Author Topic: For my friend, Douche Bum, who fancies himself knowledgeable about the law.  (Read 2372 times)

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Hahaha. the texas Supes also think people like you = douches

In a crushing blow to the state's massive seizure of children from a polygamist sect's ranch, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that child welfare officials overstepped their authority and the children should go back to their parents.

The high court affirmed a decision by an appellate court last week, saying Child Protective Services failed to show an immediate danger to the more than 400 children swept up from the Yearning For Zion Ranch nearly two months ago.

"On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted," the justices said in their ruling issued in Austin.

The high court let stand the appellate court's order that Texas District Judge Barbara Walther return the children from foster care to their parents. It's not clear how soon that may happen, but the appellate court ordered her to do it within a reasonable time period.

The ruling shatters one of the largest child-custody cases in U.S. history. State officials said the removals were necessary to end a cycle of sexual abuse at the ranch in which teenage girls were forced to marry and have sex with older men, but parents denied any abuse and said they were being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

Every child at the ranch run by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the west Texas town of Eldorado was removed; half were 5 or younger.

CPS officials said they were disappointed by the ruling but would take immediate steps to comply.

"We are disappointed, but we understand and respect the court's decision," the agency said in a written statement.

FLDS elder Willie Jessop said parents were excited about the court's decision but would remain apprehensive until they get their children back.

"We're just looking forward to when little children can be in the arms of their parents," he said. "Until you have your children in your hands, there's no relief. But we have hope."

Standing outside the Texas Supreme Court building with attorneys for the families, Martha Emack, mother of a 2-year-old and a 1-year-old, echoed that sentiment.

"I'm happy (when) all the children are back to their mothers and we're home," said Emack, whose children have been staying at an Austin children's shelter.

The case before the court technically only applies to the 124 children of 38 mothers who filed the complaint that prompted the ruling, but it significantly affects nearly all the children since they were removed under identical circumstances.

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled last week that the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and had offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.

The FLDS, which teaches that polygamy brings glorification in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

Roughly 430 children from the ranch are in foster care after two births, numerous reclassifications of adult women initially held as minors and a handful of agreements allowing parents to keep custody while the Supreme Court considered the case.

Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that about half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. One was 27.

Under Texas law, children can be taken from their parents if there's a danger to their physical safety, an urgent need for protection and if officials made a reasonable effort to keep the children in their homes. The high court agreed with the appellate court that the seizures fell short of that standard.

CPS lawyers had argued that parents could remove their children from state jurisdiction if they regain custody, that DNA tests needed to confirm parentage are still pending and that the lower-court judge had discretion in the case.

The justices said child welfare officials can take numerous actions to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care, and that Walther may still put restrictions on the children and parents to address concerns that they may flee once reunited.


calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.

Hahahaha.  Old Douche Bum wanted to engage me in some bullshit discussion and said I had contributed nothing to the thread when I predicted the outcome as exactly as if I was on the bench myself.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
 ::)  Callous and the ACLU:  ardent defenders of child rape: 

"This case involves the systematic rape of minor children -- conduct that is institutionalized and euphemistically called 'spiritual marriage,'" she wrote. "Typically, there is no media coverage of the horrific acts sexual predators commit against children ... if the media showed the actual events of adult males demanding sex with 11-year-old girls, there would be no one questioning the graphic danger of returning these children to their home at this time."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/29/texas.polygamists/index.html


calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.

You're a sad old man, DB.  ;D :-*

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Hahaha. the texas Supes also think people like you = douches

IThe Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled last week that the state failed to show that any more than five of the teenage girls were being sexually abused, and had offered no evidence of sexual or physical abuse against the other children.

The FLDS, which teaches that polygamy brings glorification in heaven, is a breakaway sect of the Mormon church, which renounced polygamy more than a century ago.

Roughly 430 children from the ranch are in foster care after two births, numerous reclassifications of adult women initially held as minors and a handful of agreements allowing parents to keep custody while the Supreme Court considered the case.

Texas officials claimed at one point that there were 31 teenage girls at the ranch who were pregnant or had been pregnant, but later conceded that about half of those mothers, if not more, were adults. One was 27.

Under Texas law, children can be taken from their parents if there's a danger to their physical safety, an urgent need for protection and if officials made a reasonable effort to keep the children in their homes. The high court agreed with the appellate court that the seizures fell short of that standard.

CPS lawyers had argued that parents could remove their children from state jurisdiction if they regain custody, that DNA tests needed to confirm parentage are still pending and that the lower-court judge had discretion in the case.

The justices said child welfare officials can take numerous actions to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care, and that Walther may still put restrictions on the children and parents to address concerns that they may flee once reunited.



Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Hahahaha.  Old Douche Bum wanted to engage me in some bullshit discussion and said I had contributed nothing to the thread when I predicted the outcome as exactly as if I was on the bench myself.

"What maroon."  B. Bunny.  I actually gave you props in the ACLU thread.   ::)  Nice prediction.

Blind squirrel. 

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.

This is just another instance of you showing yourself to be heartless

&

inconsistent

&

prone to ad hominem/slandering argmts. I never once said that those who abuse their children should have custody.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
You obviously don't get things right too often, which clearly explains why you are wetting the ground like an excited puppy. 

The fact you are giddy over correctly predicting that these kids would be returned to child rapists makes you a sick puppy. 

The fact you can't accept a compliment and my acknowledgement that you were right, makes you an overweening puppy. 

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Geez grandpa, I didn't look at the thread until after you mentioned it, and I see I'm still being instructed to read "law for dummies" and being told that I haven't contributed anything.  Like I said, you're inconsistent.

Also, not all of them, or even most of them are child rapists.  I don't know why you would repeatedly accuse them of this, and want to have a child taken away from its parents without any evidence that the particular child has been abused.   But that's why you're on my "evilest getbigger short list"

And I started this thread because you and some other douche were trying to crawl up my butt when I said that the ACLU was doing the right thing.  Apparently the ACLU has infiltrated the Texas judiciary now, eh?  ::)

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
over 150 kids, at least they did not let the underage pregnant ones go back to their "parents"

anyways this is disgusting and the kids are not going back that fast parents have to submit to DNA tests, that will hold them up.

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.


thmas Hobbs wrote that society is like a lewiathn that eats peeple.  edmund Burke was a grate thinker who supported the French Revolution because he could eat cake.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Geez grandpa, I didn't look at the thread until after you mentioned it, and I see I'm still being instructed to read "law for dummies" and being told that I haven't contributed anything.  Like I said, you're inconsistent.

Also, not all of them, or even most of them are child rapists.  I don't know why you would repeatedly accuse them of this, and want to have a child taken away from its parents without any evidence that the particular child has been abused.   But that's why you're on my "evilest getbigger short list"

And I started this thread because you and some other douche were trying to crawl up my butt when I said that the ACLU was doing the right thing.  Apparently the ACLU has infiltrated the Texas judiciary now, eh?  ::)

Are you kidding?  This was your first post in that ACLU thread:

Quote

You really are a douche. Any right-minded human being could see that making women and children suffer (taking children away from mothers) for the what are basically the sins of the fathers is fucked up. And that's exactly what's happening here.  But all you've got to say is "Figures  ::)"

Now even though you acted like a petulant adolescent from your first through last post in that thread, I still gave you props for getting it right.  

Have you even been following this case?  What is going on in that compound is disgusting.  It's indefensible.  It isn't as simple as reading some law book (although that's obviously important).  It's also about doing the right thing and protecting those kids.  Try reading a few transcripts from the shows that discuss the case.  Here is an excerpt:

GRACE: Most disturbing to me, Michael Board, is that right now, there are about 100 children who have not been matched up with any parents. What about them?

BOARD: Yes, even more disturbing is that there`s some people here who the mom will show up and the father will not. We`ve talked about this a lot, Nancy. A lot of the fathers are not showing up for DNA testing and they`re not showing up for these trials, either. To give you an example, there was a 17-year-old mom who went before a judge last week. Her husband, her "spiritual husband" or her regular husband, it didn`t matter, any man was not there. She`s 17. She has a 1-year-old child. Do the math, Nancy. It makes sense that she conceived that child when she was 15 years old. Also, she`s pregnant with another child. It`s going to be a long road for her to get either of those kids back.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/26/ng.01.html

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
I stand by my post. 

Nancy fuckin Grace can go fly a kite. Read the post that you quoted again, and you'll see that I already took your Board quote into consideration.   

The state used a broadsword where it needed a scalpel, and it went after the wrong people. Anybody with half a brain and any sense of justice could see that. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
If you stand by your post then you are a hypocrite.  Don't start a thread with ad hominem and then start whining when it gets thrown back in your face.

Anybody with half a brain can see there has been the systematic rape of children and brainwashing of women.  Have you watched the interviews of those women?  Some of them admitted girls get married at 16 and most of the women would not answer when asked whether girls younger than 16 get married.

The leader of the compound is shown getting married to and kissing girls as young as 12 or 13.   

They can't even match these kids with their fathers.  The fathers didn't show up for the hearings.  Why?  Probably because they are friggin rapists.

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Oh brother. Maybe you belong on the Joeloco list and not on the evil one.

What got thrown in my face exactly?

An ad hominem argmt would be "Douche Bum is a Nazi sympathizer, therefore his support for Texas CPS is wrong"/"Callous is morally ambivalent and therefore supports _______." (a statement you made today).

Calling you a douche was not intended to support my claim that Texas was trying to punish mothers and children for the sins of the fathers.  Hope this helps.

If the state has evidence that the fathers did something wrong, then it should take action against them.  Granted, the subjugated state of the women and children makes this a difficult thing to do, but it has and can be done.  That's why Jeffs IS IN PRISON.  ::)

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
above Post edited

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Ad hominem would be your first sentence in that thread:  "You really are a douche."  HTH.  Honestly, I didn't really read much after that.  I play the admittedly childish talk about your momma game too, because it is entertaining, but it is pretty silly for you to talk about ad hominem when that's primarily what you do.  

The state has evidence that children were raped and conceived children, that the leader of their compound raped children, that parents of many of these children cannot be found.  Pulling kids out of that environment was the right thing to do.  I understand the need to protect parental rights, which are sacred, but that compound is a cesspool.  

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Quote
Ad hominem would be your first sentence in that thread:  "You really are a douche."  .  




 In the interest of accuracy, fellow posters, I must note that the statement "You really are a douche" is an insult and not an argmt. Please don't accuse people who insult you of making an ad hominem argmt if there's no argmt depending on what you perceive as insulting.  Just call them a prick or something. Carry on. I'm done.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66495
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
 ::)  And that, in the interests of accuracy, is what's called a distinction without a difference.  If you're going to play the attack the person rather than the argument game, which includes insults, then man up already.

I look forward to your next thread celebrating your broken clock accuracy . . . in about six months.     

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063

thmas Hobbs wrote that society is like a lewiathn that eats peeple.  edmund Burke was a grate thinker who supported the French Revolution because he could eat cake.


Edmund Burke supported the FR?
No he did not, did you even read Reflections on the Revolutions in France?
He was against it, just to give you some bits and pieces since it leads to the decay of society and the uproar of violence as it diminishes institutions. i.e people need to be controlled. He wrote the book before the revolution even started and predicted it would be a bloody mess, and with revolt it will lead to a dictatorship, and a false republic.


calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
Also Edmund Burke never laughed. Him and Samuel Boswell Johnson and his nemesis Thomas Paine were serious when it came to matters of the state.


calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Also Edmund Burke never laughed. Him and Samuel Boswell Johnson and his nemesis Thomas Paine were serious when it came to matters of the state.



I hope you're trying to be funny here.

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11063
I hope you learned something here

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Yeah, that you're a bigger dumbass than I thought. Who the fuck is Samuel Boswell Johnson? A relation of Abraham Sandburg Lincoln?