I talked to Patrick Crimmins this morning. I asked the following questions:
- Are any of the remaining 37 children pregnant?
- Do any of the remaining 37 children have children?
- How many of the remaining 37 are girls 12 or over?
Patrick said that he could not respond. He said it wasn't their concern about what Law Enforcement "saw" at YFZ. I explained KNOWING that there were no pregnant teens or "children with children" among the kids "still under suit" would form the basis of questions I would ask the Attorney General's office, to which he repeatedly referred me. I went over this point more than once with Mr. Crimmins in an effort to gain some information. All I learned was that there report would be out in "a couple of weeks."
I asked if that meant November 17th, he said no, but then repeated twice that the report would be out "mid month." Look for it on Friday, November 14th, 2008. That's a good time to dump it and run.
I left a message for Jerry Strickland, at Mr. Crimmins suggestion.
Sphere: Related Content
4 comments:
If it wasn't their concern what law enforcement "saw" then why did they take any children in the first place when it wasn't their concern?
B.S.! What CPS "saw" formed the basis for the probable cause for the second warrant. These guys are point fingers, which is so typical of CPS. You ask them why are you holding my baby? Why don't you give me back my baby. They'll always say, "it's up to the judge. You have to remember a judge made this decision, we just acting on the judges orders." That is the depths to which this spaghetti system of fraud has taken us. The judge is just an arbiter, he chooses who gives the most compelling argument (or exert the most pressure). The CPS is 100% responsible for it's actions; they can't pass the blame to the judge, no matter how corrupt he/she is. And now they are trying to disown the testimony and affidavits they provided to law enforcment, which formed the basis for LE's actions? Unbelievable. What scum.
The reason they are distancing themselves is because, now that the ranch is considered to be a community of households, the warrant which was the result of CPS interrogations of young girls all night is becoming more and more questionable. The CPS had no right to perform those interrogations. Neither was whatever they found enough reason to tear apart dozens of homes, whose inhabitants they didn't have an inkling of particular knowledge about.
"The CPS had no right to perform those interrogations."
I've pondered on that question before. As I recall, the ranch DID put up a challenge to the Order Order For Investigation which started the process, by claiming Sarah was not a resident of the ranch when they were at the gate.
The CPS were then allowed on the ranch, but I am not certain of the exact process there which led to that. I would still think the initial refusal carries wait, similar to one telling an officer they can not search their car.
What then led to them being allowed in may be a problem. Another may be the fuzzy idea of a "single household".
The order states "access to the children's home at YFZ Ranch". That does not really ID the ranch as a "single household" and then one has to w each child or specific household must challenge the order to present children for questioning.
I know my opinion of the mess, just not how the laws will effect it in court. As I've said before, I think that Order was a Plan B in place for CYA before the raid started, just to make HOW evidence was uncovered a bigger mess for any that wished to suppress it.
These people had a script. They'd been told "once inside you will SEE pregnant underage teens and children with children," so, they "saw" them.
I'm sure than any young looking mother with children qualified as a "Child with Children," and any young looking mother who was in any way protruding around her middle was an "underage teen girl."
I've published photos on this blog earlier that show some girls figures are unflatteringly treated by the "prarie dress" they wear. Some of them flare right below the breasts and make it appear they have a "bun in the oven."
That same photo was compared to a picture of an actress who had never had children before and was nearly 40 at the time she first became pregant. She looked a bit "broad in the beam" but from certain angles all you might say, if you hadn't ever seen her before was that she had an ample "sit upon."
Texas "saw" what it wanted to see and was so sure that their preconceptions would be justified, that they didn't LOOK to closely. Certainly, they thought, some of these will be young mothers, and pregnant teens.
Then they weren't.
Post a Comment