PDA

View Full Version : How the FLDS afforded the "ranch"


oldandslow
04-18-2008, 02:29 PM
my tax dollars - and yours....

cnn.com



NEW YORK (CNN) -- The U.S. government paid more than $1.7 million in defense contracts over the last decade to companies owned by leaders of Warren Jeffs' polygamous sect -- with tens of thousands allegedly winding its way back to Jeffs and his church.


The Pentagon had contracts with three companies with ties to Warren Jeffs' polygamous sect.

In fact, some of the deals were made after Jeffs was named to the FBI's "Most-Wanted List" and remained in place while he was on the run.

CNN has learned that between 1998 and 2007 the United States Air Force and Defense Logistics Agency purchased more than $1.7 million worth of airplane parts from three companies owned by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which practices polygamy.

Those companies are Utah Tool and Die, Western Precision and NewEra Manufacturing. Today, the companies all operate under the name NewEra Manufacturing, a company based in Las Vegas, Nevada, that says it supplies precision components "for the aerospace, military, medical, recreational and other commercial entities."

"It was my understanding that Western Precision was paying roughly $50,000 a week into the coffers of the church," former sect member Richard Holm told CNN. "It would have been close to $200,000 a month."

Holm said he helped build Western Precision.

A court affidavit signed by a man whose father was the president of Western Precision makes similar allegations.


"During 2003, the amount being sent to the storehouse and the FLDS was around $100,000 per month," said John Nielsen in the October 26, 2005, affidavit. "I have personal knowledge that checks sent to the FLDS Church/Warren Jeffs by [Western Precision] are payable to the FLDS Church and/or Warren Jeffs."

Private investigator Sam Brower, who monitors the sect, said money earned through business dealings with the U.S. government was used to build Jeffs' compounds around the country, including the one recently raided in El Dorado, Texas.

More than 400 children, including teenage girls, were removed from that ranch amid claims of child abuse and forced marriage and motherhood. Watch a mom plead: 'We need our children'

Brower says dozens of companies tied to FLDS are working on contracts with federal or local governments. The Pentagon would only confirm it had contracts with three.

CNN contacted NewEra Manufacturing for this story. "No comment," said a man at the other end of the phone before hanging up.

The companies have not been charged with wrongdoing.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell emphasized that point.

"The Department of Defense awards contracts on the basis of who can most effectively meet our requirements for supplies or services at the most reasonable cost to the taxpayer," he told CNN.

"We do not consider religious affiliation or marital status when selecting vendors, but illegal activity is certainly cause for termination of a contract and perhaps even debarment, which could prevent a contractor from doing business with department ever again."

He added, "However, DoD is not aware of any criminal allegations against anyone managing the companies in question."

Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who now works with a contractor for the Pentagon, said the department does background checks before signing contracts.

"The DoD is obviously abiding by the law, and if we want them to look deeper and discriminate on religious or other activities we need to tell them."

But he added, "If there was a direct line between Jeffs and this company, and his name was associated with a contract, then that should have come to attention of those that were bidding contract."

It's unclear if Jeffs' name was on any contract, but other senior members of his church were managing the companies.

What might taxpayers think of it all?

"They're just going to shake their head and say here's another example of our tax money going down the drain to support this polygamist in Texas who abuses children and women," Maginnis said. "They'll be appalled and rightly so."


Jeffs is currently serving time in Utah after his 2007 conviction for being an accomplice to rape -- charges related to a marriage he performed in 2001. He also faces trial in Arizona on eight charges of sexual conduct with a minor, incest and conspiracy. See a timeline of Jeffs' life

The Mormon Church, which gave up plural marriage more than a century ago, has no ties to Jeffs' group. E-mail to a friend

Bowser
04-18-2008, 02:33 PM
I'll throw out a guess that these companies didn't know what these sick bastards were doing, or else they would have took their money someplace else.

StcChief
04-18-2008, 02:36 PM
Texas... it must be Bush's fault. he is the Debbil afterall

Donger
04-18-2008, 02:36 PM
I knew that this was all Bush's fault somehow.

Connect the dots: defense spending + the ranch is in Texas = Bush is responsible.

Donger
04-18-2008, 02:36 PM
Texas... it must be Bush's fault. he is the Debbil afterall

ROFL

Brock
04-18-2008, 02:37 PM
So what?

jettio
04-18-2008, 02:42 PM
If that company won the bid and the product is made according to spec, then I can't say that any action is required.

I thought the thread was going to be about how the polygamists have a bunch of kids and apply for welfare. There are some polygamous outifts in the west where that happens, if this kooky crowd has found a way to make real money legally then good for them.

penchief
04-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Texas... it must be Bush's fault. he is the Debbil afterall

You've got it all wrong. Bill Clinton is da debbil. He's as guilty for these cultists as he was for the Branch Davidians. Com'n on now, get with the program.

jAZ
04-19-2008, 08:06 PM
Anyone watch "Big Love"?

It really seems to follow this story reasonably closely. And it's a good show.

alnorth
04-19-2008, 08:14 PM
Although it makes for a cool story and something to snicker about, this is probably completely irrelevant. You cant expect us to perform a full-blown background security check on the owners and executives of every company that gets a government contract.

penchief
04-19-2008, 08:23 PM
Although it makes for a cool story and something to snicker about, this is probably completely irrelevant. You cant expect us to perform a full-blown background security check on the owners and executives of every company that gets a government contract.

However, when the government (i.e. republican corporatism) has a reputation for funneling taxpayer money to cronies like Haliburton and "faith based" organizations instead of value based organizations, what does one expect?

jAZ
04-19-2008, 08:24 PM
Although it makes for a cool story and something to snicker about, this is probably completely irrelevant. You cant expect us to perform a full-blown background security check on the owners and executives of every company that gets a government contract.

I completely agree.

It's comical, but that's it.

Warrior5
06-04-2008, 05:07 AM
This was the last thread I could find in the DC forum on the FLDS in Texas.

I figured there would be some serious discussion on here when the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state to return the children.:shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-04-2008, 06:30 AM
This was the last thread I could find in the DC forum on the FLDS in Texas.

I figured there would be some serious discussion on here when the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state to return the children.:shrug:

The election is getting the focus right now.
I was going to put a new thread up about this but have been so busy.

But good for you Warrior for bringing it up.

The state of Texas basically was guilty of kidnapping 400 children while Americans cheered it on because these guys are unpopular. Therefore, guilty before proven innocent is the order-of-the day. I even read that some of the children were not minors. Didn't read up about the remainder. Good for the Texas judiciary.

Also, I found out that one reason these guys can live this way is because they actually do not marry the women to get around the polygamy laws but are married religiously. This way the women, as single moms, collect welfare. Most of these men could never afford this many wives or children. So it's another funny twist on welfare abuse, which is legal.

LMAO at the law of unintended consequences here. Talk about the state being an enabler. The best way to handle this would be to deny them welfare. See how many wives and children they could afford then.

Warrior5
06-04-2008, 08:07 AM
I'm wondering if/how far the FLDS is going to pursue legal action...

against the state (civil rights, due process, etc.)?

against Child Protective Services (libel)?

both?

neither?

jAZ
06-04-2008, 08:26 AM
This was the last thread I could find in the DC forum on the FLDS in Texas.

I figured there would be some serious discussion on here when the Texas Supreme Court ordered the state to return the children.:shrug:

My wife and I were talking about that the other day, and while I understand what the state was trying to do, I'm glad the courts ruled the way that they did. It's a terrible situation and the Texas CPS folks are trying to do the right thing, but I think they went to far with their interpretation of the "home" as being an entire compound.

jAZ
06-04-2008, 08:29 AM
The election is getting the focus right now.
I was going to put a new thread up about this but have been so busy.

But good for you Warrior for bringing it up.

The state of Texas basically was guilty of kidnapping 400 children while Americans cheered it on because these guys are unpopular. Therefore, guilty before proven innocent is the order-of-the day. I even read that some of the children were not minors. Didn't read up about the remainder. Good for the Texas judiciary.

Also, I found out that one reason these guys can live this way is because they actually do not marry the women to get around the polygamy laws but are married religiously. This way the women, as single moms, collect welfare. Most of these men could never afford this many wives or children. So it's another funny twist on welfare abuse, which is legal.

LMAO at the law of unintended consequences here. Talk about the state being an enabler. The best way to handle this would be to deny them welfare. See how many wives and children they could afford then.

Your reaction is on par with their overreach of a definiation of "home". They were wrong, but as is almost always (and maybe always) the case, CPS puts the needs of the kids above all else.

I say that while compeltely agreeing with the Texas Supreme courts ruling.

I just think CPS gets demonized far too often.

banyon
06-04-2008, 10:10 AM
Also, I found out that one reason these guys can live this way is because they actually do not marry the women to get around the polygamy laws but are married religiously. This way the women, as single moms, collect welfare. Most of these men could never afford this many wives or children. So it's another funny twist on welfare abuse, which is legal.

LMAO at the law of unintended consequences here. Talk about the state being an enabler. The best way to handle this would be to deny them welfare. See how many wives and children they could afford then.

Unsurprisingly this is a warped view of "government handouts" (no doubt to reinforce some sort of "lesson" about how "gubment is always teh debbil". The state regularly seeks reimbursement for any state funds from the biological fathers unless the child has been adopted or rights have been severed. I can't tell you how many bio dada I've talked to who basically had their lives financially ruined for doing exactly this.

Taco John
06-04-2008, 10:13 AM
How is what she said warped?

banyon
06-04-2008, 10:22 AM
How is what she said warped?

She pretended like we were just handing all of these polygamist dads mad jack and that there was nothing we could do about it. They'd found the perfect loophole and it just goes to show how bad welfare is.

Pitt Gorilla
06-04-2008, 10:28 AM
The child molestation there still bothers me. In the raid, documents were obtained showing underage children being married to old guys. Pictures and video of old guys making out with 10-12 year olds have been found. This has to be stopped.

banyon
06-04-2008, 10:32 AM
The child molestation there still bothers me. In the raid, documents were obtained showing underage children being married to old guys. Pictures and video of old guys making out with 10-12 year olds have been found. This has to be stopped.

Also, the hidden closet chambers were plenty creepy.

Taco John
06-04-2008, 10:44 AM
She pretended like we were just handing all of these polygamist dads mad jack and that there was nothing we could do about it. They'd found the perfect loophole and it just goes to show how bad welfare is.


You make some amazing leaps to attack her sometimes.

banyon
06-04-2008, 11:39 AM
You make some amazing leaps to attack her sometimes.

She's earned it with her antics.

But I think it's a reasonable (though slanted) paraphrase of her post.

Taco John
06-04-2008, 11:48 AM
But I think it's a reasonable (though slanted) paraphrase of her post.


I think it's a childish and petty paraphrase of her post. It made you look vindictive and clownish.

Of course, you call anyone warped who makes arguments towards a smaller government. It is what it is.

banyon
06-04-2008, 11:56 AM
I think it's a childish and petty paraphrase of her post. It made you look vindictive and clownish.

Of course, you call anyone warped who makes arguments towards a smaller government. It is what it is.

Not really. I'm for smaller government where it makes sense.

Taco John
06-04-2008, 12:07 PM
Not really. I'm for smaller government where it makes sense.

Interestingly, so am I.

Unfortunately fo me, your idea of what makes sense is "warped."

Frazod
06-04-2008, 02:33 PM
Do you know what the punishmen for polygamy is?

MULTIPLE WIVES.

I don't know if it should be illegal, but it's damn sure something your intelligence should tell you not to do.

:banghead:

And what the hell does this have to do the airplane parts? As long as the parts work, BFD.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2008, 02:43 PM
Your reaction is on par with their overreach of a definiation of "home". They were wrong, but as is almost always (and maybe always) the case, CPS puts the needs of the kids above all else.

I say that while compeltely agreeing with the Texas Supreme courts ruling.

I just think CPS gets demonized far too often.

Well, if there is abuse I'm for it being stopped. But when this case broke I read that there is a also lot of abuse in the Texas foster care program including some children dying.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2008, 02:44 PM
Do you know what the punishmen for polygamy is?

MULTIPLE WIVES. LMAO

I don't know if it should be illegal, but it's damn sure something your intelligence should tell you not to do.

Or one's wallet.

patteeu
06-04-2008, 03:31 PM
Well, if there is abuse I'm for it being stopped. But when this case broke I read that there is a also lot of abuse in the Texas foster care program including some children dying.

I was with you and your skepticism on this one.

pikesome
06-04-2008, 04:51 PM
I'm wondering if/how far the FLDS is going to pursue legal action...

against the state (civil rights, due process, etc.)?

against Child Protective Services (libel)?

both?

neither?

Good luck to them but they'll get nowhere. I've seen more than a bit of SRS (Kansas' jack-booted thugs) do this very thing on smaller scale and I'm not aware of one time the agency paid for it.

And I've got to agree 1000% with BEP's point about people's responses to this. These nut jobs are unpopular so f-em seems' to be the consensus. They're all child molesters and have no rights at all.

I hate being put in a position where I find myself defending crappy people but the law is supposed to be applied equally.

jAZ
06-04-2008, 06:00 PM
Well, if there is abuse I'm for it being stopped. But when this case broke I read that there is a also lot of abuse in the Texas foster care program including some children dying.

You should really consider volunteering in the Child Welfare system in your state. Anyone who blames CPS on ideological lines ('jack booted thugs') or abuse, etc... really should look closely at the programs.

Those people working in CPS are doing "God's Work" (not my favorite choice of words, but it's spot on) on a daily basis for a pitence in pay. It's an amazingly overloaded, under funded system who's people are doing ridiculously heart-wrenching work every day and they get no respect and are constantly attacked. They are amazingly understaffed. They do the work because they love kids. They are in really difficult situations, working with unpredictable people, strung out on drugs, molesting their children, abusing the the family and kids... it's a terrible experience.

The people doing the work have a universal goal of helping the children first.

It pisses off the parents (and friends and family of parents) but they aren't taking kids out because there isn't any abuse. At least in Arizona, the #1 priority is protecting the interests of the child, but that process involves offering support services that work to get the kids back with the parents.

The public perceptions of the program is framed by a relative few high profile, bad stories that aren't treated completely fairly in the media. On balance the work of CPS is 99% amazing work done in the face of horrible conditions for all the right reasons.

I strongly anyone who has a different view to volunteer in the system and work with the kids, the parents, the case workers, etc.

pikesome
06-04-2008, 06:27 PM
You should really consider volunteering in the Child Welfare system in your state. Anyone who blames CPS on ideological lines ('jack booted thugs') or abuse, etc... really should look closely at the programs.

Those people working in CPS are doing "God's Work" (not my favorite choice of words, but it's spot on) on a daily basis for a pitence in pay. It's an amazingly overloaded, under funded system who's people are doing ridiculously heart-wrenching work every day and they get no respect and are constantly attacked. They are amazingly understaffed. They do the work because they love kids. They are in really difficult situations, working with unpredictable people, strung out on drugs, molesting their children, abusing the the family and kids... it's a terrible experience.

The people doing the work have a universal goal of helping the children first.

It pisses off the parents (and friends and family of parents) but they aren't taking kids out because there isn't any abuse. At least in Arizona, the #1 priority is protecting the interests of the child, but that process involves offering support services that work to get the kids back with the parents.

The public perceptions of the program is framed by a relative few high profile, bad stories that aren't treated completely fairly in the media. On balance the work of CPS is 99% amazing work done in the face of horrible conditions for all the right reasons.

I strongly anyone who has a different view to volunteer in the system and work with the kids, the parents, the case workers, etc.

99% is being very generous. Social workers rank right up there with teachers in paragons of child rearing knowledge, at least in their own minds. I watched from the sidelines as my father dealt with Family Court and it's trapping over 30 years on both sides of the issue and feel fairly confident that SRS in Kansas, at the very least, is crap.

Lets be honest here, it doesn't matter how much the case workers believe (and it's a far smaller percent than you think), they don't make policy. Those that do are interested in looking like they're fixing it nothing more.

I look at the Texas child services people and see a marked lack of concern or apology for their actions. What they did and how they did it is, fairly clearly, against the law. Laws that are probably far to broad to begin with. Sorry? Not really, they've got it in their head that the parents are guilty and they're going to keep trying. They'll catch a few and everyone will say "Oh, it was worth it". No thought will be paid to the far greater number who aren't guilty and never even providing a reason for suspicion.

banyon
06-04-2008, 06:30 PM
You should really consider volunteering in the Child Welfare system in your state. Anyone who blames CPS on ideological lines ('jack booted thugs') or abuse, etc... really should look closely at the programs.

Those people working in CPS are doing "God's Work" (not my favorite choice of words, but it's spot on) on a daily basis for a pitence in pay. It's an amazingly overloaded, under funded system who's people are doing ridiculously heart-wrenching work every day and they get no respect and are constantly attacked. They are amazingly understaffed. They do the work because they love kids. They are in really difficult situations, working with unpredictable people, strung out on drugs, molesting their children, abusing the the family and kids... it's a terrible experience.

The people doing the work have a universal goal of helping the children first.

It pisses off the parents (and friends and family of parents) but they aren't taking kids out because there isn't any abuse. At least in Arizona, the #1 priority is protecting the interests of the child, but that process involves offering support services that work to get the kids back with the parents.

The public perceptions of the program is framed by a relative few high profile, bad stories that aren't treated completely fairly in the media. On balance the work of CPS is 99% amazing work done in the face of horrible conditions for all the right reasons.

I strongly anyone who has a different view to volunteer in the system and work with the kids, the parents, the case workers, etc.

:clap: That's a great summary of some of the people that I work with on occasion. We see some pretty terrible stuff in those cases and it takes more patience and understanding than I sometimes want to give. They do deserve respect for their difficult work. Some individuals understandably do burn out though.

banyon
06-04-2008, 06:31 PM
99% is being very generous. Social workers rank right up there with teachers in paragons of child rearing knowledge, at least in their own minds. I watched from the sidelines as my father dealt with Family Court and it's trapping over 30 years on both sides of the issue and feel fairly confident that SRS in Kansas, at the very least, is crap.

Lets be honest here, it doesn't matter how much the case workers believe (and it's a far smaller percent than you think), they don't make policy. Those that do are interested in looking like they're fixing it nothing more.

I look at the Texas child services people and see a marked lack of concern or apology for their actions. What they did and how they did it is, fairly clearly, against the law. Laws that are probably far to broad to begin with. Sorry? Not really, they've got it in their head that the parents are guilty and they're going to keep trying. They'll catch a few and everyone will say "Oh, it was worth it". No thought will be paid to the far greater number who aren't guilty and never even providing a reason for suspicion.

What's your answer?

pikesome
06-04-2008, 06:57 PM
What's your answer?

That's hard. It's not an easy question/issue but I'd like to see a combination of two things.

1. Change the standards of evidence. What SRS can do and the amount of evidence they need to do it is disturbing. I know that Family Court is overworked but workload doesn't/can't/won't excuse the lack of review that would prevent some of the worst offenses. I'm not demanding the same evidence levels as criminal cases but what we have is way too easy to abuse.

They're also very guilty of using or listening to experts that have impartiality issues. People who are in to "saving" not "the truth". The desire to help leads to many of the SRS-abuse cases as well.

2. Accountability. SRS and it's ilk always fall back on the same defenses when they get caught screwing up. "We just want what's best for the child." "We're overworked." "We can't talk about it because of privacy concerns." The rules they operate under are more powerful and permissive than those policemen have yet they have far less accountability. If a cops arrests the right guy the wrong way, that guy goes free. The idea being that it's better to let the guilty go than hold the innocent. Look at this case in Texas. There are court orders limiting families, requiring the gov be let in to check on them at will. That doesn't sound just considering the SC said the removal was wrong in the first place. I don't know how you do it for sure but giving any gov agency that much leeway is dangerous. Especially one that loves to whip out "It's for the Children" at every complaint.

I'm not saying make it like criminal law, that'd be bad, but tighter control and or oversight is needed.

BucEyedPea
06-04-2008, 07:18 PM
You should really consider volunteering in the Child Welfare system in your state. Anyone who blames CPS on ideological lines ('jack booted thugs') or abuse, etc... really should look closely at the programs.
Whose blaming whose child welfare services on ideological lines?
Are you calling me a jack booted thug because I've read about the foster care services of Texas and mentioned it? Or because what was done was illegal? I don't have to volunteer for any such service. I volunteer plenty when it comes to children. This isn't about Florida's system anyway. It's about Texas. I don't need someone evaluating me for my opinion.

That such people's "religious" lifestyle should be footed by the taxpayers to the tune of someone having 80 children needs to have something tightened up in those laws, whether one believes in welfare or not. The odds are it may not be happening or as much. That's a scandal.

banyon
06-04-2008, 07:49 PM
That's hard. It's not an easy question/issue but I'd like to see a combination of two things.

1. Change the standards of evidence. What SRS can do and the amount of evidence they need to do it is disturbing. I know that Family Court is overworked but workload doesn't/can't/won't excuse the lack of review that would prevent some of the worst offenses. I'm not demanding the same evidence levels as criminal cases but what we have is way too easy to abuse.

They're also very guilty of using or listening to experts that have impartiality issues. People who are in to "saving" not "the truth". The desire to help leads to many of the SRS-abuse cases as well.

At least as far as severance of parental rights is concerned, it sounds like the standard is exactly where you are asking it to be. It's "clear and convincing" which is greater than "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard) and less than "the preponderance of the evidence" (the civil standard). If you're talking about a standard of proof before a case can be filed the only standard is "that the circumstances alleged warrant filing the petition" which is a decision made by prosecutors. If you'd want to modify that to something more like "probable cause" I guess that's okay, but I'd certainly rather err on the side of investigating alleged abuse than letting it go for obvious reasons. Keep in mind here that the victims here aren't as able to speak up for themselves as adult-aged victims.

2. Accountability. SRS and it's ilk always fall back on the same defenses when they get caught screwing up. "We just want what's best for the child." "We're overworked." "We can't talk about it because of privacy concerns." The rules they operate under are more powerful and permissive than those policemen have yet they have far less accountability. If a cops arrests the right guy the wrong way, that guy goes free. The idea being that it's better to let the guilty go than hold the innocent.

To the extent that you are saying that you might get sloppy and subpar work from some people, I agree it does happen. I've complained about it and recently we even had a couple of workers cited for contempt for not providing information to the court that they had been ordered to. You might also note that in Kansas we have already "privatized" much of the SRS's responsibilities. Any child who is placed in SRS custody, even if left with their parents is dealt with completely through a private agency now. But, as my question implied, when you want people to investigate matters with such importance, some are naturally going to overreach. You hope that the system has enough checks in it to curb those abuses. In Kansas if a worker oversteps, then the County or District Attorney (or assistant) can refuse to file the case; the judge can throw it out on review; and the parents have a right to get appointed their own attorneys (or hire them) to try to fight the case. It's pretty hard for one overzealous worker to get by all those people.

Look at this case in Texas. There are court orders limiting families, requiring the gov be let in to check on them at will. That doesn't sound just considering the SC said the removal was wrong in the first place. I don't know how you do it for sure but giving any gov agency that much leeway is dangerous. Especially one that loves to whip out "It's for the Children" at every complaint.

I guess I don't agree with your reasoning here. The order removing the children was countermanded as unwarranted. it doesn't follow that any orders would be unwarranted, and allowing CPS (or SRS) into a home for inspection is less of a burden than completely removing children from a home, accordingly less should be required to justify it.

pikesome
06-04-2008, 08:25 PM
At least as far as severance of parental rights is concerned, it sounds like the standard is exactly where you are asking it to be. It's "clear and convincing" which is greater than "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard) and less than "the preponderance of the evidence" (the civil standard). If you're talking about a standard of proof before a case can be filed the only standard is "that the circumstances alleged warrant filing the petition" which is a decision made by prosecutors. If you'd want to modify that to something more like "probable cause" I guess that's okay, but I'd certainly rather err on the side of investigating alleged abuse than letting it go for obvious reasons. Keep in mind here that the victims here aren't as able to speak up for themselves as adult-aged victims.

Removal is my big problem. The standard is low and it, essentially boils down to guilty till proven innocent. I'm also not real big on the amount of weight the opinion of the aid worker carries, I question their impartiality in the best of circumstances. That's not to say they're always wrong.

Removal is the easy way, caseload gets sited as defense. The problem I have is that there are, possibly, good reasons to adopt a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, too few people isn't one of them.



To the extent that you are saying that you might get sloppy and subpar work from some people, I agree it does happen. I've complained about it and recently we even had a couple of workers cited for contempt for not providing information to the court that they had been ordered to. You might also note that in Kansas we have already "privatized" much of the SRS's responsibilities. Any child who is placed in SRS custody, even if left with their parents is dealt with completely through a private agency now. But, as my question implied, when you want people to investigate matters with such importance, some are naturally going to overreach. You hope that the system has enough checks in it to curb those abuses. In Kansas if a worker oversteps, then the County or District Attorney (or assistant) can refuse to file the case; the judge can throw it out on review; and the parents have a right to get appointed their own attorneys (or hire them) to try to fight the case. It's pretty hard for one overzealous worker to get by all those people.
The problem is that the system makes it too easy to let questionable evidence through. No one wants to be the guy who killed a child because they didn't take an aid workers recommendation to heart. Combine that with the removal then hash it out framework and, too often, bad cases go too far before someone applies common sense.

I guess I don't agree with your reasoning here. The order removing the children was countermanded as unwarranted. it doesn't follow that any orders would be unwarranted,
Yes, it does. Without any reason to suspect wrongdoing I have a hard time allowing the Court any involvement. Unless I'm mistaken the underlying point from the SC is that the State didn't not have the evidence to warrant removal. If that's the case how do they have enough to burden these families with other orders? There's no complaints, it's saddling everyone at a church with SRS oversight because some members might (and probably were, I'll grant) have been doing something wrong.

and allowing CPS (or SRS) into a home for inspection is less of a burden than completely removing children from a home, accordingly less should be required to justify it.

But something has to be presented. I haven't seen the State's paperwork but IIRC the mass removal was because everyone was living in the same "household". A point the Texas SC said was bunk. In that case there's nothing more than the fact that most of the families congregate with suspected families. Not even convicted. Seems way too weak for the Courts to have any say to me.

banyon
06-04-2008, 08:56 PM
Removal is my big problem. The standard is low and it, essentially boils down to guilty till proven innocent. I'm also not real big on the amount of weight the opinion of the aid worker carries, I question their impartiality in the best of circumstances. That's not to say they're always wrong.

Removal is the easy way, caseload gets sited as defense. The problem I have is that there are, possibly, good reasons to adopt a "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, too few people isn't one of them.

I guess the main thing is to say that removal isn't permanent until a parent's rights are severed. There has to be a clear case plan to allow a parent to be reintegrated if they meet certain goals (usually attending classes or staying clear of drugs). Many times parents even agre that it's a good idea so that we can get the kid's attention. (1/2 the battle on these cases is figuring out how much the parents are to blame and how much is the kid).


The problem is that the system makes it too easy to let questionable evidence through. No one wants to be the guy who killed a child because they didn't take an aid workers recommendation to heart. Combine that with the removal then hash it out framework and, too often, bad cases go too far before someone applies common sense.

In Kansas, the standard of evidence is the same as used in all other court proceedings, civil and criminal, with the exception of no doctor or therapist-client confidentiality. Many times these rules are relaxed by the agreement of the parties to facilitate the docket size, but there are several parents who do not, and there is certainly no requirement that they agree to relax the rules.


Yes, it does. Without any reason to suspect wrongdoing I have a hard time allowing the Court any involvement. Unless I'm mistaken the underlying point from the SC is that the State didn't not have the evidence to warrant removal. If that's the case how do they have enough to burden these families with other orders? There's no complaints, it's saddling everyone at a church with SRS oversight because some members might (and probably were, I'll grant) have been doing something wrong.

When the State is removing someone, they are answering a fundamentally different question than if they are simply inspecting someone's home and interviewing people. In the former case, they must make a showing that the child will be harmed (in more than a superficial way) if not removed, and in the latter, they just have to make a showing that there are allegations that have enough merit to warrant further investigation. There are a multitude of reasons that these two questions might be answered differently. One of the reasons that I have a lot of silly cases is Truancy. But truancy is one of the grounds to find a child as a kid in need of care. Usually those kids just need a stern talking to from the judge, but on many occasions, the truancy is just a symptom of deeper problems that we often discover. We had a truant girl in court this week that after investigation was found to have been gang raped in Beleize (sp?) by family members and tried to kill herself on multiple occasions. It's doubtful anyone would have reported it in her community, but the truancy was just a symptom.



But something has to be presented. I haven't seen the State's paperwork but IIRC the mass removal was because everyone was living in the same "household". A point the Texas SC said was bunk. In that case there's nothing more than the fact that most of the families congregate with suspected families. Not even convicted. Seems way too weak for the Courts to have any say to me.


I'll admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the litigation, I'm mostly relying on my own experience here and how it works in this state. But even the cursory media reports I've read allege more than what you've put on the table here. I guess I'm sort of sympathetic to some of your thoughts here, and as prosecutors go, I'm probably one of the ones that's more likely to toss out a bad case, but I think you would do well to recognize the tremendous amount of good that these workers do as jAZ pointed out. It's kind of like judging soldiers like mememe just based on what happened at Haditha.

pikesome
06-04-2008, 09:22 PM
I guess the main thing is to say that removal isn't permanent until a parent's rights are severed. There has to be a clear case plan to allow a parent to be reintegrated if they meet certain goals (usually attending classes or staying clear of drugs). Many times parents even agre that it's a good idea so that we can get the kid's attention. (1/2 the battle on these cases is figuring out how much the parents are to blame and how much is the kid).

Removal sucks. Yes, it's not permanent but the idea that it's alright while we're investigating isn't sound. "Oh, it's only temporary." isn't very soothing. Even worse is that SRS likes to hold on to kids as long as they can in the hope something will turn up.

I not comfortable with a system that, for any reason, burdens people because of a simple accusation.

In Kansas, the standard of evidence is the same as used in all other court proceedings, civil and criminal, with the exception of no doctor or therapist-client confidentiality. Many times these rules are relaxed by the agreement of the parties to facilitate the docket size, but there are several parents who do not, and there is certainly no requirement that they agree to relax the rules.

It's not. I don't have my father to turn to for a list but I've listened to him bitch about it enough to know that the standard isn't the same.

When the State is removing someone, they are answering a fundamentally different question than if they are simply inspecting someone's home and interviewing people. In the former case, they must make a showing that the child will be harmed (in more than a superficial way) if not removed, and in the latter, they just have to make a showing that there are allegations that have enough merit to warrant further investigation. There are a multitude of reasons that these two questions might be answered differently. One of the reasons that I have a lot of silly cases is Truancy. But truancy is one of the grounds to find a child as a kid in need of care. Usually those kids just need a stern talking to from the judge, but on many occasions, the truancy is just a symptom of deeper problems that we often discover. We had a truant girl in court this week that after investigation was found to have been gang raped in Beleize (sp?) by family members and tried to kill herself on multiple occasions. It's doubtful anyone would have reported it in her community, but the truancy was just a symptom.

Why should the Court have any involvement with these families whatsoever? They got involved illegally in the first place, barring an accusation with some meat, the Court shouldn't be allowed in. Why should they let an SRS agent in their house if they can't even come up with a flimsy case?

I'll admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the details of the litigation, I'm mostly relying on my own experience here and how it works in this state. But even the cursory media reports I've read allege more than what you've put on the table here.
For some families. 400 kids removed because of a phone call. A probable fraudulent phone call. It's tough for me to come up with a set of information that would even tie a large minority to the accusations.

I'd also like to point out that every single one could be guilty. It just doesn't even look plausible based on what's out there. The Texas SC sure didn't think so. Alot of information concerning the justification for the removal was presented, I'm doubting SRS has something they didn't tell the SC.

I guess I'm sort of sympathetic to some of your thoughts here, and as prosecutors go, I'm probably one of the ones that's more likely to toss out a bad case, but I think you would do well to recognize the tremendous amount of good that these workers do as jAZ pointed out. It's kind of like judging soldiers like mememe just based on what happened at Haditha.

I know good is done. They do get it right. Not as often as the criminal courts IMHO though. The rules for criminal cases purposely stack the deck against the gov, you have to prove it and prove it with limitations imposed. Family courts wave the "Anything for Kids" banner to do things that wouldn't fly anywhere else. Far too often that enables misuse. Changes could be made to tighten it up without unreasonably endangering anyone. The issue is awfully political though.

banyon
06-04-2008, 09:37 PM
Removal sucks. Yes, it's not permanent but the idea that it's alright while we're investigating isn't sound. "Oh, it's only temporary." isn't very soothing. Even worse is that SRS likes to hold on to kids as long as they can in the hope something will turn up.

I not comfortable with a system that, for any reason, burdens people because of a simple accusation.



It's not. I don't have my father to turn to for a list but I've listened to him bitch about it enough to know that the standard isn't the same.

I don't mean to 2nd guess your dad, and it's possible that there have been changes over the years, but this is the current statute:

38-2249. Rules of evidence. (a) In all proceedings under this code, the rules of evidence of the code of civil procedure [which are also the rules for criminal procedure for the most part] shall apply, except that no evidence relating to the condition of a child shall be excluded solely on the ground that the matter is or may be the subject of a physician-patient privilege, psychologist-client privilege or social worker-client privilege.

(b) The judge presiding at all hearings under this code shall not consider or rely upon any report not properly admitted according to the rules of evidence, except as provided by K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 38-2219, and amendments thereto.

(c) In any proceeding in which a child less than 13 years of age is alleged to have been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected or sexually abused, a recording of an oral statement of the child, or of any witness less than 13 years of age, made before the proceeding began, is admissible in evidence...
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=16096



Why should the Court have any involvement with these families whatsoever? They got involved illegally in the first place, barring an accusation with some meat, the Court shouldn't be allowed in. Why should they let an SRS agent in their house if they can't even come up with a flimsy case?

Sounds like we are talking past each other. I don't know how much better i can explain it than that there should be different standards to warrant allowing the two different activities and that plenty of cases meet one standard and not the other. The accusation always "has to have meat" or meet one of the statutory grounds to be filed, so i don't think that helps clarify anything really.


For some families. 400 kids removed because of a phone call. A probable fraudulent phone call. It's tough for me to come up with a set of information that would even tie a large minority to the accusations.

I'd also like to point out that every single one could be guilty. It just doesn't even look plausible based on what's out there. The Texas SC sure didn't think so. Alot of information concerning the justification for the removal was presented, I'm doubting SRS has something they didn't tell the SC.

There was more than just a random phone call. The families were investigated, people couldn't even tell whose kids were whose, there were secret hidey sex rooms in the place and a lot of marriages that appeared to have been consummated prior to the age of consent. That's more than just a random phone call.



I know good is done. They do get it right. Not as often as the criminal courts IMHO though. The rules for criminal cases purposely stack the deck against the gov, you have to prove it and prove it with limitations imposed. Family courts wave the "Anything for Kids" banner to do things that wouldn't fly anywhere else. Far too often that enables misuse. Changes could be made to tighten it up without unreasonably endangering anyone. The issue is awfully political though.

Some of what you say here is true, but it's not always tough to find a bloodthirsty jury on a criminal case either. I don't see any way around this concern, as investigation of child abuse and neglect is always going to involve waving a "anything for the kids" banner to some degree.

pikesome
06-04-2008, 10:03 PM
I don't mean to 2nd guess your dad, and it's possible that there have been changes over the years, but this is the current statute:
He passed away 2 years ago so I'm short here. It was bad enough he had talked a few people out of law school because of his discontent. It wasn't always FC, there's shitty in BIDS too, but he did complain often. Which is why it stuck with me, dad wasn't a complainer.

Sounds like we are talking past each other. I don't know how much better i can explain it than that there should be different standards to warrant allowing the two different activities and that plenty of cases meet one standard and not the other. The accusation always "has to have meat" or meet one of the statutory grounds to be filed, so i don't think that helps clarify anything really.

There was more than just a random phone call. The families were investigated, people couldn't even tell whose kids were whose, there were secret hidey sex rooms in the place and a lot of marriages that appeared to have been consummated prior to the age of consent. That's more than just a random phone call.

These two are kinda related.

How many families can be tied to something fishy? Whatever SRS (even though that's not what Texas calls them) had wasn't enough to get the removal orders upheld. So it can't be much. The rest, I don't know how many the other stuff are tied to but not the whole lot. The judge issued the SRS must watch you order for all of the families affected by the SC ruling, ie those that there isn't enough evidence for charges. The burden imposed by the court doesn't seem supported across the board.

These people are nutbags, no if, and, or but. And they're probably all guilty of at least knowing it happened if not helping and/or participating. It still seems like Texas has a weak case against a lot of those people. Regardless this case illustrates how SRS can and has done some "jack-booted thug" stuff.

Some of what you say here is true, but it's not always tough to find a bloodthirsty jury on a criminal case either. I don't see any way around this concern, as investigation of child abuse and neglect is always going to involve waving a "anything for the kids" banner to some degree.

But what people will stand for both as public perception and as codified rules weaken the "guilty until innocent" theme in FC. It's not all SRS's fault, look at the people who've tried and convicted already in this case. I've just seen, second hand from my father, some shocking abuses and in none of the cases where the families even given a "we're sorry".

BucEyedPea
06-04-2008, 10:37 PM
You make some amazing leaps to attack her sometimes.

I earned it with my antics?ROFL For having an opinion he disagrees with and can't deal with.

Anyhow, my point here wasn't even about "how bad welfare is" —at all. He's extrapolating that. But welfare is the main reason these guys can live the way they do, as most people won't have that many kids, or wives if they can't support them on their own. This patently obvious...and they have a clever way of getting around the aniti-polygamy laws to boot. It's just extremely ironic in this case, that the state has to now watch them and/or chase them down while they support it all.

I don't even have an issue with some welfare at the state level, have posted as much, or the need for a foster care system. banyon's just a hot head with anger issues. LMAO...some reactions are pretty funny!

banyon
06-04-2008, 10:49 PM
I earned it with my antics?ROFL For having an opinion he disagrees with and can't deal with.

I don't even have an issue with some welfare at the state level, have posted as much, or the need for a foster care system. banyon's just a hot head with anger issues. LMAO...some reactions are pretty funny!

I'm generally an amiable guy and get along with about everyone here but you, Tom Gash, and Denise.

I'll leave it to the general public to draw the common thread.