El Dorado's Mormon Thing

[alexamenos]

among all this, it shouldn't be forgotten that there are multiple ways for 16 year old girls to get pregnant that do not involve statutory rape....


chasing off behind the barn with a 16 year old boy, for example. given the dirth of contraceptive materials on the compound it seems quite plausible that this might explain a pregnant young lady or two.

also, girls can very legally get married at the age of 16 with parental consent -- consumating a marriage is not statutory rape.

[jefelump]

But it's not marriage. They have no marriage license, so legally they are not married. So there is no marriage to consumate.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

among all this, it shouldn't be forgotten that there are multiple ways for 16 year old girls to get pregnant that do not involve statutory rape....


chasing off behind the barn with a 16 year old boy, for example. given the dirth of contraceptive materials on the compound it seems quite plausible that this might explain a pregnant young lady or two.

also, girls can very legally get married at the age of 16 with parental consent -- consumating a marriage is not statutory rape.

I think I have explained this numerous times.

1)they are married and therefore are guilty of polygamy
2)they are not married and therefore are guilty of statutory rape

The "fundies" have for years avoided the anti-polygamy laws by not getting legally married. They are "spiritually married" by their church but without a marriage license. They are not married as far as the law of the state is concerned. Since they are not legally married, then they have not legally committed polygamy.

The most recent "prophet" decided that they could marry 16 year old girls. Previously, they had to wait until they were 18. If the "fundies" followed the previous advice to wait until the girls were 18, then CPS and the state and the Fed would have absolutely no legal recourse against them. Under the law if a man has five 18 year old sex partners, he has committed no crime. If a man has five wives of any age he has committed a crime (polygamy). But, when you talk about 16 year olds and 17 year olds, now the law is different. It is statutory rape for a man 18 or older to have sex with a girl under the age of 18 unless he married to her legally. In the state of Texas, 16 year olds can get legally married with the consent of their parents. But, the "fundies" did not get legally married. Since they are not legally married, they have not committed polygamy but they have committed statutory rape. When you are talking about girls younger than 16 in the state of Texas it is always statutory rape no matter the other details.

Now, granted, Alex is right that two 16 year olds can have sex and the only problem they have is with their parents. It is not statutory rape. But, I don't think this little "fundie" group has a problem with that. Believe it or not, they are a "moral" people within the "moral" rules they believe in.

The legal case for CPS and the State of Texas is starting to take real shape now. It is clear that the legal attack is directed at statutory rape. The state cannot show polygamy. But, the state can show statutory rape if they can determine the age of the girls with certainty. The fact that they are not legally married means they have been raped under the letter of the law so long as the man was 18 or older. It is clear that this is the legal attack angle. After they determine that statutory rape is quite common in this group, then you will see the arrests of the adults.

[alexamenos]

the cps has apparently launched a propaganda initiative, and it's kind of a sleazy initiative in my view....

link.

Misleading PR initiative by DFPS muddies YFZ Ranch debate

The Texas Department of Family Protective Services this week launched an aggressive public relations initiative to justify its raid on the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, and increasingly their much-hyped claims appear awfully thin.

First they issued statistics alleging 60% of teen girls at the ranch were pregnant or had kids, without adding that more than 80% of the girls so identified disputed the agency's assessment of their ages. (See "Lies and Statistics") I'm not sure I've ever seen a case where the state repeatedly labels supposed abuse victims "liars" in the press, but that appears to be DFPS' current media approach.

Then yesterday at a hearing of the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee, DFPS said they're investigating "possible sexual abuse of some young boys." Uh ... based on what, exactly? They provided the committee zero detail beyond the salacious topline allegations, which dominate this morning's headlines. Anything's "possible," but abuse allegations against FLDS in other states have focused on underage girls, to my knowledge never molestation of young boys. It's similarly "possible" the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Even more disingenuous was out-of-context testimony to the committee declaring 41 kids had been found to have had broken bones at some point in the past. Not mentioned: That's probably a LOWER rate of broken bones than experienced by kids in the outside world! Reacting to an account of the hearing by MSNBC, UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh explains why that assertion was misleading:


the particular news account here strikes me as a highly unhelpful, and potentially misleading, use of statistics, because it (1) includes the numerator in the headline, and leaves the denominator for paragraph seven, and (2) suggests that the number is significant evidence of abuse, without even trying to provide a comparison with the broken-bone rate among ordinary, nonabused children. The story does later quote the state agency as saying, "We do not have X-rays or complete medical information on many children so it is too early to draw any conclusions based on this information, but it is cause for concern and something we’ll continue to examine," but that does little, I think, to undercut the attention that MSNBC focused on the 41 number in its headline.

After Prof. Volokh posted that, FWIW, MSNBC actually changed its web headline, though the story still includes the misleading statements he cites. Volokh is right these news accounts are, to say the least, "highly unhelpful." But grandstanding and irresponsible media coverage isn't the whole story. IMO the release of such speculative information to the press amount to overt media manipulation by DFPS. Their court case appears weaker and weaker as time goes on, so they're trying the case in the press.

I'd like to believe DFPS is not acting in bad faith by releasing these data, but I can't help but wonder, if there really was widespread abuse going on at the YFZ Ranch would this CYA disinformation campaign be necessary?

[wmbwinn]

More support for the CPS in its actions against the FLDS:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20080501.html

This, I believe, is written by a lawyer or someone more knowledgeable than I about the law.

It still appears to me that the legal issue is proving statutory rape. In order to prove that, they have to be able to determine the girls' ages and the age of the fathers...

That apparently won't be easy. Apparently, the State of Texas and CPS are saying the birth certificates and State IDs are inaccurate. And, as Jefelump pointed out, they have made no moves towards any adults at this point. The men may not be anywhere near the compound in El Dorado and it may be very difficult to:
1)prove paternalism (who the father is). You have to find the man and a judge has to sign a forced DNA test against the man's wishes.
2)prove paternalism with pregnant girls. You would have to either wait for the childbirth to do genetic testing or do an amniocentesis. I don't think a judge is going to give them free play to do amniocentesis against the girls/woman's choice.
3)If incest is as common here as the State/CPS says it is, then it is not easy to sort out which male (among several cousins and uncles) is definitely the father. It can be done. But, it requires higher tech testing and compliant men and they have to find the men...

If the girls/womens' IDs and birth certificates are frauds, then it will be absolutely impossible to determine the exact age of the pregnant (or previously pregnant) girls. We still don't know how hold Mutombo is. We never will. There is no medical way to determine exactly how old someone is. A doctor cannot say "this girl is 15, this one is 16, this one is 17, and this one is 18."

[alexamenos]

wmb....

I don't feel like dissecting this article piece by piece, but basically, the chick misses the point....

Free Exercise: An Even Weaker Argument than Due Process, For Belief Is No Defense to Crime

The even weaker argument circulating, once again encouraged by the FLDS lawyers, is that the rescue somehow violated the FLDS's right to the freedom of religion.

the point is not that "belief is a defense to crime", but rather that "belief is not in and of itself a crime".

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

who knew ...... the rocket had a suite at the FLDS ranch ?
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...r_fling_w.html

the rocket AND the mailman....

http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33048

man this is getting disgusting. 15 years old... TWELVE years old!!!???

[alexamenos]

well....that would certainly explain why he played in Utah for such a long time.

[wmbwinn]

Alex, the legal attack is all about statutory rape. There are many statements about "abuse" and "polygamy" and other words are used. But, legally, this is a charge of statutory rape. And, if they can prove that the FLDS group committed fraud in the birth certificates and state IDs, then you have the charge of Conspiracy to commit statutory rape.

I agree that it is no crime to believe what you want to believe. I agree that the motivation behind the seizing of children has little to do with the legal position. I agree that the motivation to act against this group is a lot bigger than statutory rape. I agree that they are being attacked for their beliefs.

But, the legal issue is statutory rape and conspiracy.

And, a person's religious beliefs are not a defense for crime.
And, a person's religious beliefs do not constitute a crime. But, criminal actions for any reason (whether or not committed under the banner of a religion) is still a criminal action.

If a person believes in human sacrifice, that belief is no legal defense for murder.
Same here. The religious belief will be no defense for statutory rape and conspiracy to commit statutory rape.

[alexamenos]

wmb --

Whatever the legal attack may be at some point in the future, the fact remains that no specific persons have been charged by the State with statutory rape as it stands today. What has happened, unquestionably, is that the State has taken children from parents on the grounds that the parents' beliefs may somehow one day in the indeterminate future lead to child abuse vis a vis statutory rape.

what is important to understand, i think, is that the law is sufficiently explicit in regards to when the State can take children from their parents:

§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF CHILD.
An original suit filed by a governmental entity that requests permission to take possession of a child without prior notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:

(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare;

(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under Subchapter C; and

(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.

Each of these conditions must be met for the state to lawfully take children from a parent. But the thing is....none of these conditions were satisfied for the vast, vast majority of the children abducted by the state (with the possible exception of the 3 or 6 or 31 girls who may have been pregnant at some time in the past and who also may have been minors in the past). I mean....I'm a reasonably prudent and cautious person, and I don't think a 4 year old boy is in immediate danger because at some point in the next decade he might be taught that it's good to have more than one wife.

Moreover, although the State is required to make reasonable efforts to provide for the safety of the child without removing the children from his/her parents, the State has gone out of its way to ensure nothing short of complete separation of 1 year old + children from their parents.

I think the State is way, way, way out of bounds, and the recent spate of malicious propaganda is an effort by the State to conceal their very unsound position by pumping up hatred for the flds.

[Ninkobei]

The state may indeed be way out of bounds, but you have to admit that the Compounds is peaking the out-of-bounds marker itself. I agree that the state may have over reached in tearing down the whole compound, but can you imagine how long it would take for the state to individually file abuse cases and hold hearings for each of them? That would take years. By that time some of the girls could be coerced into not filing charges on the older men.

The reason no one has been charged with statutory rape yet is that DNA tests havent come back. They take about a month and as soon as they are in there will be a lot of old farts going to jail, I am willing to bet on that.

The Lesser of Two Evils.

[wmbwinn]

CPS seems to have broader power than what you quoted above. CPS removes children every day without meeting those 3 rules you listed.

I am no lawyer. But, I think that CPS has a different set of rules.

The rules that you listed either don't apply to CPS or CPS routinely gets away with ignoring them.

I am willing to admit that I don't have a clue which one of those statements is correct.

My experience (watching others suffer through CPS investigations) and observation is that CPS can remove any child for any minor reason if they "feel" their is a risk to the child (or a risk from the child towards others). CPS appears to be an entity under the executive branch that does not have to worry about the civil rights issues of "innocent until proven guilty." CPS routinely removes children and then turns the matter over to courts to decide what to do after the fact. Most children (in the cases I have seen) are returned to their parents by the courts. The courts are the conservative voice of legal reason. CPS appears able to act on "the appearance" or "reasonable cause to worry" position to seize children. They do it every day.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

The state may indeed be way out of bounds, but you have to admit that the Compounds is peaking the out-of-bounds marker itself. I agree that the state may have over reached in tearing down the whole compound, but can you imagine how long it would take for the state to individually file abuse cases and hold hearings for each of them? That would take years. By that time some of the girls could be coerced into not filing charges on the older men.

The reason no one has been charged with statutory rape yet is that DNA tests havent come back. They take about a month and as soon as they are in there will be a lot of old farts going to jail, I am willing to bet on that.

The Lesser of Two Evils.

You can't convict the "old farts" without their DNA to match to the children. The only way that CPS can currently match men to the pregnancies or to statutory rape is if they found semen on/in the girls that they could test. Even in that case, they will have to test the men to match.

In order to test the men, they have to find the men.
In order to test the men, they have to have a court order to violate the man's civil rights and test him against his wishes.
And, finally, they are going to have to do a lot testing and re-testing to sort through issues of incest as that confuses DNA matching.

This will be a long process and the State/CPS will have to have a lot of cooperation from the courts to push far enough to prove statutory rape. And, there is still the issue of proving the age of the girls which cannot be done if there are no accurate records.

After all of the emotion, the legal case is (I repeat myself) quite simple. They are not guilty of polygamy because they are not legally married. They may prove that a man has 20 "spiritual wives" but if he is not legally married to more than one and if all 20 women are 18 or older, then he has committed no crime based on the laws of the land (this is no reference to the laws of morality/God).

If the men are indeed proven to be having sex with girls young enough in Texas to qualify as statutory rape, then suddenly there is a legal case. And, if they prove statutory rape, then they can also pursue the case of Conspiracy to commit statutory rape.

If they stick to charges of statutory rape, then only the men proven to have committed that crime are in trouble. If they prove Conspiracy to commit statutory rape, then the whole FLDS system and leadership is in big trouble.

So, where do you think the legal team is going??? They are going to prove statutory rape if they can (and they only have to succeed in proving a few cases). Then they are going to prove Conspiracy and try to shut the whole system down. And, based on the conspiracy charge, all of the children will never see their parents again.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

CPS seems to have broader power than what you quoted above. CPS removes children every day without meeting those 3 rules you listed.

the CPS may break the law on a frequent basis, but those are nonetheless the rules governing when the CPS may take children from parents.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

The state may indeed be way out of bounds, but you have to admit that the Compounds is peaking the out-of-bounds marker itself. I agree that the state may have over reached in tearing down the whole compound, but can you imagine how long it would take for the state to individually file abuse cases and hold hearings for each of them? That would take years. By that time some of the girls could be coerced into not filing charges on the older men.

The reason no one has been charged with statutory rape yet is that DNA tests havent come back. They take about a month and as soon as they are in there will be a lot of old farts going to jail, I am willing to bet on that.

The Lesser of Two Evils.

I find the notion that government lawbreaking is something to be tolerated so long as we imagine that the ends justify the means frightening and abhorrent.

cheers

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I find the notion that government lawbreaking is something to be tolerated so long as we imagine that the ends justify the means frightening and abhorrent.

cheers

well I find that religious cults who seclude themselves from the rest of the world and allow their older members to sleep with young teens to be frightening and abhorrent. cheers.

[alexamenos]

link....

Judge orders FLDS newborn into state custody


By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writers
© 2008 The Associated Press


SAN ANTONIO — A judge ordered that the baby boy born to a teenager taken from a polygamist sect's ranch in West Texas be placed in state custody, according to documents released Thursday.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed the order Wednesday giving the state custody of the 1-day-old infant born to a teen believed to be 15 or 16 years old.

The girl has claimed to be 18 and based on a bishop's record used during the custody hearing two weeks ago, she would be 18 now. But officials believe she is younger and placed her in foster care with other children taken from the ranch.

The newborn is the teen's second child; the first is a 20-month-old boy. The father of both children was identified as Jackson Jessop, 22, but state officials say they don't know his whereabouts.

Many things could be addressed here, but the most obvious question that comes to mind is 'what evidence does the state have that this women had abused her 1 day old child?'

The presumption of guilt by the state in this case (the whole FLDS case) is so overwhelming that it simply can't be ignored.

now, the worst one can say about this women and her husband is that perhaps she conceived her first child when she was 15 and he was 20.....statutory rape, anyone?

certainly, here we have the case of a crime committed which will presumably carry a rather severe penalty, notwithstanding that as recently as 1 year before the crime in the State of Texas and for the several many millenia before that, it was not at a crime at all, but rather a marriage between a man and a woman.

so, here we have a case where for all we know, the man loves the woman very much and the man and woman have been dutiful, caring parents. but the state, in its infinite wisdom, has devised a law which deems their act of marital consumation a violent crime, notwithstanding that the victim makes no complaint, and proceeds to render asunder a husband from his wife while taking children from presumably loving parents and placing them into a system where they will undeniably be in greater danger than the general population.

anyhoo...i got a kick out of these comments on how the state knows best...

I'm all for the whole sale round up of abused children and their parents. Put the children into a safe government environment. And put the parents in jail and throw away the key.
I say lets get cracking. We should start with the parents of the baby boys who had their child sexually mutilated for life. Then we should go after the parents of the girls and boys that permitted holes to be pierced into their bodies. Needles with ink scaring the flesh for life should be next. If these boys once 18 want flesh cut from their penises fine, same goes for girls drilling holes in their bodies. The state really does know best; the interest of children and can make a case of abuse against any parent so lets just take them all away..

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

well I find that religious cults who seclude themselves from the rest of the world and allow their older members to sleep with young teens to be frightening and abhorrent. cheers.

I find religious cults who KILL in the name of a pacifist who performed parlor tricks 2000 years ago to be frightening and abhorrent - we all have our boundaries, huh?

EDIT: cheers

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

well I find that religious cults who seclude themselves from the rest of the world and allow their older members to sleep with young teens to be frightening and abhorrent. cheers.

yeah, because plainly a handful of isolated cults are a greater danger to us all than massive and heavily armed trillion dollar institutions that presume the right to break laws which they are supposed to uphold.

[wmbwinn]

Quote:
Judge orders FLDS newborn into state custody


By MICHELLE ROBERTS Associated Press Writers
© 2008 The Associated Press


SAN ANTONIO — A judge ordered that the baby boy born to a teenager taken from a polygamist sect's ranch in West Texas be placed in state custody, according to documents released Thursday.

Texas District Judge Barbara Walther signed the order Wednesday giving the state custody of the 1-day-old infant born to a teen believed to be 15 or 16 years old.

The girl has claimed to be 18 and based on a bishop's record used during the custody hearing two weeks ago, she would be 18 now. But officials believe she is younger and placed her in foster care with other children taken from the ranch.

The newborn is the teen's second child; the first is a 20-month-old boy. The father of both children was identified as Jackson Jessop, 22, but state officials say they don't know his whereabouts.
_____________________

Thanks for the link. Every pertinent legal issue is presented above.

1)no one knows how old the girl is and there are no records thought to be accurate.
2)you can't prove statutory rape without a definite age determination on the girl.
3)if they prove the "bishop's record" is inaccurate regarding her age, then the Conspiracy charge is in order (conspiracy to commit statutory rape).
4)if they find the "bishop's record" or other records is accurate and she is 18, then they have proof, nonetheless, that her first child was conceived by statutory rape. On the above grounds, the family will never see that one day old child again.
5)no one can find Jackson Jessop. He is missing. Jefelump told you the men would run...
6)the article does not say if Jackson Jessop is her legal husband or only her "spiritual husband". If he is her legal husband, then the state has absolutely no case whatsoever here. So long as the boy and girl's parents consented to a legal marriage, then there is absolutely no crime here in the eyes of the law. If Jessop is her "spiritual husband" and they can ever prove the age of the girl, then a charge of statutory rape might be accurate.

Now, after all of the legal issues, I agree with Alex on many points. It is not really unusual in our society for 20 year old men and 16 year old girls to "hook up". Since these people usually are not legally married, then under the eyes of the law, this is no different than a 20 year going to a bar and meeting a 16 year old girl who has a fake ID. They leave, have sex, she is pregnant, they have a child, stay together, and she has a second child.

I don't think CPS is going after the couple in the example of the bar above. But, they are going to use the law to crush this FLDS group...

I agree that in the past and present, that such young marriages have happened and have been very successful. I live in the Midwest and I see elderly people every day who have been married for 50 years. I can do the math in my head and determine that the woman was a young teenager when they were married.

But, there are two facts that have nothing to do with law.
1)the FLDS are hated
2)there is a way to prosecute them and destroy them.

[wmbwinn]

Christian Houck, East Stroudsburg, Pa.: Are we headed for another PR nightmare with this Marcus Dixon? Please tell me this was a case of an 18-year-old boy and a 14- or 15-year-old girl situation, family was upset with the couple and charged statutory rape?

Mickey: OK, I will, and this is straight from a document: Marcus Dixon, the black high school honor student serving a 10-year sentence in a Georgia prison for consensual sex with his nearly-16-year-old white girlfriend, has had his conviction reversed by the Georgia Supreme Court. Dixon was acquitted on felony rape charges but found guilty of aggravated child molestation, which comes with a mandatory decade-long sentence, as well as statutory rape. Monday's ruling lets the statutory rape conviction, which carries a maximum sentence of one year and a $1,000 fine, stand. So it was just as you suspected.
_____________

The above came from www.dallascowboys.com or more specifically:
http://www.dallascowboys.com/news.cf...8B216EDEAEE8DD


It is interesting that the crime of "statutory rape" carries a maximum of one year in prison.

I can guarantee you that CPS and the State did not make this move to throw a few men into jail for one year maximum penalties.

So, watch for the bigger charge of systematic conspiracy in fraudulent documents used to hide what is legally statutory rape.

[alexamenos]

a nice little run down on "the Bishop's Records", ie some imporant stuff, here....

The bishop's records are the states prime source of information that old dudes are hittin' (figuratively) younger women. Recognizing that the State really can't prosecute a fellow for having sex in Utah with a girl who is now 18 and doesn't complain (in the legal sense)....

....in summary, there's some icky stuff. There's some really normal stuff. There's some stuff which isn't really that icky but is possibly illegal (like 19 year olds with 16 year old brides but no marriage license). Then there's stuff which isn't normal and also isn't so much icky as indicative that these folks have a very different view of what it means to be married, like one husband in his 60's with multiple wives over the age of 70.

and then there's stuff which is icky and quite possibly (although not definitely) illegal, like:

So what we have here is basically four cases of older men married to under-aged girls, assuming they didn't file parents' permission at the courthouse or they weren't legally married in another state:

Nephi Jeffs 38
Elizabeth Jessop 16

Lehi Alred 28
Rachel Alred 16

Abram Jeffs 35
Suzanne Jeffs 16

Leroy J. Steed 40
Elizabeth Jessop, 16

Possibly:
24 year old Joseph's 18 year old wife Naomi who had a 7 month old in March of '07. Assuming that child is hers (there's also a 10 month old, and an older wife), is full term, and she wasn't 18 years and 11 months at the time, she might have been under-aged at the time of conception.

four dudes, possibly five, that may well be deserving of some sort of a charge...that is if marriage in these cases includes not just the spiritual but also the physical consummation (something we can't say with certainty).

and you've got possibly 4 girls, maybe 5, who are under the age of 18 and subject to what is possibly sexual abuse. I wouldn't argue with anyone that says that these 4 or 5 girls should be taken and that the situations should be investigated further, but that hasn't happened here, and this isn't what the State is arguing.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

a nice little run down on "the Bishop's Records", ie some imporant stuff, here....

The bishop's records are the states prime source of information that old dudes are hittin' (figuratively) younger women. Recognizing that the State really can't prosecute a fellow for having sex in Utah with a girl who is now 18 and doesn't complain (in the legal sense)....

....in summary, there's some icky stuff. There's some really normal stuff. There's some stuff which isn't really that icky but is possibly illegal (like 19 year olds with 16 year old brides but no marriage license). Then there's stuff which isn't normal and also isn't so much icky as indicative that these folks have a very different view of what it means to be married, like one husband in his 60's with multiple wives over the age of 70.

and then there's stuff which is icky and quite possibly (although not definitely) illegal, like:



four dudes, possibly five, that may well be deserving of some sort of a charge...that is if marriage in these cases includes not just the spiritual but also the physical consummation (something we can't say with certainty).

and you've got possibly 4 girls, maybe 5, who are under the age of 18 and subject to what is possibly sexual abuse. I wouldn't argue with anyone that says that these 4 or 5 girls should be taken and that the situations should be investigated further, but that hasn't happened here, and this isn't what the State is arguing.

As I said before, I think the legal approach is going to be:
1)prove a few cases of a crime such as statutory rape or polygamy if the legal charge fits.
2)prove conspiracy to hide that system of ongoing intentional crime
3)jail all the leadership and others that can be construed guilty of that conspiracy
4)hope that jailing the leadership will stop the group (it won't).

[alexamenos]

I had been hoping against hope that the upcoming hearings from the FLDS might inject some modicum of justice as understood by western civilizaiton for most of the last millenia, but apparently not. Recalling that the State's reasoning was quite explicit--they intentionally took children (the vast majority) who had not been physically (sexually) abused and who were not in imminent danger of being physically abused, and bearing in mind that the state now has in custody, among others....

-the healthy and wholly unabused children of monagomous couples;
-a child born only a few days ago (who cannot have been abused at YFZ -- he's never been there); and
-a 17 year old girl from canada who is visiting her grandmother.

this article is frightening...link

Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the 60-day hearings that begin May 19 are to review service plans developed for each child, check medical care and hear how the children are faring in foster care.

“This is not going to be a redo of whether abuse or neglect occurred,” Crimmins said.

IOW, the upcoming hearing is not to determine whether abuse has occured, but rather to determine what shall happen now that abuse has been confirmed. The judicial proceedings, whatever the hell they may have been, which determine(d) that the State can take these children from their parents has already come and gone. I don't know what to say other than 'wow, when the State presumes guilt, it makes no bones about it.' Sadly, it is increasingly apparent that this is not a case where children have temporarily been removed from the parents while the state sorts out some sordid facts. It's a fait accompli.

[alexamenos]

a blogger raises an interesting question....

Can anyone explain why authorities won't just admit the original phone call was a hoax?

....

Authorities have decided to no longer pursue an arrest warrant for a man identified by the caller as the man who beat and raped her. The caller said she was a 16-year-old girl and a member of the sect, but officials are investigating whether the call was a hoax by a woman in Colorado.

Really? Are they actually STILL investigating "whether the call was a hoax"? And if so, can we please get some competent investigators on the case?

There's really little question, at this point, that Rozita Swinton, a 33-year old Colorado Springs woman with a history of false allegations and making up fantastic stories, was the person who made the original phone call to a San Angelo women's shelter: The calls came from her phone number and anti-polygamist activist Flora Jessop recorded many hours of conversation with her.

I personally don't believe the Rangers are still investigating "whether" the call was a hoax, at this point. Instead, keeping the "hoax" story alive buys time for lawyers, who are investigating arguments for how to justify the search warrant once they admit they knew that named target wasn't at the YFZ Ranch before they went in.

[alexamenos]

an article on the "trauma" being experienced by social workers who are working with the flds families....

Polygamist sect work takes toll on social workers
'It was wrenching to pull children away from their mothers.'

Terry Secrest lies awake at night, thinking about the women and children of Texas' now-famed polygamist sect.

The Austin social worker is working with mothers from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who have relocated to Central Texas. She says she listens to their worries and answers their questions, laughs at their jokes and respects their faith.

After 10 years in social work, Secrest usually leaves her work at the office. But this case "has touched me a lot more than I ever expected," said Secrest, 54.

....

In most cases, social workers have a good handle on why they're taking children from their homes, said Vicki Hansen, executive director of the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. In the FLDS case, they didn't know the details of the investigation or what led up to the mass removals.

"These workers are used to going into homes where things are really bad and feeling good about moving children from risk and danger," Hansen said. "This situation is completely different. To look at the mothers and children, you would see love and affection and bonds, plus children who appear to be in good physical condition. It was wrenching to pull children away from their mothers."

those poor little bureaucrats, I can only imagine the angst they must be feeling as they work with the mothers of the children they took.

[alexamenos]

a view from inside the san angelo coliseum/concentration camp...

Mental health workers rip CPS over sect
Staff complains agency traumatized kids, disregarded mothers' rights

By ROGER CROTEA
San Antonio Express-news

Mental health workers sent to emergency shelters in San Angelo last month to help care for the hundreds of women and children removed from a polygamist sect's West Texas ranch have sharply criticized the Child Protective Services operation, telling their governing board it unnecessarily traumatized the kids.

The CPS investigation of suspected child abuse and its decision to seek state custody of all 464 children punished mothers who appeared to be good parents of healthy, well-behaved and emotionally normal kids, workers said in a set of short and unsigned written reports made at the request of the board after a briefing Tuesday.


Threatened arrests
All nine reports by employees of the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center expressed varying degrees of anger toward the state's child welfare agency for removing the children from their community, separating them from their mothers or for the way CPS workers conducted themselves at the shelter.

A few described ongoing tension between the two groups of social workers, including threats by CPS to have interfering MHMR workers arrested.

"I have worked in Domestic Violence/Sexual Abuse programming for over 20 years and have never seen women and children treated this poorly, not to mention their civil rights being disregarded in this manner," one wrote.

The workers spent several days in San Angelo, some shortly after the April 3 search of the Yearning for Zion Ranch prompted by a sexual abuse complaint, during the chaotic opening of a shelter in the city's coliseum, or in the days leading up to the children's dispersal to foster care facilities across the state later that month.

"The entire MH support staff was 'fired' the second week; we were sent home due to being 'too compassionate,' " one report stated....

continued...


------------------------

one of the flds moms speaks for herself....

one of the more troubling things to me has been how easily these women have been demonized in an oh-so politically correct way -- they're zombies, automatons who lack the capacity to think or act for themselves.

anyhoo....maggie jessop answers the *brainwashed zombie* charge rather forcefully --

I am an FLDS woman and I am entitled to the same rights as you
Maggie Jessop

....

So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it.
However, I may not have it within my psychological or emotional capacity to communicate appropriately due to the widespread "fact" that I belong to an uneducated, underprivileged, information-deprived, brainless, spineless, poor, picked-on, dependent, misled class of women identified as "brain-washed." [nb: /sarcasm] But, I'll give it my best shot.
....
Who is brainwashed, after all, may I ask? Excuse me, please, but I feel completely indignant that authorities in the state of Texas would insult my level of intelligence, however minimal it may be, and label me a half-wit when I have witnessed hundreds of numbskulls lower themselves so pathetically, responding without conscience in blind obedience to orders from the Gestapo. And they call me brainwashed? Amazing.
I believe the truth shall be known and right will prevail. In the meantime, I continue to lug around my gargantuan briefcase as I search for my children. That briefcase really ought to be a diaper bag.
My day planner ought to be filled with ideas for a day of improvement with my children, for nothing is more joyful than witnessing the development of a child from heaven, nothing more pleasant than watching a beautiful bud of the rarest flower on earth blossom into a picture of loveliness, a precious bloom in the garden of life, nourished by that eternal element of unconditional love, a gift from our Eternal Father, which He makes available to His children through the instrumentality of unselfish motherhood.
My pillow really ought to be a sacred place where I can rest my weary head after a satisfying day of interaction with precious children, not a sponge of sorrow to mop the tears of a childless mother.

[alexamenos]

The CPS has practically given up on its mendacious pretense that it is concerned about the well-being of the children they've taken.....

link

CPS stopped in effort to remove baby, his mother

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 13, 2008
By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News


AUSTIN – Child Protective Services tried to whisk a newborn and his mother, in state custody as a minor after being removed from a polygamist sect's ranch, to a different city within hours of childbirth on Monday.

But her husband, saying his wife is 22 and should never have been taken into state custody with the ranch's children last month, rushed to court and prevented it.

Because CPS had no foster care placement in Travis County that was suitable for the newborn, the mother and child were poised to spend the night in a CPS office, a lawyer for the husband said.

Why on earth did the CPS think it needed to "whisk a newborn and his mother" from a hospital to a different city? And the best place they had for this woman and her newborn was a CPS office???? Did it come as a surprise to them that this pregnant woman would eventually give birth?

Can anyone really argue that the children of are safer today than they would have been had the CPS not taken them in the first place?

CPS said the age of the mother has been in dispute, but her husband, Dan Jessop, 24, said his wife, Louisa, is 22.

State District Judge Orlinda Naranjo issued an injunction that temporarily halted CPS' plan to move the mother, the newborn and the couple's two other children, ages 2 and 3, to San Antonio within hours of the delivery at an Austin birthing center.

The judge said the mother and the three youngsters will remain in Travis County until after a hearing Thursday on Mr. Jessop's request that another district judge in Austin, Darlene Byrne, order his wife and children released from state care.

"They know that there's no abuse problems," Mr. Jessop told KXAN-TV. "But CPS is so big and strong and proud, that they cannot go back now on what they've done."

Ms. Jessop is one of 27 "disputed minors," CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins said. They are females "who CPS believes are minors, or who have provided different ages and other conflicting information to CPS at different times. ... If CPS determines that any are adults, appropriate action will be taken."

......

here's how this works...

1) The State asks Mrs. Jessop, "How old are you?" Mrs. Jessop replies, "I'm 22. Here's my drivers license."

2) Later, the State tells the FLDS moms that only mothers aged 17 and younger will be allowed to stay with their children. The States says to Mrs. Jessop, "are you really 22, or would you now prefer to say that you're 17 so that you can stay with your children?" Mrs. Jessop does what any loving mother would do and lies about her age so that she can stay with her children.

3) Mrs. Jessop gets into a court and says, "I am in fact 22 years old."

4) The State says, "see how she changes her story! These people are liars, and we must nab their children."

This is what the State is doing: The State is putting parents who have not abused their children into positions where they must lie to protect their children, and then using those lies as justification for it's contention that they parents aren't fit for parenting.

This is perverse....a bureaucratic effort to protect kids persistently morphs into an effort by the State to justify its actions by whatever means necessary.

[alexamenos]

good god......

The CPS now acknowledges that Mrs. Jessop (as discussed above) is not a minor. To the best of my knowledge she is monogamously married and the parent of two children, aged 2 & 3, who exhibit absolutely no signs of abuse (at least, they exhibited no signs of abuse before being abducted by the CPS).

...the CPS now intends to take her newborn son.

Why?

Not because little baby boy Jessop is in any danger, but because there is some chance that his parents some day in the next 18 years might tell him that it is acceptable for men to mate with more than one woman. As I said earlier, I can't imagine any parent could be accused of less and have their children taken from them.

What the CPS is doing is not plausibly in the best interest of the children of Mr. and Mrs. Jessop.

[alexamenos]

more stories breaking of absurd CPS behavior that consistently demonstrates that the CPS doesn't give a damn about those kids but is instead trying to simply break the will of the FLDS parents. it's disgusting....summarizing and synthesizing.....

1. The DFPS (CPS) raided the YFZ ranch on the basis of a call from the ranch by a 16 year old girl who claimed that she was being sexually abused by a man named Dale Barlow. The caller was actually a 33 year old woman in Colorado and Dale Barlow hasn't set foot in Texas in years, if ever.

2. While executing the first and second warrants (the second being dependent upon the first hoax warrant), the CPS rounded up 460 some-odd kids because they saw, or claim to have seen, underaged girls who were pregnant (among other reasons, none of which were as serious). Two women have given birth while in the CPS's custody. They are both adults in monogamous marriages.

3. Through various media outlets, the CPS and Texas law enforcement agencies have made several salacious allegations about the practices of the FLDS. These allegations have been gross exaggerations in those rare instances where they had any basis in fact.

4. The most persistent and credible charge is that the FLDS "forces underaged girls to marry." There is absolutely no evidence of a pervasive practice of underage girls (ie, 15 or under) being forced into marriage by the FLDS.

5. There are instances of girls (4, perhaps 5) getting married at the age of 16. Whether any law has broken in these cases is disputable, and these cases are rare enough that they can and should be dealt with on a case by case basis (ie, not by rounding up 460 kids).

6. The CPS does not allege that all 460+ children have been physically or sexually abused.

7. Texas laws tell us under what circumstances the CPS may take children from their parents. A contention that religious beliefs lead to abuse is not one of those circumstances. Hence, the CPS has unlawfully taken children who have not been physically (sexually) abused and who are not in any imminent danger of being abused from their parents.

------------------------------------
which brings us up to date....

8. By every report, the FLDS children were healthy, well cared for and well loved while at the YFZ. Their current situations in foster homes scattered across the State of Texas, however, are highly conducive to all manner of trauma and abuse.

9. This thing is just getting started. The CPS is not going to do an about face and say "We're sorry, we were wrong. Come take your children home." Instead they're going to fight this tooth and nail, do everything they can to prevent the FLDS parents without regard to what is just.

[Underdog]

Change thread title to:

Alexamenos' Mormon Thing

[alexamenos]

lol....i'm telling you, the devil is in the details....if you want to follow any story you gotta follow it like a hawk.

[u2sarajevo]

Keep it up alex.... I read every post of yours on this subject.

[wmbwinn]

I agree with Alex as well.

I'll continue to point out what the legal plot here is:
1)prove a few cases of statutory rape as legal evidence of abuse
2)prove conspiracy to conceal the abuse (statutory rape) by showing the fraudulent State ID's , birth certificates, and "bishop's records"
3)jail all the leadership under the conspiracy charge

so long as the conspiracy charge is in place, all 460 children (a rough figure) will be held by the State due to the prescence of the charge: conspiracy to abuse.

At some point (and these cases take years), the individual Jessop families that committed no crime will be released to try and resume a normal life. They should get their children back.

The FLDS exist based on a legal trick:
They don't legally get married to more than one person to avoid the polygamy charge

The FLDS are in trouble legally because:
1)They have involved teenaged girls/women young enough to fit the statutory rape charge and involved them outside of a legal marriage (due to the over riding legal trick listed above). Since girls young enough to be regarded as minors are involved outside of a legal marriage, then the charge of statutory rape is accurate.
2)They may have produced fraudulent records to hide the action

Now, I'll also repeat that there are 16 year old girls all over the State of Texas having sex today with men old enough to be guilty of statutory rape. And, I'll repeat that the only reason the CPS/State of Texas went after this group like this is because:
1)they hate the group
2)they see a legal method to try to crush it

After all of that, I agree with Alex that the actions of the CPS are terrible in this case.

Hopefully, the courts straighten this out eventually and let the vast majority who committed no legal crime go.

The issue of practicing polygamy in this fashion is a moral, not legal issue.

If the FLDS continued to follow the advice of their previous leaders, they would have stayed with involving women who were at least 18. Legally, a man can have 50 girlfriends who are sexual partners so long as he is not married legally to more than one. I think that is disgusting but it is true. I don't support the act of having multiple sexual partners. But, the FLDS moved across the line by breaking a law.

CPS moved across the line by seizing all the children rather than just the ones involved. The legal support for seizing all the children is conspiracy to commit and hide abuse.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

lol....i'm telling you, the devil is in the details....if you want to follow any story you gotta follow it like a hawk.

Not agginnitt...

Keep it up!

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

Keep it up alex.... I read every post of yours on this subject.

i'm glad somebody is

but truthfully my obsessive following/documenting of a story is for my own entertainment far more than any other reason.

and since we're on the subject...

i've mostly focused on the actions of the cps, and strange as it may sound i haven't delved too deeply into the lifestyles of the FLDS....until recently.

they're odd ducks, but I don't think I'd say much worse about them than that. they value obedience to authorities in ways that offend my libertarian and quasi-anarchist sensibilities, but frankly they're not much worse than the average US voter, imo, they've just got different loyalties. They certainly have some folks that do some bad things, and they respond much as you or i would respond -- 'my family, religious bretheren, community members, etc... were wrong to do that and they should be punished, but don't blame the whole group.'

also, i suggested earlier that "there are ways for 16 year old girls to get pregnant that do not involve statutory rape", and my hunch may be better than I first suspected but not one that can be demonstrated (or refuted) with mathematical certainty. that is to say, some (perhaps many,) of the marriages involving girls 16 or even younger may very well be the fundie mormon equivalent of the shotgun marriage--young boy knocks up young girl, young boy gets the boot and young girl winds up living with a very established family (safe, good mormon example)....

from what i can tell about mormon fundie sensibilities, they'd probably rather be convicted of statutory rape than admit a couple of their teenage kids were out behind the barn behaving like gentiles.

[alexamenos]

I think this post on the marriage practices of fundie mormons is fairly credible....

My Cousin Austin Weighs In

"THESE PEOPLE NEED A VOICE!

"I left the FLDS three years ago when I was 23. I had a very happy childhood free from television, drugs, and abuse. These are some of the things I personally witnessed:

"When a girl thought she was ready to get married, she would tell her father that she was ready to move on. Her father would turn her over to the prophet (Rulon or Warren Jeffs) to be placed in marriage. I saw Rulon many times tell the girl that she needed to be 18 before she was married, and I saw some girls ask to be married anyway, and sometimes he would give in to their request. It was not a common thing to see a girl younger than 15 get married, but if they did, it was always the result of her father putting a lot of pressure on Rulon or Warren to do something about their daughter. No one was ever forced. I saw several girls tell the prophet that she didn't want to marry so and so and that was the end of it (I know this because word really got around). Rulon and Warren always asked a girl if she had anyone in mind before she was placed with someone. Sometimes they would ask for an older guy with several wives already.

"You've got to realize that the only thing these girls really lived for was getting married and having children. They do not have the same mindset as your typical teenage girl. Some were rebellious and wild teenagers sure, but 90% of the girls I grew up with only wanted to get married and have children. At the same time, 90% of the men didn't want their daughters to leave home and were very protective of them. My father wept when my older sister got married (she was 19) but he knew it would make her happy

....

"I left on my own accord because I was standing in the way. I wasn't ready to give up material things and I didn't believe Warren Jeffs was a prophet. I drew my own conclusion, and every member of that church is fully capable of doing the same if they so choose." austlittlebeast@yahoo.com

this sounds to me like a guy that has a solid inside perspective and enough detachment from personal history to see it as it is in its entirety....the situation he describes here also comports well with how one knowledgable outside observed -- he said their marriage practices involved the head-priest basically providing a "match-making service."

[alexamenos]

just noticing that California has ok'd homo-on-homo marriages....

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

In a 4-3 decision, the justices rule that people have a fundamental 'right to marry' the person of their choice and that gender restrictions violate the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 16, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples....

ct'd...

Cracks about a bunch of pro-gay guys in flowing robes aside....good for the gay bay.

but....in the first place, what exactly is the State's compelling interest in whether two people (or perhaps 3, or 7) call themselves "married"? If two people (or 3, or 7) enter into some sort contractual relationship as to how their affairs are to be arranged, how is this different from any other matter of civil/contract law?. And if those two people (3, 7) also say to each other, "i promise you'll be my spouse", how is that something the State needs to govern.

(and what if instead of spouse, they declared to each other that they'd be Best Friends Forever....should a couple have to get a BFF license? Are 3-way BFFs a perversion which ought to be outlawed by the State? Can you imagine the headlines ?? "US Supreme Court upholds law which prevents two homos from referring to each other as BFF")

pt being, a marriage is 2 parts....

1. a religious sacrament;
2. promises made by and among parties in agreement...

So....

1. Should the State regulate religious sacraments? I certainly don't think so....

2. Can and should the State regulate the promises people make to each other? Of course not....

(now, we can throw alot of assumed crimes....like religious sacraments that involve barbecuing babies. but barbecuing babies is a crime in it's own right, so it's not worth chasing down that alley....)

anyhoo....all a long winded way of saying, 'yeah, I get that polygamy is illegal, but so what?'

So it's illegal for a man who to stand before the angel St. Nephram in his magic underoos and declare, "by golly, I take this woman as my sweet sweet sugar pie" So it's illegal promises to do whatever he can to help her out so long as she gives him a little tail from now and then.

These are stupid laws in the first place, they're inherently an effort to regulate religious practices, and they'll go the way of California's queer-bashing laws in due time.

...................

addendum....and it occurs to me, the extent to which we view the Government much as a higher religious priesthood is perhaps revealed by the extent to which we take for granted that two people must have the blessing of the Government to be married...anything short of that is somehow unchaste.

[sike]

interesting question...when did organized government first stick their nose into marriage? And what was the original purpose in doing so....taxes? enforcing a unified state religion? Any one with info on this?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by sike

interesting question...when did organized government first stick their nose into marriage? And what was the original purpose in doing so....taxes? enforcing a unified state religion? Any one with info on this?

i think for the most part, and through much of time, the "official" church and the government were so inextricably linked that it's hard to tell where one was ending and the other beginning....

as for the US, where there is no established church, the primary use of government regulation (as opposed to recognition*) of marriages was initially to impose a bigoted agenda....fighting polygamy (because that was something for asians and africans, not europeans) and preventing "mixed-race" marriages were high on the government's list (homosexual marriages being unimagined, then). i think if you scoured the state laws, you'd find all sorts of "you can't marry a white to a person who is 2/5ths indonesian....marriage licensing was a way of enforcing these laws.

(*....an interesting evolution -- we've moved from state sponsored "certificates", where the state acknowledged that two people were married, to state marriage "licenses", a license being a grant of permission by the state.)

anyhoo...now i'm sure some have some rationales for statement regulation of marriage.....got know who to send the social security benefits to and what not...personally, i think the rationales are generally tortured and hardly justify the loss of freedom.