Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bonnie]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24793293

How crazy can the courts get?

1 hour, 51 minutes ago
SAN ANGELO, Texas - Texas child welfare authorities on Friday appealed a ruling in the polygamist sect case, arguing that the state was right to put more than 440 children in foster care.

The state is also asking the Texas Supreme Court to allow it to keep custody of the children until the appeals are settled.

The filings Friday come one day after the Third Court of Appeals in Austin said the state failed to show the children were in any immediate danger when they were rounded up last month. [quote

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The bigger question is "how crazy can the state get?"

This process was a clear violation of the due process rights, the storm troopers move in and "intern" an entire colony of children??? They needed to "investigate" and charge the responsible parties with appropriate violations.

They had already prosecuted the sect leader and they should have continued that investigation to eliminate other violators. But, instead, they move in and remove "ALL" the children, regardless of the facts, intern them, and then put them out to homes with no real probable cause...a serious violation of constitutional law.

The more greivous issue was the taking of these children and placing them is "normal" homes that involved their introduction to "real life" society that includes television and lord knows what all else.

While it is inappropriate to create a sect atmosphere that would encourage the marriage of under-age  young girls to 18 plus males, and it is certainly contrary to biblical standards to throw the young men out of the camp to fend for themselves when they became old enough to compete for the lovely young ladies, just how far do we carry this clean-up?

Should we intern all the children in Portland, Maine where the school board is now passing out condoms and birth control pills? Should we arrst parents who put their daughters on birth control at 14 or 15 as a
pre-emptive attempt to keep the child from screwing up their lives?

And should we intern all the single mothers under 17 in the City of Chicago and hundreds of other cities for inappropriate sexual behaviour?

The point is that society does have a right to set standards and enforce them, but in the United States of America the due process rights of every human being require that the state show "probable cause" and then to charge the "violators" not the innocent children.

They would have been far better off to go in, isolate and interview each individual, charge and arrest each man that had violated a law and left the women their with their children, get a court to order the entire sect to comply with state law and to be served with notice that any violation contrary to the order will result in an arrest and charge of contempt. That would have been due process.

But mass arrest of children, interning the children and then truning ones children out to "infidels" to  counter "religious brainwashing", in other words to "brainwash" the children into "secular humanism".

Having been in the middle of the Island Pond Raid, I know just how important it is to preserve "due Process" and how easy it is for the "State" to take upon itself extreme powers to deal with any group they consider to be out of cinque with their perception of "secular humanism", including the issue of corporal punishment. The issue in Island Pond had not one thing to do with any perversion, but simply the practice of the elders that would wrap the knuckles with round wooden rods of the children who were disruptive in school or community living. It was reported that they also spanked children with "sticks" and "wooden rods".

SInce secular humanists just do not believe in "ANY" biblical principals, the biblical standard of "spare the rod and spoil the child" is absurd and uncivilized enough to eliminate by mass arrest an entire colony, including 112 Children. And the arrests were conducted at 2:00am in the morning, the children taken to one school gymnasium and the women and men were held in another gymnasium.

It was the early disclosure by an "Imbedded" reporter to 'yours truly' of the impending raid that lead to the creation of a quick response effort. Only the very quick intervention of the Defender General, ACLU and a host of costitutional lawyers saved this community from a long-term living hell. While the 12 Tribes opted not to file suite, the states mass arrest included three children "visiting" and these were represented by a team that included Gerry Spence.

Point is, constitutional law was challenged in both instances and the judiciary has done what it required to do, re-instate due process under the law and the constitution.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[bonnie]

The more greivous issue was the taking of these children and placing them is "normal" homes that involved their introduction to "real life" society that includes television and lord knows what all else.

Being in a home with a television sounds damning by your words. Our four grew up with television,did fine

While it is inappropriate to create a sect atmosphere that would encourage the marriage of under-age  young girls to 18 plus males, and it is certainly contrary to biblical standards to throw the young men out of the camp to fend for themselves when they became old enough to compete for the lovely young ladies, just how far do we carry this clean-up?

Throwing out teenage boys should be grounds for penalizing the parents. Until 18 they are still in the legal care of them.

9quote]Should we intern all the children in Portland, Maine where the school board is now passing out condoms and birth control pills? Should we arrst parents who put their daughters on birth control at 14 or 15 as a
pre-emptive attempt to keep the child from screwing up their lives?[/quote]



The above has nothing to do with these children. This is being forced as a teen age girl to "Marry" much older men.
And should we intern all the single mothers under 17 in the City of Chicago and hundreds of other cities for inappropriate sexual behaviour?

The point is that society does have a right to set standards and enforce them, but in the United States of America the due process rights of every human being require that the state show "probable cause" and then to charge the "violators" not the innocent children.

Teen pregnacies resulting from a "forced" marriage" might qualify in the minds of many 

They would have been far better off to go in, isolate and interview each individual, charge and arrest each man that had violated a law and left the women their with their children, get a court to order the entire sect to comply with state law and to be served with notice that any violation contrary to the order will result in an arrest and charge of contempt. That would have been due process.

They don't even know where the men are or who they are.

But mass arrest of children, interning the children and then truning ones children out to "infidels" to  counter "religious brainwashing", in other words to "brainwash" the children into "secular humanism".

I would much rather my children be placed with "infidel's than live in that compound. You have absloutely no basis for that kind of statment. I would venture to say many if not most of the foster homes are christian.But niether you or I knnow whether they are christians. Or as you stated they are "infidel's"  One look at those women and that dead, not here look to each and everyone would be enough for me to know my children weren't going there

Having been in the middle of the Island Pond Raid, I know just how important it is to preserve "due Process" and how easy it is for the "State" to take upon itself extreme powers to deal with any group they consider to be out of cinque with their perception of "secular humanism", including the issue of corporal punishment. The issue in Island Pond had not one thing to do with any perversion, but simply the practice of the elders that would wrap the knuckles with round wooden rods of the children who were disruptive in school or community living. It was reported that they also spanked children with "sticks" and "wooden rods".

SInce secular humanists just do not believe in "ANY" biblical principals, the biblical standard of "spare the rod and spoil the child" is absurd and uncivilized enough to eliminate by mass arrest an entire colony, including 112 Children. And the arrests were conducted at 2:00am in the morning, the children taken to one school gymnasium and the women and men were held in another gymnasium.

It was the early disclosure by an "Imbedded" reporter to 'yours truly' of the impending raid that lead to the creation of a quick response effort. Only the very quick intervention of the Defender General, ACLU and a host of costitutional lawyers saved this community from a long-term living hell. While the 12 Tribes opted not to file suite, the states mass arrest included three children "visiting" and these were represented by a team that included Gerry Spence.

Point is, constitutional law was challenged in both instances and the judiciary has done what it required to do, re-instate due process under the law and the constitution.

Have no idea what you are referring to. I do know I would not want my children raised in that type of enviorment

[RND]

I wonder if anyone else finds it interesting that, without condoning these actions, members of the FLDS and related "offshoot" groups are jailed and prosecuted for arranging marriages between minor girls and adult men yet the Catholic church hasn't had one priest brought up on charges involving the child abuse scandal that rocked that organization. Even when there were apparently attempts by Cardinals and church officials to hide the truth and to cover-up these abuses no charges have been brought.

Odd.

No charges against Boston diocese leaders, attorney general says

Abuse Tracker

[RedFalcon]

I expected this to happen sooner or later.

1. The call by the unknown woman is proven to be false.
No one can find her for one thing.

2. The man the caller accused of forcing to marry him and raping her was in another state under state supervision parole she had was not where the accuser said he was on the day the alleged act took place.

3. to take 400 plus children away from their parents with due process of law on the basis of an acusation that is proven to be false anyway is way out of line for the state.

Yes some abuse took place but you do not take away 400 plus children based on the states accusation that they have yet to prove. Even if this went to trail it would not go well for the state based on the evidence.

[bonnie]

[quote Yet the Catholic church hasn't had one priest brought up on charges involving the child abuse scandal that rocked that organization. Even when there were apparently attempts by Cardinals and church officials to hide the truth and to cover-up these abuses no charges have been brought.

Odd.

No charges against Boston diocese leaders, attorney general says

Abuse Tracker
[/quote]

There may not be priests that have been prosecuted for the Boston diocese,but priests from other area's have gone to prison.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The more greivous issue was the taking of these children and placing them is "normal" homes that involved their introduction to "real life" society that includes television and lord knows what all else.

Being in a home with a television sounds damning by your words. Our four grew up with television,did fine

It matters not what you find acceptable. It matters what the family unit that was impacted by this outrageous breach of due process wanted for THEIR CHILDREN.

So, would it be appropriate for me to dictate that your faamily would not be allowed television?

This is a due process issue and requires due process for all, not just those that are acceptable to us.

GAJ

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

While it is inappropriate to create a sect atmosphere that would encourage the marriage of under-age  young girls to 18 plus males, and it is certainly contrary to biblical standards to throw the young men out of the camp to fend for themselves when they became old enough to compete for the lovely young ladies, just how far do we carry this clean-up?

Throwing out teenage boys should be grounds for penalizing the parents. Until 18 they are still in the legal care of them.

9quote]Should we intern all the children in Portland, Maine where the school board is now passing out condoms and birth control pills? Should we arrst parents who put their daughters on birth control at 14 or 15 as a pre-emptive attempt to keep the child from screwing up their lives?

And should we intern all the single mothers under 17 in the City of Chicago and hundreds of other cities for inappropriate sexual behaviour?

The above has nothing to do with these children. This is being forced as a teen age girl to "Marry" much older men.
[/quote]

Grooming young women for motherhood and family responsibility is insidiously wrong, but the social and administrative endorsement of extramarital and irresponsible sexual behaiour is just fine (regardless of the consequences)?

Yes, indeed, they are virtual dichotomies. The abuse of this preparation of women and young men for manhood by perverted INDIVIDUALS within the sect must be addressed by charging the INDIVIDUALS responsible with appropriate criminal or civil charges, the others are victims and have rights that must not be compromised. By no means were all 460 children, and the family units that ran them, responsible for the actions of a few miscreant perverts.

We have a duty to charge and prosecute "offenders" not victims.

On the other hand, when our own tax based social institutions deliberately undermine moral standards and cast them to the wind leaving an entire generation of men and women "damaged", that institution will be liquidated. Problem is, the impact of this secular humanism will be widespread and they will reap the whirlwind before the pendulum swings back...assuming it even has time to swing back.

GAJ

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The point is that society does have a right to set standards and enforce them, but in the United States of America the due process rights of every human being require that the state show "probable cause" and then to charge the "violators" not the innocent children.

Teen pregnacies resulting from a "forced" marriage" might qualify in the minds of many 

They would have been far better off to go in, isolate and interview each individual, charge and arrest each man that had violated a law and left the women their with their children, get a court to order the entire sect to comply with state law and to be served with notice that any violation contrary to the order will result in an arrest and charge of contempt. That would have been due process.

They don't even know where the men are or who they are.

I am sure the men were there they day they raided the compound. Problem is, they were so focused on depriving this "sect" of it's right to exist, they took the children by force and without even a hearing on probable cause. Explain to me what these Children did to require such outrageious conduct? Live in the wrong palce? and by who's standard? Some secular humainist that wioll decide the influences I am allowed to subject my children to? Never, as long as we have a constitution.

The fact is, if they had a concern regading forced marriage and teen pregnancies they should have rounded up and arrested all the men on an appropriate warrant based on "real Charges" not fictional
calls from Colorado Springs.

If they convicted the leader, they most certainly could have charged and convicted others in leadership to break the process of perversion. Then putting the compound under a clear judicial order regarding conduct contrary to legally adopted statutes would allow the police to arrest individuals for contempt as facts justified the same.

There is simply no justification for the breach of constitutional law by simply "arresting" ALL the children and putting them into state sponsored servitude. That is what the soviets were known for and what we fundementally reject.

It also reeks of violation of a fundemental religius liberty issue as well, the violation of the right of conscience. We have no right to impose on someone elses childrens the standards that we find inviolate.

We may have a right to protect the children from abuse and sexual perversion, and you do that by charging the miscreants, but we cannot impose our will upon the inviolate victims.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

But mass arrest of children, interning the children and then truning ones children out to "infidels" to  counter "religious brainwashing", in other words to "brainwash" the children into "secular humanism".

I would much rather my children be placed with "infidel's than live in that compound. You have absloutely no basis for that kind of statment. I would venture to say many if not most of the foster homes are christian.But niether you or I knnow whether they are christians. Or as you stated they are "infidel's"  One look at those women and that dead, not here look to each and everyone would be enough for me to know my children weren't going there

It is your absolute right to feel this way, but it is not your right to utilize the power of the state to make that decision for hundreds of children and their parents.

As to the "christian homes" you reference, first I will note that if they were mormon homes that would be reasonably acceptable to prevent the breach of the right of conscience and to reasonably allow the child his right of conscience to live within the bounds of HIS RELIGION.

Anything else  is clearly UNACCEPTABLE, whether it be SDA, Protestant or Catholic. These homes, by nature, would impose their own religious standard. This is violative of the right of parenthood and the rights of the children to practice THEIR RELIGION.

Secondly, in my experience in many administrative hearings and family court divorce cases, religion is abhorred by most state case workers. People of sincere religious convictions are seen as extremists and avoided. Case workers are much happier with the secular humanist with no real religious agenda. In fact, religious ferver is viewed very negatively and usually is the loser in court hearing after court hearing. Guardian ad litems will frequently refer to such fervor in rather derogatory terms and will interpret it as not in the best interest of children, with all kinds of psychological pablum to support it. 

The important summation is that regardless of your emotive feelings, the rights of individuals and their right of conscience to practice and enjoy the right to choose their religion is inherent in the United States Constitution.

I would dare say that if we visited this "compound" and got to meet the women and children, and even some of the men, we would find them quite fervent in their conviction and very clean, neat and orderly, which is more than can be said for many a "christian" home. ANd they could probably defend their religious conviction from the bible a lot more readilly than 90% of SDA households.

Problem is, what you have seen play out at this compound will some day be propounded against men and women of faith, most specifically SDA's, as the protestant grasps the hand of Rome and imposes its will upon society, and those who oppose its' will by right of conscience will be seen as extremeists. Ironically, it is likely we will be interned into compounds and the children taken from us to preserve them from our heresy. We will see how you feel about the right of conscience when we find ourselves on the other side of that societal fence.

I can guarantee you will turn to your constitutional rights, in vain, and declare your right of concsience inviolate.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

I expected this to happen sooner or later.

1. The call by the unknown woman is proven to be false.
No one can find her for one thing.

2. The man the caller accused of forcing to marry him and raping her was in another state under state supervision parole she had was not where the accuser said he was on the day the alleged act took place.

3. to take 400 plus children away from their parents with due process of law on the basis of an acusation that is proven to be false anyway is way out of line for the state.

Yes some abuse took place but you do not take away 400 plus children based on the states accusation that they have yet to prove. Even if this went to trail it would not go well for the state based on the evidence.

The problem the State of Texas now faces is that they have ABUSED PROCESS. The lawsuite will cost them millions and this compound will be endowed from this FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS by your tax dollars.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[RedFalcon]

As I expected the Texas Supreame court ruled that the siezure of the pologamist sect children was unlawful and the children have to be returned. This case was so wrong and should NEVER have happened.

The court said child welfare officials overstepped their authority and the children should be returned to their parents, a crushing blow to the state’s massive seizure of children from a polygamist sect’s ranch in western Texas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24887140

[bonnie]

It is your absolute right to feel this way, but it is not your right to utilize the power of the state to make that decision for hundreds of children and their parents.

As to the "christian homes" you reference, first I will note that if they were mormon homes that would be reasonably acceptable to prevent the breach of the right of conscience and to reasonably allow the child his right of conscience to live within the bounds of HIS RELIGION.

This is totally inaccurate. At least in my state. We were liscensed foster parents for over twenty years. We had children from many other faiths, ethnic background..  As foster parents we were required to not only abide by the faith of the child but also to nurture that faith. We had a native american family. We were required to make available to the children the religious education they would have received at home. We could take them to church with us, under tqo conditions. The child was not forced, but rather had no objection to attending. And if the parents did not want the children going,they didn't go.

Anything else  is clearly UNACCEPTABLE, whether it be SDA, Protestant or Catholic. These homes, by nature, would impose their own religious standard. This is violative of the right of parenthood and the rights of the children to practice THEIR RELIGION.

Wrong. The children had to abide by the house rules until it would conflict with their religious belief. Catholic children had to have a choice at the dinner table, meat substitute or fish on Fri.

Secondly, in my experience in many administrative hearings and family court divorce cases, religion is abhorred by most state case workers. People of sincere religious convictions are seen as extremists and avoided. Case workers are much happier with the secular humanist with no real religious agenda. In fact, religious ferver is viewed very negatively and usually is the loser in court hearing after court hearing. Guardian ad litems will frequently refer to such fervor in rather derogatory terms and will interpret it as not in the best interest of children, with all kinds of psychological pablum to support it. 

I am not sure why you would be required at so many administrative hearings and family court cases, they do have a problem with cults or sects. Generally the criteria is what the child was reared in. There is a difference between strong religioous beliefs and "Fervor".  Religion is not abhorred . Nor do they take a stand and prefer secular humanist.
If so foster parents such as ourselves would not have to abide by the religious requets of the parent or child. We were required to provide acess to the religious background for the native american children we had.

The important summation is that regardless of your emotive feelings, the rights of individuals and their right of conscience to practice and enjoy the right to choose their religion is inherent in the United States Constitution.

Individuals have a right to choose their religion. If their right of conscience requires "spiritual marriage of underage children, they lose that right.

I would dare say that if we visited this "compound" and got to meet the women and children, and even some of the men, we would find them quite fervent in their conviction and very clean, neat and orderly, which is more than can be said for many a "christian" home. ANd they could probably defend their religious conviction from the bible a lot more readilly than 90% of SDA households.

And what do you base your statement on?  How can you speak for 90% of SDA's. Being able to defend when they are fully indoctrinated, really isn't much prrof.

Problem is, what you have seen play out at this compound will some day be propounded against men and women of faith, most specifically SDA's, as the protestant grasps the hand of Rome and imposes its will upon society, and those who oppose its' will by right of conscience will be seen as extremeists. Ironically, it is likely we will be interned into compounds and the children taken from us to preserve them from our heresy. We will see how you feel about the right of conscience when we find ourselves on the other side of that societal fence.

So for this reason we defend and want the FDLS to be able to RAPE young girls. And rape is what it is when they have no choice. Besides they cannot give consent at the age some of these girls were/are that are pregnant.

I can guarantee you will turn to your constitutional rights, in vain, and declare your right of concsience inviolate.

I hope you are not of the opinion that I don''t understand that. That does not mean we should now give our blessing to this because some day it will be us