Posted on 5/4/2008, 3:24:40 PM 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.
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.