This is a common narrative from Nicole. She tells the story every chance she gets. This is her version:
The Nauglers were just minding their own business, being nice to everyone and living off-grid and homeschooling their gorgeous children, when for no reason at all ( or because of being “unfriended on Facebook,” or for some other petty reason – it changes) some evil person called CPS and reported them. It was completely due to vindictiveness on the reporter’s part.
CPS just went ballistic based on that one report and sent Sheriff Pate out to the Blessed Shitstead to take the kids. It just so happened that Nicole was there with the two oldest boys and Joe was at an unspecified location with all the others. There was no warning whatever. They had no idea this might happen.
And it was all based on nothing more than one phone call.
This, of course, is not true.
A different version.
The sheriff came to serve notice about the menacing charge. They weren’t home.
I hate to be the one to break the news to Nicole, but anyone can enter your property who wants to if all they are doing is trying to deliver something, or if they are wanting to talk with you. This morning, some Jehovah’s Witnesses came to our door, briefly. We didn’t yell at them for “trespassing.” It’s not illegal for them to do that.
Furthermore, the Shitshack had only three sides. Anyone could see inside it without much trouble. Nobody had to trespass to see how the Nauglers were living.
CPS then tried to arrange some sort of visit with the Nauglers but were refused twice.
Do you see the position that this placed the CPS people in? They were dealing with parents who were refusing to talk with them, and who were obviously living in horrid conditions with umpteen children, and who are known to be relatively transient. What would you think was going on?
The Nauglers have been reported to CPS anywhere from six or seven times (Nicole) to 20 times (Joe). These reports have come from all sorts of people, including a librarian (so says Nicole). They have occurred in numerous different places, not all one county.
I suppose every time it was due to mean people who suck.
It’s just sort of amazing to me that anyone believes this shit. Dave and I raised a son to adulthood, lived in two different states with him, homeschooled and never once were reported to CPS by anyone.
What are the odds that we’d never be reported while the Nauglers are reported repeatedly if none of us were ever doing anything that would warrant such a report?
My personal opinion is that they were in the midst of doing what they always have done in the past: fleeing. Joe had left with the younger kids. Nicole was following with the two oldest who were grabbing last-minute stuff. Pate surprised them.
What Pate had was an emergency custody order. He didn’t have to show Nicole anything. He had an order to take those children into protective custody. They aren’t her possessions. They are children. They have the right to be protected by the state, even if that means being protected from their parents.
At that point, the state had reason to believe that the children were in danger, not because of their living conditions, which were deplorable, but because the Naugler parents were evasive and showing every indication that they were getting ready to run.
The sherif said —-I think it pretty cool how you live but you aren’t cooperating–
I wish she’d learn how to spell “sheriff.”
Is that accurate? Well, I went and listened. The recording can be accessed via the Link page. But I transcribed it for you. There were apparently five people present: Sheriff Pate, a deputy, Nicole and the two oldest boys. I have done my best to attribute the audio to the correct person. Nicole is obvious. Sheriff Pate and the deputy are not so obvious, however, it’s my understanding that Sheriff Pate is the one with the calm, measured tone and the deputy is the one who came in later when Nicole began yelling so much.
Pate: We went out there, and the mother and father said, ‘You can’t speak to them, you can’t do that’, I mean whether they think that it’s BS or not – and a lot of times we get those type of calls – and there’s probably a decent chance that is this type of call, and there’s a decent chance that this thing could be resolved much simpler. . .”
[There is a break here. I suspect this has been edited. Footsteps, rustling.]
Nicole: Yeah, it’s already almost nine o’clock.
[More rustling, footsteps, probably another edit.]
Pate: Do not make it any harder than it’s going to be. . .
Nicole: He knows his rights
Pate: We will end up arresting. . .(garbled)
Pate: I’m asking you to maintain your silence and I’m asking you to not interfere with what we’re doing.
Nicole: I don’t have proof that you have proof to take my children.
Pate: I have told you . . .
Nicole: I need proof
Pate: (unclear) on behalf of this county. . .
Nicole: (Yelling) Will you call the state police please? They are trying to kidnap my children.
Pate: We are doing removal orders on your children.
Nicole: Under what grounds?
Pate: The Cabinet is in the process. . .
Nicole: (interrupts) Because they can, because they have the authority, because you are the state, because you guys are the ones with the guns, the ammo, the weapons, is that why?
Pate: I am telling you now –
Nicole: (garbled) might offend people
Pate: I don’t care how you live, where you live, what you live, or that you live off the land, I think it’s kinda pretty cool, but –
Nicole: (yelling) Call the state police and tell them-
Pate: We may call them ourselves –
Nicole: Please do because you are overstepping your bounds
[more rustling, and steps, and probably another edit]
Nicole: You have no grounds for taking my children. On hearsay, you cannot take my children. That does not give you grounds to do anything. That is kidnapping.
Pate: Ma’am, I am asking you to ask your children to comply with a court order that we have
Nicole: I don’t have proof of your court order, so therefore I’m going off of what you said, and that’s not enough.
(to child) Stop. He’s just going to shoot you, cause that’s what cops do – they shoot people that don’t comply
(yelling at Pate) You cannot kidnap my son
Deputy ( I think): Sit down. Sit down!
Nicole: (yelling) You cannot kidnap my son
Deputy: (louder, clearly running out of patience) Ma’am , sit down
Nicole: (yelling) You cannot kidnap my son
Deputy: (loudly, over her yelling) You’re going to be under arrest
Nicole: Shoot me dead! Shoot me dead, but you will not kidnap my son – you will not kidnap my son
Pate: talking in the background, apparently to either the deputy or one of the boys, garbled
Nicole: No! You stop! That is abuse! Stop abusing my children!
At this point, it devolves into both Nicole and the deputy yelling, and Nicole being arrested, all the while yelling for Pate and/or the deputy to shoot her.
Now then, it’s quite clear that Pate was very patiently trying to explain to Nicole that his personal opinion about her lifestyle was not why he was there, that he was doing exactly what his job required, that the court had issued an order, and that it had nothing to do with her lifestyle “offending” him (which was her accusation). He was saying what most of us have said all along – that we have no problem with people who choose to live off-grid, or “homestead,” or homeschool, or even with people who have tin-foil-hat-like political ideas and think 9/11 was a hoax or that cops are evil. We have a problem with people who neglect their children and beg for money online.
In addition, she carries on incessantly in the video about the children, as though the two boys being taken were five years old. She yells at them that the police are going to shoot them. She accused Pate of “abusing” them.
Those were not small children. They were her two oldest boys, teenagers. Believe me, nobody wants anyone else’s teenagers. Really, they don’t.
But Nicole is riding this horse again because she wants us to understand that the evil, awful state, that horrible CPS, only wants beautiful “unabused” children because they are selling those children in order to make money for the state.
Her remarks in the original screen shot were about a piece describing how an abused child was ignored even though there were multiple reports. The abused children are ignored because they aren’t valuable, don’t you know. The state wants children like her perfect ones because they have an easier time selling those kids.
And furthermore, they need funding. CPS needs money. So CPS ignores abused children, hoping they will be killed, so they can get more money by claiming they don’t have enough.
She actually believes this.
She believes that an entire agency of the state that exists in fifty different incarnations, composed of thousands of people, actively and purposefully ignores abused children in the hopes that they will be killed so the agency can get money, and that they actively steal beautiful, perfect children like hers to sell.
I tried to find some data about how many CPS workers there are in the US. The most I could find with a quick search was that in Texas alone, there are “thousands.” That means more than 2000 in one state. And of course, there would be more in larger states and fewer in smaller states, but we’re talking here about tens of thousands of people.
And all these tens of thousands of people are colluding to steal some children and ignore other children so they will be killed, for money, not for themselves, but for the state.
She actually believes this.
And here’s a comment.
. . . they’ll keep the ones who are. . .
I wonder why they didn’t.