The Rest of the Story...

[Truly]

Hi Rino,

I intially thought that also. Then I went and read their words and observed their actions. I found that I was incorrect.

You initially thought that? Really? Because you never posted anything to that effect. Instead you came busting out of the gates on day one defending the FLDS. Long before any attorneys were appointed for the kids, you told us all that it was perfectly fine for Agnes of France to be 'married' at age eight, and then forcibly 'remarried' at age twelve to a man who murdered her first 'husband'. You listed example after example of how it was just dandy for old men to have sex with little girls. Hey, you suggested, it was good enough for the mother of Jesus to give birth at a young age, why should these American girls two thousand years later have any choices? Nobody owes you concessions, Glow. I think you just enjoy playing this little game with those of us who really care that the children in the FLDS are being sexually abused. You are seriously accusing Linask of refusing to have a discussion? LOL! You refuse to even recognize the reality that there is child sexual abuse going on in the FLDS, and it has been going on for generations. That's the real issue here. I think you know that. All of the rest of your stories are just grasping in thin air to try to steer the discussion away from the only thing which matters in this case.

I have a simple question for you : Why won't you discuss the abuse BY the FLDS?

Your move. (I'm on the same team as Linask.)

 

[Truly]

Bolding mine, because I fully agree. That, LinasK, is the difference. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the supposed call was not about infants and small children at risk, that the infants and small children WERE NOT AT RISK. By all means get the girls in danger OUT and get the men who are perpetrators away in and jail where they belong. No one argues that. However, no small children and infants were in danger of being be forced into an early marriage and/or were sexually abused...and if the perps were taken away, then they definitely wouldn't have been in future danger.

These men have numerous wives who are older than the at-risk teens. They are not satisfied with dozens of grown women in their beds. They are constantly adding to their harems as soon as a girl exhibits the first signs of puberty. Do you honestly think that these men, accustomed to raping every young virgin as soon as she gets 'assigned' to him, would simply abstain if the young teens were the only ones removed? Because I think that the nine-year-olds would suddenly be in very grave danger. And if the nine-year-olds were protected, then they might just go for the four-year-olds. They prey on children. All of the children need to be protected.

 

[PSUfan]

Yes, there was- physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, all of which these infants were at risk for in the FLDS compound environment!

Thankfully for these infants, the higher court saw things differently, and the raid was illegal.

Hey... maybe the infants can be raised in a "normal" home, and be whoring themselves out on myspace like so many 12, 13 & 14 yr old girls from "normal" families do. Talk about at risk.

CPS, drunk on their power swooped in. Take the kids, violate the rights of everybody. Ask questions later. All on a trumped up phone call.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

I have to step in here because i am frustrated with people taking part of the facts and twisting it.

I think we need to start a sticky with the "facts". The facts need to be cleaned up from my comments below, but people are basing a lot of comments on facts that are not facts.

1) A call was placed saying there were problems with the FLDS
2) The call was a hoax
3) CPS has an obligation to investigate reports of child abuse even if the claim is found to be false
4) The children were taken under the assumption of imminent danger
5) When one child is presumed to be in imminent danger, all children in the household can be removed and placed in temporary state custody. They then go to court to see if they are to be removed from the homes or if they are to be allowed to go back home
6) The children were all taken on the basis that it was believed there was imminent danger of abuse. Pregnant teen and a smaller number of teen boys was part of the support for this claim
7) Due to the unique nature of the living quarters it was and is practically impossible to say who is in danger and who isn't so all children were removed
8) Breastfeeding babies that are removed from their parents are removed from their parents. This case is not picking on the moms or the FLDS. It is a simple fact of life with how removing a child from a home works. It pretty much defeats the purpose of removing a child if they are with the mom for 4 or 5 hours a day to feed.
9) The courts challenged whether imminent danger was proven. The courts determined that imminent danger was not proven, so the children should not have been removed under the imminent danger assumption.
10) The standard process for removing children is to have a court hearing to determine whether children should be given to state custody. Children are only removed before that if there is imminent danger.
11) The courts determined that everyone in the compound cannot be assumed abusers if there are select cases of abuse - not all children can be placed in state custody because of a few cases
12) The courts never declared that all children were safe. There ruling basically said CPS didn't prove their case and that they can't try everyone at once.
13) I do not recall any of the court rulings saying the "raid" was illegal. Again, CPS is responsible for inspecting all claims. The courts said imminent danger and thus the assumption for removing all of the children before the court hearing didn't hold up.
14) I didn't see anything that said CPS couldn't bring specific cases back to the court through the regular process (non-imminent danger) and try individual cases.

People can argue till they are blue in the face whether there is abuse and whether it can be proven. That is the real challenge that CPS faces is the difficulty in proving the crimes. People are fighting so many things here based on someones opinion. Can we get to the facts. List the facts. List the assumptions from both sides (there is abuse, there isn't, lost boys, broken bones, etc). Aarrggghh.

I am so frustrated with this thread being picking on anyone for any opinion. The case isn't being discussed. This thread has turned into picking on anyone that has an opinion because the other side must be right. There are things we can have opinions on and things where we need to document the case. Can we all get to the basics of the case and discuss those topics.

 

[SewingDeb]

Orphanages? Why Deb didnt you read Little Orphan Annie? They're worse yet! :crazy:

There are different orphanages these days. NC has several and the children live in cottages on the grounds with a couple who cares for them. They attend school, etc. I have met people who were raised in those orphanages as children and they have nothing but good things to say and they are very grateful for the care they were given. It doesn't have to be an Orphan Annie situation which is what some foster homes are these days.

 

[Glow]

I have to step in here because i am frustrated with people taking part of the facts and twisting it.

There is no point getting frustrated because this is pretty typical of what happens once the media puts the incorrect info out there first. Mark Twain said that "a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can tie its shoes." Once the lies got out about broken bones and pregnant teens and so on, it pretty much drowned out the "facts" that would come later.

I think we need to start a sticky with the "facts". The facts need to be cleaned up from my comments below, but people are basing a lot of comments on facts that are not facts.

I think it is wonderful idea to start a sticky with just the facts. Maybe you contact a mod to do that? I havent ever started a sticky so I dont know how.
As far as "cleaning up" your fact list below - I dont have much to add, I think you did really well. I wll just post under your post so I dont break up your points.

1) A call was placed saying there were problems with the FLDS.
2) The call was a hoax
3) CPS has an obligation to investigate reports of child abuse even if the claim is found to be false
4) The children were taken under the assumption of imminent danger
5) When one child is presumed to be in imminent danger, all children in the household can be removed and placed in temporary state custody. They then go to court to see if they are to be removed from the homes or if they are to be allowed to go back home.
they are allowed room for discretion here....none was exercised
6) The children were all taken on the basis that it was believed there was imminent danger of abuse. Pregnant teen and a smaller number of teen boys was part of the support for this claim
7) Due to the unique nature of the living quarters it was and is practically impossible to say who is in danger and who isn't so all children were removed
8) Breastfeeding babies that are removed from their parents are removed from their parents. This case is not picking on the moms or the FLDS. It is a simple fact of life with how removing a child from a home works. It pretty much defeats the purpose of removing a child if they are with the mom for 4 or 5 hours a day to feed.
9) The courts challenged whether imminent danger was proven. The courts determined that imminent danger was not proven, so the children should not have been removed under the imminent danger assumption.
10) The standard process for removing children is to have a court hearing to determine whether children should be given to state custody. Children are only removed before that if there is imminent danger.
11) The courts determined that everyone in the compound cannot be assumed abusers if there are select cases of abuse - not all children can be placed in state custody because of a few cases
12) The courts never declared that all children were safe. There ruling basically said CPS didn't prove their case and that they can't try everyone at once.
13) I do not recall any of the court rulings saying the "raid" was illegal. Again, CPS is responsible for inspecting all claims. The courts said imminent danger and thus the assumption for removing all of the children before the court hearing didn't hold up.
14) I didn't see anything that said CPS couldn't bring specific cases back to the court through the regular process (non-imminent danger) and try individual cases.

People can argue till they are blue in the face whether there is abuse and whether it can be proven. That is the real challenge that CPS faces is the difficulty in proving the crimes. People are fighting so many things here based on someones opinion. Can we get to the facts. List the facts. List the assumptions from both sides (there is abuse, there isn't, lost boys, broken bones, etc). Aarrggghh.

I am so frustrated with this thread being picking on anyone for any opinion. The case isn't being discussed. This thread has turned into picking on anyone that has an opinion because the other side must be right. There are things we can have opinions on and things where we need to document the case. Can we all get to the basics of the case and discuss those topics.

I agree that it would be wonderful to discuss this case analytically but I also know that it is a sensitive topic and some people just need to vent. I think there is room for both. That is just the way it is in a public forum.

 

[Glow]

As far as points 3 -6

The state (CPS) has to be able to prove 3 things when they remove a child from its home.

It must provide sufficient evidence:

• that there is not sufficient time, consistent with the child’s physical health or safety, to hold an adversary hearing;

• that it would be contrary to the child’s welfare to remain in the home; and

• that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.

the lawyers that filed to the Supreme Court said that in the beginning they thought getting the ruling of the Appeal Court upheld was going to be a shot in the dark, but the more they prepared, the more they realized a favorable ruling was going to be the Supreme Courts only choice.

 

[RainbowsAndGumdrops]

As far as points 3 -6

The state (CPS) has to be able to prove 3 things when they remove a child from its home.

It must provide sufficient evidence:

• that there is not sufficient time, consistent with the child’s physical health or safety, to hold an adversary hearing;

• that it would be contrary to the child’s welfare to remain in the home; and

• that reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.

the lawyers that filed to the Supreme Court said that in the beginning they thought getting the ruling of the Appeal Court upheld was going to be a shot in the dark, but the more they prepared, the more they realized a favorable ruling was going to be the Supreme Courts only choice.

Thank you Glow for that additional information. That is what the Supreme Court case was about and that is what CPS couldn't prove.

 

[Glow]

Thank you Glow for that additional information. That is what the Supreme Court case was about and that is what CPS couldn't prove.

Youre welcome. I probably should have provided links.

Here

http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2496


and here

http://www.bigbendgazette.com/blog/_archives/2008/7/1/3771392.html

 

[Glow]

Thankfully for these infants, the higher court saw things differently, and the raid was illegal.

Hey... maybe the infants can be raised in a "normal" home, and be whoring themselves out on myspace like so many 12, 13 & 14 yr old girls from "normal" families do. Talk about at risk.

CPS, drunk on their power swooped in. Take the kids, violate the rights of everybody. Ask questions later. All on a trumped up phone call.

You know I never really thought much about CPS one way or the other before this case. I read stories about abuse and some criticism that they dont act quick enough, but that was about it.

I had NO idea what an out of control group this is. I also had no idea how it functions as a "business."

I think that this case highlights wrongs that are going on everywhere, every day, on a case by case basis. I have really been shocked at what I have found since I began really looking at CPS. This case has focused on Texas CPS, but it is not just Texas. It is CPS period that is the problem. The whole structure needs dismantled and redone from the ground up.

As for it being illegal - it was definitely unconstitutional. So the question is -
can something that is in violation of the Constitution still be "legal"?

 

[Glow]

Some feel she a feminist, some a hero.

Some feel differently,



Flora Jessop, the outspoken media favorite and determined critic of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), has had the advantage and luxury of accruing audiences who want to believe her or are understandably uninformed about Flora’s real life and the FLDS church itself. Therefore, she has been able to say what she wants; and since people are often hearing what they want to hear, she has gotten off scot-free without any accountability or recourse whatsoever for what we now know are an endless string of vicious lies.

But Flora’s days of unaccountability have come to an end.

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=22119

 

[Glow]

States get bonuses from the Federal government for not returning kids to parents but rather adopting them out to strangers?

I did NOT know this until the FLDS case.

(this link is not about Texas - just about CPS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc&NR=1"

 

[Linda7NJ]

States get bonuses from the Federal government for not returning kids to parents but rather adopting them out to strangers?

I did NOT know this until the FLDS case.

(this link is not about Texas - just about CPS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8h4SOwWXdc&NR=1"

That's very true. They do get bonuses for adoptions.

 

[Glow]

So onward and upward as to the new developments...

(some harsh words here, beware.)

Here are thoughts and words of that last remaining child in custody AND her lawyers words as well Teresa Jeffs vs Natalie Malonis


Natalie Malonis, attorney ad litem for the poor little Isrealite girl, sixteen year old Teresa Jeffs,
is trying to make Willie Jessop pay her expenses (oh, I mean keep him from Teresa) She states:

“Teresa and I established a very good rapport from the start, and I felt that Teresa was forthright and honest, although a bit shy…..
Teresa was very pleased to see me, as were all of the girls placed there with Teresa. I have visited Teresa several times at her placement in Midland, and I had almost daily telephone contact with her. Teresa and I had a very good attorney-client relationship while she was in the States custody…”

But from Teresa’s point of view it was:

To the Judge:
“On Friday April 29, 2008 she [Natalie Malonis] stated in your court that I, her client, had a baby, and that I would not disclose to her whether it was a boy or a girl. I do not have a baby. She also said in open court that I was a victim of sexual abuse, which is NOT the truth …

"On the same day, she came to High Sky Children’s Ranch where I was detained with a group of fourteen other girls. Ms Malonis arrived there around 10:00 pm. She stayed in my room interrogating me until 1:00 am. She was very upset with me, yelling at me and talking very harshly against my family, saying that everyone was lying to her. I felt very intimidated and threatened by her. I would not look at her, and had no desire to speak to her. She told me very harshly to look at her, and wanted me to talk to her, but I would not because I knew that no matter what I said, she would not believe me, but would only assume that I was lying to her. It was a very unpleasant experience and I lost any confidence I ever had in her….
“…she told me that if she could get my Mother to agree with the restrictions put upon me, then I could go home… Ms. Malonis has said many times that my Mother agreed to this order, however my Mother was tricked into signing it in order to come and get me. Later I found that she did not have to sign anything…”

To Natalie she wrote:
“You let me call my mother on your phone while sitting there. While talking to her I could feel a perfect love from her. She asked me what she could do for me. I told her that I needed her prayers. I spent a little bit of time with her which I enjoyed. You wanted me to tell her all that you had said, but I had no desire to repeat that language, but wanted to set it aside. You then talked to her and repeated to her what you had said to me. I stepped out the door for a second, checking on the girls in the other room which was an encouraging sight, knowing that I had a friend in them. I didn’t want to hear much of what you were saying.

“I can’t describe the feelings I had at that time. I felt like the devil was trying to tear my heart apart.

“After mother hung up, we sat there for a good amount of time. Not a word was said. I layed on my bed with my hand in front of my face. I had no desire to speak, but wanted to be kind and forgiving. It got to be around 1:00 am. and I was one tired girl, feeling like I had been run through the wringer. You were tired also and finally got up to go. You told me you would come in the morning again to visit with me again and take me out to breakfast because we weren’t able to go to dinner that night. I wasn’t looking forward to morning at all. You asked me to walk you out to the door. I wanted to be kind and so I stood up, told you thank you and walked you to the front door. You stopped to talk to some of the staff and I left to go to my bed. Later on I heard that you had told the staff that you had had a very interesting conversation with me and that you wanted them to watch me closely and not allow me to be in my room for very long periods of time, but to call me out. I heard that you had said you were concerned about me and so on, which was silly to me for you to say that. You telling the staff that you had a very interesting conversation with me didn’t please me very much. I felt like that was confidential to me and they didn’t need to know about anything between my Ad Litem and I”

Later, after Teresa asked for a new attorney, Natalie wrote to the judge in her affidavit:
“Teresa and I had many discussions over the phone and through email. We once again had established a very good attorney-client relationship…

[Until Teresa was allowed to go to the Ranch, where Willie WAS NOT ] “Later in the day, I received correspondence from Teresa that she blamed me for her being subpoenaed to the grand jury and she expressed anger and hostility toward me”

And she wrote to Teresa( great attorney client relationship, move along, no threats here):
“Writing that letter to the Judge was about the most foolish thing you could have done. The Judge is now convinced that you are not able to make good decisions for yourself, and she is convinced also that your mother is not able to make proper decisions for you either Teresa, the Judge wants to take you back in custody and what's worse is that these poor choices may end up with your siblings back in custody if the Judge and CPS think your mother is not able to reign you in. The judge would probably not allow me to withdraw right now even if I requested it because the Judge sees me as the only person who is looking out for what is in your legal interests.”

After this horrific threat, Teresa wrote to Natalie:
“Natalie, quit all your lying about everything. You need to realize that I have a mind of my own and I can do things on my own if I choose to. I just want you to realize that I am not putting up with you any longer when you are acting this way and trying to make your name so great, saying to the whole world that you are “protecting Warren Jeffs’ daughter”. That is nothing great to do because I live in a happy family and I have been happy all my life until you and CPS have been so bothersome and nosy! Let me live a free life.
I want you to quit telling the whole world that Willie is making me do all this. Last I knew, he had gone to salt lake and I have had nothing to do with him in the last while. It was my own dear choice and idea to write to the judge and ask for a new lawyer. I wrote it myself and I took the time out of my day to do it. Quit blaming it all on someone else when you have absolutely no proof. No one can change my mind, not even Willie! But, I feel this way about you and I am hoping that you will be kind enough to leave me alone. It feels like you are trying to restrict me from every person in my life that I want to talk to or have anything to do with and you want to be the decider of what I do and who I have to do with.”


Because of these emails, in her affidavit Natalie wrote:
“This manner of communication was extremely out of character for Teresa and it was completely at odds with our prior discussions… [what does a false statement get you?]
“I believe that it was not Teresa who was communicating with me, and if it was Teresa I believe she was being coerced into taking a position that she would withhold information and avoid service of the grand jury subpoena.”

But Teresa actually said (anger and threat?):

“Quit worrying about me so much hoping that I have protection. If I feel like I need protection in one way or another, I will tell someone. I feel like I need protection from you right now! If you can believe such a thing! My attorney is going against my wishes. Maybe you need a restraining order that you can absolutely have nothing to do with me and you have to stay 1000 ft away from me! What do you think of that? I think that would be most wonderful.

“Please don’t feel bad. I just want to get this straight with you. Now don’t think that someone else is typing this note to you. I wish you were standing by me to watch me type it so I can show you proof that this is me all the way. Nobody told me to come and type this. In fact, I haven’t showed this restraining order to anyone yet. I am the only one that has seen it. I will show it to my mother as soon as I email this letter to you.

“Straighten up your back and realize that you cannot keep playing around with me. With the help of the Lord I will stand for the right, no matter what you or anyone else threatens me with. No one around me that loves me has threatened me that if I don’t stand for the right then they will do something to me. Never in my life have I been threatened so much until I had to do with you and CPS.

“Well, thank you Natalie for stepping aside. I am expecting it of you. Go live a happy, merry life! -Teresa Jeffs”

Who will win, the little Israelite girl, or the Gestapo?


http://fldsview.blogspot.com/search/label/Kidnapped%20children


Gestopo?


As I said, some harsh words here.

 

[Blue_Dolphin308]

Some feel she a feminist, some a hero.

Some feel differently,



Flora Jessop, the outspoken media favorite and determined critic of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints (FLDS), has had the advantage and luxury of accruing audiences who want to believe her or are understandably uninformed about Flora’s real life and the FLDS church itself. Therefore, she has been able to say what she wants; and since people are often hearing what they want to hear, she has gotten off scot-free without any accountability or recourse whatsoever for what we now know are an endless string of vicious lies.

But Flora’s days of unaccountability have come to an end.

http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=22119

We can see what side this came from! biased towards the FLDS in my opinion, and written by the FLDS, to try and discredit Flora. So what if she was wild, I was wild with all that I had been through! I don't blame her in the least, and I will believe FLORA before I beleive anyone in the FLDS. This to me is just an attempt to draw us away from what is really and truely going on.

 

[Glow]

Here is why a lot of decent people have a problem with the FLDS:

There appears to be -

"A continuing presence of sex between older adult males and minor children."

"The domination of women & children by older males in leadership positions - especially sexually"

"The treatment and handling of younger males approaching adulthood by the older males in authority"



There is a system in Texas called the TYC (Texas Youth Commission) Last year there were some local sex abuse charges that the local DA failed to prosecute.

The Texas Rangers investigated and documented that guards and administrators were sexually abusing the teenage boys.

Among the charges in the Texas Ranger report were that administrators would rouse boys from their sleep for the purpose of conducting all-night sex parties.

Bill Baumann, an assistant U.S. attorney, wrote a successful argument based on the fact that none of the victims were complaining.

quote-
"Baumann's letter went so far as to suggest that the victims may have willingly participated in, or even enjoyed, the acts of pedophilia involved: "As you know, consent is frequently an issue in sexual assault cases. Although none of the victims admit that they consented to the sexual contact, none resisted or voiced any objection to the conduct. Several of the victims suggested that they were simply 'getting off' on the school administrator."
end quote-

mind control of adult men over minors?
And if we want to talk about mind control due to social isolation - where better than a prison full of underaged kids?

So again,

Here is why a lot of decent people have a problem with the FLDS:

There appears to be -

"A continuing presence of sex between older adult males and minor children."

"The domination of women &children by older males in leadership positions - especially sexually"

"The treatment and handling of younger males approaching adulthood by the older males in authority"


All three statements are also true of the TYC (Texas Youth Comission)

So where is the outcry about that?


I have linked this case here

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861

 

[Truly]

Here is why a lot of decent people have a problem with the FLDS:

There appears to be -

"A continuing presence of sex between older adult males and minor children."

"The domination of women & children by older males in leadership positions - especially sexually"

"The treatment and handling of younger males approaching adulthood by the older males in authority"




So again,

Here is why a lot of decent people have a problem with the FLDS:

There appears to be -

"A continuing presence of sex between older adult males and minor children."

"The domination of women &children by older males in leadership positions - especially sexually"

"The treatment and handling of younger males approaching adulthood by the older males in authority"

I have deleted the sections of your post which seek to deflect attention away from why us decent people have a problem with the FLDS.

Let's talk about that right there. Do you not have a problem with the FLDS' domination of women and children?

Sorry I cannot open your links until you count yourself amongst the decent. So far, Glow, I haven't heard you condemn the abuse by the FLDS. I'm all ears. Let's hear what you think.

Focus. We're almost there. Here are the letters again. F.L.D.S. ( Not I.R.S,, D.H.S, C.P.S, or any other combination of alphabet soup.!)

The abuse of women and children by older males in the FLDS. You said it twice. You are so close. You can do this.

Your opinion on this topic is.....................................??????

 

[SewingDeb]

Glow, why do you insist on wondering where is the outcry for the Amish, CPS, TYC, etc.? Start a thread on those topics if you want to hear the outcry because it will come.

This thread is not about those other agencies (other than what CPS did in this particular case).

I would love to hear your answer to Truly's post above because you make so many excuses for the FLDS and try to show us that other organizations are as bad or worse. That's not the point...do you condone what the FLDS do as far as underage girls and assigning husbands for them?

 

[Ciara]

I have deleted the sections of your post which seek to deflect attention away from why us decent people have a problem with the FLDS.

Let's talk about that right there. Do you not have a problem with the FLDS' domination of women and children?

Sorry I cannot open your links until you count yourself amongst the decent. So far, Glow, I haven't heard you condemn the abuse by the FLDS. I'm all ears. Let's hear what you think.

Focus. We're almost there. Here are the letters again. F.L.D.S. ( Not I.R.S,, D.H.S, C.P.S, or any other combination of alphabet soup.!)

The abuse of women and children by older males in the FLDS. You said it twice. You are so close. You can do this.

Your opinion on this topic is.....................................??????

Excellent Post Truly. Just brilliant:clap:

 

[Glow]

Glow, why do you insist on wondering where is the outcry for the Amish, CPS, TYC, etc.? Start a thread on those topics if you want to hear the outcry

Good morning/afternoon SewingDeb!

This thread is called "The Rest of the Story" I started it to tell just that.....the rest of the story.....you know, the things that are not being said already. And truthfully, I am not "wondering" why there is not outcry. I know why there is not.

Hatred against the FLDS is running so high now that if some people were allowed to chose to place the children in a foster home where there is a 50/50 chance they would be molested, OR leave them with their parents - they would pick the foster home! That is the kind of blind emotional horse that hate gallops in on.

because it will come.

No. It wont come.

Not unless the Amish have a Flora with her own personal "Amish" issues who also happens to be "friends" with a certain "law man" who just so happens to have enough pull to find a judge to authorize a raid.


Not unless you get a Governors mansion to tell its spin Dr.s to keep rubbing the presses nose in titillating details that are not true.


Wish I could throw in a little something here about bigamy and polygamy - which I cant because the Amish dont practice that (sigh ) So I will move right on past the child abuse and incest which they do have a problem with.

This thread is not about those other agencies (other than what CPS did in this particular case).

If I may, I would like to weigh in alongside you as to what this thread is "about". Since I started the thread I think that would be appropriate and I'm sure you do to....

This thread is about

The governments reach into the lives of the citizens of this country. When is enough and how should it be exercised and when is too much.

This thread is about the civil rights of Americans and that includes its children. I personally dont think a small child should be interrogated in the middle of the night, taken from its family home, OR held under guard in a stable - because said child "might" risk abuse 10 or 15 years from now.

Lastly, this thread is about looking at this story from every angle and not just the one that we are being told to by the powers that be and the mainstream media - which keeps changing its mind-depending on which way the politcal wind seems to be blowing.

I would love to hear your answer to Truly's post above

I'm sure you would - but you are not going to. I do not address anything that Truly says. Truly knows that, and she knows why. Obviously she has not chosen to share that knowledge with you. I respect Truly's privacy and I will not be sharing that with you either.


As always, I appreciate hearing your thoughts SewingDeb and I hope you are having a wonderful holiday weekend.