The children come first. The goal is reunification.

[Bob_Lynn]

Gideon, I asked for anyone to correct/criticize/comment on anything I post on Constitutional issues. I don't want to mislead anyone with erroneous information, so thank you for the correction(s) and you are right of course except that I will differ with you on one point, the court order. I said there are 4 ways that CPS can lawfully search and seize, including the court order and I forgot to include consent. You have corrected me in that respect. However, a judge can issue an order to seize a child and I don't mean a warrant. What I may be a bit hazy on is whether a judge can issue an order, not a warrant, to search and I tend to believe a judge can.

I'll give you an example. In a case where a parent may lose custody in a hearing, the judge can issue an order to seize that child. Another example is seizure of property by court order based on the loss of a case in a financial dispute (i.e. the IRS). I can't think of an example where a judge can issue an order to search though. Perhaps someone else can or show me that it's not possible.

When we agree on these issues, I will correct the post I made in the Legal Research thread. I do appreciate any further corrections that you may have on anything I post. Your comments please.

[gideonmacleish]

I would agree, the "court order" is kind of fuzzy. As far as an investigation goes, however, I'm not settling for a court order. I need a warrant, and even then I'm still talking to my lawyer before I allow them in.

[Dazeemay]

However, a judge can issue an order to seize a child and I don't mean a warrant.

This is exactly what happened in our case.

Our daughter placed our granddaughter in theraputic foster care for 90 days. They came to the foster mother's home and basically did a house arrest in my estimation.

[Dan Sullivan]

That's not the thread I was talking about.

Try not to act dense on top of being an outrageous liar please. It doesn't matter what thread you were talking about, it was exactly the thread I was talking about when I said you started a thread intentionally to ridicule what I posted regarding using Constitutional law.

I don't care what thread you thought you were talking about.

Your post wasn't in the correct thread... and you posted no link.

[Bob_Lynn]

I will make the necessary changes in the Legal Research thread.

[Bob_Lynn]

I have thought of a roundabout way that a search can be conducted by court order. If a judge issues a subpoena to collect a certain item of evidence in a case, I believe the judge can direct police to enter a home and search for and retrieve that item.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

[gideonmacleish]

I have thought of a roundabout way that a search can be conducted by court order. If a judge issues a subpoena to collect a certain item of evidence in a case, I believe the judge can direct police to enter a home and search for and retrieve that item.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's actually a warrant. It particularly describes the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. While it may seem like semantics, it does, in fact, meet the fourth amendment criteria for a warrant.

[Bob_Lynn]

Thanks Gideon but would it be titled "Warrant" or "Subpoena"? I ask only because much of legalese is semantics.

[gideonmacleish]

I could be wrong here, but if it is a subpoena, the defendant has the responsibility to produce the evidence. If it is a warrant, the prosecution (or, in this case, agents acting on their behalf) have a right to seize it

[LindaJM]

That's not the thread I was talking about.

Try not to act dense on top of being an outrageous liar please . . . I've proven my point and you helped me prove my point with your blatant lies.

Bob, it is really unacceptable to call people posting in this forum liars. Please do not write things like this again. I will appreciate it if you could confine your activity here to helping people with their CPS cases. If Dan disturbs you, please ignore his postings.

Dan, same for you - please just ignore Bob's postings and don't respond to him since you two don't see eye to eye. There's plenty of room for other message threads, besides the ones he's participating in.

Thanks,
Linda

[Bob_Lynn]

I will appreciate it if you could confine your activity here to helping people with their CPS cases.

I'd like to be clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that I should not post any information or suggestions regarding any activity in the fight against the system in general? Or any new case law or anything else that has nothing to do with individual cases? That I should confine my posts to just helping people with individual cases?

[Bob_Lynn]

Linda, I sent you a PM.

[Greegor]

There are two kinds of subpoenas
one is for people to testify and the other is for documents.
The in person one can describe on it documents that
the person is to bring along with their person.
One of them is called duces tecum, but I don't
remember which type it is.

A search warrant is to allow AUTHORITIES to
invade your space and search for an
item, thing or document.

This has to be very specific about what
they are looking for. A search warrant that is
not specific is an illegal search warrant.
Police have on occasion noticed that a
search warrant was not specific and sent it
back to the judge for specifics.

If something is noticed that is not described
in the search warrant it cannot be used in
any manner or the entire warrant and whatever
was found, listed or not, can't be used.

[LindaJM]

I will appreciate it if you could confine your activity here to helping people with their CPS cases.

I'd like to be clear on what you're saying. Are you saying that I should not post any information or suggestions regarding any activity in the fight against the system in general? Or any new case law or anything else that has nothing to do with individual cases? That I should confine my posts to just helping people with individual cases?

What I'm asking is that you PLEASE refrain from any more personal insults toward anyone, including Dan Sullivan. In fact, if you never responded to his postings or mentioned him, it would help us out quite a bit. We realize you two have major differences in how you choose to fight CPS but the people who come here are the ones responsible for their own cases and what ideas they choose to utilize are based on their own decisions.

Please let us have peace here now.

Linda

[Bob_Lynn]

I am not going to discuss this issue publicly with you any further Linda, I sent you a PM, please give me the courtesy of reading it. Thanks.

Bob