After the invasion of the yfz ranch, and the state's actions under the direction and authority of that biased and despicable judge Walthers, I began a blog to point out why - in my humble opinion - that raid was a clearly perceptible insult to, and abuse of, those rights set forth in the US Constitution.
Also, the facts (as we know them),in addition to legal precedents related thereto, does not even began to excuse the obvious prejudicial persecution by that judge Walthers of the adults in that compound. But, more importantly, separating those young children from their mothers - and, thus, causing them to be traumatically scarred, does not begin to compare with any accusations of sexual abuse by reason of an underage marriage.
But as to facts and law:
1. We now know that the girl held hostage was a hoax. But,it can be adduced that that raid was set up between certain state legislative officials, Sheriff Doran, and Judge Walthers. So, since the "reasonable cause" to raid that compound relied upon that false hostage hoax, the seizure of any files or other material should be excluded in any trial to prosecute members of that sect (as "fruit from the poisonous tree").
2. Also, the fact that buses were part of that raid clearly demonstrates that such pretext to invade that compound was mainly for the purpose of kidnapping those children. The state has claimed that their observation of a pregnant underage teen was sufficient cause to take ALL of the children. BUT, AN EXCEPTION DOES NOT PROVE THE RULE.
3. Then,in an attempt to justify that rash action, CPS and their hacks starting questioning those children as soon as they got on the bus. Who taught them that young children and toddlers could be grilled about their families without a parent or attorney ad litem present? Also,CPS made a big to do about the children and their parents lack of "cooperation". Has anybody told them that citizens have a right to remain silent? Its called their "Miranda" rights.
4.The only reason the state (CPS) is still trying to prosecute(persecute)those sect members is their bitterness in not
being able to prevail in court in the attempt to pacify that county's tight ass baptist populace.
5. Finally, a major reason that the Third Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court went against that arrogant judge is that the violations of due process were so blatant, a removal of this case to
a federal court would,undoubtedly, result in a ruling in favor of those defendants. And, no lower court likes to be embarrassed with a decision and opinion overturning them. Especially, where a federal
forum might spank a state court with an adverse opinion.Chartelle
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
YOO HOO - OVER HERE, CPS
A POST BY ROBERT GUEST, WITH RELEVANT QUESTION
une 6, 2008
une 6, 2008
Another Texas compound with underage pregnancy rampant- Send in the CPS SWAT team!!
Dallas Morning News has a breaking story about a government educational compound called "Arlington Sam Houston High School." According to DMN this cult of socialized education has over 200 underage girls who are pregnant. When will CPS send in their SWAT team to protect these children!
THE CHILDREN - AFTER THE STATE TOOK CUSTODY
STORY PRINTED BY NY TIMES
Article Tools Sponsored By
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and DAN FROSCH
Published: May 29, 2008
Ruth Edna Fischer was first allowed to see her 2-year-old daughter, from whom she had been separated after the raid on their polygamist ranch in Texas, at the child’s hospital room. The child had been taken there because of severe dehydration and malnutrition, Ms. Fischer said.
Ruth Edna Fischer, visiting two of her four children, Joseph Smith Jeffs and Hyrum Smith Jeffs, twins who are in Texas custody.
“Hannah looked like a little orphan sitting on the couch,” Ms. Fischer said. “Her hair was stringy and she was in a diaper, a pair of dirty socks and a hospital gown.”
The second visit two weeks later at a state office in Angleton, Tex., was worse. The girl would not even meet her mother’s gaze. “It was like she hardly remembered me,” said Ms. Fischer, who has four children in state custody.
As they await a ruling by the highest court in Texas on whether child-welfare authorities had the right to take 468 children from the ranch early last month, the mothers have started speaking out more forcefully about what they think the separation has already done to their children.
The mothers and their lawyers are undoubtedly trying to make their best pitch for public sympathy as the Supreme Court of Texas deliberates on the fate of their children. Last Thursday, an appeals court in Austin found that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had illegally removed the children without sufficient evidence that they were in immediate danger.
On Friday, state officials asked the higher court for an emergency order that would allow them to keep all but a dozen children in their custody. The dozen children were returned to their parents under the condition that they have continuing supervision. The Supreme Court denied the stay on Friday, but said it would consider the case over the weekend. No decision has been issued yet.
Many child-welfare experts across the nation, who have as a group watched the high-profile Texas case closely, say the raid on the polygamist ranch diverged sharply from the recommended practices both in Texas and elsewhere in the country.
They say a growing body of research supports the contention of the mothers that forceful removal can have both significant short-term and long-lasting harm, particularly for younger children. Some studies have found that the wide-ranging effects include anxiety, extreme distrust of strangers and, in the future, higher rates of teenage pregnancy and juvenile incarceration.
Through their lawyers and in personal interviews, the mothers have been spilling tales of toddlers who have forgotten toilet training and 3-year-olds who cling to them frantically during visits. Ms. Fischer’s child became dehydrated as a result of a fever.
It is because of the growing national consensus about the scarring effect of removal on children, even if only temporarily, that federal law — to which all state law must defer — demands that children be removed only if “reasonable efforts” to keep them at home have been made.
Many states, like Oregon and Tennessee, have gone even further to protect children from the trauma of removal by giving families intensive in-home services first, and then, if the child is taken, having conferences with the parents, kin and friends from the community within 48 hours to help smooth the transition.
Some experts in Texas state law and procedure say the state not only violated minimum national standards, which are written into the Texas Family Code, but they also violated due process considerations. These were essentially the findings of the appeals court.
“They made no effort to keep the children there at the ranch,” said Johana Scot, executive director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin, which helps advocate for the rights of parents who have had their children taken into foster care.
“And even worse, they did not give the families individual hearings, which they are also required to do by the code,” Ms. Scot said. “They’ve really botched this.”
Marleigh Meisner, a public information officer for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said she could not discuss any particulars of this case. But in the filing to the Texas Supreme Court last Friday, the state held that because the parents had declined to identify which children belonged to whom, they could not at first be treated individually.
Further, the state asserted that all children were at risk because they were being indoctrinated into a pattern of sexual abuse — the young girls as victims, and the boys as predators.
Last Friday, to bolster its case, the state made public a picture of what it said was the now-imprisoned leader of the church, Warren S. Jeffs, kissing a 12-year female child on the lips
The state’s raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or F.L.D.S., came on April 3 after someone called an abuse hot line and said that she was a 16-year-old child bride being abused by her older husband at the ranch in Eldorado, Tex., which is about 45 miles south of San Angelo.
The state raided the ranch and conducted an extensive investigation of the sect’s files and found that numerous girls under the age of 16, some as young as 13, had been impregnated by older men. The caller has not been found.
Lawyers for the families say Texas officials overstepped the law in removing the children from their families; some three-quarters of the children were under age 10 and presumably not at “imminent risk” of abuse, which is the standard, according to federal law. Less draconian options, which the state did not employ, could have included removing all the men from the ranch or only the teenage girls, the lawyers have argued.
Steven D. Cohen, a senior associate at the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, a national child-advocacy organization, said that while he could not say whether Texas officials acted improperly in taking the children from their mothers, he did think that they had violated numerous standards of best practice widely used elsewhere.
“Breaking all of the ties to several parental figures and siblings, and taking them to a remote and unfamiliar place raises many red flags about trauma and its effect on children,” Mr. Cohen said
Experts say younger children, who often do not have a sense of the passage of time, can be particularly hard hit by such separations. About 100 of the children removed from the sect were 2 years old or younger.
Shelly Greco, a court-appointed lawyer for a 14-month-old girl removed from the ranch, says the child had been up crying uncontrollably many nights because she was so abruptly weaned.
Numerous studies in recent years show that the effects of removal can be long lasting, often not showing up fully for a decade of more. In one study, Joseph J. Doyle, an economist with the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T., found that children removed from their parents and taken into foster care, even for a relatively short period, were three times as likely to grow up to be juvenile offenders or have a teenage pregnancy than were children from similarly troubled homes who had been left with their parents.
Professor Doyle said Texas was far from alone in erring on the side of removal. “From the caseworker’s point of view, the incentive is to take the kid,” he said. “That’s the safer choice, because it is unlikely that if something terrible happens in foster care they would be blamed. Whereas if something were to happen at home, the caseworker would be blamed.”
But Lori Jessop, one of a few mothers from the ranch who were reunited with their children in a court-brokered agreement last Friday, said she had already seen the impact of this situation. Ms. Jessop said her three children were suffering from night terrors and a fear of strangers, among other problems. She said that when her 4-year-old daughter recently saw a picture of a bus, like the one used to transport the children when they were in foster care, she started to cry.
“It’s affected her a lot,” Ms. Jessop said. “Everybody that she sees, especially adult men, she calls them policemen.”
Article Tools Sponsored By
By LESLIE KAUFMAN and DAN FROSCH
Published: May 29, 2008
Ruth Edna Fischer was first allowed to see her 2-year-old daughter, from whom she had been separated after the raid on their polygamist ranch in Texas, at the child’s hospital room. The child had been taken there because of severe dehydration and malnutrition, Ms. Fischer said.
Ruth Edna Fischer, visiting two of her four children, Joseph Smith Jeffs and Hyrum Smith Jeffs, twins who are in Texas custody.
“Hannah looked like a little orphan sitting on the couch,” Ms. Fischer said. “Her hair was stringy and she was in a diaper, a pair of dirty socks and a hospital gown.”
The second visit two weeks later at a state office in Angleton, Tex., was worse. The girl would not even meet her mother’s gaze. “It was like she hardly remembered me,” said Ms. Fischer, who has four children in state custody.
As they await a ruling by the highest court in Texas on whether child-welfare authorities had the right to take 468 children from the ranch early last month, the mothers have started speaking out more forcefully about what they think the separation has already done to their children.
The mothers and their lawyers are undoubtedly trying to make their best pitch for public sympathy as the Supreme Court of Texas deliberates on the fate of their children. Last Thursday, an appeals court in Austin found that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services had illegally removed the children without sufficient evidence that they were in immediate danger.
On Friday, state officials asked the higher court for an emergency order that would allow them to keep all but a dozen children in their custody. The dozen children were returned to their parents under the condition that they have continuing supervision. The Supreme Court denied the stay on Friday, but said it would consider the case over the weekend. No decision has been issued yet.
Many child-welfare experts across the nation, who have as a group watched the high-profile Texas case closely, say the raid on the polygamist ranch diverged sharply from the recommended practices both in Texas and elsewhere in the country.
They say a growing body of research supports the contention of the mothers that forceful removal can have both significant short-term and long-lasting harm, particularly for younger children. Some studies have found that the wide-ranging effects include anxiety, extreme distrust of strangers and, in the future, higher rates of teenage pregnancy and juvenile incarceration.
Through their lawyers and in personal interviews, the mothers have been spilling tales of toddlers who have forgotten toilet training and 3-year-olds who cling to them frantically during visits. Ms. Fischer’s child became dehydrated as a result of a fever.
It is because of the growing national consensus about the scarring effect of removal on children, even if only temporarily, that federal law — to which all state law must defer — demands that children be removed only if “reasonable efforts” to keep them at home have been made.
Many states, like Oregon and Tennessee, have gone even further to protect children from the trauma of removal by giving families intensive in-home services first, and then, if the child is taken, having conferences with the parents, kin and friends from the community within 48 hours to help smooth the transition.
Some experts in Texas state law and procedure say the state not only violated minimum national standards, which are written into the Texas Family Code, but they also violated due process considerations. These were essentially the findings of the appeals court.
“They made no effort to keep the children there at the ranch,” said Johana Scot, executive director of the Parent Guidance Center in Austin, which helps advocate for the rights of parents who have had their children taken into foster care.
“And even worse, they did not give the families individual hearings, which they are also required to do by the code,” Ms. Scot said. “They’ve really botched this.”
Marleigh Meisner, a public information officer for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said she could not discuss any particulars of this case. But in the filing to the Texas Supreme Court last Friday, the state held that because the parents had declined to identify which children belonged to whom, they could not at first be treated individually.
Further, the state asserted that all children were at risk because they were being indoctrinated into a pattern of sexual abuse — the young girls as victims, and the boys as predators.
Last Friday, to bolster its case, the state made public a picture of what it said was the now-imprisoned leader of the church, Warren S. Jeffs, kissing a 12-year female child on the lips
The state’s raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or F.L.D.S., came on April 3 after someone called an abuse hot line and said that she was a 16-year-old child bride being abused by her older husband at the ranch in Eldorado, Tex., which is about 45 miles south of San Angelo.
The state raided the ranch and conducted an extensive investigation of the sect’s files and found that numerous girls under the age of 16, some as young as 13, had been impregnated by older men. The caller has not been found.
Lawyers for the families say Texas officials overstepped the law in removing the children from their families; some three-quarters of the children were under age 10 and presumably not at “imminent risk” of abuse, which is the standard, according to federal law. Less draconian options, which the state did not employ, could have included removing all the men from the ranch or only the teenage girls, the lawyers have argued.
Steven D. Cohen, a senior associate at the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, a national child-advocacy organization, said that while he could not say whether Texas officials acted improperly in taking the children from their mothers, he did think that they had violated numerous standards of best practice widely used elsewhere.
“Breaking all of the ties to several parental figures and siblings, and taking them to a remote and unfamiliar place raises many red flags about trauma and its effect on children,” Mr. Cohen said
Experts say younger children, who often do not have a sense of the passage of time, can be particularly hard hit by such separations. About 100 of the children removed from the sect were 2 years old or younger.
Shelly Greco, a court-appointed lawyer for a 14-month-old girl removed from the ranch, says the child had been up crying uncontrollably many nights because she was so abruptly weaned.
Numerous studies in recent years show that the effects of removal can be long lasting, often not showing up fully for a decade of more. In one study, Joseph J. Doyle, an economist with the Sloan School of Management at M.I.T., found that children removed from their parents and taken into foster care, even for a relatively short period, were three times as likely to grow up to be juvenile offenders or have a teenage pregnancy than were children from similarly troubled homes who had been left with their parents.
Professor Doyle said Texas was far from alone in erring on the side of removal. “From the caseworker’s point of view, the incentive is to take the kid,” he said. “That’s the safer choice, because it is unlikely that if something terrible happens in foster care they would be blamed. Whereas if something were to happen at home, the caseworker would be blamed.”
But Lori Jessop, one of a few mothers from the ranch who were reunited with their children in a court-brokered agreement last Friday, said she had already seen the impact of this situation. Ms. Jessop said her three children were suffering from night terrors and a fear of strangers, among other problems. She said that when her 4-year-old daughter recently saw a picture of a bus, like the one used to transport the children when they were in foster care, she started to cry.
“It’s affected her a lot,” Ms. Jessop said. “Everybody that she sees, especially adult men, she calls them policemen.”
Sunday, June 8, 2008
THE SECRET OF FREEDOM?
I zapped this except from another's post because it included a
quote from a respected Justice on the Supreme Court....which
is similar to what I said in my first post when I began this blog
on behalf of that mormon sect. That excerpt is as follows:
Posted on May 19, 2008 by Jamie Spencer
...the beginning of all freedom
Shawn Matlock declares that privacy as we know it is [possibly] a thing of the past.
Using Justice Douglas’ line that “The right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom” as the title of his post, he assails the current Deputy Director of National Intelligence’s recent assertion that Americans need to rethink their definition of privacy.
Anyone interested in an excellent discussion on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and privacy should read Shawn’s post thoroughly. Those left unsated can [this part was left unwritten].
What I wrote in my first post was as follows:
"Actually, the real motivation for such abuses of gov-
ernment - both at Waco and at that mormon com-
pound - is simply this: government just can't accept
the idea that there are individuals and groups of
people who simply wish to be left alone...to live their
lives outside the conformities which most of us are
forced into by political correctness and the hypocrisy
of what is perceived to be the correct way to conduct
our lives."
Gee, its nice to know that the said Justice agrees with me....or that I agree with him.
quote from a respected Justice on the Supreme Court....which
is similar to what I said in my first post when I began this blog
on behalf of that mormon sect. That excerpt is as follows:
Posted on May 19, 2008 by Jamie Spencer
...the beginning of all freedom
Shawn Matlock declares that privacy as we know it is [possibly] a thing of the past.
Using Justice Douglas’ line that “The right to be let alone is the beginning of all freedom” as the title of his post, he assails the current Deputy Director of National Intelligence’s recent assertion that Americans need to rethink their definition of privacy.
Anyone interested in an excellent discussion on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and privacy should read Shawn’s post thoroughly. Those left unsated can [this part was left unwritten].
What I wrote in my first post was as follows:
"Actually, the real motivation for such abuses of gov-
ernment - both at Waco and at that mormon com-
pound - is simply this: government just can't accept
the idea that there are individuals and groups of
people who simply wish to be left alone...to live their
lives outside the conformities which most of us are
forced into by political correctness and the hypocrisy
of what is perceived to be the correct way to conduct
our lives."
Gee, its nice to know that the said Justice agrees with me....or that I agree with him.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
FINALLY, THE TRUTH EMERGES
FINALLY, THE TRUTH EMERGES
Great Scott ! ! - and we call this the land of the free and the
home of the brave? On my blog, I was about to write a post
implying that that whole FLDS raid was a conspiracy...mainly
involving one state legislator (Harvey Hildebran), local officials
(Sheriff David Doran) and a judge(Walther) - in whose court
they, undoubtedly, had the assurance that she would set aside
judicial integrity in favor of making rulings from the bench con-
sistent with the goals of that conspiracy...to run FLDS out of the
state of Texas (while egreiously violating the civil rights of that
religious group in the process).
But, thanks to the fine investigative reporting efforts of the
Dallas Morning News we now have hard evidence that it was
indeed a conspiracy, but on a massive state wide scale...going
all the way up to the governor's office (and showing his com-
plicity in said conspiracy). It has been reported that these
same players are now trying to contrive criminal charges
against some of the members of FLDS.
Well, lets put the shoe on the other foot. My advice to FLDS
is not to lay back again and simply be grateful for getting the
children back.If you truly want to be left alone you must
stand up for your rights by going on the offense. Get a rec-
ognized civil rights attorney and file a civil rights suit in the
federal court for actual and punitive damages (including in-
junctive relief against state and local officials from further inter-
ferece in your religious freedoms), I think you can win a large
monetary award against these weasels for their compiracy to
violate your civil rights.
But even more important, file a civil rights complaint with the
US Justice department against all those conspirators who know-
ingly, willfullly and intentionally set out to violate your civil
rights. Its time to start putting these weasels under criminal
charges...in order to deter others who, in the future, would
attempt to use their official capacities to violate the constitu-
tional rights of individuals or groups. Lets hope the national
media will finally start reporting the extent of this outrage.
UP THE CONSTITUION, DOWN THE BRIGANDS
www.truetells.blogspot.com
Great Scott ! ! - and we call this the land of the free and the
home of the brave? On my blog, I was about to write a post
implying that that whole FLDS raid was a conspiracy...mainly
involving one state legislator (Harvey Hildebran), local officials
(Sheriff David Doran) and a judge(Walther) - in whose court
they, undoubtedly, had the assurance that she would set aside
judicial integrity in favor of making rulings from the bench con-
sistent with the goals of that conspiracy...to run FLDS out of the
state of Texas (while egreiously violating the civil rights of that
religious group in the process).
But, thanks to the fine investigative reporting efforts of the
Dallas Morning News we now have hard evidence that it was
indeed a conspiracy, but on a massive state wide scale...going
all the way up to the governor's office (and showing his com-
plicity in said conspiracy). It has been reported that these
same players are now trying to contrive criminal charges
against some of the members of FLDS.
Well, lets put the shoe on the other foot. My advice to FLDS
is not to lay back again and simply be grateful for getting the
children back.If you truly want to be left alone you must
stand up for your rights by going on the offense. Get a rec-
ognized civil rights attorney and file a civil rights suit in the
federal court for actual and punitive damages (including in-
junctive relief against state and local officials from further inter-
ferece in your religious freedoms), I think you can win a large
monetary award against these weasels for their compiracy to
violate your civil rights.
But even more important, file a civil rights complaint with the
US Justice department against all those conspirators who know-
ingly, willfullly and intentionally set out to violate your civil
rights. Its time to start putting these weasels under criminal
charges...in order to deter others who, in the future, would
attempt to use their official capacities to violate the constitu-
tional rights of individuals or groups. Lets hope the national
media will finally start reporting the extent of this outrage.
UP THE CONSTITUION, DOWN THE BRIGANDS
www.truetells.blogspot.com
Monday, June 2, 2008
JUDGE DELIVERS A PARTING BLOW
JUDGE DELIVERS A PARTING BLOW
Besides the action of CPS in wrongfully seizing those
children, under authority of that megalomaniac judge
(I now feel a better term for her is, the" incubus"), this
coerced agreement - as to conditions for their release
- is absolutely ridiculous. I would hope that such an
agreement does not reflect the legal skills of the attor-
neys for FLDS and the children...but,instead, was only
signed because of the urgency to terminate the emotional
and mental stress which those children have been endur-
ing as captives of the state.
One would expect such agreement to be accepted only if
CPS had proven all of the vile accusations and speculations
they have used to justify their abuses of authority. But the
rulings by the higher courts, in effect, said such actions
by CPS ,together with the lack of a fair, impartial and con-
stitutional judicial process/proceeding, conducted by that
incubus, could not stand. In short, she was rebuked by
the 3rd Court of Appeals (not reversed and remanded).
Therefore, under that reality, how does she have any legal
standing to impose such harsh conditions and restrictions?
Indeed, such strictures are not even imposed upon a
career criminal let out of prison on parole....or a person on
probation.
I can only hope those attorneys for FLDS and children
added in that agreement, "this agreement is signed under
protest and duress...and does not constitute any waiver of
defendants right to appeal this agreement, or pursue any
other legal actions which defendants may take in response to
those actions by officials of the state of Texas in wrongfully
entering the private property of FLDS without probable cause,
and illegally seizing and holding the children of FLDS mem-
bers against their will - and , in violation of the protections
afforded to all US citizens under provisions of the Constitution
of the United States.
Besides the action of CPS in wrongfully seizing those
children, under authority of that megalomaniac judge
(I now feel a better term for her is, the" incubus"), this
coerced agreement - as to conditions for their release
- is absolutely ridiculous. I would hope that such an
agreement does not reflect the legal skills of the attor-
neys for FLDS and the children...but,instead, was only
signed because of the urgency to terminate the emotional
and mental stress which those children have been endur-
ing as captives of the state.
One would expect such agreement to be accepted only if
CPS had proven all of the vile accusations and speculations
they have used to justify their abuses of authority. But the
rulings by the higher courts, in effect, said such actions
by CPS ,together with the lack of a fair, impartial and con-
stitutional judicial process/proceeding, conducted by that
incubus, could not stand. In short, she was rebuked by
the 3rd Court of Appeals (not reversed and remanded).
Therefore, under that reality, how does she have any legal
standing to impose such harsh conditions and restrictions?
Indeed, such strictures are not even imposed upon a
career criminal let out of prison on parole....or a person on
probation.
I can only hope those attorneys for FLDS and children
added in that agreement, "this agreement is signed under
protest and duress...and does not constitute any waiver of
defendants right to appeal this agreement, or pursue any
other legal actions which defendants may take in response to
those actions by officials of the state of Texas in wrongfully
entering the private property of FLDS without probable cause,
and illegally seizing and holding the children of FLDS mem-
bers against their will - and , in violation of the protections
afforded to all US citizens under provisions of the Constitution
of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)