BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court says Texas had no right to seize hundreds of kids from polygamist ranch

[kpete]

BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court says Texas had no right to seize hundreds of kids from polygamist ranch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/


Polygamist Win Court Ruling Against Texas
San Angeleo Texas.,May 22,02008

SHARE A state appellate court has ruled that child welfare officials had no right to seize more than 400 children living at a polygamist sect's ranch.

edit to add:

The Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled that the grounds for removing the children were "legally and factually insufficient " under Texas law. Child welfare officials removed the children on the grounds that the sect pushed underage girls into marriage and sex and trained boys to be grown-up predators. The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4911155&page=1

[VeraAgnes]

1. I was afraid of this.........

It's a difficult dance to save the victims when they don't know they are victims.

:grouphug: :cry:

[cornermouse]

3. By the time they figure out they were victimized

it'll be too late. And unfortunately some of them never will figure it out.

[madmusic]

61. Blame the victims

For fascism.

[cornermouse]

2. Kids are now officially chattel.

You can do anything you want to them apparently. Can women be far behind?

[endarkenment]

7. No, the state actually has to follow the laws before it takes your kid.

And in this case, the state did not do that. Do you think the state should be allowed to break into your house and take your kids from you without any due process, without any evidence of abuse?

[EFerrari]

15. I agree with that. These people were treated like cattle.

There is too much of that impulse floating around this country.

[cornermouse]

19. Hey no problem.

:wow:
They're only children. It's not like they're anything special :sarcasm: otherwise we'd be forced to protect them.

[endarkenment]

21. You are being obtuse.

Can you actually address the issues here, or is it just going to be snarkery?

[cornermouse]

24. The issue is child safety.

That and the fact that you have pre-teen mothers IS the issue.

[Xithras]

32. I have yet to see an accusation of pre-teen mothers from this community.

Pre-teen = 12 and under. My understanding is that the youngest identified so far would have been 14 when she got pregnant. Young, yes, but not preteen.

But working on your own logic. How would the presence of pre-teen mothers in the community, if they did exist, justify the taking of boys and other children from unrelated families in the same compound? I don't think that anyone here has ever argued that CPS was incorrect in seizing girls who were obviously underage mothers. The controversy is whether they had a right to seize ALL of the children, even when it was blindingly obvious that the vast majority had never suffered any abuse at all.

[madmusic]

64. There are a few

Maybe two or three. The youngest, the 14-year-old, is not pregnant and never had children.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9343001

[Xithras]

85. Wow, that really shoots holes in the entire case.

So the original claim was that the abuse of 31 children to justify the seizure of over 400 from multiple families (seizures have only ever been legal in cases where imminent danger can be shown). That was a legal stretch in the first place. After verifying ages, we now now that there aren't 31 teen wives, but 14, and we know that at least one (the youngest at 14, and the only one discussed in public so far) wasn't abused at all. So that gives us 13 unknowns.

The popular idea fostered by the Texas CPS was that all of the children were being abused. And now we're finding out that, at most, 13 were? Since she's the only 14 year old, and since 17 is legal in Texas, we can assume that we're talking about 13 girls who are either 15 or 16 years of age. If all 13 remaining girls were pregnant AND they are counting 17 year olds (all of the CPS references in news articles I've heard mention 18, but that's the age of marriage...sexual consent is still 17), the actual number of legally "abused" girls could be even lower. If, like this 14 year old, any of those remaining 13 also were never pregnant, the number could be lower still.

It doesn't seem to me that the state should have had much trouble identifying these kids, identifying their abusers, and arresting them. Their methodology here is going to undermine their remaining case entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I support CPS involvement if even ONE girl was being abused, but it's difficult to see how that can be used to justify the seizure of more than 400 children.

[roguevalley]

87. the fact that the children even exist- incest and the rest- constitutes

abuse. those children are the product of pedophilia and incest. don't let that bother you. apparently, laws on books have more weight with some.

[Xithras]

138. And you have evidence of that?

those children are the product of pedophilia and incest

You can prove that? For all 400+ kids? In fact, do you have any evidence of that at all other than something you read in a book somewhere...which is hearsay and inadmissable as evidence? If someone kicked in the front door of your home and said that they were taking your kids away because they thought your husband or wife was your sibling, wouldn't you at least expect them to have some evidence to support that accusation first?

Besides, the state cannot seize a child simply because the child is the result of incest. While one or both of the parents may face prosecution in an incest or pedophilia case, the details surrounding the act of conception itself has no legal bearing on the custody of the child. The state cannot seize a child from a parent simply because it was conceived during an illegal act.

And yes, the law carries tremendous weight with me. Without it, we're all just a bunch of vigilantes burning witches on accusations and looking for good hanging trees. The laws are there to protect both the innocent and the guilty, and they cannot be waived for emotion, morality, or sentiment. If you don't like the laws, get them changed.

[JackRiddler]

226. Shooting for the ignorance and callousness prizes at once?

How do you know "those children" are the "product of incest and pedophilia"? Which ones? And how does this justify seizing hundreds of children and sequestering them from their parents? And do you mind seeing the children as people with rights, rather than as proof of a crime?

And how do you propose the state act, if not on the basis of laws on the books? Should cops seeing what they judge to be an atrocity for which there is no law yet be empowered to just go in and Do It?

[cali]

171. In 1984 I was involved in a very similar case. The state raid

on the Northeast Kingdom Community Church in Island Pond Vermont. The group is a cult, now known as The Twelve Tribes. The State, in the form of 100+ social workers and state police swooped down in the middle of the night and removed 112 children. I thought at the time, that it was the right thing to do for the kids.

It took me a couple of years to understand why I'd been wrong.

[cornermouse]

209. I am serious, cali.

Why bother to have child abuse laws if you won't enforce them? Even on those rare occasions where the parent is so publicly and clearly abusive that they do manage to lose custody, the law allows the abusive parent to have continued contact with the child. And just because the abusive parent doesn't have custody any more doesn't mean they stop trying to do things to harm the child mentally and emotionally on those visits or on phone calls. So why bother to have child abuse laws on the books? It saves the police, the court, and the state, time, money, and untidy complications to turn a blind eye.

[Wizard777]

Ballance that against the fact that children in CPS and Foster Care are still abused.

Never and at anytime does CPS have to go before a judge and say, Your Honor, last year 48 kids died in our care from abuse. But if you will grant us custody we're gonna try real hard not to Kill this one. CPS doesn't have to prove that the home or facility they put the child in is better or safer than the one they are taking them from. Even in this case. The FLDS children were put in a home with a record of past abuses. So if the kids are going to be abused regardless. Why not leave them with the parents? You stand a better chance of getting the parent to love and care for them than a stranger that see's the child as nothing more than a check.

[cornermouse]

236. No. You don't.

Not that I didn't know it on a strictly theoretical/hypothetical way before, but I've come to realize over the past two years that abuse is multi-generational and that it can be so deeply ingrained that someone who had to be a former victim could literally see nothing wrong with it and either continued or allowed the cycle to continue. You're dead wrong about the parents being taught/learning(?) to love and care for their own child too. You appear to be hoping for a fairytale ending and life ain't a fairytale. Caring comes from the heart. Parents can't be made to care when they don't.

I think if there was some sort of study you would see that most foster homes are not abusive and that most of them should be commended for taking on children who knew they were unwanted and as a result (again, some not all) have behavior problems that are difficult to deal with. The foster care system does have some major problems but abuse isn't one of them and I think if you looked you'd find quite a few foster parents who fell in love with the child and, if they were honest, would adopt the child if given the opportunity.

[Wizard777]

258. All I can find on the internet is the horror stories. There are plenty.

Children starved to death, sexually abused, physically abused, exposed to racism, and medical experimentations. Who saves the children from CPS and foster care abuses?

Please forgive me but I can't see the rationality of taking children from an alleged abusive home and putting them in a home with a RECORD of abuse. As was done with some of the FLDS kids.

[uppityperson]

265. I would like a link to that allegation.

'Please forgive me but I can't see the rationality of taking children from an alleged abusive home and putting them in a home with a RECORD of abuse. As was done with some of the FLDS kids."

[Wizard777]

300. Here you go!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5789935.html">FLDS lawyers balk at CPS plans for children

Also on Monday, CPS acknowledged that it was investigating conditions at Jim H. Green Kidz Harbor, one of the facilities where Eldorado kids have been placed. Shari Pulliam, CPS spokeswoman, said the agency began looking at the site on Friday in response to a complaint, but would not give specifics except to say that "there is concern with child-staff ratio, supplies, and children not receiving their medication."

Kidz Harbor managers did not return a call Monday night.

The foster-care home has previously been in trouble with the state for staffing and supervision issues, including one time in February when two residents were caught having sex, according to state records.

[uppityperson]

309. Thank you for that. I hadn't seen that.

I hope they got checked out well and are getting watched. I wish ever foster home or institution would be watched better as of course horrific things have happened in them as well as kid's homes. However, I have several friends and family members who have or have had foster kids and done a good job. (Realizing that I am uppity and you never know for sure.)

This does not go as far as "Children starved to death, sexually abused, physically abused, exposed to racism, and medical experimentations. ", but I hope they are being watched closely.

[Wizard777]

327. It could include children being starved.

Remember they had to readjust the total of children they had. They had something like 21 more children then what they were aware of. How do you feed children you don't know you have? I'm assuming the meals were being catered. That means someone has to call and say we need meals for 440. If you have 461 kids. That means 21 kids don't eat. If the other kids share their food with them. Then you have a minimum of 42 children in danger of becoming malnourished.

[uppityperson]

330. I don't go with "could" or assumptions. Facts please.

And math. If 440 kids share their food between 461 for a couple days, none will probably be malnourished. If 21 don't eat for long enough, they will be malnourished or starve.

None of which has any factual relevance. Unless you mean that one home had 461 kids rather than 440, but I think those were the total numbers.

[Wizard777]

350. Fact: You cannot feed children that you don't know you have.

[uppityperson]

372. Fact, that depends on circumstances.

If you are doing place settings and you only put out 400, 415 can't sit and eat. However, if you put out a stack of plates, a big batch of food to be eaten cafeteria style, you can feed 415 when you were only planning of 400.

[Wizard777]

394. 415 eating the food for 400 aren't being properly nourished.

Good caterers will throw in an extra serving or two. But meals are kept closer to minimum requirements than the max. That's lost profit and caterers have to eat too. Have you ever dealt with a caterer?

If CPS come in your home. If you have two kids you must food for two kids. You can't have one TV dinner and say they will share. CPS will take the kids. They can't meet the standards they place on parents.

[uppityperson]

403. As I said, it depends on circumstances.

[Wizard777]

405. Under those exact same circumstances. CPS would take the children from their parents.

So who takes the kids from CPS for what CPS declares to be abuse when parents do it?

Surely you don't favor a double standard?

[uppityperson]

412. That's quite a conclusion to change the subject to.

Changing the subject while jumping to a conclusion based on a different conversation about something else only related. You are going to get tired doing that.

[Wizard777]

413. Now your just babbling. You should change your handle to uppitybrook.

But by all means babble on. :rofl: babble on babylon get it? Bwahahhahahaha. Yes I'm easily amused.

[uppityperson]

414. "you're", not "your"

[Wizard777]

416. LMAO! If that's all you got you should quit while YOU'RE ahead.

[uppityperson]

417. It is what I give poorly worded insults

You change the subject while jumping to a conclusion and attack me based on your conclusion. I call you on it, you insult me. So, you get a grammar and spelling lesson. You're not going to change my mind, nor I yours.

This is a complicated chaotic situation. Religion is no excuse to break the law, esp when kids are involved. CPS is far from perfect. Tata.

[Wizard777]

419. Niether is the color of authority.

[cornermouse]

337. That's not a foster home.

That's either a group home or a orphanage.

This argument is bunk. In my state, according to the state statutes which I just looked up, foster homes can have no more than 4 children.

Group homes which usually serve physically and mentally disabled adults can and do usually have more residents.

[Wizard777]

353. Either way they are being neglected and the place has history of this.

In my state were shutting down all kinds of juvenile facilities. Even juvenile justice facilities because of abuses. Right now there is more evidence of CPS abuse than FLDS abuse.

[cornermouse]

357. Your state regulations which by the way is not Texas...

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/07/07.02.25.05.htm

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/07/07.02.25.06.htm

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/07/07.02.25.07.htm

Looks pretty rigorous to me.

National statistics for Maryland. Looks to me like your state workers are overloaded about 1,000 cases per worker. Both the state I grew up in and the state I'm living in look pretty good. Anway, link to searchable location.

http://www.firststar.org/research/profiles.asp

Maryland apparently has trouble getting records in on time. Texas, on the other hand, has a rather good record on this.

[madeline_con]

411. You seem to be suggesting that foster parents just want a check.

The reality is, it costs money to feed and house a kid. If there were no check, only the better off could foster kids.

[Wizard777]

422. I don't paint anyone with a broadbrush. But for some the kids are nothing more than a check.

It may even be many. Because places are requiring foster parents to keep an expense journal of what they spend the kids money on. Some people scam teh system. The more kids you take in. The more checks you get. You buy in bulk or at cut rate and anything left at the end of the month you keep. That's over and above what you are earning as a foster parent. Henceforth the expense journal.

[gizmo1979]

205. I agree

if kids are in danger you must have the authority to act.There's no time to get a judges permission.You must error on the side of the child's welfare.

[timtom]

151. There's an awful lot of that going on around these parts.

Especially on certain issues. This being one of them.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

91. So IOW

[hokies4ever]

43. "The government does not own your kids."

It's a favorite saying of Ron Paul, but I think that it applies in this case. Commonsense tells you that you can't just take ALL of the children. You need to develop specific cases against each parent for each child, plain and simple.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

89. Shhhh injecting reason and thought into to this

will break up the hum of 'its for the children'

[kerry-is-my-prez]

424. They probably couldn't prove it w/out the kids backing it up or w/out physical evidence.

[truedelphi]

73. I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning or that of post number one

Here's the thing: an anonymous person made an anonymous tip to the authorities from a pay phone in Denver.

No one seems willing to state who this person is.

We can't have children separated from families because of anonymous tips.

Say you go to a peace protest next month to protest the coming war in Iran. Do you want some anonymous tipster telling your local Child Protective Services People (CPS) that you abuse your children?

If we let the decision to undetake police actions against the FLDS stand, that is what will happen to everyone's liberties. We will all be just one anonymous phone call away from CPS and other destructive agencies descending on us.

If we don't protect the rule of law, we are all in a heap of trouble.

I also feel that the authorities who so moved to consider that young girls were in trouble on that compound, might have thought of going after the possible adult perpetrators rather than separating the young girls and women from their home. And remember, the social workers who were not a part of the CPS were very put out by the trauma that the CPS workers caused in the children.

And since there weren't any accounts, not one, of infants and toddlers being molested, why they weren't left with the parents, or at least with their mothers, I don't know.

[JerseygirlCT]

319. Not at all far behind. Right there with this group

They're all just property.

[mzmolly]

4. I admit to having mixed feelings. Unless we know that those children were being abused

it's "abusive" to remove every one of them from their homes.

My Mother was a product of the foster care system, it's no xanadu.

It's not an easy position for the State to be in, but should those parents be judged on the potential actions of their neighbors?

[truedelphi]

78. Thanks for some needed sanity and cautions, MZMOLLY.

Say the word "child abuse" and it seems that 90% of Americans will let anything the authorities want to do to the group accused of having a molester in their midst.

It was tremendously wrong when it happended in Wacco, with the massacre that resulted, and it is tremendously wrong with it happening to the FLDS members. Emotional trauma of being separated from you rhome and your familiy is something many of these kids will never get over.

[mzmolly]

247. Hello TD.

I agree that we have to sort out these situations before we make assumptions. :hi:

[endarkenment]

5. Flame away, but I agree.

Taking these kids from their parents without due process because 'we' don't approve of their parents' lifestyle is bullshit.

"The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings."

Note: where there was actual evidence of abuse against specific children, then of course the state should intervene to protect those children. What is wrong here is the collective punishment exacted on this entire community.

[mzmolly]

14. No flames here.

I agree fully, with EVERY point you made endarkenment.

[Wizard777]

23. The DINO's Libel squad will be here to falsely accuse you of every evil under the sun.

[IronLionZion]

30. I agree with you now, but I supported the action when it happened

because "rescuing" those kids seemed like the right thing to do at the time with the information that was available.

Does anyone know what happens next?

[Loge23]

42. Big Brother lends a hand

Yes, it is BS indeed!
And we all should be well aware how the government will always do a better job "protecting" children anyway! Yeah, right!
Leave these people alone. If there's an issue, investigate it and deal with it - just like any other case.
Seizing children and hiding them....shameful.

[hokies4ever]

44. Completely agree!

Sorry if you were expecting some flaming. :patriot:

[Fleshdancer]

6. I wonder what happens next?

According to the second link, "The appellate court ruled the chaotic hearing held last month did not demonstrate the children were in any immediate danger, the only measure of taking children from their homes without court proceedings." Since then though, it was discovered that more than half of the girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were either pregnant or have been pregnant. Was that not taken into consideration?

[uppityperson]

10. "Any decision on an appeal will be made later,"

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9347022
The ruling came as judges were signing off on individual custody plans in San Angelo. Shari Pulliam, a spokeswoman for CPS, said the agency had just learned of the ruling and was trying to assess its impact on the children's cases. "Any decision on an appeal will be made later," she said.

[Fleshdancer]

16. cool. thanks for the update n/t

[uppityperson]

Another update, court says Judge over reacted, not CPS. Just fyi.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3325735&mesg_id=3325900

[Breeze54]

74. Here's the Brief... it says both CPS and the judge "over reached"

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0522/20080522_114730_Mandamus%20Decision.pdf

But it only is about 20 girls (5 underage teens pregnant) and a total of 40+ children.
More appeals will follow this. It basically says that CPS couldn't prove they all lived
in one household or the immediacy of a abuse, and that's why FLDS won this one, for now.
It also didn't say when the kids would or if they would be returned yet. CPS is appealing.

No mention of the 'Lost Boys'.

[uppityperson]

80. I thought I read something about not being able to prove the boys

were endangered. I guess that means they weren't looking at the "lost boys". Was gandalf the one with 12 floors of lawyers, or was that the other one? I can't remember. Looking at profile, I think it was but can't remember. Thanks.

[kestrel91316]

99. Wizard777 was the one with "12 floors of lawyers", lol.

[uppityperson]

106. I wonder why those 12 floors don't tell him to quit libelling me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3325735&mesg_id=3326321
Keeps accusing me of accusing it of "supporting child rape" and we all know I have been a paragon of non-insults such as this.

[Wizard777]

112. I have not accused you of that. That was done to me.

[endarkenment]

18. Well actually even that factlet is in doubt

Half the mothers from a polygamist sect that Texas child welfare authorities put in foster care as children have now been declared adults.

Attorneys for Child Protective Services say 15 of the 31 mothers are adults. One is actually 27.

Another girl listed as an underage mother is 14, but the state has conceded she is not pregnant and does not have a child.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=4908891

[madmusic]

49. That's bullshit!

Texas officials concede at least 15 sect mothers adults
By Michelle Roberts
Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 11:16:52 AM MDT

Posted: 11:15 AM- SAN ANGELO, Texas -- At least half the mothers taken from a polygamist sect's ranch and put in child foster care have now been declared adults, significantly chipping at agency statistics that seemed to demonstrate the widespread sexual abuse of underage girls.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9346914

[Fleshdancer]

79. calm the hell down with your ridiculous subject line

excuse me for reciting articles that were published earlier than what is now being reported http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1735760,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

I'm all for being corrected but I'm sure you can find a better way than saying "That's bullshit!" :eyes:

[Wizard777]

8. Texas CPS has commited genocide against them.

[Fleshdancer]

9. what??

[Wizard777]

38. It's A) 6 Genocide in violation of US law.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 50A > § 1091
§ 1091. Genocide

(a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Punishment for Basic Offense.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c) Incitement Offense.— Whoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Required Circumstance for Offenses.— The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that—
(1) the offense is committed within the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).
(e) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.


The FLDS is a religious group entitled to protection under this law. The state of Texas took the FDS children by force and gave them to Baptists. It's an open and shut case. If they proceeded individually they would not have run afoul of the law. But they acted against the group en masse. That is where they violated the law and commited Genocide.

[truedelphi]

75. Thank you for some sanity here.

I am very surprised to see that otherwise intelligent DU'ers feel that the moment anyone says "Child Abuse" any and all civil liberties are fini for the group that is under attack.

[Wizard777]

83. No,Thank You for realizing that's all I'm trying to do here.

It's all I've been fighting for since the whole thing began.

The most expensive phrase ever uttered. "It's for the children." The cost in terms of finance and civil liberties are staggering.

[truedelphi]

95. The last time authorities in Texas

Used that phrase (For the children) Close to one hundred people died.

Never mind that Koresh could have been apprehended as he drove around town or was dropping off videos.

And because I still mourn for those who died at Wacco, some DU'ers label me a freeper. (?!!&)

[Wizard777]

101. They were another FLDS Sect.

This one needs to stop Texas' attacks on them by filing Genocide charges against Texas in federal court.

[uppityperson]

119. Branch Davidians were a FLDS sect? What the fuck?

They were a branch of Seventh-Day Adventists.

[Wizard777]

120. I thought they were FLDS. It's been awhile.

[uppityperson]

125. I find it rather amusing you keep claiming false facts so stridently.

It is good to check out the facts before claiming them. Or have one of your 12 floors of lawyers check for you.

[LanternWaste]

129. Do it. I'd pay to watch

Man up and put your money where your mouth is. Do it. I'd pay to watch.

(Insert excuse here)

[LanternWaste]

128. The authorities (CPS) use that phrase every day

"The last time authorities in Texas Used that phrase (For the children) Close to one hundred people died."

The authorities (CPS) use that phrase every day. Never mind that it doesn't get its five minutes on the news when things work...

[LanternWaste]

116. Actually, the most expensive phrase is,

Actually, the most expensive phrase is, "it's for our freedoms..." The cost in lives is staggering.

[huskerlaw]

140. It's not a violation.

There was no "specific intent to destroy" the religion. They were seeking to enforce OTHER laws (rape, incest, polygamy, etc.), which this religion happens to allow.

So yes, they were intending to put an end to the part of this religion that does not conform to US law. In order to do that, they removed children which they believed were being abused in the process of the religion breaking the law.

That's not genocide. Not even close.

[Wizard777]

146. Those laws could be ruled a first amendment violation.

Besides the holocaust was enacted as a matter of German law. Being a jew was a crime pubishable by death.They didn't have a first amendment protecting the practise of religion. So you can't prove intent there either. Just good old fashioned German law enforcement. :eyes: :puke:

[huskerlaw]

150. You're claiming that

Our laws relating to polygamy, incest and rape violate the first amendment? Are you for real??

Give me a fucking break!

There is no constitutional right to rape your daughter, I don't give a flying fuck what your religion is. And to compare this situation to Nazi Germany is repulsive.

[Wizard777]

164. This is the crux of the arguement.

The bible only recognizes two states of human existance. Child and adult. The bible of MANY religions places adulthood at the on set of puberty. The concept of adolescence, or extending childhood beyond puberty, is relatively new in comparison to the bible and even American law. So can you legally tell these people to ignore what their bible tells them to take up a contrary point of view and practise held by the state? It's an interesting question to see go before SCOTUS. They would decide that with a mural of Moses and the 10 commandments over head. Guess who elses religion think adulthood begin at puberty? Moses. Also SCOTUS cites the bible as a moral authorty US law is derived from. Henceforth the mural of Moses and the 10 commandments on the ceiling.

[uppityperson]

167. The Law and Constitution take precedence over your interpretation of the bible.

The Constitution takes precedence over your interpretation of the bible allowing you to break the law.

[huskerlaw]

172. Yes, we certainly can tell them that.

Just like we can tell terrorists that their interpretation of their religion is against our laws. Just like we can tell anyone who reads the bible that they can't stone their neighbors.

The state is not guided by religious principles (talk about constitutional protections!). It is guided by what is CURRENTLY thought to be what is best for the people (in theory, anyway, I do realize). The point being, in 2008, it is NOT ok to have sex with someone under the age of 17. Moses and the bible don't have any bearing on our laws...separation of church and state, anyone?

In this country, we are free to exercise any religion that doesn't violate US laws. In fact, if we leave out the parts that do violate the law, we are free to practice that religion regardless. That's why the non-fundamentalist LDS church is perfectly legal and being left alone. They understand, why can't you?

[Wizard777]

176. Marijuana is illegal for everyone. Except if it is a sacrament of your religion.

Then the laws against marijuana must give way to the free practise of your religion. SCOTUS consistently upholds that. The operative word being FREE. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government.

[uppityperson]

183. Medical marjiuana. Where in USA is it legal if it is for religous purpose? True question.

[Wizard777]

185. On federal property for one. A Rasta friend put that law to the test.

The NJweedman went to liberty bell (federal property)Fired one up right in front of the police. Even blew the smoke in their face. No arrest. They couldn't have arrested him if they wanted to. He wasn't breaking any laws.

Medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Your only protected under state law.

[uppityperson]

192. Just because they didn't arrest him doesn't mean they couldn't.

Do you have a reputable source? Serious question again.

I think the only reason mj is illegal was to fluff out the "war against drugs" since otherwise the funding would've been cut by a large amount.

[Wizard777]

199. Yes the guy is a friend and it is supported by media coverage of the event.

I don't think the police want their deriliction of duty all over the 6:00 news. They could be fired for not arresting him if he was indeed breaking the law. He has a website Njweedman.com. You can find it there. They have taken his kids away from him because he's rastafarian that will not renounce the religion or it's practice. He's been fighting Nj tooth and nail. Even running for office.

[uppityperson]

202. I'll check that out. A quick look shows he needs a pro bono lawyer.

I'll look through the website.

[madmusic]

189. A Reason article on drugs and religion

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). .... the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that RFRA protects the American branch of the Brazil-based Uniao do Vegetal (UDV) from government interference with its rituals despite the fact that the group’s sacramental tea contains the otherwise illegal psychedelic drug dimethyltryptamine (DMT)

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119721.html

But I don't think the SCOTUS would condone underage sex and marriage. There is a chance the SCOTUS could find a bill of attainder because Texas changed its law to specifically target the FLDS's religion though. Seems to me CPS would have to prove an actual "pervasive belief" in abuse but that is falling apart more and more every day as more and more pregnant children turn out to be adults.

[huskerlaw]

208. Oh good lord...

really? You're going to compare marijuana with incest? Surely you're joking.

[Wizard777]

214. Who says they are commiting incest?

All these wild charges are slowly but surely being debunked. So I'm not buying into it. Still waiting for the evidence.

[huskerlaw]

222. Fine...

let's assume they're not. They're still having sex with 15 year old girls. And that's quite illegal, and with very good reason.

But if you really question the incest, do a little research on fumarase deficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fumarase_deficiency
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2005-12-29/news/forbidden-fruit/full
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/195535

[Wizard777]

230. If you do a little research. You will find that Incest is not the only cause.

It can also result from UPD. That where the fetus gets two copies of a chromosome from one parent and none from the other. It can happen to anyone as a random event in sperm or egg production. Even you.

[uppityperson]

232. Found a link and info on first case

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575891

We report on the first case of fumarase deficiency (FD) caused by uniparental isodisomy. An affected patient was found to be homozygous for the P131R mutation in the FH gene. In this nonconsanguineous family, the unaffected father was found to be heterozygous for the same mutation, and the mother was found to be homozygous wild-type. Analysis of chromosome 1 markers showed that the patient inherited both paternal alleles with complete absence of the maternal homolog. The two copies of the paternal chromosome 1 are heterodisomic for most of the chromosome except the distal 1q region which is isodisomic for the mutant alleles of the FH gene. The genotypes of other chromosome markers are consistent with the patient inheriting alleles from both parents. Although FD is an autosomal recessive disorder, the effects of uniparental disomy (UPD) should be considered in genetic counseling since the recurrence risk of an affected child is significantly reduced when the disorder is due to UPD. 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Edited but will leave my original UPD list just for fun.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/UPD
UPD Ulrich's Periodical Directory
UPD Underwater Propulsion Device
UPD Unicorn Protection Device
UPD Unidad Popular Por La Paz, Democracia, Desarrollo y Derechos Humanos (Popular Union for Peace, Democracy, Development and Human Rights; Guatemala)
UPD Unified Prospecting Database (marketing)
UPD Union for the Public Domain
UPD Unión Progreso y Democracia (Spanish: Union, Progress and Democracy, political party)
UPD Uniparental Disomy
UPD Unit Personality Data (Motorola)
UPD Univeral Print Driver (Citrix)
UPD University of the Philippines-Diliman
UPD University Police Department
UPD Unplanned Dismount
UPD Update
UPD Urban Project & Dappa (hip hop band)
UPD User Performance Data
UPD User Procedure Development
UPD Utah Police Department
UPD Utah Prairie Dog
UPD Unilateral Price Determination
UPD Universal Printer Driver
UPD Updated Program Data
UPD User Profile Distribution

[huskerlaw]

235. Yeah...

and the fact that there are 20 known cases of it in the FLDS sect when there were only 13 known cases worldwide prior makes it ever so likely that it's due to a random event.

Be serious.

[uppityperson]

219. Statutory rape, please, not incest. So far it is about stat rape.

DNA will tell if about incest. But the term you are looking for is statutory rape.

Try it again about comparing stat rape with marijuana, since that is equally as absurd and more accurate.

[huskerlaw]

224. You're right...

so far they haven't charged anyone with incest. However, there is a LOT of research regarding fumarase deficiency in FLDS towns, which makes incest a near certainty. I included links in my response above.

[uppityperson]

225. I quite agree. But realize that when you discuss

with the wiz, he has 12 floors of lawyers working for him and so is Experienced. Or it might be 13 floor, my poor brain can't remember.

[huskerlaw]

227. Meh.

I have a law degree and none of the arguments Wiz has put forth show that he's ever even SEEN the Constitution. Maybe one of the lawyers on the 12th floor is holding it hostage or something.

Regardless of the crime alleged, my point still stands. Be it incest, rape, statutory rape, etc...so feel free to substitute "statutory rape" for "incest". ;)

[Wizard777]

233. Why does that eat a hole in your ass? Jealous?

[huskerlaw]

240. I'm guessing it's because

she doesn't believe you.

Although, perhaps you are surrounded by 12 floors of lawyers. But in that case, I do hope you realize that legal knowledge doesn't flow into your brain just because others around you have it. If you bothered to speak to any of these many lawyers, they'd tell you exactly what I have.

[Wizard777]

282. I do talk to them frequently.

Yes I even present with my crazylegal theories. They explain to me exactly where and why it's wrong. Usually I agree with them. After all they are the profesionals. I have at times told them point blank. It's my money and my ass. You'll do this my way or you're fired. Yes I forced them into court with my crazy legal theory and they were amazed when they won. But ultimately it's my money and my ass.

[huskerlaw]

316. Present them with this legal theory then...

because I am a lawyer, and I assure you that your interpretation of the constitution is completely off base.

[uppityperson]

242. If meant for me, no. I'm just highly amused at who people play on the anonymous internets.

That's all. Claims are fast and easy on anonymous internets.

[Wizard777]

267. I agree. That's hilarious comming from "uppityperson" AKA anonymous.

[uppityperson]

270. I claim I'm uppity and prove it. You claim 12 floors of lawyers and I roll me eyes.

Esp when you toss out "facts" like Branch Davidians were FLDS sect. See, I can prove I'm uppity. Let's see you prove you have 12 floors of lawyers and for some reason that makes you an expert in the law.

[Wizard777]

306. I've never claimed to be an expert on the law.

If you remember correctly I've already told you. That's why I have the 12 floors of lawyers. I would pretty dumb to pay 12 floors of lawyers if I were a legal expert. :eyes:

[uppityperson]

313. How do you pay 12 floors of lawyers? (rhetorical ?) What do you do with 12 floors of lawyers?

[Wizard777]

322. That's my business and I will not publicly discuss it.

In fact my corporate charters prohibit it.

[uppityperson]

324. okie dokie. Figured not but it never hurts to ask.

[fascisthunter]

286. YOU NAILED IT

[mainegreen]

35. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Wizard777]

41. Read the statute above and weep. It's A) 6 Genocide.

They should do every day of teh 20 years the penalty provides for. The girl running the antiFLDS hotline that started the whole thing should be prosecuted for inciting genocide.

[mainegreen]

45. The woman who ran the hotline should be prosecuted. It still isn't genocide.

You don't understand what the word 'genocide' means.

[Wizard777]

51. I have posted the statute that defines Genocide. But please explain it to me.

[mainegreen]

62. It fails on intent.

Done.

[Wizard777]

71. The refused to return the children because of their religious beliefs.

basically telling them as long as you hold these beliefs. You will not get your children back. That is intent to destroy in part or in whole.

[uppityperson]

131. If the religious beliefs break the law, yes. Like statutory rape.

So long as they are statutorily raping minors, they should not have those minors to rape. So long as you believe it is your religious right to stat rape minors AND you statutorially rape minors, those minors should not be with you.

[mainegreen]

133. Erm.... not quite.

The intent is not to destroy the group. CPS only has one beef with this group: child abuse, which by the way is illegal.

You can't claim 'I'm not allowed to commit illegal act X therefore they oppose my beliefs in their entirety and wand to wipe out my religion! Genocide!!'

You see? It doesn't work.

[LanternWaste]

134. How melodramatic.

How melodramatic. Maybe you should film it in black and white with some good noir lighting to boot...

It's a shame that so many people lose their will to think critically when confronted by what they've come to love and except as an enemy...

Genocide. :eyes:

But yeah-- keep justifying it as that...

[Wizard777]

139. It is what it is.

[Wizard777]

435. I think Specific Intent can be proven. This was a deliberate act or with purpose.

The surrounding facts and circumstances show a mental attitude of religious persecution. If it's not then why bring the religion into the case at all. All they need to establish is that sexual abuse is occuring. They do not need to account for why it's happening. Just that it is happening. Also they have done something beyond that which is done. They didn't seek individual removal. They went beyond that and sought removal en masse. This is Specific Intent to commit Genocide.

[uppityperson]

46. "Religion" is not an excuse to break the law.

If a religion involves statutory rape, making them stop does not involve genocide. Sorry gandalf.

[Wizard777]

50. The law cannot be used as a shield to enact religious persecution.

The Mormon Church was founded before Texas was even a state.

[LanternWaste]

157. Show me evidence that the intent was religious persecution

Show me evidence that the intent was religious persecution. Please-- show me evidence of intent (hair-brained theories do not equal evidence, just so you know...)

[Wizard777]

173. Lets start with begining of the years long police investigation.

That was started on a heads up from Utah police on FLDS. Not any individuals or anything those individuals did in Texas. The complaint that initiated the raid came from an antiFLDS hotline. Might as well be taking complaints against the NAACP from the KKK. Then they put the put the theologian on the stand as an expert witness against the church. Sounds like religious persecution to me. They put the church on trial. Not the individuals. It's clearly religious persecution.

[Dorian Gray]

400. They are not the Mormon Church

They split from the Mormon Church years ago.

[Wizard777]

404. They are Fundamental Mormons. Their bible is the Book Of Mormon.

What your saying is like saying Catholics aren't Christians or Baptists aren't Christians. Protestant's and Lutherns aren't Christians. I don't remember an apostle named Martin Luther. They can't possibly be Christians. They all are. So are Mormons and their sects. Like the FLDS.

[Dorian Gray]

430. Actually...

"CHRISTIAN" isn't a church denomination. LDS is. Catholic is. Baptist is. There are many groups that claim to be members of those churches, or even the one "true" church, but they are not. The Society of Saint Pius X is an example of such a Catholic organization. They are to Catholcism what FLDS is to Mormonism.

There are groups that identify as those denominations that are apostasies. They've devolved so much from the theology and the ruling hierarchy that they've removed themselves from that church. FLDS is no longer part of the greater Mormon church. They are an apostasy. They have splintered away. They may identify as Mormon, but their theology is all about plural marriage being the gateway to God.

[treestar]

100. None of that has been established

Whether to take them is to be decided under Texas Family Code 262.201, which requires a showing that (1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of their children, (2) that there was an urgent need for protection of the children that required the immediate removal of the children from their parents, or (3) that the Department made reasonable efforts to eliminate or prevent the children's removal from their parents.

Link to the decision:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/05/22/texas.court.pdf

[Wizard777]

CPS took the children THEN went to court to get custody.

[kestrel91316]

102. The suffix -cide means kill. Nobody got killed here. It certainly was

no effort to exterminate FLDS. It WAS an effort to end child abuse.

[Wizard777]

108. Then why did CPS put a theologian on the stand to testify as an expert witness on religion.

It's Genocide. A)6 Genocide to be exact.

[mainegreen]

169. What subject matter did this theologian address?

You must show that this theologian was used in a way other than to show that this group has tenents that violate US and Texas law in a way that is not protected by the constitution.

Otherwise the mere fact that he's a theologian is meaningless to your purported claims of a)6 genocide.

[Wizard777]

179. He was used to assert that the FLDS belief system constituted a danger to the children.

As an expert witness on religion. He cannot testify to the constitutionality of anything.

[mainegreen]

197. Then there was no problem with using a theologian, was there?

If he was testifying not to the truth or the legality of a religion, but to one aspect of it that violates, or encourages violation of US law.

[Wizard777]

201. They used the theologian to put the church and religion on trial.

He was expert witness against the church and religion. Not the individuals. He had no knowledge of the individuals beyond their professed religion.

[mainegreen]

398. But that's not what you said in your previous post at all.

You said in effect that he testified that their practices were a danger to children. That's not putting a religion on trial; that's putting one practice of the religion on trial.

If you can't see the difference, feel free to try and explain why you are unable to differentiate the two.

[Wizard777]

407. When you place communion on trial. You also place the RCC on trial.

Why can't you understand that?

At this point I would be asking the CPS people what religion they are. I'm almost willing to bet my bottom dollar they are baptists. I can't see an athiest taking teh kids from a religion they believe are brainwashing them. Then hand them over to another religion that they also believe will brain was them. All the athiests I have discussed religion with. They believe all religion to be nothing more than brain washing. Some even believe it to be mental illness.

[mainegreen]

431. Um, communion doesn't infringe on other peoples rights... lets make this super clear:

Lets have a clearer analogy: all the tenets of religion X are legal, save the one where you must set fire to a random stranger on the day of your marriage, killing them. People who perform this ritual, however, are always prosecuted by the government for murder. On the day of the trial the prosecutor always calls a theologian who testifies that on the day of their marriage, a person must murder a stranger by setting fire to them. Then the prosecutor shows the accused was married that day. Note: the religion is not on trial. The government has not even said believing that one must set fire to a person on ones wedding day is illegal. They have merely said the act of murder is illegal. At no point was the religion ever on trial. This is exactly what is happening, except you can replace murder with child molestation and rape.

See why your argument is a complete failure? Of course, you do realize this, but you think religion should be allowed to do anything in it's own name. Those of us who believe that one person's liberties end where they start to infringe on another person's liberties think that your view is rubbish though.

ps: The constitution takes my viewpoint, not yours.

[Wizard777]

433. No under those circumstances you ARE putting the religion on trial.

There have been many cases in which peoples religious beliefs have caused them to murder abortion doctors or blow up abortion clinics. NEVER in any of these trial has a theologian been called by the state to testify. Because when you do that you put the religion on trial and not the person.

They could have proceeded against the FLDS individuals without ever calling a theologian to testify. But then they couldn't put the religion on trial. That is their inent. To destroy the FLDS in Texas. That is Genocide. I'm not accepting OPPS! We commited Genocide. These are deliberate and intentional acts against the Church and religion.

[mainegreen]

439. Wrong again.

Those who have attacked abortion clinics do not belong to religions whose have rules telling them to blow up abortion clinics.

Your analogy is again weak. Mine still stands.

[smiley_glad_hands]

40. Nice freeperlike twist you have there. eom

[Wizard777]

54. Your the rallying against enforcing the law. That's what Bushbots do.

No law may govern the ruling class is their motto. I'm sticking with democratic principles. I question authority and believe the government should be prosecuted for their crimes against the people.

[kestrel91316]

103. The state acted in good faith here. That's no crime.

[madmusic]

114. If they didn't know the hoax call was bogus.

Stay tuned. The record is still sealed at the request of Texas.

[Wizard777]

123. When they discovered that it was they did not cease.

[Wizard777]

118. They acted on a false complaint and did not cease upon discovery of the false complaint.

That's harassment. Not good faith.

[smiley_glad_hands]

107. Right.

Your strained use of logic is all too telling.

[LanternWaste]

158. Yup-- and the FLDS have enough money to flaunt the law

Yup-- and the FLDS have enough money to flaunt the law, just like the rest of your Ruling Elite. I'm sticking with democratic principals, too.

I question religion and believe they should be prosecuted for their crimes against the people.

Sounds absurd, right? Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[Wizard777]

180. Except that many are not willing to let the "victims" to decide if they are indeed victims.

[musette_sf]

381. if all you have ever known is victimhood,

if everything you have ever been taught enforces your acceptance of victimhood,

if your "religion" tells you that to make any other decision except to accept victimhood, will doom you to eternal hell and remove you from all you have ever known for the rest of your life,

how CAN you decide if you are a victim?

[LisaL]

393. Why would anybody have to? You will just do it for them.

[Wizard777]

399. That's circluar logic. So I'll have to redirect by answering question with a question.

How did we make it out of the dark ages when everyone was a victim of something. Even the kings were victims. By your circular logic we can never make it out of the dark ages. But us linear thinkers have left that world of victimization far behind. But I repect your right to remain the dark ages.

:nopity:

HWho decides what victimization is? You may see their life as suffering. But they don't. People who live in the lap of Luxury see the middle class as suffering. But teh middle class doesn't many people are very happy their. Many people are even happy being dirt poor. Even though the middle and upper class see them as suffering. Maybe you should look for your answer in the Declaration of Independence.

What good is it to have the right to pursue happiness. If you don't have the right to determine what makes you happy?

That's what you're trying to take from them. The right to determine what makes them happy. That's where YOU victimize them.

[LanternWaste]

111. Yeah. Right.

Yeah. Right.

We'll give your statement all due credence...


Genocide.... oh my.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Hey-- how about adding that the Social Workers engage in Murder 1, Girl Scouts are guilty of Animal Abuse, and the Shriners are all Communists... since you're at it and all...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[TexasObserver]

11. Good decision, and overdue. CPS grossly overstepped its authority.

[MadBadger]

12. Sad, but the law needs to be followed, and Texas didnt do it.

[Epiphany4z]

13. I am not surprised..sad but not surprised

They should have gone on a case by case removal.

I was a child of the foster care system and what is worse than being removed is being told you have to go back. I was carried out of one judges office in fetal position upon hearing the news I would have to go home.

A fast talking friends mom who knew the judge and was owed a favor fixed things but hey not everyone has someone like her.

I have mixed feelings on the removal of all these kids..I think there needs to be some intervention...and as long as so many of these women receive state aid they should be able keep a closer eye on things..I have custody of my nephew and gawd knows just for his medical I have to hand over tons of info..Iv had home visits..turn over pay info..his dr. info...school info..ect..

[uppityperson]

17. Waiting to hear more as to why they ruled this way. eom

[Wizard777]

26. What texas did was crime under US law.

§ 1091. Genocide

(a) Basic Offense.— Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1) kills members of that group;
(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group;
or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Punishment for Basic Offense.— The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2) a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c) Incitement Offense.— Whoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d) Required Circumstance for Offenses.— The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that—
(1) the offense is committed within the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).
(e) Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.— Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.

[uppityperson]

28. Yeah yeah yeah. So anyone who kills anyone because they are a member of a group commits genocide?

blah blah blah. Off to look for more info.

[Wizard777]

31. No, It's A) 6 Genocide. They tranfered by force the children of this religious group to another .

This is clear cut open and shut Genocide. The Judge can even be prosecuted.

[uppityperson]

36. So you did see it was the JUDGE, not CPS that over reached? Good.

[Wizard777]

47. Everyone goes! The girl at teh hotline, the police, CPS, and the Judge.

All can and should be charged.

[mach2]

104. You could never convict because of "...specific intent to destroy."

Any first year law student could get an acquittal based on that. Impossible to prove -even if it were true which it isn't-.

[madmusic]

52. Here's the opinion

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0522/20080522_114730_Mandamus%20Decision.pdf

[uppityperson]

68. Thank you. So basically the ruling is on household defn, and immediacy of abuse.

As well as not knowing status of minors when they got pregnant.

[Wizard777]

77. The false Complaint from the anti FLDS hotline is also an issue.

Any rational person should have stopped at that point and asked themselves. Are we being used as a tool to harrass these people? Think of it in these terms. CPS raids the homes and takes the children of NAACP members based on a complaint from the KKK. At what point do you say these people are using us to harass an adversary?

[madmusic]

84. There is some speculation the authorities knew the call was bogus

Stay tuned and I don't have evidence for confirmation.

[Wizard777]

92. At the very least they didn't care to find out the truth about it.

Instead of having the hotline record the call. They should have told her to call 911. But then the call wouldn't have went to Texas. If the girl did find a way to call Texas 911 from Az. The operator would have known this the second call up on the monitor. How can you be in the Eldorado compound (gated community)when your calling from Az.? They could have found the truth. But they weren't really looking for it. They have their BS story and they are sticking to it.

[madmusic]

81. Multiple findings

No immediate danger.

Over broad removal.

No proof that these parents were abusing their children or that their children were abused.

A "pervasive belief" system is not sufficient to prove these children of these parents were in danger at some future date. Infants? C'mon!

Everything I and a few others argued here all along, and got yelled at. :) But you were relatively rational and patient, uppity. Thanks for that.

[uppityperson]

86. I may be uppity, but try not to call people insulting names.

It is a complicated situation, as I've said all along. Lots of emotional factors, it will take a while to get all the info out, get it all straightened out.

As I tell my child, manners are what make it able for us to function when we really want to say just "f* you".

[Wizard777]

93. More than yelled at. Accused of supporting child rape.

It does no good to report that libel.

[uppityperson]

97. False accusations and libel indeed. Find 1 time I accused you of that.

Wasn't me. You continue to libel me by saying so. Find 1 time.

[kestrel91316]

110. The child rape happened. There were no virgin births.

Sad that there is apparently no procedure available in TX for removing rape victims from abusive homes where the parents manage to keep secrets.

Very clever MO, however. I am thinking more child molestors will learn from this and use the loophole.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

126. You are aware that up until 2005

In texts the age of consent for marriage (and sex) was 15 right? which means at most *one* girl was underage when she became pregnant..

[Wizard777]

184. I thought it was 14. But anyway. Are the pre 2005 Texas governors also perv. that support child rape

Along with every last resident of Texas? Oh how people love to persecute others for their own sins. As Jesus said, Let he who be without sin cast the first stone. At some point in time the entire state of Texas is guilty of not only allowing this. But making it law.

[madmusic]

148. Please. CPS had every right to do a rational investigation.

They didn't.

[uppityperson]

121. Still waiting for proof for your false allegations, quit libelling me!

[Wizard777]

127. That was not a reply to you. Are you trying to call me out in violation of the rule?

Learn how use board. Follow the little lines.

[uppityperson]

136. Bullshit. That is a subthread to me, you have accused me before of that also.

Not calling you out, seeking info as to where I have ever done that. Calling you an asshole would be against the rules and I have never done that either.

[Wizard777]

143. NOPE! Follow the line. It's a reply to Multiple issues. NOT YOU.

You can call an adminstartor if you like to help you figure out I was not speaking to you. I don't even like you. Why the hell would I want to speak to you? :puke:

[uppityperson]

147. Try this... Why do you talk to me unless you want to?

Here are relevant quotes from the topics. Why do you talk to me if you don't want to? And you have accused me of this before, never were able to come up with proof then either. Bye.



But you were relatively rational and patient, uppity. Thanks for that.

More than yelled at. Accused of supporting child rape.

[madmusic]

154. That was a general reply to a specific comment.

The poster is talking about those who were not as rational and patient, I think.

[uppityperson]

160. I could be over reacting to what has accused me directly of in past

If so, if this was meant in general, I apologize as wiz was called that by others. I need to point out though that wiz has directly accused me of this before without any proof. As I don't post direct personal insults, I also have never posted those accusations about anyone.

[madmusic]

162. I know you haven't.

That's what I meant by more rational and patient.

I did a Bullshit! that was similar because of a poster who relied on past propaganda that is now proven false. Overreaction due to past threads.

It's a powerful subject.

[Wizard777]

196. This stokes the flames of two the greatest human passions. Religion and children.

[Wizard777]

191. Yes I did do that. When I found out you weren't the poster I thought was making the comment.

Imediately retracted and apologized to you. I guess you don't remember that. "That's not libel. It's a misdirected statement. The names are off screen."

Your not the only one that has problems following the lines sometimes. :hi: :blush:

[uppityperson]

194. OK eom

[Wizard777]

187. Exactly!

[Xithras]

20. I hate to say "I told you so" but...

When I pointed out in several threads that the majority of those kids were seized on suspicion alone and without evidence, and that the seizure violated their parents rights, I was attacked and told that CPS didn't need evidence. I was told that children can legally be seized on just an accusation.

Obviously, I was right. As much as some people would like them to be, Texas CPS is not above the law, and they are not exempt from the same evidentiary standards as other law enforcement branches.

It's a good day for civil rights, but a bad day for these kids. As I said right after these kids were seized: Texas CPS and the LEO's are blowing this case through their ham-handedness and deliberate ignorance of basic civil rights standards. There were legal ways that these people could have been investigated, but instead the government chose to remove them, even without ANY evidence that the vast majority had suffered any abuse. In doing so, they have simply harmed their own case, and harmed the very children they were supposed to be protecting. Even the children who ARE being abused were harmed by the raid, since the ability of CPS to get them out of there is now being undermined by their own actions.

When this is all over, I'll bet that we'll see a handful of girls seized, a couple of men prosecuted, and the vast majority returned to the compound. We'll also see riots in the FLDS driveway as the lawyers fight over who gets to make the FLDS rich in their lawsuits against the state of Texas. Neither the U.S. Constitution or the Texas Constitution make exceptions in their laws for CPS investigations.

[uppityperson]

34. Please check this post, the JUDGE ordered it and over reached.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3325735&mesg_id=3325900

[madmusic]

55. So did CPS

Read the opinion.

[Xithras]

69. The judge ordered it because CPS requested it.

Yes, the judge was supposed to be the final authority who recognized the error and she failed in that duty, but CPS shouldn't have been requesting it in the first place.

That's how the process works. CPS requests an action, a judge approves or denies it, and the LEO's enforce it. That's how it worked in this case. The thing is, the JUDGE is supposed to ensure that the evidence in the case merits the remedy that CPS is requesting. In this case, the judge failed to do that.

[madmusic]

56. Same here

We got called all kinds of nasty names.

Fuck Bush, watch out here!

[Wizard777]

67. That's what happens when logic and rationality are abandoned to incite hysteria.

[uppityperson]

82. Hysteria like calls of "Genocide"? I agree. We finally agree. nt

[shaniqua6392]

22. I guess child molestation is legal in the State of Texas.

We should cut them all off of the Welfare, ADC, Medicaid and Food Stamps that they collect because they are really "single mothers" in the eyes of the law. They should also have to comply by state laws regarding the age they can marry off their little girls. Unbelievable bullshit. They should be able to keep custody of some of the teenage girls that have already had 3 or 4 children by the old man they were forced to marry.

[cornermouse]

25. Agree completely and wholeheartedly.

[madmusic]

59. Bullshit

Cite one piece of evidence alleging any of these people were on welfare.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Couple Questions

1. So we should take the kids of mothers that aren't underage?
2. We should stop supporting kids because of the "sins" of the fathers?

[shaniqua6392]

206. The mothers are just as guilty as the fathers

for offering up their children so they can be raped...yes raped in that room with the bed off to the side in their so called "church". They are enabling this horror to be perpetrated on their children and I don't want my tax money going to women who are that evil. These children are not even taught about sex or their bodies and no nothing of what is going to happen to them. They need to wait until these children are of age. A man with less than three wives is not thought of very highly within the cult. Just spend a little time researching this cult and that will explain why I will not defend anything they do.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4863899&page=1

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

141. Literate?

One count em' *one* of the kids involved (that less than 3% of the original numbers) was underage before 2005-06 when the law was changed. And *nobody* is saying in that case or others with *real* probable cause those kids should have been removed.

Also people are saying the cult should be hit for the welfare scam that they are.

--

Lets see

"some of the teenage girls that have already had 3 or 4 children by the old man they were forced to marry."

Ok with the exception of *one* kid they were all 15 and older for their first pregnancy (which as mentioned above was legal until 2006) that would men for a 16yo girl to have four kids while still teenagers:

one kids per year (9 months gestation, and a woman is generally not fertile again for at least six weeks after birth *and only then if not breast feeding, in which case you're looking at 6-9 months* so I put it to you that its very improbable you will be able to answer the following question:

how many of the kids taken at 3-4 kids before the age of 20?

[SammyWinstonJack]

27. Well that's Texas for ya! Probably a result of not being able to handle the case load.

Thanks Govs. bu$h and good hair Perry! You both suck!

[uppityperson]

29. More info: JUDGE exceeded her discretion when..ordered state to take custody, not CPS

Got that, the JUDGE exceeded her discretion. Not CPS.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/5796565.html
A Texas appeals court ruled today that a San Angelo judge exceeded her discretion when she ordered the state to take custody of more than 460 children from a polygamous sect.

[AngryAmish]

115. A short primer on how the court system works

Appeals courts review the actions of courts, not of state agencies (sometimes they actually do, but not here).

CPS took the children without a hearing based on information they got that the kids were being molested and otherwise mistreated. Under the law CPS can do this in emergency circumstances but the parents must have a hearing on the taking and the court must order the children taken away from the parents or returned. The hearing was held and the court ordered the children to be taken on an ongoing basis.

Parents then appeal stating that the trial court overstepped it's bounds in allowing the taking on an ongoing basis.

In this case the appeals court ruled the trial court exceeded it's bounds in allowing the taking by CPS.

The appeal was about the judge's behavior (the actual decision). The appeals court reviews the trial court and looks at her decision. Therefore, the appeals court can say she abused discretion.

When you say CPS did not exceed it's discretion it is at best misleading. The appeals court was not looking at the immediate taking, only the ongoing taking. It reviewed the trial court's decision, not CPS'.

[madmusic]

159. The court rejected every CPS argument

That the judge accepted. True, the judge should have rejected the argument too, because it was WRONG.

[LisaL]

287. It sure did.

Since these people are not "one household" it's not right to remove all their children from them without specific evidence of abuse against speciric parents. Pure and simple.

[madmusic]

174. That is because the judge accepted CPS's arguments

Which the appeals court rejected on EVERY point.

[Wizard777]

312. Now that CPS has burned her butt good and got her decission smacked back down to her.

She'll put away that rubber stamp and start practising law.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. Well, when these kids are a tad older and sexually raped, it's on the heads of the brilliant

Third Court of Appeals of that wonderful state, Texas.

[Wizard777]

57. That's just it. All the pregnant teens turned out to be adults.

One girl was 28. :wow: Add kidnapping and false imprisionment to the Genocide charges!

[Xithras]

66. All? Do you have a link for that?

AFAIK, it was confirmed that a number of the girls were under 17 when they became pregnant (and 17, not 18, is the target here, since the age of consent is 17 in Texas).

[Wizard777]

70. After reading the decision I'll conceed that. But some were adults.

One was 28.

[WolverineDG]

347. Of the 27 "disputed" minors, CPS has admitted 15 are in fact adults

The other 12 will be declared adults again when their status hearings are held, if not sooner. The 14 year old they insisted was pregnant despite the negative results from the 5 pregnancy tests they forced her to take? Is not & never has been pregnant, according to her ad litem in court.

That's been reported widely, especially at the Salt Lake Tribune, www.sltrib.com Check out Brooke Adam's blog; she goes over this in great detail.

dg

[Wizard777]

362. Thanks for the tip.

[smiley_glad_hands]

113. Your use of the term genocide only marginalizes true human atrocities. eom

[Wizard777]

130. Have you read teh statute? I've posted it. It's A) 6 Genocide.

[smiley_glad_hands]

175. You are equivocating. They are not the same.

I find your ultra libertarian view on the subject to be telling.

[Wizard777]

203. No, I'm making very specific statements supported by legal statute.

I'll be even more specific. The force in undeniable. There were tanks and guns involved in taking the children.

[smiley_glad_hands]

210. Your contiued use of the term genocide trivializes the real thing. eom

[Wizard777]

218. But it is the real thing. It's not the more commonly understood A) 1 Genocide.

But real honest to badness Genocide none the less.

[smiley_glad_hands]

429. No its not and stop it. eom

[Wizard777]

434. Yes it is and I will not stand by silently as Texas commits Genocide.

You can be a good lil Nazi if you want. But I refuse to!

[smiley_glad_hands]

436. No its not and stop being foolish. Are you mormon? eom

[Wizard777]

438. Ye it is. You're being naive. No I'm not Mormon.

[Prophet 451]

37. Crap, I was afraid of this

I've seen this happen a few times, a police service so anxious to get results (and rightfully so) that they cut corners with the process and the courts are left with no choice but to rule it illegal.

[smiley_glad_hands]

39. It is Texas, what did you expect?

RW wackadoos have been stacking the courts there for 20 years now. Its the party of david vitter and his diapers.

On edit: I saw in another post that supposedly the judge overreached on the initial warrant.

[SammyWinstonJack]

76. Yep thanks to Gov bu$h and Gov Goodhair Perry. And we are broke thanks to them both.

[sudopod]

48. Talk about straining at gnats and

swallowing camels. SON OF A BITCH!


*RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE*

[Alpharetta]

53. Who appointed these idiot judges?

The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty," the judges ruled.

Scuse me, Mr. genius judge. But you might want to re-think your duty to protect children who have reached puberty.

[sudopod]

58. This guy's pic is next to to "fucktard" in the dictionary. nt

[Goblinmonger]

65. I don't think the decision

says some kids shouldn't have been taken. Just that there was no cause for the whole lot of them. You seriously want to give the power to the courts to take your kids without any evidence of probable cause?

[Alpharetta]

94. The judge used a different standard than you did

The judge said The state's Department of Family and Protective Services "did not present any evidence of danger to the physical health or safety of any male children or any female children who had not reached puberty,"

That's different than probable cause.

The judge spoke poorly. It's not just an issue of physical health and safety. And puberty is not the cutoff.

What the judge said was misleading and not the standard by which DFACS actions should be judged. Neither is "probable cause" the standard.

[Goblinmonger]

122. According to the statute that the judge cited

it is indeed abo8ut the danger of PHYSICAL health and safety. And the DFACS did not show that all 400+ kids were in any danger other than the fact that they were part of the same religion.

I find it scary that the government can take children when no danger is shown.

[Alpharetta]

152. That is the wrong standard. The judge is wrong

I haven't seen the whole ruling but puberty is not a cutoff for CPS responsibilities. And neither is physical safety. DFCS must also guard against neglect, abuse, and deprivation along with control necessary for his physical, mental, or emotional health or morals. Example: DFCS has a duty to prevent a child from being led into prostitution.

If there is evidence of prostitution -- and I believe there is in this case -- then DFCS has a duty to protect.

A form of prostitution: under-aged marriages in exchange for power within a secret organization.

The evidence? A secret organization where birth records are hidden.

The duty? Get to the bottom of it. Err on the side of safety.

[LisaL]

I am pretty sure the appeal court judges (and there are three

judges on that decision) know more about TX law than you are.

[Wizard777]

373. They were the three most conservative judges in the court.

:wow: This doesn't look good for CPS.


Just heard it on Larry King Live.

[LisaL]

379. It really is a no-brainer if you decide the FLDS people do not

belong to a single household.
Everything else goes from there.

[Alpharetta]

440. knowledge without wisdom is useless

I'm sure they know more about law than I do too.

I'm sure they know more politics and I bet that's a stronger motivation to them than justice or the duty to protect.

That church is a creep show.

[High Plains]

124. Try reading the opinion. It might improve your understanding

of the issues involved.

[Alpharetta]

155. Point me to the full opinion

All I know is what the judge said and what he said is poor judgement.

[uppityperson]

170. Here is the opinion, is a pdf

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0522/20080522_114730_Mandamus%20Decision.pdf

[Alpharetta]

193. Thanks. I still think the court is wrong.

They point that 262.201 refers to "physical health or safety".

The court should have ruled in favor of the State. In my opinion, grooming children for arranged marriages as soon as they reach puberty -- however gentle the grooming may be -- are impingements of a child's "safety".

[uppityperson]

195. I noticed that part too, more to safety and health than "physical"

Seemed like a nitpicking to me.

[Alpharetta]

156. Point me to the full opinion

All I know is what the newspaper says judge said and that indicates poor judgment by the court.

[Roxy66]

63. Contessa Brewer is stirring the pot....oh these poor people!

I'm sorry....but these polygamists (don't forget) are messed up and I have no doubt the kids are manipulated in a very unhealthy way. Flame away

[madmusic]

90. Then Nancy Grace should be arrested

You know, if manipulation is against the law.

[Wizard777]

376. and publicly flogged. That's just for GP.

I cannot stand that woman.

[LisaL]

395. Come on. She would fit right in on DU.

For all I know, she could be posting here right now.

[Wizard777]

401. Well she is part of the guilty even when proven innocent crowd.

She has those George Bush like powers to ferret out evil people. So I get your point. But that's exactly why I say she should be publicly flogged for GP.

[LisaL]

406. I am pretty sure she would be beloved by many

right here on DU. All she would have to do is to scream "child abuse" all day long.

[David__77]

72. I agree strongly.

This removal of children en masse sets a terrible precedent that must be thoroughly rejected.

[Zywiec]

88. Hoorah!

They seized more than 400 children!

[frogmarch]

96. FINE! But the FLDS adults

should still be prosecuted for their welfare scam!

[uppityperson]

98. yup

[musette_sf]

105. in other words

women and children are simply property.

the right to a decent education; to be able to freely exercise all possible options for one's future; to be free to leave the molester cult without threats, stalking, kidnapping; do not apply to property.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared:

and thanks a lot :sarcasm: to the DUers who also believe that women and children are simply property and that this news needs to be on the Greatest page. by all means, let's show the world that DU won't interfere with the rights of men to own humans as property! be proud of yourselves. Warren Jeffs would be.

[High Plains]

132. Some of us believe in the rule of law. Sorry 'bout that.

The ruling says nothing about women and children being property. It says the state of Texas must obey the law when it seizes people kids.

I don't know who is recommending this to the Greatest page. It is an important ruling in a closely watched and controversial case, though.

Insulting the people you disagree with is childish.

[musette_sf]

163. so the law says that the women and children are property

and they must be returned to their owners. you can rationalize it but that doesn't change the facts.

i am deeply ashamed of the advocates of oppression, slavery and child rape recommending this article to the Greatest page. disgusting.

and ad hominem insults are what you are practicing. yet another classic example of projection on this thread.

[LisaL]

397. The law says nothing of the sort.

This appeal was filed on behalf of the mothers of these children, who want their children back.

[High Plains]

432. Ad hominem insults? Look in the mirror, Musette.

Calling fellow DUers "advocates of oppression, slavery and child rape."

Now, take a deep breath, go for a walk, smell the flowers or something.

[musette_sf]

437. so stating the truth

is an "ad hominem insult"?

typical that you would support those in favor of ownership of women and children, to the point that you consider telling the truth an "insult".

there are people at DU who support the rights of those who would own women and children. this is a fact.

don't put false words in my mouth any more, and don't twist my words any more. if you can't deal with the truth, don't insult those who speak the truth.

[sudopod]

135. WE SHOULD LET THEM BE MOLESTED!

FOR FREEDUMB!

*RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE*

[uppityperson]

137. Until there was proof of each one being molested, preferably witnessed by 4 adult males too.

[madmusic]

144. I take it back.

You aren't more patient and rational.

[uppityperson]

145. Extreme fundamentalists in USA remind me of the same in Saudi Arabia

Just in case you missed the reference. They both disgust me and I have little patience with them. You did say "relatively" also. I'll go with that.

[musette_sf]

166. well, the boys in Saudi Arabia *are*

treated better than many of the FLDS boys.

[madmusic]

182. LOL, yes, relatively

I haven't read any of the books and other "evidence" that doesn't legally apply to this case. Maybe it is terrible, but like the court I can only go by the evidence in this case and if CPS acted legally in this case. The answer is no.

[uppityperson]

188. Speaking of books, have you read any by Sandra Mackey?

She lived in Saudi Arabia 1978-80 and 82-84, writing on politics for Christian Science Monitor, having to have stuff smuggled out of the country. I'm finishing "Saudis. Inside the desert kingdom", written in 1987/90. I'm trying to figure out some of how the politics of oil have gotten us where we are and it is a fascinating read. Saudi Arabian culture reminds me in some ways of Japanese, face saving sort of stuff, and it is a very foreign culture. It is interesting how the nomadic live "in the moment" desert dwellers suddenly got filthy rich and how they dealt/are dealing with it all.

Of course the parts about the society, how the women are treated, and the men, is also very interesting. It's a pretty easy read, not a light fluff book but you don't need to have a guide to it either.

[madmusic]

200. No, haven't read it.

A friend though has been driving gas tanker trucks all his adult life though and he's done some research on the history. He claims Bush and family had oil connections with the Saudis going way, way back.

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

[JackRiddler]

229. So do you recommend that the Texas authorities invade Saudi Arabia?

That day may come (indirectly, it will be the Texans in the Pentagon doing it, of course).

[uppityperson]

234. No. Saudi Arabia is not part of the USA.

Fundies have similarities though.

[sudopod]

153. How many pregnant minors do you need

before you can say "Oh, look, a pattern. This might be an abusive child-molesting cult!"

How damn patient are we supposed to be?

[cali]

181. It's the wrong way to investigate child abuse. It's draconian

and unconstitutional to swoop in, on the basis of an anonymous phone call, and remove all the children. It's counterproductive. I know. I've been there.

[LisaL]

256. It doesn't matter if there are hundreds.

TX allows for marriage at 16 with parental consent. And up until 3 years ago TX allowed marriage at 14 with parental consent. So, you can have a hundred pregnant 16 year olds and it could be perfectly legal under TX law. Get it?

[Wizard777]

415. I don't think they actually have a pregnant minor.

The 14 year old is not Pregnant as CPS claimed she was. Many of the other pregnant minors have turned out to be adults. So far the only thing we have a clear patern of is CPS perjury.

[LisaL]

396. Right. It's so much easier to assume everybody has been

molested, even in the abscence of any evidence to support that assumption.

[madmusic]

212. Texas officials concede at least 15 sect mothers adults

By Michelle Roberts
Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 05/22/2008 11:16:52 AM MDT

Posted: 11:15 AM- SAN ANGELO, Texas -- At least half the mothers taken from a polygamist sect's ranch and put in child foster care have now been declared adults, significantly chipping at agency statistics that seemed to demonstrate the widespread sexual abuse of underage girls.
Attorneys for the state's Child Protective Services agency have been conceding, one by one, that many of the mothers authorities cited as evidence that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints committed widespread sexual abuse of girls are actually adults.
They had admitted by midday Thursday that 15 of the 31 mothers listed as underage are adults; one is actually 27. A few are as young as 18, but many are at least 20.
Another girl listed as an underage mother is 14, but her attorney said in court she is not pregnant and does not have a child.
CPS officials in April raided a ranch run by the FLDS, contending that a widespread pattern of underage girls forced into marriages and sex put all the children - more than 440 - at risk. Those children, ranging from infants to teenagers, have been the subject this week of custody hearings designed to help parents learn what they must do to get their children back.
More mothers listed as underage are likely to be reclassified as adults in coming days

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9346914

[uppityperson]

216. Gee, yah think if they'd been upfront about their ages in the beginning it might not be this way?

Yah think that if they were to say who was whose biologic mother they might not have had to take DNA? Yah think that if they were at all cooperative it might have gotten them further than blocking everything? Maybe not so much time and resources would've been wasted if they'd been upfront and honest and not lying all the way along. Maybe?

[madmusic]

220. Gee, ya think CPS and the media could lie?

Andrea Sloan, who represents Leona Allred, said the state was given official documents showing the woman to be 27 the day it raided the YFZ Ranch. On Tuesday, more than six weeks later, Allred's case was dismissed without the state receiving any additional information, Sloan told a Texas judge.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9330822

[musette_sf]

221. gee, ya think FLDS members don't "lie for the Lord"?

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord

it's a TENET of LDS, much less FLDS.

[uppityperson]

223. I think all of the above. Making a complicated situation more difficult

Lying, switching kids, etc, all bad things. It is a chaotic mess and anyone who adds to it is wrong.

[madmusic]

231. But what is against the law?

They all had the right to remain silent. Did CPS have the right to reject this woman's papers when they "Your papers, please"?

CPS can't sue for the chaos because the FLDS were within their rights, but FLDS may be able to sue CPS.

Doesn't really matter. The court rejected EVERY argument of the CPS as flat out wrong.

[uppityperson]

239. If you exercise your right to remain silent, esp when involved with suspected child abuse,

then the authorities will do what they have to do, and you really shouldn't complain. Not talking about suing, just about making a complicated situation more chaotic.

[madmusic]

295. Texas fubared this. Period.

If there were crimes they probably blew that too. And it is overall a very dangerous slippery slope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3311724&mesg_id=3311724

[madmusic]

142. how come you hate America... and women?

What’s up with the prairie dresses?

Here are some of the things members of the sect told me about life on the YFZ Ranch – which stands for Yearn For Zion – in Eldorado, Texas:

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx

[musette_sf]

161. a classic example of projection, i see.

seems i should be asking you that question.

i support freedom, dignity and choice. the FLDS women and children have none of these now. and no protection from the predators.

[madmusic]

177. So much for pro-choice

I respect what they themselves say and you say, "No! I read something in the book and in the news. They are too dumb to have any opinions."

You don't have any evidence that any of those interviewed committed any child abuse or subjected any of their children to child abuse, and yet condone the taking of their children.

Is it any wonder neo-feminism rejects old feminism nannyism?

[cornermouse]

186. Is neo-feminism anything like neo-conservative?

:sarcasm:

[musette_sf]

211. i said nothing of the sort.

first projection, then putting words i never said into my mouth. familiar tactics. i can understand even more clearly now why you support the rights of the acolytes of Warren Jeffs to own women and children as property.

[madmusic]

215. Right

It's my fault you care not what they themselves have to say.

If you makes you feel better.

[musette_sf]

217. i believe Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall

do you?

[madmusic]

238. Most of the evidence so far proves them mostly wrong.

At least in this case.

[musette_sf]

246. what "evidence" proves them wrong?

there IS NO "evidence" that proves Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall to be "wrong".

do you believe them?

even wimp-ass do-nothing rollover for the LDS Mark Shurtleff believes Carolyn Jessop. are you saying you don't?

[uppityperson]

213. What does any of this have to do with prochoice? Beyond you insulting?

wtf is "old feminism nannyism"? That's a wild set of combined words. And wtf does any of this have to do with pro-choice? You seem to like pulling terms out of your mind and using them to insult. Huh.

[madmusic]

237. Try to keep up here

I posted a link to the women speaking for themselves. Ignored and rejected. As if their choice of religion has no value. Therefore no pro-choice for them.

By pro choice we mean a woman's right to choose, right? Evidently these women can't choose anything. They're robots or slaves or too dumb or crippled.

The interview is far different than that stereotype.

[uppityperson]

241. By Pro-choice we mean the right to be able to chose a legal abortion.

You seem to want to expand the term to mean more. And then use the resulting confusion to insult. Too bad.

[madmusic]

244. So women only have the right to choose abortion?

And no other right to choose?

Fuck that. It explains a lot.

[uppityperson]

248. Of course not. But that is what the term is used for.

They can chose whether or not to have a legal abortion. Of course women have rights to chose other things, like hairstyles, what to make for dinner, what brand fabric softener to use... :sarcasm:

[madmusic]

250. But not how to dress or wear their hair?

Want me to find some links condemning them for that?

[uppityperson]

253. Naw, I saw people bashing for their looks and that is wrong.

I stayed out of the FLDS links at first BECAUSE it was about things like their dress, or hair, and I really don't care how people dress, provided they are doing it because they want to and no one gets hurt. Actually it pissed me off to see those threads, but I did not have the energy to get into it then. Am feeling better now though, thanks for asking.

There are all sorts of superficial differences, all sorts of ways of being. So long as no one gets hurt, why should I care.

[musette_sf]

252. you cannot MAKE a choice

if (1) you do not know your options, and (2) you are told that you will burn in "hell" for eternity for the "wrong" choice.

your ability to choose has been denied you. if your choices are "A" and "A" you HAVE NO CHOICE.

what about Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall? do you believe them? or do you believe women who HAVE NO CHOICE?

[bdamomma]

109. so now what happens to those children go back to be abused and

brainwashed again.

[musette_sf]

117. exactly

and it's going to take a lot of EXTRA abuse and brainwashing to make sure that the "Gentile" poison hasn't given them any funny ideas about freedom, dignity, and choice.

[Alpharetta]

165. they'll be moved and hidden

names changed. different states. new compounds. no way to find out the level of neglect or abuse.

[musette_sf]

168. the FLDS has now started

buying parcels of land in Colorado.

[LisaL]

251. The children will be raised the way their parents see fit.

Just like you are raising yours the way you see fit.

[musette_sf]

254. if "what the parents see fit" is illegal and abusive

then the parents have no right to the children.

[LisaL]

269. Read the appeals court ruling. Where is evidence of abuse?

Posters on DU claiming abuse doesn't make it so.
Since these FLDS members do not belong to one household (according to appeals court), then the state can not remove all of their children (without specific evidence of abuse or immediate danger) just because they live on that ranch. Plain and simple.

[musette_sf]

276. i believe Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall

and i think that abuse is pervasive throughout the FLDS. Texas has 10 days to appeal. i am sure there will be MUCH more information coming out that will sustain the rescue of the children.

[LisaL]

283. Neither one of those even lived on the TX ranch.

[musette_sf]

288. Carolyn Jessop's ex-"husband"

is the leader of the YFZ cult compound. so things are pretty much the same, if not worse, in Texas.

[LisaL]

289. Do you always believe everything every ex-wife says about

her ex-husband?

[uppityperson]

296. Bwhahahahaha!!!!!!! Did I call it or what!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

[LisaL]

299. Aren't you smart? Buy yourself a cookie.

[uppityperson]

302. bwahahahahahahaha

[musette_sf]

298. how insulting

to Ms. Jessop and the other women who have escaped from ownership and slavery.

[LisaL]

388. Ms. Jessop did leave and more power to her.

However I have yet to see one woman that is on that ranch now who says she wants to leave it or claims she was abused.
On the other hand, I've seen many of these women saying that they want their children back.

[uppityperson]

291. Aw, come on, he might have changed completely. After all, she's not with him

anymore. And you just never know. She might just be holding a grudge. Yeah, that's it! That uppitywoman has a grudge!.

You are patient. I am about done with these people tonight. Good luck.

[LisaL]

297. Are you aware that her own daughter went back to FLDS

after she turned 18?

[musette_sf]

304. at least she had a CHOICE.

she was one of Merril's favorite daughters. she thinks she will be untouchable by the abuse because of Merril's ownership. she is still in contact with her mother. she knows she has a CHOICE if things go bad on her. which people like you would deny to the FLDS women.

[LisaL]

308. I don't deny anything to anyone.

Unlike you. Those FLDS women want their children back. You want to deny them the right to have their children back.
The appeal was on behalf of the mothers, in case you didn't notice.

[uppityperson]

310. You don't deny adult men the right to rape 13 yr olds? I do.

Unlike you. By lizzy. Done with you.

[LisaL]

315. I don't like making shit up. You should try to avoid it also.

I have never said anything of the sort.
I am done with you too.

[uppityperson]

318. "I don't deny anything to anyone." direct quote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3325735&mesg_id=3327980
pshaw.

[musette_sf]

323. liars often get confused

trying to keep the lies straight.

[uppityperson]

325. Makes it less difficult when it's in writing. Right there.

But still....

[LisaL]

331. Oh. I guess you would know all about it?

[musette_sf]

333. i didn't realize i was arguing with a child

"i know you are but what am i?"

sheesh, the Pee Wee Herman defense. you really have nothing left to defend yourself, or your support of child rape and ownership of women and children.

[LisaL]

334. I don't need to defend myself.

Not from some ****** on the message board anyway. I agree with everything appeals court said.

[musette_sf]

339. so don't post here.

so easy to solve your problem.

[Wizard777]

367. If you're trying to make Lizzy feel unwelcome here. You're violating the rules.

But it does no good to report these things.

[uppityperson]

374. Maybe it's not a rule violation. But please continue to alert on posts you think are.

Eventually the mods catch on. Thanks.

[musette_sf]

375. "she" said "she" didn't have to defend herself

to someone on some message board. i thought it might ease "her" mind to stop posting.

actually i think you're making me feel unwelcome, with your approval of ownership of women and children and all that.

[Wizard777]

386. If you can't handle Lizzy 's opinions. It's up to you to remove yourself.

Just as I did previously because of personal attacks that were getting under my skin. I think Lizzy has a thick skin and is doing wonderfully in represent the otherside of the arguement. She is every bit as welcome here as you are.

[musette_sf]

389. way to project and shift blame!

i can handle "her" opinions. except "she" has so many conflicting ones and "she" just can't keep them straight.

[uppityperson]

336. Someone who believes you don't get thrown into jail until you're convicted.

And that you can't believe anything ex-wives say.

[LisaL]

340. Don't make shit up.

I have not stated you can't believe anything ex-wifes say.

[musette_sf]

342. as to the ex-wives comment

gee, i wonder why Merril hasn't sued Carolyn.

oh, yeah, because she might be right, and she might have the Atty General of Utah on her side.

[musette_sf]

311. what about the children

who have NO mother or father at the cult compound?

"i don't deny anything to anyone"

you don't deny child rape to elderly megalomaniacs.

you don't deny women and children abuse and brainwashing.

yeah, you're so generous.

[Wizard777]

326. Right here!

FLDS lawyers balk at CPS plans for children

Also on Monday, CPS acknowledged that it was investigating conditions at Jim H. Green Kidz Harbor, one of the facilities where Eldorado kids have been placed. Shari Pulliam, CPS spokeswoman, said the agency began looking at the site on Friday in response to a complaint, but would not give specifics except to say that "there is concern with child-staff ratio, supplies, and children not receiving their medication."

Kidz Harbor managers did not return a call Monday night.

The foster-care home has previously been in trouble with the state for staffing and supervision issues, including one time in February when two residents were caught having sex, according to state records.



:blush: Oh you weren't talking about evidence of CPS abusing the FLDS children. Were you?

[musette_sf]

328. children didn't get any medicine AT ALL

in many cases at the FLDS compounds... they got a "priesthood blessing" instead, and their mothers were told that their child's sickness was proof that they were insufficiently obedient and "sweet". and that their child would only get better if the mother knuckled down to more abuse.

[Wizard777]

338. That's bull crap. I saw one of the mother crying on Larry King.

One of her kids was sick and had to take medicine. She was afriad that CPS or a foster family might know how to properly care for her child. She was afraid the child would not get their medicine.

[musette_sf]

341. that may very well be true

but the "priesthood blessings" instead of proper medical care are also true, and the abusing of women by telling them their insufficient obedience caused their child's sickness is also true. i guess maybe the child in question must be a favorite of Merril's if s/he is getting proper medical care and medication. i don't think Carolyn Jessop is lying about what she endured with her disabled child in the cult.

[Wizard777]

354. That also very well may be true.

But you have to remember that editors demand sensationalism. That's what sells books. People will embelish to meet those demands. Hell we live in an age where they even want to "sex up" the NIE. I take everything I read with a grain of salt.

[musette_sf]

355. oh, i see.

so Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall are "embellishing".

and the Larry King Show would never, ever sensationalize anything.

[Wizard777]

369. I'm still trying to figure how their escape makes them incapable of lying.

:shrug:

[musette_sf]

371. again, i see.

women who escape the cult are lying.

women who fear losing everything because of the lawlessness in the compound are telling the truth.

right.

[Wizard777]

380. No I'm just saying that both are equally capable of lying.

CPS is getting caught in lie after lie. They should be up to their eyeballs in perjury charges.

[musette_sf]

382. way to change the subject!

and so libertarian of you.

on edit: and that's why Merril Jessop brought a successful suit against Carolyn for lying about him.

oh, right, that didn't happen. the atty general of Utah also believes Carolyn. but you go right on ahead accusing her of lying.

[libodem]

149. Another thing

that enters my mind as a concern is what about all the other compounds from Mexico to Canada? This only one of hundreds of these same type of outfits. What's good for one ought to be good for all of them. Why traumatize only one group of children when there are hundreds to take from their parents and place into foster care? This has been tried before and the consensus was that the trauma to the children out weighed the benefits. Not that I approve of being issued as an object for some gross old man to 'marry'. Are the 'marriages' even legal? I think the young girls should have a choice, to stay, to marry, to leave the sect if they want to. The whole thing is a mess and there are many facets to consider.

[cornermouse]

190. Indeed.

Why bother to have laws and penalties for child abuse of any kind at all? :sarcasm: We'll just kick it back under the rug where no one can see it.

[LisaL]

245. Oh for crying out get a clue.

Lots of you screaming child abuse and pedophilia does not make it so.
Appeal courts decision is very clear and I agree with every word.
The FLDS members do not belong to one household.
The CPS did not come up with specific evidence of abuse against most of the specific children removed.
Parents beliefs are not in themselves grounds for removing the children.
The teenage girls being pregnant does not necessarily mean they have been abused or laws have been broken. The teenage girl could be married, the father could be a teenager himself, or teenage girl could be above the age of consent.

[musette_sf]

249. i believe Carolyn Jessop and Elissa Wall

not you.

if the parents believe that child rape is acceptable, and that a family can be taken from one man and reassigned to another, i think those beliefs are very wrong. do you?

[LisaL]

261. You can believe whoever and whatever it is you want to believe.

What exactly do your beliefs have to do with the law?

[musette_sf]

263. if my "beliefs" say to commit illegal acts

then my "beliefs" have something to do with the law. if i act on them then i am breaking the law.

[musette_sf]

314. abuse, child rape, and ownership of women and children

are against the law.

[LisaL]

409. It's the women (the mothers) who are asking for their children back.

Which you ignore.

[musette_sf]

257. yep, Texas now goes down the same path

as Utah and Arizona. kick it under the rug.

[Aragorn]

178. Texas CPS

There is a long history of CPS over-stepping the law, and its own goals, in Texas.

That is a separate issue from protecting minors, as in this case.

But the finding that half the CPS accusations - at least - were false, says a lot.

Rather than give many specific examples let me say that in my job I have seen many, many wrong choices by CPS, both directions.

I have also seen many false accusations, such as the one which started this, used to "investigate" and accuse innocent people who someone in Texas law enforcement simply doesn't like.

Do most DU posters believe TX law enforcement is above that? How about CPS, particularly the law enforcement part of CPS' role?

[truedelphi]

207. What gives when it is the kids pushed out of their homes

While the alleged perps get to remain behind??

That whole policy needs serious reconsideration.

[SlipperySlope]

198. Let the lawsuits begin. I think those families are going to be getting Texas $$$ for a long time.

N/T

[madmusic]

204. Then they get get off the welfare they were never on

Except in the news.

[pleah]

228. Well, hell I could have told you that when they did this,

I said that this was not good all the way around. THEY FUCKED UP! Plain and simple.

[madmusic]

243. Well, rec then for the Consitiution

It's still alive.

[pleah]

264. Well, hell, I'll do anything to protect our Constitution!

to add: But, if they broke the law on storming this religious sect, then they should be held accountable, period! NO ONE is above the law. I don't care what you think these people did or what they did. If law enforcement did not follow the law then they should be held accountalbe for it.

[SoCalDem]

255. The men need to be tossed in the clink.,...polygamy is ILLEGAL

and some of these same people who look away from this shit, are the SAME ones who want that FENCE built to keep ILLEEEEEGALS out..

I guess some illegal is more illegal than other illegals..

These people are DEFRAUDING the state of Texas through the welfare they collect for their harems, and yes the lifestyle they practice IS abuse..

[LisaL]

These people in TX were NOT on welfare.

Doesn't matter how many times posters here repeat it-it's not gonna make it so.

[musette_sf]

260. they were sending the welfare money from Utah

to support the compound in Texas. welfare is welfare.

[LisaL]

262. Oh right. Another baseless allegation.

What evidence do you have in support of your claim?

[musette_sf]

268. it'll come out in court

just like the fact that many of the children who were rescued, had no biological parent at the cult compound. one of the cult defenders didn't think that was true when i posted that last week, either.

[uppityperson]

271. I wonder what was found out about that Canadian girl. Do you know?

[musette_sf]

274. i read that the cover story put out by the cult

that she was there "visiting her grandmother" was found to be a lie and that there was no "grandmother" at the cult compound. also that the cover story put out by the cult that she was there for only a "few weeks" was found to be a lie also.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080519.POLYGAMY19/TPStory/National

[uppityperson]

279. That is the last I heard also. Lies, lies and more lies.

[SoCalDem]

266. and how would 68 men (that's the number I heard on CNN) support all those HUNDREDS

of children and women??

In the "real world" , CPS agents can and DO investigate families who cannot support their children, and sometimes the children are put into foster care if the parents cannot support them..

Whatever property/wealth there is there, should be turned over to a trust for the women & kids & the men tossed in jail..

Those big ole buildings should be turned into REAL schools & living centers to help these women & kids assimilate into at least the 20th century..

[LisaL]

272. This is US. Which means people aren't tossed in jail

until and unless they have been convicted of something.
Of course I am reading all of this on DU, so why should I be surprised?

[SoCalDem]

273. They could/should be arrested and THEN tossed in jail?? Okay with you ??

They are ABUSING those women & kids.. or are you okay with that too??

[LisaL]

278. One little problem with that as well.

If the women who live on this ranch aren't complaining of abuse, who are you to say otherwise?

[SoCalDem]

280. I'm done ..

:)thanks for playing:)

[uppityperson]

281. I guess you have never worked with abuse, or with domestic violence.

[musette_sf]

292. see my comment below

about protective orders. this is just so sad, that anyone would defend child rape, abuse, and treatment of women and children as property. anyone who would defend them either has a stake in it and something to gain from it... or they're libertarian.

[uppityperson]

277. Bwahahahahahah. Are you series!

"people aren't tossed in jail until and unless they have been convicted of something."

No, they are arrested and tossed in jail for supposedly breaking the law. Then they get a trial and get convicted or set free. Though some are able to bail themselves out first and some get set free when it is determined that they were arrested erroneously.

Not tossed in jail until they are convicted. Right.:eyes:

[musette_sf]

259. the problem is, Utah has been taking the

"lock up the men" tack. convicting Warren Jeffs did NOTHING to stop this child rape cult of abuse. it probably strengthened them, as will happen in cults when they perceive their leader as a "martyr". Texas has the right idea: TAKE AWAY THE CHILDREN. start there, and THEN go after the lawbreakers.

Texas has 10 days to appeal. I pray for the children, and for any women who will stand up for the basic human rights and dignity of her children, that Texas will be able to continue their investigation.

[LisaL]

275. Only one little problem there. For CPS to take the children,

the children have to be in immediate danger. The FLDS members do not belong to one household. Thus, the state can not take their children as a group.
Appeals court made that very clear.

[musette_sf]

285. just wait, Texas has 10 days to appeal

and there will be much more information that will uphold the rescue of the children.

it's so sad... it's just like when an abused woman tries to get a protective order. often she can't get the order because she can't "prove" her danger "sufficiently". then the guy kills her. so you can't get the protective order until you can PROVE that the guy is on your doorstep with the gun, when it's too late. FLDS is domestic violence writ very, very large.

[LisaL]

290. Have you even been following the hearings that went on so far?

What extra information did CPS present? In fact CPS had to concede some of the women held as minors were in fact adults.

[musette_sf]

294. every day

and believe me, they are FAR from done. hopefully the appeal will allow them to finish the rescue job.

[LisaL]

303. I don't know what it is you have been following.

When a mother shows up, whose six year old has been removed, and the state says there is no evidence of physical or sexual abuse, why was that six year old removed from his mother?

[musette_sf]

307. if the authorities do not rescue the children

then the abuse will NEVER stop. Utah goes after the men. they convicted Warren Jeffs. that stopped NOTHING. rescuing the children gets their attention. going after the men accomplishes NOTHING. Texas did the right thing and the rescue will be upheld on appeal.

[LisaL]

332. I guess you missed that appeal court didn't upheld it?

Or what?

[musette_sf]

351. Texas has 10 days to appeal.

it's far from over.

[uppityperson]

293. Indeed. eom

[alarimer]

284. A win for the child molesters in this perverted cult.

Sad.

Those poor girls will never know what's it's like to live a normal life, free to be whatever they want. Instead they belong to the perverted assholes in this "religion". Sick.

[Brigid]

301. So the appellate court sees nothing wrong with . . .

that sect producing obviously pregnant underage girls?

[LisaL]

305. If TX allows teenagers to marry at 16 with parental consent,

then obviously pregnant teenage girl in itself is not even evidence of any crime.

[musette_sf]

317. only the first "wives" are legal

so there are no "marriages", there is only child rape.

[LisaL]

320. So say you.

You have no idea of the status of these teenagers.
You should really read the appeal's court decision on this.

[musette_sf]

321. the law in Texas prohibits bigamy.

if the "husband" is legally married to Wife #1, then no legal marriage can exist with any other "wives".

[LisaL]

329. Not all of FLDS members have multiple wives.

There are families who are monogamous. They are not one and the same.
It's all very simple. You start with the idea that just because they live on the ranch does not make them one household. And it all goes from there.

[musette_sf]

344. so ALL of the pregnant teenagers

were legally married to men who had no other "wives", "spiritual" or otherwise. right.

even you don't believe that. you may protest to the contrary, but even you don't believe that.

[LisaL]

345. It really doesn't matter what I believe.

Read what appeals court said about this very issue.
Just the fact that 16 or 17 year old is pregnant doesn't by itself mean any crime has been committed.

[musette_sf]

348. if it doesn't matter what you believe

then why are you posting here? you obviously don't give a whit for the women and children. you've already proved that you believe in ownership of women and children, slavery, abandonment and child rape.

just wait and see on the appeal by the state. you'll be back in your hidey hole again and we won't hear from you.

[LisaL]

356. Hah? I have never once stated anything of the sort.

But what else should I expect here?

[musette_sf]

364. you are defending the FLDS

and your defense is de facto support of their practices.

i guess they don't teach logic at Alta Academy.

[LisaL]

366. I am defending their right to be treated as any of us under the

US law. No more, no less.

[musette_sf]

368. if you are breaking the law

how should you be treated?

[LisaL]

383. According to the law.

There is no mystery here.

[musette_sf]

390. okay, from non-logic to non-sequitur

you're losing it.

[Wizard777]

423. and if CPS is breaking the law. How should they be treated?

Surely you don't support a double standard. Because right now we have more evidence of CPS Crimes than FLDS crimes.

1) Genocide
2) Kidnapping
3) False imprisionment
4) Perjury
5) Child Abuse

[Wizard777]

391. I can't see how Bigamy is possible under Texas law.

There is no way for you to have more than one legal wife.

[musette_sf]

349. i lived in Texas for 14 years and i know the laws.

bigamy is illegal in Texas.

[LisaL]

358. As of now bigamy is illegal in every state of the US.

But while CPS talked about pregnant minors, it failed to provide evidence as to what their status is. In TX it's not illegal for someone to have sex with a minor in a legal marriage.
Read the appeals court decision already.

[musette_sf]

361. reference your post below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3325735&mesg_id=3327970

you said "marry". not "have sex". make up your mind what you are defending here.

i'm guessing you're a former student of the illustrious Alta Academy. or maybe even a teacher there, g-d forbid, since that required no credentials. you are having a really hard time keeping your argument straight, and that's an understatement.

[LisaL]

365. You have lost me completely.

It would be legal for someone to have sex with his wife.

[musette_sf]

370. refer back to "bigamy"

and don't worry, i won't let you lose your place. i know that logic is confusing to those who don't understand it, or don't want to understand it, or are pretending they don't understand it.

[LisaL]

392. Try to use a bit of logic. Not all of the men on the ranch have

more than one wife.
Thus, you assumption that some 16 year old on the ranch couldn't possibly be legally married (in accordance with TX law) has to be wrong.

[Wizard777]

343. Once you divorce the first wife. The second wife becomes the legal wife.

[musette_sf]

346. and this is okay with you?

these are the "family values" you want those rescued kids relegated to?

marry, divorce the first wife, marry the second wife, divorce the second wife, marry the third wife.

repeat ad infinitum.

even you don't believe this is the case at the compound.

[cornermouse]

360. Irregardless, I think if you looked into it you'd see that

polygamists don't believe in divorce. Nothing has been said about these men divorcing anyone. They're just marrying the first wife and fixing up little private ceremonies that have no legal standing and no significance outside the compound. Don't let him get to you.

[musette_sf]

363. don't worry, he's not getting to me.

it's too easy to catch these defenders of women and children as property in their twisted "logic". i know full well that the FLDSers are not, in general, divorcing the legal wife. i'm just taking his specious argument to the sick extreme.

[Wizard777]

378. Personally I don't have a problem with Polygamy. But I also don't have a problem with gay marriage.

I'm old school hon. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is their business.

My veiws on marriage are simple. There should be two forms of marriage. Church and state. If you are married in a church. Your marriage will be governed by church law. If you are married at the State House. Your marriage will be governed by state law. If you do not want your marriage governed by church law. Do not get married in a church. If you do not want to your marriage governed by state law. Don't get married in the State House. Both will have the obligation to furnish the couple with the laws that will govern their marriage before the ceremony can take place.

[musette_sf]

385. Senator Obama can call me "sweetie" any time

but take your patronizing "hon" and stick it.

under your "simple" law, the Sharia law practice of allowing a man to say to his wife "I divorce you" 3 times constitutes a legal divorce. just one example.

your "simple" law is a rats' nest, and an abuser's dream come true.

[Name removed]

410. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WolverineDG]

352. No, they found that CPS didn't prove it

at least to the 38 women who appealled the decision.


dg

[musette_sf]

335. talk about selective careful phrasing!

From the AP: Sect elder Willie Jessop said the parents were elated, but added: "There will be no celebrations until some little children are getting hugs from their parents." (emphasis mine)

way to skirt the issue of the children with NO biological parents at the cult compound. and way to skirt the issue of the children whose biological father has been banished by Warren Jeffs.

sidestepping worthy of Dana Perino. what slime the FLDS men are.

[Geek_Girl]

359. It seems to me Texas Officials botched this up by not following due process

and it's those children who are going to pay the price for it.

[musette_sf]

377. has anyone here noticed

that the judges on the Third Court of Appeals who were on the panel, were ALL men and ALL Repukes?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421625160

i'd say that's biased. there are two female Dem judges on the Court. interesting that they weren't on the panel.

[LisaL]

384. Has anyone here noticed that TX Governor Rick Perry is a male

and a repuke, and he was all so supportive of CPS?
I didn't notice you complaining then.

[musette_sf]

387. way to change the subject!

logic-free argument, the tool of the troll.

[Wizard777]

420. Yep and those repukes, conservative repukes at that, are all about government authority.

CPS is in Sheep dip. They Screwed up THAT DAMNED BAD. They have the repukes saying the government screwed up and shouldn't have that much authority. :wow: :hide: (looking to see if birds are flying backwards.)

[Catherine Vincent]

402. Interesting that this was ruled right after the news reported how much it would

cost to protect these children. I don't remember the exact amount but it was something like $30 million.

[LisaL]

408. TX already spend millions on it.

And if FLDS members sue, who knows. It might cost TX a lot more.
By the way here is an example of what went on with the child removal.
A legally married monogamous couple got six kids removed from them just because they lived on that ranch.
http://sites.google.com/a/trla.org/eldorado-media-updates/legal-documents/support_letter.PDF?attredirects=2
This is legally married couple, who moved to that ranch of their own choice, from another state, because they wanted to protect their children. And look what happened.

[Wizard777]

418. Yep, the lawsuits could end up costing Texas 1 Billion. Real easy.

Even if each child is only awarded 1 million each. That's 460 million. That's almost half way to 1 billion. That's just the children. Then you have the adult mothers that gave birth while being held hostage by the state. They weren't allowed to bond with their newborn. That psychologically damages the child. 18 years of Psychiatric care the state will have to pay for.

If they sue for Genocide. What did the Jews get from Germany? Something like 100 Billion. Oh yeah, the lawyers will eat Texas alive.

[LisaL]

421. If you read the link in my previous post, the attorney for the

three of the six children removed from the law-abiding, monogamous family talks about studies showing how children who are separated from their parents suffer from PTSD.
And how the mother of these children has to drive around TX to visit them.
And how this family loved it on the ranch, how they moved to this ranch from another state because they wanted a rural lifestyle.
And how there is no evidence any of these six children were abused.
But hey, let's just listen to Nancy Grace.

[Wizard777]

425. Lizzy , I have to say this proving to be far from what people believe to be a typical FLDS Sect.

From what I understand they believe pure blood doctrine. So it's highly unusual for them to accept "outsiders" like that couple. With sects that believe pure blood doctrine. They usually will not accept Converts. You must be born into the Sect. But I had heard that this particular Sect was trying to break from Jeffs without breaking from fundmental mormonism. It's looking like that true.

[Wizard777]

426. Maybe not. Now the Texas Senate wants to seize FLDS assest to pay the costs.

Senate panel suggests taking FLDS sect's assets to cover costs

If they do that. Add Highway Robbery to the charges against Texas. Although this might actually be railroad robbery. Not to be confused with train robbery.

[madmusic]

427. Number of underage mothers claimed by Texas continues to dwindle (to 8)

By Michelle Roberts
Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2008 02:20:36 AM MDT

Updated: 5:26 PM- SAN ANGELO, Texas - Tina Louise Steed had just one question for a judge who declared her an adult Thursday morning.
"I'm wondering how come they wouldn't believe my ID in the first place?" she asked Judge Jay Weatherby.
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services acknowledged that Tina Louise and three other "disputed minors" are actually adult women - admissions that came as the Third Court of Appeals in Austin ruled it never had sufficient evidence to remove any children from a polygamous sect.
At least three more women were to be declared adults Thursday afternoon or Friday, but those hearings were canceled after word of the decision reached the Tom Green County Courthouse.
And more are on the docket next week.
The admissions by the state left a rapidly diminishing count of women in a disputed age category that is central to its claim of underage mothers found at the YFZ Ranch.
The state alleged that 31 women ages 14 to 17 were pregnant, mothers or both, a count that included 26 mothers whose ages were disputed.
As of noon Thursday, just eight mothers remained in the disputed category.

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9346914

[madmusic]

428. Mental Health Workers Blast CPS's child and mother abuse

Caregivers blast Texas' treatment of polygamous sect's women, children

"The floor was literally slick with tears..."
# Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children. "This was a travesty."
# "This situation was a tragedy."
# "It was heartwrenching."
# "Our roles bacame... confidant and a broker."
# "That is a very good question."
# "Ashamed of being a Texan."
# "I often felt helpless."
# "Vast amounts of hypocrisy."
# "Even to be an observer was difficult."
# "This incident... is not what America or Texas stands for."
# "Even the simplest request was discounted."

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9238520