1142 users online (238 members and 904 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,935

    370 texas cps workers have criminal histories

    http://www.keyetv.com/content/news/t...a-7e8e6a9c678c

    In no way does this diminish the wrong done by the FLDS bunch but it appears that in Texas we have the fox in charge of the hen house. I just want all of you to know that Texas CPS does indeed need to clean up it's own house. This was breaking news last night on the Austin TV station.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,814
    Oh no thats all we need to add to this whole sorry mess.

    The FLDS supporters are going to be all over this one. Wow...just wow

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,796
    Quote Originally Posted by Ciara View Post
    Oh no thats all we need to add to this whole sorry mess.

    The FLDS supporters are going to be all over this one. Wow...just wow
    Are you kidding? The FLDS isn't mentioned in this, but it has the FLDS fingerprints all over it! Remember the one attorney that the FLDS asked to have removed from the case and they said something to the effect that they didn't think she should be dealing with kids? Nothing was publicized in the media on her except that she had a custody fight in her divorce. But that tells me they were doing background checks.

    It talks about many of them were for drug issues, but doesn't mention if the issues are current or past, if they were testing clean for drugs now, or if they do testing. But drug use is one of those things that can happen once, get caught and can then be changed.

    IF this info is true, then Texas CPS better start cleaning house and they better do it fast. But two wrongs don't make a right and FLDS shouldn't get off because of this.

    Make note of this little tidbit buried middle of the article:

    The number of employees with criminal histories is small compared to the total number of those employed by the Department of Family and Protective Services. Most offenses were misdemeanors.

    The most common offenses were thefts by check and DWI.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,154
    It's interesting how FLDS attack dogs talk about everyone BUT Warren Jeffs and those who STILL follow him. Jeffs and his mignions very probably do every awful thing they accuse others of doing. Yet, while consistantly pointing to the shortcomings of 'others,' they never admit to the same shortcomings. Are they trying to say that if others abuse children and treat women as second class citizens, that gives Jeffs, et al carte blanche and that the FLDS should be left alone so they can get back to lying, stealing, abusing children and other of their members while cheating general society and disobeying state and federal law whenever they feel like it? I don't get this approach. It's a strange permutation of 'two wrongs make a right.' That's not usually a very convincing approach or line of argument. Ain't convincin' me. There is some crime and abuse going on in America and around the world, always has been, always will be and, it seems there is quite a bit happening in the FLDS. Is the FLDS seriously arguing that they should get a free pass because they aren't the only ones breaking the law or acting outrageously? Is that why they stubbornly refuse to acknowlege any wrongdoing of their own and never talk about Jeffs and those who follow his example in bad ways?

    Why don't these people just find some other country whose laws and general social mores they are willing to follow and go there? It seems they should be happier and it would give us much less mess to deal with.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,935
    Here's another link to an article in the Dallas paper regarding the employee's criminal history records. I'm going to stick my neck out & make a prediction. I don't think we will see much activity out of CPS regarding the FLDS children. As I've said before, from my personal experiences, CPS is nothing more than a political animal & now they've gotton themselves into a real mess with their sloppy handling of business. Law enforcement & the justice system are going to have to take the lead in investigating & prosecution. If FLDS gets away with anything, it's only going to be because CPS botched this entire situation from the beginning.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ps.5a7d34.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by faw720 View Post
    Here's another link to an article in the Dallas paper regarding the employee's criminal history records. I'm going to stick my neck out & make a prediction. I don't think we will see much activity out of CPS regarding the FLDS children. As I've said before, from my personal experiences, CPS is nothing more than a political animal & now they've gotton themselves into a real mess with their sloppy handling of business. Law enforcement & the justice system are going to have to take the lead in investigating & prosecution. If FLDS gets away with anything, it's only going to be because CPS botched this entire situation from the beginning.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...ps.5a7d34.html
    Pitty. It'd be good if CPS could both clean it's own house and protect the innocents being abused by FLDS, but unfortunately that may be more difficult now.

  7. #7
    How many Texas CPS case workers are there?

    Is that ratio any different than any other group of people?

    They are throwing out a shocking number with nothing to put it into perspective.

  8. #8

    FLDS might be bad guys; CPS demonstrably are

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    IF this info is true, then Texas CPS better start cleaning house and they better do it fast. But two wrongs don't make a right and FLDS shouldn't get off because of this.
    I can't tell from this whether you realize that the CPS has demonstrably lied through the case. They announced that, out of 53 girls 14-17, 31 were pregnant or mothers--without mentioning that they were refusing to accept birth certificates as proof of age, hence had no way of knowing the women's ages--or that a few days earlier they had reclassified about twenty women as girls. By the time the case got through the appeals court, the 31 were reduced to five, the CPS having conceded that a sizable majority of the "31 14-17 girls" were adults, including both of the pregnant ones who they kept control of until they had had their babies.

    Someone from CPS testified early on to having spoken to girls who knew "Martha"--whom we now know didn't exist.

    CPS tried to justify the seizure of the kids by reporting how many had had broken bones--without mentioning that the percentage, about nine percent, was if anything rather lower than one would expect from a random collection of kids.

    So far as I can tell, there is simply no evidence that most of the FLDS parents had done anything wrong; at this point it's down to a tiny number of girls, I think about four, who CPS claims were "married" under age to older men. That's after seizing about 440 kids. On the other hand, the CPS clearly took all of those kids away from their parents with no evidence that any save perhaps the teenage girls were at any risk, kept them for two months, lied about the facts to justify holding them, held onto them after the appeals court had unanimously ruled they had no legal basis for taking them, and only gave them up, reluctantly, when the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed the ruling. And nobody yet has proposed legal penalties for the CPS.

    You might want to look at US code Title 18, 1091; someone commenting on my blog pointed it out:

    (a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—

    ...

    (d) Required Circumstance for Offenses.— The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that—
    (1) the offense is committed within the United States; or
    (2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).

    ...

    (6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
    or attempts to do so,

    The offense is genocide, the punishment (if nobody dies) is a fine of up to a million dollars and imprisonment for up to twenty years. I think it is arguable that that is the crime the Texas authorities committed--that they were trying to destroy the Texas part of the FLDS by taking their children away. At least, it's hard to see any other plausible explanation for what they did, given that the only claim that anyone but the teenage girls was in any immediate danger was that the boys were being "groomed to be abusers," i.e. reared in their parents' religion.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,796
    Genocide:

    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group or Fruit Flies.

    While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2, of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

    Sorry, I'm not seeing genocide on the part of CPS. I do agree that they may need to do some housecleaning. But using other's rationalization, I don't think we should condemn the whole because of the actions of a few.

    And in this case, CPS is not the only ones involved. There are deputies, prosecutors, attorneys, guardian ad litems, doctors, advocates, judges, and even many churches and politicians are keeping an eye on these events as well as the public. Every action they are taking is scrutinized to make sure that it is fair, as well as in accordance with the law.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Genocide:

    Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group or Fruit Flies.

    While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

    Sorry, I'm not seeing genocide on the part of CPS.
    I quoted the relevant federal statute. Under that, if what they were trying to do was to destroy part of a religious group by taking their children away, they were guilty of genocide. You may, of course, have a different explanation for why they seized 400+ children in response to a hoax phone call which, at most, was relevant to about thirty of the girls, or of why they told parents that they would have to receive counseling in order to get their children back, but it seems the most obvious explanation. You will note that the CPS spokeswoman early on explained that the reason the boys were being abused was that they were being raised to be abusers--i.e. brought up in their parents' religion, which supports polygamy. If that's abuse, then the only way of preventing is to keep the children from being brought up in their parents' religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    I do agree that they may need to do some housecleaning. But using other's rationalization, I don't think we should condemn the whole because of the actions of a few.
    What few? The CPS has acted consistently--this isn't something that could have been done by a handful of low level employees. Their spokeswoman claimed at the initial hearing to have spoken to several girls who knew the (we now know non-existent) Sarah. Their one basis for the seizure other than the call was information from a "confidential informant" whom they have never named, and who they have never claimed had ever been in the ranch--the obvious guess is that she's one of the ex-FLDS critics of the group.

    They publicly claimed that 31 out of 53 girls 14-17 were mothers or pregnant, without mentioning that they were refusing to accept birth certificates as evidence of age, and ended up conceding that most of the 31 were adults. They publicly announced the number of children who had had fractures, clearly in order to justify the seizure of children who were not teen age girls--without mentioning that the fraction, which came to about 9%, was if anything a bit on the low side. They announced that there were two 17 year old girls in the late stage of pregnancy, held them until they had their babies--then conceded that they were both adults but claimed custody over their babies.

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    And in this case, CPS is not the only ones involved. There are deputies, prosecutors, attorneys, guardian ad litems, doctors, advocates, judges, and even many churches and politicians are keeping an eye on these events as well as the public. Every action they are taking is scrutinized to make sure that it is fair, as well as in accordance with the law.
    You are aware that it was the unanimous opinion of first a three judge panel of the Texas appeals court and then the nine justices of the Texas Supreme Court that the original seizure was not in accordance with the law--there being no evidence that the children in question were in any immediate danger, as Texas laws requires for such a seizure? 400+ children separated from their parents for two months with no legal justification. Whether or not you accept the argument for genocide, separating hundreds of small children from their parents for two months with no good reason--part of it after the appeals court had ruled--strikes me as mass child abuse.

    As to politicians, I assume you are also aware that Texas law was changed three years earlier to raise the minimum age of marriage and make bigamy a felony--at the instigation of a legislator who made it clear the changes were aimed at the FLDS.

    So far, the only people in any official position in Texas who have shown evidence of respect for either the law or the welfare of children are the judges on the appeals court and the Supreme Court.

    Suppose your local CPS decided you were a minor--I assume you are not--offered no evidence, refused to accept your birth certificate and drivers' license as proof of age, and treated you as a minor under their custody. Further suppose that doing so let them make false public statements to justify their past actions--precisely what happened in this case. Would your response be as tolerant then as it is to the people who acted in that way to other people?


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by yolorado View Post
    Why don't these people just find some other country whose laws and general social mores they are willing to follow and go there?
    1. You are proposing that the Texas CPS ought to find some country whose laws they are willing to follow? We have the unanimous opinion of first the appeals court panel and then the Texas Supreme Court that they were not following the laws of Texas.

    2. How do you know that the FLDS does all the terrible things you attribute to them? When this whole case started, I was willing to take the description by the ex-FLDS critics pretty much at face value. But one thing we now know is that, of the 440+ kids seized, almost none of them were pregnant and almost none of them had had children--the combined number, according to the Appeals Court, was five, and I think one of those may be the girl who CPS later conceded was not, after all, pregnant, although I'm not sure. That wouldn't be a surprising number outside of the FLDS.

    How can you make that fact consistent with the popular view of the FLDS--that they routinely marry girls off to older men shortly after puberty, and the older men get them pregnant? If it isn't consistent, then perhaps the view that you are accepting--with no evidence other than "everyone says so"--is actually false, or at least badly exaggerated.

    One of the people who commented on my blog knew someone who had been part, not of FLDS but of a similar group. By his account, marrying young women off to older men occasionally happened but was not common and was generally disapproved of by the members of the group. That sounds consistent with what the actual evidence of the Texas case turned out to be, once the false statements by CPS had been withdrawn. It's also consistent with the fact that, when the authorities wanted to convict Jeffs, the marriage they accused him of being responsible for was not with a fifty year old man but with a 19 year old man. Surely if they could have found a comparable case with a much older man they would have used that.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidFriedman View Post
    (a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
    Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that this is about genocide.

    Do you really believe the intent is to wipe out the FLDS?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    23,796
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidFriedman View Post
    1. You are proposing that the Texas CPS ought to find some country whose laws they are willing to follow? We have the unanimous opinion of first the appeals court panel and then the Texas Supreme Court that they were not following the laws of Texas.

    2. How do you know that the FLDS does all the terrible things you attribute to them? When this whole case started, I was willing to take the description by the ex-FLDS critics pretty much at face value. But one thing we now know is that, of the 440+ kids seized, almost none of them were pregnant and almost none of them had had children--the combined number, according to the Appeals Court, was five, and I think one of those may be the girl who CPS later conceded was not, after all, pregnant, although I'm not sure. That wouldn't be a surprising number outside of the FLDS.

    How can you make that fact consistent with the popular view of the FLDS--that they routinely marry girls off to older men shortly after puberty, and the older men get them pregnant? If it isn't consistent, then perhaps the view that you are accepting--with no evidence other than "everyone says so"--is actually false, or at least badly exaggerated.

    One of the people who commented on my blog knew someone who had been part, not of FLDS but of a similar group. By his account, marrying young women off to older men occasionally happened but was not common and was generally disapproved of by the members of the group. That sounds consistent with what the actual evidence of the Texas case turned out to be, once the false statements by CPS had been withdrawn. It's also consistent with the fact that, when the authorities wanted to convict Jeffs, the marriage they accused him of being responsible for was not with a fifty year old man but with a 19 year old man. Surely if they could have found a comparable case with a much older man they would have used that.
    Have you seen the Bishop's record that lists every one on the compound on one particular day? It is done by household with the husband listing his name, his wives, his children with each mother and it includes ages for all. Try looking at that, compare the ages of the mothers to the ages of her children. And don't forget to include the 9 months of pregnancy. Many of them appeared to have been under the age of 16 when their children were concieved/born. But many of them won't be charged because the statue of limitations has run out.

    Now that was done by the husband's, not the CPS. And it is just for one day. From what I understand, the people in the compound was pretty fluid with people coming and going quite a bit. So potentially there could be more. I know that some names that were there during the raid were not there the day of the Bishop's record or at least were not listed.

    If it was so disapproved of, then why did their leader himself have very young wives? Weren't some of them younger than 14? From my experience, the leader sets the tone- if it is okay with him, others will follow along. Esp. if he is the prophet.

    With the GJ meeting, they have a lot of material to go through. And the charges will tricle out, a few at a time. But I am confident that they will trickle out.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by RainbowsAndGumdrops View Post
    Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that this is about genocide.

    Do you really believe the intent is to wipe out the FLDS?
    I think the objective was to either destroy the Texas FLDS as a religious community or to drive them out of Texas. That was pretty clear when the original anti-FLDS legislation was passed three years ago. It was strongly suggested when the CPS first seized all of the children, then told the mothers that they might be able to get their children back if they went through suitable counseling.

    Given the claim that the boys were being abused because they were being brought up to believe in polygamy, I think that translates as "if you persuade us that you have given up the parts of your religion we disapprove of, you can have your children back." Why else does the mother of a small child, who has herself done nothing wrong that anyone knows about, other than believing in a particular religion, require counseling to get her child back?

    Currently, CPS is trying to claim custody of (I think--I haven't followed the case closely of late) about eight children, on the grounds that their mothers had some involvement in marrying off underage daughters, or at least refused to oppose doing so. The original seizure was of 440.

    I'm not suggesting that they were trying to kill anyone--but, if you read the bit of federal law I earlier quoted, that isn't a requirement for the crime.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Have you seen the Bishop's record that lists every one on the compound on one particular day? It is done by household with the husband listing his name, his wives, his children with each mother and it includes ages for all. Try looking at that, compare the ages of the mothers to the ages of her children. And don't forget to include the 9 months of pregnancy. Many of them appeared to have been under the age of 16 when their children were concieved/born. But many of them won't be charged because the statue of limitations has run out.
    I haven't seen it--where is it webbed?

    Note that the minimum age of marriage (with parental consent) was 14 in Texas up until about three years ago. It's 14 for girls (I think, might be 13) in NH, last time I checked.

    ...

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    If it was so disapproved of, then why did their leader himself have very young wives?
    People in power frequently get away with things that are generally disapproved of--that's one of the advantages of power. Our society doesn't approve of a married man having an affair with a much younger woman--but a recent President did. And I expect one could find considerably worse cases with a little effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    Weren't some of them younger than 14? From my experience, the leader sets the tone- if it is okay with him, others will follow along. Esp. if he is the prophet.
    That doesn't follow. Islamic law limits a man to at most four wives, but Mohammed had considerably more than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by mysteriew View Post
    With the GJ meeting, they have a lot of material to go through. And the charges will tricle out, a few at a time. But I am confident that they will trickle out.
    And what do you think the chances are that anyone in the CPS will be charged with anything? We know that they held 20+ adult women by claiming they were minors, with no evidence, in some cases after seeing birth certificates, and under circumstances that strongly suggest they had reclassified some of them as minors a few days before they were needed to include in the 31. We know a CPS spokeswoman claimed to the court--I presume under oath although I don't know--to have spoken with several girls who knew the (nonexistent) Sarah. Do you expect any charges of unlawful confinement (a class A misdemeanor in Texas) or perjury to be filed? How about defamation suits for announcing that an adult married woman is a pregnant minor?

    I'm not arguing that nobody in the FLDS had done anything wrong. I'm arguing that it is clear that the CPS, as an organization, did several very wrong things--separated 400+ children from their parents for two months with no legally (or morally) valid reason to do so, and deliberately lied to the public in the process of trying to justify what they had done.

    Which parts of that do you disagree with? If you do not disagree, what penalties do you think the CPS people responsible ought to suffer?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2012, 09:50 PM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 01:24 AM