Posted by rvrm1969 on May 1, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for that commentary. As a former foster parent and now adoptive parent, I can say that you have to protect the children. CPS workers are some of the hardest working, most caring individuals I have ever met. They do have to make some VERY difficult decisions with accordance to the law and sometimes that law doesn't look out for the children's best interests. I pray that this situation will be resolved in such a way as to protect these precious children.

Posted by JustDave on May 1, 2008 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I concur with rvrm, that CPS workers are hard-working, dedicated individuals. The problem isn't the workers--the system has an issue.

The problem with CPS is that it operates outside of the boundaries of what we consider "normal" law, in the name of protecting the children. Now, I'm not against protecting children, at all, but as a society, we need to put CPS's playbook under the microscope.

I know whereof I speak, having been falsely accused of abusing my daughter. Let's consider the facts:

* An anonymous tip remains anonymous--the accused never gets a chance to face their accuser, which is a basic principle of American law.
* The accused and their children are treated as if they are guilty, until proven guilty, which tramples all over the assumption of innocence that is a basic principle of American law.
* If they feel it necessary to interview my child, I can't be there, nor even see the tape of the interview, without a court order--even before she's removed from the household. No court orders, no gag orders, no nothing--and no parental rights at all during an interview.

Been there, done that, folks. When the evildoer really is evil, we don't have a problem with it...but don't irritate anyone, or you could find yourself in the same boat! One anonymous call is all it will take to mess up your life, and traumatize your family, for a long, long time. CPS will err on the side of caution--do you want to be a victim of their error?

It's time for their playbook to see the light of day, in plain English, and for the people's representatives in the next Legislature to help them refine their procedures in a way that protects the rights of the accused.

Just my two bits; you may have other opinions.

Posted by bernie1e on May 2, 2008 at 12:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

justdave-you are absolutely right....if society chose to assume,because of an annomous tip that
being an editor for a newspaper put a child in danger.then that persons preceptions would face
the realities of how the system"erred" on the
side of caution can devestate a family.yes i can
see how the children were endangered,yes i can see how the state needed to do something.but removing the children from their homes?what happ-
ened to arresting the crimals and leaving the victums to go on with their lives.pretend these
women and children are american citizens....no wait they are!!!!!whats gonna happen if next its
baptists being told they are suspect?who's gonna speak up for them?church of christ?they may be next.......

Posted by tacmanj on May 2, 2008 at 2:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with what you are saying just dave. Something was said a number of years ago about one of my kids and it has ripped the family apart. The kids themselves took sides and are not talking to each other and only one of them has constant contact with me now. When the CPS "investigated" they made several assumptions that were later found false in court but the damage was done.

Yes, they do help most folks but they stomp the crap out of others rights in the process.

Posted by robertwp on May 2, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Another problem with the way CPS operates, and one that is very pressing on this issue, is that they remove all of the children in a situation that only puts 1 or a few in danger. In the FLDS case, where there is suspicion of sexual abuse on teenagers, they could have removed the girls that were 10 and up. This would have left the younger children, who were not in immediate danger, with their mothers/caregivers. This would have been in the best interest of the children. That is what they say is at the core of their actions but their practice seems to suggest otherwise.

JustDave made the statement that CPS operates outside the bounds of "normal" law. I will go a step farther and say that CPS operates outside the bounds of Constitutional Law. This case very well may end up putting them back within those borders.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 2, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Just admit it, robertwp...you could care less about the safety of the children, so long as the "rights" of the pedophiles are protected. You're SICK, man.

Posted by robertwp on May 2, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ddawkins,
Why do you hate America?

Posted by wild_bill on May 2, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ddawkins71, it has nothing to do with the rights of the "pedophiles" but with the rights of all of us. The pedophiles will be punished. Unfortunately due to the way CPS is handling this, the innocent will suffer even worse.

What CPS has done in El Dorado is similar to using a howitzer to hunt rabbits or fishing with dynamite. Yeah, it gets the job done but it also does horrible collateral damage to the "innocent". Sometimes the cure IS worse than the disease. Far too often what CPS does is worse than what it seeks to prevent.

robertwp I doubt very much this will do anything to reign in CPS. There are half a dozen of us posting here who oppose the methods used in El Dorado and probably ten times that many posters who think CPS did just fine. The majority of CPS supporters are firmly convinced it "can't happen" to them because they "haven't done anything wrong". Until it does happen to them they will never believe the danger CPS and other state agencies pose to our rights, freedom and liberty.

Posted by robertwp on May 3, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When an agency can act on an anonymous tip, come in and take your children, and then force you to prove your innocence, then your constitutional rights mean nothing.

I was talking to a friend of mine who used to work for CPS. We talked about what was going on in Eldorado. He said that from his experience with the agency, he wouldn't trust anything they said until he had seen evidence of it.

I think that is a pretty strong statement.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 3, 2008 at 5:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

robert, your ridiculous straw-man statement shows just how much of a coward you really are. Just keep caterwauling about the so-called "rights" of a bunch of pedophiles. As for myself, I'll keep coming down on the right of innocent children NOT to be raped by dirty old perverts.

Judging by your comments, I'm wondering why you insist on championing such low filth. Maybe your sympathies are reserved for like minds?

Posted by Mellonello on May 3, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

None of us were there when the CPS went to investigate. We dont know what all they found. We have been getting bits and pieces of information. San Angelo did post the list of names regiestered at the YFZ ranch, and its a LONG list, pretty much everyone married to each other. It also gave several girls 16 in 2007 married to OLDER men.
http://web.gosanangelo.com/pdf/Bishop...

Posted by robertwp on May 3, 2008 at 10:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ddawkins,
You are quite ready to accuse people of being pedophiles. People you don't even know. I think you can understand how easily rumors get started since you like to repeat them so much. So far there has been little in the way of hard facts to come out of the raid. So far it has just been accusations and the story has already faded out of the front pages. I suspect that if there really was as much abuse and rape as you suggest then we would be hearing much more about it. If there has been rape and abuse, the perpetrators will be punished if it can be proven. We will have to wait and see. Right now you can still keep accusing all of your "straw men" of being pedophiles if it makes you feel better about yourself.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 4, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I merely question the passion with which you defend pedophiles, whilst ignoring the rights of their victims, robert. Why do you do that?

Little in the way of hard facts? I guess 60% of the teenage girls who were rescued showing physical evidence of pregnancy and childbirth is "little in the way of hard facts" to you. Just keep playing the ostrich while ignoring the victims.

I work in a prison chock full of the very people you feel such empathy for, and I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the lot of them, and not a cent for you.

You can call the facts of pedophilia "straw men" if you like...but SOMEONE got those little girls pregnant, and it wasn't "immaculate conception".

Posted by texmade2 on May 4, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gestapo" tactics
That is the shoe that fits CPS.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 4, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So, rescuing children from rape was a hallmark of the Gestapo? Funny I never read that in any of the history books.

Posted by robertwp on May 4, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ddawkins,
You are simply stating rumors at this point. Let's wait and see what really turns up. You have already tried these people. This is still America, whether you like it or not.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 5, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not "starting rumors", I'm stating what has been shown in the news. Are you truly that ignorant? Are you going to ignore hundreds of children, most of whom are pregnant or who have already delivered?

Posted by robertwp on May 5, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At this point, what you are hearing on the news is rumor. If it weren't, then it would be evidence and there would have been arrests by now. Are you that ignorant?

Posted by robertwp on May 5, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are you going to ignore hundreds of children, most of whom are pregnant or who have already delivered?"

Ddawkins,
There have been 462 children taken into custody. In order for your statement (rumor) to be true 232 or more of them would have to be pregnant or have already delivered. Are you standing by this statement of yours or are you willing to admit that you are spreading rumors that are untrue and EAT CROW?

I will await the clarification of your misinformation (rumor).

BTW, thank you for proving my point.

Also BTW, you put the words "starting rumors" in quotes in an attempt to mean that that is what I had said. I said "stating rumors". I know that it is just one letter but it is pretty important. From the intelligence exhibited in your posts, I would never assume that you could "start" anything.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 5, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"There have been 462 children taken into custody. In order for your statement (rumor) to be true 232 or more of them would have to be pregnant"
Not considering that not all the children are female. I stated that 60% of the girls between 14 and 17. Perhaps it's time for you to take a remedial reading course?

"you standing by this statement of yours "
It's not MY statement, you special little manling. It was on the news. Argue with them if you dislike reality that much.

The fact remains...you're defending pedophiles, and I'm defending their innocent victims. You lose.

Posted by robertwp on May 5, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You say that I am defending pedophiles. That is your spin. I am defending the Constitutional rights that we all have as Americans. You abhor those rights.

You say that you are defending innocent victims. You have not proven that they are all victims and yet they are all being "punished". You have a very strange sense of justice. Did you used to live in Stalingrad? You sound like you did.

This town, state and country are full of child abusers and religious nuts. You are being blinded by the emotion of this case. You are actually a victim in this case, as am I. Your outrage is misplaced. Wake up!

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 6, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pedophiles don't HAVE any Constitutional right to force underage children into sex and marriage, robert. There's no spin involved, no matter how much you might wish there were. Only you and NAMBLA seem to disagree with this very basic fact.

"Did you used to live in Stalingrad? You sound like you did"
And the Oscar for the most melodramatic statement made in defense of an indefensible point goes to you.

"You are actually a victim in this case, as am I"
That's the sickest thing you've ever stated. You're actually claiming to be a victim, when real victims are out there? You're no better than the shills filing false claims for compensation from the government after 9/11. Let me guess, they had some "Constitutional right" to do so in your eyes, as well?

I am awake. If I knew your true name, I'd be searching the DPS database to make sure you don't live near any of my friends who have kids, you sick freak.

Posted by robertwp on May 6, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ddawkins,
I doubt the DPS would let you anywhere near their databases.

I missed in the news where arrests had been made or a trial took place. Could you give the link where I could read about it? If you are talking about pedophiles then I guess you would have some proof. I am still waiting for your clarification and proof.

Where is your evidence?

Are you still saying that there are 232 pregnant and/or underage mothers? I am still waiting on your proof of that too.

Ddawkins,
You are very good at calling names. Most 2nd graders are. However, you are not very good at backing up what you say. Are you just full of hot gas?

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 6, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The DPS sex offender database is available online for good citizens to keep track of people like you, robert. It is free.

Once again, man-child, and slowly enough so that even YOU can understand it...of the teenage girls, age 14-17 taken from the compound, 60% were either pregnant, or had already borne children. I can't make it any simpler. Which of those incredibly simple facts went by your quite-obviously limited intelligence?

The news has provided all the facts, you're simply too much the coward, and too busy claiming false "victim" status to open your jaundiced eye.

As for proof, I'm still waiting for proof you're not a closet pedophile who needs to be locked away for life. Why else would you defend them so desperately, claiming to be a victim when they're exposed to justice?

Posted by robertwp on May 6, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ddawkins,
Your last post is so full of personal attacks and nonsense that I am sure that you are aware that you have lost your argument.

You were easy.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 7, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How very like George W. Bush to simply declare victory whenever you feel like it. Look where it got him. More to the point, look where it got 4,000+ of my brothers and sisters in uniform.

He, like you, also claims victim status, when none exists.

Posted by robertwp on May 7, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I accept your surrender.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 7, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can't accept what doesn't exist, you coward. Just admit you're wrong and can't refute the facts.

Posted by robertwp on May 8, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You never once backed up what you said.

Coward.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 8, 2008 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The news has proven me right. You ignore the facts, so you can fraudulently claim "victim" status.

Just keep defending pedophiles. The prison system will leave a bed open for them, and if necessary, you.

Posted by robertwp on May 8, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You slander behind a false name. Wow, you are really brave. Why don't you make an accusation with your real name? Why? Because you are nothing but a COWARD.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 9, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The name's not false, and neither are the facts you keep ignoring. My name IS Dave Dawkins, you gutless little excuse for a man. And I suppose "wp" is YOUR last name? You make me laugh. Better hurry off, now. You might be late for the latest ACLU meeting to plot defense strategies for NAMBLA.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Are you going to ignore hundreds of children, most of whom are pregnant or who have already delivered?"

Lie! Never backed it up.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Pedophiles don't HAVE any Constitutional right to force underage children into sex and marriage, robert. There's no spin involved, no matter how much you might wish there were. Only you and NAMBLA seem to disagree with this very basic fact."

Lie! Never backed it up.

Pedophilia is not an issue in the raid. There have been no accusations of any pedophiles operating on the ranch.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I'll keep coming down on the right of innocent children NOT to be raped by dirty old perverts."

Dave Dawkins doesn't care about the rights of innocent children. The State's own witness says that foster care will be devestating for the sect children. 1/3rd of the children that were taken into custody are 4 and under. They face no threat of sexual abuse and yet they are now in foster care where they have a good chance of being raped or killed according to the latest statistics.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave Dawkins condones the rounding up of children whose parents’ religious beliefs are out of sync with his. He is perfectly willing to accept any charges that the state presents as fact, as long as he sees the coverage of these charges on his TV. He doesn’t believe in giving people the benefit of a trial before he convicts them. He believes in punishing hundreds of innocent victims for the alleged crimes of a few. He makes hideous accusations toward anyone who tries to point out the errors in his judgment or challenges his assertions.

Thank you, Dave “Adolf” Dawkins.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

August 9, 2007

Ms. Kaycee McLaurin, CPS Investigator III

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

1622 10th St., Mail Code 217-4

Lubbock, TX 79410

Dear Ms. McLaurin:

…

I am writing in response to your forced entry into the home of Mr. and Mrs. L___ M___, a home school family in Slaton. According to this family, you and other case workers appeared at their home on the afternoon of July 10, 2007. The first two caseworkers told Mrs. M___ that they were with CPS, that allegations had been made, and that they needed to come into her home. Mrs. M___ declined to allow them entry into her home. They then told her that the allegation was that her home was unsanitary, not safe, and her children were in danger and they must come into her home. Mrs. M___ asked for the specific allegations, and the women responded that an emergency report had been made that cat feces were all over her home, the children had ringworm which had not been treated, and no food was in the home.

While Mrs. M____ had this conversation with these women, her children were with her on the front porch of her home. The women asked for her name and Social Security number and continued to insist that they be allowed to have immediate entry into the home. Mrs. M___ told the caseworkers that she needed to call her husband and went into her home to do so. Her husband left his place of employment to come home, telling his wife he would be there in thirty minutes.

Before Mr. M____ arrived, Mrs. M____ responded to a loud banging on her door, to find a police officer with his hand on the top of the door frame and shoulder against the door frame, leaning inside the door opening. According to Mrs. M____, you were directly behind the officer. The officer informed Mrs. M____ that the CPS officials were there to investigate her home and that if she interfered in any way, he would arrest her. Mrs. M____ responded that she had called her husband and that he was on his way home and asked them to wait outside until he arrived. Mrs. M____ recounts that you responded at that point that they “had to come in now.” Mrs. M____ responded that her husband had told her not to let you into the home until he arrived and that he would speak to you. The officer responded, again, that if she did not let you in immediately he would arrest her, and at that point, you pushed your way into her home along with the other three workers; the police officer also came into the home at that point.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mrs. M____ and her children were interrogated and the children photographed, and Mr. M____ was also questioned when he arrived. The home was inspected, including the cupboards and refrigerator. Mr. and Mrs. M____ received a letter from you dated July 17, 2007, informing them that the allegations of medical neglect against Mr. M____ and physical neglect against Mrs. M____ had been “ruled out” and the case has been closed.

Ms. McLaurin, an investigation in which the children are not in immediate danger does not give you nor police officers authority to violate the 4th Amendment rights of Texas citizens. Texas statute requires CPS workers to receive training on these rights of citizens, to prevent such violations, and I assume you have received such training and know the law. If that is the case, you knowingly violated this family’s rights when you entered their home without their permission.

I am asking your supervisors to investigate this situation and take appropriate disciplinary actions for all of those involved in this abuse of power. The family may also seek legal action against you and the department, as well as the police officer involved and the city he represents.

Sincerely,

Tim Lambert

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CPS has a habit of harassing Home Schoolers too.

Watch out Dave Dawkins. You might be next. It only takes an anonymous tip for them to break your door down. Even though you won't fight for the rights of others, I will fight for your rights when they come for you.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 9, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Dave Dawkins condones the rounding up of children whose parents’ religious beliefs are out of sync with his"
More lies from the coward! First, I have no religious beliefs. Second, I support rescuing children from pedophiles. Get it straight, "wp".

"He is perfectly willing to accept any charges that the state presents as fact, as long as he sees the coverage of these charges on his TV."
That's rich, coming from the hypocrite who claims he "won't tolerate sexual predators", yet howls his head off in defense of them in this very forum.

"He makes hideous accusations toward anyone who tries to point out the errors in his judgment "
No, I state facts. You are defending pedophiles, and I am defending their victims. Twist it all you like in true cowardly and craven republican fashion, but the bare facts remain the same.

"Watch out Dave Dawkins. You might be next. It only takes an anonymous tip for them to break your door down."
Let 'em come. I don't have any kids, so any "anonymous tip" will be pretty foolish.

"Even though you won't fight for the rights of others"
Oh, but I am. Unlike you, however, the ones I'm fighting for are too young to fight for themselves.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave Dawkins

NEWS FLASH

The state has made no allegations of pedophilia at the ranch. You have pedophilia on the brain. It is not an issue in this case and yet you include it in every post. You have accused others of being pedophiles and yet this case has nothing to do with it. You really are transparent.

Posted by sdtyler on May 9, 2008 at 9:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems to me that those who perceive personal danger lash out and make personal attacks against those who, regarless of their view, are attempting to hold all citizens to a higher regard. Pedophiles do have rights, and they are only revoked upon their conviction. Pedophilia is a serious crime, and guilty persons should be severely punished, but personal rights are protected until a 'panel of your peers' finds you guilty.

Just because men like robertwp defend the rights of certain people does not infer that he condones what they do, nor does it even hint at his aversion to said action. ddawkins seems angry that those who defend the accused are guilty as well. Such a shame.

I just wish there was a greater sense of personal rights and an understanding of them in this country.

Posted by robertwp on May 9, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The best thing you can do when confronted with somebody who doesn't have a clue about the subject is just let him talk (or type).

I suggest that the reason Dave calls everyone a pedophile and sees pedophiles under the bed and around every corner is because he is trying to purge his own devils.

Get help Dave.

Posted by sdtyler on May 9, 2008 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed, robertwp. Sometimes the worst offender stares back at you every morning.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 10, 2008 at 7:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The best thing you can do when confronted with somebody who doesn't have a clue about the subject is just let him talk (or type)"
I can also draw you out and give you enough rope to hang yourself with, you libeling, lying, half-man coward.

"I suggest that the reason Dave calls everyone a pedophile "
There's a lie right there, robert. You can't even help it, can you?

"Get help Dave"
Says the hypocrite, liar, coward, and defender of baby rapers?

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again,
Dave just ignores his glaring mistakes and falls back on the name-calling.

Dave,
Turn off your TV and do some reading on this case and its ramifications. Learn about what is going on and then you can take part in an intelligent discussion. You have mastered the name-calling. Stretch your intellect a little farther.

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here are some things to consider:
You and I could get DNA test results in 5 days to determine a child's parentage. We are now a month into the case and the DNA tests have been processed and there are no arrest warrants. In fact, the arrest warrant for Dale Barlow, that sparked the whole raid, has been dropped.

The CPS attorneys have handed the criminal portion of this case to the Attorney General's office. AG Abbott is hinting that he will charge the women in this case with bigamy because some of them admitted to having multiple husbands.

The raid took place over a month ago. We have no criminal charges against the men, the children are in state custody and the Texas AG is considering charges against the mothers.

It is now obvious that Texas didn’t like these FLDS members from the start and they have used unconstitutional methods to bust them up. This raid was not about the safety of children. This raid was a government’s gripe against a church. Is your church next? Is mine?

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Contrary to what Dave would have anyone believe, I see child abuse as a serious issue. However, I will plainly state that I see the abuse of the US Constitution as a far more serious issue with far more serious consequences. If the Constitution is continually trashed, as it has been here, then we will see abuses that we could never imagine as a result.

In the case of the FLDS raid, we have seen no credible evidence of child abuse or we would have seen arrests by now. We have seen ample evidence of Constitution abuse. With the building of this large Temple on the FLDS ranch, the people of Eldorado saw their control of the county possibly slipping into the hands of Mormons. This is similar to the scenario that Adolf Hitler saw in Germany and it is almost the same remedy that Hitler chose to handle the situation.

To focus on the hideous nature of the State and County’s allegations and ignore the more serious abuse of power is a recipe for disaster.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."

Posted by newguy062 on May 10, 2008 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Texas should have learned from the Short Creek raids in 1953.

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedconte...

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 10, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Contrary to what Dave would have anyone believe, I see child abuse as a serious issue"
Which is why you're defendint it so passionately. Liar.

"I will plainly state that I see the abuse of the US Constitution as a far more serious issue with far more serious consequences"
Too bad sexual molestation of children is not, never has been, and never will be a Constitutional right.

"In the case of the FLDS raid, we have seen no credible evidence of child abuse "
Aside from 14 year-old girls who were forced to marry much older men, and who had subsequently borne children. Gee, I wonder how THAT happened?

"This is similar to the scenario that Adolf Hitler saw in Germany and it is almost the same remedy that Hitler chose to handle the situation"
Show me where Hitler ever took action to rescue children from dangerous predators. Your lies aren't even remotely credible!

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross"
And when idiocy accompanies it, it will be defending child molestors!

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave Dawkins would be an excellent Brown Shirt.

Posted by robertwp on May 10, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do want to congratulate Dave for dropping his ridiculous "pedophile" accusations.

Progress is Progress.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 10, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Dave Dawkins would be an excellent Brown Shirt."
When losing, resort to ad hominem attacks. Bravo, little man.

"I do want to congratulate Dave for dropping his ridiculous "pedophile" accusations"
More lies, I never accused you of being a pedophile. Lose the Jesus complex, child. Get off the cross, already!

Posted by robertwp on May 11, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"ad hominem attacks"

That is rich coming from you! That is such a case of the pot calling the kettle black that I will just let it stand on its own. Good job!

The fact is that the phone call that led to the raid stated that a girl’s husband, who had never been at the Texas compound, (a fact that could be easily checked since the man was on probation in Arizona) was abusing her. The phone number, if checked, would have been spotted as a phone that had been used before for hoaxes by Rozita Swinton. It was only after the raid did not produce the abused girl, or girls, that these facts were checked and proved bogus. Sheriff Doran, Flora Jessup and Texas Ranger, Leslie Brooks Long, conspired to pull off this raid after 4 years of frustration over the law-abiding citizenry of the ranch. They used CPS as their front, since CPS is allowed to act outside the US Constitution. Now they have spread rumors about what was found at the ranch so that they can cover their butts in regard to this illegal raid. This will turn out just as badly as the Short Creek raid did 50 years ago. It will make the YFZ ranch millions of dollars in legal settlements and end up strengthening the FLDS community in Eldorado. This has gone on for a month and still there hasn't been a 14-year-old mother found. DNA tests have been done and there is no 50-year-old father linked to a 16 year old wife. The state has no case. That is why they are trying so fiercely to keep this out of the mainstream news. However, blogs are discussing this case all over the country. Every day that goes by without the CPS releasing any credible evidence just makes the state look worse. The AG of Texas doesn't have a clue where to go with this thing. He has hinted that he will charge the mothers with bigamy since they admitted on TV that they had multiple husbands since the leaders of the sect move them from one family unit to another with some regularity. He could have a civil suit filed against him if he doesn't handle this within the law. The children are still in state custody.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 11, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"That is rich coming from you! That is such a case of the pot calling the kettle black "
Still more lies? You're pathological!

"It was only after the raid did not produce the abused girl, or girls, that these facts were checked and proved bogus"
So all the pregnant children were figments of the media's imagination? You'll go to any length to throw defenseless kids under the bus, won't you?

"The children are still in state custody"
While not an ideal situation, still infinitely better than being with the men who raped them.

Posted by robertwp on May 11, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To this point the "pregnant children" are figments of the CPS' imagination. That is why there have been no arrests. That is why the case has been turned over to the Attorney General in a passing of the buck. The girl that gave birth in San Marcos turned out to be 18. CPS has disputed her birth certificate. The girls that were "underage" have turned out to be 16 and older. By Texas law, they are legally able to marry.

Posted by robertwp on May 11, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These people were minding their P's and Q's. They knew that the state was breathing down their backs. They did the same thing during the raid that their forefathers did in Short Creek; prayed and sang. The state has made a big mistake and the sooner that they admit it, the sooner these kids can get back with their mothers. That is actually in the best interest of the children.

You can't come into a group of people and look at their babies and say, "You will be a polygamist in 30 years so we are going to take you into custody". You can't look at the baby girls and say; "You are in danger of being married off too young in 10 years so we are taking you into custody now in order to prevent that". This is insanity. The state cannot be allowed to think that we, as a free people, will tolerate this. Write the governor. Write Susan King. Ask for justice and law.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And I suppose the CPS somehow forced the media, (all of the dozens of outlets that reported on the situation) to somehow tell the same cohesive lies? C'mon, fire up that rusty 2-cycle engine between your ears and think for once.

The authorities CAN however justifiably take actions needed to safeguard children who are suspected of being in danger. The cult was founded by a proven pedophile, and the facts show that his practices were the norm. But go on...stand up with NAMBLA and continue backing them up. How you sleep at night is none of my business.

"This is insanity. The state cannot be allowed to think that we, as a free people, will tolerate this"
Yeah, robbie won't tolerate you making sure kids aren't getting raped! How dare you think he'd stand for that sort of hateful behavior!

"Write the governor. Write Susan King. Ask for justice and law"
Yes, ask that pedophiles, and any who conspire to assist them be immediately jailed and sentenced to the fullest possible extent of the law. Make molesting children an automatic capital offense. Rape a child, get the needle. Now THAT is justice.

Posted by robertwp on May 11, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"And I suppose the CPS somehow forced the media, (all of the dozens of outlets that reported on the situation) to somehow tell the same cohesive lies? C'mon, fire up that rusty 2-cycle engine between your ears and think for once."

Yes. The Media has interviewed both CPS officials and some of the women from the ranch and their lawyer. Everything that CPS has said has been contradicted by the women at the ranch. I have told you that if you are getting you information from the TV then you have been misled.

""This is insanity. The state cannot be allowed to think that we, as a free people, will tolerate this"
Yeah, robbie won't tolerate you making sure kids aren't getting raped! How dare you think he'd stand for that sort of hateful behavior!"

There are not any allegations of rape. The allegations are in regard to child abuse. You need to find out what is going on. Rape is not an issue in this case.

""Write the governor. Write Susan King. Ask for justice and law"
Yes, ask that pedophiles, and any who conspire to assist them be immediately jailed and sentenced to the fullest possible extent of the law. Make molesting children an automatic capital offense. Rape a child, get the needle. Now THAT is justice."

Pedophilia is not an issue in this case. Pedophiles are people who have an obsession with prepubescent children. There have been no allegations of pedophilia here. Once again, get your information correct before you spout off. You only make yourself look stupid.

You continue to mention NAMBLA and pedophilia. These two items have nothing to do with the case in Eldorado. Did you realize that we were talking about the FLDS in Eldorado? When you continue to rant on issues that have nothing to do with this case you expose your obsessions in a way that makes you look quite suspicious. Stay away from the school ground until you get your problem under control.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 12, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The Media has interviewed both CPS officials and some of the women from the ranch and their lawyer. Everything that CPS has said has been contradicted by the women at the ranch"
Oh, well, of course the accused simply MUST be trusted 100%!

"There are not any allegations of rape"
14 year olds, married to older men, and they're pregnant. That's rape.

"Pedophilia is not an issue in this case"
Aside from the fact that it is.

"Pedophiles are people who have an obsession with prepubescent children."
Pedophiles are those who have sex with underage people.

"You continue to mention NAMBLA and pedophilia. These two items have nothing to do with the case in Eldorado"
NAMBLA supports the same sort of behavior found in the cult compound, the only difference is the genders preferred by each group.

"Stay away from the school ground until you get your problem under control."
More libel from the liar who knows his child-molester defense cannot stand on it's own.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave Dawkins,
Here are a lawyer’s views on what happened in Eldorado and the legal ramifications. These are the best-informed comments that I have read at this point. If you really care about the State making a debacle out of the situation that might lead to allowing Sexual Abusers to go free and millions of our tax dollars going into their pockets, then you might want to read these.

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/ma...

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/ap...

Posted by cycloptic on May 12, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The majority of adults who have sex with children are NOT pedophiles.

Pedophilia is a diagnosed condition outlined in the DSM-IV. Pedophilia requires, among other things, an exclusive preference for sexual contact with children. Pedophiles are also often specific in their preference (pre-teen females, pre-school males, etc.). Pedophiles, by definition, have sex with children because that is their sexual interest... they don't like adults. A child is to a pedophile as an adult woman is to an adult heterosexual male.

Most adults who have sex with children DO NOT fall into the category of pedophile. Rather, they are non-specific offenders. That is, they don't necessarily prefer children, but they don't have any rigid boundaries regarding who they have sex with either.

Posted by wbarloww on May 12, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Interesting little story I found out of Houston.

Mental health workers rip CPS over sect
Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/h...

Posted by wbarloww on May 12, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another story on the case

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/12/f...

Jessop's letter to the White House calls the state's April raid "a result of a hoax perpetrated by anti-FLDS crusaders, alleging heinous abuse within the community had been committed" against a member named Sarah Jessop Barlow.

Authorities were informed before the raid that no person named Sarah Jessop Barlow resided at the ranch, the letter states.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 12, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Here are a lawyer’s views on what happened in Eldorado "
Why do I care about comments you hand-picked to support your arguments? Let alone from some shyster? I could post comments all day from intelligent and informed people who support the victims, and you'd still call them "brown shirts", you hypocrite.

"Most adults who have sex with children DO NOT fall into the category of pedophile"
Yeah, that's what the guys on Dateline all said as they were handcuffed and hauled off to face justice.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because he is one of the few to blog about it. I know that you can't be concerned with facts like Texas law or definitions. That is why you are doomed to your ignorance.

If you can post comments all day then why don't you post one. You still have not backed up anything that you have said except for just simply repeating what you said.

Posted by newguy062 on May 12, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No one is being arrested or charged with sexual abuse, the girl who made the phone call MAY NOT HAVE BEEN REAL. As time goes on the government's case gets weaker and weaker. I was all for investigation into the FLDS, but you can't take an entire communities children because there "might have been" abuse in a couple of families.

Consider (since you keep bringing up pedophiles) what might have happened if CPS or the FBI dealt with the Catholic abuse scandal in the same manner. Needless to say, good thing they didn't.

Why have there not been any arrests? The way our government treated this scenario goes to show that they simply doesn't know how to deal with cults. They get probable cause to search and use it to try to snuff out the compund with equipment used for mass riots and total anarchy. They're going to lose this both in a real courtroom and the court of public opinion. Why? Becuase they were wrong.

Not only that, Texas wasn't prepared to deal with the influx of children introduced into an already lacking foster care system. You keep bringing up the welfare of the children but if foster care is an upgrade (a vauge term considering the State has adopted this "all or nothing" policy with cults), it ain't much of one.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/77002-t...

Shyster? You should be so lucky to have this "shyster" represent you. I am sure that you couldn't afford him.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 12, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Shyster? You should be so lucky to have this "shyster" represent you"
If that's luck, I'd rather have none. There's no such thing as an honest lawyer, you naive fool.

"I am sure that you couldn't afford him"
I probably couldn't afford the consequences of his representation. I'm sure the victims from the cult compound won't like any results he gets if he defends the predators who molested them!

"Consider (since you keep bringing up pedophiles) what might have happened if CPS or the FBI dealt with the Catholic abuse scandal in the same manner"
I wish to hell they had, those catholics needed to get their nose bloodied for their crimes, and justice happened WAY too late. Every last ranking "churchman" in that colossally evil group needs to be jailed for life.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 10:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those who seem to be so vehemently against child abuse are exactly the ones who should be the angriest at the way the state chose to handle this case. They most certainly have voided any evidence that they might have gleaned from the raid because of the sloppy way that they handled it. They took on a cowboy attitude and said "the hell with the law". It will come back and bite them in the butt. If there is, in fact, child abuse going on at the YFZ ranch, their idiotic actions will probably allow child abusers to continue to abuse. I think that those who are not infuriated by the way the state handled this situation are simply not paying attention.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave, You missed the point again. Catholic priests are facing justice everyday. If the government had acted in their case like they have in the case of the FLDS, they would still be abusing alter boys to this day. The government acted slowly and carefully. That is why there are priests in jail and the Catholic Church is paying out settlements. In the case of the FLDS, they will certainly be on the other end of the settlement payments when this whole thing is over. Won't you be proud of your government when you hand over your hard earned dollars to the FLDS? I think maybe then it will finally sink in. THE GOVERNMENT WAS WRONG IN THE WAY THEY HANDLED THIS CASE.

By the way, Mr. Floyd isn't representing any FLDS children or mothers. That is why he is allowed to blog about it. He is one of the few lawyers in the state right now that isn't defending the FLDS’ers.

Posted by robertwp on May 12, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave, I am just curious. Were you in that movie "Deliverance"?

Posted by cycloptic on May 12, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Yeah, that's what the guys on Dateline all said as they were handcuffed and hauled off to face justice".

???

What is your obsession with pedophilia? The fact that one is or is not a pedophile has zero to do with the criminal penalty they will face for sexually abusing a child. In fact many very dangerous sexual abusers are not pedophiles, and a significant number of admitted and diagnosed/diagnosable pedophiles never sexually abuse a child.

Pedophilia is a clinical term; a mental health condition. Pedophilia is not a prerequisite to sexual abuse. Sexually abusing a child as a pedophile is grievous. Sexually abusing a child as a situational or non-specific offender is no less serious. Calling every legally definable sexual abuser a pedophile is like calling everyone in a wheelchair a quadriplegic. Get over your fixation on pedophilia already. It is of no benefit to your argument.

Posted by cycloptic on May 12, 2008 at 11:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And by the way, pedophilia is not a crime, it is a condition; sexual "preference" for children. You can be a pedophile and never act on your urges. Just like one can be a homosexual or heterosexual and never act on their urges.

And before you begin to argue that issue, consider for a moment that suggesting it is impossible for a pedophile not to act on their urges is equivalent to arguing that sexual behavior (not urges but behavior) is beyond our control.

The act of sexually abusing a child is the crime. It has nothing to do with whether or not one is a pedophile.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 13, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Those who seem to be so vehemently against child abuse are exactly the ones who should be the angriest at the way the state chose to handle this case"
That makes less sense than your fraudulent claims of being a victim.

"THE GOVERNMENT WAS WRONG IN THE WAY THEY HANDLED THIS CASE."
Says the person defending child molestation.

"What is your obsession with pedophilia?"
People who molest children are the lowest of the low, barely meeting the criteria to be called human. They deserve no more justice than a swift and merciful death for their abuses.

"The act of sexually abusing a child is the crime. It has nothing to do with whether or not one is a pedophile"
Get clinical all you want. I'm a plain spoken man who deals with this sort of subhuman filth on a daily basis. They're pedophiles, period. They're baby rapers. They're child molesters. In short, they're scum, as is anybody who defends them.

Posted by robertwp on May 13, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

""What is your obsession with pedophilia?"
People who molest children are the lowest of the low, barely meeting the criteria to be called human. They deserve no more justice than a swift and merciful death for their abuses."

You answered the question. You were either abused or you are an abuser. Either way, I am sorry.

Posted by robertwp on May 13, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way Dave,

Here is what a colleague said about the Lawyer I quoted and you slandered.

"John Floyd and I have worked together on a number of very difficult federal criminal cases, white collar crimes, sex crimes, drug crimes, theft cases, and assorted criminal matters in Houston as well as other courts throughout Texas and the United States. The clients have repeatedly told me that they hired John Floyd because he not only has a reputation as one of the preeminent lawyers in Texas and the United States but because they know he truly cares about them and their lives. This is probably why John Floyd has been seen on all the local news channels in Houston, featured as a guest speaker on nationally syndicated news shows, and heard on local as well as international radio shows commenting on criminal matters of interest to the public. Additionally, he has been voted one of the top criminal defense lawyers in Houston by H Texas magazine and numerous people go to his website www.johntfloyd.com for commentary on the latest criminal cases around the world." Christopher Lee Carlson - Criminal Defense Attorney

Man, you must have big brass ones that clang together when you walk if you go around slandering rich Houston Attorneys.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 13, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Here is what a colleague said "
Whoop-dee-doo, another hand-picked comment. That and $4 will get you a cup of mud at Starbuck's.

"you slandered"
More lies, I have not committed slander.

"you must have big brass ones that clang together when you walk if you go around slandering rich Houston Attorneys"
Lawyers don't scare me, twit. This is America, and we have this neat little thing called the Second Amendment, which I and countless others have served to protect. Because of that, people like you have the right to call decent people like me "brown shirts". You're welcome.

Posted by newguy062 on May 13, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you implying we should shoot the lawyers? Because if you are... Give me the time and place ;)

Posted by cycloptic on May 13, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"People who molest children are the lowest of the low, barely meeting the criteria to be called human. They deserve no more justice than a swift and merciful death for their abuses."

Sure. Okay. Other than due process. Right?

"Get clinical all you want. I'm a plain spoken man who deals with this sort of subhuman filth on a daily basis. They're pedophiles, period. They're baby rapers. They're child molesters. In short, they're scum, as is anybody who defends them."

I don't necessarily disagree with much of what you are saying. But it will help your plain spoken argument if you try to be as accurate as possible. There are plenty of plain spoken people who don't understand for instance that the pistol in a policeman's holster is not a machinegun. It's a machine. It's a gun. It sprays bullets everywhere and kills people. It's a machinegun. Period. Right? Plain spoken.

Child molester. Child sexual abuser. Sexual abuser. Sexual offender. Try them on for size.

Posted by cycloptic on May 13, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Lawyers don't scare me, twit. This is America, and we have this neat little thing called the Second Amendment, which I and countless others have served to protect. Because of that, people like you have the right to call decent people like me "brown shirts". You're welcome."

I think you meant to reference the First Amendment.

The Second Amendment relates to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I'm sure that you served to protect both however.

I'm also sure that you served to protect the Fifth Amendment too; the one relating to due process.

Plainly spoken that is.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 13, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ya know, Cycloptic, even though the Constitution does guarantee semihuman scum such as child molesters due process, I honestly sometimes think they don't deserve it. I supervise over a thousand of them daily, and hearing the way they talk, seeing how they behave...it's enough to make even a die-hard pacifist want to see blood.

Yes, I meant the First Amendment. In the heat of the moment, I got them backwards. I personally know sevreal women who were sexually molested by the same type of older men that robert is so passionately defending; and yes, it gets me so bloody angry, I want to rip his head off, stuff it with gravel, bowl ten frames with it, jam it down a storm drain, and then ram it back on the ragged stump I removed it from. Some of the women I know were molested ONCE, more than thirty years ago, and STILL cannot have a normal relationship. They can't bring themselves to trust any man. And that's what robert's calling a "civil right". It's disgusting. I just hope, for his own sake, that no female he ever cares about is raped or molested. It'd be terrible for them to see him defend the soulless subhuman scum that wounded her for life.

Posted by robertwp on May 13, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dave,
You have a lot of issues that you need to deal with. You apparently work at the prison and it is obviously getting the better of you. You need to learn to leave it at work.

Now, having said that, you really don't want to live in a country that doesn't have the protection that is given us by the Constitution, right? You served to defend the Constitution, right? You took an oath to defend that Constitution when you entered the service, right? By your own logic, you defended every child abuser, rapist and the likes by serving to protect their right to due process, protection from unlawful search and seizure and their right of habeas corpus, right? You gave up years of your life to see that they have the right to a trial, right? Now you spend your days (or nights) protecting these criminals from each other, right? You need to realize that the worst offender is not worth the sacrifice of your rights, right? This "scum" that you supervise; are they worth throwing away your freedom? No, they are not. If you allow the government to ignore their duty to defend the Constitution, then you are letting the criminals win. We have already given up so many of our rights to the terrorists. Don’t give what is left to some small group of inbred Mormons. When you allow your rights to be taken away by a government that takes advantage of your outrage, you are giving them power that they don’t deserve. They don't deserve the power over your freedom. They don't deserve the power over your sanity either. Don't forget that the prisoners are the losers. Get help.

Posted by cycloptic on May 13, 2008 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Ya know, Cycloptic, even though the Constitution does guarantee semihuman scum such as child molesters due process, I honestly sometimes think they don't deserve it."

I can understand that. Truly. But when you consider the implications of a society where you face sanctions simply because someone/anyone has leveled an accusation, and you don't have due process on your side... well, it's pretty scary.

There is no shortage of underhanded people in this world to whom the end justifies the means; people who are willing to use anything and everything to get what they want... including destroying you and your reputation with an accusation.

Yeah, the right to due process makes it harder for the system to take care of business sometimes. It keeps everyone just a little more honest though.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 14, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"You have a lot of issues that you need to deal with"
Says the guy defending child molestors...oh, the irony!

"you really don't want to live in a country that doesn't have the protection that is given us by the Constitution, right?"
That's the very first sensible thing you've said. Progress!

"By your own logic, you defended every child abuser, rapist and the likes by serving to protect their right to due process"
Negative, I served to see the rights of innocents defended. So much for your progress.

"You gave up years of your life to see that they have the right to a trial, right? "
Just before a LONG period of very unpleasant incarceration.

"This "scum" that you supervise; are they worth throwing away your freedom?"
Never happen, I don't rape kids.

"We have already given up so many of our rights to the terrorists"
I'm sorry, did you actually just claim that with a straight face?

"Get help"
Irony again!

"when you consider the implications of a society where you face sanctions simply because someone/anyone has leveled an accusation, and you don't have due process on your side... well, it's pretty scary"
Agreed. But to have a society that intervenes when there's a chance that kids are endangered, that's a mark of greatness in my eye.

Posted by cycloptic on May 14, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"to have a society that intervenes when there's a chance that kids are endangered, that's a mark of greatness in my eye."

Oh I'm with you there.

Regardless of how the report came in, regardless of whether or not foster care is detrimental to the children itself, and regardless of whether or not the group claimed some sort of religious privilege, the fact that there is such a pervasive tendency toward impregnation of minor girls in the community is reason enough for intervention, and the State did what it was obligated by law to do.

At worst it is a case of systemic child sexual abuse promoted by the group, at best it is a situation of deficient supervision.

If a report were made to CPS that three minor sisters in one household on South 14th were simultaneously pregnant, you can bet your boots that there would be a full-blown investigation. If the family resisted, withheld or justified based on religious principles, private property rights, etc., you better believe that there would be kids going into foster care.

I think CPS probably commits its share of major screw-ups, just like any state agency, and I'm sure they probably made some in this investigation as per usual, but I think that they did what they were obligated to in the best way they knew how. No it wasn't as clean as it probably could have been, but we are dealing with TX CPS here not the CIA. The public gets from their agencies approximately what they put into them. You want pros, demand that the State hire, train and pay pros.

If they wouldn't have acted, everyone would be jumping down their throats demanding to know why just like they did with the HOY situation.

Posted by robertwp on May 14, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If they wouldn't have acted, everyone would be jumping down their throats demanding to know why just like they did with the HOY situation."

I keep hearing the "If they hadn't acted" argument. It ignores the fact that they hadn't acted for 4 years when the Mayor of Eldorado said that he had suspicions about what was going on. By the laws of the state, his admission makes him an accomplice to whatever crimes are found to have been committed.

Posted by cycloptic on May 14, 2008 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I keep hearing the "If they hadn't acted" argument. It ignores the fact that they hadn't acted for 4 years when the Mayor of Eldorado said that he had suspicions about what was going on. By the laws of the state, his admission makes him an accomplice to whatever crimes are found to have been committed."

Just like every other system, CPS has criteria they are required to meet in order to act. "A suspicion" in and of itself isn't enough. There needs to be a reasonably credible allegation of mistreatment by someone claiming direct knowledge of it. Not "I heard, I think, maybe, I betcha, BillyBuck said, could be, etc".

Had they gone in on the Mayor's or anyone else's gut feeling, you would be bitterly armchair wizzing Genuine Draft all over them for their lack of prudence.

Posted by robertwp on May 15, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At least they could produce the Mayor. They haven't been able to produce the caller and the accused husband has an airtight alibi. He is in Arizona and hasn't been to the ranch. That information would have taken about 15 minutes and less than 5 dollars to confirm. I think that your argument has some holes in it.

Once you separate the Mormon inbreeders' alleged crimes from this story, you need to ask yourself if you want a government agency that is this sloppy running roughshod over the constitution.

"The public gets from their agencies approximately what they put into them. You want pros, demand that the State hire, train and pay pros."

This statement seems to suggest that CPS goes down to the employment agency every morning in a pickup and hires agents for a days work. This is a nice way to paint over the mistakes that were made but it has nothing to do with the truth. The CPS does hire professionals. They took professional lawmen with them when they raided the compound and they had a warrant from a professional judge. The only non-professionals involved were the farmers in the magic underwear and they were the only people who kept their wits about them, even as they looked down the gun barrel. What do you want? The truth is that this WAS a group of professionals that operate on hundreds of millions of our dollars every year. These well paid professionals were exhibiting poor judgment and they let their emotions get in the way of doing the peoples' work effectively.

Every day that passes makes it more unlikely that there will be any arrests. This story has faded from the news because the truth is not nearly as sensational as were the rumors. However, if there are arrests, those arrested will go to jail and those who violated no law will begin their action against the state. They will certainly win.

Posted by robertwp on May 15, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"There needs to be a reasonably credible allegation of mistreatment by someone claiming direct knowledge of it. Not "I heard, I think, maybe, I betcha, BillyBuck said, could be, etc"."

Nope, There doesn't. Children have been removed based on anonymous phone calls. A teacher's "hunch" must be reported by Texas law. Often children are removed based on that hunch. If a teacher doesn't report the suspicion then he/she can be held responsible for injury. Children are removed simply based on suspicions all of the time.

Posted by cycloptic on May 15, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Nope, There doesn't. Children have been removed based on anonymous phone calls. A teacher's "hunch" must be reported by Texas law. Often children are removed based on that hunch. If a teacher doesn't report the suspicion then he/she can be held responsible for injury. Children are removed simply based on suspicions all of the time."

Talk to your "friend who used to work for CPS".

An anonymous report must be credible, and it must claim DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of mistreatment or compelling evidence thereof.

A report DOES NOT result in children being removed. The CPS investigation subsequent to the report that finds evidence of abuse results might result in removal of children.

You can sit in your house all day bitterly calling in report after report about everyone in your neighborhood, but unless you are willing to articulate that you have direct knowledge of potential abuse (witnessed abuse, witnessed the presence of suspicious injuries, witnessed malnourishment, received a statement by a child, witnessed an unsafe home, intervened in a case of abandonment, etc.), it is highly unlikely that an investigator will ever go out.

When that investigator does go out, they are still required to conduct a complete investigation. The fact that you called and the investigator went out does not even come close to resulting in the removal of a child.

Even if the investigator finds that your allegation is true, the CPS investigator doesn't have the authority to do a removal. They need the blessing of a whole bunch of administrators and DA.

So yes robertwp, children have been removed based on anonymous telephone calls... anonymous telephone calls made by concerned persons with enough inside knowledge to convince CPS that there is a credible threat, and which have led investigators to children that have in fact been abused, as agreed by multiple levels of CPS administration and a District Attorney.

Even the Mayor's hunch doesn't cut it. Even the Mayor's.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 15, 2008 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I keep hearing the "If they hadn't acted" argument. It ignores the fact that they hadn't acted for 4 years when the Mayor of Eldorado said that he had suspicions about what was going on"
By your so-called logic, robert, should they then have just continued to ignore the problem? Better a problem addressed later, than a problem ignored forever.

Then fact is, the only thing worse than acting too late is failing to act at all...and it sure sounds like you're in favor of the second option.

Posted by cycloptic on May 15, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"This statement seems to suggest that CPS goes down to the employment agency every morning in a pickup and hires agents for a days work. This is a nice way to paint over the mistakes that were made but it has nothing to do with the truth. The CPS does hire professionals. "

How much experience do you have working with CPS staff around his country robertwp?

How many CPS reports have you made in your career?

How many times, as a professional, have you been interviewed by CPS about what you've seen?

Why don't you ask your "friend who used to work for CPS" about what the qualifications are to work there? Or better yet, why don't you go to the website and check for yourself?

Why don't you ask your friend how much, and what quality, training he got once he started?

Ask your friend how many years of experience the average professional CPS investigator has. Then ask him how long the average professional CPS investigator stays in the job. I'll give you a hint: it's somewhere between as many fingers as you need to pick your nose and throw a ten-pin bowling ball.

How long did your friend stay in the job?

Your bitter obsession with everyone's money robertwp blinds you to the fact that professionalism cannot be purchased. Certainly not in the absence of a culture that supports, much less demands, professionalism.

The taxpayers can pay, pay, and continue to pay. So long as the State continues to set the bar for its investigators as low as it does, so long as it continues to treat the position as little better than clerical, so long as the agency itself maintains little or no authority and and its investigators have no individual legal accountability or professional practice protection, the public will continue to have an agency that "does its best". You can pay them whatever you want, that isn't going to change.

They work very hard I'm sure, and I admire the front-end people for their effort. But in the end it's a pack mule at the Kentucky Derby.

Posted by cycloptic on May 15, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Then fact is, the only thing worse than acting too late is failing to act at all..."

Very, very true.

Posted by robertwp on May 15, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My argument all along is that whether they acted sooner or later is not what is at issue. What the problem with the raid was is that they didn't act within the law.

By the way, Have you heard this one?

"Attorneys for the state's Child Protective Services agency said they no longer believe a woman from the YFZ Ranch who gave birth April 29 while in state custody is a juvenile.

"The department has determined she is not a child," CPS attorney Eric Tai told 51st District Judge Barbara Walther. "She is an adult."

It is turning out that many of the younger mothers said that they were younger than they really are so that they could stay with their children.

Rumors can sure get crazy can't they? Well, Dave, it looks like your beloved TV news isn't as reliable as you thought.

Posted by ddawkins71 on May 15, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"they didn't act within the law"
So YOU say.

"Attorneys for the state's Child Protective Services agency said they no longer believe a woman from the YFZ Ranch who gave birth April 29 while in state custody is a juvenile"
That's one. How about the rest?

"Well, Dave, it looks like your beloved TV news isn't as reliable as you thought"
But still infinitely better than your "pull accusations and theories out of thin air because I can" defense.

Posted by robertwp on May 15, 2008 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"So you say"
Not just me. About 400 Attorneys and many State officials from Utah and Arizona agree since they chose to ignore Texas' advice to perform a Cowboy raid with them.

How about the rest? Well, it turns out that most of the young mothers have ID that proves that they are over 18. The CPS is disputing these IDs in an effort to buy time. Maybe people will forget by the time they drop their case.

As far as pulling accusations out of the air, the San Angelo Paper is covering this story in detail while nobody else is. You might give them a look. They must be pulling this stuff out of the air too.

Posted by cycloptic on May 15, 2008 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"they didn't act within the law"

In what way exactly?

They had a credible report by an individual claiming direct knowledge (regardless of whether it was true or not), which prompted the investigation.

They found a preponderance of evidence suggesting either systemic abuse or neglect (which is all they need) that placed the group's children in danger; a situation that made it completely legitimate for them to remove the kids.

Despite the fact that some or even most of the kids might actually be of age (which is highly disputable), they have sufficient cause to keep them in custody pending a conclusive determination of this claim.

So what laws did they not adhere to?

Posted by robertwp on May 16, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reliance on the anonymous caller was absurd and should provide fertile ground for suppression of much of the evidence seized from the YFZ compound. CPS should have handled this complaint like any other. They should have investigated the complaint thoroughly, made civil attempts to interview parents and children and conducted a targeted investigation. A military style raid followed by a massive and traumatic kidnapping was surely not in the best interests of the children. If CPS suspected particular men were abusing children, they should have sought their voluntary removal from the property until the CPS investigation was complete. It is obvious that prejudice toward the secretive society on the YFZ compound caused the local government to react prematurely and in doing so created potentially detrimental legal obstacles to any future prosecutions in this case. At a minimum, the government violated the spirit of the constitutions of both the State of Texas and the United States of America and an exhaustive contest into its actions must be made by the lawyers representing the individuals now being persecuted by its agents.The end result of the raid is that hundreds of children have been separated from their parents. They are now being pressed into “foster homes” by state social workers. While law enforcement authorities may ultimately produce evidence of criminal wrongdoing seized during their raid, it is highly unlikely that the evidence will withstand a pre-trial motion to suppress in any eventual criminal prosecution of individuals linked to that evidence. Law enforcement authorities simply did not have sufficient probable cause to, first, launch the military-styled raid, and, second, to either arrest or search and seize evidence at YFZ ranch. This was made even more evident by the refusal of Arizona authorities to arrest Dale Barlow based on some anonymous telephone call alleging criminal conduct by him.

Posted by cycloptic on May 16, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Reliance on the anonymous caller was absurd and should provide fertile ground for suppression..."

It was not and it will not. Anonymous child abuse reporting is a legally protected practice in every state in this nation. It encourages reports from people who would otherwise not report due to compromising their standing with the family.

"CPS should have handled this complaint like any other."

They did. If you don't let CPS access your children in an investigation, there is a very good chance that the Courts and law enforcement will encourage you to. The scale was simply larger.

"A military style raid followed by a massive and traumatic kidnapping was surely not in the best interests of the children."

The group's male membership (after CPS and police gained entry to the grounds) formed a human ring shielding the entrance to the temple, and only relinquished after negotiating with a Ranger. Does that sound to you like the kind of thing that is permitted to occur during a "military-style raid"? The SEALs must have been a bit sloppy that day I guess. And a CPS removal is not a kidnapping, and is in the best interest of the children if it is necessary to prevent sexual abuse as was the preliminary finding.

"If CPS suspected particular men were abusing children, they should have sought their voluntary removal from the property until the CPS investigation was complete."

They couldn't do that until they spoke to the children. They couldn't speak to them until they entered the grounds. Upon entering the grounds they met resistance, justification, and found multitudes of self-described children with children or about to have children.

"It is obvious that prejudice toward the secretive society on the YFZ compound caused the local government to react prematurely..."

I thought you contended earlier that they were remiss in waiting 4 years to carry out this action.

"At a minimum, the government violated the spirit of the constitutions of both the State of Texas and the United States of America... "

Articulate the Constitutional violation to me.

"While law enforcement authorities may ultimately produce evidence of criminal wrongdoing seized during their raid, it is highly unlikely that the evidence will withstand a pre-trial motion..."

They may or may not produce evidence. The purpose of the action was investigation of child abuse. Most child abuse doesn't result in criminal prosecution. If there were children being mistreated at the ranch, the matter of greatest importance is that they are no longer, and that there is the possibility to impose civil restrictions that prevent further abuses. If the abusers can be prosecuted for their crimes that's just icing on the cake.

Posted by robertwp on May 16, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The following allegation has been made in the last few days. It will greatly hamper the use of any evidence seized during the raid. If phone records prove this to be true, then it would suggest that the information was doctored before it was given to the judge.

"Prior to executing the initial warrant, (Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran) was advised that Dale Barlow was in Arizona and not on the premises sought to be searched. In fact, prior to entering the premises Sheriff Doran actually spoke to Dale Barlow in Arizona by cellphone, confirming his driver license number and the fact that he was in Arizona," the filing says.

Barlow advised the sheriff that he did not know Sarah Jessop, he had not been to Texas in more than 20 years, nor had he ever been to YFZ Ranch, according to the filing.

This will be easily proven and then we will discuss the way the Constitution was used as toilet paper.

Also this is just in:
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram - AUSTIN - "Lawyers for the state conceded in court today that the woman from the polygamist sect who gave birth this week while in the state's custody is not a minor and said she is free to return to her home in West Texas or remain with her three children -- including the newborn -- under protective care.

The acknowledgment came during a hearing in a Travis County courtroom, where the woman's husband was seeking to have his family reunited with him at the YFZ (Yearning For Zion) Ranch near San Angelo, where last month Child Protective Services officials took more than 400 children into custody on grounds that they were in imminent danger of abuse."
http://www.star-telegram.com/804/stor...

The allegations of the CPS are turning out, one by one, to be lies. They went in without checking the circumstances of the anonymous caller. They didn’t find the anonymous caller. They were then faced with a public relations nightmare. So far, here is what we have:
599 DNA samples collected;
464 children in state custody;
16 group shelters caring for the children;
One warrant canceled;
No charges issued.

Posted by robertwp on May 16, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There are neighborhoods in Abilene where drug use is rampant. There are neighborhoods in Abilene where underage girls are having sex, and in some cases, with older men. The police cannot come in with a SWAT team and take all of the children out of these neighborhoods and farm them out to foster care, even if prompted by a reliable sounding anonymous phone call. Why: because innocent children would surely be caught up in the net. That is obvious. We can buy into the hype that all of the Mormon men at the YFZ were deviant child sex abusers, but that just isn’t true. It is evident that there are families caught up in this raid and captivity that are innocent. Many who have posted here have been manipulated by the CPS reports into denying any concern to these innocent families. They can’t look past the vile accusations made about a few to see the injustice to the many. This myopia is part of a recipe for tyranny.

Fortunately we live in the USA. We have a Constitution and a form of government that cares about the rights of innocent people even when the masses don’t care. This Constitution has protected us from hopeless tyranny for 200 years. If this raid were the only assault on the US Constitution to come about in recent years then it would not carry the level of alarm that is currently warranted. However, this is just another recent attempt by our government to teach us that the Constitution isn’t always applicable. It is an attempt to show us that the framers were incorrect when they said, “All men are created equal”. It is another attempt to desensitize us to the rights of innocent people so that the government can swing large nets and not worry about consequences of trampling the rights of those who will be caught in the periphery.

There are FLDS members who only have one spouse and are both of legal age that have been denied their Constitutional rights. Their children have been taken from them simply because of their chosen faith and the State is turning a blind eye to their rights. I shudder at the thought of being caught in that type of situation so I am speaking out for those who are. That doesn’t make me an accomplice to any criminals, nor does it mean that I condone their actions.

Posted by cycloptic on May 16, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't know that there was a warrant for search and seizure, or one for arrest of anyone. I do know that there was an active child abuse investigation. Those are two very different issues. How law enforcement gained access to the property, and whether or not it was legitimate, is irrelevant to the findings of the CPS investigators on scene; the findings which legitimated removal of the children. You are mixing up two completely different systems - civil vs. criminal.

Just so you understand, if it is determined that President called in the CPS report and the US Attorney General fabricated every ounce of the information in the warrant over a bottle of Tequila and a bag of weed with Gov. Rick Perry while watching a Jackass video, it STILL doesn't make one ounce of difference to the legitimacy of CPS' actions.

The fact that some of the kids aren't kids doesn't make one ounce of difference to the legitimacy of CPS' actions.

The fact that some of the information in the CPS affidavits is now erroneous does not make one ounce of difference to the legitimacy of CPS' actions.

The fact that foster care isn't nice does not make one ounce of difference to the legitimacy of CPS' actions.

CPS was provided a credible report. CPS gained legitimate access to the property and the residents. CPS was provided information by the residents indicating that there were a multitude of minor mothers. CPS determined that the extent of the problem was consistent with either widespread neglect or sexual abuse. CPS removed upon that basis in order to prevent further such mistreatment. CPS continues to maintain custody pending resolution of all the information. Exactly as they would in any other case.

If subsequent information arises that POLICE acted improperly in obtaining access, then POLICE will be held accountable. Possibly to the extent that criminal prosecution of any wrongdoing will be impossible. But it has zero impact on the CPS child protection case.

Two different systems: civil vs. criminal.

And by the way, in response to your contention; if the underage sex in any given Abilene neighborhood was potentially a result of an organized effort by a club, church, etc., and there was reason to suspect that the parent members promoted the behavior, and those parents resisted efforts at investigation.... every single one of the member kids w