Saturday, May 17, 2008

Most evidence for possible FLDS criminal cases seems tainted

I'm now fairly convinced Texas will never see any successful criminal prosecutions from the Great Eldorado Polygamist Roundup. They've just screwed it up too badly. Whether the child seizures will stick on the civil side is another matter, but nearly all their evidence for possible criminal prosecutions appears tainted.

I've argued previously why I think the search warrant was based on bogus information, and evidence keeps trickling out that confirms law enforcement knew or should have known the original complaint call was a hoax before they went in.

Now comes news that minor FLDS children are being interrogated by law enforcement without an attorney present, even when they ask for one, on the basis that CPS is now their legal guardian and has authority to grant consent to the questioning without counsel. ''My client told the CPS worker that she did not want to talk to her without an attorney,'' one attorney told the Houston Chronicle, ''She was told that she wasn't entitled to an attorney because it was a civil matter.''

Terry McDonald, a criminal defense attorney and law professor at St. Mary's University, said it would not be illegal for Child Protective Services to interview the children without parents or attorneys present and to bring in law enforcement officers to assist.

CPS is now the children's legal guardian, McDonald noted. But what is legal may still be questionable.

"It seems to me a conflict of interest, because law enforcement and CPS have acted jointly in this case," McDonald said.

McDonald said CPS normally investigates enough to determine whether a crime has been committed against a child, then turns the case over to law enforcement for development of a criminal case. State law stipulates that children cannot be interviewed by law enforcement without an attorney or legal guardian present.

"I think you could make the argument that CPS is not acting in their capacity to protect children from abuse, but is acting as an agent of the state, as law enforcement," McDonald added. "Whether a judge would agree, I don't know."

Remember: This is all a fishing expedition. No crimes have been alleged and the only specific "abuse" cited in court by CPS is the parents' religious beliefs, from which they're being told they may have to apostatize in order to regain their kids. The complaint that brought in CPS was a hoax, and there is no complaining witness. If they find new information in interviews from a civil case will they now claim they're launching a "new" investigation based on these "consensual" interrogations? That's pretty disingenuous.

I have no idea what's being said in those interviews, but IMO CPS is overreaching tremendously to assume law enforcement will get to use that information in any criminal proceedings. By wholesale ignoring the right to counsel for people openly asking for their attorneys, combined with the flimsy totality of the premise of the state's action in the first place, it's a safe bet some judge, somewhere, will toss out big chunks of any criminal case before it ever gets to trial. I'm not a lawyer and couldn't cite to case law, but I'll be surprised if some judge somewhere along the line doesn't agree CPS is acting as law enforcement's stalking horse.

Meanwhile, I'm angered and embarrassed for our state and nation at this news that CPS may tell FLDS parents they have to give up their religion to get their kids back, including kids who no one thinks have ever been abused. These parents are in the same predicament as Abraham in the Bible, ordered by God to slay his son Isaac: Choose between your children and your faith. What would you do?

And will God stay CPS' hand before the blade falls?

RELATED: From Unfair Park.


Anonymous said...

Utterly amazing what these people think they can get away with, and probably will get away with.

When an adult asks of law enforcement to speak with an attorney prior to an interrogation, law enforcement had best pony up and allow the attorney, or place the adult under arrest and charge them with a crime; to which they will still get to have an attorney present.

When CPS attempts to grant blanket approval for such interrogation under the veil of being the custodian of the person, and the person still requests an attorney, law enforcement should still comply with the request.

When CPS knowingly lies to its charges about their "rights" (or lack of them), they are acting as an attorney, giving legal advice. If they are not a licensed attorney, they are in violation of law.

It's bad enough that CPS does this with legitimate children every day, relying on the ignorance of their charge (child) to comply. It's even worse when their charge isn't even a child, but a legal adult which CPS blindly chooses to ignore.

Even still, even if all of those in custody were indeed children, if those children ask to speak with an attorney, get them one. They only ask because they have been taught that is what is proper. The child has an expectation of their rights, and denying that child that expectation regardless of what is legal or not, it destroys their faith in the judicial system forever.

I view this matter regarding children much as I would a 4 YO believing in Santa Clause. If that is their belief, let them believe it - they're 4. If they're a minor and ask to speak with an attorney prior or during questioning, get them one - they're a minor.

If that "minor" is in fact an adult, get the damn attorney.

Anonymous said...

This is a quote of Professor Jack Sampson of UT Law School, in the Dallas Morning News to which you linked:

'Mr. Sampson, an expert on family law, said there's no infringement on freedom of association and religion when the state must save children. He said state laws "do not recognize this as an exercise of religion" because underage sect girls have been sexually assaulted and teenage boys abandoned.'

' "Religion does not give you the right to sacrifice virgins as the Aztecs used to do. These people sacrifice virgins," Mr. Sampson said.'

Professor Sampson is slipping into hyperbole and hysteria, even as he slips into his dotage.

Of course the First Amendment would not protect sexual asault or sacrifice of virgins as a religious exercise. DUH!!! But that has nothing to do with the 400+ children who have not been "married off" at puberty or "sacrificed" or "abandoned."

On the other hand, the Constitution does protect the rights of those children to be with their non-abusive parents and the rights of those parents to be with their children.

Professor Sampson, like his hysterical clones at CPS, seemingly cannot distinguish between so-called religious practices and religious beliefs. He also is making things up: What abandoned boys is he talking about? What virgins have been sacrificed? Who are "these people" to whom he refers?

And I wonder just how far Professor Sampson will go with his analogy. If he sees sacrifice of virgins going on within the FLDS, what in hell does he see when practitioners of the Chabad Lubavitch branch of Judaism slice off part of the penis of a week-old baby boy? That assaultive activity is not confined to some closed "compound" in a remote area of the State; it goes on openly in Chabad Lubavitch centers and homes all across the State of Texas. If Professor Sampson knows of one or more of these slicing-off ceremonies of child abuse, State law requires him to report it to law enforcement. His failure to do so is itself a criminal offense.

The religious doctrine of FLDS -- marrige of girls at puberty -- and the religious doctrine of Chabad Lubavitch -- ritual circumcision of week-old baby boys -- both spring from the same part of the bible, the stories of Abraham. Why do CPS and Professor Sampson condemn the former but not the latter? Why do they consider the practice of the former to be abusive and the practice of the latter to be blessed and holy? Some reporter needs to put those questions to CPS and to the Professor.

Anonymous said...

FLDS Mother Victorious In Court

Anonymous said...

Grits, there is mounting evidence to support criminal cases arising out of the FLDS Debacle. It is the evidence of perjury by CPS and Law Enforcment people. You have already posted a portion of Attorney Goldstein's recent filing, in which the apparent perjury of law enforcement is set out. Here, from the Salt Lake Trib is evidence of apparent perjury by Ms. Voss, of CPS:

The Polygamy Files:
The Tribune's blog on the plural life

Friday, May 16, 2008
The disputed minors
In the beginning, there were 26 women whose ages were disputed. Texas Child Protective Services said they were minors; the women said they were adults.

The state took the 26 women whose ages were disputed, added them to five teenagers it had identified and came up with a total of 31 girls ages 14 t 17 who were pregnant or mothers.

Well, we're down to 24.

In the past two weeks, CPS has agreed that two women it deemed teenagers are actually adults.

Pamela Jeffs Jessop was one of them. She gave birth to her second child, a son, on April 29. The state immediately claimed custody of him.

In the court filing, the state identified Pamela and listed her approximate age as ''15 or 16 years of age.''

It identified her husband as Jackson Jessop, age 22.

Now, here is one thing interesting about that.

Pamela was one of the 20 women identified by CPS investigator Angie Voss during the April 17-18 hearing has having been a minor when she gave birth to her first child.

Pamela is listed on a chart Voss prepared and introduced as evidence during the hearing before Judge Barbara Walther. It shows her date of birth as 12/9/1989, which Voss used to calculate that Pamela was 16 when she gave birth to her first son on Aug. 1, 2006.

Which also means that Texas CPS already knew, before it classified her as a disputed minor and petitioned for custody of her child, that Pamela is 18.

A bishop's record, dated March 28, 2007, and confiscated by the state shows Pamela as then being 17 -- also making her an adult by the time of the raid.

Nevertheless, Texas included Pamela in its group of 26 pregnant and/or mothering minors.

Hmmm. Interesting. Did the state keep Pamela solely to get jurisdiction over her newborn son?

And is that why the state kept Louisa Jessop and classified her as a disputed minor? She gave birth on Monday. On Thursday, the state acknowledged she is 22. An adult.

But Voss listed Louisa on her ''20 minors'' chart, too.

In fact, Voss listed Louisa twice on the chart.

In one entry, Louisa is listed as having a birth date of April 4, 1986; in the other entry her birth date is shown as either April 3 or April 4, 1986.

A copy of Louisa's birth certificate, issued by the state of Utah, shows her birth date is April 3, 1986.

Either way, using the state's chart or the birth certificate, the math comes out the same. She is 22.

In one entry on the chart, Louisa is listed as having four children. In the other, she is shown as having five children.

Louisa actually has three children, including the newborn. The oldest is four, born when she was 18. The other child is 2.

But the state's chart shows her as being the mother of a girl named ''Mattie'' who was born on Sept. 24, 2000.

One entry shows Louisa has having been 14 when she gave birth and 13 when she conceived Mattie; the other shows her as having been 15 at the child's birth and 14 when she conceived.

The state used that miscalculation to its full advantage to talk about girls as young as 13 getting pregnant.

Anonymous said...

Paul Cassell, University of Utah Law professor seems to think that criminal evidence gathered under the bogus warrants will be valid in court (and I may be reading too much in this):

"During its investigation, Texas authorities have said they have uncovered evidence of physical and sexual abuse among children. Cassell said courts have upheld that if law enforcement sees evidence — even if it's evidence of a completely different crime than what the search warrant suspected — that evidence can still be used in court.
"They don't have to avert their eyes of evidence of other wrongdoing," Cassell said. "They have to show probable cause to be pulling up fish, but if they're looking for a bass and they find a salmon, they don't have to throw the salmon back."
Cassell said courts have allowed state agencies to share information, meaning evidence gathered in a child welfare investigation can later be used in a criminal one."

While I enjoy discussion about the morality, efficacy, policy, pragmatism, of the raid, I prefer the speculation about the legal aspects to come from attorneys.

I'd like to see bad practices get smacked down too, but I suspect that CPS is interviewing kids in front of cops because it has successfully done it this way for a long time and it's held up in court. Would someone defend this practice of CPS by saying that the kids don't need lawyers because they aren't being accused of any crime? They are being interviewed as witnesses. In general, what legal basis does a witness have for refusing to give a statement or testify in court?

Be that as it may, I am amazed that a young minor, say a 12 year old can give consent and away their Miranda rights when being investigated for a crime. In an ideal world, a 12 year old can no more consent to waiving their rights than they can to having sex with an adult.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

The question isn't whether you go fishing for bass and catch a salmon, 9:49, it's whether you had any business casting your line in the first place.

I'd argue that's Judge Cassell's view is true in theory, but in this case not in the particulars. Bluesman's comments have been the primary voice around here articulating that line of argument. It's verity depends on a) authorities not knowing the Swinton call was a hoax before they went in, and b) the definition of every building in the compound as one "household." The first is a matter of fact that appears more in doubt every day. The second is a matter of law, and my non-lawyerly opinion is that defining all those buildings as one "household" is a stretch. The other big legal question is whether possible future abuse decades from now is "immediate." Judge Walther said yes, but it seems unlikely that stands up. Judge Cassell's remarks speak to none of those issues.

I don't think there have been many cases like this for CPS to have a way they "always do it." In other instances they're investigating specific allegations of abuse. Here they're trying to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct where they don't previously exist. There's not much normal or routine about what's happening with these kids.

Btw, I'm sure folks saw the news that "what's happening" is costing taxpayers about $400,000 per day. And that's before all the legal cases get rolling and lawyers fees start to add up.

Anonymous said...

Two of my German professors at UT were Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. I thought that was as close as I would get to that kind of activity.

I was wrong.

As far a children having any rights goes, children have no real rights, as they are the wards of some adult or the state -- unless some adult or state agency is looking for a scapegoat or easy conviction. Travis County DA Ronnie Earle once charged an 11 year old with capital murder. It was only thrown out because APD didn't interrogate her with a parent or lawyer present.

As far as infant circumcision goes, it is now relatively common in hospitals, and whether the baby is Jewish or not is irrelevant. I don't know why Doran is hitting on the Lubavichers; circumcision of male children is required of all observant Jews -- and Muslims also, although I don't know when Muslims circumcise their boys. (I think the age varies according to the underlying culture.)

If I were a member of a minority -- i.e. non-Abrahamic -- religion, I would be really concerned about the CPS gestapo busting up my family on the basis of rumor and innuendo. Hell, if I was an orthodox Mormon I would be worried. As I understand it, orthodox Mormons didn't abjure the belief in polygamy, only its practice in this life.

I'm still betting that the value of the land that the YFZ Ranch -- and possible oil deposits underneath -- is a prime but unspoken motivator in this whole pogrom. I know I'm sounding like a stuck CD on this subject, but I think that it is the elephant in the room that no one talks about.

kbp said...

Stuck on a laptop & Sprint connection barely working at a campsite!

I'm sitting here considering part of what we know:

- Allison Palmer was in on this from the start (prior to raid);

- The office she serves should know what was going on;

- The warrants, and the resulting raid, appear to be a move that was absent 'good faith' from the moment the idea came up;

- Much of the "evidence" entered at the 14 Day Hearing is now questionable at best (perjury?);

- The interrogation WO/attorney present looks to be a problem;

- The DA's office asks the State AG to take over because there looks to be a big case load coming;

- There still are ZERO criminal charges to date;

- Doesn't look to be an overload for that DA's office yet.

I had browsed through a good deal of the State Bar's ethics (Rules of Conduct I think they were called. Sorry I don't have my notes & links to share on the PC).

I suspect that the request for the AG to take over could have been to avoid the Mike Nifong problem.

Spread the blame thinner and it's less of a problem to deal with, if any.

kbp said...

That "oil" "elephant" needs to be beneficial to SOMEBODY before you can assign blame / motive.

WHO would benefit with oil revenue as a result of this action?

Anonymous said...

kpb said:

"That "oil" "elephant" needs to be beneficial to SOMEBODY before you can assign blame / motive.

WHO would benefit with oil revenue as a result of this action?"

One obvious benefactor would be the State, if the land was confiscated.

So, as I keep asking, who owns the mineral rights, as they are separate from the surface rights?

Anonymous said...

Land in Texas is frequently sold without the "Mineral Rights" i.e., surface only is sold.

Has anyone done any research on the deed restrictions at the YFZ ranch?

Texas courts still have a chance to step up and restore the rights of these children to remain with their parents. The courts have a chance to redeem freedom of religion in Texas, if they don't do it, they deserve their reputation as the laughing stock of the U.S.A.

No on is laughing on this one. It need be, itshould definately go to the Supreme Court if we are to have any expectation of our rights under the constitution.

Anonymous said...

beowulf, I'm not really "hitting" on the Lubavitchers. I do not want all the Centers raided by Rangers and DPS looking for records of circumcisions performed in those Centers. I don't want parents in the Branch to lose their kids. I don't want a Rabbi anywhere to be prosecuted for child abuse.

What I do want is some rationality in the approach of the State of Texas to issues of this kind. If a circumcision is performed in a hospital or a clinic or a doctor's office, by a licensed physician, there is no issue of child abuse.

But if a Rabbi who is not a licensed physician performs a ritual circumcision in a home (as was the case of the Bris I attended), or his office, or somewhere else, then tell me WHY that is not considered child abuse.

"...circumcision of male children is required of all observant Jews...."

Plural marriages, and marriage by pubescent girls is (or may be) required of all observant FLDS.

What is the difference here? Both beliefs flow from the same stories in the Bible.

Parents cannot consent to sexual abuse of their female children by permitting them to be married before a certain age or to enter into a bigamous marriage at the legal age. But parents can assent to abuse of their male children by permitting a relgious officer to slice off part of the penis??? Isn't that precisely the position of the State of Texas?

A "prophet" of the FLDS can be successfully prosecuted for being a party to rape for conducting a wedding ceremony involving a 14 year old girl. Can a Rabbi's assistant be prosecuted for being an accessory to child abuse for participating in a Bris? If not, why not; what are the facts which make one a felon and the other not?

When you think about it, the one-week old male child who is subject to ritual circumcision has less to say about what is happening than the 15 year old girl given in marriage.

I can't help but wonder what would happen to practitioners of that African religion which practices female circumcision if they did that in Texas.

My point in taking up this subject on occasion is to highlight the total hypocrisy, gender politics, nanny stateism, venality and irrationality shown by CPS in terrorizing the adults and children of the YFZ Ranch.

We can talk all we want (and I hope we continue to do so) about the sufficiency of Ranger Long's affidavit, about the outrageous theories CPS keeps generating to justify their actions, about the "eye-ball" test for age, about the lies, half-lies, and omissions in the affidavits and testimony of various people. But what we need to address is the fundamental question of why the State of Texas is harrasing one particular religious group -- FLDS --- while giving another --- the Lubavitchers --- a pass, when both are apparently practicing child abuse as intergral aspects of their respective religions.

It is unconstitutional on its face for the State to condition custody of one's children on a religious beliefs test. It is similarly unconstitutional for the State to punish one religion for practices while condoning those practices by another religion.

If we can frame the ongoing discussion around the issues of religious freedom and the favoritism by the State of one religion over another, I think we will get closer to answering the question of why the Eldorado Debacle was launched in the first place. Because, in my opinion, there is no rational distinction to be made, as the State is implicitly making. Child abuse was not the reason for the raid. If it were, the Lubavitchers would have been raided long ago.

We need to keep at this. We are witnessing a gross mis-use of State power to destroy the presence of a religious group which threatened the hegemony of a bunch of good ole boys over County government. We cannot let this go un-remarked and un-challenged.

Anonymous said...

Doran, we are a lot closer than you give me credit for.

I wrote:

"If I were a member of a minority -- i.e. non-Abrahamic -- religion, I would be really concerned about the CPS gestapo busting up my family on the basis of rumor and innuendo. Hell, if I was an orthodox Mormon I would be worried. As I understand it, orthodox Mormons didn't abjure the belief in polygamy, only its practice in this life."

Most Christians don't seem to count Mormons as "Christians". See all the flap about whether the Fundie Christians in the Republican Party would support Mitt Romney because of his being a Mormon. His father had to put up with the same bigoted flak when he ran in 1968 for the Republican nomination.

My backhanded slam at the "orthodox' Abrahamic religions above was perhaps a bit too subtle. I'm in agreement with you about infant circumcision. No one has given me an good explanation -- other than "tradition and halakah" -- about why its done at infancy and not as part of, say, the bar mitzvah. Circumcision seems to be peculiar to the Semitic and Hamitic peoples of the Ancient Near East. I've seen some "reasons" for generalized circumcision as now practiced in the US, but I think the main reason is the phobia about masturbation rather than any genuine health considerations.

I just read the Dallas Morning News article linked above and it really looks like the CPS goons are out to destroy the culture, no matter how healthy it might be in some respects -- drug free food, no TV, drug free environment for the children, etc. There will be none of this for the FLDS kids if the State has its way.

This is why I keep calling this outrage a pogrom; it is about religion and culture, not about child abuse.

Anonymous said...

beowulf, I AM "orthodox" LDS, and I AM worried.

I don't understand why every American isn't worried, regardless of their religious status.

Anonymous said...

I am curious about a couple of things. How long might it take for the 3rd Court of Appeals to decide to hear (or not) oral arguments on the writ of mandamus filed by TRLA? Is there a time frame within which they have to make a decision?

I am also curious about whether or not judges, such as Barbara Walther, keep abreast of news articles about cases pending in their courts, especially when they are elected judges? I keep picturing the judge in "Miracle on 34th Street" who is swayed in the case against Santa Claus by how his ruling might affect his future electability. Would Judge Walther be likely to find out about CPS's duplicity in calculating age through the media? Certainly it's just idle speculation, but I wonder if she sees more and more negative press about the raid, if she might decide to distance herself from CPS's stance, and I wonder how much judges in general might be influenced by the media. Or do they observe a rule not to view media reports on current stories?

Anonymous said...

"Whether a judge would agree, I don't know."

Real judges or Texas judges?

Anonymous said...

"Grits, there is mounting evidence to support criminal cases arising out of the FLDS Debacle. It is the evidence of perjury by CPS and Law Enforcment people."


"defining all those buildings as one 'household' is a stretch."

That would be the largest, most populous household in American history, wouldn't it?

Even if they dislike polygamy... can they argue separate polygamous homes are rally one. On what grounds?

"The other big legal question is whether possible future abuse decades from now is 'immediate.'"

I'm left to ask if the leading Texas authorities are stupid, or dishonest and evil. I go with dishonest an evil, and there should be criminal charges for civil rights violations in federal court.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

"Most Christians don't seem to count Mormons as 'Christians'."

Well, they're not in any honest sense of the word (Mormon theologists aren't honest in my humble opinion). Early prophets didn't even consider themselves Christians anyway, they were "Saints".

The Bible itself says not to add to it.

While I'm not a Christian, I have no difficulty in deciding the two faiths are quite separate things, with one being a counterfeit fraudulent add-on to the other... which I also consider untrue.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I know it's theologians.

Anonymous said...

Thankfully, it's all about the chillren, not you faux constitutional lawyers, spoon benders and full mooners.

Anonymous said...

In regards to Voss.

She considers ,the mothers being o.k. with underage marriage abuse,
even though the state of Texas alows children to get married have children and mess around with adults no more tha 3 yrs their senior..

So how does she have that right ?

Children to have children is legal in Texas ,she should be attacking Texas lawmakers.

In regards to Louisa ,one of the girls on Voss's list having a baby at 13, Louisa's birthdate on "the List" ,submitted by Voss ,shows she was born April 3,1986 ,which makes her 22 on the day of the raid.
Yet they held her as a minor.

She had her baby at 13 in 2000.

The YFZ ranch wasn't purchased until 2003.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Louisa had her baby at 13. She says she has 3 children, not four.
That older child "Mattie" is most likely not hers, so she hadn't had a baby at 13.

Anonymous said...

If CPS wants these women to move out of the ranch for a chance to get the kids back, let me tell you that a single mother with multiple kids and no formal education or work history ain't exactly going to be prospering out there on her own.
I have no idea how exactly CPS expects these women to accomplish moving out, finding a place to live, finding a job, considering they probably don't have a formal education or a job history outside of FLDS.
Right now the children appear to be raised in a communal setting, with many mothers taking care of them. They have a lot of outside time, special food made for them.
If the mothers were to move out to separate residences, I can not envision how they would take care of their children well. As mother works her minimum wage job, her multiple children are stuck in day care somewhere, or sit in front of a TV all day?
These people are used to support of their community in raising their children. If CPS decides they won't get their kids back unless they move out, what then?

Anonymous said...

To add insult to injury, with respect to these women moving out of the ranch and getting a job. Does CPS or the court really expect that the fine folks of Eldorado are going to welcome them with open arms, give them their jobs (because there probably aren't many vacant positions available to begin with), and allow them to rent apartments or other housing within the community?

Would CPS even accept an apartment complex as suitable quarters for many of these families? What would be different between having them reside on the ranch or in the (hypothetical) Twin Oaks Apartment complex in town? Just being in close proximity to another family is akin to a communal lifestyle.

Instead, does CPS expect these parents to scatter across Texas and elsewhere to accomplish these goals? How could they then keep them under their protective thumb? CPS expects them to travel in some cases as much as a thousand miles or more for court hearings every so often? How does CPS expect that form of "time off" to affect someone's employment continuity, especially at a new job?

Are these family plans designed for failure? They have already been described as not being individual (as required by law).

Perhaps, given the exceptional parenting capacity of these people (as claimed by CPS themselves), CPS should provide them employment opportunities as daycare workers for State operated daycare facilities. It shouldn't be a problem, considering that none of those children in daycare would be residing with any of the FLDS members.

Anonymous said...

Well it may be nice to haggle over terms to support polygamy, the facts here are that these are children being used by adults for sexual gratification.

I actually live in a community (in another state) with a large group of FLDS (which trades girls with communities in TX, AZ, etc., like livestock); yes indeed, pregnant underage girls, yes indeed, disappearing teenage boys (you only ever see them about 11 years old and younger), yes indeed welfare supported old goats who force their daughters to "marry" uncles, yes indeed girls prevented from getting any education past about 4th grade level, and told they will go to hell if they aren't compliant.

This is child abuse masquerading as religion, and those who defend it as religious liberty or freedom of association or freedom to marry/love who they want--------are deluded at best.

Anonymous said...

It's a whole lot of innuendo. And if you don't like the community, why are you living in it?
As far as I can tell, TX hasn't produced any evidence that any of the under-age boys were kicked out, or that any of these people were on Welfare.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

And so why, pray tell, if you have this first-hand information of crimes committed and abuse going on, 1:13, are you putting this out in anonymous blog comments instead of offering yourself up as a witness to local police or the UT/AZ AGs?

If the Rangers (or FTM the feds) had a witness like you with as much first-hand knowledge of trading child brides across state lines, pregnant underage girls, etc., they wouldn't be struggling so much to make their case. Call 'em up!

Anonymous said...

Anon at 1:13

The things you describe go on in the poverty ridden slums of every major city in the State of Texas.

Oh! You didn't know that. Each and everyone of us make our life choices everyday. It is a right the people of this country has fought for time and time again.

For our own government to arbitrarily refuse these rights from one group is wrong. End of story.

Anonymous said...

If the plans do indeed require the women to find employment and living arrangements away from the ranch and separate from each other and their husbands, they are in fact setting them up for failure. I noticed that the plans require that the women report all residents of any building in which they reside - which would require if living in an apartment building, that they notify CPS of all current residents of the buildign or apartment complex and of any changes in residents within 24 hours. How on earth would it be possible for ANYBODY to comply with such a condition??

Various news articles have stated that CPS is seeking permanent custody of the children. They ARE setting these mothers up to fail.

Anonymous said...

texasrn said:

"Various news articles have stated that CPS is seeking permanent custody of the children. They ARE setting these mothers up to fail."

I think this is a reasonable assumption. CPS has been acting like they already have permanent custody of the children

Where the hell is the (Tx)ACLU?

kbp said...

Christoph said...
"Most Christians don't seem to count Mormons as 'Christians'."

Well, they're not in any honest sense of the word (Mormon theologists aren't honest in my humble opinion). Early prophets didn't even consider themselves Christians anyway, they were "Saints".

The Bible itself says not to add to it.

While I'm not a Christian, I have no difficulty in deciding the two faiths are quite separate things, with one being a counterfeit fraudulent add-on to the other... which I also consider untrue.

I'm clueless where you came up with that first statement. I feel safe guessing you have not read the Mormon Scripture.

As for the "The Bible itself says not to add to it", that is interpreted to mean do NOT add to the words of the book of THAT prophecy.

Apostle John would not have known the Romans would include his book of prophecy as the final in their Bible.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if CPS is requiring all the parents living in apartment buildings to report all the residents of the building to CPS?
And when should I expect for CPS to start raiding all those apartment buildings, and removing all the kids if they find pregnant under-age teenagers (or just young looking pregnant women, for that matter) living there?
TX is spending millions of dollars on this, after removing these children, who looked clean, and well taken care of. There is one mother, who complained her five year old boy with special needs was removed from her. Was this kid in danger of being married off to anyone?
This got to be hard enough for normal kids, let alone a special needs child.

Anonymous said...

kbp said:

"As for the "The Bible itself says not to add to it", that is interpreted to mean do NOT add to the words of the book of THAT prophecy.

Apostle John would not have known the Romans would include his book of prophecy as the final in their Bible."

The Mormons tacking Joseph Smith's revelations onto the Bible is no better or worse than the Christians tacking theirs onto the Jewish Scriptures.

kbp said...

I noticed that the plans require that the women report all residents of any building in which they reside - which would require if living in an apartment building, that they notify CPS of all current residents of the buildign or apartment complex and of any changes in residents within 24 hours. How on earth would it be possible for ANYBODY to comply with such a condition??

As the owner of a few rentals, I'd tell the resident, and CPS if involved, it would take a court order before I'd share information telling who the other residents are.

kbp said...

A good short summary on the status of some hearings tomorrow, the positions some attorneys take, etc...

Anonymous said...

Let's just simplify things, kbp: Mormonism is a fraud as was its founder. He died as a result of his own actions. There is justice in the world.

SB said...

Vote of No Confidence In Texas Leadership Petition

We, the people, are the government in the State of Texas. Our public servants are elected, appointed or employed to look out for the interests of the people. There is an oath of office that comes with the responsibility and it is not to be taken lightly.
Like a plague spreading across the state a growing number of representatives and agencies are hijacking government From their elevated positions they make rash decisions that seriously harm Texas residents. Settling personal differences based on bias and hate can, and has, resulted in millions of dollars being added to the tabs of Texas tax payers.
This self-appointed government is intrusive and abusive with little regard for civil rights of the people. Our chosen leaders have abandoned their responsibilities to go into business for themselves and the State of Texas has been disgraced.
Those who break the law should be punished with no immunity due to status and position. Those who have broken trust with the people should resign from public office. We cannot get Texas back on track with leadership in which we have no confidence.
Below is a partial list of stand-out individuals who easily meet the criteria for a No Confidence vote. We urge those who agree to sign our petition and leave comments. Let’s unite and speak with one voice.

The Turn-Around Texas Project

(This is a general idea. The list of names will link it to Eldorado but the petition does not limit us to Eldorado. I need help here. Is this the message we want to get out? If so, we need a polished version.)

Anonymous said...

Christoph, would you mind if we please stick to the subject at hand and refrain from debating whose religion is valid here? There are other forums for that debate.

Anonymous said...

CPS is questioning the "disputed minors" with law enforcement (present or actually involved in asking the questions?) and without notifying their attorneys ad litem. The "disputed minors" state they want their lawyer present. CPS refuses, telling them it is a "civil matter" and they are not entitled to have an attorney present. The law professor tells us it is legal to question the "children" in a civil matter without an attorney, but that it "looks questionable." Then, later on the article states that children questioned by law enforcement "must have a parent or attorney present." So, if they are children, I guess whether or not they are entitled to an attorney depends on who is doing the questioning - CPS or LE. However, IF they turn out to be ADULTS, and the information is being used to build a case that could be used against them IF they are ADULTS, then I would think that they absolutely have a right to have an attorney present. And the line of questioning ("who is your child's father, who are your sister wives) leads to exactly that conclusion. If bigamy charges are pursued, and they are adults, and they could possibly be charged with bigamy, then they do have the right to an attorney, don't they??

I hope their attorneys have requested copies of the videotapes.

kbp said...

Thanks Christoph,

I merely pointed out what the meaning was.

I see now that if I take the time to watch anonymously produced amateur videos at YouTube, our future postings together will soon reveal all the secrets of the various religions throughout the nation, maybe the entire world.

Any inside information on another prophecy or two you'd like to fill me in on?

kbp said...

Religious Persecuton
05/18/2008 4:00 PM
In the shelters the books, photos, pamphlets, CD’s, or ipods that have the words of Warren S. Jeffs are taken from the children. In some shelters the sermon books of Leroy S. Johnson and Rulon T. Jeffs have also been confiscated. The children are grateful for the Book of Mormon to read.

I have not seen this reported elsewhere, has anyone here?

Anonymous said...

Judge Walther did say that they were to be free to practice their religion. However, I cannot see how they could practice their religion in a meaningful way. The central ordinance, the sacrament (or communion) cannot be administered without the priesthood (the men), nor can they receive priesthood blessings (blessings of comfort or healing). Although being able to pray, read their scriptures, and sing allows them to maintain a connection to their religion, they are not being allowed to fully practice their religion when they are effectively prohibited from participating in the other, and in their view, much more important, ordinances of the church. At least, I'm assuming that the FLDS remains very similar to the LDS in how services and the priesthood is conducted. It isn't like, say, someone from the Baptist church, who could be served in a religious sense by a pastor from most any Baptist church, or for that matter, a chaplain from any Christian denomination. The FLDS ordinances would REQUIRE a worthy male priesthood holder to administer the ordinances in order for them to be valid.

kbp said...

While reading back over the cost, the bus ride charges grabbed my attention. I was curious how much per child it was, so I thought while looking it up I'd just put all the cost into a spreadsheet to see what the breakdown per each of the 464 was:

Department of Family and Protective Services

Health and Human Services Commission

Department of Public Safety

Department of State Health Services

Other state agencies

Salvation Army


Bus costs

Baptist Child & Family Services

Wells Fargo Pavilion

City of San Angelo

Tom Green County
Not Availble
Not Availble

Schleicher County



Anonymous said...

Some monogomous couples have been living in separate buildings on the ranch.
How is that the same household?
There is one couple who are both METs. Another couple is Louisa and her husband.
And the 18 year old apparently is in a monogomous relationship as well.
I have no idea how CPS decided this whole ranch was one household. Now CPS requires to know everybody who lives in the building before returning the kids. What, does CPS now think an apartment building is one household? Imagine you are living in a apartment building, your neighbor's teenage daughter gets pregnant, CPS shows up and rounds up all the kids in your apartment building, including yours, because it's all the same household.

kbp said...

I have no idea how CPS decided this whole ranch was one household.

It's more worrisome how Walthers did!

samriver said...

Cps has been annointed the thought police of the U.S. of A. They can't be challenged. It's all civil.

Anonymous said...

I think it's going to be impossible for many of these women to do what state of TX wants them to do.
If the state wants them to move out, find a place to live, find a job, etc. A single woman with 5 kids-what chance would she get? And what kind of life could she possibly provide for her kids? It ain't easy to make it out here for a single mother with multiple children.
The kids certainly would end up worse than they were on the ranch in such an arrangement. And it's not like they could move out of state, go back to Utah. The monogomous couples maybe got a chance.
Even then, I wonder, if CPS deems all the FLDS men as abusers, would monogomous couples be allowed to stay together?

samriver said...

They not only will have to become monogomous they will also have to become homogenized. Maybe if they watch T.V. for a year or two day after day they would be homogenized enough to be acceptable to the CPS. They will never get their children back without constant surveilance from the CPS unless they are homogenized with the rest of society.

Anonymous said...

Doran williams criticizes Jack Sampson for not reporting "crimes" committed through Jewish faith to the authorities and says, "His failure to do so is itself a criminal offense."

Doran, aren't you saying you're aware of these "crimes?" If you know of them, why aren't you reporting them? Who said Mr. Sampson has been a witness to these crimes?

Is it okay for FLDS members who aren't abusing their own kids to not report abuse of other kids? Do they have the same responsibility to report as Mr. Sampson or Doran williams?

Anonymous said...

Looks like the Baptists are up to their ears in this operation.

Anonymous said...

The first one out of the chute. Just Moooove along.

Son of Warren Jeffs among first of FLDS hearings expected to last weeks

Judge Barbara Walther approved a family service plan for reuniting 6-year-old Samuel with his mother Sharon Barlow, 35, who appeared in the courtroom. The boy is in state custody in Amarillo. The goal is reunification by April 13, 2009

Nice spin on the story. Judge Walther approved a plan to reunify. Reunification is the presumed plan unless the parent is beyond remediation or has killed a child or the other parent. Basically, the story should say, Judge Wather rules DPFS plan to go forward as written with no consideration to individualized services. That might have been more accurate.

kbp said...

CPS case worker testified that the "6-year-old son of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs did not suffer physical or sexual abuse while living with his mother at the group's Texas ranch, a child welfare case worker testified Monday."

But the mother had to acknowledge she understood "her parental rights were subject to termination if she did not comply with the plan" when asked directly by Judge Walthers.

Sounds like Walthers is rubbing in the fact she has already ruled ALL the children were in IMMEDIATE DANGER, as she tells the mother that plan must be followed even though she "agreed the plan should be more specific".

Anonymous said...

What are the chances that every plan cites reunification as the goal, and that every plan is deemed sufficient and ordered as written?

kbp said...

In 1953

" the raid backfired. Public opinion turned against the government after images of crying children being torn from their parents were splashed on the front pages of newspapers across the country."

No cameras after all were confiscated this time, only mental health workers of the state to tell of the problems!

kbp said...

"What are the chances that every plan cites reunification as the goal, and that every plan is deemed sufficient and ordered as written?"

The process seems to leave no wiggle room for the parents to debate the issues, if the judge goes along with all the CPS provides, until the permanent custody hearing a year+ later.

Anonymous said...

One good thing has come out of the hearings this morning so far - the state has admitted that "Baby Boy Jessop" - the "son of Sarah" - DOES NOT EXIST. But they claim they "still can't locate Sarah." It's becoming just a bit disingenuous for them to keep claiming that they are still "searching for Sarah" when they and we KNOW she is Rozita Swinton.

Anonymous said...

The state seems to have admitted that the Jeffs boy did not meet the standard to be removed from the home (was not physically or sexually abused at the ranch) - so WHY is the mother being required to follow the "state plan" rather than the boy simply being released and sent home?? Oh, yeah, it's Judge Walther's court....

Anonymous said...

Good question/point, Anon. 10:42.

The Bris I attended took place in 1969 or 1970, in the home of an orthodox Jewish couple who moved away from Texas at least 30 years ago, and was performed by a Rabbi whose name I never knew. And I don't know the baby boy's name. So it wouldn't do much good to report the incident, would it?

I don't know if Professor Sampson has actual knowledge of any particular incident of ritual circumcision by a Rabbi.

My knowledge of such is general; that is, I have visited the site of the Lubavitchers in Texas at <""> The practice is described, the biblical support for it is discussed, and the locations of Chabad Lubavitch Centers in Texas are identified. Not much to go on as far as having knowledge of actual child abuse, but certainly enough to support affidavits by Texas Rangers and search and arrest warrants here in post Eldorado Texas, under the Judge Walther rule.

What do you say: Should I make a child abuse report?

What does the gallery have to say? Thumbs up or down?

Anonymous said...

Grits, my attempt at coding and html tag did not work. What did I not do that I should have done?

Anonymous said...

Doran williams, you did not address the whole question. Do FLDS members have the same duty as you and Sampson to report abuse? If you are alleging that some FLDS members engaged in abuse, but others did not, should members who had knowldge of abuse but did not report it be held accountable?

Anonymous said...

There are certain people and professions that are mandated reporters. If they do not report abuse when they know of it, they can be prosecuted. Other private citizens are not mandated to make reports, but not precluded from doing so. It is unclear if the YFZ Ranch had any mandated reporters living there or not. If they did, they could be held accountable, just as any other mandated reporter could be. I'm not aware of any mandated reporter actually being charged with failing to report.

Anonymous said...

A view from another judge hearing the individual cases

Some of that frustration was evident Monday in court.

One example was Nora Jeffs, who was in the courtroom of Judge Thomas Gossett. (She is not the mother of "prophet" Warren Jeffs' two children."

Her eight children have been placed in eight different locations, forcing her to travel throughout the state to visit them. Jeffs was hoping that child welfare officials could place the children together.

She was presented with a family service plan that requires parenting training, family counseling and psychological testing of the parents. The plan was created by attorneys and state welfare workers, but those who created the plan had not met with Nora Jeffs.

Because the travel to visit her children is taking so much of her time, Jeffs said she could not meet with officials to help make the plan. Still, she said, she will try to comply if it would return her children to her.

"I agree to follow all recommendations so long as they don't conflict with my religious beliefs," Jeffs said.

The judge voiced some concern about her response.

"We all know why we are here. You have a right to religious freedom up until the point where it breaks the law," Gossett said.

Similar scenes played out in other courtrooms Monday. The hearings are expected to last for weeks.

kbp said...

I assume you were trying to post a LINK.

For any that wish to post links:

This is the basic TAG that will do it.

< A href="LINK" >TITLE< /A >

Copy and paste it to save.

Remove any spaces on either sides of these symbols: < or >

Enter the web address replacing the LINK.

Enter any message you wish, spaces allowed, replacing the TITLE.

That will enter links on comments just like this one here: HTML Tags & Codes

Put the page into your Favorites or Bookmarks.

kbp said...

"I agree to follow all recommendations so long as they don't conflict with my religious beliefs," Jeffs said.

"We all know why we are here...
Judge Gossett said.

No your honor, could you tell us?

Anonymous said...

kbp, I tried that, but I did not include A href=. Should I have. And, did include the quotation marks.

If i don't want to include a message, what with the TAG look like?

thanks for the help.


kbp said...

(A href="LINK")

Substitute ALL the ( & ) with < & >

Enter link replacing LINK, type what you want replacing TITLE.

Hit Preview to check it.

If that does not work (knowing i do not explain things well always!), go to HTML Tags & Codes

Hit Control and "F" keys, type in LINK to do a page search.

A little over half way down you'll see the LINK tag.

Gritsforbreakfast said...

KBP at 2:38, that really sums it all up! Why ARE they there?

Hoax phone call. No defendant. No rape. No complainant. No abuse allegations. No criminal charges. But CPS doesn't like their religion. What else is there? I think the woman's response gets to the heart of why they're there.

Amazing that they're creating the family plans without talking to the families. This whole process seems to get worse every day.

Anonymous said...

You need to include the A href= in the command. You really don't have an option of not including a message, but it doesn't need to be anything specific, just using something like the word "Here" will work.

I'm intrigued by the number of times I've read that a FLDS member has stated (paraphrased) "I'm willing to do whatever the state says I need to do in order to get my children back", when I'm sure that more than a few are still wondering what right the state has to interfere with them or their children to begin with. Why should they bow down to states ransom demands when the state has not met its (intended) burden of proof that the parents did anything wrong or that the children were in immediate danger or at immediate risk of harm.

These people are acting as if they never wanted any of the cheese, they just want out of the trap.

kbp said...

I've often suspected the FLDS wanted Texas to go after them on bigamy charges so they could take it all the way to SCOTUS. Arizona and Utah were not so bad that they would move to Texas for the weather, the state that wanted to prosecute gay men for being in bed together.

Next their attorneys indicated very early that civil complaints would come about, as if they might have been prepared for this case already.

I can't imagine it being of any benefit to them to make the situation worse so they may lose their children permanently, whatever any pre or post raid plans were, if any existed.

Prolly the best thing the mothers or parents could do is just go along with the state in these hearings, as any questionable lines crossed in the custody process are challenged in a higher court when ripe.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I have read that other parents, when accused of child abuse, have been told there is no fighting CPS, the best response is just to roll over andplay dead and do whatever else CPS says to do- including signing off on the agreements.

Anonymous said...

Headmistress, that really is the only way to work with CPS, if you're accused you can't say you didn't do it, because you're in denial, and failing to comply with your orders. And even if you really didn't do it, you still have to say it and "believe" that it was wrong. And the whole system is very screwy, no accountability, whatever they say goes, they don't have to follow many laws because it's "civil."

When my family was involved with CPS it was horrible, you literally had to write down everything they said and did, and everything you said and did, because they lied non-stop, I had them lie to my face saying my "treatment" would be done when I completed these steps, but when I got to the last one, they added a new one, and then dragged that out for months, until the court orders were finished.

Anonymous said...

I understand that capitulation may be the fastest way for such parents to get out of the mess, but it also gives a sense of validity to what has transpired. Just because a system is legal, doesn't mean it's right, and just because a system is broken doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. A broken system will never be fixed as long as a majority don't care if it's fixed or not. I think as Americans, we should care, and as Americans we should demand that it be fixed. Else the problems will only get worse. Remember, at one point in history, the Grand Canyon was just a ditch and could have easily been filled in. Now, it's a grand canyon to which there is no remedy.

kbp said...

Live Reports

(when it was reported!!)

kbp said...

It does not appear to be a big deal if mothers will not sign the agreements they classify as vague or inaccurate in the reasons for state custody.

Home schooling and their religious practice is passing okay, along with some changes in visitation issues and siblings separated.

The CPS is evidently stuck on square one still, giving general plans that only fit with the general idea it was a single household.

Maybe the state is playing the time card they hold, while interrogations in the search for crimes continues.

One has to also wonder if the state anticipated the women would all go along after the massive raid helped them all to ESCAPE!

Nobody expected much from this hearing after we all realized it was not individual re-do's of the custody hearing, so I;m not surprised by anything much besides the state still playing their 'save Sarah' hand.

Anonymous said...

It's not required that the parents agree to the plans, nor to sign them. It is only required that they understand the plan for it to be ordered. If they agree to the plan, it is still ordered, and if they sign it, it could be used later as a form of "contract".

Interestingly, as with most other civil matters or contracts, the remedy for failure to comply is not contempt charges, fines or financial judgments, but termination of parental rights. Regardless of whether the state proved its case sufficiently or not.

Remember the discussions in an earlier Grits Blog comments section about the standards of evidence? Whereby the initial hearing was based on the perponderance standard, the next hearing on the clear and convincing standard, and then everything reverts back to perponderance standard until the termination phase? If so, how did the state manage to skip past the clear and convincing phase and straight into the case plan reviews?

There has been no evidence presented in any of these hearings that every one of these children have been abused, molested, married underage, or neglected. Yet, after this particular round of hearings are completed, every one of them can have parental rights terminated or the children remain permanantly in state custody, over basically what would amount to a contempt of court charge.

It appears that the state of Texas is putting this case on the fast track to get as much done and as much criminal evidence possible out of these victims before the court of appeals can make any rulings on the matters pending before them.

Anonymous said...

The problem with this case and many other family law cases is that there is no jury to prevent the state and judges from performing what appears to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice. If these cases were heard with a jury the judge would be certain that they heard both sides, lest they come to the conclusion they were being prevented from hearing it all. Since no state generally uses juries for these matters, the states, it seems, really aren't providing due process.

Now if the people want to provide due process apart from juries, they need to remake the family courts into inquisitional courts (as opposed to the current adversarial courts) with a codified set of procedures, including the right to appeal any hearing procedure at any time by anyone, to protect the innocent (children) from the abuse these courts often hand out. This would prevent courts from having hearings that produce final determinations for all practical purposes, while limiting the parent's the right to introduce evidence and toss false evidence, and the same courts from prohibiting appeals by delaying final rulings.

kbp said...

Update from the Live Reports:

Two FLDS members were reclassified today as adults - before the beginning of the 60-day hearings, Child Protective Services was including them in a group of underage girls with children.

Headmistress, zookeeper said...

One of them has named the father, the other hasn't.
CPS suspect's Allan Keate is the man who fathered Merilyn's baby. He is on the Bishop's list as being 54, and he has six wives, 49, 39, 26, 25, 19, and 17 (remember, all this data is one year old). His youngest two children are 5 and 3 months old, and his second youngest are two one year old girls. It looks like the five month old is the 18 year old Merilyn's baby, now 1 1/2 years old.

So here we have the classic example of the textbook FLDS stereotype- an older man, old enough to be her daddy, 'marrying' a young teen (possibly she was as young as 15), and it's not the sort of thing most people in the mainstream approve of- and certainly I don't. But where is Allan? Why, gone, of course, as soon as he heard the judge order DNA testing, if not sooner. And where is young Merilyn? In CPS coils, being told she's stupid, and she'll lose her child if she doesn't name the father. Is this how CPS handles other victims of abuse? Other young teen mothers are told they will lose their children if they will not name their abusers? I really want to know. And I want to know why CPS and Judge Walthers thought it was so important to give men like this time to escape.

Sarah Cathleen names her baby's father as Luke Seth Nielson.

Luke and Sarah Cathleen are the names of the 19 and 16 year old couple on page 12 of the Bishop's list. Her name is the same, but his name is listed as Luke Jeffs Nielson, not 'Luke Seth.' In 2007 they were 19 and 16- but she must have been very, very close to her 17th birthday when the Bishop's list was filled out on March 24th if she's 18 now.

I don't know how the law in Texas works in their case, since they are so very close in age, and since she might have been 15 in 2005 when Texas raised the age of marriage with parental consent from 14 to 16.

TxBluesMan said...

LOL @ Doran.

Sampson is a nationally known expert on family law, and teaches that exclusively at UT-Law.

I'm just a simple, run of the mill attorney (granted, I'm a genius, but bear with me here...).

He's one of the foremost experts in the nation in this area. Seems like he thinks the FLDS has some trouble ahead.

But we're supposed to believe your position...

Sort of defies logic...

TxBluesMan said...


Isn't anyone willing to wait another couple of weeks for the DNA?

I see criminal charges within the next 60 days.

kbp said...

So they are still looking for a crime.

My guess is they have 12-18 months to find any, with exception for a higher court telling them differently!

Merilyn has a decision to make! I suspect it will center on custody of the child, as it should.

kbp said...

Professors always make general statements that are very seldom incorrect and often do not apply to the specific facts of the case they are commenting on.

The reporter did a terrible job of finishing sentences for him, so nobody knows if he has something brilliant to share on any of the specific suits.

Anonymous said...

DNA? Do you seriously think men, if they had under-age wives lined up for DNA tests?

Pinkycatcher said...

I wouldn't line up for DNA and I don't have an underage wife, I don't want the government having my genetic information if they haven't given me a subpoena for it.

Anonymous said...


Isn't anyone willing to wait another couple of weeks for the DNA?

I see criminal charges within the next 60 days.

5/19/2008 11:21:00 PM"

Really, so you already got DNA results back, what case have you got so far.Please share it, who isn't expecting DNA results ,it just takes forever.

Anonymous said...

Txbluesman ,

,Seems this guy saw some hard evidence that wasn't made public. How does he get it isn't he a Utah not Texas lawyer?

" because underage sect girls have been sexually assaulted and teenage boys abandoned.'

SB said...

Please join me in DOING something.
Texans are shamed and embarrassed by happenings within our state. Whether it is criminal or civil does not matter. Enough outraged voices can bring change. Let's gather those voices. We cannot sit back while our state makes war on children.

My No Confidence petition, if well received, will sting. It will also let our fellow Texans know that we are a working forum. We must gather our forces.

Of prime importance on our agenda is an independent investigation of CPS. Seized children are only profitable if kept at least a year. Reports show that anywhere between 30% and 70% are unnecessarily in group homes. Many are being withheld from parents in order to meet the financial timetable for government grants. This has been going on for 30 years. We can either ignore it or expose it.

Texans are only helpless if they choose to be. We can snail mail, e-mail, fax and telephone. We can discuss change, draft bills, find sponsors and testify before the Congressional committees. Again, unity and involvement are key.

This is workspace. It is important to network with as many groups as possible so we can work toward a common goal.

I am opening the door now so let's see how many ticked-off Texans we can bring together.

Anonymous said...

They definantly wasted their time and money on lawyers in this case. I guess it was just a setup and they steam rollered it through.
It's kind of scary really.

Anonymous said...

Tx. Are you wishing me LOL with my attempts to learn how to use HTML tags? If so, thanks for the thought.

As for "my position" that you mentioned: What "position" are talking about? Don't be so elliptical....

Defies logic? You mean like taking 440+ kids from parents who have neither abused nor neglected them defies logic?

I know who Professor Sampson is. He has addressed MCLE classes I've attended. I've seen him in oral argument at the 3rd Court of Appeals, lecturing a panel of judges as though they were 1st year law school dunces. Sampson is an intelligent person, good at what he does, but whose shirt is always stuffed; just full of himself.

Professor Sampson lacks the benefits of the experience of having as clients anguished, CPS-harassed parents, looking to him -- beseeching him -- to get their kids back and get CPS off their backs. I don't mean every now and then, but different parents, on a regular basis, expecting him to do something, anything, to get their kids back.

He would also benefit greatly by being appointed on a regular basis to represent children who've been abused or neglected, and watching with disbelief while CPS screws up the cases against the perps.

I wish he would take a sabbatical from the Ivory T., and practice law for a couple of years. He would probably shed some of his arrogance, and might even come up with some really good ideas for improving children's rights in Texas.

Do you find it curious that Sampson, who I think is connected to the Children's Rights Clinic at UT Law School, is not more vocal about the rights of those YFZ children, who have not been abused or neglected, to remain with their parents? Why isn't this guy lending his voice to protest the railroading that is going on, instead of making inane statements about sacrificing virgins?

SB said...

1. Call for an independent audit of the Department of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) to expose corruption and fraud.
2. Activate immediate change. Every day that passes means more families and children are subject to being held hostage.
3. End the financial incentives that separate families.
4. Grant to parents their rights in writing.
5. Mandate a search for family members to be given the opportunity to adopt their own relatives.
6. Mandate a jury trial where every piece of evidence is presented before removing a child from his or her parents.
7. Require a warrant or a positive emergency circumstance before removing children from their parents. (Judge Arthur G. Christean, Utah Bar Journal, January, 1997 reported that “except in emergency circumstances, including the need for immediate medical care, require warrants upon affidavits of probable cause before entry upon private property is permitted for the forcible removal of children from their parents.”)
8. Uphold the laws when someone fabricates or presents false evidence. If a parent alleges fraud, hold a hearing with the right to discovery of all evidence.
Senator Nancy Schaefer
50th District of Georgia