There is reasonable ground for disagreement here, Mike. You just haven't located that ground yet. It would appear that you are at your saturation point on this issue in terms of learning anything new. Whether that is a personality or intellectual limitation I have no clue.

I have no doubt you can smoke me on conducting studies of things like whether water is wet, fire is hot, or clouds are fluffy, but you are just plain out of your depth on this one.

Trust me, I make decisions about imminent danger before a judge a lot more than you. You probably no times, or a few times. Me, hundreds of times.

Additionally I've testified in court as to imminent danger. I have some knowledge about it.

You on the other hand trumpet your training/knowledge while providing no direct counterpoint to what I've said. It's your own version of an ad hominem.

But since I'm feeling generous, I'll give you some advice. Don't use the flash on your camera when taking a closeup of a toddler from 3 feet away. It blows out the picture.

Dan, I am enjoying this debate immensely. But I am disappointed with your response here. Sure, we aren't all legal experts. Why not enlighten us? Mike seems to be asking some good questions.

If all that is true, then I find it remarkable that nothing sunk in during that process. You have displayed very little knowledge about this throughout and now claim that you have been through it hundreds of times. Hmm. I guess people can come to their own conclusions about that claim.

I think I have very directly said how you get to the idea of imminent danger and that the standard is different when we are talking about a temporary hearing. I have also granted that you can hold the opinion that you disagree with how the judge interpreted the facts she was presented with. The only reason you are getting an ad hominem attack is because you suggested my ignorance by asking me what law school I attended. Again Mike, you are out of your depth on the legal analysis and you have made it plain you don't intend to listen. Now your claims are getting wildly more fantastic. You just let me know when you're done embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and the overexposure of the photograph is what makes it cute. It wasn't intentional, but I like how it turned out.

Mike picked this fight with me by insulting me Jeff. I think you will find that I have responded reasonably to others including you.

I'm seriously unimpressed with your statements as well (I can't call them arguments, because you really have none).

You challenged someone to provide an instance of the failure of due process.

I have written on that lack of due process. Many people here have the same concerns as me, regarding the things I wrote about.

Since you can't respond to my specific examples and arguments, then what are you doing in my thread?

Btw, I will admit that it is not fair to say that a person's schooling is the explanation for their ignorance and inability to reason. The admissions process is not perfect. I hope this mollifies your feelings.

Yes, you certainly have responded reasonably to me. And yes, he insulted you. And you have insulted him back, multiple times. I am just hoping that some rational debate breaks out during the fight. Because I am genuinely interested in the legal issues here.

See the difference here is that I use both arguments and insults. Some people here only use insults.

My feelings aren't hurt Mike. I have answered you and you haven't understood it. I'm not sure there is any getting beyond that.

No you haven't. You have said the bar is lower for this temporary custody hearing. This is the bar that would allow theoretical abuse 15 years from now to be enough reason to take away an infant from his/her mother.

In my opinion, any reasonable reading of the statute, as I understand it, would not allow for this.

Mike, I'm sure temporary custody issues are subject to the trial judge's discretion based on review of the testimony, etc. Smart lawyers recognize that except in extreme circumstances disagreeing with a judge's exercise of discretion is like shouting and pumping your fist at God or complaining about sports injuries or that a ref's call cost you the championship. That's just how the system works. Is there a better way? Somebody has to evaluate the evidence and make a judgment decision. As long as the system is working you accept it and move on unless you're one of those kooks who carries signs in front of the court house. These are temporary custody hearings, and the judge has plenty of grounds to conclude that the community is about as wholesome as the Manson family. Whatever the imperfections of this proceeding I bet there are more upsetting violations of civil liberties about which you can bang your drum.

Nobody cares much about this except for Mormons and except for just being appalled at the way these people conducted their lives.

I am curious. If this is true, then how does Texas define "imminent danger?" I asked before but you didnt answer. Now you are stating clearly that you have testified regarding that very point.

If you have testified in the form of an expert, then surely you can clearly state the Texas definition for "imminent danger." Is the definition statutory?

I honestly dont know, which is why I am asking.

See the problem with this is that when the perception is that the govt. is failing in its responsibilities....when you have the executive (CPS and Gov. Perry) and the Judiciary acting in concert, in what appears to many as a huge power grab.....that just causes some people to believe that the system cannot be trusted. That you cannot work through the system to make change. In other words, this is how radicalization occurs.

This is also how facism occurs. Where people assent to a loss of liberties, because the cause seems justified.

This is a situation the the govt. has handled extremely poorly.

(btw, I think the tendency towards facism is more the issue).

Aha. Someone should inform the national media. I had a three-hour evening drive the other day and I was listening to various news channels (Fox, ABC, CNN, CNN HDL, etc.) on my XM radio and it was the only topic covered by all channels during the entire three hours. Larry King, Greta VS, Anderson Cooper, etc.

I will concede that the "competing rights" angle is mainly a debate among the LDS.

That's my point, though probably not well stated. People are agape at the grotesque spectacle, but only Mormons are attuned to the civil rights or competing rights isssue.

My only point is that just because a judge hears testimony and rules or rules badly or disagreeably doesn't mean we're about to become fascist. This happens all the time, virtually every minute.

because in the US no one really cares about the civil rights of mormons or mormon offshoot groups.

lack of concern about this is the path to fascism.

Nobody except the ACLU. That's why there's an ACLU. To make sure that seemingly loathsome people like accused pedophiles and Nazis receive due process. We need the ACLU because of people like the FLDS.

I'll be concerned when they stop having hearings or stop allowing the press access to the hearings. Texas judges are elected, right? That seems to me less fascist than a federal judge appointed for life.

It's unclear at this point that the ACLU will get involved. They have only offered lip-service at this point. I read that article/blog saying there is debate right now in the ACLU whether they will get involved.

The ACLU is a liberal organization that sometimes values liberalism over freedom (i.e. 2nd amendment).

Sounds right, but there are exceptions. I have an acquaintance who is a very vocal atheists and detests all forms of religion. Like many of you he happens to be an attorney. The day of the raid, he went nuts about the civil rights angle of the case – he's very libertarian. In fact, he was the first person I knew who had me consider the other side of the case (from the perspective of the FLDS).

The ACLU has been pretty consistent about defending polygamists in Utah.

They need to allocate resources like most non-profit organizations. Pedophiles need their help a lot more than gun owners do.

Never ever talk to Che like this. I freaking led a revolution while you were in diapers.

Freak, when Moses came off the mountain and read the ten commandments, there was someone like Kiterider who yelled out, "TROLL!!"

I've fought battles you can't begin to comprehend. I have enemies among all the groups a good righteous man has enemies. You're right, I'm freaking Legend.