cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-23-2008, 04:01 PM   #11
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiteRider View Post
I probably value due process just as much as you,
No you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiteRider View Post
I will not defend the cutting of corners
You have and you will.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:32 PM   #12
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Fortunately you have said one thing that is good:


Quote:
You have made the obvious point: Due Process has been not taken place.
Just yesterday there was a lawyer here crowing about how no one woudl be able to demonstrate ANY lack of due process.

QED.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:45 PM   #13
SeattleUte
 
SeattleUte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
SeattleUte has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
Fortunately you have said one thing that is good:




Just yesterday there was a lawyer here crowing about how no one woudl be able to demonstrate ANY lack of due process.

QED.
I haven't followed this story as closely as the rest of you but it appears the ACLU is performing its important function and due process will sooner or later take place. "What process is due?" is a famous catch-phrase in the law, and a question that is not easily answered, particularly when children's interests are involved. Courts conclude "due prcess" satisfying Constitutional requirements has been afforded in myriad contexts involving government deprivation of liberty or property interests where the proceedings have been far less rigorous than a jury trial. As I say, the ACLU has an important historic function and I have tons of admiration for them. God bless the ACLU. But what the ACLU says is advocacy, and should not be accepted as Gospel.

This isn't my field, but I do know that in terms of "due process" and allied concerns the parents' interests are always subordinate to the best interests of the child. This is often the hardest part for divorcing spouses who want to wage a scorched earth fight over custody to realize. The court doesn't care who has lied or committed adultery, etc. The question is "what's best for the child?" I'd probably have to recuse myself from these proceedings because my strong bias would be to rule all these kids would be better off with new parents whether they've been abused or not.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be.

—Paul Auster
SeattleUte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:46 PM   #14
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

I haven't followed the case closely, and perhaps I should do so. I agree on the surface there are substantial due process concerns, and due process is the guardian of all of our rights. Whenever it is threatened, we should all tremble.

Due process takes time, and hopefully that is where they are headed.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:48 PM   #15
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiteRider View Post
Do you acknowledge the following?:

1. We have Constitutional rights.
2. It is the responsibility and purpose of the government to protect our Constitutional rights.
3. The government institutions that are entrusted to protect our Constitutional rights have a price.
4. Where that price has not been paid, it is unreasonable to expect the adequate protection of our rights.

If you accept those four points then you understand my point and I win the argument.

Hurray!
No I don't accept your moronic points. But don't have time to address them right now.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 04:48 PM   #16
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiteRider View Post
Do you acknowledge the following?:

1. We have Constitutional rights.
2. It is the responsibility and purpose of the government to protect our Constitutional rights.
3. The government institutions that are entrusted to protect our Constitutional rights have a price.
4. Where that price has not been paid, it is unreasonable to expect the adequate protection of our rights.

If you accept those four points then you understand my point and I win the argument.

Hurray!
I am not sure I see the connection between 3 and 4. What price are you talking about? And why is it necessarily unreasonable to expect adequate protection of our rights given your point 2?
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 05:29 PM   #17
BlueK
Senior Member
 
BlueK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
BlueK is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Apparently, you have judges in Texas who betray your state.
the fact that in Texas judges are nothing more than elected politicians makes abuses by them more likely as they seek nothing more than to be popular in the community so they can be reelected. And then of course the lawyers who bring cases to them contribute to their campaigns, creating a huge conflict of interest.
BlueK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 05:35 PM   #18
K-dog
Senior Member
 
K-dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 699
K-dog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post
Having seen courts adjudicate complex cases, and never having been a judge, I could have done a better job.

First, small counties typically can rely upon visiting or senior judges. You call them up immediately.

Second, you postpone all other matters, and schedule around the clock.

Third, you summarily review cases that appear non-legitimate, i.e., the infants and dismiss those providing CPS the opportunity to bolster their cases, ordering the defendants or mothers not to leave town.

Fourth, you deny the class action custody hearing, as that is NOT constitutionally allowed, as far as my limited knowledge of custody hearings go.

Fifth, you set schedules via internet, require filings to occur timely, especially by CPS or dismiss the contention.

It would take about two weeks to a month, but perhaps one could pare it down.

This judge is a joke.
I'm glad you think she's a joke too. I was starting to fear for my own sanity because so many think she is acting appropriately. This whole matter is frightening from my viewpoint. Granted my experience working in the Guardian ad litem's office was only 3 months so I can be wrong on this.
__________________
He's down by the creek, walkin' on water.

K-dog

P.S. Grrrrrrrrr
K-dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 06:01 PM   #19
BYU71
Senior Member
 
BYU71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,084
BYU71 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-dog View Post
I'm glad you think she's a joke too. I was starting to fear for my own sanity because so many think she is acting appropriately. This whole matter is frightening from my viewpoint. Granted my experience working in the Guardian ad litem's office was only 3 months so I can be wrong on this.
She is being praised by attorneys that have to appear in front of her. I have found they are the most reliable character witnesses.

Do you know of atty's that say a Judge they might eventually appear in front of sucks.

I understand why now too. Those Judges have a lot of power.
BYU71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2008, 06:28 PM   #20
UtahDan
Senior Member
 
UtahDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
UtahDan is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
1. The standard that the judge had to use to make a decision was whether a child 1) had been abused or 2) was in imminent danger of abuse.

This was what the ACLU said as reported by Catholic News:


I have a problem with the idea that infants are in imminent danger of abuse, or that every child is in imminent danger of abuse.

2. The lack of hearings for each child to consider that child's unique circumstances. There are reports that some children were visiting and had been there for only a few days. Again from the ACLU:


From the SL Tribune:


3. The judge not responding to objections from lawyers representing parents and the children. Hence the AP calling the hearing "a farce":
That is not careful consideration.

From the DN:


4. In some cases lawyers volunteered to represent infants and toddlers and were provided no information by the state as to why they were seeking to remove custody from the parents.

5. Lastly, this is not a legal argument, but an argument that the judge has admitted, I think, to being incompetent and unable to handle the case:


There is only reason she described herself as "simple." The way she has handled the case demonstrates exactly that.
The big point that you have glossed over Mike is that this a decision made on a temporary basis that has to be reviewed fairly quickly and on an individual basis. If that were not to occur, then I would agree that there is a due process problem.

This is obviously an emotional issue for you but what you lack the sophistication to understand because your background is not in the law is that none of these constitutional principles are absolutes and that all of them give way to other principles at times.

I have tried to explain, and you have so far ignored, the idea that there is a balancing that occurs where we err on the side of protecting the children at the expense of the right of the parents and that we accept this for two reasons. The first is that is it temporary. The second is that the evil of abuse is worse than the evil of a temporary deprivation of rights. It is the same reason that you might be held without bail if you are accused of a murder. The danger to others outweighs your right to be free until a determination of guilt occurs. The law is filled with these trade offs and compromises.

There is some subtlety to the idea of due process and reading a few news paper clippings no more qualifies you for a substantive understanding of it than me riding in coach qualifies me to fly the plane. If you had just asked, rather than asking me where I went to law school because I disagreed with you, you might have stood a shot at getting an explanation from me.

I am still perplexed that so many of you think that temporarily depriving people of their children until individual review hearings can be had is a greater mischief than returning children to a pedophilia cult. I think it is a result of a skeptical view of the government and of a very limited understanding of the principles of law at work.

Now, you can ignore all of this because it doesn't fit into your narrative if you wish. Or you can just say that you think the judge made the wrong conclusion based on the available evidence. That is your right. But seriously, lets stop talking about due process conversation because the collective understanding around here of that concept is generously 1 on a scale that goes to 10. If you want to stop being insulting I might even expound it for you.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo

Last edited by UtahDan; 04-23-2008 at 07:36 PM.
UtahDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.