibly placed my brother with a wonderful couple without warning them about some of the "issues" he had. They ended up calling me a few months after asking if I would take him back and I had a long talk with them. I know Children Services has an agenda.
I have also been a part of a cult, not as bad as these compounds, but bad enough that I still react a bit to the conditioning I went through. I have to say your 1% needs to be diminished to a .5% because I honestly believe these people are abusing the kids, and they aren't going to be able to coach any leading or false answers out of them, the children have been conditioned from birth to what they should say. So to put this in perspective for you, I was a part of this "cult" for only 2-3 years and I still react to conditioning, these kids have done this their whole lives, it isn't going to disappear overnight and all of a sudden they are suggestible.
Personally these types of appeals to emotion don't phase me. Traumatic? yes, understandable? Hell yes. For that matter the SWAT team is welcome at my home any time an they are also welcome to sit on my roof and scare the shit out of the kids who keep stealing stuff out of my back yard. * manic laughter*
Please show me where something this irresponsible happens on a regular basis. If the police ransack 97 homes they also have to pay for the damage done to innocent people. That is fiscally irresponsible and no police chief in his right mind would allow it.
So thank you for point out the dangers of the current actions, but I think with this particular case it may be a bit of an over reaction. Whether or not this 16 year old exists, the illegal activity they found there is still illegal, and still needs to be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted.
I learn something new every day about you Sam and wonderfully written.
All I can say is WOW and thank you. -
@ Samantha A. Torrence
With all due respect Mad King, I do not go for the slippery slope argument for the most part. It is good to keep in mind the signs, but you don't stop something that is beneficial because of the slippery slope, you stop it when it is in the process of slipping.
I have worked with Children Services before here in the state of Ohio, and it is not a walk in the park. They irresponsibly placed my brother with a wonderful couple without warning them about some of the "issues" he had. They ended up calling me a few months after asking if I would take him back and I had a long talk with them. I know Children Services has an agenda.
I have also been a part of a cult, not as bad as these compounds, but bad enough that I still react a bit to the conditioning I went through. I have to say your 1% needs to be diminished to a .5% because I honestly believe these people are abusing the kids, and they aren't going to be able to coach any leading or false answers out of them, the children have been conditioned from birth to what they should say. So to put this in perspective for you, I was a part of this "cult" for only 2-3 years and I still react to conditioning, these kids have done this their whole lives, it isn't going to disappear overnight and all of a sudden they are suggestible.
Personally these types of appeals to emotion don't phase me. Traumatic? yes, understandable? Hell yes. For that matter the SWAT team is welcome at my home any time an they are also welcome to sit on my roof and scare the shit out of the kids who keep stealing stuff out of my back yard. * manic laughter*
Please show me where something this irresponsible happens on a regular basis. If the police ransack 97 homes they also have to pay for the damage done to innocent people. That is fiscally irresponsible and no police chief in his right mind would allow it.
So thank you for point out the dangers of the current actions, but I think with this particular case it may be a bit of an over reaction. Whether or not this 16 year old exists, the illegal activity they found there is still illegal, and still needs to be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted.
I have to say, Sam, you've just hit the hammer on the head about the ransacking bit as well. Ten years in the fire service gave me plenty of exposure to the knowings of which houses are meth labs and which are not, which houses have been under investigation for drug sales, etc.
No judicial system, no judge, wants to or will tolerate inept police work, in my experience. -
umm.. you're welcome? * grin* It is always nice to debate with people you respect. Makes it more interesting.
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
umm.. you're welcome? * grin* It is always nice to debate with people you respect. Makes it more interesting.
Yes it does. You speak/write eloquently, whether it is in comments or writing your own pieces.
You make very legitimate points and one that I have been trying to make since this story broke, when you said:
Whether or not this 16 year old exists, the illegal activity they found there is still illegal, and still needs to be investigated, and if necessary prosecuted.
That is what I see many ignoring in their desire to question the government. I have seen ample cause to question them a time or two but generally it was when facts came out to which to justify those questions, not just "my opinion" on some "potential" wrong done by using examples that have nothing to do with this specific case.
The whole line of argument on the phone call was addressed and the Judge proceeded because of the good faith argument listed in the article above.
Texas State US Attorney Greg Abbott says that legally, "the case really doesn't hinge upon that particular 16-year-old", he goes on to add, "Once investigators, in good faith, go into the compound and determine whether or not there was any kind of wrongdoing; the case is on its own after that."
What I am having a hard time understanding is how that basic, simple fact is so hard for others to understand. -
@ Mr Garibaldi
I have to say, Sam, you've just hit the hammer on the head about the ransacking bit as well. Ten years in the fire service gave me plenty of exposure to the knowings of which houses are meth labs and which are not, which houses have been under investigation for drug sales, etc.
No judicial system, no judge, wants to or will tolerate inept police work, in my experience.
No, they hate it because it allows criminals back on the street and lawyers can play whatever games they want , but Judge's generally rule on the law and come down hard on those that waste their time. -
@ Susan Duclos
No, they hate it because it allows criminals back on the street and lawyers can play whatever games they want , but Judge's generally rule on the law and come down hard on those that waste their time.
Bingo, not just a waste of time, a waste of taxpayer (our) money. -
Last word for the night and I'm done here. For now.
Sam, Mike, Susan, you all make excellent points, legal, moral and otherwise. It's a very good thing the children are safe, or as safe as can be, in Texas CPS custody. And do not EVER mistake my arguments as justifying ANYTHING the FLDS does, has done or will do as it pertains to children. I know too much about them now to ever do that (hat tip, Sue D).
But our legal systems were set up not to protect the best of us, but the worst of us. The best of us don't need those protections for the most part, as Mike T. so eloquently stated. Besides, you don't think I would have rather put Charles Manson and Ted Bundy on their knees and put bullets in their heads, murdering scum that they are, before they ever set foot in a courtroom?
Ted got his Bundy BBQ, and if the Supreme Court hadn't suspended Manson's death penalty in 1974, I'd have been lining up to pull the switch on him myself! A very long line that would have been, too.
Point being, it's so easy to hate and detest and form a lynch mob and excuse whatever you do as justice. The names Sacco and Vanzetti ring any bells? The Scottboro Boys? The Duke lacrosse team? How about Richard Jewell, the Atlanta Olympic bomber who wasn't?
The feds actually asked him to waive his rights and make a bomb video! How screwed is that? Add Waco and Ruby Ridge to that long sad legacy, and I'm going to assume that maybe, just maybe, in certain instances the government isn't going to have our best interests at heart.
Sometimes politics and personal considerations meddle in the affairs of justice, and there is enormous potential for that to happen here. This is the largest custody battle in US history. The stakes could not be higher, for BOTH sides.
ALL parties to this sad story are all human, fallible, and will take shortcuts if they think they can get away with it.
FWIW I learned from my tech training that electricity follows the path of least resistance. Unfortunately, in too many cases, so do our Valiant Guardians of Justice. Planting evidence, say. Gets a known bad guy like Scarface off the street, but at what price?
You all want to trust the government to do the right thing? Fine. So do I. I'm not an anarchist. Too much of the rest of the world is the Darkness. America is the Light, no matter what anybody says. That's why millions flock here every year. They vote on that one with their feet.
And that's what it comes down to. Keeping the lights on. It's so easy to turn one off here and there when it suits your needs. But eventually you're going to be in the dark. I don't want that, and I know YOU all don't want that.
Trust but verify, is all I ask. You may not want to hear this, Sue, but when trial starts I want the Texas Rangers, Sheriff Doran, the CPS women who signed off on the affidavit, CPP members Flora Jessop and her boss, Ms. Walker, and every other state and NGO official involved in this case put on the stand and grilled like shish kabobs. I also want the same to happen to every member of the FLDS. I expect that will happen.
I have no real truck in all of this. But one of my duties that I swore to, which Mike so clearly stated did not expire with my enlistment, is to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as it pertains to upholding and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.
Lastly, maybe I watch The Shield too much. But I've studied volumes of criminal histories too. Gangsters, serial killers, worldwide drug cartels, you name it. Lot of ugliness out there.
Lot of good people in the FBI and our police forces tyring to stamp it out, too. I applaud those efforts without hesitation, as long as the remain WITHIN THE LAW in doing so. That's one critical precept that separates us from the Nazis and Al Qaeda. Agreed?
That said, there are FAR too many parties on both sides who have tremendous stakes riding on this case, financial, political and otherwise. Remember also that I called a possible Rozita Swinton placing the Sarah calls LONG before that story broke, maybe even before the police suspected it. There were things that just didn't add up, based on my technical knowledge of modern-day telecommunications systems.
I CALLED that one! Doesn't that give me ANY credibility?
All I ask is the benefit of the doubt. Yes, the FLDS will probably get what's coming to them, and rightfully so. But I also remember James Madison's famous quote that 'if men were angels, governments would not be necessary.'
Conversely, governments and their agents do not exactly have an angelic history in this country, or any others for that matter. Don't just focus a critical eye on the FLDS and cover the other one with a patch.
The Truth is found by gathering valid, admissible evidence and wringing every person who sits on that stand and swears to tell the truth like a dirty sponge, no matter how uncomfortable that may be, or how much we may dislike the results.
THAT is true justice.
'nuff said. Regards, TMK.
-
I CALLED that one! Doesn't that give me ANY credibility?
You seem hung up on that call MK when it has already been established IN COURT to be irrelevant, that is why no one is rushing to give you credit for calling something that has no legal standing in this case.
You are so busy questioning all these decisions, you forget that it is NOT your questions that count, it is the Judges, what the Judge sees as significant and she has stated the one, significant aspect is the children's safety.
Period.
She heard the testimony, she heard the experts, she ruled that there was enough to keep the children for further investigations and she will be the one hearing the majority of the cases, with other judges pitching in due to the amount of children.
By June 5, 2008, each child will have their cases heard in court but this ruling of hers shows SHE heard enough to understand that the experts, not you, not me, not some Joe off the street, showed her a pattern of sexual abuse perpetrated on minors at that Ranch.
When are you going to get it through your head that this case is not a criminal case yet, no criminal charges have been filed yet, this is about CHILD ABUSE and that is all it is. That abuse has been documented in court by proving that many children under 17 are pregnant, which is ILLEGAL.
Your "concerns" which you have made it clear are based on nothing but your opinion and sheer speculation of what you think could be or might be or might just not be, and those concerns do not even have anything to do with this case.
Try to understand, all that is front of the court at this moment, are child custody hearings to keep children from an environment where the officials have determined they were being abused.
Child abuse.
You continue to try to bring other cases that have absolutely nothing to do with this case, into the discussion.
That dog don't fly. It is nothing more than a distraction technique to avoid the fact that there is but one subject before the court right now... CHILD ABUSE.
They have multiple children who are pregnant that became pregnant in the home (ranch), that shows the pattern which is why the Judge ordered the temporary custody, not to mention the fact that they cannot even figure out who the parents are of what child because the child DOESN'T KNOW!!!!!
You can type out long, bookstyle answers that brings speculation, conspiracy theories, cases that have nothing to do with one and your opinions, up all day long and it doesn't change the facts that they were sexually abusing the children and after they went in and witnessed evidence of that abuse, they obtained a legal search warrant and authorization to remove the children.
Your opinion is not going to change those facts, your opinion is not going to change the Texas statutes which show that the CPS and officials had an obligation to go in and to remove the children and your opinion is going to have no effect whatsoever on how the Judge rules, just as your opinion about that phone call that you feel should matter more than it does, didn't have anything to do with how she has already ruled....because guess what....it is irrelevant as the US Texas State Attorney has already pointed out. -
TMK, you seem to be making a case FOR the warrants being executed despite your best intentions of trying to do otherwise.
Trust but verify, is all I ask. You may not want to hear this, Sue, but when trial starts I want the Texas Rangers, Sheriff Doran, the CPS women who signed off on the affidavit, CPP members Flora Jessop and her boss, Ms. Walker, and every other state and NGO official involved in this case put on the stand and grilled like shish kabobs. I also want the same to happen to every member of the FLDS. I expect that will happen.
I'm sure they will be. That tends to be the case in the child abuse cases I'm familiar with (I worked with abused and neglected children who had been placed in state custody for a while after I left the army). The burden of proof is always on the state, and they have to make a well documented case when presenting in court. Anything less and the children are not remanded to state custody.
It seems to me that they had their documentation in order and enough compelling evidence to carry out the placements, otherwise the judge would have dismissed the case outright, for lack of evidence, improper procedure, a whole host of other reasons.
The Shield is hardly what I would call an example of how the legal system works, nor would I give that credit, really, to Law & Order, NCIS, CSI, or even that paragon of television courtroom drama, Perry Mason. -
{munching popcorn}
-
@ Nikki W (karateblossom)
{munching popcorn}
Had mine earlier, going to bed soon. Thanks for the heads up on this one Susan. Very interesting discussion/debate so far. Hope it stays that way...don't want to see another few hundred comments here too :). -
If there is a compound where children are kept and there are under age girls with babies and pregnant then there IS child abuse.
I cannot understand why there is any question about has the right thing been done.
KB I am not munching popcorn, :-), I am hitting my head against the wall trying to figure out how there are some that see that it was wrong to remove the children from the compound.
-
Just a quick mention, Waco and other tragedies were on the minds of the Texas authorities when they went into the compound. The amount of caution, respect, and patience they exhibited was because they wanted to avoid that type of incident.
So again, while the argument is understandable and people should always question thier government, in this case the authorities are working within the bounds of the law. If it turns out they didn't, as ruled by the supreme court or otherwise, then Iwill put my money on a scumbucket lawyer finding aloophole and not that any wrong doing was even done.
The call, Mike, doesn't matter who placed it, it showed a potential danger and 911 calls must be taken seriously as do ones made to abuse help hotlines. The call situation kinda reminds me of the one earlier. Gosh I forget where it happened, when those speed boats confronted the American ship and a crank caller started saying stuff about blowing the American ship up? Crank or not, they now had a threat and had to act on it accordingly, same difference to me.
-
On the Today show this morning, they had 3 women and 3 men from the FDLS, and asked them several questions.
Were they aware of children as young as 13 having babies: No.
Would (this was addressed to one of the men) he consider having sex with a child under age: No.
Good report, Susan...this is just a nightmare.
-
Yeah, what do they consider underaged? 6 years old?
-
@ Samantha A. Torrence
Yeah, what do they consider underaged? 6 years old?
I don't know, but what I am sure of, is that these people are not going to admit to anything! -
@ Sheba
Had mine earlier, going to bed soon. Thanks for the heads up on this one Susan. Very interesting discussion/debate so far. Hope it stays that way...don't want to see another few hundred comments here too :).
You are welcome Sheba, thought this one would be easier on your computer that going through 300+ comments.
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
If there is a compound where children are kept and there are under age girls with babies and pregnant then there IS child abuse.
I cannot understand why there is any question about has the right thing been done.
KB I am not munching popcorn, :-), I am hitting my head against the wall trying to figure out how there are some that see that it was wrong to remove the children from the compound.
Don't go giving yourself a headache. What people don't realize is that it is not the government on trial despite the fact that a few seem to think it is.
The hearings will proceed and now they will deal with abuse issues, the DNA's test results, more experts and the most incriminating of evidence will not even come from any of the officials or investigators, but the Lab.
That evidence will be conclusive enough to tell what men impregnated what kids, and which mothers allowed it.
The evidence from these hearings will then be court record and will be able to be used in any criminal investigation against the fathers and mothers responsible.
Debra, Sam, good points from both of you. -
Sorry I haven't been around today...strep throat has decided to come pay our household a visit! So tonight, for an house or so, I'm playing catch-up!
Did you get to watch the Today show, Susan?
-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Sorry I haven't been around today...strep throat has decided to come pay our household a visit! So tonight, for an house or so, I'm playing catch-up!
Did you get to watch the Today show, Susan?
No I missed it, was it good? -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Sorry I haven't been around today...strep throat has decided to come pay our household a visit! So tonight, for an house or so, I'm playing catch-up!
Did you get to watch the Today show, Susan?
Deb a wish for you and your household to have a speedy recovery :-) -
@ Susan Duclos
No I missed it, was it good?
Yes...it was interesting. The three men and three women sat very stoically (?) and really seemed detached from the interview. They really tried to blow this whole thing off, saying that they didn't feel that they'd been treated fairly, said that their children really needed them and that the children were very unhappy...I sat entranced watching these people talk. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
Deb a wish for you and your household to have a speedy recovery :-)
Thanks, Cynthia. My daughter went to the ER Sat. and got an antibiotic, and I went today and got my own. Hopefully, we won't pass it on to the kids. -
Oh...oh...oh! I found the video of this morning!
Media Bistro-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Oh...oh...oh! I found the video of this morning!
Media Bistro
Thanks. Deb, looking now. CanFran just posted about that interview, we are having fun with comments about "Bubba" and these guys in jail, if you get y drift.
You and I were talking about something in email yesterday.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/253586
There ya go! -
They shouldn't be talking to be reporters because they aren't sympathetic characters at all.
-
I know what you mean, Susan. I have to wonder about their sincerity...about being able to just up and leave the camp...and that yeah, they would to get their children back. Hmmm...time will tell.
-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Thanks, Cynthia. My daughter went to the ER Sat. and got an antibiotic, and I went today and got my own. Hopefully, we won't pass it on to the kids.
That is what I was wondering if the children are sick also.
I sure hope that the baby doesn't get it. -
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Thanks, Cynthia. My daughter went to the ER Sat. and got an antibiotic, and I went today and got my own. Hopefully, we won't pass it on to the kids.
SOUP. Chicken Noodle Soup. -
@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
That is what I was wondering if the children are sick also.
I sure hope that the baby doesn't get it.
Nope...so far, none of the 5 kids here have it. Yet. My daughter did take the baby to be checked, and the doctor told her that usually, babies don't get strep! What a relief, ya know?
@ Susan Duclos
SOUP. Chicken Noodle Soup.
The only kind for making one feel better! Right now, I'm burning a fever...so gonna be getting off here for tonight and finish palying catch up in the a.m. -
Deb glad the baby won' get sick.
HEY but you take care of yourself and get over this!!!
-
@ Debra Myers (skyangel)
Nope...so far, none of the 5 kids here have it. Yet. My daughter did take the baby to be checked, and the doctor told her that usually, babies don't get strep! What a relief, ya know?
The only kind for making one feel better! Right now, I'm burning a fever...so gonna be getting off here for tonight and finish palying catch up in the a.m.
Feel better sweetie. -
Well, I didn't get it as bad as my daughter did...so my own should be better in a day or two. I hope! LOL!
-
@ Susan Duclos
Feel better sweetie.
I will. Got the meds in my system and that was the biggest hurdle! LOL! So till tomorrow...
nite all! -
This being a carry over from the debates of the lost boys article... I just couldn't help but post again.
It seems (fortunately) that the court ruled that there was no evidence of abuse and the children should never have been taken the way they were. Apparently there weren't even underaged mothers....and one of them that was supposedly underaged was 28 years old.
I was one of only a few people that felt the actions taken were outrageous and certainly didn't seem logical or legal.
However, if there was any abuse by anyone there at the ranch, I do hope they find the individual/s, charge them, and that they will be tried accordingly.
It is sad that no matter what happens, no one can remove the emotional scars on the children that were taken by force and separated from their mothers and placed in strange surroundings.
Here is the DJ article.-
The court also did not rule the children be returned. CPS will be appealing according to officials and this time they will provide the evidence needed.
The court also made a point of distinguishing the "males and the girls NOT at the age of puberty".
I am guessing you haven't actually read the order or you would have known this.
It also applies to the 38 mothers and since the others didn't file, it doesn't apply to those children.
Since the CPS simply provided information as to why they thought there was no case on the mothers part (mistake on CPS's part) and didn't provide evidence the first time around to the appellate court, the appeal is expected shortly with the appropriate evidence supplied.
Also, just in case you missed it, the Federal Government will now be getting involved, as per the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, via a special task force.
Ever think of giving "all" the facts instead of cherry picked ones?
LOLOL -
@ Susan Duclos
The court also did not rule the children be returned. CPS will be appealing according to officials and this time they will provide the evidence needed.
The court also made a point of distinguishing the "males and the girls NOT at the age of puberty".
I am guessing you haven't actually read the order or you would have known this.
It also applies to the 38 mothers and since the others didn't file, it doesn't apply to those children.
Since the CPS simply provided information as to why they thought there was no case on the mothers part (mistake on CPS's part) and didn't provide evidence the first time around to the appellate court, the appeal is expected shortly with the appropriate evidence supplied.
Also, just in case you missed it, the Federal Government will now be getting involved, as per the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, via a special task force.
Ever think of giving "all" the facts instead of cherry picked ones?
LOLOL
All I know is what I heard in the news conference. There was no evidence and there was no sufficient reason to forcibly take 400+ children at gunpoint from their parents.
If CPS has evidence why have they not provided it? Why as you stated above " this time they will provide the evidence needed"?? Why did they wait?
And...I wasn't cherry picking. Just going by what was reported on CNN and the article on DJ that was recently posted. They pointed out many of the same things that Johnny/TMK, me and Pam stated in many of our posts. -
Again...try looking into it.
There wasn't reference to the "taking" of the children, it was the temp order to "keep" the children at issue.
That is the problem with looking at headlines instead of reading reports.
The investigations continue and now there is more evidence via the documents and DNA testing, as well as the injuries to the males, all evidence that wasn't presented at the original hearings, which means new hearings.
-
If I can recall this properly, one of the major reasons given by CPS that the children should be removed immediately was because of the rather large number of "minor children" who were either pregnant or had already given birth, i.e., this showed a pattern of widespread child abuse.
Texas officials concede at least 15 sect mothers adults
The key words in that headline to me are at least. I also heard a report that another 10 of those pregnant/have already had children "minor children" are also believed to be adults.
CPS insisted that members of the sect were being evasive and lying to them about the minor children's ages, when in fact, it appears that they were not lying at all. You see, this is where I have a huge problem with tarring an entire group of people with a brush because of the actions of a few. -
@ Susan Duclos
Again...try looking into it.
There wasn't reference to the "taking" of the children, it was the temp order to "keep" the children at issue.
That is the problem with looking at headlines instead of reading reports.
The investigations continue and now there is more evidence via the documents and DNA testing, as well as the injuries to the males, all evidence that wasn't presented at the original hearings, which means new hearings.
From the Texas Court of Appeals: Memorandum Opinion
"We find that the Department did not carry its burden of proof under section 262.201. The evidence adduced at the hearing held April 17-18, 2008, was legally and factually insufficient to support the findings required by section 262.201 to maintain custody of Relators’ children with the Department. Consequently, the district court abused its discretion in failing to return the Relators’ children to the Relators. The Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus is conditionally granted. The district court is directed to vacate its temporary orders of granting sole managing conservatorship of the children of the Relators to the Department. The writ will issue only if the district court fails to comply with this opinion."
I read the memorandum....262.201 is the basis under which the children are allowed to be removed from their homes. The paragraph I have quoted sounds to me like they are telling them to release the children as they were taken based on legally and factually insufficient evidence. I.e., they should not have been taken in the first place and now should be released.
This was also my understanding based on listening to the public statement that was aired on CNN....I didn't get it from a headline. -
@ Susan Duclos
Again...try looking into it.
There wasn't reference to the "taking" of the children, it was the temp order to "keep" the children at issue.
That is the problem with looking at headlines instead of reading reports.
The investigations continue and now there is more evidence via the documents and DNA test |
Email
Print
Share
Polygamist Group, FLDS Children To Be Placed In Foster Homes This Week
