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.
The Christine case, has the usual government apologists and shills lining up to destroy another family who doesn't conform to "community standards.
Mr. Christine has been recently taken into custody for taking his children back by alleged force from a government agency with the power to remove children from their families without any evidence and without any repercussions for bad behavior.
Part of the criticism levelled at Christine was that he refused to submit to the psychological evaluations demanded by Oregon's version of CPS - The Oregan State Office for Service to Children and Families ( a particularly Orwellian title if there ever was one).
In her book "Out of Control: Who's watching our child protection agencies" Brenda Scott outlines CPS "evaluations" which seem too incredible to be true.
In use, nation-wide by CPS agencies to evaluate both potential perpetrators and victims of child abuse, is a device which attaches to the penis or vagina of the person being "evaluated." It is called a penile plethysmograph. It is supposed to measure arousal in the subject when audio or visual stimulii are introduced.
The devices' data has been routinely thrown out of court since its scientific basis is suspect and its results worthless. The manufacturer of the device moved from making metal detectors and cattle prods to the pshycological field by request. That it is so widely used as a means to determine the "guilt" or "innocence" of accused is beyond belief.
From Brenda Scott:
"The use of the penile plethysmograph came under great scrutiny in 1992 when questions over a sex-abuse treatment program operated by Phoenix Memorial Hospital, which routinely used this device on young juveniles. The program had operated behind such an effective veil of "confidentiality" that few people even knew it existed. But, a mother's desperate battle to rescue her eleven-year-old son from the house of horrors finally pierced the veil."In this particular case, the visual stimulii consisted of pictures produced by "nudist" families which enacted sexual activities between children and adults.
When the truth became known about the activities occurring at Phoenix Memorial, the public outcry was deafening. That this didn't receive alot of national coverage is perplexing. The authorities who administered the test defended the images and methods used saying that the children who helped create the images for the sake of "science" were consenting and that because the families were "nudists" it really wasn't child pornography.
Since then guidelines have changed somewhat. However, the relevant issue is that while the methods are slightly different, parents who have only been accused are being forced to participate in these disgusting and intrusive evaluations under the threat of losing their children:
"Most states mandate that sex offenders undergo evaluations to determine their sexual appetites and assess their risk to the public. However, many child protective agencies and juvenile courts have extended that requirement to anyone who is charged with any sexual misconduct against a child-even it there has been no adjudication of guilt. After all, any adult charged with abuse is automatically presumed guilty and must seek to prove his innocence. The results of these unproven, unscientific tests are then used as evidence against the person charged. However, if a person insists upon his constitutional rights and refuses to take the test, his refusal is seen as an admission of his guilt.""Out of Control: Who's watching our child protection agencies" by Brenda Scott
If you were to assert this in casual conversation you would be looked at as a lunatic.
It sounds too far-fetched to be true.
However, let me direct you to the on-line manual of The Oregan State Office for Service to Children and Families. The very agency which has kidnapped 3 of the Christin's children and refused to return them for over a year even though no convictions in their case has occurred.
As Brenda Scott has pointed out in her book, Mr. Christine is being made out to be guilty for refusing the evaluation.
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE PENILE PLETHYSMOGRAPH
ASSOCIATION FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEXUAL ABUSERS
Technological evolution continues to occur in the use of the penile plethysmograph.
As better stimulus material is acquired, accurate data retrieval is gained and more precise assessment methods and interpretation is developed, changes in this field will continue to take place.
The manual lays out the guidelines for how the test should be administered as well as the autio and visual stimulii which is to be used:
(a) Visual material will include nude or clothed poses.
(b) Visual materials should represent all five Tanner's stages of maturation.
(c) Categories should include both sexes and be devoid of extraneous stimulus.
(d) The number of stimulus presentations must be based on client's problem. Stimulus duration should be consistent with published papers that have demonstrated validity. Currently 2minute presentations are common.
(e) The examiner should be satisfied that detumescence has reached a sufficiently low level to proceed.
(a) Categories of audio material should be sufficient to adequately evaluate potential problems of your client and reflect currently accepted methods as outlined in published and validated studies.
(b) Audio material must include a representative group of normal sexual activity, including both sexes.
(c) Typical audio tapes include fondling, consenting intercourse, coercive sex, rape, and assault with both children and adults of both sexes.
Read that again: "consenting intercourse, coercive sex, rape and assault with both children and adults of both sexes.
This is directly from the Oregon State Agencies manual. Would you submit to this test?
Do you think it's correct to assume that Mr. Christine doesn't wish to get his children back by refusing to participate in such a test?
I don't. And I believe that CPS should be completely abolished. They are child pornographers. Brenda Scott in her book, details how CPS as part of the "treatment" for children who have been removed from their homes, are taught to masturbate and given "stimulii" to use in the endeavor.
To prove that they are carrying out their assignments, they are required to make a tape of their masturbatory session and turn it in to the "evaluator."
This is in the name of "protecting the children."
All those who still believe CPS is a good idea raise your hand.
Huxley's vision is coming true. Orwell's as well.
bump and a link to a related article.
bump for truth
bump.
I am incensed. Down with CPS. And down hard!
to read later
bump
It's for the childrun...
Oh and P.S. CPS was signed into law by a Republican.
bump
bump
A Clockwork Orange comes to mind.
Worse than this is an article I read where men who had undergone this plethysmograph "treatment" claimed almost one-for-one that the "treatment" made their desire for perverted sex acts MORE obsessive than ever. In other words the true purpose of this "treatment" is to create a sexual psychopath and then release him to society as "treated". The released psychopath then commits even more sex crimes thus creating an ever-increasing pool of victims for the psychologists to "treat". And for him to demand more funding (which is of course the main point.) The people who run these programs cannot be unaware that the programs are utterly worthless. As such they should each and all be arrested and prosecuted under fraud statutes.
Of course, if you applied fraud statutes to treatment programs most of them would be shut down and the operators would be in prison.
"But if it saves only one child!"
Obligatory response to everything.
PLETHYSMOGRAPH
Was the test administered?
bump.
He refused to be evaluated. It is one of the reasons the government apologists here claim he didn't "care enough about getting his children back."
A Clockwork Orange comes to mind.
Yes exactly.
Show me where it says that the Christine's were to undergo the sexual evaluation.
Nuts - just nuts
bump
It is one of the reasons the government apologists here claim he didn't "care enough about getting his children back."
I don't see how this is relevant at all. His kids are starved to the point a 6 year-old weighs 25 lbs, one has a 3 inch skull fracture reportedly from a beating from her father, a witness reports the father admitted to starving the kids as a "Biblical punishment", he kidnaps the kids at gunpoint and steals a van to transport them. This was all done to keep them from going to their grandparents while the father was under investigation.
I guess if he had drowned them in a tub, people would be claiming it was merely a bath.
His kids are starved to the point a 6 year-old weighs 25 lbs
Prove it. Show me the pictures. Show me the medical evidence. Shwo me the x-rays. Why have none of these come to light after a full year of "investigation?"
Incredible. "Brazil" has imagery along these lines. What is this penisometer supposed to prove, anyway?
Why don't you ask the government for it?
If the allegations are true, why wasn't he indicted already?
L
CPS should be completely abolished. They are child pornographers.
Haven't you said that child porn should be legal?
must read. bump.
What's the source for the weight and heights? I think I saw fairly recent pics that show them thin but looking healthy.
Both of the previous threads had the link to the story where it was mentioned.
It is one of the reasons the government apologists here claim he didn't "care enough about getting his children back."
Christine also pulled a gun on a caseworker and stole a van with the children.
He and wifey are in a heap of trouble. In fact, they are fighting extradition from Montana to Oregon, which means they will miss the Sept. 20 hearing to determine whether or not they retain parental rights over the children.
Guess they won't, or maybe they don't even care.
Even the McGuckin case was stronger than this, Demi. You ought to hitch your wagon to someone who at least TRIES to act sane.
Christine also pulled a gun on a caseworker and stole a van with the children.
He didn't steal the van and there is no evidence that he actually used a firearm.
So I take it that none of this government use of child pornography to "evaluate" folks bothers you in the least eh?
If someone tried to take my kids I'd do more than steal a van and pull a gun on them. Call me insane.
Sanity? This man did the only thing a sane and loving father could do under the circumstances. He was about to lose his family FOREVER. It's a pity he didn't make it out of the country.
What is this penisometer supposed to prove, anyway?
Whether or not you get an erection while viewing child-porn.
If someone tried to take my kids I'd do more than steal a van and pull a gun on them. Call me insane.
You and I are both apparently raving lunatics. Proud of it too.
FYI if you hadn't seen this.
Like These People Really Care About Your Children Part I
By sendtoscott.
I think I saw fairly recent pics that show them thin but looking healthy.
They were showing family pictures on our local news the other night and the girls' faces were downright chubby. The next thing Appy and Sink will be trying to tell us is that they were trying to subsist on Lilly Pad soup.
Like These People Really Care About Your Children, Part I
Show me where it says that the Christine's were to undergo the sexual evaluation.
Yeah, that's what I thought. The Christines are not accused of sexually abusing their children. But as long as Demidog is obsessed with all things penis, we should humor him, don't you think?
They were showing family pictures on our local news the other night and the girls' faces were downright chubby. The next thing Appy and Sink will be trying to tell us is that they were trying to subsist on Lilly Pad soup.
When were the pictures taken? They've been in the custody of the state for over a year.
The Christines are not accused of sexually abusing their children.
Really? Perhaps you can explain then why the children were subjected to sexual examinations. Perhaps you can explain why it was that their photographs of the children were thrown out of court by the judge who deemed them "child pornography."
You are absurdly mis-informed.
Ha! beat you to it! See #36. :)
Haven't you said that child porn should be legal?
Absolutely not. Do you condone CPS actually engaging in the production of child porn?
When were the pictures taken? They've been in the custody of the state for over a year.
They didn't say, and I wondered about that myself. The only clues I could gather that might indicate a timeframe was that they appeared to be "family" type pictures. I didn't see anybody in the photos who appeared to be non family. The setting and background just didn't appear as I expected it would for a supervised visit.
Thanks for the flag. As Bob Grant would say, "It's sick and getting sicker out there by the minute."
This, and the cash bounty for stealing children, is enough to make one advocate voting from the rooftops.
Remember the witches in the old fairy tales who were always trying to steal children from their parents? They're still around.
So I take it that none of this government use of child pornography to "evaluate" folks bothers you in the least eh?
Of course it does.
I'm surprised it bothers you, though, given your close-to-the-edge libertinism.
Christine also pulled a gun on a caseworker and stole a van with the children.
Isn't it awful, spink? Awful what a parent will do when a government drone steals his children.
They didn't say, and I wondered about that myself. The only clues I could gather that might indicate a timeframe was that they appeared to be "family" type pictures. I didn't see anybody in the photos who appeared to be non family. The setting and background just didn't appear as I expected it would for a supervised visit.
On another thread, we dissected the pictures. This doesn't appear to be the family RV/converted bus--the background are plaster walls and a window with a sill. Notice that Ruth Christine has her purse on her shoulder, not something that's usually done in one's own home. The children are dressed up, while the adult Christines are very casually dressed.
This is from a media site with a story published after the Christines allegedly kidnapped the children. This may have been a file photo, but more likely came from law enforcement. If I had the time today, I'd e-mail the station and ask them their source. But IMHO, it looks like either a visitation room or a counselor's office.
If someone tried to take my kids I'd do more than steal a van and pull a gun on them. Call me insane.
The children have been in foster care for over a year.
A custody hearing is scheduled for less than six weeks from now.
If he wanted the children back, pulling a stunt that guarantees incarceration is insane.
Really? Perhaps you can explain then why the children were subjected to sexual examinations. Perhaps you can explain why it was that their photographs of the children were thrown out of court by the judge who deemed them "child pornography."
Where's your source? Where's your evidence?
I want a link to a document, and not just to Brian or Ruth Christine's affidavits. You seem to have extraordinary knowledge of this case, including medical records of the children, therefore you must be in possession of these records. You can also scan them and post them as a picture so we can all see them.
Demi's the same guy who said possession and trafficking in child porn should be legal.
I'm surprised it bothers you
How quaint. Why would any of this bother you? Christine is obviously guitly according to you and the media. He and his family deserve to have their children prodded and probed by sexually deviant "case workers" don't they?
On another thread, we dissected the pictures.
Do you have a link to that thread? I would like to take a peak at it and see if it is the same as one of those they displayed on the news.
Demi's the same guy who said possession and trafficking in child porn should be legal.
Demi's article is well written and he has a plausible, well presented argument. Therefore, you must attempt to hijack the thread and change the topic. Why not actually discuss the issue that Demidog has brought up?
The Christines are not accused of sexually abusing their children.
Yes, they were. you just make this stuff up as you go don't you?
Parents 'steal' own children (Parents take own kids from Social Services at gunpoint)
Thanks for the flag Demidog.
Pay little attention to the loyalists. The brits had their fair share, no doubt the current american empire shall have it's as well. It's always the same, "yea I think some blame belongs to the ____"(fill in with state agency) "BUT"...
Do you have a link to that thread? I would like to take a peak at it and see if it is the same as one of those they displayed on the news.
Sorry--my html skills aren't up to hyperlinks, but it's post #126 on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b6e166b46d8.htm
Nevermind. I found the thread where the photo from KGW was posted. I agree that it looks like one taken during a supervised visit. It does not look like the one that was displayed on the television news the other night. As I recall, in the one they were showing all three girls had vibrant smiles and the background was wood panelling walls.
The Christines were charged with criminal mistreatment for the malnutrition. Brian Christine also faces charges of fourth-degree assault for the child's head injury. He faces additional charges of reckless endangerment and resisting arrest from a January police pursuit.
This is what I found on your link. I wanted evidence--specifically medical records, not Brian and Ruth Christine's self-serving affidavits.
Unless the pictures are dated, we have no idea when the pictures were taken or who took them.
Oh right, I forgot, you only believe the government.
Demi's the same guy who said possession and trafficking in child porn should be legal.
Really???
I hope his name ain't on the "list."
Ft. Worth Star Telegram Tuesday, August 7, 2001
Internet child porn lands couple in prison
Subscriber list helps feds widen inquiry
By Toni Heinzl
Star-Telegram Staff Writer
FORT WORTH - Thomas and Janice Reedy lived the American dream - rising from modest backgrounds to millionaire entrepreneurs, thanks to their Fort Worth Internet business, Landslide Inc.
They netted more than $1 million in a little more than two years, lived in a $425,000 home in the Lakeside neighborhood and owned two new Mercedes-Benz cars. But their wealth was earned from the misery of children who were photographed and videotaped while being raped by adults, and from images that found a paying audience of more than 300,000 Landslide subscribers worldwide, federal prosecutors said.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Terry Means sentenced Thomas Reedy, 38, to life in prison and Janice Reedy, 33, to 14 years, saying she deserved some leniency because "she was emotionally and financially dependent on her husband."
The Reedys' case involved one of the largest international child pornography investigations, with Web masters in Russia and Indonesia who produced the child porn Web sites that the Reedys peddled to their subscribers, prosecutors said.
As a spinoff of the Landslide investigation, federal authorities have been cracking down on users or viewers of child porn, to a great extent with the help of subscriber lists seized during the Landslide investigation, said Alan Holmes, inspector in charge for the Southwest Region of the Postal Inspection Service.
Attorney General John Ashcroft has scheduled a news conference in Washington on Wednesday to announce more than 100 indictments of child porn site subscribers, including many former Landslide customers, Holmes said.
Possession of child pornography is a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
In a written statement read to the judge by his defense attorney, Thomas Reedy claimed he did not know that the Web sites at the heart of the Landslide investigation contained child pornography.
Means did not buy the excuse, saying it contradicted evidence presented at the couple's weeklong trial, which concluded Dec. 1 with a guilty verdict on all 89 counts of sexual exploitation of minors and related charges against Thomas Reedy. Janice Reedy was convicted of 87 of the 89 counts.
"I don't believe you didn't know what was on these sites," Means said.
He recalled trial testimony that the foreign Web masters and Thomas Reedy had a business partnership that was based on a fee-sharing arrangement of monthly subscriber charges billed and collected by Landslide.
The judge reminded Thomas Reedy of the e-mails that he sent to the Web masters after some subscribers complained that "there was not enough child porn on the sites." In his e-mails, Reedy urged the Web masters to post more child porn content, according to trial testimony.
The Reedys' lawyer filed a motion Monday asking for a new trial. He argued that a key government witness committed perjury during the trial.
After his sentencing, Thomas Reedy, pale and stone-faced, waved goodbye to his wife as federal marshals led him away.
Janice Reedy's father and sister asked the judge for leniency, portraying her as a good mother and homemaker.
Means was not swayed, saying her participation in the business deserved a prison sentence.
"For any person, especially a mother, to permit this kind of filth to be disseminated is a very serious crime," Means said.
Janice Reedy sobbed when her sentence was announced. She told the judge through tears: "I'm sorry. I never would have guessed I did anything wrong."
Landslide was fined $6.9 million, but there is no money left in the Reedys' accounts to pay.
Authorities shut down Landslide and seized the couple's assets, including $137,000 in bank accounts and the Mercedes cars, worth a combined $100,000. The bank foreclosed on their home.
The federal jury that convicted the couple and the corporation viewed graphic images from Web sites named "Child Rape" or "Children Forced to Porn."
Landslide subscribers paid monthly fees of up to $29.95 per site to view images of children in lewd poses or being raped by adults, according to trial testimony.
The Reedys grossed $5.7 million and paid about 60 percent to the foreign Web masters who ran the child porn sites.
Foreign Web masters R.W. Kusuma and Hanny Ingganata of Indonesia and Boris Greenberg of Russia were also indicted in 1999 but have eluded authorities.
Thomas Reedy admitted to a postal inspector that the child porn sites were more lucrative than the mainstream adult porn sites Landslide also offered its customers, the inspector testified at the trial.
Moore, the lead prosecutor in the case, said she hoped the long prison sentences will put a chill into the producers, peddlers and users of child porn.
"I hope it sends a harsh message to people who exploit and harm children, to the people who make a profit off it, and to the people who view child pornography," Moore said.
The Landslide investigation was spearheaded by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Key evidence in the case was secured by a Dallas police detective who signed on undercover as a Landslide subscriber and purchased access to the child porn made available by Landslide.
Means' sentence for Thomas Reedy was meant to ensure that he will remain in prison.
The actual sentence added up to 1,335 years - 180 months for each of the 89 counts as charged, all to run consecutively. There is no parole in the federal system.
For education and discussion purposes only.
Affidavits are evidence.
We know CPS is on the list!
- Recently, JoCo Deputy D.A. Newman was quoted in the Medford Mail Tribune goto regarding a former JoCo Deputy Sheriff who was caught by postal investigators for dealing in child pornography. Newman's statement reveals the double standard at work in JoCo as witnessed by the Courier's front page photo and Newman's non-action for a year regarding any criminal charges pressed against the former JoCo deputy. JoCo's D.A. is noted for his aggressive prosecution of parents who Child Services deem unfit to raise their own children. The young Christine family is a recent example of that goto. Many of those situations raised grave concern about excessive action by Child Services and the D.A.'s attack dog-like behavior when Child Services say: sig um !
http://www.budget.net/~primrose/02-10-01.htm
My first impression was that this method of "psychological analysis" was inspired by the works of L Ron Hubbard of Scientology.
Unless the pictures are dated, we have no idea when the pictures were taken or who took them.
That's true, but in the mean time, the only pictures we've been allowed to see show children that are far from malnourished.
Affidavits are evidence.
In a trial? Nope. The person executing the affidavit can't be cross-examined. Affidavits are generally used to support a motion or an order to show cause or or a court action of that nature, but aren't evidence in and of itself. And the Christine affidvits show no authentication, so it's unknown whether this affidavit was filed--or if it was, for what purpose. Any lawyer in his right mind would not have his client file any document like this. See, it's that "right to remain silent" thing.
I still want to see the children's medical records.
And one hint to Brian Christine: affidavits are numbered by paragraph. And they start out this way:
1. My name is ________.
2. I am adult resident over the age of 18 living at ________.
Or similar wording, depending on the state's requirements. Double-spacing is nice, too.
An SCF worker took photographs of our stripped daughters' bodies and genitalia and tried to submit the photos as evidence to the court. Judge Allan Coon rejected the photos calling them pornographic.
The Judge's name is Allan Coon. Fetch.
--I'm amazed there hasn't been a wholesale revolt against them by any aggrieved parents. I'm more of the opinion that these places use their positions in order to get their own jollies and get paid for it at the same time.
That's true, but in the mean time, the only pictures we've been allowed to see show children that are far from malnourished.
Given that these children have been in foster care for over a year, unless we have a date for the pictures, we can't know when the pictures were taken. Assuming that the pictures were taken while the children were in the custody of the Christines or while the custody of the state would be an error. That's why I've been pressing for a date on these pictures. The one on the other thread seems to be taken somewhere besides the Christine's bus and most likely a visitation room or counselor's office, but without a date on the pictures, knowing when it was taken or by whom is unknown.
You should read it now!
There is a picture of the family posted on another thread.
Those kids sure did grow in less than a year if the 6 year old weighed 25 pounds when she was "rescued".
I don't get out much. Isn't pornography, child or otherwise, designed to give people erections?
I am a libertarian, sink.
What are you?
Do you condone CPS actually engaging in the production of child porn?
If that's what the agency is doing, of course not. I'd like to know the facts in this case, however, and not just propaganda and accusations from the various parties or their supporters. The desire to refrain from rushing to judgment without more evidence does not constitute condoning the actions of any party.
I don't get out much. Isn't pornography, child or otherwise, designed to give people erections?
Yup. The "goal" is to figure out how "normal" the reaction is.
If the person reacts to child pornography then blammo he's guilty of child abuse. If he refuses he's guilty. If he acts defensive, he's guilty.
It's a no win situation.
The desire to refrain from rushing to judgment
If this is true, why have you indicated you believe the government's actions wrt Christine's is warranted?
No he didn't. He was talking about thought crimes and y'all keep bringing this up as though you can't understand what he wrote.
I have just gotten off the phone with a very nice woman at the Josephine County courthouse. She has promised to help me find and locate EVERY court hearing involving the Christines.
I will be purchasing all transcripts and reporting on what I find. As of this time, the charge that the Christine's failed to appear appears to be a bogus accusation made by some of the flying monkeys here.
My next call is to the hospital.
I am a libertarian, sink.
What are you?
I'm not a libertarian like Demidog.
Or you, if you believe his contortions in support of child pornography.
Please freep mail me information so I can paypal you $50 to help defer the costs..
But as long as Demidog is obsessed with all things penis
Just curious why this vile accusation is necessary.
Or you, if you believe his contortions in support of child pornography.
This is slander. I have never, nor would I support child pornography. You are a sick man.
He won't answer.
I haven't.
This is slander. I have never, nor would I support child pornography. You are a sick man.
So, are you lying or not Sink? Me thinks you are and challange you to prove you aren't. Please PROVE where this poster has ever supported child pornography.
"Remember the witches in the old fairy tales who were always trying to steal children from their parents? They're still around."
Bears repeating.
To: sinkspur
Demi's the same guy who said possession and trafficking in child porn should be legal.
51 Posted on 08/07/2001 13:17:59 PDT by AppyPappy
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | Top | Last ]
Does he believe that child pornography should be legal? Or is he just against it himself? The old "I'm personally opposed, but..."
Are you a Republican, sink?
Are you a Republican, sink?
I am an American, who votes Republican.
I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976. Republican since then.
Demi, I'm stuck right now on the other side trying to convince someone the Klamath Basin Farmers are not welfare recipients...they never give up...I need to read your article more carefully, but looks like this fits in well...from www.newswithviews.com
CONSCIENCE TRUMPS CONSTITUTION?
By Roger Fredinburg
2001 - NewsWithViews.com
The Oregon State Police are deep into their investigation of the conspiracy surrounding the recent forced reunion of the Chritines family. The Christines, Brian and Ruth, were forcibly separated from their 3 children by Services for Children and families (SCF) just over a year ago when an anonymous tip led police to their motor home in the library parking lot in Grants Pass Oregon.
The children were subsequently taken to SCF offices and then to a hospital for unauthorized medical and legally unfounded treatment. At this point no measure of due process as required by law was extended to this family. As I recall Brian was hauled off to jail and Ruth was left standing in the parking lot of the library clueless, penniless and helpless as her family was carted away by police and social workers.
Today, I was asked to come into the Oregon State Police headquarters to answer some questions related to the recent events surrounding this case and questions regarding my on-air interview with Ruth Christine which I believe aired about the first of the year.
The Christines in the past few days had reunited with their children literally at the point of a gun. As the report goes, Brian followed the Social Worker and the vehicle transporting the Christine children to a freeway rest stop where he is alleged to have pointed a gun at the social worker forcibly taking possession of his children and the state vehicle. As it appears he later swapped vehicles and somehow made his way to Montana where he and a day or so later Ruth and the children were captured and await extradition back to Oregon. The charges will likely be interference with child custody and armed robbery as stated to me by Detective Jim Davis of the Oregon State Police.
As I entered the newly constructed State Police facility, I was greeted kindly by Detective Jim Davis and escorted to an interrogation room, you know the kind with the one way glass, Yep, just like in the movies. Davis almost immediately tossed two pictures out on the table 8-1/2 x 11 color photos. They were pictures of the Christine children before and after their rescue by social workers and police.
Detective Davis had no way of knowing that I worked in the manufacturing of film for 3M Company for nearly a decade and that my job for much of that time was as a Quality Control Inspector. My job was to test and manipulate photographs to determine the products range and viability for use by customers.
The before photo of the children taken by SCF immediately after their abduction by the state is a manipulated photo intended to show a less than favorable example of just how thin the kids were at the time. The frightened looks on their faces remind me of photos sent to me from holocaust survivors who I've interviewed over the years, with one notable caveat, the holocaust photos weren't manipulated like this picture of the Christine children. This photo has red eye varying grain patterns and fluctuating contrasts, a good indication its been tampered with. It looks like it was done on an antiquated P.C. like the ones you might expect to find in government offices.
The after photo shows happy little girls who are well fed and clean. One girl looks like she is obese now. I would warn the SCF folks that that too is a form of child abuse as many children are taken from their parents for being too fat. I might accuse the SCF of child abuse. You can't put little kids on fattening diets after they have been vegetarians without greatly risking their health.
My impression of Detective Davis is that he's a decent man, a good cop and a gentleman. His demeanor throughout the questioning was calm, thoughtful and his senses razor sharp. I like him, but I pity him because even though he admits that we are losing far too many freedoms, way too fast, he can't see how he himself is contributing to the decay of liberty in America.
I think what he really wants from me is a tape of the interview I did with Ruth Christine. I don't know if I have a copy but If I do he's welcome to it. If any of you listeners to the Roger Fredinburg Show have a copy on tape feel free to send it to Detective Davis.
The discussion did gravitate beyond the mundane subject of the tape and photo and ended up somewhere between interesting and very enlightening.
Detective Davis revealed some very important information. When confronted with the issue which peaked my interest in the beginning, due process and the denial of that to people like the Christines in these child theft cases he answered in a way I never thought possible. He actually admitted that he isn't driven by due process, by the Constitution, by court precedent, but by his conscience. That's right, you heard it, his conscience..
I nearly fell out of the chair, right there in front of the one way mirror and just did stop myself from laughing out loud.
When nudged just a bit harder, using typical conservative metaphors and verbiage like mentioning the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, etc., he actually tried to put me in the camp of anti-government types and even attempted to associate my comments with the Militia of Montana.....?
Again, it was about all I could do to keep from busting out laughing. I have never had a positive relationship with one of these groups. Not to suggest there's anything wrong with Militias, but I certainly never fit in with that bunch.
Once again a subtle prodding from the left, a message destined to wreck conservatism. Yep, if you aren't a leftist then you must worship at the church of Timothy McVeigh.....what an insult.
I do understand completely how this decent man, Detective Davis, comes by his views and surrenders to his conscience regardless of what is ultimately the right thing to do. He settles for what appears to be a most immediate resolve, rather than what is lawful and appropriate. After all, he's committed to saving the children.
Who could blame Detective Davis? He's seen things that would make most of us sick. If we saw what he's seen on the job, we would scream for help, demand a solution, charge in and fix it as best we could. He is there when the tortured, maimed and abused children are lifted on to the gurneys and sent off to hospitals for treatment from the abuse and neglect rampant in our society today.
I applaud Detective Davis and his SCF counterparts for rescuing the tormented from their tormentors...except for one small difference...I would be more supportive than most. The problem is that what good they accomplish they achieve through illegal means. They deny due process to parents, ravage families based on anonymous tips and ring the federal cash register dry because there is a federal reward for every successful government child theft. Money for foster care, medical care, and yes, for little bureaucrat do-gooders who make the rules, rig the courts and stack the deck against the unfortunate, innocent parents who get caught in the trap. If you do, there is no way out, no escape. The state is never wrong...right?
Ask Ray Buckey and his family who were wrongly imprisoned for years over the famous McMartin pre-school case in California in the 80s. Ask the families of the Wenatche, Washington witch hunt of the 90s. Dozens of families were wiped out, many were jailed, all were innocent. Ask the Stumbo family in Kings Mountain, N.C., whose two year old daughter chased a cat out the front door into the driveway. She was naked. Some do-gooder sent the child protectors in and this fine family who refused to let the social worker enter their home are engaged in a lawsuit that's headed to the supreme court because a judge decided that the Constitution doesn't apply to social workers.
And there's the problem in a nutshell. The very people for whom the Constitution was written to control, have cast off the bindings of it, in order to create a more perfect world for us all. No accountability, no liability, no rules for the privileged class called government employees. Only rules for the rest of us, made on the fly, as seems to accommodate their conscience at that moment.
The Christine's story isn't the only, the most horrible, or the best example of government out of control. But, it's one example of a growing tendency for government to deny us due process, rig the kangaroo courts and destroy lives, families and communities with the stroke of a pen driven by an anonymous phone call.
These are steps along the way to utter disaster and we need to put up a firewall, stop the creeping assault on our freedoms and save the country for all the children of all the parents across the fruited plain.
What makes the story of the Christines compelling is the fact that the system turned this mild, meek, Christian couple into criminals, not unlike those found on the wall at the post office.
I believe that SCF and police professionals on their leash, judges who were once crooked lawyers, and the whole contrived money making machine, needs to be revamped. A system without due process, accountability, and personal liability on the part of these do-gooders and parasites who currently operate with impunity and immunity must be reformed, and fast.
Two normally good people were bumped off track by zealous money hungry bureaucrats. This young couple is locked behind bars for the foreseeable future and the only reason that they are criminals today, is because the unaccountable government thugs made it so. Pushed them, poked them, demeaned them, and left them with no way out, no alternatives, no reasonable way to redeem themselves. Cornered like wild animals in a cage with an abusive master, they turned on the system and took their children back by force. Good for them...there were no other options available. These aren't dopers, boozers, or losers, they are good people with strong religious convictions who would never intentionally harm these babies. Their vegetarian lifestyle might have been a poor choice, but in a free country we're allowed to make poor choices and sometimes we pay dearly for that freedom.
I hope Detective Davis, knowing how these people were wrecked by a government agency out of control, can sleep well with that conscience of his, I know I couldn't.
Roger Fredinburg is a syndicated radio host heard in more than 140 markets nationwide and worldwide on the internet at www.regularguy.com or www.talkradionetwork.com The show airs from 7PM till 10PM Pacific and 10PM till 1:00 AM Eastern M-F and Sunday nights from 9:00 PM till Midnight PST Midnight till 3:00 AM Eastern. The call-in number to his show is 1-800-449-8255 or E-mail radioroger@aol.com
snip--
If this leaves any doubt that Oregon is not a police state...well, what can I say??
I have just learned another particularly disturbing fact about SCF and the way that they handle cases.
First off, all matters of assault and the like are referred to the county for prosecution.
Brian has 3 charges pending: Assault, Mistreatment and Escape.
Ruth has 1 charge of child mistreatment which like Brian's is being prosecuted in the county criminal court.
The specific SCF charges are being prosecuted in Juvenile court. This affords SCF the ability to completely avoid public scrutiny. They get to claim immunity from false accusations by law and do not have to present their evidence in a public forum. How convenient.
The Christine's have also filed 3 Civil cases against the county.
There are 31 pages of court listings which detail all of the court hearings that have taken place on just the criminal charges alone. There have been no convictions and no trials to date.
There have also been ZERO indictments.
It will take at least two weeks to put all of this together. The first listing I ordered shows me all of the criminal hearings for which I can order tapes.
I must then listen and transcribe those tapes so I can report back to you what is on the tapes.
It won't be tomorrow. The list comes via snail mail at .25 cents per page. ($7.75 for 31 pages).
The hearing tapes are 5 bucks a piece. Money isn't really a problem, I'm just letting you know in case you'd like to purchase a copy fom the court.
Once I get the list, I'll publish it and you can order your own if you wish.
If the person reacts to child pornography then blammo he's guilty of child abuse. If he refuses he's guilty. If he acts defensive, he's guilty.
A witch....a witch...burn her.
Please remove me from your bump list.
Does he believe that child pornography should be legal?
After accusing me of supporting it are you now too cowardly to address me again? The posession of anything should not be converted to a crime. The production of child porn should be vigorously attacked and the producers executed. That would be about harsh enough for me.
I do not wish to devolve this thread into yet another discusion where assholes like you who have repeatedly been explained the difference between a criminal act against a child and the posession of something which could very well be innocent (such as a photograph of somebody's daughter taking a bath) continue to accuse me of being a child-porn advocate. I can link you to several posts where I have explained to you what my position is on the matter.
You are a coward and a liar. You want to play this "guilt by association" propaganda game though and aren't intelligent enough to pull it off. I'd suggest you stop. It is your credibility that suffers.
Why didn't you bump me? LOL
This is a great example of the stupidity utilized by the CPS. But just as your WOD arguments, you want to completely abolish it. Shall the government ignore alleged child abuse from now on? If it saves on potential wrongly accused case, it is worth it eh?
FYI. :)
Shall the government ignore alleged child abuse from now on?
As far as I know the government never ignored child abuse. It was simply handled by the police when there was a credible case.
As a matter of fact, the number of substantiated child abuse cases, when adjusted for population have actually decreased since 1973 when the police were doing all of the work.
I'm suggesting that we take this matter out of the hands of single women, gays and child molesters, and give it back to the police where it belongs. Yes. Abolish Child Protective Services and the Mondale act of 1974 which created it.
And I did bump you.
A witch....a witch...burn her.
Perfect. Exactly right.
oh you put an "as" in my name. Hidden meaning there eh?
Please remove me from your flag / ping list . You only want to have someone to shred ; you don't really care, at all, about an honest debate.
It is only common courtesy to NOT flag people who are not your friends .
Oh, and no, I have NO comments to make about this article. I don't know enough facts, one way or another , to make a reasoned statement .
There's a picture of the family on another thread. THE CHILDREN ARE OF NORMAL WEIGHT & DRESSED IN "SUNDAY-GO-TO-MEETING" CLOTHES. They were not skinny OR dirty.
Forgive me, but I think a lot of this is because the parents look lower class. I hope that doesn't sound demeaning. But I think you know what I mean. The kind of people who it is easier to pick on than the "rich folks". Gotta fill those quotas, you know.
I do not wish to devolve this thread into yet another discusion where assholes like you who have repeatedly been explained the difference between a criminal act against a child and the posession of something which could very well be innocent (such as a photograph of somebody's daughter taking a bath) continue to accuse me of being a child-porn advocate.
Oh, please! We ALL know what child pornography is, Demi, and your hair-splitting distinctions are disingenuous.
So let me understand your position. It's OK to possess and view child pornography, but child pornographers should be rounded up?
Should the possessor be allowed to purchase child pornography? If the possessor never purchased child pornography, the market would dry up. That's the reason possession is against the law; possessors make child pornographers possible.
You want to play this "guilt by association" propaganda game though and aren't intelligent enough to pull it off.
HA! You just state you don't think possession of child pornography should be a crime!
I don't have to associate you with anything; you condemn yourself with your own mouth!
Demi's the same guy who said possession and trafficking in child porn should be legal.
Did You Say This?????????
Thanks for the ping. This thread'll draw the usual suspects, I imagine.
I'm suggesting that we take this matter out of the hands of single women, gays and child molesters, and give it back to the police where it belongs.
Then, you could pound on the police the same way you pound on CPS today.
Domestic violence laws, as they are written today, don't give police ANY discretion regarding abuse between domestic partners. And the police err on the side of safety.
CPS walks away from many more of these reported cases than you would lead people to believe; the police, for safety's sake I predict, would take the children if there was any question at all of child abuse.
No hidden meading. Just a typo sorry.
[I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976]
I urge you to seek professional help before you snap and kill us all.
Oh, please! We ALL know what child pornography is, Demi
You had better read the laws before you spout off.
Jeez I was kidding.
Wow, nopie. Good thing commas are cheap.
Freepmail!
I was thinking that was one of the more punctuation free posts I'd seen of hers.
Jolly, I know you'll remember this one and I just want to say one thing about "children". NOTHING, nothing I can imagine is more traumatizing to a child than being snatched from their family and everything that represents their lives. SOMETHING has to change in this state, and others I suspect. The real problems, really damaging parents are NOT being trounced upon...and even they, as citizens of this country deserve due process. There was none in the Christine case.
Attorneys want cases thrown out
From the Oregonian
Defense lawyers argue in court that Josephine County's secret grand jury orientations for years amounted to brainwashing
Friday, May 25, 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Beth Quinn, Correspondent, The Oregonian
GRANTS PASS --As many as 260 criminal defendants could escape felony charges if a Circuit Court judge agrees with defense attorneys' pleas to throw out indictments handed up by "brainwashed" grand jurors who heard secret orientations on drugs and sexual abuse.
At issue is Josephine County's practice since 1987 of using narcotics detectives to educate grand jurors about drugs and since 1997 using family therapists to educate grand jurors about child sexual abuse. Neither police nor counselors were sworn in as witnesses at the time of the orientations, and some presenters later reappeared before grand jurors as witnesses in specific criminal cases.
Eugene defense attorney Robert McCrea told Benton County Presiding Judge Robert S. Gardner, who's hearing the case in place of Josephine County's four Circuit Court judges, that such "brainwashing" violates the Oregon law requiring that grand jurors be randomly selected from the community at large to promote independent thinking.
"What's the point of having a randomly selected grand jury, what's the point that they come from different strata of society, what's the point of having a grand jury at all if they're seven people who have been identically indoctrinated by the prosecutor?" McCrea said.
Assistant Attorney General Erik Wasmann, who is handling the case since Josephine County District Attorney Clay Johnson recused himself, said prosecutors would seek new indictments for all defendants charged with sexual offenses by grand juries that heard secret orientations on sexual abuse. However, Wasmann maintained that neither Oregon law nor defendants' constitutional rights had been violated by the secret orientations, which he said contained only information that could have been presented by sworn-in witnesses.
"That is our main point," Wasmann said. "The absence of an oath really changes nothing."
In answer to a question from Gardner, Wasmann said he personally wouldn't allow grand jurors to hear unsworn testimony from experts, even at their own request. However, Wasmann said, Oregon law includes no remedy for grand juries that do.
"No matter what happens in the grand jury, there is no remedy in Oregon?" Gardner said.
"That is the law," Wasmann said.
But there should be a remedy, argued defense attorney Kim Jordan of Grants Pass, who said the facts of the cases are unprecedented in the case law of Oregon, the other 49 states or the federal courts.
"We are all trailblazing here," Jordan said. "There is no impediment for you to craft a remedy here requiring the state of Oregon to do justice in secret even more energetically than they do in public."
And he suggested Gardner subject the case to a common-sense test: "If this feels wrong to the court, that's kind of the beating heart of justice in this country. If it feels wrong, there must be a remedy."
The facts may be unprecedented in case law, but grand jurors in Jackson, Marion, Deschutes and Douglas counties in the past have received similar secret orientations about drugs, sexual abuse or family violence. Defense attorneys in those counties held off challenging indictments until Gardner rules on the legal merits of the case.
Defense attorney Gene Farmer of Grants Pass, a former Josephine County district attorney, said such orientations clearly violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Oregon and U.S. constitutions.
"The grand juries for the last 10 or 12 years have been literally brainwashed," Farmer said. "That is not fair. That is not right. That is not the purpose of the grand jury. If we ignore the statute and pat the district attorney on the head and say, 'Don't do that again, sonny,' what precedent does that set for the rest of the state? What precedent does that set for the future?"
Gardner, who said he would rule as early as Tuesday, was asked to dismiss the indictments with prejudice, which would prevent the defendants from being reindicted on the same charges by another grand jury.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can reach Beth Quinn at 541-474-5926 or by e-mail at bquinn@terragon.com.
The charges will likely be interference with child custody and armed robbery as stated to me by Detective Jim Davis of the Oregon State Police.
It's a bit more than that, although the Missoula paper said they were charged with "robbery" and not "armed robbery." That's a lesser sentence if convicted. They did add kidnapping. I've gathered this from previous threads (here & there) & from today's Missoula paper & cleaned it up a bit:
"The Christines were charged with criminal mistreatment for the malnutrition. Brian Christine also faces charges of fourth-degree assault for the child's head injury. He faces additional charges of reckless endangerment and resisting arrest from a January police pursuit. "
....So far, Mom's been charged with three counts of kidnapping, robbery, three counts of custodial interference and being an associate in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, plus criminal mistreatment of the children in the original case.
Dad's been charged the same crimes as his wife: three counts of kidnapping, robbery, three counts of custodial interference and being an associate in the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, plus his original charges.
Their associate, Matthew Barry Gerawan was charged with two counts of robbery, three counts of kidnapping, three counts of custodial interference and one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle.
Their bail has been set at $500,000 each. Mom and Gerewan are going to fight extradition. The article didn't say whether Dad was, but I'd suspect he will fight extradition as well. I do not know if any of the three were offered lawyers, and if they were, if they want representation from a lawyer or if they're going to represent themselves.
The child abuse cases have pique my interest here.
What one person might use his common sense to determine was innocent and not worthy of government interference (or an indictment) could be quickly changed given the right kind of coaxing.
For instance, certain "signs" and "indications" that one would look for. And then voila! When it comes time for the hearing and testimony, the CPS officials re-introduce the same "signs" and "indications" which would suggest child abuse or molestation and you have instant indictment.
This sort of tampering is an absolute travesty.
Can you imagine the public outcry (or not I suppose) if this sort of thing was being done in any regular jury trial?
"Expert testimony" which is administered without rebuttal and before the trial begins? Outrage!
Are you trying to get me in trouble with the thought police over there in anti-freeper land?
I don't know how long the practice existed before the fifties, but psychiatric evaluations of applicants for highly sensitive positions within at least two of the intelligence agencies in the US routinely measured eye focus of visual stimuli...primarily to determine homosexuality. Some of the deprogram groups in the early fifties used penile shock therapy in Elmira, NY.
I had not heard of this latest assault. Who the hell thinks up these things? What kind of sick fixation must they have to even think in those terms? Unless they put the pedophiles in charge of the system...would explain it, maybe.
What kind of sick fixation must they have to even think in those terms?
Well as it turns out a large portion of social workers and "child development experts" are not only childless but also victims of abuse themselves.
It would seem as if Freud is back in town and he's running our "War on Child Abuse" programs.
Well as it turns out a large portion of social workers and "child development experts" are not only childless but also victims of abuse themselves.
Proof please.
No. He said the possession (and trafficking which is how they are caught) of child porn should be legal because it technically doesn't hurt anyone. Only the manufacture hurts people. So owning it and distributing should be legal. It was long before the guy and his stories issue.
That flakey Dr. Dean O'Dell, or whoever he is, stated on his show one day that "homophobic" men were more likely to get erections while viewing gay pornography than straight men who were neutral about homosexuality, proving that "homophobia" was primarily a result of people being afraid they would like it. I'm sure this device was used for this study also.
Science marches on.
"Yeah, that's what I thought. The Christines are not accused of sexually abusing their children. But as long as Demidog is obsessed with all things penis, we should humor him, don't you think?"
You should really check out how the CPS sexualy assaulted these kids in an effort to accuse the Christines of just such an act.
Thanks for the tip. I don't think the above government worker has showed up on this thread yet. After reading the above article then I think these CPS worker are even far more evil than even I Imagined them to be. Funny how you just can't get these commie government types to admit that it is the governments job to prove guilt. If proven that these parents were physically abusive in a repeated and dangerous way then I would be all for relocating the children. Until that is proven and accepted by a jury(Not a judge) then I say to these people....Jump off a cliff.
WOW! That is quite an article. It sure speaks volumes about the mentality of some of the CPS supporters that have been posting on these threads. Thanks!
Bump , to judgement 1st and facts second . I prefer the fact's mam . Folk's down , does not mean that's what or where they are in the rest of there lives . I got your point judy , and your correct .
Proof please ? Seems to me appy , you can simply apply yourself and get informed on your own . Is this to much to ask of you ? # 121 , because your so busy appy ................... what a ja ! At least your constant from thread to thread .
Oh man , is that jackass still on the aire ? another liberal putz , with his new age psysho-babble . And that nasal thing those new yawkaw's have in there voice . Oh mercy .. a cloned muareen dowd , indeed .
Logical bump !
Should i type maureen ? I'm just as whacked as she is . dorben need's to pay attention and less taxes . Oh ... stay on topic you silly person you .
You should really check out how the CPS sexualy assaulted these kids in an effort to accuse the Christines of just such an act.
This reminds me of a couple of lines from "The Man With Two Brains"
Steve Martin: "But doesn't it bother you that dozens of people have died for your experiments?"
Mad Scientist: "If it saves one life, it's worth it!"
The things that are done to "protect the children" are horrible.
You should really check out how the CPS sexualy assaulted these kids in an effort to accuse the Christines of just such an act.
That's according to the father's affidavit. As I said, I wanted proof--and that would not come from the father's self-serving affidavit. Others have pointed out that they've made some gradiose claims (tourism down in Grants Pass because of them, for example).
And I am waiting for substantiation of this claim from Demidog:
Well as it turns out a large portion of social workers and "child development experts" are not only childless but also victims of abuse themselves.
Domestic violence laws, as they are written today, don't give police ANY discretion regarding abuse between domestic partners. And the police err on the side of safety.
That's the mandatory arrest policy. It doesn't make any difference if the parties were fighting and made up, doesn't matter if both say it was an accident, when the cops show up, someone's going to jail. And sometimes it's both of them cooling their heels in the hoosegow. And then there's the mandatory no-contact order as a condition of bond or bail, and if it's violated, the person is charged with bail jumping in addition to the original domestic violence charges. With these policies in effect on domestic violence, and legislators reluctant to vote against these policies, one can go beyond assumption in this one: if the cops are in charge of child abuse investigations, rather than CPS, a whole lot more--not less--people are going to be going to jail for child abuse. It's no stretch of the imagination that legislators would also put a mandatory arrest provision in the child abuse laws.
Seems to me appy , you can simply apply yourself and get informed on your own
People who make accusations are supposed to be able to back them up. What YOU are basically saying is "We don't have proof of what we say. Go look it up for us". Back it up or back it out.
This is directly from the Oregon State Agencies manual. Would you submit to this test?
I know of someone very indirectly, that this has happened to.
And no. I'd kill the people administering the test, and put an end to that little bit of evil personally.
"Well as it turns out a large portion of social workers and 'child development experts' are not only childless but also victims of abuse themselves."
Well, as it turns out, someone posted it on a forum on the internet and that makes it true.....
;-)
LOL
Did anyone ever tell you? ... you are brilliant!!!!!!
No appy , my comment goes to self reliance and being responsible . I'll take a lead from another person , but ultimately it is up to me to be informed .
"That is our main point," Wasmann said. "The absence of an oath really changes nothing."
Yeah, sure, I trust these guys.
No. Somebody researched it and published it in her book.
My opinion: this case... and the varying and sometimes heated opinions it generates on both sides, is due to the exposure of a flaw in our system and represents evidence of the overall breakdown in confidence the populace has in the government.
The key issue here is that another agency that was designed to protect the people has shown a propensity for error such that it at times appears to do more harm than good.
Once again our politicians have abrogated some of our basic rights in 'narrow' situations where they claim a greater good is to be gained.
The problem with this, whether the agency be the FBI, DEA, CIA, CPS, BLM, EPA, IRS or XYZ, is that Americans have basic rights, and we have come to expect most, if not all, of those rights to be absolute.
I will concede the point, and proceed with the assumption that the people who designed and signed these laws were 'well intentioned'. I will even concede without evidence that many of these agencies do more good than harm and are a 'net positive' for the people who come into contact with them. However, when it comes to our basic rights there can be no net results or balance of good decisions. Our rights need to be treated as absolutes, and the abuses of power when we start giving those rights away will ALWAYS incite a public reaction against the government.
As regards this case:
A child protection case should be just that ... a case of law before proper authority where standard rules of evidence apply and the legal presumption of innocence is absolute. I would like to see the situation reverse to the point where children cannot be permanently removed absent a conviction. If temporary measures are required to ensure the safety of the children then it should be part of the court order at arraignment. In short: if a person in our society is not going to be subject to criminal prosecution for crimes against their children then the state should not have the ability to remove the children: Anything less results in a system where the state has the ability to make value judgments as to parental worthiness and lifestyles.
I will not glorify the ‘re-capture’ of the children at gunpoint, and neither will I defend the government’s position. A judge should have decided this case at a criminal proceeding long ago.
Name of "somebody" and "book," please.
Saddest thing is Revel, this is the tip of the iceburg in So. Oregon. It's a battle every minute over something...water, kids, you name it. I've seen judges give $2 and $4 million dollar bail on a charge of "sexual touching" of a child and never proving it...just beat the people down until they break. One was a 65 year old grandmother with a pacemaker. Drug her to Eugene for a "hearing" and the law enforcement there said, "you should have never been arrested, you are free to go".....Yes, in an orange suit on the streets of Eugene with no way to even contact someone to come and get her from Medford....It's unreal! Everytime some one complains or calls the cops for help, they are made to feel like a criminal.
Why thank you ma'am. I guess now I'll have to buy a bigger hat. ;-)
Already referenced in the article. Author and Title.
CPS has changed their name. They used to be known as CSD but were involved in stealing 5 children from a woman who was publicly disciplining an incorrigible lad at a mall in Portland. The husband, who was doing a TDY with the Air Force Reserve (a full bird colonel if memory serves me correctly) returned and raised enough hell through the courts to get the children back in a timely manner.
CSD (CPS) receives its funds per child and also receives funds for permanent placement. They were completely out of control then and now.
Various references to the book:
Out of Control: Who's Watching Our Child Protection Agencies Author: Brenda Scott
You won't get proof of the sexual examinations by Oregon SCF because they adjudicate their cases in Juvenile court where none of the records or evidence is open to the public.
Most of the child molestation and "sensitive" matter will occur there.
What we do know is this:
There hasn't been anything posted by the parents that hasn't so far checked out.
The cops confiscated their only "home" which was the converted bus.
The Judge handling some of their cases was in fact the Judge they said was handling the case.
After a year, there have been no trials in any of the felony charges against them.
You still haven't offered any critical view of the government's actions. Why not?
Bold off.
Hmmmmmm, wouldn't it be easy to just ejaculate a few minutes before this test was given? :) No matter how much some of you might brag about your turnaround time, you know darn well, that no one's going to be as stimulated just a few minutes later.
This test isn't worth the paper the manual is printed on.
why are you yelling at me?
Get over yourself. I mis-placed a tag.
Get over yourself. I mis-placed a tag.
Ah, Demidog, you've won me over with your charm and grace. (/sarcasm, of course)
Using your leaps of logic, you're telling me I should believe their overdramatized and narcissistic story because they knew the name of the judge in the juvenile case, that their bus was confiscated and that they haven't had their felony trial yet? There's no there there.
As I said before, I want evidence. I want proof. And once they're back from Montana (if they don't waive extradition, it'll be up to three months before they're returned to Oregon) and their multitude of felony cases work their way through the court system, we'll have plenty of time to analyze the evidence--the felony cases will not be in juvenile court--and the evidence will also be heard by the jury or juries (if they have separate trials).
We'll see what happens when they go to trial--and I don't expect to happen anytime soon. After all, Missus Christine needs considerable time to study law so she can represent herself and unless she's a quick learner, that could take months, if not years. Right now, she's trying to learn what "extradition" means. And the date of the termination of parental rights hearing is coming up fast.
Child Abuse Hysteria and Mandatory Reporting
Using your leaps of logic, you're telling me I should believe their overdramatized and narcissistic story because they knew the name of the judge in the juvenile case, that their bus was confiscated and that they haven't had their felony trial yet?
LOL.
Using your logic, the State can go for years "building" a case and end parental rights even before a conviction has occurred.
Using your logic, I am supposed to believe the government's allegations even if there is no conviction.
You claim you want evidence. Your insitence on beliving the government's assertions seems to put the lie to that claim. It's "overly dramatizing" to put up a defense apparently.
You've seen here in this particular article that Oregan's SCF actually present child pornography as part and parcel of "treatment" and "evaluation." But it's "overly dramatized."
We all know government bureaucracies can be ineffective, intrusive, abusive, dictatorial, and downright unconstitutional.
Sorry if I missed it, but what's your point? And what, if applicable, solution to you propose?
The penile tumescence test described is in the juvenile offender assessment section. Why would this guy have been asked to submit to this?
Why would a juvenile be shown child porn and be given such a test?
Sorry if I missed it, but what's your point?
You're not really serious. Are you?
Not really - I understand your position on the child porn issue. We've debated the LE aspects of it in the past...and your take is still unrealistic and unworkable. At least in this case, you offered a solution...although surprisingly conservative (LE handling) and even more inflexible than the current processes concerning immediate custody, IMO.
(waving)...Hi Nathan.
There is no appreciable difference in child abuse and molestation convictions between 1973 and now.
However, there is a huge difference in unsubstantiated accusations.
Roughly 2 million per year in fact are unsubstantiated.
Actually that 2 million number only applies to abuse.
2/3rds are bogus.
In molestation cases (most of which are initiated in divorce proceedings) that unsubstantiated number climbs to almost 90% and nobody can be sued for making a false allegation. It's in the law.
I have never said that LE should not investigate child pornography cases. I have said that they should only arrest and charge those who can be proven to have perpetrated a crime against a child.
Simply having child porn in ones posession, (and by child porn I mean anything defined by law to be so and that would include nude pictures of your own children as well as actual images and words describing what you and I would consider "real" child porn,) is not a criminal act.
If so, I want to know why you are not demanding that all CPS agencies who perform sexual evaluations and therapy using child pornography are immediately arrested.
Why not?
"I have said that they should only arrest and charge those who can be proven to have perpetrated a crime against a child."
Which entails *immediate* child removal pending dismissal or acquital. I would rather the various agencies clarify and balance their guidelines with commonsense, and be appropriately monitored and held accountable to minimize persecution. As someone mentioned here, the LE authorities are "required" to take immediate action. Whereas, CPS agencies *usually* do some investigation first.
"Simply having child porn in ones posession, (and by child porn I mean anything defined by law to be so and that would include nude pictures of your own children as well as actual images and words describing what you and I would consider "real" child porn,) is not a criminal act."
Again, a little more commonsense and fair play should be integrated into the process. And sorry, won't get into that supply v. demand arguement again. You just don't get it.
"If so, I want to know why you are not demanding that all CPS agencies who perform sexual evaluations and therapy using child pornography are immediately arrested. Why not?"
Don't be absurd. I already stated above that many agencies/bureacracies are out of control. Of course they should be accountable. As I'm not sure they're breaking the law in this case, arrest may not be warranted. Did they actually produce the material? Remember, possession of illicit materials is legal for LE and applicable agencies.
Nonetheless, this *testing* is at the least good intention overkill, and possibly entrapment .
Which entails *immediate* child removal pending dismissal or acquital.
You're confused. I was talking about the child porn issue since you brought it up. No child should be removed from it's parents unless there is a conviction. Period.
I would rather the various agencies clarify and balance their guidelines with commonsense, and be appropriately monitored and held accountable to minimize persecution. As someone mentioned here, the LE authorities are "required" to take immediate action. Whereas, CPS agencies *usually* do some investigation first.
LE officers are trained in investigations techniques. Social workers are not. It is totally inappropriate for them to do any criminal investigation work at all.
And sorry, won't get into that supply v. demand arguement again. You just don't get it.
I suppose not. I believe that the laws of economics are fairly settled and that you can't turn them on their ear simply because it might bolster your illogic. Silly me. Demand drives supply. Never the opposite.
As I'm not sure they're breaking the law in this case, arrest may not be warranted. Did they actually produce the material? Did you read the article?
Remember, possession of illicit materials is legal for LE and applicable agencies.
To hold as evidence. You apparently think that it is appropriate to show child pornography to juveniles as part of their treatment and should be legal. Double standard. I also mentioned that as part of CPS therapy for sexually abused children, they teach them to masturbate and assign them a certain number of sessions for which they must produce a tape to turn in to the "therapist." Frankly I think you're so "fair and balanced" as to argue for the "goodwill" of Nazi gas chamber operators but you could surprise me one day and actually show outrage at something other than a remark which impugns your military service.
Nonetheless, this *testing* is at the least good intention overkill, and possibly entrapment .
This testing and "treatment" nets the tester 45 grand in federal monies per treatment series. Your tax dollars at work.
"Demand drives supply. Never the opposite."
WHOA! You do get it! And now guess which side of the equation possession is on.
"To hold as evidence. You apparently think that it is appropriate to show child pornography to juveniles as part of their treatment and should be legal."
Yeah, that's what I "think". Remarks like that is why I should have known better than to talk with you. So typical of you to lose the train of thought and make ludicrous assertions.
"Frankly I think you're so "fair and balanced" as to argue for the "goodwill" of Nazi gas chamber operators but you could surprise me one day and actually show outrage at something other than a remark which impugns your military service."
The first to mention Nazis comparisons loses - you lose. And you haven't been paying close attention to my other "outrages"...especially the fact you think child pornography should be legal to possess (see supply and demand resolution above), not to mention your ridiculous notion that laws don't deter crime. You're a putz, Rick, a pseudo-intellectual who just can't refrain from name-calling those who refuse to agree with your simplistic black & white view of the world. Bye.
So these are the good guys, huh?
WHOA! You do get it! And now guess which side of the equation possession is on.
Guess how making it legal increases demand? It doesn't? That's what I thought. Making it illegal to possess only creates an underground market. It doesn't change the number of people who want child porn. And you and I both know that the law does not define child porn in a way which is consistent with common sense.
Yeah, that's what I "think". Remarks like that is why I should have known better than to talk with you. So typical of you to lose the train of thought and make ludicrous assertions.
Poor Rodger the victim. What you have explicitly said is that the government shouldn't be qustioned because it's legal for them. If you do not think that it is OK, why are you loathe to say so?
You're a putz, Rick, a pseudo-intellectual who just can't refrain from name-calling those who refuse to agree with your simplistic black & white view of the world. Bye.
I have called you no names. In fact you are the first to resort to ad hominem. I have said that I would expect you to argue that gas chamber operators were doing so in "good will" since you are apparently unable to bring yourself to condeming the governments actions in this regard and have called it "good will gone awry." There is no good will here.
And we resolved nothing about the supply situation. You are delusional if you think that the decriminalization of child porn posession would suddenly create a surge in pedophiles who need a fix for child porn.
No normal person wants to have sex with children. No law prohibiting posession of any object is going to deter criminal acts. The police should be concentrating on catching and punishing people who ACTUALLY COMMIT CRIMES.
Hang it up, Demi. You can only dig that hole so deep.
Speak for yourself.
Yes AuntB it is very sad what is going on. And it is even a whole lot sadder that citizens are sitting by and letting this happen. As long as they let this happen then anarcy is growing in this country. We do so have a constitution. We do so have a bill of rights. But it is all meaningless without the participation of the citizens. I admit that I am no great warrior of such. I am too greatly disillusioned by all of my fellow non-patriotic citizens who are all too comfortable to not even notice that there is a problem. I am to disillusioned at those who offer no resistance. Being as young as you are...I think it is a great thing that you are not blinded to the idea of government superiority. You are a rare gem for sure in this day and age. I am not so young as to not remember a better time, and yet I am not so old as to find myself wanting of any handout that I might be able to get. I am truly saddened for those today who have just missed knowing what it means to be truly free.
They don't dream like I have dreamed. They don't have a chance to live like I have lived. And in there own minds they stand no chance of true freedom. They do not even know what it is. So how can they demand it? What separates us in time? Maybe 20 years? But how long 20 years can be. How much can change in 20 years. Imagine that in 20 years we have come from a time when certain unimaginable things seemed impossible to a time when those things are reality.
BTW AuntB I happened to read a post you made earlier about college so I am only assuming that you are college age. As such I can only wish you the best of luck. I wish I was as aware in my college days as you are in yours. Time can be the enemy or it can be a friend depending where it is that you lie within it. God speed mad em freeper.
"We'll see what happens when they go to trial"
Oh come on. The truth is that the only trial there is going to be is weather or not the Cristines are guilty of kidnapping and such. There will be no trial to determine if there children should have ever been taken from them in the first place. You are a sad one Mr Catspaw. I don't know what NWO government office that you work for. It is clear that you do not represent any principle that this country was founded on. You are a grave enemy to America -who justifys its destruction on your own whim.
In reality your are saying that AMERICA SHOULD DIE BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN.
Well let me tell you fiend that AMERICA WAS FOUNDED FOR THE HOPE OF CHILDREN EVERYWHERE.
It was founded so that all of us might have a chance to be whatever it is that we might struggle and honestly strive to be. While you claim to be for the children it is no secret to anyone with wisdom that your ideology is so narrow and so short cited as to be the greatest enemy of all children everywhere. You will save the children will you? Not a chance! You will lead them to a society of Hitler is the reality. You don't love children or at the very least you don't know what love is. Love is so much deeper than your short sightedness. Under stand this!!!!!! Without the freedom that our founders and countryman faught with there lives to establish then there is little hope for the children. And it so saddens me to see people like you pee it all away.
Oh come on. The truth is that the only trial there is going to be is weather or not the Cristines are guilty of kidnapping and such. There will be no trial to determine if there children should have ever been taken from them in the first place. You are a sad one Mr Catspaw. I don't know what NWO government office that you work for. It is clear that you do not represent any principle that this country was founded on. You are a grave enemy to America -who justifys its destruction on your own whim.
Aren't you silly. And a bad speller to boot. ("whether" not "weather;" "justifies" not "justifys")
The Christines missed a number of court dates for the juvenile case hearings. Judges tend to frown on that. Because I work part-time as a paralegal in a private law office, the lawyers doing family law and criminal defense work, I know that this case did not start off as a termination of parental rights case. It started off as a CHPs case (children in need of protection)--at least that's what it's called in this state. Only after they wouldn't cooperate with CPS folks (even though they told at least one now-former supporter they were cooperating--and at least one person on one of these many threads suggested that they should have played along with CPS until they got the kids back and he surely didn't sound like a NWO type), this case eventually turned into a termination case. There is a court date in juvenile court to terminate their parental rights on September 20. Because at least Ruth Christine is going to fight extradition from Montana, she won't be at that hearing. If her husband decides to fight extradition, he won't be there, either (they could appear by phone, of course). By their stupid, foolish acts, they have strengthened the case against them. It certainly appears that the Christines have been taking advice from all the wrong people. The net result is that all four children will be taken from them, with the fifth soon to follow, once Mrs. Christine gives birth. The likelihood that they will ever see these children again diminishes every day.
A few of the "and such" cases that were pending against the Christines were the child abuse/neglect charges. Because the lawyers I would for have represented clients who have been charged with child abuse, child endangerment, child sexual assault and have taken these cases to trial, the Christines will have a right to a jury trial, a chance to challenge the evidence and testimony, have witnesses on their behalf, hire expert witnesses to support their case, cross-examine witnesses, all those rights that are in the Constitution, state law and case precedence. It's that "rule of law" thing for me, not extralegal measures. In fact, all by themselves, the Christines have created a "full employment for lawyers" bonanza, if, of course, they decide they're going to accept lawyers to represent them. Mrs. Christine wants to represent herself against the myriad of charges against her--at least that's what she told the judge in Montana. I don't know if Mr. Christine is going to do the same; I do know the third person charged has accepted the services of a public defender in Montana.
BTW, the last time I was at the OB-GYN, "Mr. Catspaw" has ovaries. Looks like you're wrong on all counts.
It is clear that you do not represent any principle that this country was founded on. You are a grave enemy to America -who justifys its destruction on your own whim.
In reality your are saying that AMERICA SHOULD DIE BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN.
Oops! You really did it this time. I believe that you think the children should be sacrificed to preserve your perceived freedoms. Kind of drastic, don't you think? Andrea Yates may have felt the same way and she's pleading insanity.
"Because the lawyers I would for have represented clients who have been charged with child abuse, child endangerment, child sexual assault and have taken these cases to trial, the Christines will have a right to a jury trial, a chance to challenge the evidence and testimony, have witnesses on their behalf, hire expert witnesses to support their case, cross-examine witnesses, all those rights that are in the Constitution, state law and case precedence."
Such a long sentence. As a lawyer sort...It is no wonder that you would goof it up.
Read the whole thing Carvell.
Took your advice and read your post again. It still reads as wrong minded as the first time. You advocate giving absolute freedoms to dangerous parents. Those parents who willingly do harm children need to be immediately seperated from their children. Due process will be their right, not the continued and escalating abuse of their children. Kids don't survive the abuse sometimes. The recent cases of large amounts of dead children at the hands of their parents bears this out.
Without the freedom that our founders and countryman faught with there lives to establish then there is little hope for the children. And it so saddens me to see people like you pee it all away.
Freedom to abuse your own is not something the framers had in mind.
Freedom to abuse your own is not something the framers had in mind.
Freedom to dictate the moral code of every citizen is something every totalitarian government has in mind.
This is a very slippery slope. I have never seen a politician in any party that did not want more power than he already had.
If God saw fit to give mankind free will, why would Christian moralists want to take it away?
I want evidence. I want proof.
It used to be that evidence and proof were needed to convict someone, not prove their innocence.
Not hard to spot those of you who would have been "Tories" in 1776.
180 Posted on 10/04/2001 14:56:37 PDT by Zadokite
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |