Sickening

[MrBishop]

Convicted pedophiles, you mean, Gonz. For every convicted pedophile out there, there are 50-500 that either failed to be convicted, failed to be caught or are still well under the radar...still molesting kid, still making kiddie porn, still taking an hour to change the baby's diaper, when mama's not home.

Problem is IMHO, is that the legal beagles that handle these cases sometimes, and the over-eager cops that go above and beyond to get these folx.... well, they fuck up.
One cop steps on a criminal's foot as he's being arrested but before the Miranda's been read and a case can get thrown out before it's heard. etc etc... so many hoops to jump through, anyone of which can kill a case. There are far too many ways to have a case thrown out...most of it pedantic legalese and nit picking.

So many that it's frustrating to see otherwise intelligent people, like yourself, jump to the defense of what should be a great legal system, but only has a faint resemblance to what the system was meant to look like.

Innocent until proven guilty, by a jury of your peers, beyond a reasonable doubt.

vs.

Guilty as hell, but because someone on the prosecution side dropped the ball, the evidence to prove the guilt is tossed out by judges who want to get elected next year.

 

[Luis G]

And suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond any reasonable doubt. Have any suspects been charged with any crime?

Release Guantanamo bay prisoners!!!

 

[2minkey]

free leonard peltier!
free mumia!

 

[MrBishop]

Jail Céline Dion!

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Jim, it's simple really if you pay attention.

You declared the CPS guilty of criminal acts based on budgets before any court hearings and without any evidence. So don't fucking talk about what the COURTS did again because like I said you declared them guilty before any hearings.

Now go back and pay attention to the italics and bold parts one more time. Got it? Ready?

Ok, now answer the question for the first time finally-> Why the hypocrisy and double standard?

There is no double standard. I stated that the actions of CPS would bolster their budget as their budget depends on the number of children they seize. In your addled mind that became my wishing criminal indictments against CPS personnel.

I never called for the PROSECUTION of any CPS personnel. You are calling for the PROSECUTION of these church members. You claim that there is evidence but none has been presented.

See what I'm asking you? I'm asking why YOU not the COURTS declared the CPS of criminal actions based on budgets before any hearings and with no charges filed?

I never called for the arrest, indictment, or conviction of any CPS worker or administrator. I didn't declare their actions illegal until the courts did. See below.

You see I'm asking this because that is what your whole argument has been for the FLDS members and if you have two completely different standards that makes you a hypocrit again.

I am not arguing FOR the FLDS members. I amd arguing FOR justice and American jurisprudence.

But you can't answer that question because you have been acting like a hypocrit and you know it. So you just start some pathetic insults and make excuses for avoiding the matter just like when you got called out on things earlier in the thread.

I answered your question and have just done so still one ... more ... time!

Of course you can't back up the accusations you made about me either because you just made up shit that I never said so you could disagree with your own invented crap. We'll come back to that bullshit later though.

Your big word of the day is "implication". By implication, your refusal to recognize the tenets of the law -- that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty -- means that you are declaring them to be the opposite of innocent -- GUILTY.

Just focus all your attention on this one simple question:

I'm asking why YOU not the COURTS declared the CPS of criminal actions based on budgets before any hearings and with no charges filed?

Now remember this was before any hearings that you declared this so don't start making excuses again.

Proceed.

I declared that they were operating outside of the law at the same time the court did not before. See below. I also said that they had good motive for seizing all of those children. Their budget depends on the number of children they seize.

Tell me this:

If they were to start seizing one-half -- 50% -- of the children they now seize; do you believe that their budget would remain at the same level it is now, or would it be decreased?

Conversely: If they start seizing 50% MORE children than they do now; do you believe that their budget would remain at its current level, or would it be increased?

You obviously have no experience in dealing with the bureaucratic mindset.

Here is the timeline of my posts, with links:

My first post on this subject was HERE and I did not, at that time, state anything about their operating outside of the law. I merely posited that this seizure would be a boon to their budget.

I then stated that CPS will invent evidence HERE using dolls and other props.

I predicted HERE that this case would go to the SCotUS but it didn't make it past the Texas State Supreme Court.

The article I posted suggested that the actions of CPS were "an overreaching action to sweep up all these children" (ie: they operated outside of the law) and that "Another legal issue may emerge if investigators discover the call from the 16-year-old girl was a hoax."

I again posited the question "... what motivation would a bureaucracy have to find bad things -- even if those things are exaggerated or invented -- when that bureaucracy depends on the number of children seized for their budget?" HERE

I reiterated that opinion HERE

I responded to your retort HERE

I backed up my contentions HERE

The first time that I actually stated that CPS was in actual violation of the law was HERE at the time the courts made their first ruling that they had done so.

Try to get your accusations correct, will you?

 

[jimpeel]

Also, has anyone anything to say about THIS MAY 21, 2008 ARTICLE which has been ignored?

POLYGAMIST ‘GIRLS’ SURPRISE INVESTIGATORS

Posted: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 3:33 PM

By Don Teague, NBC News Correspondent
SAN ANGELO, Texas – They really do look younger.

As the first round of individual hearings for mothers from the Yearning For Zion ranch continue in San Angelo, perhaps the most interesting fact to emerge is that many women from the polygamist sect look much younger than their actual age.

...

Officials from Texas Child Protective Services (CPS) said at least 31 of the mothers, or pregnant "girls," in state custody were underage. That number, they conceded, included 26 women/girls whose ages were "in dispute." The women told CPS officials they were adults, and claimed they had documentation to prove it, but investigators insisted that they "looked like minors," so they were kept in custody.

Fast forward to this week, where judges are holding status hearings on the cases. Unlike prior court proceedings before, when a judge considered all of the families together in one giant, chaotic hearing, these hearings are happening on a "per mother" basis. After just the first two days of hearings, the number of alleged underage mothers has dropped dramatically, from 31 down to 23, and it could keep falling.

Turns out, many of the "disputed" minors are adults after all, a point CPS hasn’t conceded until now. One of the "girls" is actually 27 years old.

...

They claimed to have seen numerous underage mothers and pregnant minors while searching for an alleged 16-year-old victim of sexual abuse named "Sarah." Sarah, was officially considered to be a real person until Monday, when CPS dropped her court case, acknowledging that she doesn’t actually exist. State police are now investigating the calls for help from "Sarah" as hoax phone calls, made by an adult from Colorado with a history of making false reports.

[more]

 

[2minkey]

Jail Céline Dion!

yes. please.

 

[jimpeel]

So. I wanna ask a question at this point.

Let's play us a little game of what if.

What if the good law abiding folk on this grand jury hear this testimony and return indictments against this presumed innocent shitbag.

Then say a criminal court jury hears the rest of the evidence (remember, the grand jury only hears what portion the DA thinks is necessary to get that indictment and NO MORE). Let's further say that this criminal jury finds our presumed innocent piece of subhuman filth guilty. Heck, let's take it one further...let's say testimony comes out during trial that he molested 287 teeniebopper girls, 14 bulldozers, a passing ocelot, and no less than 232 key lime pies. Last Tuesday. Before lunch.

(This is the portion of the post where HomeLAN, God bless him, would point out that ocelots are not native to the area, but I digress...)

What argument are y'all gonna make then? He got shafted, pardon the pun? Bias from the media? Price of sweet taters in Norway? Bush's fault? Denigration of freedom of religious expression here in the land of the three and home of the naive? I'm honestly curious. A handful of y'all are so vested in your arguments that backing out gracefully ain't really all that much of an option at this point. You've pitched your tent on this waste of DNA's innocence. If that gets shattered whatcha gonna do? Acquiesce? Ignore? Precisely what flavor of spin have ye in mind good and gentle people? Cuz I think you oughta start gettin one ready. His shit's about to impact an oscillating air circulation mechanism by my calculations. Give him a month in prison and he'll know exactly, in excruciating detail, just how much having a high hard one rammed somewhere it ain't supposed to be hurts. He'll be able to pass an oxygen tank without feeling a thing. None too damn soon either. Is it "fair"? Is it "cruel and unusual" (threw those in for you peelie in anticipation of your reply) punishment? Yep. And he earned every bone-jarring second of it too. And when he's using hemhorroid pads the size of beanbag chairs just to walk across his cell I hope he thinks of all those little girls he traumatized.

Then there's the other possibility. He might walk. Stranger things have happened, have they not Orenthal James? In that case, then my contentions have failed to be proven. Just remember, not guilty is not the same as innocent. He'll answer for it eventually. God knows how many more young girls will be violated before that day arrives, but it will arrive. Helluva life to live, huh? Knowing you're gonna answer for all those girls...gives me chills thinking about it and I didn't touch 'em. And y'know, being a self-proclaimed prophet and all, you'd think he'd be quite aware of that coming judgment. Kinda makes you wonder which part of his life is real...the religious man or the pedophile...the messenger of God he claims to be or the pervert he's been proven to be already. At any rate, should he walk, I'd be willing to bet he'll walk smack into a lot of trees. Cuz he'll be looking over his shoulder every miserable day of his miserable life.

Nope, I don't envy him one bit either way.

If they are found guilty as charged, whatever those charges might be, in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury of their peers beyond any reasonable doubt then they are guilty and should be punished.

If, however, they are found not guilty then they are considered innocent of the charges regardless of any semantics on "not guilty" vs "innocent".

 

[jimpeel]

See, I don't believe we as citizens are free to practice any religion we choose. Ask your neighborhood rastafarian about that one.

Actually, the SCotUS has ruled that people, even those in prison, can participate in ritual sacrifice of animals; and it has also ruled that American Indians can use peyote in their religious rituals even though peyote is a class I drug and a felony to possess. Then there is that little thing about eagle feathers that can put you in jail for five years and a $10k fine; and don't you try harpooning a Right Whale unless you are Inuit.

 

[Gonz]

Release Guantanamo bay prisoners!!!

They are not American citizens, therefore, no rights. Since they weren't wearing military uniforms, they are not protected anywhere.

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

There is no double standard. I stated that the actions of CPS would bolster their budget as their budget depends on the number of children they seize. In your addled mind that became my wishing criminal indictments against CPS personnel.

I never called for the PROSECUTION of any CPS personnel. You are calling for the PROSECUTION of these church members. You claim that there is evidence but none has been presented.

Where did I call for their prosecution Jim? Where?

Once again you make things up and act as if it's true. It's like you're going the record for a single poster being proved wrong the most times on one thread here.

Fact is you accused the CPS of criminal acts based on budgets without evidence. If you did not have a double standard you would be have been pleading their innocence until proven otherwise.

Also you have now declared the suspected original caller a guilty hoaxer before trial. Hypocrisy.

You want to presume innocence for suspected child molesters and presume guilt for everyone else.

I never called for the arrest, indictment, or conviction of any CPS worker or administrator.

No but you declared them and the suspected hoaxer guilty while only seeming to be concerned about proclaiming innocence for suspect child molesters.

I didn't declare their actions illegal until the courts did.

You mean when you declared First Amendment violations? Tha's not illegal? It sure was before any court hearing.

I am not arguing FOR the FLDS members. I amd arguing FOR justice and American jurisprudence.

Only for suspected child molesters. Not for the original caller or CPS. Hypocrisy.

I answered your question and have just done so still one ... more ... time!

You have not answered it once. The question is: Why the double standard and hypocrisy?

Your big word of the day is "implication". By implication, your refusal to recognize the tenets of the law -- that all persons accused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty -- means that you are declaring them to be the opposite of innocent -- GUILTY.

Faulty logic yet again Jim. I have declared them "suspects" nothing more and nothing less. Do you actually deny that is an accurate description?

I declared that they were operating outside of the law at the same time the court did not before.

Nope. "I then stated that CPS will invent evidence" <- criminal act that you did not assume innocence for before a hearing. Hypocrisy.

Tell me this:

If they were to start seizing one-half -- 50% -- of the children they now seize; do you believe that their budget would remain at the same level it is now, or would it be decreased?

Conversely: If they start seizing 50% MORE children than they do now; do you believe that their budget would remain at its current level, or would it be increased?

What the fuck does that matter? If a pedophile raped 50% more children would they be happier?

What in your mind do you imagine that you're proving exactly?

I then stated that CPS will invent evidence HERE using dolls and other props.

A prime example of your hypocrisy. Thanks.

Your declaring the original caller guilty is another.

Try to get your accusations correct, will you?

Oh they have been. Now when are you going to quit making up shit to argue against and get your accusations correct?

 

[SouthernN'Proud]

We are both bothered by the governments strong arming yet another bunch of social misfits (so far, without tanks & firethrowers)...Somebody, making false accusations, brought the state down on their head. Merited? So far, the higher courts say no.

Sounds familiar.

 

[MrBishop]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Tell me this:

If they were to start seizing one-half -- 50% -- of the children they now seize; do you believe that their budget would remain at the same level it is now, or would it be decreased?

Conversely: If they start seizing 50% MORE children than they do now; do you believe that their budget would remain at its current level, or would it be increased?

I think that you are sorely underestimating the number of children seized/rescued yearly by the Child Protection Services and the impact of the number of the children in their care as part of their budget. 400 extra kids is more like .5% increase...and the budget's not moving up because of it.

I know several people who work in the equivalent center up here...and their #1 priority is not seizing more kids. It's reuniting families if possible, and if not, then finding a permanent home(s) for the kid(s) in their care. Success stories pay (socially, not financially)

The CPS budget is set by the national budget (2006 budget from the shrub*http://www.clasp.org/publications/2006_budgetandfostercare.pdf)

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Where did I call for their prosecution Jim? Where?

Once again you make things up and act as if it's true. It's like you're going the record for a single poster being proved wrong the most times on one thread here.

Fact is you accused the CPS of criminal acts based on budgets without evidence. If you did not have a double standard you would be have been pleading their innocence until proven otherwise.

Also you have now declared the suspected original caller a guilty hoaxer before trial. Hypocrisy.

You want to presume innocence for suspected child molesters and presume guilt for everyone else.



No but you declared them and the suspected hoaxer guilty while only seeming to be concerned about proclaiming innocence for suspect child molesters.



You mean when you declared First Amendment violations? Tha's not illegal? It sure was before any court hearing.




Only for suspected child molesters. Not for the original caller or CPS. Hypocrisy.




You have not answered it once. The question is: Why the double standard and hypocrisy?




Faulty logic yet again Jim. I have declared them "suspects" nothing more and nothing less. Do you actually deny that is an accurate description?



Nope. "I then stated that CPS will invent evidence" <- criminal act that you did not assume innocence for before a hearing. Hypocrisy.




What the fuck does that matter? If a pedophile raped 50% more children would they be happier?

What in your mind do you imagine that you're proving exactly?



A prime example of your hypocrisy. Thanks.

Your declaring the original caller guilty is another.

Oh they have been. Now when are you going to quit making up shit to argue against and get your accusations correct?

Once again I proved you wrong. You accused me of wanting CPS officials arrested and charged with a crime before the courts had even declared that their actions were unlawful. I gave you the timeline of my posts which proves thatI did not do what you accuse me of doing. You skip right over that part and edit it out of your response; and you refuse to address the fact that your accusation was false.

I alsoi posted the link to the post which proves that CPS has a history of making false accusations and creating false evidence -- in one case their actions affected an entire city.

Everyone here is watching.

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Once again I proved you wrong. You accused me of wanting CPS officials arrested and charged with a crime before the courts had even declared that their actions were unlawful.

No Jim, once again you make shit up and act like it's true. Do you think that inventing things is suddenly going to work? Like I'm not going to recognize the difference between what I typed and what you accuse me of? You're trying it in every post now Jim.

I didn't accuse you of wanting them arrested, I said you considered them guilty and hypocritically did not presume innocence.

So in reality once again I have proven you wrong. You've been proven wrong undeniably quite a few times in this thread.

I gave you the timeline of my posts which proves thatI did not do what you accuse me of doing. You skip right over that part and edit it out of your response; and you refuse to address the fact that your accusation was false.

Nope, as I showed the timeline proved that you did exactly what i accused you of doing. Thanks for the assistance actually, that made it quite easy.

I alsoi posted the link to the post which proves that CPS has a history of making false accusations and creating false evidence -- in one case their actions affected an entire city.

So is that your excuse for not presuming innocence now? Should we use the history of the FLDS to not presume innocence for individual members? What's your point here?

You ever going to answer the question about why you have the double standard for CPS or the suspected original caller?

Also if you could go back and quit ignoring all the "where did I do that?" responses to your made up accusations I think the people could quit watching you evade everything that you're called out on.

I'll make a last of the factually inaccurate accusations you've made if you like.

 

[jimpeel]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

So is that your excuse for not presuming innocence now? Should we use the history of the FLDS to not presume innocence for individual members? What's your point here?

Not if it means painting an entire group of people with your broad brush based on the actions of Warren Jeffs.

You ever going to answer the question about why you have the double standard for CPS or the suspected original caller?

Ah, now the question changes from "CPS" to "the original caller".

The originakl caller has a history of these types of calls. The calls came from her phone. She has a conviction for this type of activity. I have called her a "hoaxer" and her conviction bears that out. She is not an "alleged" hoaxer; she is a convicted hoaxer. She is alleged to have made these calls; and she is innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of a jury of her peers beyond a reasonable doubt.

She has been arrested and the TX Rangers have interviewed her. I do not know the resul;t of that interview any more than you do. Look up Rozita Swinton.

That has already happened once and she is guilty as charged for that crime.

Also if you could go back and quit ignoring all the "where did I do that?" responses to your made up accusations I think the people could quit watching you evade everything that you're called out on.

You like the word "implication" so I have used it to describe your implied actions. If one constantly debates the innocence of a person then that person, by implication, is arguing guilt. That's the way it is and that is how you have been operating.

I'll make a last of the factually inaccurate accusations you've made if you like.

I'll believe it when I see it in print. I can't imagine you making that kind of effort. It is far easier to do the "Uh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" debating style.

 

[chcr]

Jebus tap-dancing christmas, they're still at it, aren't they?

 

[spike]

Re: Any chance this dead horse will wake up?

Not if it means painting an entire group of people with your broad brush based on the actions of Warren Jeffs.

My broad brush? When did I do that Jim?

More made up accusations? Geez you just don't stop do you? What is your dysfunction that you can't go one post in this thread anymore without making something up?

Ah, now the question changes from "CPS" to "the original caller".

No, go look Jim I've been using both in the same sentence for quite a few posts.

She is not an "alleged" hoaxer; she is a convicted hoaxer. She is alleged to have made these calls; and she is innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence to the satisfaction of a jury of her peers beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jim, you have called this particular call a hoax perpetrated by her. This is before any court trial again. The question you are avoiding is why the double standard and hypocrisy? Why do you not presume her innocence?

Instead you say "REMEMBER. THIS CASE STARTED WITH A LYING "VICTIM", WHO PERPETRATED A HOAX."

The only people you seem to want to presume innocence for are suspected child molesters.

You like the word "implication" so I have used it to describe your implied actions. If one constantly debates the innocence of a person then that person, by implication, is arguing guilt. That's the way it is and that is how you have been operating.

I don't think you understand the word "implication". I have clearly called them "suspects" nothing more and nothing less. This clearly implies nothing except them being suspects.

Your accusations simply fall under the term "fabricated lies" that you can't back up in the least.

I'll believe it when I see it in print. I can't imagine you making that kind of effort. It is far easier to do the "Uh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" debating style.

Yet another made up accusation. Please go back and point out examples of the "uh-huh, Nuh uh" debating style and start backing up your accusations Jim.

Then proceed on to these:

"You accused me of wanting CPS officials arrested" - Where'd that happen?

"You are calling for the PROSECUTION of these church members" - Where Jim?

"The court says they operated ooutside of the law. You dispute that." - Where did that happen Jim?

These are all examples of "I'll make up some stupid unfounded shit and then argue against myself" debating style.

 

[2minkey]

Jebus tap-dancing christmas, they're still at it, aren't they?

yeah it's starting to suck now more than ever before.

 

[Gonz]

Jebus tap-dancing christmas, they're still at it, aren't they?

Are they? I quit after the first 44 paragraphs