POLITICS - Court: Texas wrongly seized sect children

[YellowHorse]

sore shoulder,

I think you missed my point. I would prefer that CPS err in taking a child out of a potentially dangerous situation, than later have to fill out a report about a dead child. I'm not talking about giving up a liberty or right. I don't believe the "system" is any better at raising kids than parents are; far less so in my opinion. But... some parents are raising "broken" children, then turning the little monsters loose on society.

As a deputy, I did everything I could to keep from putting a kid into the "system", as I don't like it... but there were times when it IS necessary to forcibly take a child from a parent or parents.

I'm glad that we agree that we don't know all the specifics about this situation. And, for that reason alone, I'm not going to Monday morning quarterback the decisions.

Griff, no disrespect meant, but if you had ever had deal with cps in respect to your own kids, you might be singing a different tune. I am glad to hear, though, that you only contacted CPS if absolutely nessesary. Though, many times, the situation that CPS puts the children into, even when taking them is justifiable, is more abusive than the abusive family they were taken from.
these stories that come up are just horrendous!

Then there is the multitude of innocent parents and gaurdians that have their children taken and tramatized by CPS. I just wish there was another venue besides CPS.
http://www.geocities.com/robbi01/cps-abuse.html
http://www.fightcps.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut50.html
http://cpsdestroysmyangel.blogspot.com/

AJMD429, very well said +1

+2

[Kismet]

Exactly! Which is why we have an executive, legislative and judicial branches - all of which are answerable to the voters to one degree or another. Checks and balances. Not perfect, just lightyears better than anything that came before it...

But one of the things our legislative branch has done is set up laws which prohibit arrest without proper cause, and our courts have upheld that, so our executive branch should obey that.

Seizing all those children will likely be found by the courts to have been improper, so as you pointed out, 'the system is working' yet when it was pretty obvious going into it that the action was inappropriate, it shouldn't have been done merely because after the fact the courts would have the opportunity to 'make things right' by finding that they acted excessively.

The equivalent would be for me to go steal money from a bank, then expect to not get in trouble because the courts would have the opportunity to find I did a bad thing, and make it ok as long as I give the money back eventually.

It reminds me of the Ohio CCW situation a few years ago; the citizen could get arrested en route to taking his jewelry store deposit to the bank, and after thousands in legal fees and having an arrest record, be found to have "an acceptable defense" to the CCW charge, as the law specified. BUT the same citizen could be arrested going to the same bank with the same errand by the same officer, the very next day, and would have to go through the whole defense/expense process again. Sure - "the system worked" - but at what cost...?

With all the surveillance skills our government has access to, it would have been easy for them to get truly incriminating evidence on anyone in that community who was doing something truly wrong, and to do it without seizing children from their parents. And they could have done it perfectly legally, and NOT had it reversed afterwards, like this is likely to be. In the end, the zeal to catch perverts may wind up causing them to actually escape arrest, if there are any to be found. Surely THAT isn't a good thing!

I'm all for nailing the child molesters or whatever, whether they are members of some weird church, or athiests, or traditional Christians - but NOT at the cost of creating a society where the government has such arbitrary powers that IT becomes a bigger threat to our children than the perverts do. That's like using dynamite to kill the mouse in the kitchen.

There are some awfully big assumptions in there. The most important one is that "it was pretty obvious going into it that the action was inappropriate." You have no basis on which to make that statement unless 1) you actually know the law they acted under (including the case law); and 2) you know the evidence (not just the bit reported by the press).

I don't want this devolve back into a discussion of LEOs (or CPS), but there are a lot of statements made here on Monday mornings about how something is obviously wrong or plainly unconstitutional or clearly illegal. With very few exceptions those statements are pure B.S. and anyone else in the actors position would have, if not acted the same way, recognized the gray area.

Michael in NH

[sore shoulder]

Exactly! Which is why we have an executive, legislative and judicial branches - all of which are answerable to the voters to one degree or another. Checks and balances. Not perfect, just lightyears better than anything that came before it...

But one of the things our legislative branch has done is set up laws which prohibit arrest without proper cause, and our courts have upheld that, so our executive branch should obey that.

Seizing all those children will likely be found by the courts to have been improper, so as you pointed out, 'the system is working' yet when it was pretty obvious going into it that the action was inappropriate, it shouldn't have been done merely because after the fact the courts would have the opportunity to 'make things right' by finding that they acted excessively.

The equivalent would be for me to go steal money from a bank, then expect to not get in trouble because the courts would have the opportunity to find I did a bad thing, and make it ok as long as I give the money back eventually.

It reminds me of the Ohio CCW situation a few years ago; the citizen could get arrested en route to taking his jewelry store deposit to the bank, and after thousands in legal fees and having an arrest record, be found to have "an acceptable defense" to the CCW charge, as the law specified. BUT the same citizen could be arrested going to the same bank with the same errand by the same officer, the very next day, and would have to go through the whole defense/expense process again. Sure - "the system worked" - but at what cost...?

With all the surveillance skills our government has access to, it would have been easy for them to get truly incriminating evidence on anyone in that community who was doing something truly wrong, and to do it without seizing children from their parents. And they could have done it perfectly legally, and NOT had it reversed afterwards, like this is likely to be. In the end, the zeal to catch perverts may wind up causing them to actually escape arrest, if there are any to be found. Surely THAT isn't a good thing!

I'm all for nailing the child molesters or whatever, whether they are members of some weird church, or athiests, or traditional Christians - but NOT at the cost of creating a society where the government has such arbitrary powers that IT becomes a bigger threat to our children than the perverts do. That's like using dynamite to kill the mouse in the kitchen.

There are some awfully big assumptions in there. The most important one is that "it was pretty obvious going into it that the action was inappropriate." You have no basis on which to make that statement unless 1) you actually know the law they acted under (including the case law); and 2) you know the evidence (not just the bit reported by the press).

I don't want this devolve back into a discussion of LEOs (or CPS), but there are a lot of statements made here on Monday mornings about how something is obviously wrong or plainly unconstitutional or clearly illegal. With very few exceptions those statements are pure B.S. and anyone else in the actors position would have, if not acted the same way, recognized the gray area.

Michael in NH

So us common folk are too unsophisticated to properly interpret what is Constitutional and what is not? We are not quilified to make onservations? Observations that are now proving to be staggeringly accurate?

Kismet, you sir are a pompous butt.

[oldmax]

+1

[505stevec]

Do you all know where the most dangerous place for a child under 11 is? Home with good ole mom and dad. Check the stats. I do not know all the fact of the case but i will say this.

New Mexico law give CYFD or CPS the authority to protect children. Children cannot be removed unless Law Enforcement has Probable Cause to beleive the child is in danger.

There is a duty to report for almost anyone. Every one of these reports are investigated and must be within 32 hours.

I have received many Anonymous reports that were validated. I have removed children from many homes. No its not easy (I have children myself) But I work for these kids. No one is concerned about their well being within these abusive homes. That leaves LE to sort it out.

The problem I see in many of your posts is that you all Hate the Government. Paranoia seems to run rampant. Next we will hear of "Black Helicopters" picking up the kids. where will it end?

The system is working the way it was designed. Let it do its job.

[Kismet]

So us common folk are too unsophisticated to properly interpret what is Constitutional and what is not? We are not quilified to make onservations? Observations that are now proving to be staggeringly accurate?

Kismet, you sir are a pompous butt.

Well, though I do not mean to be I understand why you feel that way. Notwithstanding your righteous indignation, can you tell me legally and factually what was unconstitutional about CPS's actions?

Michael in NH

[Old Time Hunter]

Michael, this is an assumption on my part, but I believe what most are trying to say is, innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

[Jeeps]

Do you all know where the most dangerous place for a child under 11 is? Home with good ole mom and dad. Check the stats.

How could the "stats" be any different?

That is like saying the most dangerous place for a human is on planet earth

Once you leave the earth you are in much more danger but the stats won't back
that up because MOST people get hurt and die on the earth.

Why???? Because 99.9% of children under 11 are where they should be, at home
with good ole mom and dad.

EDIT: those "stats" smell like a justification for home invasion and nothing else.

[Jeeps]

So us common folk are too unsophisticated to properly interpret what is Constitutional and what is not? We are not quilified to make onservations? Observations that are now proving to be staggeringly accurate?

Kismet, you sir are a pompous butt.

Well, though I do not mean to be I understand why you feel that way. Notwithstanding your righteous indignation, can you tell me legally and factually what was unconstitutional about CPS's actions?

Michael in NH

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Quite a few folks believe that a prank phone call should not be called "probable cause".

I am "dumb as a brick" about alot of things. But I have a great nose for what
is "right" and what is "wrong" constitutionally. They may be able to bend the
laws to their purpose and twist words to mean what they wish. I does not make
it right. The bill of rights belongs to everyone, not just smart folks.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not want an arm of the govt. (CPS)
to be able to disregard the bill of rights and do what they believe necessary
and herd citizens like cattle against their will.

"For the children" or not, more proof was needed to get a warrant.

What is it that paves the way to HE(double hockey sticks)? Good intentions.

[Kismet]

Michael, this is an assumption on my part, but I believe what most are trying to say is, innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

Old Time - I fully agree (both with your assumption and with the underlying thought). But this case is a bit different because the action taken was not in a criminal case. I am not saying what anyone did was right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was unconstitutional, which is the phrase bandied about here quite often (some might say "too" often).

As I posted in another thread. There is "constitutional" as provided by the courts, and there is "what one wishes was constitutional," that is provided by one's intuition or personal beliefs and seen frequently on leverguns.com. If people don't like what the courts say is "constitutional," there are "constitutional" ways of changing that outcome.

Michael in NH

[Kismet]

So us common folk are too unsophisticated to properly interpret what is Constitutional and what is not? We are not quilified to make onservations? Observations that are now proving to be staggeringly accurate?

Kismet, you sir are a pompous butt.

Well, though I do not mean to be I understand why you feel that way. Notwithstanding your righteous indignation, can you tell me legally and factually what was unconstitutional about CPS's actions?

Michael in NH

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Quite a few folks believe that a prank phone call should not be called "probable cause".

I am "dumb as a brick" about alot of things. But I have a great nose for what
is "right" and what is "wrong" constitutionally. They may be able to bend the
laws to their purpose and twist words to mean what they wish. I does not make
it right. The bill of rights belongs to everyone, not just smart folks.

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers did not want an arm of the govt. (CPS)
to be able to disregard the bill of rights and do what they believe necessary
and herd citizens like cattle against their will.

"For the children" or not, more proof was needed to get a warrant.

What is it that paves the way to HE(double hockey sticks)? Good intentions.

Jeeps - for the record, I am NOT saying anyone is "dumb as a brick." (That would be against forum rules and probably wrong.) I'm just saying that people always seem to fall back on the assertion that something "is or was unconstitutional" when such an assertion may very well be incorrect (legally speaking). In the vast majority of instances, those statements are made without actual knowledge of the law or the majority of the facts. They may very well be right, but based on what we have (as you pointed out above all we really have is the text of the 4th Amendment - and you could add the 5th - and we have "prank" phone call) I don't think accusing CPS of being unconstitutional and saying the individuals should be fired/charged/hanged is appropriate.

The folks that wrote the Constitution WERE "smart folks" and they used words (e.g. "unreasonable" and "due process") that require interpretation. The Bill of Rights does describe OUR rights but that still doesn't mean that we all get to interpret however we want to.

Michael in NH

[Old Ironsights]

Do you all know where the most dangerous place for a child under 11 is? Home with good ole mom and dad. Check the stats.

How could the "stats" be any different?

That is like saying the most dangerous place for a human is on planet earth

Once you leave the earth you are in much more danger but the stats won't back
that up because MOST people get hurt and die on the earth.

Why???? Because 99.9% of children under 11 are where they should be, at home
with good ole mom and dad.

EDIT: those "stats" smell like a justification for home invasion and nothing else.

Snerk...

[Jeeps]

Jeeps - for the record, I am NOT saying anyone is "dumb as a brick." (That would be against forum rules and probably wrong.) I'm just saying that people always seem to fall back on the assertion that something "is or was unconstitutional" when such an assertion may very well be incorrect (legally speaking). In the vast majority of instances, those statements are made without actual knowledge of the law or the majority of the facts. They may very well be right, but based on what we have (as you pointed out above all we really have is the text of the 4th Amendment - and you could add the 5th - and we have "prank" phone call) I don't think accusing CPS of being unconstitutional and saying the individuals should be fired/charged/hanged is appropriate.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth bro. I was admitting to being "dumb as a
brick" about some things. I will always admit my weak points and don't mind
doing so with a bit of humor.
No worries there.

I'm just trying to keep being LOUD about my beliefs that the 4th Amendment
says exactly what it says. The govt. is trying to set a precedent that an unsubstantiated
phone call can allow them to raid homes and take people
against their will to confine them. I WILL HAVE NONE OF THIS.

Also, "Goose and Gander" rules should apply here. If I were to shanghai 440
people with a firearm in my hands. (which is exactly what happened)
I know darn well that I would never see freedom again.

We all know that when we break the rules if we happen to be armed at the
time (even though we have a right to bear them) extra charges come into
play. Some would say this is unconstitutional as well.

I would please like an LEO or Lawyer to please fill me in about how many
different charges would be brought against me for doing this, please, seriously.

No one in authority will be brought up on any charges that I would have had
to answer for. Why is this? BECAUSE IT IS A ONE WAY STREET and no one
can convince me otherwise.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" if they broke the law they should be charged
should we expect anything less?

I apologize for being adamant but I refuse to let the govt get away with whatever
they want. Thats how bad times get started. Again, can't convince me otherwise

I would say the biggest thing is to keep remind those in power to make sure
they have enough proof before issuing a warrant. If they don't "get spanked"
they will do it again. They should have a worry that if they don't have proper
proof then they are liable when they strip a citizen of their constitutional rights.

Isn't that why WE get arrested? To teach us a lesson? Only fair I say.

Respectfully submitted, Douglas C. Neidermeyer, Sergeant at Arms

[Jeeps]

Hey Mikey, I forgot to add that I don't try to figure out what laws I like or
don't like. Most of them I have a problem with but I will follow them out of
respect for America.

I will always use the Bill of Rights as a litmus test to judge a law or the actions
of individuals and groups such as "big brother".

I don't want to spend all my time pouring over tomes to try to get a grip on
what the govt expects of me. It should not be that way in a "free society"

I go along through life doing what pleases me and keep an eye on others to see
what the average person is expected to act like. Sometimes I will have someone
say "you shouldn't do that bro" and I will stop and think about it and weigh
his words on there merit and decide if I have done right or wrong and adjust
my behavior accordingly.

I love freedom, laws restrict it, they are needed but I think things are out of
hand ATM. We are legislating lifestyles now and that is wrong.

[PaulB]

As for the second part: I hope there will be some dismissals of CPS officials and then lawsuits with judgments large enough to make the State think twice before doing this again.......

Fat chance. Laws are for us peons, not the ruling class.

This has not turned into a case of "the system is working". It is a case of "the system is starting to look a little less damaging than it originally looked." If the system worked, Lon Horiuchi would be rotting either in Hell or in jail, not still an employee of government.

Yes, the problem with this is that with CPS, you are guilty until proven innocent. If people don't see a problem with this, then I don't know what to say about you.

I believe CPS by and large does more good than harm, although its constitutional and moral justifications in doing so are pretty darn questionable. I also believe there are a significant minority of cases where it does more harm than good, and I also believe (with federal incentives to kidnap now in place) that minority can only increase and is increasing.

This is not just a problem with CPS. ANY allegation from any "witness", however unreliable, can bring JBT's busting your door down. This is not a free country any more.

http://www.profane-justice.org/

[505stevec]

Do you all know where the most dangerous place for a child under 11 is? Home with good ole mom and dad. Check the stats.

How could the "stats" be any different?

That is like saying the most dangerous place for a human is on planet earth

Once you leave the earth you are in much more danger but the stats won't back
that up because MOST people get hurt and die on the earth.

Why???? Because 99.9% of children under 11 are where they should be, at home
with good ole mom and dad.

EDIT: those "stats" smell like a justification for home invasion and nothing else.

Snerk...

And where do they go after 11? same place. Whatever, you all are right I will continue to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States with the work I do. You continue to drink your "haterade"

[piller]

If you research the Men who wrote the constitution, you will find that words were chosen due to a LACK of interpretation. Will and Shall are totally different. Anyone with a copy of Blackstone can understand the language and the words meanings in the Constitution, just as designed.

[PaulB]

"It is to be interpreted, as all solemn instruments are, by endeavoring to ascertain the true sense and meaning of all the terms; and we are neither to narrow them, nor to enlarge them, by straining them from their just and natural import, for the purpose of adding to, or diminishing its powers, or bending them to any favorite theory or dogma of party. It is the language of the people, to be judged of according to common sense, and not by mere theoretical reasoning. It is not an instrument for the mere private interpretation of any particular men."
-- Joseph Storey, Supreme Court Justice from 1811-1845, on the subject of the Constitution

[Jeeps]

Do you all know where the most dangerous place for a child under 11 is? Home with good ole mom and dad. Check the stats.

How could the "stats" be any different?

That is like saying the most dangerous place for a human is on planet earth

Once you leave the earth you are in much more danger but the stats won't back
that up because MOST people get hurt and die on the earth.

Why???? Because 99.9% of children under 11 are where they should be, at home
with good ole mom and dad.

EDIT: those "stats" smell like a justification for home invasion and nothing else.

Snerk...

And where do they go after 11? same place. Whatever, you all are right I will continue to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States with the work I do. You continue to drink your "haterade"

Time out Steve, I don't drink "haterade" and I wasn't trying to belittle your
"stats" but reading them they can have no other meaning.

My son if 14 and he is usually in bed between 9-10pm unless we are watching
movies. He is a decent shot, needs more field time though.

If ya want to protect the Constitution then double time it down to Texas and
arrest those folks who committed armed kidnapping, they have it on video,
can't be more open-closed case than that.

EDIT: also, I'm am sorry this has degenerated to this but the "good ole mom and dad"
thing got my hairs on end. It sounds like the authorities don't trust people
to raise their children.

As far as some saying "you guys don't trust the govt." and "paranoia" claims.
EVER VIGILANT..... We are supposed to keep an eye on people we place in
power. You guys walk the streets with firearms and badges in our name.
I pay taxes to keep the govt operating, if they are breaking the rules I would
consider myself an idiot to not point it out to them.

[oldmax]

You continue to drink your "haterade"

Why, when one is confronted with logic, they resort to personel attacks.
Usually using the word 'Hate' ?

( I thought that was a Liberal tactic )