AR - Fully-Armed Sheriffs Remove 7 Homeschool Children from 'Prepper' Family

[Margo/Mom]

I think the ATF would be involved if it had to do with firepower. The FBI investigates things like selling illegal substances over the internet. It probably has to do with that supplement they have.

As I read the article that the Herald put up later, apparently the folks claiming to be Anonymous (agree with bluesneakers--I think it is just some locals appropriating the name, Anonymous are primarily hackers, standing around with signs is not their style) are demanding investigation by the FBI. So, most likely some reporter is trying to get a comment on that.

 

[MyBelle]

I think the ATF would be involved if it had to do with firepower. The FBI investigates things like selling illegal substances over the internet. It probably has to do with that supplement they have.

If outsiders are advocating for FBI involvement, I think it has more to do with their perception that the Stanleys civil rights have been violated.

JMO

 

[Margo/Mom]

If outsiders are advocating for FBI involvement, I think it has more to do with their perception that the Stanleys civil rights have been violated.

JMO

Maybe. They dropped the name of a former Georgia legislator, now deceased, who was very far right politically (lost several seats in primaries) as well as religiously. She put out a "report" claiming that child protective services (all of them, everywhere) are corrupt, lack oversight, are financially rewarded for "abducting" kids from their families, oh and incidentally also not protecting kids who "really" need it.

The protestors also alluded to their belief that the Georgia legislator (whose death was officially ruled a murder-suicide based on notes left for family members as well as evidence at the site) was murdered. So--I think these folks have an ax to grind and this is a convenient bandwagon for them to jump on.

 

[MyBelle]

Maybe. They dropped the name of a former Georgia legislator, now deceased, who was very far right politically (lost several seats in primaries) as well as religiously. She put out a "report" claiming that child protective services (all of them, everywhere) are corrupt, lack oversight, are financially rewarded for "abducting" kids from their families, oh and incidentally also not protecting kids who "really" need it.

The protestors also alluded to their belief that the Georgia legislator (whose death was officially ruled a murder-suicide based on notes left for family members as well as evidence at the site) was murdered. So--I think these folks have an ax to grind and this is a convenient bandwagon for them to jump on.

I don't know how Georgia fits into this because CPS are state-run agencies. One doesn't have to be extremely religious to be critical of how they are run. WS has far too many threads about cases all over the U.S. where CPS failed to protect children and left them in the home. The pendulum can swing in the opposite direction, however, and it is entirely possible that is what happened in this case.

JMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Maybe. They dropped the name of a former Georgia legislator, now deceased, who was very far right politically (lost several seats in primaries) as well as religiously. She put out a "report" claiming that child protective services (all of them, everywhere) are corrupt, lack oversight, are financially rewarded for "abducting" kids from their families, oh and incidentally also not protecting kids who "really" need it.

The protestors also alluded to their belief that the Georgia legislator (whose death was officially ruled a murder-suicide based on notes left for family members as well as evidence at the site) was murdered. So--I think these folks have an ax to grind and this is a convenient bandwagon for them to jump on.

I think so too, especially the way he said CPS won't take kids who are "unadoptable." IMO they had their own reason for being there and it wasn't to show support for the Stanley family.

 

[MyBelle]

I think so too, especially the way he said CPS won't take kids who are "unadoptable." IMO they had their own reason for being there and it wasn't to show support for the Stanley family.

The media doesn't care why these folks are protesting. Far too many people have an ax to grind with CPS. These agencies are not perfect and they do make mistakes and taxpayers pick up the bill.

JMO

 

[Morag]

The media doesn't care why these folks are protesting. Far too many people have an ax to grind with CPS. These agencies are not perfect and they do make mistakes and taxpayers pick up the bill.

JMO

And some parents are not perfect as well, and the taxpayers pick up the bill for that, too.

 

[K_Z]

In addition to the fundraising site (a little over $13K at present), and the original "keep the...." FB page, a new facebook page ("Standing with the....") has been put up to exercise freedom of speech "discussion" about the "issues" surrounding this case, while attempting to remain in compliance with the gag order from the court.

My impressions/ summary: IMO, the comments are soaked in bible quotes, cherry picked statutes, and angry and paranoid rhetoric about persecution. Mostly complaints about DHS involvement, comments about freedom and the constitution, Stanley family being targeted for persecution for raising their children according to old fashioned values from a Biblical perspective, and homeschooling, etc. Criticism of the foster care situation of the children; the girls hair is brushed, but not braided or fixed, clothes are ill fitting, etc. Calls to involve the Duggars, and the Duck Dynasty people in the plight of the Stanleys.

Several "hypothetical" scenarios about a disgruntled teenager desiring more material things, and weaving elaborate webs of lies to trap his parents. Criticism of "hypothetical" neighbors calling authorities with complaints, instead of coming to the family to bring their complaints.

Pointing out how HS served our country in the military for 3 years 1960-63, so presumably they believe that should render him immune to complaints that involve the children's welfare, safety, and upbringing?? That was a confusing line of thought to try to follow.

Additionally, there is a youtube video (6:42) posted 2-15-15 of an interview by Magellan with Michelle's "Uncle Steve" (great uncle to the kids). Michelle's family is from south Louisiana, according to the interview. She and HS have been married over 20 years according to Uncle Steve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4e5WvVvAA

Blog talk radio, Dinar Intel by Magellan (3 weeks ago, but this is who "Magellan" is):

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities

This is a different interview from the "rocking chair" interview. Michelle Stanley interview begins approximately 11 min in, and goes until about 25:00, then commentary.

She breaks into tears when talking about seeking more wisdom about parenting "rebellious teenagers". Discusses HS observed to slap one of the kids in the face. Later, her voice breaks again when discussing the 2 teenagers, "the only thing that made sense was they had my 2 teenagers in the van for 5 hours, and they were the worst ones to have in there". Talks about having to testify against her kids "on the stand", or "them testify against me" and how painful that would be. More discussion about the "packed van" and teenagers saying they would flee with the kids.

 

[Margo/Mom]

K-z, I had posted a few comments to the new site. They were, of course removed and I was blocked. There are a good number of people willing to share stories of how they have been mistreated by the system. And, as you point out, a lot of anti-government paranoia. Overall, the supporters more and more suggest religiously cult-like behavior, with a particular emphasis on parental rights in the area of corporal punishment. It has taken on crusade-like proportions.

 

[MyBelle]

In addition to the fundraising site (a little over $13K at present), and the original "keep the...." FB page, a new facebook page ("Standing with the....") has been put up to exercise freedom of speech "discussion" about the "issues" surrounding this case, while attempting to remain in compliance with the gag order from the court.

My impressions/ summary: IMO, the comments are soaked in bible quotes, cherry picked statutes, and angry and paranoid rhetoric about persecution. Mostly complaints about DHS involvement, comments about freedom and the constitution, Stanley family being targeted for persecution for raising their children according to old fashioned values from a Biblical perspective, and homeschooling, etc. Criticism of the foster care situation of the children; the girls hair is brushed, but not braided or fixed, clothes are ill fitting, etc. Calls to involve the Duggars, and the Duck Dynasty people in the plight of the Stanleys.

Several "hypothetical" scenarios about a disgruntled teenager desiring more material things, and weaving elaborate webs of lies to trap his parents. Criticism of "hypothetical" neighbors calling authorities with complaints, instead of coming to the family to bring their complaints.

Pointing out how HS served our country in the military for 3 years 1960-63, so presumably they believe that should render him immune to complaints that involve the children's welfare, safety, and upbringing?? That was a confusing line of thought to try to follow.

Additionally, there is a youtube video (6:42) posted 2-15-15 of an interview by Magellan with Michelle's "Uncle Steve" (great uncle to the kids). Michelle's family is from south Louisiana, according to the interview. She and HS have been married over 20 years according to Uncle Steve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4e5WvVvAA

Blog talk radio, Dinar Intel by Magellan (3 weeks ago, but this is who "Magellan" is):

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities

This is a different interview from the "rocking chair" interview. Michelle Stanley interview begins approximately 11 min in, and goes until about 25:00, then commentary.

She breaks into tears when talking about seeking more wisdom about parenting "rebellious teenagers". Discusses HS observed to slap one of the kids in the face. Later, her voice breaks again when discussing the 2 teenagers, "the only thing that made sense was they had my 2 teenagers in the van for 5 hours, and they were the worst ones to have in there". Talks about having to testify against her kids "on the stand", or "them testify against me" and how painful that would be. More discussion about the "packed van" and teenagers saying they would flee with the kids.

It is no surprise that this case is being politicized. The extreme far right tried to latch on to the Pelletier case. That child really was a victim of medical abuse by her parents yet still managed to get a standing ovation from Congress.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

K-z, I had posted a few comments to the new site. They were, of course removed and I was blocked. There are a good number of people willing to share stories of how they have been mistreated by the system. And, as you point out, a lot of anti-government paranoia. Overall, the supporters more and more suggest religiously cult-like behavior, with a particular emphasis on parental rights in the area of corporal punishment. It has taken on crusade-like proportions.

I think anyone who has ever experienced what they perceive is unfair treatment from a government agency is going to have future distrust of any government agency. I've worked for a state DHS agency and it was an incredibly dysfunctional mess, rotten from the head down.

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

In addition to the fundraising site (a little over $13K at present), and the original "keep the...." FB page, a new facebook page ("Standing with the....") has been put up to exercise freedom of speech "discussion" about the "issues" surrounding this case, while attempting to remain in compliance with the gag order from the court.

My impressions/ summary: IMO, the comments are soaked in bible quotes, cherry picked statutes, and angry and paranoid rhetoric about persecution. Mostly complaints about DHS involvement, comments about freedom and the constitution, Stanley family being targeted for persecution for raising their children according to old fashioned values from a Biblical perspective, and homeschooling, etc. Criticism of the foster care situation of the children; the girls hair is brushed, but not braided or fixed, clothes are ill fitting, etc. Calls to involve the Duggars, and the Duck Dynasty people in the plight of the Stanleys.

Several "hypothetical" scenarios about a disgruntled teenager desiring more material things, and weaving elaborate webs of lies to trap his parents. Criticism of "hypothetical" neighbors calling authorities with complaints, instead of coming to the family to bring their complaints.

Pointing out how HS served our country in the military for 3 years 1960-63, so presumably they believe that should render him immune to complaints that involve the children's welfare, safety, and upbringing?? That was a confusing line of thought to try to follow.

Additionally, there is a youtube video (6:42) posted 2-15-15 of an interview by Magellan with Michelle's "Uncle Steve" (great uncle to the kids). Michelle's family is from south Louisiana, according to the interview. She and HS have been married over 20 years according to Uncle Steve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS4e5WvVvAA

Blog talk radio, Dinar Intel by Magellan (3 weeks ago, but this is who "Magellan" is):

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dinari...y-mom-of-7-homeschoolers-taken-by-authorities

This is a different interview from the "rocking chair" interview. Michelle Stanley interview begins approximately 11 min in, and goes until about 25:00, then commentary.

She breaks into tears when talking about seeking more wisdom about parenting "rebellious teenagers". Discusses HS observed to slap one of the kids in the face. Later, her voice breaks again when discussing the 2 teenagers, "the only thing that made sense was they had my 2 teenagers in the van for 5 hours, and they were the worst ones to have in there". Talks about having to testify against her kids "on the stand", or "them testify against me" and how painful that would be. More discussion about the "packed van" and teenagers saying they would flee with the kids.

Lol! That Magellan guy manages to be funny and creepy at the same time. Sadly, I don't think he is being deliberately funny.

 

[Margo/Mom]

I think anyone who has ever experienced what they perceive is unfair treatment from a government agency is going to have future distrust of any government agency. I've worked for a state DHS agency and it was an incredibly dysfunctional mess, rotten from the head down.

JMO

Outside of recovering addicts--who tend to have a lot of support for recgnizing past wrongs and making amends--I think that most folks who have experienced removal tend to be wrapped in denial of their own roles. I would suggest that a major issue with many such situations is the nnecessity to rely on a paltry menu of assistance--parenting classes and the like, that cannot possibly move a family far enough in the direction of ensuring safety for children. And we do not commit sufficient resources to either prevention services, or long-term education and monitoring of salvageable families. But, I gotta tell you, folks like the Stanleys and their political cohorts scare me. The commitment to dishonesty, cover-up and shutting out alternate views is dangerous--and children have been hurt. And some have died.

 

[MyBelle]

Outside of recovering addicts--who tend to have a lot of support for recgnizing past wrongs and making amends--I think that most folks who have experienced removal tend to be wrapped in denial of their own roles. I would suggest that a major issue with many such situations is the nnecessity to rely on a paltry menu of assistance--parenting classes and the like, that cannot possibly move a family far enough in the direction of ensuring safety for children. And we do not commit sufficient resources to either prevention services, or long-term education and monitoring of salvageable families. But, I gotta tell you, folks like the Stanleys and their political cohorts scare me. The commitment to dishonesty, cover-up and shutting out alternate views is dangerous--and children have been hurt. And some have died.

Sometimes CPS gets it wrong. I think the majority of American parents are more bothered by instances of CPS getting it wrong because getting it wrong means children are actually harmed by the decisions. I don't blindly assume just because CPS makes a decision it is always the right decision in the best interest of children.

I've yet to see any evidence the Stanleys have emotionally or physically harmed their children.

 

[daisytrail]

Sometimes CPS gets it wrong. I think the majority of American parents are more bothered by instances of CPS getting it wrong because getting it wrong means children are actually harmed by the decisions. I don't blindly assume just because CPS makes a decision it is always the right decision in the best interest of children.

I've yet to see any evidence the Stanleys have emotionally or physically harmed their children.

I certainly don't blindly assume that CPS always gets it right. However, getting it wrong results in much more publicity. The publicity itself feeds skepticism. It can also feed paranoia.

 

[808paradise]

I've yet to see any evidence the Stanleys have emotionally or physically harmed their children.

And YOU may never see it. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. CPS, LE and the Judge ALL agree that the evidence is there to support the continued removal of the children.

 

[MyBelle]

And YOU may never see it. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. CPS, LE and the Judge ALL agree that the evidence is there to support the continued removal of the children.

All the Judge has really done is approve the agency's request for more time. I doubt he has seen any actual evidence of physical or emotional abuse. I think the agency is still "looking" for it......

JMO

 

[daisytrail]

All the Judge has really done is approve the agency's request for more time. I doubt he has seen any actual evidence of physical or emotional abuse. I think the agency is still "looking" for it......

JMO

And how may we know what the judge has or has not seen in terms of evidence?

 

[MyBelle]

And how may we know what the judge has or has not seen in terms of evidence?

Because the hearing was postponed until next month at the request of the state. All the Judge heard at the previous hearing were allegations.

credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse.


http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

 

[daisytrail]

Because the hearing was postponed until next month at the request of the state. All the Judge heard at the previous hearing were allegations.

credible testimony given in court by family members alleged physical abuse.



http://www.arkansasmatters.com/stor...e-son-of-stanley/21953/Bx31OC_C3kSuX3jK2uw4wA

You say that you doubt that the judge has seen any evidence of physical or emotional abuse, but your very link which you posted does not support your contention. I quote "credible testimony given in court alleged physical abuse." Testimony in court is a part of evidence. This may be in the form of eyewitness evidence for all we know. It could be in the form of evidence gathered by the police or the CPS caseworkers or it could be evidence in the form of a report to the judge by a CASA volunteer. I have written such reports myself in the past. What you seem to be calling "allegations" no doubt were given consideration by many people involved with the case, including the judge. When the son in the interview in the video says that people should not judge, he makes it clear he is talking about the opinions offered on either side. He seems to be discussing the media and the people who are forming judgments from things when they are not close to the case. He is talking about the need for his parents to develop better parenting skills. He clearly loves his family and hopes for resolution, providing that these parenting skills can be improved.

There can be no need for improvements if there is no problem. Clearly, this son sees a problem.