Fundamentalist Mormons and individual rights

[Selene]

Per Curiam Decision from the Texas Supreme Court:

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/hist.../may/080391.htm

Now the state scum will go to the lower Federal District Court or attempt a "hail Mary" Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States of America [ just to remind folks of where we live].

I hate, with a passion, child protective agencies, they neither preserve or protect children, but they damage and destroy them.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I predicted this, although it wasn't much of a prediction.

As far as the police raiding the place based on a hoax is concerned and later the court separating mothers from children, I think the state of Texas is running a serious risk of getting its legal ass kicked to Mexico and back with this one.

I wonder, how come USA law enforcement doesn't know USA law?

Michael

[Selene]

Michael;

Essentially, they count on the citizen's laziness on the law.

As you know, apparently having been deprived of your liberty at times, as I have, how precious freedom is. Additionally, I know how vigilant and involved each citizen must be to just prevent the consistent pressure to acquire power.

The state is ever hungry and requires feeding.

Great observation.

Adam

[Selene]

Folks:

Footnote one of the Supreme Court of Texas' Per Curiam Decision, which upheld the unanimous three (3) Judge, "intermediate" Appellate Court's finding. confirms what a number of us in this thread have staunchly set forth:

"See Tex. Fam. Code § 262.104(a) (“If there is no time to obtain a temporary restraining order or attachment before taking possession of a child consistent with the health and safety of that child, an authorized representative of the Department of Family and Protective Services . . . may take possession of a child without a court order under the following conditions, only: (1) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child; (2) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child; (3) on personal knowledge of facts that would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse; (4) on information furnished by another that has been corroborated by personal knowledge of facts and all of which taken together would lead a person of ordinary prudence and caution to believe that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse . . . .”)"

What we all need to understand, and accept, at a visceral level, almost a subconscious, level what is "malum en se", wrong, evil, in and of itself. Any "rational" individual, knew, that this was wrong.

Yet, many folks intellectually leaned over backwards and contorted their very strong minds to "see", or justify, the state's actions.

It was wrong from day one. It was clear from day one.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

In cases like this, I truly admire the wisdom of the founding fathers. Individual rights don't mean a thing at all unless the government protecting them is based on checks and balances against abuse of power.

Although this is being eroded, it still works.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Agreed. The major problem is the eternal vigilance that a citizenry must maintain. We have seen it in this thread. These "types" of cases raise a hard substantial issue when the baseline moral position is that all citizens in a free republic shall [in law means must] act in a prudent manner to protect the innocent.

Hence, the clear emotional problem in this particular fact pattern.

I am inherently suspicious of the state, therefore, I pushed every assertion that the state alleged in it's affidavits in support.

I had my personal doubts throughout, but I could not find one single verifiable affidavit or witness that was credible.

Huge Red Flags to someone who has observed folks swearing falsely in testimony for advantage in civil cases.

The questions I wish to raise to all who have participated in this thread that you started Michael are:

1) Yea or Nay - the State of Texas, through their agents exceeded their authority under both State and Federal law.

2) Yea or Nay - the State agents of the Prosecutor's Office and the Child Protective Division of the State of Texas operated, in concert, illegally and unconstitutionally to deprive State and Federal citizens of their right of association with their families.

3) Yea or Nay -acting in concert, damages were caused to each and every State citizen and federal citizen that were illegally abducted from the FLDS "ranch"/community/village in question situated in ___County in the State of Texas.

40 As a jury, what "award" would be fair and proper in the interests of justice?

I am sure Michael that the computer can give us the total number of individual forum members who participated in this thread.

Give each of us one vote and let us decide.

Adam

[Ellen Stuttle]

The questions I wish to raise to all who have participated in this thread that you started Michael are:

1) Yea or Nay - the State of Texas, through their agents exceeded their authority under both State and Federal law.

2) Yea or Nay - the State agents of the Prosecutor's Office and the Child Protective Division of the State of Texas operated, in concert, illegally and unconstitutionally to deprive State and Federal citizens of their right of association with their families.

3) Yea or Nay -acting in concert, damages were caused to each and every State citizen and federal citizen that were illegally abducted from the FLDS "ranch"/community/village in question situated in ___County in the State of Texas.

40 As a jury, what "award" would be fair and proper in the interests of justice?

Probably obviously from my posts on the thread, I go with "yea" on questions (1) - (3). I haven't enough knowledge of details of jurisprudence to attempt an answer to (4), however. (String 'em up? That was facetious, not meant literally, expression of emotion. Kick 'em out of office -- don't we wish? Overhaul that whole CDS set-up -- fervently to be wished. But realistically...?)

Ellen

___

[Mikee]

1-3: Yea

4: Some deserve prison time. Many deserve to lose their jobs. Neither of which will happen.

I predict for most if not all of these children and their parents the nightmare is far from over. The CPS will exact their revenge. I believe they are still pretty much untouchable. They have amassed thousands of hours of interviews, who knows what their plans are with the DNA "evidence". This is going to now become a individual case-by-case agonizingly slow process where even if most of the parents get "custody" of their children the state will intrude on their lives for years to come. The state will "win" because most people think of the FLDS as a bunch of crackpots and will not believe anything that has happened as any relevance to themselves.

[Selene]

Here is the three Supreme court Justicees who concurred in part and dissented in part from the majority.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/hist...may/080391d.htm

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Anybody retrieving custody of their chilfren should leave the state of Texas immediately or risk reloss of custody.

--Brant

[Selene]

Latests news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_...ygamist_retreat

[John Dailey]

~ What is really needed is an overhaul of the laws re 'protecting "children" (Ahem!)', and not only in Texas. --- CPS/DCYS/etc need to have legal reins put on them re any decision that they be called in to care for and even to 'monitor' (hence file reports of continued necessity for their activities). But then, I innuended that in my post #191.

~ However, only the legislators can overhaul laws, and, as we all know, all legislators are politicians 1st and foremost following their constituents' wishes; ergo, no changes will be forthcoming.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ What's politic(ian)s got to do with it? THE MOTIVE for going in and taking over is what. (Interesting that no one's asked "Why would they do this on the basis of an anonymous [sorry William: a 'self-identifed' caller is an anonymous one in my book until identifed by the callee] call?"

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

Edited June 3, 2008 by John Dailey

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael:

Agreed. The major problem is the eternal vigilance that a citizenry must maintain. We have seen it in this thread. These "types" of cases raise a hard substantial issue when the baseline moral position is that all citizens in a free republic shall [in law means must] act in a prudent manner to protect the innocent.

Hence, the clear emotional problem in this particular fact pattern.

I am inherently suspicious of the state, therefore, I pushed every assertion that the state alleged in it's affidavits in support.

I had my personal doubts throughout, but I could not find one single verifiable affidavit or witness that was credible.

Huge Red Flags to someone who has observed folks swearing falsely in testimony for advantage in civil cases.

The questions I wish to raise to all who have participated in this thread that you started Michael are:

1) Yea or Nay - the State of Texas, through their agents exceeded their authority under both State and Federal law.

2) Yea or Nay - the State agents of the Prosecutor's Office and the Child Protective Division of the State of Texas operated, in concert, illegally and unconstitutionally to deprive State and Federal citizens of their right of association with their families.

3) Yea or Nay -acting in concert, damages were caused to each and every State citizen and federal citizen that were illegally abducted from the FLDS "ranch"/community/village in question situated in ___County in the State of Texas.

40 As a jury, what "award" would be fair and proper in the interests of justice?

I am sure Michael that the computer can give us the total number of individual forum members who participated in this thread.

Give each of us one vote and let us decide.

Adam

1) Yea

2) Yea

3) Yea

based on the evident current lack of evidence to justify the actions, as things have turned out - somewhat differently from what I had suspected when the initial story broke.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Selene]

Alphonso:

Thank you for your seeing the insubstantial "facts" alleged by the state.

I have been a divorce and family mediator for about 18 or 19 years and I am still stunned by the fundamental violation of individual rights that exist in the "Family Courts" of the US.

Being incarcerated by up to 180 days without a jury trial is standard operating procedure in the courts.

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

[Brant Gaede]

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

You're a fine one to talk about "rights." You won't even let me smoke if I want to.

--Brant

[Selene]

FYI:

And taxpayers are not storming the Texas Legislature? Oh, how many children without health insurance could have been provided for? Oh. how many Texas citizens, who are threatened with foreclosure could we save? How much could the State of Texas have paid to saving the planet with 14 million dollars?

Additionally, this is just the tip of the iceberg as to "costs" to the taxpayers of Texas.

Finally, I will virtually guarantee that there is a matching "fund" [equals bribe] by the Federal taxpayer to subsidized protecting of the poor abused children of each State.

Despicable.

ttp://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41049.html

[Roger Bissell]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

[tjohnson]

One can observe "polygamy" in animals where the dominant male gathers up "a harem" and tries to reproduce with them in order to spread his dna with as many other females as possible. This has survival value for animals but does this behaviour have survival value for humans? Why is it that humans evolved a social structure, usually referred to as 'marriage'? Could it be that this offers survival value for the human species?

[tjohnson]

I propose that the animalistic practice of gathering a harem and spreading one's dna does NOT have survival value for humans. This practice has survival value for animals that rely on characteristics such as strength, endurance, etc. - characteristics that help these animals that rely on this to escape predators etc. When was the last time you saw a herd of Mormons being hunted by some large cats or wolves? Marriage evolved probably because of the value of having designated parents responsible for the upbringing of offspring in a world where our biggest threats are from other humans.

[bmacwilliam]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

I can't really believe you're serious in asking if I was serious. You see no asymmetries, no double standard, no clear cut gender-based inequality of the very worst kind? If horrendous gender-based inequality is not a rights violation, I don't know what is.

Be serious. And if your question is serious then so is mine. Are you mentally challenged?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

~ Hinted-at-pedophilia (via 'underage marriages' and PC-talk of 'abuse' [speculated community-sex or speculated beatings] was an excuse; the polygamous life-style, seen as contrary to the predominant 'Christian' way was THE MOTIVE (as I pointed out at the end of post #190), and the law there is 'Christian life-style' biased. --- The other mainstreamed Mormons ran into this in their own history. Interesting that there's little THEY have to say about this case. Guess they learned (unlike most) from history.

LLAP

J:D

"the polygamous life-style" is contrary to basic human rights and has got nothing to do with 'Christian life-style' bias.

Are you serious? If so, please explain what basic human rights are violated by (or otherwise contradicted by) a (or "the"?) polygamous lifestyle.

Thanking you in advance for what will surely be a very enlightening explanation (unless you were joking)...REB

This pisses me off. It's YOU who need to 'enlighten' us on how there's no rights violation when a group treats women like shit.

You tell us. oh enlightened one, how it's not a rights violation to deny all possibility of love from loyal spouse from one gender while the other gender has the choice.

You tell us, oh enlightened one, how you'd feel just fine if your wife was bangin' five other guys.

Enlighten us.... please...

Bob

[Selene]

Bob:

Should a wealthy dominatrix, who has a stable of 5 submissive live-in males, who choose, for their own self-interest, to voluntarily submit to her, also be raided by the state?

Adam

[bmacwilliam]

Bob:

Should a wealthy dominatrix, who has a stable of 5 submissive live-in males, who choose, for their own self-interest, to voluntarily submit to her, also be raided by the state?

Adam

Just taking a guess, but I'd say this thread might not be the right place to divulge and discuss your sexual fantasies.

Bob