[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Arkansas sheriff’s department with DHS deny family’s civil rights and kidnap their 7 children over legal dietary supplements
Source: Intellihub
URL Source: https://www.intellihub.com/arkansas ... ver-legal-dietary-supplements/
Published: Apr 21, 2015
Author: Daniel Barker
Post Date: 2015-04-22 21:22:57 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1570
Comments: 17

The Stanleys of Garland County, Arkansas, would be considered by most to be an average American family. Hal Stanley, the head of the household, served his country honorably and is an ordained Baptist minister.

Hal has never been in trouble with the law (until now) and is considered by his neighbors and others who know him well to be a loving father who considers the well-being of his children above all else. The same applies to his wife, Michelle.

But since January 12, 2015, the Stanleys have been living a waking nightmare in which their home was raided by a large contingent of law enforcement agents (including a SWAT team with snipers positioned nearby) and DHS authorities. At the end of the ordeal, the seven children living in the household were kidnapped by the authorities and the family’s Fourth Amendment rights were trampled upon.

The case was ostensibly centered around Hal Stanley’s possession and use of a perfectly legal water purifier product sold under the name “MMS.” The substance is not FDA-approved but can be legally bought online, and there are no laws prohibiting its use (more info on MMS and its active ingredient later in this article).

However, the details of the ongoing drama would seem to indicate that the real issue leading to the kidnapping of the Stanley children and the harassment of the parents by the authorities has more to do with the fact that the Stanleys have chosen to raise and educate their children outside of the system.

The Stanley children were home-birthed and have been home-schooled. Increasingly, it appears that authorities across the nation are seeking to punish those who choose this path in raising their families.

Although the Stanleys are religious, they are not fanatics. They live a modest, quiet life and by all accounts (except those of the authorities), the children are happy, healthy normal kids.

But on the January evening in question, as the Stanleys were preparing dinner, there was a knock at the door. Expecting the visitors to be their invited dinner guests, Hal and Michelle were shocked when they opened the door to find a large number of authorities, other personnel and vehicles surrounding their home.

From a report posted by MedicalKidnap.com:

Garland County Sheriff’s Deputies and DPS entered their home, demanding that Hal and Michelle wait outside in the cold while they searched the house and talked to the children. There were reportedly at least 30 people, including a SWAT team, Arkansas State Troopers, a coroner, a doctor, a dozen cars, a medical van, and a sniper in a ditch allegedly aiming at the parents on the front porch.

The Stanleys were not told what the raid was about, and they were not given a copy of the affidavit required by law to accompany the search warrant. This was in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, which in no uncertain terms states that:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Stanleys were not told that the authorities came to seize the MMS in their possession or that they were there to remove the children. The full truth was not revealed until the affidavit was finally produced quite recently, and then only after the intervention of a judge who tracked it down on the Stanleys’ behalf.

In fact, when the authorities left the Stanley home with the seven children at the conclusion of the raid, they left the original bottle of MMS on the shelf where it sat in plain sight, while inexplicably confiscating a bottle of hydrogen peroxide that sat next to it.

When the affidavit was finally produced, it contained wild accusations that Hal Stanley had tried to force his children to ingest the MMS. He maintains that he was the only one who took the supplement and that it was primarily used to purify the water used in the family’s aquaponic system. The main ingredient contained in the MMS product is sodium chlorite, a substance routinely used for purifying and disinfecting water. It is safe in small doses and can be used on food as an antimicrobial agent. In Hal’s case, he also used MMS to control his own body’s pH levels.

The affidavit also revealed that the removal of the children was intended in the first place. Even though the social service workers, health authorities and the doctor on the scene examined each child, finding them all to be perfectly healthy, Garland County Deputy Sheriff Sgt. Michael Wright ignored their opinions and ordered the children to be removed anyway.

Since the raid, some of the younger Stanley children have been allowed to return home but are still considered to be under the custody of the State. Meanwhile, the Stanleys are being instructed how to raise their children — they have even been forced to allow a psychologist to spend 20 hours per week in the home, to “promote harmony” in the family.

For the record, the Stanleys have not been charged with any crime.

If the case of the Stanleys were an isolated incident, it would still be a tragic and troubling story. However, the kidnapping of children by the authorities, particularly in families who choose “alternative” approaches to parenting (e.g. home schooling, choosing not to vaccinate, etc.) is becoming alarmingly common and widespread.

Only in totalitarian societies are parents forced to raise children according to strict state-mandated rules and regulations. Families like the Stanleys should never be subjected to this type of abuse if we are to consider ourselves a free nation.

Sources:

http://medicalkidnap.com

http://medicalkidnap.com

http://hotspringsdaily.com

http://medicalkidnap.com

This article originally appeared on Natural News.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

Stanley Family - Search Warrant, Affidavit, And Search Warrant Return

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-23   4:25:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Deckard (#0)

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2015/03/23/hearing-on-hot-springs-stanley-family-returns-4-of-7-children-to-home-on-a-temporary-basis

Hearing on Hot Springs' Stanley family returns 4 of 7 children to home for 60 days

Posted By Benjamin Hardy
Arkansas Times
Arkansas Blog
on Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:33 AM

At a hearing this morning to determine the future of seven children taken from their parents' home by state authorities in January, a Hot Springs judge returned the four youngest kids to their parents, Hal Stanley and his wife, Michelle, for a 60 day period.

KARK's Shannon Miller says on Twitter that the three older kids in the household will be allowed home on weekends and during Spring Break (which is this week), and that another hearing has been set for May 13.

Law enforcement originally investigated the Stanleys in part because of allegations that the children had been endangered by ingesting a supplement called "Miracle Mineral Solution," although the Garland County Sheriff's Department said later it was responding to other allegations of abuse and neglect as well. The kids then remained in custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) after a Garland County judge ruled in late January that there was credible reason to believe physical abuse occurred in the household.

The Stanley family has become a cause celebre in the past few months, especially among those suspicious of the intentions of government. The Stanleys home schooled their children and live somewhat unconventionally; Hal Stanley said in January the family consider themselves "preppers." Many people online believe the law enforcement raid on the Stanleys' house is tantamount to persecution for their beliefs and lifestyle.

I'll be honest: I don't yet know nearly enough about the details of this case to have an opinion one way or the other about whether the state's intervention into the Stanleys' personal affairs was warranted. As is always the case, the strict confidentiality laws surrounding child welfare proceedings prevent DHS or the court from explaining exactly why the children were placed into temporary care of the state.

[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/21/why-seven-arkansas-children-may-have-been-taken-from-their-parents-over-the-dangerous-miracle-supplement-mms/

Washington Post link. This mainstream source is most informative.

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm228052.htm

[extract]

Distributor websites describe MMS as a liquid that’s 28 percent sodium chlorite in distilled water. Product directions tell consumers to mix the sodium chlorite solution with citric acid—such as, lemon or lime juice— or another acid before drinking. When the acid is added, the mixture becomes chlorine dioxide, a power­ful bleaching agent, says FDA expert Charles Lee, M.D.

[...]

FDA experts say MMS is dangerous, and they’re advising consumers to stop using the product immediately.

October 1, 2010

www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/default.htm

I find no updates to the 2010 "advisory." But see the quotes from the Code of Federal Regulations provided below.

http://www.mms-supplement.com/

The Miracle Mineral Supplement is standardized in a 28% solution of sodium chlorite, stabilized within a distilled water base. This product has been used by close to 6 decades by numerous water boards around the world to effectively treat municipal water.

MMS is openly for sale on the net, five years after the "advisory."

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title21/21-3.0.1.1.4.4.1.1.html

21 C.F.R. § 173.300 Chlorine dioxide.
Title 21 - Food and Drugs

Title 21: Food and Drugs
PART 173—SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Subpart D—Specific Usage Additives

§ 173.300 Chlorine dioxide.

Chlorine dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 10049–04–4) may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a)(1) The additive is generated by one of the following methods:

(i) Treating an aqueous solution of sodium chlorite with either chlorine gas or a mixture of sodium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid.

(ii) Treating an aqueous solution of sodium chlorate with hydrogen peroxide in the presence of sulfuric acid.

(iii) Treating an aqueous solution of sodium chlorite by electrolysis.

(2) The generator effluent contains at least 90 percent (by weight) of chlorine dioxide with respect to all chlorine species as determined by Method 4500–ClO2 E in the “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,” 20th ed., 1998, or an equivalent method. Method 4500–ClO2 E (“Amperometric Method II”) is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. You may obtain a copy from the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS–200), Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or the American Public Health Association, 800 I St. NW., Washington, DC 20001–3750. You may inspect a copy at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Library, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

(b)(1) The additive may be used as an antimicrobial agent in water used in poultry processing in an amount not to exceed 3 parts per million (ppm) residual chlorine dioxide as determined by Method 4500–ClO2 E, referenced in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or an equivalent method.

(2) The additive may be used as an antimicrobial agent in water used to wash fruits and vegetables that are not raw agricultural commodities in an amount not to exceed 3 ppm residual chlorine dioxide as determined by Method 4500–ClO2 E, referenced in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or an equivalent method. Treatment of the fruits and vegetables with chlorine dioxide shall be followed by a potable water rinse or by blanching, cooking, or canning.

[60 FR 11900, Mar. 3, 1995. Redesignated at 61 FR 14245, Apr. 1, 1996, as amended at 61 FR 14480, Apr. 2, 1996; 63 FR 38747, July 20, 1998; 65 FR 34587, May 31, 2000; 70 FR 7396, Feb. 14, 2005]

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title21/21-3.0.1.1.4.4.1.6.html

21 C.F.R. § 173.325 Acidified sodium chlorite solutions.
Title 21 - Food and Drugs

Title 21: Food and Drugs
PART 173—SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Subpart D—Specific Usage Additives

§ 173.325 Acidified sodium chlorite solutions.

Acidified sodium chlorite solutions may be safely used in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:

(a) The additive is produced by mixing an aqueous solution of sodium chlorite (CAS Reg. No. 7758–19–2) with any generally recognized as safe (GRAS) acid.

(b)(1) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent in poultry processing water in accordance with current industry practice under the following conditions:

(i) As a component of a carcass spray or dip solution prior to immersion of the intact carcass in a prechiller or chiller tank;

(ii) In a prechiller or chiller solution for application to the intact carcass;

(iii) As a component of a spray or dip solution for application to poultry carcass parts;

(iv) In a prechiller or chiller solution for application to poultry carcass parts; or

(v) As a component of a post-chill carcass spray or dip solution when applied to poultry meat, organs, or related parts or trim.

(2) When used in a spray or dip solution, the additive is used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between 500 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm), in combination with any GRAS acid at a level sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.3 to 2.9.

(3) When used in a prechiller or chiller solution, the additive is used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between 50 and 150 ppm, in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.8 to 3.2.

(c) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent in accordance with current industry practice in the processing of red meat, red meat parts, and organs as a component of a spray or in the processing of red meat parts and organs as a component of a dip. Applied as a dip or spray, the additive is used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between 500 and 1,200 ppm in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.5 to 2.9.

(d)(1) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent in water and ice that are used to rinse, wash, thaw, transport, or store seafood in accordance with current industry standards of good manufacturing practice. The additive is produced by mixing an aqueous solution of sodium chlorite with any GRAS acid to achieve a pH in the range of 2.5 to 2.9 and diluting this solution with water to achieve an actual use concentration of 40 to 50 parts per million (ppm) sodium chlorite. Any seafood that is intended to be consumed raw shall be subjected to a potable water rinse prior to consumption.

(2) The additive is used as a single application in processing facilities as an antimicrobial agent to reduce pathogenic bacteria due to cross-contamination during the harvesting, handling, heading, evisceration, butchering, storing, holding, packing, or packaging of finfish and crustaceans; or following the filleting of finfish; in accordance with current industry standards of good manufacturing practice. Applied as a dip or spray, the additive is used at levels that result in a sodium chlorite concentration of 1,200 ppm, in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve a pH of 2.3 to 2.9. Treated seafood shall be cooked prior to consumption.

(e) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent on raw agricultural commodities in the preparing, packing, or holding of the food for commercial purposes, consistent with section 201(q)(1)(B)(i) of the act, and not applied for use under section 201(q)(1)(B)(i)(I), (q)(1)(B)(i)(II), or (q)(1)(B)(i)(III) of the act, in accordance with current industry standards of good manufacturing practice. Applied as a dip or a spray, the additive is used at levels that result in chlorite concentrations of 500 to 1200 parts per million (ppm), in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve a pH of 2.3 to 2.9. Treatment of the raw agricultural commodities with acidified sodium chlorite solutions shall be followed by a potable water rinse, or by blanching, cooking, or canning.

(f) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent on processed, comminuted or formed meat food products (unless precluded by standards of identity in 9 CFR part 319) prior to packaging of the food for commercial purposes, in accordance with current industry standards of good manufacturing practice. Applied as a dip or spray, the additive is used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations of 500 to 1200 ppm, in combination with any GRAS acid at levels sufficient to achieve a pH of 2.5 to 2.9.

(g) The additive is used as an antimicrobial agent in the water applied to processed fruits and processed root, tuber, bulb, legume, fruiting (i.e., eggplant, groundcherry, pepino, pepper, tomatillo, and tomato), and cucurbit vegetables in accordance with current industry standards of good manufacturing practices, as a component of a spray or dip solution, provided that such application be followed by a potable water rinse and a 24-hour holding period prior to consumption. However, for processed leafy vegetables (i.e., vegetables other than root, tuber, bulb, legume, fruiting, and cucurbit vegetables) and vegetables in the Brassica [Cole] family, application must be by dip treatment only, and must be preceded by a potable water rinse and followed by a potable water rinse and a 24-hour holding period prior to consumption. When used in a spray or dip solution, the additive is used at levels that result in sodium chlorite concentrations between 500 and 1,200 ppm, in combination with any GRAS acid at a level sufficient to achieve a solution pH of 2.3 to 2.9.

(h) The concentration of sodium chlorite is determined by a method entitled “Determination of Sodium Chlorite: 50 ppm to 1500 ppm Concentration,” September 13, 1995, developed by Alcide Corp., Redmond, WA, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies are available from the Division of Petition Control (HFS–215), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or may be examined at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's Library, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740 20204–0001, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to:

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

[61 FR 17829, Apr. 23, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 11119, Mar. 6, 1998; 64 FR 44123, Aug. 13, 1999; 64 FR 49982, Sept. 15, 1999; 65 FR 1776, Jan. 12, 2000; 65 FR 16312, Mar. 28, 2000; 66 FR 22922, May 7, 2001; 66 FR 31841, June 13, 2001; 67 FR 15720, Apr. 3, 2002; 69 FR 78304, Dec. 30, 2004]

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/upload/2009_08_28_sdwa_fs_30ann_treatment_web.pdf

DRINKING WATER TREATMENT

Environmental Protection Agency

8/28/2009 [captured 23 April 2015]

[extract]

Types of Treatment

Disinfection (chlorination/ozonation): Water is often disinfected before it enters the distribution system to ensure that potentially dangerous microbes are killed. Chlorine, chloramines, or chlorine dioxide are most often used because they are very effective disinfectants, not only at the treatment plant but also in the pipes that distribute water to our homes and businesses. Ozone is a powerful disinfectant, and ultraviolet radiation is an effective disinfectant and treatment for relatively clean source waters, but neither of these are effective in controlling biological contaminants in the distribution pipes.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-23   4:27:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Deckard (#0)

Bump

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-04-23   7:52:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS): Product as consumed produces a potent bleach

The product instructs consumers to mix the 28 percent sodium chlorite solution with an acid such as citrus juice. This mixture produces chlorine dioxide, a potent bleach used for stripping textiles and industrial water treatment. High oral doses of this bleach, such as those recommended in the labeling, can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and symptoms of severe dehydration
www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWat...calProducts/ucm220756.htm

ESAD - if you do, you will so DRINK UP Wile E Priss, Suuuuuuper Genius.

VxH  posted on  2015-04-23   8:21:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#2) (Edited)

water is often disinfected before it enters the distribution system

But what gets to your house isn't a solution of citric acid with 28% sodium chlorite dissolved in it. Is it.

" In Hal’s case, he also used MMS to control his own body’s pH levels. "

The affidavit also revealed that the removal of the children was intended in the first place.

What's the rest of the story -- What was the cause cited by protective services for the removal of the children?

VxH  posted on  2015-04-23   8:27:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

purify the water used in the family’s aquaponic system.

Before it goes into the system? That might make sense.

But you certainly wouldn't want that stuff in the system itself. Aquaponics requires microbes in the system. The advantage of Aquaponics over hydroponics and aquaculture is that Aquaponics maintains balance and eliminates fish wastes whilst feeding the plants without chemicals -- and that balance can't be maintained if the microbes are killed.

VxH  posted on  2015-04-23   8:35:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

Now many in the anti childhood vaccination crowd and those with autistic children are starting to give their children enemas containing MMS. It’s been alleged that MMS enemas cures autism and removes any traces of vaccines from children. This is being reported by multiple news media sites now.

from Raw Story – Parents trying to reverse kids’ Autism by ‘flushing out’ vaccines with bogus ‘miracle’ bleach enemas


Bleach enimas? Good grief. That's insane.

Maybe this "ordained minister" deserves a Darwin Award, but the children he managed to spawn don't.

If protecting the unborn is a just cause, then surely protecting the born from religiously inspired chemical ineptitude is just as well.

VxH  posted on  2015-04-23   8:58:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: VxH, Deckard (#5)

What's the rest of the story -- What was the cause cited by protective services for the removal of the children?

I provided the Affidavit for Search Warrant on scribd. Here I provide it in HTML.

For a search warrant to be lawfully issued, the reasons must be contained within the four corners of the requesting documents. The allegations are set forth in the Affidavit.

A main reason for the issuance of the Search Warrant appears to be:

This affiant researched the chemical "MMS" and found that it is a toxic substance that can cause nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening issues if ingested.

The affiant is police sergeant, not a doctor. The substance appears to be lawful to possess. The seargeant claims to have researched the chemical MMS, however, for legal purposes I am uncertain that his personal conclusions constitute medical conclusions. They also seized a bottle labeled Hydrogen Peroxide 35%. Clorox is a legal bleach that you shouldn't drink from the bottle. Bleach has been used, in very small quantities, to decontaminate water for a very long time.

The Search Warrant states, [emphasis added]

There is now being concealed certain property, namely: a chemical substace referred to as "MMS" or master Mineral Solution, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, complie, transport, or distribute said chemicals, and any other evidence related tyo the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor; which are in violation of Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor;

What does could be used signify? If there was a shotgun at the premises, it could be used to endanger the welfare of children. The same could be said for water if ingestion in excessive quantities were required, effecting a chemical imbalance. This gives the appearance that some bootstrapping is going on.

The real purpose of the entry appears to have been removing the children. The Search Warrant appears to be only for purposes of entry to look for a legal substance with no unlawful possession allegation.

[Emphasis as in original]

AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT

STATE OF ARKANSAS}
COUNTY OF GARLAND}

Before the Honorable Lynn Williams
Judge of the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says that they have reason to believe that on the premises known as 815 Treasure Isle, Hot Springs, Arkansas; which is described as a single-story, wood-frame residence, with yellow siding, green shuttcrs, and white trim; and further described as having a front porch with two white columns, and having a silver mailbox marked "815" at the end of the drive on Treasure Isle Road;

There is now being concealed certain property, namely: a chemical substance referred to as "MMS" or Master Mineral Solution, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, compile, transport, or distribute said chemicals; and any other evidence related to the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor; which are in violation of Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor;

And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search warrant are as follows:

On Friday, January 9, 2015, information was provided to Sgt. Michael Wright, of the Garland County Sheriffs Department, and Cpl. Russ Rhodes, of the Arkansas State Police, of possibly child abuse occurring at the aforementioned residence by the parents, Hal and Michelle Stanley,

One of the allegations was that Hal Stanley had tried to force his seven children to drink a toxic chemical (MMS) in order to "cleanse" them. The children reportedly refused and Hal then allegedly piped vapors from the chemical through the air vents into a room where the children were doing school work. Additionally, Hal reportedly stores a jar of this chemical in the refrigerator, with holes poked in the lid, presumably allowing the vapors to contaminate the food.

On Friday, January 9, 2015, an adult child of Hal and Michelle Stanley was interviewed. This adult child reported that he moved away from the Stanley home in 2014, but still visits on a regular basis. The adult child confirmed that Hal had tried to get the children to take the MMS and also confirmed that he was aware, at one point, that Hal had the MMS vapors pumped through the vent into the school room.

On January 12, 2015, this affiant was provided a sample of the MMS chemical that reportedly was obtained the day before from one of the children currently living in the Stanley home. This sample will ultimately be submitted to the Crime Lab for analysis.

This affiant researched the chemical "MMS" and found that it is a toxic substance that can cause nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening issues if ingested.

Additionally, there are other allegations of abuse and neglect occurring in the Stanley home, such as rnalnourishment, inadequate healthcare, and insufficient home-schooling. Due to the concern for the safety and well-being of the children, the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division has opened an investigation and intends to remove the children from the home to have them examined by a medical doctor.

Which is in violation of Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor (a) A person commits the offense of endangering the welfare of a minor in the first degree if, being a parent, guardian, person legally charged with care or custody of a minor, or a person charged with supervision of a minor, he or she purposely: (1) Engages in conduct creating a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to a minor;.

The affiant respectfully requests that a Search Warrant be granted for the properly afore described, and for the scope of the Warrant to include the residence, curtilage, and any outbuildings and vehicles located on the property.

/s/––––––––––––––––––
Sgt. Mike Wright
Garland County Sheriff's Department
Criminal Investigation Division

Sworn before me, and subscribed in my presence, January 12th, 2015.

/s/________________________
Honorable, Judge Lynn Williams

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-23   13:42:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: VxH (#5)

water is often disinfected before it enters the distribution system

But what gets to your house isn't a solution of citric acid with 28% sodium chlorite dissolved in it. Is it.

Is a 28% solution of sodium chlorite lawful to possess?

Do you know of any law prohibiting its possession?

Chlorox bleach has long been used to decontaminate water and make it drinkable. It is not to be ingested full strength from the bottle. A very little goes a very long way.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-23   13:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan, Muffy (#9)

Is a 28% solution of sodium chlorite lawful to possess?

Do you know of any law prohibiting its possession?

NO.
NO.

End of debate for Statists.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-23   13:52:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan (#9)

Sodium Hypochlorite is what's commonly referred to as bleach. Most household bleaches are around 2.7 percent.

Clorox 'Outdoor', is six percent and has a one percent advantage over more expensive deck washes.

As far as I know, commonly available stuff is six percent or below, but I do recall getting a 50 gallon drum of Sodium Hypochlorite by mistake once (instead of Hydrochloric acid) although I cannot recall the strength of that.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-04-23   14:14:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Dead Culture Watch, Liberator, Deckard (#11)

Were any of the seized substances unlawful to possess at any strength?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- - -

There is now being concealed certain property, namely: a chemical substance referred to as "MMS" or Master Mineral Solution, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, compile, transport, or distribute said chemicals; and any other evidence related to the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor; which are in violation of Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor;

- - -

No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause

http://kennedy-law.blogspot.com/2011/01/warrant-must-support-probable-cause.html

The Fort Worth (Texas) Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court's decision, in Farhat v. Texas, No. 02-10-00030-CR (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2011) on the grounds that the warrant was invalid because it did not provide the magistrate with "a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed." The court noted that nowhere within the "four corners" of the warrant (the affidavit is considered part of the warrant) was information provided that would provide the magistrate "with a substantial basis to conclude that there was a fair probability or substantial chance that Farhat had committed the offense of DWI or that evidence of intoxication would be found in Farhat's blood."

The problem for the officer was that he failed to note the personal observations he made during the encounter that gave him reason to believe that Mr. Farhat was intoxicated. When reviewing a warrant, all of the information giving rise to probable cause must be stated within the warrant itself. While the officer could testify at trial about his personal observations of Mr. Farhat, that testimony cannot be used to support a warrant. In other words, the sufficiency of a warrant is based entirely on the information included within its "four corners."

Only one crime is cited within the four corners of the instant search warrant — Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor.

What is cited within the Warrant to establish the probable cause that the crime occurred?

There is now being concealed certain property, namely: a chemical substance referred to as "MMS" or Master Mineral Solution, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, compile, transport, or distribute said chemicals; and any other evidence related to the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor;

Assume every word of this emanated from a burning bush and it does not allege a crime has been committed. It alleges that MMS is on the property and that MMS could be used to endanger the welfare of children.

There is no assertion of any conduct or behavior. The search warrant does not allege that Stanley committed any act which would support a finding of any violation of any law.

any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children

What, does this particularly describe?

[4th Amdt] particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The search warrant does not identify any persons to be seized. However, child services were there and seized six children.

There is no description of any particular thing to be seized because its possession was unlawful.

In the absence of the allegation of an unlawful act, it appears nebulous how any particular thing, lawful to possess, could be lawfully seized as evidence of the undescribed criminal act.

A Search Warrant includes, within its four corners, everything within the Warrant, the Affidavit, and the Return.

So, let's look at the Affidavit.

And that the facts tending to establish the foregoing grounds for issuance of a search warrant are as follows:

On Friday, January 9, 2015, information was provided to Sgt. Michael Wright, of the Garland County Sheriffs Department, and Cpl. Russ Rhodes, of the Arkansas State Police, of possibly child abuse occurring at the aforementioned residence by the parents, Hal and Michelle Stanley,

While it is interesting that allegedly some information was provided, such is hearsay and cannot support a search warrant.

http://www.leelofland.com/wordpress/search-warrants-inside-the-four-corners/

Search Warrants: Inside The “Four Corners”

[excerpt]

Our law demands that searches and seizures of property and people must be reasonable and based on probable cause, not mere suspicion (the 4th Amendment is pretty specific, stating that no warrant shall issue without probable cause). Therefore, when the police need to cross the line to invade a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy they must have a properly signed search warrant in hand.

A search warrant is actually the combination of three documents—an affidavit, the warrant itself, and a return of service.

The affidavit for a search warrant is the portion of the warrant stating the facts (probable cause) as to why permission to search a particular place, or person, should be allowed.

In other words, the affidavit sets the grounds for issuing the warrant portion of the document. An officer must state (under oath) that the facts provided in an affidavit are the truth.

The four corners of a warrant refer to the actual paper itself and to everything written within the physical “4 corners” of the document. If a statement, fact, etc. is not included within the 4 corners of the affidavit, the information may not be considered as part of the probable cause for issuing the warrant.

The search warrant is basically a court order to search a specific place for a specific item(s)

The “return” is simply the portion of the document (copies of the affidavit, the search warrant, the inventory list of items seized, and the official portion of the document stating the time and place of service and the signature of the serving officer.

Probable cause is present “where the facts and circumstances presented would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the items sought to be seized were in the stated place.”

To determine whether or not to issue a search warrant, a magistrate only needs to ask himself/herself one question. Would a reasonably cautious person conclude that there was a “substantial basis” for the finding of probable cause? If the answer to the question is “yes,” then he/she may issue the warrant.

Information presented as probable cause must be current information that exists at the time the request is made for the warrant. For example, an officer may not request a search warrant based on activity she observed 30 days in the past.

Hearsay evidence may not be used to obtain a search warrant. I see this used all the time in books—the officer receives an anonymous tip regarding evidence hidden in a car or home, so the cop drives over and starts searching based on the tip. Doing so would definitely be an illegal search. And, a search warrant would not be issued based on the anonymous tip, either. Even when using information provided by an informant, officers must first establish the informant’s credibility. Has he supplied reliable information in the past? If so, how many times? Have the details of his information been verified by reliable sources, such as another police officer or person in good standing?

One of the allegations was that Hal Stanley had tried to force his seven children to drink a toxic chemical (MMS) in order to "cleanse" them. The children reportedly refused and Hal then allegedly piped vapors from the chemical through the air vents into a room where the children were doing school work. Additionally, Hal reportedly stores a jar of this chemical in the refrigerator, with holes poked in the lid, presumably allowing the vapors to contaminate the food.

Again, this is pure hearsay. The affiant describes an allegation but attributes it to nobody. An allegation was made, children reportedly acted, Hal allegedly did something, and Hal reportedly stores something in the refrigerator.

On Friday, January 9, 2015, an adult child of Hal and Michelle Stanley was interviewed. This adult child reported that he moved away from the Stanley home in 2014, but still visits on a regular basis. The adult child confirmed that Hal had tried to get the children to take the MMS and also confirmed that he was aware, at one point, that Hal had the MMS vapors pumped through the vent into the school room.

An unidentified adult child, who moved away from the home "in 2014", was interviewed. In the words of the affiant, the adult child "confirmed" that Hal tried to get the children to take the MMS. He "confirmed" what allegation made by whom?

Not described is whether the "adult child" moved out in January 2014 or December 2014, or somewhere in between. While nothing the adult child actually said is provided, or what the alleged "confirmation" consisted of, more problematic is that there is no dating of the time of the alleged alleged unlawful behavior and the information provided allows for it to allege events more than a year old. Even accepted at face value, this allegation would not substantiate anything having happened within the previous calendar year.

On January 12, 2015, this affiant was provided a sample of the MMS chemical that reportedly was obtained the day before from one of the children currently living in the Stanley home. This sample will ultimately be submitted to the Crime Lab for analysis.

Here affiant alleges that affiant was provided a sample of an allegedly legal substance which was sent to the Crime Lab for Analysis to confirm that it was a legal substance.

This affiant researched the chemical "MMS" and found that it is a toxic substance that can cause nausea, vomiting, and life-threatening issues if ingested.

Affiant's hearsay and personal conclusions, based on undescribed "research," with no sources cited, amount to nothing.

Additionally, there are other allegations of abuse and neglect occurring in the Stanley home, such as malnourishment, inadequate healthcare, and insufficient home-schooling. Due to the concern for the safety and well-being of the children, the Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division has opened an investigation and intends to remove the children from the home to have them examined by a medical doctor.

Which is in violation of Arkansas State Statute 5-27-205 Endangering The Welfare of A Minor …

Again, the affiant presents unusable hearsay, merely citing unattributed allegations emanating from nowhere.

And let us look at the Return of 16 January 2015.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN INVENTORY OF ITEMS TAKEN PURSUANT TO THIS SEARCH WARRANT:

1. One (1) partially gallon bottle labeled Hydrogen Peroxide 35%

2. One (1) empty Cool Hip container with "Sodium Chlorite 2/24/14" written on lid

3. One (1) 16oz bottle labeled "Hydrogen Peroxide Solution" with a tape labeled "CDH"

4. One brown dropper bottle with tape labled "MMS"

This inventory was made in the presence of Sgt Mike Wright, Cpl. Terry Threadgill and Cpl. Russ Rhodes (ASP).

I swear that this inventory is a true and detailed account of all items taken pursuant to the execution of this search warrant

It is not clear what crime is substantiated by a partially full gallon bottle labeled Hydrogen Peroxide 35%. It is not clear whether the bottle contained one drop, a gallon minus one drop, or something in between. The content is not quantified beyond being part of a gallon.

It is not clear what crime is substantiated by One (1) empty Cool Hip container with "Sodium Chlorite 2/24/14" written on lid.

It is not clear what crime is substantiated by One (1) 16oz bottle labeled "Hydrogen Peroxide Solution" with a tape labeled "CDH".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23617537

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
PubMed

Microb Cell Fact. 2013 Apr 23;12:38. doi: 10.1186/1475-2859-12-38.

Semi-rational engineering of cellobiose dehydrogenase for improved hydrogen peroxide production.

Sygmund C1, Santner P, Krondorfer I, Peterbauer CK, Alcalde M, Nyanhongo GS, Guebitz GM, Ludwig R.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The ability of fungal cellobiose dehydrogenase (CDH) to generate H2O2 in-situ is highly interesting for biotechnological applications like cotton bleaching, laundry detergents or antimicrobial functionalization of medical devices. CDH's ability to directly use polysaccharide derived mono- and oligosaccharides as substrates is a considerable advantage compared to other oxidases such as glucose oxidase which are limited to monosaccharides. However CDH's low activity with oxygen as electron acceptor hampers its industrial use for H2O2 production. A CDH variant with increased oxygen reactivity is therefore of high importance for biotechnological application. Uniform expression levels and an easy to use screening assay is a necessity to facilitate screening for CDH variants with increased oxygen turnover.

[...]

It is not clear what crime is substantiated by One brown dropper bottle with tape labled "MMS". There is no allegation of unlawful possession of any controlled substance.

All the children were/are home schooled. The eldest, an adult, moved from the home at some unidentified time in 2014. Six children were removed from the home at the time of the search and seizure. The four youngest have been returned to the home. This would be strange if the parents were endangering them with alleged poisoning. The two eldest of the six who were living at home have not been returned.

As alleged hearsay apparently gives probable cause to search and seize, a bit more will do no harm. The two children who remain away have undergone one major change in addition to not living at home. They have been enrolled in public school. It has been reported that they did not want to continue home schooling and desired to go to public school. Were they being poisoned with MMS, or did they just want to go to public school? I sympathize with the kids. I would rather go to the school than study in a room at home. However, home schooling is a parental decision.

In sum, the authorities, including child services, went to the house purportedly to search for lawful substances, seized six children and no evidence which proves any crime, kept the two who wanted to go to public school and put them in the school, and returned the four youngest children.

This warrant appears to be a sham to grant entry to child services.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-23   20:14:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#12) (Edited)

Salt isn't illegal to possess either, but if a parent is stupid/insane enough to administer it to a child in such a way that it endangers the child's health, then the child has a right to be protected by those with legal authority.

www.foxnews.com/us/2015/0...ife-sentence-in-new-york- mother-salt-poisoning-son/

 

VxH  posted on  2015-04-24   1:14:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: VxH (#13)

Salt isn't illegal to possess either, but if a parent is stupid/insane enough to administer it to a child in such a way that it endangers the child's health, then the child has a right to be protected by those with legal authority.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/0...ife-sentence-in-new-york-mother-salt-poisoning-son/

Your link does not work.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/08/da-seeking-life-sentence-in-new-york-mother-salt-poisoning-son/

Kentucky mother gets 20 years to life for salt-poisoning of son

Published April 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

A Kentucky woman convicted of murdering her son by putting salt in his hospital feeding tube was sentenced Wednesday to 20 years to life in prison.

Lacey Spears, 27, was found guilty last month of second-degree murder in the 2014 death of her 5-year-old son, Garnett-Paul Spears, at a suburban New York hospital.

[...]

Prosecutors said the mother force-fed high concentrations of sodium through the boy's stomach tube because she craved the attention his illness brought to her, especially through her heavy posting on social media.

[...]

In the Spears case, she was found to suffer from a psychiatric disorder, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. She had had a feeding tube inserted into her son years before his death. She twice appeared on hospital video going into the bathroom with an insertion tube and the child. The child was observered suffering afterward. The hospital found an excessive level of sodium in the child. That sounds like justification for a search warrant. At her apartment, two feeding bags were found laced with sodium. A forensic toxicologist testified one of the bags contained "5.5 teaspoons or 22 servings of sodium in it."

Had they merely found salt packets, it would have only proved she possessed packets of salt, not that she administered salt.

Salt isn't illegal to possess either, but if a parent is stupid/insane enough to administer it to a child in such a way that it endangers the child's health, then the child has a right to be protected by those with legal authority.

If, within the four corners of the search warrant, there was sufficient first hand information provided to sustain a finding of probable cause to believe that Stanley had salt (or MMS or whatever) and that he administered it to a child in such a way that it endangered the child's health at some recent date, then I would find that the judge would have sufficient information to issue a search warrant to look for evidence of the crime.

Again, unattributed hearsay and very stale statements are not enough. Unsupported medical opinions by a non-medical person are legally without merit.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What crime were they investigating?

If Child endangerment, why were no children listed as persons to be seized?

Finding salt or MMS provided no proof whatsoever of child endangerment.

The return of the four youngest children further indicates the absence of child endangerment.

The search warrant is to search for "a chemical substance referred to as "MMS" or Master Mineral Solution, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, compile, transport, or distribute said chemicals; and any other evidence related to the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor...."

Considering, any other chemical substances which could be used to endanger the welfare of children, and other items used to process, store, make, compile, transport, or distribute said chemicals, I have no idea what the search warrant describes. Were they to seize salt? Should they have seized all cars, trucks, bicycles and anything else which could transport salt? Should they have seized salt shakers as containers?

Considering, any other evidence related to the crime of Endangering Welfare of A Minor, what the heck is that?

What happened to the constitutional warrant requirement of particularly describing … the persons or things to be seized?

As Lincoln might describe it, the support for the warrant appears to be thinner than a broth made from the shadow of a pigeon. Virtually the entirety of the affidavit shows the affiant, who had first-hand knowledge of nothing, swearing that he received a report of information from an unidentified source of unknown veracity. It was the judge's job to inquire into that before issuing the warrrant.

Spears is a case of recognized mental illness and homicide. Stanley is a case of being a prepper and requiring the children to home school.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-25   19:07:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: nolu chan (#14)

the support for the warrant appears to be thinner than a broth made from the shadow of a pigeon.

Did you think that up yourself?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-25   19:15:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: A K A Stone (#15)

Did you think that up yourself?

No, I gave attribution to Lincoln. As Lincoln might describe it, …

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 3, page 279

Sixth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, at Quincy, Illinois

Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? [Laughter.] Has it not got down as thin as the homoeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death? [Roars of laughter and cheering.]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-25   22:22:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: nolu chan (#14)

Now many in the anti childhood vaccination crowd and those with autistic children are starting to give their children enemas containing MMS. It’s been alleged that MMS enemas cures autism and removes any traces of vaccines from children. This is being reported by multiple news media sites now.

from Raw Story – Parents trying to reverse kids’ Autism by ‘flushing out’ vaccines with bogus ‘miracle’ bleach enemas


Bleach enimas? Good grief. That's insane.

VxH  posted on  2015-04-26   13:53:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com