"Newborn child taken away because of a bagel"

5th amendment

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

“ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

The post was referring to the original part of the 5th that referred to due Process. The invoking of the fifth is also for not to incriminate oneself

Custodial interrogation The Fifth Amendment limits the use of evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement officers. Originally, at common law, even a confession obtained by torture was admissible. In the eighteenth century, common law in England provided that coerced confessions were inadmissible. The common law rule was incorporated into American law by the courts. However, the use of brutal torture to extract confessions was routine in some rural states as late as the 1930s, and stopped only after the Supreme Court kept overruling convictions based on such confessions, in cases like Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). Law enforcement responded by switching to more subtle techniques, but the courts held that such techniques, even if they do not involve physical torture, may render a confession involuntary and inadmissible. In Chambers v. Florida (1940) the Court held a confession obtained after five days of prolonged questioning, during which time the defendant was held incommunicado, to be coerced. In Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944), the suspect had been interrogated continuously for thirty-six hours under electric lights. In Haynes v. Washington (1963) the Court held that an "unfair and inherently coercive context" including a prolonged interrogation rendered a confession inadmissible. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark case involving confessions. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing the crime, but the Supreme Court held that the confession was inadmissible because the defendant had not been warned of his rights. The Court held, "the prosecution may not use statements [...] stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Custodial interrogation is initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of movement. As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Before any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed." The warning to which Chief Justice Earl Warren referred is now called the Miranda warning, and it is customarily delivered by the police to an individual upon his or her arrest. Miranda has been clarified by several further Supreme Court rulings. For the warning to be necessary, the questioning must be conducted under "custodial" circumstances. A person detained in jail or under arrest is, of course, deemed to be in police custody. Alternatively, a person who is under the reasonable belief that he may not freely leave from the restraint of law enforcement is also deemed to be in "custody." That determination of "reasonableness" is based on a totality of the objective circumstances. A mere presence at a police station may not be sufficient, but nor is it required. Traffic stops are not deemed custodial. Additionally, the Court ruled in Yarborough v. Alvarado that a suspect's age and inexperience are not objective factors required to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for the suspect to believe that he was not free to leave during the questioning. The questioning does not have to be explicit to trigger Miranda rights. For example, two police officers engaging in a conversation designed to elicit an incriminating statement from a suspect would constitute questioning. A person may choose to waive his Miranda rights, but the prosecution has the burden of showing that such a waiver was actually made. A confession not preceded by a Miranda warning where one was necessary cannot be admitted as evidence against the confessing party in a judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court, however, has held that if a defendant voluntarily testifies at the trial that he did not commit the crime, his confession may be introduced to challenge his credibility, to "impeach" the witness, even if it had been obtained without the warning. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 on June 21, 2004 that the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not give people the right to refuse to give their name when questioned by police. In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent. Unless and until the suspect actually states that she is relying on that right, her subsequent voluntary statements can be used in court and police can continue to interact with (or question) her. The mere act of remaining silent is, on its own, insufficient to imply the suspect has invoked her rights. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as implying a waiver.

An interesting side note is your are partially correct in that the fifth was not whole incorporated into the 14th. Tis where you as agent of the state sidestep parts of due process

14th amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Due Process Clause Main article: Due process Beginning with Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), the Court interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as "freedom of contract".[13] Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery in Lochner v. New York (1905) and struck down a minimum wage law in Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923). However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation such as state prohibition laws (Mugler v. Kansas), laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers (Holden v. Hardy (1898)), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers (Muller v. Oregon (1908)), President Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike (Wilson v. New (1917)), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics (United States v. Doremus (1919)). The Court repudiated the "freedom of contract" line of cases in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). In the past forty years it has recognized a number of "fundamental rights" of individuals, such as privacy, which the states can regulate only under narrowly defined circumstances.[13] The Court has also significantly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.[14][15] The Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself on account of concern of there being a conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his election to that court.[16]

Incorporation Main articles: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights and Privileges or Immunities Clause In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. While many state constitutions are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to Akhil Reed Amar, the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment.[26] However, in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government by virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and have been specifically reaffirmed several times.[27] However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states, under what is known as the incorporation doctrine.[28] The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth (except for its Grand Jury Clause) and Sixth Amendments and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.[29] While the Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in Engblom v. Carey.[30] The Seventh Amendment has been held not to be applicable to the states.[29][31]

Now for the ignorance part, no its the interpretation of the rules you seem to not like. The same ignorance you say is a product of the public schools. Is also the part that juries get to use...

So your saying that all of your fellow americans are ignorant and should not be able to raise their own children...

Now you attempt to change the nature of the discussion by stating you are a law enforcement officer and not a CPS agent which is it.

No CPS agent I know of is in any way a peace officer or a leo in any way. Unless some state got stupid and made it so...

I know from a discussion from a judge that CPS is not covered by Texas castle law. It is due to the fact that they are not leos...

It means you can use excessive force in your home to defend your family.

Castle Law

A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal doctrine claimed by advocates to arise from English Common Law[1] that designates one's place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her "castle"), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. Castle Doctrines are legislated by state, and not all states in the US have a Castle Doctrine. The term "Make My Day Law" comes from the landmark 1985 Colorado statute that protects people from any criminal charge or civil suit if they use force – including deadly force – against an invader of the home.[2] The law's nickname is a reference to the famous line uttered by Clint Eastwood's character Harry Callahan in the 1983 film Sudden Impact, "Go ahead, make my day."

I love texas!!!

texas castle law

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and (2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and [(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

note kidnapping is included

and due to the history of death in CPs custody a good sound legal argument can be added to this that the threat to murder your child exist...

You see what you fail to mention CPs case workers will walk into a house without being invited in. I asked some friends dealing with CPS to leave the door open but not to invite them in. 7 out of 7 times, the CPS agent walked in then identified themselves. see the significance. I watched the four times my friend recorded the actions.

Texas castle law does not require the home occupant to retreat.

now to more videos



you charge someone with something without a trial by jury!!!!

no right to a trial by jury to defend yourself!!!

sounds criminal...

Their will come a day of accounting.


Prove to ATS you are not a child kidnapper... Prove it that your are not the subhuman act like.

Well its not a violation of your rights because the laws says this...

Remember, the law also says you can have excessive force used against you...

reply to post by Mary Rose



Absolutely. Texas CPS is extremely corrupt. Of course in Texas, every person taken into custody provides the person bringing them in a commission. (all court or police officers) For every body they put into the system they get commission like a sales person. We found this out 4 years ago when our son had to take a class on theft. (he shoplifted a teddy bear, his first and only offense) The class was taught by one of the local police officers who told the kids in my son's class that they worked on a commission basis. The officer went on to explain that every time they put someone in jail or charge someone with something, they get a hefty bonus from the Federal Government and the arresting officer gets a commission off of that.

I am Italian, and one day (back in 1995) I was walking into town with my sons who were 3 and 5 years old. My 5 year old had gotten in trouble again at school and so I was talking to him while we walked. Now since I am Italian, if you cut off my arms I would have a speech impediment. As we were walking, this car came careening into a parking lot we were crossing (almost hitting us) and this lady came storming out of the car up to us. She said, "Is there a problem?" I said, "Not that it is any of your business, but I was having a discussion with my son." She whipped out her badge, shook it in my face and said, "I am from CPS and it IS my business." I turned around, said, "Give me a break." and continued walking. I was so shaken, I spent the walk into town discussing with my 5 year old what his opinion on the situation was. (since he had immediately asked me what the lady wanted.) I asked him if he ever thought I was going to hit him or anything and he said, "No Mom, you were just talking to me like always."

I spent the majority of his school years cleaning up after state officials. After that day, I had teachers in this school district start telling my 5 year old that he was half black and his mother was lying about who his daddy was. My son grew up with severe anger issues directed at school officials and social workers (none ever visited our house, but he knew other kids and social services scared him because of that day) because they would constantly tell him, "You know your daddy is black and your mother is a lying whore, right?" This went on for his entire school career. Thankfully he is now a well adjusted confident young man who is not afraid to stand up for what is right.

Originally posted by Luminakisharblaze
Absolutely. Texas CPS is extremely corrupt. Of course in Texas, every person taken into custody provides the person bringing them in a commission. (all court or police officers) For every body they put into the system they get commission like a sales person. We found this out 4 years ago when our son had to take a class on theft. (he shoplifted a teddy bear, his first and only offense) The class was taught by one of the local police officers who told the kids in my son's class that they worked on a commission basis. The officer went on to explain that every time they put someone in jail or charge someone with something, they get a hefty bonus from the Federal Government and the arresting officer gets a commission off of that.

Maybe the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 also includes this federal money that you describe.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I wish that were so, but the class my son took that revealed the commission problem with court officers was in 2006, so the money is still being given by the Federal government to the courts for the same corruption.

reply to post by Luminakisharblaze


I meant to be saying that that 1997 act seems to be the source of federal money that is being used in CPS abuses ever since then.

Originally posted by ripcontrol
said stuff that again has no relevance to the issues at hand.

I am not going to respond to your misinformed rant's, and they are just that, Ignorant misinformed rants. I am not entirely sure who you are accusing of being a CPS agent. If its directed at me, again read what I typed, spelling out only LEO / Doctors can do the holds. Explaining that CPS (with the possible exception of California) has no statutory authority, and do not operate under the color of law.

I think we all know what you are about by your parting shot in your last post.

For those that missed it lets review:

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Remember, the law also says you can have excessive force used against you...
edit on 24-10-2010 by ripcontrol because: because the only good nazi is a dead one

So let's see if I understand your argument.

- All Government is evil,
- All Law Enforcement is Evil, referring to them (and me) as a Nazi.
- You then make the comment at the end of your post the only good Nazi is a dead Nazi. You even attempted to hide it in your edit line. If it were not for the starch in your shirt, I don't know how you would be able to stand erect.

Surely you just did not threaten mine, or any other Officer's taking part of this conversation in this thread, life did you?

All the while arguing about the Constitution and the Amendments that you once again have no concept of how they work.

As a warning, anyone who is going to exercise their rights under whatever version of the castle doctrine exists in those states, please make sure you read the statute and don't take ripcontrols tirade as being accurate. The criteria used to be covered will not apply to lawful entry by Law Enforcement. Attempting to engage officers with deadly force to keep them out of your house will not end well for you.

Tell me how this works. You demand the law be used. You rant about your constitutional rights, then you turn around and want to kill Nazis, and based off your previous post's, Law Enforcement.

You are no different than the wing nut anti-abortion people who will kill Doctors while at the same time arguing a life is precious and baby's should not be aborted.

To the OP - Sorry for this off topic post, but I am not going to let that veiled threat go without pointing it out, up to the killing of Law Enforcement Officers, who he perceives as Nazis.

reply to post by Mary Rose


My bad. Yes, that is probably where the money comes from.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Lets us settle this part quickly... Since I am ignorant...

ATS... if you live in texas... find out from all the legal sources you can find

1) are cps agents cops

psychic prediction-
nope

2)ATS contact a lawyer, judge, law professor, legal aid, any one with a law degree and ask about the scenario were the cps agent just walks in...

the million dollar question? are they covered by the texas castle law.....

psychic prediction:
nope

only if they make an appointment ahead of time or knock and are allowed in are they protected, not on a b and e

Why so sore over me quoting patton?

you know youve done something wrong...

Yes I like everyone else get mad at cops over my civil rights being violated. Its because the real cops not cps, have been trained that even suspects have CIVIL RIGHTS...

hell look in chicago.... I never expected to hear a COP turn around and say he wont do it till the banks proved the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed..

I have also watch an officer do research in the same legal library I was in. Seems the officer had to explain to his partner what they had done wrong... (partner was a rookie) The real LEO actually asked what I was looking up. seems he knew more then he looked like he did... He pointed me to the good laws books that he used to make sure his arrest did not get turned over....

You know why I never wanted to be a cop... I did not want to be shot over someone being disgruntled..

My last issue with a cop went away when someone pulled something on this cop who had just gotten off work. The glint off the knife flashed and for some reason I hit the guy with my computer bag, stunning him enough that he dropped the knife. he turned to me and the cop, who was still in uniform tasered him.

From behind. He turned and saw the knife fall as the guy turned around. I didnt even has to really make a statement. The cop said thanks shook my and gave me his brother inlaws card. His brother in law fixed my computer and did not charge me.

The guy will be in prison for a long time. turns out the cop had arrested him earlier that week on a drug charge...

The guy was off duty and had his little girl in the car going home.

What you fail understand is that we are still a tribe and certain things we must work together on. One of them is the universal application of rights to all us citizens and those in our custody otherwise we become no better then hitlers germany or stalin's russia. For you to say they (children ) have no civil rights to protect is unacceptable. The high courts are ruling against your agency more and more.

You see at the end of the day I know cops are human beings ( due to this and a few other times).

CPS agents are not cops and are not a protected class.

Like every other bully with authority when someone says well thats not true you get up on a high horse and try to claim like mrs tan did it is for the innocent while the children are the only ones suffering so you can make a buck.

Most larger cities do have police officers that specialize in abuse. It is to these men I respect. I have seen them puke after what they saw. CPS... still in their warm bed asleep... protecting their paycheck. BTW, the officer wrote the CPS agent a ticket for a busted taillight... And no insurance... (seems she 'left it" at the house...)



If I do decide to run for president I think this is the issue that would get me on the ballot. If I do and I win i will give 75% of your budget to the law officers. At least they have real training and not a few hours of college.

CPS is not needed in this society at its present rate or behaviors... All cps agenst should be arrested for treason for inciting rebellion (we are at war), then shot by military personal on the spot... After all if marshal law is declared it would be LEGAL.. See it dont sound right but its cps's own logic... its legal

IMHO...

So how many kids die in cps custody all over the us...

How many innocent children have died while you protect them...


How many senators have you had killed....

CPS warrior gunned down

The corporate media does not bother to mention that Schaefer exposed the abuses of CPS and the international child sex slavery ring.

killed because she said you ARE WRONG!!!!

“Investigators told the Associated Press they believe Bruce Schaefer, 74, shot his wife once in the back while she slept in the bedroom early Friday morning and then shot himself in the head. Police found a handgun near his body and several letters written to family members, including a suicide note,” reports the Associated Baptist Press. Other reports indicate Bruce Schaefer shot himself in the chest. People who commit suicide usually shoot themselves in the head.

I can guess why... She went after your money.....

Oh let me guess you had nothing to do with this....

Back to OP's post...

The issue is very much the extent of authority they legally have versus what they assume they have two different things...

reply to post by Xcathdra


BTW think next time before you run someones name. I unlike most have no problem telling you or anyone else what I think... I am prepared...

I asked the staff to monitor this thread due to the rising tempers....

Found nothing on kent walls huh.....

In the interest of fairplay I am constructing a thread on CPS....

I humbley invite you to post and correct the information you feel is wrong...

You will be able to post your agencies side of the story....

BTW, the cop that puked was dealing with a neighbor who I called the cops on... Sorry kids screaming in pain for more then one night in a row is not something you sit on....

The cops asked me what was going on I told him... He was mad because your guys would not show up... I had to loan my phone... I had the area supervisors number... I told him if he got ahold of her she was very corrupt but needed more solid cases to win...

this site really needs a middle finger smiley....

reply to post by ripcontrol


Sure man.. when you get it set up shoot me the link. Also, my apologies for the ignorant comments and some of my responses. It got heated and I was already irritated by some of the posts that had no foundation (not your posts).

Either way, my apologies. I hope we can debate in the future, and I will try to be a bit more civil.