Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

New Mexico: Judge Releases 5 Suspects From Muslim Extremist Compound Who Were Allegedly Training Children for School Shootings

New Mexico: Judge Releases 5 Suspects From Muslim Extremist Compound Who Were Allegedly Training Children for School Shootings

Released against the wishes of the Taos County sheriff, undersheriff, prosecutors and the FBI

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1027322610114355200

Against the wishes of the Taos County sheriff, undersheriff, prosecutors and the FBI, Judge Sarah Backus ordered all five suspects arrested in the raid of the New Mexico compound, released.

Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 40, Lucas Morton, 40, Jany Leveille, 35, Hujrah Wahhaj, 37, and Subhannah Wahhaj, 35 were arrested on child abuse charges. The eleven children in the compound were taken into state custody. All were substantially malnourished, kept in rags, and had no access to clean water.

According to CBS News, Wahhaj, “Wahhaj is the son of a Brooklyn imam who was a possible co-conspirator in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 — but was never charged.”

According to ABC News, the suspects were “released on $20,000 bond each on Monday evening and ordered them to wear ankle monitors until trial, the Taos County Sheriff’s Office announced.”

Police discovered the decrepit compound, located near the Colorado state line, while searching for Wahhaj’s 4-year-old son, Abdul, but he was not there. His mother reported him missing late last year and claimed his father kidnapped him.

Investigators found the malnourished children, ages 1 to 15, barefoot and wearing “rags for clothing,” according to a complaint. Authorities recovered the buried remains of a young boy during a subsequent search of the compound on Aug. 9.

For our previous coverage of this story, see here.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Had to be a Democrat judge, after all, it’s all for the children… right?

I believe Wahhaj is still in custody, awaiting extradition to Georgia, where he is wanted for taking the child who died away from his mother.

She’s a hard left judge. Check her background. IMO, these guys are in the wind. P.S. Haven’t seen anything from Georgia, they never dreamed the bad guy would walk!

Deport, deport, deport !!!!! ABJ

    JohnSmith100 in reply to abujosh. | August 14, 2018 at 8:56 pm

    Deport to the middle of the ocean, hopefully where there are sharks, let nature take care of these scum bags.

    Kepha H in reply to abujosh. | August 15, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    Deport Siraj Wahhaj? Unfortunately, he’s from Brooklyn, NY. His father was originally a NOI sort of Muslim who became a Sunnite after Elijah Muhammad died.

Taos is Sedona east.

What could possibly go wrong?

Char Char Binks | August 14, 2018 at 8:28 pm

I’m sure there are good people on both sides.

I can see no way in which this goes wrong. None at all.

The same judge would likely throw you in jail without bail for spanking your own child.

Occasional Thinker | August 14, 2018 at 9:30 pm

I have read in other places that the $20,000 only kicks in if they violate the terms of their release. As of now, they are out on their own recognizance. Judge doesn’t think they are a flight risk.

regulus arcturus | August 14, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Time for judges to be held directly responsible for releasing violent criminals who commit crimes after their release.

Children starving in rags, dead body wrapped in plastic, teenager claims he was trained as a school shooter. Judge says: ‘Take off losers’.

Charged with tax evasion and loan fraud. Judge says: ‘Solitary confinement for you, Mr. Manafort.’

Our judicial system teaches us new things every day.

    Milhouse in reply to MSO. | August 16, 2018 at 12:19 am

    Wrong. Manafort was given bail, until he was caught tampering with witnesses. If these people do that they’ll lose their bail too. But there’s no reason to suppose they will.

    Bail is not a privilege; it is a constitutional right, and may not be denied merely because the judge disapproves of the defendant.

I have mixed feelings about this. The accusations are heinous in this case.

However Bail / Bond is not meant to be a form of punishment, but a tool to secure a defendants presence at trial. The requirement of the ankle monitors is a cash-bond-mitigation factor.

Here’s a good primer on it for Texas policy on the matter.

https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/excessive-bail-punishment-texas/amp/

    mailman in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 15, 2018 at 3:51 am

    $20k seems exceptionally lenient considering the crimes they have been accused of committing.

    Isn’t there a public safety aspect? I’m not sure what level of proof is required, but a dead body, child abuse — do the children have to return to these people?– would seem to suggest a certain level of danger to the public.

      No. The removal action of the Children from the adults is a separate civil matter from the allegation of the criminal child abuse. The children will not be returned to these individuals until there is a finding that they can provide a safe and stable home environment.

      The adults are entitled to a hearing where the State (doing the removal) has to show that there is a probable cause that the child remaining in the conditions will be an unacceptable danger, and that nothing short of removal will mitigate that danger.

      See the New Mexico Child Welfare Law handbook (this is the 2011 edition):

      http://childlaw.unm.edu/docs/2011%20Child%20Welfare%20Handbook%20-%20August%202011-2.pdf

    Close The Fed in reply to Chuck Skinner. | August 15, 2018 at 10:28 am

    Risk of flight is a factor to be considered. You have accuseds who despise American culture and America. What makes you think they have ANY intention of honoring our processes if they can find a way to evade them?

    Big bail is required in this case. It’s very serious, and they are flight risks.

    I have dealt with ankle monitor technology. It only notifies the state when a person actually leaves his residence or removes the monitor [sometimes]. It does not forestall escape. If it did, then we would see convicted murders housed in their own homes to save the state money. And, going on the lam under a signature bond does not subject the defendant to any immediate negative result, as the estreature of a cash bond would. In other words, the defendant loses nothing by not appearing in court. He only loses if he is eventually caught after violating the terms of his bond.

    In this case, you have people charged with multiple counts of felony child abuse, who exhibited behavior which would lead any reasonable person to believe that they are a danger to the community, if at large. For this reason, their bail should be set very high to keep them confined or to place a strong financial incentive upon them to meet the terms of their release. But, the judge did not even require a cash or surety bond in this case, only a signature bond.

      Depends on the Ankle Monitor type being used. I am familiar with a couple of different types. The “Cloth” ones are useless for anybody that is considered a flight risk, because they just can be cut off. The ones that I would expect to be applicable here from a Felony Bond standpoint would be the GPS location accurate type, with the stainless steel construction.

      Basically they’re accurate to about 6 feet, they are tracking you 100% of the time, and they’re effectively indestructible. I’ve seen ONE successfully removed, and that took an acetylene torch to cut it off (and resulted in fairly significant injury to the probationer that removed it).

    Apparently the fact that there’s an 8th Amendment troubles people….

    Bond is about making people post some security to show up. We don’t punish people BEFORE finding them guilty. Now, you show me something that says they can’t be tracked, or there is some risk that they are just going to disappear, I’ll be more than happy to agree that their Bond should be higher.

    Absent that, go take it up with the SCOTUS and with the Supreme Court of NM, because they’re the ones who have said (in MANY more words) that a bond that the defendant can’t post is a de facto 8th amendment violation.

“Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, 40, Lucas Morton, 40, Jany Leveille, 35, Hujrah Wahhaj, 37, and Subhannah Wahhaj, 35 were arrested on child abuse charges. The eleven children in the compound were taken into state custody. All were substantially malnourished, kept in rags, and had no access to clean water.”

They were charged with child abuse. Does letting them out of jail imply that they have established that all the children were legally in their care?

Mykee the Patriot | August 15, 2018 at 7:17 am

That judge should be tried and locked up for about 20 years. I’ve never seen anything like it. She has to be an obamanite.

According to Taos County RE tax records,

[Administrator NOTE: CONTENT REMOVED – Do not post personal contact information in the comment section or you will be banned]

Feel free to drop her a post card with your displeasure, or perhaps some Jehovah’s Witnesses or Solar Panel salesmen….

    RedEchos in reply to rduke007. | August 15, 2018 at 5:14 pm

    Please do not dox people, even this judge. That is a leftist tactic

    William A. Jacobson in reply to rduke007. | August 15, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    CONTENT REMOVED – Do not post personal contact information in the comment section or you will be banned

      Apparently, i are banned

      Professor Jacobson, I’ve never violated one of your requests and I won’t start now

      What about my own personal information? is that prohibited as well?

      I’ve sent several emails with no response in the last 6 months, usually of automobile bumper stickers you might find amusing

      If you mean to ban me without warning (yes you warned, but I appear to be banned) say so-don’t say “if…” There were no further transgretions after you warned…..

Why would the judge let a good gun tragedy go to waste? The left has never been interested in prevention, only confiscation.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend