Posted on 05/04/2008 8:24:40 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
The FLDS argument will not hold up
By MARCI HAMILTON
When Texas authorities entered the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch, one of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compounds, on April 3, they did so using a warrant based on calls from a person who alleged that she was an underage girl being subjected to physical and sexual abuse, including rape, at the ranch.
Once the authorities entered, they discovered pregnant underage girls, girls with more than one child, papers indicating that rampant polygamy was occurring at YFZ, and even a document involving cyanide poisoning. The authorities then intelligently decided to remove all of the children from a situation that posed obvious and serious danger to them.
Lawyers for the FLDS members have been arguing in the press that the entry and removal of the children constituted a "massive" violation of due process. Others have argued that the authorities' actions represent the unfair targeting of one religion.
Each of these arguments is singularly misguided.
The due-process argument
Whether or not the caller was legitimate, the important point is the lack of any government misconduct and the serious evidence of crimes to children.
There are now allegations that the calls to the authorities spurring the raid were placed by a woman who was not within the YFZ compound. Even if proven, however, this claim would not affect the validity of the authorities' actions.
Absent clear evidence that the state fabricated the call or misled the judge who granted the initial search warrant, neither of which seems remotely plausible, the entry cannot be faulted on constitutional grounds. Once the authorities were inside, the evidence of criminal behavior was so plainly apparent that further investigation was more than warranted.
No self-respecting child protective agency could have departed from that compound without taking all of the children away. The authorities revealed last week that 31 out of the 53 underage YFZ girls have been pregnant and/or are pregnant. Imminent risk of harm -- the legal standard that bound the authorities -- was apparent; indeed, a decision to leave the children in that setting would have opened up the state to liability.
The key point here is that children were being abused and were very likely to be abused in the future. And, worse, this was occurring in an atmosphere in which the adults seemed incapable of apprehending the depth of the criminal behavior in question.
It is just as though the state had entered a drug den on the basis of reports about one child's abuse and discovered a bevy of children in a position likely to lead to neglect and mistreatment. In such a hypothetical, surely no one would contest the appropriateness of removing the children. The religious cloak does not forestall the proper operation of the child protective authorities. More at Link
Ping
I don’t disagree with rescuing these children and even trying to rehabilitate them. The thought enters my mind though, that the government has now placed itself in a position of being able to respond to any crackpot call and, after having effected a home or institution invasion and subsequently learning that the call was made by a crackpot, pressing forward with their investigation while finding other “violations.” To be sure though, plenty of apparent violations have been found at this compound.
This kind of ignores the fact that law officers contacted them before the and were told that the alleged abuser had never been there and was actually in another state and that there was no girl fitting the description of the girl by the name Sarah there either. The law officers verified this and recently had to drop all charges against the guy mentioned in the warrant.
A good case can be made that law enforcement didn't like these people in their jurisdiction (many quotes to that effect). They, however couldn't come up with probable cause even with an informant on the inside for 4 years, so the used a call they knew to be bogus to get a warrant. They used the warrant to go on a fishing trip for genuine probable cause.
And, you know this is fact....how? Do YOU have an "inside informant" feeding you verification of these statements (opinions)?
That’s not right. They told them at the gate that there were no Sarahs on the compound. Which was a LIE.
“No self-respecting child protective agency could have departed from that compound without taking all of the children away. The authorities revealed last week that 31 out of the 53 underage YFZ girls have been pregnant and/or are pregnant. Imminent risk of harm — the legal standard that bound the authorities — was apparent; indeed, a decision to leave the children in that setting would have opened up the state to liability.”
All hale the State. The State is King. ANd of course, the State can do no wrong.
What is this agency doing about the hundreads and hundreads of ‘inner-city’ girls in Houston with more than one baby as teens?
I would note that TX has the highest teen pregancy rate in the US BTW - why single out this group to take the children?
Spare me the attcks, the men at the ranch are pigs at best, criminals at worst.
But, ask yourself - who is next? You?
You are a rapist.
How DARE you even question these actions!
This is WAY to important to be worried about due process!
Constitution? ………How parochial.
OK, there are some here who believe the above to true, so let me state, that was sarcasm.
Hmmmm....have you been on these FLDS threads? Or are you on the Sunday shift?
It's not the age,
it's not the pregnancy,
it's the freedom.
Does the constitution rule us or do we use the law as a tool for justice?
IOW, who has more value—— the group using religion as a pretext or the children being abused under that presumption?
So far, you’ve pretty much convinced me that the means nothing to the helpless or the abused.
But there's talks of rights here. Do the underage females in these compounds have a right to reach adulthood and/or age of consent and select their own spouse?
Full Disclosure: I've spoken with and seen the results of the children/victims of these whack-O- cults.
A huge reminder sometimes life isn't fair.
Just another way of waying 'Living Constitution'.
As was asked upthread, who is next? You?
"Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran also said he had been working with a confidential informant for four years who was feeding him information about life inside the polygamist sect."
Do you have sa source for this statement?
True Full Disclosure, in the context of what this threads discussion is about, would require you to also admit that you haven't seen the effects of a tyrannical government firsthand, and it’s treatment of women and children.
You don’t have a source for YOUR false statement, because it never happened. They found a girl named Sarah Jessop on the property who DID fit the description. I suppose you think that LEOs should just take the statements of possible criminals at face value, and never investigate anything.
*****
She said she asked if there were any girls named Sarah living at the ranch. “They shook their heads and said there were no Sarahs living at the ranch,” Voss said.
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271299,00.html
How you folks seemingly battle all these paid flds operatives hanging out on Free Republic is beyond me. They are everywhere, on different shifts, and in great numbers.
;)
/s
What crap.
An underage innercity girl doesn't have the freedom to exercise. An older man who knocks up an underage inner city girl CANNOT use as his defense that she was “free” to say no. (Maybe you missed the threads not long ago wherein was discussed the fact that a hell of a lot of the underage pregnancies in the USA are the result of much older men taking advantage of “free” girls)
The Law ought to be the Law and mealy mouthed rationalizing and temporizing such as we have been hearing on this and other subjects ought to be exposed as the nonsense that it is.
Having discovered the situation honestly believing in their warrant is one thing, however, something still remains.
The severest possible prosecution of the informant who actions resulted in the investigation in the first place. It should be a “He who threw the first stone” prosecution, and should result both in criminal penalties and fines, and that the offender should be liable for civil litigation as well.
Apparently, this informant has made similar false accusations in past, and done so with impunity.
It is essential that this person be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, in that the entire credibility of law enforcement is *dependent* on “honest” informants. If a horrific invasion of civil liberties can be made by a corrupt informant, then the constitutionality of informants itself is called into question.
Just a few days ago, a “corrupt informant”, a Democrat political operative, tried to promulgate the lie that John McCain was abusive to his wife. If law enforcement agencies took his “word”, by name or anonymously, that John McCain was a wife abuser, and this was used to investigate John McCain or serve a warrant on his house, you would see a similar situation to what has happened to the FLDS.
Since the authorities haven’t done this, it creates the impression of a double standard. But this impression could be eliminated if *in either case*, the corrupt informant was arrested and tried for a criminal offense, at worse, or a civil offense, at least.
The worst thing the authorities can do is permit such scoundrels to continue to offend, by slandering others with false accusations of criminal wrongdoing.
There is no need for a “corrupt informant” law. The laws currently on the books are enough to dissuade frauds and liars from impugning people. If those they accuse are guilty of offenses, that is one thing. As well as the authorities may be confused by a persuasive liar, as well.
But when the authorities discover that they were maliciously lied to, then they should severely punish those who led them astray.
It is necessary to protect our system of laws.
Right. And they also told the town of Eldorado they wanted to use the land for a hunting preserve back when they bought it. Lying seems to be what they DO.
Only if we're abusing children and enslaving women.
They received due process, and then some. Just because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t negate the legality of it.
Did you even read the article. The whole thing is very confused hearsay. They have found no one named Sarah Jessop Barlow and Dale Barlow hadn’t been in Texas since 1977.
AND they told the LEOs immediately before the raid that there were only about 100 people living on the compound.
I wonder what “scripture” says it’s ok to lie? Maybe it’s ok to lie to “infidels”. Now which “religion” believes that, again?
So, are you saying the Constitution guarantees the rights of men to physically and sexually abuse young girls (some as young as 10, reportedly)? I didn’t know that. Can you point out where it says that?
Well-written and exactly right. You took my exact thoughts and wrote it as well as, or better than, I could have.
They did TOO!!
Maybe YOU should read the pertinent documents. The name “Sarah Jessop Barlow” (Age 16) is on the partial list of children, and there is also a “Sarah Jessop” and a “Sarah (Last name unknown)”.
And sworn testimony in a legal hearing with a person testifying to what was said to her is NOT “hearsay”.
That was a common, and expected, technique of those who realize they don't have a good argument against the assertions I've made. Trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say or even allude to.
Have a good day, and better luck next time.
And that is exactly what may occur. And it will not be "erroneous."
Reason? The warrant was not in "good-faith." The investigation that occurred between May 29 and April 3 CLEARLY indicated to the investigators the individual named in the phony phone calls was not living at the church facilities, he was not "married" to a girl named Sarah and had never been there.
The LEO's went forward with obtaining a warrant anyway and swore before a judge that the information was correct. Not only is that a crime on the part of the LEO's it can void the Good-Faith validity of the warrant.
Or at least we damn well better hope the soon to be presiding Judge in the coming criminal cases can recognize that because if that Judge does not the last scrap of protection in the Fourth Amendment is gone. For all of us.
No, it is YOU who won’t address the simple fact that they received due process. You don’t want to acknowledge it, fine, but don’t try to pretend that these people are somehow victims of an oppressive government.
Do you honestly think the government of this country is inherently evil? If so, I invite you to try the governments of other countries, where individuals fare much, much worse. You don’t have to travel far—Mexico would suffice.
You anti-government people just slay me. You share in the bounty of our country, then do your best to work against it. Does our government have warts? You bet. But as I said, just try living in another country, any other country, and sample what passes for justice there. The US has the BEST justice system, bar none, in the world—and that’s WITH the warts.
Source for this, please?
I work with a lot of underage teens.....A lot. IOW, it’s rare to have a crisis admit who’s a virgin at 8 (I mean, they wouldn’t be with us if they were OK).
And yes, there are many who got pregnant by the older neighbor, Mama’s new boyfriend, the strange guy dad let sleep over. We see it every day. And yes, those that can be prosecuted, they go after. My job is support, but any girl that is pregnant against her will, the do investigate.
However, I see far more who simply want a baby-— far more...to have that boy marry them, to have someone to love them, because it’s what ‘women’ do, because they just want to (believe me, I had a foster girl hell bent on getting pregnant at 15 by her 25 year old bf-— I spent half my time running her down).
Far making very very bad choices, and 2 years later, like the batch we just got in....they’re homeless, on the streets, using drugs, having major psychiatric issues manifest etc and having surrended their child to either their BF, his family or foster care. So I stand by that the majority are willing choices...very bad ones, but not coerced.
---
MARCI A. HAMILTON
hamilton02@aol.com
---
Professor Marci A. Hamilton holds the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, where she is the founding Director of the Intellectual Property Law Program. She has been a visiting scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary, the Center of Theological Inquiry, and Emory University School of Law.
Professor Hamilton is an internationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. She is frequently asked to advise Congress and state legislatures on the constitutionality of pending legislation and to consult in cases before the United States Supreme Court. She represented the City of Boerne, Texas in a successful challenge to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a case that resulted in the Court's landmark decision in Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).
Professor Hamilton clerked for Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the United States Supreme Court and Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. She received her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Pennsylvania Law School where she served as editor-in-chief of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. She is a member of Phi Beta Kappa and Order of the Coif.
Professor Hamilton's most recent work is God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (Cambridge University Press 2005), now available in paperback. Professor Hamilton's forthcoming book, which will be published this spring is entitled Justice Denied: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children (Cambridge 2008). She is also a Board Member of NAPSAC.
Ya know,
as a kid who was molested in a religious setting,
who had not one adult listen,
was told by my ‘protectors’ that it wasn’t that bad,
who pretty much prayed and was never heard and was convinced that God was approving of what was happening.
You could tell me I’d be flayed alive and fed to vultures and that would be the price to save a girl from what I went through, and I’d hand you the knife but even give you extra salt to pour on the wounds if you promise to save her before she turns 5.
Is that enough of an answer?
Do your own homework as I am fed up with listening to screeching about the mythical "FOR THE CHILDREN" exemption to the U.S. Constitution for law enforcement officers. All the source info is contained in my previous postings. Look them up yourself.
Or perhaps you have a source for the "FOR THE CHILDREN" exemption to the Constitution?
The evidence did NOT “clearly” indicate any such thing.
The Sheriff spoke to a supposed Dale Barlow on April 3 on the phone. How do you know whether that was before or after the warrant was obtained?
Just because the caller he had never been to the Texas compound, didn’t mean it was true. He had plenty of opportunity to be there. The girl could have had the wrong name. It could have been a different Dale Barlow. It is a very common name in the flds cult.
The warrant also covered searching for the girl, and it was based on the information given by the girl. The warrant doesn’t say it is “correct”. It says they want to investigate.
Sorry, pal, if you can’t provide proof (by way of a source) of your claim, I have every right to declare it completely bogus.
The investigators knew that prior to the April 3rd warrant. You are not researching my previous posts.
As for the rest of your comments you are making excuses.
Then you are unfamiliar with the way social services works. It's not that *now* they are in that position to do something they haven't done before. That's the way they've worked across the country for decades. It's just SOP for them.
They aren't setting precedent, they're following it.
I provided you with a link. All the info is there. But you are ignoring or forgetting that we have gone through all of this before. You argue the "For The Children" excuse and I present as many facts as are available. If you want to re-read my facts and your excuses the link is right there. Go for it.
The phone call was on the third.
You sure have a high opinion of yourself. I am not spending a significant portion of my valuable time weeding through your posts. I’ll take the opinion of the internationally recognized expert on constitutional law over yours any day.
It is necessary to protect our citizens and that's what the state of Texas is doing for those women and children.
This action against this cult should have happened when their exalted leader Warren Jeffs was convicted on rape related charges.
This was way overdo and children in the meantime have been sexually assaulted as evidenced by the number of teen pregnancies. found at the ranch. If the authorities had acted sooner, some of those girls would never have been raped.
Thanks.
L
Only an FLDS sympathizer would divert scrutiny from the FLDS by suggesting a more appropriate "inner-city" investigative target, code word for black. Shameful.
All hale the State. The State is King. ANd of course, the State can do no wrong.
Only an FLDS sympathizer would disparage the government for conducting the FLDS raid yet advocate a government raid on the "inner-city", code word for black. Shameful.
As is what you have to say, unless you can EVER come up with a source for your comments. Why should we trust what you have to say on the issue for that matter? What gives you any more credibility than anyone else?
They have found no one named Sarah Jessop Barlow and Dale Barlow hadn’t been in Texas since 1977.
Sources? How do you know that for sure? Do you know them? Have they told you?
Looks like you got an answer to your question.
That does not address my question to you.
Did you come up with a link to verify your opinion? Please source your statement with a live link.
Your demanding sources to rebuttals of your OPINION statements should be met with sources of your own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.