Posted on 05/29/2008 9:43:07 AM PDT by MizSterious
Actually, my "understanding" is just fine.
LOL, you watched Nancy Grace. She is always wrong.
The ruling effects, as of Sunday, 143 of the children.
The lower court must order all 143 returned NLT Sunday.
The TX SC specifically allowed the lower court to issue restraining orders against the men, and “stay in place” (for lack of a better term) orders for the women and children.
There are actually to orders, and one dissenting opinion signed by three judges.
Thanks. I do find that disturbing, but the whole case has been that way.
oh
The columnist may have an “agenda.” The judges must follow the law.
The fact is that felonies were being committed on the cult compound. The fact that some of the men and women are liable to be charged with first, second, and third degree felonies is significant, don’t you think?
Parental rights do not trump the right to life of children and there are limits to the ability of parents to impact future liberty of their children.
For instance, we may not sell our children into slavery or even apprenticeships, although this was allowed in the past. Without good cause, we may not physically harm our children so that they are marked or physically scarred for life. While we might raise our children to be religious, we can’t put them in a seminary and force them to be monks or nuns.
Which is why the Appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court have ruled that the children must be returned.
The fact is that felonies were being committed on the cult compound. The fact that some of the men and women are liable to be charged with first, second, and third degree felonies is significant, don’t you think?
Yes, I do. That's why I thinks it's a shame that Texas screwed things up. In the mess that was created the children will suffer instead of getting the help they need.
“The fact is that felonies were being committed on the cult compound. The fact that some of the men and women are liable to be charged with first, second, and third degree felonies is significant, don’t you think?”
CPS commited a number of felonies at the ranch, yes. Federal felonies, punishable by the death penalty.
Are you saying, they cannot remove the children to another place (the parents that is, or the people who the state believes are the parents)?
susie
Texas Supreme Court upholds ruling that children should be returned to parents at polygamist ranch. It is unnerving that I saw it first there.
Kindly post the names of anyone who has been indicted for any crime whatsoever since this debacle began.
Just one name will do.
L
They certainly did. Check into 18USC241 and 18USC242.
A sharp lawyer is going to see that these FLDS freaks own the entire State of Texas before this is over.
L
People, like yourself, that are emotionally wrapped up in the situation oughta be angry that CPS screwed up so bad that ALL the children are likely getting a one way ticket back home. I said that for weeks here, but it falls on deaf ears. If they had made the case and took only those children that were in imminent physical danger on emergency relief they might have had more latitude to move in a fashion that would not have violated rights.
Be mad at them. Our freedoms are too precious to lose.
Let them begin again, correctly.
Not that they cannot, but that the TX SC left it open for the lower court to order them not to, at the same time that she orders the children returned.
So it is up to her, but they ruled she does have that power, even though she did not have the power to order the children removed.
They also ruled that she can order the men off of the ranch.
The decision today comes after Texas RioGrande Legal Aid filed a writ of mandamus in the Third Court of Appeals on behalf of 38 mothers.
In its ruling, the high court said that state law gave the lower court broad authority to protect children “short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care,” including removing alleged perpetrators from a child’s home and preventing the removal of a child from the jurisdiction of the investigating agency.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700230020,00.html
Please see #29.
Lurker, whether or not there have yet been indictments, there were felonies - polygamy is a felony in Texas, as is sexual assault of a minor. The Bishop’s record laid out the crimes and named the criminals.
Kidnapping is a felony in the US, as is deprivation of rights. The CPS record laid out the crimes and named the criminals.
Ah yes...the old "we don't need no steeenking indictment" ploy.
Why not just rally up a good old fashioned lynch mob and head on over there.
L
This so-called expert is an idiot. First, apparently, she and the judge in the case, as is all too common, cannot read and apply an unquestionably clear law.
Second, for a legal expert her standard of proof defies logic, justifying the removal of "all" on the basis that we cannot assure the safety of "all." But law is particularized and the standard of proof is not for the defense to prove not not all, or whatever perverse logic she is applying, but for the State to prove its case, for "each" child that it does seek to remove.
By her logic we should lock up all university professors or all residents of New York City because we cannot prove that they are "all" innocent. Wait, maybe .......
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.