REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Polygamist Pedophiles and Papal Pontifications

POSTED BY: DEADLOCKVICTIM
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 15:32
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 14763
PAGE 4 of 6

Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:02 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
No, not a man. Most people assumed I was a guy altho Chris had me figured out a long time ago! I hope that doesn't change how people view me in the future.

Nope. I’ve always known you were of the female persuasions.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:57 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


This is all I have time for, but I feel the rhetoric needs some counterweight:

Several calls were made to the Newbridge Family Shelter in San Angelo Texas March 29 and March 30 from a female claiming to be Sarah who was trying to get out of the FLDS. The shelter unfortunately didn't have the ability to trace those calls. As far as the shelter was concerned, and as far as their contact with the police, it was a genuine case of abuse. It was those calls that triggered the April 3 raid.

"Shelter employees in Texas said Friday they continue to believe their call was authentic despite the reports about Swinton, a shelter spokeswoman said. "They think it's legitimate, that Sarah really does exist," said Susan Risdon, who talked with the shelter's director Friday about the issue. "She had so much information about what was going on at the compound. If it was this woman in Colorado, she would have had to have someone on the inside feeding her information."
Among the convincing details offered by the 16-year-old was the girl's assertion that she had borrowed a communal cell phone used by FLDS men who leave the compound to work, Risdon said. Other details offered by the girl "checked out" after investigation by Texas police, leading shelter employees to continue to believe the story, Risdon said."

At some point a caller or several callers called Flora Jessop in Arizona reportedly on March 30 and for two weeks thereafter, making a number of claims over time. But this person did NOT claim to be 'Sarah' at the FLDS, rather the caller claimed to be a different girl in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

"It's not yet clear whether authorities suspect Rozita Swinton, 33, of Colorado Springs, made the calls that triggered the April 3 raid on the compound. The arrest warrant affidavit released Wednesday says that several calls alleging abuse there were made using several phone numbers, including the (one) number linked to Swinton."

"(Jessop) I first got a call on March 30, about 8:30 in the morning, from what I presumed to be a young girl that claimed to be 16 years old in Colorado City. She gave me addresses in Colorado City that she was presumably in. And it's interesting for me to hear that she was arrested in Colorado for claiming to be a 13-year-old girl locked up in a basement because that's one of the claims that this girl had made to me about Colorado City. She claimed that she was being sexually abused by her father. She claimed that she was the twin sister of the girl, Sarah, who was in Texas. She claimed that she was supposed to be being sent to Texas a month after being married. Just a number of things."

It's not clear at what point the connection was made between calls made to an Arizona organization about Colorado Springs, and calls made to a separate organization in Texas about Texas FLDS. In fact, I can't imagine any circumstance where the two might be logically connected. And so, I wouldn't automatically assume the Texas authorities knew, or even suspected, that the calls were a hoax based on calls made to Arizona. But at some point, and it may have been long after the raid, one of the several numbers for the Jessop / Arizona calls (but not the Texas FLDS calls) was traced to Swinton.

Until such time as someone can show me the Texas authorities knew the calls were a hoax before going into the raid, I will assume they were going on information given to them by the Texas woman's shelter, and in good faith



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Arrrghh!

I hope to hell no one makes an issue out of it, but some purchases have been made, and one really, really damn foolish one.

Can't get into details, but can hope like hell it doesn't provoke anything, can't I ?
*wince*

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 2:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem

I've noticed that, sadly, you make two opposite arguments:
1) they acted outside their authority
2) if they acted within their authority then they have too damn much of it.
In neither case can you allow yourself to consider the notion that the state might actually have had a legitimate interest and lawful authority when it came to child abuse.

As to the overall picture, it wasn't 1 or 2 isolated cases of abuse that needed to be weeded out, it was community-wide. Given the situation, the choices devolve two ways:
1) leave the girls in a society you KNOW is rampantly abusive AND continue the abuse through the next generations
2) remove the girls so that they MIGHT find a better life AND try to break the chain of abuse.

I would not have done things they way they were done. But, as I said before, until you can bring me FACTS to show the raid was concocted I'll assume that it was done from a legitimate interest. And once underage pregnant 'sister-wives' were discovered Pandora's box was open and there was no going back.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:00 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Evidence - Police admission of intent to misuse educational inspections as a method to "get at" the compound and snoop.

Evidence - Police had a "Plan on the shelf" to break into the compound and search it, awaiting an excuse.

Evidence - Police, when pressed about the warrant being based on false information, don't care, as it "Doesn't matter" that it was bogus.

And there is ZERO doubt Swinton made those calls.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3152807

And, here's the clincher, the real columbo ringer that tells me they knew it was fake.
http://www.eldoradosuccess.com/Pages/RANGERS.html
"Once officers had gained access to the property, investigators obtained a second warrant based on evidence they witnessed regarding possible sexual assault."

You know, I'd like to see what that evidence was, myself - how'd YOU like to be arrested and slung in lockup cause your nineteen year old daughter is pregnant and someone thought she looked underage, eh ?

Normally using a bullshit warrant to gain entry for a fishing expedition, and then obtaining a second warrant on anything you find during such a search is illegal as all hell, but thanks to that suspiciously well-timed supreme court ruling, they'll be getting a pass on that.

I say they knew, or highly suspected that the info was bullshit, but processed the warrant anyway because they were looking for an excuse.

AND, that does not excuse repeated, continual violations of procedure, regs and the law itself on behalf of the authorities, which is a matter of record no one ELSE seems to care about.

And let me make this crystal clear to you.

All this shit has passed, all this hell and misery and severing of custody and foster placement and DNA testing and asset seizure...

And yet...
NOT ONE SINGLE CRIMINAL CHARGE HAS BEEN FILED WHAT SO EVER.

Explain that to me, if you would.

You wanted a lynching, well, you got one.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem,

"Police admission of intent to misuse educational inspections" Where is that admission ?

"Police had a "Plan on the shelf" to break into the compound" Where is that plan? Last I heard they had to get a last-minute 'cultural sensitivity' expert to figure out how to approach the compounds leaders.

"Police, when pressed about the warrant being based on false information, don't care," Well, when they found many underage sister-wives they probably realized there was more going on than 1 Sarah Barlow that they needed to address.

"I say they knew, or highly suspected that the info was bullshit ..."
Why is that ? How exactly were they supposed to have known ? You keep saying that but you have zero to go on. So I'll be happy if you can tell me - how did they know ?

"Normally using a bullshit warrant to gain entry ... but thanks to that suspiciously well-timed supreme court ruling, they'll be getting a pass on that."
I'm guessing probably not. The ruling came well after the raid. Except for telecoms, I don't see any retroactive immunity going around.

"And yet... NOT ONE SINGLE CRIMINAL CHARGE HAS BEEN FILED WHAT SO EVER. Why is that ?"
I'm guessing because they can't figure out who's the mom and who's the dad and who's therefore legally responsible for the welfare of the child. Hence, DNA.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:16 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

In neither case can you allow yourself to consider the notion that the state might actually have had a legitimate interest and lawful authority when it came to child abuse.

Bullshit.

There is a procedure for this.

The State of Texas violated that procedure, from top to bottom, and in this case went far beyond even perceived authority.

The terminated parental rights without even a reasonable suspicion, based soley on the religion these people chose to practice, without any evidence, or even accusation of actual abuse.

THAT made it an issue.

You constantly rave about how Anarchists would reduce us to "rule of the gun" then you must at this point explain to me how this is not such a thing.

If the State can say fuck the law, fuck regs, fuck the constitution and just do whatever the hell they please anyway, WHILE holding the folks on the business end of the gun barrel to standards they themselves have chosen not to abide by...

Where's the fucking difference ?

And since it's come down to rule of the gun, some folk have decided, in spite of my every effort to the contrary, to put more cards in their own decks, which I think is stupid and an unwise provocation, but I don't at all blame them if this is what your so-called "law and order" comes down to at the end of the day.

I think you and I both know some folk here not guilty of anything are never gonna get their kids back in this, how would you like that to have been YOU ?

And start thinkin real hard about what happens when the State gets away with it here thanks to the support of the lynch mob, and then tries it against another obscure bunch who's decided to take both sides to hell rather than let it happen to them.

To date, the State has not only not shown a single iota of evidence of abuse, they've not even filed a single charge of it.

Till they have, none of their actions based on mere suspicion and guilt by association means a damn thing other than the fact that they outgun the people they have over the barrel.

And if you think THAT message didn't get across to other reclusive religious people very goddamn fast, think again... and their response to it is givin me the twitchies.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:19 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Sigh ... just read my post above. And try to get up at least a little outrage about undereducated underage sister-wives, will you ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Let's turn that around.

Show me evidence, absolute proof of your own assertions first.

You wanna call, you show me YOUR cards before I hand over mine.

Give me something other than the lies and distortions you've thrown in my face this whole thread, if you wanna actually discuss the merits of the matter, for once.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:35 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Well, Frem, there was not a whole lot I credited the news stories with. There were a few items that seemed significant. One indisputable fact is the high percentage of underage mothers. Another is that these little girls call each other sister-wives. Another is that, in this supposedly highly controlled and godly community I can't imagine these little girls fornicating in sin to such an extent as to have a 50% underage pregnancy rate. It all adds up to underage girls being destined to be brood mares for older men, in a very community-sanctioned way.

There are other items I do wonder about, and am briefly scanning the news for. One is sex ratios. If the older guys are getting all or most of the young girls, what about the boys when they become men ? The sex ratios of the children didn't seem right nor did the sex ratios of the adults (and there are stories of men being banned while their wives are 'given' to someone else), but I'm waiting for hard data on that.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

without even a reasonable suspicion
Frem, even YOU said that several actionable cases had been overlooked by the authorities. Hell, even I read about this group over a year ago in the LA Times. Doesn't this information count for "reasonable suspicion"?

I understand your desire for teh State to conduct itself according to precedure, and I'd like to see that as well but I think you're SO focused on that aspect of this case that you're forgetting that this religion has had a pretty long record of abusive practices.... like, dumping teenage boys out in the middle of nowhere to make breeding room for the patriarchs.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Frem, even YOU said that several actionable cases had been overlooked by the authorities. Hell, even I read about this group over a year ago in the LA Times. Doesn't this information count for "reasonable suspicion"?

To get a warrant based on THAT information, arrest the named guilty parties and those complict and charge them, and try them for the crime ?

To temporarily remove custody rights while the case is processed ?

Heck yes.

To cook up a bullshit warrant, go on a fishing expedition and seperate every parent of that belief from their kids permanently without even an accusation of wrongdoing ?

Heck no.

I haven't for a moment forgotten what FLDS is guilty of, or rather individuals within it are - but that's the thing, you can no more legally stomp this religion for that than you could stomp the entire Catholic Church for the same.


Look, listen for a moment, ok ?

Folks bought that phone call and started calling for heads, and tore mine off for even suggesting it was bogus - but it was, wasn't it ?

Folks bought the warrant too, and now that falls - and if you think they're gonna throw out the search just because it was illegal, considering how many other laws they have violated at this point, you're dreaming, they will throw the done is done card and claim greater good and play on folks sympathies with the help of a compliant media, and no one much is gonna care cause it ain't them, ain't their kids.... yet.

And just look at the pregnancy issue, look at some of the bullshit that has been thrown, and blown to bits -

Claim of 13yr pregnant girls - straight bullshit, that one.

Claim of 60+ girls under 17 - unsubstantiated, and in some of the cases where the girls age is in dispute, the State is refusing to accept the evidence of birth certificates they themselves issued.

Half of them pregnant, which amounts to 30 pregnancies - blatantly false.

20 confirmed pregnancies total, and we're talkin more than 60 girls now, the State keeps changing their story so fast that in truth, no one knows, only FIVE of which were initially even suspect of being underage, and in that case if they wanna go with a DNA check, there's cause...

TO GET A FREAKIN WARRANT.

Not just ignore the rules and take, a doctors quick checkover and estimate would be sufficient to procure a warrant quite speedily from a judge, with valid probable cause and reason - but they skipped that step cause they didn't feel any need, any pressure, to obey the law.

Which means either that they get a pass on behavior *I* would like to see someone prosecuted for, or we throw in the towel and admit we have no rights the State doesn't feel like giving us.

That's a lose-lose situation, you ask me.

To allow the State to do it this way is to sacrifice all of our rights, to open ourselves up to the same treatment, and beyond which, I believe those girls deserve better than being dumped into the trash heap of the TX Foster Care system, but without any real support, and a lynch mob on the other side, that's GOING to happen - and do the math.

That means they will suffer even MORE, dumped into a culture where their beliefs are unwelcome, unwanted, cause for scorn and derision, some of them possibly far behind educationally, in a foreign environment that's already proven itself quite hostile to them - and it's a statistical guarantee that once within that system some of them WILL face abuse, verbal, physical, sexual, and possible forcible medication and neglect on top of it.

And it's GOING to happen, at this point, so all we have done is move them from one abusive culture, to a more abusive culture in the most traumatic fashion possible, and then abandon them.

By the time this is over, even those parents who can prove their innocence, since we have gone napoleonic law on this, seemingly - ain't gonna get their kids back, for the most part, and I cannot be ok with that, I just can't.

At this point there's really no going back, the State has broken so many of it's own laws that any admission of such would require prosecuting most of the folk involved, which isn't even logistically possible if they could even physically pull it off, and nobody else even tried to apply a brake to it when there was time - they might throw out a few scapegoats later and pay out some lawsuits, but at this point it's prettymuch a done deal for most of this, and further hearings and whatnot are just a pretty show for the masses.

And in the end, we failed them, because people wanted a lynching so bad that nobody cared about the rules till it didn't matter any more, and did not care what happened to them as long as they were seperated from that culture, and this is the end result.

They deserved a hell of a lot better than to be thrown under the bus like that in the name of protecting them.

Not to mention the problem of, having pulled this off, the State eyeballing other groups with the same kind of intent, some of whom have made the decision that such will occur quite literally over their own corpses, and mean it quite fervently.

I knew full and well what FLDS was guilty of long beforehand, and pressure was applied in those cases, and ignored by the authorities supposed to handle it, at which point other authorities came in on a rampage and created a fiasco, and it was the possibility of this exact result that kept even us from bending the rules to get it done, because once you let the beast off the leash, you don't get it back on until it's sated itself, if ever.

So now we've scared the piss out of a lot of reclusive, religious folk (the Amish and LDS are shitting bricks right now) inspiring some outrageously STUPID behavior on the part of other seperatist or reclusive beliefs, set precedents where the law no longer applies to the States actions, yanked a bunch of kids out of one abusive environment in the most traumatic fashion I can think of, shoveled them into another one even more so and we'll more than likely just abandon them to it, and showed that the public will support such measures as long as the proper shoveljob is given by the media.

Tell me that's a "win" - convince me.

Cause I sure as hell don't see it as one.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:23 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
6-ix

"Let's see, aside from sensationalistic media reports, exactly what proof Rue has regarding what did and did not go on within that community, shall we?"

Pregnant underage girls ? I don't know how much more proof you need than that. "According to the West Texas TV station, investigators removed 60 children under 17, mostly girls -- half of whom, they report, are now pregnant -- from the gated compound built by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Schleicher County."

There are several ways to address these facts:
They aren’t real (the Rap 'head up the butt' approach)
All those girls got pregnant without sex
The 50% pregnancy rate of underage girls doesn't indicate a widespread culture of pedophilia (and statutory rape)
Though it's all true, it's OK because it was girls, not boys; because it was LDS not Catholics; or some other reason.

So however you want to address these facts as proof of what went on there, the next step is up to you.

And no, I don't feel the need to apologize b/c my post was based on facts.

***************************************************************
BTW this does get back to the topic of 'disappeared' children. What this is, is yet another instance, albeit a large-scale one, of people disappearing their children in order to do things to them that are illegal.



I'm sure the Auraptors and Heros and Finns love it when you talk about WMDs that were never found in Iraq Rue.

Funny how you think lies are possible in one situation and not in another. Let's ask any of them again and I'm sure they can give you novels of information again backing up the "FACT" that there were indeed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Your ability to discerne exactly which "facts" are fact in any given situation are staggering.

There is one word for you Rue. Hypocrite.

And THAT'S a fact.

And if you don't apologize for your previous offhanded statement that I support pedophilia en masse, which was built entirely upon your imagination, your unwavering desire to always be right, your wish to tarnish my name in the process, not to mention that there is not a single fact to back it up, you can still go fuck yourself.

Regards,
6SJ



EDIT: Man oh man Frem.... the frustration you've had to deal with since I've gone. Not only have I vomited in my throat at least 3 separate times reading Rue's responses in here over the last week, but I can actually say that he/she scares the ever loving shit out of me now.

Rue is Big Brother.

I need a Hero, or an Auraptor, or a Finn..... at least thier support of big brother tactics tend to focus on events that we're doing to other countries. Rue's outright condoning the police state within our own borders.

See ya on the waterboard Rue. You know you're going to be right there with me when they torture you till you say you believe there were WMD's in Iraq.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 1:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

There is one word for you Rue. Hypocrite.

And THAT'S a fact.

Regards,6SJ




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Actually, you folks are the ones being driven by an agenda that has nothing to do with facts, not me.

Frem, for example keeps talking about how "you can no more legally stomp this religion for that than you could stomp the entire Catholic Church for the same." Next time the catholic church preaches underage marriage to much older men and underage pregnancy as a tenet of faith, AND suborns the parents into foisting that practice off on their little girls, let me know, OK ? B/c that is what distinguishes the two, and to gloss over that and pretend they are the same is just plain stupid (or dishonest).


That's just one example of pure emotion-driven go se. And the more hysterical (and unsupported) the posts become, the less and less credible they are.

Personally, I'm willing to wait to be proved out, just like I was with Iraq. And when I'm proven right - that there were multiple married underage girls who were pregnant or had children by much older men - as a matter of policy - I'll come back and say I told you so. And gloat just a little on how eager you are to be manipulated.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 6:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Show me actual chuch documentation making those claims, in writing, instead of press accounts from sources that have upon examination been proven fake in almost every instance.

And you're a fine one to talk about emotion-driven bullshit, since it was you who suggested that the law be violated in this public lynching.

Yeah, you'll wait, while families are destroyed without even a hint of accusation, simply because of what they chose to believe, as is their right no matter how offensive either of us may find it.

And then gloat, sure, while children we should have handled with kid gloves and helped with a treatment and counselling program get apathetically dumped on the trash heap cause they were never more than excuse to begin with.

Frankly, you disgust me, your zealotry and agenda has blinded you to the consequences of the matter, none of which you seem to care about.

But it's no more sense talking to you about this as it is trying to discuss those Iraqi WMDs with zealots of another stripe - you see what you wish to see and be damned to the evidence.

And then, having reveled in the destruction, you expectedly exit stage left...

Leaving me and mine in the darkness, cussing you and trying to pick up the pieces.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, April 25, 2008 7:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

seperate every parent of that belief from their kids permanently
How do you know it's permanent? Everything I've read so far says it's temporary.
Quote:

Show me actual chuch documentation making those claims
Yeah, like they would document it. But since several men have been indicted and convicted of this, especially the "prophet" and church leader Warren Jeffs, and children who have left or thrown out ((including the "lost boys") say the same, it seems the evidence says this is so.
Quote:


Leaving me and mine in the darkness, cussing you and trying to pick up the pieces.

You're not the ONLY force for good in society Frem!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 26, 2008 8:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem

"Frankly, you disgust me, your zealotry and agenda has blinded you ..."

Unlike your claims, I have no agenda in this, neither pro- nor anti-polygamy. And I can see how a woman, who defines her self-worth in terms of marriage and children, might opt for it. For those polygamist women who live out their lives as regular folk it might have an extra attraction over regular marriage. Look at it this way - you get to present yourself to the society around you as at least having been married and get that social validation, you get your kids to focus on and to validate the purpose of your personal existence, and you don't have to deal much with an ongoing adult relationship in addition to having to deal with your kids and society in general.

As long as the people making the decision are adults with real options, and aren't using the state to fund their lifestyle, I have no issues at all with the basic concept.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:14 AM

FLETCH2


I was going to start this with "a friend of a friend" which in this case happens to be true but has all kinds of other connotations.

Anyhow, a friend of mine was good friends with a Polygamist family that had been stable for many years. All three members were smart professional types and the family group had no children. I can see how folks can make it work without there being self worth issues. In the end folks get into relationships because they see something in the other person and I can see how that can happen in a relationship with more than two people. However I think that working dynamic is quite rare and I just cant see that working out for most people.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 26, 2008 9:21 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


UUhhmm - I too have known (not in the biblical sense, speaking of connotations) a man with two wives. But there were all sorts of jealously issues and tensions there.

There is, apparently, a fairly large number of women - in the thousands - in polygamous marriages who 'pass' as divorcees in the regular world.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 26, 2008 10:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Frem

I really have no interest in debating your posts at length. But I'll do it this once to point out the issues I have with things you say.


"To cook up a bullshit warrant, go on a fishing expedition ..."
I keep asking you - HOW were the Texas authorities supposed to know ? They got a call from a Texas woman's shelter that deemed the calls that they received credible. All other calls made were to an ARIZONA woman's shelter. So, how was that information supposed to be magically divined in Texas ? HHmmm ? You have still to answer that one, and all your repeated sputtering doesn't address that one simple, straightforward question.


"... and separate every parent of that belief from their kids ..."
Are you trying to tell me that after seeing very young pregnant girls in a group known for underage marriage that it was about beliefs and not children ?


"... permanently ..."
Not permanently. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it any more true.


"... without even an accusation of wrongdoing ?"
One thing I learned elsewhere is that in polygamous societies children call many women 'mother'. So while it MAY be true that children were being 'evasive' as Perry described them, it could also be true that they were just doing what children do in polygamous societies. Or maybe even both. And I don't really care. The problem is is that no one in the group seemed capable of pointing out who was the birth mother or father, and therefore, who was legally responsible for the welfare of any one child - the neglectors if you will. Similarly, no one seemed capable of pointing out the husbands of the younger girls, or identifying the fathers of their children - the abusers if you will. And, as children and women were - by the accounts of those who left or had been kicked out - frequently reassigned to other men and other mothers, even a child who was 'with' a mother might have been birthed by someone else. Hence the need for DNA to untangle lines of responsibility and culpability.


"I haven't for a moment forgotten what FLDS is guilty of, or rather individuals within it are - but that's the thing, you can no more legally stomp this religion for that than you could stomp the entire Catholic Church for the same."
I addressed this elsewhere, but to repeat, the FLDS preaches it as a matter of dogma and suborns parents to enforce this belief. Unlike the catholic church, which, I hope you stop to realize, makes it a different matter.


"Folks bought the warrant too, and now that falls - and if you think they're gonna throw out the search just because it was illegal ..."
And yet again, you make claims completely unsupported by anything but other of your own unsupported claims. This gets back to the first question - until you can explain to me exactly HOW the Texas police were supposed to get information about ARIZONA calls, I just file this under Frem supporting bluster with more bluster. And without that one simple answer, all of your other claims that depend on it fall down.


"... considering how many other laws they have violated at this point ..."
You tell me.


"And just look at the pregnancy issue, look at some of the bullshit that has been thrown, and blown to bits -
Claim of 13yr pregnant girls - straight bullshit, that one."
To be specific, the claim was of a 13 year old who HAD been pregnant. And, apparently, you don't know the permanent physical changes that happen at different stages during pregnancy. So, yes, one can tell if a female has been pregnant and even get a general idea of how many months it lasted. Further, you seem to think that the Texas troopers that did the raid, the medical system that performed the exams, the Texas child welfare department, and the judge are all in on some grand conspiracy to get the FLDS by any means necessary. So the rangers, the caseworkers, the doctors and the judge all have to perjure themselves to create a consistent story regarding their observations and findings. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fly.


"Claim of 60+ girls under 17 - unsubstantiated, and in some of the cases where the girls age is in dispute, the State is refusing to accept the evidence of birth certificates they themselves issued."
I looked the dates up. The FLDS purchased the Texas YFZ property in 2004. So there really are TEXAS records going back only 5 years, at most. How were the Texas birth certificates generated for children older than 5 since they were born elsewhere ? And in fact, how were any birth certificates generated anywhere since these births happened at home ? I'm guessing there's a process where you can get them by attestation and filing a fee - but that would make any Texas birth certificate of interest - especially for those around 13 years old and older - suspect. I wouldn't trust those certificates - would you ?


"Half of them pregnant, which amounts to 30 pregnancies - blatantly false. ... 20 confirmed pregnancies total, and we're talkin more than 60 girls now ..."
I have to say, I too have been trying to simply follow the numbers. How many girls, what ages, how many boys, what ages. One of the figures they gave was 50% pregnancy rate under the age of 17. Unfortunately that's only half a number. Here's how it falls down: if I have 17 girls who are 17 and they are all pregnant, and 17 girls less than 17 years ages 0, 1, 2, 3 ... and none are pregnant, then I have a 50% pregnancy rate for girls 17 and under. If I restrict myself to relevant ages (13 - 17) then I have an 81% pregnancy rate in the 13-17 group. If I restrict myself to just 17 years olds, then I have a 100% pregnancy rate. So you need to give a lower bound to your number - less than 17 is only part of the information.
For the sake of argument if there's 430 children, roughly half should be boys and half girls. Of the girls, there should be about 63 between the ages of 13 and 17 who COULD have underage pregnancies (more or less, assuming the sex ratios and age distribution are normal). So if there are 20 pregnant girls or mothers - and I'm being conservative by including mothers - - that's one in three between the ages of 13 and 17 - that's pretty damning, don't you think ?


"... and in that case if they wanna go with a DNA check, there's cause...
TO GET A FREAKIN WARRANT.
Not just ignore the rules and take, a doctors quick checkover and estimate would be sufficient to procure a warrant quite speedily from a judge, with valid probable cause and reason - but they skipped that step cause they didn't feel any need, any pressure, to obey the law"
It was Judge Walther who ordered the DNA testing.

"Which means either that they get a pass on behavior *I* would like to see someone prosecuted for, or we throw in the towel and admit we have no rights the State doesn't feel like giving us."
Not to be obtuse, but what SPECIFICALLY are you talking about ? About a warrant based on probable cause ? About prima facie evidence of statutory rape ? About a judge ordering DNA testing to determine responsibility ? All the legal steps you say are lacking - seem to be in place. So, to get back to that one question above - about all the laws 'they' broke - you tell me. In detail. Get specific. Cite facts. Don't just keep saying over and over that it's all bullshit, explain why, in detail, it's illegal. And please don't just blow past available facts again. You need to explain HOW the Texas authorities were supposed to know about Arizona calls. WHY they should have ignored prima facie evidence of staturory rape. WHY a judge's order for DNA testing isn't sufficiently legal in your mind. And so on.


Which is not to say they did everything right, just that it looks legal. Now, if you would like to know what I would have done different - that's for some other time, which frankly, will probably never come.




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA


A record of that call exists, in fact we have found that in spite of repeated denials, a TAPE RECORDING of that call exists, as well as the billing record of the number in question, which is indeed from Swinsons phone.

SOP for a tip like this is to seek verification prior to a warrant.

Either they did not do this, a violation of procedure, or they did do this, which means they knew damn well the tip was bogus given that it originated from a number previously used in making fraudulent claims.

And the warrant falls regardless, as it was based on a fraudulent claim to begin with.


Is it about belief, hell yes it is.

An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime, professing to or holding a belief is not evidence of a crime regardless of what the belief in question happens to be.

From a purely legal standpoint here.

You have the accusation that this belief does certain things.

That has to be proven to a legal standard, one could accuse other beliefs of the same things, but without solid evidence of the belief as a whole making it an official practice, you have nothing, otherwise we might as well round up all Catholic children as well based on the same accusations.

You have the accusation that certain folk are members of this belief.

Now that's simple, you can ask them and they will likely tell you, but it does require at least much effort to establish the connection.

You have the accusation that certain folk within this belief have committed one or more crimes.

Well, once you have verified a specific allegation and have probable cause to believe this is true, then you get a warrant and arrest them for the crime in question, and this is followed by a trial to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent of such.

I note that this has not yet occured whatsoever, the initial warrant was completely fraudulent and thus invalid, and the second warrant was based on the evidence of an illegal search, and broad enough in scope to violate the fourth amendment protection against blanket searches.

Unless a specific allegation against each INDIVIDUAL parent, backed by an actual warrant, exists - which it does not, then this is indeed founded on the basis of belief, and a violation of the first amendment as well as the fourth.


As for the State's intent to make that seperation permanent ?

That intent was announced quite publicly by Marleigh Meisner, of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, on April 15th 2008 at approximately 2pm during a news conference at the San Angelo museum.


As for the rest, some of it,

A judge can issue a warrant, but not an outright decree.

Those are different things, because a warrant can be challenged, but if no warrant exists, that presents a legal hurdle never intended in our system since by having nothing TO challenge, there's very little in the way of procedure to put a stop to it, and a warrant must be specific, to an individual or it violates the fourth amendment requirements.


As I said before, you do not get my hole cards until you show your own, you have yet to show me absolute proof that FLDS preaches these things as a matter of official policy, and until you do that, I will not share information obtained out of the public eye - but you might perhaps consider reading some of the court transcripts yourself, as they are legally public information and I am sure they would be quite... informative... regarding both these issues and the relative merits and intentions of the State in this matter.


As for the laws they broke, shit, well let's start here..

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.


Amendment V

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.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Those are the basics, now to the specifics.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:42 AM

FREMDFIRMA


This is an INDIVIDUAL requirement, for each and every child, with a specific time limit, and in fact this law exists to PREVENT incidents like this.

And it WAS violated, utterly - no one can make the claim that it was not.
===========================================

§ 262.106. INITIAL HEARING AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD IN EMERGENCY WITHOUT COURT ORDER.

(a) The court in which a suit has been filed after a child has been taken into possession without a court order by a governmental entity shall hold an initial hearing on or before the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession. The court shall render orders that are necessary to protect the physical health and safety of the child. If the court is unavailable for a hearing on the first working day, then, and only in that event, the hearing shall be held no later than the first working day after the court becomes available, provided that the hearing is held no later than the third working day after the child is taken into possession

(b) The initial hearing may be ex parte and proof may be by sworn petition or affidavit if a full adversary hearing is not practicable.

(c) If the initial hearing is not held within the time required, the child shall be returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian who is presently entitled to possession of the child.

(d) For the purpose of determining under Subsection (a) the first working day after the date the child is taken into possession, the child is considered to have been taken into possession by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services on the expiration of the five-day period permitted under Section 262.007(c) or 262.110(b), as appropriate.

§ 262.107. STANDARD FOR DECISION AT INITIAL HEARING AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD WITHOUT A COURT ORDER IN
EMERGENCY.

(a) The court shall order the return of the child at the initial hearing regarding a child taken in possession without a court order by a governmental entity unless the court is satisfied
that:
(1) there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child if the child is returned to the parent, managing conservator, possessory conservator, guardian, caretaker, or custodian who is presently entitled to possession of the child or the evidence shows that the child has been the victim of sexual abuse on one or more occasions and that there is a substantial risk that the child will be the victim of sexual abuse in the future;

(2) continuation of the child in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare; and
(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child.

(b) In determining whether there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of a child, the court may consider whether the household to which the child would be returned includes a person who has:
(1) abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or

(2) sexually abused another child.

===========================================

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA


And just to add fuel to the fire ?

As of Apr 27 2008 @ 10:00AM EST.

MIA 1 young male, Age 11 yr
MIA 1 young male, Age 1 yr

The mother has no idea where they are, nor does their appointed attorney, and CPS cannot currently account for their whereabouts at this time.

On Saturday the director of the legal aid offices was informed by the foster care facility that a 2yr old child was removed from said facility for medical reasons and taken to a nearby hospitals ICU - but when the childs Guardian Ad Litem attempted verification, was told by the hospital that they had no such child under their care, CPS cannot currently account for this childs wherabouts or medical condition at this time.

DFPS spokesman Chris Van Deusen admits to some confusion on the matter but flatly denies they have lost track of any children, yet CPS is unable to offer a full accounting and has in fact refused to do so at this time.

When pressed on the matter Van Deusen was unable to offer a specific time frame when this accounting might occur, and stated that the attorneys in question should have that information, although how this might happen when CPS did not provide it is a matter of contention.

No visitation program has been worked up as yet, nor has Judge Walther seen fit to authorise it, and no timetable on that has been offered either, although CPS officials are insistent that this is "in progress".

Oh, and that hearing on Tuesday they were promised ?
The State reneged, almost as soon as the children were out of contact range, the reversed their decision and canned it.

A petition detailing the violation of 262.106/262.107 is in service and by law the State must respond to it by May 2nd, but the attorneys in question are not optimistic about that actually happening given the situation so far.

As far as the whole underage pregnancy thing goes, and this took a while to get, mind you..

From the State's OWN documents on the case...

Of ALL children in custody, only THREE teens are pregnant, one a few months short of 18 (AoC in TX is 17), one simply refused to take a pregnancy test, and one admittedly underage.

Easy enough to sort that, that last one should be investigated and prosecuted, and a court order can be filed in the case of the refusal, but this is TWO cases only.

TWO - show me the thirty, show me that fifty percent.

Van Deusen verbally claims differently, but this is on the assertation that certain of those "minors" are underage in spite of a State issued birth certificate on hand saying otherwise, which leaves the burden of proof on the State, and they have not met such so far.

And those verbal claims are just that, they might have handed that line to the press, but without any proof, it's just an allegation - and it's worthy of note that Van Deusen's been told to stop commenting on that subject.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Related Note:
----------------

This was brought up to me by some of my own, but is also worthy of note.

The subject of forced medical exams on young girls, especially intensive ones, is something I had not considered till it was brought up to me, but in the opinion of some of my own folk of the female persuasion, constitutes to their mind the same thing as sexual abuse of any other kind, and would likely be severely traumatic to those of a strict religious upbringing.

At least one of mine has undergone such and indicates that it was "like being raped" and is still a very painful and traumatic memory for her to this day and admitted feelings of murderous intent towards those responsible.

And so I submit also to you that, without an actual accusation, warrant, or court order for such - that treatment does in fact constitute sexual abuse by the state, of a traumatic nature, and exactly the kind of thing which FLDS is themselves accused of.

And the medical personnel who did not obey their oath and refuse in the face of a lack of good cause should indeed be charged for it, as well as those who gave the order.

This much I tell you - NOBODY lays a hand to my sisters kids in said fashion without their consent... NOBODY, ever.

Or they answer to ME.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:59 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Frem you're being downright PNish. I can't make head or tail of your post.
Quote:

A record of that call exists, in fact we have found that in spite of repeated denials, a TAPE RECORDING of that call exists, as well as the billing record of the number in question, which is indeed from Swinsons phone.
Do you mean the Texas phone call? If that;s what you mean, how can WE verify that all of this exists... outside of your say-so? Links please.
Quote:

An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime,
And if evidence existed this was so, then a crime was committed, yes? At least we agree on something!
Quote:

professing to or holding a belief is not evidence of a crime regardless of what the belief in question happens to be.
This is just you ere re-assertion that it's all about "belief". Can you show me how?

Anyway, real life calls.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Do you mean the Texas phone call? If that;s what you mean, how can WE verify that all of this exists... outside of your say-so? Links please.


This article contains a timeline, AND a mention of some things I could not say till it was attributed publicly.

http://cbs2.com/national/rozita.swinton.polygamist.2.707266.html

April 16: Colorado Springs police arrest Swinton and search her residence in connection to the Feb. 26 call. Two Texas Rangers observe the arrest but return to Texas without making an arrest.


This article mentions the tapes, and the involvement of Texas Rangers, prior to the warrant being issued.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695271944,00.html

Since March 30, Jessop has received a flood of daily phone calls from "Sarah," who she said spoke like a little girl and seemed to know the intricacies of life in the FLDS Church and Short Creek, the FLDS strongholds of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.

"She was damn good," Jessop said of the girl. "She had the 'crick' lingo down, which is just amazing."

Others were convinced that "Sarah" needed help.

"I thought she was real," said Joni Holm, who shelters FLDS kids and also spoke to the girl.

The conversations would last for hours. "Sarah" said she wanted to run away, and provided details of a life of abuse. "Sarah" gave her addresses of where she said she was inside the FLDS stronghold of Colorado City, Ariz. Jessop reported the calls to child welfare workers, who checked out the homes and found nothing.* The calls continued, always from different cell-phone numbers.

Eventually cracks started appearing in the girl's story.

"She did not use the term 'mother and father.' She used the term 'mom and dad,"' Jessop said. "There were just numerous things, but still she was very convincing as a girl that was in desperate need of help."

Jessop said when she pressed "Sarah" once, the girl talked in hypotheticals about a twin sister who was also a child-bride. The story started to make Jessop more suspicious, and she began tape recording them and called police.

Sting

Jessop said she set up a three-way phone conversation with a Texas Ranger on the line and confronted her.

"By the end of my phone calls with her it was very, very difficult to continue to talk to her and not reach through the phone and choke her," she said. "I asked her, 'Are you tricking me?' I said, 'What's your real name?' She finally said, 'Rozie."'

By that time, authorities had tracked Swinton down in Colorado Springs and Texas Rangers told local officers they were coming to question her.

"They had independently focused one component of their investigation on her and were coming up to our city. We then brought our case to a conclusion, made the arrest and assisted Texas while they were here," said Colorado Springs Police Lt. Skip Arms. "They will evaluate what they have to determine if they'll pursue any charges in the future."


Noteworthy -

These calls were made to Child Protection Project, run by Linda Walker and Flora Jessop, who's cousin, Merrill Jessop, ran the FLDS ranch in question.

Someone was betting on personal grudge, and the bluff failed, Flora became suspicious of the caller in short order, recorded the calls, called the cops.

And yet, despite this - they accepted this persons statement as sufficient cause to issue a warrant, and carried it out while the person who made this calls was under investigation ?

Which was immediately discarded once the compound was entered, and a second warrant requested ?

I say they knew, those tapes are in Swintons voice, the number comes from a phone Swinton had previously used to offer false reports, and the Texas Rangers were involved with an ongoing investigation of this matter before and during the FLDS raid and very well aware that Swinton was likely this supposed "Sarah".

The TX Rangers chose not to question Swinton when she was arrested on Apr16th.
And yet later issued an arrest warrant on Apr23rd.
And sealed all case records, a quite unusual move for a case of this nature.

Oh, and according to my sources, Swinton did not pay her own bail, someone else did, and I'd really be curious to know who that was, it might be... informative.

Apologies for being close or cryptic, but sometimes I really have to be for reasons I won't share here.

If you have any other explaination that matches the facts of the matter, I'd sure like to hear it.

-F
*- And checked them out without an APC and Tactical Team, what does that tell you?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

And if evidence existed this was so, then a crime was committed, yes? At least we agree on something!

Never said otherwise - I said I was pissed that it would be a bitch to try the case on contaminated evidence, go back and check, seriously.

You get a court order for the tests, based on probable cause and the testimony of an independant physician, have that physician then perform the necessary tests and you issue a warrant for the suspect.

Then you get a court order to test the suspect, and should that match, you arrest them, take them into custody, and it goes to trial.

Where you sic some nasty little bastard like Hero on them and if they're guilty and the prosecutor is any kind of competent, you fry them on the stand sunnyside up and send em to the slam where they belong.
(sadly, not for long ENOUGH, more than likely, but it is what it is)

The problem comes when they throw in your face the bogus warrant, a second warrant based on an illegal search due to the bogus warrant, the states failure to follow the law and procedure... and even in SPITE of having done the crime, they walk.

That's what sent me initially into a flaming rage, but no one seems to have understood that.

Nor how very dangerous setting a precedent where the State is not required to obey it's own rules, regs and laws, can be.

I wanted these bastards to fry, wanted to set the hook clean and deep, leaving them no wiggle room to slip off and continue their predatory behavior, wanted em out of society and away from potential victims for so long as was legally possible.

But a dragnet is a pisspoor substitute, and a badly woven one even more so.
Quote:

This is just you ere re-assertion that it's all about "belief". Can you show me how?

What else do all the parents have in common other than geographical location at the time of the event ?

Seriously.

To date, not only has no evidence been presented to the court, nor any charges filed - not even individual accusations have been made.

What ELSE could they possibly all have in common but that ?

No matter what one would wish to call it, the plain and obvious truth of the matter is that the State has put their Belief System as a whole under the boot, otherwise individuals not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not even accused of a crime, would not have had their children severed from their custody without so much an iota of evidence against them individually.
Quote:

You're not the ONLY force for good in society Frem!

Interesting that you said such a thing, because not 24hrs later we recieved contact and assistance from a similar, Ontario based org of VERY similar structure and intent, and having vetted them as is our policy - have begun sharing information, one interesting tidbit thereof is that they also keep lists of the fallen.

And have offered hard, verifiable proof that the State lied about deaths in the foster care system, offering confirmed media accounts from Year2006 indicating not four, but twelve deaths, as well as their own data going back to 1980, which will be cross-checked, verified and then compared to and integrated with ours.

Which we intend to jointly ram down the throat of both Texas and Ontario, in efforts to reform both Foster Care Systems and reduce the amount of neglect and abuse within them both, if at all possible.

Ironic, but hell if those are the magic words to get more assistance on this issue, say em all you want, several times a day!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 27, 2008 6:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Ouch...

Confirmed now - 3 hospitalisations, 2 MIA

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_9075298

"Some mothers have been unable to confirm where their children have gone and others have learned their children have been split up and sent to different locations. TRLA learned this morning that a child thought to be in a group home was actually in a hospital."

Come Monday, they'd best have some answers, and quickly.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 2:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

What else do all the parents have in common other than geographical location at the time of the event ? Seriously
Seriously? How about several men including the church prophet who've been convicted of child rape, and consistent stories from those who have left that GIRLS are forced to have children. How can I take you seriously when you keep ignoring the friggin' purple elephant in the room?

So, now for some numbers:
Quote:

More than half the teenage girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday. A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant.

"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said.

So it's NOT about "belief" Frem, as you keep insisting. As you yourself said:
Quote:

An underage pregnancy is evidence of a crime,
Then there have been quite a few crimes on the ranch, wouldn't you say? Enough to say that the pattern is pervasive and not limited to one or two perps.
Quote:

Come Monday, they'd {the State} best have some answers, and quickly.
And where were YOU when girls were getting "married"? I wish you'd hold parents to the same standard that you're holding the State! You have a SERIOUS case of double-standard Frem. And when I see deep double standards- and I don't care it's on the right, left or middle- then there's bad case of doublethink.

I get that you think "the State" screwed up big time. And prolly they did... not necessarily from a legal standpoint, but from how they're handling the children who are most likely disoriented and could use the reassurance of a familiar face. But when you cross the line from excoriating the state to defending the parents... well, let me put it this way: I've decided that your take on the situation is so biased against the government that were there a group of parents sacrificing children you'd find a way of defending those poor helpless PARENTS.


You see I don't need to paint one group as "innocent" in order think that another group is "guilty". Sometimes both parties are heinously at fault.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Bump for Frem

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 6:58 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I'm not ignoring a damn thing, other than the flat lies and distortions the State has offered us till I see real evidence of their claims.

You know, like that "Sarah" and her phone call.

Azar may be a smoother front than Van Deusen, but it's the same game, Siggy.

Two, repeat TWO, confirmed pregnancies and one test refusal.
One of them admitted by the State to be of legal age.

That is ALL THEY HAVE - call em yourself and ask THEM, if you do not believe me.

The statement as given is a flat out lie.

http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_9056589

"An attorney for FLDS families in Texas challenged the state's allegations of a "pervasive pattern" of underage girls having children, saying the state's own documents show just three teenagers in custody are pregnant.
Of those girls, one will turn 18 in a few months and another merely refused to take a pregnancy test, said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing families at the YFZ Ranch. "That leaves us with one," he said.
Parker also said Friday that one state document includes a woman whose first child was born more than a decade ago. He said he based his statements on a copy of a list created by an investigator for Texas Child Protective Services. "I challenge CPS to come forward with the pregnant minors," said Parker"


"One CPS document reviewed by The Salt Lake Tribune lists just three pregnant teenagers. The court document, also reviewed by The Tribune, includes women who became mothers before the FLDS' move to Texas or before the state raised the age of marriage, with parents' permission, from 14 to 16 in 2005. The chart does not indicate whether the women are legally married or the ages of the children's fathers.
Among them: One woman, now 30, listed as having given birth to her first child in 1993 when she was 14."


Three - when they claimed thirty.

Add to that they're claiming some of these girls to be underage when they have a State issued birth certificate stating otherwise - how do you reconcile that ?

And you know...

They got that count by including girls who had children at those ages when it was LEGAL (however repulsive, ick!) to do so, and unless I am mistaken, you can NOT apply a law passed in 2005 to an action that happened in 1993.

As in, a lot of those girls are not teens now, but they couched the statement to give a certain impression and invoke outrage from the gullible.

A lotta that, going around over this.

And the State's burden of "proof" ? you're gonna love this.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_9091635

"Two attorneys with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), which represents 48 mothers, challenged the "eyeball" test CPS used to separate minors from adults.
"My clients told us they were put in a line and looked at," said Julie Balovich."


Oh yeah, there's a reliable inspection that'll hold up in court, innit ?

"Amanda Chisholm, who also works for TRLA, said she would be surprised if the actual number of teenage girls who are pregnant or mothers is "anywhere near that high."
"Until we can get numbers of how many of these women dispute the age CPS is attributing to them I wouldn't rely on any of the figures that [the state] gives out," Chisholm said.
TRLA attorney Julie Balovich said one woman now deemed to be a teenager is a 24-year-old woman who is pregnant. FLDS member Willie Jessop contends the state's tally also includes a 28-year-old whom the state has listed as being 17.
"Do we correct it and get out the girls who are overage when the minute they do that, they forfeit their children?" he asked. "CPS has had a very difficult time being accurate with any of the numbers and this number is the most outrageous yet."


I don't have any photos to go on, but somebody is lying here, Siggy, and based on the evidence in front of me, I wouldn't take either one's word for it without confirmation, but when the State is trying to sell me the story that a girl with State issued birth certificate in hand saying otherwise, is underage...

Given the amount of shit they've shovelled so far at every turn and corner, no, I don't buy it, not without a medical professionals expert opinion, and some evidence that the birth certificate is a forgery, hell no.

Without a birth certificate or some confirmable record, I wouldn't take FLDS's word for it neither, cause I don't believe either one would be honest with me.

So I ain't buyin nobody's account until there's evidence, and a birth certificate in hand trumps "well, she LOOKS underage" from some yahoo with no medical training, by the way I count it.

When I see *evidence*, that's a different story, mind you - all we currently have is a press statement from a bunch of folks who've lied repeatedly about every aspect of this case so far, and sorry, that just isn't very credible.

As far as a pervasive culture of abuse, I have previously stated that I am not in any way qualified to offer an unbiased opinion because I think every offshoot of judeo-christian belief is an abusive environment - so what would you have me say, other than admit too much bias to usefully comment on the subject ?

Shit, you ever seen a christian "deprogramming facility" where the kids are forced to memorize scripture to obtain the minimal amounts of bread and water that is all they get to eat ?

And let's not even go there about Bible Camps...

I can't even pretend to not despise these people, so it would be a complete farce for me to offer an opinion on whether they were abusive or not given that plain and simple fact, which is why I haven't gone into detail with that.
Quote:

And where were YOU when girls were getting "married"?

Up the ass of the FBI over the two pre-existing cases they wouldn't get off their ass and investigate - which was what in part provoked the USDOJ overreaction on this matter, when they found out in the March Audit that the FBI had been twiddling their thumbs (busy planting those fake entrapment links to rake in suckers, you know..) instead of doing their goddamn job.

I too want some ass, but dammit don't you people ever learn that going off half-cocked in a frenzy and handing over peoples rights without even making sure of your specific target and then granting carte blanche to the authorities is a fucking guaranteed A-1 disaster just waiting to happen ?

Didn't Waco teach you that ?
Shit, too put not to fine a point on it, didn't 9-11 ?

I want some heads too, but I want the right damn ones, and without massive collateral damage - and I sure hell want a better solution than just dumping these poor girls into the foster care system and abandoning them.

And there's a difference between "defending the parents" and the thought that a child torn from parents they love might wish to return to them if it is determined that those parents have committed no crime.

But like everyone else, nobody considers this, shit... let's be downright blunt.
Both the State and FLDS considers them PROPERTY, even the LAW considers them PROPERTY, go back and re-read 262.106, they might as well be talking about livestock, for cryin out loud.

About the only ones likely to have even asked the kids where they stand are the Guardian Ad Litems, provided they could even find them in the first place with the shift and shuffle the State's been doing here.

And as far as the headhunting goes, I just don't see how it's possible when the State has boned it so bad that most of the useful evidence will be pitched right out of a criminal proceeding due to how it was obtained, and if it isn't, we set ourselves up to one day be drop-shot in the same fashion, which isn't a good result either.

And one last little note, which might also not have occured to you...

Do you REALLY think that if certain of these perps get a walk-away from the State thanks to this total fiasco, being that our teeth have been sunk in their ankle since 1998, that we're just gonna let GO ?

They are what they are, and were it not for refusals to act on a silver-platter case handed to people with the means and authority to press them, we'd have them already, but it's not like they're gonna cease their ways once it's blown over and they think nobody's watching.

But I really would have liked to have gotten them THIS time around, and without condemning a bunch of sheltered kids to the hellhole that is the TX Foster Care System.

This has also brought into sharp focus that CPS in general needs a better set of guidelines and stricter controls, especially in light of this little bit from yesterday....
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/COL04/8042803
75/&imw=Y


This kind of thing has more implications than the case at hand, and I wish people would see that.

-F
(Saw it, just up to my neck in this, and other stuff goes on and not half enough people and resources to DO it, gaaah... and the Ontario data to sort besides... say the magic words some more, maybe that'll help!)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


You're conflating issues, Frem.

AFA the rest: You talk about PREGNANT teenagers. In other words, the number of teenagers who happen to be pregnant at the time. However there could be a much higher number of teenagers who HAD BEEN pregnant. As Rue pointed out, pregnancy leaves permanent physical changes that can be easily found by examination. You're so effing biased you couldn't even figure out that distinction?
Quote:

a girl with State issued birth certificate in hand saying otherwise, is underage
I think Rue had some good questions about the provenance of those certificates and quite frankly I haven't had the chance to look into it.

So climb down from your pillar of indignation, screw your head back on straight, and lets' see what the evidence shows.

In the meantime, interested persons should, and are, keeping pressure on the State to make sure that none of the kids gets "lost".



---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:22 AM

JONGSSTRAW


From AP Wire...CPS Spokeman Darrell Azar said today that of the 53 girls between 14-17 years old...31 are pregnant, or have been pregnant.

Sounds like a lot of statutory rape cases to me. Now to test all the males' DNA to determine the guilty ones. This is the only evidence; no one there will testify in that culture of submission, fear and abuse.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:37 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Being one of the folks trying to make sure none of the kids gets "lost", I am well aware of that.

And also well aware of that distinction - and the fact that they deliberately distorted it.

AT THIS TIME - 3 pregnancies, 1 of age, 1 underage, and 1 test refusal.

But that is not what they told the press, which then parroted it obediently in many cases.

HAD BEEN PREGNANT - whole new can of worms, that, there's the whole time frame factor, and as you say former pregnancy can be detected, I am not a doctor and my knowledge of anatomy is devoted to putting people on a slab, not an operating table so I don't have any knowledge, but common sense says that is likely.

But there's the issue of the law before and after 2005, when these pregnancies were, and the girls ages at the time to be called into question and examined before running off to the media and making what amounts to false statements.

You keep callin bias, but it wasn't me advocating breaking the law and pissing on the constitution to nail these guys, and it sure ain't me trying to whip up a feeding frenzy in the press with a statement that was demonstrably false.

I have my own questions about the certs, like as in do they really belong to the ones holding them, which is a good place to start with verification, but physically they passed inspection as the real deal, that much I will say.

And this is the last time I will take insult from you without slinging back, my patience with your petty slams is at it's end and I got enough on my plate without having to concern myself with being polite to you.

I want *evidence*, and all the State has offered so far has been half-truths, distortions and outright lies, and that ain't good enough.

I rather doubt FLDS has been fully honest or forthcoming either, but not once have my contacts tried to lie to me as yet (although I think we both know they sure as HELL ain't tellin the whole story..) so there you have it.

In the absence of evidence, I am not inclined to believe neither one, but I tend to take a real dim view of witch hunts in general.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:18 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM


I've been a little reluctant to respond to this conversation. Mainly, because both sides of the argument have been presented so well.

While I disagree with tactics often used by the authorities in cases like Ruby Ridge, Waco and now Eldorado, there are times when special circumstances leave little choice but to act in order to protect the innocent, (or enforce the law).

Did the state of Texas do the right thing in separating these children from their families? This, to me, is a very difficult question. On one hand, these people at Yearn for Zion Ranch were living the only way they could according to the spiritual teachings of their religion, regardless of how it is viewed in today's society.

Were the girls willing participants in the Sister/Wife dogma of their church? It seems that they were indoctrinated into that lifestyle at an early age and therefore were aware of what was to be expected of them.

A tenet of the Mormon religion.

Quote:

Eternal Marriage is essential for exaltation. A key element of Mormon doctrine and the foundation for exaltation in the highest heaven is celestial marriage. Exaltation is the primary goal for each Mormon to achieve. To understand the Latter-Day Saints' desire to enter into an eternal marriage it is important to understand the term "exaltation."

William Clayton, Hyrum Smith's clerk, was present when Joseph Smith first announced the revelation regarding plural and celestial marriage. Clayton wrote that from Joseph he "learned that the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in celestial glory."{33}

This revelation was first given publicly at Nauvoo, Illinois, July 12, 1843. In May of that year Joseph revealed that "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it."{34} Joseph goes on to reveal that "if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned."{35}


http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mormon2.html

Without a full understanding of the FLDS ideology, the outside world must see these people as nothing more than a lunatic fringe of a larger, more suitable religion.

With that being said, does the church, any church, have the right to break the laws set forth in the land they occupy? Can they expect to be exempt from man's laws on the basis of religious belief? If statutory rape and polygamy (according to the law), did occur in this case, the authorities have little choice than to take the (presumed) guilty parties into a court of law to determine the consequences of their actions.

There are plenty of laws on the books that I, personally, do not agree with, and I have probably broken my share of the victimless crime laws out there (haven't been caught yet), but as they say, "The Law is The Law'.... and it seems to be the only thing that we have that let's us function peaceably, to some degree, in this wacky world.

So, all of the above is pretty much just my opinion, and as such contributes very little to this 'argument', but just an observation of the proceedings so far - the lack of emotion on the part of some of the mothers, and what few other members of this group I've seen, is a little disturbing.

Their calm demeanor in the face of what, to most people, would be a truly horrifying situation, is a little strange, to say the least. Granted, what the local news outlets offer for 'News' is extremely poor, and I simply may not have gotten the real picture.

I doubt that what has happened at that west Texas ranch will change things for the true believers of the FLDS - they may pack up and move elsewhere, but as long as there are those who choose this path in life, the laws of their god will supersede the laws of man.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 11:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

With that being said, does the church, any church, have the right to break the laws set forth in the land they occupy
Of course not.

I might agree with a particular religion more than a particular government... particularly if a liberal religion existed in a tyrranical theocracy... but to claim that religions have some sort of inherent "right" to break the laws of the land is foolish.

In the case of the USA which is a secular democracy, if people didn't like a particular law and they got off their rumps they could change it. Our government has avenues for questioning and change (even if the population is too stupid or lazy to avail themselves of it) unlike religions.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:26 PM

FREMDFIRMA


I dunno, I guess you could say religions do too, given how FLDS was formed in the first place, mind...

That being said, I do believe we're all on the same page as far as violations of the law go.

I just wanna see some verifiable evidence before we go punishing folk, and I would see them tried for their crimes, as individuals, not their beliefs, collectively.

Collective punishment is the act of a tyranny.

So we're stuck waiting on the evidence, and lets hope they're using a lab with a good solid crew instead of the slipshod bunglers we have up here.

Not so much to do at this point but hold a cattle prod to the State for a full accounting of these kids, which is coming, by bits and pieces - at least some of the girls weren't dumped off, but have been routed to a Baptist run emergency facility, which should be a little less traumatic and offers the possibility of counselling if a program can be worked up and implemented quickly.

Poor girls have been through enough as it is, we really need a light touch here to avoid making social timebombs, if you know what I mean.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:10 PM

DEADLOCKVICTIM


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
- at least some of the girls weren't dumped off, but have been routed to a Baptist run emergency facility...



as well as a Methodist school in, oddly enough, Waco, Texas...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 3:50 PM

LEOPARDFLAN


I would just like to post an article or two here...

Link- http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/14/jeffs.trial/index.html
Article-
Child bride testifies against polygamist 'prophet'Story Highlights
Reluctant child bride takes the stand at Warren Jeffs trial

Jeffs, 51, is charged with rape by accomplice
Jeffs allegedly told teen she risked salvation if she refused union with cousin
He leads the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints



ST. GEORGE, Utah (CNN) -- A reluctant child bride told a Utah jury Thursday that she was trying to preserve her eternal salvation when she obeyed a command by polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs to marry her cousin at age 14.

Warren Jeffs consults with one of his attorneys, Tara Isaacson, on the first day of his trial.

1 of 2 Referred to in court as Jane Doe, the young woman was married in a 2001 religious ceremony to the cousin, then 19. She said she disliked him because he once had sprayed her with a water hose on a freezing day.

"I preferred to stay away from him," she stated.

She told the jury she was given less than a week's notice that she was to be married.

She found out when the groom-to-be sat next to her at a family gathering, a level of intimacy not permitted among young unmarried people, she testified. She wrote in her journal: "Many things happened this weekend to make my world go upside down."

On her wedding day, she left the girlish bedroom she shared with a sister and returned to find it redecorated, a queen bed taking the place of the twin beds.

Despite her reservations about her new husband, she said, she then tried to follow Jeffs' counsel to submit to him "mind, body and soul."

Jeffs, 51, who leads the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is charged with two counts of rape as an accomplice for using his church authority to coerce the unwilling girl into marriage.

About two dozen followers, mostly men in Western-cut suits, crowded into the courtroom, about 50 miles from the sect's base in the twin border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Arizona.

While they slowly rose from their seats as ordered when Judge James Shumate entered the courtroom, the followers popped up unbidden when a shackled Jeffs was brought in. Watch as the trial gets under way »

A jury of seven women and five men is hearing the case. Testimony began late Thursday afternoon, and Jane Doe was the first witness. Dressed in a business-like skirt and jacket, she took the stand for about an hour and returned Friday morning.

Her testimony provided a snapshot of a childhood spent in the sect, also known as the FLDS. It splintered from the Mormon church more than a century ago over the practice of polygamy; the Mormon church now repudiates it.

Regarding Jeffs, she said, "I've known him since my earliest years." Jeffs, she added, taught at Alta Academy, which she attended from the first through sixth grades. Jeffs later became headmaster at the FLDS-based school in Salt Lake City.

As she grew up, tapes of Jeffs' 1990s lessons and sermons were played constantly on her family's home stereo or on her portable cassette player, she said. Four of those tapes were played Thursday for the jury. Hear the words of the prophet (Caution: Content may be offensive) »

Teens are pressured to avoid the opposite sex or face being considered "damaged product," she said. "You were taught before you married you treat the boys and boys treat the girls as though they were snakes."

Girls were counseled to obey their husbands, who were their ticket to heaven. "Give yourself to him," one tape said, "Be obedient to the principle" [of polygamy]. Another directed, "Be committed and do as directed as a 'keep sweet' attitude.'

Yet another tape, dated March 13, 1998, states that young women should pretend there is a wall of bars between them and the opposite sex. "That one man, your husband -- do the opposite," Jeffs lectures. "When you marry, let the bars drop."

The girl first had sex with her cousin about two months after the ceremony in a motel room outside Las Vegas, Nevada, according to prior testimony in the case.

But the defense maintains that Jeffs never commanded his female followers to submit to sex.

During a 1999 sermon, defense attorney Tara Isaacson said in her opening statement, Jeffs told followers that a "man should only have marital relations with a wife if she invites it."

Jane Doe might not have liked being married to her cousin, but "being unhappy is different from being raped," Isaacson told the jury.

She also pointed out that Jane Doe's marriage was not polygamous.


Link- http://story.news.ask.com//article/20070915/D8RLQBAG0.html
Article-
Teen Bride Describes Her Wedding Day


ST. GEORGE, Utah (AP) - A former follower of a polygamous-sect leader sobbed on the witness stand Friday as she described the terror and despair she felt on the eve of her wedding at age 14, and said she became intensely depressed after having sex. "I kept thinking I felt like I was getting ready for death," she testified on the second day of the trial of Warren Jeffs, leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Jeffs is charged with two felony counts of rape as an accomplice. Prosecutors contend he used his religious authority to coerce the ceremonial marriage and pressure the teen bride to have sex with her 19-year-old cousin against her objections.

In her testimony Friday, the woman, now 21, said she was shocked when she learned she had been selected for the marriage by Rulon Jeffs, Warren Jeffs' father, the church prophet at the time who is now dead. The woman said she pleaded with Rulon Jeffs to delay the marriage until she turned 16 or to be given to another man.

Her efforts to avoid the union failed, said the woman, who is not being identified by The Associated Press because she is alleging sexual assault. She testified that Warren Jeffs told her: "Your heart is in the wrong place; this is what the prophet wants you to do."

The marriage took place on April 23, 2001, in a motel in Caliente, Nev., owned by FLDS members. Describing her emotions during the wedding ceremony, the woman said: "Trapped. Extremely overwhelmed. Immense pressure."

She said she hung her head and cried in despair when pressed by Jeffs to say "I do" and had to be coaxed to kiss her new husband.

Jeffs then commanded the new couple to "go forth and multiply and replenish the Earth with good priesthood children," she testified.

In the FLDS community, marriage and motherhood are considered the highest achievements for women, who pray to be prepared to marry and follow a worthy man from a young age. But girls receive no information about their bodies, sexual relations or procreation, the woman testified, and she said she didn't even know sex was the means by which women had babies.

Married for at least a month before they had intercourse, the woman said her husband told her it was "time for you to be a wife and do your duty."


"My entire body was shaking. I was so scared," she testified. "He just laid me on the bed and had sex."

Afterward, she slipped into the bathroom, where she downed two bottles of over-the-counter pain reliever and curled up on the floor, she said.

"The only thing I wanted to do was die. I just wanted to die," she said. She did not elaborate, but said she later threw up the medicine.

The woman said she went to Jeffs to tell him she didn't like being touched and pleaded to be released from the marriage. Denied a divorce, the woman said she became extremely depressed.

The woman finally left her marriage and was forced out of the FLDS community in November in 2004 after she became pregnant with another man's child.

Jeffs, 51, has led the FLDS church since 2002. Followers see him as a prophet who communicates with God and holds dominion over their salvation; ex-church members say he reigns with an iron fist, demanding perfect obedience from followers.

Jeffs was a fugitive for nearly two years and was on the FBI's Most Wanted list when he was arrested during a traffic stop outside Las Vegas in August 2006. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Jeffs is not charged with being a polygamist, and the three-year marriage between the cousins was monogamous. Still, polygamy casts a shadow over the case.

Polygamy advocates have long contended that the freedom to practice plural marriage as part of their religion is a civil rights matter. Members of FLDS, which broke away from the Mormon church, believe polygamy brings exaltation in heaven.

The Mormon church disavowed polygamy in 1890 and excommunicates members found to be practicing plural marriage.

Link- http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2128410620070922
Article-
"Religion on trial" as polygamist case goes to jury


ST. GEORGE, Utah (Reuters) - Attorneys for polygamist leader Warren Jeffs, on trial as an accomplice to rape, said on Friday "religion was on trial" and the state had overstepped its bounds in bringing the case.

"The State has gone crazy ... to charge Warren Jeffs with the crime of rape," attorney Walter Bugden said in closing arguments to the jury, which began deliberations on the two felony counts late on Friday.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, argued Jeffs knew when he arranged and presided over the marriage of a 14-year-old girl to her 19-year-old cousin against her will in 2001 that forced sex would follow.

"This was a violation of trust by a man with power over a 14-year-old girl," prosecutor Brock Belnap said during a passionate argument to the packed courtroom, where Jeffs sat impassively beside his defense team.

Jeffs, 51, is the self-described "prophet" of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or FLDS, a breakaway sect from the early Mormon church that still practices polygamy.

Jeffs is on trial on two counts of being an accomplice to rape, a charge he denies. He is not charged with polygamy but the trial has focused attention on the practice and his secretive sect, whose approximately 7,500 members live in an isolated enclave on the Utah-Arizona border.

The charges each carry a possible sentence of between five years to life in prison.

Jeff's accuser, whose identity is being withheld given the nature of the alleged crime, left the FLDS in 2003 and has since remarried.

The husband has not been charged, but said in a tearful testimony this week he felt "really bad" about the end of their relationship and denied having forced her into sex.

The woman, now 21, has testified Jeffs told her it was her religious duty to give herself to her husband, and instructed her to repent and submit to his will.

In emotional testimony during the trial, the woman said she begged Jeffs not to marry her to her cousin, whom she did not like, and said she wanted to die after her husband first forced her into sex.

Attorneys for Jeffs argued that he could not have known that rape would be committed behind closed bedroom doors, and the accuser was too vague when she told Jeffs about problems in her relationship.

Under Utah law, a person 14 or older can consent to sexual intercourse.

SOLELY RESPONSIBLE?

The trial has riveted Utah, with a majority Mormon population who consider polygamy a thorn in the side of their faith. Polygamy was one of the early tenets of the Mormon religion, but was rejected in 1890 as Utah sought statehood. The FLDS is not associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members are called Mormons.

During his two-hour statement, Bugden said the FLDS has a long tradition of following church doctrines, which include arranged marriages, and suggested Jeffs was being persecuted for the beliefs of his church.

But prosecutor Belnap countered with: "In America you can't hurt children in the name of religion and think you can escape the law."

Continued at link..........



So, my opinion is that, this isn't about religion, not when there's even one girl who wanted to get out, and wasn't allowed to. The fucking pedophiles should not get away with this because of their "religion". This is rape. This is torture. All the males who participated in such marriages should be put to death, after being raped first so they know what they have inflicted.

And as for the children (who aren't quite old enough to get handed off...): The state was wrong for seperating them from their mothers, but they were absolutely right in seperating them from their fathers. No American citizen should think of themselves or others as "property", NOT be able to be "handed off" into a marriage, and the rape needs to stop.

#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#\/#~%~~*~~~&~~~*~~%~#

\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/$$\~~~*~~^~~*~~~/
98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008 8:13 PM

FLETCH2


We were watching Sense and Sensibility last weekend and I commented to my dearly beloved that a lot of these Victorian stories have the same cast of protagonists, most commonly the "female gentlefolk fallen on hard times."

At this point my wife said something profound. She said, women back then didn't do things so much as wait for things to happen to them. They were born and then effectively waited to be married off, then waited to have children, then waited to raise them. It was a very passive existence in which other people --- mainly male people -- made all the decisions.

If you look at fundamentalist religious communities of almost any type as well as very conservative or nationalist countries overseas you see that pattern still exists. These are societies where men are supposed to "protect" women by limiting their potential to just a few socially acceptable roles of which wife and mother are the ones that are considered most important.

I confess that I don't really understand it. Why wouldn't you want your daughter to have every opportunity and to be able to pursue her dreams as far as her natural talents would take her? Wouldn't you want to share your life with someone smart, articulate and sexy rather than some 1950's (or 1750's) ideal housewife?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Poor girls have been through enough as it is, we really need a light touch here to avoid making social timebombs, if you know what I mean.
The bombs have already been made Frem, thanks to "mom and dad". What we need to to is avoid setting them off.


---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Or defuse em, yeah.

Leopard, we're not ignoring ya - we're just all kind of in agreement that Jeffs himself is sleaze beyond measure, and quite deserving of some just desserts, which the State will more than likely serve unto him quite soon.

Don't have a lot to update right now, the State has finally thought to ponder the question of abuse unto the boys, and I bet they're smackin their foreheads with a mighty "D'oh!" not having pondered that possibility before, in spite of it being rather common practice in cultures like this.

Although I do hope they have the sense to make a distinction between normal scratch and dent stuff common to young, active boys and actual abuse-related injury, that one started a flaming row between a pediatrician, my mother and me way back when cause I racked up a LOT of scratch and dent stuff going head to head with school tough guys in my day, not to mention the usual youthful insanities like jumping off the roof with a an improvised dragchute system made of four hefty bags...

But for the moment, it's mostly a paperwork drudge, and the devils of the details.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:28 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...like jumping off the roof with a an improvised dragchute system made of four hefty bags...



that's funny...

I just had my trusty beach towel Superman cape tied around my neck.... luckily it was a low roof...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:47 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM



As far as any update.... today's Dallas Morning News keeps pushing the story back, (of course Miley Cyrus gets top billing), but there is an article about the problems of the Foster Care system. Looks like the Ledg will be keeping an eye on how the CPS handles the current situation.

Quote:

The addition of nearly 500 complicated cases of children swept from a polygamist ranch this month will strain Child Protective Services, experts said Tuesday. "You were seeing amazing turnover already," said Madeline McClure, executive director of TexProtects, a Dallas-based group that advocates for abused and neglected children.

She cited CPS' loss last year of nearly 40 percent of its child-abuse investigators. In the first quarter of this fiscal year, "conservatorship caseworkers," who oversee children removed from bad homes, were quitting at an annual turnover rate of 32 percent.

A leading lobbyist for foster care contractors said while CPS faces a daunting challenge in moving the sect children's cases through the courts, it caught at one break. The raid came as the state's foster child population dropped to about 17,800, said Nancy Holman, head of the Texas Alliance of Child and Family Services. That is more than 1,000 below budgeted levels.



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/storie
s/DN-cps_30tex.ART.State.Edition2.460a22a.html



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 12:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!



June 2007


Commissioner Cockerell stated the legislature allocated $2.6 billion to DFPS for the biennium and noted that included in the funding are a 4.3-percent Foster Care rate increase, approximately 1,300 additional staff positions, $99 million for continued CPS reform, $4.6 million for prevention services to serve an additional 1,495 clients per month, and $11.1 million for the new post-psychiatric hospitalization step-down rate.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Best news I've heard all day folks, thanks for the headsup.

DLV, actually the attempt worked, as I was a teeny little thing and used heavy craft wire hoops to keep the ends of the bags open, but due to confiscation by the authorities (my mother) further experimentation was cancelled.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, May 1, 2008 5:50 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
In the case of the USA which is a secular democracy...



Democratic Republic, actually, which semantic differences happen to be MUCH larger than most uneducated/under educated people would assume.

Democracy - government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Democratic Republic - a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state.


We happen to be both a Democracy and a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

The ancient Greeks were just a democracy. Then they started pukeing all over the place and had lots of unbridled butt-love right before they fell. Actually.... when put that way, maybe we're not so different from the ancient Greeks afterall. Only time will tell....


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 1:29 AM

JONGSSTRAW


More horror stories from the Cult of Pedopheilia.......
31 underage pregnancies by rape
41 children with broken bones, the youngest being 2 yrs. old...a testiment to the horrendous physical abuse going on there
boys slowly coming around after separation from their tormentors and testifying that they too were sexually abused & raped.

I don't care if the Texas Foster Care is not perfect. It's the best thing for these kids right now. They will NEVER go back to that compound of hell again, and very likely never see their "parents" again. In the coming weeks there will be mass arrests of both the abusing men and the "batterred-wife-syndrome" zombie wives who provided enablement and structure for these vile acts.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, May 2, 2008 2:27 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Links or it didn't happen.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:53 - 113 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:44 - 170 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:40 - 42 posts
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:26 - 13 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL