tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post4845260227186067092..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: Lies and StatisticsGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger143125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-43353592416228292632008-05-06T17:04:00.000-05:002008-05-06T17:04:00.000-05:00...relying upon unknowns and hypothetical situatio...<I>...relying upon unknowns and hypothetical situations to bolster your position. You do that because you don't have the facts to support your position. You don't have the grace or style to admit you are wrong on that point. You ... just move on from one mis-statement of fact to another. If your first lie is revealed, you move on to the next. If the basis for your position is demonstrated to be flawed, you just move on to another...</I><BR/><BR/>You're not familiar with the term "irony" are you Doran. <BR/><BR/>Best I can tell, you pretty much deal in hypotheticals and suppositions and denials. The very things you accuse TxBluesman of. <BR/><BR/>Neat trick.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-29689640941414464712008-05-02T00:12:00.000-05:002008-05-02T00:12:00.000-05:00tx:If, if, and if. You are still doing it; relyin...tx:<BR/><BR/>If, if, and if. You are still doing it; relying upon unknowns and hypothetical situations to bolster your position. You do that because you don't have the facts to support your position. You don't have the grace or style to admit you are wrong on that point. You, like CPS (do you work for CPS or DPRS?) just move on from one mis-statement of fact to another. If your first lie is revealed, you move on to the next. If the basis for your position is demonstrated to be flawed, you just move on to another, similarly flawed and ridiculous position, to-wit:<BR/><BR/>"I of course would argue that with it being one property, owned by one organization, set up as a communal environment, it would be one household."<BR/><BR/>"If, like I suspect might happen, that is shot down, I would point out that the definition of household is everyone within the same dwelling (i.e., building), which means that you would only need 19 separate hearings for the 38 +/- families."<BR/><BR/>Thank you. I could not have made that stuff up about it being shot down. Do you really contend, for instance, that a multi-storied apartment building is all one dwelling?<BR/><BR/>Please, stay in the discussion. You are so easy to knock down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-12104520682298392422008-05-01T18:35:00.000-05:002008-05-01T18:35:00.000-05:00grits said:One household? With dozens of rooftops,...<B>grits said:</B><BR/><BR/><I>One household? With dozens of rooftops, employment centers, a health clinic, temple etc.? Not a chance, Bluesman. Your whole argument falls apart on that point.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, it very well could hinge on that point. <BR/><BR/>I of course would argue that with it being one property, owned by one organization, set up as a communal environment, it would be one household.<BR/><BR/>If, like I suspect might happen, that is shot down, I would point out that the definition of household is everyone within the same dwelling (i.e., building), which means that you would only need 19 separate hearings for the 38 +/- families.<BR/><BR/>I am fairly confident that most, if not all, of the buildings held either an underage 'spiritual' wife, a pregnant minor, or a minor that had already given birth.<BR/><BR/>If that is in fact the case, then all of the children removed would have come from a household where abuse had been allowed to occur, which would justify the emergency removal order and the temporary possession by CPS.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-23031700620906172442008-05-01T18:27:00.000-05:002008-05-01T18:27:00.000-05:00doran, if you want to discuss this, fine.If you wa...doran, if you want to discuss this, fine.<BR/><BR/>If you want to continue to insult me and say I'm full of male bovine droppings, that's fine too - I'll just have discussions with the others.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21111332021363209342008-05-01T18:25:00.000-05:002008-05-01T18:25:00.000-05:00kbp,None of the cases cited had anything to do wit...kbp,<BR/><BR/>None of the cases cited had anything to do with an 'en masse' removal.<BR/><BR/><I>Mandamus</I> to return the child issued in <I>Cochran</I>, but I have no clue what the final termination results were. It did not stop the proceeding, nor did it bar the trial judge for issuing a new finding for removal. It just said that the trial judge did not have any current evidence of abuse, which is clearly distinguishable from the present case.<BR/><BR/><I>"The idea that "...there were currently pregnant minor children present, a prima facie showing that Sexual Abuse of a Child had occurred" (based on "looking")"</I> <BR/><BR/>Actually it was based on the observations <B>in conjunction with</B> the statements made by FLDS members. Remember, Lee Jessop basically confessed to Sexual Assault of a Child. Several others were specifically listed along with the dates of birth and the dates of birth of their children that showed Sexual Assault.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-72183247081353968682008-05-01T14:49:00.000-05:002008-05-01T14:49:00.000-05:00Great "Timeline" for any that have not seen it.<A HREF="http://www.captivefldschildren.org/TimeLine.php" REL="nofollow">Great "Timeline" </A>for any that have not seen it.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-85750310466871549912008-05-01T13:33:00.000-05:002008-05-01T13:33:00.000-05:00oops!...base the orderoops!<BR/><BR/>...<B>b</B>ase the orderkbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-45532446909055000842008-05-01T13:27:00.000-05:002008-05-01T13:27:00.000-05:00We are short a copy of the rulings / orders.What p...We are short a copy of the rulings / orders.<BR/><BR/>What precisely did Walthers case the orders on?kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-10649241613806856582008-05-01T12:42:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:42:00.000-05:00One household? With dozens of rooftops, employment...One household? With dozens of rooftops, employment centers, a health clinic, temple etc.? Not a chance, Bluesman. Your whole argument falls apart on that point.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24187329220966260432008-05-01T12:35:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:35:00.000-05:00Maybe they should just cite USC Title 18 Chapter 5...Maybe they should just cite USC Title 18 Chapter 50a and the testamony that the DFPS/CPS is presecuting them for the their (so called abusive) religious beliefs and point out that removing all their children is a prohibitted act under the USC (thus the court didn't have the power to allow it). They only have to point out the law was passed so that if religous destruction was even part of the intent (and the testamony was that it is), the act was prohibitted. No one, since from the time the Proxmire Act bacame law, has been ridiculus enough to violate it until now, so there are no prior cases to cite. Unless you want to cite the Nuremburg cases...<BR/><BR/>The mandamus should come back to the court instructing it to rehold separate trials (for each household and I think the evidence is that there are ~38 of them in 19 buildings) before a new judge, since the previous one couldn't follow the law, enjoin the court from receiving testamony from any person or any agent of an entity whose agent who previously violate USC Title 18 Chapter 50a(a) or (c) in their testamony. That would eliminate all the supposed evidence for most of those families (the CPS/DFPS agents were inciting, a violation of USC Title 18 Chptr 50a(c)). Their kids would be returned to them. That might open the possibility that the rest of the kids could go live at their houses if an agreement could be reached. The pressure would then be on DFPS/CPS to agree quickly to save face.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76033287585043630062008-05-01T12:24:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:24:00.000-05:00Doran: "Tell us why you support taking children un...Doran: "Tell us why you support taking children under 14 years of age from their mothers, with no particularized evidence, or even allegations, of child abuse or neglect against those mothers."<BR/><BR/>txbluesman: "....in the FLDS case, that is not what happened."<BR/><BR/>But tx, that is exactly what has happened. C'mon, show us you have the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude to admit it. <BR/><BR/>There were some particularized allegations: The affidavit of Lynn McFadden talked about "Sarah," the hoaxter, as did the first affidavit of Ranger Long. Ranger Long's second affidavit identified only nine women who appeared -- following administration of the eyeball test by CPS investigators -- to be younger than the age of consent. But other than these, none of the affidavits came anywhere close to alleging specific individual victims of child abuse. And there was no other evidence of that nature at the 14-day "hearing."<BR/><BR/>You stated "The affidavits, available online, provide sufficient grounds for removal." You shrewdly left yourself some wiggle room here. The affidavits may have provided grounds to support an emergency removal pending the 14 day hearing, but you know damn good and well that a removal order at the 14 day hearing has to be based on evidence at the hearing, not on the affidavits. And with some few exceptions, there was no evidence of specific instances of abuse of most of the children, including all those over the age of 14.<BR/><BR/>So, why not admit it? You can't escape the lack of evidence on the record. Your refusal to admit that most of the children have been taken from their parents without any formal proof of having been abused, coupled with your slavish acceptance of the CPS party line, and your wiggling, is simply ludicrous. It is also intellectual dishonesty on your part which may be adversely affecting your credibility.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-30478352884581742242008-05-01T12:21:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:21:00.000-05:00define "household";)define "household"<BR/><BR/>;)kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-79661932325172015012008-05-01T12:20:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:20:00.000-05:00Thanks TBMLooking at so many documents, it's easy ...Thanks TBM<BR/><BR/>Looking at so many documents, it's easy to lose track!<BR/><BR/>I do not recall reading or seeing the actual latest petition, just bits of it in the media.<BR/><BR/>Could the cases they cite relate to the "en masse" ruling not meeting the requirements for all individuals?<BR/><BR/>Your explanation of "Cochran v Hotz" leaves me lost some not knowing the outcome (not free online!). <BR/><BR/>The idea that <I>"...there were currently pregnant minor children present, a prima facie showing that Sexual Abuse of a Child had occurred"</I> (based on "looking"), in a limited number of "households" within the "compound" seems to show an absence of evidence in the other "household". <BR/><BR/>On the idea there could be <I>"...restrictions when "specific evidence suggesting it would be detrimental to the welfare of the child"</I>, that "restrictions" is a bit weak compared to what has happened and I'm not seeing "specific evidence" in all 464 suits here.<BR/><BR/>While admitting I am very limited on what all I can base my opinion on as it relates to these cases cited and the actual petition, I have seen nothing that tells me this was NOT a wholesale ruling based on the assumed beliefs that ignored the INDIVIDUALS in the suits.... <BR/><BR/>It is becoming a bigger problem to stay on top of all going on in this mess!kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-89956914170528326912008-05-01T12:09:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:09:00.000-05:00Grits,It's one household.Grits,<BR/><BR/>It's one household.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-72731883409661814882008-05-01T12:00:00.000-05:002008-05-01T12:00:00.000-05:00Bluesman, the state seized EVERY kid, not just tho...Bluesman, the state seized EVERY kid, not just those in households where abuse was alleged.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-369823018275105512008-05-01T11:47:00.000-05:002008-05-01T11:47:00.000-05:00Dave in Texas,Personally, I have noted uncertainty...Dave in Texas,<BR/><BR/>Personally, I have noted uncertainty on statements from both sides, in how they are worded and who the source is. But, the state is where the vast majority of the half-truths are coming from. They are due ZERO credibility at this point.<BR/><BR/>I can't wait to hear how it was concluded a 5 year old boy with Down's syndrome is in imminent danger of becoming a victim of "sexual, physical or emotional abuse", along with the other 463.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-63978474683847168712008-05-01T11:36:00.000-05:002008-05-01T11:36:00.000-05:00kbp, I just got through looking at their amended p...kbp, <BR/><BR/>I just got through looking at their amended petition, and am left shaking my head at what they hope to accomplish.<BR/><BR/>Even the case law they cite doesn't really help.<BR/><BR/>For example, they cite <I>In the Interest of B.T., 154 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2004)</I> as supporting their request to return the kids to the mothers. But the decision clearly states:<BR/><BR/>"The trial court does not lose jurisdiction if it fails to timely conduct the hearing. Instead, the remedy for the parents and TDPRS is to compel the trial court by mandamus to conduct the adversary hearing promptly." (<I>B.T., at 207</I>). Another case cited by relators also references the same thing in refusing to return the children based on a 14-hearing problem.<BR/><BR/>In addition, the main case that the relators rely on, <I>Cochran v Hotz, 151 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2004)</I> is clearly distinguished from the current case. In <I>Cochran</I>, the single, newborn, child was removed from the parents based on the previous termination of 8 other children years prior with no current evidence of abuse. In the instant case, as shown in the affidavits, there were currently pregnant minor children present, a <I>prima facie</I> showing that Sexual Abuse of a Child had occurred, and the <I>Family Code, ยง262.201(d)(2)</I> provides that the judge may refuse to return the child(ren) when someone in the household has sexually abused another child.<BR/><BR/>Finally, when they cited <I>Roosth v Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. App. Houston 1994)</I>, they failed to note that this case was distinguished by the same court at <I>In the Interest of R.D.Y., 51 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. App. Houston 2001)</I>. There the court indicated that there <B>could</B> be restrictions when "specific evidence suggesting it would be detrimental to the welfare of the child" (<I>R.D.Y., at 323</I>).<BR/><BR/>I don't think that this <I>mandamus</I> petition is going any further than the last one.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-70429756287133554312008-05-01T11:22:00.000-05:002008-05-01T11:22:00.000-05:00Dave wrote: "What I have trouble understanding is ...Dave wrote: "What I have trouble understanding is the absolute clarity many here have in the perfidy of DPFS and the State of Texas and the willingness to virtually discount any statement or evidence presented by the state while accepting without apparent question any statement by the FLDS and/or attorneys for the compound families."<BR/><BR/>That's not happening. This entire discussion assumes both sides have at times presented skewed or misleading information, which is what I meant to imply with this post's ambiguous title.<BR/><BR/>However, DFPS opened itself up to disbelief because their statements have not held up under scrutiny. They make grandiose claims in the press that don't jibe with the information given under oath in court. And they manipulate statistics, as in this case, stating with certainty allegations that can't be justified by their own backup data.<BR/><BR/>Further harming their credibility, the Salt Lake Tribune reported the phone call was a hoax almost immediately after the raid, but authorities STILL haven't confirmed it even though the hoaxer was arrested in Colorado. The Sheriff spoke to the man named in the search warrant - who lives in Arizona and hasn't been to Texas since the '70s - before the raid and confirmed he didn't live st the ranch, but the raid went forward anyway.<BR/><BR/>So that's my explanation: People disbelieve DFPS because their information has not been reliable from Day One, by any objective measure.<BR/><BR/>On the affidavits, just to have mentioned it: By any measure an 18 year old girl with a 10 month old baby isn't necessarily a reason to suspect child abuse without further investigation. The age of consent in Texas is 17.<BR/><BR/>As for the 16-year old cited, you're making my point: DFPS' error was not focusing on those few cases where they might have a chance of substantiating their abuse theory, like that one, and instead seizing every kid at the Ranch, though no one thinks most of the kids were abused. The state is alleging the <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601742.html" REL="nofollow">parents' belief system is abusive</A>, which is an entirely different breed of cat.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-74455664628105403802008-05-01T11:06:00.000-05:002008-05-01T11:06:00.000-05:00I thought TBM shot from the hip a bit then, basing...I thought TBM shot from the hip a bit then, basing his position on the yet-to-be-seen Walthers ruling I guess, as we all are guilty of doing at times! ;)<BR/><BR/>This most recent appeal is going into greater details than the previous filing denied. The original appeal was limited to addressing a 2 page order, of April 22nd, and how it did not meet statutory requirements of section 262.201 (what CPS claims is the authority to remove the children) <BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/PDFOpinion.asp?OpinionId=16774" REL="nofollow">RULING</A> hints that what this most recent filing addresses is evidently an effort to overcome that portion of the ruling (stay) that states; <I>"This order was orally rendered by the district court on April 18 and rendered in written form on April 21... the district 3 court makes explicit findings..."</I> which meet the statutory requirements.<BR/><BR/>Relying on information from various other sources (FWIW), it seems the 2 page April 22nd order from Walthers was readily available, but NOBODY, including the attorneys, had seen or could get the April 21st order, that MAY have been filed with the clerk AFTER the amended order.<BR/><BR/>That would be a rather convenient way to cover all bases, if accurate, as it would sure slow down Temporary Stays!kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-53091665314065508862008-05-01T10:57:00.000-05:002008-05-01T10:57:00.000-05:00In the affidavits that you've poured over, on pag...In the <A HREF="http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/FLDSaffidavit.pdf" REL="nofollow"> affidavits</A> that you've poured over, on page 13 is a litany of statements investigators received from DPFS who had interviewed children at the compound. <BR/><BR/>One was an 18-yr-old with a 10-month old baby who told DFPS she was 'spiritually united' with a a 33-yr-old man with 3 other wives.<BR/><BR/>Another girl, who gave her age as 16, told DFPS she is pregnant and due delivery in June - and that she is married to a man whose other wife is 40.<BR/><BR/>I'll let the lawyers here tell me if that's sufficient probable cause for sexual assault and bigamy. It certainly seems that way to me. And helps me understand why the State of Texas saw a pattern of abuse sufficient to remove the children from potential harm. <BR/><BR/>Obviously, the mileage varies for many here. <BR/><BR/>What I have trouble understanding is the absolute clarity many here have in the perfidy of DPFS and the State of Texas and the willingness to virtually discount any statement or evidence presented by the state while accepting without apparent question any statement by the FLDS and/or attorneys for the compound families. <BR/><BR/>As the hearings unfold and the evidence is presented in court, will soon enough know whether what occurred at Eldorado was systematic abuse of children or a travesty of judgment. <BR/><BR/>For so many here, you've already decided.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-48939074949681819082008-05-01T09:57:00.000-05:002008-05-01T09:57:00.000-05:00Anon 9:39. That was snark aimed at our friend txb...Anon 9:39. That was snark aimed at our friend txbluesman. Of course the filing was not false. What was false was tx's statement yesterday in response to my question of him, to-wit:<BR/><BR/>Doran said:<BR/><BR/>"Tell us why you support taking children under 14 years of age from their mothers, with no particularized evidence, or even allegations, of child abuse or neglect against those mothers."<BR/><BR/>I don't.<BR/><BR/>Of course, in the FLDS case, that is not what happened. <BR/><BR/>The observations of the CPS investigators and peace officers were documented and submitted to a judge, who then ordered the removal of the children.<BR/><BR/>The affidavits, available online, provide sufficient grounds for removal.<BR/><BR/>4/30/2008 04:22:00 PM<BR/><BR/>tx was full of bs when he wrote that. Probably still is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-12698158107990905812008-05-01T09:39:00.000-05:002008-05-01T09:39:00.000-05:00Curious. what "seemingly false filing"? I don't un...Curious. what "seemingly false filing"? I don't understand what makes it false.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-54118550988484352972008-05-01T09:06:00.000-05:002008-05-01T09:06:00.000-05:00As far as I know, there were only 3 total affidavi...As far as I know, there were only 3 total affidavits for the search, all of which are available via the links kbp provided.<BR/><BR/>The other docs have also been linked, either on this thread or other threads, and consist of motions, orders, etc.TxBluesManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15008395777633969757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-24659488028384948702008-05-01T07:44:00.000-05:002008-05-01T07:44:00.000-05:00Doran,I have no contact, have to be in court in 50...Doran,<BR/><BR/>I have no contact, have to be in court in 50 minutes, so best I can do is try to contact them later.<BR/><BR/>They should be glad to have a copy online if they will share it. I'd imagine it's 2-400 pages though!!kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-76122622918626116372008-05-01T07:42:00.000-05:002008-05-01T07:42:00.000-05:00On that new appeal, and considering the notices fo...On that new appeal, <BR/>and considering the notices for preserving evidence for a lawsuit, one has to wonder if this is a strategy to show evidence that would be of value in a 1983 complaint. <BR/><BR/>Some here tell how the next step will address the "individuals" overlooked in the 14 day hearing. This appeal looks to make that problem THE reason for their filing.kbphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11814695387546108048noreply@blogger.com